Attention All Law-Abiding Gun Owners: National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Is In Jeopardy

concealed carry reciprocity

courtesy blackstoneshooting.com

By Roger J. Katz

Concealed handgun carry reciprocity is about to die. It’s about to die through deliberate inaction or the callous indifference of the U.S. Senate. But we have a small window of opportunity: 21 days left to achieve the goal that has eluded us for years. It seemed assured of being accomplished by the Republican-controlled 115th Congress but, it wasn’t.

Congress still has time to act before the end of the year, but that does nothing to explain why Congress failed to get this done. It certainly had ample opportunity to do so.

What happened? Why did Republican-controlled Congress fail to fulfill one of President Trump’s signature campaign promises?

The House of Representatives and the Senate introduces several national handgun carry reciprocity bills in the last two years. One such bill was 115 H.R. 38titled, Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. The bill’s synopsis reads:

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.

The measure was voted on by the full House, and was passed on December 6, 2017, by recorded roll call vote: 231 to 198. The vast majority of House Democrats voted against passage of the bill. Only 6 of 184 Democrats voted for the bill. Contrariwise, the vast majority of House Republicans, 225, voted for passage of the bill and 14 voted against.

One day later, on December 7, 2017, the bill was sent to and received by the Senate, where it was read twice, in accordance with Senate protocol, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for action. And, then we heard…nothing. Dead silence.

The bill apparently fell into a deep, dark abyss.

Senator Mitch McConnell, who, as Senate Majority Leader, has ultimate authority for determining what bills are voted on by the full Senate, said and did nothing to get the Judiciary Committee to act so that the bill could be voted on by the Senate as a whole.

Why didn’t the Judiciary Committee act on this? They certainly could have, but didn’t. And why didn’t Senator McConnell urge the Judiciary Committee to action, so the full Senate would have had the opportunity to vote for passage of national concealed handgun carry legislation?

We don’t know. He could have seen to this, but didn’t. Senate Republicans who can answer these questions aren’t saying.

There’s much about this that we don’t know. It is deeply perplexing.

BUT THIS MUCH WE DO KNOW

Senator McConnell can get things done when he wants to. McConnell was able to get Judge Brett Kavanaugh confirmed as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. That wasn’t easy, given the strenuous pushback by Senate Democrats and the Senator should be commended for his zealous, unflagging effort in that regard.

He should be just as zealous in getting national concealed handgun legislation through the full Senate. He certainly could have done so. For some reason, he’s chosen not to. Yet he still has time to get this done before the 116th Congress begins its first term on January 3, 2019, because at that point it would futile, as the House will seat a Democratic majority.

The 2016 general election earned us President Donald Trump along with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. National right-to-carry was in our grasp. The timing couldn’t have been better. This is what law-abiding gun owners wanted and NRA and other pro-Second Amendment organizations campaigned vigorously for it. Our once-in-a-lifetime real hope for national reciprocity is about to slip through our fingers.

The Senate has had over a year to move on the bill, but has failed to act.

CAN’T THE SENATE SIMPLY PASS THE BILL NEXT YEAR AND SEND IT ON TO PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HIS SIGNATURE IN 2019?

No, it can’t. All pending bills die at the end of the current Congress.

At the end of a two-year session, Congress adjourns “sine die” or “without day” and not reconvene until a new Congress starts some time the next January.

After that, the slate is wiped clean; there is no business pending. All of the “H.R.” and “S.” numbered titles that have been discussed and debated for the past two years will be archived.

When Congress reconvenes, the process starts all over again.

When Congress reconvenes in 2019, House Republicans can reintroduce concealed handgun carry reciprocity, but with a Democratic majority, the bill would never pass. So, whatever the Senate may do in 2019 won’t matter because both houses of Congress must pass a bill before a bill is sent to the President for his signature.

TIME TO PASS CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS OF THE ESSENCE!

There is no time to waste. The Senate is scheduled to adjourn on December 14, 2018. If the Senate fails to pass the bill by emergency roll call vote, we will have lost the only real opportunity to see concealed handgun carry reciprocity through to fruition.

Keep in mind: the Senate’s failure to act on national handgun carry places extreme pressure on President Trump who made this one of his signature campaign issues. Failure to accomplish this goal may well lead to Trump’s defeat in 2020. We must put the Senate’s feet to the fire. This is where you can help….

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

IMMEDIATELY CALL:

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee): (202) 224-3744
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: (202) 224-2541
Your Senate Delegation: (202) 224-3121

TELL THEM THIS:

The Senate must vote on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 bill immediately. The bill passed the House on December 6, 2017, almost one year ago, and has since been stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. That is unacceptable! We have only a few precious weeks to get this matter completed. The Senate must pass this bill and send it immediately to the President for his signature. President Trump will sign the bill into law, fulfilling an important campaign promise. My continued support for you will depend on your vote to approve this bill.

You should also contact NRA and President Trump, reminding them of their commitment to support national concealed carry reciprocity. The contact numbers are as follows:

The White House: (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414
National Rifle Association (NRA): (800) 672-3888

We must put pressure on those who can get this matter accomplished.

Making a few important phone calls will only take a few minutes of your time. It’s quick and easy, and critically important to safeguard and strengthen our right to keep and bear arms.

What you do can make a difference and you will be proud to have taken an active part in protecting our natural, fundamental, unalienable, and sacred right to safeguard our lives and the lives of those closest to us, with the best means available: a firearm.

If you choose to do nothing, you will only have yourself to blame. This is our last real shot at passage of significant pro-Second Amendment legislation. Don’t hesitate to take that shot.

Roger J. Katz has practiced law for the federal Government in Washington D.C., for the State Government in Arizona, and has been in private practice in Ohio, New York, and Arizona. Roger is a co-founder of Arbalest Group LLC, creator of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog, dedicated to strengthening the Second Amendment, preserving our Bill of Rights, and maintaining a free Republic. He is a decorated veteran NYPD officer and adjunct professor/lecturer of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

This article was originally published at arbalestquarrel.com and is reprinted here with permission. 

 

comments

  1. avatar Michael in AK says:

    Hahahaha….RINOs don’t want you to have guns any more than the lefttards do…..

    1. avatar Warlocc says:

      Bingo. We were never going to get this.

      1. avatar frank space says:

        exactly!…you guys need a reality check…trump’s most recent comments where he casually brushed this issue aside were telling…the support just isn’t there….

        1. avatar frank space says:

          …if it’s any consolation…there isn’t much support for an AWB either…the gun issue was pretty much put on the back burner for the past election…and some dems are even more frustrated than you are…….

        2. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          Silver lining.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      GOP has 51 senators. To break the filibuster you need 60. Even if all 51 GOP vote for it, can you find 9 dem’s who would vote to end the filibuster?

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        1) It is only by Senate rules that it requires 60- the same Senate rules that have been changed again and again when the party in power wants to pass something (or confirm someone) badly.
        2) There was no filibuster. If it’s important, make the democrats stand up there and show the country what they believe. But the Republicans won’t do that. Instead they’ll just shrug and tell you that you’d better vote for them next time- again. Convenient, isn’t it?

        1. avatar DDay says:

          You want to change the filibuster rules for legislation? That’s F’ing nuts.

          You’ll only need 50+1 dem’s to get an AWB, mag limits, UBC, medicare for all, etc. The senate rules should never be changed for legislation, that would be a mess.

