Jump to content


Photo

Good News About National Reciprocity!


  • Please log in to reply
424 replies to this topic

#31 Just some guy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 16

Posted 04 January 2017 - 04:35 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. 

3 things

1. A CA resident could get a Utah or other nonresident permit and carry in CA.

2. An out of state permit holder would have greater carry rights in CA than a CA resident. That aint gunna sit well.

3. CA wouldn't have a choice in the matter. They would have to recognize other state's permits.


Fast is fine, accurate is final.


#32 kwc

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,354 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 04 January 2017 - 04:40 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.


Did you read my post #28 above? If so, how is my interpretation lacking?
"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)

#33 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,370 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 04 January 2017 - 07:07 PM

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.

But people from Illinois can go there and carry.

Which is probably the best way to force political change to their permitting system.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#34 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 04 January 2017 - 07:41 PM

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

( :cool: This section shall not be construed to supersede 4 or limit the laws of any State that— 5 ‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, in-10 stallation, building, base, or park.

So public transportation in Illinois would be good to go?
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#35 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 915 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 04 January 2017 - 10:07 PM

 

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

( :cool: This section shall not be construed to supersede 4 or limit the laws of any State that— 5 ‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, in-10 stallation, building, base, or park.

So public transportation in Illinois would be good to go?

 

 

Questionable, esp. in the St. Louis area.  There, the Metro trains (which cross state lines) as well as some of the bus routes, are run by a publicly funded agency, not the actual states.  They could still post here in Illinois and would probably try something similar in Missouri.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#36 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,203 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 04 January 2017 - 10:34 PM

 

( :cool: This section shall not be construed to supersede 4 or limit the laws of any State that— 5 ‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, in-10 stallation, building, base, or park.

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

So public transportation in Illinois would be good to go?

 

No. They are saying the Federal law will not supersede the ability of citizens or businesses to restrict carry on their property nor place new restrictions on prohibited places.

The stupid Illinois restrictions will still apply.

This is where California can make carry impossible by adding tons of carry restrictions like 1000 foot rules...

They need to make this law much tougher, right now it's kind of a limp noodle.

 


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#37 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,185 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 05 January 2017 - 12:54 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.


Did you read my post #28 above? If so, how is my interpretation lacking?

 

It's not lacking it's just not what it says.

If you have a resident license elsewhere then yes you can carry in CA but if you live in CA and can't get a license in CA a non-resident license elsewhere still doesn't mean spit in CA.  

 

Will people in CA be p...d off that non-residents can carry and they can't, yeah so what's new? 


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

 


#38 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,794 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 05 January 2017 - 01:42 PM

It sounds like a very good bill, and a great step in the right direction.  This year is the year to get it passed, so hopefully Congressional Republicans have the willpower to not ignore it. 


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#39 kwc

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,354 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 05 January 2017 - 02:29 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.


Did you read my post #28 above? If so, how is my interpretation lacking?

 

It's not lacking it's just not what it says.

If you have a resident license elsewhere then yes you can carry in CA but if you live in CA and can't get a license in CA a non-resident license elsewhere still doesn't mean spit in CA.  

 

Will people in CA be p...d off that non-residents can carry and they can't, yeah so what's new? 

 

 

We are definitely interpreting it differently then.  My thoughts were the same as yours until a 2nd and 3rd reading helped me understand what it really says.  In addition to possessing an identification card of some type, the bill requires concealed carriers to fulfill one of two conditions to carry in any state: (1) possess a license/permit from a state, or (2) be allowed to carry without a license (so-called constitutional carry) in his or her home state. 

 

I'm not sure how this could be interpreted otherwise and still pass grammatical muster.

 

Of course, this discussion is probably all academic anyway since the bill won't pass... filibuster, state's rights, Rs from liberal states, etc...


Edited by kwc, 05 January 2017 - 02:51 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)

#40 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,884 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 08 January 2017 - 06:57 PM

[quote name="kwc" post="1060709" timestamp="1483648184"][quote name="SiliconSorcerer" post="1060686" timestamp="1483642484"]
[quote name="kwc" post="1060462" timestamp="1483569646"]
[quote name="SiliconSorcerer" post="1060428" timestamp="1483564409"]
"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.
[/quote]

Did you read my post #28 above? If so, how is my interpretation lacking?
[/quote]
It's not lacking it's just not what it says.
If you have a resident license elsewhere then yes you can carry in CA but if you live in CA and can't get a license in CA a non-resident license elsewhere still doesn't mean spit in CA.  
 
Will people in CA be p...d off that non-residents can carry and they can't, yeah so what's new?
[/quote]
 
We are definitely interpreting it differently then.  My thoughts were the same as yours until a 2nd and 3rd reading helped me understand what it really says.  In addition to possessing an identification card of some type, the bill requires concealed carriers to fulfill one of two conditions to carry in any state: (1) possess a license/permit from a state, or (2) be allowed to carry without a license (so-called constitutional carry) in his or her home state. 
 
I'm not sure how this could be interpreted otherwise and still pass grammatical muster.
 
Of course, this discussion is probably all academic anyway since the bill won't pass... filibuster, state's rights, Rs from liberal states, etc...[/quote]

I think it will. 52 republican senators, nuclear option, and we have a good chance.
"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

#41 kwc

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,354 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 08 January 2017 - 07:20 PM

Mitch McConnell may nuke the filibuster for judicial appointments, but I'd be very surprised if he does this for legislative actions.

Furthermore, all 4 bills from the 114th Congress lacked the provision to allow residents of restrictive states to carry in their home state with a license from another. This bill has that provision, and is thus a significant departure from the prior ones. IMHO that change alone will make Hudson's new bill harder to pass.

Edited by kwc, 08 January 2017 - 07:22 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)

#42 GWBH

    Ripcord... This is Alabama - Fire For Effect, Over...

  • Members
  • 6,029 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 08

Posted 08 January 2017 - 09:33 PM

Even if it does come to fruition, consider the myriad of state laws relating to firearms and self defense.

It won't be like getting a traffic ticket for turning right on a red light without knowing it's still against the law in some state.

 

Just wish the 2A was treated like all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights - it should be!!!


Fire Support Base Ripcord Association - the heroes of the Vietnam War have their names on a wall in Washington, DC
http://www.ripcordassociation.com/

Phil Compton "ishmo", "L" Company 75th Infantry (RANGER) 101st Airborne Division (VietNam 1968 - 1969 / 1970 - 1971 )
A good man, a good soldier, a patriot and a true friend.

PFC Patrick J. Bohan, 101 Pathfinder Detachment, 101st Airborne Division, KIA, July 10, 1970, on FSB Ripcord
 


#43 kwc

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,354 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 08 January 2017 - 09:47 PM

Also expect some pushback in the Congress regarding the provision in this bill that allows licensees to carry concealed firearms into schools as defined in the Gun Free School Zone Act, regardless of which state issued their licenses.
"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)

#44 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,370 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 08 January 2017 - 10:28 PM

I'm not a fan of the change that allows residents of a state to carry in their home state on a non-resident license via federal reciprocity. I don't think that bodes well for the passage of the bill or eventual challenges to it. Maybe that's a throwaway provision.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#45 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,020 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 09 January 2017 - 12:38 AM

I'm not a fan of the change that allows residents of a state to carry in their home state on a non-resident license via federal reciprocity. I don't think that bodes well for the passage of the bill or eventual challenges to it. Maybe that's a throwaway provision.

 

 

Stated purpose of the bill:

“To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State”.

 

From page 2, lines13-19:

“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. . .” 

 

Similar to what Michigan and some other states do now, you must have a license from your home state. If you are from a state with Constitutional Carry (and thus no CCW permit), your driver’s license or official state ID would be used to comply with the law.



#46 kwc

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,354 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 09 January 2017 - 05:50 AM

From page 2, lines13-19:

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. . . 
 
Similar to what Michigan and some other states do now, you must have a license from your home state. If you are from a state with Constitutional Carry (and thus no CCW permit), your drivers license or official state ID would be used to comply with the law.


Incorrect.

If a person has a valid ID card, and is not federally prohibited, this bill provides two options that allow him or her to carry in any state: either (1) carrying a valid concealed carry license from A STATE (it doesn't require a home state license), or (2) resides in a state that allows a person to carry without a license (hence the "entitled to..." text). Please read the paragraph you quoted carefully. The "or" matters, and is the "entitled to" links back to "who"--not to "license or permit" or to "law of a State." They are independent conditions.

Also note that all four bills introduced in the 114th Congress stated that the person meeting those qualifications may posses or carry a concealed handgun "...in any State other than the State of residence of the individual..." A draft of Hudson's bill made available in December included this restriction, too.

Curiously, however, the bill Hudson introduced last week, H.R.38, eliminates the "other than the State of residence of the individual" clause and simply says "...in any State..."

I think these words were chosen very carefully and deliberately.

Edited by kwc, 09 January 2017 - 06:03 AM.

"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)

#47 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,185 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:33 AM

So in other words a person who was denied a permit in IL could send his $5 to PA (does that still exist? but anyway get some non-resident permit) and then carry in IL. 

 

I would find that a difficult case to argue support for.  

If this was the law of the land I would have not gotten an IL permit at all and found a less expensive non-residence license permit state. 


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

 


#48 kwc

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,354 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:55 AM

So in other words a person who was denied a permit in IL could send his $5 to PA (does that still exist? but anyway get some non-resident permit) and then carry in IL. 
 
I would find that a difficult case to argue support for.  
If this was the law of the land I would have not gotten an IL permit at all and found a less expensive non-residence license permit state.


PA isn't a good example, since PA won't issue to you (as an Illinois resident) unless you have an Illinois license (and pay $20, and show up in person).

But yes, this bill would allow you, as a resident of Illinois, to get a Utah, Florida, Arizona, etc. license/permit and carry in Illinois. Now if you had been denied an Illinois license, the reasons for denial in Illinois may also prohibit licensure in those states, too, so this isn't a way to completely skirt the Illinois prohibition.

The "Mom's" groups will probably characterize this as a "race to the bottom," and a state that offers the cheapest and quickest way to obtain a license--and issues to nonresidents--stands to do some pretty good business. This bill will never pass as written.

Edited by kwc, 09 January 2017 - 10:05 AM.

"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)

#49 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,020 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:09 AM

The first sentence in the bill says, “To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State”. 

 

It specifically addresses carrying by nonresidents. 

 

And again under 926D(b ) “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. . .”  The phrase “State in which the person resides is not set off with commas, i.e. it applies to the phrases both before and after the word “or”.

 

It does not say that states must recognize nonresident permits issued to its own residents of the state.  That would probably be overstepping Federal authority. 



#50 kwc

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,354 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:29 AM


 

The first sentence in the bill says, “To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State”.   

 

It specifically addresses carrying by nonresidents.   

 

And again under 926D(b ) “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. . .”  The phrase “State in which the person resides is not set off with commas, i.e. it applies to the phrases both before and after the word “or”.  

 

It does not say that states must recognize nonresident permits issued to its own residents of the state.  That would probably be overstepping Federal authority.  ​

 

The purpose of a bill often does not accurately capture every nuance of the text. Sometimes this is unintentional and other times it is a deliberate sleight-of-hand. This bill also removes the GFSZA restriction for licensees. That isn't mentioned in the purpose, either.  But the changes introduced into this latest version (which allow a licensee to carry in ANY STATE, removing the "other than the State of residence..." phrase) still lead me to believe my interpretation is what was intended.

 

As for the placement of the phrase "State in which the person resides," separating this with a comma would strengthen your argument--that the licensure and Constitutional carry provisions both require residency. Without the comma, I still contend "or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides" stands alone from the licensure requirement. That simply refers to one's ability to carry without a license in the state of residence.

 

My parsing:

 

...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,

 

Your parsing:

 

...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,

 

Okay, I'll admit there is some ambiguity.  This will need to be resolved before the bill receives a vote. Many people read it as I do, and that will stir up a lot of trouble for passage.

 

Now I'd like to hear your take on the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment. What is the significance of the comma? :-)


Edited by kwc, 09 January 2017 - 10:43 AM.

