For gun owners against National Reciprocity #2
"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...in ANY State that—"
If there's a way to type bold or italics on youtube I don't know it, two very small but very important words have been selectively isolated and capitalized to draw your attention. Unfortunately none of us fuckers participating in this debate is a lawyer, but I account myself as being somewhat savvy. And I've read the damn thing a dozen times because fuckers keep saying "That's not what it says, look!" and then paranoid I missed something or it's been amended I go read it again. It's a short bill but even so legal jargon is fucking nauseating. To translate into laymans terms a person with valid (government, state or derivative issued) identification OR permit issued by A state. Not your state. Not state of residency. A state. But it get's better, OR is from a constitutional carry state (it is inferred that your ID would be the evidence of said state residence). When you see "or" in a legal document that basically means either of the things surrounding the "or" are all that is required. I can keep trying to spell it out but I feel like I just keep repeating the same thing. However here is how the rest of the text reads after the stop above:
"(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."
That last one is most certainly tricky. It could be interpreted a hundred different ways. Lawful to whom? the State? The Constitution? The Supreme Court? The Heller case plainly says "that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose" so, theoretically, any state prohibiting such is directly denying you your rights. Now things get interesting.
"A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may NOT be arrested or otherwise DETAINED for violation of ANY law OR any rule or regulation of A State OR any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms UNLESS there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section."
So long as you have an ID or Permit this bill says that unless you are behaving outside the realm of the document (brandishing or threatening for example, waving it around, firing in the air, those sorts of things) you are protected from being detained or arrested based purely on the fact that you exist and choose to responsibly carry a firearm. Because A state is stated and not state of residence, state currently in or whatever, literally all 50 states and ALL of their laws, rules and regulations do not apply, without probable cause. But even more interesting is the next part.
"When a person asserts THIS section as a DEFENSE in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution SHALL BEAR the burden of PROVING, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did NOT satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b)."
IE the burden of evidence is on the prosecution to prove you were acting unlawfully, vice YOU proving your innocence or that you were acting lawfully.
“(3) When a person SUCCESSFULLY asserts this section as a DEFENSE in a criminal proceeding, the court shall AWARD the prevailing defendant a reasonable ATTORNEY'S FEE."
Straight up says any court proceedings brought up against someone carrying under the provisions of this bill who is found innocent or not guilty of a criminal act will be paid for by the loser, IE the state bringing up the charges.
“(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, MAY BRING AN ACTION in any appropriate COURT AGAINST any other PERSON, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who CAUSES the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief."
It's a rather wordy way of saying you would be fully within your rights to sue any person or state, agency or government for the deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity provided BY THIS BILL (such as not being arrested in any state without probable cause). It's then followed by another statement saying citizen bringing up these charges and winning will have "reasonable attorneys fees" paid for, damages and "such other relief" as deemed appropriate.
"(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee." Next it mentions a subsection 922 (q) of chapter 44 of title 18 USC and that any person carry a gun under subsection 1 (of this bill, not title 18) "Shall not be subject to the prohibitions provided in ss(q)922"
and for the sake of thoroughness I pulled that up and I'll admit I'm confused about this part, not because I don't understand it but because it's almost too good to be true. The prohibitions in ss(q)922 involve school zones and when/where or if carry, possession or travel through is lawful or not. The phrasing
"Shall not be subject to the prohibitions" sounds an AWFUL lot like nullifying the ability to enforce the laws of gun free zones against a person carrying lawfully as provided in this bill. At this point I'm not sure if I'm delusional or that's really what it means. Either way I've been dissecting this thing for too damn long as it is.
“(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in A State under subsection (a) may do so in ANY of the following areas in the State that are open to the public: “(A) A unit of the National Park System. “(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. “(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. “(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. “(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.”."
If lawfully carrying in accordance to subsection (a) you may do so in ANY State in ANY of the LISTED places open to the public. Which is dope because fuck NPS telling me I can't carry despite a million signs saying "beware, bears" like fuck you beware but have no chance whatsoever, fuck you. /end rant