Carrying where you aren't legally permitted

There is no such thing as a slap on the wrist when it comes to violating firearm laws anywhere. Some violations may be misdemeanors but the violation will affect a concealed carry permit in any state. In other words...it just ain't worth it. Not sure why you would even consider violating a states firearm laws. Why did you want to know anyway? If you ever watched the movie "Iceman", Leo is telling Roy to stop asking questions that he already knows the answer to. Not sure of your age either, but your questions as posed could have a negative influence on younger forum members as well. In other words you have been on this forum since 2007 which tells me you have some background with this forum and perhaps issues regarding firearms and laws. Your question presents a situation in which younger members may mistake your query as a bit of tacit approval on trying to get away with something they shouldn't attempt...that is violate another states gun laws. Now clearly you didn't say just go ahead and violate California's laws but your question leaves open the possibility that someone may think "so what is the big deal about their laws anyway"
 
SR9 said:
I think the key is the word "through" the states. Through means coming in at one point and leaving again on your way to some other state, as passing through Oklahoma, on way to California. This would be covered by the Federal Firearms Transportation Act. But, you must read that and comply with state laws also. The firearm must be in the required place and condition. I am planning a trip to the Midwest latter this year. 2 of the states I will have to go through are MD. and IL. My 2 carry permits don't cover those states, but the Federal Firearms Transport Act does.
The main thing to realize is you have to be going through the state, not to the state. If I live in Iowa, ago to IL. I would be in violation, but if I were going from Iowa through IL. to get to Mich. I would be covered. But I would also have to know the laws of those states.
Click to expand...

Be very wary in Maryland. The have data bases from other states that issue concealed carry permits to citizens of that state. At their interstate toll places and tunnels they also have cameras looking at license plates. They will know if the plate on any particular vehicle is registered to a person that has been issued a concealed carry permit by his or her home state. The state police make random stops of these flagged vehicles. You could be in for a nasty surprise going through the peoples republic of Maryland. They have made out of state travelers empty their entire vehicles looking for guns. At least they finally elected a Republican governor. I advise you to stay on the interstates during heavy travel times in a common sedan. At least they will loose sleep trying to find your car.
 
JimTh said:
Be very wary in Maryland. The have data bases from other states that issue concealed carry permits to citizens of that state. At their interstate toll places and tunnels they also have cameras looking at license plates. They will know if the plate on any particular vehicle is registered to a person that has been issued a concealed carry permit by his or her home state. The state police make random stops of these flagged vehicles. You could be in for a nasty surprise going through the peoples republic of Maryland. They have made out of state travelers empty their entire vehicles looking for guns. At least they finally elected a Republican governor. I advise you to stay on the interstates during heavy travel times in a common sedan. At least they will loose sleep trying to find your car.
Click to expand...
Florida being one of the states they look for. Come on VA and WV, get Corridor H finished.
 
JimTh said:
There is no such thing as a slap on the wrist when it comes to violating firearm laws anywhere. Some violations may be misdemeanors but the violation will affect a concealed carry permit in any state. In other words...it just ain't worth it. Not sure why you would even consider violating a states firearm laws. Why did you want to know anyway? If you ever watched the movie "Iceman", Leo is telling Roy to stop asking questions that he already knows the answer to. Not sure of your age either, but your questions as posed could have a negative influence on younger forum members as well. In other words you have been on this forum since 2007 which tells me you have some background with this forum and perhaps issues regarding firearms and laws. Your question presents a situation in which younger members may mistake your query as a bit of tacit approval on trying to get away with something they shouldn't attempt...that is violate another states gun laws. Now clearly you didn't say just go ahead and violate California's laws but your question leaves open the possibility that someone may think "so what is the big deal about their laws anyway"
Click to expand...

Why bother obeying a "law" that isnt actually a "law"? The 2nd amendment VERY CLEARLY PROHIBITS the govt from making ANY LAW about firearms...

Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.
--US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187


An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
--Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442



The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.
--US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).

In plain language, the belligerent claimant in person looks like anyone else, with one big exception: he does not "go along to get along". He steadfastly refuses to meet unconstitutional mandates and the misguided social expectations that flow from those void mandates. He consistently encourages others to stand up for themselves and to band together for their common preservation, and he lives a life of integrity: he is a fine example to all those who meet or see him of what it means to be truly American.



The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected officials tell you that “it’s the law, you have to." If that law is arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void. Keep this in mind when the courts rule in favor of corporate interests knowingly violating the rights and protections afforded the people as described in the Constitution. Almost without exception, every law that has been passed by one administration and congress after another in the last twenty years has substantially violated and reduced the rights of Americans.

One of the gravest mistakes made by Americans today is the mistake of assuming that because congress passed a piece of legislation and the president signed it, the violations of rights and liberties, the assaults on the American people under the guise of [national security] or other created crisis are justified or legal.

You have guaranteed rights only so long as you defend them from encroachment by the government.
 
reerc said:
What is the punishment if you are caught carrying in a state that does not recognize your permit? Say, you have a Utah permit and carry on a road trip through Nevada and California - neither which honor the Utah permit? Is it a slap on the wrist, or is it pretty serious stuff?

Not that I'm planning on doing anything illegal, mind you, curious minds just want to know.

Thanks, and good evening.
Click to expand...

Have a 55 gal drum and stuff it with $100 dollar bills and give it to your lawyer before entering the state.
 
1-LM said:
Have a 55 gal drum and stuff it with $100 dollar bills and give it to your lawyer before entering the state.
Click to expand...

