Which state has the least intrusive requriements for non-resident CCL?

[wildbilll]

I thought about it and I am gonna post on this one again.
I think too much is being read into/assumed to be true when reading the law.
Here is the letter link again:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

Since the feds have not specified in the US code what the "background check" must consist of, it is therefore reasonable that it must consist of the minimum information that any state in the Union uses, otherwise it's a violation of equal protection. Example: PA will issue resident and non-resident with very little information when compared to other states.
If it's good enough in PA, it's has to be good enough in MO as far as the US code is concerned.

The Feds cannot control the manner of how the state conducts the check, it isn't specified in the code. Nothing says they can't contract it out. Some probably do!
If state "A" enters into an agreement to allow as valid a permit from state "B", then there has been a "background check" that is deemed acceptable to state "A" where the permit will be considered as valid.

I would like to see a reference to an actual case (post Lopez) with someone's name on it, as I think the emperor has no clothes.

Nalioth:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/indiana.pdf

Looks like for personal protection it's still a lifetime permit.

 

[swinokur]

Because non residents are getting non resident UT permits to avoid licensing in their home state, the UT legislature is on the verge of amending their concealed carry permit law to require any person applying for a UT non resident to be in a state that recognizes UT's permit AND holds a permit issued by their home state. May issue or states that prohibit carry are exempted. So shopping for the "best" permit if you don't have a home state license is about to be a thing of the past. FL already requires permit holders to have a license to be from their home state and have reciprocity to carry in FL. They do not recognize non resident permits at all. Therefore if you have a UT permit and live in OK, you cannot carry in FL without a FL permit.

UT is doing this precisely because people are getting UT permits to circumvent their home state carry laws. Several states have dropped UT recognition ie NM and NV because their residents were carrying in their home state on a UT permit. Instead of waiting on 50 states to require home state licensing for their residences, UT is changing their law.

Another reason given was some CCW instructors in NM complained to their legislators that UT instructors in NM were actively seeking students for UT CCW class, taking money out of their pockets

Bottom line is UT permit won't be available to non residents without those people having home state licenses as well..

 

[highlander 5]

Henchsman you may be in for a bit of a surprise on your wanting privacy. IIRC Me has an affivdvid that you must sign to check on your mental health status. I had plans on getting a Me but I couldn't get a hadgun safety course certificate because of my work schedule and I recall seeing that form included in the permit package.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Because non residents are getting non resident UT permits to avoid licensing in their home state, the UT legislature is on the verge of amending their concealed carry permit law to require any person applying for a UT non resident to be in a state that recognizes UT's permit AND holds a permit issued by their home state.

So a VT resident would not be able to get a UT non-resident permit?

We don't recognize UT's permits, because no one needs a permit to carry in VT, not even nonresidents.

We don't issue permits to our own residents, because they don't need the state's permission to carry.

As such, we fail both the criteria listed above.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If it's good enough in PA, it's has to be good enough in MO as far as the US code is concerned.

You are failing to take into account two things: the Federal statute requires the licensing to be done BY the state the school zone is located in, and it requires the background check to be done by the same state.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

If you have a PA permit and you are carrying in MO - you still have not been licensed BY Missouri. Your license is merely recognized in MO, but MO did not license you, PA did.

And the background check must be performed by THE state. It does not say ANY state or A state, it says THE state. So which state would that be since THE state means one and only one state? THE state is THE state which issued the license, which has to be THE state the school zone is located in.

The actual statute is 18 USC 922 (q) if you want to read it yourself.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

 

[swinokur]

So a VT resident would not be able to get a UT non-resident permit?

We don't recognize UT's permits, because no one needs a permit to carry in VT, not even nonresidents.

We don't issue permits to our own residents, because they don't need the state's permission to carry.

As such, we fail both the criteria listed above.

I know there is a provision for may issue states. You would have to read the proposed legislation to see how it handles Constitutional carry states. I know AZ and AK can issue a permit if you need one. No idea about VT

I am now told the bill has been sent back to committee because of fiscal impact issues. I think it's a safe bet it will pass at some point. UT does not want to jeopardize their large state reciprocity list by having states that recognize the UT permit drop them because of this "loophole" They have already lost 2 states because of this.

