Previous Post
Next Post
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.)

Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.) announced Saturday at the Texas State Rifle Association’s general meeting that he would introduce the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” in the U.S. Senate next week. The bill would “allow those with concealed carry privileges in their home states to exercise those rights in states with similar laws.”

According to Kerry Picket of the Daily Caller, Sen. Cornyn’s bill is expected to be an upper-chamber companion to North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson’s National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which was introduced into the house in January. Rep. Hudson’s bill would arguably allow residents of New York and other states to carry a firearm in their home states.

Rep. Richard Hudson

The bill is carefully worded to allow the possibility as long the New Yorkers were issued a license to carry from states like Utah or Florida, which issue licenses to non-residents who undergo a background check and complete a training requirement.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to express opposition to any sort of national reciprocity bill. New York County D.A. Cyrus Vance, Jr. signalled his strong opposition to national reciprocity at a meeting of the Women’s National Republican Club in Manhattan on Wednesday night, reports the New York Post.

Cyrus Vance, Jr. Via wikipedia.

Vance declared that a national reciprocity bill would be “a mistake.”

“Our gun laws I think are a significant part in the rapid and consistent decline in violent crime in New York state and New York City,” said Vance, noting that people carrying an illegal weapon in New York now face up to three-and-a-half years behind bars. “It’s important to have gun laws.”

The Post also reported that there was some opposition to the pending bills in Congress from the New York law enforcement community, but could not, apparently, get anyone to speak on record about it. Instead, the paper quoted the anonymous and dubious “one police source” and “another cop.”

According to the Post, all “one police source” could come up with was the usual blood-in-the-streets argument anti-gunners have been spouting for decades:

It’s going to be like the wild, wild West. There could be a lot of shootouts, and not only with cops. If this person who comes [to New York] gets into a dispute, an argument with someone else, their first reaction might be to pull out a firearm and use it in the confrontation….

And “another cop” averred:

This would lead to anarchy. You’d just make our job ten times harder when you let any Tom, Dick and Harry walk into New York City with their guns in holsters….

Perhaps the supposed law enforcement sources the Post allegedly dug up declined to provide their names because they feared embarrassment due to the hackneyed, hysterical nature of their objections. Or maybe they were just punking the Post reporters.

In any event, the Post correctly reports that President Trump is on record as supporting national concealed carry reciprocity. “The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway,” the president said on his website during last year’s campaign.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week, Presidential Advisor Steve Bannon exhorted the crowd to keep up the pressure on elected officials — including the administration — to honor their promises. “Hold us accountable,” Bannon said. “Hold us accountable to what we promised, hold us accountable for delivering on what we promised.” Roger that.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. OT: I was at a very well attended Tampa gun show yesterday. The background checks were running 2 hours +

    It also seems most of the attendees are returnig new owners created by that bit of unpleasant in Newtown. They are now looking to pad their safes now that inventory and prices are more sane. (My personal observation)

    • Sounds like Costa County permit holders need to get busy Doxxing every employee of the Sheriffs department to start.

      I would go as far as doing every cop, and politician as well.

  2. It will take 60 votes for this bill to come to a vote and those votes aren’t there. The only way this bill comes to a vote is if it get attached to something the Democrats can’t live without.

    • Last time I checked, the CotUS only requires 51 votes to pass any legislation. The DNC already let the nuclear genie out of the bottle. Turnabout is fair play.

      • The Constitution leaves it up to each House to set its own rules. The current rule is that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to end debate on legislation and SCOTUS nominations. Nobody is going to end the filibuster over a niche issue especially after the Democrats have discovered it was a horrible mistake to do so. Someday our side will be in the minority again. Don’t you think it would be a good idea to protect minority rights?

        • Make them do a real filibuster. This “threat of filibuster” stopping legislation is crap. The rules say that a senator has to stand and speak until enough of the opposition has left for a call for a vote will let his side win. Make them actually do it.

    • Or they could claim it’s a budget matter like Obamacare. Or the Republicans could just eliminate the filibuster altogether and point the finger at Harry Reid for starting the precedent.

      • “Or they could claim it’s a budget matter like Obamacare.”

        Oh, my.

        Why, that would mean things with a tax stamp could conceivably be done that way…

        • The one place I think the founding fathers screwed up is that it should take a 60% majority in both the House and Senate to pass a new law and only a 50% (not +1) to eliminate a law. If half the people want a law off the books there’s no justification for keeping it.

      • Or they could “pass” it like 0bamacare, which was just “deemed” to have passed. Does away with those bothersome votes.

  3. While Im all for the bill. Im not holding my breath. If it does indeed need 60 votes. Getting 7 or 8 Dims onboard will be an uphill battle for sure. It also if defeated. Will at least let us know where the ones who are up for reelection in 2018 stand.
    Selfishly as a Florida permit holder good in over 35 states and never planning to go to the Left or Right upper coasts again anyway.
    Screwem if it isn’t passed. Id be carrying if I had to be there anyway.

  4. So it’s not really a “Constitutional” concealed carry bill. In other words it’s a bone being thrown to us in hopes that we’ll stop insisting on full restoration of our 2nd amendment rights. Won’t work.

    • Or maybe, just maybe, it’s a bill presented by those capable of using logic who understand that rolling back every single 2A violation in one fell swoop is a political nonstarter. “Perfect is the enemy of good.” Remember that. Small victories are still victories, and any forward movement we can make should be a welcome change to any gun owner after what we’ve endured the last 8 years, and what we very nearly got stuck with in November.

      That is one thing that the left got figured out a LONG time ago, that the right still struggles with. Play the long game. You aren’t going to win the war in one battle. It’s going to take a lot of fighting, in a lot of places, over a long period of time. But we need to be pursuing every chance we have of winning, regardless of how small it may be.

      Don’t throw a little bitch fit and cry about how it’s not good enough. Sure, everybody would like to be able to mail order new production FA weapons, but we’re not there yet. And we never will be if we don’t push hard and make the little victories. That is how we’re going to win. The same way the radical left was so successful in pushing their agenda over the last several decades. They didn’t try to do it with one piece of legislation. We can’t either.

      • In your zeal to proclaim me “a little bitch” you missed the essential point of my post. Namely that this new bill is a soporific mean to lull us into believing that they are actually doing something when in fact Cornyn knows that it will go nowhere. Much like the hearing protection act we are supposed to “revel in our small victory” when nothing of the sort will actually happen.

        I sincerely hope we can revel at some point soon. I know better.

      • Russ you perfectly illustrate why the Republicans and specifically Conservatives have failed to conserve anything.

        All Whiskey starts life as 140 proof clear liquor. Its then aged and diluted to a taste that embraces what the creator intended, and is also acceptable to the consumer.

        When the tired old conservative losers such as yourself actually realize you begin negotiations by listing all of your demands, and then watering down that list until it becomes exactly what the target market demands and then generally palatable to the mainstream, we as gun owners would get a lot more of our freedoms back.

        Its what the Democrats have done since FDR. So wake up and find your spine.

        • Jesus H. Christ. I think some you will not be happy till we have ammo vending machines next the coke & pepsi……..

        • My spine is secured exactly where it should be. Thanks for your concern, though.

          Believe you me, I’m as rabid a 2nd Amendment supporter as you will find. But, I’m also a realist. And the reality is, “all or nothing” bills rarely have the support to go anywhere. In fact, I can’t think of any that have ever gained traction. That’s why “compromise” is a word so often thrown around in the halls of Congress; because everybody knows that “all or nothing” always results in “nothing”.

