Jump to content

National Reciprocity effects on state CCW laws...


Recommended Posts

This is NOT mean to be a thread to discuss IF the National reciprocity bill will eventually pass or if it will fail. I do not wish to discuss the point in this thread if you believe it will fail, or if you believe it will pass.

 

My question is this... Being that I am applying for my non-resident Illinois CCW permit, What if any do you think If National Reciprocity (As currently proposed in the current bill) will change or effect current Illinois CCW process for resident and non-resident CCWs?

 

I think, if passed some states will do away with allowing non-resident CCWs. Since non-residents can use their home state license. This would of course suck for Vermont residents who doesnt issue licenses.

 

I think for the few may-issue states such as California, Hawaii, etc... it may force them to be shall issue for their residents. I have a relative that has several non-resident CCW/LTCs to carry in most other states other then his home state of california. Thus if national reciprocity passes, he would be able to carry in California using those non-resident CCW/LTC even when his home state wont give him one.

 

I would like to see national reciprocity pass. I do think it will cause many states to rethink their resident CCW/LTC process for their own residents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're speaking of H.R.38 I wonder how we should read the language I bolded:

 

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( b ) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying 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 or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

Does the clause “in the State in which the person resides” operate only on the “entitled to carry” language, or does it also apply to a “valid license or permit”?

 

In other words, should this be read to allow carry by

 

  1. a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by any state, or

  2. is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

 

Or should it be read

 

  1. a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued in their state of residence, or

  2. is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

 

Or is there another way to read it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I like D.C.claiming to have the authority to give us the privillege of reciprocity.

I would prefer a bill respecting the 2A making a serious federal offense for any state to infringe the right of the people to bear arms. Then define "bearing arms" with the proper most widest liberty loving interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're speaking of H.R.38 I wonder how we should read the language I bolded:

 

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( b ) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying 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 or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

Does the clause “in the State in which the person resides” operate only on the “entitled to carry” language, or does it also apply to a “valid license or permit”?

 

In other words, should this be read to allow carry by

 

 

  • a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by any state, or

  • is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

Or should it be read

 

  • a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued in their state of residence, or

  • is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

Or is there another way to read it?

Bad grammar makes for bad statutes, and this bill is clearly missing some commas. IMHO, for any final version of this bill to pass that will need to be clarified. My guess is that it would be clarified to make clear that the person must be licensed in their home State. This would match up with existing requirements that a person licensed in one State be allowed to travel through another State. It would also make it similar to a drivers license, where training and requirements vary depending on the State. Legally speaking, it would be a big change. Logistically speaking, though, most people wouldn’t notice a difference IMHO. Many who are so staunchly opposed to reciprocity, especially in Illinois, don’t realize that someone licensed out of State is already allowed to carry in their vehicle. All they are not allowed to do is walk around with it. So we’re already allowing (because we have to) people from out of State to possess in Illinois. It really makes no sense for Illinois to not already recognize out of State licenses. There’s no magic barrier between a car and outside a car that prevents someone from using the gun for evil purposes if they so choose. But that’s the line politicians have chosen to draw here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like most legislation nowadays a person has to have a J.D. to tease out the real meanings. The only way this bill sees the light of the Oval Office is if both houses of Congress are Red and Trump survives Covid and a tumultuous election cycle. Making the may issue states comply with the US Constitution would be a great first step and no election or Hat Trick needed this fall. Remember Mitch O'Connell had the votes after the House passed a similar bill right at the beginning of Trump's term and did not bring it up for a vote. Get out and vote in a couple weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first interpretation is correct.

  • a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by any state, or
  • is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

The law specifically says "a State" and that language would have no purpose if it were restricted by the later language "the State in which the person resides". Courts will interpret the statute so that all language has meaning. Further, the parallel structure clearly separates the first restriction (laws of a state) from the second restriction (the State in which the person resides).

 

This is very permissive language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it that way, too.

 

So, to answer one of the questions posed in the opening post, I think those states that see carry licenses as an income generator would find that income drying up. There would be no need to purchase their license should this become law. Vermonters would be OK since its legal to carry there without a permit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're speaking of H.R.38 I wonder how we should read the language I bolded:

 

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( b ) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying 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 or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

Does the clause “in the State in which the person resides” operate only on the “entitled to carry” language, or does it also apply to a “valid license or permit”?

 

In other words, should this be read to allow carry by

 

 

  • a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by any state, or

  • is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

Or should it be read

 

  • a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued in their state of residence, or

  • is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

Or is there another way to read it?

 

That’s a good question. The other point you bring up though is resident status. I am officially as per each states residency requirements a resident of two states. Thus I COULD get a resident LTC from both states. Although one state I would have to get that states issued Identification card, as one can’t legally have a drivers license from two states.

 

Their is a difference between where you reside and where your a resident. Especially for those who are in Military or Federal Law enforcement agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it that way, too.

 

So, to answer one of the questions posed in the opening post, I think those states that see carry licenses as an income generator would find that income drying up. There would be no need to purchase their license should this become law. Vermonters would be OK since its legal to carry there without a permit.

Since this is a reciprocity act, unless one was from a state such as Vermont that issues no license to carry since they are a constitutional carry state, one would need a LTC/CCW from some state, preferably from their home state of residence. However I have read the proposed bill and take it to mean, that reciprocity would be mandated across all states even for those who have non-resident LTC/CCW’s as well.

 

I don’t see this bill having any major impact on how Illinois issues their CCW’s. However I do see that states such as California, Hawaii, NYC, NY may all of a sudden change their laws on issuing a permit to its residents. Imagine that if reciprocity passed, I would be allowed to carry in NYC, however NYC residents find it impossible to get a NYC permit. Many of those residents would then easily obtain a non-resident LTC from Maine, or NH, or Arizona, or Florida or any one of several other states that issue non-resident license. NYC would not want to loose out on the revenue etc...

 

The other option to reciprocity, is to force states to be “shall issue” for non-resident applications who meet the same requirements as their residents. This would allow them to create an additional revenue stream. Illinois already doubles the CCW fee for non-residents from $150 to $300.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s a good question. The other point you bring up though is resident status. I am officially as per each states residency requirements a resident of two states. Thus I COULD get a resident LTC from both states. Although one state I would have to get that states issued Identification card, as one can’t legally have a drivers license from two states.

 

Their is a difference between where you reside and where your a resident. Especially for those who are in Military or Federal Law enforcement agencies.

Under the H.R. 38 language, wouldn't it be unnecessary to get permits from multiple states?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the H.R. 38 language, wouldn't it be unnecessary to get permits from multiple states?

Absolutely it would. That’s the 80a% of the point of the bill. The other 20% is the point of forcing states such as Hawaii, California, Oregon, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington DC, New York, and New York City To recognize all other states LTC/CCW and allow us to carry in those states that we can’t otherwise carry in.

 

The other part is for territories such as Guam, PR, etc would fall in line and allow us to carry there as well. Currently though PR officially now recognizes LTC/CCW from all 50 states, but you are REQUIRED to register the weapon you carry in PR, 5 days before arriving. Most fly in.... however if you arrive by a boat (other then a cruise) this could be more difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you're speaking of H.R.38 I wonder how we should read the language I bolded:

 

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( b ) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying 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 or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

Does the clause “in the State in which the person resides” operate only on the “entitled to carry” language, or does it also apply to a “valid license or permit”?

 

In other words, should this be read to allow carry by

 

  • a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by any state, or

  • is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

Or should it be read

  • a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued in their state of residence, or

  • is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

Or is there another way to read it?

That’s a good question. The other point you bring up though is resident status. I am officially as per each states residency requirements a resident of two states. Thus I COULD get a resident LTC from both states. Although one state I would have to get that states issued Identification card, as one can’t legally have a drivers license from two states.

Their is a difference between where you reside and where your a resident. Especially for those who are in Military or Federal Law enforcement agencies.

If you have national reciprocity and only need 1 CCL from a home state, why would you need 2 from being a resident of what you say is two states? The above posts assume that having 1 would cover ALL states and therefore make getting 2 a moot issue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If you're speaking of H.R.38 I wonder how we should read the language I bolded:

 

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( b ) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying 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 or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

Does the clause “in the State in which the person resides” operate only on the “entitled to carry” language, or does it also apply to a “valid license or permit”?

 

In other words, should this be read to allow carry by

 

  • a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by any state, or

  • is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

Or should it be read

  • a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued in their state of residence, or

  • is entitled to carry in their state of residence without a license or permit

Or is there another way to read it?

That’s a good question. The other point you bring up though is resident status. I am officially as per each states residency requirements a resident of two states. Thus I COULD get a resident LTC from both states. Although one state I would have to get that states issued Identification card, as one can’t legally have a drivers license from two states.

Their is a difference between where you reside and where your a resident. Especially for those who are in Military or Federal Law enforcement agencies.

If you have national reciprocity and only need 1 CCL from a home state, why would you need 2 from being a resident of what you say is two states? The above posts assume that having 1 would cover ALL states and therefore make getting 2 a moot issue!

You missed my point, I agree, if you have national reciprocity, You only need one license/permit. If you don’t have to have that permit from your home state, then it doesn’t matter at all which state as long as you have at least one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed my point, I agree, if you have national reciprocity, You only need one license/permit. If you don’t have to have that permit from your home state, then it doesn’t matter at all which state as long as you have at least one.

 

Many states, perhaps not all, require you have your home state resident permit before they will issue a non-resident permit.

With national reciprocity there may not be a need for a non-resident permit.

 

Quick... collect them all before it's too late!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure the resident vs non-resident is what needs to be looked at.

If national reciprocity becomes what everyone envisions here then a persons home state permit will be valid and enforceable anywhere, yes?

And even though someones state may not issue permits (physical), then they will need to offer the physical permit for their state residents to have for use in the other 49 states! The issuance of non-resident permits would become a moot point as everyone has a permit if one is eligible for same.

 

Just because a state doesnt require a permit within their states borders doesnt negate them from issuing a physical card.

As we read it and others have interpreted it here, if you have a permit from the state you live in then you have a permit for the USA.

I dont see any way to get around the issue of being eligible for a permit IN your home state vs getting a non-resident permit and using that for the USA.

 

Keeping in mind that this is talk about national concealed carry, not open carry! IF your state allows for open carry it does not mean you can open carry everywhere. Just trying to get ahead of the next question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if your home state requires a permit, then you would have to be able to present it to a LEO in another state, if requested.

If your state does not require a permit, then your DL or official state ID would be required in that situation.

That would be searchable on a national LEO data base.

 

States could still deny permits to their residents for various reasons, multiple arrests, DUIs, etc., but would have to recognize those from other states.

Get Darted (contact, but no arrests) in Illinois. Move to Indiana. Get an Indiana permit. Illinois would have to recognize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure the resident vs non-resident is what needs to be looked at.

If national reciprocity becomes what everyone envisions here then a persons home state permit will be valid and enforceable anywhere, yes?

And even though someones state may not issue permits (physical), then they will need to offer the physical permit for their state residents to have for use in the other 49 states! The issuance of non-resident permits would become a moot point as everyone has a permit if one is eligible for same.

Just because a state doesnt require a permit within their states borders doesnt negate them from issuing a physical card.

As we read it and others have interpreted it here, if you have a permit from the state you live in then you have a permit for the USA.

I dont see any way to get around the issue of being eligible for a permit IN your home state vs getting a non-resident permit and using that for the USA.

Keeping in mind that this is talk about national concealed carry, not open carry! IF your state allows for open carry it does not mean you can open carry everywhere. Just trying to get ahead of the next question.

Well the open carry conceal carry question, maybe answered by the outcome of Young V Hawaii, especially if it makes it to SCOTUS and if they decide to hear the case.

 

Keep in mind that some states have a License to Carry. Called that because it’s a license to open or conceal. Other states have a concealed weapons license. Either because open carry in their state is permitless constitutional open carry. OR they are a state that bans any form of open carry. Something that may change as well depending on Young v Hawaii.

 

Young v Hawaii, has the possibility to determine that open carry (with or without a license) is constitutional. If SCOTUS makes that ruling, then all 50 states will have to allow open carry with at least a permit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This language in H.R.38 seems to negate the need for a physical card anywhere, for residents of states that don't require one:

 

... or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides...

Hmmm you make a good point. I am entitled to carry in Texas... so would that mean I wouldn’t need to maintain my license? Somehow I don’t think the courts will view it that way. However if your from a constitutional carry state, such as Vermont which doesn’t issue physical licenses, then as long as you have a Vermont ID card, you will be good. Assuming your otherwise legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...