National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity

From: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4330

National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced

Friday, January 23, 2009

U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), recently introduced H.R. 197-- the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009"--a bill that would provide national recognition for valid state Right-to-Carry licensees.

The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if the permit holder meets certain criteria. In states that issue permits, a state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal standard would apply. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.

Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) is expected to introduce the Senate companion bill in the near future. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 197!
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I doubt that it will pass, but it's worth supporting imo.

I'm in favor of it, of course, but it doesn't really seem like something that will even make it out of committee right now. If it didn't make it during the '94-'06 period, it's not going to make it now.

While I admit firstly I'm not an American and can't claim to be an expert, I'd point out that one of the strengths of U.S. states having their own local regulations is that each can adopt laws and regulations as they see fit and see which works best (or at least, best for them).

In terms of gun licensing, in the U.S. it's not politically clear (i.e. there is no consensus at the federal level) which state has the best policy on gun ownership (in fact it's one of the most volatile, ongoing political and social debates in the U.S. of course), so blanket legislation that states must commit to abide by the gun possession regulations of other states, when their conditions may vary wildly, seems both unlikely and unwise, not to mention extremely unpopular in certain corners.

You can compare the rationale behind states recognizing each other's driver's licenses, but the personal criteria for licensing does not vary nearly as greatly as it does for guns, and certainly not as contentiously.

I should point out that this bill isn't about gun ownership or gun possession in general, but specifically about the permits needed to carry a concealed handgun. And it wouldn't force any states to change any of the regulations and laws they use to control the availability of concealed carry permits; it would just force them them to recognize other state's concealed carry permits in the same way they recognize their own. So if a state has rules making it hard for that state's residents to get CCPs, those rules would remain intact even after this bill became law, and it would still be just as hard for that state's residents to get CCPs. The state would just have to recognize the CCPs held by residents of other states, when those people passed through.

But I do agree that it's a contentious issue on which different states have widely differing standards, and that the lack of nationwide consensus on this issue is why these bills keep failing. That's a legitimate reason for the bills to fail, even though I wish they'd pass. Bills fail if they don't enjoy sufficient support; it's democracy in action. A bill like this will pass if/when enough of a public consensus develops on the issue that a majority of Congressmen will vote for it.

Sure, I understand the distinction you make, but the point you highlight is exactly my point.

State A may permit anyone to carry concealed for example.
State B may permit only people born on a Tuesday to carry concealed.

This law would effectively make State B permit anyone to carry concealed, because they would recognize any permits from State A and anyone in State A can get a permit to carry concealed. Thus it would effectively override completely their own legislation regarding permits for anyone travelling through who has a permit from any one of the 49 other states.

Well it would still be the responsibility of the carrier to know the gun laws of the state that he or she is in. It's just like how every state recognizes other state's motor vehicle licenses, even though traffic laws vary. It would at least give everyone an opportunity to legally carry across the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

State A may permit anyone to carry concealed for example.
State B may permit only people born on a Tuesday to carry concealed.

This law would effectively make State B permit anyone to carry concealed, because they would recognize any permits from State A and anyone in State A can get a permit to carry concealed.

---

But that still doesn't mean that it's forcing State B to permit "anyone" to carry concealed handguns; only visitors from State A. All the people who live in State B would still be unable to carry, because they are residents of State B and not of State A, and therefore cannot get a CCP from State A. When you apply for a CCP, you have to show proof of residency in the state you're applying for it from. So people living in State B could only get a CCP from state B, because that is their state of residence, and State B's restrictions on issuing permits to it's residents could still be just as stringent as ever, up to and including a total refusal to issue CCPs to any of their residents except off-duty detectives and stuff like that. So State B definitely would not have to let "anyone" carry.

I realize that yes, this would mean that travelers from more lenient states would be able to carry wherever they went, even if the state they're passing through wouldn't have given them a permit. But "travelers from other states passing through" is a far cry from "anyone".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Thus it would effectively override completely their own legislation regarding permits for anyone travelling through who has a permit from any one of the 49 other states.

---

It wouldn't override all their legislation regarding CCPs, just the issuing requirements. As djwolford points out, the other laws pertaining to CCPs--such as where and when you can carry--would still be in place from state to state. In fact, if certain states really don't like the idea of having out-of-state CCP holders carrying inside their state lines, they could use such laws to limit them (though why they'd want to bother, I'm not sure; it's not like out-of-state CCP holders carrying would cause some kind of problem).

