Got mine in the mail today. 4 week wait it seems.

edit- double post

Pm me too. Me too!

Pm me too. Me too!

In the PA/NH reciprocity contract it says "This Reciprocity Agreement applies only to the carrying of firearms by valid license/permit holders from respective states and not to any other types of weapons."

The question is, is there a gotcha in the phrase "respective states". I personally do not see one.

 

This is verbiage from the existing contract. AFAIK nothing has changed between the states regarding reciprocity. Yet.

The application asks for our driver's license number which I provided.

 

Did anyone include copies of their driver's license? 

The application asks for our driver's license number which I provided.

 

Did anyone include copies of their driver's license? 

No copies of anything needed.

So what's this talk of the NH permit not being good in PA. The agreement has not changed since 2004 and people have been using it since then, no?

http://www.pafoa.org/law/carrying-firearms/concealed-carry/reciprocity/

 

 

its quite simple really..

 

that is PA's website that straight says it honors NH.

 

it has no non-resident/resident restrictions. 

So what's this talk of the NH permit not being good in PA. The agreement has not changed since 2004 and people have been using it since then, no?

Maybe. At this point, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using it in PA as a non-resident of NH. I think the language in the agreement explicitly limits the agreement to PA and NH residents. Whether people have been carrying in PA with NH permits is completely irrelevant to my analysis.

 

Paragraphs 1 and 2 state that PA will recognize NH permits, and NH will recognize PA permits, respectively. I think we all agree on that. Paragraph 3 of the PA-NH Agreement says: "This Reciprocity Agreement applies only to the carrying of firearms by valid license/permit holders from respective states and not to any other types of weapons."

 

In my opinion this language limits the agreement - albeit unintentionally - to permit holders from PA or NH. The paragraph was clearly supposed to limit the agreement to the carrying of firearms only, but was worded inartfully.

 

As I read it, "respective states" means PA and NH. I don't think it can mean another other state. Therefore, paragraph 3 can also be read as: "This Reciprocity Agreement applies only to the carrying of firearms by valid license/permit holders from [PA or NH] and not to any other types of weapons." It says "license/permit holders from respective states." (emphasis added). It does not say "holders of permits from respective states." To me, that difference is enough to keep me from carrying in PA with a NH permit.

 

http://www.pafoa.org/law/carrying-firearms/concealed-carry/reciprocity/

 

 

its quite simple really..

 

that is PA's website that straight says it honors NH.

 

it has no non-resident/resident restrictions.

To be clear, that is not PA's website. That is a website of a non-profit organization that has interpreted the various reciprocity agreements. My interpretation differs.

Maybe. At this point, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using it in PA as a non-resident of NH. I think the language in the agreement explicitly limits the agreement to PA and NH residents. Whether people have been carrying in PA with NH permits is completely irrelevant to my analysis.

 

Paragraphs 1 and 2 state that PA will recognize NH permits, and NH will recognize PA permits, respectively. I think we all agree on that. Paragraph 3 of the PA-NH Agreement says: "This Reciprocity Agreement applies only to the carrying of firearms by valid license/permit holders from respective states and not to any other types of weapons."

 

In my opinion this language limits the agreement - albeit unintentionally - to permit holders from PA or NH. The paragraph was clearly supposed to limit the agreement to the carrying of firearms only, but was worded inartfully.

 

As I read it, "respective states" means PA and NH. I don't think it can mean another other state. Therefore, paragraph 3 can also be read as: "This Reciprocity Agreement applies only to the carrying of firearms by valid license/permit holders from [PA or NH] and not to any other types of weapons." It says "license/permit holders from respective states." (emphasis added). It does not say "holders of permits from respective states." To me, that difference is enough to keep me from carrying in PA with a NH permit.

 

To be clear, that is not PA's website. That is a website of a non-profit organization that has interpreted the various reciprocity agreements. My interpretation differs.

Category 1: States that have entered into written reciprocity agreements with Pennsylvania.  (Title 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109(k))

The following states have entered into formal written reciprocity agreements with Pennsylvania under section 6109(k) of the Uniform Firearms Act.  These agreements provide for reciprocal recognition of valid licenses/permits issued by both states. 

NH is one of these states...  

i give no legal advice but i read paragraph (1) as pretty plain and simple.

Category 1: States that have entered into written reciprocity agreements with Pennsylvania. (Title 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109(k))

The following states have entered into formal written reciprocity agreements with Pennsylvania under section 6109(k) of the Uniform Firearms Act. These agreements provide for reciprocal recognition of valid licenses/permits issued by both states.

