CCW requirements

[oldman45]

OK, I have a LA CCW and a few others. Now I noticed a problem in the laws for many people in the future. A friend is moving from LA to AR for a year and then to TX for a couple years. While the moves are short term, he will be changing his primary residence.

LA law says the minute you move from the state, your CCW is no longer effective. Many other states also say this.

Another state says you have to live there for six months before you can qualify to apply for a CCW. Most states say this.

Another non-resident state CCW says if you change primary resident states, the CCW is no longer in effect.

So technically, a person moving from one state to another faces losing a CCW for at least six months and would be unable to carry legally.

How does one get around this?

[jlanecole]

Get a nonresident permit from a state that is recognized from the states the person is planning to move to, maybe Utah.

At least that's where I'd start looking. I admit to not knowing that much about it, and not planning to move to a new state in the foreseeable future.

[oldman45]

Originally Posted by jlanecole

Get a nonresident permit from a state that is recognized from the states the person is planning to move to, maybe Utah.

At least that's where I'd start looking. I admit to not knowing that much about it, and not planning to move to a new state in the foreseeable future.

Agreed, however, such as FL, the non resident permit expires when you leave the residence shown on the permit. Hence, even the non-residence permit is worthless legally.

[computeruser]

Don't change your residence, just move and temporarily live somewhere else, like the way a college student retains their home residence despite residing elsewhere for a period.

[cshoff]

Most every state that issues non-resident permits have a "change of address" procedure that you can use so that when you move, you will still have a valid permit. Florida, Maine, and Arizona are the ones I would recommend looking into.

[OKFC05]

Originally Posted by oldman45

Agreed, however, such as FL, the non resident permit expires when you leave the residence shown on the permit. Hence, even the non-residence permit is worthless legally.

No it does not. Just do a change of address.
I can do a UT change of address over the phone, and for $10 I can get a new card with the new address on it, if I want it. My daughter moved OK to TX, and used the UT until she decided to also get a TX license.

I did the UT classes for several years, and the UT license is a great second license, because it remains valid no matter where you live. Plus, a picture and $10 renews it every 5 years!
FL is a good optiion, but more expensive.

One of the most frustrating thing about doing CHL classes ( I do OK still) is the incredible amount of misinformation floating around. If I could just get people to actually read the official state information, it would save them a lot of grief.

Division of Licensing
P.O. Box 3030
Tallahassee, FL 32315-3030

Effective February 12, 2010, the Division of Licensing is no longer printing the licensee's residence address on the face of the Florida concealed weapon license. The law does not require you to obtain a revised license after a change of address. You can continue to carry your current license until it expires; however, if you would like a revised license that does not include your residence address, please send us a written request along with a check or money order in the amount of $15.00 made payable to the Division of Licensing AND a passport-type color photograph.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/license/changes.html

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by OKFC05

<snip>.....

One of the most frustrating thing about doing CHL classes ( I do OK still) is the incredible amount of misinformation floating around. If I could just get people to actually read the official state information, it would save them a lot of grief.

.....<snip>

Ain't that the truth. Unfortunately, it's not only OOS permits that are surrounded by misinformation, but in-state permits as well. We've had a CCW permitting system here in Missouri now for almost 8 years, yet I'm still dispelling myths in every CCW class that I teach.

[oldman45]

Originally Posted by computeruser

Don't change your residence, just move and temporarily live somewhere else, like the way a college student retains their home residence despite residing elsewhere for a period.

Not sure about other states but LA says the address shown has to be a permanent address in the state. My friend is not going to keep a half million dollar home sitting vacant for three years and is not going to be living in a stick built home but rather living out of his motorhome for the next 3-4 yrs.

My parents did not move while I was in college so their address was MY address. Yet I was talking about when someone sells their home and moves about frequently for a while.

The law here is set up where you best have a loaction where you can produce utility bills in your name or prove you actually live there.

Also, having a non-residence CCW is not going to be much good if the holder is in his home state. Many states, LA included, have passed legislation saying a non resident permit is not good in the state which the person is residing. I agree with this legislation.

People were living in LA and using FL non resident permits to get a faster app approval, longer permit times and at a cheaper cost. States began shutting this down.

[OKFC05]

A friend is moving from LA to AR for a year and then to TX for a couple years. While the moves are short term, he will be changing his primary residence.

LA law says the minute you move from the state, your CCW is no longer effective.

This person's situation is easily solved with a little preplanning.
1. As you point out, their LA license is good until they move to AR.
2. In the meantime, he should get a TX license. The requirements are identical for resident and non-resident. Might have to dirve over to take the class.
Why TX? Because he is going to TX after AR.
3. When he goes to AR, LA license disappears, but he carries in AR on his TX license for a year. File change of address with TX. AR has no prohibition against this.
4. When he goes to TX, he already has his TX license, just file a change of address with DPS.

This type of strategy will work in many states, but in some nothing covers it. Many IL residents can only carry outside their home state.
Several states only recognize their own license, but so far they are in a minority. No help if you're going to CA, NJ, NY, MA and some others.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by oldman45

Not sure about other states but LA says the address shown has to be a permanent address in the state. My friend is not going to keep a half million dollar home sitting vacant for three years and is not going to be living in a stick built home but rather living out of his motorhome for the next 3-4 yrs.

My parents did not move while I was in college so their address was MY address. Yet I was talking about when someone sells their home and moves about frequently for a while.

The law here is set up where you best have a loaction where you can produce utility bills in your name or prove you actually live there.

Also, having a non-residence CCW is not going to be much good if the holder is in his home state. Many states, LA included, have passed legislation saying a non resident permit is not good in the state which the person is residing. I agree with this legislation.

People were living in LA and using FL non resident permits to get a faster app approval, longer permit times and at a cheaper cost. States began shutting this down.

So a LA resident MUST carry on a LA permit while in LA, even though LA recognizes permits issued by other states for non-residents? That doesn't make much sense, IMO.

But I digress, most states will accept any valid permit which they provide reciprocity for, that is legitimately held by any person. That should allow your friend to legally carry in AR and TX as long as he has a valid non-resident permit from a state they provide reciprocity for.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by OKFC05

<snip>......Many IL residents can only carry outside their home state......<snip>

Unless you fall under LEOSA guidelines, that applies to ALL IL residents. IL does not allow concealed firearms to be carried in IL under any circumstances, period.

[oldman45]

Originally Posted by cshoff

So a LA resident MUST carry on a LA permit while in LA, even though LA recognizes permits issued by other states for non-residents? That doesn't make much sense, IMO.
.

Yep. Just as almost any state will insist that a resident of that state be licensed to drive by that state.

Look for more states to adopt the same type law.

[Kanewpadle]

Get a Utah CCW permit. It is recognized by those three states.

Utah Department of Public Safety

[oldman45]

Originally Posted by Kanewpadle

Get a Utah CCW permit. It is recognized by those three states.

Utah Department of Public Safety

If a person is a resident of Louisiana, a non resident permit from ANY state is not recognized. The law here requires a Louisiana resident to have a Louisiana permit. Technically the law does not take effect until August of 2011 though. Louisiana law recognizes permits from many states for non residents but a resident having a non resident permit will not be carrying legally after 2011.

Four lawyers I work with got their non resident FL permits for several reasons (cheaper, good for longer and quicker approval) just a couple weeks prior to the law being enacted. Now they have all had to apply for a LA permit (about a 120 day wait).

Within the last hour, I was told that both TX and CO have similar laws. A non resident permit in either of those states will not be recognized for residents of those states. In short, if you live in CO, LA or TX and want to carry concealed in your home state, you have to possess a permit issued from your home state. While I have not read the wording in the laws of those states, I was informed of this by a multi state attorney.

[H.Callahan]

Having lived in Colorado for a long time until not too long ago, I also don't think they will recognize an out-of-state permit if you do not live in the state that issued the license. So, if you have a FL permit, but don't live in FL, CO will not recognize it. If you DO live in FL, you are good to go.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by oldman45

Yep. Just as almost any state will insist that a resident of that state be licensed to drive by that state.

Look for more states to adopt the same type law.

Current trends tend to point to the OPPOSITE. Constitutional Carry seems to be the latest trend. Permit-less carry will likely be in the cards for many states in the future.

[oldman45]

Originally Posted by cshoff

Current trends tend to point to the OPPOSITE. Constitutional Carry seems to be the latest trend. Permit-less carry will likely be in the cards for many states in the future.

I hope you are right. However, let's see what happens in the next few months. There have been many events recently that has the government shifting to more restrictions.

Louisiana got a couple of great gun laws through in the last few weeks and we have a lot of good gun laws that has been on the books for decades. Yet we also have a very anti gun state police, no matter what their official statement says. Each year, a few more hurdles show up on the application. When it was first implemented on a "shall issue" there was only basic information along with a fingerprint card and a photo along with a few notorized papers. Now they want court documentation for each arrest (not conviction, just arrest, even when there was never a charge pressed), they want a copy of all divorce proceedings (even if it was 50 yrs ago), they want a list of all medications you are taking, they want a list of all residences for the last 15 yrs (no matter the length), in the event of an expungement or pardon you have to send that in as well. Personally, I was taken in for questioning in 1966 for an incident I had nothing to do with but was fingerprinted at the time. There was never a charge filed and I was let go a couple hours later yet they wanted a copy of the incident (which does not exist) so I had to get the City Attorney to furnish a written statement saying there is no record of such. These are all hoops that make people NOT want to apply.

A friend of mine is a divorced female from Dallas, TX. She applied for a permit, had to get a copy of her divorce (22 yrs ago) papers from another state and then the LSP learned she was charged with a DUI at age 18 in another state (34 yrs ago) and made her get certified papers on that (took a month and a long drive during business hours) only to have the LSP spend 14 weeks before approving her application. This is not being gun friendly.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by oldman45

I hope you are right. However, let's see what happens in the next few months. There have been many events recently that has the government shifting to more restrictions.

Louisiana got a couple of great gun laws through in the last few weeks and we have a lot of good gun laws that has been on the books for decades. Yet we also have a very anti gun state police, no matter what their official statement says. Each year, a few more hurdles show up on the application. When it was first implemented on a "shall issue" there was only basic information along with a fingerprint card and a photo along with a few notorized papers. Now they want court documentation for each arrest (not conviction, just arrest, even when there was never a charge pressed), they want a copy of all divorce proceedings (even if it was 50 yrs ago), they want a list of all medications you are taking, they want a list of all residences for the last 15 yrs (no matter the length), in the event of an expungement or pardon you have to send that in as well. Personally, I was taken in for questioning in 1966 for an incident I had nothing to do with but was fingerprinted at the time. There was never a charge filed and I was let go a couple hours later yet they wanted a copy of the incident (which does not exist) so I had to get the City Attorney to furnish a written statement saying there is no record of such. These are all hoops that make people NOT want to apply.

A friend of mine is a divorced female from Dallas, TX. She applied for a permit, had to get a copy of her divorce (22 yrs ago) papers from another state and then the LSP learned she was charged with a DUI at age 18 in another state (34 yrs ago) and made her get certified papers on that (took a month and a long drive during business hours) only to have the LSP spend 14 weeks before approving her application. This is not being gun friendly.

I am, admittedly, not familiar with CCW laws in Louisiana, but it sounds to me like everything you mentioned could be solved with a small amount of legislative work.

Here in Missouri, when we wrote our CCW bill which later became law, we very specifically explained what information could be required on a CCW application and the process that the sheriff must follow when processing those applications. We took 99.9% of the discretionary authority away from the sheriff's and made it nearly impossible for them to drag their feet or play any games with CCW applications. They can't even ask you if you have ever been divorced or arrested here. They may only ask about convictions or any guilty plea for felony or violent misdemeanor charges in regards to any past dealing with law enforcement.

In addition, we wrote-in clearly defined time frames under which they must act once an application is submitted. The average turn-around for a CCW endorsement in this state is around 18 days. And our sheriff's are REQUIRED to issue on the 45th calendar day after receiving an application even if they haven't got the background check back yet (this is more incentive for them to NOT drag their feet). If the background check comes back later with a disqualifying factor on it, the sheriff is responsible for voiding the issued endorsement and taking it from the disqualified person at that time. Needless to say, we simply haven't had much of a problem with rogue sheriff's who like to do things their own way, and when a problem comes up, we nip it in the bud right away.

I disagree with your assertion that the "government is shifting to more restrictions". There simply is no proof of that. In fact, over the past couple of years, we've seen many restrictions lifted or eased across the country. We've had two landmark SCOTUS decisions regarding the Second Amendment, both of which favored gun owners, we've had eased restrictions on firearms in National Parks, we've seen Iowa switch from a "may issue" state to a "shall issue" state, we've seen Arizona and Wyoming both go the way of Constitutional Carry, we watched Illinois come 4 votes shy of passing a Concealed Weapons bill this year, and we have Wisconsin on the verge of getting a Concealed Weapons bill passed and signed into law as we speak.

Anti-gun zealots are not in a good position right now. People have grown tired of all of their dishonest predictions of doom and gloom and all of their lies. And states have grown tired of the heavy-hand of "big brother" in Washington DC and their abuse of the 10th Amendment. We've still got a lot of work to do, but we're on a winning path right now.

[oldman45]

Are you aware of the many gun bills in the current Congress?

Congressional Gun Bills | 112th Congress | Federal Firearms Legislation | Second Amendment, Firearm Acts

Some are pro gun but many are anti gun. These are also just in the US Congress and does not include those in individual state legislation.

I would love to see all states adopt a permitless concealed weapons law but that would also create far more problems than it would help. A national Right to Carry would benefit many that will not, cannot, could or otherwise pass the background check to even buy a gun. When law enforcement deals with armed individuals, we want to know they are or were at least once trustworthy.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by oldman45

Are you aware of the many gun bills in the current Congress?

Congressional Gun Bills | 112th Congress | Federal Firearms Legislation | Second Amendment, Firearm Acts

Some are pro gun but many are anti gun. These are also just in the US Congress and does not include those in individual state legislation.

I would love to see all states adopt a permitless concealed weapons law but that would also create far more problems than it would help. A national Right to Carry would benefit many that will not, cannot, could or otherwise pass the background check to even buy a gun. When law enforcement deals with armed individuals, we want to know they are or were at least once trustworthy.

I disagree. State by state permit-less carry is the ideal we should be striving for. It would actually eliminate the majority of 2nd Amendment problems we have in this country by removing most of the infringements that have been implemented by the state. A "national right to carry" law, on the other hand, should be avoided at all costs. This is one issue in which we do NOT want allow the feds to get a foot in the door under any circumstances.

In addition, I don't really buy into the "law enforcement" angle here either. Unless there is probable cause to believe that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, there is no reason law enforcement should be making contact with an individual over the presence of a firearm in the first place. And if probable cause IS present, then a person's background is irrelevant anyway. In most states, the mere presence of a firearm does not Probable Cause make and absent any other circumstances, quite frankly, it's none of a LEO's business what that person's background is at that point.

[oldman45]

Originally Posted by cshoff

In addition, I don't really buy into the "law enforcement" angle here either. Unless there is probable cause to believe that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, there is no reason law enforcement should be making contact with an individual over the presence of a firearm in the first place. And if probable cause IS present, then a person's background is irrelevant anyway. In most states, the mere presence of a firearm does not Probable Cause make and absent any other circumstances, quite frankly, it's none of a LEO's business what that person's background is at that point.

Yes it is.

Let's assume you pull someone over for suspected DUI. They exit their car and begin reaching inside their jacket and there is a gun (if everyone can carry), are you assured they are going for their wallet or will they pull that gun and use it on you?

I have gone into bars (carry forbidden) where there would be 3-5 guns hit the floor and nobody claiming ownership. Citizens, when unrestrained, will carry everywhere. Many are unqualified to carry (domestic violence, drug history, alcohol abuse, felony past, etc) and allowing everyone to carry means more problems for LEO.

In this mid sized city, on a daily basis, there are about 30 arrests for felon in possession or possession of a stolen gun. So do we have to run full background checks on these people because everyone is allowed to carry? As it is, show me your permit and all is improved. As you suggest, I could be dealing with a mass murderer, knowing him to be armed and would not know his past simply because anyone can carry.

We have to disagree on this issue but then you might want to take a Ride Along with an officer of your local PD. A good Friday night, shortly after the 1st or 15th of the month would be a great time to do so. It might change your viewpoint.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by oldman45

Yes it is.

Let's assume you pull someone over for suspected DUI. They exit their car and begin reaching inside their jacket and there is a gun (if everyone can carry), are you assured they are going for their wallet or will they pull that gun and use it on you?

Tell me how knowing this person's background would change this scenario at all? You have a suspected drunk who exited his vehicle without being prompted, and is now reaching in his jacket for an unknown item. Regardless of any firearms laws, any LEO with the common sense of a 5 year old would ASSUME that this person is, indeed, reaching for a weapon, and respond accordingly (go into "felony stop" mode).

I'm not sure about you, but a state-required background check or some firearms possession law would NOT change the way I would handle this situation if I was the responding officer. I am going to treat this person as a threat and demand his compliance with my orders at gunpoint. Period.

I have gone into bars (carry forbidden) where there would be 3-5 guns hit the floor and nobody claiming ownership. Citizens, when unrestrained, will carry everywhere. Many are unqualified to carry (domestic violence, drug history, alcohol abuse, felony past, etc) and allowing everyone to carry means more problems for LEO.

Well there you go. Based on your own experiences, you have very quickly proven that laws designed to keep firearms out of the hands of those who "should not have them", and out of places where they "should not be carried", are completely ineffective.

This is my point exactly. Background checks only apply to the law abiding. Criminals have no need to submit to a background check or abide by restrictions and regulations. They will carry a gun how they want, when they want, and where they want, without regard to how you or anyone else feels about it.

In this mid sized city, on a daily basis, there are about 30 arrests for felon in possession or possession of a stolen gun. So do we have to run full background checks on these people because everyone is allowed to carry? As it is, show me your permit and all is improved. As you suggest, I could be dealing with a mass murderer, knowing him to be armed and would not know his past simply because anyone can carry.

Sorry, but in this country, police officers have no right to demand identification or "papers" of someone that hasn't done something to meet the legal requirements of Probable Cause or Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. In other words, you can't demand that I identify myself just because you don't know whether or not I am a mass murderer. Absent PC or RAS, I am free to take part in whatever legal activity I care to without fear of interruption or unlawful detainment by the police.

But I digress, your personal experiences once again prove my point. You have (+/-) 30 arrests per day for felon in possession, and that is probably only a very small percentage of the actual number of felons who are in possession of firearms in your area. No matter what restrictions or requirements you place on gun ownership, that will never change. Criminals will always obtain firearms and they will always do it without regard for any laws.

We have to disagree on this issue but then you might want to take a Ride Along with an officer of your local PD. A good Friday night, shortly after the 1st or 15th of the month would be a great time to do so. It might change your viewpoint.

Been there, done that. Every officer I know ALWAYS assumes that anyone they have to deal with is armed and capable of being dangerous until their inquiry proves otherwise. Anything less on the officer's part is a death wish. The absence or presence of a CCW endorsement or a restrictive firearms law is irrelevant in how they deal with a person they are confronting in an official capacity.

[oldman45]

OK, so you think everyone should carry, be it legal or not? At this time, a great percentage of unqualified are not carrying due to the legal ramifications. If anyone can carry, then each person encountered will almost require a background check before being released.

As to the traffic stop, an officer cannot see the permit in your pocket and should treat each stop with some suspicion. However, those with permits will, or should, identify themselves and not make any moves that can misconstrued. The same goes for guns in vehicles. I am all for it but do not reach for vehicle papers and let a gun get in the way. Proper training takes much of the suspense away on the part of the officer.

The amount of daily arrests for wrongful carry will triple if just anyone can carry since the criminal or gangbanger will know there is not enough time to check each person carrying.
Ask yourself why the amount of armed persons increases with the lessening of background checks.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by oldman45

OK, so you think everyone should carry, be it legal or not?

No, I never said that. What I believe is that we should punish those who perpetrate unlawful actions with a firearm. If a person cannot be trusted to walk freely in society with all of his/her rights intact, then that person should remain locked up.

At this time, a great percentage of unqualified are not carrying due to the legal ramifications.

Unfortunately, that is simply conjecture on your part. There is no valid statistical data to either prove or disprove this assertion one way or the other. We know for a fact that criminals have ready and immediate access to firearms when they want them. We know for a fact that criminals routinely carry and possess firearms in contradiction to laws and restrictions. We know for a fact that criminals routinely use their unlawfully possessed firearms to perpetrate crimes on society. We've yet to implement or enforce a RESTRICTIVE law that has done anything to curtail that. On the other hand, by loosening restrictive firearms laws and placing more firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens, we HAVE been able to reduce violent crime.

If anyone can carry, then each person encountered will almost require a background check before being released.

That is incorrect. There is no reason to think that the occurrences in which people are detained would INCREASE just because no permit is required to carry. Again, the grounds to detain a person are clear cut; there must be conditions present that meet the legal requirements of PC or RAS in order for a police officer to legally detain a person. The mere presence of a gun, in most states, does NOT meet that requirement.

As to the traffic stop, an officer cannot see the permit in your pocket and should treat each stop with some suspicion. However, those with permits will, or should, identify themselves and not make any moves that can misconstrued.

Here in Missouri, no permit is required to carry a concealed firearm on or about your person in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle. As long as you are at least 21 years of age and lawfully entitled to possess a firearm, then you may carry it loaded and concealed in your vehicle in whatever manner or location you choose. In addition, there we have no "duty to inform" law here. There is no need to arbitrarily disclose the fact that you are carrying.

With that said, common sense would dictate that in a situation where an officer has approached you in a manner that would indicate that he/she believes you have committed a crime (such as with his/her gun drawn), that the citizen not make any "suspicious" moves whether he/she has a gun or other weapon with them or not.

The same goes for guns in vehicles. I am all for it but do not reach for vehicle papers and let a gun get in the way. Proper training takes much of the suspense away on the part of the officer.

And proper training takes much of the apprehension away on the part of the citizen as well.

The amount of daily arrests for wrongful carry will triple if just anyone can carry since the criminal or gangbanger will know there is not enough time to check each person carrying.
Ask yourself why the amount of armed persons increases with the lessening of background checks.

That's hyperbole and completely false. Sounds like something straight off of the Brady website. You will have to cite your source for that bit of information if you want it to be taken seriously.

"Gangbangers" and other criminals are ALREADY exempt from background checks. As I mentioned earlier, they have no need to submit to our laws.

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I am a little surprised that anyone with LE experience would be arguing with cshoff, but I guess it comes from failing to use the imagination to understand exactly what is going on. I have had a reasonable number of official interactions with policemen, most of them involving speed limits set slightly lower than my actual vehicle speed. On almost every occasion, I was armed. However, the subject never came up. Now, I don't know whether each LEO acted appropriately for an approach to a vehicle with an armed driver, or whether they relaxed procedure at some point in the encounter, or whether they were completely oblivious to the possibility, but that's basically their business, not mine. Since I have never experienced and virtually never heard of a policeman unnnecessarily assaulting an innocent driver, I really don't think much about their side of it.
But my point is that these policeman or state troopers in VA, FL, CA, AZ and perhaps others were faced with an armed driver, and somehow managed to survive it without ever seeing a permit. They probably see a LOT of armed drivers without seeing a permit. That piece of paper has nothing to do with anything that counts. Some of them may not know who is and who isn't armed. They stay alive by using their smarts, the knowledge and procedures of those who went before them, and by the grace of God.

I don't think the permit does much, and I think that some (most?) LEOs don't know (or maybe even care) who is armed and who isn't.

[oldman45]

I do not think many people know how tied into the driver's license that a permit is. Many states flag the DL to let officers know the person is carrying.

Yet, I can show the rules in place in many states that says if an officer approaches a permittee, the holder is to notify the officer of the presence of a firearm. In the vehicle, such notification is not required but on a person it can be deadly not giving notification. This is taught in a proper training course.

This is how the wording of the law is in Louisiana and many other states:

Duties of Permittees
The permit shall be retained by the permittee who shall immediately produce it upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who fails to do so shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. Additionally, when any peace officer approaches a permittee in an official manner or with an identified purpose, the permittee shall:

1.Notify the officer that he has a weapon on his person;

2.Submit to a pat down;

3.Allow the officer to temporarily disarm him.

This way, there are no suprizes.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by oldman45

I do not think many people know how tied into the driver's license that a permit is. Many states flag the DL to let officers know the person is carrying.

Yet, I can show the rules in place in many states that says if an officer approaches a permittee, the holder is to notify the officer of the presence of a firearm. In the vehicle, such notification is not required but on a person it can be deadly not giving notification. This is taught in a proper training course.

