# Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act-Good Idea or Not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368 "2017-04-27T15:16:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/101 "2017-04-27T21:16:30Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > While I will agree that it is silly that he got into trouble for not notifying the last cop on the scene, I feel that that is more an issue of police overstepping their authority than a problem with the law. The way I see it, he was in full compliance with the law when he told the first cop. If there is an issue with the way the law is written that allows the police to abuse their authority in this was, then maybe that language should be addressed, but that does not mean that the bill should be scrapped. Most states don’t require notification. Seems to work fine. I’ll be happy if it gets scrapped (although I’m not sure Ohio is up for that yet). ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/102 "2017-04-27T21:17:09Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I could be wrong, but Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and Missouri do not require permits to carry concealed, and Vermont won’t even let you get one if you wanted it, so if there is forced reciprocity with those states, using the language of the house bill that, as I understand it, says that you only have to carry the documentation that you would need in your home state, then all states would have to accept them. > > Also, > Now, I fully admit that I may be misunderstanding these things, bu it does in fact seem that at the very least Virginia, and most likely Vermont, and I think the other states as well will not require a background check before you can take your concealed gun out of the state under this bill. Just to clarify things. Just because a person doesn’t need to undergo a background check doesn’t mean they are legally allowed to carry. If you are a prohibited person due to convictions, a protection from abuse order, or a mental confinement, you cannot own or use a gun, let alone carry one around. These states have not decided that everyone can carry, they have decided that the government shouldn’t set up hurdles and collect fees. In short, if you are not allowed to own or use a gun, you likewise cannot carry one. It should be obvious, and probably is, but I didn’t want people to think that having no permit means having no laws on the issue. As far as carrying out of state, you will still need to comply with federal firearms laws if this law is reconciled and passed. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/103 "2017-04-27T21:22:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Most states don’t require notification. Seems to work fine. I’ll be happy if it gets scrapped (although I’m not sure Ohio is up for that yet). Agree. I see no reason why a cop needs to know if I’m carrying. Letting him know will just create anxiety and probably delay the whole process. From what I read online, notifying the cop often results in the cop disarming the person, which involves lots of unnecessary handling of the gun, usually by someone that may not be familiar with that particular model. But, again, we don’t need to notify in my state. You need to know your state’s law on the matter. But I agree the person who failed to tell the fourth cop clearly met the law when he informed the first officer. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/104 "2017-04-27T21:25:53Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The juxtaposition of your views on states having no say in Federal legislation on the police powers of their jurisdiction, but your complaint about the Federal government changing the designation of Federal lands as an obscene violation of states’ rights, is hard to square. I believe in the full faith and credit clause. > [@](#): > > Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. This (meaning national reciprocity laws - I’m just now reviewing the text of the House version) seems like an appropriate use of that Constitutional power. I don’t see the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act as an affront to the Constitution either. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/105 "2017-04-27T21:27:10Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Not in those terms, no. > > It’s been bandied about as compromise fodder (say, universal carry and universal background checks in the same law) for years. > > The House version applies different rules for different people in the state (eg, in Kentucky you can’t carry in bars, in Kansas you can. Under the House bill, a Kansan could come to Kentucky and carry in a bar, but the locals couldn’t), and thus effectively bars a state from determining where (other than state gov’t buildings) people can carry, or who gets to carry. Stripping the states of their general police power like this is quite radical. I’ve heard plenty of universal carry proposals in my day (as said above, it’s been talked about), but none that just bulldozed the states like this, they were all like the Senate version (nonresidents are treated as though they had the local state permit). OK, I agree that is unusual, and will almost certainly get changed during reconciliation. But I could argue that a Kansan who is used to carrying in bars is not creating any problems by carrying in bars in Kentucky. And he might not be aware of the prohibition - yes, I know it is the citizen’s burden to know the laws, but knowing every law in every county, town, city and state is a bit unrealistic. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/106 "2017-04-27T21:29:05Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > Just to clarify things. Just because a person doesn’t need to undergo a background check doesn’t mean they are legally allowed to carry. If you are a prohibited person due to convictions, a protection from abuse order, or a mental confinement, you cannot own or use a gun, let alone carry one around. These states have not decided that everyone can carry, they have decided that the government shouldn’t set up hurdles and collect fees. In short, if you are not allowed to own or use a gun, you likewise cannot carry one. It should be obvious, and probably is, but I didn’t want people to think that having no permit means having no laws on the issue. > > As far as carrying out of state, you will still need to comply with federal firearms laws if this law is reconciled and passed. Right, but if you are from a state that has a background check before they issue a CCW, then if you get pulled over or questioned in another state, you an just show your CCW, and all should be good. If you are from one of the states that does not require you to apply for a CCW, then if you are out of state with your gun, you just show them your driver’s license, and then it is on the police to run a background check then and there to find out whether or not you are legally carrying. What would be a better bill would be to make a federal CCW, along with federal requirements and background checks that is valid in all the states, but I don’t know if that would pass constitutional muster. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/107 "2017-04-27T21:31:49Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Right, but if you are from a state that has a background check before they issue a CCW, then if you get pulled over or questioned in another state, you an just show your CCW, and all should be good. > > If you are from one of the states that does not require you to apply for a CCW, then if you are out of state with your gun, you just show them your driver’s license, and then it is on the police to run a background check then and there to find out whether or not you are legally carrying. > > What would be a better bill would be to make a federal CCW, along with federal requirements and background checks that is valid in all the states, but I don’t know if that would pass constitutional muster. I see your point, and I think the constitutional carry states will create carry permits for exactly this purpose, if they haven’t already. Except Vermont, which likes to be weird about most everything. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/108 "2017-04-27T21:38:10Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If you are from one of the states that does not require you to apply for a CCW, then if you are out of state with your gun, you just show them your driver’s license, and then it is on the police to run a background check then and there to find out whether or not you are legally carrying. If that’s an attempt to explain how H.R. 38 would operate, I think you’re mistaken. But, it’s possible that I’m mistaken, so let’s examine it (preferably civilly). [Here’s the text of the law](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text): > [@](#): > > H. R. 38 > > To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State. > > IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES > January 3, 2017 > Mr. Hudson (for himself, Mr. Smith of Missouri, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Holding, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Palmer, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Kinzinger, Mr. Thomas J. Rooney of Florida, Mr. Walker, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cook, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Chabot, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Amodei, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia, Mr. Emmer, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. DesJarlais, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Zeldin, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brat, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Yoder, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Cole, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Katko, Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Hill, Mr. Olson, Mr. Harper, Mr. Buck, and Mr. Diaz-Balart) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary > > A BILL > To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State. > > Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, > SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. > > This Act may be cited as the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017”. > > SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS. > > (a) In General.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following: > “§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms > “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, 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. > > “(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that— > > “(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or > > “(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. > > “(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section. > > “(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b). > > “(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee. > > “(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief. > > “(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. > > “(e) In subsection (a): > > “(1) The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals. > > “(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine. > > “(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun. > > “(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public: > > “(A) A unit of the National Park System. > > “(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. > > “(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. > > “(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. > > “(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.”