Concealed carry multi-state reciprocity project

www.packing.org ^ | August 16, 2002 | Russ Hamilton

[Mini-14]

Posted on Friday, August 16, 2002 at 07:55 PM by rhamilton at www.packing.org I was recently "invited" to initiate a study regarding the feasibility of establishing a national organization of state administrators of concealed weapon permit programs. Its purpose would to be to get all the "rule and law makers" together on the same sheet of music and determine acceptable standards for the issuance of CCW permits that everyone (each state) can live with. Obviously, the point is to establish reciprocity amongst all participating states. National reciprocity bills continue to fail, so this may be the next best thing. I invite you all to provide input to this undertaking, as I have never attempted a project on this big of a scale. I prefer written comments and suggestions. Thanks, Ofc Russ Hamilton, AZ DPS CCW Permit Unit. You may reach me at the following email address: rhamilton@dps.state.az.us or by snail mail at: Concealed Weapon Permit Unit, Attn: Ofc Russ Hamilton, PO Box 6488, Phoenix, AZ 85005.

[FateAmenableToChange]

National reciprocity bills continue to fail,

I have a hard time with the idea of a national reciprocity bill - turning to the federal government to force states to recognize each others' permits is indistinguishable from what the d.c. pols have been doing for years in getting the feds to usurp every aspect of state power. State compacts reinforce the idea of state sovereignty, and they're happening, however slowly.

[umgud]

I will send my comments. However, I'm from CA and while we do have "May Issue" CCW's, I'm not optimistic CA will ever entertain reciprocity. If CA didn't already have CCW's and had to vote on them anew, I doubt we'd have them. I live in a semi-rural county that is pretty liberal about issuing CCW's. The large populous counties (where the whacko's and most of the votes are) just don't issue CCW's. Are there any states who recognize other state CCW's, even if that state doesn't have reciprocity?

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[coloradan]

I have a hard time with the idea of a national reciprocity bill - turning to the federal government to force states to recognize each others' permits is indistinguishable from what the d.c. pols have been doing for years in getting the feds to usurp every aspect of state power.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. It's not like the feds are expanding or usurping power in this case. Rather, (for once) the feds would be forcing states to recognize the rights of citizens that the states would otherwise infringe or revoke. Sort of like banning slavery.

[Mulder]

Sounds like a good objective. Here in Florida, we have reciprocity with lots of states (20 or 21, I think); but Arizona isn't one of them. Do you know why?

[Eastbound]

"Are there any states who recognize other state CCW's, even if that state doesn't have reciprocity?"

I don't know, but I wonder how this part of the U.S. Constitution might be interpreted:

"Sect. 2.

1. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of Citizens in the several States."

[FreedomPoster]

Encourage all states to enact Vermont-style CCW for all citizens. Barring that, encourage them to recognize any other state's CCW. Period.

I feel fortunate in that all the adjacent states to which I travel regularly, recognize my state's CCW.

[FateAmenableToChange]

It's not like the feds are expanding or usurping power in this case. Rather, (for once) the feds would be forcing states to recognize the rights of citizens that the states would otherwise infringe or revoke. Sort of like banning slavery.

Don't get me wrong. From a purely personal perspective, I would love it if this got rammed down the smarmy little throats of the Mass., Md. and Cal. People's Soviet Legislatures. And I can see a great constitutional law argument for requiring states to recognize each other's permits, both in terms of the privileges and immunities clause, the equal protection clause, and incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

But as a matter of policy and strategy, it actually makes sense to strengthen the several States' conceptions of themselves as sovereign entities, especially on this ground. Why? First, the federal government would have to justify its regulation of state ccw recognition as part of the commerce clause, which would just continue the expansion of federal power. Second, the precedent set by 34 states creating a compact for the mutual recognition of state firearms laws would weigh heavily against further federal regulation of the field. Third, it satisfies my federalist and libertarian leanings by allowing the states to decide for themselves how they want to go on this issue. In other words, if the citizens of Mass want to keep dying and getting raped or assaulted because they're afraid that law-abiding people will turn into maniacs just because they have a gun, fine. As a libertarian, I don't want to force them to do anything they don't want to do. I will also, however, exercise my prerogative to (1) denigrate their sh--ty little state every chance I get, and (2) not go there because I wouldn't feel safe. Fourth, leaving aside that RKBA is a God-given right, the major thrust of the Second Amendment is that States need the means to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government. Peoples Republics like Mass, MD and Cal. don't want to do that and, in fact, would rather that we were all run by the U.N. or WTO or the EU or something like that. Forcing them to acknowledge individual Second Amendment rights wouldn't help - they've already given up anyway.

