Jump to content


Photo

Good News About National Reciprocity!


  • Please log in to reply
411 replies to this topic

#1 WARFACE

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,033 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 13

Posted 23 December 2016 - 06:46 PM

 

Could it happen? The vid mentions Constitutional Carry as well. 2017 is going to be an exciting year. 


Aspire to be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.


#2 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,317 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 23 December 2016 - 07:23 PM

post-3474-0-05773100-1482542563.jpg

Attached Thumbnails

  • oogway.jpg

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 

 


#3 Just some guy

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 16

Posted 23 December 2016 - 07:40 PM

I'm undecided about this. On its' face it seems great. But....... I don't have to get a license to exercise any other constitutional right across state lines. Why is this one different. We would still be subject to a patch work of restrictions. I'm thinking just get a federal bill passed that has one set of rules and be done with it.


Fast is fine, accurate is final.


#4 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 23 December 2016 - 08:29 PM

I'm not inclined to watch the video... Is this the same bill Rep Hudson announced 3 or 4 weeks ago he would introduce in the new session?
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#5 Joe Six Gun

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 53 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 16

Posted 23 December 2016 - 10:50 PM

Constitutional carry is what we need. A federal law can be repealed or found unconstitutional, versus a constitutionally recognized right which has a much stronger basis. Also, with the federal government nationalizing CC laws, some states might have to enact stricter laws (I'm looking at you, AZ), while others like IL, will have to lessen theirs. Obviously, the Dems will suddenly find a new-found interest in "states' rights" to oppose such legislation. 

 

Still, national reciprocity would be a big step up from what we have now. 


"This life's hard, but it's harder if you're stupid"  George Higgins


#6 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:27 AM

Also, with the federal government nationalizing CC laws

No one is proposing that the federal government "nationalize" concealed carry laws.

Come on people. Why is simple recognition of licenses of non-residents such a difficult concept to understand?
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#7 Joe Six Gun

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 53 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 16

Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:59 AM

By passing legislation requiring every state to recognize a national standard for CC the federal government will be "nationalizing" CC reciprocity laws, individual states will have no say on the matter. That's the definition of "nationalization" for a law.


"This life's hard, but it's harder if you're stupid"  George Higgins


#8 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 24 December 2016 - 02:49 AM

By passing legislation requiring every state to recognize a national standard for CC the federal government will be "nationalizing" CC reciprocity laws, individual states will have no say on the matter. That's the definition of "nationalization" for a law.

There is no "national standard" proposed or included in the bill.

It has no bearing on what happens within a state. It only applies to interstate travel, you know, part of that stuff that the federal government is there for.

Here's the existing bill, I doubt next years version will differ substantively.
https://www.congress...e-bill/986/text
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#9 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 24 December 2016 - 02:56 AM

For all the paranoid types who think that doing something good means that it will be ok for the government to do something bad in the future, here's a newsflash for you: if there was the political will to do whatever bad thing, they'd do it, they don't need this kind of bill or anything else as a setup.

There is absolutely no harm to come from this, none. It's pure win for gun rights.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#10 TRJ

    Joyful Stoic

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,889 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 24 December 2016 - 04:17 AM

For all the paranoid types who think that doing something good means that it will be ok for the government to do something bad in the future, here's a newsflash for you: if there was the political will to do whatever bad thing, they'd do it, they don't need this kind of bill or anything else as a setup.

There is absolutely no harm to come from this, none. It's pure win for gun rights.

You mean like when Obama and both houses were all democrat majorities and Obamacare got rammed through without a single republican vote? Political will is pretty much the same thing as a single leader with a political majority. You'd think living in Illinois would have taught us this by now.



#11 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 24 December 2016 - 06:50 AM

I gotta go with Gamma.

 

I see no evil here as long as it's just universal recognition. We fought for this here in Illinois. remember the Cook County carve out?


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#12 WARFACE

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,033 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 13

Posted 24 December 2016 - 07:21 AM

I would just love to see Illinois get their nose rubbed in it and be forced to allow non-residents to carry. I would rather see us get Con carry and take away their little honey pot of cash that they get from selling us our Rights back.


Aspire to be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.


#13 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 24 December 2016 - 07:35 AM

I would just love to see Illinois get their nose rubbed in it and be forced to allow non-residents to carry. I would rather see us get Con carry and take away their little honey pot of cash that they get from selling us our Rights back.

 

Me, too!


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#14 RINGKINGS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 08

Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:02 PM

 

Also, with the federal government nationalizing CC laws

No one is proposing that the federal government "nationalize" concealed carry laws.

Come on people. Why is simple recognition of licenses of non-residents such a difficult concept to understand?

 

have to agree with Gamma....... this is simple recognition of licenses across state boundaries... if passed all

licensed carriers will have to obey the individual laws of any state they are in..... also, it is NOT a National license so the

nonsense of the Federal government being able to later take your license to carry away(at least in your individual state)

is a fallacy.


I COULD AGREE WITH YOU, BUT THEN WE WOULD BOTH BE WRONG.
ONE STATE ONE LAW

#15 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 803 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:29 PM

Any law can be changed; or in some cases have a limited time period, as in the case of the old assault weapons ban. 

I am for the concept of national carry.  Laws are usually several paragraphs, even pages, long.  What looks like a great bill by title and in paragraph 3 can become severely restrictive in paragraph 12. Then there is the possibility of amendments and riders.  I think national carry bills should be approached with cautious optimism, and watched closely.



#16 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:36 PM

I would just love to see Illinois get their nose rubbed in it and be forced to allow non-residents to carry.

and Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, etc. Icing on the cake would be DC.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#17 RINGKINGS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 08

Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:56 PM

Any law can be changed; or in some cases have a limited time period, as in the case of the old assault weapons ban. 

I am for the concept of national carry.  Laws are usually several paragraphs, even pages, long.  What looks like a great bill by title and in paragraph 3 can become severely restrictive in paragraph 12. Then there is the possibility of amendments and riders.  I think national carry bills should be approached with cautious optimism, and watched closely.

the bill proposed is NOT a national carry bill........ it is a bill that proposes that states recognize a license to carry issued

by other states..... just like drivers licenses....... no one is proposing a national carry bill where the Federal government would

have the ability to give or take away any rights...... it is simply, a reciprocal agreement.

Also, no one is proposing that states change their individual set of rules.... example; if state A says no carry in a place that serves

alcohol then the carrier must obey that rule in that state regardless of what his home state license allows.


I COULD AGREE WITH YOU, BUT THEN WE WOULD BOTH BE WRONG.
ONE STATE ONE LAW

#18 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 24 December 2016 - 01:52 PM

 

I would just love to see Illinois get their nose rubbed in it and be forced to allow non-residents to carry.

and Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, etc. Icing on the cake would be DC.

 

 

Oregon is a shall issue state, though like Illinois they don't recognize any other states CCW .  No guns signs have no force of law in Oregon, only places legislated as CPZ's.  


Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrong doers should dominate just men.  -  Augustine

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)


#19 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 13,047 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 24 December 2016 - 03:12 PM

I would be happy to not be thrown in jail for having an unloaded gun in a locked case in my luggage anywhere in the U.S. and territories.

Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?

 

 


#20 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 24 December 2016 - 10:03 PM

I would be happy to not be thrown in jail for having a n un loaded gun in a locked case in my luggage holster anywhere in the U.S. and territories.

Fixed it for you.


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

#21 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,206 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 24 December 2016 - 10:34 PM

I have had concerns (and likely will in the future) about a "federal concealed carry bill." Those concerns are based on the belief that the wrong bill could "give" the federal government powers that it does not currently hold; that is the ability to set eligibility or license requirements that is currently held by the states (which is congruent with current court interpretation.) Of course my fear that once the fed had the reigns, both houses could flip and we'd have CA, NY, or NJ style carry laws.

The bill being discussed, in its latest iteration at least, does not do that. It *appears* to establish a statutory right to carry based on state of residence eligibility and destination state laws.

#22 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 803 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 24 December 2016 - 11:21 PM

 

Any law can be changed; or in some cases have a limited time period, as in the case of the old assault weapons ban. 

I am for the concept of national carry.  Laws are usually several paragraphs, even pages, long.  What looks like a great bill by title and in paragraph 3 can become severely restrictive in paragraph 12. Then there is the possibility of amendments and riders.  I think national carry bills should be approached with cautious optimism, and watched closely.

the bill proposed is NOT a national carry bill........ it is a bill that proposes that states recognize a license to carry issued

by other states..... just like drivers licenses....... no one is proposing a national carry bill where the Federal government would

have the ability to give or take away any rights...... it is simply, a reciprocal agreement.

Also, no one is proposing that states change their individual set of rules.... example; if state A says no carry in a place that serves

alcohol then the carrier must obey that rule in that state regardless of what his home state license allows.

 

 

I was not referring to any specific bill. In your example, if all states voluntarily recognize reciprocity with all other states, then there is no reason for input by the federal government.  If the federal government mandates there be reciprocity among all states, that requires a federal law for enforcement or a Supreme Court decision for enforcement.  A Congressional resolution would not accomplish that.  Some states recognize only residential licenses of other states. Some of us in Illinois have previously obtained a Florida or Utah CCW before the FCCL passed here.  Michigan does not recognize those nonresident licenses held by Illinois residents.  I believe a few states may license 18 year olds, other states may not recognize that license until the holder reaches 21.



