NRA now supports Constitutional Carry!

[wrightme]

If I wore a hat I would eat it. BUT, they are also advocting for an optional permit system to 'compliment' Cont. Carry.

OOOhhhh, is just sounds to good to be true. I can imagine how that optional permit becomes mandatory.

That is how it is in Alaska and Arizona, isn't it? AZ just came from "mandatory" permitting. Alaska has had constitutional for a while. Is their optional permit becoming mandatory?

 

[wrightme]

I hate beating a dead horse but what other states will recognize an in state permit from a state that doesn't require training and/or fingerprinting?

Probably very few.

Do you seriously believe some other mechanism will someday be in place to allow CC and OC throughout the states?

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Probably very few.

Do you seriously believe some other mechanism will someday be in place to allow CC and OC throughout the states?

I guess my point then is what's the point of setting up the mechanism for a toothless permit system? Why hire people, create the forms, create the infrastructure?

As for national reciprocity, it almost passed last year. With Republican control of the House and a smaller Democratic majority in the Senate, who knows?

Why I abhor Federal power grabs from states, the right to bear arms is actually in the Federal Constitution so it would be a good national law.

 

[JimMullinsWVCDL]

Important considerations for drafting concealed carry legislation

I hate beating a dead horse but what other states will recognize an in state permit from a state that doesn't require training and/or fingerprinting?

Most.

The only state that expressly requires fingerprinting as a condition of reciprocity is Washington. Every other state that has a reciprocity law will tolerate name-based background checks.

There are several states that condition reciprocity on training requirements, and these requirements vary by state: Delaware, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio* (appears, in practice, to deny reciprocity to states that don't have a training requirement but has apparently made an exception for Washington), and South Carolina. While even a basic firearms safety course will qualify in most of these states, Kansas, Nevada, and (recently) New Mexico interpret their laws to require the training course to include a specific live fire shooting exercise (e.g., Utah, which has a classroom-only training requirement but does not require live fire, has reciprocity with Delaware, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Ohio, but has been expressly rejected by Kansas, Nevada, and New Mexico--the latter 2 having once had reciprocity with Utah but subsequently withdrew).

There are a few other things that I would encourage you to consider.

Nevada, Virginia, and West Virginia, by statute, and Minnesota, by interpretation of their statute, require a state to have a centralized, computer database of all permits/ licenses for verification by law-enforcement officers 24/7. Most states with modern "shall issue" laws (adopted after Florida's 1987 "shall issue" law began the modern concealed carry movement) have adopted compliant laws.

Minnesota has a 3-year disqualification following any conviction for assault, battery, or other violent misdemeanor; any drug-related offense; and violating a domestic violence protective order. Other states must have these disqualifications (again, they need only be for 3 years) as a condition of recognition in Minnesota. Again, most states with modern "shall issue" laws have adopted similar disqualifications.

Most states either unilaterally honor all other states' licenses/permits (e.g., Iowa (eff. 1/1/11), South Dakota, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan, among others) or have a reciprocity statute that honors all other states' licenses/permits on the sole condition the other state reciprocate (e.g., North Dakota). The more liberal your standard for reciprocity is (constitutional carry would be best, followed by a "shall issue" law that unilaterally honors all other states' licenses/permits), the more successful you will be in getting other states to honor your (hopefully optional) license/permit.

Regardless of the form of your reciprocity law, you need to provide specific statutory authority for a state official (e.g., the Attorney General) to enter into formal, written reciprocity agreements with other states as necessary to secure recognition of your (hopefully optional) licenses/permits in those states and require that official to periodically contact the Attorney General or other appropriate state official in every other state that does not honor your licenses until that state agrees to do so. Ohio and West Virginia require formal, written reciprocity agreements; all other states with some form of reciprocity law have some legal mechanism for the establishment of reciprocity via less formal processes. Iowa omitted from their new law statutory authority for formal, written agreements and will be unable to have their permits honored in Ohio and West Virginia without additional legislation. Furthermore, due to changes in other state's laws, there's usually at least one state each year that adopts a new or improved reciprocity law and which may need to be contacted by your AG or other responsible state agency to secure recognition of your licenses.

Several states--either by statute (Washington) or their interpretation of their reciprocity law (Kansas, Nevada, Ohio)--do not honor licenses of states that issue licenses to anyone under 21 years old (Kansas and Ohio have established reciprocity with North Dakota for North Dakota Class 1 licenses only--see below). Several other states will not honor the license if the individual licensee is less than 21 years old (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia, and West Virginia) but do not make the other state's minimum licensing age a condition of reciprocity.

Currently, there are 16 states in which an individual licensed to carry concealed weapons is not required to undergo the NICS background check for purchasing or receiving a firearm from an FFL because 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3)(A) and 27 C.F.R. § 478.102(d)(1) provide an exemption for licensed individuals if the laws of the state in which the license was issued contain adequate background check procedures to verify the licensee's eligibility to lawfully possess firearms. The key to meeting this requirement is to have specific statutory language requiring a NICS check fo all new and renewal license applicants and, in the case of aliens, a federal Immigration Alien Query.

​

Last year, North Dakota became the first state to establish a 2-tier licensing system in an effort to expand their reciprocity with other states while not subjecting current licensees (or those who generally stay close to home and aren't concerned primarily with more reciprocity) to greater licensing requirements. They have had enough success that I believe other states may want to consider creating their own multi-tier licensing sysme involving different classes of license based on the licensee's age (18-20 years old or 21 or over), level of training, and whether a fingerprint-based background check is required.

Based upon my research of other states' reciprocity requirements, I have just finished drafting a bill for West Virginia that would create 5 different classes of licenses. This bill would reduce the minimum licensing age from 21 to 18 for classes 4 and 5, require a higher level of training for classes 1, 2, and 4, and require one-time fingerprinting (as well as the higher level of training and a 21-year-old minimum age) for Class 1. This bill would also qualify all 5 licenses classes for the federal firearm purchase background check exemption.

 

[apierce918]

I came from Michigan, and i'm certain they still run a nics check for a pistol. The difference, was that with my CPL, i didnt have to go to the sheriffs department first and get a special purchase permit that is only valid for 10 days. I cant say about long guns because i didnt buy one before i moved away.

 

[Gray Peterson]

OK. I emailed Jordan Austin from the NRA for some clarification. I just woke up from my faint.

Here's the question I asked:



Here is his response:



While I will take him at his word, how can a training optional permit be recognized by other states? What other states issue permits with no training and/or fingerprints?

Off the top of my head:

Florida, Michigan (this state is particular critical for travel, as it's a bordering state and they prohibit pistol possession without a home state license), Missouri, Iowa (1-1-11), Indiana, New Hampshire, Colorado, Vermont (no permit needed), Utah, Arizona (no permit needed), Georgia, Virginia, Idaho, Alaska (no permit needed).

 

[davegran]

The Janet Kukuk Act

Gray Peterson wrote:

Off the top of my head:

....Michigan (this state is particular critical for travel, as it's a bordering state and they prohibit pistol possession without a home state license)....

Not true. The pistol licensing section of their statutes (28.422) has been modified by what has come to be called, "The Janet Kukuk Act"

28.432 Inapplicability of MCL 28.422; citation as “Janet Kukuk act”.

Sec. 12.

(1) Section 2 does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A police or correctional agency of the United States or of this state or any subdivision of this state.

(b) The United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps.

(c) An organization authorized by law to purchase or receive weapons from the United States or from this state.

(d) The national guard, armed forces reserves, or other duly authorized military organization.

(e) A member of an entity or organization described in subdivisions (a) through (d) for a pistol while engaged in the course of his or her duties with that entity or while
going to or returning from those duties.

(f) A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state. (Emphasis added) (No mention of "home state license")

(g) The regular and ordinary transportation of a pistol as merchandise by an authorized agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms or a licensed dealer.

(h) Purchasing, owning, carrying, possessing, using, or transporting an antique firearm. As used in this subdivision, "antique firearm" means that term as defined
in section 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.231a.

(i) An individual carrying, possessing, using, or transporting a pistol belonging to another individual, if the other individual's possession of the pistol is authorized by law and the individual carrying, possessing, using, or transporting the pistol has obtained a license under section 5b to carry a concealed pistol or is exempt from licensure as provided in section 12a.

(2) The amendatory act that added subsection (1)(h) shall
be known and may be cited as the "Janet Kukuk act".

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

...lots of stuff!!!

Jim, thank you very much. I need to sit and digest this a bit.

Can you answer one other question that I haven't had a god answer to yet?

How does VT get around the Federal GFSZ restriction that people with permits are exempt since VT has never issued a permit.

Thanks again!

 

[jpm84092]

Excellent post Mr. Mullins. However, I am surprised that Nevada and Florida are not "exempt". I hold non-resident permits from both FL and NV. For my FL permit I needed to be fingerprinted by my home-state law enforcement and for Nevada I had to be fingerprinted by the issuing County. Both FL and NV did background checks - or at least that is what their literature said.

Paul, I looked up VT on handgunlaw.us and found that they have State law prohibiting carry inside schools, but this source was silent on the Federal GFSZ law.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Jim, thank you very much. I need to sit and digest this a bit.

Can you answer one other question that I haven't had a god answer to yet?

How does VT get around the Federal GFSZ restriction that people with permits are exempt since VT has never issued a permit.

Thanks again!

They don't. The US Attorneys Office in Vermont has never prosecuted anyone who was a general law abiding citizen for it, but it's still a risk until we have a broad declaration from SCOTUS saying that there's a right to carry outside of the home except for specific sensitive places (like school buildings and grounds).

 

[JimMullinsWVCDL]

They don't. The US Attorneys Office in Vermont has never prosecuted anyone who was a general law abiding citizen for it, but it's still a risk until we have a broad declaration from SCOTUS saying that there's a right to carry outside of the home except for specific sensitive places (like school buildings and grounds).

What he said.

 

[JimMullinsWVCDL]

Excellent post Mr. Mullins. However, I am surprised that Nevada and Florida are not "exempt". I hold non-resident permits from both FL and NV. For my FL permit I needed to be fingerprinted by my home-state law enforcement and for Nevada I had to be fingerprinted by the issuing County. Both FL and NV did background checks - or at least that is what their literature said.

Every state, on some level, conducts some form of background check on applicants. The question--both for the federal background check exemption and eligibility for reciprocity with certain states--is whether the background checks follow certain procedures.

To qualify for the federal background check exemption, a state must include in its licensing statute specific language prohibiting the issuance of a license to any person who is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms and, during every new and renewal application background check, perform a NICS check (and an IAQ on alien applicants). That state must, through a state official (e.g., the Attorney General or Division of Licensing), petition BATFE to list the state's license as a "qualifying alternative" and receive approval.

I am not certain of why most states have not qualified for the federal background check exemption. Florida has a state background check law that does not exempt their CWFL holders, so they may see getting a federal exemption as pointless. Nevada used to be exempt but their sheriffs apparently stopped following the required background check procedures and have held out for an unnecessary and exorbitant fee increase (the federal NICS and IAQ checks do not cost an FFL or state or local CCW licensing agency anything). In the last couple of years, Minnesota, Kansas, and Nebraska have passed legislation that would appear to make them eligible, but they either have not properly petitioned BATFE for an exemption or have failed to qualify for reasons unknown to me.

 

[Uziel Gal]

I guess its official

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6099

 

[protias]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6099

The laws of Vermont, Alaska and Arizona will be used as the model. The latter two, in particular, will set the standard with systems that recognize the citizens’ constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense along with a provision that will provide for the streamlined issuance of a state permit that can be used for reciprocity purposes in other states while traveling.

Permits? We don't need any stinking permits!

 

[oak1971]

The laws of Vermont, Alaska and Arizona will be used as the model. The latter two, in particular, will set the standard with systems that recognize the citizens’ constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense along with a provision that will provide for the streamlined issuance of a state permit that can be used for reciprocity purposes in other states while traveling. The primary difference between the open carry provision that has always been part of Wisconsin’s statutes and “Constitutional Carry” is that citizens will finally be able to discreetly carry firearms in public.

I wonder if they have the same definition of Constitutional Carry as we do?

 

[wrightme]

The laws of Vermont, Alaska and Arizona will be used as the model. The latter two, in particular, will set the standard with systems that recognize the citizens’ constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense along with a provision that will provide for the streamlined issuance of a state permit that can be used for reciprocity purposes in other states while traveling. The primary difference between the open carry provision that has always been part of Wisconsin’s statutes and “Constitutional Carry” is that citizens will finally be able to discreetly carry firearms in public.

I wonder if they have the same definition of Constitutional Carry as we do?

That rests upon your definition.

If they use Arizona and Alaska as models, then it means that OC and CC would both be lawful activities, and no permit would be necessary for either OC or CC.

 

[protias]

The laws of Vermont, Alaska and Arizona will be used as the model. The latter two, in particular, will set the standard with systems that recognize the citizens’ constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense along with a provision that will provide for the streamlined issuance of a state permit that can be used for reciprocity purposes in other states while traveling. The primary difference between the open carry provision that has always been part of Wisconsin’s statutes and “Constitutional Carry” is that citizens will finally be able to discreetly carry firearms in public.

I wonder if they have the same definition of Constitutional Carry as we do?

They want to keep the permit system alive so they can make more money. Eff that! Constitutional Carry with no permits. No other state is required to accept said permit!

 

[oak1971]

That rests upon your definition.

If they use Arizona and Alaska as models, then it means that OC and CC would both be lawful activities, and no permit would be necessary for either OC or CC.

I certainly hope so.

 

[AB]

Don't let the NRA fool you!

I am glad they have joined the fight. Please contact them and tell them we expect their support for Constitutional Carry in Wisconsin.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6095

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Bashing other gun rights groups

 

[Flipper]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Bashing other gun rights groups

I know that in Wisconsin without the NRA we would have been in a world of hurt for the last 8 years with Doyle the Knobhead and Liberal Democrats in charge of state government.

My question is why, with the NRA saying they are advocating for Constitutional Carry, and the Republicans having Constitutional Carry as part of their platform, why hasn't it happened?

Disclosure: NRA Endowment Member, Blue Dog Democrat