Re: Support National Reciprocity
I stand corrected the newspaper article I read was referring to the reciprocity act of 2014 started jan 13 th senate bill s1908 IS and after pulling the bill up and reading it I wpuld think any state license would be good not just the resident permit.This bill was started by John Corsyn from Texas. Hope it passes. The newspaper stated home state. Harry Reid will probably never put it up for vote just as he did not put up the reciprocity act of 2013 for vote afteR it passed in the house. The democrats have been aske to back off gun control so I guess it is possible.
Re: Support National Reciprocity
Just did my part with a letter sent. Sure would be nice if this went through. The complexities of carry as you travel through the country is really tough to master. Almost seems like designed to catch someone in a mistake.
Re: Support National Reciprocity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skylark
Just did my part with a letter sent. Sure would be nice if this went through. The complexities of carry as you travel through the country is really tough to master. Almost seems like designed to catch someone in a mistake.
National Reciprocity will not ease the complexities all that much. While you would be permitted to carry in any state that permits carry (currently all 50) and not have to unload and lock it up at (before!) the border, you still need to be aware of where you may and may not carry under each state's laws. Some examples of places you can go in PA that some states restrict or ban under penalty of law:
- Bars
- Restaurants that serve alcohol
- Car
- Churches
- College Campus - Driving thru
- College Parking Lot
- College Campus - Walking
- College Building
- Hospital
- Hotel Room
- Public Transportation
- School Grounds - Driving thru
- School Parking Lot
- School and/or Grounds - Walking (technically legal, but I won't be the guinea pig)
Granted, some of these places in PA disallow firearms, but legally speaking you would be trespassing as opposed to violating a weapons law.
Nationwide Constitutional Carry, however...
IANAL
Re: Support National Reciprocity
Violate a trespassing law with the firearm being the thing that makes it a trespass, and I would expect issuers of LTCF will reel in the licensee and cancel the license.
States that "allow" carry, then salt the state with prohibited venues, are playing a game like Obama tries to play, that being trying to be all things to all people.
The prohibited venues have the effect making "allowed carry" impossible. They need to be fought on that ground.
Re: Support National Reciprocity
One thing overlooked in all these recent Federal National Carry Reciprocity bills is the same problem that we have with active/retired LEOSA - there must be a concomitant modification/exemption granted from the provisions of the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act (18 USC 922(q)); else the carrying without a license issued by the school's host state is problematic.
Re: Support National Reciprocity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bang
Violate a trespassing law with the firearm being the thing that makes it a trespass, and I would expect issuers of LTCF will reel in the licensee and cancel the license.
Oh, I don't doubt they would at least try. But as *I* understand it, right now, it's just a summary charge at most - unless you *really* tick off the po-po. Than it's anybody's guess, especially in Philly-stan.
Re: Support National Reciprocity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tl_3237
One thing overlooked in all these recent Federal National Carry Reciprocity bills is the same problem that we have with active/retired LEOSA - there must be a concomitant modification/exemption granted from the provisions of the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act (18 USC 922(q)); else the carrying without a license issued by the school's host state is problematic.
Maybe......maybe not.
Don't want to hijack the thread but what I find interesting about the FGFSZ is that what you say is just someone's interpretation. Correct me if I am wrong but no court has ever interpreted it to require a host state "license" (as I think you are using the term). That paper thing you carry in your pocket is not the license; it is Evidence of the license.
Re: Support National Reciprocity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tl_3237
The bill (
S.1908) requires that states,
other than your home state, recognize the license of ANY state. The license does not have to be from your home state but you cannot carry within your home state under the auspices of the bill.
Residents of NJ, MD and other restrictive states can would still be able to carry outside their home state with a non-home state license but not within their home state unless their home state's laws permit it though statute or reciprocity. NJ and MD residents, even with an alien license, would have difficulty in transporting their firearm within their respective home states during the in/out legs between their residences and outside states unless their culled the protection of an excepted profession/activity under state law.
I'll sue MD under Equal Protection since a MD resident denied a permit for no valid reason, would be barred from carrying in MD while a PA (and EVERY other state) resident would be able to carry.
If that failed, I'd establish residency in another state, which is easy for me to do legally.
Re: Support National Reciprocity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cock&lock
Maybe......maybe not.
Don't want to hijack the thread but what I find interesting about the FGFSZ is that what you say is just someone's interpretation. Correct me if I am wrong but no court has ever interpreted it to require a host state permit.
I believe it's more than just someone's interpretation. Although you are correct that the BATF, in 2002, issued a letter stating that the license how to be issued by the school's host state and, at least as far as I am aware, there's been no formal adjudication of that assertion. However in looking at the actual wording in the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act, at best it may be interpreted that a license that has been reciprocated by the host state would also qualify. Licenses not reciprocated by the host state, although they could be used for carry in the host state under the federal bill, would nevertheless failed to qualify under the wording of the 922 (q) exception shown as:
Quote:
18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
Several years ago, in another thread, I hypothesized that an argument may be makeable that a state reciprocated license, because it is an overt action on the part of a host state, might be interpreted as a host state licensing. This is based on the theory that the host state conferred onto the licensing state authority to issue licenses usable in the host state. This is the only argument I can think of, albeit a weak one, that can be made for alien licenses to qualify for the exception to the GFSZA.
Lacking establishment of actual case law one will be ill-advised, in my opinion, to assume that the GFSZA exception applies to any licensing not specifically issued by the home state.
Re: Support National Reciprocity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tl_3237
I believe it's more than just someone's interpretation. Although you are correct that the
BATF, in 2002, issued a letter stating that the license how to be issued by the school's host state and, at least as far as I am aware, there's been no formal adjudication of that assertion. However in looking at the actual wording in the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act, at best [/B]it may be interpreted that a license that has been reciprocated by the host state would also qualify. ]Licenses not reciprocated by the host state, although they could be used for carry in the host astate under the federal bill, would nevertheless failed to qualify under the wording of the 922 (q) exception shown as:[/B]
Several years ago, in another thread, I hypothesized that an argument may be makeable that a state reciprocated license, because it is an overt action on the part of a host state, might be interpreted as a host state licensing. This is based on the theory that the host state conferred onto the licensing state authority to issue licenses usable in the host state. This is the only argument I can think of, albeit a weak one, that can be made for alien licenses to qualify for the exception to the GFSZA.
Lacking establishment of actual case law one will be ill-advised, in my opinion, to assume that the GFSZA exception applies to any licensing not specifically issued by the home state.
Once you understand that the term "license" does not refer to a tangible item, but rather is "permission" granted, then you will understand that when a state reciprocates a license they are in-fact issuing a state "license". This is not a weak argument.