If a national concealed carry reciprocity bill enacted — and that’s a very big if — it would strike the biggest single blow for gun rights in the United States since the Heller decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 2008.
If licensed visitors from Kansas, Texas, Tennessee and Wyoming regularly and safely carry concealed firearms in places like New York City, San Francisco, Honolulu and Trenton — with no fender-bender dispute gun battles and no Dodge City-like blood running ankle-deep in the streets — the arguments against issuing concealed carry permits to those states’ citizens will evaporate faster than tax dollars in Illinois.
The House announced that the Judiciary Committee will mark up HR 38 tomorrow. Here’s the press release of the bill’s sponsor, North Carolina’s Rep. Richard Hudson:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (NC-08) released the following statement after the House Judiciary Committee announced it will mark up his bill, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), on Wednesday, November 29:“For me and the vast majority of Americans who support concealed carry reciprocity, this is welcome progress. I want to thank Chairman Bob Goodlatte for his strong leadership to protect our Second Amendment rights. I will continue to work with my colleagues and President Trump to pass this common sense legislation to protect law-abiding citizens.”Concealed carry reciprocity is one of the most important pro-Second Amendment measures in Congress. Currently, the patchwork of reciprocity laws and agreements between states is confusing and has caused law-abiding citizens like Shaneen Allen to unwittingly break the law and suffer arrest and detention. Even the most careful and knowledgeable concealed carry permit holders find it difficult to navigate the current maze of state and local concealed carry laws. H.R. 38 is a common sense solution. The bill, which is supported by major pro-Second Amendment groups and has 213 cosponsors, would allow law-abiding citizens with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry. It would also allow law-abiding residents of Constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own residents’ right to concealed carry.H.R. 38 would allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed only if they are not federally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm, are carrying a valid government-issued photo ID, and are lawfully licensed or otherwise entitled to carry a concealed handgun. Each person would have to follow the laws of the state, county and municipality in which they are carrying concealed.For a one-pager on the bill, click here. For a Q&A document, click here.In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” which is “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This fundamental right does not stop at a state’s borders and law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise this right when crossing state lines. In addition, Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” This is the clause that allows a driver’s license to be recognized across state lines.Contrary to the misinformation critics spread, under H.R. 38, states would retain their authority to enact time and place restrictions on where people can lawfully carry in the state. In addition, the bill would not make it any easier to buy a gun. It has nothing to do with the purchase of guns, it would not alter access to guns, and it would not change the federal law requiring background checks.The American people understand these facts. That’s why an overwhelming majority of Americans support concealed carry reciprocity – 73% according to a recent New York Times survey.
The congressional sausage-making process ain’t pretty and you can bank on the civilian disarmament industrial complex pulling out their metaphorical big guns to fight this one, tooth and nail. Stay tuned.
National reciprocity bill coming? Watch for mass shooting with a Glock 17 using lots of 33 rd magazines by someone from Florida in Virginia.
That didn’t happen when Virginia previously recognized Florida permits.
Bubba, I think your satire detector has stopped working…
VA got their ass handed to them when they revoked honoring out of state CCW permits and, to the last best of my knowledge, acknowledge all 50. FL is definitely valid in VA.
H R 38 will likely pass in the House, but will either die, or be killed by the dems and rinos in the Senate.
The absolute best case scenario is the passing of Cornyn’s Senate Bill which is a watered down version of a great resolution.
I think you’re right and we won’t even get that.
“H R 38 will likely pass in the House, but will either die, or be killed by the dems and rinos in the Senate.”
Correct, for as the Senate is *currently*.
The smart thing to do will be to pass it in the House, and then sit on it in anticipation of the Senate being in much friendlier shape *after* the mid-term election.
*Then* we can tack-on silencers, SBRs, and re-opening the MG registry to it.
Use the Leftists own sleazy legislative tricks against them… 🙂
…if it’s in better shape.
The Leftists have to defend *25* Senate seats, we only have to defend 9.
There is no way in Hell they are gonna get *that* lucky next year.
Remember – If the election were held today, the polls show Trump would not only win again, but do so by a larger lead.
