Question of the Day: How Would National Reciprocity Affect You?

Smith & Wesson Airweight (courtesy thetruthaboutguns.com)

“House panel approves law that will allow firearms-owners to cross any state line with a hidden weapon,” bloomberg.com reports. As you’d expect from a media outlet owned and named after America’s number one gun grabber, the billionaire who bought Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America to further his civilian disarmament agenda, bloomberg.com gives full voice to the Moms’ anti-reciprocity kvetching . . .

Moms Demand Action, a gun control group that attended Wednesday’s hearing, has also attacked the bill, arguing it “is a chaotic and dangerous policy that would gut every state’s gun laws and make our communities less safe.”

The group argues that the bill “would effectively turn the weakest state’s laws into nationwide laws” because conceal carry laws vary state by state. For example, convicted stalkers are banned from concealed carry in some states, but not all, and the age for concealed carry also varies. In the event the bill passes, a Georgia permit, a state that allows abusive partners to carry hidden firearms, would become effective in New York, a state that currently doesn’t recognize any other state’s conceal carry permits.

And the streets will run red with the blood of innocents! Or not.

Anyway, as I understand it, if this bill passes as is, gun owners living in a virtual “no issue” state (e.g., New Jersey) could use an out-of-state non-resident concealed carry permit to carry in their own state. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the proverbial pants?

Would that be you? And if it isn’t, if you live in a “free state,” how would national reciprocity affect you? Would you travel to states that were previous no-go zones? Or just feel good that Uncle Sam is giving some measure of respect to its citizens’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

comments

  1. N.Y will tie it up for years , fighting with all our tax payer money

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      I would imagine that would be any liberal “stronghold”, that’s what they’re best at, ignoring the letter of the law, and wasting taxpayer $$$…

    2. avatar RonO says:

      well they already ignore the FIrearms Owners Protection Act… Congress has done Jack SH#$ to fix that mess or force the issue.

      Then again there are federal laws about weed, illegal immigration, etc. I expect NYC and other urban areas in these places to act the same way.

    3. avatar Hank says:

      Though the left wing states/judges will do this, it’s still a victory for us. We’re on offense now and we’ve forced them to start spending all their money and political capital into playing defense. This a long war of attrition. We can spend the next few years making life hell for the gun grabbers, as they expend all their will trying to “hold what they got”, instead of vise versa. We have to keep pressing on this, HRA/SHUSH, and then get SBRs off the NFA, meanwhile keep winning at the state level. National reciprocity is the biggest prize of all though. Should we win that, it’ll be a mortal wound to the gun ban machine.

      1. you are right , we can only hope and fight the good fight

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          . .. . and if we lose, fight the bad fight.

        2. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

          @ Joe R. If we lose we keep fighting the good fight until we win.

        3. avatar Swarf says:

          Joe, you are the antis perfect dream gun owner, what with all the murderous and otherwise spleen-venting horseshit you froth around this place.

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          Smarf,

          What, still hoping for a kumbya PR win?

          F em all. I only use the rhetoric because it’s what they use with impunity against true Conservatives (and 2A). The evil lib POS (D) are satanic MFs, I don’t seek to be equated with anything that they are, much less their approval.

          If anyone was ‘concerned’ (enough) about what I say, I wouldn’t have to say it, but you keep soft selling peace with them, maybe they’ll use lube on.

      2. avatar Eli2016 says:

        Agreed. We fight and never let up.

    4. avatar BLAMMO says:

      We subjects of NY would still have to show “proper cause”. The rest o’ yous visitors would b fine.

      So, no change for us.

      1. avatar Retrocon says:

        Just find a state that issues out of state permits.

  2. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Question of the Day: How Would National Reciprocity Affect You?”

    Personally, it wouldn’t, I don’t travel out of state…

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      Ditto. Can’t remember the last time I left Texas for any reason or duration.
      Mostly it will affect me at first by the explosive nosebleeds the gun bigots will have if it passes and once again every time another slave state is forced to recognize the civil rights of their own citizens when the people realize that out-of-staters have more rights in slave states than residents do.
      Trollololol… 🤠

      1. avatar OldRed says:

        https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm Shows most of the 148 CC holders that went to jail in 2016 were guilty of crimes not related to guns. May 20 were guilty of murder. Most were guilty of sex crimes and family problems and getting in fights without guns.

        I run necked when I visit my son in CA but I wouldn’t live there unarmed. I can’t afford to live where he does. National reciprocity should fix that in 4 or 5 years when SCOTUS gets around to ruling on all the liberals law suites if a liberal president does’t stack the court with revisionist judges.

    2. avatar S.Crock says:

      Personally, it would affect me either since I can’t get a carry permit here. But visitors coming to California would enjoy more freedom than I am allowed.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        If the bill requires recognition of nonres permits, a Utah or Florida permit will take care of that. If it doesn’t those two permits have a lot of reciprocity agreements as it is, and you can get both via the internet/mail.

        1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          I live in Maine. I have the plastic card that means I did it the right way, not the constitutional carry thing that gets you zip beyond the state border. But right now I can’t get past NH or VT. Mass and NY block me from getting further and I’ll be damned if I’m going to dungholes like those places without my guns. National Reciprocity would be a big deal for me.

        2. avatar Jay in Florida says:

          As a Florida resident we have reciprocity agreements with almost 40 states and I still hold my NYS permit. Plus a Conn non resident permit.
          So for me. None of this maters much as I never plain on going up north again till Im in the ground.
          But for the rest of the folks out there its a good thing.
          Unfortunately I believe by the time it gets to the Senate. They will tac on so many amendments like the National NICs bullshit. It wont pass.
          Lord I hope Im wrong. This permit BS is not right on so many levels.

