Should pistol permits be valid in every state?

[umccoyw]

I believe so because D.C. V. Heller said it is an Individual right. Even though it did not say specifically that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to protect the amendment from restrictions from the states The 14th Amendment states “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". So now in fact the 2nd is protected from state restrictions. So if self defense is also a right and the right to keep and bear arms is a Individual right then why if you legally own a handgun should your 2nd amendment right stop at state lines? as far as i can tell if i go to another state i still have the right to freedom of speech.

[RamboLiberal]

1. I always wondered why when they had the Congress

they didn't push a national carry law. They did pass one for Law Enforcement.

I think like my driver's license my CCW ought to be valid in all 50 states.

[jeepnstein]

38. Because "they"...

really don't want the citizens to be armed any more than certain factions of "us" do. The Republicans paid lip service to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms but even their poster child, Dubya, was begging for another AWB. Dubya's "Justice" Department also was opposed to the Heller case.

Republicans talk a mean game about rights but they don't want rights for everyone. They mean rights for those wealthy enough to pay for them. Oh, and certainly no rights for people they find personally offensive for whatever reason. Hmm, I think I see a pattern emerging...

[umccoyw]

2. Also if you didnt know...

46 of the 50 states have something in there state constitution that protects the individuals right to bear arms. so again why cant we carry in all states?

[geckosfeet]

9. Jeezuz. I'd feel a lot better if people were required to be able write and spell

before they could get their LTC.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Thanks for your substantive contribution.

[geckosfeet]

30. Count on it.

The same people who can't properly use there and their claim to know what the second amen. means.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Good thing we have the Roberts Court to interpret it for us.

[rrneck]

3. If the weapon

can be transported across state lines then the law should follow it I would think.

[slackmaster]

4. Federal law protects people who travel with firearms

As long as a particular weapon in your possession is legal for you to have at the beginning and end points of your journey, you can carry it through any state provided that you comply with each state's laws concerning transportation of a firearm.

For example, a person who has a standard AR-15 rifle in Oregon can drive through California with it on the way to Nevada, even though it would not be legal to import that rifle to California.

New York has been rather difficult in respecting that law. So has New Jersey. Firearms discussion groups all have tales of woe about peoples' right to travel being infringed.

[yay]

5. He's talking about CCW.

Like keeping a pistol on yourself out of plain sight.

[slackmaster]

6. I don't think so

Maybe the OP can clarify.

[quiller4]

46. Permits grant permission to carry concealed . Concealed

carry pormits are what he is talking about. Yes, I believe one state should honor another's permit.

[umccoyw]

7. Im not talking about transporting

I mean that if i have a CCW then i should be able to carry in any other state just like i would in my own. D.C. V. Heller only stated that states COULD have conditions and qualifications for the commercial SALE of firearms. So if you meet that when you purchase it and have it legally no state should be able to tell you that you cant carry in there state. It my understanding that like you said i travel accross country my handgun would have to be unloaded and locked up out of my area in a car.

[slackmaster]

8. Thanks

I think we should have national concealed carry permits.

They should require a tough background check and training, but the requirements should be objective and not unreasonably difficult to fulfill.

[umccoyw]

10. i think requirements should include......

No convicted felons, No mentally ill (obviously there should be certain requirements to be put in this category), If you have violent behavior established over time you should not be able to get one( everyone makes mistakes but if you have a violence problem first time should prohibit you for a year before you can apply, second time would be 3 years, 3rd time or more you should be disqualified) Also i believe the wait time from application to recieving permit should be no longer then 6 weeks. And once you have recieved a permit then you should not have to wait to purchase anymore because if you have one then it wouldnt make sense for you to have to wait because its not for a crime of passion.

[spin]

17. That would depend the state that issued your license...

Thirty three states recognize Florida's concealed carry license. If you had one (and were a Florida resident) you might be able to map a route through Florida CCW friendly states. Not all states honor a Florida CCW if you are not a Florida resident.


For a list visit this Florida government page:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html


Some states, like New York, do not recognize Florida's concealed carry law and are very tricky to travel through with a firearm.


New York State is a particularly interesting case, because New York separates all of New England from the bulk of the United States. This means that under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, all people traveling through New York City and New York state with firearms must have them unloaded and locked in a hard case where they are not readily accessible (e.g. in the trunk of a vehicle) and can never be in possession of a high capacity feeding device made post ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#New_York

{i} disclaimer: I am not any attorney nor do I play one on TV. Any advise or statements given should be verified by your own independent research.

[X_Digger]

11. ..works for driver's licenses..

You have folks who've undergone training, background checks, and fingerprinting (not familiar with CCW in all states, though..)

Rather than treat CCW like a license to practice nursing (circuitous reciprocity) it really should be like a driver's license.

[Wickerman]

18. I'm not sure most people here would agree to requiring as many hoops

to own a gun as are required for a drivers license.

[X_Digger]

22. Nor did I say that..

Concealed Carry License is a wholly different animal than simply owning / using a firearm.

[Statistical]

35. What drivers license requires background check, fingerprints, and safety course.

We are talking about Conceal Carry (CCW) permit.

Right to own a gun in your home is a local issue. It doesn't cross state lines.

The requirements for a CCW are substantial.
All we are saying is other states should be required to recognize the CCW just like NC is required to recognize a VA drivers license.


You don't need a CCW to own a gun.
Most states require no permit/license to own a gun.
You need a CCW (in most states) to CARRY a gun.

[Wickerman]

36. Yes, I should've said to have a CCW rather than own a gun

That aside, the requirements to get a CCW are not that much above or beyond a DL.

Background Check - Yep.

Finger Prints - no, of course, unless the rules have changed in Penn you don't have to have prints taken there, either.

Safety Courses - Staying with Penn, you need 50 hours of documented driving instruction and have to pass a written test. Oh, and there is a 6 month waiting period.

Many states still require classroom safety instruction. It's 24 hours here in MN, I believe, don't know what most states require.

[safeinOhio]

12. May depend

on the regulations of each states militia.

[umccoyw]

13. what do you mean?

what would depend on each states militia? im talking about individuals because the 2nd amendment is now officially a individual right as well as militia.

[Statistical]

14. 2nd ammendment is not limited to service in a militia

"the activities protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." - US Court of Appeals March 9, 2007

"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals." - Supreme Court of the United States June 26, 2008

[safeinOhio]

37. I am thinking that the section of the 2nd

may end up answering the posters question. The SCOTUS has not really ruled as to the effect of the 14th. I think they did steer toward a States rights rule and still left open some issues. My guess is that both the President and SC are looking at a Federalist point of view.
By the way, I hold a CCW. Many states allow for out state holders to carry in their state. Let me give an important point to everyone here. If you carry in another state, know the laws of that state as well as you know the ones in your own. Some states have brandishing laws that may open you up to "assault with a deadly weapon" charge. Some local laws may also apply. Never assume the laws are the same in another state.

[bossy22]

40. i doubt they would pull a pre-20th century incorporation

decision today

[rl6214]

15. Yes they should

My TX state dl is valid in every state so my TX state CCL should be as well.

[jmg257]

16. Incorporation is correct. The constitution also has a 'privilege immunity' clause;

since the BoR was only restricting the federal govt, the states were/are allowed to pass their own laws. The state constitutions would hold sway as to the power the state govt had.

However, based on the intent of the militia clauses & the 2nd, is ridiculous that ANY body could pass laws restricting the people's right to arms, because the feds were to depend on the Militias of the States to keep the constitutional guarantees, and the states depend on the their own militia to secure it's own / the people's 'rights & freedoms'. Infringement by either (or some local govt) would deprive the other(s) of an effective militia. Hence the phrase "...well regulated militia being necessary to a free State". They are constitutionally required. The 2 govts were supposed to be in tension with each other, to guard against each other, for the benefit of the people.


Of course, things change, the people become complacent, and so...

[Statistical]

34. I don't think complacent has anything to do with it.

Our courts work on a very structured system.

Prior to Heller you could sue against local gun control on grounds "it violates the 2nd amendment" because there wasn't even sufficient evidence that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right.

Now my whole life I have believed in an individual 2nd amendment but belief isn't case law.

If you tried an incorporation test case prior to Heller the courts would take the easy way out and rule that there is no evidence the 2nd protects you from FEDS therefore you can't sue for relief from STATE law via incorporation of an unrecognized right.

So really a ban in DC was the only route to get the 2nd recognized. Alan Gura talks about this a lot. It wasn't an accident he chose DC. He knew 100% it was the only place he had a direct clean shot all the way to SCOTUS.

No most anti don't realize the power that Heller gives. Heller isn't the game winning point. Heller is the assist.

Heller opens the door and lets lawsuits against the STATES (where majority of the draconian rules lives).

The bad news is it will take time. From first filing till SCOTUS decision the Heller case took 7 years. Legal fees were $3.5 million.
Now in the case of Heller, Gura & rest of legal team were willing to work for "free" due to strong beliefs in the principle.
They later were able to sue the city of DC for legal fees under civil rights violation (yes 2nd amendment is a civil right).

