National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced in Congress

Last month, Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) promised to introduce a Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill in 2017. On the first day of the 115th Congress, Mr. Hudson introduced his bill, and it’s even better than the rough draft that was circulated in November. Mr. Hudson had this to say about the event:

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.

The bill — known as the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, states that any person carrying a valid concealed firearms license and a valid photo ID may carry a concealed handgun in any state that allows its residents to apply for licenses, or which generally doesn’t prohibit the carriage of concealed firearms by residents.

The bill also offers a safe harbor for residents of states that have unlicensed “constitutional carry” for their residents; those persons would only need to carry a valid photo ID. This is especially helpful for residents of Vermont, where unlicensed carry is the law of the land, but no voluntary licensing program is available for reciprocity purposes, as in other states.

There were a few changes from the draft of the bill that was circulated back in November. First of all, the bill contains this little definitional gem:

The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.

Since the bill makes liberal (heh) use of the word “handgun” throughout (e.g., “a person may possess or carry a concealed handgun”) one might call this little provision the “take that, New Jersey, with all of your sad, useless laws banning common defense rounds and inert boxes made of metal and plastic that can carry eleven cartridges” clause.

I also note that the bill is very precisely worded with regard to existing state laws prohibiting the possession of firearms in certain areas. To wit:

This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

That handles the obvious cases, like when a state bars the possession of firearms by non-LEO types in police stations or public schools, but some states have some prohibition laws that go above and beyond government property. Michigan, for instance, forbids the concealed carry of a pistol even with a valid Concealed Pistol License in privately-owned businesses such as bars and “entertainment facilit[ies] with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more.” Might the statute be construed to supersede those laws?

The bill also permits the carriage of a firearm into areas open to the public in the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Reclamation — another change from the November draft.

Can this bill be passed as it is? Heck if I know, but I hope so. You can bet that Congresscritters from states like New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California will howl like Georgia during a Sherman family road trip, even though the idea of national reciprocity commands a lot of support in the country. The question is whether supporters can muster a filibuster-cracking 60 votes in the Senate.

Still, stranger things have happened. Most of last year, for instance.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Let’s not forget that the filibuster is an empty threat. The DNC threatened to get rid of the rule if the GOP “obstructed” their expected Clinton presidency. There is no reason why we should not do the same.

    1. avatar NorincoJay says:

      There are plenty of reasons not to remove the filibuster. But to keep it simple we will pay for it when the Dems control the senate. Right now only appointments don’t have filibusters and I’m sure the Dems wish they didn’t even get rid of that option.

      1. avatar Pwrserge says:

        Meh… I don’t see the DNC controlling the senate again for a generation or two if we can get Trump’s agenda implemented. With federal biometric voter ID and monitored voter rolls, the DNC won’t be able to elect a dog catcher.

      2. avatar PewPewPew says:

        Can they not remove the filibuster with a sunset of 2 or 4 years?

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          It’s just a Senate rule. The majority can change it at any time. Tradition and respect for the protection of the rights of minority views had kept it in place for generations, but we’re not that kind of people anymore, on either side of the political divide.

    2. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

      The filibuster is not an empty threat because nobody in his right mind would go nuclear over national carry legislation. It is too narrow an issue. The only way to get national reciprocity passed is to add the language to an appropriations bill in conference and pass it under reconciliation. The Justice Department buget is the most appropriate vehicle for doing this.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Of we’ll go nuclear far before this hits the Senate. The liberals won’t be able to stop themselves from giving us good cause.

      2. avatar Beard! says:

        Change the rules so that they must perform an ACTUAL fillibuster, going back to the original meaning, by requiring them to speak forever until they can no longer.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          That would solve a lot of problems.

  2. avatar Reggie Browning says:

    If it passes, then I will be surprised. Democrats are going to dig their heels in and the anti gun states are going to go ballistic.

    1. avatar Rabbi says:

      I believe you will find resistance from Rs in states such as CA and NY. Lack of support there will likely kill this bill. 🙁

      1. avatar Pyratemime says:

        Those will be off set by Ds from red states. For the senate specifically there are a number of red state Ds up for reelecrion in 2018 who would regret not voting for this.

        Enough to off set any R defectors? We will see.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          I do not see Democrat Senators from Red states voting in favor of national reciprocity. If Democrats do one thing exceedingly well, it is getting all of their members to consistently vote the party platform.

          Of course Republicans lack the unity that the Democrats exhibit so I can see Republican Senators from Blue states voting against national reciprocity.

          In other words I do not see this getting past the Senate.

      2. avatar DaveW says:

        R’s in California support this legislation overall. Here in rural California, even many liberals own guns, support the 2nd Amendment, and reject gun controls. Nearly all law enforcement agencies (except the political CDOJ and the Chiefs of major metropolitan areas) came out against the most recent rash of gun control laws submitted by Lt Gov Newsom. It’s a slow process which could be accelerated by constitutionalist appointments to the 9th Circuit Court and other federal court judgeship appointments.

  3. avatar Dave says:

    We can only hope but this goes through as is. It would literally help places like New Jersey so that their citizens could actually get firearms and concealed weapons licenses.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “It would literally help places like New Jersey so that their citizens could actually get firearms and concealed weapons licenses.”

      I do not believe the legislation is any help for residents of states like New Jersey that are de facto “no issue”. Rather, the legislation enables a resident of one state with a resident concealed carry license to be armed while traveling to or through another state.

      For example the legislation enables an Ohio resident with an Ohio concealed carry license to travel to/through New Jersey. I don’t believe the legislation forces New Jersey to issue concealed carry licenses to New Jersey residents.

      The really interesting question: would the legislation force states to honor non-resident concealed carry licenses? I doubt it. If so, then New Jersey would have to allow a New Jersey resident to carry with a non-resident Utah concealed carry license. I don’t see that happening.

      1. avatar CueBaller says:

        There is no “resident” requirement in this version of the bill, with regards to carry licenses:

        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

        The laws of “a state,” not the laws of one’s state of residence. So someone in NJ could get a non-resident FL licence and be good to go in all 50 states.

        Note that they’ve also removed the caveat that this allowed one to carry in any state other than their state of residence which was part of the last version… this omission would facilitate the above NJ resident being able to carry anywhere.

        1. avatar Defens says:

          If the legislation passes, though, I don’t see much reason for states like Utah, Arizona, and the like to issue non-resident carry permits. The whole state-level reciprocity network would become redundant, and I’d expect to see any state programs for non-resident permits to pretty much disappear. You don’t see states issuing driver’s licenses for non-residents – at least I don’t think so.

        2. avatar DaveW says:

          No… they just issue drivers licenses to “illegals” not non-residents.

        3. avatar Jackwhippany says:

          REP. RICHARD HUDSON, your proposed bill is very flawed, very unfair and unjust!!! This bill includes only people with “Home State” permits which leaves out everyone in NJ, MD, CA, NYC, most of MA, RI, NH etc.. since these states technically issue ccw permits, but in reality do not issue “Home State” permits. This is approx. 100 million people who cannot benefit under this proposed bill! This bill needs to be amended to include “All” ccw permits regardless where the person lives!!! Since these people could at least get a “NON-Resident” permit from FL or UT etc. and then be included in the 2nd Amendment and ccw.

        4. avatar Roymond says:

          Defens, there would still be two reasons for 2nd-A friendly states to issue non-resident permits:

          1. For people from outside the state who work here.
          2. To stick it to states with oppressive rules.

          I’d love to see this pass and then see a couple of constitutional-carry states provide non-resident permits to anyone not a violent criminal.

      2. avatar Jackwhippany says:

        REP. RICHARD HUDSON, your proposed bill is very flawed, very unfair and unjust!!! This bill includes only people with “Home State” permits which leaves out everyone in NJ, MD, CA, NYC, most of MA, RI, NH etc.. since these states technically issue ccw permits, but in reality do not issue “Home State” permits. This is approx. 100 million people who cannot benefit under this proposed bill! This bill needs to be amended to include “All” ccw permits regardless where the person lives!!! Since these people could at least get a “NON-Resident” permit from FL or UT etc. and then be included in the 2nd Amendment and ccw.

    2. avatar Jackwhippany says:

      This bill is very flawed, very unfair and unjust!!! This bill includes only people with “Home State” permits which leaves out everyone in NJ, MD, CA, NYC, most of MA, RI, NH etc.. since these states technically issue ccw permits, but in reality do not issue “Home State” permits. This is approx. 100 million people who cannot benefit under this proposed bill! This bill needs to be amended to include “All” ccw permits regardless where the person lives!!! Since these people could at least get a “NON-Resident” permit from FL or UT etc. and then be included in the 2nd Amendment and ccw.

      1. avatar marco says:

        Read the bill again jack. It’s at worst ambiguous, and at best the most likely bill that will allow reciprocity of ANY carry permit.

        This proposed bill says NOTHING about “home state permits” but that permits will be accepted in any state that doesn’t prohibit concealed carry (i.e. every state).

        Save your fire for the other bills that will sell slave states down the river.

      2. avatar DaveW says:

        CA permits are up to the county sheriffs. I can get a CA CCW in my county but the next county to the south, which is also rural and has a history of western/cowboy culture, the sheriff won’t allow issuance without a darn good reason. Technically, if I carry in the next county, at present, I could be arrested and charged with a crime, and that could lead to the loss of my 2A rights anywhere in CA. This reciprocal bill could kill that situation and force CA to open things up.

        We still have to fix the dang courts… especially the 9th Circuit. I am glad to see this bill, but I care more about fixing the courts. Trump has the perfect opportunity to turn the country around, which will help us in the long run.

        1. avatar marco says:

          I’d love to see your citation of what crime you’d commit carrying in the other county.

          California CCWs are statewide. Always have been. It’s been constantly pointed out that tourists to San Francisco can carry (CA residents) while San Francisco residents cannot. I know several in the second amendment lobby community in California that would be surprised to hear this interpretation, as I’ve never, ever heard that before.

          LIVING in the county over would make it a crime, as you (according to your story) would not get a permit, hence would be carrying without a permit- but CA permits are statewide permits. The only place I know of that permits aren’t statewide is NY state, where NYC has a special exception to permits issued elsewhere.

      3. avatar Warlocc says:

        I’m in MA, and not only did I have no trouble getting mine, but everyone I know has theirs. It may be anecdotal, but still. Some of these blue states aren’t as blue as their big cities.

        The nice thing about this law is I can finally visit friends in Vermont or NH, or go down to CT without having to worry about all the stupid laws I’d be violating during the trips. I hope it goes through.

