Map from usacarry.com

It was only a couple of decades ago that crossing state lines left most law abiding people effectively disarmed. That began to change as “shall issue” concealed carry reforms swept through the country. I particularly remember how criminals were targeting drivers of rental cars in Florida because they could be fairly certain that the people behind the wheel were from out of state, and thus effectively disarmed . . .

Florida responded by changing their law to allow for interstate reciprocity, and to enable non-residents to obtain Florida concealed carry permits. Florida permits are now one of the most popular for those who wish to obtain an out-of-state permit. Oh, and the state stopped giving rental cars a distinctive license plate. Both steps resulted in a drop in visitor victimization.

Most other states followed Florida’s lead. Now a majority of states recognize permits from many, if not a majority of other states. There are still a few states that heavily restrict a citizen’s right to defend himself. They are mostly concentrated on the coasts; California, Hawaii, and that cluster of  northeastern seaboard states; New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut and the District of Columbia.

Other states still have varying restrictions on reciprocity, but the pressures are building for a national recognition of the right to carry. Such a bill has the votes House and likely the Senate, but has been thwarted by Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader, and the current administration. Should Republicans take the Senate in November and then the White House in 2016, a national reciprocity bill could well make it to the President’s desk for his or her signature.

There are some in the gun community who do not welcome the idea, claiming that it would affect states’ ability to control their own gun laws, setting the stage for [more] national gun control. You?

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

176 Responses to Is National Concealed Carry Reciprocity on the Horizon?

      • Post-Peruta, I received my shall – issue California CCW. Yeah, the attempted intervention is still pending, but don’t write us all off yet. 😉

        • The troublesome counties are clustered along the coast–most of the central valley counties, the northern counties, and the eastern counties (other than Yolo) are virtual shall issue–and have been for a long time.

        • Got mine this summer. Riverside county, Ca- it wasn’t as hard as I thought it would be, but expensive. About $315 not including driving to and from Ben Clark for interview, class and shooting qualifications.

        • There for all the world to see, the brown shit mark of shame. The mark of politicians denying lawful self defense, condoning crimminal behavior, continully refilling government coffers with revolving door of justice system and continuing the institutions that support a growing government class of bureaucrates.

      • You’re forgetting two huge ones – Mass and NY, not to mention RI (hey, two Senators are two Senators). Those three states will never, unless forced, recognize any permit except their own.

    • Strange that most of the responses to Charles5’s remark are clearly irrelevant to the National Reciprocity issue. They are focused on the author’s local situation. I think this is indicative of a problem too many of us PotG have: we care too much about our local situation and not enough about the national situation.
      I escaped NJ and live in PA; so, supposedly, my problems are all solved and I too shouldn’t care about any place other than my township. However, I live just 2 miles from the bridge to NJ and I remain keenly aware of how close I am to having my 2A rights stripped away. (All I have to do is set out on an errand to run across the river.)
      It’s incredibly important that those of us resident in the free States recognize that our rights are held in jeopardy by the Congress-critters representing the slave States. We leave those states as a house-divided at our peril.

      • Exactly correct. It is kafkaesque that a person exercising their constitutional rights becomes a felon just because they cross the Delaware river. Or the Potomac.

        It’s time for national-level intervention to prevent the regressives from infringing on our rights.

    • a classic, but my more modern deity is Nyan Cat. also, ALL HAIL HYPNO TOAD!

      seriously, if a hard drive full of flash content from youtube is dug up 5000 years from now, i feel sorry for them as they try to unravel the “mysteries” of the past….

  1. It would be awesome if the House and Senate overrode Barry’s veto to make it happen. (I know I’m dreaming.)

      • After all the gun control BS he has tried to ram down our throats? Nice doesn’t begin to cover it. Sending him out of office on national reciprocity would be GD poetic!

    • Why not press Congress to arm active-duty servicemen off-base as well as arming Reserves and the National Guard? Congress’s power in these respects necessarily preempts State carry laws. If Congress can exempt retired cops from State carry laws it can do so for military and “select militia”.
      Such a step would put tens of thousands of men and women wearing street cloths in public “under arms” whether concealed or open-carry in the Won’t-Issue States. There won’t be a thing the legislators of those States could do about it.
      Voters in these States would just have to get used to the idea that their fellow-citizens are going about their business bearing arms among them while wearing street cloths. And, there is no blood-in-the-streets! Imagine that! And, precisely what complaint might these voters articulate? These soldier-citizens and citizen-soldiers are bearing arms under the power vested in THE Government. They are trained-to-arms by THE Government.
      By no means am I suggesting that they have any police-powers in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Merely that, just in case some member of the faithful should start beheading people in the streets, someone might be at hand to intervene; someone with a modicum of training and the appropriate tools. Under prevailing circumstances (evidence of ISIS mustering across the Mexican boarder) this might be taken to be a prudent measure even by the Left.
      After a couple of years of getting used to arms-bearing by citizens in civilian cloths, maybe the Congress would be emboldened to consider passing National Reciprocity.
      Congress is empowered to “make rules” for the land and naval forces and to arm the militia. While the President might have to sign a bill to adopt these rules or arm the militia, the power is primary to the Congress, not to the Commander in Chief. Therefore, I think Congress would deserve deference in any such matter.
      I see two alternative approaches; I favor the latter. Congress could authorize any of these military wo/men to be armed at their individual discretion. Alternatively, Congress could ORDER the officer corps to arm a specified percentage of these military wo/men.
      The problem with the first approach – covering 100% of service persons – is that Libs will complain that there must be presumed to be a few unreliable individuals that shouldn’t be allowed to be armed without being under the immediate supervision of their officers. Perhaps a legitimate complaint. To implement such a policy, I’d have Congress order the officers to arm no less than 10% of service members in the first year, 20% in the second year up to 50% in the 5’th year after enactment. Surely every lieutenant, in consultation with his non-coms, should be able to identify enough trust-worthy individuals under their command to issue military orders authorizing them to carry such that the minimum would be met each year. And, there would be nothing that the Commander-in-Chief could do to interfere with the policy.
      Such a graduated measure would record the inevitability of National Reciprocity on the walls of Won’t-Issue States’ intransigence. After 2 years of implementation – 20% of military armed-in-the-streets – they would see that this figure is mandated to rise to at least 50% in 3 more years. Thereafter, it might rise to a higher level still at the discretion of the officer corps. The absence of blood-in-the-streets would give lie to their position that it’s dangerous for anyone other than the police under their control to bear arms publicly. They had better either preempt National Reciprocity by becoming liberally-May-Issue or face de-facto Shall-Issue under Congressional supremacy.

  2. Looks like Shaneen Allen won’t do any time in N.J. for being honest about having a gun. Things just might be turning around.

