National Reciprocity Bill Sponsor On the Coming Full House Vote

North Carolina Congressman Richard Hudson

By now you probably know that the House Judiciary committee passed HR 38 on Wednesday. The bill, which would create concealed carry reciprocity among all 50 states, passed on a 19-11 vote and would mandate recognition of other states’ concealed carry permits (just as they currently do drivers licenses) under the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause.

The House bill’s sponsor, North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson, is understandably pleased with his legislation’s progress. He issued the following press release to let the folks back home know what he’s accomplished. It also serves has a handy set of talking points to use against those who are, once again, warning of blood running red in the streets should national reciprocity be signed into law.

HUDSON’S CONCEALED CARRY GUN BILL TO RECEIVE HOUSE VOTE

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (NC-08) released the following statement after his bipartisan bill, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), was scheduled for a House vote next week:

“An overwhelming majority of Americans support concealed carry reciprocity. Momentum, common sense, and the facts are on our side,” said Rep. Hudson. “I want to thank Speaker Paul Ryan for his strong support of the Second Amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this common sense bill to protect law-abiding citizens.”

On Wednesday, November 29, H.R. 38 was reported favorably to the House by the House Judiciary Committee. This bill is one of the most important pro-Second Amendment measures in Congress, with some supporters saying it would be one of the greatest legislative advancements of our Second Amendment rights in history. Also today, the attorneys general of 24 states sent a letter to Congress asking representatives to support H.R. 38.

Currently, the patchwork of reciprocity laws and agreements between states is confusing and has caused law-abiding citizens like Shaneen Allen to unwittingly break the law and suffer arrest and detention. Even the most careful and knowledgeable concealed carry permit holders find it difficult to navigate the current maze of state and local concealed carry laws. H.R. 38 is a common sense solution. The bill, which is supported by major pro-Second Amendment groups and has 213 cosponsors, would allow law-abiding citizens with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry. It would also allow law-abiding residents of Constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own residents’ right to concealed carry.

H.R. 38 would allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed only if they are not federally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm, are carrying a valid government-issued photo ID, and are lawfully licensed or otherwise entitled to carry a concealed handgun. Each person would have to follow the laws of the state, county and municipality in which they are carrying concealed.

For a one-pager on the bill, click here. For a Q&A document, click here.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” which is “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This fundamental right does not stop at a state’s borders and law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise this right when crossing state lines. In addition, Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” This is the clause that allows a driver’s license to be recognized across state lines.

Contrary to the misinformation critics spread, under H.R. 38, states would retain their authority to enact restrictions on where, when and how people can lawfully carry in the state. In addition, the bill would not make it any easier to buy a gun. It has nothing to do with the purchase of guns, it would not alter access to guns, and it would not change the federal law requiring background checks.

Critics are also wrong that H.R. 38 would arm criminals. If someone is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm, nothing in this bill would allow that person to purchase or possess a firearm, let alone carry one in a concealed fashion. That is illegal and will remain illegal under H.R. 38. As a matter of fact, there is a specific provision in H.R. 38 that excludes any individual who is prohibited by federal law from “possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm.” According to the ATF, the Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

  • convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • who is a fugitive from justice;
  • who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
  • who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
  • who is an illegal alien;
  • who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  • who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
  • who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
  • who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The American people understand these facts. That’s why an overwhelming majority of Americans support concealed carry reciprocity – 73% according to a recent New York Times survey.

comments

  1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    Fingers are crossed, but I expect a few stabs in the back from RINOs and the Democrats voting lock-step to suppress the proles in the Senate.

  2. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

    Hudsons website won’t let me send him an email because I’m not from his district.

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      That is disappointing, but y’know, that is kinda how it should be right?
      Does he have a more general mailbox anyone can send to?

      1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        I couldn’t find it anywhere. Yeah, I’m not from his district but it will affect me where I am. So I was just hoping to drop a suggestion in the email.

  3. avatar Stateisevil says:

    They added gun control to it. Fix NICS. Don’t expect senate to do a thing for us.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      ^ This!

      Our current U.S. Senate will NEVER pass this bill.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      They didn’t add “Fix Nics” to the H.R. 38. They passed it separately.

