National Reciprocity... Again? Finally?

Wow it passed less than 4 years ago, and you can't remember.
Pretty sure that's the ammendment to allow nonresidents to conceal carry without a permit. 😉 I've been a resident, part time to full time off and on since 2008 and in and out of wyoming my whole life and no I honestly don't remember when RESIDENTS were inhibited in carrying. My google-fu shows 2011, so there's that. But honestly the point i was illustrating is that in constitutional carry states it's possible to have a permit issued for reciprocity purposes. 😀
 
A national permit might solve the issue for now.

A national permit with training requirements and restrictions on carrying in public buildings similar to Florida requirements.

This will allow people to carry into those states without being an instant felon in the restrictive states.

And give those in restrictive states the right to have a firearm for those subway moments.
 
Okay, I'm sure the final form of this bill will allow the states magazine capacity, prohibited areas, and a yes or no to open carry.

It would be incumbent on the individual to research and abide by these restrictions. Constitutional Carry for all states might be well in the future.

Take what you can get to advance your cause. You're not getting everything at once.

Gun rights didn't disappear overnight. Don't expect them to be reinstated overnight.

it's a hard battle.
 
National reciprocity is a pipe dream. Even if, by some miracle, a bill passed both houses, one only has to look at what all the blue states are doing: declaring more and more areas of each town, city, county and state as "sensitive areas" and making concealed carry of firearms verboten in those areas -- movie theaters, museums, sports arenas, concert halls, all public transit stations, buses and trains, aquariums, zoos, county fairs, shopping malls, any area where public officials perform their duties, so pretty much, the only places left one could legally carry would be inside their own homes and on their own property.
 
I am still trying to logic out why a felon would sign into law something he can't do. He had claimed he had a carry permit, but now that isn't the case anymore. It was in New York City, LOL. Historically, he hasn't been the strongest champion for the 2A, right? Sure, he loves(d) gun owner voters, but now what good are we to him now. He isn't going to be re-elected, LOL. He has no reason to placate us. There isn't much we can do for him.

It will be great if I am wrong and I hope I am, but we need him far more than he needs us anymore.
 
Goals are fine, but be careful what is wished for. Many states do not require qualifications, which add expense and can be used to exclude some with physical or other challenges. As noted previously, many states specify extensive "sensitive areas", as if folks intent upon criminal activity are likely to abide by them. There is a possibility that these would be extended to other states as part of a deal to pass a comprehensive scheme. We would like to see everyone have the freedoms that many enjoy, but we have seen many unfortunate examples of the "one size fits all" federal approach, especially when the bureaucracy is weaponized as we have witnessed.

Although it's fun to discuss proposed legislation, it is not law unless and until it is passed. Until that happens, all we can do is speculate, cheer or boo the proponents, and wring our hands. Remember too that anything said here is clearly visible to those who do not agree, and can be used against our interests.
 
Many states do not require qualifications, which add expense and can be used to exclude some with physical or other challenges.
Confused. If they do not require qualifications, why would it be a challenge?

Myself I am against training and qualifications. I am against making someone shoot. It just makes hard for people who need it now. I am all for constitional carry, cause bad guys will carry anyways.

What I would like is 8x11 sheet, giant font, saying you are not allowed to carry here, and may not use it for this. It really shouldn't be hard. Same should be for hunting regs. Read this sheet with 5-6 sentences, get your permit. To many rules, people don't read. And again it shouldn't be difficult.
 
The problems with permits of any kind is the acceptance of the state's right to revoke it.
I am all for constitional carry. But even then you can lose your right, if you are a felon. Granted that is losing everything, not just the right to concealed carry. But no matter it can be stripped.
 
The problems with permits of any kind is the acceptance of the state's right to revoke it.
I am all for constitional carry. But even then you can lose your right, if you are a felon. Granted that is losing everything, not just the right to concealed carry. But no matter it can be stripped.
Yes, they can still revoke your right to carry for for some of the same reasons they would revoke a carry licence which are because of some misdemeanors, pending charges, emergency protective order (even before before due process), drug use, probation (even for misdemeanors), etc....
 
I support states rights. Each state has a set of rules and requirements that their residents must pass before being issued a carry license. That's their right as a state. The same is true when it comes to the issuance of medicals, cosmetology, security, electrical, contractors, etc. license. It's going to be a problem if New York has stricter requirements than Utah, but Utahns are allowed to carry in New York while natives cannot. Then there will be backlash the very second that someone who would not have qualified for a New York permit commits a high profile crime in New York with an Utah permit.

