D.C. Gun laws under fire

[Dogabutila]

Not immediately. But we can build off of it. It's stupid not to back it when it's good for the country as a whole, misgivings aside about allowing the government to permit carry notwithstanding.

 

[ryan_j]

I think that a good start for national shall-issue would be to extend a "lite" LEOSA standard for national carry. Maybe include a class as well.

It's sure to be booed by people who live in states that have no training requirement. But I think that this would help somewhat ease fears that we're going to turn into the OK corral. Of course it is always going to be booed by hard core antis, but they don't want any carry anywhere anyway.

 

[Brooklyn]

I was simply pointing out that even if national reciprocity is passed, you still won't be able to carry in MD on an out of state permit as a MD resident as one poster surmised.

Have you seen my proposal above. I have been discussing this for sometime. I know the limitations of the current proposal, and am working to remedy them while avoiding objections..

I would be useful to get feedback before taking this to GRPC for further comment.

 

[Brooklyn]

I think that a good start for national shall-issue would be to extend a "lite" LEOSA standard for national carry. Maybe include a class as well.

It's sure to be booed by people who live in states that have no training requirement. But I think that this would help somewhat ease fears that we're going to turn into the OK corral. Of course it is always going to be booed by hard core antis, but they don't want any carry anywhere anyway.

See my proposal above. I am looking for feedback before I take it to GRPC.

I am serious about going on the offensive, but this is not my area of expertise.

 

[swinokur]

It's a solid proposal. I hope you get some positive feedback.

 

[Brooklyn]

It's a solid proposal. I hope you get some positive feedback.

I am going to write up an draft proposal ... but anyone can join.. its not about me..

Anyone can toss in ideas. and I hope to get support from other groups--

This only happens if we go slow..

 

[Tyeraxus]

Look up the Civil rights act of 1964. The 14a is plenty of justification.

This is what is possible if we do not give up :

1. national standards for the issuance of permits on a shall issue basis, under which a states permit must be recognized nationally( all 50 states of 57 if you prefer .
2. No state will be required to issue any permits.
3. Any state may issue permits to residents or non residents alike
4. No state may require a resident to get any permit that is not issued under the national standards, except that they may offer a permit with fewer requirements ( weaker standards ), but no such permit will be eligible for national reciprocity ( could only with in the issuing state --or as now by reciprocity agreement )
5. A state may issue permits with being required to enforce them withing its boarders -- The fed may not enforce the permit either unless on federal jurisdiction ( where state permits are not valid anyway )
6. A state may issue permits under more relaxed standards, but no such permit will be valid for national reciprocity
7. A state which issues a permit under stronger standards may gain national reciprocity without having 2 permits, but the weaker permit much be recognized for all NR and for all residents that do not qualify-- however the stronger permit may offer inducements for residence to try and meet the standard -- for example as part of security guard licencing. Inducements may include state run liability insurance since they love that sort of thing
8. A resident of a state that does not issue permits will be allowed to get a NR permit from an issuing state and it will be no less valid for national reciprocity, if this is not piratical, or is no state elects to issue such permits, the federal government can step in as the issuer of last resort.

I like it, but I have a couple of things you might want to think about (I'm not sure how to do something for the first one, but it's something that struck me):

1) Since pretty much every state technically issues permits now, how do you determine if a state doesn't issue permits for the purposes of #8? I can see a state like IL or MD continuing to play May-Issue/No-Issue games.

2) Any effort towards national reciprocity needs to address the GFSZA's "issued by" language. I think a simple change from "permit issued by" the state to "permit recognized by" the state might work, but I don't know if that would break something else in the law.

Hell, this really needs done anyway, with all the reciprocity agreements out there. TN, for example, recognizes everybody else's permits but doesn't issue NR permits*, so anybody carrying on reciprocity in TN could get in a heap of trouble at the fed level even though TN accepts their permit.

*- Well, there is a system to do so, but it requires that TN doesn't recognize reciprocity with the individual's state of residence, so it's never applicable.

