Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

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

  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    You're confusing me. Yes Texas can't enforce MO laws got it.

    However you appear to be saying, in the last part, that you can't enforce TX CC permit laws on out state carriers while they are in TX?????
    Not at the moment. Before, when we didn't not have and agreements we could. Now the agreement isn't completely binding, and the situation is iffy.

    Just like the great commercial DL issues of the 80s and 90s, we need the Feds to step in and set a standard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    We cannot enforce another state's statutes, only Texas codes. That's pretty much standard.

    Under this proposed bill visitors would be subject to the Texas PC, and thus fair game.

    Its a much-needed change.
    You're confusing me. Yes Texas can't enforce MO laws got it.

    However you appear to be saying, in the last part, that you can't enforce TX CC permit laws on out state carriers while they are in TX?????

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Only if that is the State of Texas policy or agreement with the other state. Texas could just as easily go the other way.
    We cannot enforce another state's statutes, only Texas codes. That's pretty much standard.

    Under this proposed bill visitors would be subject to the Texas PC, and thus fair game.

    Its a much-needed change.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    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.
    Only if that is the State of Texas policy or agreement with the other state. Texas could just as easily go the other way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X