walnut red wrote:When my Brother-in-law from Utah comes to visit he can drive in Ohio on a Utah drivers license, but he is expected to follow Ohio traffic laws.
There's a common sense appeal to that interpretation but let's look at the statutory reasons it is true. When it comes to driver's licenses Ohio statutorily exempts nonresidents from obtaining an Ohio driver's license but there is nothing in the statute exempting them from any other portions of the driving law. Likewise when it comes to concealed carry reciprocity Ohio law has weaved out of state licenses into the definition of "valid concealed handgun license" (see ORC 2923.11 (N)(1)) so they can enjoy the same privileges (and be subject to the same restrictions) as an Ohio-issued licensee.
However when you look at this federal bill it pre-empts
all state and local laws with two limited exceptions:
1) State law that prohibits firearms on government owned property
2) State law that allows private entities to prohibit firearms on their property
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 ... may possess or carry a concealed handgun ... 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
Subsection (b) is what permits the state law exceptions I described in 1 and 2 above.
There's nothing in there about having to follow the other state's concealed handgun law, including notification, obtaining permission to carry in a church, CPZs other than government property and private property, etc.
Therefore those CHL rules are preempted by somebody in compliance with the federal law.
Javelin Man wrote:How many would get jacked up by our current batch of OSP officers who still believe you must notify even if you're not armed?
Probably not too many. Yeah it'd be rough at first but after the state starts paying out under subsections (c) and (d) memos will be distributed and they'll fall into compliance really quickly.
Also I need to correct myself, having re-read section (e) in its entirety. I don't think magazine and ammo limits will be permitted to stand:
The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.
Although if you want to get really nit-picky I think it could be argued that you can't unload a gun with hollow points in NJ. I'd probably still play it safe with respect to that state should I ever have the unfortunate need to be there. Two other gems I found. Carrying on lands* administered by the BLM, NWRs, BLR, and Army Corp of Engineers would become legal and,
perhaps most critically persons carrying under this law would be exempt from the GFSZA.
* I don't know if under federal law the term "lands" includes waters.