          There are a ton of bills which the house passed that are not getting voted on in the senate. Besides not having the votes, there are a ton of senate rules which require certain number of hours of debate, etc. If the votes are not there, I’d much rather the spend time approving judges.

        2. avatar How_Terrible says:

          DDay gets it. Making it easier for the party in power to pass legislation is bad for all of us. Even if it is the party that you support you should never want it to be easy to pass legislation.

        3. avatar JR Pollock says:

          @DDay,

          Senate rules are changed by majority vote, so as soon as the democrats get the majority, they will eliminate the filibuster.

          The only thing stopping either side from changing the rules willy-nilly, is the knowledge that at some point, the other side will be in the majority, and will make rules changes to suit their agenda.

          Short term, that can benefit the majority party. Harry Reid changed the rules to drop the filibuster on Judicial Appointments, excluding SCOTUS. McConnell warned against it,(there’s a speech of him warning the democrats) but they proceeded, and got a lot of “obama judges” confirmed.

          Then they lost the Senate Majority in 2014, and the Presidency in 2016. Fromm2015 to 2017, obama could nominate left wing judges, and the Republicans could shoot them down, and shoot they did… Now POTUS Trump was doing the nominating starting 1/20/2017 and the democrats threatened to filibuster Neil Gorsuch, so the Republicans changed the rules, and Gorsuch and later Kavanaugh were confirmed.

          The democrats are still furious over that despite that fact that they “went nuclear” first. If they regain the majority, they will eliminate the filibuster on legislation, and will try to gut the Treaty Clause if they take the White House, as ‘Lil Bob Corker did, which is a big reason he’s leaving the Senate.

          The Republicans would be advised to change the rules now, and eliminate the legislative filibuster, and pass the House-passed legislation. They’ll still be in power for the next two years, so they could change it back in January to keep the RINO’s from siding with House democrat legislation.

          Politics is a brutal sport, and if you play, you’d better be playing to win, all the time. Sadly, the Repubs are just seeing the light, now that we’ve lost the HoR.

          One last thing, it still takes 67 votes to override a Presidential veto. That’s in the Constitution, and can’t be changed unless you amend it.

        4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          Conservatives, gun owners and others, have been betrayed by elected Republicans. One thing the Trump election did was force the hidden, bought and paid for, big government progressives to admit to their voters just what they actually stood for. Ryan, McConnell and most elected “conservatives” are every bit as loyal to the administrative state as any elected Democrat.

    3. avatar New Continental Army says:

      For the first year of Trump presidency, the RINOs bought into the media and democrats Russian collusion hoax, and were too afraid to sign off on anything that would be tied to Trump. By the time they woke up from that delusion they’d pissed away a ton of opportunities and barely managed to get the tax cuts passed. Then they figured that was enough work for a decade of political fighting and just rolled over.

    4. avatar RA-15 says:

      MICHAEL IN AK straight to the point , you sir nailed it.

    5. avatar kyle says:

      no government wants armed citizens. Can’t control them as easily if they can say no.

    6. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      By now our Forefathers would have been shooting.

      Where’s the outrage?

    7. avatar Geoff says:

      Apparently the same goes for removing suppressors from the NFA.

  2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    i’m not standing behind pursed women ever again.

  3. avatar DDay says:

    Why bring up Kavanaugh and say McConnell get get him approved but not CC reciprocity? One is a nomation which thanks to harry reid/obama/schumer, etc requires only 50+1 to be approved by the senate, the other is a bill which requires 60 to break the filibuster.

    There are only 51 GOP senators, so even if every one votes for it, they need 9 democrats to support it. The D’s have been voting as a block on most bills and blocking legislation from being passed by the senate. McConnell has not brought it to the floor for a vote because he doesn’t have the votes. Pretty simple. Find 9 democrat who would support it, I don’t think you can

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      The two are the same. There is no law or Constitutional provision requiring 60 votes for one but not the other. One has simply been deemed more important than the other.

      Which is what it is, but when republicans then say “we’re doing all we can for gun rights” they’re lying. They’re doing as little as possible.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        You are nuts if you think it’s a good idea to change the senate rules to 50+1 for legislation. Even if you got National conceal carry with that, the second dem’s has POTUS, house and senate, CC would be repealed and the dem’s would pass an AWB, UBC, medicare for all, “free” college tuition, etc.

        Think

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Sounds like the Democrats are mighty powerful and the Republicants are a bunch of losers. That would mean the country is already dead, it’s only a matter of time before people realize it.

          Every year the Democrat party grows. Most immigrants lean towards the Democrat party. Majority of women, especially single women, lean towards Democrat. Majority of young people lean towards Democrat. Majority of very old people lean toward Democrat. Majority of workers that don’t own a business lean towards Democrat. Most blacks lean towards Democrat. Most Hispanics lean towards Democrat. Majority of whites lean towards Democrat. Most Democrats lean towards fascism/socialism/communism.

          If Republicants can only get irresponsible tax cuts passed some states better start planning an exit/defense strategy for the future because socialism is inevitable when your populace is uneducated and can’t rely on themselves. Then it becomes nearly impossible to reverse a country away from those stupid ideas as the people become even dumber and more dependent because socialist policies make sure of it.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        False, the Constitution allows each house to make it’s own rules. The Senate has set a rule that 60 votes are required to end debate. End of story.

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        they don’t need us, right now….and tend to take us for granted…just the way it is…..

  4. avatar Elaine D. says:

    As someone who has seen work toward “reciprocity” – in another field mind you – and it hasn’t happened even after years – here are my thoughts about why legislation like this can’t pass.

    —It overrides states’ rights too much.
    —It immediately alienates people who had to pay/train to meet “highest standard.” When reciprocity happens in any field it pretty much always ends up defaulting to “highest standard” because:

    Let’s say Citizen Joe paid a grand for his CCW. He did the classes, the training, the permits, etc. So he did all the things to earn that licensure.

    Now, if you tell Citizen Joe that now, Citizen Jane over here in the next state, who did no training, no classes and didn’t pay squat for her CCW or didn’t even need to do anything to carry, is going to be on exactly the same par as Citizen Joe, Citizen Joe is not going to be happy.

    The governmental agencies, ranges, trainers and so forth who made money from all the things Citizen Joe had to do are not going to be happy.

    Citizens of Citizen Joe’s state will just drive next door to Citizen Jane’s state to get their paper and come back home with it.

    Too many problems and that’s without even taking into account law enforcement issues.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Everything you pointed out — true or untrue — is a feature, not a bug.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        thankyou.
        negating the frivolous requirements is closer to original intent.
        we won’t see it. it makes too much sense.

      2. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Ralph

        There is also a vague provision in the House Republican bill that calls to “maximize automation and submission of mental health and criminal history records to the NICS.” Very broad and very vague, major potential for crashing into HIPPA there.

        1. avatar kahlil says:

          I don’t know the provisions or what is written but if a patient (or applicant for this matter) signs off on medical information being shared then it shouldn’t run afoul of HIPPA. The issue will be if, when, and how information is shared in the future once it is collected. A well written release will cover the data sharing and remain in compliance. My personal concern is that to keep your right to carry you are giving up your privacy, in the present time and potentially the future with no guarantee that the info will ever be deleted or “expire”. Requiring mental health records to maintain rights is a scary path that I don’t want to see us go down.

        2. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @kahlil

          Exactly. This would be the area of a lot of legal wrangling. What kind of information and what is the purpose of collecting it? Would they plan to have their own MH professionals to evaluate the information? Would they interview the applicant themselves? Too many problems, for MH professionals, for the applicant, and in terms of data privacy.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      “Law enforcement issues” are not an issues for the dozens of states that already hold reciprocity.

      As to states rights… if they are being violated, it is only to correct the violation of citizen’s rights by states like NJ, NY, MD, etc that don’t care about the Constitution to begin with.

    3. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Reciprocity isn’t about being fair, or how law enforcement feels, or really even about reciprocity. It’s about breaking the back of gun control advocates. National CC reciprocity would be an enormous blow to the gun control movement, one they likely couldn’t ever come back from. It would be a bigger turning point then Heller even. When CC is legal and common everywhere, it’ll destroy the heart of the gun control argument.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        true…which is why it’s unlikely to happen…although some sort of compromise is possible, there are hidden dangers here that many fail to take into account…….

        1. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

          If the Dems were smart, they would pass it and then make it so difficult to get a permit that no one would qualify. Imagine if they made it like getting a permit in NYC. It could turn out to be a complete disaster. On the bright side it might work, but it will never pass so it doesn’t matter. We just need SCOTUS to give us a Shall issue ruling in CA or NY that would apply to the entire country. Look at what happened in D.C. No one ever thought it would be easy to get their permit.

    4. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      So, adjusting policy n protocol would cut out too many rent-seekers, n discomfit (better off) folks who’ve already paid for their patronage?

      What’s the point of being the elect if anyone can get in?

      Cross-jurisdiction recognition might create a “race to the bottom”, of people doing what they like in the least encumbered way.

      1. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

        Both good arguments, if I do say so myself. Make em vote n we’ll see who values what more.

      2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Regulations are like taxes — if the people they are inflicted on applied to thought it a benefit, they’d flock that way.

        Every well-off tech-weenie moving to a low-tax (and regulation) jurisdiction is voting with their feet that their own policies don’t work. (Less well-off moving for opportunity are making a different, related, no confidence vote.).

        Regulating, or taxing, yourself to do better in your own life is one thing. Regulating, or taxing, others so you can do better is something else. Regulating, or taxing, others so to force them to do better in your terms, not theirs, is something else again.

      3. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Bierce

        You hit it right on the head with “What’s the point of being the elect if anyone can get in?”

        That’s exactly what’s happened in my field: mental health. I went to a really good program that required 61 graduate hours, 20 more than those other schools in my state require, and a LOT more than some other states require. That was a hell of a lot of time and money and work on my part, and the end result was that after graduation I was a hell of a lot better clinician from jump street than many of my peers.

        So that extra time, work and money does mean something. In my field, I am “Citizen Joe.” I would like to be able to work in all 50 states but if this means that people who did half the schooling I did would suddenly have par with me, I am not about it, because I’ve worked next to those people, and TBH, they’re often shit because they are not well trained enough. Not all of them but enough of them. It would actually degrade the value of my degree and the meaning it has in the field.

        And requiring people with less schooling to get more to come up to the standards I met would place a huge burden on people who don’t have the money or access to do those extra hours. It would mean that in states that are poor and don’t have enough MH workers they would end up having even less. So it stays gridlocked.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          But the right to keep and bear arms is different then your chosen profession. It’s a natural right enshrined by the BOR. Its not a specialized task only a few qualified individuals get to do. It’s a right you’re born with and can only be restricted via Due Process. Just because fostering that right further would upset some people doesn’t mean you continue to support the tyranny. We should always be working to expand the rights enshrined to us. Put it this way, I paid for and did the work to get a carry permit in my state. If suddenly my state went constitutional carry I would not be upset about the time and money I spent. Some things are more important then my personal expenditures.

        2. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @New

          I totally believe that is true for you, New. I don’t think at all it’s true for all gun owners. We humans are, sadly, rather status driven animals, and even if we bitch about all the work we had to do to get a piece of paper, once we have it, we tend to not want other people to have it unless they did the same amount of work we did.

          I’d LIKE to think that those of us who met “highest standard” would generously not care. I am not sure I believe this is how it would really play out in reality based on what I’ve seen in other fields attempting reciprocity. And there are people who believe that CCW standards should be even higher than they currently are in “highest standard” states, and some of those people are Gun People. Any bill or legislation that puts Gun People against Gun People is going to run into all kinds of problems. We are a minority in society as it is so that kind of division only weakens things.

          Not to mention, the states generating significant revenue from CCW are not going to want to give that up.

        3. avatar possum says:

          Elaine you certainly do expound on what you had to get what ever certification it is you have. And reading between the lines it sounds as if you would feel really slighted if someone else got that certificate without the work that you had to do. I too used to feel envious and slighted when I’ve worked for a gain and someone else had it handed to them. I’ve since transcended beyond that.😃

        4. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @possum

          It’s not about feeling slighted, actually. It’s that the people who are better trained make the entire field better. If you go to “lowest standard” what you create is a system where poor care by poorly trained people, such as you yourself have experienced as regards mental health, is the norm. Mental health workers who are poorly trained can potentially do actual harm. As you yourself know.

          I do believe striving for excellence is worth it. And it does come at a cost. But the benefit is greater. That is just how I see it.

        5. avatar possum says:

          @elaine, To many hoops to jump through could leave some of those less fortunate in financial stability ( the poor bastards) with a denial of a constitutional right. It is already happening in the judicial system and its starting to happen with the second amendment as well. Take for instance that the ear protection act passed, We POTG got our suppressors. Now fast forward, only shooting ranges allow suppressed fire. What’s the person to do whom can barely afford the ammo for his HiPiont, Not practice? No leisurely Sunday after noon plinking. Denied a Right because of poverty. I guess ,if that’s what it is then that’s what it is.

        6. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @possum

          Agreed that it would have been better for all if the entire CCW thing had never gotten started in the first place. But once it starts, and once you’ve got multiple tiers of people invested in making money off it, you get to where we are now very quickly. The people making revenue off it are not gonna want to give that revenue up. The people who had to jump through hoops are probably not going to react kindly to others being able to bypass those hoops.

          On the plus side, CCW licensure does give good work to gun people, teachers, ranges and so forth, so there’s that. It does support certain aspects of the gun community.

        7. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          “But the right to keep and bear arms is different then your chosen profession. It’s a natural right enshrined by the BOR.”

          Exactly. The medical profession—not you Elaine—along with the rest of the gun control movement, is trying to turn a God given right guaranteed by our bill of rights and our constitution into an “illness” that must be “treated” by “medical professionals”. Gun ownership is not at all similar to a driver’s license or medical license. The only reason there is discussion about this is because gun-controllers have to somehow transform a constitutional right into something else before they can actually move to prohibit it. The “medicalization of gun ownership” is just one convenient way of accomplishing this. There are many others.

        8. avatar Mike C says:

          Elaine, your argument about licensing and training in your field is not wholly relevant to carry reciprocity; people from every state obtain driver’s licenses with different training requirements.

          They have reciprocity in 50 states, everyone certainly isn’t good at driving, yet here we are, licensing multi-ton moving death machines to anyone, in any state with no standard of training, and they DO kill people.

          The people running the classes they should be cheering the fact that there’d no longer be a poll tax on our 2A rights, just as the machinegun owners should cheer if the NFA was dissolved, despite the value of their investments dropping.
          Should we place restrictions on who is allowed to reproduce based on their intelligence and economic standing?
          Everyone should strive for excellence, but are unable to, or just don’t because we are human and don’t live in a fantasy perfect world; you, as a mental health professional, probably realize that.

          Freedom is messy, inefficient, even dangerous at times, but it is nothing compared to the hell on earth created by those forcing others to deny human nature and strive towards the “excellence” of their utopian visions.

        9. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Garrison

          Sure. Not disagreeing at all. All I’m saying is that once a thing, anything, becomes licensed, it all tends to start functioning like every other licensure process with all of its attendant, predictable problems. To change that you’d have to abolish the licensing altogether. Possible maybe, seems hard to do. Hell, I have to have a license to talk to people, which is even more of a basic activity than anything related to firearms…

    5. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      The problem with your CCW envy conjecture is that most states that have CCW have reciprocal agreements with other states already so this would not change current status much. The real issue is the cowardly Republican leadership. We need a vote scheduled as this is a wedge issue to hammer Democrats and squish Republicans with. Tell them to get on with removing the last vestiges of Jim Crow and frame it as exactly that. Remind black voters who it was that removed their gun rights in the first place, and who has been trying to keep dependent ever since the Emancipation Proclamation.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    This must be April Fools’ Day because the headline is a silly joke. National concealed carry reciprocity was never anything more than a pipe dream. The most votes it ever got in the Senate was 57 and it only got to the floor because 60 votes were required for cloture and passage.

    The “Nuclear Option” was applied to the Kavanaugh nomination. It has not been applied to so-called “matters of conscience,” which includes laws such as national reciprocity.

    With only 51 Senate Republicans (and some of them are RINOs), passage is impossible.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      The filibuster for SCOTUS nominees was changed for Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh. It’s now only 50+ the VP from Gorsuch forward

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      National concealed carry reciprocity was never anything more than a pipe dream.
      This just did not have the real support of the Republican Establishment and RINOs.
      The True Blue Democrats sure were not going to pass it.

      1. I don’t think the “Loyalist Reds” were going to let it pass either! It takes only 218 Votes in the US House of Representatives to pass a bill. Until January 2, 2019 and 11:59:59 PM (EST), the US House STILL has the Majority of 248 seats. IF they haven’t passed it yet, they never will. Regardless of the “Blue Wave”…

        1. avatar DDay says:

          The house passed it, the senate requires 60 votes to break a filibuster and there are only 51 GOP so 9 dem’s need to vote yes.

        2. US Senate won’t vote on NCCR Act until 2019. By then the Democratic House will withdraw the Act, the’ll have the votes to do so…

          ( https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/national-concealed-carry-reciprocity-last-chance/#axzz5Y0RetRqP )

        3. avatar Ing says:

          The filibuster is a weak excuse.

          It’s assumed that the Democrats would filibuster the bill — which they almost certainly would — and that means there’s no point in trying. But there is always a point in fighting for important things that you believe in. Even if that point is only to draw battle lines and make the enemy expose its position.

          Clearly the Republicans in Congress do not believe this is worth fighting for.

          And why should they take that risk when they can get the gun-owner vote again and again just by not being Democrats? We’re the Republican version of the Democrats’ captive black voters.

          At this point, I almost have more respect for the Democrats…almost. At least they’re willing to fight for something, even if what they’re fighting for is a quick and ugly end to everything America was meant to be.

          The Republican party is a disgusting, spineless shambles, pandering to jingoists while hoping nobody notices they’re profiting from our slide into the abyss.

          I vote for Republicans because there are only two electable options, and the alternative still seems worse. I mean, at least most of them know that they can’t actively attack the Second Amendment and still get elected…for now.

          Don’t make the mistake of thinking the Republican party is actually on our side.

  6. avatar Hal J. says:

    I don’t anticipate gun rights improving at the national level for the foreseeable future. The best we can reasonably hope for is that things won’t get worse for a while.

    Bearing in mind that “a while” may not be more than a couple of years.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      it will take a while for cases to make their way to to the SCOTUS…if they ever get there at all…

  7. avatar Michael Buley says:

    They don’t want us to have guns. RINO’s are just that. Attacks on gun owners are ratcheting up from every corner. The communists have the momentum — replete with traitors from both parties — and are moving quickly. We’re not about to see any expansion of our rights, be it First, Second, or you name it.

    They made no moves on this in two years because of the obvious intention to disarm Americans. A bone here, a bone there, a campaign speech mention here and there. When push comes to shove, our politicians are traitors to the Constitution.

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      MICHAEL BULEY : you are absolutely correct. They are all traitors. Dispicable , treacherous , dirty rotten commies. They want us under their control. It is so much easier to force us to bow to them when we are not armed. This whole mess is treachery at its finest. Time to find a good cave in the hills , and wait for shit to hit the fan.

      1. @ RA-15.

        And how is the “SHiT going to Hit the Fan”, IF were all sitting in our Caves Comfortably “Waiting” for the Somebody Else’s to make the First Move…

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      You are 100% right. RINOs at least state that they believe in some “gun control”. A few believe as you and I and the rest are giving lip service to us. They really want only their peers and security to be able to carry(some don’t even want us having guns).

      The real facts are that the people that control the huge multinational corporations also have a lot of control in our government as well as all industrialized nations. They do NOT want citizens to be armed, they want us to be subjects. They are truly afraid that they could end up on the wrong side of a civil insurrection.

      It serves their purpose keeping citizens at odds over gun rights, abortion rights, rest room rights, gay marriage, without ever settling anything. In the long run, with the right media, they know that they can limit even more gun rights(even while they claim to support us) and the other points make no difference to them. They want cheap labor and high profits for themselves while they continue to erode our middle class’ standard of living. They really do NOT want Trump, because he doesn’t follow along with what they want.

    3. avatar possum says:

      Amen to that brother

  8. avatar Hannibal says:

    The GOP wants things as they are, with gun owners alternately just hopeful or just fearful enough to show up at the polls. Nothing will change unless the leaders are voted out.

  9. avatar New Continental Army says:

    In jeapordy? It’s dead. The senate never intended to pass it. We gave the GOP all three branches of government for 2 years and they managed to pass a total of ONE successful bill, and that was the tax cuts. Sure we got some good court picks also, but the GOP completely and utterly squandered those two years. One party controlling all three branches is a rarity in history. It only happens once a decade per party. And that’s if your lucky. Instead of uniting and passing all kinds of bills, they all chose to turn on eachother and fight about dumb shit. I wouldn’t even be that mad if they didn’t pass any pro gun measures but managed to pass a host of other stuff like term limits, border security, further tax cuts, and nixed foreign aid. But they failed all around. It’s probably going to be another 8-10 years or more before the GOP has all three branches again, unless Trump manages to win a landslide in 2020. Don’t see that happening. He certainly can win, but it won’t be the Reagan or Nixon level win we need.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      Yup.

      One party controlling all three branches is a rarity in history. It only happens once a decade per party. And that’s if your lucky.

      It happens when the DC Uniparty Establishment screws up.

      They prefer divided government. When control is split, it allows them to blame the other ‘side’ for the lack of action while gorging themselves at the trough and claiming that if only we donated more money they could pass bills related to our priorities.

      When one party has all three branches, we expect them to deliver. They don’t, and the reason is because our elected representatives in DC never intended to deliver. It’s Charlie Brown and the Football. We’re Charlie Brown, what we want is the football, and the DC Uniparty Establishment is Lucy, yanking the football away every goddam time.

      You want that to change? Primary the goddam RINOs.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        the pro-gun folks had a little momentum…till the mass shootings occurred…then it evaporated quickly….just the way it is…

        1. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

          We have control of all three and it’s been a complete waste of time. Nothing got done. Now with a split we’ll get nothing done again.

        2. avatar Clay Hickman says:

          Oct 1, Las Vegas and Nov 5, Sutherland Springs mass shootings. After that, it was dropped like a hot potato. Suppressors were also the sacrificial lamb.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      GOP had 51 senate seats, non budget items require 60 votes to break the filibuster. Dem’s voted as a group, that’s why nothing has passed other than judges and the tax cut bill which both only needed 50+1 to pass. The almost repealed obamacare, McCain voted no and killed that.

      After scott browned was elected in 2010, what did the dem’s get passed? Not much because the 41 GOP voted as a group against the dem’s bills and killed them.

      If the GOP had 60 senate seats, there would be conceal carry, HPA and other reforms. A slim majority only is effective for nominations and budget, nothing more. It has nothing to do with RINO’s, it’s the 60 filibuster requirement and all dem’s voting no on everything.

      Look at the votes in the senate, nearly 95% of all bills and nominations are on party line votes.

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        I’m well aware of the 60 vote rule. The point is the GOP has the majority for two years, and they proved they could pass bills when they wanted to, as evidenced by the tax cuts. But they chose to let literally every other agenda fall to the wayside with zero effort, knowing full well how long it will be before the GOP controls all three chambers again.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          well,..at least we know where their priorities lie…and it’s not with us…

        2. avatar DDay says:

          Budget items only requre 50+1, all other legislation requires 60. they don’t have 60 votes for Conceal carry, HPA, trumps border wall, etc.

          What don’t you understand, they don’t have the votes in the senate because dems voted as a group against everything. If you don’t have the 60 votes, you don’t have the 60 votes. They obviously tried to get a lot of other things passed including pro 2a bills. Even after the Las Vegas shooting, they still passed conceal carry and HPA but the dems’ are 100% against everything so there isn’t 60

        3. avatar Ing says:

          DDay, you’re forgetting that it only requires 60 votes if the minority decides to filibuster.

          The filibuster can’t prevent the majority party from bringing a bill to the floor for debate. The Republican party simply doesn’t want to do it. They never did. They’re deathly afraid of being forced to show their true colors.

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      Tax cuts are irresponsible if you do not cut spending, it hurts more than it helps. Tariffs also are a bad idea if you don’t want to hurt consumers. Republicans don’t want to cut spending they want to increase it, thus they just hurt the entire country in the long run, but that does not matter to them because they won’t be in charge when the consequences come to pass.

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Not really. Cutting taxes creates a far better economy and therefore more tax payers, and more government revenue. It’s already working, the economy is indisputably fantastic right now. If you don’t agree then get over it because this as good as economies get in real life. I do however agree they should’ve still cut government spending anyway, because the deficit is absurd. And the tariffs needed to be raised regardless, because we were being taken for an absolute ride by our own alleys. And it worked. All of our trading partners have now signed new and better trade deals with us. Even Canada and Europe who vowed to never sign a new one. But that’s stuff the media doesn’t report on because they don’t want you to know.

    4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “Sure we got some good court picks also, but the GOP completely and utterly squandered those two years.”

      Actually they didn’t. What they did was continue to do the bidding of the GOPe and the donor class that has always provided them with ample funds to insure that they vote the “right” way. When you come into politics a ‘po boy and leave a multi-millionaire it all starts to make sense.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        yep!…helps to know who you’re really dealing with….

  10. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    I never had any hope for national reciprocity. As Elaine mentioned, there are too many variables.

    What chaps my @ss is the horse crap inactivity on the Hearing Protection Act. It’s a matter of Safety, for crying out loud!!!

  11. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    The Reciprocity and Hearing Protection Acts should have been passed in 2017, once again “our” senators failed us, but don’t worry they’ll be there for us next time…

    1. avatar DDay says:

      There is a chance HPA comes up for a vote in the lame duck. But still, find the 9 dem’s who will cross over and vote yes to end the filibuster, I can find 5 or 6 and get to 57 senators but I’m not sure we can find 9

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        Buddy I wish we could find them, but dems have no incentive and Ryan and McConnell have no interest in pursuing these matters.

  12. avatar tdiinva says:

    It takes 60 votes in the Senate to move a bill to a vote. Learn some basic civics. McConnell is not going to toss the filibuster over reciprocity.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      Exactly but it seems some here are clueless about the process.

  13. avatar Docduracoat says:

    The Republicans take gun owners for granted.
    Hearing protection act and national concealed carry are dead.
    Bump stocks will soon be banned by regulation at Trumps request.
    Trump support extreme risk gun confiscation orders.
    We have no other place to go.
    Our only choice is to sit out an election.
    Now that President Trump has done more gun control in 2 years than Obama did in 8 years, maybe we should do just that.

  14. avatar Nanashi says:

    The NRA doesn’t want it to pass. If it passed they can’t raise funds on promise to pass it and the NRA “never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons” anyways, feeling that it “should be sharply restricted”.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      which is the way it used to be….but that genie is now out of the bottle…and not likely to return…

  15. avatar CZJay says:

    It’s quick and easy, and critically important to safeguard and strengthen our right to keep and bear arms.

    Such a bill does not safeguard nor strengthen the right to keep and bear arms. It gives the federal government the power to mess with licensing to bear arms within all states and redefines things in a manner that can lead to very negative consequences that cannot be reversed once they are given that power. You can look at it as one more step to a nation wide licensing scheme like European countries, at least with the bills they propose.

    I rather they stop playing stupid games with our rights by trying to indirectly recover them whilst giving themselves more power. Just pass a law that will punish all government officials who are not following the Constitution — as so promised — by infringing on the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms. Obviously they do not want to pass a law exercising the federal government’s power to do away with infringements and punish politicians/states who are being insurrectionist through enforcing unconstitutional laws.

    How about we focus on getting suppressors unrestricted? That should be much easier than creating some licensing scheme/work around. How about we focus on chipping away the NFA before Democrats can muster more bans?

    It always seems like we willfully give away rights because we are not strong enough to stand our ground and make gains. Getting some kind of National Concealed Carry Licensing bill passed seems more like a step backwards from restoration. I have the right to travel freely in the U.S. and I have the right to keep and bear arms. Why doesn’t the federal or state governments want to acknowledge that we don’t need permission from them to do so? Why can’t we acknowledge that both the Republicans and Democrats don’t want us to own and carry guns the way we want?

    As long as we are fine with settling for less we will get less and less every time. We haven’t given them a reason to give us what we should have. There should be no negotiating. They are our servants. We are supposed to be giving out the orders and restricting their powers, not the other away around. Right not we are just a bunch of losers…

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      So what’s your solution? Vote a bunch of democrats into office? Because there’s no third parties in this country. The only time you get to change the parties platforms are the primaries.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      not necessarily…we just have to pick our spots and our points of reference…they still listen when contacted and are still a bit reluctant to alienate all of us…..