This is how the wording of the law is in Louisiana and many other states:

Duties of Permittees
The permit shall be retained by the permittee who shall immediately produce it upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who fails to do so shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. Additionally, when any peace officer approaches a permittee in an official manner or with an identified purpose, the permittee shall:

1.Notify the officer that he has a weapon on his person;

2.Submit to a pat down;

3.Allow the officer to temporarily disarm him.

This way, there are no suprizes.

Laws vary from state to state. Here in Missouri, for example, CCW endorsement holders are under no such obligation. A permit to carry a concealed weapon is not an automatic forfeiture of rights.

It is wise to study the laws in any state in which you intend to travel to/through to eliminate any possibility of a "free trip" to jail for something stupid.

[oldman45]

Originally Posted by cshoff

Laws vary from state to state. Here in Missouri, for example, CCW endorsement holders are under no such obligation. A permit to carry a concealed weapon is not an automatic forfeiture of rights.

It is wise to study the laws in any state in which you intend to travel to/through to eliminate any possibility of a "free trip" to jail for something stupid.

OK, we agree on this.

Now go on-line and read the FAQ on the Missouri Highway Patrol Concealed Weapons site. It says "notify the officer you have a concealed weapon" before making any moves.

Granted it may or may not be in your laws but the site by the AG is down and I cannot find a copy of the actual law.

Most people getting a CCW never reads the laws. They fill out the application and the rest of what is required just to get the permit.

We have some instructors down here that only want the money from the students so they do not discuss the laws as they should.

Which brings up another thing. If a person goes to the State Capitol to get his CCW at the LA State Police, the entire thing is processed in less than 3 weeks. If the application is mailed to the State Police, it takes about 3 months to be processed. I do not know why the difference in time. Is it worth the drive to the State Capitol to save 9 weeks in processing time? Not to me but I bet some would do it.

Also, the law here says an applicant must have training. That cost $100-150 and should take eight hours. The law allows for substitution of a Parish permit in lieu of training. A Parish permit is issued by the Sheriff's Department and costs from $25-50 and is issued at the time of application and received on the same day one applies, usually within a half hour. So which would a person want to do is such a case?

I am all for making the requirements and the law on concealed carry more uniform across the nation.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by oldman45

OK, we agree on this.

Now go on-line and read the FAQ on the Missouri Highway Patrol Concealed Weapons site. It says "notify the officer you have a concealed weapon" before making any moves.

Granted it may or may not be in your laws but the site by the AG is down and I cannot find a copy of the actual law.

Most people getting a CCW never reads the laws. They fill out the application and the rest of what is required just to get the permit.

Yes, I am intimately familiar with the Missouri laws being how I average between 12 - 15 hours each month teaching them (depending on how many classes I do).

No, we have no "duty to inform" law in Missouri. People who carry a concealed firearm in Missouri, regardless of where their permit was issued, are required to carry the permit with them at all times they are carrying their concealed firearm, and to display the permit upon the request of a peace officer. Failure to comply is NOT a criminal offense, but may subject the person to a $35.00 fine. As per RSMO 571.121.1:

Duty to carry and display endorsement, penalty for violation--director of revenue immunity from liability, when.

571.121. 1. Any person issued a concealed carry endorsement pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall carry the concealed carry endorsement at all times the person is carrying a concealed firearm and shall display the concealed carry endorsement upon the request of any peace officer. Failure to comply with this subsection shall not be a criminal offense but the concealed carry endorsement holder may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed thirty- five dollars.

We have some instructors down here that only want the money from the students so they do not discuss the laws as they should.

The legal portion of our course takes about 3.5 hours, and that is what it takes to cover just two chapters; Chapter 571 which covers Weapons Offenses and Chapter 563 which covers Defense of Justification. I know some instructors here in Missouri cram it all in in under 2 hours, which I feel is impossible if they are to be covered in a comprehensive manner, but you get what you pay for I suppose.

Which brings up another thing. If a person goes to the State Capitol to get his CCW at the LA State Police, the entire thing is processed in less than 3 weeks. If the application is mailed to the State Police, it takes about 3 months to be processed. I do not know why the difference in time. Is it worth the drive to the State Capitol to save 9 weeks in processing time? Not to me but I bet some would do it.

Also, the law here says an applicant must have training. That cost $100-150 and should take eight hours. The law allows for substitution of a Parish permit in lieu of training. A Parish permit is issued by the Sheriff's Department and costs from $25-50 and is issued at the time of application and received on the same day one applies, usually within a half hour. So which would a person want to do is such a case?

I am all for making the requirements and the law on concealed carry more uniform across the nation.

I'm not for ANY kind of federal interference with State CCW permitting systems. That said, if the various states wanted to get together and "standardize" some aspects of the training, that would be fine with me.

Time for me to get to class!

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Originally Posted by oldman45

I do not think many people know how tied into the driver's license that a permit is. Many states flag the DL to let officers know the person is carrying.

Now, I'm sure that a lot do, although they didn't during most of my adulthood. However, that is an issue only for a permitholder, who has only to follow the law of the state he is in. For the LEO, it should mean almost nothing. There is NO tie-in to the weapon, which could be a threat, unlike the permit. Statistically, I am sure you will find that policeman are injured or killed by non-permitholders at a ratio of at least 1000:1 over injury or murder by permitholders. Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate on them? To say nothing of the numerous contacts with citizens who are not only not a threat, but not carrying a weapon, either.

Yet, I can show the rules in place in many states that says if an officer approaches a permittee, the holder is to notify the officer of the presence of a firearm. In the vehicle, such notification is not required but on a person it can be deadly not giving notification. This is taught in a proper training course.

Well, I know about NC. Where else? Most of the states I drive in, including my own, do not require notification, and I have seen info from at least one trooper in this state that unsolicited notification would sound very suspicious. I agree.

[oldman45]

Originally Posted by Model520Fan

Now, I'm sure that a lot do, although they didn't during most of my adulthood. However, that is an issue only for a permitholder, who has only to follow the law of the state he is in. For the LEO, it should mean almost nothing. There is NO tie-in to the weapon, which could be a threat, unlike the permit. Statistically, I am sure you will find that policeman are injured or killed by non-permitholders at a ratio of at least 1000:1 over injury or murder by permitholders. Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate on them? To say nothing of the numerous contacts with citizens who are not only not a threat, but not carrying a weapon, either.Well, I know about NC. Where else? Most of the states I drive in, including my own, do not require notification, and I have seen info from at least one trooper in this state that unsolicited notification would sound very suspicious. I agree.

There are many states requiring notification of being armed.

LEO can see a weapon but not see that permit in a pocket. A hidden weapon coming into view causes a lot of adrenlin rush.

I was in my local area, driving my POV, wearing plain clothes when I was stopped by a rookie officer for a traffic offense. When he came to my window, I advised him of having my Glock on my side and my credentials in my back pocket. He was very professional and pulled his sidearm, never pointing it and asking me to step out of the car. I did as instructed and he removed the gun from my holster with his left hand while holding his sidearm with his right. Once the weapon was out of my reach, he unloaded it and placed it on the trunk of my car. I showed him my credentials and he placed my gun back under the seat of my car, still unloaded. The officer did not know me and I did not know him. We later ran across each other when I was teaching a class. He thanked me for doing as the law states and since it was his first confrontation with a concealed weapon by himself, he said he would have handled it much differently if he had noticed the weapon as I was getting out of the car.

An officer never wants to be shocked by the sudden discovery of a gun. I can say how calm and professional I would be when a gun is added to a traffic stop. Truthfully, an officer goes into an aggressive mode because we know that a perp can pull a gun as fast, if not faster, than the officer. Many times, the officer will take the armed invididual to the ground. While I have never done this, I have seen and heard of many doing so during routine traffic stops. Advice up front can prevent many bad things and it does not hurt anything. I do not mean jump out of the car screaming, "I have a gun" either.

If someone has them, please post the number of officers that shoot a civilian by mistake. It is much greater than the amount of officers that were shot by civilians.

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Originally Posted by oldman45

If someone has them, please post the number of officers that shoot a civilian by mistake. It is much greater than the amount of officers that were shot by civilians.

Sounds like a good reason to stay away from policemen in general and Louisiana in specific. I am also aware of a case that made it to some appellate court or another, where some incompetent cop seemed to have trouble removing a compliant citizen's REVOLVER from him without discharging it.

Why do you think you have a right to disarm a law-abiding citizen just because you want to talk to him? You've got a gun right on your hip, unhindered by clothing. If you've got any sense, his hands are where you can see them. In plenty of states, police have managed for years to converse with gun-toters without developing terminal ulcers. If you're that nervous, find a different line of work.

If you've got PC, by all means do what you need to do. But for a simple encounter, be courteous but ready. Even police in the People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts seem to be able to handle that. If I represented a state that couldn't, I wouldn't advertise it.

[blujax01]

In Ohio you are required to declare if you are armed. And your CCW is tied to your driver's license. Regardless of what-it-should-be-in-a-perfect-second-amendment-world, the reality is that LEO's are in danger every minute of every day. If I am pulled over and do not declare, armed or not, when the LEO runs my creds and finds out I have a CCW he will assume an aggressive stance. It is understandable and perfectly human. Cops aren't lawyers or scholars. They just want to return home safe each night.

So do I.

With that in mind, I declare whether I am armed or not.

Immediately and without fail.

Always.

Period.

[scooter123]

Personally, I am NOT a proponent of permitless concealed carry. The fact is that the somewhat stringent requirements to obtain a permit in Michigan result in those residents being treated by the police in Michigan as being citizens deserving a higher level of Respect. BTW, not being registered to Vote is one reason for not being granted a CPL. Fact is those requirements do a pretty good job of weeding out the idiots, it's just a shame that Drivers licensing doesn't have similar mandates for responsible behavior. BTW, it's the complete and total idiocy and disregard for the Law by drivers that has led to my conclusion that permittless carry would be a really really BAD idea.

Michigan has a provision for new residents possessing a concealed carry permit for a state that shares reciprocity with Michigan to carry using their old states permit until a Michigan CPL is granted. However, Michigan does NOT recognize non resident permits, so anyone carrying in Michigan must have a permit from their state of residence. Sadly, this does mean that Michigan will recognize permits to carry from states such as New York or California and I expect that Satan will have taken up Ice Dancing before either of those states will recognize a Michigan CPL.