        3. avatar JS says:

          As a Californian trapped here, I got my AZ permit in them mail, one week after applying for it. Wheichever way this goes I will be covered.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        You could just get whatever out of state permit is easiest for you to get. A hunter’s education card is all the evidence of training you would need to get one from Arizona.

        1. avatar BLAMMO says:

          What about a Vermont pistol license? (i.e., none required)

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The bill allows for otherwise qualified residents (not prohibited person, carrying a valid id) of Constitutional Carry states to carry in any state. It’s the “is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides” language. Contextually, that language would be non-sense if that isn’t what it was referring to.

          The definition of state, for the purposes of this bill, includes a lot of the not states parts of the U.S. like D.C. and Puerto Rico.

    3. avatar Retrocon says:

      I might start again. Do not feel safe today in LA, SD, or Chicago without my trusty 1911.

  3. avatar MyName says:

    Not a lot. Most of my interstate travel is in a commercial airplane and the hassle of flying with the gun is a bigger barrier to me than the question of reciprocity. Further, my state already has reciprocity with many of the destinations I’m likely to travel to and, I have little desire to go to the worst offending states in terms of gun rights.

    On the other hand, I think that in the broad scheme of things national reciprocity would be a good thing long term. When (if) the people of NY, NJ, CA etc. figure out that it is not the CC holder from some other state that is a danger to them but, rather, the criminals in their midst (and the politicians who empower them), then perhaps they will once again yearn to breathe free.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      I flew with a handgun for the first time a month or so ago. With Southwest, anyway, basically zero additional hassle.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Excellent point! Can anyone find a list of all the folks with CC licenses who have committed a firearms crime (other than possessing a firearm) in a different state during, say, the past 20 years? I suspect you would not need more than one hand to count them.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        CCW licence holders are better than LEOs, but they are not saints. I sure if you looked, you can find plenty of instances. The rate of crimes will be lower, but than again, the fact that criminal convictions have a tendency to keep you from getting a ccw anyway, it is kind of a pointless argument anyway.

      2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        There really isn’t a complete study or nationwide data that I have found. I know Texas and Florida keep stats on CCW holders and that is where the “CCW’s are more law abiding than LEO’s” evidence comes from. If anyone has seen a more complete study or data, please post it.

        1. avatar Gordon Couger says:

          Here are the statistics from Texas https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm and last year most criminal problems with CCC holders seem to be from sex crimes with kids. Less than 3 dozen had to do with using firearms. Most firearms related seem to be for waving guns around. Ten were Murders and 2 were aggravated homicides. Look at the PDF files to figure out the rest.

          Texas doest use a uniform naming system for crimes from year to year. It looks to me like most of the 148 that went to jail had to do with breaking laws that didn’t relate to firearms. Family and sex problems.

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      The hilarious part is that if this passes, I will be able to open carry in NJ, but not in my home state. Oh, the irony.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Subtitle: Truth is Stranger Than Fiction.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        The bill would only allow you to conceal carry. It doesn’t actually require the state to recognize your license and treat it as the state’s own licenses. It prohibits the states from arresting or prosecuting you for concealed carrying if you meet the requirements of the bill, which includes having a license from “a state.”

  4. avatar former water walker says:

    Not a whit at this time…

  5. avatar Tec's Dad says:

    IF it passes, when I leave the former-Constitution State for a free state, at least I can carry when I bring my guns to the state of my choosing

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      No.

      I think reciprocity would mean that other states would honor CT’s F’d up laws and ban you as well.

  6. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    I would be able to be legally armed when visiting family!

  7. avatar Stephen M says:

    I could go climbing in the Sierra Nevadas like I’ve been wanting to. Otherwise…not at all

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Many parts of the Sierras are state or national forests where open carry is legal. The only exceptions are the small towns you might venture into.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Get a hunting license and you can conceal carry in a lot of those areas without a permit.

  8. avatar CTstooge says:

    Bigly.

  9. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    It wouldn’t affect me at all, at first. I don’t travel out of state.

    Later, when the next crop of anti-humanity politicians take charge, I expect there will be a national “permit,” probably as difficult to get as one in New Jersey. Oh, it won’t happen all at once… inch by inch, as the feds take over the few things left that they don’t control completely.

    And the key word is CONTROL. What part of that don’t people understand? Still trusting in the “constitution” to defend/protect your rights? Keep those letters and calls going into your politicians. Keep dreaming that they care.

    Suckers.

    I’ll still be carrying, without any stinking “permit.” At least until they kill me for non-compliance.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      This is my greatest concern about reciprocity going forward. That is that reciprocity could lead to federal standards for state permits which leads to federal permits which then leaves the door open for the feds to revoke all the permits. Given that, I’m cautious. It is also possible the reciprocity could open the eyes of those who’ve been denied their rights. Hard to guess which way it could go.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        The simple fact is that there is nothing stopping the antis from instituting such standards right now. The antis have been trying to win this war at the federal level for decades. In 1994, they almost did. It’s about time we sack up and start fighting at the federal level as well.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          I agree that we must fight at the federal level but I see it as a sharp two edged sword. Each gain in federal law can be offset, or overwhelmed, by other federal law – anti federal that, sadly, ironically.

          What we really need, is enforcement, at the federal level, imposed upon the states, of existing federal law. Namely, the 2nd amendment and the whole “shall not be infringed” bit. Sadly, I am not optimistic that such enforcement of that is forthcoming. Hope springs eternal though, doncha know.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Amen, Serge.

  10. avatar TexTed says:

    Bigly. Just said to hell with working, it’s been enough, bought a Harley and intend to spend some time out on the road. Reciprocity opens up which roads I’m comfortable taking and which destinations I’m more inclined to see, and which routes I can take to get there.

