Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important) - Page 6
Page 6 of 31 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 302

Thread: Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important)

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Think of it this way, the state (or a political subdivision) has determined that your states permit (license) meets their requirements and that means you are "capable" of carrying a weapon. They then accept your permit (license) thus granting you a permit (license) within their state. This law has been around for quite sometime and was aimed primarily at criminals carrying through a school zone so that additional charges could be levied against them. Do you really want to write the current representatives about this and possibly get one of them to try an anti approach? If reciprocity were illegal the feds would have already attacked it, especially with the current administration in charge. Sixteen years is a long time for a law to be on the books and not used to stop reciprocity if it could.
    I have to agree. This is one of those laws that is selectively enforced when they have a known BG and don't know what else to charge them with. If they can get them on a weapons charge they can get a mandatory minimum.
    Avidshooter (Texas)
    "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." -- Plutarch

  2.   
  3. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Think of it this way, the state (or a political subdivision) has determined that your states permit (license) meets their requirements and that means you are "capable" of carrying a weapon. They then accept your permit (license) thus granting you a permit (license) within their state. This law has been around for quite sometime and was aimed primarily at criminals carrying through a school zone so that additional charges could be levied against them. Do you really want to write the current representatives about this and possibly get one of them to try an anti approach? If reciprocity were illegal the feds would have already attacked it, especially with the current administration in charge. Sixteen years is a long time for a law to be on the books and not used to stop reciprocity if it could.
    The fact is that the the law allows, and prosecutors have used it for, prosecution of an otherwise law abiding citizen who rightfully thought his possession was lawful in absence of this federal law. It should either be revoked or at least amendment to exclude possession for reciprocity.

    I'm not willing to rely on law enforcement discretion. Moreover, there could be dozens of unpublished cases of people taking pleas when charged under this law. The reported cases are clear enough that the feds intend to enforce this law.

  4. #53
    More importantly, the Dept of Justice has indicated as recently as October 2006 that it intends to enforce this law agianst law abiding citizens who purchase a firearm at a licensed FFL that is within 1000 feet of a school zone. Here is the relevant portion of the ATF FFL October 2006 announcement:

    Generally, it is unlawful for any individual to knowingly possess a firearm within a school zone. A school zone is defined as being within a distance or 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial, or private school. This prohibition docs not apply to the possession of a firearm on private property not part of school grounds such as an FFL's business premise (e.g., commercial storefront, residence, or driveway)

    Once a customer leaves private property located within 1,000 feet of a school with a firearm, they may be in violation of Federal Law. However, in the following situations an individual would not be possessing a firearm in violation of922(q)(A):

    [the exemptions were then listed]

    ATF realizes that not all persons who enter or exit an FFL's premises in such case may fall under one of the above-described statutory exemptions. Therefore, ATF advises that in those States where a permit is not needed, the FFL should ensure that prior to a purchaser leaving the business premise with a firearm that it is unloaded and placed in a locked container.


    Note that "states where a permit is not needed" is just one of the instances where the gun would need to be unloaded and in a locked container. Another would be a person holding a permit in a state that did not issue the permit "after law enforcement officials verified that the individual is qualified to receive the license."

    That AFT FFL newsletter makes it very clear that the DOJ is not limiting the enforcement of 922(q) to "bad guys" unless one considers customers of an FFL bad guys by default.

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Again I refer everyone to the following section of the code:

    (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;

    It also exempts unloaded firearms for those who do not have permits or licenses. This law has been on the books since 1994 and has caused no real problems for anyone traveling through school zones. I believe we need to focus on more pressing issues.
    Ron et al, I agree with your read of this. If you a LICENSED through reciprocity or state recognition, AND your CCW permit (s) were obtained only after a background check including fingerprints by whatever agency is charged by the issuing state with doing this, what part of the GFSZA am I in violation of?

    1. I am "licensed" through reciprocity
    2. My CCW permit was only issued after a thorough background check.

  6. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Swinokur View Post
    Ron et al, I agree with your read of this. If you a LICENSED through reciprocity or state recognition, AND your CCW permit (s) were obtained only after a background check including fingerprints by whatever agency is charged by the issuing state with doing this, what part of the GFSZA am I in violation of?

    1. I am "licensed" through reciprocity
    2. My CCW permit was only issued after a thorough background check.
    "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;"

    The references in bold refer to the same object - "the State" in which the school zone is located.

    The state in which the school zone is located must be the state that requires law enforcement authorities of that state to determine the individual is qualified.

  7. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    "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;"

    The references in bold refer to the same object - "the State" in which the school zone is located.

    The state in which the school zone is located must be the state that requires law enforcement authorities of that state to determine the individual is qualified.
    Law enforcement authorirites in the home statehave determined I am qualified through reciprocity.Reciprocity and recognition of an OOS permit is the license by the state or subdivision as i read this. This is no different than a drivers license is a LICENSE to drive in another state. As far as the background check, I am not aware of a reciprocity agreement with another state that has more lax requirements than the "home" state, although there may be some. Even if that were the case, the four permits I have required an extensive background check. I am licensed by the state or political subdivision where the school is through the reciprocity agreement that allows me to be LICENSED in that state and therefore I am licensed by that state or political subdivision, just as an out of state drivers license would be a license to drive in that state. This might make an interesting court challenge if someone is prosecuted on this violation alone, but is seldom done.

    No reciprocity agreement for a CCW permit I have read says your permit is only good except within 1000 feet of a school. Not one.I have 4 permits and not one state issued any kind of communication telling me my permit is not good within 1000 feet of a school in that state. I'd be open to a cite if anyone can provide one.The legal definition of license contains the language I feel comfortable with to carry in another state regardless of a where I might be.. I guess we can parse words all day long. There is not enough case law here to prevent me from carrying IMO. I am open to other interpretations of course. Everyone has to decide what they are comfortable with. I think the BATFE interpretation might be somewhat skewed.

  8. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Swinokur View Post
    Law enforcement authorirites in the home statehave determined I am qualified through reciprocity.Reciprocity and recognition of an OOS permit is the license by the state or subdivision as i read this. This is no different than a drivers license is a LICENSE to drive in another state. As far as the background check, I am not aware of a reciprocity agreement with another state that has more lax requirements than the "home" state, although there may be some. Even if that were the case, the four permits I have required an extensive background check. I am licensed by the state or political subdivision where the school is through the reciprocity agreement that allows me to be LICENSED in that state and therefore I am licensed by that state or political subdivision, just as an out of state drivers license would be a license to drive in that state. This might make an interesting court challenge if someone is prosecuted on this violation alone, but is seldom done.

    No reciprocity agreement for a CCW permit I have read says your permit is only good except within 1000 feet of a school. Not one.I have 4 permits and not one state issued any kind of communication telling me my permit is not good within 1000 feet of a school in that state. I'd be open to a cite if anyone can provide one.The legal definition of license contains the language I feel comfortable with to carry in another state regardless of a where I might be.. I guess we can parse words all day long. There is not enough case law here to prevent me from carrying IMO. I am open to other interpretations of course. Everyone has to decide what they are comfortable with. I think the BATFE interpretation might be somewhat skewed.
    The law states it has to be the state in which the school is located. You get your license in State A. State B has reciprocity. State A does a check in compliance with 922(q). State B does no check.

    You go to State B and get caught with a loaded firearm on public property that is within 1000 feet of a school zone. You can be prosecuted under 922(q). State B is not the state that did the qualification check.

    It is not necessary for a reciprocity agreement to state the limitations of the federal law. I have had driver's license in 4 states over my lifetime and not one of them stated "cannot be used to drive while intoxicated" or "must not exceed 15mph in a school zone" or anything else.

  9. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    The law states it has to be the state in which the school is located. You get your license in State A. State B has reciprocity. State A does a check in compliance with 922(q). State B does no check.

    You go to State B and get caught with a loaded firearm on public property that is within 1000 feet of a school zone. You can be prosecuted under 922(q). State B is not the state that did the qualification check.

