North Carolina Republican Congressional Representative Richard Hudson is set to introduce a bill next year requiring all 50 states to honor firearm carry licenses from other states. “Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines,” Hudson wrote in The Daily Caller. “The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 [click here to read] is a common sense bill to provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits.”
The Bill’s proposed language mandates that a person “may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device)” in any state that currently “has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry concealed firearm” or where Vermont-style “Constitutional Carry” is the law of the land. To fall under the protection of the proposed law while visiting highly restrictive locales (e.g., New York City), licensed citizens would be required to:
(1) Carry the valid license on their persons;
(2) Carry a “valid identification document containing a photograph of the person (not as silly as it sounds; Arizona, for instance, does not have photographs on its Concealed Weapons Licenses.)
(3) Follow the laws of that state concerning “no-go” areas for carry. The bill pointedly states that it does not supersede State laws that “permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property….”
This isn’t a “go where you want” pass akin to what the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which preempts state and local firearms carry laws (though not federal law) for current and retired police officers. Under this Bill, local gun laws still apply. If you’re in Texas, that 30.06 sign at your local Whole Foods means you need to leave your shooting iron behind or forego your organic curried chickpea soup. If you’re in Massachusetts, you can’t carry a mag that holds more than 10 rounds. Etc.
The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 doesn’t specify a residency requirement. So, for example, a resident of New York City who obtained a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit could legally carry a firearm in The Big Apple. (I suspect that would make a certain billionaire plutocrat rather cross.)
Hudson predicates the Bill on Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce under Article I sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
The Commerce Clause has something of a bad reputation among constitutionalists (in many cases, justifiably). David Kopel and other legal experts argue that concealed carry reciprocity really ought to be justified per the ‘Privileges and Immunities’ clause of the XIVth amendment (protecting the right of interstate travel).
I don’t see the problem with relying on Article 1 sec. 8. The original purpose of the Commerce Clause: create a national zone of free trade among the several states. It gives Congress the power to preempt state laws. The purpose of this bill is to remove obstacles that seriously hinder the movement of persons carrying a specific product across state lines.
If that isn’t “commerce” in the truest sense of the word, it isn’t clear what is.
The Supreme Court has held that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce underpins the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Court held that the interstate movement of persons is “commerce” that concerns more than one state, whether or not the transportation of those persons is “commercial.”
It’s safer for those seeking national reciprocity for concealed carry to cite the Commerce Clause — which has a considerable amount of case law backing it up — as opposed to doing something experimental with the Privileges and Immunities clause. Something the Court may decide it doesn’t like.
(For those keen to learn more about the Commerce Clause, Justice Thomas’ concurrence in the 1995 case U.S. v. Lopez — which involved the Gun Free School Zones Act, particularly his discussion of the Gibbons case — is worth reading.)
In any case, this isn’t Representative Hudson’s first pro-gun rodeo. He introduced legislation to roll back the ATF’s ability to use the regulatory process to ban ammunition, after the Obama Administration’s maladroit attempt to ban the 5.56mm M885 “green tip” ammunition for the AR 15 (which even the left-wing Newsweek conceded was an Obama “misfire”.
The language of the draft 2017 reciprocity bill is all but identical to H.R. 986 was introduced by Rep. Hudson in 2015 and co-sponsored by 216 other Representatives. That bill, unfortunately, never made it out of the House Judiciary Committee. A similar bill introduced by Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) in 2016 and co-sponsored by Rep. Hudson, suffered an identical fate.
According to an AP poll from July 2016, 53% of Americans support the idea of national concealed carry license reciprocity (compared with 44 percent who opposed it.) Even Hillary supporters like Howard Stern have come out in favor of it, because of its basic fairness. “What if you got a license in Maryland… [a]nd you’re driving and then every state you went to, you had to get another license? It doesn’t make any sense,” Stern said on his show in November.
