Previous Post
Next Post


Dear Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell:

We write to respectfully urge you and your caucuses to oppose S. 2188, “The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act” and S. 2213, “The Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.” These two bills would force states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by any other states, even those with poor oversight and weaker permitting standards. These bills would create a lowest common denominator approach to public safety that would endanger police and make it more difficult to prosecute gun traffickers . . .

S. 2188 and S. 2213 trample on states’ rights by overriding our states’ legislative and regulatory authority to determine who can – and who cannot – carry hidden and loaded guns in public. For example, many states have established standards that go beyond federal law in order to keep concealed weapons out of the hands of violent misdemeanants, alcohol abusers, teenagers, and people who have not completed basic safety training. S. 2188 and S. 2213 would gut this framework, and impose the weakest state permitting and verification standards on all other states.

Under current law, states are free to enter into, refuse, or revoke concealed carry reciprocity agreements with other states. These agreements are often contingent on states having comparable permitting standards. For example, authorities in Nevada and New Mexico made the decision to stop recognizing carry permits issued by Utah, which does not require live-fire instruction as part of its training requirements. Nevada has also ended reciprocity with Florida, which only requires individuals to renew their permits every seven years. States would lose this discretion under forced reciprocity.

As Attorneys General, we are most troubled by the threat to public safety posed by local law enforcement’s inability to promptly verify out-of-state permits. Contrary to claims by proponents of national concealed carry reciprocity legislation, varying state standards make it nearly impossible for our law enforcement agencies to quickly determine if a carry permit from another state is valid. This further jeopardizes the safety of police and the public. In addition, there is no comprehensive national database or inquiry system that alerts law enforcement officers when a concealed carry permit is counterfeit, expired, or has recently been revoked.

In fact, some states also fail to adequately track their own permit issuances and revocations. The Georgia Bureau of Investigations has confirmed it cannot determine when a state permit-holder breaks the law; recently enacted Wisconsin law prohibits law enforcement from accessing permitting information during traffic stops or for purposes of investigating potential criminal activity; and Florida issued permits to more than 1,400 people who previously pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, 216 people with outstanding warrants, 128 people with active domestic violence injunctions, and six registered sex offenders.

The police officers in our states are already putting their lives on the line when they stop potentially dangerous individuals on the street. Forcing these officers to conduct traffic stops and other police activity with no ability to authenticate every other state’s carry permits would pose an extraordinary and unnecessary risk.

Forced reciprocity is opposed by national organizations including: the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Major Cities Chiefs Association, representing the police chiefs of 62 major U.S. cities; the National Network to End Domestic Violence, representing 56 state and territorial domestic violence coalitions; the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; as well as various state law enforcement associations and law enforcement leaders. Forced reciprocity is also opposed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of more than 650 mayors who collectively represent 54 million Americans.

We urge you to stand up for America’s law enforcement community and oppose S. 2188 and S. 2213.


Eric T. Schneiderman
New York Attorney General

Kamala D. Harris
California Attorney General

George Jepsen
Connecticut Attorney General

David M. Louie
Hawaii Attorney General

Lisa Madigan
Illinois Attorney General

Douglas F. Gansler
Maryland Attorney General

Martha M. Coakley
Massachusetts Attorney General

Catherine Cortez Masto
Nevada Attorney General

Ellen Rosenblum
Oregon Attorney General

Kathleen Kane
Pennsylvania Attorney General-Elect

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Lol…so others might better understand the predicament NYers are in: Gov. Cuomo; Sen. Schumer; Sen. Gillabrand; the above AG; a Dem controlled state Assembly ; and after the election a state Senate lost to some coalition of Rep. + Dem.; Countless other left wing downstate Federal pols; crazy big cities controlled by crazy Dems; RINO party machine; plus one hundred years of crazy laws.

      It wont be easy to get this state in a better place.

    • Whoa, so you’re the one gun owner in NY. Nice to meet you! I thought you were just a legend…

  1. They’ve successfully managed to keep their serfs unarmed or are trying, and they damn well expect it to stay that way. Is there a one amongst them that isn’t a Democrat?

  2. For example, many states have established standards that go beyond federal law in order to keep concealed weapons out of the hands of violent misdemeanants, alcohol abusers, teenagers, and people who have not completed basic safety training. S. 2188 and S. 2213 would gut this framework, and impose the weakest state permitting and verification standards on all other states.

    As far as I know, all of the states that he is worried about already prohibit folks from getting CWP’s if they have a history of violence, alcohol abuse, are under 21yrs old and already require some kind of safety training.

    I could be wrong, but does anyone know of a state that issues Concealed Carry permits that doesnt meet those basic criteria?

    • Two years ago when I obtained my “License to Carry Firearms” permit, PA did not have a training/proficiency requirement as part of the process. PA is also a “shall issue” state.

      • I did 18 years ago. PA is fairly reasonable that way. A lot of sky-is-falling edicts of other states are not implemented here, and no one is harm by it. BTW, I did not vote for Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General-Elect. Philadelphia should secede and take up with New Jersey and soon it will be as safe and crime free as Camden.

      • I’ve been a lawful WA CPL carrier for over 20 years. My experience has been that those who usually seek a CPL are pretty eager to educate themselves on safe weapons handling and carry practices.
        Besides, any excuse will due for tyrants.

    • I was just issued a Maine non-resident CCW at 18.

      But a history of violence or alcohol abuse was disqualifying and I needed to take a NRA Basic Pistol course.

    • No training requirements in NH, and we are also shall issue, although some escapees from the asylum to our south try to treat it like may issue.

  3. National reciprocity won’t happen anytime soon.

    Im not referencing HR822, which may or may not be signed into law. Im stating the fact that those 10 DAs and others across America will not accept mandated nationwide reciprocity at face value. Being the slimy turds that they are, the above AG’s will certainly scour the legal libraries for ways to ensure normal people stay disarmed in their territories. Think punitive fines if you’re discovered carrying, or those states and cities making defensive use of a firearm a 2 year felony offense. Such nonsense will hopefully get struck down by the judiciary, but it would take 10 years before the wrist slapping actually happens from the SCOTUS. Meanwhile, its business as usual.

    Sadly, I think the most practical long term solution to this situation is to leave reciprocity as a states’ rights issue. Take it from me when I say that there are entrenched cultural biases against legal CCW in areas like Chicago, NYC, Boston, and other places in America. We won’t eliminate those hoplophobic biases by decree.

  4. I guess I just don’t understand. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution:

    Article. IV.
    Section. 1.
    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.

    You driver’s license is good in any state. Your marriage license is good in any state. How can a CCP not be valid in any state?

    • hell, driving a car isnt even a constitutional right.

      thats the messed up thing about this whole reciprocity debate.

    • Marriage licenses aren’t good in all states; ask a gay married couple.

      Drivers license may be pretty much universal in the USA but try operating an RV and trailer combination over 65 ft. in Texas or pull double trailers with a non-commercial license in Florida.

  5. I wonder if this proposed bill could be knocked down for the same reasons that forcing states to recognize homosexual marriages might be knocked down.

    That is, if full faith and credit is extended to laws recognizing homosexual marriages, then we must insist on full faith and credit being extended to second amendment rights, so that my carry permit in Texas must be honored by New York.

    In a similar vein, if this gets knocked down, then the states might be able to use the same logic to deny full faith and credit to homosexual marriages recognized by other states.

    Goose and gander.

  6. All the usual suspects, of course, but I’m disappointed to see Nevada on the list. I had thought better of them.

  7. But somehow they are willing to accept drivers licenses from such backward states as Florida, Texas and even {GASP} West (By God) Virginia. And everyone knows that New York drivers are far better qualified and worthy than us Rednecks down here in the South. If you’ve ever seen a New York driver on your Southern road they must be the best drivers because with the way they drive they are still ALIVE.

    I am so sick and tired of these self-righteous, self-important, sanctimonious New Yorker City types. Everything about NYC is so important, so superior so much more significant than anywhere else in the world (including the rest of New York State).

  8. As a member of the Military, I am very interested in this issue. Having just been transferred from Colorado California, my permit is no longer valid, even though I am trustworthy enough to carry a weapon in defense of this country. Evidently, it doesn’t matter that I wish to protect my family to the fullest extent of my abilities.

    To address one of their concerns in the letter, if an officer pulls someone over with a concealed carry permit and that person is not breaking the law, what’s the issue? To hear them say it, the mere fact that they cannot verify a permit makes it more dangerous for them. Hate to say it, but if someone wants to do them bodily damage, they will not get to the permit verification until long after an incident which may take the life of an Officer, and if someone is using a bogus permit, what would be the purpose of presenting it to an Officer? In most states, there is no requirement to inform an officer that you are carrying. I just don’t believe their argument has merit.

    • I don’t know about other states but in Arkansas it is law that if you are a CHCL holder and you have a weapon in your vehicle when you are stopped by a LEO you are required to show your DL and your CHCL and inform the officer that you are carrying a concealed weapon. Some officers just acknowledge that and ask you to keep your hands in plain sight and others ask you to get out of your vehicle and hand over the weapon until the traffic stop is over.

      • Speed, even in hoplophobic Massachusetts, I’m under no obligation to inform Five-0 that I’m carrying. I have volunteered such information just to see what would happen, and in both cases the officers were so excited that they practically yawned.

        • Whereas in ammosexual North Carolina you used to be required to notify the cops that you are carrying. Funny how that works. Different values for different places.

          To me it’s hilarious that the folks that would scream “State’s rights!” when it benefits them are crying like babies when a state, like New York, wants to impose what they see as tougher standards.

          Don’t like New York’s laws? Then don’t travel to New York, especially with a hidden gun. Trust me, they won’t miss you.

    • Let me tell you something, that lack of interpretation of foreign state CCWs can be a good thing. Since we live in an innocent until proven guilty, there is discretion to let someone go if there aren’t any other issues (such as one that would dictate a custodial arrest).

      I completely agree – if you can defend the country while armed overseas, and in another state, it is ridiculous that you could not do the same in CA. CA has gun laws based upon ignorance and scary feelings, not facts and statistics. For what it’s worth, CA does allow a whole lot faster driving and has higher speed limits than states like WI. You generally won’t get pestered here unless you are going 15 over.