    3. avatar Dave says:

      Prove this:
      “Such a bill does not safeguard nor strengthen the right to keep and bear arms. It gives the federal government the power to mess with licensing to bear arms within all states”

      show exactly where this is in the passed bill.

  16. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Nation reciprocity is never going to come out of the legislature. If it comes it will be through the courts, along with the end of ‘may issue’ licensing.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      After Scalia in Heller said that handguns outside the home may be regulated, without defining the limits of that regulation, he set up the framework for “may issue” carry schemes “in the interest of public safety.” I would not bet on it going away. The Ninth has already stated that concealed carry is not within the scope of the 2A, thus affirming “may issue”, as have the other restrictive states and federal circuits.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        There’s a big difference between regulating and denying. May issue puts the power to deny without cause the right to bear arms outside the home into the hands of often unelected bureaucrats. Regulating on the other hand would be a state requiring only con cealed carry or only open carrying, but banning both is a clear violation of the 2A.

        BTW, Scalia was wrong in the first place.

        1. avatar DDay says:

          With kennedy on the court, scalia couldn’t necessarily go where he wanted to with Heller. That POS stevens has a new book out and he says in the book he convinced kennedy to only allow the heller decision to go so far. So Scalia was captive to kennedy in order to keep his vote as the 5th.

          Kavanaugh is much more pro 2a from his past writings so hopefully we’ll see SCOTUS take up cases now with a reliable 5 votes for pro 2a

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      the latter is more likely…the inconsistencies are more glaring and the issue is more clearly defined…and easier to rule on…if it’s allowed to get that far….

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I definitely see ‘may issue’ going down first.

  17. The “Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act” and the “Hearing Protection Act”! As of September 2017, BOTH are “STILL” in the US House of Representatives awaiting a Vote. Until that VOTE is forthcoming, BOTH are going Nowhere and will NEVER see Daylight in the US Senate…

  18. avatar David Thompson says:

    It was never going to happen. And it won’t ever happen without 60 pro-gun votes in the Senate, or a change in the filibuster rule.

  19. avatar Adam says:

    The only way we are going to get national carry in the near future is if SCOTUS legislates from the bench on the topic. Especially with the progressives controlling the House and stating that they are going to be pushing for more gun control. We will be seeing zero pro-gun bills getting to the Senate for the next two years.

    We elected Republicans and all they did was give a tax break for the rich, push our federal deficit into the 1 trillion/year mark, and put through more gun control via a bumpstock ban. Outside of some good judges, this administration is an absolute failure.

    We are going to have a big fight ahead come 2020 if we continue on this path. Trump and the Republicans really need to do something big if they want people to vote for them again. Legalize weed, put through criminal justice reform, and reduce the debt. If Republicans can’t actually show that they are for small government, I have absolutely no reason to come out to vote in 2020.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      a) SCOTUS doesn’t need to legislate from the bench, all they have to do is discover that part in the Second Amendment that says ‘shall not be infringed’.

      b) There’s almost nothing that a rich man can do with his money that doesn’t benefit you more than whatever the government intends to do with it.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Maybe the government should pay down the debt and stop increasing socialism? That’s better than helping out corporations who need the extra money to pay for the new minimum wage increases in various states.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          There’s a thing in economics called the Laffer Curve which follows the logic that if you tax something at 0% you will get $0 of revenue, however if you tax it at 100% you will also get $0 in revenue since nobody will engage in that activity if the government takes 100% of the reward. So there must be a curve where maximum revenue exists somewhere in the middle and above that rate you will only decrease revenue by raising taxes, or inversely you may actually increase revenue by lowering taxes if your rate is above that maximum revenue point.

          The old corporate rate was clearly above that point. We had the highest rate in the developed world and companies avoided that tax altogether by doing business where taxes were lower instead of here. Beyond that, everyone who has a 401k or pension is a corporate owner and benefits from the tax cut and those savings get reinvested into the economy where it can be taxed on new economic growth that wouldn’t exist without the original tax cut. Anybody who buys products from or works for those corporations also benefit.

          From an economic standpoint, there’s very little spending that the government can do that doesn’t just destroy economic growth.

        2. avatar Adam says:

          Only problem is that economics also states that if your national debt becomes larger than your national GDP, you are in for a world of trouble.

          Economists from both the left and the right have clearly stated that our national debt is going to heavily affect the way people invest in America and that it will be cutting out growth by 50% over the coming years.

          The debt is the biggest threat to our liberty we have possibly ever seen and we should absolutely be disgusted in “small government” Republicans for doing absolutely nothing to shrink it, let alone the fact that they are growing it.

          Corporations do not need tax breaks right now. The economy has been growing slowly but surely for years. Most economist agree that you go into debt spending when the economy is bad and then reduce those debts when the economy is good. America on the other hand went into debt spending when the economy was bad but then did not have the courage to reduce that debt when the economy got better.

          Like I said above, our “Small government” Republicans have done nothing to make Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement spending programs monetarily feasible (They are over 100 trillion in debt over the coming decades) nor have they done anything to reduce discretionary spending (Military, welfare, etc). We are absolutely screwed (especially people under the age of 40) as a nation because we have two parties that are both big spending big government parties.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Adam, I agree on spending and the debt, but the corporate tax cut was not only necessary but will and has already resulted in higher revenues not lower revenues. The .gov is raking in more cash now than ever. All that money is recycled into the economy where it’s taxed anyway, only it’s taxed by people making and spending more money and receiving more goods and services.

          As far as social security, all they can do is limit benefits and raise the retirement age, which they are doing the latter. For the time being SS is still solvent. The baby boomers are the ones cashing in on the system and the gen-xers are the ones getting hosed. But with or without SS when you have generational population fluctuation it’s going cause some ripples in the economy.

        4. avatar DDay says:

          The US had one of the highest business taxes in the world, it caused jobs to leave the country. Yes tax reform was an outstanding bill. EVERYONE who pays taxes got a tax cut. A rich person gets a higher dollar tax cut because the top 5% pay over half of all federal taxes.

          You sound like pelosi with this BS about tax cuts for the rich.

        5. avatar CZJay says:

          You have to pay for the socialism somehow. Taxes, loans or inflation.

          When you force people to pay for the “free” things they want they will learn very quickly that it’s quite expensive to have socialism; by doing this people will revolt against socialism. If you borrow money or steal through devaluation it passes the bill to another generation reducing their lifestyle for the sake of the elderly and allows socialism/communism to remain viable in the minds of the people. If you pass the buck hatred for the older generations grows in the younger generations as they suffer the consequences of their parents and grandparents decisions. Spending and debt will continue to increase, which will increase the gap between the very rich and everyone else. Then the youth will call for the end of capitalism so the country can transition to communism.

          Getting rid of taxes is great when you don’t have socialism because people can invest and save. When you have as much socialism as the U.S. has, and continues to increase, you must pay. They can score political points by giving out irresponsible tax cuts because they can take loans or have the banks devalue the currency. You won’t notice it until their term is done because it takes years or decades to show up. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

          Decreasing taxes whilst increasing spending and tariffs leads to a major economic issue for the average person. If you are going to cut taxes, you have to cut spending too. You can’t spend more and make less. The money is needed now not years later, thus they will stealthy ruin the economy while allowing you to keep a few more dollars in order for you to remain happily ignorant of your downfall.