  4. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “Contrary to the misinformation critics spread, under H.R. 38, states would retain their authority to enact restrictions on where, when and how people can lawfully carry in the state.”

    If this gets signed into law, TTAG will see a traffic increase like it has never seen before.

    There won’t be any mamby-pamby bead-clutching by the Leftists, it will be full-on hate and rage that will eclipse even their hatred towards Trump.

    The ‘Hate States’ will enact a *blizzard* of gun control laws to make their precious big cities for all practical purposes gun-free zones.

    And if Kennedy announces his retirement, SCOTUS will be busy, busy, busy slapping those unconstitutional laws down…

    *snicker* 😉

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      California can’t get much worse. You can’t carry within 500 yards of a school zone, and it is up the carrier to know where that 500 yard mark is. I dont know where 2/3rds of the schools in my city are, let alone where the 500 yard mark is.

      Pretty sure i’m breaking the law literally 100 times a day.

      Its actually easier to follow the law if your a registered sex offender than it is to follow the law if your a legal ccw holder.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “Its actually easier to follow the law if your a registered sex offender than it is to follow the law if your a legal ccw holder.”

        And that shows you which person the State of California thinks is worse.

      2. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

        Sounds like a new use for “war chalking”.

  5. avatar Mark N. says:

    How many votes needed to pass?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Lower or upper house?

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      218 for the House. 51-60 depending on how it is done in the Senate. Seeing as the Senate majority leadership doesn’t have any balls, 60.

  6. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    I can predict the RINOs will bend us over a barrel and let the hate states have their way. Then the bill will come out with a shit load of riders that effectively neuter it or add a bunch of new restrictions and shitty legislation (UBC, AWB, and all the other shit the dems & RINOs want) while giving us little to nothing in return.

  7. avatar M1Lou says:

    My prediction is this will die in the senate.

  8. avatar Chuck says:

    Doesn’t matter for me. I’m a resident (hopefully for only one more year) of Commifornia. My Ccw is from Virginia. As in all things this administration and Trump, Commiland, will give the Fed the big middle digit.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Under this legislation, you would be able to carry in Commiefornia.

  9. avatar JW says:

    The devil is in the details.

    What does carry mean? Can you defend yourself across from that building, the school that’s not overtly labeled as such? Can we rely on SCOTUS to support you in the individual appeal you happen to be involved in? Will it happen in your lifetime? Will you be able to afford the attorney bills? Will your gun rights be stripped in the meantime?

    The ill will of the state governments of California, Illinois, and the northeastern states rival that of the southern states of the past over other civil rights issues. Sadly, I don’t think they can even see it.

    I think it easier to not travel to such places. I miss Yosemite, the Chicago Art Institute, the Met – but I can spend my money elsewhere.

    So another way to ask this question and sum it up – what piece of paper will make you feel safe to carry in the Land of the Anti’s?

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “What does carry mean?” – The concealed kind.
      “Can you defend yourself across from that building, the school that’s not overtly labeled as such?” – You can carry there for sure.
      “Can we rely on SCOTUS to support you in the individual appeal you happen to be involved in?” – It’s doubtful your case will go that far.
      “Will it happen in your lifetime?” – When are you going to die?
      “Will you be able to afford the attorney bills?” – If you find a lawyer willing to work for not technically contingent but actually contingent fees. The bill would award you reasonable attorney’s fees if you win the criminal case and/or the follow up civil case.
      “Will your gun rights be stripped in the meantime?” – If unlawful carry is a felony in that jurisdiction, probably.

  10. avatar Geoff PR says:

    The main concern I have is simply the need to be able to travel with my weapon, whether concealed on me or not, without being arrested.

    As in landing at LaGuardia Airport with my gat secured in my luggage.

    That will make my life far, far easier…

  11. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    The Manhattan DA Cy Vance Jr. doesn’t have the time to prosecute Harvey Weinstein for rape, but has plenty of time to make speeches against this legislation.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      As I mentioned above, this reveals that leftist governments regard law-abiding concealed carriers as worse than convicted rapists.

