Can you CCW across state lines?
 

I read the senate bill, which I thought were a bit unclear around the language and terms specific to carrying across state lines. It seems that the general rule is that if the state you are going to has at least as rigid requirements as the state you are issued your ccw in, it is ok.

Anyone here have any experience crossing state lines and ccw?

Thanks,

JA

Wikipedia says this:

"Careful review of differences in state laws, despite the existence of reciprocal recognition of CCW licenses, should always be made prior to making any trips across state lines."

Dave

Good place to start....

http://www.packing.org/state/all_united_states/image.php?stateimage=117

yep.........az-utah-colo-new mexico-texas. no problemos. only twist is colorado. they do not want you to have a round in pipe while driving. other than that biz as usual. same laws almost exactly. read the fine print. in az and new mexico on the rez is a sovereign nation, and different laws. but on highway going thru you are under state laws. ask me how i know???

stop in dulce new mex. to take pics of narrow gauge r.r. car. had left los alamos national labs, earlier in day. dressed in dress slacks/polo dress shirt and tie. have jicarillia apache lil female cop, stop. ask me what im doing. i explain its pretty obvious, i'm taking pics. wants to see lic/reg. ask me if i have any weapons. "yep" i said. backs up, commands me to place hands on hood. calls backup. lil 5 ft rambo indian pulls up. dressed in camo and packing (2) 9mm's with (4) 4-pak bianchi combat mag carriers! run me. run truck, run beretta. all come up clean. tell me i can leave. no explanation, no nothing. was on state highway. everytime i go thru there.............i just keep on driving!

rule to live by dealing with the rez. only time you have weapon is passing thru or when you have hunting lic. and tag!!!! whole 'nother world being on rez!

Flying to Denver today...so yes, again.

What the bill is trying to do is to make the Concealed Handgun Licenses from each state be accepted by each other state, like driver's licenses. The bill puts together the requirements for carry, if a state does not have licenses to carry (2 don't - Illinois and Wisconson). If a state has laws already, those take precedence.

The good - It will allow we CHL holders to carry in any of the 50 states and territories.

The bad - We already have this right, unconstitutionally taken away.

I personally have mixed feelings on this. I like the idea of demostrated proficiency with firearms before someone can carry. But, the 2nd amendment isn't about that.

Some states recognize some other states CCW permits, some dont. As a bonus, some states issue non-resident permits - for example, if you live in Utah, you can get a non-resident Florida CC permit and carry anywhere a Florida permit is recognised. I think what the bill is going to do is make it like drivers licenses.

Wouldn't it be a b*tch if you could use a Florida DL in Florida, Georgia, and Minnesota but nowhere else in the country?

Illinois doesn't recognize anyone's CCW.

+1

I feel that 'right to carry' states have it wrong. There should be some kind of firearm training involved before a permit is issued. This would serve as a good weeding mechanism for folks that perhaps should stick with sling shots.

is 2 days of class= 20hrs enough? and a city/county/state/federal background check? and a 100 dollar bill? and recerted every 2 years?

That's a very slippery slope. What other intrinsic rights as humans should be licensed? Should there be state testing to ensure citizens meet their standards prior to issuing a license to exercise a right? I don't think we even want to go there, but I guess we already have.

The danger in state licensing is that they gain control of some sort of standard, that they set, for obtaining that license. Look at California for a great example of this. While it is legal to get a CCW in that state, the licensing requirements are so onerous as to make it practically impossible.

The "shall issue" states (like ours) are closer to having it right. States like Wyoming, that do not address this whatsoever, do have it right. There are no laws concerning carry, concealed or not, in that state. They officially don't give a *****. Do what you want; it's up to you and it's no one elses' business, including the state's. That's the way it should be everywhere, following the Second Amendment literally. "shall not be impinged" means just that; no licensing, no control, no tracking; nothing. We should be as free to carry as we are free to breathe, to walk around the block; whatever. Those that are uncomfortable with that need to change the amendment, not pass illegal local, state, or federal laws that regulate it.

HardDrive - "right to carry" or "shall issue" states have it right actually. For example, in NY and CA, there is no shall-issue. The judges and sherrifs get permits, as do their friends and fishing buddys, but your average un-connected citizen - even with no convictions, arrests, etc. and with training, etc - can't get a permit. The "right to carry" and "shall issue" laws are merely getting rid of the good-ol-boy network. Still gotta be legal to own, etc. - it just evens the playing ground for everyone.