New bill for ccw

Register to hide this ad
There’s a new bill being offered now it allows us to ccw carry in every state if we have a ccw permit from our home state.

Bill, this isn't new. It's H.R.38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which passed the House in December of last year.

It's discussed at (often mind numbing) length here and here in this forum.

The bill is currently languishing in the Senate's Judiciary Committee. There are no plans to bring it to a vote anytime soon.
 
Nice summation, especially the mind numbing comment. :D


Bill, this isn't new. It's H.R.38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which passed the House in December of last year.

It's discussed at (often mind numbing) length here and here in this forum.

The bill is currently languishing in the Senate's Judiciary Committee. There are no plans to bring it to a vote anytime soon.
 
Hi BigBill.

It's a diversion. I don't like any form of reciprocity. Getting a CCW outta CA is capricious. Hence, CA ain't gonna have to extend reciprocity.

I want a national CCW law. It'd be very simple. The law ought to written in most basic English without weasel clauses. So, let's assume John & Jane Smith and their kids like in Omaha. They have a national CCW. They decided to road trip to CA. John & Jane pack their national CCW approved handguns, which CA does not approve. John & Jane are pulled over in Baker, CA by CA Firearm Inspection Police. Both are in possession of firearms that Californians cannot possess under CA's Law of de Facto No Gun is a Legal Gun. John and Jane whip out their National CCW Permits which indicates that they can carry any gun they wish anywhere the American flag flies while their looking at the American flay flying atop the CA Firearm Inspection Police building. Since federal law is superior to state law, John & Jane and their CA illegal but federally legal handguns and their 15-round standard capacity mags are on their way.

Reciprocity in limited. A national CCW law is plenary and superior to state law.
 
SA1911: Because it'd be really super great if you set a precedent for federal carry law. I mean, I'd like it, because I already live in the second most awful state in the country, gun-wise, but the rest of you might not when you get a taste of NY every few years.

Er'ry body else: I'd really like it if my CCW permit was recognized in my whole state.
 
It took a full twelve years for HR 218 to get passed, allowing off duty and retired LEOs to carry nationwide. The howl then was that the federal government was infringing on states rights.
 
If it ever passes, who is going to be first to try it out in California and the blue states in the Northeast????
 
Hi BigBill.

It's a diversion. I don't like any form of reciprocity. Getting a CCW outta CA is capricious. Hence, CA ain't gonna have to extend reciprocity.

I want a national CCW law. It'd be very simple. The law ought to written in most basic English without weasel clauses. So, let's assume John & Jane Smith and their kids like in Omaha. They have a national CCW. They decided to road trip to CA. John & Jane pack their national CCW approved handguns, which CA does not approve. John & Jane are pulled over in Baker, CA by CA Firearm Inspection Police. Both are in possession of firearms that Californians cannot possess under CA's Law of de Facto No Gun is a Legal Gun. John and Jane whip out their National CCW Permits which indicates that they can carry any gun they wish anywhere the American flag flies while their looking at the American flay flying atop the CA Firearm Inspection Police building. Since federal law is superior to state law, John & Jane and their CA illegal but federally legal handguns and their 15-round standard capacity mags are on their way.

Reciprocity in limited. A national CCW law is plenary and superior to state law.

While I do not live in the US, and have yet to visit, I can see a flaw in your proposal based on information in the news I have read.

While logically Federal laws should overrule State laws, it does not appear to actually happen. When States wish to act contrary to Federal laws they seem to do so. Regularly and with some impunity (as it appears from here).

States who have liberalised their cannabis laws and Sanctuary Cities (and possibly States) are evidence of this.
 
It took a full twelve years for HR 218 to get passed, allowing off duty and retired LEOs to carry nationwide. The howl then was that the federal government was infringing on states rights.

Correction: The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act passed Congress and was enacted into law in 2004. Then the politicos set about the course leading up to HR218, effectively restricting LEOSA significantly.

Originally, under LEOSA, any active or retired peace officer of any jurisdiction within the US was authorized to carry anywhere in the US with very limited restriction. Along came HR218, and many restrictions came into being subject to state and local interpretations.

Here in Colorado, as a retired cop, I can obtain the HR218-compliant concealed carry permit, but it requires qualifications annually with each handgun type, and my former agency must authorize each type of handgun specified on my permit. But as a civilian I can hold a 5-year permit (honored in over 30 states) with no restrictions on handgun type, and no annual qualification requirement. So I just stay well clear of NY, NJ, California, Taxachussetts, and various other Peoples Republiks that choose to ignore the US Constitution's clear requirement for all states to honor the official acts of all other states (such as drivers licenses, marriage licenses, child custody orders, civil judgements, and <maybe one day soon> concealed carry permits).

By the way, the howling about states' rights has not lessened a bit since HR218 passed. If anything, the restrictive states are even more restrictive. The only thing that will usually keep an out-of-state retired cop out of jail will be professional courtesy rendered by individual officers, and then only when there has been no incident likely to generate publicity. When at home, or when away from home, I always try to maintain a very low profile and avoid any attention.
 
That's an incorrect summary of LEOSA/HR218. The only federal actions with regard to LEOSA/HR218, occurring in 2010 and 2014, were to expand the number of officers eligible, along with reducing the years of service required. The impediments to LEOSA for the individual officer are always imposed by the issuing agency, the qualifying agency, if different, and the state. Lots of other people around here are more expert on the minutia of LEOSA/HR218 (ispcapt is one who comes to mind), but my understanding of the various issues, backed up by members of this forum much more knowledgeable about those details, is that the only restriction on LEOSA that can be reliably enforced by a state is the magazine restriction and restrictions on carrying in various government buildings and at some "gun free zones," unless the carrier is also otherwise compliant with state law . . .

I know this is Wikipedia, but it is succinct and accurate . . .

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia

Correction: The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act passed Congress and was enacted into law in 2004. Then the politicos set about the course leading up to HR218, effectively restricting LEOSA significantly.

Originally, under LEOSA, any active or retired peace officer of any jurisdiction within the US was authorized to carry anywhere in the US with very limited restriction. Along came HR218, and many restrictions came into being subject to state and local interpretations.

Here in Colorado, as a retired cop, I can obtain the HR218-compliant concealed carry permit, but it requires qualifications annually with each handgun type, and my former agency must authorize each type of handgun specified on my permit. But as a civilian I can hold a 5-year permit (honored in over 30 states) with no restrictions on handgun type, and no annual qualification requirement. So I just stay well clear of NY, NJ, California, Taxachussetts, and various other Peoples Republiks that choose to ignore the US Constitution's clear requirement for all states to honor the official acts of all other states (such as drivers licenses, marriage licenses, child custody orders, civil judgements, and <maybe one day soon> concealed carry permits).

By the way, the howling about states' rights has not lessened a bit since HR218 passed. If anything, the restrictive states are even more restrictive. The only thing that will usually keep an out-of-state retired cop out of jail will be professional courtesy rendered by individual officers, and then only when there has been no incident likely to generate publicity. When at home, or when away from home, I always try to maintain a very low profile and avoid any attention.
 
LEOSA was passed in 2004 as HR218 and yearly quals have always been required and states have always had some leeway in administering it. My old Dept. could care less what gun or guns I qualify with but they do make retirees sign a release so we can't see them.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top