    And it’s just sanity. It has to be. This is going to be (or could be) the single most important, earth-shattering piece of legislation. It could be the proverbial straw that breaks the gun-grabber’s back. This isn’t the camel getting his nose in the tent, this is the whole damn camel taking over the tent.

    It. Must. Happen.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Step 1. Get Utah permit
      Step 2. Take your hog to the Mountain West (I mean, come on, you want to ride the Rockies anyway, right)
      Step 3. ???
      Step 4. Profit

  11. avatar MojoRonin says:

    I’m a trucker. Believe me when I say that there will be more than a few drivers that will be thrilled about being able to legally carry. Yes, big trucks can transport firearms, but to do so involves more than a few hoops.

    Sure, I drive local now, but the over the road drivers going out of state to a shady warehouse in south Chicago will have legal defense options. Crossing an inspection or weight station will reduce legal issues for the driver.

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      It won’t have any effect on me. I’ve always carried, in any State whether that State had CCW or not. The 2A says I can , so fuck your state law .

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        See how well the local LEOs like the way you appointed yourself Supreme Court.

  12. avatar Shawn says:

    It has a good chance of passing the house but will not pass the Senate. And if it does and trump signs it it changes nothing. Because all the usual suspects: California, Maryland, New York etc. will basically say “I am going to ignore this law“. And when it goes to court since the lower courts seem to think that gun owners are second-class citizens that should be rounded up and killed for merely Exercising a right they don’t like they will side with the states. And if it goes to the Supreme Court they simply will not hear it making the precident that any state if they want can ignore national reciprocity.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      and then Trump will have all the excuses he needs to send in the Marines to bring those states into compliance. I’m amazed that several state governors haven’t been dragged out of their offices by their balls already.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        That assumes they have something in their nutsack that can be grasped to drag them out from behind their desk…

        *snicker*

    2. avatar SurfGW says:

      In the unlikely case it passes the Senate, expect many States not to recognize out of State licenses and expect there to be a fight over the venue (issuing state vs state visited) which will take years to sort out before the cases can even be heard. This will be a long legal fight..,,

    3. avatar Gordon Couger says:

      I think that SCOTUS is passing on 2A law suites waiting to seeing if this law passes.

  13. avatar scottlac says:

    It would mean I would not have to leave myself vulnerable and defenseless for a trip through multiple states just because one of them has draconian gun laws. That happens. I recently had to leave my gun at home, in a trip that covered over 100 miles in my licensed state, and more miles in other states that respected reciprocity, but because I was spending the night in Maryland (rather than merely transiting), the entire trip was disarmed. The gun control crowd likes that.

    1. avatar rabble says:

      dude, exactly. It frustrates me to no end that when, as a band, we go out for a weekend run and hit 3+ states, if even one of those states doesn’t honor our licenses, then their laws effectively govern our actions well beyond their borders.

  14. avatar Evey259 says:

    Not much, to be honest. Though I would like to see someone (if I had the backing of some 2A rights organizations I’d do it myself,) carry a gun that was considered illegal in some state just to challenge the constitucionality of said laws. Or is there some preemptive clause within the bill?

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      The bill is almost entirely preemption.

  15. avatar JDH says:

    Where I live in Californnia the chances of our local sheriff giving out gun permits are slim to none. I have an AZ and a Utah permits that allow me to carry in lots of states. I’m out of state now where my permits are good and I am carrying. If this passes I hope my current permits will allow me to carry in California until hopefully California, NY and NJ will get bitch-slapped like Washington, DC and become shall issue.

  16. avatar JC says:

    I cannot reach my own state capital without passing thru a restrictive state that does not offer any reciprocity. National reciprocity would be very helpful.

  17. avatar stateisevil says:

    I would be more inclined to visit California and Oregon because they’re nice states geographically speaking. Other than that, not much. It would be great if it passed because it might make millions of more people into guns. Sadly, a clean bill won’t pass the Senate because of Democrats and anti gun Republicans.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Amen. Have you seen “pro-gun” Senator Cornyn’s reciprocity bill? It’s deceptively named “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.” It’s way watered down.

  18. avatar Accur81 says:

    I don’t think it’ll get past our douchebag-infested Senate. With that said, lefties will cry blood in the streets, and there won’t be. Well, maybe more felons and rapists will be shot, but I’m ok with that. And will lefties ever admit their mistakes? No way. They certainly didn’t when WI went shall issue.

    I’ve given some money to the FPC specifically to supper this issue, and sent letters to Congresscritters.

  19. avatar Kenshinwulf says:

    Personally? I would travel to California and Hawaii. Further, I would go back home to NJ and NY. The truth about all of this is that it would make those in slave states question themselves. It might not completely break the back of the gun control crowd…but it would definitely be a nail.

  20. avatar The Rookie says:

    Not a huge impact in my every day life. It would be a very good thing when I go on road trips though anti-2A states, though. Not having to lock my firearm away in my trunk, away from my ammo (i.e. rendering it useless if I needed it), while I’m traveling would be welcome.

  21. avatar Desert Ranger Tycho says:

    I live in Hawaii, so National Concealed Reciprocity will cause a most welcome shitstorm. The fact is most of us 2a types here have concealed carry licenses from Utah or other states.
    And while the State will definitely try to throw up obstacles the Federal Law will provide the perfect grounds for challenging those infringements in a Supreme Court that is now absent RBG (84) and Anthony Kennedy(81).
    On a local level it will have a chilling effect on the local guys favorite sport of beating up tourists while the police look the other way because it would affect tourism…

  22. avatar Micah says:

    I’m in the military, and reciprocity would be fantastic. I have a permit from my home state but currently live in Illinois, which recognizes no other state’s permit. I could pay a few hundred dollars and spend a few hours of training to get an Illinois permit which is recognized nowhere else, but I’ll move away again in a year (not sure where.) At that point my Illinois permit would be useless.

