House considers bill for for all states to recognize your home state permit


olsparky

New member
Here is my question: If this bill was a threat to our rights in any fashion why would the NRA be soliciting our help to contact legislators to support this bill?

The answer is they wouldn't.

So I comes back to my original concern: Why now when there is no way the president signs this bill and there is not enough support to override a veto? Wait until 2013 when there is hopefully a new resident in the White House.
 

MECHTESTER

Si vis pacem, para bellum
As far as I have read in the bill (unless I have missed it) there is no remedy for the Gun Free Schools Act of 1995 which only a permit issued in the home state that the school is located is valid for carry within 1000' of a school. The ATF will enforce this provision on out of state CCW holders. All it would take is a simple traffic stop and an anti-gun LEO and you will find yourself in federal court. This is a problem that faces current reciprocity and would limit the effectiveness of H.R. 822. This bill should have addressed that problem if the sponsors were serious about making national reciprocity.
 

mrjam2jab

New member
So I comes back to my original concern: Why now when there is no way the president signs this bill and there is not enough support to override a veto? Wait until 2013 when there is hopefully a new resident in the White House.

and the answer is....it really isn't a "Now" thing. This bill has been introduced every year since 1995.
 

marcparis

New member
I'm not worried about this bill in particular. Nothing in it currently (that's the operative word - who know what will happen in committee) restricts our rights further then they are currently restricted and I do like the benefits of not needing a half a dozen licenses to travel. What I worry about is the precedent that it establishes of the federal government now having a seat at the table of something that has been in the hands of the states. The next law will probably involve something like mandatory registration, or minimum training requirements. The one after that will require individuals to show need (i.e eliminates all shall issue), etc etc. Could it also be used by states who have a significant anti gun crowd to rescind their CCW permits? From what I read if a state like Illinois has no CCW permit then they don't have to recognize other state permits. Would it embolden the anti gunners in CA, NY, HI, and NJ for example to petition to drop their CCW permits altogether to "prevent those out of state guns from coming in" (as though criminals will abide by those laws anywa :hang3:). We must be careful of the law of unintended consequences.
 

mrjam2jab

New member
As far as I have read in the bill (unless I have missed it) there is no remedy for the Gun Free Schools Act of 1995 which only a permit issued in the home state that the school is located is valid for carry within 1000' of a school. The ATF will enforce this provision on out of state CCW holders. All it would take is a simple traffic stop and an anti-gun LEO and you will find yourself in federal court. This is a problem that faces current reciprocity and would limit the effectiveness of H.R. 822. This bill should have addressed that problem if the sponsors were serious about making national reciprocity.

Does this part not cover that?

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
 

maybejim

Maybejim
What I worry about is the precedent that it establishes of the federal government now having a seat at the table of something that has been in the hands of the states. The next law will probably involve something like mandatory registration, or minimum training requirements. The one after that will require

The Fed's already mandate background checks on sales of handguns and have established a law that you can't buy a handgun outside of your "home" state. They are involved. But, this should not be in the hands of the State or the Fed. Shall not be infringed is about as definitive as words can be, and is ignored in every state in the nation by both the States and the Feds. This law does nothing but make a small step towards taking back the Constitution. We didn't lose the 2nd Amendment all in one fell swoop and we can't take it back in one fell swoop. Let's continue the small steps that have begun and stop whining about what "might happen".
 

FN1910

New member
In reading the bill one thing that from my interpretation stands out. In those states where there are different levels of permits such as NY (I think) anyone with a permit from any other state has the unlimited permit.

I see this law opening up all kinds of judicial rulings such as if a NY resident has a limited NY permit but a non-resident permit from another state which permit will be accepted.

Will this cause states to quit issuing non-resident permits since they are no longer needed.
Will some states actually drop their permit program altogether.
Will this change the school zone ruling?
Will Vermont adopt some kind of permit program for the benefit of their residents as Alaska has.

I see this law opening the proverbial can of worms but I do agree totally that the states should get together and agree to accept all permits rather than the present mess that is called reciprocity or honoring. Better yet there should be no requirements.
 

mrjam2jab

New member
In reading the bill one thing that from my interpretation stands out. In those states where there are different levels of permits such as NY (I think) anyone with a permit from any other state has the unlimited permit.

Correct. Out of state permits would be unrestricted.

I see this law opening up all kinds of judicial rulings such as if a NY resident has a limited NY permit but a non-resident permit from another state which permit will be accepted.

May only carry in one's home state with a home state permit.

Will this cause states to quit issuing non-resident permits since they are no longer needed. Possible. But would they want to give up that revenue?
Will some states actually drop their permit program altogether. ALso possible. Could definitely see NJ doing that.
Will this change the school zone ruling? I wonder if paragraph (b) covers that?
Will Vermont adopt some kind of permit program for the benefit of their residents as Alaska has. They really don't have to. A VT resident could simpy get a UT, FL, AZ permit to be covered in the rest of the states.


`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

`(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

`(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
 

cia1984

New member
As a political independent who legally carries concealed in 37 States today using current reciprocity rules, I'd rather keep the pressure on at the State level. Once concealed carry becomes regulated at the Federal level, the devil will certainly be in the details with respect to implementation. A good example is the Federal School Safety laws, whichever are ignored almost everywhere.
 

FN1910

New member
May only carry in one's home state with a home state permit.

Are you saying that one must have a home state permit to carry in your home state? Right now a lot of people rely on non-resident permits in their home states. Would this law change that? For instance must a NT resident have a NY permit to carry in NY? How will this affect carry in the city of NY or DC?
 

mrjam2jab

New member
Are you saying that one must have a home state permit to carry in your home state? Right now a lot of people rely on non-resident permits in their home states. Would this law change that? For instance must a NT resident have a NY permit to carry in NY? How will this affect carry in the city of NY or DC?

Exactly.

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--


Things will not change for residents of NY, NJ, CA, DC right away. Hopefully once non-residents are carrying within their precious boundaries those Govts would be forced to change their ways.
 

FN1910

New member
When I first read the bill I had the same impression as you have but then I started to look closer and started getting confused:

Exactly.

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

I snipped a little to make it easier reading. I am not arguing with you at all but it looks like some could deduce that it only applies to guns that have been involved in interstate commerce rather than the permit being a resident permit. Wording like this is what screws up so many people with laws. You can't really tell what the law means.
 

maybejim

Maybejim
When I first read the bill I had the same impression as you have but then I started to look closer and started getting confused:



I snipped a little to make it easier reading. I am not arguing with you at all but it looks like some could deduce that it only applies to guns that have been involved in interstate commerce rather than the permit being a resident permit. Wording like this is what screws up so many people with laws. You can't really tell what the law means.

All guns except those manufactured in the state you are in have traveled through interstate commerce. There are few handguns that have not traveled through interstate commerce. The wording is because a state or two (I'm thinking Wyoming and Montana) have said the Fed's can't regulate any gun that has not gone through interstate commerce.
 

Grognard Gunny

New member
Seeing all the legal twists and turns this thread has taken (Can you even begin to imagine how many additional quirks that could be thought up by our "honored" legal professionals?).... I think, all in all, that I would rather the Fed keep their all-encompassing, perversion prone, rights trampeling schnoz out of it.

Better the devil we know than one we do not.

GG
 

jg1967

New member
Tried reading thru all of this and now my head is spinning. It it would include doing away with non res permits then I'd be screwed. I can't get a NC permit cause I am not a citizen. NC wants that. I am only a perfectly legal resident alien (now, don't think of the movie "ALIEN" in this context, I do not have acid for blood and I can not make my mouth snap out of my face).
 

Passin Thru

New member
I dropped NRA long ago. They pull crap like everyone else and I got sick of it. They sent me a bill, said they were going to collect and I did'nt owe them anything because I wasn't a member. As for the Feds. They have been 6 years denying my VA Disability App. Last denial was because I sent 7 pieces of paper, stapled together and did'nt sign one. Between them and PTL (Pass The Loot) churches I think we might be getting ripped
 

cometface

New member
Not sure, however I live in Oregon and occasionally go to Calif. It would be nice to be able to carry concealed in that state. Would not be able to legally carry any other way.
 

mrjam2jab

New member
Tried reading thru all of this and now my head is spinning. It it would include doing away with non res permits then I'd be screwed. I can't get a NC permit cause I am not a citizen. NC wants that. I am only a perfectly legal resident alien (now, don't think of the movie "ALIEN" in this context, I do not have acid for blood and I can not make my mouth snap out of my face).

It doesn't do away with NR permits. A state could decide that they will no longer issue NR permits...but I can't see them giving up that revenue source.
 

FN1910

New member
Seeing all the legal twists and turns this thread has taken (Can you even begin to imagine how many additional quirks that could be thought up by our "honored" legal professionals?).... I think, all in all, that I would rather the Fed keep their all-encompassing, perversion prone, rights trampeling schnoz out of it.

Better the devil we know than one we do not.

GG

As I have said many times, "Be careful what you wish for because you just may get it". This bill sounds good when you hear someone tell you about it but if you read it carefully you can start to see what it can do. would like to have full reciprocity in all 50 states or better yet no permit needed at all. As for those who say "The Constitution is My Permit", I wish you well in convincing a judge of that.

Like most bills presented to Congress they have a good cause in mind but wind up trying to compromise so much in order to get passed they get screwed up and in turn the citizens get screwed.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,497
Messages
624,342
Members
74,341
Latest member
Golferjerry
Top