Bill Introduced To Allow Carry Permits to Cross State Lines Like Drivers License - Page 14 - SIG Talk
SIG Talk Gun Forum

Bill Introduced To Allow Carry Permits to Cross State Lines Like Drivers License

This is a discussion on Bill Introduced To Allow Carry Permits to Cross State Lines Like Drivers License within the News forums, part of the SIG Talk category; Brian, it falls under "keep and bear arms" doesn't specifically say concealed. But as I understand it from the scholars "bear arms" means carrying on ...


Go Back   SIG Talk > SIG Talk > News

News News Articles that SIG Talk Members wish to share and from the firearms industry.

Like Tree157Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-09-2017, 09:03 AM   #196
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 305
Likes Received 143
Brian, it falls under "keep and bear arms" doesn't specifically say concealed. But as I understand it from the scholars "bear arms" means carrying on your person.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
boris95 is offline  
Register

Welcome to the SIG Talk Forum dedicated to SIG Sauer Pistols and SIG Sauer Rifles.

We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the SIG Talk Forum!

Old 12-10-2017, 02:59 AM   #197
Member
 
Sledge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Murrells Inlet SC USA
Posts: 42
Likes Received 13
Now to the Senate....

The Bill was not as strongly supported in the House as I'd hoped. I'm very concerned it will be watered-down to insignificance in the Senate if it is to pass. Those boys and girls don't seem to get to rational compromise on easy issues, much less one apparently so polarizing.
Sledge is offline  
Old 12-10-2017, 03:41 AM   #198
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Posts: 22
Likes Received 1
The bill will experience considerable difficulty in the Senate.
JerryT is offline  
 
Old 12-12-2017, 06:36 PM   #199
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: New York
Posts: 98
Likes Received 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian View Post
I suggest that YOU reread the Scalia text you posted. It says NOTHING about concealed carry. It specifically talks about keeping a handgun IN THE HOME.

"The District’s total ban on handgun possession IN THE HOME amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

"Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm IN THE HOME be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense..."

"... the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it IN THE HOME."

[Emphasis added.]

Even the summary you linked to makes that distinction clear:

"The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons..."
Brian,

I certainly do not understand what point you are trying to make here. USMC6872 wrote: The Supreme Court has already taken a position on that (DC) where an outright ban was overturned. You responded: Citation. I provided the citation. The Heller decision overturned the DC law that had an outright ban of concealed. Heller struck down a DC law as an unconstitutional because the DC law had prohibited handgun possession by non-law enforcement individuals and that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded in the home. The DC statute violated the Second Amendment. I merely wrote about the Supreme Court holding in Heller.

Perhaps, I was inarticulate when I wrote my prior postings. I certainly did not mean to offend you. As I see it we are friends in this forum and we are simply sharing information to help one another. The Heller decision referred to two provisions of a District of Columbia statute (1) the total ban of handguns and (2) the home requirement that firearms be kept nonfunctional.

In my prior posts I referred to direct quotes from Justice Scalia's Heller decision. You will see that in Heller, Scalia referred to the Court of Appeals decision in Parker v District of Columbia (this was the lower court case that the US Supreme Court affirmed in Heller) and expressly wrote (the Court of Appeals [the lower court) "... held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearm and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. see id., at 395, 399-401." [underlining is mine and this again is a direct quote from Scalia ] The Parker case went to the US Supreme Court [named as Heller v District of Columbia] because District of Columbia had a total ban on handguns and the District of Columbia had prohibited loaded firearms in the home, i.e., the firearms in District of Columbia homes had to be kept nonfunctional. Individuals in the District of Columbia were prohibited from possessing a handgun. At that time there was not any right for non-law enforcement official, meaning individual civilians to have a carry license. The Heller case voided the District of Columbia statute and that eventually lead to a new statute that provided residents with the right to have a conceal carry handgun license. Frankly, I fail to see what is the problem here. The bottom line is that I have provided the Heller citation and explained the holding of the case.
Whether you accept Heller or not that is up to you. May the Peace of Christmas be with you.
SSP320C is offline  
Old 12-12-2017, 07:07 PM   #200
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 775
Likes Received 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arpeggio View Post
...USMC6872 wrote: The Supreme Court has already taken a position on that (DC) where an outright ban was overturned. You responded: Citation. I provided the citation. The Heller decision overturned the DC law that had an outright ban of concealed.
Wrong. Heller had NOTHING to do with the subject of CONCEALED CARRY, which is the subject of this entire thread. Heller did not address "an outright ban of concealed" as you assert, it addressed an outright ban on possession. Your refusal to accept the difference astounds me.
Brian is offline  
Old 12-12-2017, 07:16 PM   #201
Senior Member
 
