Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Connect with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Read up on the latest product reviews
  • Make new friends to go shooting with!
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.

Certain States Not Accepting Others States CCW

Discussion in 'Important Gun Control Info' started by Silver_Bullet_00, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. Silver_Bullet_00


    Mar 8, 2011
    Article 4 of the Constitution of the United States Section 2 -
    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    So why can those who conceal carry with a permit in one state, not carry in certain other states?

    This would be the same thing as California or New York telling me that I can not Drive in their state and not honoring my NC Drivers License. That would be unconstitutional, per Article 4 Section 2.
  2. 1gewehr


    Mar 22, 2006
    Mid TN
    This argument has been made before. But, the states have differing requirements for CCW. In TN a person has to complete 8 hours of classroom instruction and take a range test to get a handgun license. That is state law. In Arizona, a person just has to be vertical and breathing to carry (and a non-felon, etc). The difference in requirements is why states have to grant each other reciprocity. And since it is flat out illegal to carry concealed in IL (unless you are a cop, crook, or politician), there is no way to have reciprocity.

    Further, a CCW is not required to satisfy the 2nd Amendment. You can own and transport firearms without a CCW.

    The argument is that a CCW has the same relationship to firearms ownership that a Commercial Driver's License does to driving. Just because you have the license to drive a car, does not give you the right to drive a tractor-trailer load of explosives. Likewise, your right to have a shotgun or rifle does not give you the right to carry a concealed handgun (except in some states).

    Don't attack ME! I do not agree with that thought process. Personally, I think that we all have the right to carry whatever we like in whatever manner we desire. I've argued enough with gun control advocates that I know their arguments.

  3. ce1lardoor


    Jan 17, 2012
    That was well thought out and very helpful. Thank you for the response.


    Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk
  4. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    That answer deserves a stickled thread spot. :perfect10:
  5. TSAX


    Jun 5, 2010
    Like preciously said, since so many different states have different qualifications for getting a CCW/CHL/CPL/you get the point, some states wont take/recognize other states licenses. Fair or not, looking from a states' point of view that requires you to qualify or have a safety class if someone who got a license from another state without anything except for a back round check. That state may want to be held liable or allow a person who no one knows if they are trained or not, since the other state requirements dont include any safety training.

    Also some states renewals are longer than others and by requiring out of state people to take a class or apply for an out of state license they make some extra cash. In NV they require that you take a course and demonstrate an ability to hit the target making someone to train and be responsible, which is not a bad thing considering there are so many irresponsible people and bad shots.

    In CA, in the major cities your chances are very slim, in smaller more rural areas you have a better chance to apply for one but still have to take a class. In WA, I pasted my background check and got it in the mail. I know if I had to qualify I could but I do worry about those who cant.

    Last edited: Apr 4, 2012
  6. Norske

    Norske Millennium Member

    Mar 24, 1999
    What a lot of gun-oriented, pro-CCW people do not understand is that we can think what the 2nd Amendment means, but until the SCotUS rules on it, the States can act on their own interpretation.

    The 2ndAm has four components. "Militia use". "Keep". "Bear". "Gov. shall not infringe".

    Until the landmark SCotUS "Heller" decision there was nothing nailing down what any of the four were and how they applied to individuals.

    The States could, and did, and still do to some extent, point to the "Militia" language and say that the "Right" tK&BA only applies to a "militia" context. That is, if an individual was not a member of a government-recognized "militia", that individual had no RtK&BA.

    Heller finally knocked that in the head, ruling that there is an individual right to "Keep" arms in the home.

    The follow-up "McDonald" decision extended that from the Federal down through the State, County, and local levels as well.

    But. Heller and McDonald only apply inside your home. They do not (yet) extend beyond your front door.

    That is the "Bear" part of the equation.

    Based on the Heller and McDonald precedents, there are many cases making their slow paths though the courts to settle the "Bear" question. Mostly having to do with denial of CCWs in "discretionary" CCW states like Maryland, New Jersey, California, and what have you. Illinois as well.

    Until then, states that are inclined against CCW will continue to make life hard for those of us who favor CCW for as long as they can continue to get away with it. Not only continue to deny CCW to their own citizens, but deny reciprocity rights to those in other states as well.

    But the tide is definitely in our favor on this.
  7. Silver_Bullet_00


    Mar 8, 2011
    I actually was trying to make a point. I put it in a question format to see others opinions.

    Technically CCW permits are unconstitutional per 2nd Amendment ( the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. )

    To infringe means, (Act so as to limit or undermine something).

    So if states require someone to have a permit to carry open or concealed, they are infringing a persons right to bear arms. SC for example is not an open carry state, therefore a person must have a CCW to carry.

    To learn what the 2nd amendment means, one needs only to study the founders intentions, by reading our historical documents. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a “well-regulated militia,” it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so. The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed.

    The answer actually makes little sense, as States also have different requirements for driving, such as age, and time one must have a permit ect. No states should require citizens to have a permit to carry, and all states should allow citizens to carry, in order to comply with the 2nd amendment and Artical 4.

    Using a Shotgun is to a Pistol as a Car is to a Tractor Trailer Comparison also makes no constitutional reasonable argument (This argument is very Liberal.) , as there is no amendment which specifically protects ones right to drive, like there is an amendment which specifically protects ones right to bear arms. Furthermore one does not have to be licensed to shoot a gun (be it a pistol or shotgun), like one must be licensed in a specific class (a,b,c ect) to drive a car or tractor trailer .
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2012
  8. Norske

    Norske Millennium Member

    Mar 24, 1999
    What you, me, or anyone else think the 2nd Am "means" does not mean squat until the SCotUS agrees with your interpretation.

    So far, the only thing that the SCotUS agrees with us on is that we have the right to have arms in our homes.

    And that that right must be respected at all levels of government, whether the government in question is Federal, State, County or City.

    And that is ALL.

    So go ahead and carry your arms outside your house in any fashion you chose.

    And don't be surprised if some LEO arrests you because you violated some law that the SCotUS has not yet ruled is unconstitutional under the 2nd Am.

    Go right ahead.

    You can be the test case that goes to the SCotUS on it. Like Heller and McDonald did.

    In the meantime of course, you will be seeing some jail time and spending thousands of dollars to fight your case through the courts until the SCotUS does agree with you.

    Go right ahead. :dunno:
  9. Silver_Bullet_00


    Mar 8, 2011
    I don't know why you want to make an argument as it seems we agree for the most part.

    It's not mine or your your interpretation of the law, it is the founders intent! If those with common sense would read the founders intent, they would understand the second amendment.

    I am not going to carry in a risky manner outside my home, nor would I advise others to do so until there is a ruling on interpretation. I agree with you.

    But I will continue to state and voice what the proper meaning of the second amendment and fourth article is though. The reason politicians and government can take advantage of us (enact to many regulations), is because there are too many of us who are unaware of our rights. It's time to speak up! The only way to get people to speak up and make politicians aware that we know what our constitutional rights are, is to inform the public of our constitutional rights. Until then, the Liberal Socialists will keep trying to regulate us.

    So I will continue to be an avid speaker on this issue. I am not telling anyone to go take a risk, but I am telling everyone to let your voice be heard, that you know what our rights are supposed to be.

    As far as a carrying "outside the home risk", I'm glad I live in a rural North Carolina County. NC is an Open Carry State, and there are no local laws prohibiting open carry in my area of the state, unless your toting around a full auto or something and disturbing the peace shooting things up :tongueout: Property Owners reserve rights to have rules on their property regarding firearms though, (as should be the case).

