Reciprocity - There is hope

[kraigwy]

If we do our job.

Sen Thume (SD) & others attempted to get an amendment in the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill that would allow for reciprocity for CC permitees to carry in any state that allows CC permits.

The vote was 58-39 or two votes short of the 60 needed to allow the amendment to come up for a vote. Again, that was in 2009, Different Senators come the 2011 session.

Now its our turn, we all need to write, call, or e-mail our senators and get this amendment brought up again. I believe this go around there are enough votes to stop a filibuster and get it to a vote where it would pass. If attached to the right bill the president will have to sign it.

Get to writing folks.

 

[oldman45]

I certainly appreciate this thread. It is what we as gun owners should do and it is what any real pro 2nd Amendment supporter will do.

Doing things like writing Senators and flooding them with phone calls is going to make them take notice. Politicians do not read gun websites. They do not care what is said on the internet.

They do care about voters opinions and their own future in politics.

If each member of this site would write each Senator on this matter, then just from here alone could change things for the better.

I said before that it is one thing to call one's self a Pro Second supporter but working at being one is much different.

Write letters people. Lets stand behind this issue.

 

[redlevel]

I'm from the Free State of Georgia. We have fairly generous carry laws. I can buy and sell guns from whom and to whom I wish, as long as I reasonably believe they are Georgia residents, and are otherwise eligible to own weapons. I don't have to register my gun with any state authority. I don't have to wait to purchase a new weapon from a dealer since I have a GFL.

Georgia has reciprocity with most any state I am likely to visit, with the exception of South Carolina. I am not sure I want the Federal Government involved in my state's carry laws. I would just bet money that any Federally approved carry law would be more restrictive than what we have now.

Right now, states can set their own laws pretty much like they want to, within the bounds of Federal law. I believe letting the Federal Government get its camel's nose under this tent would be a bad thing. I am a strong believer in Federalism, and I believe this would be a step in the wrong direction.

 

[oldman45]

The loss of restrictions come in small increments. What may not mean much to one person may mean a lot to another. We, as gun owners, should assist those needing help.

Just as the CCW laws in some states may not be as good as they could be, they are better than they were many years ago. They are getting better in small steps during Legislative sessions.

While I agree about the camel getting his nose under the tent, I also say if the camel wants inside the tent, he can get there without your help or opposition. Change comes when people demand it. Unless your demands are heard, they will never be known and therefore nother will change.

A few yrs ago, Louisiana permittees could not carry concealed but could openly. Then concealed carry came to pass but very restrictive. Later those restrictions became fewer in number. Every other year, they become fewer and fewer because someone brings it up.

Carrying from state to state is a major issue. Even though you can, law vary from state to state and what is allowed in one state can get you a criminal record in another, not to mention cost you a lot of money.

We need not only the right to carry but we need uniformity in the laws between states.

 

[The Big D]

I daresay you will never see total reciprocity because some states simply don't approve of the failure of other states to apply proper standards.

Simply put, some states allow every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jane to carry without any standards or training whatsoever. Some states suggest that is folly.

In fact, some states have recently revoked reciprocity for residents of another state that was even more lacking in rational thinking than others.

Be safe.

 

[MR .44 Spl]

The idea of national reciprocity has been introduced every year in some form since the early '90s. And while I think the climate is much better for gun owners these days, I just don't think it is very likely to ever go anywhere.

I would think a better option for us would be to work with our states to establish reciprocity with as many other states as possible. I think this is much more likely to be productive. And we can just ignore all those other states that choose to ignore our rights.

 

[zoom6zoom]

Simply put, some states allow every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jane to carry without any standards or training whatsoever.

Yeah, just like that pesky Constitution allows.

 

[Pasifikawv]

While I understand concerns of States’ Rights, I prefer to think of Interstate Reciprocity not as Congress mandating something new, but rather merely using federal preemption to prevent certain States from disregarding fundamental rights. That is a role the Federal Gov’t should play.

With certain states and some misguided court decisions rejecting the Constitutional mandate of “full faith and credit” for state issued permits/licenses, I feel federal action is completely appropriate for establishing Interstate Reciprocity.

DL's, I believe, are considered public records/documents that are granted "full faith and credit" and hence every state recognizes all other state DL's. State-issued CCW licenses and permits should be no different.

A federal law ensuring interstate reciprocity is little more than an acknowledgement of existing (yet infringed) fundamental rights: an acknowledgement and protection of both the 2nd Amendment and Article IV, Section I of the US Constitution.

I will be writing to my legislators in support for Interstate Reciprocity. I can’t get to parts of my own State without passing thru a State that doesn’t and likely never will recognize my CCW permit or fundamental rights.

As an aside: Washington DC, as a federal enclave, should recognize all state-issued CCW’s.

 

[enfield]

I believe that any new law that required nation-wide reciprocity would also impose Federal training and eligibility requirements for a concealed carry permit.

Though I haven't applied for a DL in every state, I'll bet all states have pretty much identical standards.

 

[indiuckian]

Yeah, just like that pesky Constitution allows.

What he said!

 

[Pasifikawv]

The amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that fell just 2 votes short did not impose any universal training or eligibility requirements. The amendment merely acknowledged that the right to self-defense extends across state lines. Under the provisions of the amendment, individuals with carry permits from their home state could carry in any other state that issues permits. That’s it: short, sweet and to the point.

While most state requirements are similar for DL’s, they are not identical. The same can be said for most state CCW’s: similar, but not identical. Moreover, driving laws, like CCW laws also vary from state to state. Some states allow right turn on red after stop; others do not. Some state DL laws allows training permit at age 15 for a longer period of supervised training; others at age 16 and require just a few weeks between training permit and DL. Some states require parallel parking in the practical drive test; others do not.

Expanding Right-to-Carry enhances public safety, as criminals are deterred from attempting crimes when they know or suspect that their prospective victims are armed. A U.S. Department of Justice study found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed. The amendment recognized that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines.

Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation would not only reduce violent crime by deterring criminals, but -- most important of all -- would protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves if deterrence fails. It is proper and fitting and within the purview of the federal gov’t when states fail to acknowledge our fundamental, Constitution right to self-defense and the RTKBA.

 

[walnutred]

I think something needs done. A while back we were traveling from Ohio to southern Mo via Arkansas. No worries, Indiana, Ky, Mo and Arkansas all recognize an Ohio CCW. Somewhere east of Paduka Ky I was asleep and my wife missed an exit in the rain. Next think I know she's waking me up because we're now in Il and she knew we had not planned that.

Something is seriously wrong when making the wrong turn on an Interstate highway can make you a potential felon.

 

[stantheman86]

I don't travel outside of PA much these days so I don't worry about it......states like NJ are never going to allow other states' residents to carry there......I know, I used to live there. The thought of people "walking around carrying guns" would cause a panic among the sheeple there.

 

[Pasifikawv]

Something is seriously wrong when making the wrong turn on an Interstate highway can make you a potential felon.

Exactly. I had a similar experience with the wife missing an exit in a construction zone that sent us from VA to MD. We quickly rerouted back to VA, but I agree wrong turn on the interstate should not a felon make.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

When LEOSA was enacted in 2004, allowing active and retired law enforcement officers to carry nationwide, I was happy. Clean, simple, and to the point. Common sense legislation, easily understood.

Then along came SB218, with qualification requirements, restrictions on handguns permitted (department approved), etc. More recently, congress had to intervene and allow qualifications to be done by certified instructors as a means of overcoming obstacles placed by state and local bureaucrats.

Now, in Colorado I have two choices.

First, I can follow LEOSA, qualify annually, and be limited to the handgun that I qualified with. Good to go nationally.

Second, I can get a regular concealed carry permit, qualify within a year of applying, good for 5 years, and carry any handgun I like. Good to go in 30 or so states that have reciprocity with Colorado.

I suppose that I could do both, which would require additional fees and qualification time, but all I would gain is a few states that I have no intention of travelling to.

In the event that the current push is successful, and assuming our president doesn't veto it, I will expect a flood of follow-up legislation with every restriction and bureaucratic hurdle our congress critters can dream up. In short, I expect them to make the national standards conform with those of states that apply the worst possible restrictions.

 

[The Big D]

LEOSA does not limit you to the handgun with which you qualified. However, it does limit you to the type handgun. e.g. If you qualify with a revolver you can carry any revolver. If you qualify with an autoloader, you may carry any autoloader.

Until 2009, the great state of Maryland allowed LEOSA quals with both a revolver and a pistol. In that year, night fire became part of the qualification course, and logistics no longer enables both.

One is far better off with LEOSA quals, IMHO.

Be safe.,

When LEOSA was enacted in 2004, allowing active and retired law enforcement officers to carry nationwide, I was happy. Clean, simple, and to the point. Common sense legislation, easily understood.

Then along came SB218, with qualification requirements, restrictions on handguns permitted (department approved), etc. More recently, congress had to intervene and allow qualifications to be done by certified instructors as a means of overcoming obstacles placed by state and local bureaucrats.

Now, in Colorado I have two choices.

First, I can follow LEOSA, qualify annually, and be limited to the handgun that I qualified with. Good to go nationally.

Second, I can get a regular concealed carry permit, qualify within a year of applying, good for 5 years, and carry any handgun I like. Good to go in 30 or so states that have reciprocity with Colorado.

I suppose that I could do both, which would require additional fees and qualification time, but all I would gain is a few states that I have no intention of travelling to.

In the event that the current push is successful, and assuming our president doesn't veto it, I will expect a flood of follow-up legislation with every restriction and bureaucratic hurdle our congress critters can dream up. In short, I expect them to make the national standards conform with those of states that apply the worst possible restrictions.

 

[LTPhoon]

I believe that any new law that required nation-wide reciprocity would also impose Federal training and eligibility requirements for a concealed carry permit.

Though I haven't applied for a DL in every state, I'll bet all states have pretty much identical standards.

Nope. I have current permits from NH, ME, CT, PA, UT and FL. I can assure you that what is fine in one state is disqualifying in another. Some require a set of fingerprints, others not at all. Some require proof of training in safe gun handling such as a hunter safety card or an NRA Basic card. Others could care less. For my PA permit, I went to the Luzerne County Sheriffs Office and half an hour of my time and $31 sent me on my way with a nice shiny laminated permit. For my UT permit I had to find a qualified instructor certified by the State of Utah to train me up and certify that. That wasn't good enough for FL as proof of training, but an ancient hunter safety card was. My initial NH permit was in my mailbox seven days after the application and $20 left the local PO, and three of the seven were Saturday, Sunday and the 4th of July. I live in Vermont where permits aren't issued because nobody cares what and where you are or aren't carrying, except in post offices and courtrooms and schools which is fine.

I would love to see a universal permit issued with a drivers license, draft card or voter registration card and it is yours to keep or lose depending on how you conduct your life's business. Too much to ask for, I guess...

 

[enfield]

And what I'd like to see is not another Federal or State law, but an ABSENCE of any law restricting the ownership, transport or carrying of firearms or anything that can be used as a weapon, offensively or defensively.

With law comes control and I don't see the need for any additional law.

The absence of law is freedom.

 

[walnutred]

Lets make it easy then. Have the Feds say open carry is permitted everywhere and let the individual States regulate CCW as they see fit.

 

[lougotzzz]

We need not only the right to carry but we need uniformity in the laws between states.

No we dont!

Once that happens they will be all restrictive laws. The founders knew that states rights were important. Why because it is harder for all states to be tyrants then just one.

It is easier for the federal gov to say No CCW.Rather then all 50 to say No CCW.

If you give the feds this power at a certain point in history the stars will be in line for them to take your rights away with one law or one amendment(poision pill if you will call it).


The states are doing fine without the feds!!!!!!

You made all these advances because the feds are not involved.