OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

Our Director of Media Relations, Phil Mulivor, has put in many hours to create OFCC's official position paper regarding concealed carry license and permit reciprocity among the states.

We'll get it posted on the main page shortly, but since it's officially released, I wanted to get it in front of anyone interested in seeing/reading it.

It's a good read when you consider it's aimed at our federal legislators. :wink:

You can download a copy here.
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
rainmaker
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:18 am
Location: Middletown, Ohio

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by rainmaker »

Thanks for posting, and thanks to all for all the hard work in drafting this. We've a better chance now for national reciprocity than ever before.
Steve
NRA member (long, long time)
NMLRA member (even longer)
OFCC member, BFA member
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by JustaShooter »

For the TL;DR folks, OFCC supports interstate reciprocity under the following 4 conditions:
1. A concealed carry reciprocity statute must entitle an individual holding any state’s concealed carry license or permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues its own license or permit, or that allows concealed carry without a permit (e.g., Vermont). An individual who may lawfully carry a concealed handgun in their state without a permit must be entitled to carry a concealed handgun in any state that issues a license or permit, or that allows concealed carry without a permit. Washington, DC must be included in interstate reciprocity as if it was a state.
2. The statute must not establish national standards or prerequisites for concealed carry permits nor otherwise preempt states’ permit procedures or firearm laws (except as noted in item 1). Neither must the statute establish any registration mechanism or database. In our view, these activities fail to comport with the Tenth Amendment. Accordingly, the statute’s title should not contain the word “national.”
3. To foreclose discrimination in states hostile to Second Amendment rights, a concealed carry reciprocity law must contain substantive legal safeguards for traveling permit holders, as well as meaningful penalties for states and their subdivisions that subtly or overtly disfavor lawful permit-holding guests.
4. The text of the interstate reciprocity statute must be strategically hardened against constitutional challenges.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by WestonDon »

A very well thought out position paper indeed. Thank you for all your hard work Philip.

This paper covers issues I had not even thought of but I have a couple questions. I see reference to two states that apparently have a 2 tier license system. Could that be a potential problem? Also what about state restrictions on firearms and ammunition capacity? Perhaps that's just something we will just have to deal with.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by JustaShooter »

WestonDon wrote:what about state restrictions on firearms and ammunition capacity? Perhaps that's just something we will just have to deal with.
Firearm registration laws, firearm type prohibitions, ammo type restrictions, ammo capacity restrictions - yes, there are a number of state laws that give me pause as well. To that point, I have seen two different opinions, both by very knowledgeable people whose opinions I value, come to completely different conclusions on that topic. Unfortunately, I think we will have to see how it plays out (assuming this even becomes law in its current form). So, bottom line you won't see me carry under this Act into enemy territory until and unless it is resolved.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by djthomas »

WestonDon wrote:Also what about state restrictions on firearms and ammunition capacity? Perhaps that's just something we will just have to deal with.
In the current proposal they have included ammunition and magazines in the definition of handgun, so the intent to preempt is there. How it would play out in certain jurisdictions remains to be seen.
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by Brian D. »

It was maybe what, 80 some years ago that states all finally agreed to reciprocity of drivers' licenses? There must have been similar legal, uh, bumps in the road along the way. And let's face it, even now such laws still vary from one locale to another.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Dr. Detroit
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:18 pm

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by Dr. Detroit »

WestonDon wrote:A very well thought out position paper indeed. Thank you for all your hard work Philip.
You're welcome. Thanks for reading all 4,800 words and 63 footnotes. :shock:
WestonDon wrote:Also what about state restrictions on firearms and ammunition capacity?
The way the bill is now written (see H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017), your Ohio CHL would be recognized in the state you're visiting as if it was that state's own permit. Accordingly, you'd be bound by all the firearms laws of that state. So you're right -- in NY you would have magazine capacity restrictions to consider. On the bright side, you'd have no LEO notification requirement.

Phil
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

WestonDon wrote:A very well thought out position paper indeed. Thank you for all your hard work Philip.

This paper covers issues I had not even thought of but I have a couple questions. I see reference to two states that apparently have a 2 tier license system. Could that be a potential problem? Also what about state restrictions on firearms and ammunition capacity? Perhaps that's just something we will just have to deal with.
Both are valid issues (multi-tier licensing and equipment regulations) but are secondary to establishing reciprocity. There will doubtless be follow-up lawsuits.

I can drive in another state on a learner's permit, a probationary licence or a regular license. Also, I can drive my non-California compliant car or motorcycle into California on a temporary basis without having to register the vehicle in that state or having to certify my vehicle emissions.

We can hope these approaches are used with reciprocity.
MyWifeSaidYes
troy bilt
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:53 pm
Location: Norwalk
Contact:

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by troy bilt »

Wow amazing job on this. Thank you for your time and hard work.

