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.
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.
‘(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.
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
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. 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.
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?
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--
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.
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).
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?