House expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity bill

a reply to: Vector99

OK, thanks for that.

The way the text is written gave me the idea that things weren't like that.

originally posted by: ArMaP
That still doesn't answer my question, as I haven't said a thing about "no-issue states".

Thanks for trying, anyway.

There are zero 'no-issue' states in the country. There are mostly 'shall issue' and a few 'may issue'.

If a person from a shall issue state travels to a may issue state it appears, from this law, that they are still able to have their carry permit recognized in that state. What interests me is as a person who lives in a may issue that I could theoretically travel to a shall issue state, get a permit and then circumvent the restrictive permit issuing process.

a reply to: ArMaP

Then I really have no idea what you're asking, because if a person isn't allowed to obtain a permit then either that person has some disqualifying aspect to them or the state won't issue them a permit for the state's own reasons, which are generally some sort of disqualifier on the part of the applicant.

There is no state that "does not allow concealed carry" at all for it's citizens. That's where "no-issue states" comes in to my answer: there is not a state that absolutely will not issue a CCW permit at all under any circumstances. Since that's the entire basis of your question, which was

State A allows concealed carry.State B does not. Someone from state A goes to state B, carrying a concealed weapon. Someone from state B is not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, but the person from state A is.

(emphasis mine) then the answer that "there is no state that is a 'no-issue state'" does answer your question.

If a person lives in a county or city that requires them to "show cause" before being issued a CCW permit, then that's not an issue of creating second class citizens on anybody's part other than the county that refuses to issue the permit.

It will be about time this passes. Most of the talking points against it are blatant lies. I like to travel and this would be extremely helpful and beneficial.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: JBurns

Trump is still meeting a lot of resistance, but the country is moving in the right direction for the first time in a long time. This Bill is long overdue. There have been a lot of silly regional gun laws restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens for far too long. Freedom for all!

If it was good for the Feds to nationalize gay marriage rights it is good for gun rights as well. We should be legalizing freedom.

Exactly... Not only are we Making America Great Again! but we're also Making America FREE Again!

a reply to: face23785


Exactly, no more leftist tear jerking or concern trolling.

Every place in this country that has Constitutional (permitless) carry has much lower violent crimes and murder rates. Every anti-gun state has much HIGHER violent crime and murder rates.

I'm done listening to the left. Especially after the revelations that so many of them have been influencing our government and legal system to the point I feel it has lost nearly all legitimacy.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Great points as usual Shamrock

The only authority treating anyone as second class citizens are those which restrict Constitutionally protected gun rights for citizens, while those anti-gun lawmakers refuse to leave their own homes/offices without armed security details.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


AM, I think this is part of their point

It will be a godsend to our pro-Constitutional allies living behind enemy lines.

How many innocent Citizens are forced to walk shoulder to shoulder with criminals, without a means to protect themselves? Not only do the anti-gun states tend to be states that are weak on crime and punishment, but they exclusively attack the only means these people can use to defend themselves.

This law would circumvent nonsensical and low information politicians who have succeeded in attacking a vital part of the Constitution. If only we could regulate the first amendment rights of these anti-gun politicians the way they attack the 2A, maybe we could get them to shut their mouths for a change

a reply to: JBurns

Just read the bill, and it seems like a good one. What I would really like, though, working a federal job, is to have a bill passed that allows concealed carry, similar to how this law is written, on federal property.

There is zero reason why I can carry my firearm everywhere on my person or in my vehicle in my state except where I work, simply because the federal government gives itself the authority to tell me that I can't.

And now we have them telling states that they MUST allow carry, even if they don't really want to.

I like the expansion of the 2nd Amendment, here, but wish it wouldn't be done is such a hypocritical way.

ETA: It will sure be nice to be able to carry in California when I visit family if this bill becomes law, though. I don't want to act like I'm only being a Negative Nancy about the bill--any progress on expanding 2nd Amendment rights is a good thing.

ETAAgain: I bet this has states like California and Illinois crapping their panties.

a reply to: JBurns

i'm pro 2nd amendment but without training, a nervous concealed weapon carrying citizen is just as dangerous as a nervous criminal.
there should be mandatory training for:

gun safety
gun care and storage
basic firearms usage. (plinking at a target)
intermediate firearms usage (more along the line of competitive shooting sports)
advanced firearms usage (tactical weapons use in urban setting.)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm sure there will be instant lawsuits once it is passed, and they'll be able to judge-shop and find some scumbag activist judge who doesn't care about following the law to slap an injunction on it until it gets to SCOTUS.

I hear you on carrying on federal property though. I was in the Air Force for 13 years and we couldn't carry either. And there simply isn't enough security forces on the larger bases. We were sitting ducks, as Fort Hood demonstrated.

a reply to: face23785

Well, there is language in the bill that says that if an individual uses this bill/law as a defense and wins, the state/prosecutor must pay the legal fees.

States/municipalities would be very smart to intelligently approach this and not try to make political statements at the expense of their taxpayers.

a reply to: Phage

Gay marriage? Marijuana? Concealed Carry?
I mean sure, where do we draw the line?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: face23785

Well, there is language in the bill that says that if an individual uses this bill/law as a defense and wins, the state/prosecutor must pay the legal fees.

States/municipalities would be very smart to intelligently approach this and not try to make political statements at the expense of their taxpayers.

They don't care, they'll just get some of Bloomberg's slush fund money to cover it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
There are zero 'no-issue' states in the country. There are mostly 'shall issue' and a few 'may issue'.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
There is no state that "does not allow concealed carry" at all for it's citizens.

As I said in my answer to Vector99, the way the opening post is written (more specifically, the "which would allow residents permitted by their home state to carry a firearm in all 50 states") made me think that not all states allowed concealed carry, that "permitted by their home state" sounded to me like not all states permit it.

If all states allow concealed carry in any way then my doubt doesn't apply.

PS: talking about "no-issue", "shall issue" or "may issue" is like talking in Chinese to me, as I don't have the slightest idea of what that means, that's why I wasn't understanding the answers. A direct answer like Vector99's (all 50 states allow concealed carry) was what I was needing.

Thanks to all.

a reply to: ArMaP


The may issue states, like where I live in New Jersey, are practically no issue for all intents and purposes.

There was a case recently where a vendor who carried large sums of cash was robbed at gunpoint and was unable to get a carry permit when the New Jersey State Police felt he didn't have enough need, i.e. may issue and they didn't. Shall issues means as long as you meet the statutes requirements you can get a permit without demonstrating need.

I believe there are all of 3,000-4,000 private carry permits* for a state of close to 9,000,000.

*not counting law enforcement, present or prior.

originally posted by: Phage

How can they think that such a law would not violate the 10th amendment?

Well, because it doesn't.

That's like saying that the 15th Amendment shouldn't exist because it infringes on the state's ability to discriminate against who can and cannot vote.

See, the federal government's job is to ensure that no one's constitutional rights ever get discarded at the whim of the state, and since we have the second amendment protecting our individual rights to keep and bear arms, when one state chooses not to allow my CCDW permit to be valid in their state simply because they haven't come to a reciprocity agreement with my state, that infringes on my constitutional right to some degree.

It is the federal government's job to enforce and protect the 2nd Amendment, which means that this is not superseded by the 10th Amendment.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
There was a case recently where a vendor who carried large sums of cash was robbed at gunpoint and was unable to get a carry permit when the New Jersey State Police felt he didn't have enough need, i.e. may issue and they didn't.

In Portugal, people in situations like that are the ones that can get a gun licence, so it looks like even a no-guns country like Portugal, in practice, is more in favour of the possible victims than some places in the US.

a reply to: ArMaP


New Jersey is a rather extreme example with rather capricious and somewhat draconian policy as compared to other states.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
There was a case recently where a vendor who carried large sums of cash was robbed at gunpoint and was unable to get a carry permit when the New Jersey State Police felt he didn't have enough need, i.e. may issue and they didn't.

In Portugal, people in situations like that are the ones that can get a gun licence, so it looks like even a no-guns country like Portugal, in practice, is more in favour of the possible victims than some places in the US.

That is correct. And many of the such places in the US have the worst violent crime problems and numbers of shootings in the country. The US "gun violence" problem is overwhelmingly driven by a relatively small number of cities, most of which are run by anti-gun politicians and many of which have very strong gun restrictions. It illustrates quite clearly that more laws are not the solution. This video explains it fairly well: