Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I hope it passes. Pax and I are working on getting our CCP's.

    Funny thing about Colorado, though - if you wear your sidearm openly you do not need a permit to carry in public and you can go where want to with it.

    Out here, I can target shoot in my back yard as long as I follow basic rules about having a backstop for the rounds. Since my backyard is backed by a small hill, one of the two "D-Cups" (as I call them and the whole town recongizes), I'm within the rules.

    When I walk one of the dogs on BLM land, I wear a weapon on my belt in plain view and I'm never questioned. Everyone here understands that there are hostile critters in the brush and I'm being prudent. In fact, they would be far more likely to question why I wasn't carrying.
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 26 Feb 15, 08:22.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #17
      I personally detest gun safety courses (for me). However, to get a Texas CCH you have to attend a class that includes both safety and legal issues, and I think that that is a good idea.

      Using the NRA course would keep states from forcing absurd or over-long courses upon CHL applicants in an attempt to discourage them.

      So long as its not open carry, I'm for it. I hate open carry.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #18
        The OP is incorrect as far as the scope of the bill is concerned. The key word is Reciprocity. It deals with one states CC permit being automatically recognized in other states that also HAVE a CC permit system. It does not apply to states that to not allow CC.

        That said it is an unnecessary law. The various states already have worked out which other states CC Permits they wish to recognize. No reason to not continue with those 'side' agreements.
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
          The OP is incorrect as far as the scope of the bill is concerned. The key word is Reciprocity. It deals with one states CC permit being automatically recognized in other states that also HAVE a CC permit system. It does not apply to states that to not allow CC.

          That said it is an unnecessary law. The various states already have worked out which other states CC Permits they wish to recognize. No reason to not continue with those 'side' agreements.
          IIRC, since the Feds forced Illinois to adopt the CHL, every state has either a CHL or open carry.

          It is a necessary law, much as the standardization of commercial DLs they hammered out years ago was necessary. It will eliminate a lot of confusion, especially in the LE field.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
            IIRC, since the Feds forced Illinois to adopt the CHL, every state has either a CHL or open carry.

            It is a necessary law, much as the standardization of commercial DLs they hammered out years ago was necessary. It will eliminate a lot of confusion, especially in the LE field.
            My point was dealing with the ACTUAL bill under consideration. Read the text of the bill provided in the link of the OP. It deals ONLY with states WITH CC recognizing other states CC permits, nothing more.

            No reason for LE confusion. Simple, if your state reaches agreement with State X then the permit is recognized, if not it is not. Simple logic.

            As far as court rulings on whether CC is covered by the second amendment we have two different Circuit Court of Appeals rulings on the matter. The IL is under the 7th which seems to say there is such a right and the 10th Circuit which states that there is no such right.
            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
            “To talk of many things:
            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
            Of cabbages—and kings—
            And why the sea is boiling hot—
            And whether pigs have wings.”
            ― Lewis Carroll

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              The OP is incorrect as far as the scope of the bill is concerned. The key word is Reciprocity. It deals with one states CC permit being automatically recognized in other states that also HAVE a CC permit system. It does not apply to states that to not allow CC.

              That said it is an unnecessary law. The various states already have worked out which other states CC Permits they wish to recognize. No reason to not continue with those 'side' agreements.



              As was said, all States have some form of CC, but the recognition of CC from other states is spotty.
              I have read (but cannot confirm) that some States have refused to recognize the Illinois CC simply because Illinois is refusing to recognize theirs.
              Despite the Illinois CC requirements being some of the most strict in the nation about 20 States refuse to recognize that license.
              More here.
              http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_ca...city_maps.html
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                As was said, all States have some form of CC, but the recognition of CC from other states is spotty.
                I have read (but cannot confirm) that some States have refused to recognize the Illinois CC simply because Illinois is refusing to recognize theirs.
                Despite the Illinois CC requirements being some of the most strict in the nation about 20 States refuse to recognize that license.
                More here.
                http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_ca...city_maps.html
                And?

                States either work it out among themselves or they don't. Not an issue.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  And?

                  States either work it out among themselves or they don't. Not an issue.
                  Rhetorical question;

                  Should the states also work out the Bill of Rights among themselves also?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    My point was dealing with the ACTUAL bill under consideration. Read the text of the bill provided in the link of the OP. It deals ONLY with states WITH CC recognizing other states CC permits, nothing more.

                    No reason for LE confusion. Simple, if your state reaches agreement with State X then the permit is recognized, if not it is not. Simple logic.
                    Logic, yes.

                    However, agreements are not statutes, and do not get automatically disseminated (along with amendments & updates) the way statutes do.

                    This bill would bring the CHL agreements into the existing framework of data-sharing.
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      Logic, yes.

                      However, agreements are not statutes, and do not get automatically disseminated (along with amendments & updates) the way statutes do.

                      This bill would bring the CHL agreements into the existing framework of data-sharing.
                      Explain what this means:

                      ‘‘(b) CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS.—The posses-
                      17 sion or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under
                      18 this section shall be subject to the same conditions and
                      19 limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, im-
                      20 posed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a
                      21 political subdivision of a State, that apply to the posses-
                      22 sion or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of
                      23 the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the
                      24 State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited
                      25 by the State from doing so.
                      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                      “To talk of many things:
                      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                      Of cabbages—and kings—
                      And why the sea is boiling hot—
                      And whether pigs have wings.”
                      ― Lewis Carroll

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                        And?

                        States either work it out among themselves or they don't. Not an issue.

                        The "and" is that they are not doing a very good job of working it out.
                        It is a very big issue to those who are interested even if it is not an issue to those who do not care.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                          The "and" is that they are not doing a very good job of working it out.
                          It is a very big issue to those who are interested even if it is not an issue to those who do not care.
                          Still earns a big shrug. They either do work it out or don't. Anyone carrying a concealed weapon needs to be smart enough to figure out a simple question such as can I carry in another state. It's an easy yes or no question.
                          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                          “To talk of many things:
                          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                          Of cabbages—and kings—
                          And why the sea is boiling hot—
                          And whether pigs have wings.”
                          ― Lewis Carroll

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                            Explain what this means:
                            In means that you are subject to the law of the State you are in, except for ownership or carry restrictions, not the law of the State that issued it.


                            What is your point?
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              In means that you are subject to the law of the State you are in, except for ownership or carry restrictions, not the law of the State that issued it.


                              What is your point?
                              That this bill does not clarify anything for those that have a CC permit and travel to another state. They still must research and learn those laws that will effect them. Currently the same applies with step 1 being does the other state recognize my CC permit? Not rocket science.

                              It also means the the Lost common denominator for CC permits will trump states laws that want a tighter restriction on who receives the permits. I believe a state has the right to its own restrictions.
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                                That this bill does not clarify anything for those that have a CC permit and travel to another state. They still must research and learn those laws that will effect them. Currently the same applies with step 1 being does the other state recognize my CC permit? Not rocket science.
                                But that ensures that LEOs can enforce CHL statutes. without it, if you come to Texas and go into a bar, which our CHL law prohibits but your state (for the sake of argument) permits, we cannot arrest you.

                                As it is, out-of-state CHL users get carte blanche.
                                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X