[coloradan]

You obviously have given much more thought to the question than I had given you credit for. In some sense, I agree with you. While I too would love to see a Framer's concept of the Second Amendment forced down the throats of the tin-pot tyrannies of MA, CT, CA, etc, I too can see the merit to letting some slide into a utopic "gun-free" state of violence and crime. However, the problem with that is that those places get to dictate what laws have to apply to me, by passing federal gun prohibitions and using their own crime rates as a reason.

The examples of England and Australia are all too clear to people like us, that banning guns doesn't bring about the promised reduction in crime. But many people not like us here in the US don't get it. Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if all gun owners and gun rights activists were to get up and, with a unified front, abandon one state in particular. CA is probably too big to possibly get this to work, but how about MD, CT, or NJ? Have the NRA encourage its members to leave the state, and stop opposing any new gun prohibitions. Ditto GOA, SAS, etc. Have campaigns that say "You don't want gun owners living here, so we are leaving - to show you the result of what you are seeking to accomplish." Maybe the state-level gun grabbers would even pay moving expenses for gun owners to vacate.

If that were to happen, I predict of course a huge jump in crime rates, which the gun rights folks could then say you can't blame it on ordinary gun owners - we all left the state! You either have to blame it on common criminals, which we have been saying all along, or on the politicians who have been trying to create this utopia for years except for our resistance, which we have now abandoned. You voted for them to make your bed for you, now you get to sleep in it. Nighty night!

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

bump

[Mulder]

Do you know anything about FL CC permits for non-residents (US citizens of other states)?

Florida offers non-resident permits. You don't have to own any property, or have any interest whatsoever in the state of Florida to qualify for one.

Also, most of the states that recognize Florida's CCW for residents will also recognize non-resident Florida CCW licenses. So if you get a non-resident permit, you'll be able to legally carry concealed in about 18 other states as well.

What about visitors?

If you don't have a permit, you can carry a loaded gun in a holster in your glove compartment, as long as the gun is "securely encased". But not on your person.

The CCW permit is easy to get as long as you don't have a criminal record. All you have to do is fill out an application, take a firearm safety course (such as one offered by the NRA), submit a fingerprint card, passport sized photo, and a check. Total cost is about $200.

You can find more info here

And here

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

If you were in the military at one time you get a waiver on the safety course with your DD214 form in Florida.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Any update yet on this effort????

chicagofarmer




Posted on Friday, August 16, 2002 at 07:55 PM by rhamilton at www.packing.org I was recently "invited" to initiate a study regarding the feasibility of establishing a national organization of state administrators of concealed weapon permit programs. Its purpose would to be to get all the "rule and law makers" together on the same sheet of music and determine acceptable standards for the issuance of CCW permits that everyone (each state) can live with. Obviously, the point is to establish reciprocity amongst all participating states. National reciprocity bills continue to fail, so this may be the next best thing. I invite you all to provide input to this undertaking, as I have never attempted a project on this big of a scale. I prefer

[Mini-14]

I'll make an announcement on FR in March. You can also monitor my web site at www.illinois-safety.net

Here are some of the items on my "to do" list

• Set up a bank account for the legal fund
• Establish an online system for accepting donations and pledges
• Write letters to the gun rags
• Write letters to the civil rights organizations (NRA, GOA, etc.)

 

[Contra]

You might want to check with the FOP about something they have been trying to do for years (and failed) that is similar to this. The National FOP Lodge has been trying to get a bill passed in Congress for some time now that would allow law enforcement officers the right to carry in all 50 states. Every year the FOP has "a day on the hill," that is, a day or two to lobby Congress for what they want. One of the biggies is this nationwide right to carry for LEO's. Some Congressman and Senators are on board, but not nearly enough to get it passed. So if Congress won't even allow law enforcement officers the right to carry in all 50 states I think you can guess the chances that private citizens would ever have to carry in all 50 states. The problem as I see it is that some states will never have CCW because they are controlled by gun control liberals. These states will never let their own citizens have CCW, so they sure as heck will never allow non state residents have CCW. I think if all 50 states ever had CCW you would probably see 50 state reciprocity rather quickly. But probably the best that can be hoped for is that the 31 or so states that have CCW will someday have reciprocity with each other.

[Mini-14]

You might want to check with the FOP about something they have been trying to do for years (and failed) that is similar to this. The National FOP Lodge has been trying to get a bill passed in Congress for some time now that would allow law enforcement officers the right to carry in all 50 states.

The FOP is no friend of citizens.  Here in Illinois they have always opposed the rights of citizens to carry defensive sidearms.  If you follow the debate in Ohio, you are aware that FOP has done everything possible to scuttle CCW legislation.

The problem as I see it is that some states will never have CCW because they are controlled by gun control liberals. These states will never let their own citizens have CCW, so they sure as heck will never allow non state residents have CCW.

I have located an attorney who believes that I have a better than 50% chance of forcing Illinois to accept non-resident CCWs which are held by both Illinois residents, and non-residents of Illinois.