  23. avatar Louis says:

    At first it wouldn’t affect me at all. I am living in southern NH. Currently I can carry in NH, VT and ME without even having a permit. The states I can’t carry in like MA, NY and CT are such a nightmare that I wouldn’t want want to be the first to test the new law.

  24. avatar tdiinva says:

    FYI: if you are a resident of a may/no issue State this Bill will do nothing for you. It only applies to nonresidents not residents with an out of State permit.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      FYI: you are wrong. “a person who … who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State … may possess or carry a concealed handgun … in any State.”

      1. avatar tdiimva says:

        Read the entire Bill. It does not negate the Laws of any State it only applies to nonresidents.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      TDI: FYI, That is directly opposite of what the original post says. I have no clue which is correct.

    3. avatar DonS says:

      FYI: if you are a resident of a may/no issue State this Bill will do nothing for you. It only applies to nonresidents not residents with an out of State permit.

      That’s the way I read it, too.

      From the summary:

      A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.

      From the bill’s title:

      To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.

      Both of those suggest that a resident of California, one who does not have a California permit but does have a Utah non-resident permit, would not be a “qualified individual” who may carry in California under the provisions of H.R. 38.

      1. avatar The Other Luke says:

        “and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.”

        Wouldn’t this part negate the Utah permit for a California resident? If the individual is not eligible to carry a concealed firearm at home then it won’t matter what other licenses you have because your home state says you can’t come out and play.

        Or am I reading that to literally?

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          DonS is quoting the language from the summary of the bill. The summary is drafted by the Congressional Research Service. I have no idea if the CRS summary has any precedential value. The bill itself says who may do what and where. The who is a person who (1) is not a prohibited person, (2) (a) has CHL (or whatever it is called in the particular state) issued by a state or (b) is a resident of a Constitutional Carry state, and (3) is carrying a valid photo ID.* The what is possess or carry a concealed handgun.* The where is in any state that has a concealed carry statute or is a Constitutional Carry state. The where also has some limits as to where a state can limit carry and places where a person can carry that they otherwise wouldn’t (school zones, some federal places open to the public).

          *defined in the bill.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        DonS – The *key* is – “(1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law;…”

        YOU are eligible, but your (slave or hate) state *chooses* not to issue you a permit.

        It hangs them on their own lie as to how “they respect the 2A, after all, you can apply for a permit”.

        You won’t get one, by their *choice*.

        But you *are* eligible, by not being a legally prohibited person.

        See the logic?

        1. avatar UtahCCW says:

          This bill will allow California residents who have an out of state permit to carry in California. Specifically, the bill states:

          “. . . 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 first clause is what will allow it “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.” If you have a permit issued pursuant to the law of any State (“a State”) that allows you to carry a concealed firearm, you are covered. Don’t let the next clause confuse you “or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides” means that if you live in a Constitutional Carry state, then you don’t need a permit. I suppose the counter argument is that “in the State in which the person resides” is intended to modify both situations, but I would argue that it is only applicable to Constitutional Carry states. It will be interpreted in favor of a defendant, so the ambiguity would provide protection.

  25. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I have relatives in NJ and a sister in law in CT, so it will now be possible to visit them. I have wanted to visit California again since my wife has never been and I would like to see Big Sur and some of the National Parks there.

    By the way, I live in Georgia and can tell you we do not have a “Domestic Violence Loophole” as you are likely aware, even though the idiots with Shannon’s goofy group want to pretend there is.

  26. avatar Oliver says:

    I live and work in NYC, so it wouldnt change a thing, i.e. NYC law supercedes Federal and State law. Not sure why, but in practice it does. I guess somewhere in the fine print of the Constitution its been carved out as a de facto separate country. Or maybe its a verbal clause thats not in print. So, no change here Im afraid. Oh, I do know how this country is supposed to run. I also know how it really runs. Big difference.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “NYC law supercedes Federal and State law. Not sure why, but in practice it does.”

      That is what is going to make it so *sweet* to ram that down their Statist throats…

  27. avatar Steve B says:

    Not much of an impact daily. I do have to travel to California a couple times a year for family matters. I would be very careful to only carry firearms on California’s approved roster, 10 round magazines, etc. Just because there might be permit reciprocity, I don’t believe it will be okay to carry anything that’s not on the roster. They will nail you if they can.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Read the proposed law. “Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof … a person … 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. … The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.”

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      California does not require guns to be on the roster to be carried. It only requires a max mag capacity of 10 rounds. Guns fall off the roster all the time, for various reasons (such as new model), but that does not make the old model illegal to own or possess. Further, vertical intrafamilial transfers (grandparent-child-grandchild, either direction) are exempt from the roster, except for the nonroster mag restriction.

      1. avatar DonS says:

        vertical intrafamilial transfers (grandparent-child-grandchild, either direction) are exempt from the roster

        So are any other private-party transfers.

        Well, unless the off-roster gun was acquired by one of the “new LEOs” created by AB2165 using his LEO exemption. In that case, the LEO can’t sell it to a non-exempt person in CA.

  28. avatar Jeffro says:

    Devil’s in the details. I expect anything that passes will be chock full of poison pills.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Even if there isn’t, NY, NJ, CA, etc would start passing other bills that set up a legal mine field for visiting CCW holders…. mag round limits, hollow point felonies (already a NJ feature), FOID cards required for residents to own handguns in order to get around any non resident issues, etc…

      That doesn’t mean National Reciprocity shouldn’t happen or that it should be given up on, just that it’s only going to be the beginning of a new front that needs to be fought on the doorsteps of the anti gun States. I’m fine with that!