  4. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Contact your congressman. If you don’t know who they are find out. Google your county if necessary to get the person’s name and number.
    Be polite, yelling at them doesn’t help.
    Any person of the gun who fails to do this simple civil duty is a sh*t bag.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “Any person of the gun who fails to do this simple civil duty is a sh*t bag.”

      Don’t hold back Chris … tell us exactly how you feel!

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        I’m not sorry I said it. It seems many of us are going to have to drag some gun owners kicking and screaming across the finish line.
        I should have seen over a thousand civil rights protesters in California, like I saw in Washington state and Oregon, in 2015.
        Colorado got it organized and got rid of three of these anti civil rights creeps.

        Only two hundred could bother to show up at a pro gun rights rally in California???? There are a lot of lazy @ss gun owners out there.

    2. avatar soccerdad says:

      Here, I’ll make it even easier. click the link, enter your zip code and you have your representative. POTG unite. http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        That was super easy. I emailed mine. Thanks for the link.

  5. avatar Jim says:

    So how will this work if someone from California has a CCW from Arizona? Or would I need the elusive CA permit for this to fall in place? If this proposed law passes the antis will go even more nuts out here.

    1. avatar CZ Peasy says:

      As a Marylander with a UT permit, I would like to know this too. Federal legislation, which supposedly is to protect our natural, civil, and constitutional rights from state infringement, that fails to protect slave state residents and actually further entrenches tyranny in the slave states is a step backwards. When has a federally protected right depended on state residency?

    2. avatar kevin says:

      I think that you would need a permit in your state of residence first. So a UT resident with a UT permit can carry in 50 states, but a CA resident with a UT (nonresident) permit could not use the UT permit to carry in CA. At least that’s my reading of it.

      There’s a parallel with driver’s licenses: You can only get one in your home state. If you have one in your home state, you can drive anywhere. But if your home state won’t issue you one, you’re screwed in all 50.

      I see some semblance of logic- if your own state doesn’t trust you, no one should. But as we all know that’s totally arbitrary and leaves some 50 million people out in the cold. Perhaps this is the only way it will get passed, and we need to eat the elephant in more than one bite.

      1. avatar UtahCCW says:

        I agree that a permit from any state should suffice – this is a constitutional right, not a privilege like driving. That said, if the basis of federal jurisdiction is the commerce clause, then a court could find that the provision allowing a resident of say California to carry with a Utah permit to be beyond the authority of the federal government. On the other hand, there are other bases for this exercise of power and I am happy to see that Hudson is taking a shot at allowing this.

      2. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

        As I read it, you need a permit from “a” state, or your home state allows permitless carry. Thus people in NJ, MD, etc. with a non-resident permit from UT or FL would be good to go.

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      I acknowledge the problem; however, I think it is secondary to our national objectives.

      First, let’s take an optimistic view. Suppose that this question is not resolved in the bill. After it takes effect the issue will be litigated. Eventually, the Federal courts are going to have to decide whether a CA resident can get a UT CWP to carry in CA. Those same Federal courts are going to have to reconcile their decision with that of interstate gay marriage. Will they want to undermine gay marriage to stop CWP shopping?

      Second, a pessimistic view. Suppose it IS clear that you must be a resident of the issuing State. Lot’s of residents of CA will obtain a “mail drop” address in UT and obtain a UT: Driver’s license; plates; insurance; and a CWP. At first, just a few who live near the UT border; then a few living at a little distance. (Or, take NJ/PA or MD/VA or MA/NH, etc.) The hostile States will loose too much revenue from vehicle registration and insurance to “dual-residency” or pseudo non-residents. Too many to investigate and prosecute. In any case, CA voters will become accustomed to out-of-state residents carrying in their home-towns. In a few years, the notion of “carrying” guns will become substantially defused and such restrictive May-Issue States will become de-facto Shall-Issue.

      As much as gun owners in these last 5 – 10 restrictive jurisdictions really need relief, there is a more important issue. That is, avoiding “Federalizing” the issue of gun-carry. So far – in our history – we have pretty firmly held that keeping and bearing arms is subject to the States’ “police power” to regulate their domestic issues. (I.e., IF-and-to-WHATEVER extent there is any government power over guns, that power is almost entirely in the jurisdiction of the States. The Feds’ power is confined to interstate commerce.) What this means is that the gun controllers have to fight guns again and again in each State. Not until Alaska or Wyoming become the last 2 States to regulate guns out-of-existence will the 2A die. It is in OUR national interest to NOT disturb this State jurisdiction view.
      Any Federal law that goes too far in circumventing State jurisdiction over keeping and bearing tends to federalize jurisdiction over guns. E.g., look at LEOSA. It wipes-out all State laws governing carry by retired cops. If this law is Constitutional then – likely – any other Federal law governing keeping or bearing arms would be held to be Constitutional notwithstanding State indulgence of the practice prohibited by the Federal law.
      What we ought to do is strive toward reversing Federal gun laws that don’t have a meaningful relationship to interstate commerce. E.g., why should silencers remain in the NFA’34? Let the States regulate silencers if they wish – after all, silencers don’t have a material impact on a “well regulated militia”.
      We PotG need to remain cognizant of the importance of “States’ Rights” in our system of federal government – i.e., that the domestic affairs of each State are a matter of local jurisdiction, not central jurisdiction. As messy as it makes our notion of “rights”, it is also essential to preserving those same “rights” in a majority of States against incursion by our central government.