          Republicans are doing bad business, thereby giving the Democrats a 2020 victory as they will promise free stuff to the youth and unemployed. RIP capitalism, thanks populist protectionism.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      The votes are not there to reform social security or medicare.

      Some of you people live in fantasy land where you ignore the 60 vote requirement to end the filibuster in the senate. There are not 60 votes in the senate for HPA, conceal carry, social security reform, etc.

      Tax cuts were outstanding. (only required 50+1 because it’s a budget issue) Not only did we lower business taxes to keep jobs in the country but it capped the SALT deduction which allowed liberal high tax states to raise local and state taxes and allow residents there to write off those taxes (which the low tax states ended up paying for to some degree) This is a great step to stop state governments from growing their size.

      The tax bill was a great small government bill

  20. avatar possum says:

    ATTENTION All NON LAW ABIDING CITEZENS::: Concealed carry anywhere, anyhow, any state you damn well please. Because after all it is a law and it’s all good until we get caught,,,Again.

  21. avatar Salty Bear says:

    And this is what you get for continuing to vote for Republicans. They. Do. Not. Care. About. Your. Rights. They just pretend to in order to get elected, and you keep falling for it over and over again. You like to blame the Democrats for everything, but you’re part of the problem too because you give the Republicans no incentive to keep their promises. The hard truth is that what you call “RINOs” are what the Republican Party really stands for, and always will stand for until you deny them the power they count on you to give them.

    If you ask me, there are no solutions at the federal level. The best thing you can do is get people elected at the state level who will tell the federal government to go take a hike, and tell them that if they don’t stick to their extremely limited powers as outlined in the constitution, your state is going to leave the union.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      That’s why you should vote for Democrats. It better to have nothing than not everything. /Sarc

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        You are arguing for apathy/indifference and the two party paradigm. That’s how the country got to where it is.

        Vote for every Democrat because they are Democrat. Vote for every Republican because they are Republican. What happens when that Republican is actually a Democrat? What happens when that Republican has a deal with Democrats? You get what we have now.

        Maybe we should ban the two party system…

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          The definition of a RINO is someone who disagrees with you on one issue. It is a meaningless term used by fanatics and idiots.
          It’s Justice Kavenaugh because of Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham. I though they were RINOs

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      “Tell the federal government to take a hike.”

      That’s great in theory but in reality it just isn’t going to happen. We have to play the game on every level.

    3. avatar Dave says:

      Democrats want to ban guns, period.
      Republicans tacitly will support gun bans but only if constituent outrage demands it and more importantly they don’t “act” on eliminating bans – because constituent outrage doesn’t demand it.

      So, refusing to participate in the process simply gives the puck to the democrats with not only an empty net, but no defense on the ice at all.

      If you want republicans to do your bidding, stop posting on the internet about how bad things are and start lobbying congress vigilantly.

  22. avatar johnny go lightly says:

    Keep dreaming.

  23. avatar strych9 says:

    Why didn’t this pass? Politics and PR. It’s that simple.

    The real question we should be asking is “Do we really want this?”.

    Personally I’m a bit torn. The current patchwork system sucks especially when you transit half a dozen or more states via automobile or your plane is diverted to NY/NJ. However, I’m also not sure that National Reciprocity is the answer.

    First, I suspect that those in power will find ways to seriously abuse this “well intentioned” law, were it to become law of course, and that’s problematic.

    Secondly, I tend to be an “originalist” about the Constitution which means that while I don’t like what a state such as California or New Jersey might do vis a vis guns and gun rights I think they have the right to do it provided they are not violating their own state Constitutions to do it since the U.S. Constitution really was only meant to apply to the federal government and not to the states.

    Third, I don’t particularly care for the idea of doing this via legislation since the Congress cannot bind a future Congress meaning that this bill, were it to become the law of the land, could be repealed or negatively altered in the future. This means that, for example, there’s no reason to think that a future Congress could not/would not set “training requirements” so high that virtually no one could meet them. It also means that Congress could basically take the current patchwork of rules and reciprocity agreements, throw them out, replace them with National CCW and then apply standards to which none of us can adhere which could effectively remove the ability to CCW anywhere but within your state of residence. Hell, I’m sure that a cunning Congress critter could make it so that it’s illegal to CCW at all.

    I’m not a big fan of the 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine. However, if we’re going to roll that way as a country I’d prefer to see the SCOTUS go with an old school (like 1789 type old school) interpretation of the 2A and apply that to the several states rather than have Congress pass a bill that, if made into law, would certainly result in years of legal wrangling in the form of lawsuits and which could be changed by a future Congress in a manner which would effectively nullify CCW across state lines or restrict CCW to only the very wealthy/lucky.

    It sounds good but as they say: “Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it”.

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      @strych9

      I am with you on this. I do not believe it is a good idea to give universal power over CCW to the federal government. It wouldn’t even take Congress to raise training standards, just a small group of people appointed to head whatever agency or department or program would supervise such a thing. States’ rights is still a better way to go with this, messy as it is.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Elaine:

        My point is that even if the law forbid such a group as you mention from doing what you suggest a future Congress could change that and create the group.

        A future Congress could change such a law in any way which that Congress might desire which is a sketchy situation for the rest of us.

        This is being painted as a “safe bet” for POTG. It quite clearly is not because the rules of the game can, and probably will, change as the game is being played and those changes will almost certainly not be to our benefit.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      I guess there is no such thing as unalienable rights if the state government says so. Good old Constitution not worth a thing.

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @CZJay

        Does seem that states are more easily affected by voters, though. Texas has gotten LESS restrictive. We have both conceal and open carry now, and restrictions on open carry of knives and such has also been pretty much abolished. Depends on the people of that state. At least that way you will always have at least some states that are generous, whereas federal level regulations mean that that capability will go away.

        1. avatar Serpa9mm says:

          What happens when a few more democrats walk in through the southern border or escape from Commiefornia? I imagine you will suffer the same fate as us poor bastards with huge urban population centers that blindly vote away their rights.

        2. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Serpa

          Mexicans always owned guns in this part of the world alongside early Texans. Many liberal people here own guns. It isn’t regarded as the scary thing it seems to be in other places. It’s so woven into the culture of this state that it seems natural. Many Californians who move here end up getting guns, because they can, and they’re surprise to realize that if you are responsible and safe, it is nothing to freak out about. Also, a lot of Mexicans are quite conservative.

        3. avatar Serpa9mm says:

          Let’s see how long it takes for the Democrat controlled house to present some new useless gun control billsand voting in block to get it to the senate. As for liberals owning guns, that won’t stop those in power from slowly legislating away their rights. Ted cruz nearly lost and he is one of the strongest supporters of the Constitution in the senate. I get what you’re saying but our rights shouldn’t be up for a vote in D.C. or Texas or anywhere else.

        4. avatar Sprocket says:

          I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that voted for Beto. Below I have pasted his platform, taken from his website. Now tell us, are you being disingenuous with us, yourself, or both?

          “Require background checks for all gun sales to ensure that firearms only get into the hands of responsible, law-abiding individuals. This means finally closing the gun show, online, and boyfriend loopholes.

          *Stop selling weapons of war and high-capacity magazines to ensure that firearms designed to kill as effectively and efficiently as possible on the battlefield aren’t used in our schools, our streets, our churches, and our concerts.

