Reciprocity for non-resident permits

Via the NRA’s FB page I just found out that Rep. Richard Hudson (R., N.C.) does intend that his bill cover reciprocity of non-resident permits. Which means I probably ought to start looking into getting a non-resident permit from someplace, so I can join Sebastian and Bitter in a small victory dance in Central Park :)

From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, this may make it harder to get passed, because states which have training requirements might object to having them bypassed. So we shall see how that fares in the sausage grinder. And then it has to survive the inevitable court challenges. That having been said, that the bill’s author is starting with that as the base is something I wouldn’t have expected even a couple of years ago.

12 thoughts on “Reciprocity for non-resident permits”

    1. After the lawsuits settle out, of course. Besides, it’ll take that long for me to get a permit to purchase a suitable pistol…

    2. Someone undoubtedly will though if the restitution/civil restitution provisions remain: 2AF, NRA, et. al. will likely fund the cases on contingency — they front the money, get all the attorneys fees, and get a chunk of the civil damages.

  1. It has to have non-resident permit reciprocity because otherwise all it does is keep the country separated into “May Issue” and “Shall Issue” enclaves and does nothing to restore carry rights to 30 percent of the population.

    The non-resident permit recognition would finally force the “May Issue” states to do something for resident carry. They can always condition the reciprocity on non-resident permits that require training like Florida (which anyone can get).

    1. The current bill does not say anything about training.
      I’m a little surprised about the non resident thing, actually. I expected Congress to avoid that and separately force “shall issue” on the hold out states.

      1. Actually, what I was really surprised by is the fact that the bill doesn’t even require a permit for those who live in constitutional carry states.

  2. I haven’t really seen much mention of this, but the bill text says:

    “(e) In subsection (a):

    (2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine. ”

    A “handgun” is the actual firearm, but now it also includes the magazine and any ammunition in the handgun or magazine. At first glance, that appears to be designed to work around potential issues when licensees carry magazines that are too big to be legal under state law in places that have magazine bans, or hollowpoints into New Jersey. However as you said, the bill doesn’t require that a licensee have a license from their own state, and any magazines for use in a handgun are included.

    Therefore, it follows that state/local magazine bans would be mostly neutered. Almost anyone who’s legal to possess a firearm would be able to get a non-resident carry license. Note that it’s “any magazine for use in a handgun.” There’s no other qualifiers like restricting such magazines to out-of-state residents. There’s no requirement that the magazine actually be used in the handgun or that it be carried with a CCW handgun, or that a licensee even possess a handgun in which the magazine would function. The *ONLY* requirement is that the magazine is for use in a handgun.

    Does it mean a licensee could use those handgun magazines in a rifle, like a 9mm AR15 with a Glock magwell? Glock doesn’t design their magazines for use in anything other than their handguns, it’s other manufacturers that design their rifles to use handgun magazines. So it sure looks like it. Same for other manufacturers. There’s 5.56mm AR15 pistols all over the place, so >10 round STANAG 5.56mm magazines should be legal too. Maybe to be extra-cautious they should get STANAG magazines which have “for pistol use” marked on them, sort of like Canadians do. Only rifle or shotgun magazines which are too large for state law and which wouldn’t fit and function in any sort of handgun, and/or such magazines possessed by a non-licensee would remain illegal under state/local magazine bans.

  3. “…that the bill’s author is starting with that as the base is something I wouldn’t have expected even a couple of years ago.”

    I think the Repubs are finally learning how to make deals: ask for a lot, but don’t expect to get everything you ask for. Always be willing to lose a few “nice to have” items if it means you get what you ACTUALLY want. The Dems have been doing that for eons: ask for 60mpg CAFE standard, end up with 55mpg. They still win. Of course, with current congress and POTUS, perhaps we CAN get everything we want.

    Maybe Trump forced every R in congress to read his book over Christmas…

    1. Overton window. Despite what it loosk like, you can’t ask for anything too outlandish as an initial bargaining position; too far out and the other party in the negotiation won’t engage.

      1. Still, the point is that your starting position needs to be as far to your side of the Overton Window as possible so that you still have a little room to negotiate/”compromise” to get a bill that will still serve your purposes.

        1. Exactly. It’s not that the Reps suddenly discovered how to negotiate from the right-hand-side of the Overton Window; it’s that the Overton Window has shifted to include that.

          THAT’S what I’m surprised about.

Comments are closed.