CCW reciprocity

[libertarian]

The commerce clause might well work, if it was a 'safe harbor while travelling' law.

While that wouldn't help with CCW issuance within california, it would still be a great help (and relief!) to over 4 million americans with CCW permits, who are currently navigating a confusing and inconsistent patchwork of laws just to drive across state lines.

[1buba]

Originally Posted by libertarian

The commerce clause might well work, if it was a 'safe harbor while travelling' law.

While that wouldn't help with CCW issuance within california, it would still be a great help (and relief!) to over 4 million americans with CCW permits, who are currently navigating a confusing and inconsistent patchwork of laws just to drive across state lines.

Ok, I will start this comment by stating that in re: to legal stuff, my IQ is sub-shoe size.

In re: to the above, there are a LOT of "confusing/inconsistent rules out there. Guns, driving, etc. I don't think there is any "magic bullet." We MUST vote in pro gun folks for a generation. We need to change the CA legislature and courts if we want to see a change here. Until then, it just doesn't seem like we will see much in the lines of positive change.

[Nightingale]

Originally Posted by libertarian

The commerce clause might well work, if it was a 'safe harbor while travelling' law.

While that wouldn't help with CCW issuance within california, it would still be a great help (and relief!) to over 4 million americans with CCW permits, who are currently navigating a confusing and inconsistent patchwork of laws just to drive across state lines.

Then, you get into the "what is traveling?" question. If I leave home and drive to New York, and stop in Nevada for one night along the way, it's pretty safe to say I'm traveling through Nevada. However, if I get to New York, get a six month lease on a flat there and stay downtown and play tourist for six months, am I still traveling? What about if I stay in a hotel for those six months? Where do we draw the line between what is travel and what is not?

[libertarian]

There's usually a 90-day rule for residency as evidenced by the way most states handle drivers' licenses, so that's probably a good place to start.

However, it's clear than anything involving "firearms" is going to go nowhere in the current congress and political climate - and probably badly if it goes anywhere at all, from a gun-owner's perspective.

[AF_int1n0]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Full faith and Credit clause wont work in this instance. It has nothing to do with CCW licenses.

This is a constitutional issue, and constitutional issues are addressed in a VERY SPECIFIC RECIPE of sorts to determine their validity.

Heres the deal. Lets say the feds pass this in the broadest possible terms meaning California has to accept Out of state CCWs presented by its own citizens.

1. WHERE DO YOU CONTEND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO DO THIS?

The answer of course is the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, which is what has been used to reform all sorts of state laws from regulating the color of margarine to racial segregation. If you can present another constitutional argument as to why the Feds have this power, you're going to need to do it.

2. If the ICC is the granting power, then it is WELL ESTABLISHED BLACK LETTER LAW that the states can STILL REGULATE the arena for "HEALTH & SAFETY" reasons. For that reason, though interstate railroads are FEDERALLY REGULATED under the ICC the State of California may still create MORE RESTRICT regulations on how they are operated within the state of California, so long as the reason is a LEGITIMATE HEALTH & SAFETY CONCERN, NARROWLY TAILORED TO MEET THAT END, EVEN IF IT INTERFERES WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Clearly the regulation of CONCEALED CARRY falls under the traditional "Health & Safety" police Powers retained by the states and its impact on interstate commerce is nearly non-existent, especially if it applied ONLY to CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS.

The law MAY be able to withstand scrutiny with regard to the recognition of NON-RESIDENT CCWs by carried by NON-RESIDENTS in the course of interstate commerce (AKA "TRAVEL"), but there is no way in hell the Feds can regulate what a state says as to its OWN CITIZENS carrying firearms....

Thus, the "Full Faith & Credit Clause" never comes into the equation, and even if it did, it wouldnt come into the equation... It applies to judicial rulings and public records. You have a well recognized constitutional right to MARRY. you have no such recognized right to either drive a car or carry a concealed weapon. The state of California will recognize your out of state DL while you are visting here, but if you stay for a certain period of time (I think its 90 days, but It may be less) you have to legally get a CADL to drive a car. Why anybody thinks the rules would be any different for a CCW is beyond me.

Question in regards to this..
How does the LEOPA work then? I would imagine that California does not want to "have to allow" retired LEOs from Texas to carry a weapon, yet that is the law.

So if I'm reading what you're saying correctly... Under the Commerce Clause the Fed cannot force California to accept Nevada permits from California Subjects, but can be made to accept say a Texas permit from a Texas resident??

Does this mean that California doesn't have to allow it's own police to carry but has to allow police from other states?

[Drtop]

The Bills are H.R. 861 and S. 388, suggest we write our represetatives in support!

[Drtop]

Right-To-Carry
The Stearns/Boucher Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

H.R. 861 and S. 388, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rich Boucher (D-Va.), and in the U.S> Senate by Senators John Thune R-S.D., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb. would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm 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 "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-six have "shall issue" permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered "discretionary issue" permit laws, and Vermont (and Alaska) allow carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws in the last decade.

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that "life" is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for "security."

• The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person "may repel force by force" in self-defense, and is "entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force" as needed to prevent "great bodily injury or death." (Beard v. U.S., 1895)

• Congress affirmed the right to guns for "protective purposes" in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as "a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms."


Posted: 4/26/2007 12:00:00 AM

[Rodentkiller]

Good luck getting it passed, I doubt it will pass with all the Liberals in power especilly Diane Fiensteine will put a stop to it.

[MadMex]

Originally Posted by RAD-G27

There are two ways this could be written, a CCW from any state is valid in all states, or a CCW from your "Home State" is valid in all states. I believe that I have seen both way proposed in the past. The first way would be the best, that way my NV or UT CCW would be good here in CA. Since I live in Alameda Co., the second way would not work for me.

I’ll play the devil’s advocate on this one…

If this should pass, why does any state need to offer non-resident CCW permits?

Is there such a thing as non-resident marriage or driver’s licenses?

[AF_int1n0]

If this should pass, why does any state need to offer non-resident CCW permits?

The reason for out of state permits in the case of national reciprocity is when the issuance is handled in such a way as to unfairly limit access to self defense. (as in a good portion of California, Illinois, Maryland, Wisconsin etc.)

I will guarantee that if Nation Reciprocity passes the Frisco Sherriff is not going to start issuing.. They will drag their feet, even as Texas, Nevada, Florida tourists pack at Pier-39.
But BA residents can get a Utah permit and it becomes a moot point.(actually better because no permit revenue goes to the folks who were unwilling to play ball before, also you wouldn't have to wait a year, and "cause I feel like it" is good cause enough)
Out of state permits also work for people who are stationed here.
I'm stationed here. My home state is not here (there is no way I'm getting a permit here). I have a Florida permit. I can carry here if the law passes. I don't have to be a 2nd class citizen for serving my country.

Illinois has no CCW unless you are Police, Judge or local elected official. So If you lived in Illinois you could get a permit from state X, until Illinois got a system in place (or even if they didn't).

Is there such a thing as non-resident marriage or driver’s licenses?

No. There is not an out of state marriage license because of the true faith and credit clause. Meaning states have to recognize other state DL's and MLs. You can get married in any state and it applies to all. Look at Gay Marriage in California, people from all over are coming here to tie the knot. Should TF&C apply to CCW? Probably, but handguns are not a politically correct issue.

[spc]

Originally Posted by AF_int1n0

No. There is not an out of state marriage license because of the true faith and credit clause. Meaning states have to recognize other state DL's and MLs. You can get married in any state and it applies to all. Look at Gay Marriage in California, people from all over are coming here to tie the knot. Should TF&C apply to CCW? Probably, but handguns are not a politically correct issue.

Handguns Not politically correct, but Gay Marriage is? What am I seeing that is SOOOO WRONG.

spc

[MadMex]

Originally Posted by AF_int1n0

The reason for out of state permits in the case of national reciprocity is when the issuance is handled in such a way as to unfairly limit access to self defense. (as in a good portion of California, Illinois, Maryland, Wisconsin etc.)

That’s an argument that benefits you and me, the individual. Why should another state, such as NV care about issuing non-resident permits to citizens of CA if national reciprocity exists? What’s in it for them, other than fees?

Originally Posted by AF_int1n0

There is not an out of state marriage license because of the true faith and credit clause. Meaning states have to recognize other state DL's and MLs. You can get married in any state and it applies to all. Look at Gay Marriage in California, people from all over are coming here to tie the knot. Should TF&C apply to CCW? Probably, but handguns are not a politically correct issue.

The cleanest, least expensive (from a state perspective) approach would be for the TF&C to apply to CCW. I wouldn't expect another state to do us any favors.

[AF_int1n0]

Originally Posted by spc

Handguns Not politically correct, but Gay Marriage is? What am I seeing that is SOOOO WRONG.

spc

I don't make the rules here.. I'm just visiting..

[AF_int1n0]

Originally Posted by MadMex

That’s an argument that benefits you and me, the individual. Why should another state, such as NV care about issuing non-resident permits to citizens of CA if national reciprocity exists? What’s in it for them, other than fees?

Most of states have reciprocity agreements, with other states. You scratch my back I scratch yours. As a side note. If California agreed to honor Florida's permits Florida would reciprocate. NV issues the permits, one for the money, but two probably because they were asked too. (For instance say you're a sheriff in NV. You just issued a permit to a guy that lives up the street, his friend from Sac wants one too. Why not? You have to vet him the same way as the guy from NV the requirements are the same, and the revenue is there (though most states fees cover the cost of the permit program and not much more). It doesn't hurt any, and from a public safety perspective you have one more vetted citizen, walking around your town.

The cleanest, least expensive (from a state perspective) approach would be for the TF&C to apply to CCW. I wouldn't expect another state to do us any favors.

Texas honor's California's permits.. (unilaterally, which sucks for Texans living here..)
But you're right the cleanest would be TF&C clause to kick in.

[spc]

Originally Posted by AF_int1n0

I don't make the rules here.. I'm just visiting..

My rant is not with you. It is just the general state of affairs here in California. We can let gays marry but can't recognize natural rights verified by the constitution. Our state politics are a mess, have been for years and it is not getting any better.

Thank you for your service.

spc