A Tale of Two National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bills

Adam Kraut writes [via ammoland.com]:

As you may have heard, earlier in March, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 was introduced in the Senate. At the beginning of January, a similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. While the bills are largely the same, there are a few differences . . .

Both proposed bills start off in a similar fashion. If you are an individual who is not prohibited from possessing firearms, are carrying a government issued photo ID, have a license or permit issued by a state which allows you to carry a concealed firearm, you may carry a firearm (other than a machine gun or destructive device) in any other state that has a statute which enables an individual to obtain a license or permit and does not prohibit the carrying of firearms by residents for lawful purposes.

However, the Senate bill has a provision that would allow an individual who is from a state which recognizes constitutional carry to carry a firearm in another state absent an actual permit, provided that they are not prohibited and have government issued photo ID.

For those of you who live in constitutional carry states, if this bill were to pass in its current form, you would not need to procure a license from your state for the purposes of reciprocity.

The language between the two bills differs slightly in relation to how the state’s laws would affect an individual carrying a firearm.

The Senate version provides that the possession or carrying of a firearm in another state would be subject to the same limitations imposed on residents of that state by either the federal government, the state or a political subdivision thereof.

In simpler terms, you’d have to abide by the same rules as the residents of that state, much like now if you travel to a state that recognizes a permit issued by yours.

The House version says that this section should not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of a state which allow a person or entity to restrict possession of firearms on their property or prohibitions imposed by the state with regard to concealed firearms on state or local government property, installations, buildings, bases or parks.

In essence, they accomplish similar goals, although it would seem that the House version is a bit more narrowly tailored.

The Senate version has a provision which says that in states which issue different levels of permits that impose restrictions, for the purposes of reciprocity, non residents will be permitted to carry firearms in accordance with the same terms afforded to those who obtain unrestricted permits in those states. In simpler terms, non residents will be able to carry in a less restricted manner than some residents.

Noticeably absent from the Senate version: language found in the House version which creates an affirmative defense to individuals who are detained or arrested for carrying in compliance with the law.

In those instances, if the individual presented documentation to show they were carrying in accordance with the law, the burden of proof would switch to the prosecution to show that they were not. If the individual successfully asserts the defense, the court SHALL award attorney’s fees.

This provision would hopefully deter states from attempting to prosecute individuals who are carrying in compliance with the proposed law. I’m looking at you Commiefornia, New Yorkistan, New Germany, etc.

The House version also provides a mechanism to sue a state or municipality for the deprivation of right, privilege or immunity provided for in the law including a provision for damages and attorney’s fees.

Notice a trend here? The House appears to be attaching a financial incentive for states to not violate people’s rights. I know, a novel concept these days.

Additionally, the House version defines the term handgun to include any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or magazine.

Lastly, the House bill provides that any person carrying a handgun pursuant to the bill, may do so in units of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, and land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

In order for this to become a law, you need to pick up the phone and call your Representatives and Senators. National Reciprocity should be a legislative priority not only for you, but those that represent you.

Some of you may be asking why I’m pushing this over constitutional carry? Good question.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. While it may not be the end result we would all like to see, it is a step in the right direction. And steps forward are better than steps backward or no steps at all. As you may have noticed gun control did not happen overnight, nor will restoring those rights.

Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of the proposed National Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill.

comments

  1. avatar JDC says:

    I really do not know why people really think these have a chance of even hitting the floor for a vote, much less passing.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      If you approach it with that defeatist attitude, then your prediction will be self-fulfilling.

      One step at a time. If the bills do not reach the floor of either or both houses for a vote then we make note of and publicize the reasons (negative votes) as to why and we work to dislodge those Constitutional traitors from their cushy government job. While being VERY vocal as to why we are working to throw the bastards out.

      Then we try again.

    2. avatar BLoving says:

      Sounds like the House version is the way to go then – a law with some teeth to bite the Jim Crow states that would try to infringe on our civil rights… (grin) they are SO gonna hate that! Unfortunately, my alleged” representative” couldn’t care less about me wanting her to vote for it – Miss Jackson Lee is an elitist bigot of the highest order.

  2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    todd vandermyde! nra shucksters! downstate racism! brandon phelps!

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      I love a good incoherent rant.

  3. avatar Magickaldood says:

    So let us say one of these passes, Will I be able to carry normal capacity magazines? Also, will I even be allowed to bring my firearm into California from out of state?

    From my current understanding the State of California views that act of bringing in an outside firearm as a form of importation. The state even maintains a website on how to register your “imported” firearms. Now it does specify moving into the state, but I could see some less than honest prosecutors using a more creative interpretation to go after gun owners.

    Secondly, if I carry my G17 into Colorado, will I be in trouble for having a 17 round mag? “Additionally, the House version defines the term handgun to include any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or magazine.” Does that mean standard capacity, or a capacity of the states choosing?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It is not illegal to bring non-Roster firearms into California. For example, people who move here may bring their guns and “register” them with the State. The only thing you may NOT do is bring in magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds. If you are simply visiting, there is no requirement that you register your firearms. Moving here requires registration within, as I recall, 60 days.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Mark N
        My tarsus judge if brought to California would be confiscated correct? And I would be in jail correct? This is why I no longer live in California.

    2. avatar C.Z. says:

      I’m definitely not a lawyer, but you’ll probably do well to buy some “travel size” magazines for your carry gun. Every state is a bit different and bans have different meanings as you go from one state to another. For example I don’t believe possession of a magazine holding more than 10 rounds is illegal in Maryland, however sale or transfer is. So if you have it you’re safe but if you give it to anyone while you’re in Maryland then that’s illegal. But if you’re going to MD for vacation and hopped on the wrong road and got pulled over in DC then that same magazine in your possession would then turn you into a criminal. Since some of the more restrictive states do have laws that actually make it a crime to possess a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you’re probably wise to just carry the low capacity magazines when you travel.

  4. avatar MLee says:

    Just like what Idaho was doing to cars on the Interstates, stopping cars for BS reasons because they had Washington license plate where marijuana is legal, then detaining people, doing illegal search’s and such, I could see cars with Idaho plates which is a constitutional carry state, getting pulled over and screwed with in California.
    I sure wouldn’t want to test the law, not on California soil. All it takes is some cop with a giant stiff to make your life miserable and cost you thousands upon thousands.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Unlike NYC and New Jersey, California respects FOPA. Currently, if your firearms are in locked containers and unloaded, then you shouldn’t have a problem. And when an officer asks to search your car, you can always say “No.” Further, in the northern part of the state we have a lot of traffic from Oregon and Washington, and I don’t see them targeted by the police. In SoCal, they have lots of visitors from Aridzone and Nevada, and the same is true. There was a period where Buicks being driven by young Hispanic males were being targeted on I5 in Northern California (drug trafficking), but after the CHP was sued, that activity seems to have stopped even though CHP won the suit.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        If we can’t get reciprocy at this time, the *least* I will accept is FORCED respect of FOPA.

        Like holding the arresting officers and lawmakers *personally* civilly and criminally liable for their actions.

        No one should have to go through what Pennsylvania resident and carry permit holder Shaneen Allen had to go through in the (not) ‘Great State of New Jersey’…

  5. avatar rdsii64 says:

    Will this allow someone from California to carry in California with a non resident permit from one of the states that offer them?

    1. avatar kwc says:

      As currently written, the House version (H.R.38) will allow this. The Senate version (S.446) will not.

  6. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    While I live in a free state I have relatives in slave states. I hope the house version passes. I’m calling my representatives.

  7. avatar Jeff says:

    Just like the federal government desegregating the schools in the South in the 1960’s, those of us living in New Jersey will never be able to exercise our unalienable civil rights until the federal government makes it happen. Exercising our right to carry will either have to come through a reciprocity bill or a SCOTUS ruling.
    It’s a long shot, but all we can do is fight for our Constitutional Rights and hope things change.

