NRA Annoucement/Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017....wording

You'd have the anomalous situation where, for example, visitors to New Jersey would have greater carry rights than New Jersey residents.

Yes, to answer your question, "may issue" states might be tempted to become "no issue" states.

But, long before it got to that point, this bill would have to pass the filibuster roadblock in he Senate, that is, it would have to muster 60 votes. The Democrats are going to rally against it.

If and when it passes, there is still the problem of enforcement. I would suspect that many anti-gun states and/or localities like New York, New Jersey, California (At least specific cities), Illinois (Chicago), may well refuse to recognize it. There are states that still refuse to recognize the Federal transportation of weapons through their states. Then just look at all the sanctuary cities that get away with protecting criminal aliens.


I hope reciprocity does go through, but there will still be place to be wary of.
And the question of may vs. must issue could leave the door open to may issue states taking the approach of “May recognize.”

Yeah, New York City refuses to honor concealed carry permits issued by New York State. So it's a certainty that they would refuse to honor an out of state permit.

If states try to deny carry permits under the Trump administration you can bet that it will go to the SC and be shot down. It's already established law.

How would that proposed law work in a Constitutional Carry state? On the face of it, it does nothing good for a Vermonter.

VThillman said:

How would that proposed law work in a Constitutional Carry state? On the face of it, it does nothing good for a Vermonter.

Click to expand...

Apparently, Vermont is the only Constitutional Carry state that does not issue an optional permit, for use for reciprocity purposes. It seems that the only option for a Vermonter is to get a non-resident permit from some other state.

VThillman said:

How would that proposed law work in a Constitutional Carry state? On the face of it, it does nothing good for a Vermonter.

Click to expand...

Most (though not all) constitutional carry states seem to have a separate carry license available to use for reciprocity type purposes.

Thinking of Vermont, if they didn't want to make a separate license, they could probably just add some wording on the back of the drivers license that says something to the effect of "this license allows the bearer to carry a concealed weapon". Nice, simple, and no need to set up a new process within the government. Of course this would need to be checked against the final wording of the reciprocity agreement.

I thought the mcdonald ruling made it impossible to scrap concealed carry allthogther, but I may be wrong about that? oops meant
McDonald

Twiki357 said:

There are states that still refuse to recognize the Federal transportation of weapons through their states.

Click to expand...

Those states such as New York recognize the Firearm Owners Protection Act as an affirmative defense to their weapon transportation bans. Which means you get arrested, jailed, then at trial get to assert the FOPA as an affirmative defense to the charges, and the judge (should) then find you not guilty. In the meantime, you've been arrested, jailed, your vehicle, weapon, and other personal property seized, and you've spent thousands on legal costs.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if those same states treated any future Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act similarly. They'll arrest, jail, and try you, then when you get your day in court the judge will reluctantly let you go.

(Edit to add)
Maybe I should have read the text of the proposed law first. Included in the language is this passage:

So the author(s) had my same sense of cynicism.

AlexanderA said:

Apparently, Vermont is the only Constitutional Carry state that does not issue an optional permit, for use for reciprocity purposes. It seems that the only option for a Vermonter is to get a non-resident permit from some other state.

Click to expand...

Vermont is the only for real constitutional carry state, in that Vermont's constitution is the judicially reinforced guarantee that the RKBA shall not be infringed. All other states that don't require a permit do so only at a legislative level that can be revoked at the whim of some other legislation.

The only thing a federal reciprocity law does is get the federal government involved in concealed carry licensing, which is not a good thing, and can only have bad implications for a state like Vermont, that is already doing the right thing.

You'd have the anomalous situation where, for example, visitors to New Jersey would have greater carry rights than New Jersey residents.

Click to expand...

It's humorous how often this is said, as though it makes any less sense than visitors to New Jersey having fewer human rights than their fellow American citizens upon crossing the border. Considering how frequent that particular paradigm used to be in southern states, and how aggressively it was ultimately dismantled, it's rather odd --and telling-- that gun laws remained just as varied all the while (although now applied to the whole population, and not just minorities)

TCB

Frank Ettin said:

Won't work. Folks who are prohibited from possessing firearms can still have driver's licenses.

.

Click to expand...

...but VT doesn't issue permits and it,along with a few other States Honor a VT driver License as a valid permit to carry? Or am I wrong?

steve4102 said:

...but VT doesn't issue permits and it,along with a few other States Honor a VT driver License as a valid permit to carry? Or am I wrong?