  3. I’m not sure how national carry would open the gates to more laws. They keep trying to push gun control and they keep losing. I move about ever 3 years. It’d be nice to not have to spend a hundred bucks and wait several months to be armed again.

      • My current state only allows residents to use their license. I will eventually get an out of state license for when I live in a state that will honor it. I don’t want to buy one and spend half the time not allowed to use it.

      • Virginia residents only get two states with a Utah non resident permit. Minnesota and I think Wisconsin. The only reason that Wisconsin doesn’t recognize VA permits is the lack of a picture. Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly offers the Utah class but it is $210 and they won’t pass you unless you perform to their standards.

    • Here is the impact of National Reciprocity, as I see it. Today, high population States and Counties are Won’t-Issue. So, voters in these precincts have NO exposure to civilian carry. They live their lives in Hoplophobia-Land. That’s their way-of-life and they have no reason to question that it is the way-things-ought-to-be.
      They won’t change their own viewpoints by themselves; and, they have no reason to change as long as their environments remain free of civilian carry. We need to inoculate them with exposure to civilian carry. It won’t happen overnight. It won’t happen because a few hundred or a few thousand people CC in their precincts. It will gradually happen over years as tens of thousands of people CC in their neighborhoods. Eventually, a hoplophobe will become aware that someone they know CCs; and s/he’s not such a bad gal/guy. After this fact about this acquaintance soaks in for a year or two the hoplophobe will become aware of another acquaintance or friend; and then another. In ten or twenty years what had always seemed the height of insanity will become normal – perhaps still unusual – but nevertheless, a quiet part of their landscape.
      Only IF-and-WHEN this happens will guns and gun-carry become one of the civil rights most of us take for granted. I don’t mean to suggest that there won’t be any more hoplophobes and Antis in-the-wild. They will still be there. Just as there are people who hate the 1A’s guarantee of free speech and press and religion. Still, these people who hate one or another of our civil rights will shrink into a minority and won’t be a serious threat. That’s what we need to strive for w/r/t the 2A.
      Slavery was threatened by the continued persistence of the slave-free North; or, the slave-free North felt threatened by the existence of slavery in the South. Ours was a house-divided then and it would not stand as such. Segregation in the South would not stand forever against a more integrated North; nor would the more integrated North forever stand while segregation was overt in the South. Something had to give. Today, we experience an overwhelming number of Carry States; but they have small populations. A minority of high population States hostile to 2A rights continue to prevail. One will exert its will over the other. Bleeding Kansas might be represented by Colorado today. Freedom loving Coloradans were invaded by Progressives escaping California only to turn Colorado into a purple and possibly a blue State. Same thing will happen as the North Eastern States bleed enough emigrants to the marginally free States.

      • If the white house can’t be taken then there would have to be enough votesfor a veto override. Not likely. The next president will likely make many appointments to the supreme court. I think we’re hanging on by our fingernails here. We need broad-based public support, the situation is not as stable as it seems. In your face 2A arguments aren’t enough IMO.

  4. What might be easier to pass is a federal CCW program, one that’s separate from the current state ones, has set limits on what areas are off limits (fed buildings, gov. areas with security, schools, etc), and a sort of midway training requirements compared to the various state requirements. That way there’d be less push-back from states that require rangetime/classtime (thus leaving states like NY and Cali as the big opponents instead of the various middle-of-the-road states) and it wouldn’t require taking over the state permit systems. nd most of all it wouldn’t alter the way state permits work within their state; one of the biggests risks I can see in a national reciprocity law is the Feds adding new training/fee requirements that are lower or absent in states like GA or forcing states with constitutional carry to require permits to carry. Make national reciprocity a separate permit and any requirements the Feds impose become an alternative system instead of the only system.

    • A sensible idea. Anyone who objects to fees and training and background checks can opt out and get a state issued license–or no license in the Constitutional carry states. Those who want no issues anywhere can get the fed license. But how many states wold refuse to recognize it, ala state laws refusing to recognize federal firearms laws for instate manufacturing?

      • That is a de facto admission that the 2A does not enumerate a personal right to bear arms. Once you grant federal infringement legal on bearing, the keeping part comes next.

        Signing away your rights for convenience’ sake sounds good, but the long term implications don’t bode so convenient at all.

        • The fact that we have any CCW laws/permits/etc already infringes on that. I wasn’t trying to think of what CCW laws would be if the constitution was followed to the letter (i.e. no laws), I’m trying to think of solutions that would be realistically feasable in today’s political climate. The two big obstacles right now to national CCW laws are (a) states that have lower bars to jump in getting CCWs don’t want stricter requirements forced on them and (b) states with mandatory training, etc. don’t want to have to honor permits from states like GA where all you need is to pay a fee and pass a BGC. Trying to force states to all recognize each others CCWs (which most people asking for national reciprocity are wanting) would likely be met with too much resistance by state reps without forcing new minimum requirements on all state CCWs. And the last thing we should want is for all CCWs to be retooled to requirements set by the Feds. A separate CCW system on the Fed level that does not effect the state level system but that has to be recognized by the states as an alternative could potentially pass since it wouldn’t rub too many states the wrong way; if it mimiced the requirements of medium-restriction states that require some classroom and range time then those states with training requirements likely wouldn’t put up much of a fight and states with fewer or no restrictions wouldn’t care since their still-valid permit systems would be unaffected. That would leave only states like NY/NJ/IL/CA to try and overcome vote-wise (and with the Shaneen Allen case still fresh on peoples’ minds NJ could be publicly shamed into compliance). A separate system that leaves state CCWs intact and untouched with just enough requirements to satisfy middle-of-the-roads states could potentially pass.

        • The false concept that states or localities can infringe this right is bad enough, giving the concept credence at the national level is shooting yourself in the foot or worse.

        • @Roger

          Every must-issue state that has a permit program will object to a national permit system. My wife and each had to pay the state of TN $115 for our permits. Every 4 years we will have to pay $105 to renew them. The states will not want to give up this revenue stream, which they would lose if we could just get a federal permit and be valid in all of the US.

      • Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only states with ant-Fed gun laws (anti-anti-gun laws? reverse gun laws?) are states like Kansas, Alaska, and Arizona. Not eactly places that I would think would put up much of a fuss against a law that said “you guys keep your CCLs, and you need to recognize this one that’s stricter than the ones you already hand out as well”.

    • agreed. I wrote to my congressman and senator and proposed the very same: a national concealed carry law, or in lieu, a national reciprocity law.

