BREAKING: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Filed in Senate

john-cornyn

“Gun owners would be allowed to carry concealed weapons around the country under new legislation introduced in the Senate. The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would allow gun owners who have a concealed carry permit in their home state to bring their firearms in any other state with concealed-carry laws.” So touts thehill.com in reporting Texas Senator John Cornyn’s bill, filed just today. Now that’s #gunsense . . .

The NRA is certainly on board.

“The current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

But that popping sound you hear in the distance is coming from the tops of heads at Everytown for Gun Safety HQ.

“Federally imposed concealed carry laws interfere with states’ fundamental right to determine who is too dangerous to carry hidden, loaded guns in public,” Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt told The Hill.

Assuming it gets through the Senate and House, it’s bigger veto bait for the President than a bill that would dismantle ObamaCare. Still, it’s good to get congresscritters on record and should make for some entertaining political theater.

comments

  1. avatar Pwrserge says:

    Except that there are enough red state democrats to get this bill over a veto. The only “No” votes that would not get crucified in the next election are from a small number of traditionally blue states.

    1. avatar Bunny says:

      We definitely do not have enough to over ride a veto. 66 senators and 290 congress people is not doable at the moment

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        It is if you do the math including red state Democrats and all Republicans.

        1. avatar moveableDO says:

          Red State Democrats? Name me some. And you’d better come up with 12 names because there are only 54 R’s in the senate. Can’t get to twelve? Didn’t think so. There just are no longer any blue dog, centrist democrats anymore. Maybe a few in the house…

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          That’s still an awfully tall order, especially seeing as how there are in fact some Republicans (in red states no less) who are as anti-2A as most Democrats have been shown to be.

        3. avatar PhilWilson says:

          And I wouldn’t be shocked if a few republicans vote against this, too.

          Anyway, “…states’ fundamental right to determine who is too dangerous to carry hidden, loaded guns in public.” Which is everybody but wealthy donors and political cronies in a few states. Interesting that they would call this a “right.”

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I agree with the original thought-make them show their colors. ALL of them, R & D both, let me see how you VOTE. Then we know who to get rid of. I don’t really care how a legislator feels about the subject, I care how he votes, and if there is nothing to vote for or against, they can continue to pretend they agree with everybody, while nothing gets done.

        5. avatar whatever says:

          @LarryinTX

          As good a time as any to thresh out the wheat from the shaft.

  2. avatar woody from NY. says:

    It’d be nice to no longer have to worry constantly and make sure the state you’re in accepts NY florida utah….oh wait no one accepts NY (13 STATES I BELIEVE)

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      New York City doesn’t recognize New York State permits.

      1. avatar JackieO says:

        Absolutely right Ralph. Even Albany and Buffalo require extra permission. One state with multiple dark zones from the once and long ago Empire state.

        1. avatar Augie says:

          that is false……been a NYS permit holder my whole adult life and the only place i cannot go in the state is NYC…….Albany and Buffalo passed resolutions against handguns but they have no force of law…….my permit even says so………I hate the gun laws in NYS but to be honest once you possess a concealed carry permit in NYS (which is much easier to obtain than everyone think especially in upstate where may issue law is really just a formality) you have a lot more freedom with where you can go than most states……”no gun” signs have no force of law in NYS and you can bring your gun essentially everywhere except NYC, schools and court buildings…….some states you cant even have a gun at a place that serves alcohol (i find that odd)……..NY is a huge state geographically, plenty of places to go without wondering into NYC…….i live 1 hour north of the City and i never go there……i know florida gets credit for being the first to issue concealed carry permits but NY has been doing it since the 50’s with regularity……..much more of upstate NY is well armed (one way or another) than we get credit for……

      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        That’s sad. CA is statewide.

    2. avatar Chadwick P. says:

      Yeah it’s pretty sad that I can wander the desert and accidentally end up in Nevada and instantly I’m breaking the law. I have to drive to somewhere in Nevada that teaches the class and take it for 8 hours. I don’t generally have 8 free hours when I happen to travel! Sucks because it really keeps me from traveling to certain states. So I get what you are talking about even though Utah is pretty widely accepted.