    I also think a ban on full auto infringes our right to bear arms, and I will state that, but I am not recommending anyone to have a full auto, and would not have one myself. Full auto weapons are the arms of today's government militia, and if we the people can not own them, we average citizens can not form a formidable militia ( which is the purpose of the second amendment if one would read the founders intent!), so our right is being infringed. The reason for the second amendment is so the people can protect themselves from both foreign and domestic threats, including our own government if it was to grow into a powerful dictator ship or oppress the people. The founders realized armed citizens keeps everyone in check and in-line.

    So far I can't be arrested for speaking my opinion, or rather the founders intent (as stated clearly in writing by the founders themselves) , not yet at least! We might be getting close to that point soon though.
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2012
  10. Norske

    Norske Millennium Member

    Mar 24, 1999
    You are talking theory.

    I understand the theory.

    I am talking practical reality.

    To reclaim our rights under the 2nd Amendment, we have to do it in stages. There is no other way.

    As I said, of the four concepts under the 2nd AM, only two have been settled by SCotUS. Only two have been decided in our (pro-gun) favor.

    "Militia", "Keep", "Bear", and "Do not infringe".

    Only the "Militia" and "Keep" issues have been decided by SCotUS.

    "Bear" is currently in process.

    We cannot move on to, or get get any ruling on, "Do not infringe" until "Bear" has been decided by SCotUS in our favor.

    I expect it eventually will so decide in our favor. The 42 States that have enacted "shall issue" CCW laws have already conceded the "Bear" argument in our favor. Those many states that still allow ownership of Class III weapons also agree with this on the "Do not Infringe" question.

    What you or I think the "founders intent" was is not so important as what the SCotUS decides what it was.

    Heller and McDonald were the cracks in the anti-gun dam. The cracks will continue to widen until the "Bear" and "Infringe" questions are decided and bring the entire dam down. It will continue to take time, but eventually, the flood is inevitable.

    In the meantime, we need to continue to support our pro-gun views as much as possible.

    The House of Representatives passed a 50-State CCW measure that of course, died in the fundamentally anti-gun Democratic controlled Senate.

    But the momentum is clearly on our side. :cool:
  11. Silver_Bullet_00


    Mar 8, 2011
    I completely agree with you, except for the statement where you said I am talking theory. It is a fact that we will have to go through steps to gain our rights back, as you stated. My words which I shared are not theory, as the founder who wrote the second amendment and founders who supported it, stated in writing what the intent was. What better way to decide the meaning, than by looking at the writings of the founders who created or supported the bill of rights. For anyone including the SCotUS to interoperate it any other way than what the founders intention was, is a travesty and oppression of the people. :cool:

    Some Quotes from our founders (the ones who wrote and supported the bill of rights):

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognised by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

    "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution,

    "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

    "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

    "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
    "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

    "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." George Mason

    "The Constitution shall never be prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

    There are many more quotes from the author and supporters.
    And finally I'll end with a case law.

    " 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

    "The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
    "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

    "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
  12. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do NOT believe that the tide is in our favour on 2A, RTBA and gun control in general. In fact, it seems to me that the SCOTUS is but ONE SINGLE VOTE away from overturning the meaning of the second amendment AND we have President Obama in office and ready to stack that vote in his favour as soon as possible. Further, the President is using executive privilege to push for change AGAINST gun owners. And Congress, while still having the House controlled by the Republicans, is looking like they just might put another "assault rifle" (sic) ban in place, thanks to Feinstein, et. al., and political soapboxing.

    Let me throw this out there for discussion purposes only (it does not represent my gut feeling, which is that the 2A is the RTKBA concealed or openly, without infringement..... but for discussion purposes have a quick read and comment....


    I have to travel through NY state to get where I want to go stateside and to get back to Canada; I live in BOTH countries and am a US citizen as well as a Canadian citizen. HERE is the way I think this thing may play out at the Federal Level and hopefully at the state level as well.

    1. The fact is that gun owners are going to lose ground. Period. The Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, but with this right there are mitigating circumstances that need to be addressed and I am afraid that we are going to have to give up a little to maintain and gain some.

    2. The Assault Weapons Ban does nothing to define what an assault weapon is. An assault weapon is a select fire (full auto) firearm meant for assaulting a position in combat. The fact that a rifle has a forward shroud, a handgrip, a flash suppressor, etc., does not make it an assault rifle. FULL AUTO capability makes it an assault rifle and I have no problem with making it necessary to have a license to own same; these laws are presently on the books in fact. And accessories or modifications to permit full auto, likewise, should require the same Federal license and 'bump-stocks' are included in this. We need to face the fact that this is going to happen whether we want it or not and that the Supreme Court will ultimately support this (it is the same as Freedom of Expression and hollering "FIRE" in a crowded theatre).

    3. New York has already restricted magazine capacity to 7 rounds. THIS is excessive. Fact. A Federal law, pre-empting all state laws, IS going to happen. I would suggest that we look to having magazines restricted to ten rounds if we cannot bypass restrictions completely. And thirty round magazines currently in our possession, rather than being turned in and scrapped, be allowed to be PINNED with a rivet to ten rounds. Those found in possession of thirty round magazines will be severely punished obviously.

    4. All gun transfers of any kind must require a NICS check and the Federal Government needs to fund the NICS system and make it available by phone and online for EVERYONE to be able to check both the buyers red/green light status and THEIR OWN red/green light status. A reasonable system of contesting NICS status needs to be put in place.

    5. Despite Senator Feinstein's assertions to the contrary, there are few AR improvements in the past decades. Slide-stocks, again, must be considered as conversion to full select fire (auto) and be prohibited with penalties that have teeth for those that can't heed the law of the land. These laws, in fact, are already in place. They need simply to be elaborated upon and ENFORCED. Empirical data shows that a so-called "assault weapons ban" does nothing to reduce violent crime and may, in fact, do the opposite.

    6. Establishment of a FEDERAL UNIVERSAL NATIONAL RECIPROCITY LAW for all concealed carry permit holders who have been vetted via NICS and have basic firearms training from NRA or any other suitable national organization. Your concealed carry permit issued in any state is good anywhere in the land. Period. (The bad guys don't bother with concealed carry permits).

    7. Federal pre-emptive law that makes the reporting of mental health issues, felony convictions, etc., mandatory with penalty for same that has teeth.

    8. Improvement of our mental health awareness and treatment programs.

    9. Prosecution under existing laws for use of a firearm in a criminal offense, illegal possession of a firearm, careless storage of a firearm, etc. Laws are IN PLACE!

    10. Federal pre-emptive laws dealing with safe storage of firearms. If the firearm is not on your person or under your control it needs to be locked up including trigger or action locks or rendered inoperative.

    11. We, as gun owners, and in especially the NRA, needs to take key empirical data regarding gun law and violent crime and place it before the people and the legislators. For instance, the fact that violent crime in terms of murder rate in America has dropped by something in the order of 50% since 1993, including the period that we had a Federal "Assault Weapons Ban" in force.

    I am sure that there will be many that are going to disagree and holler the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under 2A, but the fact is that in an all or nothing situation, which this may turn into, compromise is necessary to satisfy all parties. Are we not responsible gun owners? I own several AR's and I want to keep them. That they have ten or 30 round magazines is of little urgency to me if push comes to shove. If five ten round magazines don't do the job for me during a crisis, then five 30 round magazines are going to make little difference.

    More than anything else, we need to eliminate gun-free zones. Period! Gun-free zones are simply killing zones and are the height of stupidity. They give the felons and whackos a shopping list of locations at which they are free to ply their nefarious trade without fear of opposition, especially armed opposition. There must be NO gun free zones with the odd exception.

    Enough of travelling through states where you may not carry and your firearm must be locked in the trunk or in a minisafe. I am not licensed in the State of Florida, yet it is at the home of Mickey Mouse where we were bumped from the rear and had an attempted carjacking while unable to protect ourselves. Never again.

