Axios: NRA Victory is at Hand!

NRA about to score a victory with national reciprocity bill.


As a rather breathless Axios report by Alayna Treene begins, “The National Rifle Association is expected to score its first big legislative win of the year this week, when the House votes on a concealed-carry bill that’s likely to pass. It’s the group’s first major legislative priority to see action on the floor since President Trump took office, and it would show that the group still has clout on Capitol Hill after experiencing a series of unusual setbacks in the last few months.”

Yes, well let’s not put the cart before the proverbial horse. As we learned from Schoolhouse Rock, it’s a long, long journey from bill to law. And for the record, that “concealed carry” bill of which Axios speaks is better known in these parts as national reciprocity. It’s the radical idea that a concealed carry permit that’s issued in one state should be recognized by the other 49. Just like your drivers or marriage license.

The NRA should be able to get most of what it wants in Congress, given that Republicans control both chambers and are friendly to the group’s agenda on most issues.

Whoa, easy there, Alayna! Maybe she hasn’t noticed that so far, that Republican Senate majority has been anything but reliable supporters of the most prominent priorities that GOP legislators and President Trump campaigned on last year. Still, Ms. Treene seems to be projecting nothing but sunshine and rainbows for the NRA.

Even if the House passes the bill, the Senate is an entirely different challenge, as the measure will need to garner the required 60 votes to pass. But even there, momentum is building. Some Democratic senators who are on the ballot next year have expressed that they’re open to supporting concealed carry.

With a slim 52-48 GOP majority — not to mention being saddled with card carrying Trump-haters and fortitudinally-challenged squishes with names like Flake, Corker, McCain, Murkowsky and Collins — even passing a bill to enact National Apple Pie Day has proven to be a struggle over the last year.

But OK, let’s celebrate the small victories…passing the House would certainly be a positive step forward. As political victories go, however, the NRA already scored one if its biggest of all time back in April when Neil Gorsuch was sworn in to fill the long-empty Scalia SCOTUS seat. After going all-in to help elect Donald Trump and other Republicans, the NRA managed to avoid the judicial horror show that would have been Hillary Clinton’s appointments to all levels of the federal bench and their rulings for the next generation or more.

Back to that bill, though. National reciprocity is the most important priority of the NRA in Congress — and the most feared by members of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex. The specter of Kansans, Texans and Michiganders blithely strolling down Broadway in Times Square or ambling through the Embarcadero while packing a piece sends shivers of dread down their statist spines. That alone should be enough reason to support it, never mind the salutary effects of spreading the gun culture and allowing Americans to legally keep and bear arms wherever their travels may take them.

So while the Hearing Protection Act, or the SHARE Act, or whatever they’re calling the latest iteration of suppressor deregulation would certainly be welcome — not least by suppressor makers — the legislative Big Kahuna for the NRA and the rest of us in the pro-Second Amendment community is and always will be national reciprocity.

What do the mouthpieces on both sides have to say?

Jennifer Baker, director of public affairs for the NRA: “After eight long years of playing defense and beating back the extreme gun control agenda of Barack Obama, the NRA is playing offense and scoring substantive wins for our members … Couple the progress on policy priorities with the nomination of Justice Gorsuch, Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Zinke and it’s been an extremely successful year for the Second Amendment.”

John Fleinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety: “Up and down the line this year, candidates who supported gun safety won … While the NRA is getting more extreme, the American public seems to be going in the opposite direction.”

And so it goes. Watching the legislative sausage being made isn’t pretty, but that’s why you pay us the big bucks. Stay tuned.


  1. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

    Sorry, but unfortunately this is DOA in the Senate.

    1. avatar thebronze says:

      Don’t be so sure…

    2. avatar JohnnyL says:

      This is the kind of Attitude we don’t need. You should be writing your Representative and donating to the NRA or GOA.