    • You should better look at the problem as one of: What would be easier for Congress to pass?
      At present, each State must argue over the terms of its Shall-Issue law. It’s been ugly in most States; and, it’s a continuing struggle. The politics of each State are homogeneous relative to the politics of the national legislature. Whatever it is that is most likely to be passed will be the simplest thing to pass. The more complicated a bill might be the more difficult it will be to negotiate.
      I think that the simplest thing for Congress to do would be to refer to the Full-Faith-and-Credit clause of the Constitution and possibly the Commerce Clause. “Just like” drivers’ licenses have to be granted national reciprocity for interstate commerce to be facilitated, National Reciprocity of carry must be accepted as the rationalization of our federated system of government.
      Bear in mind that National Reciprocity does not involve any real re-cutting of the political pork-barrel. It’s not like Congress is passing one constituency’s boondoggle at the expense of funds for another constituency’s boondoggle. The budget’s earmarks of projects will remain unchanged. Here, we are talking about ONLY what each Senator and Congressman must say to his personal constituency.
      The staunchly Anti Senators and Congressmen don’t matter. They will tell their constituents that they fought National Reciprocity with every breath. They will assure them that they will continue the fight for gun-control. It won’t matter what they say or do. Likewise, it won’t much matter to the staunch 2A Congress-critters. The only thing that matters is the local politics of those in the middle. If they can tell their constituents something simple and acceptable and inevitable, then their political position won’t be disrupted. National Reciprocity will have passed and no new blood will flow in the streets before the next election. By the next election, no one will remember that National Reciprocity was an issue; at least, no one in these swing districts.
      We should AVOID at ALL COSTS getting Congress to legislate civilian arms keeping and bearing. To a greater or lesser extent we should expect to carry on the battle for 2A rights forever. So it has been since the first primitive king ascended his stone throne; he wanted to control who would be allowed to carry a spear or sward. So it will continue forever. We want this to continue – as much as is possible – at the State level. As long as a majority of States are relatively free it will be hard for the Antis to snuff-out gun rights.
      We should think in terms of expanding the gun-culture into the voting blocks of the populated States and Congressional Districts with the objective of normalizing gun-rights in these precincts. That will tend to lower the threat from their Congress-critters.

    • …one of the biggests risks I can see in a national reciprocity law is the Feds adding new training/fee requirements that are lower or absent in states like GA…

      A federal reciprocity bill would not have anything to do with imposing requirements on States regarding issuance of their own CCW permits. Federal reciprocity merely means that if State A issues its own residents a CCW permit (i.e. every State in the Union), then State A must honor/recognize the CCW permit issued by State B to State B’s own residents. No more, no less.

      …or forcing states with constitutional carry to require permits to carry.

      There are some states – Alaska, I believe? – that have constitutional open/concealed carry, but have a permitting process, essentially solely for reciprocity: they issue a permit to their residents, so that their residents can make use of reciprocity with other States. Seems simple enough.

      Make national reciprocity a separate permit and any requirements the Feds impose become an alternative system instead of the only system.

      No. This is the very door that will allow federal control/involvement – i.e. infringement – in the individual RKBA.

    • Just as there’s no Federal drivers’ license, there should not be a Federal CCW license. Your state-issued permit should be enough.

      The right to self defense doesn’t end at your door, and there’s no reason why it should end at the state line.

    • there is no reason why, when purchasing a firearm one cannot apply for a conceal carry permit, valid in 50 states.

      I know we’re a rare breed, but there are still some of us for whom the Tenth Amendment still has meaning.

  5. National reciprocity is an idea that’s right for the times. And just as I’m always overjoyed that I carry in Boston even though most people who live there cannot, I would be even more thrilled to be able to carry in NYC while the people who live there cannot. But it ain’t a-gonna happen unless the Republicans take the Senate and hold the House. Then, maybe.

    • I believe it would be effectively handing over more power to the Feds. Give them an inch…

      How so?

      Federally mandated reciprocity of State-issued resident CCW permits is not the same thing as a Federally issued CCW permit.

  6. I don’t think so.
    There are several states with “constitutional carry” that offer permits purely for the sake of reciprocity (having constitutional carry they don’t actually need a license for their own state per say.) Someone is going to point out that there are enough states like these and others like FL and UT that offer out of state CC permits, that this will amount to defacto national concealed carry for everyone. It’s one thing to say that you’re pro-2a. It’s something else to be the guy who voted to potentially arm every citizen in your state in public. I’m for it in principal, but I don’t think we have now or are likely to gain a congress who will get a yes majority vote on this issue any time soon.

  7. I think it would be best for voters to stand up in November and tell the politicians they had better revere the Bill of Rights or, come January, they’ll be begging Bloomberg for a job…and the line starts right behind Hickenlooper.

    • I used to be against a national CCW however I think it important to distinguish those who can be armed from those who can’t. I don’t think all felonies should result in loss of RKBA and originally that was the case. But self defense, or the right to it, is different from free speech or religion in that it generally involves objects one possesses. For that reason alone a national CCW would be wonderful to waive at a NJ state trooper or DC metro cop.

      • Distinguishing those who can be armed from those that can’t. It’s an interesting problem that I think can be broken into 2 separate parts.
        A serious objection is the “Papers please!” demand. We take it for granted that a cop demands: “Driver’s license, registration and insurance!” On occasion, when stopped as a pedestrian, cops ask for ID and we generally comply because that’s the path of least resistance. When contemplating being stopped and asked to show our CWP we get a bit antsy. Not quite sure why. It would seem to be a short-cut to being asked to give our name, address and birth-date so the cop can run a BC on NICS. I don’t think it’s really apt to be much of a practical problem. Eventually, cops would probably find something more amusing to occupy their time than asking every OC’er to show his Carry-Permit.
        The much more substantive question is POLITICAL. The typical low-information-voter is calmed by the idea of any notion of government-issued license. If a barber has a license he must be a safe guy to get a hair-cut from. Such a voter takes some stock in BCs. It’s sort-of-analogous to taking comfort in the fact that the Police Department has checked-out a guy who applies for a job as a cop. If the guy is good-enough for the Police Department the civilian doesn’t need to worry about the fact that the cop has a gun. (How little the low-information voter understands!)
        Whatever we can do to make the low-information-voter marginally more comfortable with the idea of civilian-Carry it will reduce the political opposition to civilian guns. If a little plastic card representing a NICS check is one more thing that makes that happen, I’m more than happy to carry a little plastic card.
        (In the next 10 or 20 years the idea that we carry a wallet full of little plastic cards to identify ourselves to our: employer; traffic-cop; merchants who accept our checks; librarians; etc. will probably be obsolete. And, our pocket full of CWP cards will disappear along with all the other redundant ID cards.)
        As another example, in PRINCIPLE I really hate the idea of a training requirement to get a CWP. It smacks of a literacy test to vote. It threatens a barrier to be used to restrict carry to citizens financially well-off enough to pay for the training. Nevertheless, I – like most of us – would like to see gun users reasonably well-trained. On balance, a gun user with 8 – 16 – 24 hours of training will be better off than one with only a few minutes training on the gun-shop sales floor. I’d rather see a trade-off of 50-States-with-training-requirements to get 50-States-with-Shall-Issue. This is to say, I would be willing to make a POLITICAL compromise of my principles in order to extend carry rights nation-wide. I’m not willing to hold-my-breath until the last of the 50 States voluntarily adopts Constitutional Carry.
        I’m not advocating a training requirement. I’d prefer a test requirement over a training requirement. No particular such measure is any panacea. Instead, I’m advocating that we begin to think about PR stances we could be taking to promote the idea that guns in the hands of civilians is a safe proposition. We need to boost confidence in the minds of low-information-voters.