  9. Question:

    what if in retaliation, right to carry states say they will not honor drivers licenses from New York?? Have you ever seen the auto traffic in New York City?? I wouldn’t want those drivers in my state.

    • I like that idea. It’s a public safety issue too so the normal safety BS they talk about when screwing our rights would be applicable. Then, if congress tries to pass a bill to require all states to honor a drivers license, you could tack firearm reciprocity on it too.

    • There is a multistate compact that recognizes out-of-state licenses. Recognition ceases once there’s a change of domicile by the licensee. In other words, when someone moves to a new state, they have a short period of time to get a license in their new home, after which their old license is invalid.

    • I’d LOVE to see this. If they don’t want to recognize our rights, why should we recognize theirs?

  10. I couldnt read past gun trafficing and endangering police officers. I barley made it past “poor oversight.”

    Because yea, we all know crimminals must forst obtain a carry permit before they start using guns.

    My question is, are the gun grabbers REALLY that stupid or is it their justification to the fence sitters and ignorant?

  11. Red herring after red herring. As a CCW holder in several states, I’ve already complied with the highest standards applicable. So I call bullsh!t on the whole “lowest common denominator” argument. I’m certified by the MA State Police as a firearms safety instructor, by the NRA as a pistol and rifle instructor, by the NRA as a Chief Range Safety Officer and by the ATF as an FFL. I’ve been background-checked, fingerprinted and analy probed. I was a member of the New York bar for over thirty years. Still, my license will never be recognized by Schneiderman, while Robert DeNiro and Donald Trump hold valid NYC permits with zero training. So Schneiderman a lying corksucking bastage who should ES&D. And while he’s at it, he can SMD too.

    I can’t wait until somebody catches that pantywaist with a hooker.

  12. As an LEO I can run any stated issued ID card to check for validity and even get endorsements such as motorcycle, CDL, etc….

    If it’s on a state issued ID as an endorsement, then LEOs can verify during contacts where ID is requested if there is an issue. Of course that would solve a lot of the problems with national reciprocity and we wouldn’t want to go and do something like that, right?

  13. A few comments in no particular order.
    1. We should never concede that this is a state’s rights issue. That would mean that states could regulated the ownership of firearms notwithstanding the 2A and McDonald.
    2. The Gun Free School Zone Act is a federal law, and I don’t see any of these guys complaining that it violates states’ rights. Same for the NFA. Or any other federal law.
    3. Driver’s licenses are not subject to a federal proficiency standard, yet are accorded fifty state reciprocity. How are CCW licenses any different? A CCW tells the police that you have passed a criminal background check, which is the biggest issue when it comes to carrying a firearm. Moreover, if a licensee misuses a weapon, that is a crime already. And why is it so important to verify a CCW during a traffic stop? Unless someone pulls a gun on a cop-which the last time I looked was highly illegal–possession of a firearm is not an issue, drving properly/safely is. If the carrier tells the cop he is carrying, then he must not be a criminal–or why would he tell?
    4. I find it amazing that all of these mayors and police chiefs are so anti-gun, yet the average cop on the beat could care less.

  14. Yeah, nothing less than what I expected from the ditz that PA elected to AG. PA already has a less restrictive (in most areas) permitting process than most “shall issue” states including Florida. But she wants to close the “Florida Loophole”.

    She only got elected because of PSU alumni pissed about how Corbett fumbled around with the Sandusky case and don’t care about anything else. And now it looks like we got our work cut out for us again. Thanks a lot.

  15. “S. 2188 and S. 2213 trample on states’ rights”

    But every other liberal, awful, nanny-state law that is shoved down the states’ throats is just fine. Those don’t trample on states rights. What a hypocritcal tool.

    I echo the sentiment above. F*ck off Schneiderman.

  16. “These bills would create a lowest common denominator approach to public safety that would endanger police and make it more difficult to prosecute gun traffickers . . .”

    First of all I don’t see how national concealed carry reciprocity will cause anything that the New York Attorney General claims. But let’s suppose his assertions are true: he expects me to give up my rights to make law enforcement jobs safer and easier! Once again, the government fails at its primary task of securing rights — instead prioritizing law enforcement activity over citizens’ rights.

    Why stop there? Law enforcement jobs would be much easier and safer if officers could search anyone, anything, anywhere, anytime, for any reason whatsoever. So let’s chuck the Fourth Amendment, too.

    This attitude in government has to stop.

  17. “For example, authorities in Nevada and New Mexico made the decision to stop recognizing carry permits issued by Utah, which does not require live-fire instruction as part of its training requirements.”

    Why is this a concern of the NY AG? NY (surprisingly) doesn’t require training–although I think some counties do. That being said, I’m totally OK with a training requirement if NY were a shall issue state.

  18. The ironic thing is that New York is one of the ones with weak standards. Training requirements varies by county if at all. The only requirement seems to be the ability to bullshit the licensing authority on “your need” or have a lot of money.

  19. The NT AG puts LEO’s safety above the general Citizens “Rights”. I don’t like that idea!!

Comments are closed.