Manhattan DA's views on CCW Reciprocity Bill

[jerseytactical]

Here is the link. Get out your barfbags.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...mEditorialPage

[mrjam2jab]

States like Florida and Texas are willing to issue carry permits to nonresidents

Curious...if this bill goes thru...would that eliminate Non-res licenses? IE. wouldnt need to get UT to carry in DE....etc...

[LittleRedToyota]

Curious...if this bill goes thru...would that eliminate Non-res licenses? IE. wouldnt need to get UT to carry in DE....etc...

that would be up to each state.

hopefully they will not, though. as you still need a (non-resident if it is not your home state) license issued by the state you are in to be exempt from the federal gun free school zones act and be able to legally carry within 1000 feet of a school.

[mrjam2jab]

that would be up to each state.

hopefully they will not, though. as you still need a (non-resident if it is not your home state) license issued by the state you are in to be exempt from the federal gun free school zones act and be able to legally carry within 1000 feet of a school.

but since the Feds are saying...assuming it passes...your license is good in all states that issue...shouldnt that also cover the Federal, not state, GFS zone?

[PocketProtector]

Not to be a naysayer but what are the real chances of passage?? And if it did, how long would it take for the ACLU or some other idealog group take to file a legal challenge in the 9th circus ?

[38SnubFan]

If I'm reading this correctly, then my opinion would be that the Manhattan DA is not only an anti, but a retard as well. (Wait. Don't those two things usually go hand-in-hand?)

He's worried that someone who cannot get a LTCF/CWP in New York State will get a Non-Resident LTCF/CWP from another state and use it as a "loophole" to circumvent New York's stricter regulations.

However, IIRC, the pending legislation is written to state that a carrier would need to have a license issued by his/her HOME STATE. Thus, e.g. a non-resident FL permit would not be valid in NY if the person carrying the gun is not a FL resident.

Even then, if I'm reading the legislation correctly, a person carrying out-of-state on their home permit is still bound to the laws of the state AND locality (in states with no preemption laws) in which they are traveling. So again, this doofus' logic appears to be an EPIC FAIL!

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you have some type of "Special Permit" granted by NYPD/NYC local government, you can't even carry in NYC if you're a New York State resident with a valid Resident CWP.

Good thing I have a nice hot cup of Starbucks Coffee sitting next to my laptop as I type this, or my head would be hurting.

-38Snubwouldlovetoseethisamendmentpassbutkeepingmyh opesupforitFan

[phillyd2]

Not to be a naysayer but what are the real chances of passage?? And if it did, how long would it take for the ACLU or some other idealog group take to file a legal challenge in the 9th circus ?

who knows but maybe it has a decent shot. Hell even Reid says he will vote for it. Being able to carry in NYC? Yeah - I do want to live long enough to do that and I'm a ex NYer who had a NY permit.

[LittleRedToyota]

but since the Feds are saying...assuming it passes...your license is good in all states that issue...shouldnt that also cover the Federal, not state, GFS zone?

there is nothing in the wording of the proposed admendment that would override the federal GFSZ act as far as i can see.

[LittleRedToyota]

However, IIRC, the pending legislation is written to state that a carrier would need to have a license issued by his/her HOME STATE. Thus, e.g. a non-resident FL permit would not be valid in NY if the person carrying the gun is not a FL resident.

the text is somewhat internally contradictory in that regard, but i think it would actually apply to non-resident licenses as well...

from: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s845:

A BILL
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

`(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.

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) 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, 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.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

so, the introduction to the bill (the part under A BILL) mentions that it only applies if you have a license issued by your home state. however, the actual text of the bill (which is what would become law) says "any state" (the first part i bolded). so, the portion of the bill that would actually become law seems to apply to non-resident licenses as well even though the introduction to the bill (which will not become law) states otherwise.

Even then, if I'm reading the legislation correctly, a person carrying out-of-state on their home permit is still bound to the laws of the state AND locality (in states with no preemption laws) in which they are traveling.

this is another interesting issue. according to the actual text, the only restrictions that apply are those regarding *where* the gun is carried (the second part i bolded). the text does not specifically say that other laws (like magazine restrictions) would apply to out-of-staters. since the mention location restrictions applying specifically and do not mention any other restrictions applying one could logically conclude that no other restrictions apply.

however, i'm not at all sure that is how it would work out in real life. i kinda find it hard to believe that this would override state restrictions on magazine capacities, etc.--especially since it does not appear to specifically do so for LTCF holders (though it does seem to specifically do so for people who are exempt from needing an LTCF--the third part i bolded).

personally, i don't think this is the clearest piece of legislation ever written...

[-JD-]

personally, i don't think this is the clearest piece of legislation ever written...

Maybe deliberately so, to give defensible grounds to circumvent capacity limits, etc. without being obvious about it.

On the other hand, those types of limits are not typically prohibited based on carry, but by purchase or possession - think AWB - and may not be in any way impinged by this if it passes. Think Jersey's HP possession limitations would be impacted?

If this does pass, the 1000' GFSZ stuff will need to be addressed. At that point it would be a blatantly obvious inconsistency - even to congresscritters.