The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015

Colored map showing which states accept out-of-state concealed carry permits

Since 1995, former House Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Florida) had introduced a federal concealed carry reciprocity bill during his term in office. It has only taken 20 years, but Rep. Stearns’ wish is looking like it may come true.

With a Republican majority and a concealed carry law finally in place in all 50 states, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act seems likely to pass.

Last year, a story grabbed America’s attention exposing the harsh reality of strict gun control laws. Many Americans on either side of the gun rights debate cried foul at the treatment of Shaneen Allen, a law-abiding citizen who faced a felony conviction and an 11 1/2 year mandatory prison sentence for simply doing what her concealed carry permit training had told her to do.

Colored map showing which states accept out-of-state concealed carry permits
The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would make this map useless! Write your representatives today in support of this much-needed law.

In the summer of 2014, Shaneen, a single mother living in South Philadelphia, packed up her two sons and drove to Atlantic City to celebrate one of the boy’s birthdays. Shaneen, who worked three jobs to support her children, held a concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania. Due to her odd hours tending bar she often had to pick up her boys in the wee hours of the morning. She was mugged twice in less than three months after getting off work. To protect her children and herself, she chose to buy a gun. Unbeknownst to Shaneen, even though South Philadelphia and Atlantic City, New Jersey are less than an hour away, the states’ gun laws are a world apart.

Upon arriving in Atlantic County, New Jersey, Shaneen was pulled over for what was cited as an “unsafe lane change.” Shaneen had her Bersa Thunder .380 and concealed carry permit on her and as most concealed permit classes tell you, Shaneen alerted the police officer she had a gun in the vehicle. Shaneen was simply following what her training had to told her to do. Shaneen, with no prior criminal background, who says she had never been pulled over before, was arrested not only for illegally possessing a firearm, but also for possessing illegal ammo. Honesty lost Shaneen all three of her jobs, leaving her no way to pay bills, feed her children…much less pay for the lengthy and costly legal battle she faced. Shaneen spent 40 days in jail. After intense scrutiny and outrage, Atlantic County Prosecutor Jim McClain decided to allow Shaneen to enter the state’s Pretrial Intervention Program—avoiding prison and a conviction for the mother.

Shaneen’s case isn’t isolated. Many law-abiding and responsible handgun owners who carry face jail time and felony convictions for failing to understand the often-convoluted laws regarding concealed carry reciprocity and the interstate transportation of firearms.

It’s time to stop the harassment and unlawful breech against American’s rights and finally get this law passed.

In the last few years, Texas Senator John Cornyn has taken up the issue, presenting a bill every year to Congress. Cornyn’s Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 bill narrowly missed passing by only three votes.

Introduced on Thursday, February 2015, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 federally regulates concealed carry reciprocity laws, forcing all states to recognize out of state carry permits. Sen. Cornyn explains the law, “This operates more or less like a driver’s license. So, for example, if you have a driver’s license in Texas, you can drive in New York, in Utah and other places, subject to the laws of those states.” Concealed carry laws vary widely between states and regulations can be extremely muddled and confusing. Even in my frequent travels between Texas and Arkansas, I have been worried about where in the vehicle my gun is legal. Out in the open in Oklahoma, concealed in Texas—even though words are my strong suit, understanding the language of law generally takes a doctorate degree, so instead of being freaked out every time you stop at a Starbuck’s to refuel during a road trip, a Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity law makes it easier and safer to travel.

Even though the bill draws opposition from Mom’s Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Michael Bloomberg-backed group Everytown for Gun Safety stating the bill interferes, “with states’ fundamental right to determine who is too dangerous to carry hidden, loaded guns in public,” the law will hopefully gain the majority support. It does not change a state’s right to restrict when and where a person can conceal carry. The purposed law does not enact a federal, national standard for concealed carry permits and rights—the Act protects the rights of legal concealed carry permit holders in every state.

The time is ripe to move the bill forward as more and more states vote for less strict gun laws this legislative session—as we see many states allow concealed carry on college campuses—Texas and Florida—and support permitless carry like in New Hampshire, West Virginia and South Dakota. Both the NRA and Gun Owners of America support Cornyn’s bill. The NRA says, “This legislation wouldn’t override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected. Concealed carry reciprocity would simply ensure that states honor permits issued by other states, just as they do with driver’s licenses. Importantly, if under federal law a person is prohibited from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under this bill.” Despite the timing being right, New York Senator Charles Schumer is already fighting the introduced bill, saying, “It is a nightmare for our law enforcement officers and the community and I will fight this legislation tooth and nail.” We are never guaranteed gun owners rights will be protected in Congress, despite the house majority. Please write your representatives and tell them to support Senate bill 498 the Constitutional Concealed Carry Act of 2015 along with the corresponding House Bill H.R. 923.

What do you think about the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015? Share your thoughts in the comment section.


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 (147)

  1. Government shall pass no law restricting the right to bear arms. Period
    Anyone, not a felon should be able to carry open or concealed without restrictions. Gun free areas allowed only if armed protection provided.

  2. This is a horrible idea. The central government has no authority to regulate firearms, look at the Second Amendment. What the government gives it can take. Today it may say all states have to honor all other state permits, but tomorrow it may say no state may honor another states permit. If this passes there will a national concealed carry program (not state based) within 5 years. One cannot support the Constitution by violating it. This is a money maker for the NRA

  3. It is time to delete concealed carry permits. We all get background checks to buy handguns, and most states allow open carry without 8 hours of training, yet if I carry open with no problem, if I put on a jacket or a loose shirt, I am a felon. I can conceal in my house or car, but on my person, it’s different. Second amendment says right to carry Shall No Be Infringed!

  4. Bill,

    Your are wrong on both “uncertainty” and money.

    Federal judges can, do and will appoint lawyers to handle 42 USC 1983 cases without the wronged citizen having to pay legal fees. Instead, the court-appointed lawyers (often some of the best in the country) handle these cases under a sort of contingent-fee arrangement with the government becoming responsible for fees if the citizen wins and the lawyer / law firm taking the financial risk of losing (under their pro bono obligations). It happens all the time. The notion that money is a barrier to enforcing the law is simply wrong.

    On the other hand, it certainly does not help to DEFY an unconstitutional law and then expect to fight that uphill battle on someone else’s dime — which is what I think you are talking about in terms of “uncertainty.” But 42 USC 1983 is specifically designed to allow wronged citizens to fight against unlawful government behavior by taking the initiative — which negates the “uncertainty” excuse.

    For example, instead of taking the foolish approach of violating an unconstitutional law and then fighting from the WEAK position of a defendant in a criminal case trying to excuse behavior, a citizen with a double-digit or higher IQ would file a 42 USC 1983 case and ask for a court-appointed attorney to attack the unconstitutional law from the much stronger position of a wronged but thoughtful citizen bringing a civil-rights case.

    Where’s the “uncertainty” or “money” issue? All it takes is commitment, combined with middle-school civics knowledge of our justice system.

    People like me cannot do it for others, because we live in states where we elect government officials who actually DO obey the law. So, the solution depends on commitment on the part of the people who live in the states where they elect government officials who DON’T obey the law. I wish you people would stop whining about “uncertainty” and “money” and get off your lazy rear ends.

    1. The BIGGEST abuser of getting the government to foot the bill is, of course, the ACLU. Every case they can get before a federal court and especially before the Supreme Court is shear profit for a pack of commie lawyers whose sole desire is to break every principle built into the Constitution in order to destroy America from within. Not one Founder would have taken things like freedom of speech to the extremes of defecating on the flag being acceptable. Not one Founder would have taken separation of church and state to the point of banning visible crosses in public arenas. And the list goes on. Not one Founder would have bastardized the Constitutional rights of the people to the degree the progressive socialist Democrats supported by the ACLU have gone. I can only surmise that they are all traitors. That should be obvious from the way that none of them can uphold their oaths of office in which they swore to ‘protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic’. Then they support the economic invasion of the US States by illegal aliens, refuse to protect the people and the economy from such invaders, nor to protect us from possible terrorists by fighting to assure that they pass through immigrations with the lightest of inspections.

      Funds which were intended to assist our own citizens in need, no matter their heritage, politics, etc, have been siphoned off to support people here illegally (including all those Dreamers whose parents put them in their situation). Countless millions have gone to education, healthcare, regulations housing, and far more. Millions which were intended to help out own people. White people. Black people. Brown people. Americans all. Our nation already gives billions in foreign aid to the countries the invaders came from.

      I wonder if they would want me stopped at their front door if I was armed with an AK, and carried Molotov cocktails, or if they would want to stop me from taking over their homes, eating all their food, drinking all their alcohol, hoarding the remote control, wasting their utilities, and turning their neighborhoods into gang infested ghettos.

      Gotta get those swamp pumps running or we’ll be without a country before the swamp goes dry!

  5. I find it interesting that there is very rarely a mention of retired peace officers and their right to carry nationwide under “HR218”, if they meet the qualifications of the Federal law.
    There is just as much confusion and misinformation about the Federal law and how/when/where it applies (and doesn’t) to retired peace officers. Many departments do little or nothing to properly equip those authorized CCWs under Federal law. They should! And retirees should insist their departments provide the required proper documentation!
    Mr. Haines comment relating to RECOGNITION of these CCW rights in locally is also generally correct and on point for both retired and others.

  6. What are the laws for inappropriate behavior with the conceal carry permit in Indiana… I found something that states anyone with a conceal carry permit that has a pistol on their person and that is seen by any citizen no matter the reason accidentally or intended or no matter how unintentionally it was meant to be seen by any citizen will be arrested a gunpoint by police officers is this true for Indiana laws also please help someone neighbor keeps handgun in sight has made sure that I can and anyone else around can see that he has it on him… What can I do fearing for my safety

    1. I briefly looked through the info. that I have and cannot find any reference to what would happen if you were carrying concealed and accidentally revealed your gun. Since Indiana allows open carry without a permit I would assume that it would be no big deal as long as you are not in a restricted area. I can’t say for certain though. I’ll look further when I can and let you know if I find any reference to this.

    2. Jennifer Mossell, the first thing You should do if You are too afraid to explain Your fear to that neighbor is explain it to the Local Police to, if nothing more, make it a matter of public record. Are You afraid of guns in general or just this Neighbor? Is He a criminal? Is he someone that will not only protect his home but His neighbors homes as well? Having a weapon visible has stopped so many Crooks and saved more Lives than You will ever know. You need to learn about his intentions before You convict him.

    3. @ Jennifer mossell:

      Are you also afraid when you see him around the yard exposing his lawnmower, pruning shears, or yard machete? His gun is no different; it is just another tool all the same.

      However there is one big exception that differentiates his gun from all those other tools… the other tools are not expressly listed in the US Constitution as being lawful to possess.

      So the next time you see his gun, feel safe knowing he is lawfully carrying it. On the other hand, the next time you see him cutting the lawn or pruning bushes you may want to notify the local authorities as there is no express law giving him such right.

    4. i guess i mis-read your post. It sounds like Robert Butterworth gave you some good advice.

  7. @Don Haines

    That is not “theory” it is the LAW.

    Why do you suppose Gov. Christie intervened? Because his state and the officials involved (personally) were on the way to losing a TON of money in a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 USC 1983.

    If a local LEO locks up a law-abiding citizen (with or without a “permit”) for being armed, the most likely result will be that the officer will lose his house and everything else he owns in a federal civil-rights lawsuit under 42 USC 1983. Any person who acts “under color of state law” to deprive anyone of a federal right (including the basic human right of armed self-defense) is personally liable under 42 USC 1983.

    The “federal government” (executive branch or legislative branch) cannot force the States to obey the law — only the judicial branch has that authority. Congress can pass whatever laws they want, and they mean basically nothing unless a court will enforce the law. And that includes the reciprocity act, which really just is a watered-down version of what the Constitution I fought for already says on the subject. We certainly don’t need Congress involved in this issue — all they can do is weaken rights we already have. This fight belongs in the courts, not in Congress.

  8. Correction:

    Under the US Constitution, specifically the 2nd and 14th Amendments, neither any state nor the federal government may require any law-abiding citizen to obtain government permission to exercise the basic human right of armed self-defense.

    Under the “strict scrutiny” test applicable to that fundamental right, the government may protect any legitimate interest with less restrictive means than requiring law-abiding citizens to obtain permission. One example of a less restrictive means would be to enforce existing laws criminalizing the behavior the “permit” laws supposedly are intended to prevent — don’t punish the many for the actions of a very, very few.

    States may, however, establish their own standards for issuance of an official document that serves to identify the holder thereof as a law-abiding citizen who has passed a background check. But the government has no power to require us to have a “permit” or “license” to carry constitutionally protected firearms on our person, specifically including handguns. Also, under the Full Faith and Credit clause, every state is required to accept any other state’s official document as proof that the holder is a law-abiding citizen who thus has the FEDERAL constitutional right to armed self-defense — reciprocity already is the law under the Constitution.

    There is no need for this new proposed federal law, which can only serve to limit our rights not enhance them. The effort put into the “Constitutional Reciprocity Act” would be better spent in court enforcing EXISTING LAW.

    1. PeteDub: While you may be right in theory, it doesn’t seem to work that way. You can just ask the PA lady who wandered into NJ with her pistol. That took a while to get her released and it took action by the Governor. I certainly don’t plan to travel to MD, CA or HI until they pass a Constitutional Reciprocity Act..
      You can be 100% right legally or in theory, but when the rubber hits the road, you may be sitting in a jail for quite a while. Some states won’t recognize out of state permits until forced to by the Federal Govt. And even then, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some local LEO locking someone up for carrying a firearm..permit or no.

    2. You make a very valid point … that the law and its application are often two entirely different subjects separated by a high wall of money and uncertainty.

    3. I think PeteDub brings up some great points! I think you could use this information as an advanced “shot across the bow”. Organized gun rights groups could send messages to ALL Law Enforcement offices in EVERY state bringing up these points. And in big bold print mention that their officers will have 42 USC 1983 cases brought against them PERSONALLY if they arrest an individual who is legally able to carry a firearm. If Law enforcement officers knew they would be personally liable for arresting someone who can legally carry a firearm REGARDLESS of what their states laws say, they might think twice.

  9. Susanne Wiley, Feb. 19 2015
    A correction. South Dakota still has a Conceal Carry Permit Requirement.
    It was up for elimination this year but failed to pass.

  10. As far as I’m aware, Florida has not yet passed campus carry. I believe it has passed in committee, but not the full legislature. Same with WV. Permit less carry is not law yet. As of 3/27/15

  11. I’m definitely an all in gun advocate. Are government is trying to take away all our constitutional rights, from the NSA listening on peoples god giving privacy rights, to getting there hands in the insurance pot of money, and now taking away or rights to bare arms. There trying to pick things apart bit by bit, and its unconstitutional. My personal issue, I’ve been buying and hunting and sporting with guns for 20 years. I was pulled over taking care of someone that got us kicked out, but anyways I was denied a purchase of rifle due to size I believe, but they used the controlled substance act on me and alcohol under the sectiin they wrote 802 sec. 21 alcohol is not considered a controlled substance. Now like I said I’ve been purchasing firearms after that charge with now issues. I appealed the NICS decision and letter stated it wasn’t a final disposition because they know that’s a false pretense of an excuse, so I need to jump like they want and get a lawyer and appeal perfessionally and get my firearm I have every right to own. That just explains what our great government is trying to do wrong gun advocate that love the sport and there right to bare arms, so please vote to defend all these senators and polititions that think they can ruin it for law abiding citizens.
    Thank You

  12. Here let’s see if we can all agree to this:

    1. The Constitution has been raped, adulterated, ignored and misinterpreted since it’s creation. More so over the passed 6 years.
    2. Politicians, regardless of affiliation, suck and are only concerned about staying in office.
    3. Government does not give us our rights. Government only ensures that our right are maintained for all citizens.
    4 Government is not doing what it is supposed to do.
    5. Number 4 need to change.

    Or is that to simple…………………………..

  13. I can’t find anywhere in the bill of rights where it says that New Jersey was exempt from the 2nd amendment……..just say’n.

  14. @ indianasteve:

    Please accept my sincerest apologize to you for having intentionally tossed in a few tart words that come off as insults to you.

    Most of the time we are dealing with commenters that know and understand the law, but choose to purposely write antagonistic comments knowing they conflict with actual law; and do so knowingly, in order to intentionally enflame a generally conservative forum community such as this because they get off on being a jerk.

    However, after recently following a few of your latest heart-felt comments, I have come to realize you are actually sincere in your beliefs. And while severely misguided, I do not feel that you are trying to agitate this community in the sense that some other jerks do on purpose.

    And yes, I have noted your sarcasm from time-to-time, but again, you are nowhere near the level of an intentional antagonist. So now I wish to convey a very important message to you… and others for that matter:

    There are some of us in this forum that truly know the laws and internal workings of this Country because we live it every day. We come from long careers in fields such as military, law enforcement, attorneys, judges, or have even held elected government legislative positions that create and pass laws.

    With that said, imagine you practice constitutional law, apply it daily in court rooms, and know it like the back of your hand. Or say you are a federal agent that regularly assists federal prosecutors in a court room to convict the law breakers you’ve arrested. Now let’s suppose during your off-duty casual time you enjoy a forum hosted by CTD. And every now and then you are faced with someone in the forum that attempts to assert a personal philosophy that inaccurately goes against real-world law as you know it to be applied daily in court rooms, or on the streets as an officer or agent.

    So, when you insist on arguing with some of us that do actually know the law and attempt to educate you, while you continue incessantly to treat our responses as if they were debatable personal opinions for you to disagree with… can you please, just once, try to see how ridiculous you appear to us now?

    But you don’t stop there; you persist no matter what we’ve already explained to you. A reasonable person would take a break and actually go research some of what we’ve said and realize how embarrassingly wrong they are. They would either come back and apologize or just stay away from the forum for a bit to lick their wounds; but not you.

    So this is why I have decided I owe you an apology. Not so much for anything I’ve written in an effort to educate you, but for my failure of not having identified sooner that you simply do not possess a cognizant ability or capacity to comprehend the vast expanses of legal philosophy, foundation, and real-world applicability as it is actually enforced; all of which is evidenced through your conflicting opinions to the contrary.

    While your comments display obvious abnormalities in your learning abilities, I have concluded they are not carried out as acts of intentional deceit or antagonism. And thus you did not deserve some of the harsher comments – given such deficiencies may not be your own fault. And for that, I apologize for carrying on and not simply knowing I should have disengaged conversation with you from the start.

  15. I am going to carry my weapon everywhere I go regardless of current or future laws……..”Live Free or Die” I say…………I am sick and tired of the cowardly anti-gun activists trying to tell us what we can and can’t do in this country. Any man who doesn’t own and carry protection for his family is no man at all. He certainly doesn’t deserve a wife and kids if he can’t keep them safe……… makes me want to puke……..that’s my two cents worth.

  16. no point really. Someone else brought them up but didn’t really expound on how it applied to what we were discussing. My statement of what they meant was as much a question as anything, Guess I should have used the ?. I just thought whoever it was would have elaborated. No worries.

    I do agree with your meanings. I don’t see how they protect her. The NJ laws didn’t infringe on her Constitutional Rights. Her Right is to own a firearm. Her right is not to be able to carry it anywhere and however she wants to. You know, the NRA has been trying to make that argument for some 35 yrs now, and haven’t been able to make it stick. Maybe everybody ought to dig deep down in their pocketbooks and wallets, mortgage your houses, sell your cars, raise as much cash as possible, and send it to the NRA. I bet if they had more money to throw at this that they could finally change what 2A means. Yea, I bet that would work.

    And now we are back at the beginning again. Ok, I really am done this time. This is more an argument that a discussion and I’m tired of arguing. I mean I’ve been told to never repeat what I’ve said to anyone ever again. I’ve been told that CTD should censor me and not post my comments. I’ve been told that they wish the Gov. would set aside an area where I could go and never be allowed to cross back into the country, I’ve been called numerous names, and I can’t remember what all else. All this from a group that says they hold their Constitutional Right so dear. I guess the key word there is “their”. So I won’t reply to anymore comments, on this thread.

    Just one last thought for all to ponder though. Since all this been because I said I wasn’t surprised she got in trouble in NJ, how many people here would be willing to take their gun, loaded with defensive ammo, and drive into NJ with it, find a police officer, hand that officer their drivers license and carry permit from their state of residence, and tell that officer that they are armed with a loaded handgun. I might be willing to fund such an experiment myself if certain ones of you volunteer. (lol).

    1. @indianateve

      “The NJ laws didn’t infringe on her Constitutional Rights. Her Right is to own a firearm. Her right is not to be able to carry it anywhere and however she wants to. You know, the NRA has been trying to make that argument for some 35 yrs now, and haven’t been able to make it stick. ”

      That is absolute BS, and you really need to stop talking out of your smelly sphincter.

      As the United States Supreme Court has held every time your stupid argument has been offered up, the basic human rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment are not limited to the right to OWN firearms. The right is to keep and BEAR firearms for any lawful purpose, including the lawful purpose of self-defense wherever we may be.

      And, so, as the United States Supreme Court held in Heller, every law-abiding citizen has the federal right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense. As the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in applying Heller to the issue of concealed carry in Peruta, no state may prohibit a law-abiding citizen from having a fully function handgun on the citizen’s person immediately available for self-defense. In so holding, the Peruta court effectively struck down California’s law prohibiting law-abiding citizens from being armed — and, thus, every state or federal law like it including MD’s and NJ’s.

      Nobody is saying any time and anywhere as you claimed. The Heller court said that state and federal governments can keep guns out of “sensitive” places [that is, places where adequate security is provided so law-abiding citizens do not need to exercise our basic human right of armed self-defense. Nobody disagrees with that. In fact, I am told that Court adopted the list of permitted government restrictions from the NRA’s brief in the case. So your suggestion that the NRA has been arguing for any time and anywhere is COMPLETE AND UTTERLY DISHONEST BS. heck, the NRA is such a paper tiger they have given away more rights than they have argued to keep — a point of which the proposed Bill in Congress is ample proof..

      So, even thought he NRA has not been making the argument you dishonestly claim it has not been able to make “stick,” law-abiding citizens have in fact been able to establish, in every court of law that has ruled on the issue, that we have a federal constitutional right to have a fully-functional handgun immediately available for self-defense, by carrying such a handgun on our persons. And that means that we can carry anywhere (other than “sensitive” places) at any time — concealed or openly as we see fit.

      And, no, creating an armed confrontation with a cop as you propose is not the right way to get a case into court. A wise person would consult one of those qualified people we call “lawyers.” A lawyer would advice a wise person that the law is as as the Heller and Peruta courts have ruled. and that the proper and effective way to assert one’s legal rights would be to file a federal lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 and force the state that is disobeying the law to come into court and account for the unlawful actions. No need to play cowboy as you propose.

      This is the main problem I have with idiots like you — you put people at risk by spouting off 100% wrong on stuff you don’t know what the heck you are talking about.

      On one side, your BS will get peoples’ lives completely effed up by depriving them of the most effective and most common (and thus constitutionally protected) means of self-defense (a concealed handgun) when they need it and have the right to have it.

      On the other side, your BS will get peoples’ lives completely effed by creating armed confrontations with cops that could get someone KILLED and certainly start off wrong in court on defense rather than offense, when the LAW — of which you clearly know nothing — provides us with a very peaceful and safe way to assert our rights in court by putting the law breakers on defense.

    2. I’ve never read anyone’s rants that were more ignorant than yours are petedub. Why don’t You ask the People of New York City about how well the Feds protect their rights to carry a handgun on their person? How many mandatory 1 year sentences have been handed down in those Courts for possessing a handgun for protection? While you fancy yourself a wordsmith you lack the facilities to separate fact from fiction and your juvenile anger shows too readily, manifesting itself in a childish and vulgar descriptive tome that has no place in an Adult conversation. You clearly have volumes to say, unfortunately, those volumes add nothing to the conversation except vitriol. It’s as if You have been on an Island for the last 6 years and missed just how badly the Federal Government can be run and You still shout “the Feds will protect your rights!” Wake up and smell the stink that is coming from the Capitol of this Country petedub, Our rights are being eradicated daily and the Feds are the Folks that are making it happen. FYI… the NRA is a Gun Owners Organization that fights to protect Gun Owners rights, it has Members that pay dues to be Members and to support the fight. It has never been the Attorney At-Large for every gun owner in the Land like You would have People believe. I do Love the fact that the work the NRA does bothers You and that fact alone will assure My lifetime membership in the organization.
      P.S. Indianasteve is vastly brighter than you and would never stoop to putting His nose up someones nether regions like You, Who, is so fond of smelly sphincters that You refer to them repeatedly. Words are just letters, it’s your use of them that demonstrates understanding or the lack thereof.

    3. @Robert B.

      First, I have never said that the feds will protect anyone’s rights. I have instead urged people to stand up for their own rights. When it comes to gun rights the feds are the enemy, not the protectors.

      It clearly is not the federal government’s role to protect the idiots in New York from the left-wing totalitarian politicians the idiots in NY elect to enact laws that are unconstitutional. It is up to the people of NY to protect themselves by (a) not electing politicians who will trample on their rights with unconstitutional laws, and (b) to use the US Constitution to stop the politicians from taking away their rights.

      My goodness those people in NY are so effing clueless and accepting of corruption that they let Bloomberg use PUBLIC funds to finance that billionaire’s person vendetta against gun rights throughout the United States. So don’t tell me that the idiots in NY are not responsible for cleaning up their own mess.

      Second, you have it completely backward on indianasteve. My beef with indianasteve is that he claims that that people don’t have the gun rights I urge people to stand up to protect. For example, he actually blamed the woman who was wrongfully arrested in NJ, for supposedly breaking the law by merely exercising her constitutional right to armed self-defense. He disregards the fact that any law that prevents any law-abiding citizen from exercising that right is void as unconstitutional.

      Third, my beef with the NRA is that they DON’T stand up for our gun rights the way the are being paid a LOT of money to do. This BS bill in Congress, for example, actually GIVES AWAY gun rights by saying that the states have the right to keep us from having handguns on our person, when the US Supreme Court and every other court to rule on the issue has said that we DO have that right no matter what any state says on the matter. GOA is a different story — they actually do stand up and fight, as much as they are able.

      I have never said the NRA is an “attorney at-large” (whatever you think that means — it actually is an oxymoron). I have instead accurately said that the NRA is limited in the ability to do what they claim to do, because they are and must be focused on fundraising first and fighting takes a lower priority.

      Fourth, I don’t care who you think is smarter and and I really don’t even care who actually IS smarter. I care about the oath I took in which I swore to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

      By claiming that we don’t have self-defense rights the US Supreme Court has ruled we do have, indianasteve is choosing to make himself one of those enemies of the Constitution. If you think he is smart, then that’s just one less excuse he has for opposing the Constitution. If he is so smart, then why can’t he understand a fairly straightforward Supreme Court decision that a lot of other Americans DO understand?

      Lastly, if you don’t like the way I write then don’t read it. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to read what I wrote.

    4. @RobertB
      You realize the NRA was one of the PRIMARY pushers of the 1968 gun control act right?

      I never have and never will support the NRA! They spend MORE time trying to strip you of your rights than protect them. They are all words! They just want your hard earned money! I can better protect my rights with a loaded gun than I can by sending my hard earned money to the NRA – PERIOD!

    5. Every so often i see a post from someone that really has it in for the NRA. Maybe it’s me but i don’t see the problem. I belong to NRA and GOA and am ok with both of them .
      Does anyone have the real poop on the NRA?

    6. I think You better re-check the facts. The President of the NRA testified before the House committee and said that He believed any sane American would agree that the gun that killed JFK should not be available from a mail order catalog. Lee Harvey Oswald had purchased his rifle from an ad in the American Rifleman magazine the NRAs own publication. LBJ was the primary pusher of the bill but it died on the floor and was given new life after the assassinations of MLK and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 but the registration of guns and owners had to be stricken before it would be allowed to proceed. The NRA said it was a bill the American Sportsmen could live with after that. That sounds more like damage control than spearheading the fight to me.
      Samuel, let’s be honest here, the only thing your loaded gun will get you in a fight with the United States Government is Dead. If you have a better advocate in Washington maybe you should tell us all about Him/Her so we can check them out. Personally, I’ve watched the NRA help fellow Louisianians get their confiscated guns returned in the aftermath of Katrina so I KNOW that you are simply ignorant of any actual facts concerning the NRA but you have to disrespect them so you feel better about everything that you’re not accomplishing in Washington with your loaded gun. Good Luck with that.

    7. @indianasteve

      I wish you could understand what a flaming hypocrite you are. You won’t understand of course, because your lack of ability to comprehend is part of what makes you a flaming hypocrite, but I will explain anyway.

      You lay claim to the “constitutional right” to say anything you want anywhere at any time, and to dictate the manner in which others respond. You actually don’t HAVE that constitutional right, of course, but that does not keep you from claiming it.

      Your right of free speech has nothing to do with you telling other people that we are not allowed to call BS on your BS, as you wish you could. Your right simply limits the GOVERNMENT from telling you or anyone else what we may say — you know, those old “time, place and manner” restrictions the government can’t impose [or, rather, as you WOULD know if you actually DID take “courses” on constitutional law — but we all know from your input that you really didn’t].

      As hypocritical as it is of you to claim the right to spout BS without anyone pointing out your BS, your stance on gun rights is even more hypocritical. You claim out of one side of your mouth that your rights of free speech are absolute, and then out of the other side of your mouth you falsely claim that gun rights advocates are wrong to claim that our rights are absolute (which we don’t claim),

      But clearly those rights are not absolute: You don’t have the right to to shout “Fire” in a theater. I don’t have the right to fire my gun at you for shouting in a theater. Everyone — except you apparently — understands that these rights are not absolute.

      You do a disservice to the public discourse to assert, falsely, that gun rights advocates claim that our rights are absolute when we make no such claim. Where I come from, not far from Indiana, we call that “lying” and I am pretty sure they call it “lying” in Indiana too.

      So, be honest. Your frustration really is not that others are somehow trampling upon your constitutional rights of free speech (by merely exercising our own rights of free speech). Your frustration is that you have been caught spouting asinine anti-American BS, and that all of the GunGrabNazi talking points you have been trying to use have been thoroughly shoved right back up the smelly sphincter from which you pulled them.

  17. @indianasteve

    OK, I’ll bite. What’s your point about the Supremacy and Equal Protection Clauses?

    The Supremacy Clause, in the case of concealed carry, says that state may not take away that right because it is guaranteed under FEDERAL constitutional law.

    I hope you agree with that but would be interested in any reasoning (not mere assertion — which is all you have been doing so far) if you don’t.

    The Equal Protection Clause, in the case of concealed carry, says that all law-abiding citizens have the same federal right to carry concealed, no matter where they may be in the US.

    I hope you agree with that but would be interested in any reasoning (again, not mere assertion) if you don’t.

    So, again, what is your point? How possibly, under those 2 clear constitutional principles, can you claim that the lady from PA broke the law by merely being armed in NJ? She didn’t commit any crime, she was just armed in exercise of her basic human right to do so.

    1. NJ’s gun laws are restrictive and prohibit concealed carry unless you are active/retired law enforcement, armored car/armed security guard, or by some act of god a supreme court judge deems your reasons to have concealed carry permit has enough viable reasons to be allowed. Yup ” I LOVE MY HOME STATE OF DIRTY JERSEY”

    2. Yeah see a state like that should be sued for violation of constitutional rights. We have enough damn nation wide gun organizations that they should be taking these states to court .

  18. I got Heller correct. It wasn’t until last year, 6 years after Heller, that a U.S. District Judge, not a Supreme Court Judge, ruled on D.C.’s laws. At that time D.C. started issuing permits, but they are still very restrictive, and very hard to qualify for. It’s still up in the air as to what the Supreme Court will decide in this instance, if it ever gets that far.

  19. the Executive branch enforces the the. The judge determines if the law was broken. Let me know the next time a judge arrests someone.

  20. @indianasteve

    No, the executive branch applies the law. Enforcement is the court;s function. Lemme know the next time anyone from the executive branch sentences someone to jail.

    In this particular case, for example, there is nothing the executive branch can do — they can’t force NJ to obey the law. Only a federal court can do that.

  21. Many of us have had a high degree of lethal weapons training, use of force and use of deadly force. The use of force continuum must be exhausted before lethal force is used if possible and situational circumstances permit and that means to protect your own life or that of another from death or serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury constitutes the loss of a limb and/or bodily function or mortal wound. With the fluid and asymmetric threat we face in our daily lives makes the concealed carry option imperative in our increasingly dynamic threat environment. Life is to precious to be put in peril by spine less politiciicions so polarized by bickering and sustaining agendas not supported by the voters who elected them. I will be armed and qualified to employ deadly force should exigent circumstances be presented.

  22. how far the republic has fallen….we have to ask permission to carry a gun….which we are guaranteed under the constitution if the founding fathers were alive today they would form an army and over throw this treasonous government….they would not put up with the likes of turbin durbin..shumer..san fran nan…put them on a rail tar and feather them and “they’ would ride them out of dc.

    1. @anthony

      We don’t need to overthrow the government. The LAW is on our side. Any restrictions against a law-abiding citizen carry a handgun (either openly or concealed as the citizen sees fit) restrictions are unquestionably unconstitutional, so they are VOID, a NULLITY. All we have to do is assert our rights in court any time those rights are threatened.

      I find it very interesting that people will talk about taking up arms against the government, but the very same people apparently don’t have the cojones to take the issue to court the way the Founders empowered us to do INSTEAD OF taking up arms.

      IN the Heller case, the United States Supreme Court has already established the LAW that every law-abiding citizen has the right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self defense. That is the LAW, and it cannot be honestly disputed.

      If any of the paranoid GunGrabNazi control freaks want to show the world how a law-abiding citizen traveling freely throughout this free nation, as is our right, can have a handgun IMMEDIATELY available for self-defense without carrying that handgun on the citizen’s person (concealed or openly as the citizen sees fit) then those paranoid control freaks are welcome to try to do so in a court of LAW.

      But even the most left-wing court on the face of the planet (the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals) has told the paranoid GunGrabNazi control freaks that they are wrong on the issue.

  23. First off I want to say you guys are great.This is one topic that deserves our constant discussion.On the news today they are talking about Somali terrorists attacking the Mall of America. Why would the government not want to flood that place with Concealed carriers? What am I missing?There are not enough of the Finest to go around. We need to protect ourselves and our neighbors.People like Bloomberg and his ilk should be run out of politics.

    1. Hey Steve. I live in MN and have been to the MOA many times. The is a fair number of security people there all the time however they are unarmed. The mall has now stepped up security now and added armed duty and off duty cops. Due to the size, number of people and ways in, security at MOA has to be a nightmare. I did a tour there to check out the fire and safety systems prior to the opening. Unless they are going to assign an escort to everyone entering the mall, and the thousands of deliveries everyday, and deal with the attached hotel they don’t have a chance of stopping a bad guy.
      Gun Free Zones make great targets.

  24. It amazes Me to read these rants about the 2nd amendment protecting our rights to carry anywhere. I don’t know what You folks are smoking but it’s made You null and void if You believe that Bull. The only way You will ever see the U.S. Government come and “rescue” you from a illegal weapons charge is if You are a Diplomat or the Close Relative of a Capitol Hill Politician. Shaneen got to enter a Pretrial Intervention Program, She did NOT get to walk away free after 40 days in jail but had to plead Guilty and accept probation before She could start to rebuild Her shattered Life. The Police will do anything Their State Laws allow Them to and the Feds could care less.

    1. @Robert,

      Of course the federal executive branch will not uphold the law. The federal courts uphold the law.

      Unless the NRA is a paper tiger, the NJ officials who did that will end up losing everything they own for their wrongdoing.

    2. The Legislative branch of our government, i.e.; Congress passes the laws, the Judicial branch interprets the law, and the eExecutive branch enforces the law.

    3. @indianasteve

      No, the executive branch is supposed to “apply” the law — the judicial branch has the exclusive domain to enforce. Let me know the next time anyone in the executive branch sentences someone to jail.