President-Elect Donald Trump called for national reciprocity during the election campaign. In his first post-election interview with 60 Minutes, he reiterated his support for the Second Amendment. Combined with strong public support and renewed Congressional interest, 2017 may be the year for national concealed carry reciprocity. Watch this space.
Please name this the Shaneen Allen Act of 2017.
And then blast senate democrats up for reelection in 2018, if they attempt to filibuster it.
+1
(Googles Shaneen Allen) That’s a good idea.
Count me among those who believe this should be based on the 14th Amendment rather than the Commerce Clause. That Clause has been bastardized over the years by the courts to the point that almost any individual act can be regulated, restricted or mandated by the federal government. The regulations of the EPA, HUD, Education Department and Obamacare owe their foundation to that Clause – clearly something that the Founders would disapprove of as an abuse. The last thing we should as conservatives is further bastardize the Clause to meet OUR goals. We will come to rue the day when the leftists regain power and point to our actions as support of their expansion of the federal government’s power.
I think due process, full faith and credit, and McDonald are sufficient grounds. Commerce need not apply.
Well if you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, the Second Amendment should apply and we should not need any additional rationale from other United States Constitutional clauses or amendments. What we would therefore need is for the U.S. Supreme Court to indicate that Heller and McDonald apply outside the home — at least in public spaces anyway.
Full faith and credit doesn’t apply to licenses. It applies to “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings . . . .” Licenses are none of the above.
If licenses were subject to FF&C, then the law license that I had in New York (for which I went to school for three years just to qualify for the test, and then took an passed an intensive two-day exam including a full day multi-state part) would be valid in every state.
It wasn’t. Maybe it should have been, but it wasn’t.
And that’s where I’d bring Obergefell into the fold, which (indirectly/implicitly) relied on full faith and credit to force states to recognize same-sex marriage licenses granted in other states:
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
Chip, I understand. The problem is that a marriage license is a document authorizing a couple to marry. Until it is solemnized by some further act, such as a ceremony or even signing by both parties in front of a notary, it’s just a permit to get married, and it’s good in the jurisdiction that issued it. BTW, as you know, not every state requires a marriage license, or even a formal marriage ceremony of any kind.
IMO, Obergefell was wrongly decided. It required SCOTUS to overrule Baker v. Nelson, a 1971 Minnesota appeal that SCOTUS refused to hear due to lack of a substantial federal question.
” . . . may . . . carry a concealed handgun . . . that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, . . . ”
Does anyone know WHY this, and other bills, include the “interstate commerce” reference? AND, if so, why we PotG ought to consider this a GOOD IDEA?
It seems to me that the interstate-commerce pretext is a really BAD idea for the following reasons:
– If National-Reciprocity (NR) is based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce then we the People will understand that NR is merely a whim of Congress to be passed today and later rescinded at the mood of Congress;
– If NR is pretexted on Interstate-commerce then it could be plausibly-challenged as an invalid – merely technical – pretext. E.g., a CT-manufactured gun is sold to an FFL in PA to a customer who carries it to NJ on a non-commercial errand. That it was sold from CT –> PA puts the gun in interstate commerce; that it was carried from PA –> NJ does not.
– We ought to seek some Constitutional basis that appeals to our intuition that NR is “that which the Constitution requires”; i.e., that it is the correct and natural interpretation of our Rights.
It does us little – perhaps NO – good if we get NR on some thin pretext that a future Congress could rescind or a court could over-turn. The pretext of “interstate commerce” seems to INVITE the Democrats to introduce a bill to rescind NR just as soon as they recover control of both chambers and have a compliant President. This pretext is so thin that it practically invites the Courts to graciously rule it UN-Constitutional. Why should we find these prospects acceptable?
