I agree with a lot of what you said, but this one was a surprise to me. I knew of magazine restrictions and/or maybe some "safety" issues with some models, but what states don't allow semi-autos as an entire type of weapon? We people in the real West are sometimes blissfully ignorant of what horse **** you people have to wade through.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill!!!! YES!!!
- Thread starter TheManInBlack
- Start date
I agree with a lot of what you said, but this one was a surprise to me. I knew of magazine restrictions and/or maybe some "safety" issues with some models, but what states don't allow semi-autos as an entire type of weapon? We people in the real West are sometimes blissfully ignorant of what horse **** you people have to wade through.
I agree that in that this proposal is not to my liking, but do not see the responsibility to know the laws of any state into which you might venture as changing at all. A "gun for every state" is a bit too much.
Which state(s) do you see that specifically "disallow semi-auto firearms - pistols and rifles?
hermannr
Regular Member
kpearce: Yes, interesting comment "there are a lot of states that disallow semi-auto firearms".
I know a few states (less than 5%) have magazine size restriction, CA, NJ, MA are examples...but completely disallow semi-auto firearms... not even DC does that. Please illuminate us less fortunate///
Oh, edited to add...mag capacity restrictions do not bother me as much as not being able to carry at all. I have something to fit any restriction...5 and 6 shot revolvers; 5 shot, 7 shot, 10 shot, 12 shot (covers NJ) and 17 shot semi-autos.
I know a few states (less than 5%) have magazine size restriction, CA, NJ, MA are examples...but completely disallow semi-auto firearms... not even DC does that. Please illuminate us less fortunate///
Oh, edited to add...mag capacity restrictions do not bother me as much as not being able to carry at all. I have something to fit any restriction...5 and 6 shot revolvers; 5 shot, 7 shot, 10 shot, 12 shot (covers NJ) and 17 shot semi-autos.
Last edited:
ummm- which states are the ones that only allow single shot black powder guns that you have to pound the powder down through the barrel??? i can't find them....
mrjam2jab
Regular Member
This is no different then what currently exists....you need to read up on states' laws before you carry there now.
Again...no different than what currently exists now. EVERY email I see from NRA...or NAGR...etc....all end with "send money now to help the fight"...
Last edited:
States Laws
Well, I guess that I added to the fail myself. Mea Culpa I thought wrong that Louisana had passed their no semi auto anything bill, but luckily it was defeated 10-2. So it appears that there are NO states that actually ban semi-auto pistols. I had known that there was some ordnance in Toledo that banned them or something, but I researched all day every states law and can't find it. Even though Ohio has preemption, Cleveland still refuses (even after repeated court cases) to follow Ohio's State Laws. I did find out that Texas permits are issued as SA=semi-auto, NSA=Not Semi-Auto and it is on your permit which one you qualified with. There are More than 5% of the states that disallow hollow point ammo, or other specialized ammo like Black Talon, etc...
In New York City your firearm serial number is required to be placed on your permit. Massachusetts has 2 types of concealed permits, one appears to be restricted and one is un-restricted. The Cities of New London, and New Britain, Connecticut allows NO FIREARMS period.
So in short how does this new law help with these issues? We have been told that this law will not interfere with any of the States Laws, however how then do these States allow someone to carry that does not meet that States requirements? Does the State then have to change its laws (thereby allowing this law to interfere with their law) or can we really legally carry there?
The law states that we are required to know and abide by the States Laws of the State we are visiting and carrying in. So if you research and find that in fact you can't carry in New York City, because you won't meet their stupid requirements or say if you do carry there and get stopped or heaven forbid have to use it then when they find out you don't meet their requirements are you arrested? Well everyone knows you can be arrested for anything, anytime. It could cost you your weapon and a whole lot of money.
I travel lots and both fly and drive with firearms. Once my company had indicated that I might have to take accounts in New York and New Jersey. I looked into permits for both and found out that to be able to carry almost un-restricted in both States, I would have to hire a lawyer specializing in Firearms Permits. I contacted one recommended to me and viola, 3500.00 later I might get the permits. Luckily I did not get those States because I really don't want to go to them anyhow. Governor Christie, (Republican Prince) Stated that he thought New Jersey's Gun Laws were great.