      1. avatar Robert H says:

        I just read that there is a REAL possibility that HR 38 and HR 4477 will get merged on Tuesday the 5th! This is coming from the GOA who had mentioned earlier that it was just a proposal among the 100 other proposals that had been discussed when it was in the judiciary committee however now it appears the two will be merged and if that happens, we should hope this legislation be defeated! This is nothing more than the same crap that got the Hughes Amendment passed! I truly hope this is wrong but I doubt we’ll get any early Christmas presents from the feds..!

        1. avatar Hank says:

          Ok it seems like we’re about to shoot ourselves in the foot here by screaming “we need to defeat this bill”. We don’t need to defeat it, we just have to prevent poison pills. That’s not super hard. You need to calm the fuck down.

        2. avatar tmm says:

          So when you call your congress folk, guys, let them know that we can’t support 38 if they join it to 4477.

          From a post at:

          If we pass a combined bill, we will have to accept the fact that NICS will get a whole lot worse and you can expect a whole bunch more delays and denials coming out of the NICS system.

          If you ever talked to your doctor about being depressed, you’re not able to own a firearm. If you have been diagnosed with ADHD, you’re no longer eligible to buy a firearm. Have you sought help with your finances before? You’re no longer eligible to own a firearm. Are you over 65? You may no longer be eligible to own a firearm. Hell, if you have an unpaid traffic ticket, you’re no longer eligible to buy a firearm under HR 4477.

        3. avatar Robert Hanlin says:

          Hank… ‘I’ need to calm the fuck down..? All I’m doing is passing along information that I got from the GOA! What I’m telling you and others is that if they merge the reciprocity bill with the NICS fix bill, we need to HOPE that it fails… Read what I said Hank and understand what I meant before jumping all over me (or others)!

    3. avatar TruthTellers says:

      The Dems are going to try and add a NICS fix amendment to this bill. There’s a chance that if the NICS fix is added dems in the Senate will vote yea and it will pass.

      We’ll see what happens in the next few days. The additions to bills can be vast and not even related to the bill at hand.

    4. avatar gomer says:

      OH, then you’ve already polled senators…well good for you, now onto…???

    5. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

      It’s DEAD DEAD DEAD in the senate. DiFi and Schumer will never let pass. If combined with the “NICS-FIX”, maybe it should effing die.

  2. avatar jwm says:

    The next appointment to the scotus will be the major victory. And continue filling those lower judge seats with Gorsuch style judges. We might see the 9th circuit conservative one day.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      I have been hearing the Trump admin. is paying particular attention to filling vacant Federal bench seats.

      At a rate of *3* times faster than Obama did. That is a direct result of Trump listening to Steve Bannon when he had Trumps’s ear.

      This is good, no doubt, but a *lot* of judges from the Regan-Bush era are retiring, and packing the court with fresh meat must not slow down…

  3. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    This is a bad idea for any number of reasons which I’ve already explained and which nobody believes. It is also gross hyperbole. Passing a law which will not only fail to help firearms owners but will be corrupted and turned toward gun prohibition is the farthest thing from a victory.

    A real victory would have been passing the Hearing Protection Act or SAFE Act so that firearms owners can finally use hundred year old technology without onerous registration.

    National concealed carry reciprocity will change nothing. The Democrats will have one of their pet judges in Hawaii declare a Constitutional crisis and enjoin enforcement of the new law nationwide before the end of the day it is passed.

    1. avatar thebronze says:

      You’re literally a moron.

    2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      Wrong… National reciprocity will change everything. It smells like freedom.

    3. avatar Ben says:

      You’re a 2a supporter in name only… Ability to carry in all fifty states is way bigger than easing the ability to get a suppressor..

    4. avatar Excedrine says:


      You’re categorically wrong on every conceivable level about national reciprocity. Your post is bad and you should feel bad.

    5. avatar Hank says:

      Where are you getting the idea this will be turned on us from? Really I’d like to know because I keep reading this here and it all seems like a load of bullshit. There’s a serious effort to undermine this bill by getting us to turn on eachother out of fear, being led by fienstine. Ignore that. We need to be together on this and push to win the war. We’re never going to have one massive ideologically pure bill. This will be a major victory but it isn’t going to be the last.