  29. avatar clst says:

    National reciprocity would have no effect on me as the few states I travel to, honor my state permit or don’t require one.
    That being said, national reciprocity would be a benefit to many people. We should not have to have the permission of any state or other unit of government to exercise our God given rights.

  30. avatar Casey says:

    “allow firearms-owners to cross any state line with a hidden weapon”

    I was unaware that there were check points, force fields, or other measures currently in place that currently prevent firearms-owners (legal and otherwise) from crossing state lines with hidden weapons. I had thought laws were a deterrent measure that law-abiding people followed and criminals broke on pain of judicial punishment, not a preventative measure that could impact the physical realm.

    Learn something new every day, I guess.

  31. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    It might make me some money. My county officials ignore quite a few gun laws. They would probably ignore this one. This one would limit where states can ban guns to “any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park” and private property where the owner bans carry. Texas has some gun free zones that don’t fall into either of those descriptions. H.R. 38 would allow for the recovery “a reasonable attorney’s fee” in both criminal and civil actions. The biggest question is whether or not the local courts would use the state or federal definition of reasonable attorney’s fees. Texas has a broader understanding of reasonable.

    All that said, Cornyn’s shitty Senate version doesn’t have any of those provisions in it.

  32. avatar Matt says:

    I live in the DC metro area and it would be a huge change. I wouldn’t have to plan my activities days in advance lest I cross into DC or Maryland.

    I travel overland a ton to the Midwest with Maryland or Illinois in the way most of the time. This would be a game changer

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I was curious about D.C. because the bill talks about states. The law would be in Chapter 44 of Title 18. Chapter 44 defines states to include “the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).”

  33. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Not much….most of the states i visit have reciprocity with FL.

    I might take a trip to Cali or DC or Mass for fun if it passes and gets set up.

    Bwaaaahaaaahhaaaa

  34. avatar DonS says:

    as I understand it, if this bill passes as is, gun owners living in a virtual “no issue” state (e.g., New Jersey) could use an out-of-state non-resident concealed carry permit to carry in their own state.

    That interpretation is in direct conflict with both the bill’s summary:

    This bill amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.
    A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.

    and its title:

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Go read what it actually says instead of a summary. It says a permit from “a state” works in “any state.” Then go read the Senate bill. It says a permit from “a state” works in “any State other than the State of residence of the individual.” See the difference?

  35. avatar grendal113 says:

    The second it passes my wife and I will take up some historical tourism. quickly before the anti gun states figure out how they will get around it. Of course will will be getting insurance cause we all know they will be searching for us.

  36. avatar Mark N. says:

    Although I live in California, I live in one of the “virtual shall issue” counties. However, it is very difficult for my wife to travel, so any reciprocity law will have limited impact. We haven’t been out of state for several years.

  37. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State

    This bill amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.
    A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.

    Ok taken together, and not being a scholar in the ancient archaic language or lawyerese, I take it to mean that your state (CA for example) would have to recognize any other state’s permit, be it non resident or resident so long as, you are eligible to own a firearm under federal laws, carry photo ID, and BE ELIGIBLE to carry a firearm in you home state. However, the clause about being issued one in your home state is slightly worrisome but I doubt it will be a huge issue in most states. NY, CA, NJ, MD, and a couple others may abuse it and the language really should be changed to include non resident permits since let’s face it those states ain’t gonna get any better about issuing actual permits. It will however enable people that live in bordering states (VA) if they work in a slave state (NJ) to carry and not get arrested and harassed during a simple traffic stop a la Shaneen Allen.

    1. avatar Viper0222 says:

      The “or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.” portion is interesting. Being behind the lines in CA, and not a CCW permit holder, that sounds as if I could carry legally if I am just “eligible” otherwise, but have not applied for, or hold, a permit. I guess it would depend on the legal definition of eligible in this case.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “However, the clause about being issued one in your home state is slightly worrisome but I doubt it will be a huge issue in most states.” Don’t worry. That clause isn’t in the statute. What is says is a non-prohibited person can carry a concealed gun if that person is a resident of a Constitutional Carry state or has a license/permit from a state. The exact language is:

      “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

      “(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

      “(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

  38. avatar Warlocc says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but state laws such as approved lists and banned models and magazine limits would still apply, wouldn’t they?

    1. avatar DonS says:

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but state laws such as approved lists and banned models and magazine limits would still apply, wouldn’t they?

      Nope. Specifically addressed in the bill.

      Presuming you meet the bill’s requirements…

      From paragraph (a):

      Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof … a person … 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

      From paragraph (e)(2):

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

      So, for example, if you’re a CO resident with a CO concealed carry permit and you travel to CA with your handgun and its 11-round magazine, you’re good. Even though CA law purports to ban magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Nope. There is a limited preemption in the bill.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Here is the limit to the preemption:

        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.

  39. avatar JW says:

    I would soggest the attorney general would opine that it would be a

    Civil Rights Violation

    If a local or state government violates the law enabling prosecution of the individuals that enforce the illegal state law and the state or municipality as well – both for jail time and for monetary damages.

    Otherwise, it will be like Neville Chamberland and his peace of paper with Adolf Hitler.

    I seem to remember comments on this site about sites like Philadelphia ignoring state law.

    Nobody wants to be a test case.

  40. avatar Parnell says:

    “be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.” The eligibility clause may be beneficial for a resident of “shall issue” states. I live in NJ and under the law am eligible to carry (no felonies, mental problems, drug/alcohol abuse; etc.) but am denied for “good reason”. That said, I’m still “eligible” so I might be able to carry on a Fl, Va or Az out-of-state license. I’m not going to volunteer to be the test case but I’m sure it will happen if this bill becomes law.