What if you get a non-resident CHP? Does this bill require those to be recognized nationwide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crunker

What if you get a non-resident CHP? Does this bill require those to be recognized nationwide?

---

That's actually a really good question. Could definitely be a useful loophole for residents of won't-issue states who want to carry. Getting an NRCCP is usually a pretty big hassle, but it could be worth it.

I'm pretty ignorant about how gun laws differ from state to state, but will someone please explain to me how this part of the OP: "it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses" is at all rational? I mean, if one state didn't allow people to drive cars at all, for example, you couldn't very well expect to drive your car through because you have a driver's license from another state. Or if your driver's license is from Arkansas and Arkansas has more lenient DUI blood-alcohol level rules than Mississippi, you wouldn't expect to be able to get more intoxicated in Mississippi and then drive just because you have an Arkansas license.

I'm just confused. Why should gun owners get to break the laws of the states they're traveling through? If Oregon doesn't allow concealed weapons but Tennessee does, why should you be allowed to go through Oregon with your weapon concealed just because your CCP is from Tennessee?

Or am I misreading? Is this just applicable to states who do allow concealed weapons to be carried? Do states who don't allow concealed weapons anywhere within their borders still maintain their freedom not to have people running around with concealed guns? Is it all or nothing, now?

I'm not making any attacks on gun owners or on the concept of CCPs, I just don't understand the proposal very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solecistic

I'm pretty ignorant about how gun laws differ from state to state, but will someone please explain to me how this part of the OP: "it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses" is at all rational? I mean, if one state didn't allow people to drive cars at all, for example, you couldn't very well expect to drive your car through because you have a driver's license from another state. Or if your driver's license is from Arkansas and Arkansas has more lenient DUI blood-alcohol level rules than Mississippi, you wouldn't expect to be able to get more intoxicated in Mississippi and then drive just because you have an Arkansas license.

I'm just confused. Why should gun owners get to break the laws of the states they're traveling through? If Oregon doesn't allow concealed weapons but Tennessee does, why should you be allowed to go through Oregon with your weapon concealed just because your CCP is from Tennessee?

Or am I misreading? Is this just applicable to states who do allow concealed weapons to be carried? Do states who don't allow concealed weapons anywhere within their borders still maintain their freedom not to have people running around with concealed guns? Is it all or nothing, now?

I'm not making any attacks on gun owners or on the concept of CCPs, I just don't understand the proposal very well.

---

Here's the actual text of the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h111-197

Incidentally, I think your questions are perfectly legitimate. I'll do what I can to address them.

Firstly, yes, this bill applies to ALL states, not just those who issue concealed carry permits. So basically what this law would mean is that if you have a CCP from ANY state, you can carry in all fifty states of the Union as if you had a CCP from the state you're in. If that's what you mean by "all or nothing", then yes, it would be all-or-nothing (although people who live in state where getting a CCP is hard would still have just as much trouble as ever, since they'd have to get that CCP from their home state before they could go enjoy nationwide reciprocity and carry in other states... unless they can manage to get a non-resident CCP from some other state).

Before I go on, bear in mind that there are actually only two states that don't issue concealed carry permits: Wisconsin and Illinois. The other 48 states all issue CCPs, even the putatively liberal ones like NY and California and so forth. The more important distinction is not between states that issue CCPs and states that don't, but between so-called "shall issue" states and so-called "may issue" states. A "shall-issue" state is a state where state law requires that a permit be issued to any applicant who is qualified for one; i.e., the people in charge of issuing the permits (typically the local chief law enforcement officer or sheriff) can't turn down your application if you meet the requirements. Of course he will still turn you down if you fail the background check or don't have the necessary training, but he can't say "Well, you meet all the requirements but I'm still not going to approve your permit application because I just don't like you". A "may issue" state, on the other hand, is one where the issuing authority may do just that; even if you meet all the application requirements, the local CLEO still gets to exercise his discretion and decide whether or not to issue to you. Sometimes you have to "prove" that you need one. So the practical upshot of this varies widely from locality to locality; depending on the willingness of the local CLEO to approve applications, a qualified applicant may be almost guaranteed to get his permit, almost guaranteed not to, or somewhere in between. Some localities of "may-issue" states are almost like "shall-issue" areas, while in others, the only guy who winds up with a permit will be the local sheriff's brother-in-law. It's typically the more rural areas where permits are more likely to approved, while in the urban areas fewer are issued. It's like this in New York (which is "may-issue") for instance; in the rural counties of upstate New York, you stand a good chance of having the local CLEO approve your app, but in NYC, only those with political connections can get one approved. In the US right now, there are 39 "shall-issue" states and 9 "may-issue" states (California, Alabama, Massachusetts, Iowa, New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey). AL, IA, and CT are basically "shall-issue" states despite being technically "may-issue", since all of their localities very rarely turn down a qualified applicant. In the other six, you have varying chances of getting your application approved, depending on where you live and how lenient your local CLEO is feeling that day. Maryland and Hawaii are particularly notorious as being very hard places to get a CCP. Oh yeah, and Alaska and Vermont don't require people to have any permit at all in order to carry a concealed handgun.

