I like attorney Alan Korwin's views and his writing style. He's "no compromise". Here is some of his thinking re national reciprocity law. Worth the read if you are interested in the legal aspects of the questions and solutions. I'd love to see the traitors who deny us our civil rights go to jail for a long long time.

http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2016/12/stop-the-national-carry-permit.html

Stop The National Carry Permit

"Gun Guys" Are Pushing In Wrong Direction

Misguided effort to restore rights can destroy rights

Will NRA, GOA and others get it right?

Excerpt:

Repeal restrictions on the right to bear arms.

The next logical step would be to arrest and charge officials who under color of law deny a peaceful person's civil right to possess arms. Denial of rights is a federal felony under 18 USC §241 et seq. You can't just deny a person's constitutional, civil and human rights because you don't like those rights. That's got a name. It's gunism, like racism. This law 18-241 and the ones that follow it were written to prevent haters from denying blacks their rights. Everyone has fundamental rights that need the same protection.

Blind hatred of guns is gunism.

If a national carry solution is proposed that does not include punishment for violators (officials who stop you solely for possession, or harass you, remove or attempt to remove your firearm for any invalid reason, incarcerate you, post signs that falsely indicate you cannot "drink at this water fountain," or otherwise act against your legal right to keep and bear arms), experience shows they will not obey the law. We see this all the time. The law only matters if it has teeth.

We call this comitatus-style law, like the posse comitatus law. Instead of enacting, "A person may legally bear arms across state lines," which officials can violate without repercussion, the law must say, "Anyone who interferes with a person legally bearing arms, shall go to prison and pay a fine."

I'm not a fan of the commerce clause as I feel it's usually abused more than it helps.  Also the US is made up of 54 separate countries, States rights vs Federal Govt.

The courts usually handle constitutional issues, not congress, which is why I'm depending on the SCOTUS to give us CCW.

Rep. Hudson was interviewed by AWR Hawkins on his podcast "Bullets" on 12/12/16. Hudson made no mention at all of non-resident permits/licenses. He only discussed 1. national reciprocity being similar to a drivers license in that all states recognize the one issued by the resident's state, and 2. that those people living in "permitless carry" states would only have to show their state ID (since there is or may be no permit or license) as proof of reciprocity.

http://www.podcastone.com/bullets-with-awr-hawkins

Post date: 12/13/16

Rep. Hudson interview begins at 22:17.

Hawkins discusses reciprocity some in the first segment but does not mention the non-resident permit issue.

I just spoke to someone in Rep. Hudson's office in Washington, D.C. and asked him to pass along the suggestion of including a provision in the national reciprocity bill to allow holders of non-resident permits to carry in their (de facto "no issue") state of residence, such as Hawaii where not one single resident has a CCW license and therefore would not be helped by the current version of the bill except when traveling to the mainland to any states not covered by a current non-resident reciprocity agreement. As I explained some detail about why Rep. Hudson was our only hope, such as the 100% Dem state senate, 93% Dem state house, not one single CCW license in the whole state, no reciprocity with any other states, etc. he said "That sounds unbelievable". So it's not just me.

GOOD ONE !!

Thanks puna for calling.
I wonder if more of us should call incase the person u talked to didnt pass the message.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Thanks puna for calling.
I wonder if more of us should call incase the person u talked to didnt pass the message.

I've contacted several other people. I don't suppose it could hurt to have more input to Rep. Hudson since he seems to be the sponsor of the bill. Since the person I talked to yesterday in his office seemed to have never heard of the idea (for non-resident permits to be recognized in a de facto "no issue" state for state residents bearing those permits) I doubt they are overwhelmed by input for the suggestion.

https://hudson.house.gov/
   
Washington DC
 
Phone: (704) 786-1612
Fax: (704) 782-1004
Hours: M-F 8:30-5:30pm

Just left a voicemail.  I'll try again tomorrow.  Can't email due to not having a NC zip code.

Got a call back at 645am from his office. The gal i was talking to seemed on it. She was actually looking up the HRS134 ccw code as we spoke. And she was very sympathetic for us. She will pass the word to DC about thr bills language so Hawaii can carry.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Got a call back at 645am from his office. The gal i was talking to seemed on it. She was actually looking up the HRS134 ccw code as we spoke. And she was very sympathetic for us. She will pass the word to DC about thr bills language so Hawaii can carry.

Thanks for your efforts. It'd be really cool if just a few phone calls ended up at least getting our plight considered, if not incorporated into the bill. I can see how having non-resident permits legalizing carry by residents of "no issue" states might be an impediment too great to incorporate into the bill (numerous state's (such as Hawaii) LE and legislative and administrative bureaucrats would be apoplectic... I personally hope those would be fatal)... but at least they're aware of the issue and how the current make-up of the bill wouldn't help us (or the people in Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) in our home states.

NP. I'm new to the firearms community (3 months) so I want to do what I can.  You know the saying "no vote, no grumble".  I'm actually going to apply for CCW here knowing I'm going to be denied.  Still waiting on my Nevada CCW, it's only been 45 days.  The website says don't call unless it exceeds 120 days.

NP. I'm new to the firearms community (3 months) so I want to do what I can.  You know the saying "no vote, no grumble".  I'm actually going to apply for CCW here knowing I'm going to be denied.  Still waiting on my Nevada CCW, it's only been 45 days.  The website says don't call unless it exceeds 120 days.

Something to consider: The Ninth Circuit has ruled (Peruta) that there is no constitutionally-protected civil right to bear arms concealed (that is merely a "privilege" that the state may "regulate" in any way it deems fit, including a total "de facto" ban), and thus any legal appeal on Hawaii's denials of CCW licenses is doomed to failure unless and until some case re CCW as a "right" would be upheld by the SCOTUS. This is likely years away, if ever. You might want to apply for an open carry license (either instead of or in addition to a CCW license) if you want to have grounds for possible legal action. Of course that's doomed to failure as well, but at least you'd be failing on untrod ground. There is no end to the arbitrary, capricious and illegal infringements of our civil rights here in Hawaii, so thanks for making the efforts to at least make some noise, pending the discovery of some secret formula for actions that would actually be effective in changing things here. 

Something to consider: The Ninth Circuit has ruled (Peruta) that there is no constitutionally-protected civil right to bear arms concealed (that is merely a "privilege" that the state may "regulate" in any way it deems fit, including a total "de facto" ban), and thus any legal appeal on Hawaii's denials of CCW licenses is doomed to failure unless and until some case re CCW as a "right" would be upheld by the SCOTUS. This is likely years away, if ever. You might want to apply for an open carry license (either instead of or in addition to a CCW license) if you want to have grounds for possible legal action. Of course that's doomed to failure as well, but at least you'd be failing on untrod ground. There is no end to the arbitrary, capricious and illegal infringements of our civil rights here in Hawaii, so thanks for making the efforts to at least make some noise, pending the discovery of some secret formula for actions that would actually be effective in changing things here. 

Apply more for the fact that if an "exceptional circumstance" does arise and I am left unarmed to protect myself or others then I can hold HPD liable because I did apply and got denied.

Apply more for the fact that if an "exceptional circumstance" does arise and I am left unarmed to protect myself or others then I can hold HPD liable because I did apply and got denied.

I understand, though I doubt that such a lawsuit would ever succeed despite spending at least tens of thousands of dollars. You could try submitting a legal document with your application that would acknowledge HPD's legal and financial liability should they deny you a license and you suffer any negative effect in any circumstance where you might have avoided those negative consequences had you been granted a license and carrying legally. Of course they won't sign it, nor will they acknowledge that they refused to sign it. The other possibility is that if you or your family are ever subject to criminal assault or attempted murder you could ask the criminal to stop while you ask the cops if they could NOW issue you a license as you find yourself in "an exceptional circumstance". The whole charade disgusts me and makes me sick. 

I understand, though I doubt that such a lawsuit would ever succeed despite spending at least tens of thousands of dollars. You could try submitting a legal document with your application that would acknowledge HPD's legal and financial liability should they deny you a license and you suffer any negative effect in any circumstance where you might have avoided those negative consequences had you been granted a license and carrying legally. Of course they won't sign it, nor will they acknowledge that they refused to sign it. The other possibility is that if you or your family are ever subject to criminal assault or attempted murder you could ask the criminal to stop while you ask the cops if they could NOW issue you a license as you find yourself in "an exceptional circumstance". The whole charade disgusts me and makes me sick. 

There is a law to cover
"HPD's legal and financial liability should they deny you a license and you suffer any negative effect in any circumstance where you might have avoided those negative consequences had you been granted a license and carrying legally".
it is this -

Title 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Our local problem is finding a lawyer to help us prosecute this  "Qui Tam" in a federal court,
when we are denied.  Arbitrary,  conceal carry permit denial is clearly a federal crime.

The bill is out, it's HR38.

https://hudson.house.gov/press-releases/hudson-introduces-national-concealed-carry-reciprocity-bill/#.WGyOYlz-VtZ

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (NC-08) released the following statement after introducing the bipartisan Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38) with 58 original cosponsors:
 
“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits. As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to get this legislation across the finish line.”
 
Rep. Hudson’s bill, which is supported by major pro-Second Amendment groups, would allow people with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry, as long as the permit holder follows the laws of that state. It also allows residents of Constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry.

Added discussions at http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1951105_National-Concealed-Carry-Reciprocity-Bill-Introduced---Jan-3--2017.html

[ETA: Hey zippz, I was typing my post at the same time... do you concur that the language I highlighted means a non-resident permit is valid in a state where residents are not issued CCW licenses? The language in the bill could be clearer regarding that issue, unless it's intentionally vague so as not to emphasize that "loophole"...).

Apparently Rep. Hudson introduced the national reciprocity bill today, the first day of the new Congress. It does not have a bill number yet.

Here is the language that seems to allow non-resident licenses/permits to be valid in any other state (my emphasis):

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that— (1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or (2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

Brief article by AWR Hawkins: http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2017/01/03/gop-rep-introduces-national-concealed-carry-reciprocity-day-one-new-congress/

The bill itself: https://hudson.house.gov/uploads/Concealed%20Carry%20Reciprocity%20Act%20of%202017.pdf

[ETA: Hey zippz, I was typing my post at the same time... do you concur that the language I highlighted means a non-resident permit is valid in a state where residents are not issued CCW licenses? The language in the bill could be clearer regarding that issue, unless it's intentionally vague so as not to emphasize that "loophole"...).

Apparently Rep. Hudson introduced the national reciprocity bill today, the first day of the new Congress. It does not have a bill number yet.

Here is the language that seems to allow non-resident licenses/permits to be valid in any other state (my emphasis):

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that— (1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or (2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

Brief article by AWR Hawkins: http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2017/01/03/gop-rep-introduces-national-concealed-carry-reciprocity-day-one-new-congress/

The bill itself: https://hudson.house.gov/uploads/Concealed%20Carry%20Reciprocity%20Act%20of%202017.pdf

i am not a lawyer, but  to me, it says that you have to have A permit (not a permit in your state of residence) and your state must 1) have a statute under which residents MAY apply (we can apply here- so far, even though no one gets) or 2) does not prohibit ccw (our state does not-yet)
so, to me, we should be good if we have a non-resident permit in another state

BUT, our AG will probably read it differently, and we will have another lawsuit

i am not a lawyer, but  to me, it says that you have to have A permit (not a permit in your state of residence) and your state must 1) have a statute under which residents MAY apply (we can apply here- so far, even though no one gets) or 2) does not prohibit ccw (our state does not-yet)
so, to me, we should be good if we have a non-resident permit in another state

BUT, our AG will probably read it differently, and we will have another lawsuit

"Probably"?! 

"Probably"?! 

yeah, ok
will the jury please disregard the word "probably"