          *Block the erosion of Texas’ license to carry standards by opposing Concealed Carry Reciprocity, which would force Texas to allow anyone from states with weak to nonexistent conceal carry laws to disregard our own public safety requirements.

          *Fully support federal research on gun violence so that we can better understand and address its root causes

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      some sort of compromise the guarantees free transit through states that have highly restrictive laws may be the best that we can hope for…we got that to some degree in ’86..although it’s not always honored…it might be restricted to federal highways and secure storage in airports…but, at least it would protect you from prosecutions…

  24. avatar possum says:

    The Want’s and the Givers is similar to playing chess with an opponent whose pawns are queens, with two kings to capture. I’m not liking this game.

  25. avatar former water walker says:

    Blah blah blah…I’m a whole lot more concerned about ANY rights in ILLinois(or California,Washington,NY etc. ad infinitum nauseum). CC reciprocity was never in the works…

  26. avatar Mark N. says:

    There were actually two reciprocity bill, the house bill being discussed and a Cornyn sponsored Senate bill. The House bill has two components, one of which was FixNICS that both houses wanted to pass, so it was split off and passed. The other part was national reciprocity. the House bill and the Senate bill diverged on one major point: the House bill required reciprocity for both resident and nonresident permits, while the Senate bill required reciprocity only for resident permits. Cornyn killed the House bill.

    McConnell held the Senate reciprocity bill from a vote, promising that he would bring it up after the midterms. He did not. With the short period of time left in the session, the lack of enough votes to end a filibuster, and the miserable performance of the Repubs in the midterms, there is simply no way that any Senate Democrat will vote for cloture; they have every incentive not to do so.

    At this point, national reciprocity is dead. It might have come to a vote only on a new bill in the next session had the Repubs retained their House majority. Without it, there is no possibility of a bill until the next election cycle and only if the Repubs are successful in regaining their House majority, retaining their Senate majority, and holding the White House. Without control of all three branches, it will never happen, at least not legislatively.

    This is not to suggest that individual states are in any way restricted in granting reciprocity, and some states have reciprocity with a majority of states as well as offer nonresident permits, e.g. Utah and Florida. An Ohio permit allow one to carry in 25 states. And this will remain the case, and I suggest that this is the way the states would prefer it to remain,, whether that state is permissive or restrictive.

  27. avatar GS650G says:

    Congress is total deadlock. Each party is barricaded in their toms and there is little they will both support.

  28. Its because THEIR all wrapped up in “States Rights” nonsense. AG. Of Massachusetts and the Eastern Bloc Socialist Police-State of Massachusetts=The STASI. Have filed some kind of legal action against it from my State. That was a little while back. I’m sure there’s other Socialist Police-States that have filed legal challenge against it. In order to hold it up indefinitely…Futhermore, there’s no such thing as state rights….
    **********************************************
    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Bill of Rights

  29. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Bill of Rights

  30. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    It’s not in jeopardy since it never stood even a slight chance of getting approved. It was always a fantasy and would have spent the next twenty years in court fight in the Commie states. NY, NJ, CA, MD and HI to name a few would never stand for such a law. They would throw you in jail even if it passed and you could spend a few years in jail trying to prove them wrong. The hearing act would have been nice, but it also doesn’t stand a chance.

  31. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Bill of Rights

  32. Proposed 13 June 1866
    Ratified 9 July 1868

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    Adaption of the 14th
    Due Process

  33. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Lol. It won’t come up again til campaign time. Suckers. Oh, you want to bear arms in NY and buy suppressors? Howz about I open my fly and give you an extreme risk protection order and a bump stock ban fatwah? There’s a good boy.

  34. avatar Mark H says:

    National Reciprocity is not going to happen.

    We would be better off trying to get the Hearing Protection Act passed. Removing suppressors from Class III is a Tax Bill, and tax/revenue bills are not subject to filibuster.

  35. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    I think its cute that you actually think national concealed carry ever had a chance.

  36. avatar M J Johnson says:

    …Oh…The writer actually.thinks a bunch of politicians (aka Overlords) are gonna pass that legislation? And he’s a DC lawyer, too? It’d be easier to sell the Dismal Swamp to someone before that happens.

  37. avatar Dan says:

    National CCW reciprocity is a pipe dream. A delusion. It’s NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN under the current political system infesting America. Stop worrying so much about reciprocity and START FIGHTING to keep the criminals in power from disarming us
    one tiny rule at a time. It won’t matter if your allowed a little card that says you can
    carry concealed if YOU AREN’T ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS…..and that it their REAL goal.

  38. avatar Sora says:

    I’m sending emails to Marco Rubio and Rick Scott (he’s not going to be in time but it helps.)
    DO IT! You write more on the comments here anyway.
    And then CC your friends.

  39. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Good. This is a bad bill, anyway. It’s unconstitutional and it’s a poor approach to the problem. Now, I can’t give Congress credit for not acting. They’re just doing so out of freedom-hating prejudice, not constitutionality.

  40. avatar Ryan Carlin says:

    If Shannon Watts and Michael Bloomberg had a mind control beam, they would want you to close this tab and do nothing.

    Which is funny, because that’s what some of you have decided you’re going to do because “Waaah, things will never change.”

    Just like most things in life, it’s apparently up to a small but determined minority to carry the large and indifferent majority.

    Also, if you’re a gun owner and you didn’t call your politicians, you’re an idiot. Talk to any lobbyist or politicians about how effective (sane) phone calls and emails are. You’d be surprised.

  41. avatar SalesJet.com says:

    Make sure everyone calls and ask that they pass it!

    U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee): (202) 224-3744
    U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: (202) 224-2541
    Your Senate Delegation: (202) 224-3121

  42. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    I’ll tell you why CC repricocity failed; it failed because either way you’ll be clicking your heels on the way to vote R any chance you get. By being tools you’ve lost any leverage on your elected officials. Gun rights is the least of it. You peasants talk big but have no serious idea the harm of a government let out of control by your negligence.

  43. avatar Jackass Jim says:

    If passage of this, or any similar measure, depends upon the average TTAG reader, it is doomed. It would be safer to bet on an army of un-shaven bun-head losers living cheap in their mammas’s basement . . . oh, wait – they are one and the same.

  44. avatar Tony says:

    On Feb. 11, 2018, it was reported that President Donald Trump “fully” supported the bill,[7] but on Feb. 27 it was reported that Trump instead preferred Texas Sen. John Cornyn’s “Fix NICS Act” that included stronger background checks.[8] Trump signed “Fix NICS” on March 23, 2018.

  45. avatar Aaron says:

    paul ryan and mitch squandered perhaps the last time in history in which Republicans had “the trifecta”. with the change in demographics due to democrat obstructionism on securing the border, that might have been the last gasp of civilization.

    America will slide towards latin-america style socialistic sympathies and ever more sjw restrictions on personal freedom.

  46. avatar Marshall Warren says:

    This is America last time I checked our ancestors fought for our freedom and the right to have guns and to be free we stood together then we can stand together now and fight for what we believe in I don’t know about you but I for one care about my guns and the right to carry them he have to stand up for what we believe in

  47. avatar J says:

    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.

    This bill seems as if it would just allow certain states the ability to arrest and confiscate. What is considered a “qualified individual”? and there is a huge problem with “another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms” which entails that true “reciprocity” is not evident. What sates “allow concealed carry” which puts everyone right back were we currently are on concealed carry.

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