Cornyn Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill in Senate

By Dave Dolbee published on in News

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has introduced the NSSF-supported Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (S.446), a companion to the House of Representatives bipartisan bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.). The proposed legislation, with 30 co-sponsors, would compel states to recognize concealed carry permits issued from other states that have concealed carry laws within their own borders—much in the same way a driver’s license is recognized. The bill aims to eliminate the confusion of varying state-by-state laws and provide protection for Second Amendment rights for permit holders.

Sen. John Cornyn

Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) has received an A+ rating for the NRA. His current proposed legislation also has the backing of the NRA.

“This bill strengthens both the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and the power of states to implement laws best-suited for the folks who live there,” Sen. Cornyn said. “This legislation is an important affirmation of our Second Amendment rights and has been a top priority of law-abiding gun owners in Texas for a long time.”

In addition to interstate recognition of concealed carry permits, the legislation protects states’ rights concerning concealed carry. It respects the authority of a state to establish specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried. Additionally, it respects a state’s resident permitting requirements and maintains prohibitions against restricted individuals from carrying a firearm.

“This legislation provides an answer to the confusing patchwork of concealed carry permits, particularly with regard to states where laws make unwitting criminals out of legal permit holders for a simple mistake of a wrong traffic turn,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “It safeguards a state’s right to determine their own laws while protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. We thank Senator Cornyn for his leadership on behalf of America’s hunters and recreational shooters.”

Cornyn introduced similar legislation in 2015 with 35 bipartisan co-sponsors and in 2014 as an amendment that garnered 57 votes. Hudson’s House legislation, H.R.38, currently has 159 co-sponsors.

What do you think are the chances of Sen. Cornyn’s bill? How long will it take to pass? Share your answers in the comment section.

Tags: , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (29)

  • Lee Thorsell

    |

    A. much need legislation but it will never become law. There are too many anti-gun fools out there who have been elected to protect our Constitutional Rights.

    Reply

  • Bstock

    |

    If the government says it cannot round up 11 million elegals than how would they lock us all up if we carried on our own state permits in other states. Carry a cheap pistol so if they confinscate it you loose almost nothing.

    Reply

  • murphy

    |

    If people can chop their dicks off and change their birth certificates, use girls bathroom, get get gay married and be praised for it , than at the very least i can carry my damn gun where I need too.

    Reply

  • G-Man

    |

    The text of the Bill has not yet been posted to the Congressional site, but there is a copy in PDF format available at: http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ALB17194.pdf

    In my assessment of both Bills I have concluded that the House version previously introduced by Hudson goes much further in upholding our Rights as protected under the Constitution. And well it should – given that to be the sole purpose of Congress’ existence to begin with. Congress was created to do nothing other than to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

    Meanwhile Cornyn’s new Bill instead appears more concerned with placating State presumed Rights that have been unlawfully usurped over the Constitution. It is unfortunate that men like Cornyn cannot see the current small window of opportunity to right some wrongs and do his part to restore the Constitution that the Left has corrupted over several decades.

    We must all keep in mind that the Second Amendment falls under the domain of the Supremacy Clause and therefore is NOT, and can NEVER be a State issue. As a senator, sworn to uphold the Constitution, Cornyn would do well to be reminded that only those powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved for the States – clearly meaning the Second Amendment is not a State issue, and never was.

    Yet in stark contrast to Hudson’s House Bill, Cornyn’s Senate version reeks of political pandering to the Left and appears to abrogate his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution itself. So you may ask yourself why Cornyn would be willing to do this…

    There can be no doubt that Cornyn studied the House version before modifying and introducing his newest Bill. With that in mind, there can also be no doubt that his version is more concerned with appeasing the Left just to get a Bill passed with his name on it, rather than doing his duty to uphold our Second Amendment Rights.

    So while I fully respect the many Rights and Powers that were left to the States, the Second Amendment is simply not one of them. When it comes to constitutional matters, there simply can be no compromise. The Constitution is either right or it’s wrong, there is no middle ground. Cornyn show’s in his Bill that he fails to understand this, or simply does not care.

    Reply

    • Lorenzo

      |

      I agree with G-Man,

      “We must all keep in mind that the Second Amendment falls under the domain of the Supremacy Clause and therefore is NOT, and can NEVER be a State issue.”

