Senate bill:
an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm
“(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,
As a professional engineer, I can tell you this is bullshit too. I can’t seal designs in Iowa because Iowa wants $300 from me first, not for any public safety or public interest reasons. And there’s absolutely zero defensible reason that a freaking hairdresser should require licensing at all, let alone be prohibited from working until they get licensed again in a different state.
I’m using fictional examples, so I fully admit I’m glossing over details. Should one of these laws pass, I think we could probably predict that constitutional carry states would likely churn out permits like they were postage stamps.
The House version seems to be a bit looser: “A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.” (bolding mine) This seems to indicate that if your state doesn’t require any permit, then you don’t have to carry it in other states.
I didn’t have any opinion about it at all that I can recall. Even political junkies like me aren’t aware of every last piece of Congressional legislation.
I welcome correction, but I seem to remember that folks used to seek out permits from Utah because the process was easy, the permits were recognized in quite a few states, and they welcomed non-residents to apply. I seem to remember ads in various magazines offering to assist residents from other states in getting a Utah permit.
This is from memory, so I could be wrong, or things could have changed.
There is a general rule for marriage licenses under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but even that yields to a clear public policy exception – in other words, if one state clearly lays out a public policy that disfavors a class of marriages, the FF&C clause may not apply.
Utah is favored because a) many other states accept it, and b) they make it easy for nonresidents to get, yes. But you still have to pay money to sit in a class, and then more money to the state of Utah for fingerprints and background check etc. But I meant that Vermont is not going to give you a permit to carry in Michigan without any test or fees unless you live in Vermont.
Not sure, but interesting point: some states allow you to enjoy the legal rights of marriage without legally marrying (common law marriage). Most don’t allow this. But in most cases (I welcome any exceptions I am unaware of), even if common law marriage will not occur in state A no matter how long you cohabit or what you call yourself, if you have a common law marriage in state B and move to A, it is valid in both.
I agree. There are lots and LOTS of horrible drivers.
I don’t necessarily have much of a problem with a minimum, *reasonable *training qualification. But, in reality, the anti-gun states have just turned this into an expensive barrier for no reason other than to erect hurdles.
It’s well recognized that professional licensing is mostly used for two reasons: a) revenue for the state; and b) to reduce competition for current licensees. If you think there aren’t plenty of lousy license holders in every profession, you haven’t been paying attention.
I am decidedly in favor of gun rights, and I applaud these bills. Of course, I also think there is nothing wrong with the 13 states that have decided that their citizens don’t need to fill out forms, pay fees and jump hurdles to exercise a constitutional right. Furthermore, if this law passes, it will be a well-deserved payback to the states that have been unreasonable and dictatorial to their citizens, and haven’t played fair with visitors, either.
Come to Pennsylvania. No classes, no test, and our license to carry costs $20.00 for five years. Mine runs out next month, so I have to go to the courthouse with a $20.00 money order (credit cards, checks and cash are not accepted). We do have to pass a background check. And, no, there is not wild west mayhem and madness amongst license holders. Probably second-best in the country, next to the constitutional carry states.
It’s not because it was easy, it was because it was accepted in the most states. I have seen Utah-approved classes here in PA, because the combination of having PA and UT permits gets you most of the states that allow reciprocity. Still no good in NY, NJ, MD, etc.
It’s true that Utah’s permit is a popular one. I believe that’s largely due to the low cost and wide recognition. Some states expressed concern to Utah that their residents were bypassing their state’s system and just obtaining a Utah permit, so Utah passed a law that (if you live in a shall-issue state) requires you to obtain a permit from your home state before being issued a Utah permit.
I’d like to be able to travel to any state in the Union and protect myself while doing so
It gives a chance for our brethren trapped “behind enemy lines” (in states that refuse to issue permits) a way to get a permit so that they can protect themselves, at least in some cases.