      1. avatar soccerdad says:

        I really like your analysis and I’m for states rights, mostly all the way. My only rebuttal, if it is one, is that the 2A is defacto a federal thing, but most (all?) states have incorporated some sort of 2A wording into their constitutions. Its a great risk we run if we “federalize” CCW, but I’ll spell it out for all. If one law gives us this national right, then another law, when the power has shifted to the anti-POTG can take it away, in one fell swoop as well. It’s a slippery slope and I’m not sure I’m for this legislation just yet. I’ll probably get there, but just not yet. Of course, I’m in the gun friendly state of PA (surrounded by the anti-states) and don’t travel a lot, so I get how those who do really, really are inconvenienced by these states rights thing. Perhaps, this law is enough to protect those travellers who are legal in their own states, and at the same time, doesn’t really help those who are in the slave states, and that keeps the (slave) states rights thing alive. That’s how I read it.

      2. avatar Demo Man says:

        Mark @ 10:56- “We PotG need to remain cognizant of the importance of “States’ Rights” in our system of federal government – i.e., that the domestic affairs of each State are a matter of local jurisdiction, not central jurisdiction.”

        Don’t count on the Consitutional knowledge level of the average gun owner to recognize the threat of this Trojan Horse type legislation. Here in Illinois the vast majority of inbred retards still haven’t figured out that NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde sold them out to be killed by police criminals by placing Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in state Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” carry bill in 2013.

        No way the losers could contemplate having to go to D.C. for an “administrative hearing” with the ATF to get your carry license “restored” after some police agency objects to your application.

  6. avatar Don says:

    Post Office prohibition needs to go right away.
    It was the workers, usually in domestic violence incidents or disgruntled employees, not the general public that was the problem. I don’t recall many people robbing Post Offices and a sign wouldn’t have prevented that anyway..
    Hence the term, “going Postal”.

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      Yeah and with the shady characters I’ve seen when mailing packages before work (4AM)… Yes, somehow the government thinks I’m the problem and the tweaker rifling through his pocket asking for my phone is now safe from all ballistic intervention. I’m glad big brother is watching out for the little, or should I say skinny/shaky guy.

  7. avatar NorincoJay says:

    The Hearing Protection Act has a better chance at passing than this. Sorry to be the Debby Downer.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Unless this has serious teeth, the law would simply be ignored in Dem controlled areas, and in big cities in particular.

      1. Anyone who would ignore the Constitution would surely ignore this.
        We have two choices. Lose or die fighting to win.

      2. avatar Missouri Mule says:

        Here are your teeth: HR38 Section. c. (e)(1) provides for damages and attorney fees for violation of of the right, as well as any arrest or detention from the PERSON violating the right. This means you get to sue the cop on the beat and his boss the police chief, and her boss the mayor.

  8. avatar explainist says:

    “The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem”

    finally a truly common sense gun law.

    regarding postal workers – it’s the guys who work in the sorting centers who go postal, not the clerks or carriers in local Post Offices.

    1. avatar Don says:

      In any case, it’s not the customers that are now prohibited in protecting themselves on PO property.

  9. avatar Joe R. says:

    If a nationwide ban could be passed, this one is a no-brainer.

    If any handgun/ammo is permitted, that could mean an AR pistol?

    I don’t know if the BILL is worth anything, but at the very least the Rep. from NC kept his promise, and that’s YUUUUGE.

  10. avatar Benjamin C Parsons says:

    To work all the little State nuances are going to have to be addressed. At least generally. If they’re not, a carrier could be subject to felony arrest and forfeiture of his firearm by inadvertently being in/on an unfamiliar State’s prohibited location that his State does not recognize.
    I see this being very convoluted – possibly to the point of uselessness.
    Meanwhile, folks with bad intent are gonna not play by any rules what-so-ever. Just like they do now.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      ^ This.

    2. avatar Don says:

      Highway laws and the more subtle aspects vary from state to state, which is sort of silly. We still manage with few problems.
      This proposed law is a big step in the right direction.

  11. avatar Scott says:

    Trump said he will sign this if Congress passes it. I encourage everyone to email their Representative and Senators to try to get them on board with this. I just did.

  12. avatar Dave says:

    The bill needs amending to close the “DC Loophole”.

    By the language of the bill, only ‘states’ are covered, leaving out DC and all US territories.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Sure why not. But I won’t hold my breath. And I don’t count on the Republican party to have any testicular fortitude. We’ll see…and MY congresscritter are worse than useless-Robyn Kelly. Dick Durbin and Tammy legless are even worse…

  14. avatar AaronW says:

    It’s best to let your Representative in Congress know that you are in favor if this. I read recently that a phone call to their LOCAL office has the most impact vs. contact form submission or even calling their DC office.
    I just called Nita Lowey’s office in White Plains to let her know that as a NYer I’m strongly in FAVOR of this legislation.

  15. avatar FedUp says:

    Johannes, this is not a prohibition on possessing a handgun, it’s a prohibition on concealing a handgun:
    “Individuals licensed to carry a concealed pistol by Michigan or another state are prohibited from carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology on the following premises…”

    You can carry in so-called Pistol Free Zones with a CPL, you just can’t conceal it, you have to open carry there.

    https://media.miopencarry.org/publications/moc/Trifold.pdf

    https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

    1. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

      Hah! I was just re-reading the article and noticed that I left that part out, too. I wondered if someone was going to call me on it.

      Well done. Change forthcoming.

  16. avatar MarkPA says:

    “. . . that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, . . . ” I would like to see a critical discussion of this language (that I believe appears in ALL the pending bills).
    My greatest fear is that District, and then Circuit, courts will cheerfully strike-down any NR statue as an unConstitutional application of the Commerce Clause. To illustrate, Colt (in CT) sold a gun to an FFL in PA which I bought in my home State and carried to NJ. What does carry in NJ have to do with “interstate” commerce? Oh, the gun was sold from CT –> PA. That pretext is as absurd as it was in the first Gun Free School Zone Act; which was struck-down as an invalid invocation of Commerce Clause.
    Do we really want to fight leftist judges in multiple District courts, up through multiple Circuit courts? Only when we achieve a “circuit split” will we have a chance of getting into SCOTUS. Only when Trump has appointed a 2’nd Justice to SCOTUS will we have a good chance of getting “cert.” let alone winning.
    There are minor issues as well. E.g., what of a CT resident carrying a Colt into MA? The Colt wasn’t sold in interstate commerce. Or, a carrier makes his own Glock-a-like or 1911 from an 80% frame?
    Perhaps we ought to advocate for a bill including language invoking additional Constitutional bases. E.g.: that carrying from one State to another is deemed actual or potential interstate commerce; Congress has the power to “arm” the militia, members of which may be traveling or sojourning outside their respective States of residence; a CWP is deemed to be an “act” of the issuing State entitled to “full faith and credit” by other States; rights and privileges of citizens (14A); equal protection of the law (14A); perhaps other Constitutional provisions.
    Why isn’t this Constitutional basis issue not being examined critically?

    1. avatar marco says:

      Because that’s the exact basis LEOSA was passed under. So if this is challenged in courts, we can expect big cop organizations to support us because their carry rights will be on the line as well.

      Besides, this will be challenged anyway, and won’t be decided off constitutional principles but the justices’ feelings on the issue, dressed up in appropriate “constitutional logic”. This is an emotional issue, and there’s no amount of constitutional protection that will protect it from a hostile judiciary. So just get it done, and try to change the courts, rather than wringing your hands over something that can’t be controlled. And cross your fingers for a quick SCOTUS appointment and a SECOND SCOTUS appointment soon!

      1. avatar Demo Man says:

        marco @ 21:27- “…we can expect big cop organizations to support us because their carry rights will be on the line as well.”

        Name one instance when police unions have supported legislation at the state or federal level in the past twenty years that has benefited the taxpayers who feed these leeches? The police are not “on the same side” as you, the parasite feeds off the host unless removed.

        When NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde cut the deal in 2010/ 2011 with the anti-gun Illinois Chiefs of Police to put Duty to Inform with criminal penalties in state Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” concealed carry bill, Orland Park chief Tim McCarthy was president of the IL Chiefs. That’s the same Tim McCarthy who was a Secret Service agent when President Reagan was shot, and the same Tim McCarthy who does press events with Jim & Sarah Brady to promote gun control!

        The IL Chiefs totally opposed any form of citizen carry for FORTY YEARS, but NRA’s traitor Vandermyde bent over backwards to give them Duty to Inform with criminal penalties, so the cops can kill you and claim “resisting arrest.”

        NRA, Inc., the police unions, and the anti-gun Bradys are all on the same side: against you and advancing the legal infrastructure of the criminal police state. If the police unions and NRA, Inc. get their corrupt snouts into national reciprocity, it will be to make the bill the worst they can so armed citizens can be set up and killed, like Vandermyde did in Illinois.

  17. avatar Nick says:

    It’s a shame they can’t find a way to make high capacity magazine bans moot for those carrying interstate, otherwise you’d still have to change magazines when crossing state lines into certain states, but you’d still be guilty of illegal possession of the magazine you aren’t carrying.

    1. avatar UtahCCW says:

      I think the new language in the bill is intended to do just that – the “Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof” you can carry or possess a handgun – which by the definition in the statute includes the magazine. Thus, the laws restricting capacity are overridden by this law.

  18. The bill — known as the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, or as I like to call it, the Shaneen Allen Protection Safe from Unlawful Conviction and Knowledge of Equal Rights.
    Or, Freedom to Universally Carry Knowledgeably in NJ.

  19. avatar Pyratemime says:

    For what its worth I contacted my Rep (an R) and my Senators (and R and a D).

    Interestingly the D does not have guns/2A as an option for the reason to contact them about legislation. I picked civil rights instead of other. We shall see what kind of form letter/non-response I get.

  20. avatar Niam Krawt says:

    A few commenters have hinted at the big issue here (I think MarkPA came closest): states rights. The second amendment expressly permits the right to bear arms, but implementation was mostly left to the states.

    This bill would gut a state’s ability to regulate minimum standards for concealed carry. Some states require additional checks, references, education, and/or training; other states make it an unrestricted right.

    A state that has decided on a set of standards that are best for itself, would now be forced to allow CC by a person from another state with no standards at all.

    I always hear people say that a state and its citizens should decide what’s best for themselves. Why not in this case too?