We ought to insist that NR be based on a Constitutional basis that is unassailable and resonates with popular sentiment. I see 3 such bases:
1. 2A – “bear arms”
2. 14A – equal protection of the laws and due-process
3. full-faith-and-credit clause
I hold that if my State of residence, or any other of the 49 States, has certified me to be “able” to exercise my 2A rights then all other States must give that “act” the full faith and credit that the Constitution mandates. This seems like the “driver’s license” analogy and would – if so enacted – be accepted (begrudgingly or not) as that which the Constitution mandates. IF my perception on this point is correct then I think it would be very difficult for gun-controllers to get their Congress-critters to rescind the NR Act. To do so would seem to fly-in-the-face of what the Constitution requires. I don’t suppose that this sentiment would be adopted by the public overnight; rather, that NR would become an accepted state-of-the-law over 4 – 8 years of the Trump administration and then become accepted as “correct” Constitutionally.
Placing full-faith-and-credit as a cornerstone basis suggests that we would all need to get a “permit” from either our home States or (e.g.,) FL. Residents of VT and the several other Constitutional-Carry States will object. I have 2 responses.
First, it is a relatively modest burden (for those of us who need NR) to get a permit from either our home-State or a Non-Resident permit from the most accommodating State. I see this modest burden as merely a TEMPORARY concern; see Second. Most of us (who need NR) already have a permit from some State; we just have to renew it once or twice.
Second, the growing list of Constitutional-Carry States could alter their laws ever-so-slightly to maintain their C-C status while at the same time qualifying their residents for NR with a home-State “permit”. They could simply alter their C-C law providing that a resident could have his State Driver’s License “endorsed” with a “Carry Permit” merely by checking a box on the driver’s license application form. Perhaps a State would run a NICS check if the box is checked; but this shouldn’t be essential. In any case, the motorist who checks the box could maintain that he isn’t really “registering” himself as a gun owner; he is merely asking for the Concealed Carry endorsement on his driver’s license just in case someday he might choose to carry.
We ought to ask ourselves as the community of the PotG: Do we want NR on a basis that:
– will “stick” and be sustained when the gun-control crowd returns to power; or,
– appears, at the moment, to be expedient in lots of superficial ways (appeals to our Principle of the “Commerce Clause)
I’d rather have this go under the commerce clause. If progressives attack this in court they will end up attacking many of their own activities so even if we lose in court, we could actually win.
Interesting point. However, I don’t think it’s persuasive. I think that the commerce clause is one that we’ve grown to accept as a Congressional blank-check to do – or NOT do – whatever Congress wants to do under that pretext. The courts will find that just about anything can be justified under interstate commerce. Only one or two acts have been overruled based upon a finding that they were not affecting interstate commerce. Nothing seems to compel Congress to “regulate” interstate commerce; if they don’t want to stick their noses in a topic then they don’t do so.
Therefore, I see interstate commerce as the worst of all possible pretexts. First, it is so thin (as applied to National Reciprocity) that it invites the courts to strike NR down as not being sufficiently involved in interstate commerce. Second, if the courts paid no attention, the Congress could repeal the act and no one would think that was out-of-the-ordinary. Third, interstate commerce doesn’t apply a principle of the Constitution that N-R is the proper thing to do; it’s just a whim.
Awesome… and not holding my breath. Wake me up when something changes.
Yeah, it will not pass. And even if it does, I’m sure there will be exceptions / amendments added so places like NJ or NYC can opt-out.
To the contrary; now is not the time for the PotG to snooze.
I suspect that Trump will tell the leadership of the Senate and House that he wants a NR amendment to some “must-pass” bill. What does this mean?
First, if the bill is “must-pass” then the Democrats need to let it pass. By definition, they have no choice. They will really not like seeing the amendment added to the bill and letting it pass; but, they have to choose whether to “die on that hill” or spend their political blood on some other bill. They will work it out within their caucus; e.g., Manchin from WV will be allowed to vote in favor of the must-pass bill with the NR amendment because his constituents want something in the bill and don’t object to NR. At the same time, the Democrat leadership will rent their robes, cover themselves in ashes and vow to repeal it just as soon as their gun-control constituents return them to power.