I suppose YOU always walk around with your tail tucked under you and pee yourself any time you see someone that you perceive as being in "authority", right?

Remember.... those in public service (cops, teachers, city/state/federal workers to name a few) work for US....... WE are the boss, not them.... I am VERY TIRED of people giving weak-kneed wussy advice... Where are the MEN at? I swear there arent many left....

Before YOU, 1-LM, go off about how adversarial I came across as, I am not necessarily directing this at you..... and your quoted post is actually not "bad" advice, it just reeked of "giving in" to me, and hence I went off on a rant about what I see everyday on this and other so-called "rights" forums where nearly everyone is AFRAID to exercise their RIGHTS......
 
It's all a matter of perspective... the government says you are in jail because you violated a law - you say you are in jail because the government violated your rights. Notice anything in common in those points of view?
 
NavyLCDR said:
It's all a matter of perspective... the government says you are in jail because you violated a law - you say you are in jail because the government violated your rights. Notice anything in common in those points of view?
Click to expand...
There is another perspective of not allowing yourself to get taken to jail..... have YOU considered it?
 
I drive from Ohio to Florida regularly in which my CCW license does not include Georgia. There's more drive time in Georgia than any others. Not once have I stopped in Chattanooga to unload and put my gun in trunk and don't ever plan too. Rest areas after dark are one of the most likely places you need all the weapons you can carry. I usually have gun,knife, kubaton and sometimes stun gun. If needed, preferably in reverse order. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
I've thought about getting fla licence, which would include Georgia , but have never gotten around to it.
 
Axeanda45 said:
Why bother obeying a "law" that isnt actually a "law"? The 2nd amendment VERY CLEARLY PROHIBITS the govt from making ANY LAW about firearms...

Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.
--US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187


An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
--Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442



The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.
--US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).

In plain language, the belligerent claimant in person looks like anyone else, with one big exception: he does not "go along to get along". He steadfastly refuses to meet unconstitutional mandates and the misguided social expectations that flow from those void mandates. He consistently encourages others to stand up for themselves and to band together for their common preservation, and he lives a life of integrity: he is a fine example to all those who meet or see him of what it means to be truly American.



The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected officials tell you that “it’s the law, you have to." If that law is arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void. Keep this in mind when the courts rule in favor of corporate interests knowingly violating the rights and protections afforded the people as described in the Constitution. Almost without exception, every law that has been passed by one administration and congress after another in the last twenty years has substantially violated and reduced the rights of Americans.

One of the gravest mistakes made by Americans today is the mistake of assuming that because congress passed a piece of legislation and the president signed it, the violations of rights and liberties, the assaults on the American people under the guise of [national security] or other created crisis are justified or legal.

You have guaranteed rights only so long as you defend them from encroachment by the government.
Click to expand...

I just don't know anyone willing to test the limits of the second amendment.
 
JimTh said:
I just don't know anyone willing to test the limits of the second amendment.
Click to expand...

What qualifies as a test? Purposefully getting caught to fight it in a state that oppresses is people? Or carrying as they wish wherever they live in their normal daily activities?

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
 
Free men DO NOT ask permission to exercise THEIR RIGHTS.....

Where's that awesome graphic/pic CharlesMorrison or Firefighter?
 
I am fortunate to live in Missouri where there are 17 places you are not allowed to carry but there is an amendment to that which states carrying in any of the 17 places listed shall not be a criminal act for a CCW permit holder. If found to be carrying(you are not very good at CC) you may be asked to leave the premises. If you are dumb enough and refuse to leave and a LEO is called you could be charged with trespassing and fined $50 for first offense. When ever I travel I check the states gun laws and never rely on hear say.
 
I'm not the best one to ask. Kind of a mute point for me, since I've CCW for 40+ yrs w/o a license, 5 yrs with. There's a few definite off limits places such as airport security lines, federal courthouse etc. I'm sure there's several people here that think this is terribly wrong, but I don't. To each there own.! Most of my time is spent in open carry states, but choose not to, unless I'm on the farm or in the woods.
 
Axeanda45 said:
I suppose YOU always walk around with your tail tucked under you and pee yourself any time you see someone that you perceive as being in "authority", right?

Remember.... those in public service (cops, teachers, city/state/federal workers to name a few) work for US....... WE are the boss, not them.... I am VERY TIRED of people giving weak-kneed wussy advice... Where are the MEN at? I swear there arent many left....

Before YOU, 1-LM, go off about how adversarial I came across as, I am not necessarily directing this at you..... and your quoted post is actually not "bad" advice, it just reeked of "giving in" to me, and hence I went off on a rant about what I see everyday on this and other so-called "rights" forums where nearly everyone is AFRAID to exercise their RIGHTS......
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with "Giving in" It is choosing the location of my battles of unjust laws. Many laws don't make sense but like it or not it is the law. I don't feel changing these laws can be done as an individual from behind bars. As an individual I sure as hell do not have a 55 gal drum stuffed with money. :)
 
1-LM said:
Has nothing to do with "Giving in" It is choosing the location of my battles of unjust laws. Many laws don't make sense but like it or not it is the law. I don't feel changing these laws can be done as an individual from behind bars. As an individual I sure as hell do not have a 55 gal drum stuffed with money. :)
Click to expand...

You just dont have a clue.... Those "laws" you are bowing/cowering to ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL.... They are 100% UnConstitutional, and therefore have no power at all.

Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
 
For the record, no one on this website would ever carry where it was illegal to do so.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 624 (members: 0, guests: 624)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,662
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top