      1. avatar Burger says:

        Didn’t your 5th grade teacher tell you to never end a sentence with a preposition?

    6. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “This is a bad idea for any number of reasons which I’ve already explained and which nobody believes.”

      I disagree, Caderyn.

      The big *payoff* comes when a liberal or un-reliable conservative SCOTUS seat (like Kennedy) opens up in the near future.

      Patience. We’ll be getting the last (and *best*) laugh on this one… 🙂

    7. avatar gomer says:

      The sky is falling, the sky is falling…


    8. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      The legislators who wrote HP 38 should be informed then. They ought to be writing a law that doesn’t beat around the bush and hasn’t any wiggle room. The NRA should start threatening to challenge drivers license reciprocity. Have a couple lawyers hold a press conference on the steps of the Jefferson memorial and say if HP38 doesn’t pass at the speed of light they are filing injunctions to make your drivers license only good for your own state.

      CHAOS! Make libturds heads spin like Linda Blair in the Exorcist.

      1. avatar Brian says:

        I’m sure the NRA will get right on that. Right after they challenge the Hughes amendment once the FOPA is made law. Oh wait, you mean it’s NOT 1986 anymore?!

  4. avatar Hank says:

    National Reciprocity should be our greatest priority right now. It’s time to stop playing defense. It’s not likely to pass the senate but that doesn’t mean we should give up. We still need to try. Keep pushing for this, and hopefully expand the senate majority in the mid terms, and try to primary as many RINO’s out of the equation as possible. Either way we have the momentum right now and we’re making the anti’s collectively Shit their pants. National Reciprocity is taking the fight to them. Now they are the ones crying about states rights and outsiders infringing on their locales. It’s time to lay on the gas hard and give them a taste of their own medicine.

  5. avatar Missouri_Mule says:


    1. avatar BLoving says:

      Well, yes, of course it’s not over until the checkered flag drops but when were a lap ahead of our competitors can we at least be allowed to feel kinda good about it? 🤠

  6. avatar Cory C says:

    If we can get one or two more Clarence Thomas types in SCOTUS, then we can finally pump some life into the the full faith and credit clause and not have to worry so much about legislators deciding to us use our rights.

  7. avatar Sigo says:

    Did I miss something in middle school? Since when does it take 60 votes for a bill to pass through the Senate? Do we have 60 states now? Someone needs to get to work on a new flag….

    1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      Yes, you did miss something in middle school.

      First, each state gets 2 senate seats. 50 states * 2 senate seats each = 100 total senate seats, and the Vice President can vote as a tie breaker.

      Second, there is something called a ‘Filibuster’. Basically, in the Senate, any Senator can speak for as long as they wish regarding any bill. UNLESS 3/5 ( = 60 ) Senators ‘bring the debate to a close’ via ‘cloture’. A Filibuster is not part of the US Constitution, however, it is part of the Senate Rules. Filibusters are only allowed on bills that have no $$$ associated with them (note, this was a Harry Reid rule change during Obama’s Presidency; It was a gamble then, and has since been used against the Democrats…)

      So, technically, it only takes 51 to pass; however, in reality, you need 60 to bring cloture first, then 51 to vote ‘Yea’ to carry the motion.

      1. avatar Hank says:

        Is there a way to use the “nuclear option” to pass it?

        1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

          The ‘nuclear option’ refers to changing Senate Rules to prevent gridlock. It’s risky, just like Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The Dems used the Nuclear Option to get the Senate to approve Federal Court Justices during the Obama Administration by removing the filibuster for Presidential Appointees. The Repubs then used those same rules to get Justice Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court. Except the Repubs didn’t have to change the rules because the Dems did it for them.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          But unlike MAD, the other party can’t respond for at least a handful of years. Also, the only destruction is to the continued willingness of the parties to put the knives away and work together…oh wait, that ship sailed when ACA was rammed through, and unmoored when Bush II was elected (and they threw the same unjustified hissy fit they are now)

          So, why do we think we can ever work with these fanatics again? Why would we even want to? Are we just basing our strategy on the assumption they’ll win in the end (i.e. a losing strategy) and needlessly holding off on a coup de grace that could potentially rid the Dems of their corrupt, communist elements? That’s all that happens if you ‘kill’ a political party; they oust the leadership amd regroup with a modified (and more popular) message.

