National Gun-Carry Reciprocity Bill Moves to Mark Up in the House

[motorcarman]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/national-gun-carry-reciprocity-bill-moves-mark-house/

I tried to find the other thread started on this a few weeks ago, no luck.
Anyway..... No idea how this will go but there will be alot of angst in many blue states if it passes.

bob

 

[Younggun]

TBH, I have some apprehension about Feds becoming involved in permitted carry.

The CDL program is a pain in the ass now that states are supposed to be in line under federal DOT regs, I'd hate to see the same happen with carry licensing.

 

[F350-6]

TBH, I have some apprehension about Feds becoming involved in permitted carry.

The CDL program is a pain in the ass now that states are supposed to be in line under federal DOT regs, I'd hate to see the same happen with carry licensing.

I don't travel too far, too often, so I'm not as concerned with this and can see you're point, but on the flip side, if the CDL reciprocity was currently the same as it was for CHL, the trucking industry would grind to a halt in some regions, or transfer warehouses would become really busy and drive the cost of everything up in those areas.

So even if it's a pain, it's at least continuous across the US. And we won't have to read any more stories about the single moms who get pulled over in the Northeast and thrown in jail because they were worried about protecting themselves.

 

[diesel1959]

Every State should have to give Full Faith and Credit to the official acts of every other State. If my Texas Drivers License has to be accepted in every other State, why shouldn't my Texas LTC be accepted in every other State? That's the crux of this. It's all about telling the May Issue States to choke on their scheme. Seeing as how all fifty States now have some form of licensed concealed carry, it's not onerous to have each of the States have to recognize and give reciprocity to other State's licenses. HR38 seeks to do that.

Furthermore, if HR38 passes, then folks from, say, California/NY/NJ/etc. could get nonresident carry licenses from some other State and then their home State would be forced to accept it as valid. Like I said--let the Shall Issue States choke on their bullshit.

 

[Younggun]

True, but we may also see skyrocketing fees, NFA style wait times, reduction in testing facilities, increased class requirements (how many days of training could they push?)

I may be looking at the worst possible scenario, but allowing reps from gun hating states have any say in a national CHL bill would result in them pushing to make obtaining a CHL as difficult as possible.

 

[diesel1959]

True, but we may also see skyrocketing fees, NFA style wait times, reduction in testing facilities, increased class requirements (how many days of training could they push?)

I may be looking at the worst possible scenario, but allowing reps from gun hating states have any say in a national CHL bill would result in them pushing to make obtaining a CHL as difficult as possible.

That's not what this bill is doing. It's not setting a standard for how much training a State must require--i.e. a Federal standard. What the bill is forcing down state's throats is that they MUST accept what other state's have deemed sufficient.

It's forcing reps from gun-hating states to accept what reps from gun-loving states have decided. Cali/NY/NJ would have to accept what TX has deemed sufficient . . . or what ND or WY or MT etc.

It is NOT establishing a National License to Carry. It is making State Licenses to Carry be accepted by every other State. How can that be bad?

 

[Younggun]

We weren't tied to the Feds on CDL testing at first either.

Nose under the tent and what not.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just volunteering as the token pessimist.

 

[F350-6]

I may be looking at the worst possible scenario, but allowing reps from gun hating states have any say in a national CHL bill would result in them pushing to make obtaining a CHL as difficult as possible.

I'm asking because I honestly don't know, but since the Texas DL test is administered by the Texas DMV, I always figured they were responsible for the rules and regs and testing, not the feds. Is the DL test regulated by the Feds? I know that gets to be a gray area when the CDL is factored in.

I do know that having a drivers license in Texas for many years did not prepare me for a trip to California where I found a lane with hardly any traffic that had these funny shapes painted on the pavement every so often. I didn't understand why no one else was jumping in that lane like I did. I made great time on my trip and avoided all the traffic. I also didn't get pulled over. When HOV lanes came to Texas, it dawned on me why no one else was in those lanes.

Different DMV in a different state had different rules. I didn't think to check for any new developments before my trip (internet wasn't big yet), and while I didn't get caught, I don't expect that my ignorance of the local law would have gotten me out of the resulting ticket.

Perhaps national reciprocity will be like that instead of your version. Much easier to navigate these days anyway with the internet being what it is.

 

[Younggun]

A few difference I've seen

Testing is no longer administered at the local DMV. They've been shifted to hubs. Scheduling is more difficult and the wait times much longer.

If my medical card expires my CDL is gone. I must go through the entire process again. For some reason, not getting my blood pressure checked in time erases everything I know. This is part of Texas becoming aligned with fed regs.

Written tests are done on computer. It used to be you paid and tested until you passed. Now you have 3 fails on 6-7 tests (maybe more depending on number of endorsements) and you have to pay again. Didn't effect me then as I went in, passed them all, and was done. Some guys have more trouble. The study guides are crap, poorly written and sections are often not well matched with their associated test.

When these changes started it came up in conversation with my brother in law who works for DPS was at the time doing inspections near the border. He informed me that the changes were due to this DOT reg "alignment".

I see your point on standardizing laws, I just fear gun friendly states could take a hit.

 

[easy rider]

I'm not sure I would want to go to many of the gun hating states even if this were to pass, I'm sure I would still break one of their stupid gun laws.

 

[Vaquero]

What if a feller from Arizona goes to California?

Unlicensed carry being legal back home and such.

 

[easy rider]

What if a feller from Arizona goes to California?

Unlicensed carry being legal back home and such.

That could suck, along with the fact he had a 17 round mag in his Glock.

 

[diesel1959]

What if a feller from Arizona goes to California?

Unlicensed carry being legal back home and such.

This law ONLY deals with licensed carry. So, if a feller from Arizona went to California, he wouldn't be able to carry UNLESS he had a concealed carry license (or whatever Arizona calls it).

The big key to this thing is that despite California's best efforts to deny any Californian from getting a concealed carry license under their "may issue" scheme, they would be forced to allow a Californian to carry legally if that Californian obtained a non-resident concealed carry license from another state (from among the list of states that issue nonresident such licenses). That's a delicious irony.

 

[Shady]

you seem to not notice the 17 round mag in the AZ guys gun. That will get you a felony in Ca and cost you your rights to own guns.

LTC or not that 17 round mag will kill you in Ca.

 

[easy rider]

you seem to not notice the 17 round mag in the AZ guys gun. That will get you a felony in Ca and cost you your rights to own guns.

LTC or not that 17 round mag will kill you in Ca.

Yeah, that was my point, I don't think I'm going to run out and buy Ca. compliant mags for my guns, so avoiding Cali is still in my sights.

 

[dogbone]

As a former Maryland subject, it would give me great joy to see this sail through to become law. It really irked me that while living in Maryland my TX CHL would allow me to carry in the four states surrounding Maryland but the license's only use in Maryland was as state issued ID to gain admittance to the Senate and House office buildings to testify against bogus gun laws. Allowing citizens from other states to start carrying in the hoplophobic Northeast would show the "Wild West" and "blood in the streets" claims of the anti-gun crowd to be foolish misapprehensions.

 

[Army 1911]

This law ONLY deals with licensed carry. So, if a feller from Arizona went to California, he wouldn't be able to carry UNLESS he had a concealed carry license (or whatever Arizona calls it).

The big key to this thing is that despite California's best efforts to deny any Californian from getting a concealed carry license under their "may issue" scheme, they would be forced to allow a Californian to carry legally if that Californian obtained a non-resident concealed carry license from another state (from among the list of states that issue nonresident such licenses). That's a delicious irony.

It would not surprise me if the reciprocity law only applied to licenses issued by your state of residence. So a Florida license would do no good for a Texan in California, but would still be good in Texas.

 

[oohrah]

Couple of issues here:

1. You would still have to comply with the state's laws, just like you do with traffic laws, but at least they could've keep you from carrying something.
2. There is no such thing as non-resident driver's license. If national reciprocity went into effect, there would be no need for a non-resident CCL, and in fact might cease to exist. This would eventually force issue in may issue states, IMO.

 

[diesel1959]

It would not surprise me if the reciprocity law only applied to licenses issued by your state of residence. So a Florida license would do no good for a Texan in California, but would still be good in Texas.

that's not the way it's written. Just saying.

 

[diesel1959]

Couple of issues here:

1. You would still have to comply with the state's laws, just like you do with traffic laws, but at least they could've keep you from carrying something.
2. There is no such thing as non-resident driver's license. If national reciprocity went into effect, there would be no need for a non-resident CCL, and in fact might cease to exist. This would eventually force issue in may issue states, IMO.

As to your second point--if HR38 goes into effect, it would only be BECAUSE of non-resident CCL that the may issue states would be (eventually) forced to change their ways. Until that time, the non-resident CCL in the hands of a resident of a may issue state looking forward to the passage of HR38 is about as good as it gets.