          Let’s examine a theoretical scenario. In 2003, Alaska became the first state to repeal its Concealed Carry Permit requirements. Before then, Vermont was the only state in which one could legally conceal a firearm with no government-issued permission slip. Now, we have 12? states that no longer require those permission slips. Would you rather go back to a 2002 gun owning world, because we couldn’t pass Constitutional Carry throughout the nation all at once? Of course not.

          Anybody with the ability to reason will agree, a bill that’s on the good side of “okay” that actually passes is STILL preferable to an AWESOME bill that goes nowhere. And with every small victory, the momentum snowballs. Alaska went Constitutional Carry in 2003, and no others did until 2010 when Arizona followed suit. Suddenly, in 2016 alone we had three states hop on the bandwagon. The momentum is building, and it will continue to do so.

          If we had stamped our feet and said “NO!” to individual Constitutional Carry legislation because “it didn’t go far enough,” then we’d still be back in 2002 America where only Vermonters could carry without a permit.

      • Absolutely correct strategy. If we can’t get even an incremental bill to a floor vote in both chambers we certainly wouldn’t be able to get a sweeping reform assigned to a committee. It is critical to – at a bear minimum – get N-R and HPA to floor votes in both chambers this year. Then – and only then – will we know whom to “primary” in the next election and which Democrats we ought to campaign for.
        Each House RINO is up for re-election; several Senate RINOs are up for re-election. Each Representative needs to be concerned for his personal re-election. The Senate Majority Leader needs to be concerned about the prospect of a demotion to Minority Leader. These considerations – and these alone – ought to drive their support/opposition to the 2A.
        We must make it clear to our own Congress-critters that we expect them to contact their leadership. Impress upon them that we will withdraw our support for them en-mass if they fail to get both these bills to a floor vote within this year so we have an opportunity to re-direct our efforts toward the Primaries for 2018.

    • Insist all you want but it would be nice to get a victory in between those that the antis have been getting. They’re a lot smarter at how they do it and have been playing the incremental game for decades.

    • Collins is on her last legs up here, as well as on her last years before being term limited. She wants to run for Governor in a few years and she cant afford to be seen as soft on 2A if she wants to gets votes from anywhere else in the state besides Portland. Outside of the southern triangle, the 2A is a HUGE issue here and we turn out to vote about it. We have turned out to defeat expanded bankground checks and 2 anti-hunting initiatives in the last 3 years alone.

  5. Hopefully the Senate can fit it into their busy schedule of doing diddly squat this year.

    If this person who comes [to New York] gets into a dispute, an argument with someone else, Would his be the NewYorker asshat argument? OR the more illegal alien/gangbanger clause?

  6. OMG, guns!!! The sky is falling. It’s the old west again. We won’t have control…..OMG.

    Whatever. Everyone was scared for January 1st, 2000 – Y2K because everything was going to quit. Power was going to go off, no water…..we’re all going to die!!!!

  7. If any of you have the “pleasure” of speaking to your democrat representative or senator about their inevitable opposition to this bill; ask them if states should be required by federal law to recognize the marriage licenses of other states – even if the citizens of that state object to such a marriage. Then stand back and watch their
    head burst as they try to rationalize their way out of the corner.

  8. It is great to see the senate getting involved in second amendment civil rights. What has taken Ted Cruz so long to introduce any 2A legislation?????
    I’m glad Cornyn did it. Any Republican in the senate who votes against it? You work to get them voted out of office.

  9. The very same sources said the exact same thing about blood in the streets and Wild-West shootouts back in the late ’80s and early ’90s when the liberalization of concealed-carry laws was getting underway.

    Since then, there’s been a >40% drop in violent crime of all types. Meanwhile, shall-issue CCW became available to 90% of the nation.

    The mentally impoverished anti-gun progressives (but I repeat myself) have a knack for getting things exactly backward. If they act like it’ll be the end of the world, you can be sure it’ll be better for everyone if we ignore them and just do it.

  10. Good. Let’s see some of the people’s business get done instead of big money interests. I’m not optimistic about it going anywhere but I am willing to be proven wrong.