  8. If there were to be a National Gun Law I think it could be more the state has to honor the rights of a citizen from another state, just like marriage . If a person has a permit to carry in Fla as I have the state of Massachusetts would have to honor that license while I am in that state….this would eliminate people being arrested for unknowingly crossing a states border . This would leave the individual state to maintain their rights over their citizens . I would be in favor of a law like this.

        • Ralph, more than a few states have changed their laws to prevent state residents from carrying in their home state by using an out-of-state permit. They just change the reciprocity clause to “Does not apply to residents of this state”, and poof, those permits become useless in-state for residents.

        • Some states will not recognize a nonresident permit issued by another state, although they will recognize one issued to a resident. Some states are like New Mexico, whose policy on which states they recognize seems to change with great regularity. And some states, such as Oregon and Washington, will not recognize a California CCW for no other reason than that California will not recognize theirs. Its all politics and tit for tat.

      • Some ridiculous 17 hour training concealed carry permit and background checks in psychological exams might be great for someone in New Jersey or New York who couldn’t get one otherwise but it’d be bullshit for someone in a state it doesn’t have this kind of hoops. Giving this power to the feds will kill rights for people in places who haven’t voted their in a liable rights away, just like what happened with the EPA and board of education and all the alphabet soup agencies.

        • Giving this power to the feds will kill rights for people in places who haven’t voted their in a liable rights away…

          How does Federal reciprocity give such power to the Federal government? Please explain.

      • Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that that were the best we could get. It would not be perfect. Nevertheless, imagine what it would do to put pressure on the legislators of a State like NJ. Citizens of NJ would see that they have visitors from PA carrying; PA has a $21 License, no training, no prints. Citizens in the up-state counties of NY would carry. Citizens from DE would carry. And, NO blood-in-the-streets.
        Some enterprising NJ citizens would find some resort area in PA where they could rent a cabin-on-the-lake for a week every summer. Maybe send the wife and kiddies to stay there instead of sending them “down-the-shore”. These full-time residents of NJ would get a Resident’s ID from PA and file a part-year tax return with PA. Then, they could carry on their Resident PA permit in NJ.
        How long could NJ stand-up to the pressure this situation would create? We don’t need to achieve Constitutional Carry over-night; what we need is to create at least fissures in the walls of the existing structures that bar carry in the slave states.

      • So those of us in may issue states would still be screwed… thanks, but no.

        How would you be any more screwed than you are already? And why should those of us who live in States that can actually read, understand, and adhere to the constitution have to be made to suffer because there are States that can’t?

        But really, you’re not thinking long-term enough. Federally mandated reciprocity of State-issued resident CCW permits would actually help your commie States in the long run. Why? Because it will force those States to accept the presence of individuals exercising their RKBA.

        Can you just imagine the pressure that will be placed on the politicians of NJ, NY, MD, etc., when non-residents can exercise a constitutionally protected natural right, but the States’ own residents cannot? Those States will eventually be forced to move to shall-issue.

  9. On paper (the Constitution, to be precise), the “full faith and credit” clause should be enough for my permit to be good everywhere.

    In practice, politics happen.

  10. Although I’m somewhat new to Delaware, I certainly wouldn’t include it on the list with Cali, New Jersey, Maryland, etc. Though the state is technically “may issue”, there was a state supreme court ruling some years back that renders it effectively what I call “should issue”. The court said that the intent of the law was to allow ordinary citizens to get permits, and that permits should generally be issued to those that are not barred from owning firearms in the first place. Yes, there are some strange requirements in order to get your permit – taking out a newspaper add, submitting 5 references, etc. – but overall it’s a much better system than places like Illinois. My 2 cents…

    But yes, national reciprocity please! Then I could legally defend myself while visiting friends and family in all the commie states that surround this place…

    • I’m also a DE resident and it’s a mixed bag here in the first state. The CCW is expensive. You need to take a 250 – 300 dollar course on the obvious, find 5 people to approach and ask ” could you SIGN this paper so I can carry a GUN?!”, publicize your intentions in the paper (which no one subscribes to much anyway), pay a bunch of application fees and then waste a day in court asking a man in black if it’s OK with him for you to protect yourself.

      I’m going to line up for this fiasco shortly and see how it goes.

    • Joe, you are correct that Delaware is nowhere near as bad as Maryland, New Jersey, etc.

      Delaware has some quirky rules regarding concealed carry permits and it is more cumbersome than it should be; however, many people who apply for a permit do receive it. Some people that I know have used the phrase “defense of self and family when away from home” as the reason for wanting to obtain a permit. That reason had been accepted as enough and they have received their permit.

      Also, FWIW, open carry is legal without a permit.

  11. I THINK the current National Reciprocity bill would grant reciprocity for resident licenses, not the type anyone can get from UT and FL. In other words, you would have to be a resident of the state that gave you the CCW license, and then every other state would accept your license. If I were a resident of CO, but had only a UT CCW, then the other states would not be forced to accept my UT license, because I don’t live in UT.

    I could be wrong on that, though. Can someone tell us whether that is the way it would be with the current National Reciprocity bill?

    • So, there could be an argument for forcing honoring only a resident permit. If I lived in NJ I might look for the most lenient State that issues Non-Resident permits. Let’s suppose that were Alaska; land of the free and home of the brave. Just like we had “No-Doc” mortgage loans maybe we could have No-Doc Alaska carry permits. So, I could go permit-shopping for the lowest-common-denominator. How could we counter this?
      I was born in Minnesota; Minnesota best knows my birth-certificate. It’s good throughout the US under the FF&C Constitutional doctrine. I was married in Minnesota; and, likewise, that certificate is good throughout the US, FF&C. I have a Minnesota Non-Resident carry permit; I still have family in Minnesota notwithstanding that I have moved out East; lived in Illinois for 20 years.
      Suppose I now lived in NYC with extraordinarily high standards. If NJ honors Minnesota Resident permits why should it not recognize my Minnesota Non-Resident permit? Did I State-shop for the lowest standards? Certainly not. Minnesota provides the highest level of verification of my US citizenship; covers 20 years of my residency; and has subjected me to its training standards. As often as it cares to it re-BC’s me (e.g., on annual renewal. Why should I be obliged to get a new resident permit when I lived in Illinois? Again, when I moved to NYC? Had I remained a resident of Minnesota all my life I would have been able to carry wherever I went in the US on my resident MN permit.
      Carrying this argument one step farther, suppose I had moved from MN to IL before getting my MN resident permit. I might have gotten an IL resident permit, then subsequently moved to NYC. Why couldn’t my IL resident permit carry forward to my new resident without subjecting me to the obligation to get a new (high-standards) permit in NYC? I should be free to carry in both NYC and in NJ where I reside and where I travel regularly.
      If taking up a new residence in a new State didn’t invalidate my certification of birth or marriage why should it invalidate my certification to carry?
      The response might be that changing residence compels me to change my driver’s license. That’s true; however, that fact is arguably an anachronism. Prior to the advancement of computer communications it wasn’t realistic to do a DL check in a State distant from the State where the traffic stop occurred. Now it is. Now, almost all the States share DL data to prevent people with suspended or revoked licenses getting licenses in other States.
      What is the core of the CWP? It’s the NICS check first, possibly a finger-print check, possibly a State database check, and then training. The NICS check and finger-print checks are national. So, don’t we have enough bases covered if we allow a CWP from a former State-of-Residence?
      I don’t intend to assert that National Reciprocity based on State-of-Residence – current OR former – is just-as-good as State-of-CURRENT-Residence. Rather, I’m asserting that it may be a good-enough argument to advance to get something more liberal than a State-of-CURRENT-Residence-ONLY law.

  12. You need to add Rhode Island to the heavily restricted list. RI is the worst of all the New England states, and it makes MA look like Utopia. CT is actually very easy and all you need is a carry permit from ANY state and they’ll give you a carry permit.

  13. If the republicans take the White House we have it. There are too many dems who have to vote pro 2A or they lose their seat. It’ll happen it’s just a matter of how many years it’s going to take. I have no faith in scotus to settle the issue before heller 5 retire.

    This is the 2nd reason I’m leaving CA to OR. F*** LA and SF. I grew up here and I’m over it.

  14. It won’t be a stand alone bill . . . Like carry in national parks got attached to a credit card bill that Barry Hussein Soetoro wanted, the same will happen for National reciprocity. Barry will win a veto so are him veto something he wants

  15. Delaware passed reciprocity in 2003 but it has been watered down a bit. Recently they stopped recognizing permits from most shall issue states that lack classes or other training requirements. They also now require Delaware residents to have DE permits while allowing residents ( such as from Florida) to carry with permits in Delaware. Imagine that, visitors have it easier than residents.
    Elections matter more than rights when politicians ignore them.

    • Funny how that works sometimes. Texas doesn’t allow open carry of handguns, even with a license. However, Oklahoma does allow open carry of handguns, provided you’re licensed. That includes with an out-of-state license which Oklahoma recognizes. Oklahoma recognizes Texas concealed handgun licenses, so I can open carry with my license in Oklahoma as a visitor, but not in my own state as a resident!

      No worries, we’re just weeks away from electing a new governor, the honorable Greg Abbott, who will bring (unlicensed) open carry of handguns to the Lone Star State by next year.

  16. National reciprocity would, I believe, effectively kill the “may (not) issue” of states such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii. Just imagine all those out-of-staters packing heat, it would make some heads explode. That, plus a few million-dollar lawsuits when one of their cops, unfortunately, does something real stupid with a lawfully-carrying out-of-stater.

    • “Just imagine all those out-of-staters packing heat, it would make some heads explode”

      I’m guessing you said that metaphorically, not literally.

    • Louringe, you must be new here or you would know your assertion is inaccurate.

      TL;DR CCW permits have been issued in CA for a long time, but unfairly, and thanks to CA gun rights groups and NRA support of outstanding lawyering, its getting a lot better soon.

      For your benefit and any other new readers, since TTAG has emerged as the leading independent gun culture blog, where people go for the truth, here is a quick summary, and links for more. IANAL so anyone who is feel free to correct me if I go astray.

      CA issues CCW permits, county by individual county, according to the Sheriff’s interpretation of CA law, which is called, “may issue”. Rural counties have granted more permits as you might imagine, over the years, but urban Sheriff’s who may be influenced by the politics of their community, or that of the State Attorney General Kamal Harris, (an ambitious San Fran liberal and self announced gun grabber, and wannabe first black female POTUS,) who nominally oversees some aspects of how the Sheriffs carry out CA state law,

      have granted far fewer, to the point of effectively “no issue” to regular citizens, unless you are a politician or retired LEO, or a security guard, jeweler, or a big contributor to the Sherriffs re-election.

      The Peruta case was brought to object to this practice, specifically to argue that “self defense” alone was justification to apply for a ccw. Thanks to savvy local and national level lawyering by Michel and Associates, Alan Gura, and financial support by NRA, and various amici like SAF,

      Peruta was decided by the 9th DC in favor of requiring “self defense” as reason to apply for the ccw permit.
      Thus setting precedent state_wide to rationalise the permitting schemes of all 57 counties, to do same, and coincidentally beciming influential on a national basis, thanks to the superlative legal argument carefully built patiently, strategically, brick by brick, on other 2A case precedent and recent constitutional law scholarship cited, and the masterful majority opinion crafted by Judge O’Scannlain.

      http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/4/nra-victory-in-the-peruta-%E2%80%9Cshall-issue%E2%80%9D-california-ccw-case,-what-does-it-mean-what-happens-next.aspx

      Lots more background, here for a ton of history; http://www.calguns.net/

      For a quick update on what else is happening gun rights wise in CA; http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/

        • Nice to see you didn’t read post . you reply makes my point THE STATE DOES NOT ISSUE THEM.

          Actually, yes, the State does issue them. The State has delegated that activity to the county sheriffs, who act as agents of the Statae to execute the State statutes that define the State’s CCW permitting process.

        • Louringe, calm down, no need to shout. I am not hovering here breathlessly waiting to respond to your post.

          OK, I *think* I see your point-

          While the California Concealed Weapons Permit is defined by state law, and once issued, is good statewide,

          it is true that it is generally” issued” by the Sheriff, see CA Penal Code 26510

          (see here: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/California_License_to_Carry_Concealed_Weapon_%28CCW%29)

          Is that what you are getting at? If so, “issue” is a function delegated to the county (or municipality if the county has an agreement with them) by the State, but it is the State that creates the legislation to change the law, and the penal code that comes from it.

          So, back to the larger point, speaking to your assertion that “it will never happen in CA”, with the ‘it” being the possibility of national reciprocity in all states, as raised in the article.

          Acceptance of other state CCW permits in some reciprocity would be something decided by the State,
          not county by county. That would be just silly.