So anyhow I will stick to my guns (pun intended) that this law is a virtual minefield for traveling gun owners. We have it really good now with the reciprocity laws we currently have. These States have allowed us to carry now without any restrictions, but after they get boned by the FED will they still be so friendly? Is to much to ask for "Constitutional Carry" for legal, law abiding gun owners? Congress runs this show, and apparently we have been lax at electing the right ones, regardless of the political affiliation. When John McCain gave his speech at the Young Republicans, he stated that he would sign no anti gun laws while he was president, and he was booed by these Republicans! These are some we have just elected to run our country, so this has troubled me since I watched that speech. We need to elect those who stand with us regardless of the little letter by their name. The few time we have had the road paved for us, we couldn't get enough people to fit in a New York Taxi to help us get more un-restricted laws passed. People will never complain until they have already lost, then it is to late!
Ken
Well, I guess that I added to the fail myself. Mea Culpa I thought wrong that Louisana had passed their no semi auto anything bill, but luckily it was defeated 10-2. So it appears that there are NO states that actually ban semi-auto pistols. I had known that there was some ordnance in Toledo that banned them or something, but I researched all day every states law and can't find it. Even though Ohio has preemption, Cleveland still refuses (even after repeated court cases) to follow Ohio's State Laws. I did find out that Texas permits are issued as SA=semi-auto, NSA=Not Semi-Auto and it is on your permit which one you qualified with. There are More than 5% of the states that disallow hollow point ammo, or other specialized ammo like Black Talon, etc...
In New York City your firearm serial number is required to be placed on your permit. Massachusetts has 2 types of concealed permits, one appears to be restricted and one is un-restricted. The Cities of New London, and New Britain, Connecticut allows NO FIREARMS period.
So in short how does this new law help with these issues? We have been told that this law will not interfere with any of the States Laws, however how then do these States allow someone to carry that does not meet that States requirements? Does the State then have to change its laws (thereby allowing this law to interfere with their law) or can we really legally carry there?
The law states that we are required to know and abide by the States Laws of the State we are visiting and carrying in. So if you research and find that in fact you can't carry in New York City, because you won't meet their stupid requirements or say if you do carry there and get stopped or heaven forbid have to use it then when they find out you don't meet their requirements are you arrested? Well everyone knows you can be arrested for anything, anytime. It could cost you your weapon and a whole lot of money.
I travel lots and both fly and drive with firearms. Once my company had indicated that I might have to take accounts in New York and New Jersey. I looked into permits for both and found out that to be able to carry almost un-restricted in both States, I would have to hire a lawyer specializing in Firearms Permits. I contacted one recommended to me and viola, 3500.00 later I might get the permits. Luckily I did not get those States because I really don't want to go to them anyhow. Governor Christie, (Republican Prince) Stated that he thought New Jersey's Gun Laws were great.
So anyhow I will stick to my guns (pun intended) that this law is a virtual minefield for traveling gun owners. We have it really good now with the reciprocity laws we currently have. These States have allowed us to carry now without any restrictions, but after they get boned by the FED will they still be so friendly? Is to much to ask for "Constitutional Carry" for legal, law abiding gun owners? Congress runs this show, and apparently we have been lax at electing the right ones, regardless of the political affiliation. When John McCain gave his speech at the Young Republicans, he stated that he would sign no anti gun laws while he was president, and he was booed by these Republicans! These are some we have just elected to run our country, so this has troubled me since I watched that speech. We need to elect those who stand with us regardless of the little letter by their name. The few time we have had the road paved for us, we couldn't get enough people to fit in a New York Taxi to help us get more un-restricted laws passed. People will never complain until they have already lost, then it is to late!
Ken
mrjam2jab
Regular Member
NY - Until just this year, NV required the type of gun you tested with, SA or Revolver or both, be listed on your permit. That info is not listed on the AZ permit but NV still honors it.
MA - Does have Class A (Large Capacity) and Class B (Non-Large Capacity) permits....but this bill would have an outside permit seen as a Class A permit. "Restrictions do not apply."
CT - While those 2 towns may have such ordinances, those ordinances are not legal by state preemption law and can not be enforced.
Posts on another board note that there were some potentially critical changes between the bill as introduced and the bill as passed and referred to the Senate.
Changes included:
The elimination of Sec. 926D(c) - carry equivalent to a state's unrestricted license.
The elimination of Sec. 926D(c) - no preemption of state law.
The elimination of old Sec. 2 - Findings
The elimination of old Sec. 3(c) - severability
The addition of new Sec. 3 - GAO audit of state concealed carry licensing and "the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety."