3) Be ready for pushback by Utah and Florida. Their NR permit systems make the states millions of dollars every year that they would lose overnight.

 

[swinokur]

The portion of the GFSZA that BATFE claims only allows carry within 1000 feet of a school by a license from the state in which a school is located is simply an opinion issued by BATFE. To the best of my knowledge it's never been challenged in court. I disagree with BATFE's opinion that the word "licensed" only applies to a physical permit. If reciprocity is granted, to my non legal mind that's a "license", just like driving in another state on your MD permit is a license to drive in that state.

I agree the wording needs to be clarified by statute, not an opinion from BATFE.

It's attached for informational purposes.

IANAL

 

[Tyeraxus]

Here's the problem:

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
...
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

I think ATF is right on this one, but for the wrong reason. The law as passed by Congress requires that the State (or political subdivision)'s law enforcement verify that the individual is qualified before the permit is issued. Remember, this refers to the State/polsub the school is located in, not the State/polsub issuing the original permit that is being reciprocated. Reciprocity does not provide a mechanism for such pre-clearance by the local LEA that I'm aware of - I show the TN cop my VA CHP, they know that other states' permits are accepted no matter what the standards are, and I'm good to go. So 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) needs re-written or 922(q)(2)(B)(viii) needs added to address a process for reciprocity that doesn't require individual verification by the local LEA.

Also, looking over the GFSZA, I think an exception to 922(q)(3)(B) needs to be added to address legitimate self-defense. As written, even if you have a valid permit and can carry in a school zone, you can't shoot in self-defense in a school zone. I can't imagine a prosecutor ever pushing this for a valid self-defense shoot, but given the recent prosecutorial discretion to bring charges in obvious self-defense shoots, I don't think it's wise to trust too much in that.

IANAL, but I am trained to read and interpret legal and regulatory construction for process issues (twice, actually - once on the tax code and once on federal procurement - I really should look into getting a law degree at this point, since that's all I seem to ever do).

 

[swinokur]

So reciprocity in and of itself does not include this pre clearance?

I don't disagree with your interpretation per se and to be safe, because I spend time in both NOVA and NV, I got permits from both states just to minimize any hassles.

 

[Tyeraxus]

So reciprocity in and of itself does not include this pre clearance?

Not at the individual level, no (at least, not that I'm aware of). The law as passed by Congress requires that the relevant LEA verify the individual is qualified under the law. So even if granting reciprocity were considered to be "licensed by" the State/polsub, the local LEA didn't look at you, personally, to verify that you meet the criteria for reciprocity before granting the reciprocity. If the LEA gets involved, they check your permit after the fact, and I'm not aware that any true verification beyond checking the permit goes on.

For example, if you're carrying in TN on a UT non-resident permit, the TN officer doesn't call up Utah to check your file. I'm sure there's a database somewhere that they can check to see if it's a real permit (remember the guy that got pulled over in MD and hassled because the database said he had a carry permit in his home state?), but is that the same as "verifying the individual is qualified under the law"? And even if it is, again, it doesn't happen until after you're carrying.

Could all of this be hand-waved away under prosecutorial discretion? Probably. No harm, no foul, after all. But what if it's not a gun-friendly area? What if you get caught in NJ carrying on a universal reciprocity permit? You think the prosecutor wouldn't do everything he could, stack every charge available, to nail you to the wall? "Yeah, I know federal law says we have to recognize your permit, but you were 998 feet from an elementary school, and your permit wasn't issued by the State of New Jersey as required by the federal GFSZA, so you're going away for a long time."

 

[Brooklyn]

I like it, but I have a couple of things you might want to think about (I'm not sure how to do something for the first one, but it's something that struck me):

1) Since pretty much every state technically issues permits now, how do you determine if a state doesn't issue permits for the purposes of #8? I can see a state like IL or MD continuing to play May-Issue/No-Issue games.

2) Any effort towards national reciprocity needs to address the GFSZA's "issued by" language. I think a simple change from "permit issued by" the state to "permit recognized by" the state might work, but I don't know if that would break something else in the law.

Hell, this really needs done anyway, with all the reciprocity agreements out there. TN, for example, recognizes everybody else's permits but doesn't issue NR permits*, so anybody carrying on reciprocity in TN could get in a heap of trouble at the fed level even though TN accepts their permit.

*- Well, there is a system to do so, but it requires that TN doesn't recognize reciprocity with the individual's state of residence, so it's never applicable.

3) Be ready for pushback by Utah and Florida. Their NR permit systems make the states millions of dollars every year that they would lose overnight.

1. Federal standards.. just like the CDL process. They must conform or they are not issuing -- details would need to be worked out---

2. I see that as step 2. but yes.. I am sure the professionals can make this workable if not deal breakers are found -- I am looking to get support a GRPC from all the local groups to start lopping in gun friendly states ..




3. No push back.. they would be the model. And they would be at the table for setting standards if any . BTW no reason every state can't get a piece of the fees -- like appropriated road taxes --- make friends before making enemies .

 

[Brooklyn]

Not at the individual level, no (at least, not that I'm aware of). The law as passed by Congress requires that the relevant LEA verify the individual is qualified under the law. So even if granting reciprocity were considered to be "licensed by" the State/polsub, the local LEA didn't look at you, personally, to verify that you meet the criteria for reciprocity before granting the reciprocity. If the LEA gets involved, they check your permit after the fact, and I'm not aware that any true verification beyond checking the permit goes on.

For example, if you're carrying in TN on a UT non-resident permit, the TN officer doesn't call up Utah to check your file. I'm sure there's a database somewhere that they can check to see if it's a real permit (remember the guy that got pulled over in MD and hassled because the database said he had a carry permit in his home state?), but is that the same as "verifying the individual is qualified under the law"? And even if it is, again, it doesn't happen until after you're carrying.

Could all of this be hand-waved away under prosecutorial discretion? Probably. No harm, no foul, after all. But what if it's not a gun-friendly area? What if you get caught in NJ carrying on a universal reciprocity permit? You think the prosecutor wouldn't do everything he could, stack every charge available, to nail you to the wall? "Yeah, I know federal law says we have to recognize your permit, but you were 998 feet from an elementary school, and your permit wasn't issued by the State of New Jersey as required by the federal GFSZA, so you're going away for a long time."

yes just like fopa .. but first we need to get the process started.

I could even see a provision whereby all prosecutions for violations are federalized since its a federal licence.. Confirming the lci should not be hard in the data base nation we have.

Hell they can't verify drivers lic either somehow that does not lead to a crisis.

Bet they can get federal Warrants right quick .. this is not that much different.

 

[danb]

My only comment is that it should be "voluntary" but attached to funding. If you want funding you have to adopt reciprocity. With funding I'd pu8sh states to be shall issue with maximum standards, but not min.. i.e. none of that 16 hr BS in IL.

 

[Brooklyn]

My only comment is that it should be "voluntary" but attached to funding. If you want funding you have to adopt reciprocity. With funding I'd pu8sh states to be shall issue with maximum standards, but not min.. i.e. none of that 16 hr BS in IL.

Well it not federal funding -- its participation in the fees collected.

So say 30% of fees collected would be pooled and distributed to all the states that participate ( if they do they are forced to accept reciprocity ) perhaps pro rata based on the number of permits issued ( which gives them a motive to be cost competitive and easy to do business with )

All this is good stuff ... I also need folks to help lobby our neighboring states

Not wasting time in MD on this one -- or NY ..

Anyone have an in with WVDL ?

 

[Inigoes]

Passed by the house

http://news.yahoo.com/washington-d-c-officials-blasts-republicans-bid-gut-194020553--business.html

 

[miben]

Has Rand ever passed a law ?

I never thought their job was to write more laws. For every new law one should be deleted.

 

[traveller]

I never thought their job was to write more laws. For every new law one should be deleted.

Ok, then lets look at it the other way around: Which onerous law has Rand done away with ?