NH is one of these states...

You pulled that from the AG website, right? You don't believe that the NJSP website is an accurate summary of the law, right?

 

If you are charged criminally, you are charged under a statute, not a summary of the law on a website. Therefore, you have to look at the applicable statute.

 

§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license.

 

(a) Offense defined.--

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.

(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:

(15) Any person who possesses a valid and lawfully issued license or permit to carry a firearm which has been issued under the laws of another state, regardless of whether a reciprocity agreement exists between the Commonwealth and the state under section 6109(k), provided:

(i) The state provides a reciprocal privilege for individuals licensed to carry firearms under section 6109.

(ii) The Attorney General has determined that the firearm laws of the state are similar to the firearm laws of this Commonwealth.

§ 6109. Licenses.

(k) Reciprocity.--

(1) The Attorney General shall have the power and duty to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states providing for the mutual recognition of a license to carry a firearm issued by the Commonwealth and a license or permit to carry a firearm issued by the other state. To carry out this duty, the Attorney General is authorized to negotiate reciprocity agreements and grant recognition of a license or permit to carry a firearm issued by another state.

(2) The Attorney General shall report to the General Assembly within 180 days of the effective date of this paragraph and annually thereafter concerning the agreements which have been consummated under this subsection.

PA law requires you to obtain a license from PA before carrying, unless there is statutory reciprocity or a reciprocity agreement is in place. There is a reciprocity agreement in place with NH. The language in the reciprocity agreement is controlling (including any residency restrictions), not the general description of a reciprocity agreement on the AG website. You wouldn't carry in PA with a FL permit would you? No, you wouldn't... because the language in the reciprocity agreement doesn't allow for it.

According to CCW reciprocity website, NH ONLY takes home state licenses however, PA takes NH regardless:

 

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

i give no legal advice but i read paragraph (1) as pretty plain and simple.

Of course. We're just talking about what we think words mean. I'm only saying what I'm comfortable.

 

If you're talking about paragraph one in the reciprocity agreement, paragraph 1 is crystal clear. But that doesn't mean that paragraph 3 does not have meaning or, more importantly, legal significance.

 

For example, you and your employer could enter into the following agreement:

1) You will show up at work.

2) Your employer will pay you.

3) This agreement only applies to the workweek and not to weekends.

 

Paragraph 3 serves a purpose, no matter how broad and clear paragraphs 1 and 2 are.

According to CCW reciprocity website, NH ONLY takes home state licenses however, PA takes NH regardless:

 

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

As with PAFOA, that is their interpretation and is of no legal significance.

I guess the thing that makes me feel comfortable was the whole Supreme Court case.

 

It was completely based on non-resident who was trying to carry in PA

I guess the thing that makes me feel comfortable was the whole Supreme Court case.

 

It was completely based on non-resident who was trying to carry in PA

Are you taking about Bach v. NH Dept. of Safety? The issue before the NH Supreme Court was whether, by requiring a NJ resident to first obtain a carry permit in his home state, NH was subjecting NJ residents to a higher standard than required by NH law. The result is that NJ residents can obtain a NH permit without obtaining one from NJ.

 

The NH Supreme Court was not asked to opine whether a NJ resident could carry in PA with a NH permit. Even if it was and even if it had, it wouldn't be binding on PA.

 

I'm not aware of any PA decision that interprets the reciprocity agreement, and I'm not willing to be the one who changes that.

The way I read "valid license/permit holders from respective states" is that a holder of that state's carry permit, not a resident who holds a permit from that state.

 

I am a permit holder from that state, meaning I hold a permit from that state.  I do not see this language specifying residency. 

 

How come no one has had a problem with this language for 12 years?  Is there an opinion by a certain attorney who publishes books on NJ gun laws and lives in NH?

Although the language is slightly garbled, I don't read it the way Trunk does.  Paragraph 1 is crystal clear and is the operative paragraph in legal parlance:  "The Commonwealth of PA will recognize valid NH permits to carry concealed firearms by valid permit holders while said permit holders are present in the Commonwealth of PA".  (Emphasis added).  "Valid NH permits" unambiguously includes non-resident permits, and non-residents are unambiguously "valid permit holders."  There is no other way to read it.

 

The language Trunk cited in paragraph 3 is:  "This Reciprocity Agreement applies only to the carrying of firearms by valid license/permit holders from respective states and not to any other types of weapons."