 

[Ole Coot]

Don't see the problem. If you were in the military, had a civilian job with needed security clearance, worked for the government your prints are on file. Mine were first taken about 50yrs ago and many times since in different occupations. I did not have them taken in the early '90s when I moved here and got my CCL for this state. Depends on what you did or have done, mine are not public record and the judge had them sealed but if you have lived, worked, served you probably have prints on file somewhere.

 

[wildbilll]

The Attorney General (who is the chief law enforcement officer) of the state is the one who entered into an agreement with another state, where they have made an official determination (verification) that the laws of the other state do in fact ensure that the person is qualified to receive such license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License

The reciprocity or recognition is the granting of license by that state to a person to carry the weapon in that state, it is identical in all respects. There are no differences in the eyes of the state.

I said it before, here it is again - Where is the named case, post LOPEZ, that covers this situation? I looked around and I do not see it talked about. I believe the feds know that these reciprocity laws make the GFSZ act too murky and will not prosecute if the accused has a permit considered valid in that state.
It's easier to focus on the clear violations, where there is no permit.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The Attorney General (who is the chief law enforcement officer) of the state is the one who entered into an agreement with another state, where they have made an official determination (verification) that the laws of the other state do in fact ensure that the person is qualified to receive such license.

The OP is from Oklahoma. So, unless you are talking about a state other than Oklahoma, the highlighted portion of your statement above is incorrect. In Oklahoma, the Attorney General has got nothing to do with it and there is no verification that the other states' licenses meet any requirements.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os21.rtf

§21-1290.26. Reciprocal agreement authority.
RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORITY
The State of Oklahoma hereby recognizes any valid concealed carry weapons permit or license issued by another state. Any person entering this state in possession of a firearm authorized for concealed carry upon the authority and license of another state is authorized to continue to carry a concealed firearm and license in this state; provided the license from the other state remains valid.

 

[henschman]

The Federal Gun Free Schools Act, as reenacted, basically just added some language to the law that rehashed the argument that the feds made in Lopez... the same argument that the SC rejected. In that case, the feds argued that the gun involved had moved in interstate commerce, and that the aggregate effect of guns in school zones would effect interstate commerce because kids would not get good education, and would have lower paying jobs, etc... basically the feds made any argument they could to connect the possession of guns in a school zone with interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court didn't buy any of it. They said the connection to interstate commerce was too remote.

The new GFSZA just says that the gun must move in interstate commerce or must affect interstate commerce. Since this rationale for the law has already been rejected, it is widely believed that if the feds attempted to enforce this law and it's constitutionality was challenged, it would be ruled unconstitutional again.

NavyLT, thanks for the link to that thread... I will keep an eye out for more info on that case the gentleman referred to where someone is being prosecuted solely for a violation of the GFSZA. I didn't think the feds would ever prosecute anybody solely under that law... at least not until after one of the conservative justices is replaced by a liberal. I figured it would be used just for overcharging in order to get more favorable plea bargains, if anything. If I figure out what case that is, I may just ask the defendant's attorney if I could be of assistance with research or anything. If the guy who made that post got the info from the NRA, it probably means that the NRA is representing the defendant, and in that case I'm sure he already has a competent defense team... but I can always ask.

LemmyCaution, yes, yes, we are all jealous of your state's lack of prohibition on the carry of firearms... you don't have to rub it in. I don't know about everyone else, but I am also jealous of your lack of nudity laws. I bet there are naked babes everywhere up there. Also, it would be nice not to have to worry about an "accidental exposure" or "printing" when I'm wearing those sexy little short cutoff jeans I love to sport around town...

"this is my pistol, this is my gun, this one's for killing, this one's for fun."

 

[wildbilll]

I wish I could figure out why I can't quote someone like I can on other sites.

NavyLT:
"provided the license from the other state remains valid"

There it is, the state has ensured that the person is qualified to receive such license.

I think there is a belief that "License" means a piece of paper was issued by the state, but that isn't what the US code says. It merely states that a license is to be issued by the state, and the state has, in fact, issued a blanket license to all of those other license holders, since the state has determined that the other state's background check is sufficient.

We can go around and around but the tilt of the legal argument must lean toward the accused. In light of Heller and McDonald it is so much more so today.

One more reason for the feds to make sure they have a solid case in OK before they try to prosecute:

"D. When a person’s rights pursuant to the protection of the preemption provisions of this section have been violated, the person shall have the right to bring a civil action against the persons, municipality, and political subdivision jointly and severally for injunctive relief or monetary damages or both."