Enjay
Well-Known Member
Does this mean that we don't need to have FL or Utah permits to carry in GA any more?
HR 822 has passed
- Thread starter Enjay
- Start date
Correct, still a long way to go, I don't really like it, even tho it will make things easier for those who chose to cc.....IMHO any law federal on down that infringes upon a law abiding citizen's 2nd amendment rights should be declared null and void....Then laws such as this would be totally unneededC_Carson said:
carsontech
Well-Known Member
Don't forget, HR 822 is suppose to make it so your license to carry would be valid in any state that has a permit system, but that's not how it's written.
The way HR 822 is written, it seems the states that allow concealed carry AND open carry, with a permit (GA, MS, TN, UT, IN, etc), could interpret HR 822 differently than how every thinks it's suppose to work. The way HR 822 is written, states that allow concealed carry and open carry, with a permit, will ONLY allow concealed carry for people with out-of-state permits if the person's out-of-state permit was not recognized before HR 822 went into affect. Out-of-state permits that were recognized before HR 822 went into effect could still allow their holders to open carry, though. Confusing, huh?
Anyway, not every state has a "Concealed Weapons Permit". Some states have "Firearms Permits", "Pistol Permits", "Handgun Carry Permits", "Concealed Handgun Permits", etc. So, if HR 822 passes, it is perceived that if you have a South Carolina CWP, it will become valid license to carry in whichever state you are visiting that has a permit system, just like with the states that recognizes SC's permit, currently. Of course, that's not the way it is written.
HR 822 is perceived to work just like states in full reciprocity. Below are some examples:
If a SC CWP holder is visiting Georgia, SC CWP acts like a valid GA "Firearms Permit". Since GA allows someone to carry concealed or openly, as long as one has a GA firearms permit, a SC CWP (acting as a "Firearm Permit") would allow one to carry concealed or openly while in GA. This is already how it is for permit holders from states that GA recognizes.
Same thing with Tennessee. If one is in TN and has a SC CWP, it acts as a TN "Handgun Carry Permit". In TN, one may carry a handgun, concealed or openly, only if they have a "Handgun Carry Permit". Actually, this is how a SC CWP is treated now in TN, as TN recognizes SC's permit.
In North Carolina, no permit is needed to carry openly, only to carry concealed. NC's permit is called a "Concealed Handgun Permit". Essentially, while a SC CWP holder is in NC, their permit to carry concealed is really, still, just a permit to carry concealed. When one decides to carry openly, their permit is a moot point, as it is not needed to carry openly. Again, this is how a SC CWP is treated now in NC, as NC recognizes SC's permit.
I just wanted to clarify that permits to carry concealed aren't always viewed as a permit to carry concealed. It depends on which state you are in. I know, its a only a technicality, lol.
As someone else said, "If it doesn't eliminate permission slips, registration, or prohibitions, what good is it?" I can see why people like the bill, but I would rather see less laws. I think the bill is "short sighted" and not very well thought out.
The way HR 822 is written, it seems the states that allow concealed carry AND open carry, with a permit (GA, MS, TN, UT, IN, etc), could interpret HR 822 differently than how every thinks it's suppose to work. The way HR 822 is written, states that allow concealed carry and open carry, with a permit, will ONLY allow concealed carry for people with out-of-state permits if the person's out-of-state permit was not recognized before HR 822 went into affect. Out-of-state permits that were recognized before HR 822 went into effect could still allow their holders to open carry, though. Confusing, huh?
Anyway, not every state has a "Concealed Weapons Permit". Some states have "Firearms Permits", "Pistol Permits", "Handgun Carry Permits", "Concealed Handgun Permits", etc. So, if HR 822 passes, it is perceived that if you have a South Carolina CWP, it will become valid license to carry in whichever state you are visiting that has a permit system, just like with the states that recognizes SC's permit, currently. Of course, that's not the way it is written.