I will admit I have been on the fence on this. You make some very great points that I now have to consider.
I have struggled with dyslexia my entire life. I know it's spelled wrong but thanks for pointing it out.
Dr. Detroit
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:18 pm

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by Dr. Detroit »

troy bilt wrote:Thank you for your time and hard work.
You're welcome. Thanks for reading the paper.

Here's what I think is going to happen:
1. The reciprocity bill will become law during 2017. The bill already has 150+ sponsors and Trump, our permit-holder-in-chief, has promised to sign.
2. After an initial backlash from the May-Issue states, those states will realize over the next couple years that they can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Most will implement reasonable shall-issue programs and some of the worst state laws (like NY's SAFE Act) will be repealed.
3. By 2022, we'll have 25+ states with permitless carry (we're nearly half-way there now). At least 48 states will have shall-issue programs.
4. Happy days are here again.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4783
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by M-Quigley »

Dr. Detroit wrote:
troy bilt wrote:Thank you for your time and hard work.
You're welcome. Thanks for reading the paper.

Here's what I think is going to happen:
1. The reciprocity bill will become law during 2017. The bill already has 150+ sponsors and Trump, our permit-holder-in-chief, has promised to sign.
2. After an initial backlash from the May-Issue states, those states will realize over the next couple years that they can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Most will implement reasonable shall-issue programs and some of the worst state laws (like NY's SAFE Act) will be repealed.
3. By 2022, we'll have 25+ states with permitless carry (we're nearly half-way there now). At least 48 states will have shall-issue programs.
4. Happy days are here again.


And regarding the bolded, the may issue states that don't change to shall issue will eventually have to explain to the residents of their state why they aren't as worthy to carry as out of state visitors.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by djthomas »

Dr. Detroit wrote:The way the bill is now written (see H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017), your Ohio CHL would be recognized in the state you're visiting as if it was that state's own permit. Accordingly, you'd be bound by all the firearms laws of that state. So you're right -- in NY you would have magazine capacity restrictions to consider.
Curious where that assessment comes from. There's nothing in there about your permit being as if it was the same as the visited state's permit. What it says is you are appropriately licensed (or exempt in your home state) and the visited state issues permits to its own residents then you may carry a concealed handgun* notwithstanding all state and local laws to the contrary with two exceptions related to CPZs.

As an example, the preemption language is almost identical to that used in LEOSA. One of the first federal court cases on LEOSA concerned some out of state cops who were carrying in a bar in South Dakota. At the time, persons with SD CHLs were not permitted to carry in liquor establishments. Simply put, the court found that the because the officers met the qualification requirements stipulated in the federal statute, the state firearms laws were preempted. I see nothing in preemption language of HR 38 that makes me think it would operate any differently.

* Handgun is further defined to also include the magazine and all ammunition.

As to the political viability the House is not an issue. The real question becomes the Senate since the (D)s still hold filibuster power. Either a lot of horse trading will have to occur to get a lot of the (D)s up for re-elction in Trump states to go along with it or they'll have to stick it on some must pass bill and have the (guts) to stand up to the (D)s when they threaten to shut the government down and the media goes along with the usual blame the (R)s strategy.

Assuming it does get to Trump's desk I would not be surprised if it looked rather different than it does today.
docachna
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:26 am
Location: Mount Juliet TN

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by docachna »

I've been really torn about interstate reciprocity. I know the arguments both ways, but it's along the line of the issues about property owners' rights vs. gun owners' rights --- I'm still just really hesitant to start chipping away at states' rights with THIS particular vehicle.

I still just really don't know............ :?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: OFCC Position on Interstate Reciprocity

Post by djthomas »

docachna wrote:I've been really torn about interstate reciprocity. I know the arguments both ways, but it's along the line of the issues about property owners' rights vs. gun owners' rights --- I'm still just really hesitant to start chipping away at states' rights with THIS particular vehicle.
Prior to about 1934 I would have agreed with you. But now, IMO, there are no states rights left to be chipped away with respect to firearms that have entered interstate commerce. Legislative and judicially that ship has sailed. Now it's really about equal rights. On this particular topic they already decided over 10 years ago that that some retired cop or corrections officer from New Jersey who would have gladly shipped you up the river if you dared carry a single round of ammo in his state must be allowed to carry in ours, disregarding our rules about drinking in bars if it suits his fancy.

As long as LEOSA remains on the books, private citizens must be afforded the same or substantially similar accommodations. There's no way in heck LEOSA is ever getting repealed so I say there's nothing morally or constitutionally superior about dying disarmed in New York* when you're sent for a work trip merely because you aren't someone who does or did hold a privileged vocation.

* Or any other place along the eastern seaboard if your travel includes flying through NY or NJ, or the risk of being diverted there, even if you could otherwise carry at your destination.
Post Reply