  41. avatar Mark Horning says:

    It wouldn’t affect me at all. My permit is good in 30 states and nothing would change.

    California would sue for an injunction and the 9th would grant one before the Cal AG hung up the phone.

    The bill is clearly an unconstitutional over-reach of federal power. If it ever got to the SCOTUS then when they strike it down as unconstitutional that would further weaken Wickard, which would of course be a very good thing.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Um… Enforcing due faith and credit is well within the power of the federal government. What are you smoking?

      1. avatar Mark H says:

        Nobody in their right mind thinks that a PERMIT or LICENSE is enforceable across state lines under the Full Faith and Credit clause. Really. Medical License? Law license, HVAC?

        The FFaC clause refers to legal findings and contracts, not licensure. Even Drivers Lisc. are honored under an interstate-compact, not the FFaC clause.

  42. avatar Troubled Soul says:

    A few years ago I rode the bike down the coast of Wa, Or, and into Ca.
    Since neither Or or Ca recognizes my permit, I left my SW Shield at home.
    I wouldn’t mind doing that again especially if I could carry
    Although I haven’t found a truly great way to carry on a bike.
    The best I’ve found is the shoulder houlster that I use at work under a dress shirt.
    It’s comfortable, but I wouldn’t kid myself, it certainly isn’t fast.

    1. avatar KenW says:

      Check out pistolwear.com. I have one of their PT-2 holsters with an extra magazine pouch. They now have the PT-One that has an integrated magazine pouch. Mine holds the weapon (Sig P238 or P928) against my body, keeps the gun and ammo dry and offers good concealment . And is not hard to gain access to if needed.
      I’ve used it for about 5 years now and it has survived several cleanings and lots of use.

      1. avatar KenW says:

        Here is TTAG’s article which has a few of us extolling on the virtues of the pistolwear belt.
        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/daniel-zimmerman/p320-entry-gun-run/
        And about the Sig P928 its a P938, cell phones are hard to type on and even hard to read the small screens of.

  43. avatar Kyle says:

    I have one of the unicorn permits from California as well as Arizona and Utah. I have family in Washington. My permit structure does not cover oregon and the sheriffs in oregon got tired of issuing to California residents passing through. So basically i got to box up as i travel through.

    So it’ll affect me.

    Also, Id like to stop even GETTING the permit from CA & Utah. Arizona issues a hard plastic card and not a rice paper permit. Much sturdier.

  44. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    How will it affect me? Well, it’ll be phony baloney reciprocity, so it would not affect me by its stated one bit. Same as the “Firearms Owner Protection Act” (FOPA) provides ZERO real world protection. Don’t believe me? Believe yourself and your own refusal to rely on that toothless misnomer of a federal law as you travel through the slaves states.

    As for national reciprocity’s actual impact, that remains to be seen. It’s obvious to anyone but blinded Trumpkins that such a law will be loaded up with up front, concrete, compromises that steal your rights (just like FOPA essentially robbed you of the right to own machine guns). Those features will be rock solid and will take effect immediately.

    Like what? TBD, but could easily be: Bump stocks and private gun sales? Gone! Mag limits and expanded definition of prohibited possessor to include No Fly List listees? Arrive!

    The “benefits” will be infested will slippery noodle strands masquerading as compliance structures, which is to say non-existent as practical matters. You’re going to get suckered into (at least) two steps back and no more than one, but likely zero, step forward.

    You heard it here first. You WILL also hear it hear again and again and again if this trash passes. I don’t care how the current bill reads. What matters is what gets signed into law.

  45. avatar Ugly95 says:

    Me and the 1 million gun owners in New Jersey would be allowed to carry a firearm legally under another states permit. This will be the first time since the 1920s and the first time in almost everyone’s life where they can carry legally and not face a felony and 10 years in jail for that act. Should the state decide not to honor the federal law one can sue the state and even the police officer that arrests you and even get paid legal fees under this bill. For the people in New Jersey, Hawaii, New York, California and a handful of other places this bill is a once in a lifetime chance for us to have our rights restored. Many don’t understand how it is to live behind enemy lines this bill gives us hope and brings freedom into our our lives.

  46. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I live in a state that is shall-issue (concealed carry licenses) and has formal reciprocity agreements with 39 other states. If national reciprocity came into force, I would most definitely look to vacation in Hawaii and California, and possibly Oregon. As it stands, I refuse to visit those states unarmed, especially since my vacations often involve camping and hiking in rural locations.

    The other states that do not honor my concealed carry license — Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island — are not on my list of places to visit for any reason whatsoever.

  47. avatar FedUp says:

    Living in Pennsylvania, we are almost an island surrounded by a sea of communism. I might actually travel to MD, NJ, or NY. MAYBE, still not sure I would trust them. As it stands now I try to avoid traveling to or spending any money in those states.

  48. avatar MLee says:

    As someone who has driven across the USA on the longest interstate, I-90, I can attest to what a major cluster f— it is trying to stay legal. Besides having to research the laws, one must be cognizant that the information one uses in a good faith effort to obey laws may not be the most current or accurate.
    Laws change with language used often confusing. As an example, in Washington State vs Swanson, the division III court of appeals ruled that “RCW 9.41.040 (Washington states Gun law) is not a model of clarity” I’ve read it many times and it’s really messy. There are exceptions to exceptions!

    About the only way one can be sure of the laws before travel is to consult each state of intended travel, website of the attorney general. Naturally one must be pretty adept at reading, comprehension and research and truthfully , that’s not everyone’s forte. Using USA Carry or other well known websites is putting your legal safety in serious jeopardy.

    I travel south to Arizona and depending on my route of travel, I get into California for short periods of time.
    That’s worrisome as all it would take would be to have a California cops around with nothing better to do that make someones life miserable and suddenly you are on the receiving end of the hammer of justice which seems bent on screwing you with a branch off a rose bush.

