Reciprocity introduced

[Onomea]

Reading the bill in Ladder13's link, "Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act," it says:

If you have a CHL from your state of residence, and have it on you along with another valid photo ID, then you can carry in other states and they can't give you a hard time about it.

I don't think it is referring to permit-less carry or what we normally call "constitutional carry."

...Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, or base....

 

[Bald1]

Onomea, finally someone making sense. Someone actually taking the time to read it. And if there are permitless states that do not issue permits, I think these are the states that will gladly begin issuing permits for out of state carry. Many states already do for the sole purpose of reciprocity.

 

[ladder13]

Onomea, finally someone making sense. Someone actually taking the time to read it. And if there are permitless states that do not issue permits, I think these are the states that will gladly begin issuing permits for out of state carry. Many states already do for the sole purpose of reciprocity.

In fairness, the GOA article I read was not clear on CC states or the Bill. Mea culpa.

 

[Onomea]

Mike, thanks for posting a link to the original bill.

It seems to me that to have a chance to achieve success, there will need to be some consensus on minimum training or experience requirements. (The same argument made above about why a "no permit required other than the existence of the 2A" bill would not succeed.)

I am not a 2A absolutist in that I think training and basic skills requirements (or experience) are reasonable requirements for concealed or open carry in public. While I realize many, probably most of us, are not of this view, I think most CHL permit holders in states requiring training were willing to go through application, fingerprinting, training, etc., in order to exercise their rights anyway. It's a tradeoff most people will accept.

Still seems a long shot — nationwide reciprocity — to me, but just maybe. Someday...

 

[dockmurgw]

I'm no lawyer, but the way I read this, a person would not need to have a CC permit. It says OR is entitled to carry in their home state, it does not say AND is required. So...I am entitled to carry in my home state, and since permits have never been required here, I do not have one. As I read this, I would be entitled to carry anywhere without a permit since its legal for me to carry in my home state.

"and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,"

 

[Onomea]

Hmm. Maybe you are right, Doc...

Perhaps one of our lawyer members will parse it for us...

 

[dockmurgw]

Hmm. Maybe you are right, Doc...

Perhaps one of our lawyer members will parse it for us...

Pro Bono, I hope!

 

[Bald1]

I'm no lawyer, but the way I read this, a person would not need to have a CC permit. It says OR is entitled to carry in their home state, it does not say AND is required. So...I am entitled to carry in my home state, and since permits have never been required here, I do not have one. As I read this, I would be entitled to carry anywhere without a permit since its legal for me to carry in my home state.

"and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,"

I think a driver license from a constitutional carry state that does not issue permits is the thinking. But again if this becomes law the states not issuing permits would gladly issue a permit at some cost to you. The states that allow CC without a permit are not the ones we need to worry about.

 

[Onomea]

Well, looks like I read it wrong, and that dockmurgw and others are right:

I've been hoping one of our legal beagles would drop by and explain to us whether or not the bill requires states (e.g., CA) that do not recognize the right of a person from a state (e.g., AZ) that recognizes permitless carry to carry in their state (CA in this example.)

No legal beagles have come by to enlighten us so today I asked ChatGPT today, an AI app.

Here is the result











My view, as I think I wrote above, is that setting minimum requirements for permits, and requiring states to recognize one another's permits, would be a more successful strategy to achieve the goal of CCW reciprocity.

 

[dockmurgw]

I've been hoping one of our legal beagles would drop by

They might have, if I didn't mention Pro Bono

 

[BC38]

Well, looks like I read it wrong, and that dockmurgw and others are right:

I've been hoping one of our legal beagles would drop by and explain to us whether or not the bill requires states (e.g., CA) that do not recognize the right of a person from a state (e.g., AZ) that recognizes permitless carry to carry in their state (CA in this example.)

No legal beagles have come by to enlighten us so today I asked ChatGPT today, an AI app.

Here is the result











My view, as I think I wrote above, is that setting minimum requirements for permits, and requiring states to recognize one another's permits, would be a more successful strategy to achieve the goal of CCW reciprocity.