    Perhaps I am out of line on some of my suggestions. For some of you, I know that your interpretation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Rest assured it is no longer absolute in the hands of the Supreme Court, either now or in the near future.

    Mayor Bloomberg of New York City prohibited the National Guard from rendering assistance immediately after Hurricane Sandy. Why? Because they carry guns. Yet he has no issue with NY City LEO's shooting up innocent bystanders while taking down a felon.

    I have my flame suit on and am open to suggestions as others see them. One last thing and that is simply this: for those of us that travel from state to state at times, it is a pain to have to travel through a state without stopping while carrying a firearm locked in the trunk. The national reciprocity law would deal with this succinctly.

    Thanks for reading.

    P.S. I cannot overemphasize the fear and long-term effects of an attempted carjacking or home invasion. It is, I believe, the god given right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, wherever they are in our nation, to protect themselves and their loved ones. We had an attempted home invasion three years ago by armed thugs. I told the 911 operator that I was gearing up to protect my family and was told to "not get excited and gather my family in a safe room in the house". My response? "There is no safe room in the house with two armed thugs breaking in.... if they enter they are leaving feet first". A minute later there were a dozen police cars on my property and the thugs were taken down at gunpoint. Hurrah for LEO's!!! Only thing is, it could have been 45 seconds too late. So, I am a firm believer in the right of every human being on the planet to protect themselves and a great believer in 2A. Unfortunately, many misinformed Americans are NOT. Until they have a .45 barrel pointed at their nose as I did in Orlando.

  13. MajorD


    Aug 16, 2010
    While I totally agree reciprocity should be across the board, unlike driver lisc where every state has a road test, ccw requirement is so variable in each jurisdiction that there is simply no standard to judge for reciprocity
  14. Going back to consider the original intent and writings behind the Constitution is SO not with it! Surely you have heard the Constitution is a living document and that awkward pesky amendment process is so out of date in these modern times.

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  15. Steve83

    Steve83 Bronco guru

    Old thread...

    Let's assume for a moment that every law regarding law-abiding citizens keeping & bearing arms is NOT an infringement, and that a Constitutional amendment was NOT necessary for those rights to be taken away from us.

    Now, let's expand our gaze to EVERY OTHER RIGHT guaranteed in the Constitution...

    Now, let's focus in on those which are NOT above "infringement" - IOW, the entire Constitution (since "infringement" is only excluded from the 2ndA).

    Should I have to pay a government-regulated instructor to take an 8-hour class before I can surrender fingerprints, be photographed, pay even more directly to the government, and then wait for a revocable card to arrive in the mail before I can:
    -assemble & petition the government for redress of greivances?
    -pursue happiness?
    -practice a religion?
    -bear (in my house, outside, in a public park, in a courtroom, in the White House) arms (of any kind that I choose, whether a pistol, rifle, knife, artillery piece, potato cannon, squirt gun, neutron bomb, or any other arm whether recognized by the state as such or not)?

    Think about those carefully. What would happen if we required minorities &/or women to pay for a class and a license before they could vote, and then made them wait a week before actually allowing it to happen (after the election was over)? And if we threatened to revoke that license if they voted in a way not sanctioned by the government?

    That's how UNINFRINGEABLE the RtKaBA is right now today. Why do we (as a nation of AMERICANS) tolerate it???

    How can the 2ndA be UNinfringed today when all our INFRINGEABLE rights are less-regulated? Isn't that a simple & absolute test as to what qualifies as "infringement"?
    Well, as long as we actually keep & bear our arms, what SCotUS agrees with doesn't mean squat unless we accept their decision. Remember the preamble to the DoI...
    SCotUS derives its powers from us. If SCotUS begins to destroy our rights, we have not only the right, but the DUTY to abolish it, and any other part of our government that we (as a WHOLE - not a radical individual or tiny group) don't like.
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2014