    If you have not done the type of research to stay legal and actually traveled, stopped at a state border to properly stow your weapon away, then get it out again, then do it again, you just really aren’t going to comprehend what a ridiculous arduous unnecessary pain it is.

    The elites, LE and retired LE have carve-outs. They whip out their ID and mini retired police badges and they get the nod and on they’re on their way. But the rest of us mere-mortals don’t enjoy that luxury and hoping the cop you meet on the road doesn’t have the worst attitude the world has ever seen who seem hell-bent on “making an example out of you, is all it takes to virtually ruin your life and the cops do that under layers of immunity.

    I gotta say the law if passed will be welcoming. Yes yes some states might get a governmental erection over it, but that’s inevitable, especially for that sh*t-hole California. At least for the most part, traveling concealed and crossing state lines should prove much MUCH safer from abuses.

  49. avatar Ralph says:

    It means that I would start making trips to every leftist douchebag state just to rub their fvcking noses in it.

    It one of the reasons I go to Boston, where I can carry but most Bostonians (who paid for all that Boston infrastructure) cannot. It warms the cockles of my heart to do so.

  50. avatar BobS says:

    We recently escaped California to the slightly more hospitable environs of southern Oregon.

    Best case: When I travel back across the line for business, pleasure, or family, I would be able to carry instead of locking up anything I possess that could be useful. It would be particularly sweet to walk in the Market Street entrance of my old office, right in the epicenter of San Francisco progressivism.

    Probable outcome: California will resist, and then slow-walk compliance, just as they do with every other case redressing their abuses of the rights of free men.

  51. avatar sound awake says:

    I would be able to carry in illinois

    I live in Wisconsin on the border

    Illinois is a pain in the ass

    I used to live there

    There’s no nonresident carry permit in illinois for wisconsin residents

    If there were it would be $500

    This would be huge for me I have to go to illinois all the time

  52. avatar CZJay says:

    I think California passed a law that stopped Californian residents from going to the next county to get a concealed carry license; they require you to get your license from the county you live in, that way L.A. county residents can’t carry firearms because the police will not issue the average person a license.

    The California government didn’t like how L.A. residents could go to Orange county to get their license or any county where the police were fine with the non aristocracy residents carrying firearms. They still had some form of open carry until rebellious individuals started to carry their guns openly, now they need permission from the elite.

    A lot of people want the human right to keep and bear arms to be treated like the human right to travel (using a personal vehicle) is treated. They want a national licensing scheme in order to restrict who can exercise their human rights and how. The National Reciprocity Bill will give them what they have been calling for, but not in the way they wanted.

    If someone is against “national reciprocity” because constitutional carry states exist, then those people probably support White supremacy and institutionalized racism. If they use California or New York as the ideal direction to work towards, those people appear to be supporting an ethno-state mentality.

  53. avatar Cory C says:

    It would affect me quite a bit. I often travel for work, meeting strangers in not-so-great areas. As such, my gun flies with me everywhere I go.

    The inconsistent nature of concealed carry reciprocity is annoying at times and simply vexatious at others. The worst part, though, are the outspoken anti-gunners in big left-leaning cities who work for the airlines or TSA and try to lecture me or sabotage me in my efforts to check my gun.

    Moreover, it’s damned annoying that some places have city ordinances that make mere transportation of a gun (read: it’s in my rental car because I know I can’t carry it) illegal. Some states do too. On one occasion, I flew to a 2A friendly state that has reciprocity with my home state and, next thing you know, I make a wrong turn and cross a certain river to find myself in a state where I’d be a felon if I had my gun on me; a state I didn’t intend to go to in the first place.

    It would be nice to know that there is a general law that supports the notion of carrying a gun that can be pointed to, so that I don’t have to adopt the role of state law legal scholar and simultaneously be capable of persuading a bunch of halfwits that their understanding of their state’s laws is lacking.

  54. avatar Glenux says:

    I live in an actual land-based house.
    I have pistols and I have rifles.

    But if I lived on Houseboat (a vessel) on just about any river and any lake,
    I may be able to arry a pistol for self-defense
    (assuming State law permits it)
    but I can not possess a rifle.
    Mind you I don’t hunt, but I assumed the
    RIGHT to keep and bear arms included rifles and not just pistols.
    And I haven’t read in the 2nd Amendment any exceptions to
    whether you lived on dry land or on a boat.

    I think this law is discriminatory against people who live
    on houseboats.

  55. avatar skiff says:

    I would definitely travel to Fall River or Blackstone, Ma to buy coffee at Dunkin Donuts!

  56. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    I avoid no-go locations now.
    Why should I expect them to obey another law upholding constitutional rights.
    I will continue to avoid them.

  57. avatar Retro says:

    On those infrequent occasions that I travel to California and Illinois, it would mean I can actually carry a firearm for self defense, like I do virtually every other day of my life in my home state. Flying with a gun will STILL be a pain the ass, though.

  58. avatar Ogre says:

    I live in northern Virginia, so the new law, if passed, would have an impact on me as regards travel to/through the socialist people’s republics of Maryland and Washington DC, where I now have to disarm. Until the bill passes into law, I mostly avoid no-carry places like DC, Maryland, and certain states in the Northeast. If I go anywhere these days, it is likely to be in Virginia or states to the west and south where Virginia concealed permits are honored.

    One comment: It would be nice if the national reciprocity bill could be amended to include U.S. military bases (as well as national parks, etc), which currently honor no state’s concealed carry permits. I am a federal worker (and military retiree) who works on a federal military base – which means that I must leave my gun at home every day for travel to/from my place of work, and while at work. Same thing when (as a retiree) I want to go on base to use the PX or commisary. It’d be nice not to have to undergo that hassle. I understand DoD’s and the local military commander’s need to have good order and discipline for its bases, but when I go on base the Stalinist atmosphere with regard to gun control is hard to avoid.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:

      “(A) A unit of the National Park System.