So that is why groups like NRA & SAF are important. It takes a massive amount of time and money to win a case all the way to the SCOTUS. The states on the other hand have essentially unlimited funds.
They can always raise taxes to pay for their legal mistakes.

[jmg257]

47. Understood. I was really talking about allowing the govt to redefine

the constitutional militias, electing reps they know don't mind infringing rights etc.

It was a long road to get here, and it wasn't always a matter of needing 'sufficient evidence' or case law to know exactly what the BoR meant, and why.

[benEzra]

19. Pragmatically speaking, I would rather have free states work out reciprocity

than have the few guns-for-elites-only states like California and New Jersey influencing licensing criteria in places like New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, or North Carolina.

I am licensed in NC, and can carry in ~33 states. I do plan to apply for a Massachusetts LTC at some point as well, but the fee is a little steep ($100 a year, every year).

[umccoyw]

21. Im in New York

and cant carry anywhere else. new york wont accept any other state license and no other state will accept NY'S

[benEzra]

23. That sucks. However, you could get an out-of-state license from another state

that has reciprocity agreements with most states; not every state with reciprocity recognizes out-of-state licenses from states you aren't a resident of, but most do, IIRC. If you've already qualified for a New York license, obtaining an out-of-state license in another state shouldn't be a problem.

[umccoyw]

24. can i do that by mail? n/t

[benEzra]

29. Yes, I believe so. I think the process is the same as for an in-state license,

and there will be considerable mailing of paperwork, of course.

I believe, but cannot verify, that some states that issue permits to nonresidents are Florida, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. NJ is probably out because it is pretty much elites-only, and MA doesn't have much reciprocity, but NH, PA, or ME would be good places to try. And if you do end up having to drive, they're a lot closer than Wyoming...

[Statistical]

32. FL is considered one of the best.

They accept out of state residents.
They have reciprocity with a large number of states (30+).
They accept out of state training.

Likely training you completed in NY for NY license would be valid (if you saved paperwork).

So essentially it is just complete the app, provide required docs, proof or training, and money order.
It can all be done by mail. If I remember correctly you will need a notary to witness your signature.

Useful tool.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/LicMaps/ccwmap.php

Shows which states accept other states CCW.
Plus you can mark multiple licenses (like NY & FL) to see the combined results.

NY license is accepted in some states but FL license is accepted in all those states also.

[umccoyw]

41. I didnt have to complete any training but

i did serve in the military and carried a pistol so i did receive training and had to Qualify with the pistol in order to carry it for my job, would states count that as training or would i have to go through a course?

[Statistical]

44. Most states do but I am not sure if FL does.

VA requires either CCW course or proof of military/leo service.

I had military exemption but my wife wanted CCW so we went to the course together.

When I got my FL CCW I kept it simple by using CCW course as proof.
I am not sure if they had an option for military service exemption.

[spin]

50. When I first got my Florida CCW, a photocopy of a DD-214

was proof of training.

The official Florida site that deals with CCW doesn't say that this meets current requirements but merely says:

Get verification of training that satisfies the training requirement. The application lists acceptable documents. Make a photocopy to send with the application as an original cannot be returned. Persons serving in the United States Armed Forces may submit a copy of their Military ID Card to satisfy the training requirement.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/apply.html

However this other less official site says:

16. I am retired military. Do I still need the course?
No. You just need to submit with your application a photocopy of your DD-214.
http://www.personaldefensesolutions.net/faq.htm#10

You may be able to find out the answer by contacting the Florida Licensing Division at telephone number [phone]

You may also be able to ask in the internet at this link:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/LicWebAskGener...

[umccoyw]

20. Do you think???

instead of suing to get unconstitutional gun laws repealed you could have the FBI do it for you under “Deprivation of rights under color of law” Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242. Which states “This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.”. Because if they didnt wouldnt they risk getting charged themselves?

[jmg257]

25. Is the individual right to arms secured from federal infringement only?

By the US Constitution et. al. I mean.

Without 'official' incorporation, I think it does.

From Wiki...

"Regarding the Second Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller said:

"With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.<17>""

[umccoyw]

26. originally only protected from federal government but

when we added the 14th amendment thats when things went into the grey area. If you research it you will find that the 2nd amendment is NOT protected from state infringement but if you read 14th amendment and D.C. V. Heller ruling then it becomes obvious (IMHO) that the 2nd amendment should be protected from infringement by both federal and state. With very few exceptions as stated in Heller case

[jmg257]

28. I edited the above post to include the Heller court's quote re: incorporation.

I am with you, though. It makes sense, constitutionally (as I explained above above) and common sense-wise.


