Monday, June 23, 2014

I hate wasting good material at an away game...

(From discussion here.)

Indiana has no training requirement or qual course for an LTCH; fog a mirror, fork over the cash, and you can carry for either five years or the rest of your life, depending on how much cash you forked over. The downside to this is that it really hampers reciprocity in states with strict training requirements. I've mentioned before that New Mexico, with its baroque caliber-related, pistol/revolver qualifications, does not recognize my Hoosier CCW.

For this reason, a faction of state gun owners were championing the idea of some sort of higher-tier ├╝berpermit, one with a training and qualification requirement, which would hopefully be recognized in more states than the existing sheet of pink mimeograph paper. (You have to cut a Hoosier permit out yourself, dotted lines being helpfully provided for this purpose, and if it's a lifetime one, you might wanna laminate that thing.)

The thing is that in a few other states that already have these tiered permits, a big sweetener for them was the fact that the upper echelon permit allowed you to carry more places, and there's already hardly anyplace you can't go in Indiana with an LTCH. I don't believe they'll allow carry into K-12 schools or courtrooms, and so there's no real upside to a "Platinum LTCH" here unless you travel a lot, and you can already get most of that covered with UT or FL non-resident permits. The fear of myself and others was that, if they introduced this "Platinum LTCH", our existing no-training, no-qual permits would be put at peril.

The solution? Pass the Upper Tier LTCH program on a bill that replaces the existing one with Constitutional Carry; in effect, going to an Alaska-type system, or one like Arizona's, except that we would leave intact the fact that you can still tote pretty much anywhere. (Reading the fine print on AZ's constitutional carry law, you need a permit to go anyplace that pours beer, which means any restaurant that serves food that doesn't come in brightly-colored cardboard boxes with pictures of clowns on them.)


KM said...

Involving the fed in anything is a request to be gang raped and then taxed for it.
No thanks.

How a gun owner can look at what the .gov thinks of gunnies that don't *work for them and think that we would NOT be forever screwed is beyond me.

*fed badge = good, local badge = maybe, no badge = GFYS

Tam said...

Huh? How does a discussion of Indiana's LTCH law = "Involving the fed"? You lost me there.

Angus McThag said...

Fog a mirror!

Damned statist bastards!

This is clearly discrimination against a large component of Democrat voters.

Dan said...

I'm told the training requirement, or lack thereof, is why my GA permit is not recognized in SC, but I can carry in NC... At least SC doesn't make me lock it in the trunk as I drive from work at Fort Bragg to home in 30214. Small blessings.

Scott J said...

Same thing with my AL permit in The Palmetto state, Dan and I have in-laws there.

They don't offer a non-resident either unless you own land in the state.

Funny thing is I attempted to relocate to upstate SC in early 2012 (long story as to how & why I wound up back in AL). I took and passed the course and actually got my SC CWP. It's good until 2017 but unfortunately I'm not officially a resident any more.

Same training is good for FL nonresident which SC does recognize. I need to see if it's not too late to get one.

armedlaughing said...

Some folks just carry REGARDLESS of the signage.
Of course, I wouldn't know any...
Clowns or otherwise.


Matt said...

AZ does have some issues, ignored by the state, with people having firearms stolen out of vehicles parked at bars. An upside to no guns in bars is that the very rare incidents of gun play occur outside the bars limiting bullet holes in the decor. It is an issue that doesn't bother me past being a philosophical point. The majority of restaurants I frequent are all mom and pops and don't sell alcohol. I don't frequent bars and the chain eateries that sell booze have lousy food and service.

mikee said...

Here's the thing: legislators these days, either at state or national level, aren't going to support anything that doesn't allow for graft & corruption, either in the form of getting the legislator's permission/assistance to get the licese via campaign donation, or the ability to balkanize constituencies and play them off one another for votes, like handgun owners vs AR owners.

So screw 'em, sez I, and push for national constitutional carry until they give in, which they will do eventually.

Kristophr said...

I suggest dealing with it the same way Wyoming does.

Constitutional carry, with a training requirement type CCW available for use in other states.

Two birds, one stone, etc.

D.W. Drang said...

I believe that KM was ass-you-me'ing that you were referring to a national reciprocity/Federal CCW permit. I know that was where I ass-you-me'd you were going when you were talking about reciprocity issues.

Tam said...


"I suggest dealing with it the same way Wyoming does.

Constitutional carry, with a training requirement type CCW available for use in other states

I've got a better idea. Why don't we deal with it the same way Wyoming does: Constitutional carry, with a training requirement type CCW available for use in other states.

(Didn't read the post, eh? ;) )

Anonymous said...