So, carrying on: Reciprocity: As it stands now, many of the "shall-issue" states have reciprocity agreements with each other, but not ALL of them with ALL of the others. So if you have a CCP from a "shall-issue" state, and want to carry while traveling through another "shall-issue" state, it's likely but not guaranteed that you can do so. If you want to carry while traveling though a "may-issue" state, you're probably out of luck, with the exception of Alabama; Alabama honors a bunch of other state's CCPs, but I believe that all the other "may-issue" states don't honor ANY other state's CCPs. Needless to say, this makes it a bit of a hassle for CCP holders who want to carry while they travel.

So, having hopefully shed some light on the current state of concealed weapon laws, this brings us back to your main question: So what if it's a hassle for CCP holders? What's wrong with having to know and obey the laws of states you travel through, rather than having a federal law make it so you don't have to? I doubt I will be able to give you a satisfactory explanation on this point, because it's basically ideological, a matter of values and priorities; people coming into the discussion with different sets of values regarding guns and gun ownership are just going to have different viewpoints on the issue. But basically, the people who propose and support legislation such as this nationwide reciprocity bill (and I do support it, as I said earlier) are people who believe that going armed and being able to defend yourself is a civil right, and that the eleven states which deny this right to their people are the ones who are in the wrong. They want to expand people's rights to defend themselves, and don't care if this reduces the rights of certain states to limit concealed carry within their borders. To them, complaining that this bill tramples on the rights of states to restrict concealed carry would be like complaining that a federal law protecting free speech tramples on the rights of states to restrict their residents' freedom of expression; they'd respond with "Yes, and that's how it should be". They simply aren't concerned about reducing the prerogatives of the states if those prerogatives are being used to, in their view, deprive people of a right that they ought to have in the first place.

And I think that's a position most of us can agree with: There are times when it's okay for the federal government to force the states to do something, and one of those times is when the states are denying people rights that they're supposed to have. The real question, of course, is whether this particular case represents "a right the people should have". Obviously, the people introducing and supporting this bill think so, and the people opposing this bill disagree.


EDIT: I do think that your analogy with DUI laws is inapt, though. DUI laws and other driving laws would be analogous to the laws regulating when/where you can carry, not the laws regulating the issue of permits. Driver's licensing laws would be what are analogous to the laws regulating CCP issue. And this bill, despite establishing nationwide reciprocity, still makes CCP holders subject to the various carry regulations of whatever state they are in, NOT whatever state issued their permit. So a Virginia CCP holder in California would still be subject to California's laws regulating how, when, where, etc. he could carry his weapon, even though California would have to recognize his out-of-state permit. Just as an Arkansas-licensed driver in Mississippi would be subject to Mississippi's DUI laws even though Mississippi recognizes his out-of-state driver's license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

That's actually a really good question. Could definitely be a useful loophole for residents of won't-issue states who want to carry. Getting an NRCCP is usually a pretty big hassle, but it could be worth it.

---

First, thanks for the long and detailed explanation just above, but from what I can see, getting a non-res CHP isn't necessarily that bad. Getting Floridian non-res CHPs seems like the hottest thing around the "gun crowd" as many states honor Floridian licenses. A quick check on handgunlaw.us suggested that getting a Floridian non-res CHP is actually quite easy.

Yeah, I've talked to a few people around here who plan to get a FL non-resident. I haven't thought about it myself, but since I am not planning to get LA ID and thus cannot get a LA permit, I might just jump on the bandwagon. Then again, my VA permit is already recognized by the states I visit.

Well, that's good to know. The NRCCP process I'm familiar with is that of Pennsylvania, which is a bit of a pain in the ass. I'm glad it's easier elsewhere.