    It is not necessary for a reciprocity agreement to state the limitations of the federal law. I have had driver's license in 4 states over my lifetime and not one of them stated "cannot be used to drive while intoxicated" or "must not exceed 15mph in a school zone" or anything else.
    I don't necessarily agree with your logic. if state A did a backgound check and state B honored it, the background check was "recognized" by state B IMO.I agree with your theroetical example.However drivers licenses are not CCW permits. But as a practical matter, can you provide a cite to any reciprocity agreement that allows a permit from a state without a background check to be honored in a state that does or vice versa?

    I am not aware of any but of course they might exist. As I stated, everyone must do what they feel comfortable with. i think a court might and i say might interpret state A's background check as a state B background check through the reciprocity agreement to grant LICENSE. Open to some interpretation.

  10. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    The fact is that the the law allows, and prosecutors have used it for, prosecution of an otherwise law abiding citizen who rightfully thought his possession was lawful in absence of this federal law. It should either be revoked or at least amendment to exclude possession for reciprocity.

    I'm not willing to rely on law enforcement discretion. Moreover, there could be dozens of unpublished cases of people taking pleas when charged under this law. The reported cases are clear enough that the feds intend to enforce this law.
    I will continue carrying the way I have for years and, should I get arrested for traveling through a school zone, let the courts decide. The SCOTUS has already thrown out many of the cases given as examples making it difficult to prosecute someone simply for carrying with a license. Remember this is a federal law and it must be a federal agent making the arrest under this law. I have spoken to many LEOs in Georgia, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Florida with most supporting reciprocity. I simply believe that there are far more pressing matters than this long standing law that require our attention.

  11. Nogods, thank you for pointing out ATF's continued commitment to enforcing this law. They are sworn to enforce all laws... which is why this needs to be changed. To those that say their permit allows them to carry out of State... even if we agree that you are "licensed" by every State that honors your permit under reciprocity (an assumption which ATF does not agree with) it is still illegal because the law enforcement authorities of the States you travel to have not verified that you are qualified under the law. In order for you to be exempt from the Federal GFSZA... every State would have to independently do a background check on you.


    I know you all don't want to believe this... but nogods and I are right.

    I just got off the phone with my contact in the office of US Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). They have been patiently waiting for an opportunity to repeal the Federal GFSZA, and have the bill ready to go. They were going to try to attach it to the upcoming Senate Reconciliation bill on the whole healthcare thing... but the other Republicans requested they take it out. I have the backing of a US Senator on this... his office has carefully reviewed this law and they agree that I am interpreting it correctly.


    I was told they are optimistic about repealing it after the 2010 elections... assuming there is a large Republican influx. I
    realistically think it can be repealed in the next few years... maybe even the next year... but you have to help me make this a core issue for all the gun rights groups. The only thing stopping the repeal is the lack of public support. I have been working on this issue for several years, and I think the repeal/amendment of the federal GFSZA can be a reality.


    To the guy that said he has never read a "limited reciprocity agreement"... those agreements are done by the States. Although it may be perfectly legal under State law for you do something, that does not make it legal under Federal Law. Also, I have read many reciprocity agreements that ban the carry of firearms "anywhere prohibited by Federal Law." Within 1000 feet of the property line of any K-12 school is prohibited by Federal Law... so not only do you risk Federal Prosecution under GFSZA... you also risk State prosecution for carrying in a "prohibited location."


    To those that say we shouldn't worry about it because it's not strongly enforced... let's take a minute and look at what happens when Gun Free School Zone Act is enforced... Wisconsin has their own Gun Free School Zone Act law that is based off the Federal Law. Wisconsin law enforcement began enforcing it there after the Wisconsin Attorney General issued a decision allowing unlicensed open carry. The enforcement of the Wisconsin GFSZA is an effort to thwart the newly gained right of Wisconsin citizens to open carry.

    A man in Racine, Wisconsin was arrested for open carrying a holstered firearm on his front porch. This resulted in a court case which is still pending. (Link to Complaint)


    If you read nothing else in this entire post... read this letter that the BATFE wrote to a permit holder threatening him with arrest if he traveled out of his home State.

Page 6 of 31 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

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