The only way to solve this problem would be if all states agree upon a set standard or if the federal government sets the standard that all states will follow. That in lies the problem and opens Pandora's box, to which the antigun side will create restrictive nationwide standards. Currently, if DC or NYC makes it too difficult/restrictive to get a carry license, one could move to a less restrictive state.

I think the better solution would be a ruling by SCOTUS that all states MUST either issue an out-of-state carry permit or have reciprocity. In my opinion, and for example, I believe it's unconditional for United States citizens who live in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia to not be able to exercise their constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights to bear arms in any way, shape, or form in the state of New York. That restricts approximately 315 million Americans from being able to carry in the state. It's really a slam dunk easy case to win on the federal level. There's less risk of carry rights being centralized or federalized. States still reserve the right to have reciprocity with states who's permitting scheme aligns with there own and/or to allow other to apply for an non-resident carry permit. This just seems like the simplest less problematic approach at least as a starting point.
By an "out-of-state carry permit" do you mean if I want to visit friends in Chicago and bring my gun, I have to first meet whatever all the IL standards for a permit are, and also endure their probably very long wait time?
 
That prospect does not fill me with warm & fuzzies. What the government grants, the government can take away. The fedgov is not reliable in RKBA matters, if better of late.

There's likely no way to resolve the widely varying State requirements for carry permits. There's a reason you need a website to cope with reciprocity even among the 'free' States.

For my, very lay, 2¢, we only need examine FOPA and how uniformly it has been applied (and blatantly infringed by the several 'usual suspects' States).

So, the Senate Bill must needs either embrace a minimum acceptable standard, or a maximum one for uniformity across all the States (let's face it, anything less than 100% uniformity would be basically be no different than the status quo ante, other than the millions of tax dollars such a plan would require).
There's probably no good way to reconcile the laws of NY, MA, CT, IL, CA, WA with NC, SC, AZ, OH and the like.

If there is a good to the Senate bill it is in keeping the foes of RKBA busy preventing this legislation from going forward, rather than scheming to make things worse.
I agree. The idea of a federal carry permit scares me, once that exists, if the wrong people get to be in charge of the government they will eviscerate our rights. At least the way things are now a person can move from a restrictive state to one that respects liberty (like I did).
 
By an "out-of-state carry permit" do you mean if I want to visit friends in Chicago and bring my gun, I have to first meet whatever all the IL standards for a permit are, and also endure their probably very long wait time?
Yes, either IL decides to recognize your carry permit or give you the option to get a nonresident IL permit. That's pretty much the status quo now except for the fact that some states do not offer non resident permits. I think all states should be required to allow some type of mechanism to allow nonresidents to legally carry. As things currently stand, if you want to visit a friend in IL, you have absolutely no other choice but to go unarmed. Their wait times are between one to two months, FWIW.
 
Last edited:
Yes, either IL decides to recognize your carry permit or give you the option to get a nonresident IL permit. That's pretty much the status quo now except for the fact that some states do not offer non resident permits. I think all states should be required to allow some type of mechanism to allow nonresidents to legally carry. As things currently stand, if you want to visit a friend in IL, you have absolutely no other choice but to go unarmed. Their wait times are between one to two months, FWIW.
I didn't know IL offers a nonresident IL permit, got any further information about that?

Considering one of their sons was shot in the back while walking home through a park six years ago, I'm not willing to step foot unarmed there.
 
I'm not sure how this comment fits and it does wander, but:

I've just been reading the book Street Survival, referenced here on the forum by one of our erudite former LE members. I don't remember by whom, sorry. It poses the LE attitude, practices and expectations on interacting with armed criminals. The book is dated, published in 1980 with reprints up to 1984.

Several states have requirements for officer notification during a traffic stop or other interaction. Other states don't have the specific requirement, but many police officers ask, (personal experience). If constitutional carry is exercised in one's own state, or other states, is "reciprocity" even germane?

Supposedly, presentation of a state CCW permit alleviates 'some' LE fears upon contacting a carrying person. It's becoming apparent that the two are not necessarily connected, ie, 'constitutional' carry vs reciprocity. So, will contacting a permit-less albeit legal carrier result in the officer being more wary of his 'stoppee' and eliciting different actions than would be exercised if a permit were presented?

I'm not really sure what question I'm presenting here. I suppose the idea of constitutional carry implies a lessening of gun regulations; but is it really accomplishing anything as far as the gun carrying population's relations with LE, or perhaps damaging what I perceive to be a fragile relationship? I suppose its passage indicates an affirmation of governmental recognition of Second Amendment principles. This may in itself be a valid reason for such legislation.