      You truly don’t know what you are talking about. You rest on the fact that you took some course to assume that things you say are true, with no backing or reasoning. But I am telling you (as the holder of a doctorate degree with honors who teaches the people who teach courses) that you need to get your tuition money back. You are wrong on pretty much everything you say — becasue you won’t LEARN.

      For example, you keep on insisting that NJ cal tell law-abiding citizens that they cannot be armed. But the indisputable fact is that, in Heller, the US Supreme Court held that every law-abiding citizen has the right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense.

      I have challenged you to tell us how any state can tell us that we cannot have a handgun on our persons in light of that federal law, uniform throughout the US, and you cannot meet that challenge. You just duck the challenge, and then keep on spouting the same dishonest BS as if you — and only you — know what you are talking about. You don’t. You need to learn how to learn..

  25. @ indianasteve:

    Okay, I know of no other way to break this down for you. So I will try with this analogy using a child of say 10 to 13 years old as an example.

    We have all at one time in our adult lives dealt with a kid that is just absolutely positive they know something about a topic and will argue incessantly with fury and conviction to no end because they just know they are right. It is frustrating as an adult when you realize no matter how hard you try to tell the kid that their outlook will change as they grow and mature, they still just know you’ve got it all wrong.

    Interestingly it is precisely their adolescent immaturity that prevents them from being able to comprehend what you are even talking about. And because no child likes being told their wrong and that they will eventually understand better as they grow older, some become angrily unmanageable making future dialogue pointless… until they mature.

    Then eventually the kid does grow older and their garnered wisdom eventually allows them to concede how silly and wrong their immature thinking once was.

    This is where I believe you and I are at in this conversation. Except the only difference is that I assumed you were already a matured adult. If you are not, please forgive me. However, if you are an adult then you have no excuse and the following applies:

    You will simply have to trust me that your comments clearly establish a severe lack in your understanding as to how our government is set up. Failure to understand such basic concepts is unacceptable for any citizen with the power to vote. And thus I had every right to become disappointed in your remarks and express myself accordingly.

    Your impression that my “remarks were rude” are simply a reactional byproduct of your immaturity and lack of wisdom as explained in the child analogy above. So of course you find me shattering the world as you perceive it to be offensive and rude. So does a child, but they eventually grow out of it. Evidently you never did.

    You insist on applying the word “ignorance” to define my comments. I truly implore you to look up the word and educate yourself as to how embarrassingly inappropriate your usage has been. It simply means, “lack of knowledge or information”; which clearly applies to you rather than me, as I have undoubtedly established.

    In the end you admit you are no expert, so I provided you a rather well written break-down as to how it all works. Assuming you read it you should have immediately been able to see how wrong your original position was been able to adopt a more mature approach on the topic But instead you chose to cling to what you think you know about the law and insist New Jersey has a right to enforce illegal laws.

    At this point I can only toss out a few old idioms by concluding, “You just can’t argue with stupid”, and “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”, and for others that felt you deserved a free pass I must say, “Your all a case of the blind leading the blind”.

    1. First, I don’t remember specifying that you were rude. I might have made the statement under a reply from you. I’m doing this on a phone and it’s way to much of a hassle for me to separate responses among all the posters. I really don’t remember who has said what and I really don’t care to remember. I’m not going to hold any ill feelings. I know this is a heated topic. But, if it did sound like I was specifying you i apologize.

      I’ve got just one more post I really want to make. I’ll make it under your post, please don’t take it as a personal statement to you.

      I have studied government. I’ve studied the Constitution including the 2nd amendment. I’ve done this in a formal school situation and also for many years after school.

      The 2nd amendment is not complicated, 27 words, thats all. It does not state that we have the right to carry a weapon (arm) in public. It does not state that we have a right to use a firearm for self defense, either outside or inside of our home. It says that the States cannot infringe upon our right to bear arms. I’ll interpret arms as firearms for now, but actually it can be any type of arm. It also specifies why we have the right, and that is to maintain a “well regulated Militia”. It says nothing else so don’t add anything to it.

      In 2008 DC vs Heller, the Supreme Court stated that the 2nd amendment did give individuals the right to possess firearms and stated that the DC ban on possessing a handgun was in violation of that right. The Heller decision did not give Heller or anyone else the right to carry a handgun in public, open or concealed. It did not give anyone the right to use a handgun, or any firearm in self defense either outside or inside of their home. It only said that they have the right to possess it.

      A couple yrs. later the McDonald vs. Chicago decision said basically the same thing. In this instance however, McDonald actually argued the right to use a firearm in self defense. The Supreme Court struck down that part of the suit.

      The 1st time that the Federal Government tried and succeeded in restricting a specific type of weapon that I’m aware of was in 1939, I don’t remember the person named that action, but it was the infamous sawed-off shotgun, which was just recently placed on the ok to own list. It was not placed on that list however, because it’s ban was determined illegal.

      I know I’m not going to convince anyone of this, but those are the facts. Go back and read them again if you want to, or don’t, I don’t really care. There is a lot more to this discussion, there is precedence for the self defense argument, but it’s not with the 2nd amendment. The understood right of self defense comes from old common-law left over from the British Parliament in effect prior to the Constitution, and simply stayed in effect, but never adapted by our Federal Government.

      I’m done.

    2. @indianasteve

      Go get your tuition money back. You wuz robbed.

      The Heller ruling is that every law-abiding citizen has the right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense. You tell me how we can do that without carrying a handgun on our person.

      And, no, the McDonald decision did not strike the “self defense” part of the law. McDonald merely applied the Heller ruling to the states (rather than just DC), by “incorporating” the basic human rights under the 2nd Amendment into the 14th Amendment.

      So, until you actually know what you are talking about, please kindly stop misleading people with your inept pronouncements on the law.

    3. @indiana steve
      Yeah man I would just drop it, the ignorant will always be ignorant.
      Some guy replied to me forgot who it was I think it was G-Man and his reply was out of this world. Once you realize that man all you can do is ignore it because no matter how you present the answer/truth people will not hear it.

      I believe he said the same thing you said except the Court did dismiss the suit because they claimed the relation of the Heller case didn’t apply to the states. Though, I personally believe it should.
      The thing about words are they are merely symbols of understanding. Sometimes these symbols doesn’t process the same from one individual to another individual.

    4. @GI NIchols

      You got it 100% wrong. In McDonald, the Suprme Court applied the Heller decision to the states. Before McDonald, Heller only technically applied to DC.

      And indianasteve got Heller 100% wrong. The holding is that every law-abiding citizen has the right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense. indianasteve claims that this does not give us the right to be armed, but he is wrong.

    5. @PeteDub
      Yeah I just read the case, it was the district court who dismissed the suits. Then when it made to Supreme Court they reversed it, stating that the 14th amendment is what made it apply to states.

    6. @PeteDub
      And hey guy, it wasn’t 100% wrong just didn’t remember what court it was that dismissed it nor did I know that Supreme Court reverse it, haha.

    7. @GI Nichol

      Those words “reverse” “dismiss” etc. are just procedure and are only barely relevant (except they matter a lot to the parties of course). For the rest of us, the key is the “holding” — what rule of law the court announced in its decision.

      In Heller, the holding is that every law-abiding citizen has the right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense.

      In McDonald, the holding is that the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment are “fundamental” rights, and are thus applicable against the states (which makes the Heller holding applicable to the states).

      The reason I say indianasteve is 100% wrong to claim that Heller does not give us the right to carry concealed is that it is impossible to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense unless you are carrying it. There are only 2 ways to carry a handgun – concealed or openly. Whichever we choose is not a matter of legitimate government interest.

      People who oppose gun rights will point out that the Heller court actually cited some concealed carry cases from the 19th century to show that rights under the 2nd Amendment are not “absolute.” But those cases all involve people who were charged with carrying concealed when they actually committed actual crimes . Of COURSE the government can make it a crime to have a concealed weapon (or an openly carried weapon too) when committing a crime. But it can never be a crime in and of itself for a law-abiding citizen to carry a weapon — concealed or openly.

      In fact, the rationale behind the Heller holding clearly affirms that law-abiding citizens have the right to carry concealed handguns. The Heller court ruled that handguns are constitutionally protected under the Miller “in common use at the time” standard, because handguns are commonly used for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

      By the same rationale, concealed handguns are constitutionally protected because they are by far the most common way law-abiding citizens choose to provide for our self-defense. Compared to the 22+ MILLION concealed carriers reflected on the public record, practically nobody carries openly today. The “in common use at the time” Miller standard makes it clear that We the People decide what we think is the right way to carry our handguns for self-defense, not some legislators.

      People who oppose gun rights also say that Heller only applies in the home. But every court to hear that stupid argument has rejected it, including the 2 most left-wing courts in the US. The reason they say this is that the facts in Heller were limited to the home. But, the right is to keep AND bear arms. To “bear” arms necessarily includes having arms on one’s person when away form home — you “keep” a gun at home, while you “bear” a gun while away from home.

      I have had this very argument with several prosecutors, and they have been forced to admit I am correct.

    8. To GI Nicholas:
      I really meant to drop it the other day when I said I was done, but I can’t. When some people that don’t know what they are talking about call you dumb, it’s just hard to keep quiet. It’s really a shame. I mean we really are not on opposite sides of the fight here. We just disagree on strategy. I’m not anti gun. In fact I own and enjoy quite a few guns. I carry concealed almost all the time. I just like to understand who and what the fight is about.

      to Pete Dub

      The Supremacy Clause State that most of the time the Federal law trumps State law.

      The equal Protection Law states that the States cannot discriminate against a person in the way they are treated under the law. They must treat all persons the same.

    9. @ GI Nicholas:

      Really, you consider my reply to you as, “out of this world”? You and I both know it was actually a very simple and straight forward response.

      Your dependency on your assumption that no one will bother to go back and re-read my comment to see if in-fact it was actually “out of this world”, does not lessen the reality that you personally are of poor character to so flagrantly lie about such things in an effort advance your point now.

      Your exaggeration of my reply completely discredits you and anything you write. And so, for other readers’ amusement, I will provide the backstory and paste my so-called “out of this world” reply to you below:

      In the most soap opera fashion I can muster, the backstory is – GI Nicholas posted a heated response calling me ignorant after my comment to indianasteve in which I stated that his (indianasteve’s) comment showed he had no concept of how our government is set up. GI Nicholas was upset because he felt me telling indianasteve to take a remedial class in U.S. Government was not enough, and that I somehow owed him (indianasteve) a history lesson explaining why exactly indianasteve’s opinion showed a lack of comprehension. Oh, and indianasteve’s original post espoused his opinion that New Jersey had every right to arrest Shaneen Allen because he felt she had broken their (New Jersey) laws.

      So without further ado, I know give you my supposed “out of this world” response to GI Nicholas:

      “@ GI Nicholas:

      I think you should also go back to school and brush up on basic English skills so you’ll know how to appropriately apply words such as “ignorant”.

      I suppose you’ll be even more pissed now because I insulted you without explaining how your use of the word was improper. Simply put, for the both of you – these are very basic scholastic principles that should not require any explanation.

      The fact you think I owed him on explanation over something any red-blooded American should already know from grammar school is truly “ignorant” on your part. Now that was an appropriate use of such a word.

      However, before I read your comment I had already posted a more in-depth breakdown for him just in-case he might not be from our country. You should give it a read given your attempt at an explanation was not applicable in relation to the overall concept the rest of here seem to understand.”

  26. This happened to a close friend of mine in NJ. His weapon was in the back of his vehicle, broken, and unloaded. Because it wasn’t locked in a case away from the ammunition, he was jailed and given a federal sentence. He was taking it to a gunsmith in NJ, and never imagined it would be that much of a deal.

    Maryland isn’t much better.

  27. Wow I think this is one of the few times on this site that both sides actually have very valid arguments. I do like the idea of being able to drive across the country without having to worry about having a permit for each state. Stopping at a state border to unload and lock my gun in the trunk is infuriating. However I generally agree with Indiana Steve in that I already have the constitutional right to carry and it is no business of government. I believe he is correct in saying that the bill is of itself an infringement on 2A.

