So where are we on CCW as you cross state lines on vacation, after the SCOTUS decision

[Elkins45]

You can travel in Illinois with a ccw permit from another state. There is a provision in the law that allows it even though Illinois doesn't recognize other state permits. The catch is you must be traveling through the state, not just visiting, and you cannot exit the car while wearing it. Stop for gas? Take it off. Stop for a bathroom break? Take it off. Of course it would probably be safer to take it off before entering the state to avoid any memory lapses if you stop somewhere.
From the Illinois state police website:
HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE
ISSUED BY ANOTHER STATE, IS MY LICENSE
RECOGNIZED IN ILLINOIS?
No. Illinois does not recognize concealed carry licenses
from other states. However, a resident from another state
who has a valid concealed carry license from their home
state may carry a concealed firearm within a vehicle while
traveling through Illinois. If the non-resident leaves his or
her vehicle unattended, the firearm shall be stored within a
locked vehicle or locked container within the vehicle

Here’s a link to a document with this info, just in case you should ever need to convince an Illinois cop not to arrest you.

https://isp.illinois.gov/StaticFile...rmation/1-154 - Transporting Your Firearm.pdf

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Here’s a link to a document with this info, just in case you should ever need to convince an Illinois cop not to arrest you.

https://isp.illinois.gov/StaticFiles/docs/FSB/General Information/1-154 - Transporting Your Firearm.pdf

Thanks.

But I'm of the opinion that one has very little chance of "convincing" a LEO not to arrest them. If they're going to do it, they're going to do it and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[roscoe]

Thanks.

But I'm of the opinion that one has very little chance of "convincing" a LEO not to arrest them. If they're going to do it, they're going to do it and let the chips fall where they may.

This is the problem. And this is why someone needs to get going on a lawsuit against any state that does not accept the permits of other states. The idea that you are in and out of jeopardy on the whims of law enforcement is absurd, and it is functionally impossible to get enough permits to be legal in all 50 states.

 

[JN01]

This is the problem. And this is why someone needs to get going on a lawsuit against any state that does not accept the permits of other states. The idea that you are in and out of jeopardy on the whims of law enforcement is absurd, and it is functionally impossible to get enough permits to be legal in all 50 states.

That case may be up soon. A former Marine physically disarmed and restrained a guy attacking a third party at a bar in Maryland. When the police arrived, they discovered he had a concealed handgun which Maryland doesn't permit using a Virgina CCW license, so he was arrested. The defense attorney said: “This [the arrest] was after Bruen,” said Mr. Stark. “Bruen says pretty clearly you have a right to carry arms in self-defense.”

Good Samaritan faces charges after stopping armed attacker in Baltimore - Washington Times
Video on the case by an attorney:
HUGE CASE: NATIONWIDE CONCEALED CARRY IS COMING... - YouTube

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

This is the problem. And this is why someone needs to get going on a lawsuit against any state that does not accept the permits of other states. The idea that you are in and out of jeopardy on the whims of law enforcement is absurd, and it is functionally impossible to get enough permits to be legal in all 50 states.

I don't mind states that don't accept other state's CWPs so much as I mind states that flat out violate the federal Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986. Maryland is known for this, as an example.

 

[roscoe]

That case may be up soon. A former Marine physically disarmed and restrained a guy attacking a third party at a bar in Maryland. When the police arrived, they discovered he had a concealed handgun which Maryland doesn't permit using a Virgina CCW license, so he was arrested. The defense attorney said: “This [the arrest] was after Bruen,” said Mr. Stark. “Bruen says pretty clearly you have a right to carry arms in self-defense.”

Good Samaritan faces charges after stopping armed attacker in Baltimore - Washington Times
Video on the case by an attorney:
HUGE CASE: NATIONWIDE CONCEALED CARRY IS COMING... - YouTube

Interesting. It would be nice if a precedent were set on this quickly.

 

[Insignificant bill]

I don't mind states that don't accept other state's CWPs so much as I mind states that flat out violate the federal Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986. Maryland is known for this, as an example.

Exactly, it is bs harassment for no good reason.

 

[jdc1244]

“Bruen says pretty clearly you have a right to carry arms in self-defense.”

And Maryland recognizes that right by affording its residents concealed carry permits consistent with Bruen.

This disregard for states’ rights is concerning – the idea of compelling states to accommodate other states’ permits via Federal judicial fiat is misguided.

 

[Tilos]

I live in Idaho and Idaho has concealed weapons reciprocity agreements with other states. The Idaho State Police (ISP) Bureau of Criminal Identification maintains these agreements, and you may access information about them via the ISP website.
Before I travel, I make copies of the Reciprocity Agreements for all the states on my trip route, but I have yet to have had to show them to anyone.
The ISP website has a map where you click on the state in question and the Reciprocity Agreement can be downloaded or printed.
Here's that map for Idaho:
Concealed Weapons License Reciprocity | Official website of the Idaho State Police

Other states, your state may have similar info and I suggest you look into that.
To be clear, I don't concealed carry while traveling, I just "transport" with my stuff stored in accordance with Fed rules/laws and carry those letters if I am ever asked what seems to be the standard weapons questions that have become part of every stop.
Transport info: State Name (handgunlaw.us)
jmo,
.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

To be clear, I don't concealed carry while traveling, I just "transport" with my stuff stored in accordance with Fed rules/laws and carry those letters if I am ever asked what seems to be the standard weapons questions that have become part of every stop.

If I were just transporting my hunting firearms, I could see this. But if it's my carry, then I'm carrying through every state that recognizes my permit, period. For those states that don't, I'll transport strictly IAW the federal transportation laws.

Either they recognize my permit or they don't.

 

[F-111 John]

Other states, your state may have similar info and I suggest you look into that.
To be clear, I don't concealed carry while traveling, I just "transport" with my stuff stored in accordance with Fed rules/laws and carry those letters if I am ever asked what seems to be the standard weapons questions that have become part of every stop.
Transport info: State Name (handgunlaw.us)

https://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf

I agree that the absolute best information on CCW license reciprocity is THR member Gary Slider's handgunlaw.us.

He keeps the information up to date, and it is a concise reference for every state where your permit is honored, where no permit is required, and what states your permit is not honored.

 

[CapnMac]

against any state that does not accept the permits of other states.

If all the States use a similar (or the same) set of Qualifications, that would be an easier case to make.

What we have is, State A allows the County Sheriff to issue a permit, and State B requires 8 hours of classroom and actual shooting for a permit, State C requires getting some State Issued ID.

From State B's perspetive, no one in State A has reaches State B's minimum qualifications. State C will be of the opinion that neither A nor B have reached their minimum standards either. So, how would a higher authority resolve that? Require all the States to issue a FOID and have required training? To meet the new NYS standards, you'd need 5 references and 3 years' social media disclosure, too.

To make things muddier, several of the States have gone permit-less, too. Which will 'offend' the requirements of more closely regulated States.

The current batch of States with wide reciprocity are those with generally similar Permit requirements. This is a generally growing similarity. But, it has taken the nearly 40 years of the novel notion of shall-issue concealed carry permits to get to our current point.

 

[Insignificant bill]

If all the States use a similar (or the same) set of Qualifications, that would be an easier case to make.

What we have is, State A allows the County Sheriff to issue a permit, and State B requires 8 hours of classroom and actual shooting for a permit, State C requires getting some State Issued ID.

From State B's perspetive, no one in State A has reaches State B's minimum qualifications. State C will be of the opinion that neither A nor B have reached their minimum standards either. So, how would a higher authority resolve that? Require all the States to issue a FOID and have required training? To meet the new NYS standards, you'd need 5 references and 3 years' social media disclosure, too.

To make things muddier, several of the States have gone permit-less, too. Which will 'offend' the requirements of more closely regulated States.

The current batch of States with wide reciprocity are those with generally similar Permit requirements. This is a generally growing similarity. But, it has taken the nearly 40 years of the novel notion of shall-issue concealed carry permits to get to our current point.

Well the number is up to 25 only 25 more to go.

 

[roscoe]

And Maryland recognizes that right by affording its residents concealed carry permits consistent with Bruen.

This disregard for states’ rights is concerning – the idea of compelling states to accommodate other states’ permits via Federal judicial fiat is misguided.

It is only now consistent because Bruen uses the 14th Amendment, under which a constitutional right is incorporated across all states. You don't have your 1st amendment rights change, nor do you have to pay another fee and take a class, when you cross jurisdictional lines within the US.

One of the points of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government. The 14th Amendment constrains state governments specifically, because they simply couldn't be trusted to equally empower all their citizens. The same goes for now, just for different reasons.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It is only now consistent because Bruen uses the 14th Amendment, under which a constitutional right is incorporated across all states. You don't have your 1st amendment rights change, nor do you have to pay another fee and take a class, when you cross jurisdictional lines within the US.

One of the points of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government. The 14th Amendment constrains state governments specifically, because they simply couldn't be trusted to equally empower all their citizens. The same goes for now, just for different reasons.

That reflects a very fundamental misunderstanding of the law. Application and permissible regulation of constitutionally protected rights will vary from State to State.

1. The Bill of Rights does not apply to States. The Supreme Court ruled in 1833 that the States were not subject to the Bill of Rights (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)).
   
   
2. Some years following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment the doctrine evolved of applying some, but not all, of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the States on a piecemeal basis, using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
   
   
3. The 14th Amendment wasn't used to apply rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the States until, at the earliest, 1897 (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) incorporating the "taking" clause of the 5th Amendment through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment). And the right of free speech protected by the First Amendment wasn't applied to the States until 1925 (Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)).
   
   
4. A number of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated against the States or have been ruled not to apply against the States:
   
   
   • Third Amendment: The right not to be compelled to quarter soldiers has been specifically incorporated only in the Second Circuit. It appears that the has been no other ruling on that question.
     
     
   • Fifth Amendment: The right to indictment by a grand jury has been specifically not incorporated (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)).
     
     
   • Sixth Amendment: The right in a criminal trial to a jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred has not been incorporated (Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1988); Cook v. Morrill, 783 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1986); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980)).
     
     
   • Seventh Amendment: The right to a jury trial in a civil case has been held not incorporated against the States (Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916)).
     
     
   • Eighth Amendment: The question of the incorporation of the right to protection against excessive fines has not been addressed.
   
   
5. And the Supreme Court has also ruled that constitutionally protected rights may be subject, under some circumstances, to State or local regulation. See, for example:
   
   
   • Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:

     ...We are likewise persuaded that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to serve those interests and that it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. As we have emphasized on more than one occasion, when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement...

     
     
     • Cf. McCullen v. Coakley (U. S. Supreme Court, No. 12–1168, 2014)
       
       
     • In McCullen the Court struck down a new Massachusetts "buffer zone" law. As noted in the opinion the Court had previously sustained a different sort of buffer zone law in Colorado, and nothing in McCullen casts any doubt on the continued validity of the Colorado law (McCullen, slip opinion at 2):

       ….The statute [the prior Massachusetts law] was modeled on a similar Colorado law that this Court had upheld in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703 (2000). Relying on Hill, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sustained the Massachusetts statute against a First Amendment challenge. McGuire v. Reilly, 386 F. 3d 45 (2004) (McGuire II), cert. denied, 544 U. S. 974 (2005); McGuire v. Reilly, 260 F. 3d 36 (2001) (McGuire I).
       
       By 2007, some Massachusetts legislators and law enforcement officials had come to regard the 2000 statute as inadequate.....

     
     
     
   • Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:

     ...A narrowly-tailored permitting regulation need not be the least restrictive means of furthering a locality's asserted interests. The regulation may not, however, burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals. See United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1999). "[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied `so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985))...

 

[hso]

Nothing changed with respect to carry outside your home state..nada, zip, zero...because the case wasn't about reciprocity or out of state carry.

No crystal balls means your guess is as good as the next New York Times editor's.

 

[chaim]

Yes you are right there, Do you think MD will honor any out od state permits?

As a Marylander, I'd love to see some reciprocity, but I doubt we'll be going less restrictive. There is a lot of talk of VERY restrictive new laws in the upcoming legislative season (they are being very secretive as to what they will be though). Things will be interesting this fall. Mostly likely, we'll barely be able to carry anywhere on our permits soon enough, and those new restrictions and reciprocity will be left to the courts to decide.

That said, MD does have non-resident permits that are no harder to get than resident permits. So, now that the Supreme Court requires us to be essentially shall issue, all you have to do is spend $200-800 (depending on the trainer) for 16 hours of classroom training with a state police approved trainer (even though the actual topics the state requires could be covered in 2-4) plus range time for your qualification (only 25 rounds). Then, you spend $75 for the application, and wait up to 90 days for them to potentially contact your employer and 3 references as part of the background check. Though, with the glut of new applications, they've had to hire a lot of new staff and word is that actual approval is "down" to "only" about a month and a half to two months.

 

[chaim]

I guess I am a felon for 12 minutes when going thru MD, coming from WV going to PA

I recently made that same 12 minute trip. I pulled over and stowed the gun legally for those 12 minutes. When I was out of enemy territory, I retrieved the weapon as soon as it was practical. I'm not going to sit in a Maryland prison for 12 years because I couldn't drive down the road without my gun on my hip for 12 minutes.

