Jump to content


Photo

House passes bill allowing concealed carry across state lines


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#31 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,922 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 07 December 2017 - 02:34 PM

I'm interested to see what happens with non-resident Utah permits IF this bill becomes law. Utah will not issue (or renew) a permit if your home state honors Utah's CFP, unless you first provide a copy of a permit to carry issued by your home state. So the idea of getting a Utah permit and carrying in Illinois without an Illinois CCL is probably a no-go. The same goes for residents of California, New York, Maryland, etc.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#32 Brownshoe

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 17

Posted 07 December 2017 - 03:07 PM

I think everyone would get something like AZ, which would develop an industry based on issuing licenses all around the country, much like Delaware courts for commercial litigation or TX courts for IP litigation. Cost could go up, as they would need tons of staff, but it would become a source of revenue for the state. Maybe other states would see this and make their licenses easier to obtain nationwide. For example, I applied for Maine, and it took just a few minutes to fill out the form. I received it two weeks later.



#33 Nic

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 08 December 2017 - 03:06 PM

Soundguy, youre parsing it wrong.
To simplify:
_________
...who...
(1) 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
(2) is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,
_________
Line 2 (my delineation for clarity) refers only to residents of permitless carry states.
Parsing it any other way doesnt make grammatical sense.
.


Seems like the Congressional research service, who wrote the summary of the bill disagrees with you.
https://www.congress...s/house-bill/38

A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.

#34 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,323 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 08 December 2017 - 03:18 PM

I'm interested to see what happens with non-resident Utah permits IF this bill becomes law. Utah will not issue (or renew) a permit if your home state honors Utah's CFP, unless you first provide a copy of a permit to carry issued by your home state. So the idea of getting a Utah permit and carrying in Illinois without an Illinois CCL is probably a no-go. The same goes for residents of California, New York, Maryland, etc.

So get one from Maine, Florida, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Minnesota, Washington, or any other state that issues to non-residents.

I think there will be... revision to many of the restrictive (or expensive) state's policies if this comes to pass. That is the experience of Missouri....

When Missouri instituted concealed carry, they recognized all permits even for MO residents. Due to the expense and intrusiveness of their permitting process, as well as the age restrictions, a large percentage if not a majority of Missouri residents got permits from other states.

Over the course of a few years this was recognized, and the response was to fix the problems and lower the cost of the MO permit. Now it's a much better system for MO residents.

If this goes into effect and Illinois residents have the option of less expensive and easier non-resident permits, such that it's cheaper and easier to get an out of state permit rather than pay Illinois' exorbitant cost even to just change your address, Illinois will end up fixing their problem.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#35 TomKoz

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,245 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 08 December 2017 - 03:24 PM

^^^. LMAO - Illinois fixing Anything!!! ^^^
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#36 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,323 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 08 December 2017 - 03:27 PM

I think everyone would get something like AZ, which would develop an industry based on issuing licenses all around the country, much like Delaware courts for commercial litigation or TX courts for IP litigation. Cost could go up, as they would need tons of staff, but it would become a source of revenue for the state. Maybe other states would see this and make their licenses easier to obtain nationwide. For example, I applied for Maine, and it took just a few minutes to fill out the form. I received it two weeks later.

Maine used to be very popular with Missouri residents. No fingerprints, easy training requirement, relatively inexpensive and would issue to 18 year olds. Didn't give them many states but gave them their own so worked out well especially for those under 21.

Utah was almost becoming a "permit industry", they passed the restriction to cut down the number of applications they were processing which was supposedly becoming almost unmanageable.

I think before any one state would truly be able to do that, that most states would revise their own processes enough to make it unnecessary. Local states and LE agencies WANT that information about their own residents.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#37 Liberty4IL

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 14

Posted 08 December 2017 - 03:31 PM

https://www.conceale...ry-reciprocity/

#38 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,323 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 08 December 2017 - 03:31 PM

^^^. LMAO - Illinois fixing Anything!!! ^^^

When most Illinois residents with carry permits are not in LEADS, and 90% of existing licenses are not being renewed, ISP will go to the powers that be, the fees will get reduced, and service will improve. If you suddenly take a petty tyrants power away, they will scramble to get some semblance of relevance back.

At a functional level they do actually want Illinois residents to get Illinois training and want to have information on them. Recognition of non-resident permits would force them to be more competitive, just as happened in Missouri.

Edited by Gamma, 08 December 2017 - 03:34 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#39 gregivq

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,136 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 14

Posted 12 December 2017 - 09:01 AM

^ and we'll also need about 1000 government employees laid off for all the reduced revenue.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users