PDA

View Full Version : Theoretical CCW Question


McMadCow
03-17-2006, 2:25 PM
This question requires the passage of a national bill and the striking down of Prop H (I'm from San Fran), both of which seem likely.
Since there is currently a bill in congress to ensure national CCW reciprocity, this brings up an interesting opportunity for Kali shooters looking to CCW. The way I see it: If the national reciprocity bill passes, any of us that go to San Jose for the Utah CCW permit could theoretically bypass CA's stupid CCW laws and have our UT permit be the basis for carrying in CA. CA would be forced to honor our UT permit because of federal law. Like I said, this is a two-fold question for me since I'm currently waiting for Prep H to be struck down. But the rest of you guys could be in for a pretty sweet deal if the federal bill passes. Sorry if this has already been posted, but I haven't seen it yet.

Thoughts...?

rips31
03-17-2006, 2:50 PM
i think we've covered this somewhere. but anyway, my $0.02:

if a national reciprocity bill passes, look for the prk legislature to ban residents from ccw w/non-resident permits. i believe that other states have similar legislation.

MadMex
03-17-2006, 3:03 PM
Some states have already closed the loop hole you described. That is, a state will only honor its own ccw for its own residents, even if that state has reciprocity with another state where that resident may also hold a ccw. IOW, another state’s ccw will only be honored if you are a resident of that other state. Similar to how a driver’s license works.

McMadCow
03-17-2006, 3:13 PM
i think we've covered this somewhere. but anyway, my $0.02:

if a national reciprocity bill passes, look for the prk legislature to ban residents from ccw w/non-resident permits. i believe that other states have similar legislation.


See, that's what I'm not understanding. How could they do that if federal law mandates they have to accept them?

Also, sorry if this has been touched on. I hadn't seen it yet, and it's not for lack of searching.

krby
03-17-2006, 3:21 PM
This question requires the passage of a national bill and the striking down of Prop H (I'm from San Fran), both of which seem likely.

As much as I would like to believe this is likely. I do not. I belive Prop H won't hold up, but a national CCW law? Not anytime soon. Isn't the current bill the same one that gets brought up periodically. Don't get me wrong, I would love this, I just don't have failth.

shopkeep
03-17-2006, 3:35 PM
As much as I would like to believe this is likely. I do not. I belive Prop H won't hold up, but a national CCW law? Not anytime soon. Isn't the current bill the same one that gets brought up periodically. Don't get me wrong, I would love this, I just don't have failth.

#1 I agree that a national CCW law won't happen. Only gun control seems to happen at the fed level. The anti-gun crowd forced the fed AW-ban on us all... but if something like national CCW comes their way they'll all scream for state rights.

#2 I _HIGHLY_ doubt the NRA and others can defeat prop H in the courts. This is the PRK we're talkin about here folks!!! The _ENTIRE_ state government has been infiltrated on all levels by a fringe socialist elite. Despite law and other rationality the ban will be upheld. Get your guns out of the city unless or until the US Supreme Court takes up the case.

NorCal MedTac
03-17-2006, 3:51 PM
McMadCow This question requires the passage of a national bill and the striking down of Prop H (I'm from San Fran), both of which seem likely.
Since there is currently a bill in congress to ensure national CCW reciprocity, this brings up an interesting opportunity for Kali shooters looking to CCW. The way I see it: If the national reciprocity bill passes, any of us that go to San Jose for the Utah CCW permit could theoretically bypass CA's stupid CCW laws and have our UT permit be the basis for carrying in CA. CA would be forced to honor our UT permit because of federal law. Like I said, this is a two-fold question for me since I'm currently waiting for Prep H to be struck down. But the rest of you guys could be in for a pretty sweet deal if the federal bill passes. Sorry if this has already been posted, but I haven't seen it yet.

Thoughts...?



I believe that state laws can always excede federal law they just can't be less.

MadMex
03-17-2006, 6:59 PM
...The way I see it: If the national reciprocity bill passes, any of us that go to San Jose for the Utah CCW permit could theoretically bypass CA's stupid CCW laws and have our UT permit be the basis for carrying in CA.
Let me try this one more time, despite the fact that it’s not what anyone wants to hear…

The reality is that some states have already closed the loop hole you described. That is, a state will only honor its own ccw for its own residents, even if that state has reciprocity with another state where that resident may also hold a ccw.

CA would be forced to honor our UT permit because of federal law.
If you are a resident of Kali, can you legally obtain a drivers license in a state that you are not a resident in? Help me understand why issuance of a ccw would be managed differently? This would be the first loophole that all states would close if national reciprocity became a reality.

EBWhite
03-17-2006, 7:54 PM
No, a national reciprocity law would allow CA residents with out of state UTAH permits to carry here. reciprocity would be valid throughout all states no matter where the permit is given. that is the whole point of the bill

MadMex
03-17-2006, 8:25 PM
No, a national reciprocity law would allow CA residents with out of state UTAH permits to carry here. reciprocity would be valid throughout all states no matter where the permit is given. that is the whole point of the bill
My impression is that the purpose of the bill is to honor ccw’s in a manner similar to a driver’s license. That is, a ccw issued to you in your state of residence is valid in any other state you decide to visit. Unfortunately the purpose of the bill is not to create a loophole for a Kali (or any other non “shall issue” state) resident to obtain an out of state ccw as a “work around” for not being able to obtain a ccw in Kali.

mblat
03-17-2006, 9:34 PM
First of all - there is no chance in hell national carry bill will pass before hell freezes over. And when it will happend we not going need any permition to carry.

That said one is allowed to dream. And in this dream he may realize that residency is somewhat fluid thing. I am resident of PRK because there is no particular reason for me not to be. But if I'll want I'll become resident of Nevada in .... oh lets say one week?

Because residency not defined only by where you actually live and work. It is where you registered to vote, what state issued you driver license, where you car registered, where you have property, where you have CCW issued......


EDIT: regardless - do you understand what kind of mess this can get all of us in? For example Florida resident with "castle" laws that cover him on the streets come to PRK and pops somebody during burglary attepmt. Then he gets on the plane and hides in Florida. Then he fights extradition request based on the fact that he didn't violate any Florida law.... That indeed could get very messy very fast....

MadMex
03-18-2006, 8:09 AM
EDIT: regardless - do you understand what kind of mess this can get all of us in? For example Florida resident with "castle" laws that cover him on the streets come to PRK and pops somebody during burglary attepmt. Then he gets on the plane and hides in Florida. Then he fights extradition request based on the fact that he didn't violate any Florida law.... That indeed could get very messy very fast....
For consideration… The driving laws of some states do not give pedestrians the right of way. If a licensed driver from such a state visits Kali and does not yield to a pedestrian in a cross walk, the driver can be busted. The driver is expected to abide by the laws of the state he’s visiting. Guess what? It’s no different for a ccw holder visiting another state that honors his home state’s ccw. For example, FL issues non-resident concealed weapons permits. It entitles the holder to carry a shotgun, pistol, collapsible baton, machete, etc concealed in FL. Many states honor a “visiting” “FL non-resident” concealed weapons permit for carrying concealed handguns only. Carrying other types of weapons remains illegal, despite what FL says. It's very straight forward. It’s the responsibility of the permit holder to know the laws of the state he’s visiting. Why would this change with the passing of a national ccw initiative? Are driving laws identical across the US?

Despite everyone’s hopes, the purpose of a national initiative is not to create a loophole for a Kali (or any other non “shall issue” state) resident to obtain an out of state ccw as a “work around” for not being able to obtain a ccw in Kali. It’s to honor your state of residence ccw in a manner similar to how your driver’s license is honored in other states.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
03-18-2006, 8:45 AM
The original author of the post keeps coming back to his same question, and I think it's because we're not all on the same page.

If there's a federal law saying "every state has to honor every other state's ccw when that person is in your state" that's the definition of reciprocity and that, to me, means CA would have to honor UT or NV or FL's permits. CA wouldn't then be able to say "we don't honor UT permits." How would they be abiding by the hypothetical federal law then?

I believe the driving metaphor only applies partially. Currently, every state honors every other state's DL. If you have a UT DL, you can drive in CA. Yes it's true you can't run people over in the crosswalk, but that's not related to whether CA is letting you drive here. If UT says you can CCW a handgun, and the federal law says a UT handgun CCW lets you carry in any state of the union, CA would have to let them carry. That doesn't override "castle doctrine" type laws, it doesn't override brandishing laws, it doesn't override gun lock / safe laws, etc. But it does still allow him to carry concealed in CA. If there's a blanket federal law concerning crosswalks, then yes every state would have to abide by it, but that's a different law from honoring driver's licenses.

I do see one technicality that CA could push in our hypothetical / wishful thinking example: CA could refuse to honor UT "non-resident" permits. Then again, if there's national reciprocity, what's the point of having non-resident permits? Those might just be done away with then. Then you're back to fighting to get a CA permit, or find a way to get yourself declared a resident of somewhere else.

MadMex
03-18-2006, 9:09 AM
The original author of the post keeps coming back to his same question, and I think it's because we're not all on the same page.

If there's a federal law saying "every state has to honor every other state's ccw when that person is in your state" that's the definition of reciprocity and that, to me, means CA would have to honor UT or NV or FL's permits. CA wouldn't then be able to say "we don't honor UT permits." How would they be abiding by the hypothetical federal law then?

I believe the driving metaphor only applies partially. Currently, every state honors every other state's DL. If you have a UT DL, you can drive in CA. Yes it's true you can't run people over in the crosswalk, but that's not related to whether CA is letting you drive here. If UT says you can CCW a handgun, and the federal law says a UT handgun CCW lets you carry in any state of the union, CA would have to let them carry. That doesn't override "castle doctrine" type laws, it doesn't override brandishing laws, it doesn't override gun lock / safe laws, etc. But it does still allow him to carry concealed in CA. If there's a blanket federal law concerning crosswalks, then yes every state would have to abide by it, but that's a different law from honoring driver's licenses.

I do see one technicality that CA could push in our hypothetical / wishful thinking example: CA could refuse to honor UT "non-resident" permits. Then again, if there's national reciprocity, what's the point of having non-resident permits? Those might just be done away with then. Then you're back to fighting to get a CA permit, or find a way to get yourself declared a resident of somewhere else.
We’re 99% on the same page (the exception being how closely the drivers license analogy applies… no big deal). You also raise an excellent point. That is, if there’s true national reciprocity, why would there be a need for non-resident permits? It would be a huge cost savings for states to drop non-resident permits. It crushes the notion that Kali resident would be able to apply for UT, etc, non-resident permits and expect to be legal to carry in Kali.