Not sure if the author is correct that the recent DC gun ruling creates National CCW Reciprocity.
Wow! Talk about a gift. If this ruling is not challenged and overthrown, Palmer vs. DC paves the way for the gun lobby to get what it has always wanted, namely, national concealed-carry without having to pass a federal law at all.
We can only hope, but DC is not a state so their "State's Rights" are limited.
What I imagine will happen is if and when DC creates its own permit it will have to also be available to non-residents.
Would this force other states like New York, California and other states to issue non-resident permits or grant reciprocity?
the chief's order says nothing about it applying only to handguns. it says 22-4504(a) is not to be enforced.I believe the ruling specifically stated "Handguns", so I would say, No.
Youre wrong.the chief's order says nothing about it applying only to handguns. it says 22-4504(a) is not to be enforced.
Unless the new State of DC was somehow moved out of the court district where this ruling was handed down, the ruling would still apply.If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling also transfer over? Or will DC start their firearms laws from scratch (because they would be a new state) and just end up as another NJ or MD with lack of gun rights?
While a National CCW Reciprocity sounds like a great idea. The idea of the Feds running it (ruining it) is not a good idea. Right now the individual states themselves set reciprocity. And that may sound like "it is not good enough". I think leaving it to the states is the best way. Maybe I am looking at this this wrong. Tell me why.
While NY State does issue gun permits to out of state residents who have businesses in New York State. That is still a far cry from reciprocity.Sure, depends on if this ruling has broad or narrow implications though.
Also, just because a state is may issue doesn't mean it is not legally possible for a non-resident to get a permit. Of course just because it is legally possible doesn't mean it will get issued in practice.
The "full faith and credit" clause is subject to interpretation by Congress. Without a clear majority in both houses, it's doubtful that any reciprocity law could be enacted. The current President would surely veto any law liberalizing concealed carry.Sure, depends on if this ruling has broad or narrow implications though.
Also, just because a state is may issue doesn't mean it is not legally possible for a non-resident to get a permit. Of course just because it is legally possible doesn't mean it will get issued in practice.
And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Whether or not DC ends up as a state, it will have to abide by the ruling issued by this federal district judge (unless DC the state were moved out of that district). DC the District or DC the State can certainly try to pass a carry permit law that meets the letter of the judge's ruling. Now, what will be a sticky wicket is that the judge specifically forbade enforcing the District's no-carry-without-a-permit-law, so exactly how they'll phrase their next attempt in order not to directly violate his edict remains to be seen.If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling transfer over? Or will they start from scratch and just end up as another NJ or MD ?
IF DC can figure out a way to write a permit law that does not directly conflict the the judge's enjoining of the District from enforcing their permit-carry law, then yes. But DC may not be able to wriggle so cleverly as to get around that ruling.What I imagine will happen is if and when DC creates its own permit it will have to also be available to non-residents.
Only if they're in the same federal district. (So NY, yes, CA no.) Only if appealed to (and won at) the SCOTUS would the ruling apply nationwide.Would this force other states like New York, California and other states to issue non-resident permits or grant reciprocity?
That would be wonderful. But that's not federal law, simply a "gentlemen's agreement" between the states. If they were so inclined, they could agree to that today.What if it wasn't about granting CCW licenses to out of state residents and was more like a drivers license.
If you can legally carry you just pass thru with your license and don't have to have an actual license from another state?
Scenarios
You stop a man on the street carrying a firearm and:
Scenario 1: The man says he is a resident of the District, but the gun is unregistered.
You should charge him with Unregistered Firearm.
Scenario 2: The man lives in Vermont, which does not require a license or permit for either open or concealed carry of a handgun. You run his name, and no criminal record is apparent.
You should record any relevant information for potential further investigation, and he is free to leave.
Scenario 3: The man lives in Virginia, where no license or permit is required to openly carry a handgun. However, when you run his name, records indicate that he is a convicted felon.
Under District and federal law, felons may not legally possess a firearm. You should arrest him for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm.
So are you saying you expect them to ignore the court's order? Or just that they'll harass with other charges?
Well, at the least they did NOT simply ignore the judge's order! In fact, the Chief's notice to her officers reads more like the most straight-ahead conformity with his ruling we could hope for.My guess would be both, actually.
Only those living within DC (*cough* --the ghettos-- *cough*) must have the unobtainable possession licenses?
Ok, we need to be VERY careful to keep track of that. If the District is granted a stay and their laws go back into effect, even temporarily, somebody's likely to get really fouled up if they're celebrating DC's new openness a day too late...Gura says he's ok with a 90 day stay but not 180 days. I believe he has until August 4th to reply to the city's planned request for a stay.