    Funny how people want the federal government to act on something they approve of, yet call it government overreach when they don’t approve…

    1. avatar Niam Krawt says:

      Looks like MarkPA covered this more eloquently while I was fumbling for words… 🙂

      1. Well you both are wrong so it doesn’t matter who was more eloquent. The implementation of the right to bear arms has one decree. Shall Not Be Infringed. This is not a States rights issue. It is an individual right.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          You are correct; it’s not a matter of eloquence. As a practical matter, it’s political. No “right” is worth the parchment it’s written on unless a substantial majority of voters insist upon the right being respected. And, there is something of a consensus on what that “right” really means.

          Congress and legislatures pass laws. Courts interpret the laws and the Federal and State constitutions. The voters elect the legislators and executives who appoint the judges. Frankly, our fathers and grandfathers did a really poor job in allowing elected officials to erode the 2A during most of the 20th century. This began to turn-around with the Shall-Issue movement in the last quarter of the 20th century.

          Those that find the words “Congress shall make no law” within the 2A are naive. We all can recite the 2A verbatim. The key phrases are:
          – “the right”
          – “the People”
          – “keep”
          – “bear”
          – “arms”; and,
          – “infringed”.
          It is clear to any jurist and legislator that Congress can pass all the gun laws it likes within the limits of these key phrases. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot of room for legislators to pass laws that courts will not overturn.

          What we need is a consensus-building process that persuades a substantial majority of voters to elect politicians who will defend what we, the PotG, agree are these “right[s]”. We are on the threshold of having the opportunity to build this consensus.

          We need to pick our issues and arguments judiciously. I hold that we can readily persuade open-minded voters that a vulnerable person (woman, elderly, disabled) has a “right” to “bear” the means to an effective self-defense (“arms”) on the streets of NYC or DC. Success on this argument gets us, at least, “Shall-Issue”. This is low-hanging fruit; once we secure this objective we increment for more. (Lower cost, lower training, . . . eventually, Constitutional Carry.)

          UBC and AWB ought to be approached differently. “Infringement” isn’t the most effective argument here; why insist on a less effective argument when there is a more effective argument? BCs and cosmetics are ineffective. Why should voters wish to pass ineffective laws? Laws so ineffective that they are just silly. Is silliness the objective of laws?

          An electorate of hoplophobes can and would vote to usher the last 1 million gun owners into box-cars no matter how loudly the latter shout “shall not be infringed!”. Our first and best defense is to build an electorate of voters who UNDERSTAND the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in drafting and ratifying the 2A.

        2. Yep. Have to win in the court of public opinion first.
          That’s why I support open carry. It’s the green hair theory. Die your hair green and go about your every day routine. After a few days people stop staring and asking questions.

        3. avatar DaveW says:

          I understand what you are saying…to a point. Yet, the government has no authority to arbitrarily alter any right of the people without due process (the amendment process or a Constitutional Convention). The government’s duty is to recognize the enumerated rights of the people and to respect and protect them. So said the Founders.

          Alcohol has never been an enumerated right of the people, yet, the government followed the amendment process to deny the distillation of spirits. When the people determined that they wanted their drink, another amendment was required. Firearms fall into the enumerated rights category.

          All three branches of government have over-stepped their authorities, not to mention that all members have essentially violated their oaths of office, to the detriment of the people. The “swamp” has long been in need of draining… which both parties have previously said they will do even as they commit violations.

          Coincidentally, the supporters of both Prohibition and the National Firearms Act 1934, used the same justification of “for public safety” and “eliminating social ills”. Prohibition didn’t work then just as it wouldn’t work today, and the same applies to firearms. It was also pure coincidence that FDR had just taken office when an attempted assassination failed, followed by the NFA being pushed through Congress.

    2. “Funny how people want the federal government to act on something they approve of, yet call it government overreach when they don’t approve…”

      No sir, we want the Federal government to protect individual rights.

      1. avatar Niam Krawt says:

        You do understand that *your* individual rights can conflict with *another’s* individual rights?

        You want the federal government to protect *your* individual rights.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          The individual rights of one person can conflict with those of another only if rights are looked on as unrelated individual propositions with no connection to each other. But distinct rights are merely expressions of the underlying truth of self-ownership; by resorting to that underlying principle all conflicts between the rights of different individuals can be shown to be empty.

        2. Um…yeah. it’s one of the few responsibilities of the Federal government. That and national defense.

    3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Sections One and Five of the 14th Amendment are the reason that Congress has the authority to pass this law and why it is not a states’ rights issue. Section One incorporates the Second Amendment, applying it to the states. Section Five gives Congress the authority to enforce the rest of the 14th through “appropriate legislation.”

  21. avatar Bob says:

    Meh. States that don’t want me is mutual. I support free states, not the commie ones.

    1. avatar Jim says:

      I have to travel through the communist state of Maryland and the fascist state of New Jersey from Virginia. Federal law should force all states to honor permits.

  22. avatar Jim says:

    Since this is all 2nd amendment related, that being born from Federal law I don’t know why we don’t just have a National carry permit that is good in all 50 states. The heck with the individual state permits or lack of. It’s a ‘right’ and the Government should enforce it.

    1. avatar Jim says:

      With a National Carry permit (vice state) you could enforce uniformity in training, education and require maintenance of such ( if desired). Meaning you wouldn’t be giving a permit to someone who isn’t at least certified/qualified to carry.

      1. avatar meadowsr says:

        If there are no qualifications needed (training, education, etc.) to exercise your right to vote, there should be no qualifications to exercise your RTKBA. The only “uniformity” involved is “you have a right, and the unlimited and unencumbered opportunity to exercise said right as you wish”.

        1. avatar Niam Krawt says:

          “If there are no qualifications needed (training, education, etc.) to exercise your right to vote, there should be no qualifications to exercise your RTKBA.”

          This is a B.S. argument, and this kind of irresponsible talk is exactly why people fear more open gun laws. Casting a vote doesn’t doesn’t have the potential to kill another human being the same way pulling a trigger can.

          We should all want an armed citizenry that is also knowledgeable. Too often I hear of well-intentioned armed citizens firing a weapon out of panick or anger instead of from a position of trained response.

      2. avatar Demo Man says:

        Jim @ 13:05- “With a National Carry permit (vice state) you could enforce uniformity in training, education and require maintenance of such ( if desired). Meaning you wouldn’t be giving a permit to someone who isn’t at least certified/qualified to carry.”

        Right, that’s what we want to do, create a federal carry license system administered from Washington D.C. and implemented by who, the ATF?!

        I mean the IRS is doing such a great job, let’s create another unelected bureaucracy to usurp our fundamental rights, I’m sure that would never be abused by a future administration, because Donald Trump is going to live forever and then be stuffed for display like Lenin, right? How about a required secret clearance with fingerprints, at will drug testing for no cause, and a DNA and bullet database to go with it?

        I mean can you seriously be this stupid? This is why gun owners constantly lose in politics, the average I.Q. is just too low. Now I know why NRA, Inc. has so many members.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      We have a “national carry permit” — it’s called the Second Amendment.

      Actually having a piece of paper issued by the government to authorize exercising an enumerated right is constitutionally suspect, besides which it would constitute a registration of those who have chosen to exercise the right.

      “Papers, please”, which is what a national permit boils down to, is tyranny.

  23. avatar Bob says:

    Using the excuses that one state may set stricter standards than another has no real bearing when the main topic is addressed.
    Keeping this just allows a loop hole for states to keep their state CCW free.

    So lets say CA decides to play.
    You may let your states public members in, but they must at least meet or exceed CA level of training.
    10,000 hours training with the state police as well as a minimum passing score of 95% on all testing after a 5 year “cooling off” period.

    But wait, isn’t that infringement? But of course not, the supreme court ruled that as long as the end result allows the right to be exercised, its not infringed upon.
    Example, NJ doesn’t infringe your rights, they have CCW permits, its just that nobody is ever good enough to get one.

    Ive been told to go F*&$ myself in many ways, and this is one of the good ones.

    THAT! Needs scrubbed right off the bat.

    What other rights do we have that require testing first? Do states require an English class to have the right to free speech?

    The problem with the 2nd amendment is hidden in the first,
    If you do all the talking for someone, they will be satisfied with not needing to speak themselves.

    Speak up Jersey and the like, the power is the people, you’ve simply been letting others do your talking for you for far too long…..

  24. avatar Buns of Guns says:

    The legal mag cap limit in NJ is currently 15. Just thought I’d throw that out there.

  25. avatar Green Mtn Boys says:

    It’ll be nice to not have our constitutional rights at the borders any more. I’ve always asked where do I have to apply for my 1st amendment permit or 4th, or 5th. I brag about the fact that I live in a state that I don’t have to apply to the government to excercise my constitutionally garanteed right to keep and bear arms. Oh, and by the way, WE’RE THE SAFEST STATE IN THE NATION FOR VIOLENT CRIME, 3rd year running. ARE YOU LISTENING ALBANY AND SACRAMENTO ???? From the Green Mountain State, Freedom and Unity.

  26. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Never going to happen, but if it does, you sure won’t like the bastardized, compromise-ridden form it ends up taking to attain passage.

  27. avatar S.CROCK says:

    I did not see any provisions for those in free states who visit slave states with handgun rosters and mag capacity. Can someone from Arizona go to California with a gen 4 Glock and a standard capacity magazine? This bill already seems unlikely to pass but I will pray for the best.

    1. avatar marco says:

      Visitors to CA don’t have to worry about the roster. The roster only applies to FFLs selling to California residents. Except special snowflakes that get exemptions. You can visit with whatever handgun that doesn’t fit assault weapon, banned by name arms, or other applicable ban. The magazine questions should be answered in the proposed legislation.

      The only thing I worry about is a lack of penalties- but then again, spelling out penalties made FOPA worse, so maybe not spelling out penalties is better, as this is going to go before a court anyway, and it will all be struck down if we get a hostile court, but if we get a friendly court they’ll take care of us, so worrying about that is a moot point.

  28. avatar Sam I Am says:

    After reading the article and all 65 responses, I see the biggest tangle (outside of being federal legislation “permitting” one to exercise a constitutional right) being the ammunition capacity. Not seeing any wording that says the ammunition standards set by the issuing state will supersede the ammunition limits imposed by the state in which one is carrying concealed.

    With large cities facing numerous contiguous municipal jurisdictions (and multiple counties), one must know every firearm law, everywhere.

    The second amendment is national reciprocity. Why cave on that battle and settle for a temporary permission slip?

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      National reciprocity for government issued concealed carry “permits” or “licenses” is a Trojan horse. Any type of legislation that sets up a federalized license will lead to federalized control, just like the CDL for driving has different rules. For instance, a CDL licensee cannot refuse a breathalyzer at a traffic stop. You give up your rights under “administrative rules.”

      The scenario will progress as follows or some nightmarish variants thereof: mandatory fingerprints, background checks conducted by FBI/ATF, mandatory drug and alcohol testing, mandatory DNA sampling, mandatory ballistic sampling of the one registered carry gun you are licensed for, nationwide Duty to Inform (but not for retired cops carrying under LEOSA)…

      Look at what happened in Illinois, the last state to pass concealed carry. Instead of learning from every state that passed a carry bill in the past thirty years, clowns like Richard Pearson from ISRA (NRA state affiliate) let NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put the worst possible stuff in Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” carry bill that the anti-gun police unions could dream up, and served it to them on a platter:

      criminal penalties for hundreds of gun-free zones, privacy waiver, no public transport carry (that only affects blacks in Chicago) an unelected Star Chamber licensing board comprised of a retired federal judge, two feds, a couple of lawyers and a shrink, and of course Duty to Inform with criminal penalties, the crowning achievement of the rat who sold out Otis McDonald and every gun owner in the state.

      When NRA, Inc., and the anti-gun police unions get their snout into this bill, it will turn into a nightmare that will curse generations of gun owners yet unborn. When you have an org filled with traitors and rats like NRA, Inc. there is no other possible outcome except for them to sell out their own membership. All they know how to do is lose, and the hicks keep sending them money.

  29. The one unfortunate thing about this bill never becoming law is that I will never have the opportunity to say “I told you so” when the courts inevitably strike down the law.

    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be banned.

    “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

    “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Hi Charles,

      Anything new with your case?

      1. The state missed the filing deadline for its answering brief, missed its deadline for taking a free one-time 30 day extension of time to file its answering brief and filed a time-barred motion for a 30-60 day extension of time to file its answering brief.

        I filed an objection to the motion on the 20th of December and so far, no ruling on the state’s motion.

        Also, my petition that my appeal be heard initially en banc is still pending.

        Regular updates posted at my website -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=739

  30. avatar Jackwhippany says:

    REP. RICHARD HUDSON, your proposed bill is very flawed, very unfair and unjust!!! This bill includes only people with “Home State” permits which leaves out everyone in NJ, MD, CA, NYC, most of MA, RI, NH etc.. since these people can’t get a “HOME STATE” ccw permit! This is approx. 1/3 of the entire USA!!!!!!!!! This bill needs to be amended to include “All” ccw permits regardless where the person lives!!! Since these people could at least get a “NON-Resident” permit from FL or UT etc. and then be included in the 2nd Amendment and ccw.

  31. avatar Roymond says:

    FWIW:

    “Shall not be infringed” is actually stronger language than “Congress shall pass no law”, because any law about arms automatically touches the fringe of the right, tat is, the non-essentials and peripheral matters, so laws are ruled out; in addition, all regulation and taxation and registration etc. are also ruled out, because they cannot be done without touching on one or more non-essential or peripheral matter. In essence, the clause says that if it has anything at all to do with arms, no branch of the government at all can issue any law, rule, regulation, policy, or guideline concerning the matter.

    But further, the clause does not limit itself to government; it does not restrict the non-infringement to government. Thus it extends universally, so that it prohibits any legal entity within the bounds the the United States from in any way hindering the expression of this right.

    Indeed, if one considers the use of language of the time, the use of the passive with no stated subject tended to mean that the actor/mover behind the action is God, so this can be seen as indicating that the right comes directly from God to all individuals so that only God is allowed to interfere with the exercise of the right.

  32. avatar Desert Ranger says:

    The 2a swell is here! Time to wax up the boards and paddle out!

  33. avatar GLSRacer says:

    I think it’s interesting how almost no one is arguing for permitless CCW in all States. You shouldn’t have to have a license or a permit to exercise a right. You have permits and licenses to exercise a privilege…

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      GLS- you made the best and most simple observation of the month.

      Here’s the deal about the average I.Q. level of NRA members: they don’t have one. Their I.Q. cannot be measured, it’s too low.

      That’s how the NRA’s boy in Illinois state Rep. Brandon Phelps was able to put Duty to Inform in his concealed carry bill in 2013 without being tarred and feathered. The brain power of the inbred hicks from southern Illinois who vote for him is just too low. These people are too stupid to read a 130 page bill, or they just can’t read past childhood level.

      That’s how NRA state lobbyist for Illinois Todd Vandermyde was able to put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Phelps bill. DTI was dependent on the gun hicks being unable to figure out that the NRA lobbyist backstabbed them.

      Most of these people don’t want to carry a gun legally, they want a piece of plastic in their wallet. If the hick has a concealed carry license, he thinks he is not a loser anymore. He thinks he’s a junior policeman with a gat.

      If permitless carry went into effect, NRA, Inc. would go out of business. NRA lawyers made $1.3 MILLION on the Otis McDonald case against the city of Chicago.

      That’s why Phelps’ carry bill has criminal penalties for every gun free zone, plus the new “crime” of Duty to Inform: the cops, courts and lawyers can make money setting up, fining and killing armed citizens, and traitors like Vandermyde have job security to “fix” the shit bills they put up in the first place. That’s why Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ ILA pay lobbyists like Todd Vandermyde. It’s a business for them to set up their own members for the police.

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