          Now, before we get into an argument about the CA legislature, and probabilities of their actions- lets just review whats going on:

          The Peruta v Gore case is the prime example. That was narrowly crafted to speak ONLY to the SD County permit issuance restrictions, specifically not allowing “self defense”. The State was already “influenced” by Calguns to standardize the permitting process and application, and other cases brought by petitioners supported by Calguns and NRA are underway- read more here: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/

          The next step is to standardize the guidelines, and procedures, to make it fair and reasonable, not something so restrictive that it is, in effect, a ban, which is what the 9th Court decided was the case in San Diego County, and reversed the decision, and mandated that shall issue is a valid justification for application.

          That decision to reverse and remand is already “precedential” on all other CA counties, and despite the desperate manuever by the State AG Kamala Harris, to invite herself back into the case as an interested party, after declining when invited the first time in oral arguments, its likely she will be allowed to intervene, but the decision will stand. Or go to SCOTUS on appeal. And Peruta has already been mentioned in other key cases, like Palmer in DC, for the substantive legal case and precedence.

          Either way, to my point, and to your assertion- its already happening in California.
          County by county, if you want to quibble on who issues, or State wide- if you look at the law as it applies, and would apply nationally for reciprocity.

          BTW, this is how it was fought out in early years of the concealed carry movement, in some cases county by county, if you read The Rise of the Anti-Media, the study of the history of the CCW movement, and who would have thought then, 20 years ago, that the map would look like this today?

          http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Anti-Media–Forming-Americas-Concealed-ebook/dp/B00FX758S4/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411791544&sr=1-2&keywords=rise+of+the+anti+media

    • It will NEVER happen in a state like CALIFORNIA as the state does not issue CCW permits

      Every State in the union now issues CCW permits. Illinois was the last holdout.

      (Well, DC, while not a State, is an autonomous entity that, for the time being, doesn’t issue CCW permits – though it is under court order to do so, and has just passed a may-issue statute.)

  17. There are some in the gun community who do not welcome the idea, claiming that it would affect states’ ability to control their own gun laws, setting the stage for [more] national gun control. You?

    Uh, there is no unit of government — not local, not state, and especially not federal — that should have any form of control whatsoever over our inherent, natural, fundamental, and inalienable, individual, civil, and Constitutionally-affirmed and protected right to keep AND bear arms in the first place.

    Period.

    • OK, now that we clearly understand “Period”, now, tell us how we can carry nationally without going through the hell Shaneen Allan just went through?
      Some of us are trying to figure out a practical path to get from where we are to where we want to be. Others of us are trying to assert that we are already there, we just have to assert that we are there already; we’ve been there all along. So, please explain how we tell-it-to-the-judge so we don’t get hauled off to prison for 3 1/2 years. I’ve sure you guys are right; absolutely right. It says so right there in the 2A: “. . . shall not be infringed.”
      I’m befuddled. Why did Shaneen spend 41 days in jail before she could make bail? Why did her legal defense fund get pegged at $25,000? Why did she have to hire the best gun lawyer in NJ and become a national poster girl (with the good luck to have a contrasting case of an NFL player betting the hell out of his betrothed)?
      Maybe it has something to do with the advise my mother gave me: “Listen to the nice man with the gun and do whatever he says.” Just as soon as the nice man with the gun, the prosecutor in Atlantic County, NJ judges and the NJ legislators understand “. . . shall not be infringed PERIOD” I can carry my gun across the river. Until then, your “Period” doesn’t do me any good.

  18. It seems so weird to me that other states selectively determine which state’s concealed permits they honor and which ones they don’t. A state with almost no restrictions or qualifications other than background checks will often not honor a Concealed Permit from a state that requires a day long class in safety, legal ramifications, basic firearm use and a life fire test. Seems more political than practical at this point as far as which state recognizes which other states permits. I hold permits from FL, NV and WA and I still can only carry legally in about 37 states.

  19. I vote federal open carry permit. Open carry in the states that are alright with it will still be good to go and the states that don’t even want you to have guns would have to allow you to open carry. I would also say open carry with a pill in the spout too. CCw still the way it is I suppose but I wish my damn UT permit would cover NV.

  20. I’d be much happier with a SCOTUS ruling than an act of Congress. If Congress acknowledges the obvious necessity of national reciprocity, the anti-gunners will use that to prove that the right to carry is granted, rather than inherent.

    • That’s an interesting point, and I might even agree with it, after I’ve given it more thought. In the meantime, though, couldn’t it be compellingly argued that Congress passing a federal national reciprocity is more a matter of Congress be dragged into compliance with SCOTUS’ rulings finding that RKBA is an individual right and incorporating that right upon the states?

      That is, that national reciprocity is a matter of Congress tidying up and implementing in specific part of what SCOTUS, whose imprimatur you already hold in higher regard, has already mandated in general?

    • Neither a law passed by Congress nor a ruling by SCOTUS is irreversible. Getting one backed-up by the other would make it harder to reverse. One would tend to lock-in the other. If Congress recognized an interpretation of a Constitutional right then SCOTUS would be foreclosed of the argument that State’s legislative decision should be given deference in diluting a right. If SCOTUS recognized an interpretation of a Constitutional right then Congress should be reluctant to pass a law reversing SCOTUS.
      The path of least resistance would seem to be for Congress to apply the Full-Faith-and-Credit doctrine to State Carry permits. Once that application has been made I think it would be hard to reverse. It would make as little sense as Congress passing a law saying that States didn’t have to give Full-Faith-and-Credit to marriage certificates. Could it be done? Yes, but it would be a tougher sale.

  21. Sure, it would be great if my state CCW was recognized like my state DL is recognized, and maybe that will happen one day (I’m not holding my breath), but if I bring my Glock 19 on a car ride from Phoenix to San Diego, I would have to leave my 15 rounders at home and bring some 10 rounders. Going back to see family in NYC, only load 7 or: felony. Need to see my wife’s family in NJ, better trade up those HST’s for ball ammo. That being said, I can see similar laws being implemented in order to try and play the new “let’s make the gun-toting tourist a felon” game. Statists gonna State.

    • That’s smart, and an improvement and extension of a point I made the other day. Some equate carry licenses to drivers license; but I argued that even with reciprocity of drivers licenses, you’re still bound to state-specific laws, such as widely varying liability insurance requirements. That kind of fine print can crimp your travel plans, unless you’re renting a car. I’d only suggested that variation in state firearms laws could severely limit, if not make moot, reciprocity of carry licenses; but I hadn’t outlined any specifics such as ammo or magazine limits. Good post.

