frontlines

One day, as Marine Corporal Jason Dunham and his buddies swapped talk in their barracks in Iraq, the conversation turned to the best way to survive a hand grenade attack. The corporal suggested covering a grenade with a Kevlar helmet. “I’ll bet a Kevlar would stop it,” he said.

Dunham, raised in the small town of Scio, New York, was a 22-year-old with a natural gift for leadership. He’d been a star athlete, setting a Scio Central School baseball record for highest batting average. Now a rifle squad leader, he’d extended his enlistment to stay with his comrades in Iraq.

On April 14, 2004, Dunham was on his way to help a Marine convoy that had been ambushed in western Iraq when an insurgent leaped from a car and attacked him. As two Marines rushed to help wrestle the man to the ground, they heard Dunham yell, “No, no, no – watch his hand!” Before they realized what was happening, Dunham threw his helmet and his own body over a live enemy grenade.

The sacrifice helped contain the blast but left Dunham mortally wounded. He died eight days later at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

In January 2007 President George W. Bush awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously to Jason Dunham. “Corporal Dunham saved the lives of two of his men, and showed the world what it means to be a Marine,” the president said. He was the first Marine to earn the Medal of Honor for service in Iraq.

Journalist Michael Phillips, author of The Gift of Valor, wrote that shortly before leaving for the Persian Gulf, Dunham told friends of his plans to extend his enlistment. “You’re crazy for extending,” a fellow Marine had said. “Why?”

“I want to make sure everyone makes it home alive,” Jason Dunham answered.

Copied from Bill Bennett's "The American Patriot Daily Almanac"
Click here for the original web version

Carrying Guns in Public Is Not a  Constitutional Right, Ninth Circuit Rules

And so now it becomes "ripe for Supreme Court review."

The majority of an 11-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to carry firearms outside the home.

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Americans have no right to carry guns in public, a divided en banc Ninth Circuit panel ruled Wednesday, reversing a prior Ninth Circuit decision that struck down a Hawaii firearm restriction as unconstitutional.

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority of an 11-judge panel in a 127-page opinion.

Looking back on 700 years of legal history dating back to 14th century England, seven judges in the majority found “overwhelming evidence” that the law has never given people “an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.”

The seven-judge majority traced legal texts and laws back to 1348 when the English parliament enacted the statute of Northampton, which banned carrying weapons in fairs or markets or before the King’s justices. It also cited multiple laws from colonial and pre-Civil War America in which states and colonies restricted the possession of weapons in public places.

“The Second Amendment did not contradict the fundamental principle that the government assumes primary responsibility for defending persons who enter our public spaces,” Bybee wrote. “The states do not violate the Second Amendment by asserting their longstanding English and American rights to prohibit certain weapons from entering those public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic violence.’”

Writing for the dissent, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said the majority failed to properly interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columba v. Heller, which overturned Washington D.C.’s total ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger-lock device.

“The Second Amendment’s text, history, and structure, and the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller, all point squarely to the same conclusion: Armed self-defense in public is at the very core of the Second Amendment right,” O’Scannlain wrote.

Plaintiff George Young sued Hawaii in 2012 for denying his applications for permits to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun. A Hawaii state law requires a license to carry a gun in public.

Under a Hawaii County regulation, the police chief may only grant such licenses to those who need a gun for their job or who show “reason to fear injury” to their “person or property.” No one other than a security guard has ever obtained an open-carry license in Hawaii, lawyers for the county acknowledged during a Ninth Circuit hearing in 2018.

In July 2018, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right and that Hawaii cannot deny permits to all non-security guard civilians who wish to exercise that right.

On Wednesday, the en banc panel majority reversed that decision, finding the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision is not inconsistent with state laws that restrict the right to carry arms in public.

“Heller found that the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms is not a right to ‘carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,’” Bybee wrote for the majority.

Young had argued that Hawaii’s 169-year-old law impermissibly limited open-carry permits to security guards, as applied in regulations adopted by the County of Hawaii in 1997.

During oral arguments last September, a lawyer representing the Aloha State said the law does not limit open-carry licenses to security guards. He cited the Hawaii Attorney General’s 2018 guidance stating that an applicant can obtain an open-carry permit by demonstrating “a need to carry a firearm for protection that substantially exceeds the need possessed by ordinary law-abiding citizens.”

The state says the attorney general’s 2018 guidance overrides the county’s 1997 regulation that ostensibly limits open-carry licenses to security guards.

Despite that argument, O’Scannlain found the fact that the 1997 regulation remains “on the books” and that Hawaii has never granted permits to a non-security guard civilian shows the state has been unconstitutionally restricting Second Amendment rights.

“In the County of Hawaii, the historical dearth of open-carry permits for private citizens is no mere ‘pattern or practice,’” O’Scannlain wrote. “It is a matter of official policy.”

In a concurring dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Donald Trump appointee, argued the panel should have remanded the case back to district court to determine if Young could plausibly allege Hawaii’s law has been applied in an unconstitutional manner.

The failure to do so could have widespread consequences for people suing to protect their constitutional rights, he said, especially for litigants representing themselves without an attorney. Young originally filed his lawsuit pro se but was represented by lawyers in his appeal.

“It will preclude a host of future as-applied constitutional challenges under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments previously recognized by this court — especially for pro se civil rights plaintiffs,” Nelson wrote.

By upholding state laws that restrict carrying guns in public, the Ninth Circuit joined three other circuit courts that have issued similar rulings: the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit and Seventh Circuit have struck down state laws that ban carrying guns in public. That makes the dispute ripe for Supreme Court review.

Although some circuit courts have upheld restrictions on carrying guns in public, Young’s attorney Alan Beck, of San Diego, argued that no court has gone as far as the Ninth Circuit did in its en banc opinion Wednesday.

“The Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which finds the Second Amendment right does not apply outside the home at all, contradicts the decisions of every federal circuit court in the country that has ruled on this issue,” Beck said in an email. “We will be seeking Supreme Court review in order to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision.”

Bill Clinton appointees William Fletcher, M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Chief Ninth Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas joined Bybee in the majority. Circuit Judges Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee, and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, also sided with the majority.

Circuit Judges Sandra Ikuta and Consuelo Callahan, both George W. Bush appointees, joined O’Scannlain and Nelson in the dissent.

GREENVILLE, S.C. (WYFF) - U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham visited Palmetto State Armory in Greenville Thursday to show his support for the Second Amendment.

Graham fired off some practice rounds at the shooting range’s indoor range with an AR-style rifle, which would be made illegal under the Assault Weapons Ban.

Graham was flanked by Mark Oliva, Director of Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry, and South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson.

“In South Carolina, we take seriously the right to bear arms, but also the responsibility that comes from owning a weapon,” Graham said at the start of his remarks.

He said the background check bills recently passed by the U.S. House go too far, citing gun sales.

The bills, passed in early March, require background checks on all firearms sales and transfers and allow an expanded 10-day review for gun purchases. Similar bills were passed by the House in 2019, shortly after Democrats won the majority, but stalled in the GOP-controlled Senate for the next two years.

Graham said there is room for compromise.

“We can do something with the gun show loopholes, I think, but if you transfer a weapon to a family member, I’m not really sure how that is affected in the House bill,” Graham said.

He also said he would oppose an assault weapons ban backed by President Joe Biden if it is brought to the Senate floor, but looks forward to the debate.

“Let’s bring them all to the floor,” he said. “Let’s vote. Maybe we can find some compromise, but I want to put every United States Senator on the record as to where they stand on the Second Amendment. I think the voters in 2022 need to understand this.”

Graham told the stories of three cases that have happened in South Carolina so far this year where citizens have had to use guns to defend themselves.

• An 80-year old veteran in Aiken, whose house was being broken into and his wife was being stabbed, shot the intruder, Graham said.
• A home break-in in Iva ended with the homeowner shooting the intruder, he said.
• At a barbershop in Columbia, one of the barbers used a lawfully owned gun to stop the robbery, according to Graham.

“One of the things about our Constitution is that we understood early on that if you live in a dictatorship, or in places where the government runs everything, the first thing they take away from you is not just your speech but your ability to defend yourself,” Graham said. “That’s why the Second Amendment exists. The ability to own a gun responsibly is a constitutional right in America, and here’s what I would say: we need that right today, as much as any other time in American history.”

When asked if his comments about the need for guns for self-protection were fearmongering, Graham defended himself with what he called the president’s own words.

“Well, Joe Biden told Jill, ‘If you find yourself in a bad spot, take the rifle and scare people away,’” Graham said.

