·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
Posted on 02/23/2010 2:27:16 PM PST by neverdem
| Governor Signs Delaware Right-to-Carry Reform Bill! |
| Tuesday, February 23, 2010 |
|
Please Thank the Governor Today! NRA-ILA is happy to report that Governor Jack Markell (D) has signed House Bill 258 into law. HB258 will extend the validity of a concealed carry permit from 2 years to 3 years for initial licenses and 3 years to 5 years for renewal licenses. Please contact Governor Markell and thank him for signing HB258. The Governor can be reached by phone at (302) 744-4101 or (302) 577-3210. To send email, please visit http://smu.governor.delaware.gov/cgi-bin/mail.php?contact. |
Onward to New Jersey! Let’s get Bloomturd shaking in his boots. If NY is surrounded by shall issue states, it’ll make his head do 360’s.
Delaware is now “Shall Issue”????????????
When did that happen?
I’m not sure that it did. Delaware is still “may issue” according to the ILA fact page. I don’t know what a person has to go through to actually get a carry permit there, but they have the same classification (L) as New Jersey, which is a “will not issue” state.
Delaware has reciprocity with Florida and will honor my non-resident Florida license.
I was surprised when my Florida renewal arrived that it is now good for seven years.
I did some research after asking and Delaware is still “may issue” so you’re correct. It’s sad the original colonies lost their way so badly.
The Florida permit is expensive compared to numerous others that are also honored in many states. We’ve been complaining about the fee for a while, and the state finally listened. It’s kind of funny that the source of the change wasn’t so much pressure as the loss of a revenue stream. Non-residents have been allowing their Florida permits to expire and obtaining them elsewhere for less money. The marketplace worked. :)
According to the bill summary, the new law increases fees and increases lengthens the expiration. Nothing about changing the requirements or removing discretion.
Last I checked, Virginia (and by extension, West Virginia and Kentucky), North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire, Georgia and Maine (by extension from Massachusetts) were among the original colonies. They are all "Shall Issue" or "No Permit Required".
The condition of the other original colonies is indeed sad.
Ct is not a Shall Issue state.
We're close, but not close enough for me! And, what's this about CT and Castle Doctrine? When did this happen?
I’m not a lawyer, but aside from the “suitability clause,” if you meet the criteria CT would appear to be a “shall issue” state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_issue#Shall-issue
http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2158&q=294502
Sec. 53a-19. Use of physical force in defense of person. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor, or if he or she is a peace officer or a special policeman appointed under section 29-18b or a private person assisting such peace officer or special policeman at his or her direction, and acting pursuant to section 53a-22, or (2) by surrendering possession of property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto, or (3) by complying with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person, or (2) he is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but such other person notwithstanding continues or threatens the use of physical force, or (3) the physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
Sec. 53a-20. Use of physical force in defense of premises. A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination.
Sec. 53a-21. Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by such other person to commit larceny or criminal mischief involving property, or when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to regain property which he reasonably believes to have been acquired by larceny within a reasonable time prior to the use of such force; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.
Certainly there should be no “permit” to carry concealed or open to begin with, PERIOD!
AFAIK, it’s always been that way in CT, though, hasn’t it? I guess I was thinking that maybe they had expanded the CD in a way similar to Florida where, even if you’re not in your own home, you’re not required to retreat to, by extension, your home...
You don't need to be a lawyer. I have had my CT CCW for years. Believe me when I tell you...we're not a shall issue state. More like a "may" issue state, if such a thing exists.
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.
This is not, unfortunately, what the law is.
Amen!
Yes...many Delaware residents send their revenue to Florida to gain access to their rights via reciprocity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.