Second, Trump has only so much influence over the RINO leadership of the GOP. Trump can tell them what Trump wants; but it is WE the VOTERS who have to demand NR from our own Senators and Congressmen. We each must write these 3 guys and tell them that we hare holding them individually responsible for seeing to it that NR passes their respective chamber. If NR does not pass then we won’t be there for them in the next election. We will “primary” our Republican incumbents or vote for the Democratic opponent out of spite. The RINO leadership must understand that their control over Congress turns on their getting behind this bill.
So would this effectively render moot any state/city requirement of a license to purchase a handgun?
As someone stuck for the next year behind enemy lines in NYC, this could be a game changer.
Don’t think so. Also totally doubt that the “non-residency” will survive. That is probably in there so the republicans can “compromise”. I really expect (if this manages to pass) to see some level of minimum qualification for a licence that is valid for all 50 states.
National reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses has absolutely nothing to do with a fed.gov-issued carry license.
I did not say anything about a federal license. I can see a min requirement of a FBI background check and possibly range and classroom time
And those “min requirements” would exceed the requirements of perhaps 20 states that currently don’t have those same “min requirements”.
Federally mandated reciprocity has nothing to do with the fed.gov getting involved in how each of the several states chooses to license its own residents. I oppose any attempts by the fed.gov to establish “minimum requirements” or in any other way interfere with how states establish their own licensing requirements.
” I oppose any attempts by the fed.gov to establish “minimum requirements” or in any other way interfere with how states establish their own licensing requirements.”
In general, I’m with you on that sentiment.
How many times have we heard “I didn’t know it was loaded.” – or – “I thought it was unloaded, I took the magazine out.”?
I just can’t be an absolutist on this. Cooper’s ‘4 rules’ and basic safe handling isn’t unreasonable. That can be done in 2 hours. You have to demonstrate basic car handling to get a driver’s license.
And consider this – In New York City, the majority of the residents have never touched a weapon. The extent of their knowledge on guns is what they see on TV and movies. That should scare us right there. How about the opportunity to make sure that what they know is correct – safe?
As an aside, we may well later drop that requirement if we get basic gun safety demonstrated – taught in schools beginning in elementary school.
The Progressives can’t object (they probably will, but fvck ’em) to real, actual, tangible gun safety.
Just lay it out to them. They will object being taught to *not* touch a gun? That’s heavy ammo on our side come election time. Imagine this ad – “Senator Progressive refused to vote for gun safety. How many more of our children must die because of his vote?”
I don’t think we can anticipate exactly how a NR bill might take shape IF-and-when it passes. It will probably change form from the text of whatever has been proposed.
If we push for a full-faith-and-credit basis then I think that would be relatively promising for NR-validity of Non-Resident permits. Suppose I once lived in State A and got a Resident permit from A; subsequently moved to State B. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to simply convert my State A Resident permit into a State A Non-resident permit? I don’t get a new marriage license when I move from one State to another.
The counter-argument is that I do have to obtain a State B Driver’s License. So, admittedly, we might be obliged to get a home-State permit in order that it be NR-qualified. Even so, this isn’t a show-stopper. Remember, NR won’t instantly change all the State laws on Resident and Non-resident permits. Nor will it instantly change bi-lateral Reciprocity or broad unilateral Recognition.
What I see happening is that, e.g., Pennsylvanians will routinely carry in neighboring NJ. NJ will HATE it; but, won’t be able to do anything about it. Some NJ residents will establish some pre-textual PA residency; bet a PA driver’s license; plate their cars in PA, get PA auto insurance (at a huge discount sufficient to justify the cost of being the 123’rd tenant in a one-bedroom apartment in PA) and then get a PA carry permit. NJ will HATE that; but won’t be able to do much about it. Eventually, NJ will have to cave-in and issue their residents permits on a Shall-Issue basis. To be sure, they would charge a high fee and require a steep training requirement. But, they would break-down.