“We live in a world where law and order are breaking down all too often,” Graham said. “The bottom line is self-defense is one of the fundamental rights associated with the Second Amendment. Most people in South Carolina who buy a gun will tell you one of the reasons they have a weapon is for self-defense purposes.”

He said the “liberals” who are talking about taking people’s guns away, already have their own protection.

“It’s the liberal elite who are able to live in a security environment the average person can’t have. All the people talking about taking your guns away have armed guards around them. So I’m here to tell you, look in South Carolina this year, where three people, senior citizens, mostly, if they had not had a gun they would have been killed. Women would be raped and people would be killed time and time again without the ability to defend themselves. This is not fear-mongering. This actually happens,” Graham said.

It Failed Before: We Have 10 Years of Data on How an Assault Weapons Ban Works in America  by Dan Zimmerman, The Truth About Guns

Why so many mass shootings with AR-15s? Well first off, I care about all mass killings, not just the subset of shootings. I care about the Nice, France truck attack (86 killed), and the GermanWings suicide attack (149 killed), the Berlin Christmas Market Truck Attack (12 killed, 56 injured), the Manchester Stadium bombing (22 killed, 1000+ injured), the Boston Marathon bombing (3 killed 250+ injured), the Oklahoma City bombing (168 killed), and the Boise stabbing (3yo killed, 8 injured including 5 kids), and the Kunming stabbing (27 killed), and I care about shootings that occur even in places with strict regulations like the Charlie Hebdo attack in France, the Oslo Norway attack, and the Thalys train attack.

Even with that context, it is still worth understanding why AR-15s come up so much in US mass shootings: they’re popular. And even if you banned them all today, they would still be popular… there are 10ish million in circulation. If someone wants more than a handgun, and less than a big, heavy rifle, they are probably going to grab an AR-15 variant.

So what if we had a ban? It turns out, we already tried that. From 1994-2004, we had an “Assault Weapons Ban” which specifically targeted the AR-15 by trying to call out AR-15ie features like “a grip” a “flash hider” and a “bayonet lug.” Why do I need a bayonet lug? I don’t know, but can you explain to me why you need to take it away?

So we have 10 years of data on how a national ban works. How do you think it worked? It is tough to prove causation, but I haven’t seen anyone even make a reasonably believable case it did anything at all.

Mental Health vs. just Police Response

Is there a clean line between when a a call comes in for a behavioral health crisis, or when a situation in which police are/should be dispatched?

Times of Wayne County, LAW & ORDER

This is a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ question, depending on the circumstances.

The City of Rochester Police Department has made national news three times over the past year in cases where police actions have been deemed unsuitable for the conditions, yet rules were allegedly followed. In each case the bad publicity, civilian complaints, protests and potential lawsuits have all led to a negative picture for police.

On Saturday (3/20) at 7:20 a.m. the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office responded to a call of a psychological disorder at the Woodland Commons Apartment Complex on Route 31 in the Town of Macedon.

Upon arrival, officers found the 43 year old man barricaded in his apartment in an apparent intoxicated and agitated state threatening to do harm to himself and officers.

Due to previous contacts with the subject, additional help was requested to contain the subject and protect the large number of residents that were unable to leave the facility.

After negotiating for 8 hours, the man was taken into custody, peacefully and taken to Rochester Strong Hospital for evaluation and treatment of self inflicted injuries.

The difference between a situation out of control in the City of Rochester, or with the response in Wayne County, depends on preparation, anticipation and training for all those who respond.

The Wayne County Mental Health Department, under Director James (Jim) Haitz, launched an ambitious ‘Intervention Team’ in September of 2018, with trained professionals and mobile units on the ready for mental health responses.

Under a pilot program the Mental Health Department has also added Ipads for some sheriff’s officers allowing for on scene assessments with on duty mental health technicians, making it possible to discern situations. This is when an officer, instead of beginning an arrest, or legal matter to be turned over to the ‘Open Access’ health officials.
It is then determined whether a mental health person is dispatched to the scene, brought to the ‘Open Access’ facility, or an appointment should be made for the person under distress.

According to Chief Deputy Rob Milby, Sheriff Barry Virts saw the handwriting on the wall as police reform and questions began arising over when to divert calls to mental health.

“Sheriff Virts decided to be ahead of the curve and began progressive training for all officers,” said Milby.
Classes in anti-bias, situation de-escalation, mental health overview, diversity training were all part of professional standards, accreditation for all officers. This is in addition to the 1000 hours of training before an officer hits the road.