An 'enhanced' permit could, depending on the wording of the law, allow for NICS exemption. MY state's CCW permits qualify for this. Could be another bonus besides the better travel privileges.

Angus McThag said...

" Constitutional carry, with a training requirement type CCW available for use in other states."

That's all well and good for Wyoming, but what about Alaska? ;)

Kristophr said...

Sorry Tam.

Yea, I finished reading the whole post after I commented.

Matthew said...


In *Alaska* we have a training requirement type CCW available for use in other states, with Constitutional carry.

DJ9 said...

A potential downside of a two-tier permit system is what happened in North Dakota. After several states told our permitting folks that they would never allow reciprocity without a long class and qualification shooting, we modified the permit system to reflect that. Then, several states that had previously allowed reciprocity for the previous ND permit, withdrew reciprocity for anyone holding the lower level permit. The result was thousands of folks that formerly had reciprocity with states like AZ, suddenly LOST it, at least until they could find the class space, time and money to upgrade their permit. This can be a real problem for folks who only travel occasionally; is it really worth it to attend the class and pay more to renew, on the off chance that you might want/need to travel to one of these states?

Ed said...

If Congress can pass something like HR-218, there is no reason that they can pass something that allows Constitutional Carry among those who are not retired police officers.

Oh! Wait a minute! There already is something that has been ratified and is applicable to all states, territories and possessions of the United States:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Does that not put the Constitution in Constitutional Carry?

I await "the people" to be allowed the same rights, privileges and immunities that are offered to LEOs.

DJ9 said...

And I still don't know why states have to require a separate permit rather than use a check-box on the back of your existing Driver's License or I.D. card.

Motorcycle endorsement? Check.

Organ Donor? Check.

Arranges for bad guys to be organ donors? Check.

rbmcmjr said...

Idaho introduced a higher-tier CWP that gets better reciprocity AND allows you to carry on college campuses. The lower-tier one is still in place but you get ignored by more states and woe betide the person who gets caught packing on campus with one.

Bubblehead Les. said...

However, the Arizona CHP is available to out-of-state non-military Citizens for a very reasonable fee, and it does have a LOT of Reciprocity attached to it. Seems they issue them to U.S. Citizens, not just Arizonans. So, say someone from Broad Ripple shoved one into her Pocket, then that someone could sneak across the Border into Buckeye Land with their Smith and enjoy all the "Benefits" of the Ohio CHP. Which for some reason our Attorney General doesn't like to give to those who roll on the Hoosier CHP.

I'm awaiting the U.S. Mail to deliver mine any day now, FWIW.

Munitions & Miscellania said...

This is why a pot of people get Florida/Utah nonresident permits. You can get these through the mail if your state offers comparable training, or attend a local training course to qualify if you are from a state that doesn't offer comparable training.

Ed said...

How many of your civil rights do you lose by crossing a state line?

Not even a Florida resident Concealed Carry of Weapons License will allow you to be free from arrest for possession of a handgun in fifteen states and other U.S. territories and possessions - California, Connecticut, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, New York City, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Virgin Islands, Washington, Wisconsin, American Samoa, District of Columbia, N. Mariana Islands.

A Florida non-resident license will add Colorado, Michigan, South Carolina and New Hampshire to the states where you will have a problem.

Holding both Florida and Utah non-resident licenses will take Minnesota and Wisconsin off the list of states that will arrest you.

Your license or permit to carry a firearm SHOULD at a minimum allow you to carry in ALL states, territories of the U.S. just like your motor vehicle license allows you to operate a motor vehicle despite differences in training requirements. Better yet, recognize that your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and demand that your elected officials at the local, state and Federal levels understand this. Insist that they immediately revoke any act or executive order that violates your civil rights. Treat their non-compliance as you would someone burning a cross on your lawn.

Rob K said...

DJ9, ain't no way I want any indication at all on anything to do with my driving license that has anything to do with weapons. Did you hear about what happened to the guy from (IIRC) Florida driving through the east coast? Hell no!

And I don't want to add another tier to Indiana's LTCH. Other states need to change, not us.

KM said...

@Tam: How does a discussion of Indiana's LTCH law = "Involving the fed"?

What DWDrang said...
Didn't help me that the discussion in the linked PF thread is a whole bunch of "involving the fed".
Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

@DJ9: folks that formerly had reciprocity with states like AZ, suddenly LOST it

If your permit was still good in ND, it was still good here.

Don said...

It can also cause other problems. Idaho's enhanced permit was created for the same reason, to get reciprocity for more states.

Then this year a new law prohibits universities from banning concealed carry on campus for those with enhanced permits. It isn't actually illegal for anyone to carry on campus but the universities previously could expel students and fire employees who did.

But the law makes it a misdemeanor for those with enhanced permits to carry in dorms or stadiums. So now we have the problem where a person with a basic permit does not commit a crime by carrying in a stadium. However, a person with an enhanced permit commits a misdemeanor when he carries there.

DJ9 said...

KM, if you mean Arizona when you say "here", that is incorrect.

The former single-level ND permit allowed reciprocity with AZ. When ND converted to a two-tiered system, all the old permits became Class 2 permits, and a new class-and-shooting-qual permit was created and named the Class 1 permit. After the system changed, AZ pulled reciprocity from all Class 2 permit holders, choosing to only allow reciprocity for Class 1 permitees. Thus, all former permit holders that were automatically converted to Class 2 permits lost their AZ reciprocity overnight. The only way to get it back was to upgrade their permits to Class 1, requiring finding and attending a class, passing the shooting qual, and sending some more money to the state (as well as waiting for the new permit).

Here is a link to the ND permit reciprocity page; you can see AZ listed for Class 1, but not Class 2 permit holders:

Several other states also show reciprocity only for Class 1 permit holders, but I can't say if they changed it after-the-fact like AZ did, or if it was awarded later. I know about AZ because I was following it closely, having relatives there that I visit occasionally.

KM said...

Look at the link from AZ DPS:

Arizona recognizes all other states valid permits providing the following conditions are met:

Arizona and any political subdivisions of Arizona shall recognize a concealed weapon, firearm or handgun permit or license that is issued by another state or a political subdivision of another state if both:
1.The permit or license is recognized as valid in the issuing state
2.The permit or license holder is all of the following:
◦Legally present in this state
◦Not legally prohibited from possessing a firearm in this state

The above is a DPS quote of AZ Revised Statutes,
13-3112 - section Q

DJ9 said...

KM, thank you for the link. It does appear as though there have been some changes in the last few years; however, the point I made about what happened during the switchover to the new system is still valid, and the claim that AZ honors "all valid permits" is still not accurate.

If you check below the area you quoted, but above the reciprocity chart, you will see a weasel-worded disclaimer that starts with "Notwithstanding the provisions of this section...", and it is here that certain ND Class 2 permit holders are excluded. ND is somewhat rare in issuing Class 2 permits to 18-20 year-olds, and AZ automatically excludes anyone under the age of 21 from carry in that state. In addition, I believe there is an allowance for issuance of a Class 2 permit if a person has certain convictions that are more than 10 years in the past, whereas AZ requires that all convictions be formally "expunged, set-aside or vacated", not just X-number of years in the past.

Because of these restrictions, a ND Class 2 holder MAY be legal to carry in AZ, but the permitting process does not screen to a depth required to find out for sure; thus, some Class 2 holders are not approved for carry, making a blanket statement of reciprocity for all ND Class 2 permit holders inaccurate.

KM said...

Yes, you have to be 21 to carry a handgun in AZ.
I'm curios is ND good with gun & ammo possession by a felon when there is a Federal law against felons doing that?
If you're a felon and haven't had rights restored, how can you have a gun? Even if it has been X number of years. And if you did get them restored, AZ is OK with that if 21 or over.

DJ9 said...

KM, I don't think the problem is with convicted felons; ND law closely parallels Federal law in that area, AFAIK. Indications on the Concealed Weapon Permits web page are that is has something to do with alcohol-related convictions. Here is a link and the reference:

"5. For a Class 1 license, you cannot have been convicted of any offense involving the use of alcohol (e.g.: MIP, MIC, open container, DUI) within 10 years prior to the date of application or renewal application. If you have an alcohol offense within the past 10 years, you may apply only for a Class 2 license."

I admit I don't know how this relates to AZ law, but I have been told by permitting officials it is part of the problem with reciprocity for Class 2 permit holders.

KM said...

@DJ9 - I don't think the problem is with convicted felons

Apparently you didn't read the second part of the *same* sentence that you call the "weasel-worded disclaimer".
(which actually follows fed law)
The part of the *same* sentence that says you can't carry "if the person is under twenty-one years of age or is under indictment for, or has been convicted of, a FELONY offense in any jurisdiction, unless the person's rights have been restored or the conviction is expunged, set-aside or vacated"
AZ doesn't care if you got a DUI yesterday unless it was bad enough to be a FELONY.

If you have an alcohol offense within the past 10 years, you may apply only for a Class 2 license."

And that license lets you carry in ND?
Well if it does, YOU CAN CARRY HERE if you're 21 or older!

Tam is going to start charging us for using her blog as a web based email account. ;) Where do I send the check?