      National Reciprocity, as it is offered in this bill, only means I won’t be a felon for crossing the border into another state. I still can run afoul of the myriad laws of those states for not being in compliance with every jurisdictions requirements. As currently written, it still leaves one to the devices of each states AG’s will.

      STILL, it may be better than nothing.

      Reply

    • Jim Gillam

      |

      Back when the constitution was written it did not have state to state laws for the right to bear arms nor should it now or ever. If you are a legal, law abiding citizen, you should be able to carry anywhere in these great united states. Instead of a 2 kinds of I.D. it should be linked to your drivers license if you have one. He is right that it would clear up a lot of confusion for a wrong turn or any moving violation. This bill should be passed with ease. Just a comment that makes sense to the common man. I did learn that a lot of states are recognizing other states that did not in years past.

      Reply

    • Wyo250in77

      |

      Needs to extend to Native American jurisdictions, which have tribal authority over misdemeanor crimes.

      Reply

  • Doug

    |

    Rich K. is correct. Be careful what you ask for because nothing changes in the draconian laws of the communist states that the law is supposed to protect us from. You still won’t be able to have hollow point ammo in NJ and you still won’t be able to use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in Mass. and Calif.. So where exactly is the benefit of this law? I haven’t read either bill but they both place a high value to maintaining states rights to control concealed carry and guns.

    Reply

    • mike DiVito

      |

      Rep. Hudsons Bill is much to my liking , Dont thimk Rep. Cornyns Bill has any provisions for Non Residents . I live in Commie Demorat Jersey and have 2 Non Resident permits, and know they will vigorously fight this . For many decades they have kept their residents un-armed , Weak Castle Doctrine Also

      Reply

  • Dragon

    |

    Senator Cornyn has a somewhat spotty record on a few issues, but he is definitely on the right track with this piece of legislation. It always has been an inconsistent set of circumstances wherein the PRIVILEGE of driving is afforded reciprocity among all of the 50 states, while the Constitutional RIGHT of bearing arms is intentionally neglected.

    In the past, such attempts at reciprocity have died a slow death in the House and in the Senate, and truthfully, I am not overly optimistic about this attempt. That said, however, in the current political climate with a Second Amendment friendly president, as well as several members of the House and Senate…..dare we hope for a positive outcome?

    Reply

  • Bob

    |

    It’s still too much of a compromise. Constitutional Carry, with virtually no restrictions, is what we should be insisting on.

    Reply

    • Dragon

      |

      Oh, I agree, Bob, that unrestricted Constitutional carry is the ultimate objective. That said, however, when we pragmatically view the possibilities of unrestricted carry in the 50 states, we likely still have a fair ways to go.

      Politically speaking, from my observations as a 76-year old retired guy, if we are able to incrementally approach that ultimate objective using intermediate victories as stepping stones, past history of legislative achievements seems to bear out that the chances are better using that incremental approach than to expend our energies immediately leaping to the ultimate goal. Since the anti-Second Amendment forces routinely employ incremental approaches to their ultimate goal of confiscation, perhaps we can borrow a page out of their playbook as we seek our ultimate goal.

      Reply

  • abelhorn

    |

    WOW Congress may grant us our RIGHTS.
    Let us all cheer the Government is slowly admitting
    they are not our CREATOR.

    Reply

  • Rich K.

    |

    I would rather see the HR version of the bill pass. Senator Cornyn’s bill kowtows to “state’s rights” too much and, the way I read it, would allow communist states like New York and New Jersey to continue to trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens in regards to arming themselves for the lawful purpose of self defense. This is one of the few instances where I want to see the federal government preempt “states’ rights” and tell them that they MUST allow ALL law-abiding citizens to arm themselves against criminals by any reasonable means, INCLUDING the handgun and ammunition of their own personal choice.

    Reply

    • Stephanie

      |

      I agree Rich. I think the house version is slightly better. I would prefer that there be NO restrictions in any state for carrying a weapon if you are licensed.
      The states do not have the constitutional right to restrict our 2nd amendment rights. The supreme court also needs to stop with the diluting of these protections.
      I passed my background checks, I am not a felon, and I follow the laws. I feel that I should be allowed to carry just as any LEO does..

      Reply

  • jim

    |

    Boy! Wouldn’t it be great if this bill would pass! Then, again it would be great if the NFA regulation that taxes and regulates silencers was abolished, but I cannot see either happening as the states tend to “hang onto” their antiquated laws instead of “doing what is right”.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: