search
top

National Reciprocity Up Early Next Week

The Defense Appropriations Bill for 2010 is coming up next week in the Senate.  This might be the opportunity to attach S.845, which provides for universal reciprocity for concealed carry licenses.  It’ll be a floor amendment, which is good, because the Senate Appropriations Committee makeup doesn’t look like it favors us too well.

9 Responses to “National Reciprocity Up Early Next Week”

  1. Mike w. says:

    Damn, nothing about non-resident permits in the bill.

  2. Fightinbluhen51 says:

    Mike, couldn’t agree more…like to know what that does for those with non-resident permits in the states they live that restrict or deny their rights.

  3. Jake says:

    “Damn, nothing about non-resident permits in the bill.”

    From the text, it looks like it doesn’t matter if it’s a resident or non-resident permit, it would apply the same way.

    ‘(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

    It doesn’t specify a residency requirement. Since non-resident permits are issued “pursuant to the law of” the issuing state, they should be just as valid under this bill as a resident permit.

  4. Mike w. says:

    entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms.

    It’s been a long day, so perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but it seems to say that this law attaches if the person is “entitled to CCW in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides.”

    So, if you don’t have a permit allowing you to carry in your state of residence then reciprocity doesn’t apply to you. I don’t have a DE CCDW, so I’m not entitled to carry a concealed firearm in my state of residence.

    BlueHen – Technically CCDW isn’t a right, but I share your sentiments. Oh, and GO HENS.

  5. Sebastian says:

    The second paragraph basically covers Vermont residents.

  6. Jake says:

    Mike w.:

    I think breaks down like this:

    A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm,

    describes who the law applies to (anyone with a valid CHP, from any state that issues them); and

    may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

    describes where it applies – i.e., if a state bans concealed carry for it’s residents, then a CHP from another state won’t apply in that state.

    Sebastian:

    There may be a hole in that second paragraph. If (as I believe is the case), Vermont doesn’t specifically allow concealed carry (by statute), but allows it only by not prohibiting it, there may be a question of whether this law would apply. Vermonters should be cautious, unless that potential hole gets closed.

    It would definitely apply to someone like a Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorney, who is specifically allowed by statute to CC without a permit, but an anti-gun prosecutor and a hostile judge (say, in NYC) could probably get away with convicting a Vermonter who thought he was safe under this law.

  7. Sebastian says:

    It says entitled, rather than permitted, or allowed. The definition of entitled would be “have a legal right or just claim” to be able to carry a concealed weapon. So given the language, I think it’s pretty solid. At least no more suspect than the rest of the statute, which to be honest, I’m not sure I’d strap on a gun and head over to New Jersey. I don’t know if I’d want to be the test case for constitutionality.

  8. Jake says:

    “entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides”

    It’s that “and pursuant to the law” bit that concerns me. Personally, I agree with your interpretation, Sebastian, and I believe that’s the intent, too. But I’d be concerned about a hostile judge and prosecutor twisting that phrase, since the law doesn’t specifically allow CC. An appeals court might or might not want to override that interpretation, and it could take decades to make it to the SCOTUS.

    I wouldn’t want to be that test case, either.

  9. Ian Argent says:

    There’s only 2 states that ban CCW, right? (Illinois and Wisconson per Wikipedia). NJ is technically a may-issue state, after all.

    Not that I would want to be that test case either; at least not until Alan Gura’s team is done with Chicago and is looking for test cases in NJ.

top