Cornyn Introduces Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity

[RoyGBiv]

I agree, I went and re-read her story. I thought she had crossed into New York, instead it was New Jersey. Relating to the proposed bill, what mechanism would it use to force compliance?

New York does issue licenses. In fact all 50 States now issue licenses. Some, like NY, are "may issue". But as I read it, NY and every other State would be required to honor my TX CHL if this Bill passes. I would be subject to local laws regarding place and manner, but not any more stringent than as applied to a NY-issued licensee.

You're talking about just concealed carry, right? Open-carry presents some differences between states. For example, if I travel to Oklahoma with my Texas CHL, their open-carry laws don't apply to me. I have to remain concealed because that's what my Texas license says.

The way I read it is, right now, I can carry any way an Oklahoman can provided I have a state issued license from a reciprocal state...

This law, though, would change it to mean what you just stated... sounds like it would hurt our rights then...

There is nothing about this Bill that would reduce my ability to carry. There are places which would remain off limits, but no place where I am currently able to carry would become prohibited after the passage of this Bill as it's currently written.

[joe817]

You're talking about just concealed carry, right? Open-carry presents some differences between states. For example, if I travel to Oklahoma with my Texas CHL, their open-carry laws don't apply to me. I have to remain concealed because that's what my Texas license says.

Oklahoma AG clarified last year that an out-of-state licensee from a state w/ reciprocity has the same OC rights as an Oklahoman with a CHL in Oklahoma.

On this one, I have to agree with K5GU.....for now. I've read TITLE 21 § 1290.26 VERSION 2 of Oklahoma's conceal carry statue several times, and to me, the issue is still in doubt. There is nothing definitive there for me to decide to open carry when I'm in Oklahoma. So I'll be on the safe side and cc when there(until Texas passes licensed open carry).

For a more in depth discussion:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Note: This snipit from Facebook, gives commentary at the end.]
P.S. TVGuy, if you can provide a more definitive source( and I'm certainly NOT challenging you), I'd sure love to see it!

[K5GU]

You're talking about just concealed carry, right? Open-carry presents some differences between states. For example, if I travel to Oklahoma with my Texas CHL, their open-carry laws don't apply to me. I have to remain concealed because that's what my Texas license says.

Oklahoma AG clarified last year that an out-of-state licensee from a state w/ reciprocity has the same OC rights as an Oklahoman with a CHL in Oklahoma.

On this one, I have to agree with K5GU.....for now. I've read TITLE 21 § 1290.26 VERSION 2 of Oklahoma's conceal carry statue several times, and to me, the issue is still in doubt. There is nothing definitive there for me to decide to open carry when I'm in Oklahoma. So I'll be on the safe side and cc when there(until Texas passes licensed open carry).

For a more in depth discussion:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Note: This snipit from Facebook, gives commentary at the end.]
P.S. TVGuy, if you can provide a more definitive source( and I'm certainly NOT challenging you), I'd sure love to see it!

I don't mean to draw this out in this thread but I just talked to Cindy in the Oklahoma OSBI and she directed me to the November 2014 lawbook. She said Paragraph A is germane to what we're talking about, which looks to me like if you have a current Texas CHL, you can NOT legally openly carry in Oklahoma. She said her CHL instructor confirmed that, plus Oklahoma CHL person can not openly carry while inTexas. http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_La ... V_2014.pdf

[TVGuy]

You're talking about just concealed carry, right? Open-carry presents some differences between states. For example, if I travel to Oklahoma with my Texas CHL, their open-carry laws don't apply to me. I have to remain concealed because that's what my Texas license says.

Oklahoma AG clarified last year that an out-of-state licensee from a state w/ reciprocity has the same OC rights as an Oklahoman with a CHL in Oklahoma.

On this one, I have to agree with K5GU.....for now. I've read TITLE 21 § 1290.26 VERSION 2 of Oklahoma's conceal carry statue several times, and to me, the issue is still in doubt. There is nothing definitive there for me to decide to open carry when I'm in Oklahoma. So I'll be on the safe side and cc when there(until Texas passes licensed open carry).

For a more in depth discussion:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Note: This snipit from Facebook, gives commentary at the end.]
P.S. TVGuy, if you can provide a more definitive source( and I'm certainly NOT challenging you), I'd sure love to see it!

Here you go:

The State of Oklahoma hereby recognizes any valid concealed or unconcealed carry weapons permit or license issued by another state, or if the state is a nonpermitting carry state, this state shall reciprocate under the permitting law of that state.
A. Any person entering this state in possession of a firearm authorized for concealed or unconcealed carry upon the authority and license of another state is authorized to continue to carry a concealed or unconcealed firearm and license in this state; provided the license from the other state remains valid. The firearm must either be carried unconcealed or concealed from detection and view, and upon coming in contact with any peace officer of this state, the person must disclose the fact that he or she is in possession of a concealed or unconcealed firearm pursuant to a valid concealed or unconcealed carry weapons permit or license issued in another state.

And the link (page #24):

https://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_L ... V_2013.pdf

[mojo84]

Seems to me we can carry either way.

[TVGuy]

The law was rewritten in 2013 to try to clear up the confusion on the issue, but as you can see it is still not entirely clear.

I'm yet to hear of anyone charged for OCing with a Texas CHL.

[K5GU]

FYI...The current OSBI LawBook is dated November 2014..not 2013.

[TVGuy]

You're talking about just concealed carry, right? Open-carry presents some differences between states. For example, if I travel to Oklahoma with my Texas CHL, their open-carry laws don't apply to me. I have to remain concealed because that's what my Texas license says.

Oklahoma AG clarified last year that an out-of-state licensee from a state w/ reciprocity has the same OC rights as an Oklahoman with a CHL in Oklahoma.

On this one, I have to agree with K5GU.....for now. I've read TITLE 21 § 1290.26 VERSION 2 of Oklahoma's conceal carry statue several times, and to me, the issue is still in doubt. There is nothing definitive there for me to decide to open carry when I'm in Oklahoma. So I'll be on the safe side and cc when there(until Texas passes licensed open carry).

For a more in depth discussion:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Note: This snipit from Facebook, gives commentary at the end.]
P.S. TVGuy, if you can provide a more definitive source( and I'm certainly NOT challenging you), I'd sure love to see it!

Joe, the OK OC law was originally passed in 2012 (also date of your FB post) and amended in 2013 to clarify.

[TVGuy]

One more quote...from [Pre-paid legal service] announcement:

Oklahoma Open Carry Update

Until April 2013, there was an unresolved issue as to whether a Texas CHL holder could open carry in Oklahoma, as that state's license holders are permitted to carry either concealed or open, and Oklahoma recognizes all state issued handgun licenses involving Texas CHLs.

The issue of whether or not a Texan with a Texas Concealed Handgun License can open carry in Oklahoma has finally been answered. Recently the Oklahoma legislature amended their open carry statutes to put to bed the issue of whether or not recognized license holders from other states could open carry in Oklahoma. Previously, confusion was caused by the fact that there were two versions of the out of state license reciprocity law in the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which had conflicting language.

Fortunately the Oklahoma legislature amended the Self-Defense Act, and revised the previously ambiguous statute (Title 21 §1290.26 Version 1 and Version 2). The new statute unequivocally provides that if you have a concealed or unconcealed handgun license from any state (as Oklahoma has universal recognition), you may carry concealed or unconcealed in Oklahoma. So, your Texas Concealed Handgun License, which is recognized in Oklahoma, will now permit you to carry open or concealed in areas in Oklahoma not otherwise prohibited by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act.

[joe817]

Thank you TVGuy for all of that. What you have posted is what I posted originally, when I started this debate(sowwwyyyyy!. ) It is TITLE 21 § 1290.26 VERSION 2 of Oklahoma's conceal carry statue which has been posted more or less in its entirety.

I searched the Oklahoma Attorney General's opinions, and could not find a definitive answer. And IMHO, the issue is not clearly defined. For that reason, I'm going to err on the side of caution and continue to CC in Oklahoma until Texas passes licensed open carry. That's my story officer, and I'm sticking to it !

BTW, I was very pleased to learn that while reading Oklahoma's conceal carry laws(now to include licensed open carry) are VERY similar in content to Texas cc laws.

[srothstein]

If a Texan takes a firearm made in Texas to another state, then that firearm has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.

I think you just jumped to a conclusion that is way too broad. Suppose I live in Dallas and I go to Oklahoma City to visit my brother. Since my truck has an extra large gas tank, I can make it there and back without stopping for gas. My only stop is at my brother's house. I happen to be carrying my STI 1911 made in Georgetown with me when I go. How has my Texas made pistol been in interstate commerce when no commerce occurred on the trip?

I agree that the reasoning I posted is too broad. Yet, current interpretation by the USSC is even more broad than that. Read Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich. There's very little limit on what can be considered "interstate commerce". In your example, an argument would be that by buying a firearm made in Texas, you then decreased the market for firearms made outside Texas by one firearm. Bam, there's your effect on interstate commerce. You wouldn't even have to take it to another state.

I agree that this is the current SCOTUS interpretation. It is one I strongly disagree with. But what I was pointing out was that your statement about the pistol having been transported in interstate commerce was also, IMO, wrong.

As for the SCOTUS rulings in Wickard, I strongly believe that they got the Constitution wrong. In addition to not giving Congress the authority to regulate all interstate commerce, it could not possibly have ever meant that they could regulate anything that might impact interstate commerce. I do not recall exactly, but didn't the dissent in that case point out that this mean the Congress could regulate anything? And if that were true, tehre is no limit on the Congress and the while concept of the Constitution would be null and void.

Furthermore, though obviously SCOTUS does not agree with me, the Constitution does NOT give Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Nowhere does it mention the word "interstate" at all. It allows Congress to regulate "the commerce between the state". This phrase has an entirely different meaning. In my opinion, this means that Congress can only regulate the actual transactions that cross state lines. This still allows a lot of regulation, such as saying that the only vehicles that can be sold across state lines are those equipped with safety belts, etc. Laws it would ban are those with very weak links to interstate commerce, such as the LEOSA, GFSZA, and the proposed bill requiring states to recognize CHLs from other states.

And yes, I do know exactly what my opinion is worth in cases like this. But we all need to be careful about buying into bad decisions and definitions.

[SewTexas]

If a Texan takes a firearm made in Texas to another state, then that firearm has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.

I think you just jumped to a conclusion that is way too broad. Suppose I live in Dallas and I go to Oklahoma City to visit my brother. Since my truck has an extra large gas tank, I can make it there and back without stopping for gas. My only stop is at my brother's house. I happen to be carrying my STI 1911 made in Georgetown with me when I go. How has my Texas made pistol been in interstate commerce when no commerce occurred on the trip?

I agree that the reasoning I posted is too broad. Yet, current interpretation by the USSC is even more broad than that. Read Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich. There's very little limit on what can be considered "interstate commerce". In your example, an argument would be that by buying a firearm made in Texas, you then decreased the market for firearms made outside Texas by one firearm. Bam, there's your effect on interstate commerce. You wouldn't even have to take it to another state.

I agree that this is the current SCOTUS interpretation. It is one I strongly disagree with. But what I was pointing out was that your statement about the pistol having been transported in interstate commerce was also, IMO, wrong.

As for the SCOTUS rulings in Wickard, I strongly believe that they got the Constitution wrong. In addition to not giving Congress the authority to regulate all interstate commerce, it could not possibly have ever meant that they could regulate anything that might impact interstate commerce. I do not recall exactly, but didn't the dissent in that case point out that this mean the Congress could regulate anything? And if that were true, tehre is no limit on the Congress and the while concept of the Constitution would be null and void.

Furthermore, though obviously SCOTUS does not agree with me, the Constitution does NOT give Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Nowhere does it mention the word "interstate" at all. It allows Congress to regulate "the commerce between the state". This phrase has an entirely different meaning. In my opinion, this means that Congress can only regulate the actual transactions that cross state lines. This still allows a lot of regulation, such as saying that the only vehicles that can be sold across state lines are those equipped with safety belts, etc. Laws it would ban are those with very weak links to interstate commerce, such as the LEOSA, GFSZA, and the proposed bill requiring states to recognize CHLs from other states.

And yes, I do know exactly what my opinion is worth in cases like this. But we all need to be careful about buying into bad decisions and definitions.

uh oh, Steve's using logic again. You are completely right, but know you can't do that when it comes to SCOTUS, POTUS or any of those OTUS's