Recently, The Shooter’s Log posted an article from the newly reformed Second Amendment Caucasus in Congress. We asked for your input as to what you think it should focus on, and the legislation you would like to see passed. Overwhelmingly, readers commented on the need for legislation creating a national reciprocity. Fortunately, we can report that our readers are not the only ones with this topping their agenda.
On the first day of the 115th Congress, Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced national concealed carry reciprocity legislation. This is a far cry from an actual law, but the fact that it is making its debut so early in the legislative year is promising to millions of self-defense enthusiasts. Best of all, the proposed legislation covers Constitutional carry.
Rep. Hudson’s office published this summary of the legislation: “Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits. As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to get this legislation across the finish line.” Rep. Hudson’s bill, which is supported by major pro-Second Amendment groups, would allow people with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry, as long as the permit holder follows the laws of that state. It also allows residents of Constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry.
The Legal Language
Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that— ‘‘(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or ‘‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes
Problem
Your driver’s license works in every state, so why doesn’t your concealed carry permit? Just like your privilege to drive, your Second Amendment right does not disappear when you cross state lines. However, conflicting state codes have created a confusing patchwork of reciprocity agreements for concealed carry permit holders.
Without nationwide reciprocity, a North Carolina resident cannot travel to Delaware without having to reroute their trip to avoid driving through Maryland. In addition, a Pennsylvania resident who is a concealed carry permit holder consistently worries about making a wrong turn, ending up in New York, and breaking the law.
Even the most careful and knowledgeable concealed carry permit holders find it difficult to navigate the current maze of state and local concealed carry laws.
Many Americans utilize concealed carry as their Constitutional right to self-defense, and we must guarantee that right is not infringed upon.
Solution
To ensure that our Second Amendment right does not disappear when we cross state lines, Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-08) introduced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 with strong support by major pro Second Amendment groups. This legislation will:
- Ensure that valid concealed carry permits issued in one state are valid for carrying concealed handguns in other states that recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry;
- Allow those from constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry;
- Put the burden of proof clearly on the state to show that an individual carrying concealed did not comply with the law, thus protecting law-abiding gun owners from onerous civil suits;
- Provide legal protections against states that violate the intent of this bill, making attorney’s fees and damages available to victorious plaintiffs in civil suits, as well as to defendants who prevail in criminal cases; and
- Allow individuals who are carrying concealed to do so in the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, and on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.
Each state retains the authority to determine regulations for carrying within their borders, as well as for the carry permits or licenses that are issued under their law.
This legislation prioritizes the rights of law-abiding citizens to concealed carry and the ability to travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes.
Will Representative Hudson’s new proposed legislation become law this year under the new Congress and President? What changes would you like to see to the bill? Share your answers in the comment section.
[dave]
I am a gun enthusiast, I once owned a nice variety of firearms, but was forced to give them to my kids (which would’ve happened anyways when i passed on) because of a mistake i made possessing a controlled substance (a pain pill) and becoming a felon. i have since paid my dues and am free of the burdens that accompany such a situation. I would like to know if anything will be or can be done to get my right to own a gun again. I raised my kids teaching them firearm respect and safety and spent many of quality hours with them on hunting excursions and would really like to continue to do so one day. Mr. Trump seems to have a good set of ideals for this country. It would be nice to see him address this issue, for there are thousands of people like me being denied the ability to enjoy and utilize firearms because of a nonviolent past mistake, dues paid, but forever labeled and denied the equal rights as other citizens
Sorry but Trump’s ideals involve grabbing pussies, hugging Putin, and denying intelligence from multiple U.S. agencies.
It would take a change of federal law for you to get your rights back. Unfortunately that’s not likely to happen anytime soon. The 2nd amendment is huge when campaigning, not so much when actually governing.
Sorry, but Kevin here is a moron, to say the least!
Want to talk about “ideals?”
Then let’s talk about what Obama and the State of California has done to the 2nd Amendment over the last 8 years.
Kevin’s hatred of the right conservative is noted. Now go put down your comic book, It’s time for bed!
@ D C Adams II,
Please pay no attention to Kevin’s ignorance and buffoonery. For him to carelessly abuse your very sincere question for help – as a platform to launch his mentally unstable political views is sub-human. Despite Keven’s obvious lack of intelligence and compassion, I instead offer you some possibilities as follows:
If you have not tried already, you may apply to have your Civil Rights restored. The process varies depending whether you were charged at a State level versus Federal level, but both systems have a process to allow you to apply.
Start by determining which government jurisdiction and level actually charged you with a crime and then contact that particular Department of Justice accordingly. It is such a common process that most agencies or States have a standard form for you to fill out to apply for restoration.
The process can be time consuming and you may have a long road ahead proving you’ve actually been reformed with an established track record since the crime. You must show things like a true commitment to community and family ties, a steady employment record, and definitely no other violations since release will help.
Based on where you must apply, you should educate yourself on their specific process and requirements. For example, if it was a Federal offense you may start with the U.S. Attorney General’s office which ultimately refers your application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for final review.
Be warned – unfortunately the Federal system is known for sitting on applications as they are not considered a priority within the budget and even some States have agreements to use ATF for final approval.
If you can afford one (or find free volunteer services), you may want to use an attorney which can sometimes help stay on top of the process and push these agencies to get your application through. And finally there is also the possibility to have an attorney petition on your behalf for a presidential pardon. I hope this has been of some help to you.
The above sounds lovely but 18 U.S. Code § 925 only affords relief by the Attorney General of the United States. The ATF can advise but they do not make decisions related to gun rights restoration imposed by federal firearm prohibitions.
Enjoy Friday’s grab a pussy for free day!
@ Kevin,
I’ve never understood what drives a person like you to make such a fool of yourself pretending you know something. But especially that you attempt it when going up against a federal law enforcement agent that has lived and breathed this every day for 34 years.
Your Google search skills failed you miserably in your pathetic attempt to sound like a know-it-all. While Google offers much, it can never replace the real-world experiences gained by career-long subject matter experts such as myself.
Though it is obvious to everyone that your real goal is to antagonistically show us what a sore loser you can be over Trump’s election win, you still need to be publicly corrected whenever you choose to spread your fake news. And therefore I will be the one to do this for you:
The ONLY place to apply for firearms disabilities relief after a federal conviction is through the ATF and nowhere else.
The ATF is a law enforcement agency arm of and within the U.S. Department of Justice, which is headed by the U.S. Attorney General. It is vested as the ONLY authority authorized to restore gun rights removed by a federal conviction. By extension the ATF are acting with the full faith and authority of the U.S. Attorney General when deciding who will get their rights restored.
Though the ATF authority and program still exists, Congress withdrew specific funding for this ATF activity in 1992. This lack of funding effectively prevents the ATF from processing any more ATF Form 3210.1’s (Application for Registration of Firearm Privileges) since that time. However, they are still required to administratively maintain the program and update the forms in the event funding becomes available again.
You would be a chump to respond with anything other than to say you’re sorry for being such a jerk. Otherwise please do us all a favor and go sulk in your misery somewhere else.
Sounds super once again. Not gonna get his gun rights restored. Is it?
@ Kevin,
He most definitely could have his gun rights restored. Though you’ve shown you are not working with much upstairs, this is really not that hard to follow. So pay better attention.
Geez – your ignorance has got to be the same reason you and your fellow liberals never saw your new Daddy Trump coming to spank you all and put you in a time-out for the next 8 years. Try your best to follow me here…
Depending on where D C Adams II was charged (State or Federal), each has its own separate process for him to apply. If the State is responsible for restoring his rights, the BATFE has no say in the matter at all. And based on D C Adams II’s otherwise good background, the non-violent aspect of the crime, and that it was a mere drug charge – he stands a very good chance of restoration at the State level.
It is even easier at the Federal level. But as I’ve previously mentioned – it is only the congressional budget constraint which is all that stands in his way. However, your Daddy Trump will be fixing that pretty soon. So assuming it was a federal issue for him, I recommend he get his application in now before the flood of applicants starts putting in theirs.
And one more thing – whether Federal or State, many start the application process only to find their specific type of charge never lost them their rights to begin with.
So please, if you feel the spasmodic need to post again, do us all a favor and ask a conservative friend (assuming you have any) to help you compose your post intelligently.
PLEASE GET THIE WORDING CORRECT FOR PENNSYLVANIA ! A “CARRY PERMIT” SIMPLY STATES ( THERE IS “NO” MENTION OF CONCEALED) ” LOOK AT YOUR CARD IT STATES ” LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS !!!!! I LIVE IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY AND THE WORDING IS CLEARLY STATED ON THE UPPER LEFT OF THE PERMIT !
The Constitution already REQUIRES the states to give “full faith and credit” to the acts of the other states. If our congresscritters ever read the Constitution they might know that. How can they swear the same oath as our military to “protect, preserve and defend without reading the durn thing. Main problem is that most of them are lawyers trained to weasel around the law rather than abide by it. The founders wrote what they meant and meant what they wrote. The whole ‘Constitutional Scholar” thing is just a bunch of academics self inflating their minimal worth and selling their lie to the public. I’m a “Constitutional Scholar” myself; I’ve read it. Several times. In plain English the way the founders wrote and meant it.
There is no mention of Post office property. This would be more useful to most carriers.
Uh, please quote us the “full faith and credit to the states by other states” part of the Constitution.
Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution
The original post said “REQUIRES”. The Constitution says “MAY”. Not the same thing.
Well it sounds good but I don’t think that will help out the citizens that live near New Jersey or New York. I am a CCP holder living in Pennsylvania but work in New York. The proposed legislation states;
Ensure that valid concealed carry permits issued in one state are valid for carrying concealed handguns in other states that recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry.
Well the most Anti-Gun state is New Jersey followed by New York City.
These states DO NOT recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry because their own residents are not allowed to carry.
That being said there is no way my CCP will be honored, so if i get caught carrying, I go to Jail. This law will do nothing for guys like me.
My point EXACTLY. NRA should be pushing this and Trump needs to act. This should be in the hands of the Feds not the states.
Kalifornia seceding should be treated like treason! Trampling 2nd amendment rights should be illegal!
Help can only come from the federal level!
They should but they won’t. The NRA never tries a tough fight. They abandoned California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington. . They prefer low hanging fruit like Florida.
I still don’t get it, my first amendment doesn’t change when I cross state lines, my 4th amendment doesn’t change I still have the right to demand a warrant in any state before having my personal property searched. My 5th amendment right not to incriminate myself is good in every state, i could go on but you get my point. There are NO constitutional amendments that are allowed to be tampered with except the 2nd amendment. This is utterly wrong and needs to be fixed. States should not have any right to put restraints on the second amendment as they are not allowed to put any restraints on any other amendment.
And this is the one they go after the hardest because it’s the one that scares them the most. Put in place precisely to guard against overreaching government, it’s the one they MUST get rid of.
You’re 4th ament mentioned rights definitely change by state. Stop and frisk is a state by state and color based.
Either it is a Federal Constitutionally guaranteed Right or not. “Rights” do not have qualifiers! It needs to be written that simplistically. IMO
One issue, not as great as the one addressed in this article, but one that bugs me is that I am not allowed to buy a gun in another state without paying fees to have it shipped back to my home state. OK-why? As a retired FBI agent (and current LEO) I am pretty sure that the FBI data check performed before every purchase is the same in every state. So why do I have to pay to have gun dealer # 1 ship it to dealer # 2 and then pay dealer # 2 for the privilege of picking it up? This has happened several times as I grew up and hunt in hunter friendly West Virginia, but now live outside DC in not-so-friendly Maryland. I can find better selections, better prices and better service quite frankly in WV or Ohio or Virginia than my adopted home state. If it is the same federal system doing the checks and registration, why can’t I shop for the better deal and not be financially penalized for it?
@ Jim,
I find it quite odd as a retired FBI agent and current LEO that you wouldn’t already know the answers to all your questions. Nevertheless, I will explain it for you…
1.) Shipping fees are the cost of doing business by the merchant to ship products and have nothing to do with gun laws. We all pay for shipping. Even when a gun is purchased at your local retail gun shop, such fees are already built into the final price of the gun. When bought online these fees are more transparent and usually list separately based on whichever online vendor you shop with. Regardless, whether shipped direct to you or your FFL, you’d still pay shipping fees on the gun.
2.) The “FBI data check” is actually called a NICS background check (as an LEO you should know this).
3.) Background checks are not “the same in every state” (as an LEO you should know this as well). Some States act as their own NICS POC, whereas others require FFLs to initiate checks directly to the FBI’s NICS Operations Center. Some States require additional statewide checks that go above and beyond Federal requirements, while others accept the minimum. And some States don’t even require any check at all as long as you possess a concealed carry permit.
4.) Despite your assumption, a background check is not required “before every purchase” as many guns are bought or traded between private parties without any background check required at all. The only time a NICS check is required is when you acquire a firearm from a licensed dealer or across State lines. Even then, such checks are not required as a prerequisite to a purchase, but rather it is only a requirement at the time of the actual transfer. Most online guns have already been purchased days before the background check actually occurs as a transfer by your local FFL.
5.) The fees charged by an FFL to transfer a gun also have nothing to do with gun laws (once again, as an LEO you should know this). Dealers could do it for free if they wanted, but it takes time out of their business and thus have opted to charge a fee for this service. Such fees vary widely from dealer to dealer so shop around. Also note that there are no transfer fees when purchasing from a gun shop or sporting goods store. This is because they don’t mind doing free transfers since you bought the gun from them.
6.) You also mentioned Federal registration however it is unlawful for the Federal government to conduct or maintain any type of firearms “registration” with the exception of the 3 types required by the NFA (e.g., machine guns, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, and silencers). However, it is true that some individual States require other certain firearms to be registered locally, but never federally (definitely something an LEO should already have known).
Again, I am quite surprised as you claim to be an LEO and former Fed that you showed a complete lack of knowledge as to how the Federal gun laws work or proper technical jargon usage. Nonetheless, hopefully I’ve answered your questions. FYI: I’m a 34 year career federal agent and a military reservist.
In his slight defense there are plenty of FBI agents who are simply lawyers. Although why he can’t google the pertinent laws is a bit boggling.
@ Kevin,
You are incorrect. While the FBI certainly employs attorneys into various legal advisory positions to assist FBI Agents in decisions, such attorneys on the FBI payroll are by no means functioning in the capacity as an FBI Agent (actually known as Special Agents).
That is not to say there are no attorneys that eventually applied to become agents later in their careers with the FBI; or who were practicing attorneys on the streets and later applied to become an FBI Agent from scratch. But should this happen (and it does), then at that point they are considered and FBI Agent with prior formal legal experience.
Jim clearly stated he was a “retired FBI agent (and current LEO)”. To have retired as an agent and also currently be acting in the capacity as a law enforcement officer, as he claims, then he should be the one answering such firearms related questions, not asking them.
One change I’d like to see is the ability to also carry in my car, safety from laws against “printing,” and striking down magazine limits/weapon type. For instance, if as worded this passes my concealed carry piece will still be illegal in some states since it holds over 10 rounds.
We lost most of our natural rights incrementally and have to SEIZE them back the same way.
Representative Richard Hudson’s National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is a first step in the right direction, but does not go nearly far enough. Congress should codify gun ownership and concealed carry as rights for all law abiding, mentally competent, adult citizens in all 50 states. Congress should also prohibit the states from putting onerous legal obstructions in the path of those citizens who what to exercise those rights, e.g., outright bans on concealed carry, magazine size limitations, semi-automatic “assault weapons” bans, taxes above the normal sales tax rate on guns and ammo, long-term storage of information about the firearms owned by those citizens.
The Supreme Court has ruled that 2nd Amendment rights are individual rights. Just as states, counties and cities cannot pass laws limiting freedom of the press (with minimal exceptions, such as slander and incitements to violence). Imagine the media outcry if a state proposed licensing requirements for printing presses and established standards for “responsible use” of those presses. Just as the federal government is responsible for prohibiting state interference with the 1st Amendment rights of its citizens, it is also responsible for prohibiting state interference with 2nd Amendment rights.
Again, National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is just the first step in what Congress needs to do.
We live in Missouri adjacent to Illinois, I have a Missouri CCW and cannot simply drive over the Mississippi to get lunch without giving up my weapon of self defense. My answer to this was to boycott all Illinois business and spend my money at home until my Constitution is honored in Illinois. This legislation will end all of that.
T. Potter
Greg commented on Day 1: Congress Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity.
in response to JJ:
This is a step in the right direction as I am a PA resident holding a CCP and am in fear of being detoured into NJ were I am not permitted to carry. Concerns; 1) In PA there are no psyche evaluations which means that at age 21 if you have a clean record you […]
A psychological evaluation? Really? That wouldn’t prevent your scenario from playing out. Even Law enforcement screw up under stress with psychological evaluations. I’m not for making it difficult to exercise a constitutional right. Training is an excellent idea but making it mandatory… well… maybe.
Greg said; “Even Law enforcement screw up under stress with psychological evaluations.”
Agreed. Thank you for bringing that point to light.
“Even Law enforcement screw up under stress with psychological evaluations.”
Agreed. Thank you for bringing that point to light.
As an NRA Range Safety Officer I have seen the results of those who come in to get their permit and barely pass the proficiency part of the test, then after getting their permit do not return to the range until they need to re-qualify 5 years later…As a commercial driver I view drivers licenses very similar, as most states do not make you take the behind the wheel ever again and I see the results of that daily thru my windshield…That being said, I do agree that reciprocity is a good idea, BUT it should have some reasonable limitations as to proficiency. After all the last thing we as gun owners need is Rambo-wanna-be’s who do not take the time to train out there making mistakes that portray those of us who are willing to dedicate the time in a bad light. Anymore than we would want states to issue drivers licenses to anyone who wants one…
Where I do believe you make good points the truth of the matter is you can’t legislate stupid. I also have a CDL and drove semi’s and oversize truck mounted heavy lift cranes. Bad drivers are NOT weeded out through the CDL system any better now than when I started driving in 80’s. The results of the system have not been to improve drivers skills but to create a database of drivers records. My question is what is worse, a driver with 80000lbs of potential wreck under his butt or a reasonably responsible CC person who, despite you efforts to classify as a Rambo, simply carries to feel more secure. If the reality of these untrained ‘Rambo’s’ ever materialized then your point might be meaningful. Methinks because you consider yourself an elite shooter and that others don’t carry the same respect for firearms you do, is simply wrong thinking. Check the msm news feeds… I have never seen any Rambo wanna be’s hit the news unless you count the Constitutional carry types that carry their AR’s down city streets. All legal mind you, even if not the most intelligent thing to do. Worrying about the sky falling is counterproductive.
Either it is a Right or not. “Rights” do not have qualifiers. As to training; It has been noted “All training and the Generals plans go out the window when that first bullet goes past you on the battlefield. -OR- One can shoot every week at the range, even off hand to 300 yards on a deer’s vitals sized target; BUT when that gray ghost of a deer appears out of nowhere and does things that target does not do, in the excitement of that moment all that target shooting becomes worthless. Train all you want BUT only the cold of experience will steady one’s hand at that moment and the vast majority of folks will never have that, thank God.
I interpret this as meaningless legalspeak. The driver’s license universality comes at a cost however; a national database. CC should be subject to this same type of information collection system. That would be treading on thin national registration ice. Beware what we wish for and don’t fall for the first thing to come along. It IS a first step….maybe, but is it in the right direction?
The important thing about legalese is that EVERY word has a meaning, no matter how insignificant the word seems. In my previous post I omitted ( neglected to include) a very short but extremely important word which changes the entire meaning of the sentence, that word; not. The sentence I reference, with omitted word included, is; “CC should (not) be subject to this same type of information collection system”.
Proofreading is important.
I originally wrote this in response to Mark Bradley, but have since decided to post in the general area to share with others. I took a closer look at the law since my first posts and realized the following:
Technically the wording of the law seems it will also allow for permits acquired from other States than the one you reside. Allow me to break it down…
The law clearly specifies you may have a “license or permit” from “a State”. The wording “a State” indicates any State and therefore doesn’t specify which State, as in:
“a person… who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm…”
Thereafter the law continues with an “or” statement, rather than using the word “and”. This is an important distinction because the specific use of the word “or” as opposed to “and” is intentionally meant to function as an option to either method rather than making both elements a requirement together, as in:
“…or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides…”
The rest of the law concludes with what a person is legally allowed to do if they properly comply with either option:
“… may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person…”
The law was actually quite brilliantly written.
we need the right to carry back and forth to work, but keep in our car, and not worry about losing our jobs over it. I use to drive through very bad areas at night to go to work. in tennesee, your car is a extention of your home. and other states you have the right, but not illinois, and others, this needs changed
not good enough, we need to get rid of the “permits” altogether, they are an infringement and to require them is ILLEGAL…we already have the right to carry, and it is none of any ones business how we carry, it is our RIGHT. we have the right to carry open or concealed anywhere within the borders of the U.S. that we wish, and we DO NOT need a “permit” to do so, PERIOD…
Half of the state of Kalifornia is under communist-like control by the Southern Kalifornia Demotards and Libertards. There corruption drives the fears of armed citizens and now threatening to secede from the United States. This treasonous activity should be met with federal actions. Northern California would like to secede from this communist control and I applaud there thinking.
Living in Kalifornia severely impacts second amendment rights of law abiding citizens including a list of allowed firearms where, these corrupt state officials hold manufacturers’ legal firearms at ransom to get on the list.
I am a hunter and competitive shooter. I am severely handicapped by laws that have no exemption for magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. IPSC and 3gun competition in most other states are allowed and do use high capacity magazines as a practical method to be competitive. With the latest legislation, I am a felon if I possess a magazine having a capacity greater than 10 rounds! Amazingly, those same magazines that I owned prior to this ban are retroactively banned. How is that legal?
Treason can and should be punishable by death. As a veteran and law abiding citizen, I ask the Federal Government to step in and end this anti-American regime hiding behind the veil of calling themselves Democrats and Liberals. They are Communists and Nazis!
So move.
Why can’t we make The Second Amendment the same in all states. No magazine restrictions, no ammunition restrictions.
What they have done to Freedom in California, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc. is the same issue.
If you come from Nevada into California with a 20 round magazine you can go to jail.
Let’s level the field! If it’s okay in Florida should be okay in California. It’s a Right…. Right?
I agree with LEON K. The law needs to be for ANY PERMIT HOLDER, not if they live in the state their permit was issued. I live in California and have a Arizona Concealed Carry Permit which has reciprocity in 38 other states. In addition, I would also like the Law to allow me to Conceal Carry in California – how do we get the law to over-ride State Laws that are Unconstitutional? California only issues CCW permits very rarely.
I live in CA & hold a ccw permit. For my traveling the states, I also received utahs, Arizona & florida just to cover my bacon. Albeit, I have to focus when traveling to also know the legalities of storing the firearm if or should I choose to go into federal building.
National reciprocity is so importent for us, citizens if US, especially based on what our founding fathers did to establish the constitution, to keep America american. We were founded, established & unified to be “One” under God & indivisable, keeping us united.
Those that lost privileges by breaking the laws, should not be given that right to carry…….IT’S A PRIVILEGE TO BE AMERICAN! Don’t let politicians, because of their fears and ignorance, take away any rights that afford us to bear arms and protect ourselves & families from those who intend to do harm!
GOD Bless America!
California itself is crazy with regard to issuance of ccw permits. On the surface one might get the impression that CA is strictly a “May issue” (libtardspeak for “Shall NOT issue”) state. In fact there is much variance county to county where some have little or no record of issuance and others are truly “shall issue” upon completion of an application process administered by the county sheriff’s dept. The process includes vetting and training which few ccw applicants seem to object to. With few if any exceptions CA ccw permits are valid in all 58 counties. Counties in and around the S.F. bay area, L.A. and San Diego have compiled statistics indicating they are essentially “Shall NOT issue”. Several relatively rural counties in the east half and northern portion of the state are “Shall issue”. Reciprocity with other states though is an insane patchwork.
@ Mark Bradley,
Technically the wording of the law seems it will also allow for permits acquired from other States than the one you reside. Allow me to break it down…
The law clearly specifies you may have a “license or permit” from “a State”. The wording “a State” indicates any State and therefore doesn’t specify which State, as in:
“a person… who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm…”
Thereafter the law continues with an “or” statement, rather than using the word “and”. This is an important distinction because the specific use of the word “or” as opposed to “and” is intentionally meant to function as an option to either method rather than making both elements a requirement together, as in:
“…or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides…”
The rest of the law concludes with what a person is legally allowed to do if they properly comply with either option:
“… may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person…”
The law was actually quite brilliantly written.
This is not being looked at in the correct light. the Second Amendment is a God-given right it cannot be infringed upon.
The federal government legally cannot change Second Amendment in any way or form or try to regulate it. So of course the states have no authority to do anything to worry about the Second Amendment.
If you are a US citizen and can legally own a firearm the Second Amendment says you can go anywhere you wish with it.
Having to answer to the federal government or a state takes away your God-given right.
It’s time you people start fighting for what God gave you not what the government thinks they can control. Our Constitution guarantees they cannot control it.
It’s not a God given right but, it is a Constitutional right. There are plenty of folks who would like to overturn the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution and we must resist that. Without that right we have no way to prevent the “government” from becoming a dictatorship.
@ Geo Donaldson,
Wrong! It is an irrefutable fact the founders used the Constitution to enumerated unalienable Rights which God gave to man at the Creation. The premise of which was made abundantly clear in the Declaration of Independence and the various federalist Papers.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The Second Amendment enumerates the Right to protect “Life” and thus is in-fact a God-given Right.
I live in New Jersey, and also have a second home in PA.
I went through the time and expense to obtain a non-resident Utah and Florida CCW so I could at least carry while I was in PA.
Even that small “privilege” was denied me by Bloomberg supported Liberal (now convict) PA AG Kathleen Kane.
With the stroke of her anti-gun pen, she arbitrarily changed the reciprocity agreements making both my CCW permits worthless for carrying in PA.
I don’t see how this legislation provides any relief for those of us who currently reside in Libtard anti-ccw anti-self defense states.
At least those who live in right-to-carry states have that luxury within their own state (and in states with which they have reciprocal agreements).
Just like the suppressor legislation supported by Trump Jr., it’s of no use in my state.
The Second Amendment needs to be incorporated under the Fourteenth and have it applied equally to ALL fifty states!
Upon completion of a federal form 4473, submitted to the state licensing authority and dd214 or similar proof of training .A state shall be REQUIRED to issue a ccw to the resident of that state.
Even if this were to pass, you could expect officially sanctioned harassment in a state like New Jersey or New York. They would arrest you and put you through bureaucratic hell, only to release you hours later. Probably without returning your gun, and there will be very little you can do about it, because they didn’t charge you with anything.
@ joe,
The new law indicates they’ve anticipated such “sanctioned harassment”. Give them credit for writing in retaliatory measures to deter and punish those states, counties or municipality that violate this law.
The only “reciprocity” law with regard to concealed carry that makes sense is one predicated upon ALL states, counties AND municipalities recognizing and honoring citizens’ U.S. constitutional right to bear arms. Anything less is an abridgment of that right. An application process (with or without fees), congruous across all states and counties, administered by the applicant’s respective county sheriff dept. that includes thorough vetting and appropriate training is a common-sense requirement for the purpose of parsing out those unfit to carry concealed. Good cause need not be a requirement for concealed carry where the applicant proves to be a law-abiding adult citizen in good standing.
Consider that in public places i.e. airports, malls, schools and sports arenas (soft target zones) blatant open carry can be cause for great alarm among those harboring a fear of firearms carried by anyone other than uniformed law enforcement. Legal concealed carry is an excellent alternative that serves to allay that fear and at the same time affords the carrier a means of self-protection, especially when protective law enforcement may not be present. Support national reciprocity.
Do something for N.J. The only people that can carry are the gang members.
If I am understanding this correctly, I still couldn’t carry in New Jersey when I have to travel there for work because I don’t think they allow their residents to conceal carry. I want to exercise my right everywhere.
Be careful with this … while I agree with the intent of this initiative, I am not in favor of the federal government becoming involved in deciding who can or can not carry a concealed weapon and where they may do so, even if it seems to simplify things. Someone once said, ” A government big enough to give its citizens everything they want is also big enough to take it all away”. The focus should be on reaffirming the right of constitutional carry and guaranteeing that right in all states. Notice I stated REaffirming, not affirming – our Constitution already affirms that right.
I think this is one of the Great ideas of 2017. Thank God somebody in congress understands the confusion and is willing to try and change existing state laws in this matter. It’s a start but needs more changes. Hopefully we begin here and then move to improve it even more Make America Great Again
How about adding a paragraph that removes the restriction on guns and knives on VA facilities? The US Government didn’t mind me carrying a weapon during combat service with the US Army, why can’t I carry my weapon even thru the front gate of the VA facility that treats my service-connected disability?
This law is worthless. It is a poor excuse for a band-aid to placate a few CCW holders and perhaps the NRA. It does absolutely nothing for actual 2nd amendment protections. And let us all remember, this is absolutely NOT a constitutional right! It is a God given right and the Constitution strictly forbids any government entity from creating a law regarding it. If you are a strict secular humanist, you can take the wording of “creator” to mean that your mama gave you the right to carry a loaded gun for protection. Regardless of that meaning, the wording of”shall not be infringed” is pretty damned clear. This law needs to be rewritten in its entirety to state that the Constitution protects the right of every legal citizen to purchase a gun and carry it with them for protection (or if they just feel like it) without any rider concerning style or magazine size or bullet type. Those are ALL end moves around the Constitution. This administration needs to step up on day one to severely punish any government body that has been working against the written Constitution in any way. Enough is enough.
The “Second Amendment Caucasus in Congress”? Or possibly a caucus?
This is great, but it doesn’t go far enough. I live in The People’s Republic of California. My 2nd Amendment rights keep disappearing every election cycle.
I need the Federal Government to step in and force States to comply with the constitution! Why are states allowed to violate my rights? I hate to rely on the Feds for anything, but those libs are far, far right of the insane leaders of my State. Something needs to be done.
I have been told by various lawyers that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the Federal Government, if this is true the various States can prevent us from “carry” if they so desire. It will not take the Socialist States long to take this law to the Supreme Court. This is going to be interesting.
@ TxBroke,
Please do us a favor and contact every one of those “various lawyers” that told you “the 2nd Amendment applies only to the Federal Government”, and inform them they need to find another profession.
The applicability of the Constitution is supreme over any other laws and therefore applies not only to the Federal Government, but all States and political subdivisions. This is an irrefutable fact which has been argued and overwhelmingly settled in the Supreme Court; and by now is something those lawyers you mentioned should have picked up in basic middle-school.
If that is true than would that not apply to the entire bill of rights? I’m no Constitutional scholar but apply that logic to say the 4tn Amendment. Would that not preclude the notion of private property? I do believe the author’s of the Constitution intended the bill of rights to limit the power of government. In fact, the Constitution would not have been ratified without them.
I realize it’s a right under the Constitution, but I have been on the range with people who can’t hit the side of a barn. Here in Arizona you don’t need a permit to carry, but to get a permit you need to complete a 5 hour course and pass a written exam plus 3 hours on the range and quality.
I feel this requirement should be required for a national permit with renewal ever 5 years.
John Sarmanian Jr. You are absolutely right. On the surface it looks good to have a reciprocal carry bill BUT the government does not have the power to make any adjustments to our constitutional rights. To pas this bill is to admit the states rights over the constitution. We need a different bill. What is needed is a law making it illegal for the federal government or any state to override any part of the United States constitution.
Dave that’s exactly right, our constitution says we have the right to bear arms. I don’t even know when or where we lost that right because I have done the necessary research, but it is time we just simply say … look, it is our constitutional right!
I used to drive around as a teenager with a shotgun in a gun rack in my truck… got involved in an accident…the police came to do the accident report…never even questioned my weapons… what happened since then?????? We need more education on this subject matter and more people speaking out about what is in the Constitution and why it was put in there in the first place. Our children unfortunately do not get this information in schools anymore quite frankly they get exactly the opposite of the truth… it’s up to us adults to change this and turn it around. And we better do it soon because this generation will be the ones who vote in the next president and our future depends on it.
With all due respect to those commenting about required training to own or carry a firearm. The gun is a tool just as a hammer is a tool. No one to my knowledge requires special training to purchase or use a hammer or a knife for that matter yet more homicides are committed by those tools than a gun. Where in the second amendment is the language; States may determine how to limit the right to” keep and bear ( that means carry) arms”. Now is the time to push for Constitutional clarification. The second amendment is a right not a privilege. Driving is a privilege ( permitted by the state and no where innumerate in the Constitution). Carrying of a firearm is not a privilege, it is a right.
Amen brother!
Kevin, I agree with your statement, except for a small point. Driving, while not enumerated in the constitution, is still a right. A privilege can be taken away for any reason, or no reason at all. (like a farmer may grant me permission (a privilege) to hunt on his land. This farmer can take back that permission (privilege) any time he would like, for any reason, or no reason.) A right cannot be taken away for any reason, or no reason. My driver’s license is a right which can only be taken away for specific reasons. It just muffs me when I hear or see the State stating that driving in a privilege. Your main comment is right on, though. Thanks!
Ray you make good points, and it’s good to read them. However, there no longer exists a state driver license for most states. In 2005, the Republican-controlled congress passed the REAL ID act, which was hidden in a defense bill after the standalone bill failed. This “voluntary” compliance bill was acted upon by most state legislatures over the following years.
What it did was dictate standards for the issuance of state driver licenses to federal standards, and created 50 state databases that were required to be linked. Many personal papers were scanned into them. It also gave the DHS secretary unlimited power as to when this defacto national ID card could be required.
Sadly, there was little to no opposition to this assault on the Bill of Rights as there usually is when firearms are involved.
the legislation does not go far enough … I am a retired army officer and I cannot carry on fort hood; I must leave my gun at home to go on post. a recent dod policy change allows active duty commanders (O-5 and up) to authorize specified members of his command to carry for up to 90 days. so, when I go to the post exchange and some crazy psychiatrist yells out, “alu Akbar” and starts shooting, I have to hope there is a military policeman nearby or one of those “authorized” to carry guy is there. sure would be nice if I could simply carry and rely on my skills, not luck if other “authorized” good guys are
two gun laws in one state. You can have a carry permit in new York but you can’t carry in the city. I live near new London Connecticut and several times a year I go to Florida. Unless I drive north towards the mass border and go around the city I will be in violation of the law. The reciprocity bill needs to address that issue.
I would hope Congress will include reciprocity for the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendment. Fortunately here in Texas we are not currently required to undergo training nor State licensing and fees to exercise and enjoy these RIGHTS. But it might be good for Congress to pass a law to ensure they don’t go the way of the 2nd Amendment. And before you laugh, remember your 4th Amendment rights can be violated, if you sell anything of value and carry the cash you are subject to having it confiscated by Fed, State, or local authorities, even if you have documentation that you are in legal possession of the cash and have no indicators of drug trafficking. Many States and cities consider the Amendments to the constitution as “Privileges” and not Constitutional Rights. And keep in mind that the only Amendment that contains the phrase “Shall not be infringed” is the 2nd, yet some states refuse to comply and others require permitting and fees (Taxes) to excise this right.
The Bill needs to state any concealed carry permit.
I reside in Maryland, a MAY ISSUE state. Our state puts the amount of money you carry or your job, (doctor,lawyer, business owner carrying cash) above your right as a law abiding citizen as a Good and Substantial reason. I have all Maryland required training but haven’t even bothered submitting for a permit because I have been told I don’t have a Good and Substantial reason. I guess I am just a common citizen and my life and my family’s protection doesn’t warrant a permit.with that being said a I won’t vacation in Maryland. My Maryland required training was sufficient to obtain a state of Florida non-resident permit which has reciprocity in 36 other states but Maryland is not one of them. The wording about holding a permit from the state of residence has to be changed. The way it is worded now if the law passed I still would not be able to carry in the state I work and live even though I have a permit that now has reciprocity in 36 states. Crazy isn’t it.
It’s a little confusing in the wording, but what I understood reading it is that if you have been issued a permit or license by a state, or reside in a constitutional carry state, any state which has a concealed carry permit application process is required to recognize your permit or state ID/ drivers license. This should allow us to get non-resident permits and have them be recognized in our home states.
One flaw I see is that section which states that any “state” is allowed to determine their own regulations as to concealed carry within their borders leaves each state the ability to override the federal regulation should it pass in congress. We all know the ability of each state legislature to change their own laws to circumvent a federal law. Sanctuary cities being a prime example of how they ignore federal immigration laws to protect illegal aliens. The federal law must be very specific as to not allow any “state” to circumvent the federal proposed concealed permit legislation.
The bill needs pre-emption language. The Second Amendment has been upheld by the USSCt, but both the federal and state government regulate the constitutional right, and so do business owners and private property owners.
Needs to specify that it applies to Native American jurisdictions (reservations). The tribes have misdemeanor jurisdiction, which includes concealed weapons. The Navajo Reservation extends to parts of 4 Western states. Thebill should be amended to pre-empt the tribes from enforcing their own concealed carry laws.
This would be great law bidding citizens who have licenses would be able to travel from state to state not having to worry about handgun laws as long as the have a valid license from the state they live in. Protection is a must these days. No one do not want to be in a situation were they cannot protect themselves or family should a situation arises. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
This legislation should also include U.S. Postal Service properties as places where carry is authorized.
The way this is worded will not mean anything in Californiastan since permits are only issued to the elite and not the law biding US citizen wanting to protect themselves and others no matter what. This hell hole is an island and does not recognize the idea of reciprocity, The bill is well intended, but needs to be revised to include ALL states and override state laws in the spirit of the second amendment period.
Our family also travels the country in our rv, protecting my family doesnt stop at some state border. it was extremely difficult to stay up on the laws of each state as we traveled. Without national reciprocity….good law abiding citizens can become criminals.
constitutional carry should be treated as the law of the that it truly is.
I agree with GarfieldKat that we should have Constitutional carry. In class room training a must (veterans only need to provide DD214). Absolutely a must that anyone wishing to conceal carry know how to properly use a pistol. Great idea about adding your permit directly to your drivers license.
Oh, Nonononononono to the idea of adding a CCW holders permit information on a drivers license!
Some states tie your vehicle permit information to your drivers license and should a typical LEO happen to run a “routine” records check on your automobile, it “could” connect your license data, both driving and CCW, and an unscrupulous LEO who isn’t 2nd Amendment friendly and sees an out-of-state vehicle license might be tempted to stop you for a “vehicle safety inspection” under the guise he didnt “think” one of your tail lights was working.
Then the Pandora Box is opened even if you’ve done NOTHING WRONG WHATSOEVER!
And to those who state “Well if you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you have to be worried about?!?”
To those with their heads in the sand or other dark and moist regions, THAT line of thinking is PRECISELY what the anti-gun side of the debate are counting on. Those who think (?) the same way are PART OF THE PROBLEM, TOO!
So NO to a combination drivers/CCW license.
It is WRONG and a potential invitation to some LEO officers and/or departments to take advantage of gun owners if not to make their immediate life Hell but possibly even more so for months or years down the road.
Far too many otherwise innocent gun owners are in prison today for a minor infraction but some overzealous LEO and/or Prosecution type want to make an example of him or her to to let all The Little People know that the ONLY liberties you have are those THEY.WANT and ALLOW you to have at THEIR DISCRETION!
And that just plain SUCKS in ANY language!
There is no statement in the Constitution or the Second Amendment that gives any State the right to infringe on a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. Any State that is against the Constitution should be brought in line with the Constitution and any of it’s citizens that have violated any individual’s rights under This Constitution should face arrest, a speedy trial and imprisonment.
I cannot support H.R. 38, National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill, because it does not permit those of us living in “may issue” states ie; Maryland, with concealed carry permits from another state (Utah), to concealed carry in our state of residence. In some “may issue” states, the decision of whether a “good and substantial reason” is “good and substantial” is arbitrary to the employee making the decision. What is “good and substantial” to one person, may not be to another.
I agree that out of state permits should also be required to be recognized. Also, they need to address such laws as CA carry gun list, MA no hollow point prohibition, and the like. It will not be a perfect law, but the glitches will be corrected. We have to start somewhere.
Only makes sense, your marriage license is valid regardless of what state you go to, why not your other licenses?
I like congressman Hudson’s idea once a person has completed a certified training class and passed and done all the steps to allow them to carry a gun concealed or not this person should be allowed to carry their gun no matter where they go, I do feel though that a person should be required to complete a training class before they are allowed to carry I also feel there there should be some kind of stricter laws to being able to purchase a gun BUT TAKING OUR RIGHT TO OWN GUNS AWAY IS NOT THE ANSWER, IF YOUR GOING TO TAKE GUNS AWAY BECAUSE SOMEONE PULLED THE TRIGGER ON A GUN AND KILLED SOMEONE OR INJURED THEM THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD START TAKING CARS AWAY BECAUSE SOMEONE CHOSE TO DRINK ALCOHOL AND GET DRUNK AND DRIVE AND GO OUT AND KILL SOMEONE WITH THEIR CAR OR INJURE SOMEONE
I really want them to do something about California weapon laws. Ammunition background check just to buy ammo crazy and we can’t have no more high capacity clips AR 15 crazy. We can’t buy a rifle that we want
So, even after/when/if this passes, you still have to be careful to avoid New Jersey, Washington D.C. [not a state! Even if they allowed it, the law wouldn’t apply… ;-)], and anywhere else that doesn’t allow the taxpayers to defend themselves from the criminal element.
It’s helpful, but if we’re going to spook the cattle [the anti-liberty legislators inside the Beltway], I’d rather do it over something more productive, like the Hearing Protection Act to remove suppressors from NFA ’34 restrictions…
While this is a encouraging start, we must remain ever vigilant; now is the time to mobilize, call your representatives, and support your local or favorite advocacy group. I pray that our elected representatives capitalize on this opportunity and bring these ever-important issues to the table. I’m optimistic, but we must keep a keen eye on our officials to ensure they carry out the will of the people, or we must replace them with someone who will.
The proof is in the pudding, and I’m mighty hungry my friends.
Agree that there should be a minimum standard for training and education to be completed just like there is to drive. Emphasis on – Training: Firearm fundamentals
Education: Laws, and why you should never draw unless you are in a situation where you would be willing to pull the trigger.
Law enforcement and Military with previous small arms experience may be able to waive firearm fundamentals, but I would require the law and decision making process behind CC education for all.
We have traveled in our motorhome to all USA states except Hawaii and flew there. Because of the various laws in each state we did not take a chance with concealed carry. This Bill will fix the problem. Plan on callng my congress folks.
There should be Constitutional Carry PERIOD. Proof of training should be required and can be a individual card or added to the information on a person’s Driver license or State ID.
Agreed! And frankly, the states shouldn’t “retain the rights to” do anything that in any way limits or infringes our right to bear arms. Although I do believe in the sovereign rights of states with regard state issues, they should not be able to alter or amend our rights as recognized by the US Constitution. In my book, doing so is tantamount to treason.
Thank you Congressman Hudson!
Some states, such as Illinois, have a Firearm Owners Identification card (FOID. This card is required to purchase ammunition in Illinois. It would seem if an owner has a CCP is the same information as the FOID card, a traveler should be able to purchase ammunition while visiting a state requiring a FOID or similar card.
Open Carry should be allowed in every state
As a New Jersey “Subject” I am afraid the law abiding gun owners of this state will not be able to carry in this state or others based on some of the wording I have seen kicked around. i.e. A concealed carry issued from your state will be accepted in all others.. etc. Yes New jersey does issue concealed carry permits however unless your sleeping with a Judge you have about 0% chance of ever obtaining one. The real rub here is that I have received Carry permits from multiple states in less time than people here can even get an ID card to purchase a BB gun (Yes it’s that bad here) I know it’s early in the process however I hope considerations will be made to allow me my God given rights!
Here in Arizona an official CCW Permit is not required to carry concealed. While I think that’s great for the 2nd A I don’t believe one should be able to do so without training.
This is all great I hoe it passes. However, and in life there is ALWAYS a however, There is a loophole…
Per the law:
“Ensure that valid concealed carry permits issued in one state are valid for carrying concealed handguns in other states that recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry;”
All those anti-2nd amendment states have to do is get rid of their conceal carry laws. So I could see NY, NJ, CA etc… dump their CCW laws and then this new law doesn’t apply in their states.
They should REALLY pass a constitutional carry law. Then these anti-2nd amendment states can’t squeek out of them.
If this bill passes, then the only people who wouldn’t be allowed to carry concealed handguns in my home state of New Jersey would be, ironically, New Jersey residents! Although THEORETICALLY there’s an application for applying for CCW license in New Jersey, our state simply does not issue concealed carry licenses to any civilians (non-police).
I want to hear more about the hearing protection act to remove suppressors from the NFA list. That is the legislation that needs to be addressed.
Lets rethink this. The “Constitution” and the “Bill of Rights” which provides us a foundation should not be split up by states to do what they want to do or interpret what it says to fit into their thinking (Agenda). We the people should be able to carry our weapons with us wherever we go in this country weather it is by horse and buggy or a car. The Second Amendment specifically states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, it does not say only if you are in the state of Texas or you are not allowed to cross into the state of Maryland or New York.! Lets get real.
Was very pleased to see that federal lands were included but it doesn’t list the US Forest Service controlled lands which cover millions of acres in the western states.
Wait a minute. Why didn’t Rep. Hudson’s legislation simply state that Constitutional Carry is the law of the land? Then, the prohibitive states, like CA, NY, or MD could sue the U.S. Attorney, and SCOTUS could finally decide this issue once and for all.
Because Libruls.
I would like to see this expanded so that when visiting a Veterans Administration Facility I don’t have to leave my gun at home. I should at the very least be able to leave it in the car.
Agreed, if our taxes pay for it, we should be able to carry there. If they provide security they should also provide lockers (like the ones that use a quarter) where a carrier can lock his firearm under secure conditions. I could see this in courthouses, VA hospitals, national monuments, and etcetera. Also,the parking lot exception is working wherever it has been enacted. The prohibition I object to is the Post Office regulation which is the same as the VA facility rule. At the very least we should be able to lock a firearm in a vehicle on the parking lot where we go.
How does this change anything if the second-to-last sentence in this article is included?
“Each state retains the authority to determine regulations for carrying within their borders, as well as for the carry permits or licenses that are issued under their law.”
1. National concealed carry reciprocity
2. Elimination of the “sporting use” requirement for firearms imported to the U.S.
3. Removal of silencers from NFA restrictions.
4. Elimination of the 1986 ban on registering any more automatic weapons for transferable non-LEO ownership.
5. Return and nationwide implementation of “Project Exile”
How will this law address the situation in states such as Maryland, New York, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, etc. where permits are available but nearly impossible to obtain? Residents of these jurisdictions can get a non resident permit from other states, such as Virginia, Utah, etc. will this law force their state of residence to recognize their permit issued by another state? If not, it will create a situation where residents will continue to face impossible conditions to obtain a permit, but a non resident can carry in that jurisdiction. This sets up an interesting problem. Whereby a non resident has more rights than a resident. And it sets up a states rights battle which will head to the SCOTUS
Not a problem for me. If I return to NYC after 40 years of living in a good commonwealth with my permit and .45, and it’s legal, the fact that the people in NY don’t vote in good politicians will be of no concern to me.
This is fricking great news. I have been hoping for something like this for years. But, what about all of these damned gun free zones that are everywhere. Not just schools and such.
What pisses me off is that every government building and property from local to federal are off limits. I strongly feel that if you have a valid license then you should be allowed to carry the same as any law enforcement person. i can’t even go to the VA hospital armed because of Federal regulation 18. I understand the intent but it also means that I have to leave my weapon at home and then if I have other places to go I have to do so feeling unprotected or going all the way home first.
Basically, I feel that if I am licensed to carry then that license is good for anywhere and everywhere period.
As a CCW instructor for multiple states including Kalifornia (sorry about that), with over thirty-five years doing it, my biggest worry is that the Feds can change the law when administrations change. Who knows what they would do. I’m for the proposed law as long as it is iron clad that they cannot compile a list of permit holders in some sort of data base that could be subverted and used against us. This would include any fee charged by the Feds because it could then become another vehicle for even more burdensome over regulation.
This is a step in the right direction as I am a PA resident holding a CCP and am in fear of being detoured into NJ were I am not permitted to carry.
Concerns; 1) In PA there are no psyche evaluations which means that at age 21 if you have a clean record you can purchase and carry a firearm. 2) There are currently approx. 100 applications to carry a firearm being issued per day in PA. I believe this is awesome, However here is a scenario; Two families, one walking through the mall and the other exiting the theater and the mall. Shots fired parents of both families gather their children draw their weapons and seek a safe exit to safety, while turning the corner toward the exit both legally carrying adults see each other with a weapon and both believe the other to be the shooter…Not a good situation.
Both concerns can be resolved by requiring residence to have similar firearms training (provided for a fee) through the NRA and a similar psyche evaluation. Just as our law enforcement have to train so should we.
Furthermore this will also bring more jobs as the need for firearms instructors grow.
A psychological evaluation? Really? That wouldn’t prevent your scenario from playing out. Even Law enforcement screw up under stress with psychological evaluations. I’m not for making it difficult to exercise a constitutional right. Training is an excellent idea but making it mandatory… well… maybe.
It’s some nice starting language, though after having read the actual bill while seems intended to address the problem it leaves so many holes it might as well just be a placebo for placating populace without actually changing anything.
I say that based on the questions already raised by others here, as well as the lack of definitions, conditions, and specifying of terms within the bill itself — and it also completely excludes federal installations/campuses (which would be my primary concern).
Personally I’d rather they just pass a law that clearly and completely preempts states from regulating the ownership, and use of firearms (and all other weapons) altogether (i.e. the “shall not be infringed” contained within the 2nd Amendment).
However, if that isn’t yet possible adding federal installations (if not the federal buildings themselves) to that list of authorized carry locations would be a good improvement which could reduce the risks to many federal civil servants and service members.
The idea looks good until one looks deeper into it. Neither the states or the federal government have any authorization to act over what is so clearly written in the constitution. What is needed is a protection against any kind of controls being enforced by either. the government should act to protect the rights of the people for all time. That is what should be on the table.
I hope that it passes. We live in the United States of America not the divided states of America. We should have the right to travel from state to state without the worry of breaking any ccws laws. We as CCW holders are already put under a microscope without having to worry about the worrying of another states ccw laws. I look forward to the day when we can carry anywhere we go.
I wonder if I can get an out of state permit to by pass my states my issue laws. I could easily get a carry permit in Pennsylvania when my county in New York will only issue sportsmas permits with out “just cause”.
@Steve, Yes, you can get an out of state permit, but that will not comply with the reciprocity act as written. It says that your state must recognize the permit, and if your state does not, then an oos permit would not meet the criteria. Some states recognize all permits or don’t require one, but the repressive states do not. The “full faith and credit” for permits will initially be a can of worms, but it will be ironed out over time. But come to one of the free states for vacation and breath deep the liberty of Constitutional carry.
The background checks for a permit have to go through the exact same checks no matter what state you live in. The second amendment is guaranteed by the bill of rights and it’s a choice with serious consequences if you mess up. I don’t have to get a separate license to drive in another state the same rules should apply for gun permits. I say it’s about time.
OK, what about the states that do not require a permit.
What about the states that do not require any qualifying
While the plan on the surface seems wonderful, it leaves too many questions unanswered
I would not be a opposed to doing something similar to Utah. Their conceal carry course is the most comprehensive and recognized in 32 states. Where i find issues is in states like California, where they have magazine size laws. Limiting magazine size limits my second amendment right. To negotite this in congress could result in gun control. Whenever there are a 100 people adding to and taking away from laws. We get encyclopedias instead of a thesis. Take one look at the Affordable Care Act.
@Ronnie D Shields, CA also has an “approved carry gun” restiriction. Which means your side arm may not qualify under their statutes. MA does not allow hollow point ammunition. Under this new law these onerous prohibitions are not addressed. There are some kinks to be worked out, but what we have is a good start. At the very least it will cause the legislatures in those repressive states to have their panties in a permanent bunch.
This is a step, but it still doesn’t solve the problem of states and cities that refuse to comply with the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is a civil right. Perhaps President Trump’s Justice Department will finally defend ALL of our civil rights. Of course, that would require a complete overhaul of the Civil Rights Division.
Criminals can freely go from state to state carrying a firearm without regard to any state or federal law(s). Criminals do not care if they violate state or federal laws…that’s why they are CRIMINALS. Law abiding United States citizens DO care (about violating state/federal laws) and are penalized for abiding by the law(s). Hummmm…what is wrong with this picture? If one state certifies a person to carry concealed, the other 49 states should recognize that certification to carry concealed permit.
The trouble there is, some states are May Issue, and do not have to issue based on an application.
What is really needed is a nationwide Constitutional carry act, or at the very least a nationwide concealed carry act. Render the anti-CCW laws in states like NJ, NY, etc. null and void. Use both the 2nd Amendement and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause as legal justification. SCOTUS ruled marriage (including gay marriage) is protected under the 14th Amend. EPC – the very same logic should be applied to the RKBA.
This is great. I hope it succeeds.
FYI national park service already allows concealed weapons carry in all national parks and has done so since 2010. The NPS carry law mirrors whichever state law the park is located in.
My only concern is the required training & certification for a concealed permit. How will that be handled since I suspect that with so many states involved you’ll have a patchwork laws. It could range from filling out a form and you’re done to a mandatory monthly recertification.
I believe the article said individual training requirements would still be up to the states. In this case it would probably be part of the ratification with a minimum of requirements and a maximum of requirements set in order for this to become law. I think that will be the biggest sticking point as well. Getting the states to agree on a minimum and maximum amount of requirements for the bill to pass.
@ Louie,
The Federal law will not address universal training or issuance procedures since the Second Amendment does not require that to bear arms.
Once you have legally obtained a permit from your individual State to carry concealed, it is not any other State’s concern or business as to how you acquired it. Just like a State driver license, the new law will still require each State to honor every permit as if it were issued by the same standards from their State.
I would like to see the bill specifically address nonresident permits. For example, if i am a california resident and have a nonresident conceal carry permit from virginia, these laws should apply to me as well. I should be able to carry in all other states including my own in california.
@ Richard Deschenes,
When I read this article yesterday I thought about that as well, but only in the sense that the new law would craftily allow someone like you from California to acquire a nonresident permit from another State and use it to carry in all other States except your own (California).
However, that is sheer brilliance on your part because I hadn’t considered a person using a nonresident permit issued from another State to carry legally in their own restrictive State like you in California. I would start writing the appropriate Congressmen and see if they could add that into the final law. That was quite clever thinking of you there.
This article mentions ‘concealed carry’ exclusively, but not just the word ‘carry’, is the wording this that concealed carry across state lines is okay, but open carry is wrong, or was it just used in passing on accident?
@ mik Mitchell,
The article’s lack of mentioning “open carry” was not an oversight. This new law will only address the right to “concealed carry”. This is because it is the manner of carry that most States prefer.
The general reasoning is that while the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, the Supreme Court still leaves it up to each individual State to determine the type of carry they allow (open, concealed, or both).
And since the most restrictive States have shown a propensity against open carry, that leaves concealed carry as the most widely accepted form of carry throughout the majority of States and thus the only form of carry they chose to address.
He better make sure the law is written so that the republics of Illinois and California cannot wriggle out while using state law language. His bill should clearly state – and the phrase notwithstanding, though nice, does not necessarily mean it will be interpreted as such by judges. He needs to state clearly that carry will be allowed, loaded on the person, etc. to make sure that we’re not carrying a gun is useless to us in those two republics.
In restrictive states like California you might have to change your magazine when crossing state line to comply with magazine restrictions.
I am not in favor of this law. Yes it would be great if I could go from Texas to California and CA’s draconian laws didn’t apply to me. But I don’t want anymore precedents being set that the Federal government has any more power of each State than they claim now. Especially regarding guns and our right to self defense. We need to be further restricting Federal authority and boundaries not enhancing this one government direction we have been on for 79 years or so.
@ Jason Blankovich,
Ordinarily I’d agree, but this is actually an instance in which the Federal Government is actually not overreaching and instead is doing the job they were designed for.
The only purpose of the Federal Government has ever been to carry out the Constitution which applies equally to all states. And since the Second Amendment right to bear arms (including concealed) falls specifically within the Federal Government’s assigned purview, they have the authority to mandate this law across all states.
Weird huh? Trump gets elected and suddenly the Federal Government begins to actually do its job for once.
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It’s already stated in the constitution were the powers are to be divided and the right to keep and bear arms is a right of ALL Americans. This Law would not further federal powers it would simple protect all Americans as a good federal government should.
Does this bill specify, other than the line “other than a machinegun or destructive device”, what the limitations are when in a state other than the person’s home state? This law is being compared to the driving laws. Various states allow specific items and specifications of an automobile that other states do not. The first thing that comes to mind is window tinting. Some states allow a level of window tinting that would be illegal in another state, if the vehicle was tagged in that state. The way the laws are, if your vehicle is legal in the state in which it is tagged… it is legal to drive in any state. Since the intent of this bill is to mandate that any state that issues concealed carry licenses must recognize the license from any other state, will the person carrying the weapon be restricted by the state they are currently in or by the state that issued them their license as to what weapon they can carry?
@ DonP,
It will be your responsibility to know and comply with the concealed carry laws of each State you are visiting.
While in each State you are required to know the types of facilities in which you are allowed or not allowed to carry in – e.g., bars and government buildings. You must also be in compliance with any stipulations on concealed carry methods such as whether imprinting is allowed or partial weapons exposure is disallowed of any kind. And you must comply with any State limitations to magazine capacities, calibers, or ammunition types.
So you will have your homework cut out for you as you plan each trip, however there are a plethora of helpful websites to guide you through and keep you current on every State’s continually changing carry laws.
Fantastic! As an LEA I’ve always been able to carry concealed in every state, but if this passes for everyone, it becomes one of the greatest proverbial slaps in the face to those smug “may-issue” and “non-reciprocity” states.
Not only will they be powerless to stop visiting nonresidents from carrying concealed, but hopefully this will shed light on the ridiculous realization their own state residents remain defenseless as we stand beside them as visitors allowed to bear arms. Just maybe that absurdity will get them to lighten up on their draconian “may-issue” attitudes.
Probably not though… instead I’ve no doubt this will lead to some of the most ignorant legislation by those restrictive states as they attempt to countermand the new law with stupid rules like – concealed weapons can’t be loaded or ridiculously smaller magazine capacities or all weapons must remain locked in your trunk when a vehicle is in motion. Get ready for the drama.
This is clearly not a national reciprocity bill or act for that matter.
There are a lot of states in this country that have May-issue and no-issue counties leaving millions defenseless.
I wonder if any of the co-sponsors on the bill recognize this bill only supports counties that support the second amendment.
The bill has a lot of flaws and is a pathetic response from the so called Donald trump second amendment coalition, NRA, and GOA, ect. Ect.
@ Fb,
Individual counties and municipalities will never even be a factor because the Federal law will always supersede them. Therefore, the Federal law need only look as far as each State to determine reciprocity eligibility.
With the exception of territories like American Samoa or Northern Mariana Islands, currently all States have some form of concealed permitting law. As such, you will be allowed to carry in every State under this new Federal law.
115th Congress Day 2: Propose legislation to reign in the BATFE and regain separation of powers over ALL alphabet regulatory agencies
115th Congress Day 3: Propose legislation to repeal gun control laws from 1993, 1986 and the GCA of 1968
115th Congress Day 4: Propose legislation to repeal the NFA of 1934
That should be a good start for the first week.
Only problem I can see is, if I am reading things correctly, it only forces reciprocity between states that allow concealed carry in the first place (even if it is only on a “may issue” basis). It needs to go further and force states that DO NOT allow their citizens to carry (thereby making them “subjects” rather than “citizens”) to recognize carry permits from other states.
@ Rich K,
No worries there – unless you are traveling to American Samoa or Northern Mariana Islands as they are the only 2 that out right have a “no issue” policy.
All other states and territories issue concealed permits of some kind. Even if it is a “may issue” state, you would be covered for reciprocity under this new law.
I must be behind the times. I thought there were still a few communist enclaves in the US (mainly in the New England and northern Atlantic coast area) that were no-issue states. But then, I haven’t even been outside my own home state in well over a decade (having to pay child support makes it a bit hard to afford gas and motel rooms…).
Bingo Rich!
National reciprocity on licensed carry of handguns is an accommodation that most certainly is long overdue. It makes abundant, logical sense to pass and enact such legislation, since we have had such reciprocity with driver licensure for a long, long, time. AND…..driving, with it’s incumbent licensure is a PRIVILEGE, while carry of a handgun is a RIGHT that is affirmed in the United States Constitution.
I heartily endorse national reciprocity, but at the same time I also advise diligence in the crafting of such legislation to ensure that a federal law endorsing such does not provide any limitations on the licensed carry that is provided by the states. As most of us are aware, when the federal government gets into something, it usually tries to impose restrictions and conditions on that subject with which it is involved, and no such limitations should be contained in any legislation that prescribes national reciprocity of handgun carry.