Jump to content

New bill

ThePuzzledGunner

By ThePuzzledGunner
in Illinois Right to Keep and Carry

Recommended Posts

Brownshoe Member

Brownshoe

Posted
Posted

So i guess pretty soon a carry license will be excepted in every state. So if i got an Arizona out of state ccw will i be able to carry here in Illinois?

 

There is a lot of discussion on this in threads in the National politics forum but three points:

 

1) As the House bill is written, yes, you would.

2) The bill is not likely to make it out of the Senate, so don't expect anything to actually change.

3) The Senate may very well adjust the bill to make #1 not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
soundguy Member

soundguy

Posted
Posted

Looking at the text of the House Bill, I would say NO, an Arizona permit will not allow an Illinois resident to carry in Illinois.

 

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 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

 

Only an Illinois license allows any person to carry in Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Quiet Observer Member

Quiet Observer

Posted
Posted

I think that the wording of the bill is ambivalent. It does not specifically state that one most be licensed in one's state of residence (or live in a state where licensure is not required). Nor does it specifically state that a license from other then one's state of residence must be recognized for the holder by all other states. For example, Michigan recognizes the licenses of all other states, but only residential licenses of the holder, i.e. a Utah license held by an Illinois resident is not accepted in Michigan. This bill may have a similar intention, maybe not.

 

As others have stated, much depends on what happens in the Senate and the conference committee that drafts the final bill.

 

 

 

Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

“(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 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
soundguy Member

soundguy

Posted
Posted

It seemed pretty crystal clear to me...

 

A Michigander would need a Michigan permit, just like those from Illinois need an Illinois license. I do not recall if ANY state will allow it's residents to carry on a permit from a different state.

 

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( :cool:) 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 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
geomick Member

geomick

Posted
Posted

 

It seemed pretty crystal clear to me...

 

A Michigander would need a Michigan permit, just like those from Illinois need an Illinois license. I do not recall if ANY state will allow it's residents to carry on a permit from a different state.

 

 

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( :cool:) 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 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

 

 

 

I do not believe you are interpreting the effect of the "or" correctly. It is "(a+b) or (c)" not "(a+b+c)".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
soundguy Member

soundguy

Posted
Posted

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( :cool:) 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 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

 

Yeah... I'm changing to "as poorly written as 2A". The or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm is a "Vermont Clause" and in the State in which the person resides, is intended to affect the permit you can carry under or the "Vermont Clause".

 

 

I can't imagine the goal is to dismantle the permit systems of any state. Sorry to disturb you all... back to bed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoadyRunner Member

RoadyRunner

Posted
Posted

Looking at the text of the House Bill, I would say NO, an Arizona permit will not allow an Illinois resident to carry in Illinois.

 

 

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( :cool:) 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 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

 

Only an Illinois license allows any person to carry in Illinois.

 

I think you are missing an important OR

 

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( :cool:) 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 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

An Illinois resident possessing a florida non-resident license would qualify under "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"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted

Looking at the text of the House Bill, I would say NO, an Arizona permit will not allow an Illinois resident to carry in Illinois.

 

 

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( :cool:) 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 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

 

 

Only an Illinois license allows any person to carry in Illinois.

You're misreading that imho.

 

It states that (1st part) you have a valid concealed carry license issued by some state OR (2nd part) your state that you reside in allows concealed carry without a license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted

I think that the wording of the bill is ambivalent. It does not specifically state that one most be licensed in one's state of residence (or live in a state where licensure is not required). Nor does it specifically state that a license from other then one's state of residence must be recognized for the holder by all other states. For example, Michigan recognizes the licenses of all other states, but only residential licenses of the holder, i.e. a Utah license held by an Illinois resident is not accepted in Michigan. This bill may have a similar intention, maybe not.

 

As others have stated, much depends on what happens in the Senate and the conference committee that drafts the final bill.

 

 

 

Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( :cool:) 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 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

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

See as written it seems clear to me. Either you have an actual license from a state, OR your state allows you to carry. In those of us with an Ill carry, that means they are both the same actually.

 

But, as mentioned, I suspect, IF it makes it out of the Senate, at a minimum, it will be changed to (If your state requires a license, you must be licensed in that state).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Quiet Observer Member

Quiet Observer

Posted
Posted

 

See as written it seems clear to me. Either you have an actual license from a state, OR your state allows you to carry. In those of us with an Ill carry, that means they are both the same actually.

 

What is clear to you, that if you have a CC license from any state (regardless of residency) your license would be recognized in all states, or that you must be licensed by your state of residency for your license to be recognized by all other states?

 

This is what Representative Martha Robey ® of Alabama wrote on Twitter. She took part in the debate on the bill and would surely know what was intended.

 

The bill ensures all law-abiding Americans who qualify for concealed carry permits in their state can exercise their 2A rights in any state. It also ensures that our National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is enforced and working properly.

12:01 PM - 6 Dec 2017
As you point out, much depends on what happens in the Senate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

This is what Representative Martha Robey ® of Alabama wrote on Twitter. She took part in the debate on the bill and would surely know what was intended.

 

The bill ensures all law-abiding Americans who qualify for concealed carry permits in their state can exercise their 2A rights in any state. It also ensures that our National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is enforced and working properly.

 

There was a LOT of misinformation being shared during debate. Most from the Ds, but some from the Rs, too.

 

I defer to Rep Hudson's own interpretation. Alan Gottleib (Second Amendment Foundation) carries a lot of credibility in my mind, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xwing Member

Xwing

Posted
Posted

 

 

According to GovTrack.us - the bill has a 39% chance of being enacted...

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr38

 

Interesting to know. This bill has a definite uphill battle in the Senate. I can't imagine that even if they watered it down a bit (e.g. required a permit from YOUR state as being discussed above), they could get enough Democrats to vote yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThePuzzledGunner Welcome New Member

ThePuzzledGunner

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ok now if it does end up being like "The bill ensures all law-abiding Americans who qualify for concealed carry permits in their state can exercise their 2A rights in any state", say if i moved to indiana and obtained a ccw there then moved back to Illinois, would my old ccw from indiana stay valid in Illinois becuase i was a resident of indiana or would i have to reapply in Illinois once i move back?

 

Just looking for possible loophole. Voluntarily went to rehab last year becuase of a drinking problem, been clean ever since but lost my 2a rights for 5 years in the process. My buddy lives in indiana and never had a problem getting a ccw after rehab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

Ok now if it does end up being like "The bill ensures all law-abiding Americans who qualify for concealed carry permits in their state can exercise their 2A rights in any state", say if i moved to indiana and obtained a ccw there then moved back to Illinois, would my old ccw from indiana stay valid in Illinois becuase i was a resident of indiana or would i have to reapply in Illinois once i move back?

 

Just looking for possible loophole. Voluntarily went to rehab last year becuase of a drinking problem, been clean ever since but lost my 2a rights for 5 years in the process. My buddy lives in indiana and never had a problem getting a ccw after rehab.

 

It would be up to the state that issued your permit. If Indiana cancels an issued license to carry when their resident moves out of the state, then you would no longer have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gamma Member

Gamma

Posted
Posted

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=64281&p=1119582

 

All discussed here.

 

The current wording allows carry in any state on any state's permit/license regardless of residence, OR, if the person's home state does not require a permit then no permit is needed. Partly this is a response to Obergefell which established just this kind of legal doctrine.

 

That is the legislative intent. An amendment was introduced to change that to require residents to have their own state's permit, and that amendment was defeated, so the legislative intent is clear and documented.

 

Whether the bill remains that way through the rest of the process is unknown, but that is where it is now.

 

I understand the sentiment behind the provision and support the idea, but I fear that the courts would use that to throw out the law as it being too intrusive into intrastate matters. But as I've also mentioned before, this ground has already been trod with LEOSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

Use caution when reading that page. There are a few misrepresentations. For instance, the site says SCOTUS ruled that each “state has to allow citizens some legal method to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense.” Not true. I caught a couple of other things, too, but won’t go into those here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Quiet Observer Member

Quiet Observer

Posted
Posted

 

 

There was a LOT of misinformation being shared during debate. Most from the Ds, but some from the Rs, too.

I defer to Rep Hudson's own interpretation. Alan Gottleib (Second Amendment Foundation) carries a lot of credibility in my mind, too.

Then Representative Hudson should have included a phrase in the bill stating, "holding a license from his or her own state or from another state", or something similar. Then there would be not need for a court to decide legislative intent. It would be spelled out in the legislation. Hopefully it will be clarified in the Senate.

A point of confusion that I see is states that do not require permits at all for anyone. That seems to indicate that H.R. 38 would eliminate the need for anyone in any state to have a license. If Illinois would have to recognize my Florida non-resident permit, then it would have to allow anyone (with few excepts e.g. convicted felons) to carry here by virtue of the right recognized by concealed carry states, e.g. Alaska, Vermont, etc.

I do not claim to know the definitive interpretation of the bill as it stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

By the way, a representative from California attempted to amend H.R. 38 in the Rules Committee to prevent forum shopping. She wanted to change "a State" to "the State in which a person resides." (@Gamma alluded to this in his post #23 above.)

See here:

https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/LOFGRE_028_xml124171229372937.pdf

You can see the full list of proposed amendments and their descriptions at this link:

https://rules.house.gov/bill/115/hr-38

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lockman Member

lockman

Posted
Posted
https://www.concealedcarry.com/national/answers-to-your-questions-about-hr-38-national-concealed-carry-reciprocity/

 

Use caution when reading that page. There are a few misrepresentations. For instance, the site says SCOTUS ruled that each “state has to allow citizens some legal method to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense.” Not true. I caught a couple of other things, too, but won’t go into those here.

 

The dicta in Heller and McDonald certainly point to that but they don’t specify method or manor.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoadyRunner Member

RoadyRunner

Posted
Posted

Latest action on the bill...

 

Senate Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ahh, yes. The 'Committee on the Judiciary'.

 

According to GovTrack.us - the bill has a 39% chance of being enacted...

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr38

 

GovTrack.us is now reporting a 54% chance of being enacted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brownshoe Member

Brownshoe

Posted
Posted

 

 

GovTrack.us is now reporting a 54% chance of being enacted...

 

 

I'm not certain of the methodology employed by GovTrack, but I think it is a text parsing / keyword method, meaning that because it has guns in it, it is less likely to be enacted. I don't think GovTrack is actually doing any work to get to this number.

 

Factors considered:

The overall text of the bill decreases its chances of being enacted. The bill's primary sponsor is from the state/territory: NC. The bill's primary sponsor is a Republican. The bill is assigned to the Senate Judiciary committee. There is 1 related bill in Congress. The bill's primary subject is Crime and law enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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