CCW Question

[Badlands Beady]

I was browsing the CCW laws of various states, and a question occurred. I live in Vermont, which has an absolute right to possess and carry; no permits are needed or issued for any purpose. In order to carry in another state, I would generally have to obtain an out-of-state permit from the state I plan to visit, or get an out-of-state permit from a third state and depend on reciprocity between states 2 and 3. The thing is, some states (Michigan, in this case) only recognise out-of-state permits issued to residents of those states. I could obtain a New Hampshire permit (New Hampshire having reciprocity with Michigan), but Michigan would not recognize it because I'm not a New Hampshire resident.

 

So, can a Vermont resident *ever* carry in Michigan?

[Blue Steel Duke]

I was browsing the CCW laws of various states, and a question occurred. I live in Vermont, which has an absolute right to possess and carry; no permits are needed or issued for any purpose. In order to carry in another state, I would generally have to obtain an out-of-state permit from the state I plan to visit, or get an out-of-state permit from a third state and depend on reciprocity between states 2 and 3. The thing is, some states (Michigan, in this case) only recognise out-of-state permits issued to residents of those states. I could obtain a New Hampshire permit (New Hampshire having reciprocity with Michigan), but Michigan would not recognize it because I'm not a New Hampshire resident.

 

So, can a Vermont resident *ever* carry in Michigan?

A unique situation I've never thought about. I would guess you could take one of the numerous non-resident courses and then have reciprocity. You would then have an advantage over some people, for example here in Indiana, Ohio doesn't recognize our LTCH permit, but does have reciprocity with some state's non-resident permit.

 

BSD

[Badlands Beady]

I would guess you could take one of the numerous non-resident courses and then have reciprocity.

 

But the problem is that Michigan (just as an example) does not recognize or issue non-resident permits. Being a Vermonter, I have a "virtual" permit within Vermont, but Michigan (and most other states) doesn't recognize virtual permits, either.

[Utah Bob #35998]

No.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

No.

 

Same for CA.

LG

[Blue Steel Duke]

But the problem is that Michigan (just as an example) does not recognize or issue non-resident permits. Being a Vermonter, I have a "virtual" permit within Vermont, but Michigan (and most other states) doesn't recognize virtual permits, either.

So Michigan doesn't recognize any of the non-resident permits? I find that odd since they acknowledge an Indiana LTCH permit which is issued with no training or verification of skills, and the non-resident permits require a course and return demo.

 

BSD

[Bucky Buscadero, SASS #73085]

 

According to CarryConcealed.net:

 

States that Honor Vermont's CCW "Permit":

Florida, Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, Vermont

 

 

Go to this link for info on state CCW laws, reciprocity details, etc:

 

carryconcealed.net

 

As with anything of importance, you should verify anything you read on the net. Hope that helps.

 

Bucky

[Badlands Beady]

So Michigan doesn't recognize any of the non-resident permits? I find that odd since they acknowledge an Indiana LTCH permit which is issued with no training or verification of skills, and the non-resident permits require a course and return demo.

 

BSD

 

Don't take my word for it: http://www.nraila.org/recmap/michiganrec.pdf "All state permits recognized, as long as permit holder is resident of issuing state." (my underlining)

[Utah Bob #35998]

Don't take my word for it: http://www.nraila.org/recmap/michiganrec.pdf "All state permits recognized, as long as permit holder is resident of issuing state." (my underlining)

 

More and more states are taking this course. This is why we need a national ccw law.

[Grizzly Dave]

There seems to be some conflicting info on the net.

 

Handgunlaw.us is another resource, but as others have said you have to do your own research and can't always trust everything you read on the internet.

 

Grizz

[WymoreWrangler SASS 46187L]

I'd be a little wary of carryconcealed.net, I know that West Virginia has not recognized Nebraska's permit, but Nebraska recognizes the West Virgina permit, but carryconealed.net say West Virginia does recognize Nebraska. I've got a phone call into the West Virginia AG office and they aren't even sure if Nebraska permit is honored, they are checking and going to call me back...

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

As much of a patch work as this system is, I'm not sure that I support a national carry law. I already live in a restrictive, Democratically controlled state, and my MA permit, despite the comparatively steep requirements to get it, isn't good in many other states, primarily because MA honors no foreign permits at all. I had to get a NH non-resident permit to carry in a few states I visit to hunt. But on balance, it takes care of me in my home state, and all I have to worry about is keeping my local PD happy.

 

But I have no faith that the Feds will do better, and I'm honestly concerned that such a national system could be abused for other purposes. Centralized listing of all permit holders is almost as good as a centralized listing of all gun owners. Technical permit issues now become Federal offenses. My local chief's discretion is now replaced with a Federal bureaucrat, or worse, an ATF agent.

 

Sure, I'd love the convenience; but I worry about the potential for abuse.

 

LL

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

Beady, ya got yer answer, even if it defies logic. NOPE!

 

Now the trouble is, in VT ya have nothing to show ya been "cleared", are not a felon or any of the laundry list of prohibited persons. A few states roll with your VT "statutory permit", but most don't.

