Reciprocity - There is hope

[The Big D]

Interesting question, waltnutred. Don't know if one could fire it if in a wheelchair but I can assure you I saw some elderly folks complete it. I wasn't sure if one seemingly very frail gentleman would be able to hold his gun steady. He did. The course does require kneeling but the time frames are quite enabling. One does not have to get up and down quickly.

In fact, the entire course is user friendly. Only time restrictions are for target facings/shots. Reloads are not timed. The stress is SAFETY. And do note this is for RETIRED LEO's...not active duty personnel.

Be safe.

So someone who is disabled and cannot fire a LEUSA course would be automatically ineligible for a CCW? And conversely, if the course is not essential for someone who is disabled, why is it essential for someone not disabled?

Ohio requires proof of approved training, which is usually the NRA Basic Pistol course with additional information specific to Ohio laws added. A specific amount of range time, though no qualifying scores. Background check with finger prints, no record of domestic violence or drug abuse. We also have provisions for an emergency permit if the person is under threat and we are a Shall Issue State.

So most of what your proposing my wife and I have already done. I just don't think LEO level range qualification is practical or beneficial. Whatever Federally required background check we go through to purchase a handgun from a FFL should be sufficient to issue a permit to carry a handgun.

 

[5BeansintheWheel]

Prints would be needed to ensure the person issued the permit is the actual person requesting it and not wanted or otherwise disqualified. That's all.

Be safe.

Is my drivers license with photo and LTCF with photo not enough? How bout my social (thanks FDR), birth certificate and utility bills?

I think I will pass on the whole mess.

 

[redlevel]

any national reciprocity would require national standards being met.

And there's the rub . . . . . . I don't want any national standards to affect my GWL.

D, go check this website:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/bcam/stategunlaws/scorecard/StateRatings.pdf

It sounds to me like you want those of us at the bottom of that list, with "0" stars and 6,7, and 8 ratings from Brady to get up at the top of the list where your state is, with three stars and a 52 rating.

Thanks, but no thanks.

You have extolled the benefits of living in a "progressive" state like MD before, but most of us want none of it.

I really don't understand how you can get on a gun forum and expect any other reaction.

 

[5BeansintheWheel]

I am really embarrassed Pa is in the top ten, I thought we would be further down the list.

 

[Pasifikawv]

Under the provisions of the Thune/Vitter amendment, had it passed, 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.

Here's a problem I just thought of: Let's say you are a VA resident carrying an M&P or Sigma with a standard mag and wandered into MD. Your right to carry would have been protected by the amendment, but wouldn't an anti-gun state like MD still prosecute you for violating their requirement that all mags be low-capacity?

What if you were a PA resident carrying a S&W revolver and wandered into NJ with hollow points. Wouldn't an anti-gun state like NJ still prosecute you since they only allows FMJ's ?

Had the Thune/Vittter amendment passed or should a similar version pass in the near future, isn't there opportunity for anti-gun states to prosecute CCWers who fall afoul of some misguided policies in the handful of anti-gun states?

The intent of the amendment was to protect law-abiding CCWers who might pass thru "may issue" states but I see scenarios that could lead to honest folk getting hammered.

 

[26Ford]

Floridians lost thier ' reciprocity ' with Nevada last year, anyone know the real story? I used to like Nevada too

 

[walnutred]

Had the Thune/Vittter amendment passed or should a similar version pass in the near future, isn't there opportunity for anti-gun states to prosecute CCWers who fall afoul of some misguided policies in the handful of anti-gun states?

The intent of the amendment was to protect law-abiding CCWers who might pass thru "may issue" states but I see scenarios that could lead to honest folk getting hammered.

It would still be better than what we have now, in my opinion. The individual States would likely get tired of class action law suites eventually.

 

[Pasifikawv]

It would still be better than what we have now, in my opinion. The individual States would likely get tired of class action law suites eventually.

For sure, I would still support an Interstate Reciprocity bill as it would be an improvement over the status quo.

After giving it more thought I have developed a worry about certain states trying to hammer otherwise lawful individuals with obscure and misguided state laws restricting standard mag, self-defense ammo, cosmetic features, etc. in the event Interstate Reciprocity, as initially proposed, is adopted.

At first, I liked that the Thune/Vitter Amendment was short and to the point, but perhaps additional language is needed to keep some lawful lady from NV from becoming a felon for toting a Lady Smith with pink grips into CA thinking she is covered by Interstate Reciprocity only to have an anti-gun zealot prosecutor lock her up with Crips and Bloods because of the cosmetic features of her firearm.

Some anti-gun Attorneys General and/or Prosecuting Attnys could look make an example out of otherwise law-abiding CCWers using bogus state restrictions. Some states could adopt even more idiotic gun laws to try to make Interstate Reciprocity problematic as a response to such justifiable federal action. The Vitter/Thune amendment expected that CCWer would abide by the laws of the jurisdictions thru which they passed. Sounds good on its face - until Granny is behind bars because her Lady Smith had pink grips or Uncle Joe loses his right to vote or own guns because he carried quality (and safer) JHP ammo.

Eventually it would be sorted out with court cases and counter suits, but that takes times and lives are shattered in the process. Perhaps a better Interstate Reciprocity proposal can be drafted and hopefully adopted. I am not a policy-maker so I don't know what that would look like. I would hope the good folks at NRA:ILA are hard at work on this issue.

 

[OKFC05]

Floridians lost thier ' reciprocity ' with Nevada last year, anyone know the real story? I used to like Nevada too

Nevada law says they recognize non-resident permits, but the law enforcement committee demanded ALL states that issue non-resident licenses be dropped from the recognition list, and they were. Draw your own conclusions.

A greater mystery to me is why Nevada will not recognize Oklahoma, since we meet ALL their requirements and don't issue non-resident licenses. What did we do to p them off?

 

[montoya32]

The only issue I have with CCW permits getting recognized by other states, is that each state has it's own regulations and laws with regard to purchasing. If there were a national standard to regulate purchases and a national standard to regulate the issuance of permits, then I would have no problem at all. I think this is why this hasn't happened yet. Some states are way to restrictive, like Maryland, and others way to lax on the issue.

 

[redlevel]

The only issue I have . . . . . . . each state has it's own regulations and laws with regard to purchasing. If there were a national standard to regulate purchases and a national standard to regulate the issuance of permits, . . . . . Some states are way to restrictive, like Maryland, and others way to lax on the issue.

This is what bothers me about the whole "national reciprocity" issue. I imagine Georgia would fall under your stated criteria of having purchase and permit laws that are, in your words, "way to lax." There is a national standard to regulate purchases of new firearms, so you must be speaking of some kind of national restrictions on sales between individuals. I have culminated sales/purchases within the last two months in the parking lot of (1) a restaurant inside the 285 perimeter around Atlanta (2) the parking lot of a Verizon store a few miles South of Atlanta (3) the parking lot of a Tractor Supply store 25 miles from my home (4) the parking lot of a truck stop in rural Georgia, and (5) my farm. Is this what you mean by "way to lax"?

My daughter just applied for her Georgia Weapons License. She has been taking her loaded 442 with her in the console of her car for over a year now, which by the way is perfectly legal for a non-license holder, but she wishes to be able to carry it in a restaurant or movie theater when she visits her friend who lives in MaconGa. She applied at the County probate office, was sent to the SO for fingerprints and background check, and will receive her license within a couple of weeks. No range time required. This license means she can purchase a firearm from a dealer without a background check, presuming her license is granted. Is this what you mean by "way to lax"?

I can understand how residents of "progressive" states would be willing to have me compromise on some of the "way to lax" provisions we have in the Free State of Georgia so their restrictions might be lessened just a little. I want none of it, though.

Let the residents of Maryland and New Jersey battle with their own legislatures to regain their rights. Don't call for these of us who live in relatively free states to give up some of our rights so there can be some kind of "national standard."

 

[walnutred]

The only issue I have with CCW permits getting recognized by other states, is that each state has it's own regulations and laws with regard to purchasing. If there were a national standard to regulate purchases and a national standard to regulate the issuance of permits, then I would have no problem at all. I think this is why this hasn't happened yet. Some states are way to restrictive, like Maryland, and others way to lax on the issue.

There IS a national standard for handgun purchases. Over 21, legal resident, pass a criminal background check and a few others. States should not be adding random restrictions to suit their own dubious agendas. At the risk of sounding radical how can you be too lax on "shall not be infringed"?

 

[PDL]

One thing that bothers me these days is for a state to reciprocate with a state, but only with residents of that state. What is the reasoning behind that. The non-resident goes thru exactly the same requirements as the resident.

 

[ladder13]

I can understand how residents of "progressive" states would be willing to have me compromise on some of the "way to lax" provisions we have in the Free State of Georgia so their restrictions might be lessened just a little.

Not this resident

Let the residents of Maryland and New Jersey battle with their own legislatures to regain their rights. Don't call for these of us who live in relatively free states to give up some of our rights so there can be some kind of "national standard."

In fact, we should be moving towards Vermont, Arizona and Alaska

 

[PDL]

VT, AZ, and AK seem to be the only states that have read the 2nd A.

All of these permits, range work requirements etc. are obvious infringements.

 

[Pasifikawv]

It's back.........

Re-introduced as HR 822 (National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity) last week.

NRA-ILA :: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced In U.S. House

 

[walnutred]

I hope this passes as from what I can see it will help a lot more people than it will hinder. Reciprocity should be a given as far as I'm concerned, keeping in mind that this is only affecting non-criminals.

 

[safetyguy60]

Imagine if you will the issues we would have traveling state to state were we to have to make sure each state we went into recognized our states driver's license? And driving is a privilege not a right as is gun ownership. A licensed person carrying a weapon for self defense and going state to state should not have to worry about all this ****.

 

[OKFC05]

Sen Boxer already introduced a bill designed to be merged with HR 822: requires national registration and showing a "need" to justify having a carry license, like California. A real poison pill, and shows the political battles ahead for this type of legislation.
It is a fantasy to think the usual suspect states are going to allow HR 822 to pass without loading it up with immpossibly restrictive amendments.
Picture the final bill looking more like CA and NJ than TX and KY.

 

[DeadManWalking]

The only issue I have with CCW permits getting recognized by other states, is that each state has it's own regulations and laws with regard to purchasing. If there were a national standard to regulate purchases and a national standard to regulate the issuance of permits, then I would have no problem at all. I think this is why this hasn't happened yet. Some states are way to restrictive, like Maryland, and others way to lax on the issue.

Way too lax? You mean like to 4 states where no permit is required? That kind of lax? Me, I call that Freedom as written in our Constitution. Sorry to say I do not currently live in one of those "lax" states.