Carrying in PR...

[jahwarrior]

Has anyonehere actually done it yet? My parents live in PR, and I haven't seen them in about a year. I live in PA, open carry almost exclusively. I plan to go down to visit when funds allow. If I were to go, say, in August, would I have an issue bringing a firearm, and carrying on the island?

 

[HPmatt]

First and only time in PR noticed governor's limo drivers w Uzis under their coats. Not OC. Also know their civil law has not adopted UCC, so would expect all sorts of non-standard guns laws there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gmooney72]

When I lived in PR from 1992 to 2002 I carried CCW and OC. Back then you needed a permit to carry. It was a long and thorough back ground check. The special unit from the Municipal police even went around my neighborhood asking about me and my character. Any negatives and your are done as far as carrying. But now, I understand that that has been eliminated. Now you can carry CCW or OC without permit and you can buy guns without having to apply for permit. This is acordding to a new law suit filed by citizens of PR. The court ruled in their favor,

 

[cocked&locked]

When I lived in PR from 1992 to 2002 I carried CCW and OC. Back then you needed a permit to carry. It was a long and thorough back ground check. The special unit from the Municipal police even went around my neighborhood asking about me and my character. Any negatives and your are done as far as carrying. But now, I understand that that has been eliminated. Now you can carry CCW or OC without permit and you can buy guns without having to apply for permit. This is acordding to a new law suit filed by citizens of PR. The court ruled in their favor,

Now you can carry CCW or OC without permit and you can buy guns without having to apply for permit. This is acordding to a new law suit filed by citizens of PR. The court ruled in their favor,

Not true!!!!! This case is currently under appeal and your advice is gonna land some poor fool in jail.

 

[gmooney72]

Acording to the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation), which is the organization who brought the law suit to the government of PR, It is legal to buy and carry CCW or OC without permit.

 

[Grapeshot]

Acording to the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation), which is the organization who brought the law suit to the government of PR, It is legal to buy and carry CCW or OC without permit.

That may be the SAF position, but it doesn't define the final authority.

Cite please.

Ooops - looks like it does. Puerto Rico goes Constitutional Carry:
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2015/06/puerto-rico-goes-constitutional-carry.html

 

[OC4me]

Nothing has changed in Puerto Rico until further notice. It could take years for the legal process to run its course. Expect whatever favorable final opinion, if any, to be ignored, necessitating additional rounds of litigation.

Just saying...

 

[MAC702]

That may be the SAF position, but it doesn't define the final authority.

Cite please.

Ooops - looks like it does. Puerto Rico goes Constitutional Carry:
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2015/06/puerto-rico-goes-constitutional-carry.html

That cite is a reporter based in North Carolina, reporting on the initial lawsuit.

We still have not seen any evidence of the final outcome of appeals and actual goings-on in Puerto Rico.

Gmooney72, please read the rules on showing a citation with regards to claims. We note you are in Texas, and not Puerto Rico. Do you have some insight into what is actually going on in Puerto Rico, or please show us what it is you are reading that has you believe they are now freely carrying and buying guns there. Indeed, please note that you were incorrect in that it was not the SAF that brought the lawsuit, but that they had an advisory role in the lawsuit brought by the Ladies of the Second Amendment.

 

[solus]

https://www.saf.org/saf-lauds-puerto-rico-court-victory-for-gun-rights/

POSTED 19 June 15
quote
BELLEVUE, WA – A surprising victory for gun rights in Puerto Rico has eliminated the firearms registry and licensing requirements to purchase and carry in the Commonwealth, the Second Amendment Foundation has confirmed.


As of now, according to Sandra Barreras with Ladies of the Second Amendment (LSA), the group that brought the lawsuit, “there is no regulation to purchase or carry (and) all purchases will be handled in accordance with federal firearms regulations.” LSA is affiliated with SAF through the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR).
unquote
read more at site

ipse

 

[MAC702]

Again, that is a reporter in WA, relaying the outcome of the initial lawsuit.

www.handgunlaw.us, is widely regarded as extremely reliable. Gary Slider (a member here) has updated the PR page as recently as last week, and still does not refer to it as "Constitutional Carry," even noting no evidence that states' permits are accepted. His page includes links to many relevant documents, for your perusal.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/puertorico.pdf

Yes, I note some here have provided their cite to authority. Now the question remains as to the credibility of the authority, which is why we require it: so we can all judge it. In this case, the authority is the spokesman of the group that won the initial lawsuit. I'm so far going to believe other documents that show her to be premature in giving her initial victory speech as legal advice.

 

[Gary Slider]

First I am not an Attorney. Someone stated in a previous post that I was.

From all Handgunlaw.us can find out from people in PR nothing has changed yet. Handgunlaw.us can find nothing on the appeal. PR seems to do whatever they want. They even stated that LEOSA didn't apply in PR when it passed but were set straight on that. They will not do anything until a court tells them they have to. I think they took directions from the DC Government!

 

[MAC702]

First I am not an Attorney. Someone stated in a previous post that I was....

Sorry about that. I've removed the offending title.

Interestingly, to me anyway, I purposely used "lawyer" instead of "attorney" because I didn't know if you were a practicing lawyer, though did recognize you as quite learned in the law.

 

[Gary Slider]

Didn't offend me. I just didn't want people to think I was an Attorney. Don't want people to think I am something I'm not. I have been looking at the laws for carry for 20+ years now and have talked to a lot of different people about them over the years.

 

[chocofan]

First I am not an Attorney. Someone stated in a previous post that I was.

From all Handgunlaw.us can find out from people in PR nothing has changed yet. Handgunlaw.us can find nothing on the appeal. PR seems to do whatever they want. They even stated that LEOSA didn't apply in PR when it passed but were set straight on that. They will not do anything until a court tells them they have to. I think they took directions from the DC Government!

Gary you are correct, nothing has changed as of yet. You still need a permit in Puerto rico, funny translate Puerto rico in English rich port! but accually it's more like broke port! with local government in dept with federal government.
LEOSA DOES NOT APPLY!!! SINCE when local law over ride federal law???
according to the 404 PR weapons act there is a reciprocity law what actually it is I do not know?
I figure it might be any state that accepts PR permit PR will accept there permit? but again I'm not sure what type of reciprocity they are talking about jus me speculating.
there weapons act is flawed, government officials seem to be immune to the weapons act, they have 3 mayors under investigation after shooting at a state police gun range using municipal firearms and ammo.

 

[MAC702]

... funny translate Puerto rico in English rich port! ...

One of the things I learned while touring Old San Juan was that San Juan used to be the name of the island, and Puerto Rico was the "rich port" town.

 

[Jared]

Gary you are correct, nothing has changed as of yet. You still need a permit in Puerto rico, funny translate Puerto rico in English rich port! but accually it's more like broke port! with local government in dept with federal government.
LEOSA DOES NOT APPLY!!! SINCE when local law over ride federal law???
according to the 404 PR weapons act there is a reciprocity law what actually it is I do not know?
I figure it might be any state that accepts PR permit PR will accept there permit? but again I'm not sure what type of reciprocity they are talking about jus me speculating.
there weapons act is flawed, government officials seem to be immune to the weapons act, they have 3 mayors under investigation after shooting at a state police gun range using municipal firearms and ammo.

Care to back up why LEOSA "does not apply"? Federal law clearly says it does.

 

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

Gary you are correct, nothing has changed as of yet. You still need a permit in Puerto rico, funny translate Puerto rico in English rich port! but accually it's more like broke port! with local government in dept with federal government.
LEOSA DOES NOT APPLY!!! SINCE when local law over ride federal law???
according to the 404 PR weapons act there is a reciprocity law what actually it is I do not know?
I figure it might be any state that accepts PR permit PR will accept there permit? but again I'm not sure what type of reciprocity they are talking about jus me speculating.
there weapons act is flawed, government officials seem to be immune to the weapons act, they have 3 mayors under investigation after shooting at a state police gun range using municipal firearms and ammo.

Care to back up why LEOSA "does not apply"? Federal law clearly says it does.

I probably shouldn't speak for another person (there's enough of that going on around here already), but allow me to speculate... I think what he was saying was more along the lines of "LEOSA DOES NOT APPLY!!![??? How can that be?] SINCE when [does] local law over ride federal law???" Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's how I took it.

BTW, you did notice that his thread has been dormant for about 10 months, didn't you? Not saying you shouldn't resurrect it, just wondering if you saw that.

 

[Jared]

I probably shouldn't speak for another person (there's enough of that going on around here already), but allow me to speculate... I think what he was saying was more along the lines of "LEOSA DOES NOT APPLY!!![??? How can that be?] SINCE when [does] local law over ride federal law???" Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's how I took it.

BTW, you did notice that his thread has been dormant for about 10 months, didn't you? Not saying you shouldn't resurrect it, just wondering if you saw that.

If Mike and John don't want old threads resurrected then they can lock them or delete them.

I never understood why people care about how old a thread is. There are these things known as search engines and they usually bring up forums for questions about anything involving a firearm.

 

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

If Mike and John don't want old threads resurrected then they can lock them or delete them.

I agree. You will note, however, that I never suggested old threads shouldn't be resurrected... Here, let me reiterate that:

Not saying you shouldn't resurrect it, just wondering if you saw that.

Clear now?

I never understood why people care about how old a thread is. There are these things known as search engines and they usually bring up forums for questions about anything involving a firearm.

Condescend much? One reason why people care about the age of forum threads is because information sometimes goes out of date, or is changed due to the passage of new laws, or revisions to old ones. Which is exactly what posters in this thread are discussing. So timely information can be quite important in a situation such as this, wouldn't you say?

I was merely pointing out that the last post was not recent, just in case the poster in question hadn't noticed... I think you're reading too much into my words.

 

[Jared]

I agree. You will note, however, that I never suggested old threads shouldn't be resurrected... Here, let me reiterate that:



Clear now?



Condescend much? One reason why people care about the age of forum threads is because information sometimes goes out of date, or is changed due to the passage of new laws, or revisions to old ones. Which is exactly what posters in this thread are discussing. So timely information can be quite important in a situation such as this, wouldn't you say?

I was merely pointing out that the last post was not recent, just in case the poster in question hadn't noticed... I think you're reading too much into my words.

Nothing in this thread is out of date and you clearly tried to discredit my question based upon the age of the post or you wouldn't have brought it up.

It had no relevance to the questions at hand.


Nice try, it accomplishes nothing and it wasn't appreciated.