  12. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    So IF this bill made it through to being signed into law by President Trump, would it really survive judicial scrutiny? I mean the lower courts are clearly aligned against the Second Amendment, as we’ve seen some ridiculous justifications for upholding Assault Weapons Bans ranging from they make people feel safer to misquoting Heller. So what makes anybody think this wouldn’t get shot down on the first lawsuit in a court?

    The moment this becomes law, the gun control-oriented states will file a lawsuit saying it infringes on their rights. They will make sure to do so in a friendly court, such as the 9th Circuit. The Court will strike it down as a blatant infringement on states rights, using the same logic they used to uphold the Assault Weapons Bans (states and localities have independence to regulate guns). Then the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case, and we will be back to square one.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      I believe it would end up in front the our 9 friends in black. And that would make for a very interesting decision.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “So what makes anybody think this wouldn’t get shot down on the first lawsuit in a court?” – The leftists don’t want a more limited reading of the Commerce Clause or an expanded reading of states’ rights.

  13. avatar barnbwt says:

    Carnac the Magnificent foresees congress stalling just long enough for a mass shooting or similar game-killer event.

  14. avatar Zhang says:

    https://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie/posts/1843059172384905?comment_id=1843153212375501&reply_comment_id=1843162992374523&notif_id=1512245760016249&notif_t=feed_comment

    RED ALERT, RED ALERT!

    Feinstein is sabotaging HR 38 by attaching her “Fix NICS” bill HR 4477 to it! I’m just going to quote from Rep. Massie’s words here:

    “Here’s a dangerous scenario that’s more likely to play out: The House uses the popularity of reciprocity (HR 38) to sneak fix-NICS through, while the Senate passes fix-NICS only. The Senate and the House meet at conference with their respective bills, with the result being fix-NICS emerges from conference without reciprocity. Fix-NICS comes back to the House and passes because all of the Democrats will vote for it (as they just did in Judiciary Committee) and many Republicans will vote for it. Because Republicans already voted for it once as part of the reciprocity deal that never came to pass, they won’t have a solid footing for opposing fix-NICS as a standalone bill. Then we’ll end up with fix-NICS, which is basically an expansion of the Brady Bill, without reciprocity.”

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Tack on taking suppressors of the *bad* list with that NICs check and I’ll consider it…

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        EDIT – After reading that link, no fucking way.

        Something wicked, this way comes, with the trick they are trying to pull.

        KILL IT…

        1. avatar Hank says:

          Chill. As DDay said below, a fienstine attachment won’t survive in the house. I suspect this whole “fienstine” attachment is simply a ruse to get the pro gun side to turn on itself out of fear.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      that won’t happen, you don’t understand how conference works and how bills get to the floor for a vote. No feinstein bill will ever even see a vote in the house, relax.

    3. avatar Hank says:

      No no no. This isn’t a thing. Fienstine can’t just automatically attach things to any bill she wants. Whoever is spreading this nonsense is probably some liberal inside job thing trying to get us to turn on eachother.

  15. avatar Kyle says:

    Mark me down as hopeful but hardly confident.

    And that confidence goes to about zero if it make it to the senate.

  16. avatar Nanashi says:

    Would the bill protect a minor carrying a cap and ball revolver from a state where it’s not a firearm and isn’t restricted in carrying, if they cross into a state where it is considered a firearm?

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      No. Because it’s not a firearm, and this legislation applies to firearms.

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        So you’re not protected from it becoming a firearm because it’s not a firearm? Government at work!

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          That’s the federal system at work where the feds have one definition and the states have others. It’s the feds, and all the states that copied them, that have a definition that doesn’t include what everyone would consider to be a firearm (if they hadn’t been familiar with the federal definition).

  17. avatar SouthernShooter says:

    “H.R. 38 is a common sense solution.”–love it, but fraid that it is TOO common sense for the Demoncrats!

  18. avatar tdiinva says:

    It will pass the House but does not have the 60 votes necessary for cloture in the Senate so unless there is some parliamentary trick that can be played the Bill isn’t going anywhere.

    The “Full Faith and Credit Clause” has never been in play. Drivers licenses are mutually recognized by a compact of the States. Their is no constitutional requirement that drivers licenses be recognized out of State. I would like to see pro Second Amendment States withdrawing recognition of Drivers Licenses from States that don’t recognize their CHLs. That would start getting action at the State level.

    1. avatar RMS1911 says:

      There is no constitutional requirement to ask or have permission just to travel in country but they do it to us anyway.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        There is no law requiring permission to travel.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “unless there is some parliamentary trick that [will] be played the Bill isn’t going anywhere.” – FIFY.

  19. avatar Blade says:

    Would be great if it passed but it will fail in the Senate where cancer-addled John “Songbird” McCain, Lindsey “Log Cabin Republican” Graham, and other RINOs reside. I don’t see any Dems coming to the rescue. It looks to be DOA once it gets to the Senate.

  20. avatar RMS1911 says:

    I’m still waiting for them to acknowledge that the second amendment is the only protection you need to exercise your right.

  21. avatar dan543 says:

    So will I have to purchase a MA-compliant pistol to carry there, and will I have to re-load with ball ammo in NJ?

    This would be a great step forward, but it’s still fraught with state/local potential mischief.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “So will I have to purchase a MA-compliant pistol to carry there, and will I have to re-load with ball ammo in NJ?”

      Not if passed as is. It protects one’s right, if they meet certain qualifications, to possess or carry a concealed handgun that isn’t a machine gun. Handgun is defined to include the magazine(s) for the handgun and the ammunition in the magazines.

  22. avatar Superman says:

    My gut tells me if another mass shooting happens the Republicans will throw up the white flag again. The Share Act still has not come up for a vote! I wish the Republicans would stand up to these gun grabbers, but I have little faith they will. 🙁

  23. avatar Stereodude says:

    > “Each person would have to follow the laws of the state, county and municipality in which they are carrying concealed.”

    ^ This part right here makes it largely meaningless legislation done for show. Should it pass, the states, counties, and municipalities opposed to this will simply fire up the law generators and make the maze of restrictions to concealed carry there impossible to follow and then start prosecuting people to make examples of them so no one from out of state will dare try to conceal carry there.

    Meanwhile, the GOP can check the box for advancing the cause of gun owners without really doing anything of substance while telling their voters, “I tried, but those states, counties, and municipalities were just so crafty and able to out maneuver our legislation. Vote for me again so I can fix it.”

    1. avatar doesky says:

      “Each person would have to follow the laws of the state, county and municipality in which they are carrying concealed.”

      Yep…that clause is a big bag of FAIL.

      It’s all just Congressional Theater.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Fortunately, that quote is at best a half truth. “Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section” a person who meets the requirements of the section “may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that” has a law that all states have. Subsection (b) is about where and how states can enforce gun free zones.

        Now there is a lot of grey area in what laws the courts will hold this would preempt, but it might preempt all of them but some GFZ.

  24. avatar ATTAGREADER says:

    If I could bring a handgun into NY or similar state without fear of arrest, I would be happy to keep it to ten rounds or less, which I think would be the main issue for carriers from the normal states. Presence of hidden schools in high rise cities is admittedly a problem because travelers will not know where they are. Even if you travel among the current reciprocity states you have to be careful of places like theaters, public buildings (is the museum you want to visit a public building?) and parks. It would be great if those laws were overturned but I will take those restrictions if I don’t have to concerned about driving from PA to VT, for example.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      This legislation takes care of magazine limits and school zones. You still have to worry about “is this place a government owned museum (or whatever).”

  25. It could be so awesome. I am in CA and here they won’t issue me a CCW, not on the second amendment basis at least (self defense). I did, however, get a CCW from the state of Arizona. If this bill becomes law, I *will* be able to carry here in CA. It would be awesome.

  26. avatar GL says:

    Passed on a 19-11 vote. Get it? 1911!

  27. avatar AdamTA1 says:

    Rep Hudson sent out an email today with a survey asking whether the recipients supported the Concealed Carry legislation or not. I’m in his district so I don’t know if it only went to his district or anyone in his e-mail list. I of course chose yes and submitted it but it made me wonder what it meant that he was sending the survey.

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