#23 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 25 December 2016 - 02:24 AM

I believe a few states may license 18 year olds, other states may not recognize that license until the holder reaches 21.

Yes they do, neighboring Indiana being one of them. Missouri issues to 18 year olds in the armed forces, or 19 otherwise.

Fun fact, an Illinois resident 18 year old can't even get a FOID without a FOID eligible parent signing off, but they can get a Maine carry permit and travel to Indiana or Missouri and concealed carry.

Edited by Gamma, 25 December 2016 - 02:27 AM.

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

#24 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,586 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 25 December 2016 - 11:24 AM

Any federal legislation on carry should be limited recognition of a fundamental right and the protection thereof. A provision prohibiting prosecution within the scope of lawful exercise of the right and violations by state or state actors shall not benefit from immunity. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#25 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 26 December 2016 - 02:29 PM

The focus shouldn't be, and isn't going to be, on the establishment of a federal licensing/permitting scheme, the focus will be on forcing all states to recognize the permits of non-residents, much like LEOSA and FOPA forced states to allow non-residents to carry (for police) or transport (for civilians) through states that normally wouldn't allow them to. It won't mean that a resident of Brooklyn will suddenly be able to carry in NYC, but it'll mean that the tourist visiting from Georgia will be able to carry in Times Square without violating the law.

And that's the unintentional beauty of the law: it creates a situation where those living in restrictive may-issue states could conceivably sue on the grounds of unequal treatment under the law. This could help end may issue in this country once and for all, while also driving yet another nail into the gun control movement's coffin.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#26 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 29 December 2016 - 08:35 AM

What needs to happen here is not national reciprocity but a statute, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, snatching away the states' jurisdiction over carriage of loaded firearms in public. Telling them that they cannot restrict issuance of licenses based on subjective criteria such as "justifiable need." Make it all shall issue and that's bare minimum. What I would love to see is a Supreme Court ruling that carriage of firearms in public is a protected right and any statute or regulation burdening that right is per se unconstitutional. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#27 Blade13

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 10

Posted 03 January 2017 - 09:33 PM

GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of New Congress

http://www.breitbart...e-new-congress/

 

https://hudson.house...Act of 2017.pdf


NRA Life Member
ISRA Life Member


#28 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 04 January 2017 - 02:01 PM

GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of New Congress

http://www.breitbart...e-new-congress/

 

https://hudson.house...Act of 2017.pdf

 

 

If you read this bill closely, it appears to allow someone to obtain a license from any state (including one that is not your state of residence) and to carry in any other state with that license. 

 

So an Illinois resident could get a Utah or Florida license instead of the Illinois CCL and carry anywhere in the country--including in Illinois.  It would allow residents of may-issue states to carry in their own states, too, where they would be otherwise prohibited (here's looking at you, New Jersey).

 

 

"a person...

 

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... in any State that..."  (paraphrasing for brevity) issues licenses to its residents or has permitless carry policies in place.

 

The "or" threw me off on first read, but I believe it separates the clauses "license... pursuant to the law of a State" and the "entitled to carry... in the state in which the person resides."  So either condition fulfills the requirement under this law.

 

In its current form this isn't going to be as easy to pass as some people believe.


Edited by kwc, 04 January 2017 - 02:06 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#29 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,790 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 04 January 2017 - 02:14 PM

 

GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of New Congress

http://www.breitbart...e-new-congress/

 

https://hudson.house...Act of 2017.pdf

 

 

If you read this bill closely, it appears to allow someone to obtain a license from any state (including one that is not your state of residence) and to carry in any other state with that license. 

 

So an Illinois resident could get a Utah or Florida license instead of the Illinois CCL and carry anywhere in the country--including in Illinois.  It would allow residents of may-issue states to carry in their own states, too, where they would be otherwise prohibited (here's looking at you, New Jersey).

 

 

"a person...

 

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... in any State that..."  (paraphrasing for brevity) issues licenses to its residents or has permitless carry policies in place.

 

The "or" threw me off on first read, but I believe it separates the clauses "license... pursuant to the law of a State" and the "entitled to carry... in the state in which the person resides."  So either condition fulfills the requirement under this law.

 

In its current form this isn't going to be as easy to pass as some people believe.

 

 

Yes, but as it's currently written makes much more sense than the previous version.

 

It also includes language that defines a handgun as including the magazine and ammo, essentially removing capacity limits and ammo restrictions.


** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#30 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,017 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 04 January 2017 - 03:13 PM

"permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, " 

 

Basically people in CA would still be screwed since most of them can't get a carry license and CA doesn't accept any other states. 


You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

NRA Benefactor Member

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users