National reciprocity only if you have a permit from your state
Congress has taken up the issue it seems. However, if you can’t get a permit in your state (i.e., you live in MA, NY, MD and others), your out state permit doesn’t apply. TBolt explains.
18 Responses to “National reciprocity only if you have a permit from your state”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 20th, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Sure, this is not the optimal answer. (The optimal answer is nationwide Constitutional Carry.) But it helps a whole lot. For one thing, it protects residents of civilized states. For another, it raises the pressure on uncivilized legislatures to do the right thing — since this law allows non-residents to do something prohibited to residents.
And as a comment on the article points out, accepting a less-than-ideal answer to make progress is generally a good idea, even if Rand Paul doesn’t understand that.
September 20th, 2017 at 5:10 pm
“Eligible for one” is a lot different from “likely to get one”.
Unless local/state governments rewrite their laws, everyone (who is not a prohibited person) would be eligible.
September 20th, 2017 at 5:27 pm
mbogo, the “eligible” clause is for states like Vermont and Alaska where you don’t necessarily need a permit to concealed carry.
The way it reads, commie state residents still need not apply. For example, your average Joe in New York is still not eligible to carry concealed in their home state until they prove their justification and pay the required bribes to the local officials. Lacking that, out of state residents could carry there, but New Yorkers could not.
Take that Bloomberg!
September 20th, 2017 at 6:16 pm
I would say that “eligible” clause can be read that as long as you’re not disqualified for being a felon, etc. that you’re good to go. After all, just because I choose not to go through the process doesn’t mean I’m not eligible to do so.
September 20th, 2017 at 7:09 pm
How does this work in states like MA which issue “no carry” Licenses to Carry because of May Issue Licensing schemes where the Chief of Police can not only be arbitrary and capricious in their discretionary issuance of licenses but also lump whatever made up “restrictions” they can think of on said licenses.
If you have a no carry “license to carry” from MA can you carry outside the state with this legislation or is one still subject to the decrees of His Majesty the Chief of Police?
September 20th, 2017 at 10:45 pm
I think the point of this law is to enable the NRA to hold its convention at the Javits Center in NYC and have 100,000 NRA members show up, all armed, plus 5,000 on-call lawyers, and NYC politicians can’t do a thing about it except put themselves at risk of lawsuits in their personal capacity.
I’ll sell “I’m concealed carrying in NYC and my lawyer is at 555-123-4567, reference ABCDEF” gun-burkas at the front door, phone number and client code filled in with permanent Sharpie by beautiful ladies with exquisite penmanship.
September 21st, 2017 at 3:55 am
Ney York will still, be Mordor for gun onwers if this passes, becuase New York law enforcement will still arrest you same as they do with FOPA and air travel through New York.
September 21st, 2017 at 10:04 am
“However, if you can’t get a permit in your state your out state permit doesn’t apply.”
Tough nuts. I say pass it!
September 21st, 2017 at 11:33 am
Deaf Smith, can you imagine the delight some governors and state legislatures would have at the thought of being able to prevent you from not only not being able to carry in your home state, but nationwide as well?
September 21st, 2017 at 12:19 pm
Like state difference with gay marriage , this wouldn’t withstand the first Federal Court challenge .
September 21st, 2017 at 12:36 pm
Likely would under Article IV
September 21st, 2017 at 12:49 pm
“can you imagine the delight some governors and state legislatures would have at the thought of being able to prevent you from not only not being able to carry in your home state, but nationwide as well?”
And why would you think that they could? Even if you read it the way others are, it only would mean you can’t carry in your home state or any others that didn’t recognize your OOS permit. Same as it is now.
September 21st, 2017 at 2:01 pm
Incrementalism. Use it.
September 21st, 2017 at 4:34 pm
I have to read the whole bill, but on the surface this is OK. The rights were eroded a piece at a time and they will, practically speaking, be restored incrementally.
Additionally, this will make the ban states positions more untenable then they already are. First, this will induce people asking: “Why can this out-of-stater carry and not I?” Second, aggressively totalitarian states (NJ, NYC, etc) will start arresting a lot more people for exercising their right – this will call a lot of attention to those states draconian, extremest, punitive laws. Third, I do not expect this to cause any real change in the overall crime rate – further undercutting the “public safety” argument. Hopefully all of these things will force the hands of legislators and make it an issue SCOTUS can’t ignore any longer.
I agree that this is mainly to protect the rights of citizens traveling through ban states/cities. The residency requirement is the compromise to get it to pass. Like I said, this will highlight the absurdities, capriciousness, and draconian nature of many states laws. This is to protect people who have made the mistake of traveling to NJ, NYC, DC, MD, etc and thought that they were still in America. Exhibit A: Sheehan Allen
The NRA convention in mid-town Manhattan would be glorious. Bloomberg and Mayor DeBlasio (C-NYC) would probably have melt downs.
September 22nd, 2017 at 8:30 am
treefroggy,
I’ve always thought they should simply tie reciprocity together with gay marriage. States should accept driver’s licenses, concealed carry licenses, and even gay marriage licenses.
Tie them together then see who has the courage to vote against it on either side.
September 22nd, 2017 at 10:40 am
Ravenwood, yes, exactly, that’s what article 4 section 1 requires.
September 22nd, 2017 at 12:52 pm
TBolt is mistaking a previous version of text from years back, for HR 38. The current bill is the exact opposite of what he describes.
HR 38 would allow the use of a TX permit if you are a CA resident, or the use of a driver’s license if you are in a ConCarry state (AZ in CA, for instance). It explicitly supercedes state laws, except those that allow prohibitions based on private property rights or gov’t property.
HR 38 would be a great bill if it passed, if for no other reason it would REQUIRE the Supreme Court to get involved and answer the question.
September 24th, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Just as 160 years ago, there are still slave states. And it is the same today as with the 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which kept slaves as non-persons lest “they be able to go armed everywhere they went”–in the United States.