    “This would lead to anarchy. You’d just make our job ten times harder when you let any Tom, Dick and Harry walk into New York City with their guns in holsters….”

    Deal with it. It’s nothing that a cop in 40+ states doesn’t manage to deal with regularly. Not to mention if places like NYC, MD, NJ, HI, CA, etc weren’t so oppressive in making sure no one can defend themselves in those states we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. States could have set their own (reasonable) requirements, background checks, training etc and people would have gone through the hoops.

    • Hannibal, you are the only person (other than myself) whom I’ve seen make this very insightful argument for N-R. The Won’t-Issue States COULD have had Shall-Issue on terms tailored to their OWN taste. They demurred; consequently, they deserve N-R on terms dictated to them by Congress.
      I live in PA, 2 miles from the NJ boarder. If NJ were Shall-Issue I would pay any fee, meet any training requirement and qualify at a range on whatever terms NJ’s legislature deemed adequate for the public security of its residents. Alas, I am not (and would never become) politically influential in NJ. Therefore, NJ Won’t-Issue to me. As I am not a member of the NJ polity I have no recourse but to the 2A and my PA Senators and Representative. Will they defend my 2A rights in NJ?
      There are several Constitutional powers Congress could invoke to redress my grievance; one shared by millions of constituents who travel to Won’t-Issue States. The most obvious power is full-faith-and-credit and Congress’ explicit power to: “. . . by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” E.g., that my Constitutional “ability” to bear-arms (concealed or openly) is certified (an “Act”) by a carry permit issued by any State.
      If SCOTUS has any IMPLICIT power to “prescribe the Manner” in which one State’s marriage license must be acknowledged by every other State then certainly Congress has EXPLICIT power to do so in giving “Effect” to the 2A.
      NJ’s “State’s right” to defy my individual 2A Right pales in constitutional significance in such a light.

  11. Will his bill include no-fly no-buy? Will it include domestic surveillance add-ons in fine print? Cornyn’s record on gun rights of late has been a bit hit or miss. His record on everything else even more so.

    • “Similar laws” means any law that allows for the issuing of some kind of license to carry. It doesn’t matter that the law is may-issue, and the state never elects to issue. The bill would also set a minimum bar for places you can carry.

  12. there’s always somehow been reciprocity for the 14th amendment

    women can go to any state to kill their baby with no background check or training class or fee or license or anything for decades

    why should the 2nd amendment be any different

  13. While I enjoy the idea of bombarding congress with a bunch of National reciprocity bills, Hudsons H.R 38 already has some momentum with it’s 159 co-sponsors.

    Granted the bill has not been released, I’m seeing a lot of articles related to S.446 with the phrase “As long as the jurisdiction recognizes the permit is as lawful”. States like CA and NY will never classify these out of state permits lawful and will not recognize them.

    H.R 38 on the other hand is designed for CA and NY residents that have or can apply for out of state permits.

    Hopefully S.446 will have the same verbage.

  14. I got an e-mail from the tsra stating that “[t]oday Senator Cornyn filed Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.” with this a link in it to a press release stating:

    WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, legislation to allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that also has concealed carry laws, while abiding by that state’s laws.

    “This bill strengthens both the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and the power of states to implement laws best-suited for the folks who live there,” Sen. Cornyn said. “This legislation is an important affirmation of our Second Amendment rights and has been a top priority of law-abiding gun owners in Texas for a long time.”

    The bill was cosponsored by U.S. Sens. John Barasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Hoeven (R-ND), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Ron Johnson (R-WI), John McCain (R-AZ), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), David Perdue (R-GA), Rob Portman (R-OH), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Thune (R-SD), Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Todd Young (R-IN).

    • It also has the upside that if these old Democrats have to keep doing this for everything they want too filibuster, it will take a toll on their health. The number one way to win an election is to be the incumbent.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here