quick travel with guns report

[mr.72]

I recently went on a long road trip from TX to the East Coast with two guns on hand. We stayed overnight mostly in Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Virgina where my TX CHL is honored. Quick observations:

1. The patchwork of dissimilar laws in states regarding concealed carry, car carry, traveling statutes, reciprocity of licensing, etc. is a legitimate pain to navigate. In the end I just hoped to not get stopped, since I would have to use a slide rule, secret decoder ring and probably all of my "lifelines" in order to figure out what laws applied when crossing state lines.

2. The states without reciprocity of my TX CHL were not just a legitimate pain, but actually a royal pain, since to stay legal while traveling through (MD, WV etc.) to remain legal I was forced to stop, unload the guns and lock them up. This was especially a pain when going through the 10-mile-wide border-to-border stretch of MD between VA and PA.

3. States with outright bans on hand guns possessed by nonresidents such as NY and DC were especially troublesome considering it forced me to stay in a different state and then make day trips into these states on our vacation. Thanks, NY, for forcing me to endure 5 hours of train rides to and from Philadelphia in order to visit your state! You really make me feel welcome. I think it might be no coincidence that excursions into no-gun zones of DC and NYC were the primary times when I really wished I had my guns with me.

4. Traveling in a car with a holstered firearm carried on the belt is a literal pain. Like, I think I have a pinched nerve after 3500 miles of driving like this. Next time I am buying a shoulder rig especially for the trip.

I am rarely a fan of more laws, but after this experience it has become clear to me that if different states are going to have different concealed carry requirements, we need a Federal law requiring all states to honor the concealed carry licenses for residents of other states. Ideally we would have a Federal law which denies states the authority to regulate the carrying of firearms to begin with. I thought the Second Amendment already did that.

 

[Duke Junior]

All lot of aggravation,I'm sure.
Well, the good part is you saw some great sights and arrived home to Texas safely.
I remember when you posted about planning the trip several weeks ago.
Thank you for the report.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Thanks for sharing that report. I have to say that your comments pretty much fit what I was expecting when you started talking about that trip a while ago.

 

[psyopspec]

I've spent time in 4 states this year for periods of a month or more, and have done all my traveling by car.

I found this to be a great resource.

Concealed Carry Trip Planner

When I doubt, I scroogled for the state laws in question and got them off the .gov web sites.

 

[mr.72]

That trip planner looks like a great resource. Wish I'd had it two weeks ago!

 

[Speedo66]

Why would you think you would need guns in NYC when it's got one of the lowest crime rates of any big city?

 

[mr.72]

DukeJr,

It was not as aggravating as it could have been, or would have been if I had been fully aware of or compliant with the individual laws of each state.

My wife wants to go back and spend more time in NYC for a vacation/getaway. I can't imagine going back there totally unarmed. Seems like there is no way for me to go back otherwise.

 

[mr.72]

Why would you think you would need guns in NYC when it's got one of the lowest crime rates of any big city?

I presume you are being facetious.

Compared to the large city that I live near, NY has nearly 2x the violent crime rate and over 3x the property crime rate. NY has many times the crime rate in both violent crime and property crime compared to the suburban town I live in and those where I normally go. So I guess if NY is so safe, then we only need to be concerned about carrying guns in less safe cities such as Baltimore, Philadelphia, Detroit, Newark and Washington, DC? BTW I did travel through all but one of these radically high crime rate cities.

 

[kingpin008]

Why would you think you would need guns in NYC when it's got one of the lowest crime rates of any big city?

Violent crime can and does happen anywhere. Why do you need a gun on a college campus? Hardly any violent crime happens there. Oh wait, tell that to the folks at Virginia Tech and NIU. What about a mall? Hardly any crime there too, right? Once again, talk to the people at the Westroads, Trolley Square, and Tacoma malls. And those are just examples of large-scale violent crime. Robberies, rapes, carjackings and other types of assaults happen every day in every part of this country.

Being prepared for the worst is not a bad thing. Chances are that nothing will happen to an individual in any one particular place that will require the use of a gun, but to rely on crime rates or the reported "safety" of a given area as a reason not to take steps to protect oneself, to me seems more than a bit foolish.

 

[Speedo66]

I know crime can happen anywhere, that's the point. Why point a finger at one place as having the need to armed, especially when you talked about all the more crime prone places you visited.

Break-ins happen, should you be wearing a pajama holster, a shower holster, etc.?

 

[WC145]

4. Traveling in a car with a holstered firearm carried on the belt is a literal pain. Like, I think I have a pinched nerve after 3500 miles of driving like this. Next time I am buying a shoulder rig especially for the trip.

+1!
We took a road trip from Maine to Florida in August and most of the driving time was spent with the gun on the console or in the door pocket. Between the gun digging in one side and a spare mag on the other it was very uncomfortable after a while. The fact that I was driving a Saab didn't help as it is kind of tight, especially compared to the Cadillac I traded in on it. No substitute for space on a long car trip!

 

[RPCVYemen]

... we need a Federal law requiring all states to honor the concealed carry licenses for residents of other states.

Interesting how the notion of what it is to be conservative has changed over the years. When I was a kid, this kind of statement would have made the conservatives spitting mad. They were states' rights exponents to the nth degree. They loathed federal interventionism.

How things have changed. Now the the folks who call themselves conservatives are huge fans of federal intervention on the hot button issues of the day - gun control, medical marijuana gay marriage, etc.

I don't know what the right solution is with regard to this issue. Well, I know the right solution - all sates should have enlightened CCW issues.

But when states don't - no matter how wrong headed - I am not sure the feds should step in and force it down the throats of states that have freely elected to chose a more stringent CCW policy.

By the way, I am not calling Mr. 72 a conservative, or accusing him of hypocrisy. I don't know his political views.

Mike

 

[chupacabrah]

I know crime can happen anywhere, that's the point. Why point a finger at one place as having the need to armed, especially when you talked about all the more crime prone places you visited.

Break-ins happen, should you be wearing a pajama holster, a shower holster, etc.?

why would you need a gun at all?



Thanks for your trip report mr 72.

And that travel planner will be a handy resource, thanks to psyopspec for posting it!

 

[mr.72]

I am indeed a conservative. Actually a libertarian. However, in the case of laws that make interstate travel very difficult due to states' imposing of vastly incompatible laws, then I am in favor of protection for travelers by federal law much like the FOPA. We have such a law (which I can't find ready reference to at the moment) for driver's licenses and I see no hypocrisy with conservative political philosophy if the intent is to ease movement and improve freedom for holders of concealed carry licenses.

Really the conservative and libertarian answer is for the 2nd Amendment to apply to all states, and for no license to be required at all. However this is impractical, so even though more laws != conservative normally, in this case, another law moves us more in the direction of the conservative ideal in spirit where it is impractical in actuality.

 

[psyopspec]

APS would be a perfect place to discuss how the definition of a conservative has changed over the years. Click the button in the top right corner.

 

[dueler]

Using a crossdraw holster might be more comfortable for roadtrips.

 

[RPCVYemen]

so even though more laws != conservative normally

So you're the kind of conservative who's opposed to Federal intervention - except when you want them to intervene. "I fully support States' rights. Except when the States disagree with me!"

I am opposed to Federally mandated CCW reciprocity. Let the states work it out - 40 years ago, that would have been the conservative position.

Mike

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

So you're the kind of conservative who's opposed to Federal intervention - except when you want them to intervene. "I fully support States' rights. Except when the States disagree with me!"

I am opposed to Federally mandated CCW reciprocity. Let the states work it out - 40 years ago, that would have been the conservative position.

In this conservative's opinion:

Article IV of the Constitution:

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

I will not be the one to do it, but if one day it takes a federal court to rectify what is already in the Constitution, so be it.

I too will soon be taking a trip (one way), in this case to TN. It is interesting to note that all the states I will be traveling through - including my destination - have reciprocity with my Arizona CCW.

 

[langenc]

Barry Obama will fix all this for you and me.

A vote for Barry is a vote for hillary for Supreme court for 30-35 years.

 

[sailortoo]

"Let the states work it out - forty years ago, that would have been the conservative position". And forty years later, NO action! Are we waiting for the Second Coming? "Full faith and credit" is the only answer in sight at the present, and I fully agree, we need it now (watch California). The mish-mash of incomprehensible and frequently ridiculous weapons laws from state to state, is something that should not be tolerated. Just imagine your drivers license as restricted as your CCW license! We are talking of restricted interstate travel, as well as restricted areas (National Parks, while traversing), which potentially, could get a CCW licensed person into deep doo doo without any intent to be "illegal".
sailortoo

 

[RPCVYemen]

but if one day it takes a federal court to rectify what is already in the Constitution,

What I am opposed to is Federal legislation in what is right now a State issue. If the Supreme Court decides that CCW is not a State issue, I would accept that.

The mish-mash of incomprehensible and frequently ridiculous weapons laws from state to state

You are right - uniformity is more convenient. I think we should just abolish Sate governments altogether. Heck why stop with States - all those pesky "country" entities create lots and lots of incomprehensible and frequently ridiculous laws - why not one world government?

"mish-mash" is another name for freedom.

It's hard to believe, but there was a day when conservatives valued small government and State's rights more than convenience. I did not agree with them, but I did respect a principled position. The new crop seems more determined to cram their agenda down the throats of the Sates than the most wild-eyed 60s liberals. I guess that i am getting crotchety and old.

Mike

 

[Dain Bramage]

What I am opposed to is Federal legislation in what is right now a State issue.

..there was a day when conservatives valued small government and State's rights more than convenience. I did not agree with them..

So, by showing us up as hypocrites, you reveal yourself as a hypocrite too. Let me assume that you were for Federal intervention when certain..let's say issues were at the fore. Why are you now a states' rights advocate? To tweak gun owners? Conservatives? Sounds like conscience of convenience to me.

 

[mr.72]

Surprising this thread doesn't get locked since it is turning political.

However, let me get my dig in before the lock Conservatives might be interested in less law, regardless of if it is Federal or State. So a conservative might reasonably favor less state law as well as less Federal law.

Frankly the 2A should be sufficient to allow us to travel from one state to another with whatever arms we desire. On top of that Full Faith and Credit should reinforce this concept. And the tenth Amendment should make it illegal for the federal gov't to enact any more sweeping gun laws including FOPA, background checks for purchases, etc. But we have already trashed the Constitution. We don't get to erase laws. We just make new ones to undo damage done with old ones. The only reasonable way to get back towards these conservative Constitutional goals is unfortunately to create more law that reinforces the Constitution as it was originally intended.

 

[LongHairedHippy]

a vote for Barry is a vote for hillary for supreme court for the next 30-35 years

this is nothing but ridiculous. not only are there not any openings on the Court, Hillary would never make it through Congress. She hasn't even served on a traffic court! what makes you think she'll go straight to the highest court in the country? statements like yours serve only to exacerbate the current climate of sensationalism surrounding the campaigns.

 

[the foot]

I always plan my road trips with state carry laws in mind.