Originally Posted By JimSimpson:
In at least four cases this is impossible (Oregon, Illinois, American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands) as they're doing "outsider exclusion" - they won't accept my permit and won't issue me theirs.  Set that aside for now, because three states have been challenged on that and folded quickly, New York, California and Hawaii so we can assume that'll be fixed soon.

Originally Posted By JimSimpson:
Prior to WW2 the states set up an interstate compact on driver's licenses and YES, they're required to honor each other's driver's licenses.  The compact (still in existence) covers minimum standards for training, background checks, vision checks and so on.

(The background check isn't to exclude felons, it's about checking to see if anybody has had their driver's license revoked by another state.  It's just as complex as NICS for guns but it's a difference database.)

You've figured out that driving is a privilege, carry is a civil right.  Good.  What you've missed is the 2nd half of Bruen footnote 9.

It bans abusive behavior in CCW permit handling, even if it's shall issue.  The specific abuses flat banned are "subjective standards for issuance", "lengthy waiting times" and "exorbitant fees".  THOSE ARE CONDEMNED.

Now, we don't have exact limits.  But if no one state or territory can blow up those limits, neither can a coalition of 20+ states and territories.

Chasing 20+ permits from Guam to Massachusetts utterly detonates the footnote 9 limits.

That's how we grab them by the short'n'curlies in court.

Originally Posted By JimSimpson:
"You're assuming the courts will be reasonable, logical and consistent."

Kinda.

Here's the thing.  Once the Bruen decision elevated carry to a basic civil right, that changed everything.

We've got over a century of case law regarding how we handle civil rights.  How the courts handle it.

I don't care how much a judge hates guns, if he's honest, he's got to hesitate before risking a dilution of all civil rights.

Originally Posted By JimSimpson:
Yes I have.

All kinds of weird crap is happening.  I get it.

But we're talking about the same core civil right as covered in Bruen.

In areas Bruen covered.

I'm not saying it's a slam dunk.  Especially not in state criminal court, although I'm remain convinced it's possible.  Remember, this is just as much about whether a New York judge can go to Boston with their SO for lobster dinners while strapped as it is myself as an Alabama trucker carrying in New York.

But there's grounds here to bounce it to federal court on a habeus if needed.  And a lot of BS that might fly in state court might not play as easily in federal court.

Originally Posted By Gamma762:

It's guns.

We can't even get the federal courts to accept that magazines, grips and other firearm components are covered by 2A.

7th Circuit already threw out the challenge to non-resident licensing (not even reciprocity) in Illinois...
https://www.isba.org/cases/7thcircuit/2019/04/12/culpvraoul

SCOTUS denied review:
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/culp-v-raoul/

The Bruen decision didn't explicitly address non-residents at all and unfortunately explicitly accepted licensing regimes. No federal appeals court is going to go one millimeter beyond what Bruen demands, if they even bother to go that far as we're already seen. Some district judge may, but the appeals courts won't, and SCOTUS doesn't seem interested in actually taking any cases to respond to the color revolution that is pushing them into irrelevance.

It's not the way it should be or the way I'd like it to be, but that's the way it is. Between SAF, FPC, and others almost all these issues have been pushed through to the appeals court level and then denied review by SCOTUS. The more recent tact has been to pursue legal action in state courts rather than federal courts with the hope of getting a favorable opinion from a state supreme court.

Our only real hope would have been federal legislation in 2017 or 2025, riding the election mandate with congressional majorities, but the other unfortunate reality is that the republican party as an institution isn't actually pro-gun rights either. Lots and lots of statists on both the right and the left who go completely limp when it comes to any firearms rights beyond bird hunting with an over-under.