Police support national reciprocity for CC permit holders, do you?

General General Discussion
1

I’m fairly sure I know what most people’s answer will be but I thought this was a pretty interesting article. I haven’t researched all of the laws concerning LEOSA / HR 218 but I think this would be similar for the average Joe citizen. If you do NOT think this is a good idea please state why. If you DO feel it’s a good idea you’re on the right track :wink: Follow the link for a video if you’d like. http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/Survey_Shows_Police_Support_General_Recognition_of_State_Issued_CCW_Permits_reports_Gun_Law_Expert,201031529.aspx

“One of the legislative items most sought by America’s 100 million law-abiding firearm owners is universal acceptance of permits to carry concealed firearms issued by a state,” says gun rights expert John M. Snyder.

“Gun owners believe that if a citizen has a permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by a state he or she should be able to carry that gun in any state,” adds Snyder, Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

“Now we know that police, too, support this concept,” he adds.

Snyder says that, "national reciprocity for holders of permits to carry concealed firearms issued by states enjoys the support of over three-quarters of law enforcement command officers in the United States.

“This is evident from a recent survey of opinions of American chiefs of police and sheriffs.”

A former National Rifle Association magazine editor, Snyder states "the finding supports the program in Washington, D.C. of Senators and Representatives who promote national concealed carry reciprocity legislation.

“It undercuts the agenda of Senators and Representatives who work to undermine such legislation.”

The 2010 postal opinion survey is the 22nd such annual survey conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP). Snyder serves on the NACOP board.

When the officers were asked if general recognition throughout the states of ccw permits issued by a state, in the way drivers’ licenses are recognized throughout the country, would facilitate the violent crime-fighting potential of the professional law enforcement community, 77 percent said yes.

“The survey upends the propaganda of anti-gun organizations and individuals that gun rights and police interests are not compatible,” says Snyder, also a board member of the American Federation of Police and Concerned Citizens.

“In fact,” he believes, "the very opposite is the case. The survey shows that over 70 percent of the chiefs and sheriffs think that qualified, law-abiding armed citizens can be of assistance to the professional law enforcement community in promoting justice and reducing the incidence of violent criminal activity.

“A whopping 95 percent think that any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense.”

“There is a natural affinity between police and gun owners,” concludes Snyder, Treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation, “and this survey underscores this truth.”

The NACOP survey was mailed to America’s chiefs of police and sheriffs and received a 13 percent response.

2

I personally think that National Reciprocity should be allowed as long as it does not require any federal registration (IE: a National CCW).

3

We can move about the country freely to all extents until, oh my god, you actually own a firearm. Then all bets are off. States recognize others driver and marriage licenses and certified births already, so it’s not a big stretch for them to understand the principal.

4

I think reaching a 50 state compromise would be difficult and would ultimately lead to a less permissive system than many states currently allow. I realize that there are states that allow no CCW and any form of one would be a good thing for people in those states. However, I think that a CCW which would be viewed as acceptable to be passed into law in New York would be highly restrictive to current CCW holders in many other states.

5

I think it is an excellent idea, and yet, a difficult goal to achieve. I certainly support it.

6

I voted no because I feel that it cannot be implemented properly at the federal level.

Ultimately, what is the goal for national CCW reciprocity? To allow everyone in the country to carry in any state? That is fair enough…but who’s rules do we follow? Setting rules at the federal level will be a clusterfuck, and ultimately at least half the states will end up LOSING carry rights due to states like California, New York and Illinois.

Forcing states to individually recognize other state permits is also difficult because I feel you’re then infringing on state rights. I do feel this method would be more plausible and harmonious, however it also has it’s drawbacks. With this plan how is it enforced? What will the law be telling the states? Will it say the states can create some laws regarding carry but not others? What if California says they’ll allow carry but only if you purchased your gun on a Tuesday and are wearing a blue shirt?

What I think I’d like to see instead is for the individual states to come to agreements amongst themselves. I know much of the US already has reciprocity in some form or another…I feel we should work towards more of that then trying to institute something on the federal level. Yes in this case some states like California and the bunch will not cooperate, but that’s life…they’ll either eventually come around or end up imploding from their screwed up political system.

Is there something I’m missing? Is there another way I didn’t mention? I’d be all for it if I felt it could be implemented properly, but I don’t think that will happen. In the end, some people will end up with less rights, and I don’t feel that’s right.

7

I voted yes b/c I would like to see it happen, but I feel as though it cannot work as we would like it to. For this to happen, it could only be as “loose” as the most “restrictive” states statute. It it like the old saying “only as fast as the slowest man”.

I am originally from Louisiana and then moved to Ohio. I carried a CCW in Louisiana, but now Ohio does not recognize Louisiana as a reciprocity state - something I need as I travel back and forth a few times a year. The kicker is I can apply for the non-resident Florida permit that is for 7years and it is recognized by both states and many more.

Just get the Florida CCW.

8

Unless something has markedly changed since the last I kept up with this, it is not a national carry license, but forcing the states to recognize reciprocity. Works the same as you drivers license. If the speed limit is 85 in your state and you visit a state where it is 65, you have to drive 65 just like everyone else when you visit there not 85 because that’s the way you do it back home. Same with CCW. If your state permits carrying in an alcohol serving restaurant but the state you are visiting does not, you can’t carry there. States like NY blew this way out of proportion by claiming that they were going to be forced to follow others states firearms laws when in reality it was nothing near that.

9

How is that any different then what we have now? A state could make their own absurd laws that everyone else in the country would have to follow when in that state. They could write it as to effectively ban carry without technically banning it…

10

All very solid points. I am all for national reciprocity. I am completely against national CCW. I do not want the feds managing any form of ID, it makes me feel icky just having the Social Security card (number) I sure don’t want the Feds getting in to what should be a state’s rights deal. I understand that the cost is IL still probably not allowing its citizens to exercise their civil rights, but I sure wouldn’t want CA style CCW in place of the AZ, MN and PA Carry laws that I know and love.

11

The agreements between states are a cluster right now as to who recognizes who and to what extent. Legal minefield is what most would call it. As it stands now, I have an iPhone app just to tell me what states recognize my permits when I travel. It’s not going to change the laws of the state, so places like NY, IL and CA are still off limits for the most part, but it would force the states to at least recognize permits from all the other states.

Bottom line is that it makes carrying in other carry friendly states easier and without the risk of inadvertently breaking laws.

12

we’re looking at this backwards… the only way any kind of national CCW can work is in the form of a law expressly permitting a CCW holder of any state to travel in any state- EXACTLY the same as a driver’s license.

13

I agree with what some others have said: I am FOR nation-wide reciprocity, but am strongly AGAINST any federal legislation or authority running this program.

Now ordinarily, the consistent approach would be that fundamental and inherent rights (rights expressed in the Declaration as God-given, or rights expressed in the Bill of Rights, including rights to life, liberty, freedom of speech/expression/religion, etc.) are legislated at the federal level. And I consider the right to bear arms to be right up there with the other “fundamental” rights. It’s a logical corollary of the right to life, i.e., it’s the right to defend one’s own life and property.

Problem is, at a pragmatic level, and considering the socialistic trend of the government in our time, placing ANY of our precious rights under federal control seems like a bad idea. Because what’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander: if they can federally legislate FOR something we want, at a future time they can also legislate AGAINST it.

So when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, for pragmatic reasons, I am in favor of keeping it controlled by the states. Even though that can result in a lot of inconsistent details, and in reality, it probably means we will never have true national reciprocity.

14

im usually totally opposed to any federal legislation, except those very small, few necessary laws influencing ACTUAL interstate commerce- but a federal law allowing interstate travel with CCW is one gun law that’s TOTALLY CONSTITUTIONAL. this would be one of those very few laws that actually IS related to interstate commerce- the ability for free, armed citizens to move about within the country, for commerce or pleasure.

im 100% on board with a federal CCW law. not that it would ever happen- they’ll encroach on private citizens’ and states’ rights all day, until its to benefit us/them.

15

How many states issue Driver’s Licenses that DO NOT require the holder’s picture or mandatory information (IE: name, unique ID, address, description, etc.) on it? The Commonwealth I live in (it’s not a State) does not allow pictures on our Concealed Handgun Permits (it’s not setup for it). They only require that it must be accompanied with an acceptable picture ID.

Does this mean that if a mandated National CCW Reciprocity is put in place, we will have to change the way we do business? If so, who will enforce these rules? These have to be either agreed upon by each and every State or Commonwealth or mandated by the Federal Government. Do we want the Federal government to get their dirty paws into this? I certainly don’t. So that means it would be up to each and every State, Commonwealth, and Territory to decide whether or not they will accept these permits and if so, what standards must be enforced. Wait!! Isn’t that the way it is now? :eek:

The way it stands now is each and every State, Commonwealth, and Territory can accept any official document from any other State, Commonwealth, or Territory in these United States. But they do so at their leisure.

If it were to me there would not even be a need of some sort of document to be able to carry anywhere - but that’s another discussion altogether. JM2CW.

16

Everything that I understand about this, as least as presented previously in S. 1390, leaves all the licensing details to the individual resident’s state. Nothing is federalized except the reciprocity and all states can carry on exactly as they do today.

Text from the Thune amendment.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to–

``(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

``(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.‘’.

17

I agree with this

18

Will one of our well informed LEOs chime in and explain how LEOSA works, I don’t know all the details. Would it be possible to have something similar for regular citizens?

19

I can’t believe there are 3 NO votes!!!

20

LEOSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

The wiki article is pretty good on this topic. Yeah, I know wikipedia :rolleyes: but this article isn’t botched.