REP. RICHARD HUDSON, your proposed bill is very flawed, very unfair and unjust!!! This bill includes only people with “Home State” permits which leaves out everyone in NJ, MD, CA, NYC, most of MA, RI, NH etc.. since these states technically issue ccw permits, but in reality do not issue “Home State” permits. This is approx. 100 million people who cannot benefit under this proposed bill! This bill needs to be amended to include “All” ccw permits regardless where the person lives!!! Since these people could at least get a “NON-Resident” permit from FL or UT etc. and then be included in the 2nd Amendment and ccw.
Unfortunately the law as imagined will likely have major issues to those who think they can now carry a handgun behind enemy lines in states like NY. (Since I live here i’m a little familiar with the law.) NY law requires to even TOUCH a handgun you must have a permit, and that handgun must be LISTED on your permit (Registration). Therefore even if your “Carry” permit is recognized in NY it is still a FELONY to possess an unregistered handgun not listed on your permit, it is also a Felony to own or possess a normal capacity magazine, lastly no one is real sure about the 7-round thingy stands, one federal court tossed it but NYS law prohibits any court but their own or Supreme from striking down it;s laws. What about NJ’s Hollow point restriction, Mass/Cali acceptable handgun list.
Fortunately, NY State’s crappy laws regarding permitting/possession only apply to you poor souls who are residents of that forsaken state.
The 2A is all one should need for carry, which is an extension of the right to protect oneself, which is a right that is passed down from a power far greater than that of the US Government.
That being said, State’s rights should come into play. If like minded individuals in one state vote to not allow others to protect themselves it is up to that states residents to correct the issue, or to leave to more favorable environs for the things that matter most to them.
The Constitution is what “constitutes” what the Federal government is limited to, and until it is followed correctly all these silly attempts to work around other Constitutional infringements are band-aids applied to the wrong wounds, and yet another disruption on following the Constitution itself.
Really?
The second amendment: …the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. – established that no government entity has the authority to infringe upon RKBA.
The fourteenth amendment: …nor shall any State…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. – established that States cannot treat residents and non-residents differently under the auspices of the law.
And, if that wasn’t clear enough, SCOTUS in McDonald v City of Chicago explicitly incorporated the second amendment to the States, under the fourteenth amendment.
RKBA is not a States’ rights issue. States do not have constitutional authority to deny RKBA. States are explicitly barred from denying RKBA by the constitution.
What other means will cause states such as CA, NJ, and MD to stop violating RKBA?
I agree-gree. 1A rights aren’t able to be thrown out the window just because a state says so. The same goes for all 2A rights. The law of the land is just that… The… LAW… OF THE LAND!
Make national cc reciprocity a reality and then hold all businesses liable for harm that comes to someone if they have a no-gun policy and aren’t allowed to protect themselves. You still have private property, you retain the right to refuse service to someone, but if you are open to the public to come in you had better be prepared to reap the benefits thinking with your emotions.
Pull this off and i;ll visit NYC again, still wont bother to ever be in NJ, cant stand the smell.
So I’ll be legit to carry in NYC, but what about the District of Columbia?
I knew this was brewing, but didn’t expect it to start so soon. Here’s hoping that this piece of actual common sense goes somewhere.
Unfortunately we voted for Republicans, and they don’t like guns or the 2nd amendment much. They do like to hunt with ridiculously expensive shotguns. Dies in committee.
It died in committee the last two years hecause there was no sense wasting political capital on a bill that even if passed would be vetoed with no chance of override.
This is a quick and easy win for the House, Senate, and President that gives them a banner to fly as “proof” they listened to the voters and cover for the future when they start weaseling away from other issues.
A goodly number of the freshmen Reps and Snators will view this as a good way to get the bona fides from the NRA as being strong on guns. Addituonally there are a good number of red state dems who will not want this on record that they opposed it come 2018 so they will stary silent in committees or on the floor and quietly vote for it or miss the vote against it, ooops.