HR 822 is perceived to work just like states in full reciprocity. Below are some examples:
If a SC CWP holder is visiting Georgia, SC CWP acts like a valid GA "Firearms Permit". Since GA allows someone to carry concealed or openly, as long as one has a GA firearms permit, a SC CWP (acting as a "Firearm Permit") would allow one to carry concealed or openly while in GA. This is already how it is for permit holders from states that GA recognizes.
Same thing with Tennessee. If one is in TN and has a SC CWP, it acts as a TN "Handgun Carry Permit". In TN, one may carry a handgun, concealed or openly, only if they have a "Handgun Carry Permit". Actually, this is how a SC CWP is treated now in TN, as TN recognizes SC's permit.
In North Carolina, no permit is needed to carry openly, only to carry concealed. NC's permit is called a "Concealed Handgun Permit". Essentially, while a SC CWP holder is in NC, their permit to carry concealed is really, still, just a permit to carry concealed. When one decides to carry openly, their permit is a moot point, as it is not needed to carry openly. Again, this is how a SC CWP is treated now in NC, as NC recognizes SC's permit.
I just wanted to clarify that permits to carry concealed aren't always viewed as a permit to carry concealed. It depends on which state you are in. I know, its a only a technicality, lol.
As someone else said, "If it doesn't eliminate permission slips, registration, or prohibitions, what good is it?" I can see why people like the bill, but I would rather see less laws. I think the bill is "short sighted" and not very well thought out.
Enjay
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the input. I don't know much about it, obviously, so I'd like to ask why you find it shortsighted and not well thought out?
It seems to me that it makes travelling, for my purposes, far simpler and cheaper now that I don't have to go get a Utah or FL permit to go to Atlanta, nor do I have to play the gun game every time I cross a state line either. You know, the one that has you feeling yourself up in an effort to figure out "do I have it on? in the glove box? in the trunk? strapped to the roof of the car with the remote in my hand? :twisted:"
It seems to me that it makes travelling, for my purposes, far simpler and cheaper now that I don't have to go get a Utah or FL permit to go to Atlanta, nor do I have to play the gun game every time I cross a state line either. You know, the one that has you feeling yourself up in an effort to figure out "do I have it on? in the glove box? in the trunk? strapped to the roof of the car with the remote in my hand? :twisted:"
PCShogun
Well-Known Member
"In North Carolina, no permit is needed to carry openly, only to carry concealed. NC's permit is called a "Concealed Handgun Permit". Essentially, while a SC CWP holder is in NC, their permit to carry concealed is really, still, just a permit to carry concealed. When one decides to carry openly, their permit is a moot point, as it is not needed to carry openly. Again, this is how a SC CWP is treated now in NC, as NC recognizes SC's permit."
How long has this law been in effect? My Son-in-law was traveling to NC to tow a car back to SC. He had a hand gun in the center console. He got pulled for speeding, told the officer he had a handgun in the console, and then all heck broke loose. He was removed from the vehicle, cuffed, the handgun confiscated. He has no convictions and was released shortly afterward, but it took a YEAR and $400 to get his handgun back. He has a SC CCW permit. I am guessing the NC and SC had no agreement at that time and that made the difference?
How long has this law been in effect? My Son-in-law was traveling to NC to tow a car back to SC. He had a hand gun in the center console. He got pulled for speeding, told the officer he had a handgun in the console, and then all heck broke loose. He was removed from the vehicle, cuffed, the handgun confiscated. He has no convictions and was released shortly afterward, but it took a YEAR and $400 to get his handgun back. He has a SC CCW permit. I am guessing the NC and SC had no agreement at that time and that made the difference?
carsontech
Well-Known Member
Enjay said:
For me, I would rather not have the federal government getting into the license to carry game. A license to carry should not be needed to exercise a right that is protected by the Bill of Rights. I think the fight should be at the state level, and the fight should be for constitutional carry in each state.
Now, I would be on board the federal government getting each state to stop infringing on the rights of its citizens and allow permitless carry in each state. The federal government should be around for only few things, seeing that the constitution is upheld is one of them. They ARE NOT doing that job, and they have screwed up miserably, in my opinion.
