# The 2A as your CC permit



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

It appears that Idaho may be the next state to take this stance on concealed carry.

Idaho House Concurs with Senate: 2nd Amendment Is Your Carry Permit - Breitbart

I have a hunch that if they put it on the governor's desk he will sign it. It is certainly a step in the right direction...


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Unfortunately here in the Keystone State you have to prove yourself innocent to authorities. You must have a CC permit. Same general rules as when the IRS audits you.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

YAY!!! Go for it!

*From the article: *The Idaho Senate passed SB 1389 on Wednesday by a vote of 27-8. The bill abolishes the permit requirement for Idahoans 21-years and 
older who want to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense.

My kind of guys!


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

Now all we need is for the whole country to be that way ,, then maybe the criminals will get the hint they can be shot on the spot faster now ,, but that's just wishful thinking .


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

It'll be nice. When Az became the 3rd state to go permitless (you can still get a CCW permit, you just dont need it as much) I still had 3 years on my CCW. I renewed it anyhow because I can carry in a few places that regular folks cannot.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I have a Texas CHL(soon to be a renewed LTC) which has reciprocity with many other states. If I go to those states, they recognize my Texas ID as proof that I'm ok to carry.

So...
For a state that issues no ID card, but rather follows "constitutional carry", how does reciprocity work?
Are all other states expected to just confirm your origin during an officer interaction, and assume you're ok to carry a firearm? (assuming you're following all laws of the state you're visiting)

Surely you're not confined to your state alone, and all others don't recognize, right?
That would seem to be a limiter, even though it looks like freedom on its face.


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

In Wisconsin, we have to have a background check to purchase a firearm, why do we have to have another to get a CC permit, and if we have a CC permit, why do we have to have another background check to purchase another firearm, spinning in circles just to generate revenue?


----------



## turbo6 (Jun 27, 2014)

It really all just boils down to revenue, sadly. States will lose all those lovely fees associated with applications and processing, background checks etc. CCW instructors will be up in arms with their jobs on the line.

When money is at stake, states want as much of the cut as possible.

Honestly, I'd be fine with a small flat fee after a background check, but I doubt I'll see that any time soon.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

rstanek said:


> In Wisconsin, we have to have a background check to purchase a firearm, why do we have to have another to get a CC permit, and if we have a CC permit, why do we have to have another background check to purchase another firearm, spinning in circles just to generate revenue?


In Texas, once you've had the background check for your LTC, you only have to present your LTC card when buying a firearm, and skip another background check.
How sweet it is!


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I have a Texas CHL(soon to be a renewed LTC) which has reciprocity with many other states. If I go to those states, they recognize my Texas ID as proof that I'm ok to carry.
> 
> So...
> For a state that issues no ID card, but rather follows "constitutional carry", how does reciprocity work?
> ...


I would imagine in state with similar laws or lack there of it would probably work just fine, how ever in states that require you to jump through the hoops, wait for extended periods of time and then pony up the cash to fill their coffers so as to prove your worthy probably not so much.

Edit to add,

For an Idaho resident who doesn't often travel outside the state it's probably not a limiter, rather an easing of regulation. I make no bones as to how I feel about having to procure a permit to carry. It sucks! yet it's the law and I abide by the law.

The fact that the Idaho state legislature seems to be willing to ease up on this particular regulation bodes well.


----------



## Daddy O (Jan 20, 2014)

I think my permit is due for renewal soon too. I hate to look. Last time the state sent me a letter warning me it was about to expire, and included a renewal form. How convenient. I think its a 5 year permit now? $40. Don't remember. Cops bug you less if you have it. Without a CCW they always want to wine ya, dine ya, 10-29 ya. I just want to be left the frack alone.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I'm bumping this thread back up as the governor signed off on the bill, it goes into effect July 1st. Idaho is now the 9th state to restore this right. 
The hiccup appears to be about ensuring proper training.

It also appears that the reciprocity laws are still be in place. Since I don't see or can find where any of that has changed.

Anyway, here's the article from ammoland on what has happened, how it happened and who they players were. 

Governor Otter Signs SB 1389, Idaho Becomes Ninth Constitutional Carry State


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

This stuff is all meaningless and pretty much a smoke screen. All of it becomes worthless the second Heller is revisited by a new court . That is coming like it of not.
You will even see some great favorable rules by the 4 and 4 court right now. Meant to put you at ease. They know full well once Heller is revisit all of the case get reversed.


----------



## txmarine6531 (Nov 18, 2015)

I wish Texas would do this. You'd think this being Texas, they would've done it already, but we do have some really stupid laws.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

Seneca said:


> It appears that Idaho may be the next state to take this stance on concealed carry.
> 
> Idaho House Concurs with Senate: 2nd Amendment Is Your Carry Permit - Breitbart
> 
> I have a hunch that if they put it on the governor's desk he will sign it. It is certainly a step in the right direction...


gasp

A legislature actually passing a law that we didn't need and wasn't necessary.

The bill of rights wasn't defining what the government gave us, it defined what we already have and cannot be infringed upon.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> This stuff is all meaningless and pretty much a smoke screen. All of it becomes worthless the second Heller is revisited by a new court . That is coming like it of not.
> You will even see some great favorable rules by the 4 and 4 court right now. Meant to put you at ease. They know full well once Heller is revisit all of the case get reversed.