    1. @McRuger

      If you are a law-abiding citizen you ALREADY HAVE the right to drive across the country without having to worry about a “permit” in each state.

      And, if you do happen to have a “permit” in any state, that “permit” is valid in every state to prove that you are a law-abiding citizen with the right to carry fully functional handguns immediately available for self-defense.

      That is the LAW today. Anything Congress might do on the proposed bill would be a step backward, by suggesting that the state have powers they don’t actually have.

  28. Reciprocity is required for everything else (full faith and credit clause), which is how the lunatic asylum we call California can force its insanity down everyone else’s throats. So why is it that the full faith and credit clause is not used when it comes to firearms? Why is the one-and-only right “that shall not be infringed” the only right that is permitted to be infringed by lack of reciprocity?

  29. That’s real American of you Rob. I never once mentioned the 2nd amendment. This reciprocity bill has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. I take that back, it has one thing to do with the 2nd amendment. It give the Federal government the right to infringe on my 2nd amendment rights by telling me what I can do with my guns. Today what they propose might sound like a good idea. But tomorrow is a brand new day and who nows what changes will be brought to that bill, or future bills. . My guns are none of their business and I am in favor of keeping them as far away from them as possible. Inviting them to tell me what I can do and where I can go with them does not sound like a good idea to me. Even if what they propose now sounds good to me, what they propose later may not sound so good. I say let’s honor the 2nd amendment and keep them out of our business. This “fight” we are having over the NJ laws is not a Federal fight. The Federal government has nothing to do with NJ laws. The fight is with NJ disregarding the 2nd amendment. That, along the other states that show no regard to the 2nd amendment, is where we should be taking the fight. Those states infringement of the 2nd amendment is a violation against all of us, not just those states citizens. But letting the Federal government tell us what we can do with our guns is not the way. Forcing them to enforce the 2nd amendment is. Be very careful what you wish for.

    And on a side note to PeteDub, just because she has a PA permit does not guarantee that she is a “law abiding citizen” I don’t mean that to sound sarcastic, but she did break the law, be it as it is.

    1. @indianasteve

      Ms. Allen did not violate any law by exercising her FEDERAL constitutional right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense.

      In the law, there is technical a word for what happens when a state passes legislation that is unconstitutional. That word is not “law” it is “nullity.”

      Any statute in NJ or any other state is a NULLITY if it purports to tell law-abiding citizens that we cannot have fully functional handguns immediately available for self-defense — ie., carried on our persons in the manner we see fit, and ready to shoot. So, Ms. Allen did not violate any law she violated a NULLITY — which is no violation at all.

  30. We all have reason for concern when it comes to Federal involvment in any issue. The reson for concern is that the Fed has involved itself in to States Right and our personal lives to the point we are chocking on erroneous regulations. They have inserted themselves into every aspect of our lives. ( our bedrooms our groceries our vehicles jobs our recreation our Airport Security or Homeland Security who by the way couldn’t pour the piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heal. last but not least made a mess of the best Health Care System in the world.) Yes we need to be concerned. However there is a need for the Fed to make our constitutional and civil right equal across all state lines. If only that was all they were doing I don’t think there would be much concern of Fed Involvment.

  31. I’m not an expert, but I do have an understanding. Enough to know that if you choose to go against a law, it doesn’t matter whether the law is just or not, you better expect to pay the consequences. Even unjust laws are expected to be obeyed in the eyes of the people/government that enacted them. If you don’t like them then change them, but you are still expected to obey them until they are changed. Ms. Allen did have a PA permit, I’m assuming that she did not have a NJ permit or I’m confident it would have been mentioned in the article. The proposed reciprocity bill would allow her to carry in NJ under the NJ laws. However, the fed rep bill has not been passed and she was in possession of a firearm without a permit. She also transportef accross state line. Even if her permit was honored, she would not be allowed to carry wherever and however she pleases. NJ law says you can transport home after purchase and to an from gun range or gun sporting event, hunting, etc. But not loaded and open in vehicle. It also has laws regarding transporting hollowpoint ammo. She would still have to abide by these laws if NJ did honor her permit. But she didn’t and they didn’t. I’m not making any comment on whether any law is just or not, I’m saying that the laws are expected to be obeyed. Anyone that assumes the reposibility of carrying a firearm is expected to know and follow the laws. She didn’t. I would never expect anything less than what happened and anyone that does, or is surprised by what happened is naive. So I don’t mind a discussion about this but you can keep your rude remarks and slams are simply showing your ignorance.

    1. @indianasteve

      You said “Anyone that assumes the responsibility of carrying a firearm is expected to know and follow the laws. She didn’t.”

      You are correct in the first sentence and wrong in the second. Ms. Allen followed the law, but the NJ officials certainly did not

      The basic human right to armed self-defense is a matter of FEDERAL law, because the 2nd Amendment guarantees that fundamental right. Under Heller, that FEDERAL right includes the right of every law-abiding citizen (which Ms. Allen obviously is because she had a PA “permit”) to have a fully-functional handgun immediately available for self-defense — that is, the right to carry handguns on our persons, openly or concealed as we see fit.

      Under the US Constitution — specifically the Supremacy Clause and the Equal Protection Clause — that right is uniform throughout the US. The FEDERAL right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense does not change from state-to-state. Ms. Allen had the same right in NJ that she had in PA or any other state.

      THAT is the LAW.

      But you would know all of that if you had met YOUR responsibility to know the law governing any firearms you might carry. I am glad that you admit you are not an expert, because you certainly are correct on that point.

    2. You are right on PeteDub. We have lost our understanding of what the US constitution’s purpose and function was for. Most states laws are in violation of the constitution because of judicial fiat. It started with them deciding that they could restrict how or where you carry and when we didn’t tar and feather them for that the restriction creep begins………by the next generation total ignorance will have destroyed the right completely. A right is not privilege nor prerogative and can not be legislated away or judicially controlled – it is inalienable just as your right to breathe. When we stand idly by until the government takes them all away will we finally realize what we have lost – and then it will be too late.

    3. ndianasteve I am not trying to be rude, just be honest. You know as well as I do that some of the states’ laws make absolutely no sense. The lady made a mistake, but this is a country that is based on a constitution that is being dismantled piece by piece. I don’t know what state you live in, but I wish that we could find a way (maybe unconstitutionally) to keep people of your mindset all together in one particular area. That way you would be considered a different country and everyone else would know what borders not to cross.
      Rob Out1

  32. We area have have enough gun laws on the books-without guns we would not have freedom of speech etc Enforce those that are fair to everybdy &
    you will remove a lot of problems.

  33. Why are Drivers Licenses reciprocated in ALL 50 states (with driving being a privilege) but Concealed Carry (being a right) is not?

    1. @Doug

      “Why?” In a nutshell, because the NRA has not done its job.

      The LAW is that any law-abiding citizen can carry concealed anywhere in the US, without a permit. That is the LAW.

      But the NRA has done nothing, and apparently will do nothing, to support enforcement of the LAW.

  34. Usually most people complain that the feds need to stay out of our business and give the power to the states. Now it’s the other way around. I didn’t read the entire article very closely, so I might have missed something. If Ms. Allen travelled to NJ with a handgun and without a permit she messed up. If she had a permit and didn’t follow the law, she messed up. A federal reciprocity rule would not change that.

    1. ALl laws governing concealed carry are illegal on their face and should be revoked. “Shall not be infringed” is crystal clear to me,. Why do our supposed betters find it so hard to grasp?

    2. Amen to that brother! They should NOT be able to even give permits…. We ALL have the right to keep and BEAR arms. No government has any right to tell us we can or cant carry, open or concealed.

    3. @ken gruber

      Yes, all laws prohibiting concealed carry are unconstitutional on thier face. The proposed bill in Congress falsely suggests, however, that the states DO have that authority but just “need” federal guidance on HOW to regulate something the state have no power to regulate.

    4. @ Indiana steve:

      I can’t believe you just wrote that. It shows you have no concept whatsoever of how our government is set up. I am not trying to insult you; I am being very, very honest in advising you here. Please do yourself a favor and do not repeat what you’ve just written to anyone else ever again until you’ve taken a remedial class in U.S. Government. Once you’ve completed that, you will realize how embarrassing what you wrote really is. I am being serious and not insulting. Please follow my advice.

    5. @GMan

      Indiana Steve actually made an insightful comment (before incorrectly blaming a law-abiding citizen for the illegal behavior by officials in NJ). He is correct that Americans overwhelmingly want the federal government to keep its nose out of state issues. We call that political philosophy “federalism” — which happens to be the structure on which the US was founded.

      But anyone who might be concerned about the anti-Federalist implications of having single nation-wide answers on the issues of Constitutional Carry and Reciprocity can take comfort.

      It is not anti-Federalist to have single nation-wide answers on Constitutional Carry and Reciprocity, because those answers actually come from We the People ourselves, not the federal government. Constitutional Carry and Reciprocity are completely controlled by the Peoples’ rules set forth in the Constitution, not the federal government’s rules.

      The single nation-wide answer on Constitutional Carry is that, under the rationale of the Heller decision, every law-abiding citizen in ANY state has the same federal constitutional right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense (which includes the right to carry that handgun concealed). That’s the Peoples’ decision, not the federal government’s decision.

      The single nation-wide answer on Reciprocity is that, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, every state has an obligation to honor any concealed carry “permit” or “license” issued by any other state. Given that no state has any power to prohibit law-abiding citizens form carrying concealed weapons, however, such “license” and “permits” are merely conveniences allowing the holders to prove their status as law-abiding citizens. That’s also the Peoples’ decision, not the federal government’s decision.

      Indiana Steve is correct to be worried about getting the US Congress involved in these issues. Under our Constitution the PEOPLE tell the states what to do, not the federal government.

    6. That was very ignorant (G man). Instead of explaining or stating how he doesn’t understand the concept of how the government works, how you so claim, you just insulted him with no explanation.

      @Indiana Steve
      I believe what this bill does is honor CHL holders (so basically exempt and protect them from certain aspects of the law when traveling out of state, pretty sure not all of course).
      Also, she did have a permit on her and the cause of her getting pulled over was an illegal lane change more than likely as simple as not having the turn signal on for @ least 3 seconds before changing lane.

    7. @ GI Nicholas:

      I think you should also go back to school and brush up on basic English skills so you’ll know how to appropriately apply words such as “ignorant”.

      I suppose you’ll be even more pissed now because I insulted you without explaining how your use of the word was improper. Simply put, for the both of you – these are very basic scholastic principles that should not require any explanation.

      The fact you think I owed him on explanation over something any red-blooded American should already know from grammar school is truly “ignorant” on your part. Now that was an appropriate use of such a word.

      However, before I read your comment I had already posted a more in-depth breakdown for him just in-case he might not be from our country. You should give it a read given your attempt at an explanation was not applicable in relation to the overall concept the rest of here seem to understand.

    8. YES ! YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE !! since your comments are strictly coming from pure ignorance !! If you had any concept of how vague and unclear each states laws are on CCW’s and how hard it is to obtain crystal clear info on each states laws for CCW holders. People like you are like backseat drivers, they need to keep quiet and leave things like this up to people who actually take the time to read and obtain ALL the info before opening their mouth ! I wish CTD would delete this ignorant persons comment, since it is not relevant and or insightful to any one or anything to do with this article. Like G-Man said, you NEED to go back to school and take MANY classes on U.S. Government, and yes he is NOT insulting you, YOU DID THAT ALL ON YOUR OWN !

    9. @ indiana steve:

      Perhaps I was somewhat brash towards you. Here is an easy government lesson to help you understand that what you wrote was majorly flawed and not as simple a matter as you expressed.

      The Federal government was formed by the states. Any powers the Federal government has are derived from the states collective authority after having come together and agreed as such.

      However, in so doing the states intentionally limited the Federal government’s authority to only enforce those laws as established within the scope of the U.S. Constitution; those being primarily civil and human rights as enumerated in the Amendments of the Constitution.

      This makes sense given that human rights involve life and liberty, which should always take precedence over any other laws and, of which, should always be applied consistently across the entire U.S. regardless of any state laws. So within that scope, the states gave the Federal Government the “Supremacy” clause to ensure no rogue state would ever be able to circumvent a civil or human right.

      This was done to ensure that citizens can be assured no matter where they travel, that their civil rights will always be protected equally. So, whereas a state’s speed laws are allowed to differ or school system’s curriculum may vary, but every U.S. Citizen can at least count on one thing… they are assured through Federal Law that their civil rights are consistently protected and applied no matter where they may go in this country.

      The easiest way to summarize our government setup is – all laws are a matter of each individual state and their own constitutions. However, if a single state creates a law that could violate a civil right, the collective states have given the Federal Government the authority to step in and rule over that particular violation. And their word is final because the states also gave them authority for their decision to reign “supreme” over any other law.

      Given that the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is in the U.S. Constitution, no individual state has the right to create a law that limits such a right – IN ANY WAY. And if they do, the Federal Government is required to step in and vigorously protect that individual and prosecute the state in violation.

      As stated above, states are not allowed to create laws which violate the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution applies and protects Sheehan’s rights no matter which state she may travel in. And yet this New Jersey law did in fact violate Sheehan’s Constitutional rights as enumerated in the Second Amendment. That is why they finally had to let her go, but only after a lot of pressure to do so.

      So you are right in that we always complain the Federal Government is overreaching. What we mean is that they are always abusing their “limited authority” by sticking their nose into state matters that don’t involve their scope of duties, while at the same time ignoring their one and only established responsibility – which is to enforce protections of our rights as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution only.

      It simply should not be this way in America. It is shameful that the Federal Government failed to step in immediately and protect Sheehan’s rights as required. And that is a perfect example surrounding the crux of everything we complain about these days in this once great country. We are in big trouble when entire laws of the Constitution are ignored. Once that is gone, we have nothing.

  35. Yes, I am definitely in favor of passing this bill. Being a CW holder in
    Texas, last year we traveled to Maryland and I very much disliked the
    idea of having to take my weapon out of the glove compartment and
    place it in the trunk after emptying the chamber and magazine,then feel unsafe in states like Virginia which has no reciprocity with Texas or
    like states. Thank you.

  36. We need to get this law passed just to clear up all the crap there is out there on this subject.i have a ccw permit in pa. And live 5 min from delaware.its a pita to go home and take off my gun/etc. Off..this is ridiculous considering i can legally get a ccw permit and carry in pa but can’t go 5 min over the state line to go to the market or store.some type of reciprocity has to happen as criminals don’t think twice about what or where they rob or kill ccw and weapon has saved me many times from at least being robbed and possibly more as i used to deliver pizza in a bad part of town.its your 2nd ammendment right anyway.but this would definately help so much in so many ways.

  37. Well I have a CCW here in Florida and I carry in every state that I go to… I would only use my weapon if I believed my family or myself would be seriously injured or killed. I would rather have my family alive and myself tried by 12 than carried by Six.

    1. What remains to be read, heard or seen is the fact that even if they pass this law does that amend the capacity laws or the loaded chamber indicator that’s mandatory in some states and the triggers that require certain lbs of pull. Our country always needed Reciprocity laws that allows everyone to travel anywhere, anytime with the right to carry laws in place, but will they remove the complications and uniform this across America. How about shall issue states like NYC or New Jersey will they convert to will issue States If not out of state citizens will have more rights than anyone in their home states.

    2. @wilrock

      Constitutional Carry already is the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause and Equal Protection Clause. Those clauses guarantee that every law-abiding citizen in the US has the identical and uniform FEDERAL right under the Heller case to have a fully-functional handgun immediately available for the constitutionally protected purpose of self-defense. Because the public record shows that there are 22+ MILLION official concealed carriers in the US, concealed carry is constitutionally protected under the Miller “in common use at the time” standard applied in Heller.

      Reciprocity also already is the supreme law of the land under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Every state must accept every other state’s concealed carry “permits” or “licenses” as proof that the holders thereof are law-abiding citizens. This is EXISTING law, and it fully establishes any “reciprocity” Congress might try to cobble together, because all law-abiding citizens have the FEDERAL constitutional right to carry concealed weapons for self-defense.

      At this point it is simply a matter of enforcing that EXISTING law — which Congress can’t do for us. We the People have to do our constitutional duty to take that up fight against the states that disobey the law. All Congress could do on the issue at this point is mess up everything by falsely suggesting that existing law is something other than what it is, and by giving us a new law that takes away rights we already have.

      As to the various state requirements like LCIs, what you really are looking for is a federal law to preempt the patchwork of state laws, or for those state laws to be stricken down as unconstitutional restraints of federal constitutional rights. My basic human right to armed self-defense is needlessly restrained — and therefore unconstitutionally restrained under the “strict scrutiny” standard — by the fact that I have to have to choose between being unarmed or having a potentially life-threatening LCI (any number of unpredictable things could make it interfere with the proper operation of the firearm when I need to shoot to save my life) just because some know-nothing nutcase on the government payroll in a distant state thinks it is a good idea.

      As to “may issue” vs. “shall issue,” the federal courts in California have already ruled that “may issue” schemes are unconstitutional. Unless that decision is overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, ALL states must be “shall issue” states.

    3. @ PeteDub

      Thank You for the Comments, But I just read the Bill introduced, and it mentions it will not obligate any change in the state laws in place. So if New York City ( where I Live) are not obligated to change CCW laws. You are obsoletely correct that its a scheme but unless someone sues on our behalf nothing will change. Only well connect individuals or unless your a celebrity or just filthy rich we will protect ourselves with a 3 inch knife which all we can carry. But not spring loaded or cannot have serrations. Your can laugh now!

      Thanks Again for the response

  38. I will repeat for you poor bastards who live up north.If the federal or state govnmt chooses to pick the laws it wishes to enforce then what obligation does a law abiding citizen have in obeying them? The various constitutional laws are a contract between a people and the elected officials. States like NY and Conn have violated that contractual agreement in many ways regarding gun ownership.As his lordship barrack hussein has said “who is going to stop me?”

    1. YES!! State pick and choose which laws they want to enforce…..ALL our elected officials swear an oath to obey and uphold ALL, not just the ones they want to, laws….and those NOt doing their sworn oath should be fired and or jailed.

  39. Suzanne, you are wrong about your Oklahoma comments… Oklahoma, you must have a state concealed carry permit to carry at all…..AND if you have a concealed carry permit, only then are you authorized to carry-either concealed or open carry…….so if you have a Texas concealed carry permit then when you pass thru Oklahoma, you may carry either open or concealed……practically speaking you very seldom see people practicing open carry…..I am an attorney, former prosecutor and law enforcement officer state, local and military and strongly support the reciprocity act….we alll need to email our federal electorate…I will send mine out today…..

  40. There is something else that needs addressing – magazine size. Permission to carry in every state is great but you need to be able to have a magazine or the gun is pretty useless.
    “large” capacity bans in Illinois mean I cannot pass through the state to go hunting, in SD from MI, if I have a 30 round mag for my AR15 in the vehicle – the gun is covered by interstate transfer but the magazine is NOT – we need this fixing and NOW

    1. Magazine restrictions cannot possibly survive constitutional challenge under the “strict scrutiny” standard.

  41. sparky 43207, i agree but we have been doing our part in this but it never seems enough. you would think that when you apply for your cwp. that it is approved by the state and federal agencies. there fore it should be legal anywhere in the u.s. i have a lot of problems with this universal background really goes too far.

  42. This proposed law is flawed in many ways. It has no effect on people from states which don’t require a permit. I could carry at home, but nowhere else. Also, it will allow innumerable state traps: how did you know it is a felony to carry within 1000 feet of a courthouse in the state you just entered? Too bad, you’re a felon.

    And don’t get me started on states rights.

    The only real constitutional solution is “Vermont carry” nationwide. Ain’t gonna happen.

    1. @ Bob:

      Name a law that isn’t flawed. At least this is a start. Would you rather we pack up and go home?

      I’ve spent my entire career enforcing Federal laws so I know firsthand from experience there will always be growing pains from newly implemented laws. That becomes especially true for new Federal laws given they cover the entire Nation.

      Congress is very aware there will always be a steep learning curve until new laws are ironed out. This is why they review them and make amendments accordingly or allow the courts to interpret. But we still have to start somewhere to get the ball rolling; otherwise there would never be any progress.

      Use ObamaCare as a prime example of a flawed law that was still put into play. Congress will either amend the crap out of it, or throw it out completely. But to some Americans it was still worth the try. So maybe you should view this National Reciprocity attempt as a gun-advocate’s version of ObamaCare.

      As for your concern over states that do not require a permit, that is remedied by a driver license. Officer’s will be briefed and come to learn which states allow Constitutional Concealed Carry… thus the state of issue on the carrier’s driver license will determine the exception. Not all officers are idiots.

      And finally to address your concerns of not knowing how laws apply differently in each state, trust that there will be a plethora of websites and phone apps established to quickly provide you guidance as you travel. Just like visiting another country, it’s always to research the laws customs and courtesies prior to travel.

      Bottom line is we are going to have to work at this to make it work. If I seem a bit terse, that is because I am so tired of the negativity whenever someone shows an effort to improve our gun rights. So instead, how about you think of all the positive things this law can do rather than dwell on the negative?

    2. @ Camelot:

      Read that and laughed so hard I spit coffee on my screen. That was a good one.

      Touché my good man, touché.

    3. @Bob

      Every law-abiding citizen already has the right to carry in any state, openly or concealed as the law-abiding citizen sees fit, and no “permit” is required to do so. This is called “constitutional carry” and it is the supreme law of the land uniform throughout the US under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

      The legal background is as follows.

      1. In Heller, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the basic human right of armed self-defense specifically includes the right of every law-abiding citizen to have a fully-functional handgun immediately available for self-defense. Under that ruling no state or federal law may require us to keep our handguns locked, unloaded, disassembled, out of reach, etc.; law-abiding citizens instead have the right to be able to deploy our handguns IMMEDIATELY for self-defense, which necessarily means that we have the right to carry handguns on our persons when we are moving about.

      2. The Heller court reached its conclusion by applying the Miller standard that any arms “in common use at the time” for any lawful purpose are constitutionally protected; because the Heller court noted that handguns are in common use for the lawful purpose of self-defense, they are constitutionally protected.

      3. By the same Miller standard applied in Heller, CONCEALED handguns are constitutionally protected because they are the most common weapons law-abiding citizens use to exercise the basic human right of armed self-defense (the public record shows that more than 22 MILLION law-abiding citizens have secured the right to carry concealed under state law).

      4. Because the right to have a fully-functional handgun immediately available for self-defense is a “fundamental” right, as affirmed by the Heller court, any law that interferes with that right is subject to the “strict scrutiny” standard: the law can only be constitutional if (a) the law protects a legitimate government interest, and (b) the law is the least restrictive means possible to protect that interest. Laws prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns, either openly or concealed as we see fit, can’t possibly meet either prong of that standard, much less both prongs as would be required for the law to be constitutional.

      Therefore, the idea of passing a federal statute on the concealed carry issue is ludicrous, as federal constitutional law already controls the issue as stated above. All we really need now is for people who understand and believe in the Constitution to take state officials to court when they violate our rights under federal law. Congress has already given us the tool to use for that purpose, 42 USC 1983.

      Several courts have already struck down unconstitutional laws that purport to prohibit law-abiding citizens from having our self-defense handguns on our persons, and it is just a matter of cleaning up the loose ends by attacking the remaining laws in the remaining states.

      THAT is why the bill in Congress is a bad idea– it actually moves us backward, by suggesting that states have powers to that the Miller and Heller decisions make clear they don’t have.

      As to not knowing what the local laws may be about buffer zones, that also is not a valid concern. In Heller the Supreme Court also defined the outer limits of what the federal and state governments may do to regulate firearms: (a) reasonable restrictions on commercial sales, (b) keeping guns from felons and the mentally ill, and (c) keeping guns OUT OF “sensitive places” such as government buildings and schools (not “not too close to” but OUT OF).

      Combining that limitation and the strict scrutiny standard, it is clear that a state may not draw simply arbitrary imaginary lines to prohibit law-abiding citizens from being armed within unmarked areas. Instead, in order for an area to qualify as a “sensitive area” where law-abiding citizens may be constitutionally disarmed, the area must have adequate security so law-abiding citizens don’t NEED to exercise our basic human right of armed self-defense in those areas, and there must be adequate warning so we are not caught by surprise (surprise and lack of clarity always render any law unconstitutional).

    4. There are certain states that I see no need to go to except to liberate them.

      But, why risk my neck to liberate people who don’t want to be liberated?

    5. Bob you sound like someone I am glad my sister didn’t marry! Go dig a hole and stick your head into it until things start going your way ok?

  43. I can’t read the legend on the map. I know the different colors mean something, but I can’t read it. Can anyone help?

  44. I’m all for licensing for CCW and the training that it requires. It has long been an argument between states that there isn’t reciprocity because of the level of training required to obtain the license. That argument is invalidated due to the varying laws to get a driver’s license yet one is recognized in every other state. Maybe the BATF or HS should set up a minimum standard that could still be administered by each state.

    1. @Sparky

      You may be “all for licensing for CCW” but the US Constitution isn’t. Every law-abiding citizen has the right to carry a concealed handgun, as a matter of federal constitutional law, and no state may require a law-abiding citizen to obtain permission to exercise that right.

      The only thing the states can do on the matter under the Constitution is decide how they will or won’t issue documents that prove the holder is a law-abiding citizen.

      For example, I have a CC “permit” even though I don’t need one to carry concealed weapons legally in any state. I made that choice because it is a TREMENDOUS convenience to me to be able to provide that “permit” as proof to a police officer if there is ever a question whether I am a law-abiding citizen.

      I don’t have to sit and wait while the officer keeps me in temporary custody, runs a background check and holds my weapon temporarily (all of which the officer would have the right to do under certain circumstances). Instead, I can show the officer my “permit” and be quickly on my way with the officer perfectly satisfied that, as a law-abiding citizen, I do indeed have the federal constitutional right to carry the concealed weapon in my possession.

      In order to obtain that “permit,” I had to go through extensive training, prove my ability to handle handguns safely and competently, pass a background check, and pay a fee. And I was happy to do all of that, for the convenience I obtained in return.

      Under the Constitution, every state has the right to decide its own requirements for that “permit” process. But, by the same token, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause no state has the right to second-guess another state’s process for issuing such a “permit” — instead, every state must accept all other states’ decisions on the issue no matter what differences might exist.

      So, in effect, we already have “reciprocity” in that any CC “permit” or “license” issued by any state serves as adequate proof that the holder is a law-abiding citizen with the FEDERAL constitutional right to carry concealed weapons. We don’t need Congress or any other part of the federal government to become involved in that, because it already is the LAW. What we do need is for people who understand and respect the Constitution to force states to obey that LAW if they aren’t.

    2. Try getting pulled over anywhere in NY without a pistol permit. See how far you get with that thinking. Just like the woman from PA when she got pulled over in NJ. It’s happening every day. I have a cc in NY and I cannot travel down to the City of NY with my pistol or pretty much any firearm for that matter.

      I understand your thinking but I believe that this is a major step in the right direction for gun rights. And it will shove down the liberals throat who continually feel you don’t need, deserve or should have a gun at all, they will be forced to have to abide by the rest of the countries laws.

    3. I have to agree Phil. I certainly understand what the guys here are saying.
      We shouldn’t need this bill. However things are what they are and I do not see anyone fighting to hard to change the states in violation of 2A.
      I carry….Period.
      I have my permit and understand that it is only good in certain states, but …

    4. @McRuger

      As a law-abiding citizen, your FEDERAL right under Heller to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense is “good” in every state in the US. That FEDERAL “constitutional carry” right is identical in every state under both the Supremacy Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, and under the Heller rationale that right includes the right to carry a handgun concealed as the public record shows about 22 MILLION armed law-abiding Americans do. (This is known as “constitutional carry.”)

      Your “permit” does not actually give you any rights, it merely proves that you are a law-abiding citizen. The fact that you are a law-abiding citizen, not your “permit,” ensures that you have the FEDERAL right to carry concealed. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, EVERY state is required to accept that “permit” as proof that you are a law-abiding citizen, even if some states’ standards for issuing such “permits” may be different from others.

      Those principles of “constitutional carry” and “reciprocity” already are the law. That law is just waiting for people who believe in the Constitution to enforce the law any time any state official dares to disobey the law. Congress has even already provided us with a powerful weapon to force state officials to obey the law — 42 USC 1983.

      We don’t need Congress passing a law suggesting that we DON’T have the “constitutional carry” rights we have under the Heller decision.

      We also don’t need a law saying the same thing about “reciprocity” that the Full Faith and Credit Clause already says — or, probably, FAR LESS than what the Full Faith and Credit Clause already says, given the nature of politics as as a search for a wrong answer that will anger the fewest people in contrast to law as a search for the right answer no matter how many people get upset.

      By pursuing this ill-considered bill undermining victories that have already been achieved in court and are still being achieved, the sponsors could set gun rights BACK several decades, very easily.

    5. @phil G

      I have absolutely no fear of getting pulled over in NV or any other state while exercising my FEDERAL rights. The states have to bend to my FEDERAL rights, not the other way around. That ALREADY is the law, and we certainly don’t need ANOTHER law from Congress to tell us that.

      The proposed bill is a major step backward because it falsely suggests that states have powers they clearly do not have.

  45. this is a very touchy subject for me. i don’t think that we need a right to carry card. all law abiding citizens should not need any kind of card or special license to carry concealed. we are true citizens of the wonderful gracious place called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. we don’t need someone telling us what we need. i have a concealed carry permit but i don’t mind it because i have nothing to hide from any one. but i don’t think that i should be forced to get one because the 2nd. ammendment should take care of that. i am not a criminal and never been. i am 67 years old and never had but 3 driving tickets in my entire life. i used to teach hunter education classes for many years in our community with the game warden of our county and i taught a lot of gun safety at our local gun club. no money was charged for anything but we all did it to help young kids and parents gun safety. at the time the n.r.a. were very helpful in giving us targets and literature to give out . the n.r.a. were the only ones to help without having to pay.they are a very good help for all, if you will just ask. and they do a lot of good fighting our gun battles. it would be very bad if we did not have them fighting with us. i don’t always agree with them all the time but they really do help us all.i don’t mind a background check if done properly but i don’t think it is necessary. i do know that since obama was elected a lot of bad things have happened because of him. no one in his position should not get in everyday police works. think every time he has stuck his nose into something it has always been a black person shot or killed and by a white law enforcement officer, now how do you figure that. not one time about a white or other races of people killed by a black officer. what is wrong with this picture. if you are white you are bad. if you are black, you can do no wrong even if you are a criminal. that hurts everybody. i hear racism everywhere but it is now on the whites. i would like to carry my weapon anywhere i want to with out being afraid of getting arrested. i think by our constitution that should be true for all lawful citizens in america. THANKS HOPE THIS IS OF SOME HELP.

  46. I am under the impression that our constitution gives every US citizen reciprocity along with the right to bear arms. Am I misinformed ??

  47. It would be great to have a one carry license for all states, a universal carry requirements, backed by F.B.I./A.T.F and each state agency.

  48. SD Slim: Do you really believe Republicans hate minorities? It’s not Republicans who work to keep minorities down by getting them “hooked” on handouts in an effort to get votes. Its the Democrats that have always been the ones who passed the “Jim Crow” laws. It’s the Dems who keep keep treating minorities like children who cannot take care of themselves. Unless the people of this country want to become a totally socialist state, we need to get the Dems out. Remember… what party is most interested in gun control? Not Republicans.

  49. Yep Mc you are right.The last 2 elections prove you right. The “dumbest” Obama must be because he keeps getting elected. Keep doing stupid crap and hope for a better outcome!!!!!

    1. I don’t know Slim I’m just getting tired of playing defense. Like to have the ball a while and make them play D for a while.

    2. @McRuger

      To use your sports analogy, the bill in Congress is not playing offense. It is like sitting on the bench as a member of the JV cricket team in Mumbai, while your buddy is playing QB in the Super Bowl.

      The equivalent of the Super Bowl in the fight for gun rights is and has been in the federal courts — and we are on offense with a HUGE lead.

      The most left-wing court on the face of the planet recently struck down California’s ban on open and concealed carry. The next most left-wing court recently struck down the laws making Illinois the last hold-out against the right to armed self-defense. The California ruling impacts not just California, but every state (like Maryland) with a similar ban. A federal court just this past week applied the “strict scrutiny” standard — by far the toughest standard in constitutional law — to strike down the federal ban on interstate sales of handguns.

      While we have not won every case we have won the most relevant ones and every key issue — starting with Heller. We need to keep those a-holes on defense, and losing, by bringing valid cases whenever we can. [And even more importantly, we need to ensure that no Democrats are ever elected again, to WASTE public funds defending these cases in order to promote their wrong-headed and flatly unconstitutional twisted personal agendas of hatred aimed at the American People who merely dare to “cling to [our] guns and religion” pursuant to first 2 provisions of the Bill of Rights.]

      In no case has any court disagreed (nor could they) with the ruling in Heller that every law-abiding citizen has the basic human right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense; that ruling is the key to the universal constitutional carry issue. Given the applicability of the strict scrutiny standard to cases involving “fundamental” rights, a state or federal law on the issue of open / concealed carry could only survive if (a) the law promotes a legitimate government interest, and (b) the law is the most restrictive way to protect that interest. No law prohibiting a law-abiding citizen from carrying a handgun for self-defense, either openly or concealed as the citizen sees fit, can possibly meet that high standard.

      The government certainly can prohibit felons from being armed, and punish people for using firearms illegally. But the government can never, in any way, ban law-abiding citizens from merely being armed. The California case (Peruta v. San Diego County) says that such a ban is unconstitutional even if the state has a process for allowing people to ask for “permits.” At MOST, under the rationale of that California case, every state must be a “shall issue” state. Ultimately, though, a “permit” requirement cannot meet the strict scrutiny standard because there are less restrictive ways to meet any legitimate government interest, such as enforcing the existing laws against the real source of any problem the government might legitimately seek to address — felons who use firearms illegally.

      If you seriously want to play offense, find the closest state with a ban on open / concealed carry or which refuses to accept your concealed carry “permit” (if you have one). Work with a qualified lawyer to write a letter to tell the governor that you will sue him personally for “chilling” your federal right to armed self-defense unless he publicly admits that your “permit” is valid in his state (if you have one) and / or that his state’s laws against open / concealed carry are unconstitutional. And then follow up on that threat if the governor makes a fool of himself / herself by refusing to acknowledge your rights.

      THAT is playing offense, and you don’t need to play any political games or ask anyone’s permission to do it — and you don’t need the NRA to do it for you. It is your right as an American citizen to hold state officials legally accountable, personally, for depriving you of your federal rights. Richard Nixon got that law passed in order to fight the Southern states that allowed officials to abuse state law to deny Blacks of their civil rights, and the law applies to our gun rights just as well.

      Some might accuse me of slamming the NRA with the following commentary, but it is truthful and necessary.

      The NRA is NOT telling us the truth about the progress being made in the fight for gun rights, because the NRA is not in the business of telling the truth. The NRA is in the business of scaring us into making donations, because the NRA’s survival depends on donations. If we don’t donate, their kids don’t eat.

      The NRA knows that the right way to fight this battle is in the federal courts. But the NRA also knows that asking people like us for money to fight THAT fight is less effective in feeding their kids than scaring people with what an a-hole Obama is being (and Obama is the NRA’s BEST fundraiser by FAR ’cause he is so freaking STUPID, DISHONEST and HATEFUL) then asking for money to support a bill in Congress to fight back against Obama’s stupid dishonesty (even though they know that the bill in Congress won’t accomplish a doggone thing).

      Look at it this way: If the NRA raises $1 Million tomorrow to fight the fight in federal courts, most of that money gets paid out to lawyers who actually go to court and fight to win — the lawyers’ kids get to eat. But if they raise $1 Million tomorrow to fight the fight in Congress, that money stays in the NRA kitty to pay salaries and overhead while they politely ask politicians to fight the fight for them — NRA staffers’ kids get to eat.

      It is the nature of an organization built on fundraising that they have to focus on fundraising efforts and strategies that pay themselves first, in order to keep the doors open and lights on. Just like left-wing politicians keep underprivileged people down (by slamming proprietary career education for example) because they would be out of a job if underprivileged people were actually allowed to succeed, the NRA is not in the fight for gun rights to WIN they are in it to keep their kids fed.

  50. Let’s be smart here guys, sometimes a “right” — even a God-given right — needs a mechanism to enforce it against a lawless tyrannical government and a politicized judiciary. When Shaneen Allen was arrested in New Jersey for carrying a firearm with a Pennsylvania concealed carry license, the Garden State was flagrantly denying Shaneen’s God-given rights and acting unconstitutionally.

    Shaneen faced over a decade in prison — and was only exonerated when gun owners pressured Governor Chris Christie, whose presidential ambitions made him unusually receptive to our message. So consider this: When you carry concealed in New York, New Jersey, California, or another state, the fact that you are “right” isn’t going to keep you from going to prison for decades — unless the Stutzman bill is passed into law and force these lawless states to comply.

    Lets be honest we are all long on talking and short on action. This is a positive action to support our God given right to carry regardless of the state. We need to support this as a positive step to take control away from the stupid states.

    1. @McRuger

      Sorry, but you are wrong. Those states are ALREADY violating the law, knowingly, so what makes anyone think another statute coming out of Congress will make them suddenly obey the law?

      The only answer is to enforce existing EXISTING law by slamming those states and their officials in federal court under 42 USC 1983 when they violate the EXISTING law (the Heller decision) holding that every law-abiding citizen has the right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense.

      In the Constitution, We the People purposely put handcuffs on Congress to prevent them from running amok. We instead empowered the Courts, not Congress, to solve the problem when the States disregard federal rights, such at the basic human right of armed self-defense. it is a good blueprint, and we should use it.

    2. Yeah Pete you notice how well it’s working the way it is. Those states are not bring taken to court and continue to pile on restrictions. It would be foolish to not support a bill that reinforces our rights.
      Although it really does not matter because King O will never sign it.

  51. We don’t need this law, and in fact it is a step backward.

    Constitutional carry is ALREADY the law of the land under the rationale of the Heller case. Instead of trying to cram through a law to gain rights we already have, we should to take the fight to the federal courts in the states that defy the EXISTING law.

    1. Drive from NV or AZ to CA (or similar) and get stopped in anti-CCW jurisdiction like CA for any reason, and you’ll likely change your mind by the time you get released, post bail, pay legal fees, court costs and the hassle of trying to get your gun back, if you ever do, plus the public embarrassment, harassment and especially the conviction record that follows you everywhere including job applications.

    2. @BRASS

      Apparently you were unaware that California’s anti-carry law has already been declared unconstitutional. There is no law enforceable in California to allow the “scary” things you mention.

      The United States Supreme Court has ruled that every law-abiding citizen has the basic human right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense. Any state or federal law that interferes with that right is void as unconstitutional. Those unconstitutional laws are being struck down regularly.

      If I were to be charged with a crime for “daring” to exercise the right the Supreme Court has said I have, there certainly wouldn’t be any embarrassment on my part and almost certainly there would not be a conviction (and even in the highly unlikely event there were a conviction, it almost certainly would be thrown out). So, even if those “scary” things were to be threatened or even happen, at the end of the day I am completely confident that I would win because I believe in the US Constitution, and in myself.

      I have faced a LOT worse than those “scary” things in fulfilling my sworn oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and so did the Founders who guaranteed us the rights the Supreme Court has affirmed we have.

      If you are not willing to exercise your rights out of fear of those “scary” things, that’s your choice if you wish and I would not criticize that decision — but then the creeps have already beaten you. That would not be my choice, however, nor the choice of anyone else who was truly serious when taking the oath to defend the Constitution.

      BTW, anyone who has such a “conviction record” should easily have it expunged in light of the Heller ruling. Yes, a hassle, but much less of a hassle than leaving the unconstitutional “conviction” on the record — and certainly MUCH less hassle than having to deal with the potentially fatal consequences of being deprived of the basic human right to have a fully functional handgun immediately available for self-defense.

    3. Pete I don’t disagree with you but the fact is we are not fighting the good fight in court. If we were winning those fights fine but I don’t even think we’re fighting them.

    4. @McRuger

      I am truly confused why you think we are not fighting the good fight in court. California’s law was recently struck down, and the rationale of this decision impacts every other state that tries to outlaw open and concealed carry. All we need for the next step is a lawsuit on behalf of the MANY people who travel interstate with “permits” any other state might refuse to recognize. The blueprint has already been laid out, it is simply a matter of executing. This is much faster and more certain that anything Congress might hope to accomplish.

  52. If the bill gets passed by both houses of Congress, then, if the country has not gone completely mad, we’ll get a President in 2016 who will sign the law.

  53. What good would it do to pass the bill if old Obozo is just going to veto it…would make since to pass is a good bill..I would also like for Texas to get the constitutional carry bill passed also.

  54. Hmmm, just like Chuck Schumer to fight it “tooth & nail”… When I live in the republic of NY, I received a letter from him once, stating that he was a supporter of the second amendment…. More BS lies from a politician who lives in “The Sheeple Zone”…

  55. I have read the NRA’s position regarding federal legislation on “reciprocity” for concealed carry. This, in a nutshell, demonstrates why I have never been able to support the NRA: they give away far too much and empower the enemies of freedom, by thinking and acting like Washington DC insiders. The NRA needs to start thinking like and listening to real Americans who have real lives and real threats to deal with, in the real world that exists beyond your fantasy land inside the Beltway.

    In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the basic human right of armed self-defense includes the right to have fully functional handguns immediately available for self-defense. In reaching that conclusion, the Heller court applied the Miller “in common use at the time” standard to rule that handguns are protected under the 2nd Amendment because many Americans choose handguns for self-defense.

    To put the prevalence of handguns into perspective, consider the fact that, counting the law-abiding citizens in states that already acknowledge they lack the power to prohibit concealed carry, and the law-abiding citizens who have obtained concealed carry “permits” or “licenses” in other states, the public record shows that the states recognize the right of about 22 MILLION law-abiding Americans to carry concealed weapons. Even if each person only interacts with 50 other people daily on average, there are more than a BILLION peaceful interactions every day between those official law-abiding concealed carriers and other Americans, in which no shot is fired.

    Because the right to armed self-defense is “fundamental,” no federal or state law may restrict that right unless the law meets the “strict scrutiny” standard: the law must protect a legitimate government interest AND the law must be the least restrictive way to protect that legitimate interest. Given the BILLION or so daily peaceful interactions between official law-abiding concealed carriers and other Americans, clearly here is no legitimate government interest in preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons. Any legitimate government interest is fully protected by existing laws that prohibit felons from being armed at all, and existing laws penalizing the illegal use of weapons. Laws prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons cannot possibly meet the strict scrutiny standard and are therefore unquestionably unconstitutional.

    While proponents of laws prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons might point out that that the Heller court cited several 19th century cases on the then-uncommon practice of concealed carry to show that rights under the 2nd Amendment are not absolute, those cases involved felons not law-abiding citizens. Of course the law in the 19th century could prohibit felons from carrying concealed weapons – even if concealed carry had been common then, which the cited cases make clear wasn’t the case.

    But, under the Miller “in common use at the time” standard applied in Heller, the federal and state governments have no power to prohibit weapons law-abiding citizens commonly choose for self-defense today. Because the public record shows that huge numbers of law-abiding Americans choose concealed weapons for self-defense today, concealed weapons are constitutionally protected.

    Accordingly, the supreme law of the land is that every law-abiding citizen has the fundamental right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to carry concealed weapons for self-defense. We therefore do not need any new laws on “reciprocity,” given that rights under federal law are already uniform throughout the United States under the Equal Protection Clause. In fact, the legislative efforts the NRA supports regarding “reciprocity” falsely suggest that the states have powers they certainly do not have.

    At any rate, those of us who have chosen to obtain concealed carry “permits” or “licenses” for our own convenience already have all the “reciprocity” we could ever need – under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A concealed carry “permit” or “license” does not “grant” the holder the right to carry concealed weapons; God grants that fundamental right. Rather than granting a right God already granted, a concealed weapon “permit” or “license” is merely a state act proving that the holder is a law-abiding citizen (which fact proves that the holder has the FEDERAL right to carry concealed weapons).

    Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, every state is required to accept the issuing state’s official conclusion that the holder of a concealed weapon “permit” or “license” is a law-abiding citizen (who is therefore imbued with the FEDERAL right to carry concealed weapons). The states certainly can choose (within the limits of due process) how they will issue concealed weapon “permits” or “licenses” as proof of law-abiding citizenship, but they cannot limit or disregard the FEDERAL rights flowing from that proof – no matter what state issues the proof. Any concealed weapon “permit” or “license” is already valid everywhere in the United States, to show that the holder has the FEDERAL right to carry concealed weapons.

    By supporting “reciprocity” efforts, the NRA / ILA is actively subverting rights we law-abiding citizens already have. The proper solution to the problem of state intransigence on concealed carry is found in 42 USC 1983 and federal courthouses, not the halls of Congress.

  56. This is a misnomer. Constitutional carry is as the Constitution says; not infringed, and permits are an infringement. Constitutional carry is open or concealed everywhere with no need for a permit. That’s how it is in Arizona and some other states as well.

  57. The problem I see is that even if Congress passes it, Obama will not sign it. We will need to wait until Obama is out and a Republican is voted into the White House

    1. Unless the Republicans change their hatred for minorities, the middle class and the working poor, there will never be another Republican elected President. The Author has her facts screwed up also. In SD, we do not have permit-less concealed carry. I own many hand guns, and have a CC permit.

    2. SDSLIM
      CONGRATULATIONS, you have said the dumbest thing I’ve ever red on this post and that’s saying something. If you believe that Republicans hate minorities, middle class and working poor you are worst than uninformed, you are just ignorant.

    3. SDSLIM

      Uhhh… last time I looked, the Republicans were the ones introducing the bill. And for all of their “…hatred for minorities” – oddly enough they run the House and the Senate.

  58. I think the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 is great. I’m in a part of the NW where you can be in two different states within 5 minutes. The neighboring state doesn’t recognize my home state’s CWP which is asinine. I’ll be writing my state representative a letter.

  59. Well! I hope we all know what to do about the problem gov of NJ.
    I’m supporting anyone who calls him out. (Opposes him politically)

  60. Everyone says the Brady bill makes your car and extension of your home, not in New Jersey it doesn’t. Last nights Yahoo news. A retired school teacher and antique weapon collector had bought an 1700’s Queen Anne’s flintlock pistol. On his way home he was stopped by the local law for what ever and in the process of questioning he admitted to having the weapon in his vehicle, wrapped in a towel, in the glove box. His pistol was confiscated, he was arrested and put in jail, he is facing a minimum of 3 1/2 years in jail, max of 10 years, and forfeiture of his retirement for the thirty odd years he had taught school. Now this is the type of mindset that they are facing, to just have a weapon in their vehicle if you live in New Jersey, and remember that their governor is wanting to run for President of our country.

  61. I’m willing to march on Washington , camp in the Mall and carry a sign for “2nd ‘A ‘ Rights”, for 2 or three months (if Congress is in session).
    If we could field 2 or 3 million willing participants it might start a real movement. But my guess is that the lobbyist’s that are “on our side” would not come out for this type of protest. Might jeopardize their livelihood.
    I’ve been to the Mall. Looks like a good place to camp. Haven’t there been many previous successful protests done this way?

  62. I’m afraid the federal courts would find such an act unconstitutional. Only when the Supreme Court recognizes Constitutional carry under the Second Amendment will we have national carry.

  63. This is great news for when I retire. Depending on the final wording of the Bill, it may enable me to dispense with having to recertify every year to maintain my LEOSA carry permit required for law enforcement. Right now the Agency covers certification, but once I retire, weapons qualification will have to come out of my pocket each year.

  64. “The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would make this map useless!”

    It is useless unless you own a Microscope

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

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.