        3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          One way is to actually force the filibuster to be an actual speaking filibuster and hold the Senate open forcing the Democrats to truly filibuster not just pretend like they do currently.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Under current filibuster rules, they don’t even have to speak; all they have to do is announce a filibuster. The idea is that other business can go on and not be interrupted by someone standing at the lectern until he/she collapses or gives up. (I guess.)

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Correct, as I understand it.

          *Tweak* those rules (that *we*, I might add, are in charge of) that a filibuster requires a senator to stand there and orate. Continuously. With *zero* bathroom breaks.

          If they want to filibuster, fine.

          Make ’em work for it, force them to show their dedication to their precious ‘Progressive’ ideals…

      3. avatar Geoff PR says:


        ‘Dirty’ Harry Reid isn’t the one writing the Senate rules these days…

        1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

          *Pssst* Never said he was.

          However, if you REALLY think the best move is to change Senate Rules to get this past, you have NO concept of the long game.

          Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules to get Federal Justices appointed. And now that the Dems are not in power, they have regretted changing the rules. See Justice Gorsuch for just ONE example.

          So, sure, Mitch McConnell, as Senate Majority Leader, can change the rules. And then what? Every bill becomes simple majority in the Senate? Do you really think that won’t hurt you later? It’s not called the Nuclear Option to be used at a whim. It’s the last resort, and even then, extremely cautiously.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          Nah, Reps definitely took ‘the blame’ for the nuke option w/ Gorsuch even though Reid got the ball rolling. He made a strategic decision to gut the opposition under the false assumption Hillary would win in the end; that is the only mistake he made. Had anyone but the Beast been nominated, Reid would have been pretty pleased with his decision right about now.

  8. avatar Stereodude says:

    The bill is basically worthless. I don’t know why everyone is so excited about it. (Presuming it actually passes.) If its not stopped in the courts by liberal activist judges like the travel restrictions, the states and cities against it will find a way to create new laws that make it virtually impossible for any out of state concealed carry permit holder to legally comply with their state and local restrictions and regulations.

    Now the SHARE act would be useful to me and others.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      You got to look at how how bills are passed and political capital is spent. Even if it fails, pushing the antis into devoting a ton of political capital to defeat the bill, or fight it after its passed, means they have less ability to push their own agenda, and also makes them weaker in other areas. Bills and courts cost money and votes. It’s about playing offense and making them pay for the previous 8 years. We can leave them broke, beaten, and scared.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      The SHARE Act is utterly useless to me, since my state separately bans suppressors and threaded barrels on pistols and revolvers. Although I don’t often travel, a California CCW is not recognized anywhere else, and that would be a good thing if it were. I think it wold be difficult to enact laws preventing tourists from carrying in restrictive states–since the House Bill, as written, basically says that all states have to recognize the permits issued by every other state. Yes, subject to state laws on carrying, but do you really think that they will take the nuclear option and ban concealed carry? (I know of one California Assemblyman who wants to do just that, but that is one law that I would think even the California Legislature would balk at passing. Because it would mean that California had effectively banned all carry in all cities and towns. I would hope SCOTUS would have a hard time ignoring an appeal of such a law.)

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “Although I don’t often travel, a California CCW is not recognized anywhere else …”

        Mark N.,

        My state honors resident concealed carry licenses from all states. Thus, your California concealed carry license works in my state if you ever visit here.

        And I am pretty confident that several other states (although certainly not all shall-issue states) have the same provision.

      2. avatar Bob in Calif says:

        Hey Mark…check out this website and get back to us on that Cal CCW thing.

      3. avatar barnbwt says:

        SHARE preempts a lot of state restrictions, as well as 922r and a ton of federal restrictions. Many states’ definitions of ‘sporting purposes’ would also be broadened.

    3. avatar SurfGW says:

      The bill gets inside the liberal OODA loop. It has zero chance of surviving all of the court challenges and may not be the best idea overall but just putting liberals on their back heels fighting this bill means that other more meaningful bills can be passed with minimal opposition.

  9. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Stepenwolff, Monster pretty well sums it up. …….

  10. avatar Mad Max says:

    I heard they were going to tack-on the fixNICS bill to the reciprocity bill. That would be bad.

    If you want National reciprocity and silencers without fixNICS, tack them both onto DACA.

  11. avatar Uh-hu says:

    Call me a cynic but, wouldn’t national reciprocity make a nice segway to national firearm registration, when the lib dems get back control? I’m Extremely wary of anything the govt. doe’s good or bad, My gut tells me this bill is a Trojan horse to registration. I Hope and pray i’m wrong. govt. gridlock is good nothing gets done, It’s safe. We’ll see…….

    1. avatar Hank says:

      The safety of gov gridlock only lasts so long. Do you want safety or do you want to win?

    2. avatar Excedrine says:

      No, it wouldn’t. Had you actually read the bill, you’d know that it contains no path to registration at all.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        It will set another precedent – unless overturned by SCOTUS – for national level firearms legislation.

        Those already exist, of course, but this would be anothet example.

    3. avatar No one of consequence says:

      That is one danger.

      Another is that it means all the states’ CCW databases will need to be linked (because a physical permit could always be forged … But God help you if you’re caught without that piece of plastic in some states). That wouldn’t be a national gun registry in full, nor would it be a complete national registry of gun owners … But it would come closer than anything else (that’s legal and publically acknowledged) at the moment.

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    I’m profoundly skeptical of reciprocity. At this stage of my life all I want is Illinois to be like Indiana(without me moving!). I have no big travel plans and the states I’m likely to travel to already recognize Illinois…CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY for the win.

    1. avatar Uh-hu says:

      IMO, Constitutional carry is the only way of carrying a pistol concealed or open, Constitutionally infringement free; (in all 57 states)sarc. Ideally via a reformed NICS.
      Pass NICS then carry any damn way you please. carrying a pistol should be so common no one thinks twice seeing one, like carrying a phone.

  13. avatar Michael says:

    Given the potential for amendments to the bill for NICS, it could be turned into anything and the potential for later amendment of the law exists. Given the liberal bent of many republican senators, I could see this watered down and stricter NICS or ???

    1. avatar Defens says:

      ANY bill could be amended to contain anti-gun legislation. Isn’t it nice for a change to see pro-gun legislation making progress, even if it needs to be quashed at some point?

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    Either way, it’s a litmus test. Let them type out the sh_t-list for us.

  15. avatar FGMike says:

    Not so fast. There’s a NICS monkey-wrench in the works. See:

  16. avatar Kyle says:

    I’m a California CCW holder, that means I’m a pessimist. I wish I believed that anything could change, but I’ve just seen our rights nibbled and slowly eroded away over time.

    Does anyone think I should write my senators: Diane Feinstein & Kamala Harris.
    Any chance that will do a lick of good?

    How about my congressmen: Jimmy Panetta.
    That would be Leon Panetta’s kid.
    Any one truly believe I’ll be getting him to vote for anything that the NRA would endorse?

    I’ll hope for the best, but in my opinion, our only hope is that trump will put in conservative supreme court justices and they revisit many gun laws and remind america what the words, “Shall not be infringed” mean.

    But, as I said, I’m almost as rare as bigfoot. i’m a california CCW holder. I hold out little hope for anything substantive that will turn in my favor in my lifetime.

  17. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    That word, “victory”, I do not think it means what you you think it means.

    A bill passing out of committee is NOT a victory.

    A bill passing the House is NOT a victory.

    A bill becoming law that the states ignore and fedzilla does not enforce is NOT a victory.

  18. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    Whoa there naysayers! We’re seriously using fucking Facebook as a credible source now!?!?!?

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