. > > (b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following: > “926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”. > (c) Severability.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. > > (d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. (2)(a) says “a person 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” Let’s talk about Arizona, because it’s an example I’m rather familiar with. Arizona has both a shall-issue CCW permit system, whereby one can obtain an actual physical credit-card-sized permit, and a “constitutional carry” law that allows people in the state to carry guns without the need for obtaining the aforementioned permit. Why would one want to obtain the permit then? To carry in other states. HR 38 seems to allow someone from Arizona who went through the background check and obtained a CCW permit to carry in other states, but not someone who is simply a lawful person who can legally carry within Arizona. What am I missing or mistaken on (remember, civilly please)? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/109 "2017-04-27T22:14:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If that’s an attempt to explain how H.R. 38 would operate, I think you’re mistaken. But, it’s possible that I’m mistaken, so let’s examine it (preferably civilly). > > [Here’s the text of the law](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text): > > (2)(a) says “a person 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” > > Let’s talk about Arizona, because it’s an example I’m rather familiar with. Arizona has both a shall-issue CCW permit system, whereby one can obtain an actual physical credit-card-sized permit, and a “constitutional carry” law that allows people in the state to carry guns without the need for obtaining the aforementioned permit. Why would one want to obtain the permit then? To carry in other states. > > HR 38 seems to allow someone from Arizona who went through the background check and obtained a CCW permit to carry in other states, but not someone who is simply a lawful person who can legally carry within Arizona. What am I missing or mistaken on (remember, civilly please)? I’m looking at (2)(a), and I am not seeing that it requires that the gun owner carry a state issued CCW, just that they have to carry an ID that the state recognizes allows them to carry a gun concealed, and in those states, all that is is a driver’s license or state ID. In vermont, you cannot even get a CCW, what is a vermont resident supposed to show? And this is in addition to the fact that in Virginia, according to the article I cited earlier, does not require a background check before issuing a CCW. Now, the language is ambiguous, so it could go either way, but considering that > [@](#): > > Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section. and > [@](#): > > “(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b). > > “(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee. > > “(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief. Tells me that not only does the presentation of a document that the resident state finds to be acceptable to be enough, but questioning that could get the police officer in trouble, and pressing charges could get not only the cop in trouble, but the whole court system. Now, like I said, it’s ambiguous, and IANAL, so my reading of it may be wrong, but I see no where that explicitly states that they have to get an actual issued CCW for the purposes of reciprocity with other states, and I see quite a number of penalties for any cop or court who gets it wrong and does not accept a person’s ID as a license to carry concealed. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/110 "2017-04-27T22:28:49Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > In vermont, you cannot even get a CCW, what is a vermont resident supposed to show? Vermont residents are probably SOL. Or perhaps they could get a non-resident permit from Maine or elsewhere. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > And this is in addition to the fact that in Virginia, according to the article I cited earlier, does not require a background check before issuing a CCW. That article was not correct. [Here is the actual law for Virginia](http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-308.02/). The last paragraph says: > [@](#): > > An application is deemed complete when all information required to be furnished by the applicant, including the fee for a concealed handgun permit as set forth in § 18.2-308.03, is delivered to and received by the clerk of court before or concomitant with the conduct of **a state or national criminal history records check**. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/111 "2017-04-27T22:29:52Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Now, I fully admit that I may be misunderstanding these things, bu it does in fact seem that at the very least Virginia, and most likely Vermont, and I think the other states as well will not require a background check before you can take your concealed gun out of the state under this bill. You are misunderstanding. The most charitable explanation for the article you quoted is that they’re talking about states that grant a permit without a live-fire test, and indeed Virginia is such a state. So when they say, “Permits from Virginia are valid in North Carolina, and only require applicants to pay a fee, watch a gun safety video, and answer an online questionnaire,” the unspoken addition is “…as opposed to demonstrate competency by firing.” But Virginia does require a background check. Va Code § 18.2-308.02(E), “Application for a concealed handgun permit; Virginia resident or domiciliary,” provides: > [@](#): > > An application is deemed complete when all information required to be furnished by the applicant, including the fee for a concealed handgun permit as set forth in § 18.2-308.03, is delivered to and received by the clerk of court before or **concomitant with the conduct of a state or national criminal history records check.** (emphasis added for clarity) The less charitable explanation, of course, is that the authors of that article were deliberately deceptive. ETA: Ultra-ninja’d with extra red color! ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/112 "2017-04-27T22:33:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > ETA: Ultra-ninja’d with extra red color! LOL. It’s because you spent extra time outlining the most-charitable and less-charitable explanations of the article. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/113 "2017-04-27T22:34:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > LOL. It’s because you spent extra time outlining the most-charitable and less-charitable explanations of the article. 😉 It’s true. Hoist by my own charitard. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/114 "2017-04-27T22:37:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I believe in the full faith and credit clause. That clause is being perfectly implemented today. See prior cites on Supreme Court rulings that leave no doubt as to that conclusion. You’re arguing for Federal preemption of the state police power. > [@](#): > > This (meaning national reciprocity laws - I’m just now reviewing the text of the House version) seems like an appropriate use of that Constitutional power. I don’t see the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act as an affront to the Constitution either. I don’t either, because that law is at it’s heart about interstate commerce. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/115 "2017-04-27T22:40:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re arguing for Federal preemption of the state police power. Could you elaborate on this point a bit more? I’m not sure if you’re misunderstanding my position or I’m misunderstanding your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/116 "2017-04-27T22:48:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > HR 38 seems to allow someone from Arizona who went through the background check and obtained a CCW permit to carry in other states, but not someone who is simply a lawful person who can legally carry within Arizona. What am I missing or mistaken on (remember, civilly please)? I missed it too, but “or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides” sounds like it could allow an Arizonan with no permit to carry in another state. Or, it is meant to apply to police or something, hard to say for sure. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/117 "2017-04-27T23:47:20Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > An admittedly quick perusal of marriage laws shows different age requirements throughout the states. Do states not recognize marriages that are below that state’s age of consent? > > I don’t know, so really asking. There **was** a interesting legal issue when some states would not recognize same sex marriages when others did. Something like you get married to a same sex partner, then go to a state that didn’t recognize it and get married to a opposite sex partner, which is OK as the state didn’t recognize the first marriage, but bigamy in the second state, but you were not married at the time you were married as it was not recognized. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/118 "2017-04-27T23:53:06Z")
How does reciprocity work with Constitutional Carry? I live in Maine, where anyone who is legally allowed to have a gun can conceal carry without needing a permit. If someone from a constiutional carry state(NH,VT,AZ,AK,WV,ME) goes to another state where permits are required, are they allowed to conceal carry there, or must they get an actual permit from that state? ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/119 "2017-04-27T23:59:30Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > How does reciprocity work with Constitutional Carry? I live in Maine, where anyone who is legally allowed to have a gun can conceal carry without needing a permit. > If someone from a constiutional carry state(NH,VT,AZ,AK,WV,ME) goes to another state where permits are required, are they allowed to conceal carry there, or must they get an actual permit from that state? I would suggest that you go to [http://www.handgunlaw.us](http://www.handgunlaw.us) , click on your state and see what it says. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/120 "2017-04-28T00:01:17Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > How does reciprocity work with Constitutional Carry? I live in Maine, where anyone who is legally allowed to have a gun can conceal carry without needing a permit. Reciprocity is a patchwork of agreements, and they change from time to time. For example, Nevada has flip-flopped back and forth in recent years on whether they recognize a Utah permit or not. You can get official lists of which states’ permits are recognized, often on the state government’s website, but a lot of people will just refer to sites like this: [http://www.handgunlaw.us/](http://www.handgunlaw.us/). > [@](#): > > If someone from a constiutional carry state(NH,VT,AZ,AK,WV,ME) goes to another state where permits are required, are they allowed to conceal carry there, or must they get an actual permit from that state? They must get a permit _recognized_ by that state, but it does’t necessarily have to be _issued_ by that state. For example, if you live in Maine, and want to visit Utah, you could get an Arizona permit and come carry here without issue. ETA: but it’s probably easiest to get your home state permit, assuming you live in a shall-issue state like Maine ([Maine’s CCW permit appears to be recognized in 27 states](http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/maine.pdf)) ETA: And now it’s my turn to be ninja’d by Orwell [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368.md?page=7)