MD only abides by the strict wording of federal law (and not its spirit/likely intention) when it comes to transport. Marylanders can only transport, with the gun and ammo locked in different containers in the trunk, to and from home, the range and/or an FFL or gunsmith. If I plan to carry in another state on my UT non-resident permit, that is not a premissable reason according to MD and if I don't make an out-of-state range trip part of the trip, I could and likely would be arrested if a cop found my gun in the trunk. Everyone else can only drive through the state. Any stop, gas, bathroom, food, can get you locked up. It is a misdemeanor, but you will go to jail for it (I think it is "up to a year"). In my carry class, there was a guy from VA who had a friend caught up in MD's draconian enforcement. His friend stopped for gas and a cop saw him leave the gas station. I can't remember if he was just driving through Maryland, or if he went to a range here, but either way, he would have been legal if he didn't stop. He had no criminal record whatsoever. The cop asked him if he had a gun in the car, and not knowing the MD laws, he said yes, they were locked in trunk. He was arrested and sentenced to 364 days in jail.

 

[CoalTrain49]

CA doesn't honor any out-of-state permits either. Best secure those firearms according to state law. As far as I know the fed hasn't changed CA code yet.

 

[CoalTrain49]

As a Marylander, I'd love to see some reciprocity, but I doubt we'll be going less restrictive. There is a lot of talk of VERY restrictive new laws in the upcoming legislative season (they are being very secretive as to what they will be though). Things will be interesting this fall. Mostly likely, we'll barely be able to carry anywhere on our permits soon enough, and those new restrictions and reciprocity will be left to the courts to decide.

That said, MD does have non-resident permits that are no harder to get than resident permits. So, now that the Supreme Court requires us to be essentially shall issue, all you have to do is spend $200-800 (depending on the trainer) for 16 hours of classroom training with a state police approved trainer (even though the actual topics the state requires could be covered in 2-4) plus range time for your qualification (only 25 rounds). Then, you spend $75 for the application, and wait up to 90 days for them to potentially contact your employer and 3 references as part of the background check. Though, with the glut of new applications, they've had to hire a lot of new staff and word is that actual approval is "down" to "only" about a month and a half to two months.

That's pretty restrictive for a permit. Lots of states have given up on trying to maintain staff to process permits. Unfortunately ours isn't one but the worm has turned. I believe about half the of states have seen the light here with concealed carry permits. The juice just isn't worth the squeez. They keep records in TX on all of their permits and criminal prosecutions of people with permits. The rate is pretty low. In reality all a state is doing when they license a law abiding citizen to carry is to allow that citizen to continue to be a law abiding citizen. Felons don't apply for CC permits so what's the point of paying for the privilege. Maybe the state see's it as some kind of full employment at the tax payers expense. I've never figured it out.

 

[JN01]

And Maryland recognizes that right by affording its residents concealed carry permits consistent with Bruen.

This disregard for states’ rights is concerning – the idea of compelling states to accommodate other states’ permits via Federal judicial fiat is misguided.

I think the argument is that since NYSRPA vs Bruen holds that people have the right to carry arms in public, denying that right to people who are not residents is still denying the right. That wouldn't be the case if Maryland recognized other states licenses, adopted permitless carry, or provided for non-resident licenses.

 

[toivo]

But try driving through with out of state tags, especially Missouri tags. You will get stopped and searched by the Ill State Police.

And their probable cause is that you're from out of state? Would that hold up in court?

 

[12Bravo20]

And their probable cause is that you're from out of state? Would that hold up in court?

No it would not hold up in court. But that doesn't stop them. They will find a reason to pull you over. A common one at night is a rear license plate light being out.

I know this was common when we had the choice of having our CCW permit added to our driver license or a separate state ID. And if you got pulled over for any reason and your CCW was on your DL, then the Ill. State Police would most definitely search your vehicle for weapons. I had it happen to me.

I haven't been to Illinois since Mo. CCW laws were revised and we now have a totally separate permit issued by our County Sheriff instead offing on a state DL or ID.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Deleted....

 

[ilbob]

No it would not hold up in court. But that doesn't stop them. They will find a reason to pull you over. A common one at night is a rear license plate light being out.

I know this was common when we had the choice of having our CCW permit added to our driver license or a separate state ID. And if you got pulled over for any reason and your CCW was on your DL, then the Ill. State Police would most definitely search your vehicle for weapons. I had it happen to me.

I haven't been to Illinois since Mo. CCW laws were revised and we now have a totally separate permit issued by our County Sheriff instead offing on a state DL or ID.

I am pretty sure that when they run your DL it will tell them you have a CC license or FOID. Probably even comes up just running your plates.