ma6907's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,420
Likes Received 1936
would have been quite difficult to have concealed carry with a near total ban on handgun possession in place. Overturning the "outright ban" of even owning a functional handgun certainly helped with the passage of concealed carry.
ma6907 is offline  
Old 12-12-2017, 07:26 PM   #202
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 775
Likes Received 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma6907 View Post
...Overturning the "outright ban" of even owning a functional handgun certainly helped with the passage of concealed carry.
Yes, it did; but that does not support the claim that the Supreme Court "has already taken a position on [the subject of concealed carry]" in Heller. That one action facilitates a subsequent action is not equal to conscious intent.
Brian is offline  
Old 12-13-2017, 02:49 AM   #203
Senior Member
 
PhillySoldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 680
Likes Received 419
I belong to many different types of gun groups on FB. Over the last week I have seen many posts of people telling other members that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act has passed the house and they can now carry in any state of the country.

And as surprising as that was I think the one that surprised me the most was someone commenting what do you mean we can now carry in other states, I have always carried in other states that why I got a permit 5 yrs ago now
PhillySoldier is offline  
Old 12-13-2017, 02:55 AM   #204
Senior Member
 
PhillySoldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 680
Likes Received 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arpeggio View Post
Brian,

I certainly do not understand what point you are trying to make here. USMC6872 wrote: The Supreme Court has already taken a position on that (DC) where an outright ban was overturned. You responded: Citation. I provided the citation. The Heller decision overturned the DC law that had an outright ban of concealed. Heller struck down a DC law as an unconstitutional because the DC law had prohibited handgun possession by non-law enforcement individuals and that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded in the home. The DC statute violated the Second Amendment. I merely wrote about the Supreme Court holding in Heller.

Perhaps, I was inarticulate when I wrote my prior postings. I certainly did not mean to offend you. As I see it we are friends in this forum and we are simply sharing information to help one another. The Heller decision referred to two provisions of a District of Columbia statute (1) the total ban of handguns and (2) the home requirement that firearms be kept nonfunctional.

In my prior posts I referred to direct quotes from Justice Scalia's Heller decision. You will see that in Heller, Scalia referred to the Court of Appeals decision in Parker v District of Columbia (this was the lower court case that the US Supreme Court affirmed in Heller) and expressly wrote (the Court of Appeals [the lower court) "... held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearm and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. see id., at 395, 399-401." [underlining is mine and this again is a direct quote from Scalia ] The Parker case went to the US Supreme Court [named as Heller v District of Columbia] because District of Columbia had a total ban on handguns and the District of Columbia had prohibited loaded firearms in the home, i.e., the firearms in District of Columbia homes had to be kept nonfunctional. Individuals in the District of Columbia were prohibited from possessing a handgun. At that time there was not any right for non-law enforcement official, meaning individual civilians to have a carry license. The Heller case voided the District of Columbia statute and that eventually lead to a new statute that provided residents with the right to have a conceal carry handgun license. Frankly, I fail to see what is the problem here. The bottom line is that I have provided the Heller citation and explained the holding of the case.
Whether you accept Heller or not that is up to you. May the Peace of Christmas be with you.
From what I understand with DC, they have went from a May Issue to a Shall Issue. However in the one article I have seen of legally restricted zones and there boundaries Theres practically no where in the sovereignty that you can actually go and still be compliant with the law.