  8. avatar Roymond says:

    My primary concern is that whatever is passed is not stating that this is government granting or allowing anything, but that it is requiring this as one part of recognizing the right protected by the Second Amendment. Otherwise, it will be cited in the future in support of the position that rights come from government and that the federal government can therefore decide whether anyone at all may carry anywhere at all.

  9. avatar Adam says:

    “Some of you may be asking why I’m pushing this over constitutional carry?”

    Not sure why any person of the gun would oppose trying to pass this. When you get you enemy on his back you don’t just try to punch him with your left hand. You throw lefts and rights, elbows, knees, headbutts. Everything you have, you throw at them.

    Right now we need to hit the red states hard with constitutional carry and hit the blue states hard by forcing them to give up their “may issue” laws.

    We might not get a chance like this again for a long time. We need to be contacting our representatives daily about this. I contacted all my blue representatives. They sent me the “piss off” email back but you better believe I am going to write them weekly just so they know I support this bill.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Adam, if it’s written badly it will be a step back because it will be a concession to the idea that the government can decide who can carry, and where, and how, and when. It HAS TO BE written to say that this is merely legislation to enforce one aspect of the right protected in the Second Amendment.

      Remember that Weimar Germany had licensing systems for people to have guns. It was that very system which allowed the Nazis to restrict and then strangle the exercise of that natural right. So it’s absolutely necessary to write the laws to state clearly that this is not conferring any right or privilege but is merely enforcing an existing protected right.

  10. avatar Parnell says:

    I have one question. Will either/both versions allow me, a resident of NJ to carry in my home state on my Arizona/Florida non-resident licenses?

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      The House version should. It says a license from “a” state.

      The Senate version definitely wouldn’t. It specifies the license has to be from your state.

  11. avatar kwc says:

    “However, the Senate bill has a provision that would allow an individual who is from a state which recognizes constitutional carry to carry a firearm in another state absent an actual permit, provided that they are not prohibited and have government issued photo ID.”

    The House version allows this, too. From H.R.38:

    “…who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,…”

    The phrase “or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,…” is meant to cover individuals residing in states with permitless carry.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Yep.

  12. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    The house bill is vastly superior to the senate bill.

    1. The house bill allows you to carry on any permit from any state regardless of your residence or even nationality (I don’t know if a foreign citizen can get a license from any state). This allows may issue state residents to get licenses from shall issue states and carry in their own state.

    2. It also lets you carry if you are from a constitutional carry state, as kwc posted. This would allow a Canadian citizen who is a resident of a constitutional carry state who is not a prohibited person to carry in any state.

    3. It allows you to carry any handgun (other than machine guns and destructive devices).

    4. It allows you to carry any magazine designed for your gun.

    5. It allows you to carry any ammo that is in those magazines. (You can carry a magazine of hollow points into Jersey, but not a box of them).

    6. It MIGHT preempt many state laws on carrying.

    7. It has attorney’s fees for failed criminal prosecutions.

    8. It creates a civil cause of action with attorney’s fees. The mandated attorney’s fees are “reasonable” fees, so not necessarily actual fees.

    The senate bill does two and three. For number one, it allows you to carry on any license from any state in “any State other than the State of residence of the individual.”

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Here is how I see number 6. The bill states “Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof … ” that’s preemption. “[A]nd subject only to the requirements of this section” that is also preemption. Then it says
      1. a person
      2. who is not a prohibited person
      3. who has valid photo id
      4. who has a concealed carry license/permit OR is entitled to carry concealed in his state of residence
      5. may carry a concealed handgun (that has gone through interstate commerce).
      6. in a state where residents of that state may apply for such licenses or a state where residents are not prohibited from carrying concealed.

      1, 2, 3, and 4 are who. 5 is what. 6. is where. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and concealed are also the “requirements of this section.”

      Here is some more preemption “[a person following the requirements] may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section.”

      The only state laws specifically not preempted are “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.”

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Also:
      “… The term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(2).

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