      “(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

      “(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

      “(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

      “(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.”.

  59. avatar Retrocon says:

    It would affect me by lowering the crime rate in every major liberal run city in the US.

  60. avatar Bob15 says:

    I’d be more likely to carry outside of my state. As it stands now reciprocity maps tell me I can carry in two neighboring states with my state’s permit. But I still worry there are a bunch of Barny Fifes out there who simply don’t care and would take my gun and make me get a lawyer to get it back.

  61. avatar Marc says:

    I live in Virginia but work in DC and Maryland. This would finally clear the way for me to carry. Technically if I wanted to go to 18 hours of classes I could get the DC permit but there is still no way to carry in Maryland.

  62. I’m a New Jersey resident (a de-facto NON-ISSUE state, just like Hawaii, that simply NEVER grants CC permits to civilians), but I have a Florida non-resident CC permit.
    So, if national reciprocity passes, will this let me use my Florida non-resident CC permit to carry in NJ?
    Good question, but I’d bet anything the answer is “No.”
    What it will probably mean is that residents of all other 49 states will be able to carry in New Jersey, but New Jersey’s own residents will be the only ones in NJ left unarmed!
    After all, when I’m in my home state of New Jersey, I’m not “crossing state lines”, so national reciprocity won’t help me, and I still won’t be able to use my Florida non-resident permit in my home state.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Go read the bill or the other comments. Or you could at least explain why the plain language of the bill does not apply, or nearly a hundred years of Supreme Court precedence on the Commerce Clause will be overturned.

      1. Many of the comments above say things that support my interpretation:
        1) One comment above: “all the usual suspects: California, Maryland, New York etc. will basically say “I am going to ignore this law“.” Yes, New Jersey and New York already ignore the Federal law that says you’re allowed to transport firearms in checked baggage. God forbid your plane is delayed in NY or NJ and your checked luggage is returned to you for an overnight hotel stay, because those states can, will, and HAVE arrested people who had fully complied with the Federal law.
        2) Another comment: “the language really should be changed to include non resident permits since let’s face it those states ain’t gonna get any better about issuing actual permits.”
        3) The comment by TX_lawyer: “Then go read the Senate bill. It says a permit from “a state” works in “any State other than the State of residence of the individual.”
        I’m betting that when they reconcile the bill before passage, the Senate language will be the language used, meaning NJ residents will still be SOL.
        4) As for the “interstate commerce clause” of the Constitution, I’m sure NY, NJ, CA, HI, MA, etc. will argue all the way to the Supreme Court that because I am not crossing any state lines with my firearm (keeping it in New Jersey), the interstate commerce clause does not apply. Conservative Supreme Court judges will agree with this NY/NJ view, because this follows a conservative (strict) interpretation of the Constitution, because, it’s not “interstate commerce” if the gun owner is not crossing state lines. Liberal Supreme Court judges will also agree, because they hate guns. If you go by the place of manufacture, believe it or not, there are still guns that are manufactured in New Jersey, Connecticut, etc.!

        Finally, I’m a pessimist, and for good reason. My pessimism has been confirmed time and time again!

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Those are good reasons to believe a bill that would let you carry will end up, in fact, not letting you carry. Except maybe for number two. This bill has actual teeth. If a state is violating this bill for a while, I don’t think there will be a shortage of lawyers scrambling for these cases.

          Most people who say that you, for example, won’t be able to carry in your home state under this bill mean exactly that and are dead wrong.

  63. avatar John says:

    It will be great for my wife. We live in Oregon and have a daughter living in Portland, OR, and a son living in Vancouver, WA. Currently when we go to visit my wife doesn’t carry at all, because once we cross the Columbia River, she can’t do so legally with an Oregon CHL. As a retired LEO it has no effect for me.

  64. avatar TweetyRex says:

    Step 1: get a copy of your personal medical records.
    Step 2: get a rugged lock box for your personal medical records.
    Step 3: label the lock box “Personal Medical Records”.
    Step 4: put your personal medical records in the lock box.
    Step 5: put the lock box under your car seat.
    Step 6: put your “emergency medical lead injector” in the lock box.
    If pulled over, refuse to open the lock box, sighting medical privacy laws. If they take it from you and force it open, make sure the medical records are on top, so they can’t help but to see them when they go for your gun. Now you have something to trade, forget the gun and I won’t charge you for violating HIPA laws.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Step 1: No, you may not search my vehicle.

      I know it shouldn’t need to be said, but I also know it does.

  65. avatar jakee308 says:

    1. There are those in the House that will use the National Reciprocity law to piggy back some bad gun control laws.
    2. There should be some regularizing of the rules of who can carry and who cannot effective either by Federal law or by with holding funds as is commonly done for vehicle licenses. Reciprocity only really works if all the states have a basic set of rules and regs on concealed carry. Of course the gun grabbers will screw things up and delay.
    3. What should be added is the tracking of usage of firearms and statistics kept just like they have the reporting requirements for vehicle accidents and violations

    It may not be such a good thing to have reciprocity. Opens up a whole can of worms that let’s the gun grabbers and Rights violators to have at the 2nd Amendment through the back door.

    Driving is a privilege whereas bearing arms is a right. You don’t have to have a nationally recognized license to use your 1st Amendment rights in any state. Neither should you have to have a license to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

  66. avatar Hoosier Budget Gun Guy says:

    Reciprocity would give me one less reason to avoid Chicago and/or the entire state of Illinois.

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