Delaware ag refuses all non-resident permits - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Delaware ag refuses all non-resident permits

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    From DE AG’s Website:

    "As of September 23, 2017 Delaware will no longer honor Non-Resident Concealed Carry Permits issued by any jurisdiction."
    Typical Anti-Gun Left Wing Democrat.

    This seems to be a growing trend.
    Regards!
    Glad I don't have any reason to go up to Delaware anytime soon.

    Crime is no different there than anywhere else. Although the Delaware crime rate is 4 times as high as the national average.

    Their state and my State used to have mutual reciprocity.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Actually H.R. 38 will go into effect, and will not get tied up in the courts, here's why:

    Here's the relevant quote from the bill about who would be eligible to carry and how the permits issued by states to nonresidents are addressed by H.R. 38:

    and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

    “(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

    “(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.


    Note that it said pursuant to the law of a State* - not pursuant to law of "the" State. Because it was written in such a way ("a State,") that means that it applies to anyone who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State. Arguably the proposed law could be clarified and improved by replacing "a" with "any," but the bill's meaning is clear.

    Note also the "or" provision: "or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides." This includes people that already have a concealed carry permit from the state they reside it, but because the word "or" is used, it doesn't propose to require that you have to get the concealed carry permit from the state where you reside. You could get it from any state that will issue it to you and then it would be honored.

    This will be true under H.R. 38 for anyone who meets the following conditions:

    (you live in a state that) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm (even in California, this condition is met, so technically a California resident would be able to apply for a VA nonresident CCW... and so on)

    and

    (the state) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

    I don't know of any state that prohibits the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes, because they can't. They can put up bureaucratic obstacles but they can't prohibit it. Not even in D.C. have they been allowed to prohibit concealed carry - the courts have made sure of that.

    Furthermore, under the Supremacy Clause, Congress is allowed to make sure that unconstitutional law by states can be preempted or unconstitutional law can be repealed under that use of that Clause as well.

    H.R. 38 will go into effect and be effective and the states will not be able to stop it. And that's a good thing.
    I hope you are right.

    This would be one very good thing to come out of a GOP controlled Congress and White House.

    I do expect numerous appeals however, with numerous rulings both ways at the Federal district and appeals levels.

    Ultimately the SCOTUS will need to rule on it.

    Scalia in his write up of Heller leaned heavily in favor of State's Rights except on the issue of ownership and possession inside the home.

    And with a Kennedy-trained new SCOTUS justice coming on board, this could go either way at the SCOTUS level.

    That will make 3 swing voters on the High Court -- Kennedy, Roberts, and Gorsuch.

  4. #13
    Shows what the pressure of the people can accomplish.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    D.C. example (Concealed Carry) and HI, CA, other restrictives

    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    IL and DC did until long drawn out court battles finally overturned them. Check out HI, and the fact that virtually NO ONE has a CC permit.

    Yep, NY, MD, HI, NJ, DE, CA, MA and probably a few more are going to take it to the courts
    This is the point I was making. There is no state where the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes is actually prohibited - because it cannot be prohibited. They've put (in some states) all kinds of restrictions - but they can't prohibit it. That is why H.R.38 was written that way so that anywhere that it would legally be allowed anyway the reciprocity would be allowed.

    The other aspect of this is D.C. itself.

    Of course we know that D.C. is an area where they don't want you to have a gun at all. Concealed carry itself has always been a battle there.

    The following on D.C. is taken from Wikipedia.

    DC is a "may issue" jurisdiction" as of October 2016. The status of concealed carry licensing in the District of Columbia is currently in flux between "may issue" and "shall issue "due to pending court challenges. On July 26, 2014, DC's ban on open and concealed carry was struck down as unconstitutional in Wren v. District of Columbia. A Restrictive May-Issue concealed carry licensing law was enacted in September 2014. Under the new law, an applicant must show "good reason," to qualify for a concealed carry permit. However, on May 18, 2015, the "good reason" requirement was ruled as likely unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction was issued against DC from enforcing that requirement. This effectively required the District to grant licenses on a Shall-Issue basis to qualified applicants who have passed a criminal background check and completed the required firearms safety training. Judge Scullin did not issue a stay of his ruling, but the Appeals Court did so on Jun 12, 2015, effectively leaving the restrictive 'good reason' requirement in place while litigation continues.

    On May 17, 2016 a separate case (Grace v. District of Columbia) was decided by District Court Judge Richard J. Leon. The Court issued a preliminary injunction that the good reason requirement was likely be unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The order said that anyone who met the eligibility requirements for a concealed carry license absent the good reason stipulation cannot be denied the license; the order was not stayed originally, but was subsequently stayed on May 27, 2016.

    The following is not from Wikipedia, but is just typed by my own hand to further elaborate on this issue.

    When H.R.38 gets passed none of the above D.C. court stuff will really matter because people in D.C. will be able to get a nonresident permit from somewhere (like VA) and it will be honored in all 50 states.

    Yes, states like CA, HI, and also the federal district of D.C., will of course challenge H.R.38 once it's signed into law. But they won't be able to do anything about it. Places like CA if/when they challenge the federal gov't in court over H.R.38 once it's signed into law, won't succeed. (CA's) argument/case will be dismissed or it'll simply fail along the way somewhere in the process, setting a wonderful precedent for us.

    First of all, this is because the States have no rights to deny rights.
    https://therealwritewinger.wordpress...o-deny-rights/

    Second of all, and this is important, under the Supremacy Clause, Congress is allowed to make sure that unconstitutional law by states can be preempted or unconstitutional law can be repealed under that use of that Clause as well.

    How will Congress do this?
    Example:
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...n-control-laws
    "The administration should adopt a policy that it will support the activity of the Second Amendment Caucus and pro-Second Amendment Congressmembers, when they use their authority under Article VI Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution to pass bills intended to preempt state gun control laws that violate the U.S. Constitution or to repeal federal gun control laws already on the books that violate the U.S. Constitution, so as to protect our right to keep and bear common and modern arms, where Congress unmistakably and expressly asserts the desire for preemption in the language of the bills proposed."

    That's how the Supremacy Clause can be used to completely put a stop to any and all court actions by states like CA, HI, federal district of D.C., etc. Not to say they won't try in court, but the cases will ultimately be dismissed.

    Cheers.

    Oh, by the way, in case you are wondering, we have the votes now, too.

    This is how gun laws will get repealed - like SSA's Gun Ban or the NFA (and how new ones like Concealed Carry Reciprocity will get passed): By votes of 235 - 180 in House and 57 - 43 (or 52 - 48 without four Dems and one independent) in Senate - and with President Trump's signature. Curious about how I get those numbers? See recent votes on H.J.Res.40.
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ion/40/actions
    It won't be hard from here on out to replicate those vote numbers for future pro-gun bills.

    FORWARD.
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Shows what the pressure of the people can accomplish.
    Oh the irony from someone that had to put a legal notice in the newspaper that he wanted to apply for a concealed carry permit.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  7. #16
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    New U.S. Supreme Court brief on concealed carry. Look at this, Governors from Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina and South Dakota signed onto this brief with TX Gov. Abbott.

    Good news is coming everyone.

    Gov. Greg Abbott wants Supreme Court to block California gun limits | Texas Politics | Dallas News
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Shows what the pressure of the people can accomplish.
    It will still come down to a long series of court battles.

    The good news is that DJT will be nominating SCOTUS justices for a while.

    The bad news is that you will never know if these justices are so conservative that like the Confederates before them they support States' Rights more than Federal legislation.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast