PDA

View Full Version : Is It Time for Another Try....National CCW Reciprocity


Ding126
01-20-2011, 2:14 PM
It seems to have lost by a few votes last year. Would this year be more favorable?

J.D.Allen
01-20-2011, 2:20 PM
Are you referring to a federally issued national CCW permit process? Or national CCW reciprocity between the states? I am unaware of any current effort for the former, but many people seem to think the Thune bill, which is a reciprocity measure, has a good shot at being passed this year as an amendment to some other bill like the one that's going to raise the debt ceiling. The Thune bill wouldn't help most Californians though, because non-resident permits wouldn't be covered by the bill.

NoJoke
01-20-2011, 2:25 PM
It seems to make sense, afterall the 2nd amendment is national!

Similar to a DL? ...accepted throughout the US

professionalcoyotehunter
01-20-2011, 2:26 PM
Does not sound safe to me.

J.D.Allen
01-20-2011, 2:28 PM
Does not sound safe to me.

What? Why not?

Turo
01-20-2011, 2:49 PM
What? Why not?

Because there are already states that allow for carry without a license, and requiring them to issue licenses is a step backward.

Unless "National CCW" means Alaska/Vermont/Arizona style carry with no permit required for either open or concealed carry, then this idea stinks.

Ding126
01-20-2011, 2:50 PM
[QUOTE=J.D.Allen;5657271]

national CCW reciprocity between the states.

ocspeedracer
01-20-2011, 2:51 PM
Because there are already states that allow for carry without a license, and requiring them to issue licenses is a step backward.

Unless "National CCW" means Alaska/Vermont/Arizona style carry with no permit required for either open or concealed carry, then this idea stinks.

maybe they are thinking the feds should issue? Either way I think every citizen should be able to carry in any state they are in, or go to.

Ding126
01-20-2011, 2:53 PM
Would it force CA to Recognize and allow other states CCW's and in a sense help the average joe in CA?

stix213
01-20-2011, 3:11 PM
Are you referring to a federally issued national CCW permit process?

Oh wow, I like the federally issued CCW permit idea better than the reciprocity one. I wonder if it would run into state's rights issues.

J.D.Allen
01-20-2011, 3:17 PM
Because there are already states that allow for carry without a license, and requiring them to issue licenses is a step backward.

Unless "National CCW" means Alaska/Vermont/Arizona style carry with no permit required for either open or concealed carry, then this idea stinks.

I don't see this being a problem. There is only one state that does not issue any CCW whatsoever, VT. AZ and AK still issue licenses specifically for reciprocity issues. That and in AZ it allows you to CC in bars.

J.D.Allen
01-20-2011, 3:17 PM
Oh wow, I like the federally issued CCW permit idea better than the reciprocity one. I wonder if it would run into state's rights issues.

I don't think it does any more than federally mandated CCW reciprocity...they've used the commerce clause to pass much more stupid things than that.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 3:21 PM
I don't think it does any more than federally mandated CCW reciprocity...they've used the commerce clause to pass much more stupid things than that.

The full faith and credit clause clearly permits the feds to pass a national reciprocity law. I don't think the case is as clear for a federally issued permit. Think of it like a marriage certificate.

CCWFacts
01-20-2011, 3:28 PM
This gets discussed here every five days.

It's called the Thune Amendment. It has been introduced in Congress every year for the past several years. It came within about 2 votes of passing last time. It will pass this time. I predict it will be an amendment to the must-pass debt ceiling bill, sometime around March.

It will allow someone to use a CCW from any state, anywhere except in the home state. In other words, California residents, who don't have a California CCW but do have a Utah CCW, will be able to CCW everywhere in the US except California. Makes sense?

Whether that exclusion situation is good or bad has been debated umpteen times. I think it's good. Even with that exclusion it will be a huge victory for us here in California for various reasons.

The long-term practical effect of the Thune Amendment will be to establish the idea that CCW must be either shall-issue or constitutional-carry. It will mark the end of 150 years of increasing restrictions on carrying guns throughout the US. It will probably be the end of any viable gun control efforts for at least a generation. It will be the starting point of the next wave, which is going from shall-issue to constitutional-carry. I expect half a dozen states to be constitutional-carry within 12 to 24 months.

uyoga
01-20-2011, 3:30 PM
It would help Kalyphornyia CCW to the extent that the state would be "flooded, I hope" with non-resident licensees legally carrying while in the state.

That would be big!

J.D.Allen
01-20-2011, 3:36 PM
It would help Kalyphornyia CCW to the extent that the state would be "flooded, I hope" with non-resident licensees legally carrying while in the state.

That would be big!

I've mentioned this before. It shouldn't be hard to get groups of AZ, NV, and OR resdients to mob starbucks wearing shirts that say "I am armed" or something like that.

I for one would be carrying in CA almost daily. :D

Wherryj
01-20-2011, 3:48 PM
Because there are already states that allow for carry without a license, and requiring them to issue licenses is a step backward.

Unless "National CCW" means Alaska/Vermont/Arizona style carry with no permit required for either open or concealed carry, then this idea stinks.

Ahh, I see your issue. It would mean that those in the "free states" were discriminated against whilst travelling behind the "curtain".

Perhaps we should go for nationwide Alaska/Vermont/Arizona concealed carry reciprocity?

CCWFacts
01-20-2011, 3:50 PM
I've mentioned this before. It shouldn't be hard to get groups of AZ, NV, and OR resdients to mob starbucks wearing shirts that say "I am armed" or something like that.

There are so many reasons it would be great for Californians. Among them...


When yokels from Idaho can carry while visiting LA, it greatly decreases the eliteness factor that means so much to Sheriff Baca and the stars here. Less eliteness factor means they are worth less money.
It will provide pressure for the fence-sitting sheriffs and chiefs to issue more. Why hold it back when visitors from Nevada can carry?
California's insolvent state government will lose revenue as some business owners have yet another reason to establish a Nevada residence
It makes it hard for attorneys to argue that the sheriff has a "compelling interest" in evaluating good cause, when there are 270mil Americans who can carry here without any good cause.
It means that there will be more people carrying in California, making it something that's not so exceptional.
It might get some Californians angry that their visitors can carry while they cannot, and we need more angry, politically active gun owners in this state.

Turo
01-20-2011, 3:51 PM
Ahh, I see your issue. It would mean that those in the "free states" were discriminated against whilst travelling behind the "curtain".

Perhaps we should go for nationwide Alaska/Vermont/Arizona concealed carry reciprocity?

Exactly. And yes, the entire country should be AK/VT/AZ style "constitutional carry" That is the end goal of CCW rights, I hope.

J.D.Allen
01-20-2011, 3:54 PM
There are so many reasons it would be great for Californians. Among them...


When yokels from Idaho can carry while visiting LA, it greatly decreases the eliteness factor that means so much to Sheriff Baca and the stars here. Less eliteness factor means they are worth less money.
It will provide pressure for the fence-sitting sheriffs and chiefs to issue more. Why hold it back when visitors from Nevada can carry?
California's insolvent state government will lose revenue as some business owners have yet another reason to establish a Nevada residence
It makes it hard for attorneys to argue that the sheriff has a "compelling interest" in evaluating good cause, when there are 270mil Americans who can carry here without any good cause.
It means that there will be more people carrying in California, making it something that's not so exceptional.
It might get some Californians angry that their visitors can carry while they cannot, and we need more angry, politically active gun owners in this state.


Well, yokels from something like 35 other counties in CA can already legally carry in L.A. and that doesn't seem to have changed anything. National reciprocity would get more attention though.

J.D.Allen
01-20-2011, 3:55 PM
Exactly. And yes, the entire country should be AK/VT/AZ style "constitutional carry" That is the end goal of CCW rights, I hope.

I agree with you. But again, residents of AK and AZ would not be affected because those states DO issue CCW's. They just don't REQUIRE one for you to CC there.

Fjold
01-20-2011, 4:38 PM
Once non-residents get to CCW, you file the equal protection suit.

Rivers
01-20-2011, 4:39 PM
Ideally, I think that there should be no licensing involved to exercise a Constitutional right. Since 2A typically involves a MECHANICAL (a firearm) item in order to exercise it, there is added complexity to safe operation. Like a table saw or an automobile. Some basic training doesn't hurt to ensure proper operation of that tool.

I'd go for a federal law that mandated that all states recognize either:
a) the CCW permit issued by the state in which the permit holder lives; or
b) any non-resident permit issued by a state to a non-resident of the issuing state, where the requirement for the non-resident permit is a 4-hour class with a basic range qualification. (Of course, the basic standards for that would be outlined in the law, and certainly not something that is outside the reach of the average citizen.)

Having b) would make a non-issue of CA's crappy process and eventually break it so CA would be a "shall issue" state. It would also minimize the political resistance from states like IL so they couldn't claim that someone can get a permit with no training and still carry within that state.

This would be a compromise offering a bone to the tougher states but getting us what we want.

Oh yeah, the permits would be good for at least four years and at a cost not to exceed $60.

CCWFacts
01-20-2011, 5:02 PM
Oh I forgot to add one more thing to my list:

Even if Californians can't carry here on a UT (etc) permit, it means that anyone from the 49 other states can carry here. We can all see this will mean tourists here will be able to carry, CCW will lose its cool factor, and it also creates some litigation advantages (no compelling interest arguments against, equal protection arguments for).

The other thing it adds to the mix is that non-resident bodyguards, drivers, security, etc, will be able to work lucrative gigs here. Right now, in LA, "drivers" who are off-duty cops can command big premiums because they're the only ones who can carry easily. Residents of other counties are excluded, because CCWs aren't allowed to be used for EP work. But non-residents with non-California CCWs might have a lot more options.

This seems like a subtle point but it's important. Some of the quiet opposition to CCW reform in this state is from police unions, whose members earn lucrative hourly rates due to their near-monopoly on armed "driver" services. It will also put armed security services within the reach of a lot more people, something which (slightly) erodes how much police services are needed.

stix213
01-20-2011, 5:06 PM
On a side note I could see tourism in CA also picking up, since people from free states could feel a bit better about their safety when traveling in crime ridden CA.

Window_Seat
01-20-2011, 5:35 PM
Hear ya are:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5598075

Hope this helps.

Erik.

Quser.619
01-20-2011, 6:53 PM
Yea, but those visitors would be limited to 10 round magazines, bullet buttons, etc.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 7:01 PM
CCWFacts:,Slightly off topic but can you point out the law that says you can't carry on a ccw for executive protection work?

Zimz
01-20-2011, 7:05 PM
Yea, but those visitors would be limited to 10 round magazines, bullet buttons, etc.

This might be another issue that could get fixed as a side effect of a national ruling.

Gray Peterson
01-20-2011, 8:13 PM
CCWFacts:,Slightly off topic but can you point out the law that says you can't carry on a ccw for executive protection work?

Kern and San Bernadino County I believe have unlawful policies which state that you can't use carry licenses for exec protection work. They are, however, unlawful. Many counties don't care.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 8:15 PM
Kern and San Bernadino County I believe have unlawful policies which state that you can't use carry licenses for exec protection work. They are, however, unlawful. Many counties don't care.

I suspect so, some of the GCs that I reviewed were specifically for EP type work.

Funtimes
01-20-2011, 8:27 PM
CCWFacts:,Slightly off topic but can you point out the law that says you can't carry on a ccw for executive protection work?

This is something I am looking at for Hawaii, just have your wife hire your LLC or something as a escort lol.