All the screaming and crying by the mass media as to how horrible Trump is is having *zero* impact on his electability.
Further good new, Hillary is making noises she’ll run *again*.
Pass it in the House. Then sit on it for later…
Of course Hillary will run again, if she can make another few hundred million by doing so. How much of that 2.1 billion is in her personal accounts?
Prediction: Should this bill make it through Congress against all odds, it will be killed by a district judge for good by nationwide applicable injunction within 48 hours by demand of e.g. NY or CA. The formal decision in the matter weeks or months later will then (correctly) state that Congress has no power to enact such a law under the Commerce Clause as claimed by defendants and cite U.S. v. Lopez (among others) as precedent.
“The formal decision in the matter weeks or months later will then (correctly) state that Congress has no power to enact such a law under the Commerce Clause as claimed by defendants and cite U.S. v. Lopez (among others) as precedent.” – I’m not really aware of the “others,” but if the courts do strike the law down, then that is a victory for anyone who believes in federalism. The difference between this law and the one in Lopez is that the law in Lopez didn’t have the jurisdictional hook that H.R. 38 has. Such a ruling as you predict would be far more limiting than the Lopez decision.
“nationwide applicable injunction” – Then me might finally get dueling nationwide injunctions.
>I’m not really aware of the “others,” but if the courts do strike the law down, then that is a victory for anyone who believes in federalism.
Ah, I wasn’t thinking of any directly 2A-related decisions (which don’t exist in this particular area), but CC-centered precedent like e.g. Bass. And indeed, it would be a (rare) vindication of federalism. It wouldn’t surprise me if today’s progressive judiciary suddenly develops a taste for it just to make NCCR go away.
The jurisdictional hook in H.R. 38 they will happily laugh off as “not establishing any substantial relationship between the Congress’ powers under the CC and the activity being regulated,” my prediction goes. Bonus content: State police powers! Whoever precides over that case will suddenly become a big fan of them.
I just don’t see it happening. If the courts struck this law down on a “no authority under the commerce clause” basis and then consistently applied that standard, that would put us on a pre Wickard v. Filburn footing. And that is an understatement as this law is focused on people traveling from one state to another. It is broader than that, but that is the stated purpose.
Damn typos, “presides” it is, of course. Apologies.
I don’t think they’d have to lean out of the window that far. Applying the three-step test mandated by the Lopez decision, the courts could easily conclude that carrying a gun does not establish a commercial activity, and possibly even that said gun’s past travel in interstate commerce cannot be construed as the necessary de minimis nexus (in relation to mere carrying for self-defence) to invoke coverage by the CC — all without touching Wickard or any of the (equally mind-boggling) case law from the 30s.
That would invalidate virtually all federal gun laws. (If the courts stayed consistent; never an entirely safe bet).
Not getting my hopes up. All I want for Christmas is Trump to walk through the halls of congress and bash each politician to death with a bat.
Dang Shire-Man.
When you read stuff like that, you just have to ask yourself. . .
Hickory or Aluminum?
/sarc (with a pinch of FU if you really needed the sarc)
Neither, I want Trump to use Lucille.
I need a volunteer! Any questions!?
.. ini, mini, miny, mo…
“.. ini, mini, miny, mo…”
Oh, yes, the basement of the pawn shop in ‘Pulp Fiction’…
*snicker*
“…the arguments against issuing concealed carry permits to those states’ citizens will evaporate faster than tax dollars in Illinois.”
The anti-freedom progs will always find plenty of arguments. When the good (i.e. less laughable) ones dry up, they’ll just latch onto another dumb one and chant it unceasingly until people start to point and laugh. Rinse, wash, repeat.
If this bill makes it through the legislative process, it’ll be a small miracle. It’ll be a major miracle if it comes through in a form that even remotely achieves what it was originally meant to do.
“The congressional sausage-making process ain’t pretty”
Sigh.
Pity, I like sausage. Venison, please. 🤠
They’re also marking up the Due Process Removal Act of 2017 (NICS “improvement”) and the NRA Sellout Act of 2017 (bump stock/semi auto ban) as well, and I expect every commie rino to ram those two through.
They say they can’t do a thing to push for a pro American agenda but these republicans will jump at the chance to take your guns.
Screw the republican party and screw the nra.
Hopefully it passes and hopefully they sneak suppressors in on the bill as well.
Might as well dream big if we’re gonna dream.
Lol, you’re funny.
Like I said if we’re gonna dream let’s dream big. This bill will pass and they’ll add on the HPA, the repeal of the NFA, the repeal of the Hughes Amendment, the repeal of the GCA of 68, and they’ll scrap the NICS system.
Im not holding my breath on this one. As much as we have been kicked around for years on this one.
With the SC killing off all gun related bills as is. Especially Open Carry here in Floridah.
I don’t see this seeing the light of day anytime soon. It might pass congress but the Senate will find some bullshit excuse to keep the 2nd a second class amendment.
I hope Im wrong.
Sorry for the quibble but congress is the combination of the House and the Senate. Yes, it might pass the House but not the Senate.
No significant pro gun legislation will be passed into law, namely a clean HPA or Reciprocity bill. We don’t hold Republicans accountable. They know we’re not going to vote Democrat so why should they care?
Bingo.
They know we are not going to vote Dem no matter what. However, willingness to show up is an actual thing. Elections are not won or lost by catering to the mushy middle, they really are about exciting your base. So, eventually we need some small scrap or folks start staying home.
Honestly the HPA would be the easiest bill to pass if they wanted to, because it’s technically a tax bill, and thus the reconciliation rules apply.
Could carry reciprocity be structured like a tax?
The promoters of this bill (and that should be ALL of us) really need to publicize the several studies that have shown that concealed carry permit-holders are among the most law-abiding demographic in the United States. Permit-holders are somewhere around 6 or 7 times less likely to commit a crime than a law-enforcement officer, and when compared to the general population, that ratio jumps to many times more than that.
The fact is, the most fanatical and desperate sound bite used against this bill, “officer safety”, is a fabricated claim, and should be dispelled at every opportunity.
Don’t you also love it how gun grabbers like to scream officer safety when they’re often the ones to jump to the defense of actual cop killers?
“Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states, ‘Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.’ This is the clause that allows a driver’s license to be recognized across state lines.”
No and no. First, Full Faith and Credit does not apply to licenses. If it did, my license to practice law would have entitled me to practice anywhere in the US. I assure you it did not.
Second, drivers license recognition is a matter of agreements between the states or the unilateral recognition by a state. Just like firearms license reciprocity currently depends on agreements between states and firearms license recognition results from the unilateral action of a state.
I favor the reciprocity bill because it furthers the Constitution, specifically 2A which is the redheaded stepchild of civil rights. But to say that license reciprocity has any relation to Full Faith and Credit is completely incorrect.
While I appreciate your legal analysis, it’s safe to say that the law, and the Constitution, are a joke to anyone who wishes to ‘interpret’ it. The 2nd clearly is designed to cross State lines and needs no fancy argument to achieve that effect. It just needs recognition.
The FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition) is actively supporting this bill, and could certainly use help:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/support_hr_38_concealed_carry_reciprocity
“The 2nd clearly is designed to cross State lines and needs no fancy argument to achieve that effect.”
Exactly my point. “Full Faith and Credit” is a fancy bullsh!t argument, and totally legally incorrect. 2A is the only argument that counts.
Oklahoma to Kansas, Vice a versa, I think you left them out? In actuality this debate or law should not even be a considered subject. Unless some in Congress believe the Constitution as it stands needs abolished. The problem stems from the way the present attitude of the population precieves what it considered Freedom. Firearms become involved when the government no longer trust the people to trust it.
The NICS “improvement” bill is also coming up in the judiciary committee tomorrow (Wednesday). Call your congressman and demand he oppose it, especially if he’s on the committee (Mine is), and to offer an amendment to kill the anti-bump stock language while reopening the registry.
The repubs care no more for gun owners than the dems care about minorities. We’re a voting block they can take for granted cause we got no place else to go.
Sorry, but thats just reality
HR 38 won’t be worth a damn unless the bill removes states rights to limit as they wish. All the libtard states will just enact border to border gun free zones effectively neutering anything accomplished. National Reciprocity needs to be written so that I can carry all around California just like I can in Maine with my state issued CC Permit.
It does limit the states’ ability to have gun free zones.
does it fix gun free school zone rules? i wouldn’t be surprised if 90 percent of a city like new york or sanfancisco was within 1000 feet of some kind of school…public, private, church
It does not fix the school zone issue. It preempts all state gfz laws except for state property gfz and laws that allow private property owners to ban carrying (e.g., Texas Penal Code 30.06).
To violate the gfsz law, you have to know or have reason to believe you are within 3 and 1/3rd football fields of a school. Though big densely populated cities are probably pretty close to 90% covered.
California CCW holders are exempt from the 1000′ GFSZA limit; they may not, however, carry on an actual campus. If they were not exempt, CCWs would be utterly useless in any of the urban areas, because you pretty much cannot move from one permitted zone to another without transiting a school zone. In a lot of places, you can’t even drive down the interstate without passing through school zones.
The GFSZA does not apply to the possession of a firearm “if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)(ii).
So, not just California, but by the plain language of the statute, the exception to the GFSZA wouldn’t apply to someone with a license who is legally carrying with a license recognized by the state they are in, but not issued by that state (any reciprocity situation).
Turns out H.R. 38 does fix the GFSZA thing. “(f) (1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun.” 922(q) is the GFSZA. It’s been just over five months since I closely examined the proposed statute.
Watch they don’t put another Hughes style amendment in it.
We need to elect Republicans who have the balls to offer up anti-Hughes amendments at the last minute.
Make concealed carry reciprocity a Federal carry permit available to anyone currently able to carry a concealed firearm in their home state for the nominal tax of $1.
Once it is turned into a tax, it can be attached to the House tax reform bill.
Not the best way but it gets us closer to our goal.
“Make concealed carry reciprocity a Federal carry permit available to anyone currently able to carry a concealed firearm in their home state for the nominal tax of $1.”
Upon reflection of my flippant comment on a carry tax above, would not the danger with that route be the next Leftist administration jacking up the tax to 5 thousand a year, or more?
A variation on the same trick they used in the ’20s to enact the NFA, when $200 back then works out to $2,000 or so today…
I wasn’t thinking of an annual tax.
Hopefully, most POTG would have their $1 permits before Trump leaves office.
And something would be better than nothing.
They all know it is dead in Senate. All this is just for show.
SCOTUS refuses to take up the issue. Congress refuses to take up the issue. President refuses to take up the issue (pull your heads out, Trump’s done almost nothing for gunowners to earn their continued loyalty so far). Media refuses to honestly report the issue. One of the most popular (i.e. persons) and far reaching issues, and far easier to solve than others like taxes or healthcare, and it is barely acknowledged, and only by patronizing noises.
What other recourse is there?
I live in an R district in NC, so I know my Congressman and Senators will vote for HR38. That does not mean it will go anywhere. While I do trust these 3 on the 2A, they can’t be trusted on anything else. When I wrote to them about my opposition to the tax “reform” legislation, so far I have gotten zero response from 2 and an FU letter from one of the Senators, strongly suggesting that he knew best.
Has your Congressman co-sponsored HR 38? If they did like mine did, thank them! Remind them you support the bill in any case, because they need to know we are paying attention.
“If the central government has the authority to tell a state it must accept permits from all the other states, then it also has the authority to tell a state it may not accept a concealed permit from any other states. If the central government can do these things it can set up a national concealed carry permit scheme and in essence bring into existence a national arms registry. That is exactly where this is headed.” Attorney Richard D. Fry
Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large to restrict our arms (CCW’s are a restriction). Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.
So before ya’ll get excited about HR38 which is a nice idea, just that no delegated authority for FedGov to do it. CCW’s are you asking permission of your Government to exercise your right. Rights don’t come from Government.
Sounds like the author of the article was absent the day the taught the Constitution…oops sorry they don’t teach the Constitution in Government schools or law school, so it’s up to each of us to get educated, God knows our “elected” Representatives aren’t.
http://krisannehall.com/lesson-gun-control-2/
The central government has the authority to stop states from violating the 2A. That’s in Section 5 of the 14A. It also has the authority to make laws regarding the militia. Specifically “[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” Additionally, it has the authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” that power. Furthermore, it has the authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes: and to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” that power. The powers granted by the Constitution to the central government are limited by the Bill of Rights and other provisions of the Constitution.
H.R. 38 is a bill allowing people (the militia) to move from one state to another (a key component of interstate commerce) while bearing arms (one of the rights protected by the Constitution). The Congress has the authority to pass this law under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 3 and 16 (and probably others in that section) and Section 5 of the 14A. What exactly in the Constitution prohibits Congress from making such a law?
Sounds maybe you were the one absent the day the Constitution was being taught.
Well that’s lets CAlifornia an out as the state does not issue permits
Depending on where you live, you need to make your carry gun “acceptable” for cross-state carry.
Because although this might give people the ability to give PA residents the ability to carry concealed in New York, it doesn’t repeal their stupid SAFE act and if you’re packing a Glock 19, you could be in some shit in places like MA or NY that restrict magazine sizes.
Still, progress is progress.
The bill generally protects your right to “possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” § 926D(a).
§ 926D(e) defines a handgun to include “any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.” This means that magazine capacity limits are preempted for handguns covered by the bill. Also, you won’t have to comply with weird laws about ammo when you carry it in your magazine. I’ve heard hollowpoints are illegal in New Jersey. You could carry hollow points in your magazine in New Jersey under this bill.
Hollow Points are only illegal for use in a CCW scenario. You can still have/use them at home or the range. Unfortunately, there are only approximately (common guestimate) CCWs issued, and all go to ex-LEO and judges/politicians. No other citizen is eligible, unless you’ve been killed by a violent criminal (truth).
*…oops, 1500 CCW permits issued
That presents an interesting legal question. By way of disclaimer, my understanding of NJ law is not based on any primary sources. So if it is legal to own and possess hollow points in NJ, but not carry them, I’d say the statute clearly trumps this law because it specifically grants the right to carry hollow points (if they’re in the gun) to the eligible people.
Now if NJ law says that you can’t shoot someone in self defense using hollow points, that’s a much murkier question. Heller basically said people have a right to self defense, and the 2A protects the ancillary right to keep and bear arms in furtherance of this right. So if we have a right of self-defense and a right to bear arms for self-defense, and ammunition being a subset or arms, then we have a constitutional right to shoot people (in self-defense) with hollow points, and the NJ law is void as unconstitutional. The only question would be if courts follow the law as stated in Heller.
Best course of action today is to call your congressman and leave a message urging him (her) to support HR 38, the concealed carry reciprocity bill. No need to say anything else – all they do is count the “for” and “against”, and generally vote to keep themselves in office.
Sounds like a violation of the 10th amendment and states’ rights.
“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.”
Congress is expressly delegated the power to do this in no less than three different sections of the Constitution. (And the 10A is states’ rights).
For all of you Lawyer or Legislative types; will H.R. 38 allow for non-resident permit holders to CCW in every state? I live in NJ, and if we allow (if HR 38 passes) non-NJ CCW holders to carry here, we still would not be able to acquire a CCW while living in NJ, based on existing law. Is this scenario addressed at all?
Yes. The statute protects the right of qualified people to carry concealed qualified handguns in qualified states.
The qualifications for people are (1) not being a prohibited person, (2) having a valid photo ID, and (3) either (a) having a permit/license issued by “a state,” or (b) being a resident of a Constitutional Carry state.
The qualifications for the handguns are (1) that “has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce (so effectively all of them ever), (2) that it not be a “machinegun or destructive device,” and, I’d argue, (3) that it is a firearm under federal law.
The qualifications for states include all the states and D.C. (which is a state under the definition).