Click to expand...

No state honors a Federal Felons right to carry, DL or not.

Frank Ettin said:

Won't work. Folks who are prohibited from possessing firearms can still have driver's licenses.

Why?

Actually, Miller, a 1939 case, was about sawed off shotguns and had nothing to do with carrying a gun. If you're thinking of Heller, while the Seventh Circuit and some other courts [I think properly] read Heller as requiring some provision for ordinary people to carry guns in public, that view is not unanimous, nor has it been directly and unequivocally endorsed by the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

Yea, up late, I was thinking of Mcdonald vs Chicago, but Miller was what I wrote, both being challenges heard by the suprem

e court, fixed now, thanks! Reading up on it now, its looks like Moore/Madigan is what Im actually thinking of anyway.

Apparently I am in the minority here, but I don't want the federal government anywhere near any gun laws, including national reciprocity. (I understand they are involved in gun laws, but I don't WANT them involved, and I certainly don't want them more involved.) I just don't like the odds that they will improve the situation, or that, even if it is improved in the short term, that it won't come back to bite us later.
Think back 10 years. Would you have ever guessed we would be where we are right now?
After all, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." State/local control of laws is liberty, by my way of thinking, and the hassle of bad laws are an inconvenience, because you can always move (didn't say it was always easy to do so, but it is possible). If the local city council passes a stupid ordinance, it is a lot easier to get that corrected than an act of the federal government. And, even if you can't get it corrected, you only have to move a few miles. When the federal government messes up, what recourse do you REALLY have? Where will you move to then?

Well that would certainly solve the problem in CA, MA, MD, NY and NJ where permits are difficult to procure. Residents of those states could simply obtain a nonresident permit from a state that issues to an individual whether or not their home state issues.

glennv said:

Well that would certainly solve the problem in CA, MA, MD, NY and NJ where permits are difficult to procure. Residents of those states could simply obtain a nonresident permit from a state that issues to an individual whether or not their home state issues.

Click to expand...

Yes, but according to the wording of the bill, that wouldn't help them in their home state. They could carry everywhere but in their home state.

While I understand the concerns of some with having federal law even address concealed carry, for many of us who live close to other states, especially states with restrictive gun laws, getting a federal reciprocity statute, next to preserving Heller, should be our top priority. I'd urge everyone to press the NRA and call your senators to press this issue. You might try to call a democratic senator as well.

Keep in mind one possible side benefit to this statute as well. Statutory language which grants reciprocity in any state which allows concealed carry, should apply even to states which allow some carry or discretionary carry. In many such states the right to carry is limited to those with some political connection to the issuing authority. Upon passage of reciprocity, legislators in those states will have to explain to their voters why denied the same right to self defense everyone else has.

Let's strike while the iron is hot.

I just don't like the odds that they will improve the situation, or that, even if it is improved in the short term, that it won't come back to bite us later.

Click to expand...

Slippery slope fallacy.

Actually, National reciprocity wouldn’t constitute a ‘gun law,’ as it’s not regulatory in nature; the states would retain regulatory authority.

Indeed, the states would remain at liberty to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons as they see fit, consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Reciprocity would simply allow citizens with a concealed weapon license to travel throughout the country without running afoul of other states’ laws.

And if a resident of one state establishes residency in another state, he’d be required to obtain a concealed weapon license in his new state of residence pursuant to that state’s laws.

Cannibul said:

If states try to deny carry permits under the Trump administration you can bet that it will go to the SC and be shot down. {b] It's already established law.

Click to expand...

[/b]

So is the law allowing for transport of firearms through the states (forgot the proper name), but NY and NJ routinely ignore this and you WILL wind up in jail. You'll get sprung, but technically you will still have an arrest records which it will be incumbent on YOU to have expunged, at your cost of course.

Perhaps there is another approach, one more direct and which leaves fewer questions in it's wake than does the aforementioned national reciprocity act:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443143/gun-rights-reciprocity-constitution

LemmyCaution said:

The only thing a federal reciprocity law does is get the federal government involved in concealed carry licensing, which is not a good thing...

Click to expand...

Agreed. What they write one year can be amended the next year.

Not claiming I have a solution to the problem, but on the other hand, I'm not liking this "solution" of a national reciprocity act, even though I'm an NRA "Lifer."

Sorry about that, folks.

Oh, for the good old days when a gun wasn't a GUH-UHN <EEK!> but just a gun.

Terry, 230RN