Avatar feed
Responses: 9
CW3 Harvey K.
10
10
0
The article states, "It outright overrides restrictive concealed-carry regimes across the country", and well it should.
In regard to the question of a state forced to honor an out-of-state carry permit held by one of that state's residents; there would be no problem if ALL states were "shall issue" states.
Everything would work out just fine, if "may issue" states like New Jersey, where very few applicants are "granted" the right they were guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, were stopped in their suppression of constitutional rights.
It is time such "restrictive" CCW laws were eliminated for what they are, denial of constitutional rights "under color of law".
(10)
Comment
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Col Joseph Lenertz
>1 y
Well said!
(3)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
I agrre with both of you.
SGT Robert George LTC Stephen C. SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth Cpl (Join to see) SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" @lt col ford @SGT (Join to see) SMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" Thomas LTC Stephen F. Capt Seid Waddell COL Mikel J. Burroughs SPC George Rudenko TSgt Joe C. SP5 Mark Kuzinski MSgt Danny Hope MSgt Robert C Aldi Capt Gregory Prickett Sgt Wayne Wood PFC (Join to see) SPC Margaret Higgins SFC William Farrell

Meteorologist Larry Olson
World of Outlaws
World Racing Group
(3)
Reply
(0)
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
(2)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Bernie Stanaway
Cpl Bernie Stanaway
>1 y
Agreed!
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Christopher Brose
9
9
0
When this discussion was going on a few months ago, part of the language was that residents of a state could use CCLs from different states in their own state only if their state of residency issued permits. So if a state does not issue licenses, then the proposed federal law could not compel that state to accept permits from other states. However, it does compel a state to recognize permits issued from other states if that state issues permits to its own residents. The problem for places like California and New Jersey is that they are very selective in who they issue permits to -- typically you have to either be very important/wealthy or you have to be a close personal friend of a politician or a higher-up in law enforcement in order to get a permit.

Federalism is great, but it should never be an excuse to deny Constitutional rights to a particular state's citizens. In this case, I am happy for the federal law to circumvent the best efforts of some states to deny 2A rights to its residents.
(9)
Comment
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
CW3 Harvey K.
>1 y
IIRC the only states which currently do not issue CCWs are the 13 states with "Constitutional carry" -- carry in any manner by a person legally in possession of a firearm, is itself legal, with no permit needed.
In the past, some states (Illinois was one, I think) not only did not permit concealed carry, but ANY carry by a non-LEO. I'm sure DC was (and effectively, still is) one of those jurisdictions.
Some "Constitutional carry" states now provide CCWs to their residents, if they wish to be documented as lawful, permitted carriers of guns in their state of residence, when they travel to other states. Alaska is in this category.
Vermont requires no permit to carry, concealed or open, and so far as I know, does not provide for a permit for state residents who travel.
(5)
Reply
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Col Joseph Lenertz
>1 y
Yes, this is one of those tough ones for me. I am a federalist, but also a constitutionalist. I would propose that states that have made it difficult to qualify for a permit (average man with an average background can't get one within a reasonable period of time and a reasonable cost) are violating the 2A, and the laws on the books there need to be revisited by SCOTUS.
(5)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
CW3 Harvey K.
>1 y
Col Joseph Lenertz - The question to be answered is:
"Should states be permitted to deny any citizen his rights as recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and ruled as "incorporated" by the Supreme Court?"
(2)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SSgt Christopher Brose
>1 y
Col Joseph Lenertz - I can't speak for residents of eastern states that have restrictive carry laws, but I know that in California, one of the problems for people trying to pursue a legal remedy to 2nd Amendment violations is that they have to go through the 9th Circuit Court, and the 9th consistently has consistently blocked lawsuits by saying the people bringing the lawsuits have no standing. They're effectively the gatekeepers, preventing any legitimate 2nd Amendment issues in California from reaching the Supreme Court.
(3)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Copyright Specialist
7
7
0
I think national reciprocity is a good thing but I do think that the permits should be like drivers licenses. You must have one from the state you are a resident of, if the state doesn't require a permit that is fine but you should not be able to be a resident of lets say New York and go to Montana and get a permit that then allows you to carry anywhere to include your home state.

With drivers licenses you are supposed to get a new one when you move states within a certain amount of time. It should be similar for concealed carry. If you move from Montana to New York your permit should stay valid, at least for a certain period of time, before you have to get one from New York but then since you already had a valid permit it should a simple matter to get the new one not the lengthy process a new applicant would have to face.

For active duty use the same rules that are used for drivers licenses, one from your home state or from the state you are stationed in since sometimes it can be difficult to go back to one's home-state and complete the process.
(7)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Copyright Specialist
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
MAJ Don Bigger - Here in Virginia drivers licenses are only good for seven years. After that you have to renew but you can do that on the internet, no new test or photo but you still have to pay a fee for renewal. If you need a new photo in Arizona every 12 years I would say that means your license is being renewed every 12 years not only when you turn 65. Do you have to pay a fee when you get the picture taken? What happens if you do not get an updated picture?
(1)
Reply
(0)
CPT Special Forces Officer
CPT (Join to see)
>1 y
What you recommend would compel states that allow its citizens to carry concealed without permit to issue permits. Without the permit, those citizens would never enjoy the benefits of a federal reciprocity law. The issuance of permits would require the collection of fees to cover expenses as well as an application process. All of this just leads me to wonder about unintended consequences.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Copyright Specialist
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
CPT (Join to see) - Maybe if Congress passed a law that said anyone who could legally own a firearm can carry concealed then there would no longer be a need for licenses or the fees (read as taxes) associated with them. Or if you lived in a state that does not require a permit to carry your drivers license or other state issued ID would suffice when you left that state to show that as a resident of a state that does not require permits you are legally allowed to carry anywhere.
(2)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
CW3 Harvey K.
>1 y
CPT (Join to see) - As far as "fees" for a permit, I have elsewhere noted that SCOTUS has followed its principle that "The power to tax is the power to destroy" in outlawing any "poll tax" inhibiting in the slightest the right to vote. The cost of conducting elections must be borne by general revenue from all taxpayers.
To be consistent, the same should apply to the RKBA. If a state requires a permit for the exercise of that right, all expenses for administrative costs, fingerprinting, NCIS check, even required training for issuance of that permit should not be charged to the individual, but to the general tax revenue, the taxpayers. That is, if they deem such public expenses worth the cost.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close