    • Perfectly valid points. Nevertheless, National Reciprocity is a way to drive a wedge into the 10 or so Won’t-Issue States. Once that happens, like-it-or-not, the voters in those States will have to get used to the fact that people around them are carrying. It might take 10 years – maybe 20 – but, it’s apt to happen. I live in PA 2 minutes from NJ and travel there regularly. With National Reciprocity I’ll switch to carrying ball to avoid magazine changes (not practical anyway). Lots of NJ residents will carry on out-of-State permits even if they have to set up a plausible pretext for being PA residents.
      The NJ prejudice against guns and carry in particular will fade; and, as it fades, the bizarre NJ laws will get relaxed. We will be able to articulate a case for REVERSING the NO-hollow-point law adopting a SC NO-ball-law. We can’t make that point today because police are exempt from the NO-hollow-point law; it applies only to a few armored-car drivers and the occasional retired LEO. These few applications are so narrow that there is no point in making the argument.
      National Reciprocity will not – overnight – make America 2A compliant. However, it will be a huge step forward – as were Heller and McDonald – toward normalizing guns in the slave States.

  22. I’m 110% against a national CCW.

    Want to see what happens when the federal government gets involved in setting licensing standards? Then look no further than commercial drivers’ licenses, or pesticide licensing.

    The Feds have cranked up “requirements” on CDL’s again and again and again over the years, squeezing truck drivers’ hours, upping their requirements for hauling loads. At one point, Chuckie Schumer (we know him, right) wanted to classify hay (ie, dried grass) as a “hazardous material” and require hazmat licensing for hay truck drivers. Perfectly absurd, of course, but that’s the surreal and absurd thinking that comes out of DC.

    Keep CCW’s out of the hands of DC.

    • I’m 110% against a national CCW.

      Want to see what happens when the federal government gets involved in setting licensing standards?

      What does that have anything to do with Federally mandated reciprocity of State-issued resident CCW permits?

  23. I would much rather the Federal government focus its attention on repealing its own onerous infringements, rather than tell the states what to do. The states already have this within their authority and, frankly, the states do have legitimate reasons for their different approaches. Some, or maybe many, I might not personally agree with, but as long as they’re constitutional (I know, that’s a big “as long as….”), then it’s really none of my or the Federal government’s business.

    Besides, the Feds will pull a Lucy with the football stunt, mark my words. All you’ll get is paper reciprocity, which won’t have any teeth to it, so won’t be respected by any state that wouldn’t do so anyway. They couple that with all kinds of new restrictions jammed down your throat, which WILL be backed by explicit penalties enforced by, irony of ironies, men with guns. All in the name of “compromise” and “common sense.”

    Trust me, folks, it’s better to work at the state level to expand uni/bi/multilateral reciprocity. Invite the Fed’s nose into the tent and you will be sorry.

  24. I’m not convinced national reciprocity is a good thing.
    We fought state by state to get legal carry. We should make the feds fight state by state if they want to further infringe.
    But putting all the eggs in one federal basket, it would be VERY easy over time to enact a federal law that would effectively cripple shall-issue. ie. may-issue becomes the defacto standard

    If we allow states’ rights to be determined by federal oversight, the states will have lost their ability to regulate. Legally, this is incorrect, but in practice it is very possible.

    Ignore what “should be” and look towards what “can be”. Obama has made clear that laws and the Constitution do not matter anymore with Dems in control.

  25. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.

    I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

    I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

    It will become all one thing or all the other.

    Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States….”

    – Abraham Lincoln

  26. I would actually rather see non-reciprocity be overthrown by the Supreme Court. “…Shall not be infringed” applied no matter what state you’re in.

  27. NY is labeled incorrectly. Even in the most gun-friendly counties, they cannot issue a license to a non-resident. If a licensed resident moves out of state, they must surrender their license upon establishing residency in another state. The license is also required to even have possession of handgun within NY, even if it’s unloaded and locked in your trunk.

    In short, NY sucks. NYC is even worse, they don’t even recognize permits issued in counties outside of the city!

  28. The Constitution should be the only reciprocity we need. Thank the Supreme Court for failing again and again to put this issue behind us.

  29. I think what we all should be pushing for is a common sence codification of the 2A in plain english so the individual states couldn’t ignore it by playing games with language.
    “Congress” or what was Congress 2 centuries ago has already enacted a “National Reciprocity” act, it’s called the 2nd Amendment.
    As for Congress vs SCOTUS it should be Congress, it a lot harder to over turn.
    The “plain english” codification should read something like this.
    Recognizing the rights codified in the 2nd Amendment, no citizen shall be denied the right to own or carry with them a firearm. Except for having been convicted of a violent felony.

    As to the States right to enforce “reasonable” restriction,
    No State or local government shall enact or enforce any law giving preferential treatment to law enforcement or military personal with regards to the purchase, ownership or carry of firearms or ammunition except as is necessary to engage in war not on American soil.

    This gives every citizen the right to carry and maintains the States right to “reasonable” restrictions as well as sets “reasonable” guide lines for those restrictions. Constitutional carry states are still free to be less restrictive, and would force states like NJ, NY to either recognise out of state permits or issue permits to non residents on a shall issue basis.

      • And these were the same prosecutors who sent Ray Rice on his way with no charges for brutalizing his wife on video so yeah the attention at the time, was unfortunate for them, to prosecute Ms. Allen.

  30. I don’t see it happening from the Federal level down.

    I think the best we will ever see is more States working together without the Federal Government’s involvement (the way it should be for this and almost all maters). It could be done faster with State Governments working with the NRA and other groups to come up with standardized requirements to attain and maintain a CPL.

    For example, one way would be if all States agreed to adopt Utah’s system.

    I don’t see a 100% reciprocity Nationwide, due to States like California and New York. But with a lot of effort from the ground up, I could see maybe a 80% reciprocity.

    I can see the concern of having it controlled at the Federal level. Having Federal regulations for concealed carry could change with a stroke of a President’s pen via Executive Order. Increase fees to above a normal person could afford, long waiting periods, caliber & capacity limits, insanely strict training requirements, etc.

    • Improving bilateral reciprocity is desirable; but, it gives diminishing returns. I’m sure that there are good ideas that could be circulated. E.g., suppose I have a resident permit from a low-standards State (PA) and a non-resident permit from a high-standards State (UT). Maybe that should be good enough to enjoy reciprocity in a State that now recognizes a resident – but not a non-resident – permit from the high-standards State.
      I’m much more interested in the CONSEQUENCES of breaking down the barriers to carry in the Won’t-Issue States. I will survive reasonably well by taking care to dis-arm before crossing the bridge to NJ. I’m less confident that the 2A will survive decades of resistance from the high-population Won’t-Issue States. Senators and Congressmen from these States will continue to attack the 2A in Washington. We need to weaken the Anti sentiment in the large population Won’t-Issue States to bolster the defense of the 2A.

