The 10A is what will allow National Reciprocity while allowing individual states to retain their own CCW laws for their own residents, like MD will try to do.
National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill question
- Thread starter Pope414
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Well its clear that MD residents are the fomenters of gun violence in MD not out of state interlopers ... all should be good.
One of our biggest allies will be out of staters carrying here with no blood in streets.
But it probably won't deter the statists here in the free state
But it probably won't deter the statists here in the free state
I think it's the opposite: all our violence is from outsiders and we Maryland residents should all receive automatic concealed carry permits to protect ourselves from the violent hordes.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Only if the state recognised the permit. For an MD resident you would still be able to get a permit. Only if it was recognised by MD would it be an issue.
As long as federal gun free school zones exist there will be a need for an out of state permit..
That said this bill is bad for us.. it will protect the rest of America from MD. That's all.
After that I expect we will be written off.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
It has to be... But also in constitutional Carry states.. Folks are very vulnerable..
They need to be in the same bill.. but that may be enough to kill it.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
One of our biggest allies will be out of staters carrying here with no blood in streets.
But it probably won't deter the statists here in the free state
If that argument had any effect we would be shall issue by now.
Meanwhile....I bet they impose enough restrictions to make reciprocity moot.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
If that were true then SCOTUS is also impotent.
A finding by Congress that carry is protected by 2a ,allong with implementing legislation , would reverse the burden of proof...Which is where it should have been all along,and force the court to rule , explicitly that it's not protected..
That's much less likely than death by a thousand cuts.
If SCOTUS is mostly risk averse.. This will play into our hands..
But sooner or later we must force the issue.
If the UT permit becomes invalid because of the legislation, there are 8 other states that will issue a NR permit without a home state permit.
So that should not be a prohibiting factor for getting recognition in the other states.
So that should not be a prohibiting factor for getting recognition in the other states.
Kilroy3006
Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 78
Not a popular view but not wrong either:
Even if this bill is signed into law, you will still have to have a carry permit issued by your state of residence. A non-resident permit from another state will not grant reciprocity to a person residing in Maryland who happens to have a non-resident carry permit from some other state.
While it won't immediately help those in Maryland who do not have a Maryland carry permit, it won't do any harm and might even put some pressure on the Maryland General Assembly to reform the current statutes.
Sorry that this is not a popular view on this thread.
Even if this bill is signed into law, you will still have to have a carry permit issued by your state of residence. A non-resident permit from another state will not grant reciprocity to a person residing in Maryland who happens to have a non-resident carry permit from some other state.
While it won't immediately help those in Maryland who do not have a Maryland carry permit, it won't do any harm and might even put some pressure on the Maryland General Assembly to reform the current statutes.
Sorry that this is not a popular view on this thread.
Silent Partner
Active Member
Um, no. it's not popular because it's not true. the language that did not apply the law to your home state was dropped. As currently written the law says a permit FROM A STATE. No exception for your state of residence and no prohibition on non resident permits.
.
.
Attachments
Kilroy3006
Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 78
From an email I received from a colleague (with the quote marks below):
"I read the proposed legislation and was confused more so I called Richard Hudson's office in Concord, NC.
I spoke with his assistant "Tucker", who told me that you would have to have a valid permit to carry in your state of residence, so having a VA or Utah permit would NOT qualify you to carry under the current proposed bill.
There are no plans at this time to change the wording of HR 38.
It is confusing, but that was straight from his office.
704-786-1612 (you can not email him unless you are a resident of NC)"
Maybe my colleague got it wrong but it does pretty much match what the NRA posted on their website.
line 16: "...of a state" the language does not say "of ANY state"
line 18:"...in which the person resides" with "resides" being the operative term and that is what is being overlooked and/or ignored
Why not ask Brian Frosh for an opinion?
"I read the proposed legislation and was confused more so I called Richard Hudson's office in Concord, NC.
I spoke with his assistant "Tucker", who told me that you would have to have a valid permit to carry in your state of residence, so having a VA or Utah permit would NOT qualify you to carry under the current proposed bill.
There are no plans at this time to change the wording of HR 38.
It is confusing, but that was straight from his office.
704-786-1612 (you can not email him unless you are a resident of NC)"
Maybe my colleague got it wrong but it does pretty much match what the NRA posted on their website.
line 16: "...of a state" the language does not say "of ANY state"
line 18:"...in which the person resides" with "resides" being the operative term and that is what is being overlooked and/or ignored
Why not ask Brian Frosh for an opinion?
Well, as it's currently written, it doesn't say that. The original sentence requiring a permit in your home state was dropped. I posted the warding of the bill.
Please show me wher a home state permit is required. It plainly does not say that, regardless of what someone in the office states. The wording iI posted is on the US Gov web site.
Please show me wher a home state permit is required. It plainly does not say that, regardless of what someone in the office states. The wording iI posted is on the US Gov web site.
you for got to look at the word OR. It does not say AND. Huge difference. The or portion was to allow carry in permitless caryy states.
A state does not necessarily prohibit the meaning any state.And itt doesn't say issued by your state of residence.
Maybe the NRA was reading the old bill. The one posted on Jan 3, has no such wording about residence other than the portion referring to residents of a state that simply allows permitless carry.
Perhaps the staffer needs to reread it. The portion about being able to carry except your state of residence IS NOT THERE.
the new bill attached
.
.
A state does not necessarily prohibit the meaning any state.And itt doesn't say issued by your state of residence.
Maybe the NRA was reading the old bill. The one posted on Jan 3, has no such wording about residence other than the portion referring to residents of a state that simply allows permitless carry.
Perhaps the staffer needs to reread it. The portion about being able to carry except your state of residence IS NOT THERE.
the new bill attached
.
.
Attachments
Silent Partner
Active Member
but we are NOT entitled to carry in this state or are those in every other May Issue state due to S&S an Apprehended Danger or some other nonsense. 
entitled refers to carry in states that don't requite a permit. It is after the word OR. It is separate from the first part.
look, interpret any way you like, but the requirent for a home state permit simply isn't there any longer.
nothing I can add here.
look, interpret any way you like, but the requirent for a home state permit simply isn't there any longer.
nothing I can add here.
Silent Partner
Active Member
2nd word after your circled or
i understand that but the entire portion after OR refers to entitled to carry in their state of resident, aka permitless carry.
.
As I said, interpret as you like.
.
As I said, interpret as you like.
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
I have to say, I don't support the way this bill is written. Either make the entire country permitless or make everyone get a permit. But there's a lot of moderates who are going to have a hard time being convinced that if you live in Florida, you should need to get a permit to take advantage of national reciprocity, but that if you live in Arizona, you shouldn't. Personally, I would make it so that to take advantage of reciprocity, you need to have a permit from a state that requires 8 hours in training. That would make it so that the liberals couldn't use the "untrained people carrying guns around" argument. I understand the position of the absolutists, but at this point, we need to win over moderates too.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (4 Viewers)
- Latest: BurkeM
-
-