I definitely do not want the Fed getting involved in forcing states to accept unconstitutional permits (10th amendment issue) from other states. This will just perpetuate the "privilege to carry" type system even longer and hurt the fight for the RIGHT to carry. I still don't understand how the bill got the name " National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011". It's very misleading and that is a BIG red flag for me.
I know, a lot of people are using the "Baby steps" argument. I think it's true, baby steps do work. I think it would be MUCH safer to work with baby steps at the state level though, the Federal government is not your friend.
On the other hand, I would love to see the faces of the antis when if passes. But... at what cost would my enjoyment cost? Slavery by the federal government? Future unconstitutional regulations from the fed telling states what to do?
carsontech
Well-Known Member
PCShogun said:
When did this happened? The way I understand it, he should have been able to have it in the console if he had his SC CWP.
Check out the NC gun rights brochure:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...idedFW0hEOWh_wflvT7tpEVdnqbUfjnl_dbj&hl=en_US
NC gun laws are going to be changing a little Dec. 1st, though, due to new legislation that was passed.
carsontech
Well-Known Member
Also, residents from California, and similar may-issue states, will NOT be able to carry within their own state with a non-resident permit from another state. Only residents of other states, that have permits from their state they are a resident of, will be able to carry in may-issue states like California.
"The bill would make clear that a person cannot use this federal grant of reciprocity to carry a concealed weapon in his or her own state of residence under another state?s permit license, unless their own state?s laws permit this."
http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr822
"The bill would make clear that a person cannot use this federal grant of reciprocity to carry a concealed weapon in his or her own state of residence under another state?s permit license, unless their own state?s laws permit this."
http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr822
biganimal
Well-Known Member
I think I can guarantee that NO out of stater will ever be allowed concealed carry in NY, ya have to have a pistol permit just to SHOOT a handgun there.
I got my NYS pistol permit in the mid seventies and it allowed me to carry concealed, own, and use a handgun. permits issued today allow the holder to own and shoot a handgun but not necessarily carry concealed.You have to give an acceptable reason to carry concealed before a CC is issued.
and open carry is allowed only while hunting or at the range.
I got my NYS pistol permit in the mid seventies and it allowed me to carry concealed, own, and use a handgun. permits issued today allow the holder to own and shoot a handgun but not necessarily carry concealed.You have to give an acceptable reason to carry concealed before a CC is issued.
and open carry is allowed only while hunting or at the range.
Avtomat-Acolyte
Well-Known Member
The solution to tyranny is less laws. Not more.
Hopefully Obama will cut his nose to spite his face and Veto it if the Senate manages to pass it.
This new law is nothing but small, short-term gains with huge, long-term losses. Anyone that denies that is likely delusional. Even if they were presented with the documented incrementalism via innocuous legislation of 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994, et al. they would dismiss the very obvious "unintended consequences" of this nonsense.
Benjamin Franklin was right then and he is right today:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Hopefully Obama will cut his nose to spite his face and Veto it if the Senate manages to pass it.
This new law is nothing but small, short-term gains with huge, long-term losses. Anyone that denies that is likely delusional. Even if they were presented with the documented incrementalism via innocuous legislation of 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994, et al. they would dismiss the very obvious "unintended consequences" of this nonsense.
Benjamin Franklin was right then and he is right today:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
carsontech
Well-Known Member
Avtomat-Acolyte said:
That's my number one favorite quote... ever.
Enjay
Well-Known Member
I've always been partial to this one:
?And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms?.The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants?
~Thomas Jefferson
?And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms?.The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants?
~Thomas Jefferson
PCShogun
Well-Known Member
carsontech said:
All this happened about 2 years ago. The judge basically told him the same thing and dropped the charge of illegal transportation of a firearm, but it still cost $400 for the lawyer.
carsontech
Well-Known Member
All because a LEO was ignorant of the law, which seems to happens way too often with a subject of firearms, which is very important for a LEO to know. If I was your son, I would have started a suite against the LEA to gain back legal fess from the case where your son was charged, and for him to gain back legal fees for the "retaliation" suite. One of the conditions of the suite would be for the department to train there officers better on the law of possessing and carrying firearms.