During the covid crisis, the ‘Open Access’ and ‘Mobile Team’ response was cut back to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week. With more hires in the near future Haitz hopes to move to a 24 hour/seven days a week availability.
So, why are some city and municipalities not yet onboard with similar programs?

“We don’t like to toot our own horn” said Haitz. But his agency saw what was coming and decided to be more progressive. He added that through the existing programs and that of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office, and local municipal police agencies, bad and sensational outcomes are avoided.

Hiring the right staff, a mix of para professionals and peer staff that understand mental situations is paramount.
911 staff are being trained to distinguish between police involvement, or directing calls for mental health evaluation.
Did the man have a gun as he professed early on? What weapons did he actually have. A few large knives were thrown out a window during the wind down.

A Saturday’s situation in Macedon, Jim Haitz was contacted by police at home and he responded in person, supplying ‘intel’ on the barricaded man and adding to the direct line communications. Productive negotiations with the man ended the standoff. He came out, was handcuffed and taken to Strong Memorial Hospital by ambulance for a myriad of possible solutions, including self inflicted injuries.

“It was a perfect outcome,” proclaimed Haitz. “Police were calm and there was no panic,” he added.

Other municipalities across the nation are, or have instituted similar guidelines for behavioral crisis situations. The Wayne County Police/Mental Health match up was begun with a $4 million dollar grants, along with County participation and some insurance billing when available.

What about the danger of sending mental health officials into a situation that may escalate?

Haitz indicated that is where the connection with police agencies is vital at determining the right agencies and people. He added that in the future, for extra protection, mental health responders may need bullet proof vests for added security.

Why Identity Politics Hurts Women Gun Owners
by Wendy Lafever, Executive Director of NRA Women

Women who own guns and support the Second Amendment represent a voting bloc that frightens anti-gun activists. That’s because they’ve spent decades (erroneously) thinking of women as a gun-hating hivemind. It’s an outgrowth of the old, sexist attitude that guns are for men, and that women resent both the guns and the men. Every woman who buys a gun, takes a friend to the range, or posts pro-gun messages on social media is a woman proving that cultural myth wrong.

If you think of the Second Amendment as bedrock—and we here at the NRA sure do—you can think of identity politics as representing three major fault lines in that bedrock. Let’s get the first one out of the way: There is a cultural myth that Second Amendment supporters are racist. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

Some gun owners have firearms in their home strictly for hunting purposes. Some gun owners couldn’t be less interested in hunting if you paid them. Some gun owners keep their firearms carefully displayed in cases and rarely take them out, while others leave a large pile of brass next to them at the range every week. Any or all of the above are valid ways to be a gun-owning American woman, but the anti-gunners would prefer you not think of it that way. Why?

The final way in which anti-gunners have tried, are trying, and will try to divide our “house” is by bringing up irrelevant topics. Or, more precisely, they will try to introduce topics that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand—the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Why We Scare Them

What’s more, every woman who does any or all of those things empowers every other woman who sees or hears her doing it. (It’s one of the compelling reasons that some of us choose to disclose that we’re gun owners.) That’s why, right now, anti-2A forces are doing their best to split us apart … not by what we believe, but by who we are.

Don’t Let Them Divide Us by Race

It wasn’t true when the NRA was founded by two Union generals who were alarmed by the lack of marksmanship displayed by Union forces. It isn’t true today. It will never be true. In fact, it’s much easier to make the argument the other way. The very first gun-control laws were part of the extremely racist “Jim Crow” laws, and they sought to make gun ownership nearly impossible for the recently freed slaves. Nor did the phenomenon stop in the 19th century; gun-control laws continue to unfairly target people of color well into the 21st Century. Just a few years ago, the NRA partnered with Josephine Byrd to reverse a Delaware ban on gun ownership for the residents of Delaware public housing ... a ban that left people of color defenseless in some of Delaware's most crime-ridden areas.

The fact of the matter is as follows: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms knows no color, because it is a right that every human being is born with.

Don’t Let Them Divide Us by Interest

Well, the people who would like to legislate our freedom away are hoping that they can get some of us to vote against the freedoms of others. They’re hoping that we won’t mind a ban on modern sporting rifles as long as they leave our hunting guns alone. They’re hoping that we won’t mind a ban on Sunday hunting as long as they leave our defensive pistols alone. They’re hoping we won’t mind a ban on 20-round magazines as long as they leave our revolvers alone. Let’s make sure that those hopes go unfulfilled.

Don’t Let Them Divide Us by Irrelevant Topics

The concept that the Bill of Rights says what it means, and means what it says, when it says “shall not be infringed” is not inherently partisan. You do not have to subscribe to or support any other ideologies to support the Second Amendment. Anyone who tells you anything different is doing their best to change your mind by changing the subject. And although it may not feel like good news in the moment, it is … because when the anti-gunners try to split us along identity politics lines, it’s because they know that’s the only way to beat us.

Becerra Admits California Gun Registration A Failure  by Tom Knighton

Gun registration is a terrible idea. While I get that many anti-gunners really somehow think registering firearms will somehow magically make criminals unlikely to use a gun, it just doesn’t work that way.

About all gun registration is really good for is to know where the armed law-abiding citizens live so you can make them disarmed law-abiding citizens at some point. That’s pretty much it.

Well, California decided to register so-called assault weapons. It went about as well as you might imagine. It’s so bad that California’s now-former attorney general even admitted it was a failure.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office quietly signed a settlement agreement in federal court admitting his agency’s gun-registration website was so poorly designed that potentially thousands of Californians were unable to register their assault weapons and comply with state law.

Under the terms of the settlement filed Wednesday in U.S. Eastern District Court in Sacramento, the state Department of Justice is required to notify each district attorney and law enforcement agency to put on hold “all pending investigations and prosecutions” for those suspected of failing to register their assault weapons.

The settlement agreement is a major setback for one of California’s signature pieces of gun control legislation. It comes 11 months after a federal judge said the state’s newly implemented online ammunition background-check program was so glitchy that tens of thousands of otherwise legal firearms owners were barred from buying ammunition — in violation of their 2nd Amendment rights.

The settlement, which still needs to be approved by a federal judge, was filed the day before the U.S. Senate voted to approve Becerra as the new secretary of the U.S. Health and Human Services Agency. The Senate approved his nomination 50-49 on Thursday, with only one Republican voting to confirm him.

The problems with California’s gun-registration website didn’t come up during the confirmation hearings, but critics say they should have. Becerra is now running an agency responsible for monitoring the nation’s healthcare system and tracking its healthcare data.

Yeah, it really should have come up during the confirmation, but it didn’t so here we are.

Look, I get that not everyone agrees with me about registration, but maybe we can all agree how wrong it is to try and prosecute people for failing to register a firearm when the website that they were supposed to use to register them simply didn’t work. How many made good faith attempts to try and register before the deadline and couldn’t because the site was so jacked up?

Then again, as noted, California also barred people from buying ammunition for no good reason, so there was that as well.

And yet, California is often held up by the left as an example of how every state should be. They want us all to follow California’s lead, especially on guns. This despite Becerra’s admission that his department completely screwed the pooch on registration.

The best possible solution is for the state to scrap registration entirely, though we all know that’s unlikely to happen. It’s a shame, too, because it won’t do anything except empower the left to take those guns if the time comes.

State Police lose track of rifle, asking public for help  by WRGB STAFF

Investigators are not saying how the rifle was determined to be missing, and confirm there is an ongoing internal investigation. (CNYCentral File Photo)

CHESTERTOWN, NY (WRGB) — State Police are looking to the public to help locate a missing rifle.

Investigators are not saying how the rifle was determined to be missing, and confirm there is an ongoing internal investigation.

The Rock River AR-15 rifle serial # CM203155 with optic # K3319796 was in a black nylon carrying case.

Police say it was last seen on Tuesday, March 16th along state Route 9 in the vicinity of Riverside Drive in the town of Chestertown.

Anyone with information on the whereabouts of the rifle is asked to call the State Police at (518)-583-7000, say police.

STEFANIK INTRODUCES SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT

March 9, 2021 Washington, DC – Today, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik introduced the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA). If signed into law, this bill would override unconstitutional provisions in the SAFE Act that prohibit law-abiding New Yorkers from purchasing, transferring, and owning legal firearms. This bill would ensure that states cannot ban the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law. Congresswoman Stefanik issued the following statement:

“New York’s SAFE Act is unconstitutional and a clear infringement on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act will not only void the SAFE Act and award New Yorkers with any damages caused by this unconstitutional law – it would prevent other states across the country from further limiting and banning constitutionally protected firearms. I am introducing this bill at a critical time, as Democrats and the White House are pushing Far-Left gun control measures including gun bans.”