[27145]

Originally Posted by oldman45

There are many states requiring notification of being armed.

LEO can see a weapon but not see that permit in a pocket. A hidden weapon coming into view causes a lot of adrenlin rush.

I was in my local area, driving my POV, wearing plain clothes when I was stopped by a rookie officer for a traffic offense. When he came to my window, I advised him of having my Glock on my side and my credentials in my back pocket. He was very professional and pulled his sidearm, never pointing it and asking me to step out of the car. I did as instructed and he removed the gun from my holster with his left hand while holding his sidearm with his right. Once the weapon was out of my reach, he unloaded it and placed it on the trunk of my car. I showed him my credentials and he placed my gun back under the seat of my car, still unloaded. The officer did not know me and I did not know him. We later ran across each other when I was teaching a class. He thanked me for doing as the law states and since it was his first confrontation with a concealed weapon by himself, he said he would have handled it much differently if he had noticed the weapon as I was getting out of the car.

An officer never wants to be shocked by the sudden discovery of a gun. I can say how calm and professional I would be when a gun is added to a traffic stop. Truthfully, an officer goes into an aggressive mode because we know that a perp can pull a gun as fast, if not faster, than the officer. Many times, the officer will take the armed invididual to the ground. While I have never done this, I have seen and heard of many doing so during routine traffic stops. Advice up front can prevent many bad things and it does not hurt anything. I do not mean jump out of the car screaming, "I have a gun" either.

If someone has them, please post the number of officers that shoot a civilian by mistake. It is much greater than the amount of officers that were shot by civilians.

I don't want to flame Cops, but i have to speak honestly. To me, if someone informs me they are a ccw holder, I would very much be at ease. To me it is just under pulling an off duty cop with a gun and shield. I wouldnt rip him out of the car and disarm them. i wouldnt waste my time by unloading his weapon. To me a ccw holder has been vetted and is just about confirmed to be a good guy.The only time I ever made a gun grab was when it was a perp robbing people or dealing drugs.
I was once pulled over in Wyoming on my motorcycle, I was alone and without any other riders. It was May, night time and all of a sudden it down poured. I was freezing and hit the throttle trying to get a motel room 30 miles away. I was doing over 95mph (yes of course I was wrong, but I wanted out of the weather) and was pulled over by a Wyoming State Trooper, rightfully so. I pulled over, shut the bike, set it on the side stand and left my hands on the handlerbars and removed my helmet.
He approached me, I very very politely informed him that I was a retired NY PO, that I had my id in my right front pocket and a gun in my waist band on my front right side. I asked him if I could dismount the bike and asked if he wanted to remove my weapon, then show him my id. He asked me to dismount and reach into my right front pocket for the id. He was then satisfied and invited me and my chattering teeth into his car so that he could issue me a warning. He never disarmed me.
This Trooper was a sharp squared away guy, who was no push over. He was just damn good at his job. He remarked that he was surprised that I didn't "shove my badge in his face". I explained to him that I didnt want to be discourteous, so I didn't do that, as I know this is not protocol outside NY.
I told the Trooper that in NYC, it is customary for a pulled over NYC Cop to show the on duty Cop his shield and id, not even offering up a license and registration. I told him that this was done not out of arrogance, but to show that the Cop just stopped a good guy, not a perp who was waiting to shoot him.
To me a ccw is almost as good as a shield and id, barring any overt acts of aggression. After being a Cop for a while,you generally can tell who is a problem and who isnt. I wouldnt toss someone because they informed me of a ccw, the perp who is getting ready to shoot you without ever telling you he is armed is the problem.

[exSun]

I thought I had a similar problem moving from CO to WY a few years back. The CO permit required a change of address within 30 days, and it couldn't be to an out-of-state address. The WY permit required a 6 month residency - so everyone, including the desk officer at the sheriff's department, told me. Then I looked up the statute - the 6 month residency was required except if you held a valid permit from another state. After getting the desk officer to actually look at the statute, I had no problems processing my WY permit in plenty of time to surrender the CO permit. Maybe your statutes have the same exception?

[R1_Demon]

Just be careful and check the state's requirement on their "non-resident" permits. Reason I say that is because Utah just changed their non-resident requirements so that you have to have a CCW permit in your resident state for them to issue you their non-resident permit. Well, technically, if you move from your state and that causes your resident CCW permit to be invalid, then that means your UT non-resident permit would now invalid as well, so it wouldn't do you a bit of good to file for a UT non-resident permit. UT just changed this requirement in May of 2011.

Sometimes you have to watch the "fine print".

[oldman45]

Here is the wording from LA law about notifying. I fully agree with this as it can prevent a lot of problems for both the citizen and the officer.

Duties of Permittees
The permit shall be retained by the permittee who shall immediately produce it upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who fails to do so shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. Additionally, when any peace officer approaches a permittee in an official manner or with an identified purpose, the permittee shall:

1.Notify the officer that he has a weapon on his person;

2.Submit to a pat down;

3.Allow the officer to temporarily disarm him.