Looks like you would be wrong on the Mass. un-restricted thing. Still even though Ohio has preemption Cleveland ignores it and you can get arrested. I still am NOT for this bill. I have heard on another site that Georgia, and New Hampshire both have bills pending that are for Vermont type constitutional carry. If this bill made that happen I would support it instantly, but all this bill does is further complicate our rights.
P.S. Look at the new Section 3 that was added prior to being passed.
(edited to add)
After looking over the bill as passed, any gun owner that wishes to debate me on why this is a good bill, bring it on. It is the beginning of a Federal Permit system, which would be a complete disaster for us. Don't take my word for it, just go read it yourself. Why else would they want an audit of the States Concealed Weapons Laws and how it relates to "Public Safety"!
Then after this so called audit, they will just tell us that all our state laws are confusing so they are going to just pass a Federal Carry Law and it will most likely be pretty restricted, and subject to change anytime. Of course the NRA will be there to help us out as long as we give them all our money. And of course they will sell us out for "sensible gun laws" or "common sense gun laws" gee-golly where have I heard those statements before? This bill is a godsend for Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, McCarthy, Schumer and the like.
I hope it won't pass, but if it does I hope to God I am wrong about this.
Ken
Last edited:
kpearce:
hey man- the purpose of this bill isn't to amend different states' policies toward the carrying of guns. it's simply to allow every single state that issues a CCW to allow reciprocity of any other state that issues CCW.
just like when i go to PA i'm allowed to carry in a bar, while in florida i'm not. or in NC i can't carry into a restaurant with alcohol.
it's my job to know the laws of the states i'm visiting.
that isn't the intent of this bill....
now, i'd like to see them pass a "2nd amendment compliance bill" which require all states to honor the supreme law of the land. provisions: each state must allow EITHER: unlicense OC or unlicensed CC or BOTH to be in compliance with federal law.
see- if florida allowed unlicensed OC, then i could care less about them requiring a CCW, because i have the option to exercise my right without government approval.
hey man- the purpose of this bill isn't to amend different states' policies toward the carrying of guns. it's simply to allow every single state that issues a CCW to allow reciprocity of any other state that issues CCW.
just like when i go to PA i'm allowed to carry in a bar, while in florida i'm not. or in NC i can't carry into a restaurant with alcohol.
it's my job to know the laws of the states i'm visiting.
that isn't the intent of this bill....
now, i'd like to see them pass a "2nd amendment compliance bill" which require all states to honor the supreme law of the land. provisions: each state must allow EITHER: unlicense OC or unlicensed CC or BOTH to be in compliance with federal law.
see- if florida allowed unlicensed OC, then i could care less about them requiring a CCW, because i have the option to exercise my right without government approval.
Last edited:
You are right about knowing the laws, but you are dead wrong about the intent of this bill. You NEED to go read it. It IS the front door into a Federal Permit/Registration System. In it's original version, before all the above listed modifications, it may have been somewhat of a good bill (though I am still against the FED usurping States rights), but after the modifications that I listed above this is in NO way a good bill. If it passes all they have to do is there little study (headed by antis) that shows the large differences in restrictions between the States. Then they will tell us that a new improved Federal Permit with one set of (massive) restrictions will be passed. But you won't be able to carry any non-registered firearm. We really don't need or want any Federal Permit or Registration.
But of course those who drink koolaid and want this bill passed, will surely have the millions of dollars to send to the NRA so they can maybe leave us with some more "common sense gun laws".
We want "Constitutional Carry - Any Legally Owned/Possessed Firearm - Anywhere - Anytime - Open or Concealed with bulletproof Preemption - PERIOD"
Ken
By the way, you indicate that you have a carry permit already. If that is the case, please explain to me how this bill will make your carry experience better. Florida honors resident permits from 30+ states as does PA so how really will this help you? You already have to know the laws so you are good to go there.
We will agree on your "2nd amendment compliance bill" as being the same as my "constitutional carry bill". But I do not see any improvement over the current reciprocity system, just added Federal intrusion and meddling.
Ken
we both agree- i wasn't saying the bill was good, i was just saying that the intent was a little different..
and this bill would help me alot- i would now be able to carry in maryland, new jersey, and new york, which i frequent, although not as much as i'd like (because of the laws)
pennsylvania doesn't require a permit to OC
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
I read his post, and mostly agree. I think it kills interstate commerce, so I'll stay at home and spend my money here.