“The framers of the Constitution made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed.’ This legislation reinforces this founding principle for law-abiding Americans living in anti-gun states or local jurisdictions. We thank Representative Stefanik and her colleagues for their leadership on this important issue,” said Jason Ouimet, Executive Director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.  

Congresswoman Stefanik is joined by Representatives Jacobs (NY-27), Tenney (NY-22), Zeldin (NY-1), Reed (NY-23), LaMalfa (CA-1), and Duncan (SC-3).

Does Constitutional Carry Imply Reciprocity with Other States Permits? 

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Constitutional Carry has become a mainstream movement. The term means a state’s laws concerning the carry of weapons approximates the state of the law when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. At that time, no permits were required to carry weapons, openly or concealed.

17 states have restored a reasonable facsimile of Constitutional Carry. Vermont always had Constitutional Carry. Serious efforts are underway to restore Constitutional Carry in three other states in 2021, with various states of possibility in twenty other states.

Given the coming predominance of Constitutional Carry, what impact does it have on those with permits? How do Constitutional Carry states treat reciprocity issues?

Are permits still useful with Constitutional Carry?

Reciprocity is generally not an issue in Constitutional Carry states, because carrying a loaded handgun, openly or concealed is legal in most public places, most of the time.

However, the answers are not as simple and clear-cut as first they might appear. Some states have minor cut-outs which allow carrying with permits in some places where carry without permits is prohibited. For example, in Arizona, a permit is required to legally carry in a bar.  While Michigan is not a Constitutional Carry state yet, a permit is required to openly carry in a school, where concealed carry is prohibited.

There are three Constitutional Carry states which limit Constitutional Carry to residents.

Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming limit Constitutional Carry to residents only. This is a highly controversial and dubious distinction. It is likely to be challenged under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment. No court cases under the equal protection clause are in progress, regarding Constitutional Carry, to my knowledge.

Permits from most states are recognized by most states, making a concealed carry permit a useful item when a person exercises their Second Amendment rights across state lines.

All 17 states which had a permit system in place before they restored Constitutional Carry have kept their permit system in place for those who find a permit useful for a number of reasons.

Vermont does not issue a permit.  States cannot honor a permit that does not exist.

Of the three Constitutional Carry states which claim to limit Constitutional Carry to residents, Idaho honors permits from all other states.

North Dakota recognizes permits from 37 states. Wyoming Recognizes permits from 40 states.

State law and reciprocity status are constantly changing. The following interpretations of reciprocity were obtained from online sources, and are subject to change and error. It is recommended that persons traveling to or through other states check their reciprocity law online before traveling.

The author is not a lawyer. This article is not legal advice.

Here is the reciprocity status for the 18 Constitutional Carry states:

• Alaska – honors all other states permits.
• Arizona – honors enhanced Resident and Non-Resident permits from Idaho, and all permits from all other states.
  
• Arkansas – honors all other states permits. 
• Idaho  – honors all other states permits.
• Kansas  – honors all other states permits.
• Kentucky  – honors all other states permits.
• Maine  – honors resident permits from 27 states. Those are:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,, Idaho,  Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

• Maine does not honor permits from 21 states. They are:  

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, or Wisconsin. 

• Mississippi  – honors all other states permits.
• Missouri – honors all other states permits.
• Montana  – honors most other states permits. Does not honor permits from: 

Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

• New Hampshire – honors permits from 28 states. Those are:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,  Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

• New Hampshire does not honor permits from 20 states. They are:

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, or Wisconsin.

• North Dakota – honors permits from most states.  North Dakota does not honor permits from 10 states. They are: 

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, or Rhode Island. 

• Oklahoma  – honors all other states  permits.
• South Dakota  – honors all other states  permits.
• Utah  – honors all other states permits.
• West Virginia – honors permits from most states. West Virginia does not honor permits from:

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, or Rhode Island or Washington.

• Wyoming – honors permits from most states. Wyoming does not honor permits from 13 states. They are:

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, or Washington.

• Vermont – Does not have a permit system, and does not honor permits from any other state.

As a Constitutional Carry state, it is not against the law to carry a weapon, openly or concealed, if there is no intent to commit a crime.