Justifying Concealed Carry Reciprocity

[ContinentalOp]

Below is the language of the passed House Act. Please not that it deals with magazine capacity and type of ammo. I hope this sets some of your minds at ease because the mag capacity and type of ammo that you carry cannot be regulated by the State visited, such as when I, a PA resident visits NJ.

‘‘(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.

Now “any” means ANY.

You're assuming the language will remain the same by the time it gets to a final vote, assuming they have the votes to pass it. Even if it passes and gets signed into law by the President, there will doubtless be numerous legal challenges that would likely delay implementation.

I'm on the fence. I'm cautiously supportive of it, as it stands now, but I will reserve judgement until the final version comes out.

While I don't expect to see it happen in my lifetime, I still think the correct approach is constitutional carry in all 50 states and territories.

 

[ContinentalOp]

I don't understand how you can follow a states laws and at the same time ignore them.

In one statement you said that the carrier follows the laws of the state he's in and in another statement you said that the carrier doesn't have to. You see what I'm talking about here? I quoted those two posts you made.

Don't take this as an argument m I'm trying to understand what you mean

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

As the proposed law stands now, one would have to follow the CCW laws of the state they're visiting except the laws regarding magazine capacity and ammunition type, if I'm reading the bill correctly. All other laws and restrictions would still apply, such as prohibited areas.

 

[richardw]

I don't understand how you can follow a states laws and at the same time ignore them.

In one statement you said that the carrier follows the laws of the state he's in and in another statement you said that the carrier doesn't have to. You see what I'm talking about here? I quoted those two posts you made.

Don't take this as an argument m I'm trying to understand what you mean

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I think you have misinterpreted what I wrote, or maybe I was not specific enough. The federal legalization states that you must follow the CCW laws of the state you carry in, except that you cannot be denied the right to carry or limited in the magazine capacity or the type of ammunition you chose to carry.

You do have to obey the other aspects of their law. For example, You nave to obey their law about where you can carry and the duty to inform, the use of alchoholic beverages, etc. Thatnis true in the state that issued your license too.

I hope this is clearer than what I wrote before.

 

[richardw]

As the proposed law stands now, one would have to follow the CCW laws of the state they're visiting except the laws regarding magazine capacity and ammunition type, if I'm reading the bill correctly. All other laws and restrictions would still apply, such as prohibited areas.

Exactly! Clear and concise. Thanks.

 

[Arik]

As the proposed law stands now, one would have to follow the CCW laws of the state they're visiting except the laws regarding magazine capacity and ammunition type, if I'm reading the bill correctly. All other laws and restrictions would still apply, such as prohibited areas.

Exactly! Clear and concise. Thanks.

Ok now that makes more sense!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Also I have reviewed the CCW permit requirements of all fifty states. The laws are quite similar except for the justification to carry. The Legislation addresses that by making my license good in any state even if that state would never issue me a permit.

Some states require mandatory training and testing for a carry permit and some do not. The notion that permit requirements are similar except for the justification to carry isn't accurate.

When the Feds try to 'force' states that are not reciprocity friendly to allow people from out of state to carry, among the first arguments will be that untrained and unqualified people are a danger to the safety of their citizenry. Then will be the argument for federal standards.

As the proposed law stands now, one would have to follow the CCW laws of the state they're visiting except the laws regarding magazine capacity and ammunition type, if I'm reading the bill correctly. All other laws and restrictions would still apply, such as prohibited areas.

The idea that two people can be next to each other with the same magazine, but one is breaking the law and the other is not... that's never going to wash. Another federal standard in the making.

 

[sigp220.45]

I’m surprised LEOSA doesn’t get cited more in this. When it was being pushed, one of the arguments was that it would pave the way for concealed carry reciprocity.

Despite some similar concerns, it seems to be working pretty well. I haven’t heard any horror stories about vacationing Kansas cops being railroaded in New Jersey or New York for carrying a gun.

I don’t plan to visit either place, but if I did I would carry a gun. Even though I think there is a workaround in LEOSA now regarding mags and ammo I’d probably just carry my LW Commander with ball ammo. Beats being unarmed.

That said, I think it is a moot point. If it takes 60 votes to get it out of committee, it ain’t happening.

 

[oneounceload]

Some states require mandatory training and testing for a carry permit and some do not. The notion that permit requirements are similar except for the justification to carry isn't accurate.

When the Feds try to 'force' states that are not reciprocity friendly to allow people from out of state to carry, among the first arguments will be that untrained and unqualified people are a danger to the safety of their citizenry. Then will be the argument for federal standards.


The idea that two people can be next to each other with the same magazine, but one is breaking the law and the other is not... absurd. That's never going to wash. Another federal standard in the making.

This national reciprocity scheme is as short-sighted as it is wrongheaded.

And that is how the Feds get involved and then take over; get the wrong administration in and then requirements, restrictions, etc., will be way overdone.

 

[WR Moore]

If the bill gets passed with the magazine/ammo language as stated, be prepared for arrests for violation of restrictive state laws and appeals thereof to determine exactly what that language means. Unless one of those elected lawyers decides to inject some clarity into the law as written.

One of the lessons I took from Constitutional Law was: "Don't be a test case." It's time/money consuming and if you end up doing time while the matters get adjudicated (or after you lose), that's part of the costs. Unless, of course, you want your name on a SCOTUS decision. I don't ever expect to pass through NJ again, but if I do (post reciprocity) it would likely be with downsized mags and Hornady Critical Duty (ruled not a hollow point by NJ).

It's a step in the right direction, but there's gonna be a whole lot of wrangling over exactly what some of that stuff means. At street level, the action (in some states/gulags) is most likely to be arrest, let the prosecutor/judge sort it out. In the Gerald Ung case in Philadelphia, despite his valid VA permit and reciprocity, he was charged with unlawful carry and other assorted charges. (The assault was captured on a Fox street cam and clearly demonstrated the assault.) The carry charge was thrown out at arraignment. Off topic, but that whole mess was another proof that "a good shoot is a good shoot" can be a myth. He was acquitted but it's unknown if he's returned to law school, might not be able to afford it, in the aftermath.

 

[snuffy51]

I guess it comes down to the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for", it might just bite you. Ain't nobody gonna' like everything. I just don't want to lose any part of what already have. Besides, what country is this New Jersey and California in??

 

[LostintheOzone]

The problem with federal anything is once you get a bill passed, like NFA, GCA or Brady it will never be changed. It may seem like a good idea at the time but 25 years down the road it's still there and the fed has hired 900 employees to make sure it works. Except it never works.

A good example is Brady and NICS. I went to pick up a pistol a few days ago. I have a CPL and carry. My dealer ran the NICS and delayed me. He said because WA doesn't have a photo ID on our CPL's it won't work for an exclusion to a NICS check. What? They say it does on their website but he says no. That's an ATF determination, not state. I was standing right there legally wearing a SIG and was delayed because the FBI can't keep up. It took 3 days for a proceed. One more day and I would have got it by default.

That's how federal regulations work. The states are going to hammer HB-38 in court if it passes. If it goes to the SC they will use 10A to destroy it, as they should.

The NRA wants to fix NICS with HB 38. It can't be fixed no matter how much money you throw at it and there is no such thing as Nat'l reciprocity even if congress says there is. States will continue to do as they please. The lower courts will make that perfectly clear just as they did with AR's.

It's a fools mission.

 

[lrrifleman]

Hi guys, I need to wade in. I live in NJ, and I am not in a position to leave it, yet. I have 3 non-resident permits: Utah (required class on legal use of deadly force), Arizona (certification of completion of safety training), and New Hampshire (nothing really, other than my $100). I am being assured by the US Law Shield lawyer for NJ that my non-resident permits WILL be honored under the current proposed bill.

Based on his seminars, the emphasis is currently not to carry hollow points and not to carry loaded magazines. The last thing this disabled shooter needs is to be a test case, and I really don't want to find myself in jail. If I elected to carry a semi-auto, I would want a 1911 stoked with the old WW 185gr FMJSWC round, if I could find any (its been discontinued for a while, and no one makes a 45 185gr FMJSWC bullet that I have found). Until a successful test case works it's way through the courts, I would probably opt to carry a revolver stoked with 158gr SWCs.

The US Law Shield lawyer is comfortable with the bill that passed the House, and he feels that the Democrats may have made passage easier by attaching the "fix NICS" provisions, since it involves funding, it only requires a simple majority vote to pass in the Senate, not 60 votes. My fear is that NJ stops issuing permits to get around honoring out-of-state permits, but even that is in defiance of a US Supreme Court ruling.

 

[steelslaver]

While I believe I should be able to carry in any state of the nation, anyone who thinks it will end with the passage of the bill and that the application of it by various state attorneys will be uniform and strictly adhere to the wording of the law needs to buy one of my nice bridges.
plus, there are future Presidents, their executive orders and the Attorney General they appoint. Once the feds get their hands on something its only the beginning of their control over the issue, never the end.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Since when did Jersey become part of the Union? I thought like CA they were their own separate country.

 

[lrrifleman]

Papers! Ve hav vays of making you talk!

Seriously, I don't know how I feel about the current version of HR38. I would love to carry here, especially since our Governor-elect wants to make the state a sanctuary state. In all honesty, it seems as though career criminals have a greater degree of representation in the State House than the average taxpayer.

In many respects, the best source of information on how the current version of HR38 will impact NJ is the US Law Shield lawyer, who is probably the pre-eminent source of gun law in the state. As a US Law Shield lawyer, he won't get rich off of clients under the Law Shield arrangement, so I don't see him misleading gun owners here.

Ultimately, only time will tell what will really happen here.

 

[johngalt]

I suppose it is me but you are not making sense to me. If The law passes I can go to NJ and carry my gun anywhere NJ law permits it’s CCW permit holders to carry their guns. Without the law I cannot take my gun into NJ without great risk.

The legislation does not give the federal government any control over issuing licenses. That control rests with the individual states. The legislation simply forces the all states to recognize my PA license to carry firearms. I do not see a downside to that.

If your concerns were well founded the NRA would not only not be supporting passage it would be opposing it.

You keep referring to that 'the law' as it is CURRENTLY written. As soon as 'the law' establishes that Federal jurisdiction supersedes the States, the law can, and will, be changed to force lowest common denominator training standards and issue criteria on all the States.

The downside is we all become like NJ, and that risk is real.

The NRA is hardly the ultimate defender of gun rights. They have a long history of compromising. Examples:
The Gun Control Acts of 1934, 1938, 1968, NICS, and tried to stop Heller.

 

[johngalt]

The idea that two people can be next to each other with the same magazine, but one is breaking the law and the other is not... that's never going to wash. Another federal standard in the making.

Exactly. One of the constituitional principles is 'equal protection under the law'. Laws must be applied equally to everyone.

Also, there is absolutely no way that one State's law can be allowed to supersede anothers. Once you establish it can, imagine the Pandora's Box you just opened.

It is ridiculous to expect the police to know all 50 states magazine and ammo laws, some don't even know their own. It will become another point supporting federally controlled uniform regulations.

 

[jrclen]

Once the feds get their hands on something its only the beginning of their control over the issue, never the end.

I don't understand this. Don't the feds already have their hands on our right to keep and bear arms? Will not passing this law somehow keep them from trying to pass more gun control in the future?

 

[richardw]

The House has acted to expand our gun rights not to contract them. If the Senate can manage to get its or the House Bill through the Senate that expansion of our rights will be come law. I don’t see the logic of opposing an expansion of our gun rights because of fear that the people that did it are suddenly going to decrease this rights in the future. I would point out that the anti 2A folks have not made much progress over the last decade I spit of all the negative publicity caused by mass shootings. In fact the number of citizens that approve of gun ownership has been increasing ever year. Worry about the potential bad effect of a goof effect is a bit odd.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Some states require mandatory training and testing for a carry permit and some do not. The notion that permit requirements are similar except for the justification to carry isn't accurate.

When the Feds try to 'force' states that are not reciprocity friendly to allow people from out of state to carry, among the first arguments will be that untrained and unqualified people are a danger to the safety of their citizenry. Then will be the argument for federal standards.

The idea that two people can be next to each other with the same magazine, but one is breaking the law and the other is not... that's never going to wash. Another federal standard in the making.

If HR-38 passes the pressure will be on for a federal standard. Once the states realize that they're under an obligation by federal law to allow permitted concealed carry on any permit they will introduce more legislation in congress for a federal carry standard. Training, magazine capacity and proficiency qualifications will all be fair game in any federal standard.

This is one of the reasons the NRA has endorsed HR-38. They stand to gain considerably if there is a federal law requiring a training standard. There is no down side for the NRA here with HR-38. The tax payer gets to foot the bill, the federal bureaucracy keeps growing and the NRA becomes a guiding light for the millions of folks who are new to concealed carry. The NRA really does need a new image these days to stay relevant and this is their meal ticket.

So if anyone here believes we need a federal concealed carry standard with magazine restrictions, NRA sanctioned training and proficiency qualifications this is your bill. I wouldn't even rule out having to re-qualify every five years when the feds get it all hammered out.

I guess a lot of people these days believe that federal standards like NFA, GCA and Brady are a good thing. I'm not sure how we ever survived without them.