<p>
</p>
<p>The proposed law only requires honoring the other state’s permit. If no permit is required, there is no permit to honor. There was mention in that article that citizens of Vermont could just get a non-resident permit from another nearby state and therefore have that permit honored in all 50 states.</p>
<p>OK, I found the answer. Page 3, lines 21 - 24 of the bill viewed here: [S</a>. 2188: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act … - Full Text - GovTrack.us](<a href=“http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2188/text]S”>Text of S. 2188 (112th): National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us)</p>
<p>If you have a valid Driver’s License from Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming or Vermont then you’re legal to carry concealed anywhere in the USA that issues Carry Permits. (Disclosure: I’m not a lawyer. If I’m misreading the proposed law please feel free to correct me.)</p>
<p>Read page 4, lines 1 through 10. I think you have to have a government issued id and a state issued carry permit. Then the state issued permit must be honored in all other states.</p>
<p>07DAD - Thanks for both of your responses.</p>
<p>I did read page 4 lines 1-10. In permit-less carry states a drivers license (or passport) is the only ID one needs for concealed carry. That’s “the document” that allows concealed carry in Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming (and Vermont?). </p>
<p>I’m admit I’m puzzled by Vermont … why would they have to get an out-of-state carry permit to carry in VT?</p>
<p>Well, if believe if you look at the defined term “identification document” it is the driver’s license or passport. Therefore, page 4, lines 6-10 must have a different meaning than “identification document” on page4, lines 4-5. Since 4 requires both (by the use of the conjunctive “and”) an identification document and a “valid license or permit”, I think that people in these states have to get a non resident permit from a state that has them.</p>
<p>I see that the use of “license or permit” may make it unclear since everyone thinks of “driver’s license,” but I think the “license or permit” is intended to cover the state granted “right” to concealed carry (whether called a “license or a permit” under that state’s law).</p>
<p>I went to the Alaska state website about concealed carry. They do not require anyone 21 or older within Alaska to do ANYTHING or get anything to be “legal” to carry concealed handguns. No driver’s license or anything is required, just be 21 or older. </p>
<p>Alaska issues permits expressly for the purpose of allowing Alaskans to receive the reciprocity benefits Alaska has already established with some states. But you do not have to have a permit.</p>
<p>“I think that people in these states have to get a non resident permit from a state that has them.”</p>
<p>The bill was sponsored by the Senator from Alaska. It doesn’t seem likely that the intent of the bill is to have Alaskans do the extra work of obtaining a non-resident permit whilst those with existing permits from other states get a free ride. But hey, we’ve beat this subject to death as far as I’m concerned. I’m sure the bill will get scrutiny if it makes it out of Committee.</p>
<p>FWIW, it always makes me nervous when a Bill begins:
“Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision therof …”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet you’re against legal carrying?</p>
<p>I’m against carrying. Period. </p>
<p>Before people carried guns around, kids got in fights, but people didn’t get shot and killed. I can not see one good thing that has come from kids carrying guns around. And, by the time someone is old enough to have the sense they “need” to carry a gun around, I’d say about 45 years old, they really mostly don’t want to.</p>
<p>hops - I’d say the rest of the 1st World is way ahead of us on this. Of course if they’re way BEHIND instead, we could make a ton of money arming the citizenry’s of China and India and Pakistan and Russia and Brazil and Argentina and Germany and France and Spain and Ukraine and Poland and …</p>
<p>On the way home tonite I heard a report (on either CNN or MSNBC, can’t recall which) in which an audio expert purports to have enhanced Zimmerman’s 911 call much more than was done previously. Assuming the enhancement didn’t completely distort the sound–and who knows how much of an “expert” this was and whether his methodology is worth spit–there’s no racial epithet, and Zimmerman is muttering about the cold temperature. But even if this is the correct version of his words, I don’t imagine it would mean a thing to those who have already indicted, tried and executed Zimmerman in their minds, nor deter those slimeballs like Al Sharpton who are exploitng a tragedy to make headlines.</p>
<p>MommaJ - Any chance we can sent Mr. Sharpton to your neck of the woods on a permanent basis? He spends WAY too much time in my state … not a good thing at all. (The man does have a gift for not seeing the big picture.)</p>
<p>As for Mr. Zimmerman, his best option at this point is to emigrate to Uzbekistan. He’s also a victim IMO, though I do thing Trayon was the greater victim … him being dead and all.</p>
<p>^^^^Well, considering the fact that none of his lawyers has actually met him, or talked to him in person, it wouldn’t surprise me if he were already IN Uzbekistan…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm, if the epithet is now gone or in doubt, might that not nix the parallel federal case? Federal jurisdiction in this case is related only to the ‘hate crime’ aspect, no? Or are there other federal civil rights violations implicated?</p>
<p>I understood that the federal investigation was into the police investigation, much like the New Orleans cover-up case linked earlier.</p>
<p>^ Yes, that is my understanding also. The Feds came to CT recently to indict a town’s police department for unequal “attention” to select minority groups … Hispanic mostly. When the Mayor was asked what he would say to the Hispanic community, he responded “I may have Tacos for dinner tonight.” Mr. Sensitivity.</p>
<p>Do you have any info on that? Because an article I linked earlier in this thread had the feds specifically stating that they were not looking at the PD. Someone later posted an article about the Sanford City Manager having asked the DOJ to do an investigation of its own PD, but the DOJ never confirmed this or responded with any announcement that they agreed to do this.</p>
<p>According to this washington post article, they are actually examining the stand your ground law on the grounds that it is, in itself, as written, a civil rights violation.</p>
<p>[Federal</a> agencies to open investigation into black teen’s death - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/shooting-of-florida-youth-prompts-calls-for-federal-investigation/2012/03/19/gIQA1HZ6NS_story.html]Federal”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/shooting-of-florida-youth-prompts-calls-for-federal-investigation/2012/03/19/gIQA1HZ6NS_story.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is what Al Sharpton says he asked the feds to do; it is not what the feds said they are they doing. The federal government does not work for Al Sharpton.</p>
<p>Here is an NPR article containing an overview of the federal government’s jurisdiction in this case, and at least according to this writer, the feds are indeed limited to looking at the hate crime aspect: [Was</a> Trayvon Martin’s Killing A Federal Hate Crime? : NPR](<a href=“Was Trayvon Martin's Killing A Federal Hate Crime? : NPR”>Was Trayvon Martin's Killing A Federal Hate Crime? : NPR)</p>