Actually it's not meaningless, state laws and federal laws can and do differ. I can think of examples where a state has enacted a law that is not in line with federal mandates and the feds don't or haven't stepped in and over ruled the state law. I'm betting you think of an example or two where that's happened.

Idaho also has a law on the books that makes it a misdemeanor for any law enforcement officer or agency to assist the federal government in enforcing federal gun laws that are at variance with state law. Crazy huh?

All you got to do is go to Idaho.gov and it's all there, see for yourself.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Seneca said:


> Actually it's not meaningless, state laws and federal laws can and do differ. I can think of examples where a state has enacted a law that is not in line with federal mandates and the feds don't or haven't stepped in and over ruled the state law. I'm betting you think of an example or two where that's happened.
> 
> Idaho also has a law on the books that makes it a misdemeanor for any law enforcement officer or agency to assist the federal government in enforcing federal gun laws that are at variance with state law. Crazy huh?
> 
> All you got to do is go to Idaho.gov and it's all there, see for yourself.


 No , once Heller is revisited the rules all change the Federal government makes all the rules. It is the 2nd that has allowed us some freedom in the states . That ends soon after Heller is gone. Heller is what saved us. Once it is revisited the court will change the wording and the 2nd will no longer apply to the citizen but only to the government. Eyes open know when you are being lead down a dark road.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

txmarine6531 said:


> I wish Texas would do this. You'd think this being Texas, they would've done it already, but we do have some really stupid laws.


There is a grass roots movement, I am told, that will be pushing for this next year.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> No , once Heller is revisited the rules all change the Federal government makes all the rules. It is the 2nd that has allowed us some freedom in the states . That ends soon after Heller is gone. Heller is what saved us. Once it is revisited the court will change the wording and the 2nd will no longer apply to the citizen but only to the government. Eyes open know when you are being lead down a dark road.


Many states have 2A wording in their state constitutions. I know Idaho does, being a glass half full kind of guy, I believe Heller was an effort to afford DC residents relief from the over reach and regulation of their local government. If Heller were overturned I believe it would simple put us back to square one. Where states that choose to heavily regulate firearms can do so and those that don't can proceed as they would normally.

Heller is most often cited in cases where a state or local government has gone too far in regulating firearms. Not sure how Heller is applied in situations where a state chooses to voluntarily ease a regulation, which is what is occurring in those states where permit less carry is recognized.

I honestly don't see Heller being overturned, when was the last time you saw the SC reverse its own ruling? It seems to me that their credibility as a final arbiter takes a real hit, when they start overturning their own rulings.


----------



## txmarine6531 (Nov 18, 2015)

Prepared One said:


> There is a grass roots movement, I am told, that will be pushing for this next year.


We did get open carry passed, this should to. Only strong opposition I see will be from Austin, parts of Houston and DFW and maybe SA. The rest of the state will probably be all for it.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> No , once Heller is revisited the rules all change the Federal government makes all the rules. It is the 2nd that has allowed us some freedom in the states . That ends soon after Heller is gone. Heller is what saved us. Once it is revisited the court will change the wording and the 2nd will no longer apply to the citizen but only to the government. Eyes open know when you are being lead down a dark road.


Heller didn't "save" anything. Heller simply confirmed an individual right. Luckily, the ruling itself means nothing. You can pretend that 8/9 people in black robes rule the world, but you'd be wrong.
They can't "revisit" a decision until a different case comes up, and even then, overruling SCOTUS precedent isn't likely at all. Not while 75+% of the country still strongly believes in gun rights.
Personally, I don't care what courts have to say on matters of rights. They can be right, and they can be wrong, and it doesn't matter in the end.

"When in the course of human events..."


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Heller didn't "save" anything. Heller simply confirmed an individual right. Luckily, the ruling itself means nothing. You can pretend that 8/9 people in black robes rule the world, but you'd be wrong.
> They can't "revisit" a decision until a different case comes up, and even then, overruling SCOTUS precedent isn't likely at all. Not while 75+% of the country still strongly believes in gun rights.
> Personally, I don't care what courts have to say on matters of rights. They can be right, and they can be wrong, and it doesn't matter in the end.
> 
> "When in the course of human events..."


 Had Heller gone the other way by one vote, the 2nd would have been redefined. It was a major case and got by with one vote. That vote is gone now.
Four on the court now don't give a dam about precedent. They have made that clear.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I don't see much of anything changing simply because the legislature passes permit less carry. 

In a way it's like closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out. Those who concealed carry will continue to do so those who don't concealed carry will not. So in a way you are right it really isn't going to have much of an impact one way or the other.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Had Heller gone the other way by one vote, the 2nd would have been redefined. It was a major case and got by with one vote. That vote is gone now.
> Four on the court now don't give a dam about precedent. They have made that clear.


No, it would not have redefined anything. It would have just maintained the status quo. Up until that point, such bans were considered constitutional.
How have they made it clear that they don't care about precedent? It isn't often that any SCOTUS court overrules a previous one. They like to overturn lower courts, but they are not inclined to overturn a previous decision by their own.


----------