IF Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act actually passes, Im wondering how fast many blue states are going to make locals laws to have the similar results or worse; purposely pushing things to set "examples" out of people.
PhillySoldier is offline  
Old 12-13-2017, 05:43 AM   #205
Senior Member
 
ma6907's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,420
Likes Received 1936
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillySoldier View Post
IF Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act actually passes, Im wondering how fast many blue states are going to make locals laws to have the similar results or worse; purposely pushing things to set "examples" out of people.
I would assume ALL of them will do that. Simply pass "gun Free zones" that ammount to being the whole state. For me (I said ME personally), my biggest benefit would be just being able to pass through many of those locations without worrying about violating their laws. For example even connecting through on a plane is worrisome in some places because if the connecting flight is canceled or delayed (overnight)--you HAVE to take possession of your weapon from the airlines. In some locations (NYC) you can be in violation just by taking possession. Illinois is a state that I frequently have to drive through. The Illinois State police have a downloadable handout for how to pass through Illinois with a weapon in the car. It contains language that is quite ambivalent. The Illinois DNR has another handout that is (albeit slightly) different in its ambivalence. Not sure it is actually possible to drive through and not be unclear if you are breaking their (again, unclear) laws. I print out the handout, disassemble my weapon, put some of it in one part of my vehicle, other pieces in another, ammo in a 3rd place. If I ever were to get pulled over--I would produce the handout and at least show that I am TRYING to follow their tyrannical laws. I am not the kind of person that is going to open carry and AR pistol through Times Square--I just want to be able to mind my own business and not worry about going to jail.
ma6907 is offline  
Old 12-13-2017, 06:11 AM   #206
Senior Member
 
Wls1425's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 474
Likes Received 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma6907 View Post
I would assume ALL of them will do that. Simply pass "gun Free zones" that ammount to being the whole state. For me (I said ME personally), my biggest benefit would be just being able to pass through many of those locations without worrying about violating their laws. For example even connecting through on a plane is worrisome in some places because if the connecting flight is canceled or delayed (overnight)--you HAVE to take possession of your weapon from the airlines. In some locations (NYC) you can be in violation just by taking possession. Illinois is a state that I frequently have to drive through. The Illinois State police have a downloadable handout for how to pass through Illinois with a weapon in the car. It contains language that is quite ambivalent. The Illinois DNR has another handout that is (albeit slightly) different in its ambivalence. Not sure it is actually possible to drive through and not be unclear if you are breaking their (again, unclear) laws. I print out the handout, disassemble my weapon, put some of it in one part of my vehicle, other pieces in another, ammo in a 3rd place. If I ever were to get pulled over--I would produce the handout and at least show that I am TRYING to follow their tyrannical laws. I am not the kind of person that is going to open carry and AR pistol through Times Square--I just want to be able to mind my own business and not worry about going to jail.
My understanding of Illinois carry law is (I’m not a lawyer, but have read and reread their WEB site) you CAN carry in your car in Illinois, but if you leave your car the gun must be stored and locked in the car. If you carry into a motel/hotel the gun must be empty and locked in a case. Certain municipalities do have gun restrictions, however, that you need to be aware of.

I try to stay up on carry laws for places I travel and have carried in my car in Illinois a few times. To be safe....call the Illinois highway patrol and confirm my information.
Wls1425 is offline  
Old 12-13-2017, 06:18 AM   #207
Senior Member
 
PhillySoldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 680
Likes Received 419
Doug Jones (D) defeated Roy Moore (R) for U.S. Senate in Alabama the window of time for passing national reciprocity just got smaller

Doug Jones?s Victory Means Mitch McConnell Must Act on National Reciprocity Now - Breitbart
PhillySoldier is offline  
Old 12-13-2017, 04:46 PM   #208
Senior Member
 
ma6907's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,420
Likes Received 1936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wls1425 View Post
My understanding of Illinois carry law is (I’m not a lawyer, but have read and reread their WEB site) you CAN carry in your car in Illinois, but if you leave your car the gun must be stored and locked in the car. If you carry into a motel/hotel the gun must be empty and locked in a case. Certain municipalities do have gun restrictions, however, that you need to be aware of.

I try to stay up on carry laws for places I travel and have carried in my car in Illinois a few times. To be safe....call the Illinois highway patrol and confirm my information.
particularly confusing in the Illinois law is that they require a "a FOID card" for ammo possession. The laws all include language about the ammo. I do not have an FOID card. The law is unclear to me in this regard. I HAVE called the State Police, who danced around any comment and directed me to the website. It is NOT clear. Description of "locked in a seperate container", glove box "may not count", etc. last time I was in a Jeep Commander which does not have a trunk. Glove box does not count as a locked container and must be locked in the trunk, in a vehicle without a trunk? Living in Tennessee and driving to Iowa (in laws) with plans to hunt--weapons in the car--and wording like "may not" and suggestions of "probably" and "with an FOID card" make me very nervous.
ma6907 is offline  
Old 12-14-2017, 02:35 AM   #209
Senior Member
 
PhillySoldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 680
Likes Received 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma6907 View Post
I would assume ALL of them will do that. Simply pass "gun Free zones" that ammount to being the whole state. For me (I said ME personally), my biggest benefit would be just being able to pass through many of those locations without worrying about violating their laws. For example even connecting through on a plane is worrisome in some places because if the connecting flight is canceled or delayed (overnight)--you HAVE to take possession of your weapon from the airlines. In some locations (NYC) you can be in violation just by taking possession. Illinois is a state that I frequently have to drive through. The Illinois State police have a downloadable handout for how to pass through Illinois with a weapon in the car. It contains language that is quite ambivalent. The Illinois DNR has another handout that is (albeit slightly) different in its ambivalence. Not sure it is actually possible to drive through and not be unclear if you are breaking their (again, unclear) laws. I print out the handout, disassemble my weapon, put some of it in one part of my vehicle, other pieces in another, ammo in a 3rd place. If I ever were to get pulled over--I would produce the handout and at least show that I am TRYING to follow their tyrannical laws. I am not the kind of person that is going to open carry and AR pistol through Times Square--I just want to be able to mind my own business and not worry about going to jail.

I recall a case in New Jersey a few years ago. I think the poor guy is still rotting in prison because of it. He was moving from out west back to where he grew up in NJ. He called ahead to every state police in every state he was passing through as well as printed out the carry/transport laws of each state. He separated his guns/ammo in different carry bags/pouches etc and such (wasnt good enough in his court case). When he got to NJ he stopped to visit family and have dinner on his way to his new place. They considered this an interruption in his travel which then invalided the transport laws. In court it was not even allowed to be mentioned to the jury that he was in the midst of traveling, only that he was pulled over and XX amount of guns found in his car. Ive heard of similar occurring in Maryland but not the results of any particular case
PhillySoldier is offline  
Old 12-14-2017, 02:51 AM   #210
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
SteveAikens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 16,662
Likes Received 49622
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillySoldier View Post
From what I understand with DC, they have went from a May Issue to a Shall Issue.
10/6/17 – DC Now Shall Issue. Note Updated in How to Apply Section. Wording Struck Through. May Issue to Shall Issue

Read Here.
SteveAikens is offline  
Closed Thread

  SIG Talk > SIG Talk > News


Search tags for this page

news

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar SIG Talk Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illinois State Rifle Association Update on IL State’s Concealed Carry Progress Malicious Compliance News 0 10-11-2013 08:09 AM
Cross draw carry Broncs Concealed Carry 15 02-10-2013 05:14 PM
Introduced at the Shot Show th3ug1y0n3 Guns 26 02-06-2013 04:25 AM
p229 tac rail first introduced. srice425 SIG Sauer Pistols 1 03-10-2011 01:05 AM


Top Gun Sites Top Sites List

Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2010 - 2020 SIG Talk. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.SIG Talk is a SIG Sauer Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent SIG Sauer, Inc. of Exeter, NH.