Pretty sure that's the ammendment to allow nonresidents to conceal carry without a permit.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.Wow it passed less than 4 years ago, and you can't remember.
Tell that to my youngest 2 kidsMaybe I am getting old, but 2011, is not a lifetime ago. Ha. But good to know there is solution.
Confused. If they do not require qualifications, why would it be a challenge?Many states do not require qualifications, which add expense and can be used to exclude some with physical or other challenges.
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.
The problems with permits of any kind is the acceptance of the state's right to revoke it.
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 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.
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?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.
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).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.
AZ has constitutional carry but permit holders get easier rules for some issues.Wyoming is willing to issue permits for those who wish to conceal in any state willing to reciprocate but for residents, within state borders,I can't remember when wy wasn't "constitutional carry".
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.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?
I didn't know IL offers a nonresident IL permit, got any further information about that?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.
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 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 like your idea.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.
States rights pretty much ended with incorporation via the 14th Amendment.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.
GOA has filed lawsuits in NY and CA over the lack on non-resident permits not being issued.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.