 

That paragraph is clearly talking about the type of weapon covered by the reciprocity agreement and limiting those weapons to firearms.  Given the context, "respective states" should mean PA and NH, but in fact could mean other states as well in the case of non-resident holders.  

 

"valid license/permit holders from respective states" could, read in a vacuum, mean one of three things:  1) holder of permits from (ie issued by) PA and NH; 2) holders from any state (if respective isn't limited to PA and NH); or 3) permit holders from (ie who live in) PA and NH.  Reading 1 is completely consistent with paragraph 1 and the rest of the agreement.  Reading 2 is possible but confused and less likely but still would be consistent with paragraph 1.  Reading 3 (Trunk's reading) creates a conflict with Paragraph 1, which as noted above unambiguously covers ALL NH permits, resident and non-resident.  There is a principle in contract interpretation that where there is an ambiguity in the language an interpretation that is reconcilable with the rest of the agreement is the correct interpretation.

 

I have no idea how these reciprocity agreements are interpreted or enforced in criminal cases, and I'm guessing there is little legal precedent on that.  However, it seems vastly more likely (although not 100% certain) that IF a prosecutor  chose to prosecute a NH non-resident permit holder because of the garbled language (which seems unlikely, especially in light of the clarity in the revised Fla reciprocity agreement), it would thrown out of court.  But Trunk is correct, there is a possibility, however small, that PA could try to screw someone due to the garbled language.  

Although the language is slightly garbled, I don't read it the way Trunk does.  Paragraph 1 is crystal clear and is the operative paragraph in legal parlance:  "The Commonwealth of PA will recognize valid NH permits to carry concealed firearms by valid permit holders while said permit holders are present in the Commonwealth of PA".  (Emphasis added).  "Valid NH permits" unambiguously includes non-resident permits, and non-residents are unambiguously "valid permit holders."  There is no other way to read it.

 

 

^^^^This x10000000

Although the language is slightly garbled, I don't read it the way Trunk does. Paragraph 1 is crystal clear and is the operative paragraph in legal parlance: "The Commonwealth of PA will recognize valid NH permits to carry concealed firearms by valid permit holders while said permit holders are present in the Commonwealth of PA". (Emphasis added). "Valid NH permits" unambiguously includes non-resident permits, and non-residents are unambiguously "valid permit holders." There is no other way to read it.

^^^^This x10000000

Guys, this situation is no different than our statutes here in NJ.

 

2C:39-5(b)(1) clearly and unambiguously states that "[a]ny person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun, without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the second degree." Under this statue, absolutely nobody can possess a handgun without obtaining a permit to carry under 2C:58-4. But we all know that's not the end of the story. 2C:39-6 sets forth all of the situations when 2C:39-5 does not apply.

 

Based on your logic, everyone should also agree that nobody can possess a handgun in NJ according to 2C:39-5, regardless of what the rest of the criminal statutes say. Respectfully, that is completely wrong. You have to read the statutes (and contracts) as a whole.

 

I just thought it was worth bringing it up. We can agree to disagree (the attorneys I've spoken with have). We'll all do what we're comfortable with.

Call up Joshua Prince, PA's "Even Nappen" and get the answer your question.  Also ask about the  Federal Gun Free Zone Act of 1990 and how that relates to carry in PA within 1000 feet of a school property with an out of state CCW.

You can carry in PA with a NH permit until the AG changes NH status, which I don't think will happen anytime soon, she has other things to worry about.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Just out of curiosity...has anyone who's received their NH CCW submitted the paperwork without their NJ FID #?

Just out of curiosity...has anyone who's received their NH CCW submitted the paperwork without their NJ FID #?

 

I'm curious too.  There was one post here where somebody quoted an email from the NHSP that said no copies of any documents were required.  I don't think anyone in this thread said they've actually submitted without any documents.  

NOTHING is required but the completed form and check! NO CCW, NO FID! Leave the space for resident CCW BLANK! You will be approved! They have not updated their forms yet to

reflect the changes by the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling.

Patiently waiting..... Checking cancelled checks every day...... Mailed mine around July 11th...... Should be any day now......

Progress report on NH permit:

7/6 - Mailed application with copy of UT permit.

Today (8/3) - check to NH posted on my account. Back of check indicates it was deposited 8/1.

Now in mailbox watch mode.

So, the 1 month turnaround estimate seems accurate.

Sent in on July 5 with Fla and Utah permits and received today Aug,6

Dave

Sent in on July 5 with Fla and Utah permits and received today Aug,6

Dave

Did you send any forms of ID with the application?