 

NY is even worse. Since NY doesn't recognize ANY out of state permit, nobody recognizes NY either. I've been "scoped out" in every way imaginable to get a NY permit, including classes, fingerprints, a wait of over 6 mos, sitting for an interview with a county judge, providing four references who knew me at least 5 years AND reside in my county, department of mental health, state, federal and local LE agencies, etc. My permit is good ONLY in UPSTATE NY. NYC won't even recognize it (yet folks with NYC permits are good in Upsate counties).

 

Ya want "fair", there is one every summer at a fairgrounds near you......

[SOUTH-PACIFIC,SASS #59402]

i live in florida leagly ccw am also a state certified instructor when i travel i find it best to make contact with the other state thru thier laws . it is also good to obtain a copy of their laws and keep in posession along with a copy of your law

[Badlands Beady]

Beady, ya got yer answer, even if it defies logic. NOPE!

 

What are you doing here? Aren't you supposed to be in the middle of a romantic interlude with your doctor, about now?

[Tucson Jim]

What states like Michigan are doing is severely unconstitutional.

 

It's not even a 2nd Amendment problem exactly. It's a violation of a long-standing ban against states discriminating against residents of other states.

 

The most on-point USSC case is Ward v. Maryland, which was the first 14th-amendment-related case ever (1870) and is still valid case law:

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7235845637401998352&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

 

A much more recent 1999 case (Saenz v. Roe) says the same thing:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=526&page=489

 

Here's basically how this works.

 

The Ward case barred Maryland from pulling an excess tax on out-of-state merchants doing biz in MD, such as Mr. Ward. The basis for this was the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities clause". The Ward court said that the PorI clause blocks states from discriminating against residents of other states when they travel.

 

A couple of years later in the Slaughter-House cases, the US Supremes said that the PorI clause is ONLY about this kind of cross-border discrimination, and that the PorI clause couldn't be used to protect other civil rights. In subsequent cases (esp. the infamous US v. Cruikshank case, final decision in 1876) the Supremes basically dismantled federal civil rights protections completely, freeing 60 murderers in Cruikshank. (See also the 2008 book "The Day Freedom Died" by Charles Lane). Important point: this process of breaking the 14th started in Slaughter-house (1872).

 

In the 20th century the 14th Amendment got rebuilt from the ground up in a series of cases "incorporating" the Bill Of Rights "one piece at a time" via a process called "selective incorporation under the due process clause". One piece at a time, starting with the first amendment, different civil rights were declared "fundamental to due process" and applied as limits to the states. They didn't get around to doing this to the 2nd Amendment until the summer of 2010 (the McDonald v. Chicago case).

 

And in the McDonald case, the NRA was asking the Supremes to force the states to honor the BoR via the "selective due process" thing that become customary across the 20th Century. Alan Gura and the Libertarian contingent asked the court to strike down Slaughter-house and re-vitalize the PorI clause, which would have made the McDonald case a much, MUCH broader civil rights matter...for starters, it probably would have led to legalized gay marriage across the whole US. It also would have eliminated banning juries in state civil cases, because your right to a jury trial in civil court is yet another civil right that hasn't yet been "due process selectively incorporated".

 

Well the Supremes in McDonald went with the NRA's gameplan. Which means Slaughter-house is still valid case law, which means that decision's praise of the Ward case is still valid:

 

The whole purport of the decision was, that citizens of one State do not carry with them into other States any special privileges or immunities, conferred by the laws of their own States, of a corporate or other character. That decision has no pertinency to the questions involved in this case. The common privileges and immunities which of right belong to all citizens, stand on a very different footing. These the citizens of each State do carry with them into other States and are secured by the clause in question, in their enjoyment upon terms of equality with citizens of the latter States. This equality in one particular was enforced by this court in the recent case of Ward v. The State of Maryland, reported in the 12th of Wallace. A statute of that State required the payment of a larger sum from a non-resident trader for a license to enable him to sell his merchandise in the State, than it did of a resident trader, and the court held, that the statute in thus discriminating against the non-resident trader contravened the clause securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. The privilege of disposing of his property, which was an essential incident to his ownership, possessed by the non-resident, was subjected by the statute of Maryland to a greater burden than was imposed upon a like privilege of her own citizens. The privileges of the non-resident were in this particular abridged by that legislation.

 

What the clause in question did for the protection of the citizens of one State against hostile and discriminating legislation of other States, the fourteenth amendment does for the protection of every citizen of the United States against hostile and discriminating legislation against him in favor of others, whether they reside in the same or in different States. If under the fourth article of the Constitution equality of privileges and immunities is secured between citizens of different States, under the fourteenth amendment the same equality is secured between citizens of the United States.

 

Slaughter-house Cases text: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12565118578780815007

 

Upshot: that remaining "crippled stub" of the PorI clause from Ward is still there, still active. It doesn't get used much, in fact when it made a comeback in 1999 (Saenz) the legal community was shocked. But if a Vermonter has an FL permit and is discriminated against in Michigan on the basis of being a Vermonter, then yeah, I think the Ward, Slaughter-house and Saenz cases kick in HARD.

 

----

 

Side-note: Clarence Thomas hated this dilution of the PorI clause and spoke against it in his dissents in both the Saenz and McDonald cases. He's not the first to say so - Justice Hugo Black said the same thing in his 1947 dissent in Adamson. There's a ton of scholarship supporting both, and labeling the Slaughter-house Cases the greated ongoing fraud in judicial history...see also Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar's 1998 book "The Bill Of Rights" for details, or Stephen Halbrook's 1984 book "That Every Man Be Armed". Both quote John Bingham, primary author of the 14th Amendment as to the PorI clause's full meaning.

[Cash Duckett]

I heard once that some people carry wherever they go and just don't say anything. Of course, I can neither confirm nor deny that allegation!

Cash

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

What are you doing here? Aren't you supposed to be in the middle of a romantic interlude with your doctor, about now?

 

Drive by surgery. Checked in at 6:45, surgery at 8:00AM, and out the door by 10:00AM. The bad news is it gets covered under OUTPATIENT care on the insurance, and not a hospitalization.....

 

They did give me a lovely parting gift, an "overnight bag" hanging on a tube from to keep for a couple of days....

[Blue Steel Duke]

More and more states are taking this course. This is why we need a national ccw law.

You know the people I really feel sorry for are the long haul truck drivers. Law abiding citizen one minute, and a Felon the next as they cross a state line.

 

BSD

[Brother King, SASS #69031]

I heard once that some people carry wherever they go and just don't say anything. Of course, I can neither confirm nor deny that allegation!

Cash

+1... and this is an important "Supremes" ruling under the "BADGES? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING BADGES." clause of the 2nd Amendment. This was incorporated into the "Don't ask, Don't tell and All is Well" proviso as well as the "Rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it." manifesto.

 

Amen

[Utah Bob #35998]

You know the people I really feel sorry for are the long haul truck drivers. Law abiding citizen one minute, and a Felon the next as they cross a state line.

 

BSD

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

You know the people I really feel sorry for are the long haul truck drivers. Law abiding citizen one minute, and a Felon the next as they cross a state line.

 

BSD

 

No guns, is a DOT reg

Get caught with one and kiss your CDL bye-bye EVEN IF you have a CCW.

Cheers,

LG

[Utah Bob #35998]

No guns, is a DOT reg

Get caught with one and kiss your CDL bye-bye EVEN IF you have a CCW.

Cheers,

LG

 

I researched this awhile ago.

NO guns in commercial trucks is in fact NOT a DOT reg. Everybody thinks it is.

Like wearing a hat is a SASS requirement.

You may carry as a commercial trucker as long as you are legally allowed to do so in the state you are operating in.

But, most trucking companies prohibit it and you must be careful to ensure you are in compliance with laws in the states you are traveling through.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

You know the people I really feel sorry for are the long haul truck drivers. Law abiding citizen one minute, and a Felon the next as they cross a state line.

 

BSD

 

No doubt!

 

GG ~

[Tom Bullweed]

I do not drive a truck (but repsect those who do) so I will not address the CDL aspect.

The term 'hidden viper' refers to several states that have CCW permits tagged to laws that are so prohibitve that it seems that they hope to snare CCW's from other states. State parks, restuarants that serve alcohol, banks and placed that charge admission are just a few of the areas that states cannot agree on the right to carry.

I have heard that some people carry wherever they go, stay out of rights-hostile states and stay out of situations which would disclose concealed weapons. I would think that those people also feel very secure from ne'r-do-rights and two-legged varmints.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

I researched this awhile ago.

NO guns in commercial trucks is in fact NOT a DOT reg. Everybody thinks it is.

Like wearing a hat is a SASS requirement.

You may carry as a commercial trucker as long as you are legally allowed to do so in the state you are operating in.

But, most trucking companies prohibit it and you must be careful to ensure you are in compliance with laws in the states you are traveling through.

 

UB, after looking AGAIN at the regs. for the company I drove for at one time. They(the company)for all intents LIED,(Gee, NO wonder as to WHY they folded)and YOU sir are correct.

At the very best it's one of those "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" deals

Respectfully,

LG

[Iron Pony]

Balands NH has a bill under considertation now to go VT style but with the option to obtain a permit as well for states that have reciprocity. Not sure if the permit requirements would remain the same, criminal record check/references but imagine they weill.

 

AJ's experience really spotlights the fact there is no national standard and unfortunately probably never will be. Unless they have moved something VT and NY are still side by side, right? The borderline between the two states point out the POLITICAL differences that define what citizens of each state can do with a CCW. Lets say we clone AJ and one moves to VT, just across that line on the map. Now you have two people doing exactly the same thing on either side of that line who have to go through hugely different processes to get the task accomplished. And I'd bet your recent date with the Doc's was only slightly more invasive then what you went through for the permit.

 

Thinking about it over my morning cup given the oppertunity to get a national CCW permit via the "NY" method I'd probably pass but if it could be done in a manner matching a class III tax stamp for a lifetime well that might be more appealing.

 

The judged by 12 versus carried by 6 posiiton still has merit too.