    3. avatar Morgan Y. says:

      Wouldn’t a federal reciprocity law qualify for equal protection clause?

      1. avatar gene says:

        Yes, according to a prominent NJ gun lawyer if national Reciprocity can pass then equal rights comes into play. That’s a good thing.

  3. avatar Bryce says:

    Now let’s repeal the Hughes amendment

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      I only think that would happen as a poison pill amendment.

    2. avatar Jamie says:

      +5000

      Followed by the NFA…

  4. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    No way, every town for idiotic gun laws is for states rights? Oh that’s right, only when it comes to guns are they for states rights.

    1. avatar Jim R says:

      Unless there’s a bill for federal universal background checks or a federal assault weapons ban. Then states’ rights can go F themselves.

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        Exactly!

        1. avatar Chris says:

          Or abortion. Or gay marriage. Or anything religion.

          Biggest bag of hypocrites there are.

    2. avatar Matt G says:

      Just when you thought the Statists were Statists they go all Libertarian on you…

    3. avatar John L. says:

      Nope. But they are for statist’s rights.

      I find it amusing that this is the best EFGS (hey we can call them “effigies.” I like it.) can come up with.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Not bad, but I prefer effingmorons.

    4. avatar Roscoe says:

      Actually I agree with Everytown’s position on upholding state’s Rights! Just not for their reasons.

      We now have a patchwork of laws and protections varying from state to state regarding carrying. Some states are very protective of those rights, some are very restrictive, and many are in the middle.

      Now along comes a Federal Bill to force reciprocity between the states to be passed and somehow withstand a veto. Results: the Feds have their fingers even further in the gun laws cookie jar, giving more precedent behind Federal control, both statutory and regulatory, over gun rights and consequently also restrictions.

      In addition, it gives the antis more impetus to redouble their efforts at pressing for gun control laws at the Federal level, with the focus on an overarching Federal statutory strategy rather than having to approach each individual state, some friendly to them, most not, in order to persuade State governments and voters (through initiatives) to enact restrictive gun laws.

      If the feds take more inroads into a traditionally local state area of jurisdiction by passing additional gun legislation, it’s a given that the pro-gun states will eventually be negatively impacted.

      Add to this the cyclical nature of political power. How long do you think it will take before a Democrat, sufficiently anti-gun Senate and Congress, along with a FUD or anti-gun President , undoes such pro-gun laws as might be enacted now, and passes their own much more restrictive measure(s) which are then signed by an anti-gun or mediocre President and become applicable nationwide, in one fell swoop.

      The patchwork of local state laws, guarded by states’ rights, are in my view a much better strategy for ensuring the survival of our Second Amendment protections in the long run. We’ll just have to endure and fight the ongoing battles against the shrill, extremist, anti-gunners and relentlessly work to undue the ‘progressive’ cultural shift they are trying to use to con the sheeple, and low information voters, into going along with their ultimate efforts to disarm all law abiding citizens and permanent residents.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        I’m with you on this one. I would hate to see a federal reciprocity bill get amended at a later time to include national level restrictions, permitting, or even registration, by a flipped political landscape. Gun Rights have always done better at the State level, and antis always do worse at the State level.

        Besides, what we need is less Federal government, not more. If we want to do something at the Federal level, there is plenty that needs to be repealed.

      2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        Agreed. The battle at each state is longer, but more secure then a top down Federal approach. If it weren’t for MD, I could almost CC from AZ to PA in its entirety, which was not possible twenty, hell ten years ago.

  5. avatar Scrubula says:

    At least Obama’s opinion carries little weight in congress. Might be enough Democrat votes to override a veto but I doubt it.

    1. avatar David PA/NJ says:

      Definitely worth going for it now. if it doesnt work out, we’ll try again in 2017 if we win the presidency

  6. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Why do they insist on having the “home state” requirement ? It automaticallly places 50 million people in the commie slave states at a disadvantage. Downstate NY for instance where it can cost close to 1000 dollars above the cost of the gun plus more in renewals. If it just recognized ANY ccw, like the Utah non-res it would be perfect.

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      My beef exactly. Any license from any state, same as driver’s license reciprocity.
      Let’s add a rider requiring all states to have “shall issue” permit laws, if they have any permit system at all.

      1. avatar Tommycat says:

        Maybe if enough people move out of those anti-gun states to get their legal carry permit, and they lose their property tax money to pro-freedom states, they’ll start loosening their CCW restrictions.

        1. avatar JoshuaS says:

          California actually would get more property tax is people here a while leaved. My grandma is pay $800 a year on her house. If she sold it today, the new owner would pay $9,000 or so. Prop 13 for you

          We are not of sufficient numbers to move and start the housing market crumbling, and if we did the whole US would go into a recession.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Why do they insist on having the “home state” requirement ?

      Good question, Tommy Knocker. But if — IF — national recognition ever becomes the law of the land, it will kill the de facto “no issue” regimes, like NYC. The local pols will have to explain to their low intelligence voters why people from Florida (called NYC’s southern suburb) can carry firearms in NYC to their hearts’ content while local residents, who pay all the taxes, are disarmed. It would be a game-changer.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Oh I’d love to use this line on a New Yawker: “Talk to your own politicians in the New York State Soviet about why your laws are so f*cked up.”

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Oh, that would be fun!

      3. avatar Roscoe says:

        I initially thought that too, locals vs. visiting concealed carriers. But a game changer? In Prog-Dem central New York City and it’s environs?

        Nah, the powers to be would still do what they do regardless of federal law, and those *outsiders* unlucky enough to believe the federal law protects them if they get caught carrying would still be demonized, tarred and feathered and driven out of the city on a rail via the nearest lock-up, after they were bankrupted by the local legal system.

    3. avatar Taurus609 says:

      Or the possible uproar from the citizens of those commie states when out of state folks can carry and they can’t. How could the courts justify CCW holders from every other state the right to carry concealed but still deny locals?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        It is already like that when those of us from free counties visit no-issue counties like LA and SF. If these guys could get home rule and keep us out (like NYC) they’d do it–as a matter of fact Oakland (courtesy of the infamous Nancy Skinner) sought to do so last year with respect to other aspects of the firearms laws. Governor Brown was not persuaded to sign that law.

    4. avatar Jon in CO says:

      Just get a non-resident permit?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        This bill would only recognize national reciprocity for permits issued by the home state. Like driver’s licenses. There are no non-res driver’s licenses, are there? Of course, this would put pressure n states to go shall issue that are not already. I wonder what would happen to non-res licenses. Would states that do so stop issuing?

    5. avatar arsh says:

      That is precisely why people need to move out of those nanny states. If enough people bail they’ll realize they can’t sustain their idiotic laws. People are only drawn to NY for money, but in reality you’re just bragging about making 100k and really only having the same amenities as someone in WI on a 30k salary because everything is so jacked up in price there.

  7. avatar David PA/NJ says:

    So a law abiding citizen in NJ is declared more dangerous than the same person living in PA? Preposterous.

    1. avatar B says:

      Well, just look at who they voted for. I’d say the slave staters have shown they are more dangerous to the rest of the country.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      If this passes, it would be ripe for an attack under the Equal Protection clause to broaden it further.

  8. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    “Federally imposed Bill of Rights interfere with states’ fundamental right to determine who is too dangerous to exercise their individual rights.” Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt told The Hill.

    Fixed that for them.

    Wouldn’t change much in Iowa. The state already honors every other state’s weapons carry permits.

    1. avatar Cy says:

      Look at Kentucky laws and be jealous.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        I don’t know, I can ignore ‘no gun’ signs (except schools and federal buildings), carry open or concealed, bar carry (and drink until my BAC reaches .08%). Passed my training requirement with a free 20 minute online course. No NFA allowed in Iowa, but the carry laws are pretty hard to beat.

        1. avatar PW in KY says:

          Yeah I wish Ky would get rid of the “bar carry” nonsense. The law actually states I can’t carry in a restaurant that gets more than 50% of its revenue from alcohol. It basically requires me to be an all knowing wizard every time I enter an eatery. They should change it to no carrying while intoxicated (my preference), or at the very minimum no carry while drinking.

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Just my humble opinion, but having a firearm in your waistband while drinking is kind of like having the keys to your car in your pocket. Both are dangerous, but only if take them out. So if you’re legal to pull your keys out of your pocket and drive off, why wouldn’t you be legal to keep your gat in your pants?

        3. avatar CW3 Crusty says:

          In NC Zero Percent Alcohol is the limit for concealed carry.

        4. avatar Mad Cow says:

          But we can’t carry in public parks. With little kids, I’m unarmed about half of our recreation time. (When it’s not winter, of course.)

          I’m really hopeful that we’ll at least get silencers this year…

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      IIRC, AZ recognizes other states citizens’ LACK of a carry permit. I think VT does, too.

  9. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    I am a constitutionalist first. And the 10th amendment would almost luridly prevent this. Would I love to go to New York city with a concealed hand gun and be legal? You bet your bottom dollar. However I see a challenge based on 10 preventing this. IMHO.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      It is really not that hard to deal with the 10th. Just read the “revised” federal school zone gun law. All the FFL and NFA “gun laws” are really commerce and tax regulation. The BATF is a “revenue” enforcement agency.

      Love this line
      “It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.”

      1. avatar WILDWEST42 says:

        Citing the 10th amendment and the interstate commerce clause a law requiring the purchase of a firearm for self preservation could be written (just as they have done with requiring the purchase of healthcare). Purchase and own a firearm or pay a “fine” I mean a tax.

        1. avatar Anon says:

          Really there is almost nothing I would like to see more than shoving a carry-or-tax law into the face of Obamacare backers.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Maybe not, Frank. National reciprocity would not require states to license anyone that they didn’t want to license, which certainly would implicate the 10th A. This law wouldn’t do that.

      Besides, now that states are bound to 2A through McDonald, this bill would be supportable on 2A and maybe Commerce Clause grounds. The 10th does not override the Second or the Commerce Clause. Just the opposite. Powers not granted to the Fed are reserved to the states and the people, not the other way around.

      1. avatar Anon says:

        National reciprocity wouldn’t have to worry about the 10th at all.
        As the statist are oft to point out, the 2nd specifies a well regulated militia. Forcing states to recognize members from other states is part of regulating said milita.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, if we’re going to get concerned about what amendments say for a change, there’s one of them that says something about “shall not be infringed”, overruling any complaints about the 10th.

  10. avatar Blake says:

    It doesn’t matter if this bill passes. The states, along with DC, will continue to ignore such laws and throw people in jail just because.

    It no longer matters if the law is on your side. It will still cost money to get out of jail for a crime that wasn’t committed.

    1. avatar Tommycat says:

      Malicious prosecution, false arrest, civil rights violations, and I’m sure there will be plenty of lawyers willing to take it up for the prospect of getting money from the state coffers which are deeper than business coffers(especially in places like New York)

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Yes and no. Many states were arresting open carriers where open carry is legal. About the second or third time that arrested open carriers sued the arresting police agency and won significant financial compensation, offending police agencies took notice and stopped arresting people.

      The more crystal clear the law is, the more likely people are to win lawsuits after the police illegally arrest them. Some even look at it almost like a lottery. They purposely go to a jurisdiction that they believe will violate the law hoping that police illegally arrest them.

  11. avatar Allen Scheer says:

    The summation of EveryTown’s EveryMoms Against Everything is that people who have gone through the trouble of passing MULTIPLE State and Federal backgrounds checks (in order to first buy a firearm or two, and then to receive a state-issued CCW permit) are far too dangerous to carry guns.

    The contradiction is expected … and revealing.

    1. avatar Red in Texas says:

      Yep.

      After all, the fingerprints, and FBI BG check I had to go through for my TX CHL, obviously aren’t good enough.

  12. avatar Pascal says:

    They should concentrate on fixing FOPA which has a better chance of passing because it has zero emergency provisions. This will die in the Senate or at POTUS and there is not enough to veto.

    EVEN IF, this should by miracle at some future date, the next time the democrats have a majority like they did in 08, it will be just as quickly repealed. We have polar opposite parties with zero people in the middle. Whatever one side does, the other side will try to undo.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      While I certainly agree that a future Democrat controlled Congress and Presidency would want to repeal a national concealed carry reciprocity law (if passed), they may not dare to touch it. Democrats learned the hard way in 1994 and again this year in 2012 what happens when they fiddle with restricting firearm rights. Furthermore, about 65% of the U.S. population does NOT want more gun control. The tide has turned in a major way. I wouldn’t be surprised if this passes and if Democrats leave it alone in the future.

  13. avatar DerryM says:

    Let Obumble Veto it. More proof to the American People that he and his Democrat Heir Apparent Hilary Clinkton are NOT the right choice for America, and only do harm to the Country.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Agreed. He called the Republicans the “party of no.” Now let him become Nobama.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Ralph, I really think he is going to regret those attacks, which most of us never could figure out. I knew SOMEBODY was refusing to compromise, but wasn’t real sure who, most of the time. When it was clear, it was Obama himself or Dems in general who were refusing to compromise. Now, it is going to be REAL obvious, assuming our side is smart enough to keep putting bills out there and letting the Dems refuse them.

        1. avatar DerryM says:

          Agreed. I think there are a lot more people than the Democrats acknowledge across the Nation who are very near the point of Backlash against the Democrats. IF the Republicans keep sending “Nobama” bills they know the People favor and he will Veto, I think that “Backlash” could be turned into an avalanche of rejection for the Democrats in 2016.

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          Let it be so. I’d love to have Scott Walker in the White House. He’d at least give a balanced federal budget a college try, and is pretty solid on gun rights as well.

    2. avatar Roscoe says:

      I really don’t see “Heir Apparent Hilary Clinkton” ever making it into the White House despite the fickle, swooning, worshiping press…unless she is somehow able to fraudulently buy and con her way in kind’a like how a dictator rises to power.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        “Heir Apparent Hilary Clinkton” is purely sarcasm on my part. However, since she leads the Democrat hopeful pack by some two score of Poll points, she will likely be the Democratic Nominee for POTUS in 2016. Unless, they pull some other “Dark Horse”, like Obama, out of their anal orifice.and dump her again. My main point is that she does not get elected under any circumstance. However, the Republicans seem divided and undecided at this juncture and California and New York will go Democrat in the Electoral College due to the “National Popular Vote” movement and very possibly Florida. So, that means we need unity on the NOT Democrat side to win the Electoral College Vote and defeat the Democrats, whoever they run. Right now that degree of unity seems uncertain, and I don’t like uncertainty. The only thing I am certain of is that we cannot afford (literally as well as figuratively) another 4-8 years of the Executive Branch being controlled by Progressive Democrats. Hilary Clinton is a disciple of Saul Alinsky just as Barak Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky. Her Master’s Thesis outlined how to convert Alinsky’s “from the bottom up” Socialist/Communist Revolution to “take control of the Government and impose Socialism/Communism from the top down”, so, in one sense Obama is her disciple, too, and she may be more dangerous to the Republic than he has been.

  14. avatar Templar says:

    My Johnson is diamonds on the thought of this passing

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      How often do you polish your diamonds? 🙂

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        It’s much nicer when someone who loves you polishes it…

  15. avatar Cy says:

    It’ll pass and be vetoed by our community organizer…uh..I mean President. But that’s OK. This will serve to put these legislators feet to the fire and get them on record so that citizens can see who cares about Constitutional Rights. I am all for States rights. Those States that wish to trample those rights can do so. I, for one choose to do business in free states. I will not spend a single $ in a state that tramples my rights. That’s goes for firearms manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, etc. We all need to boycott these States.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Please do not boycott Smith & Wesson because it’s in Massachusetts. Things here are bad, but S&W is an important local company and the Democrats don’t want to drive that business away because it would just about tank Springfield, MA. Without S&W, MA gunnies would be totally forked.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        As well as Ares Armor, US Optics, etc. in California.

  16. avatar zaphod says:

    EVERYONE et al should want to see this pass, and for the same reason that they claim to be against it…

    It would get the feds’ fingers into the licensing picture. What state now has a practical “right” to set their drinking laws or speed limits? Those “rights” are compromised because federal spending is held hostage.

    As soon as carry reciprocity passed I’d bet you would see a federal requirement on licensing standards that held hostage law enforcement/emergency services funding. The feds wrote the licensing requirements for commercial drivers regardless of where you call home, and they’d do the same with carry laws in a heartbeat.

    Be careful of what you wish for…

    1. avatar Jim R says:

      Yeah. National CC reciprocity will likely bring with it a national CC standard–which more likely than not is going to be a hell of a lot tougher than you’re used to. Look at the most onerous requirements out there for “shall-issue” permit states. Now make them harder. Say, required 40+ hours of classroom/range time, fees in the hundreds of dollars and permitless open carry banned.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        The feds could decide tomorrow to have a national license and have their own standards to get one, BUT that would have no effect on state licensing. None.

        Sometimes there is no boogieman under the bed.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        National carry standards would be GOOD! I bet they’d require us all to carry .45s!

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    The last time that national reciprocity was on the Senate menu, it got 56 votes and the time before that it got 57 — which wasn’t enough in either case under the 60-vote rule. While the Dems lost Senate seats in 2014, some of those seats were blue dogs who voted for reciprocity. I hope that Cornyn has done a head count and isn’t just posturing.

  18. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

    This would destroy things like may issue in NY(C). Thankfully.

  19. avatar Don in PA says:

    Politics. If the republicans can get this through both houses and receive a veto, they know it’ll turn out the vote in 2016. Whether the anti-gun folks like it or not, guns are actually an bridge issue for the republicans… it gets a large swath of the middle class to vote R. They’re also forcing conservative democrats and moderates to pick a side. There’s really no down side to doing this for them.

    -D

    1. avatar Anon says:

      I agree.
      Much as I’d see this happen tomorrow, save it for July/August 2016.

      1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        Better yet do this now then push back again in 2016 with destroying the NFA “NO FUN ACT”!

  20. avatar Aaron says:

    This is the best news I’ve heard in a long, long time. still lots of hurdles, though: inevitable veto and court challenges. But it’s a great start!

  21. avatar Jim R says:

    The only question that really matters here is “Can it get past a veto?” And the answer is probably no. When was the last time any bill overrided a Presidential veto?

    You guys are forgetting about all the RINOS who “support the Second Amendment, but…”. They might vote to pass it once, but once vetoed (and I can guarantee you it’ll be vetoed if it makes it out of Congress) that’ll be it.

    Anything this Congress does that doesn’t fall in line with the Democrat/Socialist agenda is doomed.

    1. avatar Anon says:

      But they should still pass everything they can.
      Bunch of do-nothing obstructionists holding back the will of the people.
      Party of no.

      Etc.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      You guys are forgetting about all the RINOS who “support the Second Amendment, but…”

      All the RINOs? The number is FOUR. That’s the number or Senate Republicans who voted AGAINST reciprocity after Newtown. That’s the same number of Democrats who voted FOR national carry.

      The last two times that national carry was before the Senate, it won 57 and 56 votes, which was not enough to get over the 60 vote hurdle. But it received more favorable votes than any anti-gun measure, including Manchin-Toomey.

  22. avatar Fuque says:

    It would sure thin my wallet , making room for a pic of the wife and kid..I wouldnt need my WA, OR, Utah permits..

  23. avatar Omer Baker says:

    The bill needs to be about licenses in general. You’ll get the pro-same-sex-marriage vote, the pro-gun vote, the I have no idea what else vote. But the point is that it would be better that the earmark-carry-license-good-on-federal-land-added-to-credit-card-reform bill junk of the past.

  24. avatar Publius says:

    Since when do state governments have a “fundamental right” to violate citizens’ rights?

  25. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Go for it…I get really tired of the goofballs who say the dumbocrats are no different than the republitards. They all suck but the dems suck more…

  26. avatar Rick K says:

    I know the breakdown of dems and republicans in the 50 states…is there any chance to pick up some votes in the other 7?!?!?!?

  27. avatar PeterK says:

    Forward the Rohirrim!

  28. avatar Hannibal says:

    ““Federally imposed… laws interfere with states’ fundamental right ”

    HAHAHAHA

    Oh man, the irony.

  29. avatar Thomas says:

    This would be awesome if it passed. I bet it would require some comprimises though. It doesnt matter too much to me yet, as I cannot go to any other state with my CCW license, as I am under 21. Alabama is one of a few that lets those under 21 defend themselves.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      You can go to Indiana — they license people age 18 and over as well and honor Alabama concealed carry licenses.

  30. avatar Paul says:

    Couldn’t a national law for reciprocity of cc permits lead to a national database of cc permit holders? It’s the next best thing to a national register of all firearms owners.

    1. avatar Andy says:

      That’s my apprehension about it. I don’t trust ’em, and have ample reasons for my mistrust.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m sure the FBI already has a list of every state’s cc licensees, not thinking this would change a thing in that regard. Some time back (don’t know if its been changed) there were some states that licensed you to carry a specific gun, like by serial #. That is scary.

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Since the states run a monthly. NICS on each licensee as it is, to ensure continuing eligibility, the FBI already knows who has licenses. So that ship has sailed.

      What’s concerning is the Feds getting their nose under the tent. That is, once they’re involved, they can start overstepping their authority and strong arming states to comply with federal dictates on licenses. They do that with state speed limits, drinking ages and BAC levels, by way of highway funds extortion.

      Maybe they’ll start setting carry license requirements higher and higher and states will have to comply or else lose reciprocity eligibility or access to NICS. Who knows?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “Since the states run a monthly. NICS on each licensee as it is, to ensure continuing eligibility, ”

        They do? Really? All of them? I never heard of that.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Last I checked, they do. Practices can change any time, of course, so if it’s consequential to you, then you should confirm straight from the source.

          In Texas, that’s the Dept. of Publc Safety. Here’s where DPS states that they monitor on an ongoing basis to ensure continued eligibiliy. https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/

          Beyond that, that’s what they told us up at the DPS compound in Austin when I was going through CHL Instructor Certification training some years back. Databases are linked and when you get popped for a disqualifying event within Texas, even before it shows up on your monthly NICS check, DPS Troopers can be dispatched to your residence to collect that license.

  31. avatar fishydude says:

    Attach a Gay Marriage reciprocity amendment to it and it will sail through and then if Obama vetoes he can be called out for being anti-gay marriage 🙂

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Freaking excellent plan, except for all the pro-gun people who insist on controlling other people’s lives for them, protecting them from themselves.

  32. avatar Bob108 says:

    “states’ fundamental right”

    Do these National-Socialist bozos’ have a clue what a fundamental right is? Governments in a free society have no rights that supercede the rights of the people, period.

  33. avatar JT says:

    Places like NY, NJ, and MD would ignore it. Just like they are know to ignore the safe passage provisions of the FOPA.

  34. avatar Tim T. says:

    Would this affect states only or US territories as well?

  35. avatar Kyle says:

    Wouldn’t this be unconstitutional?

  36. avatar Parker says:

    Glad to see that our Senate is acting in the nation’s best interest by spending time on a piece of legislation that has absolutely no chance in hell, heaven, or on Earth of ever passing this Administration. The only thing this piece if idiocy does is pander to folks who are already inclined to vote for you, stoke the fires of resistence in the opposition, and convince fence-sitters that “Yes, Virginia . . . when the Democrats say Republicans aren’t serious about governing they might actually have a point.”

    1. avatar whatever says:

      You’re trolling Parker. Go home.

  37. avatar Sledgecrowbar says:

    This is the first federal bill that has anything to do with gun rights that I’ve heard of in ages. Can anyone think of the last one? Because I can’t. It would be nice to see more of this, regardless of how far it gets, because I haven’t felt like anyone was fighting for my interests in a long damned time.

  38. avatar Gary Teears says:

    I totally support the right to carry anywhere in the country. I have a cc license and am surrounded by states like NJ and DE where it is not permitted to carry my firearm. This is just so asinine. When I vote in 2016, it will be for someone who supports the National Right to Conceal Carry. Gov. Christy, you’re a disgrace to your party and constituents in your own State. Don’t even bother running for the Presidency. You don’t have a chance in hell of even coming close.

  39. avatar Rick says:

    All they have to do is attach it to a bill they know Obama won’t veto like a modification bill to AFC (Obamacare).

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email