"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)

#51 EngChi

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 59 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 13

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:36 AM

May be a stupid question - but why is this any different from how marriage license were handled where all states where required to recognize licenses performed in any member state regardless whether people married were residents of the state they got married ? i.e. (same sex) residents of Arkanzas and Missouri flying for marriage ceremony to San Francisco (or other 'sancuary' cities), getting married and then demanding that their home states honored that license. How is this different ? i.e. I never saw California stating , well , your home state laws are different and we will not marry you, you must be a resident of California.

Thank you

 

 



#52 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,185 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:44 AM

 

So in other words a person who was denied a permit in IL could send his $5 to PA (does that still exist? but anyway get some non-resident permit) and then carry in IL. 
 
I would find that a difficult case to argue support for.  
If this was the law of the land I would have not gotten an IL permit at all and found a less expensive non-residence license permit state.


PA isn't a good example, since PA won't issue to you (as an Illinois resident) unless you have an Illinois license (and pay $20, and show up in person).

But yes, this bill would allow you, as a resident of Illinois, to get a Utah, Florida, Arizona, etc. license/permit and carry in Illinois. Now if you had been denied an Illinois license, the reasons for denial in Illinois may also prohibit licensure in those states, too, so this isn't a way to completely skirt the Illinois prohibition.

The "Mom's" groups will probably characterize this as a "race to the bottom," and a state that offers the cheapest and quickest way to obtain a license--and issues to nonresidents--stands to do some pretty good business. This bill will never pass as written.

 

 

I still have my $5 PA license that expired many many years ago somewhere, I sent them 5 bucks and they sent me a little square of paper that said I could carry, quite funny actually. 

 

I agree this will not fly, I doubt if someone is "Darted" another state is checking with your local PD to see if they care. 

 

I would like to see a solution to states where people are denied because of "May" like CA, but that's going to be a very tough nut to crack.  

 

I completely agree with EngChi but I don't think any state will stop you from getting married even if you are a felon, in fact I think you can actually get married while in prison and what do states with no licensing do about felons?  If your carrying would they always do a check? 


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

 


#53 EngChi

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 59 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 13

Posted 09 January 2017 - 12:43 PM

and may be another uninformed/silly question - what is wrong with states competing aka 'race to the bottom'? that happens right now all the time, on taxes, on benefits, for tourism dollars, etc.  state had, have, and always will compete with each other for residents (and their tax revenue, US Congress clout that follows population lines, etc). What is so scary in this, isnt this how the system was intended to work?



#54 kwc

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,354 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 09 January 2017 - 12:51 PM

and may be another uninformed/silly question - what is wrong with states competing aka 'race to the bottom'? that happens right now all the time, on taxes, on benefits, for tourism dollars, etc.  state had, have, and always will compete with each other for residents (and their tax revenue, US Congress clout that follows population lines, etc). What is so scary in this, isnt this how the system was intended to work?

 

As a Constitutionally-protected right, permitless carry is appropriate, so a 'race' to attain minimum standards falls within this construct.

 

But the anti- groups will paint it otherwise.  We view it as a race to the top (maximum freedom); "they" view it as a race to the bottom (minimal gun control).


Edited by kwc, 09 January 2017 - 12:52 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)

#55 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,862 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 09 January 2017 - 01:02 PM

Comparing it to drivers licenses for a minute... (Yes, I know, a privilege vs a right.... Anyway...)

Would the States be OK with being able to maintain a PA driver's license, but reside in IL? If Federal Law required that, you can bet the States would take issue with it.

Personally, I want the provision in there, but I doubt it would survive a constitutional challenge. The 'Other than the home state's clause that was removed avoided the States Rights issue IMO.

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#56 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,883 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 09 January 2017 - 01:30 PM

Comparing it to drivers licenses for a minute... (Yes, I know, a privilege vs a right.... Anyway...)

Would the States be OK with being able to maintain a PA driver's license, but reside in IL? If Federal Law required that, you can bet the States would take issue with it.

Personally, I want the provision in there, but I doubt it would survive a constitutional challenge. The 'Other than the home state's clause that was removed avoided the States Rights issue IMO.

 

I can see that as a way to bargain for all states to enact shall-issue laws.  Basically, issue licenses to your residents (and profit in doing so), or they'll be able to carry anyway, and you make nothing.


** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#57 Speedyellow

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 16

Posted 09 January 2017 - 01:36 PM

and may be another uninformed/silly question - what is wrong with states competing aka 'race to the bottom'? that happens right now all the time, on taxes, on benefits, for tourism dollars, etc.  state had, have, and always will compete with each other for residents (and their tax revenue, US Congress clout that follows population lines, etc). What is so scary in this, isnt this how the system was intended to work?

Liberals and Big-Government folks despise competition among states or countries, because it results in lower taxes, more freedom, and less government power.  Since competition threatens their power, they always try to stop it. 



#58 wbear

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 10 January 2017 - 12:12 AM

So in other words a person who was denied a permit in IL could send his $5 to PA (does that still exist? but anyway get some non-resident permit) and then carry in IL. 

 

I would find that a difficult case to argue support for.  

If this was the law of the land I would have not gotten an IL permit at all and found a less expensive non-residence license permit state. 

You betcha!

 

I'm not a fan of the change that allows residents of a state to carry in their home state on a non-resident license via federal reciprocity. I don't think that bodes well for the passage of the bill or eventual challenges to it. Maybe that's a throwaway provision.

 

I am a great fan of it, in fact I have been waiting for it. I would love to carry on my Utah license here. I don't have my Illinois License because I refuse to pay the ridiculously high: initial fees, renewal fees, required initial training hours (and thereby training fees) and on top of them the unnecessary renewal retraining hours and their fees.

 

My Utah license and training cost $101 and 4 hours of my time followed by simply mailing in the renewal application form with $10 every 5 years. Very fair and adequate in my book especially considering the Constitution doesn't even require that to exercise my second amendment right.


Edited by wbear, 10 January 2017 - 12:23 AM.


#59 Dx54r

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Joined: 09-September 16

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:00 AM

 

So in other words a person who was denied a permit in IL could send his $5 to PA (does that still exist? but anyway get some non-resident permit) and then carry in IL. 

 

I would find that a difficult case to argue support for.  

If this was the law of the land I would have not gotten an IL permit at all and found a less expensive non-residence license permit state. 

You betcha!

 

I'm not a fan of the change that allows residents of a state to carry in their home state on a non-resident license via federal reciprocity. I don't think that bodes well for the passage of the bill or eventual challenges to it. Maybe that's a throwaway provision.

 

I am a great fan of it, in fact I have been waiting for it. I would love to carry on my Utah license here. I don't have my Illinois License because I refuse to pay the ridiculously high: initial fees, renewal fees, required initial training hours (and thereby training fees) and on top of them the unnecessary renewal retraining hours and their fees.

 

My Utah license and training cost $101 and 4 hours of my time followed by simply mailing in the renewal application form with $10 every 5 years. Very fair and adequate in my book especially considering the Constitution doesn't even require that to exercise my second amendment right.

 

 

Wow, are you me? I'm in the same boat looking at it the same way. The Illinois permit is just too damn expensive. By the time you jump through all the hoop's you've basically wasted the price of a new handgun on training and fees along with blowing 18 hours of your time on a diminishing skill. I'd much rather get the permit cheap and spend the 4 months it takes to get, along with the money saved on range time or gear to actually do it right.



#60 kwc

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,354 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 10 January 2017 - 09:19 AM

From NRA's Chris Cox:

 

http://www.guns.com/...is-not-a-given/

 

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox warns that a tough fight still lies ahead for national reciprocity and other NRA goals.

 

“It’s going to be a hard fight,” Cox said in an NRATV video yesterday. “But if we engage our fellow Americans, we engage our fellow Second Amendment supporters, we explain what’s at stake, we explain what it does and what it doesn’t do, which is often times important, tell them to ignore the national news media, tell them to tune in to NRATV, tell them to go to our websites and learn about these issues, if we keep the pressure on the United States senate, we have a real opportunity.”

 

Cox’s comments come after 59 Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives put forth a proposal last week that would allow gun owners with valid permits to carry a concealed handgun in any state.

 

Referring to the proposal, Cox warns that “we still have to get to 60 votes due to the filibuster rules in the Senate,” a task that may prove to be difficult with Democrat senators are already promising to block any form of the bill.


"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)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users