  31. How would national reciprocity work in gun free zones in each state? In cars, a stop sign is a stop sign, regardless of state you are driving. In Utah, you can carry in a school (some?). Don’t try that in, say, California.

    • National Reciprocity and Criminals-&-Crazies-Free-Fire-Zones are independent issues. Each needs to be worked on in its own right.
      The free States can exert their will via their own Congress-critters on the slave States through National Reciprocity. Once that happens, resistance to guns in the slave States will slowly recede. The Free-Fire-Zones will be the last ground to be recovered.
      The free States can exert their will via their own legislatures on the slave-zones (e.g., schools) within their own jurisdiction. The slave States aren’t going to reverse their policy on Free-Fire-Zones while a majority of free States maintain numerous Free-Fire-Zones.

    • You re right Michael. We shd carry the gun in the vehicle maybe.. but the problem is lack of inspection. There if you have a gun in the car, you cannot know who else control it! I definitely support to have a gun safe as an obligatory.. else life will be much more complicated.

  32. The Feds have forced the states to recognize marriage licenses and drivers licenses issued by other states, this is no different, and within the next three years is likely to happen.

  33. I would love to see a national reciprocity law, because it would give me a great deal of personal pleasure to carry in states such as NY, IL, and the People’s Republic of California, even when they deny that right to most of their residents. Just thinking about the hissy-fits of the anti-gun leftist state government weenies gives me a massive dose of Schadenfreude!

  34. Against it. I rather work on a slow and steady state by state approach than a muck up everything all at once approach by the Federal government.

  35. I dream of the day I can drive anywhere in the country and keep my rights the whole time. I have relatives in Boston and NYC that I love to see, but hate to travel to because it means disarming. I was almost assaulted in Boston by a belligerent man on drugs in broad daylight. The only saving grace was my runners build and the cop on foot 2 blocks away that responded quickly.

  36. There are some in the gun community who do not welcome the idea, claiming that it would affect states’ ability to control their own gun laws, setting the stage for [more] national gun control.

    I believe such concern is unfounded. A simple bill – such as the current one that is before the Senate – that merely states that any state that issues its residents a concealed-carry license must recognize the concealed-carry permits issued by other states to their own residents has zero impact on each State’s ability to regulate the permitting of concealed-carry licenses for their own residents.

    For example, Illinois can still have its ridiculously burdensome process for CCW permitting for its own residents. The only change is that Illinois would be required to recognize, for example, the CCW permits of Indiana or Missouri residents who have such permits issued by their state of residence.

    I am 100% in favor of federally mandated CCW reciprocity.

    (I am 100% against federal *licensure* of concealed carry – but that’s a completely separate issue, and completely unrelated to federally mandated interstate reciprocity of state-issued resident CCW permits.)

  37. Y’all are over thinking this. Forget a troublesome law permitting reciprocity. Eliminate the need for reciprocity. In a perfect world, Congress would pass, and POTUS would sign, a law defining the 2A thusly:

    The Second Amendment Restoration Act (SARA)
    1. SCOTUS has decided that the 2A is an individual right.
    2. At the time of the writing of the 2A there were no CCWs.
    3. Any citizen of the US, comprised of the several states, Indian nations, possessions, and territories, may at his pleasure carry a firearm openly or concealed about his person or conveyance, notwithstanding applicable laws related to Felony conviction, court order, or mental incapacity, without the possession of a permit to do so.
    4. States, Indian nations, possessions, and territories may maintain an acceptable list of ‘sensitive areas’ subject to gun prohibition, such as jails and prisons, such list being subject to Federal judicial review to comply with applicable SCOTUS decisions.

  38. The first map shows CT as may issue

    The time lapse map shows CT as shall issue.

    The truth is somewhere in the middle. Your local PD may refuse to issue based on suitability. But as long as you aren’t a PP the BFPE will force them to issue if they refuse.

    Also. RI is shown as shall issue. This is true for a range permit. For a carry permit, it’s like DC, NJand CA in that you have to show a specific need. So a
    Though there is no AWB and no mag restrictions, RI is one of the worst for someone who wants to carry for self defense.

    Don

  39. Asking questions are genuinely pleasant thing if you are not understanding anything fully,
    however this piece of writing gives nice understanding yet.

  40. An interesting discussion is worth comment. I do think that you should publish more on this subject, it may
    not be a taboo matter but generally folks don’t speak about these issues.
    To the next! Many thanks!!

  41. Admiring the commitment you put into your website and
    in depth information you offer. It’s good to come across a blog every
    once in a while that isn’t the same outdated rehashed material.
    Excellent read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your
    RSS feeds to my Google account.

  42. Thanks for some other magnificent article. Where else
    could anybody get that type of information in such an ideal means of writing?
    I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I’m on the look for such
    information.

  43. Thank you, I’ve recently been looking for information approximately this topic
    for ages and yours is the best I’ve came upon till now.
    However, what about the bottom line? Are you positive in regards to the supply?

  44. My developer is trying to persuade me to move to .net from PHP.
    I have always disliked the idea because of the costs.
    But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using Movable-type on a variety
    of websites for about a year and am concerned about switching to another platform.
    I have heard very good things about blogengine.net. Is there a way I can import
    all my wordpress content into it? Any kind of help would be greatly appreciated!

  45. Undeniably consider that which you said. Your favorite
    reason appeared to be on the web the simplest thing to be mindful of.
    I say to you, I certainly get irked at the same time as people think about
    issues that they plainly don’t understand about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the top and
    defined out the entire thing with no need side-effects , other folks can take a signal.

    Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

  46. you are in point of fact a excellent webmaster.
    The website loading pace is amazing. It seems that you are doing any distinctive trick.
    Also, The contents are masterwork. you have performed a magnificent job in this subject!

  47. Pretty portion of content. I simply stumbled upon your website and in accession capital
    to claim that I get actually enjoyed account your weblog posts.
    Any way I will be subscribing on your augment and even I fulfillment you get admission to persistently fast.

  48. Thank you for another excellent post. The place else could anyone get
    that kind of info in such a perfect way of writing?
    I’ve a presentation next week, and I am at the search for such info.

  49. I’m now not certain the place you are getting your info, but good topic.
    I needs to spend a while studying more or figuring out more.
    Thank you for magnificent information I used to be searching for this information for my mission.

  50. Thanks a bunch for sharing this with all folks you really realize what you are speaking about!
    Bookmarked. Kindly also visit my site =). We could have a hyperlink change agreement between us

  51. What i do not understood is in truth how you are no longer really a lot more neatly-favored than you
    may be right now. You’re so intelligent. You understand therefore significantly on the subject of this topic, produced me personally
    imagine it from so many varied angles. Its like women and men are not fascinated except it’s one thing to do with Lady gaga!
    Your own stuffs excellent. At all times maintain it
    up!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *