TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote: This is like a person with a provisional DL from PA (a 15 year old) where he might be allowed to drive until midnight coming to Texas where it would be restricted to 7 pm. He could drive until midnight because of the way the bill is worded.

I believe the proposed law actually says that a person not in their home state is subject to the restrictions of the state they're in.

If this bill does nothing else but to get the Bloominbirds and other leftists to scream blue bloody murder about the commerce clause then it will be a great bill and find my support behind it.c

RoyGBiv wrote:The way I read it is that if you have a CHL in your home state, then every other state that allows concealed carry must honor your permit (assuming it meets some minimum standard?).....

The biggest impact would be in forcing "May Issue" states like NY and CA to honor permits from out of state. WI, IL and DC would become the only places off limits, since they do not have any civilian concealed carry at all... However, since WI allows OC without a permit, maybe there's hope for WI...

The pessimist in me thinks that a more likely consequence of passing a national reciprocity bill would be that some of the may-issue states become no-issue.

I can see New Jersey and Hawaii both doing that at the least, since they are basically no-issue in practice but have may-issue statutes on the books. California might do that too, although there are enough influential people there who like their special privileges that it wouldn't be for sure. I would consider New York less likely to do it as well as their state senate seems to be decently effective at blocking anti-gun bills due to the upstate politicians.

hirundo82 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:The way I read it is that if you have a CHL in your home state, then every other state that allows concealed carry must honor your permit (assuming it meets some minimum standard?).....

The biggest impact would be in forcing "May Issue" states like NY and CA to honor permits from out of state. WI, IL and DC would become the only places off limits, since they do not have any civilian concealed carry at all... However, since WI allows OC without a permit, maybe there's hope for WI...

The pessimist in me thinks that a more likely consequence of passing a national reciprocity bill would be that some of the may-issue states become no-issue.

I can see New Jersey and Hawaii both doing that at the least, since they are basically no-issue in practice but have may-issue statutes on the books. California might do that too, although there are enough influential people there who like their special privileges that it wouldn't be for sure. I would consider New York less likely to do it as well as their state senate seems to be decently effective at blocking anti-gun bills due to the upstate politicians.

Wouldn't that one recent SCOTUS decision block that?

Dave2 wrote:Wouldn't that one recent SCOTUS decision block that?

As far as I am aware, no federal court has yet held carry outside the home to be protected by the 2nd Amendment--it was not addressed in Heller or McDonald. There is, however, a case pending in the DC Circuit--Palmer v. DC.

hirundo82 wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Wouldn't that one recent SCOTUS decision block that?

As far as I am aware, no federal court has yet held carry outside the home to be protected by the 2nd Amendment--it was not addressed in Heller or McDonald. There is, however, a case pending in the DC Circuit--Palmer v. DC.

Yeah, I realized I was mis-remembering after I posted that. Does anyone know how the SCOTUS is expected to rule in Palmer v. DC? Is enough even known for us to form an expectation?

I don't think the law, as drafted, would help us in states like NJ, MA, NY, MD, etc. You would be covered under the law for the charge for carrying concealed, but any states that require a registered handgun would still get you for having a handgun not registered in their state.

Jumping Frog wrote:I don't think the law, as drafted, would help us in states like NJ, MA, NY, MD, etc. You would be covered under the law for the charge for carrying concealed, but any states that require a registered handgun would still get you for having a handgun not registered in their state.

I don't believe Massachusetts has registered guns. They didn't 20 years ago, and I haven't noticed any new registration laws coming from there.

...when will we learn that we pay for EVERY "gift" from the gooberment...lately we've been payin' 3 and 4 times...I want them to stay OUT of CCW...if they pass this, it will not end well for us...

Jumping Frog wrote:I don't think the law, as drafted, would help us in states like NJ, MA, NY, MD, etc. You would be covered under the law for the charge for carrying concealed, but any states that require a registered handgun would still get you for having a handgun not registered in their state.

How does that work for LEOSA?

LEOSA was just modified to specifically include some things like hollowpoint rounds because states claimed they could enforce that part of their law and not charge for unlawfully carrying a weapon. We might need to modify this law a little if it passes to cover the point of non-registered weapons, magazine size, and hollowpoints specifically.