I used to think this would cover it:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

with:

"...amendments...shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution,"

and of course:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "



Ah well, maybe just 1 more lawsuit will do it! (while the clown in PA wants local & federal control laws).

[Statistical]

33. Obvious is not case law.

FBI nor any other Federal agency is going to "enforce obvious".

Until a court rules that the 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states the Heller decision is limited to DC & Federal laws.

So TODAY Heller protects us from say a federal/nationwide ban or handguns but not a local one.

Chicago currently still has a handgun ban.


There are about 6 lawsuits against various state handgun laws around the country.
Most are well financed by groups like NRA or others.

The problem is it will take time. Heller took 7 years.

No local court judge is going to violated dozens of circuit and appelate court decisions and just say "yup 2nd amendment protect this. <BANG>. Case over".
Never going to happen.

So local judge will rule that 2nd amendment does not apply since B.O.R. restricts federal govt and there is no ruling the 2nd amendment has been incorporated.
The lawsuit will be appealed to the appellate court which will do the same thing.
The lawsuit will be appealed onward to federal district court and then finally to the Supreme Court.

Ultimately there are only 3 possibilities
1) A Federal District Court may rule the 2nd is incorporated but this won't matter because almost guaranteed the other party (city or state) will appeal to SCOTUS (just like in Heller).
2) SCOTUS declines to hear the case and the issue is in limbo - I doubt this court would do that.
3) SCOTUS rules on issue one way or the other

So a lot of it is a waiting game.
The people filing the lawsuit KNOW 100% guaranteed they will LOSE at lower levels. No doubt about it. They can't just go directly to SCOTUS that is not how our courts work.
So they need to work their way up and that will take time.

Each court can takes months if not years to reach a decision. Even if the decision is guaranteed ahead of time the city/state will drag it out to make it as expensive as possible.

[umccoyw]

42. there is case law in NYS.........

In the New York Supreme Court (granted its not the highest court in NYS) case of Joseph L. Colaiacovo V. Richard Dormer the court held that the licensing officer could not revoke the license of the petitioner for failure to “properly” secure his firearm in the home. The Judge in this case cited D.C. V. Heller in that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and protected by the 2nd amendment. its also important to note the NY does NOT have anything in its constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

[Statistical]

43. Good to hear....

I will look it up however depending on the wording it may be very narrow interperation.

Still it is heading in the right direction. It is only a matter of time until the "perfect case" reaches SCOUTS and the issue is blown wide open.

Now did NY appeal the decision? Usually decisions in an active appeal are not considered by courts in current cases.

[umccoyw]

45. Not Sure......

it was difficult for me to even find this case as "servers" tend to go down a lot for NYS web pages when i tried looking up gun specific laws and cases.

[Statistical]

31. No federal CCW instead make states respect other states CCW

Making CCW regulated at the federal level is dangerous. It puts all the power in one place and a change @ Federal level could have lasting impact. The antis only need to win once instead of 50 times.

Good news is there is no reason for Federal CCW. Federal govt should simply pass a "CCW reciprocity law".

Currently lots of things are handled at state level the largest & most common are:
* marriage license
* drivers license
* physician license

However the federal govt does provide authority, mandating that states must respect other states licenses.

A cop in NC can't pull you over and say your VA license is "no good here boy".

All it would take is a similar framework for CCW.
Each state can determine how they enact CCW laws but would be required to respect other states.


Now initially people in CA or NY wouldn't get much but I think that would change.
If NY was required to accept out of state CCW they would have less incentive to make it very restrictive on their own citizens.

[Pullo]

54. I'd rather see a state compact

Keep the feds out of it!

[X_Digger]

55. Agreed.. fed would probably be..

.. more restrictive, or take the most restrictive state model and use it for a federal model.

[jazzcat]

48. Wow.

wow.

[guardian]

49. Screw "pistol permits"

You need to move to a 'real' state like Colorado that doesn't require any permit or licensing to buy a pistol or long gun. Just put your money on the table and walk away with it.

[Statistical]

51. CO still requires a permit to carry concealed which is what we were talking about.

You need to move to a 'real' state like VT or AK which requires no permit to carry concealed.

[guardian]

56. touché n/t

[jody]

52. H.R. 197: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 would solve the problem.

H.R. 197: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.Comments Close CommentsPermalink

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Comments Close Comments Permalink

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2
This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 2. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

‘(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.

‘(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.’.

[paulsby]

53. several states have reciprocity laws fwiw

that say if you are licensed to carry in your state, then you are good to go in their state.

but i agree, that since this is a right recognized under the federal constitution, that it needs to apply to all states.

*i* can carry in every state. i think it's lame that this right is not extended to all citizens