And unfortunately, this is why national CC Reciprocity is a pipe dream.
There are too many places like NY and CA that will never, ever allow it to happen.

 

[Bald1]

Why do you think 2 states could hold up the passage of this. One party has the big 3. If it doesn’t get passed, it’s not because of NY and CA. Why do people want to give these communist more power than they have.

 

[BC38]

Why do you think 2 states could hold up the passage of this. One party has the big 3. If it doesn’t get passed, it’s not because of NY and CA. Why do people want to give these communist more power than they have.

Please re-read what I said.

I said there are TOO MANY places - like CA and NY - I just gave those as two examples.

IL, WA, OR, MA, NJ and a whole slew of other states refuse to honor CC Permits from most other states.

There are probably at least as many states that would oppose reciprocity as there are states that would support it. Maybe even more who would oppose it.

Unless you can get a solid majority of states to support it, any national reciprocity bill is going to be DOA. It will never even get to a vote in either house, much less make it to the President's desk.

I wish that weren't the case, because I am 100% FOR the idea. But, unfortunately, I don't see it ever happening. Forgive me for being a pragmatist.

 

[dockmurgw]

Please re-read what I said.

I said there are TOO MANY places - like CA and NY - I just gave those as two examples.

IL, WA, OR, MA, NJ and a whole slew of other states refuse to honor CC Permits from most other states.

There are probably at least as many states that would oppose reciprocity as there are states that would support it. Maybe even more who would oppose it.

Unless you can get a solid majority of states to support it, any national reciprocity bill is going to be DOA. It will never even get to a vote in either house, much less make it to the President's desk.

I wish that weren't the case, because I am 100% FOR the idea. But, unfortunately, I don't see it ever happening. Forgive me for being a pragmatist.

You are more than likely right, but then again...these same states, try as they may, have been unable to stop a plethora of things with the new sheriff in town. So, to quote a couple old-time sayings that the younger generation doesn't understand - Strike While the Iron Is Hot, Make Hay While the Sun Shines. If its ever going to happen, it has to be now...before the mid-terms.

 

[ladder13]

The window is closing rapidly with recent events.

 

[BC38]

You are more than likely right, but then again...these same states, try as they may, have been unable to stop a plethora of things with the new sheriff in town. So, to quote a couple old-time sayings that the younger generation doesn't understand - Strike While the Iron Is Hot, Make Hay While the Sun Shines. If its ever going to happen, it has to be now...before the mid-terms.

Agreed, the chances are better now than they've been, but they are still vanishingly small.
Look at what NY did when Bruen was settled. They started issuing carry permits, then immediately declared most public spaces "sensitive" no-carry zones.
AFAIK, that hasn't been reversed - it still stands.

 

[dockmurgw]

Look at what NY did when Bruen was settled.

Yup...good point. Where carrying is difficult now, it will always be difficult. But I would guess that reciprocity would benefit at least 1/2 the country, so that would be a win. Anyway, I agree it's a loooong shot at best.

 

[Bald1]

Please re-read what I said.

I said there are TOO MANY places - like CA and NY - I just gave those as two examples.

IL, WA, OR, MA, NJ and a whole slew of other states refuse to honor CC Permits from most other states.

There are probably at least as many states that would oppose reciprocity as there are states that would support it. Maybe even more who would oppose it.

Unless you can get a solid majority of states to support it, any national reciprocity bill is going to be DOA. It will never even get to a vote in either house, much less make it to the President's desk.

I wish that weren't the case, because I am 100% FOR the idea. But, unfortunately, I don't see it ever happening. Forgive me for being a pragmatist.

All the states you mention would be in violation of a Federal Law. Would it end up in court? Yeah probably. And those states would loose. This defeatist mentality empowers them. I’m tired of it.

 

[ladder13]

Positive posts aren’t received very well on this forum.

 

[steelslaver]

While I am for national reciprocation, I agree that if it were to pass the reality is that the anti states will simply load up on restrictions, which the courts have allowed even after Bruen. More restrictions on types of guns and ammo, lower capacities, add to number the "sensitive areas" and enlarge the existing ones.