I suppose my thoughts are that permits create a mechanism for furthering LE acceptance of concealed carry, notwithstanding, at least to some extent, an officer's personal feeling on the subject. A maleficent carrier is just that, regardless of permit status. But does the constitutional carry rule present less protection for the officer than otherwise? Presentation of a permit at police interaction may well temper or otherwise alleviate other antagonistic responses.

Just more food for thought...

-West out
 
No longer need a carry permit in Iowa. Iowa still issues carry permits. I worry the carry permit will disappear. The big advantage to my carry permit is that it bypasses the NICS check. When I have to undergo the NICS check I am almost always delayed three days before approval. If I've traveled 120 miles to the gun show and the vendor is 120 miles in the opposite direction, a three day delay is as good as denial.
 
I didn't know IL offers a nonresident IL permit, got any further information about that?

Considering one of their sons was shot in the back while walking home through a park six years ago, I'm not willing to step foot unarmed there.
IL does not currently have nonresident permits. That's what I believe is unconstitutional and would be the easiest low-hanging fruit nationwide change we could most quickly achieve. It would be easier, safer, and more simple than trying to ram the pipedream national reciprocity bill through. Even if national reciprocity passed, there would be several years of litigation that immediately followed then retaliatory new protected places. I don't believe states like IL, NYC, MD, and HI would put up as much of a fight against being forced to issue their licenses to out-of-towners just as long as everyone is still following their licensing scheme.

I've never been to and never plan on going to IL. The same goes for CA. I haven't been back to my home state of NY since right after 9/11. Especially with everything that has been happening in NY in general and with the illegals, I'm not going back unarmed either.
 
IL does not currently have nonresident permits. That's what I believe is unconstitutional and would be the easiest low-hanging fruit nationwide change we could most quickly achieve. It would be easier, safer, and more simple than trying to ram the pipedream national reciprocity bill through. Even if national reciprocity passed, there would be several years of litigation that immediately followed then retaliatory new protected places. I don't believe states like IL, NYC, MD, and HI would put up as much of a fight against being forced to issue their licenses to out-of-towners just as long as everyone is still following their licensing scheme.

I've never been to and never plan on going to IL. The same goes for CA. I haven't been back to my home state of NY since right after 9/11. Especially with everything that has been happening in NY in general and with the illegals, I'm not going back unarmed either.
I like your idea.

Personally I left Cali in 2018 and haven't been back. Moved to AZ where a person can breathe.
 
This is an interesting thread, but it’s wandering further than usual in Legal. Please get back to a discussion of the Bill or Statute at issue.
 
As much as I would like it, I question if this violates states rights. We can't just pick and choose. You can saw the 2A gives me the right regardles, and I think it is a good arguement. But then you wouldn't need this law if that was true. The precedent has already been opened to needing a permit.

What I like is states passing constitutional carry, and no training, and no permit.

Forcing reprocity, could be an interesting argument.
States rights pretty much ended with incorporation via the 14th Amendment.
 
IL does not currently have nonresident permits. That's what I believe is unconstitutional and would be the easiest low-hanging fruit nationwide change we could most quickly achieve. It would be easier, safer, and more simple than trying to ram the pipedream national reciprocity bill through. Even if national reciprocity passed, there would be several years of litigation that immediately followed then retaliatory new protected places. I don't believe states like IL, NYC, MD, and HI would put up as much of a fight against being forced to issue their licenses to out-of-towners just as long as everyone is still following their licensing scheme.

I've never been to and never plan on going to IL. The same goes for CA. I haven't been back to my home state of NY since right after 9/11. Especially with everything that has been happening in NY in general and with the illegals, I'm not going back unarmed either.
GOA has filed lawsuits in NY and CA over the lack on non-resident permits not being issued.
 
Since the Supreme Court ruled in Bruen that all states shall issues carry licenses as denying them with proper cause is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection, I think there is legal framework for National Reciprocity. IMO, just because one state requires its residents to go thru live fire or psychological testing is meaningless as another state doesn't, so for the former state to deny the citizen of the latter state to carry would violate the Supremacy Clause and while Congress has not passed any law regarding National Reciprocity, the Supreme Court's ruling could be used by the President in an Executive Order to declare that all states must recognize the carry licenses of any resident of any of the other 49 states.

I have no doubts Trump is going to issue that EO on Day 1 and it will be challenged up to SCOTUS and upheld.
 
Back
Top