Not saying it won’t die before or on a vote but I am cautiously optomistic that it won’t.
Seems like a good step, not sure if it will pass, but you don’t get anywhere by not trying… Que the comments complaining because it didn’t go far enough and isn’t a perfect go where you like with no strings attached bill.
The only way this bill will clear the Senate is if it is attached to a bill being voted on under reconciliation rules. It will never get by a Senate filibuster and no one is going to go nuclear over concealed carry. If things are going well in 2018 thereally is a chance that that the GOP might get to 60 Senators making the filibuster a non issue.
Does anyone think this should wait until the supreme court is fully staffed again? This will surely end up there, and with Trump’s recent suggested appointments to cabinet positions, I’m not certain we’re going to get a true 2nd Amendment-supporting conservative in Scalia’s vacant seat. That he would suggest Petraeus as Secty of State says that Trump’s attitude toward the 2nd Amendment’s applicability to ordinary citizens may be more elitist than we have been told.
No, we should not wait for SCOTUS.
We, the PotG, do NOT really understand well how SCOTUS works nor do we understand how “infringed” works. Until we get that, we won’t understand how important it is that we get the POLITICAL aspects of the 2A clear.
1. NO “Right” is worth the parchment it’s written on UNLESS a strong majority of voters WANT to uphold that right
2. the 2A allows ALL gun regulation EXCEPT those that “INFRINGE” on “the Right” . . . .
3. the courts, by default, will defer to legislative discretion unless the JUDGE personally wishes a different outcome
Consequently, we the PotG must first focus on building majority support for gun Rights. Without a majority of voters insisting upon honoring the spirit of the 2A that little bit of text is a dead letter.
Next, we must get a majority of voters to communicate their sentiments to their Congress-critters and State legislators. These few must be convinced of gun-control being a 3’rd rail.
Last, we must keep the pressure up to nominate justices to SCOTUS AND Circuit judges AND District judges AND State judges to honor the spirit of the 2A. This last step will take another generation.
The gun free school zone act need to repeal first ore the anti”s send you in federal prison for legal armed traveling !
I would add to the reciprocity language that any attempt to prosecute by any state authority for a state’s right to infringe on the reciprocity shall be in federal court where the loser pays BOTH attorney’s fees.
This is my worry with Maryland and New Jersey. Even if its legal, they will make your life hell in every way they can find the power to do so.
UNLESS they are staring at your lawyer’s fees that they will have to pay when you WIN if the Loser pays both ATTY fees is in the Reciprocity language.
Color me a skeptic. ….I doubt this makes it into law without carve outs, if even then.
Can someone explain why retired cops can carry freely into various states like Jersey simply because they retired?
You made it through 20 years on the force, well heck I like you, you can come over and **** my sister…….
?!?!
Not like any retired cop did anything bad with a gun anywhere near the turnpike in Pa or anything………..
Because Congress saw fit to provide a supply of Nationally-licensed guards to protect the property and persons of men-of-means.
And, we need to communicate this point to our neighbors and get them to understand that the “States Rights” issue has already been shredded; but only for the benefit of rich men like Bloomberg. We, our wives and daughters all retain the right to mano-a-mano with any assailant.
If this gets liberals to move to canada it will also be worth it
If it requires a “Federal” list or “Registration” just use FING NOTHING. If they’re not interested in the avalanche of NOT-FORM-HERE MF’s, then they are also not interested in whether THOSE MF’s are armed, so they better not be interested in whether I’m armed.
Blue states suck-it (up).
While I’d love this to succeed, I don’t think it will. Too much of a hot button with too many people for too many reasons. Better they spent their efforts on really pushing the Hearing Protection Act, which is something I think has a better chance, especially as it could be written to not supersede states laws (sorry non suppressor states).
Maybe paint a little before you try to tear the whole kitchen out?
North Carolina c’mon and raise up!
Best of luck- I think it will be a hell of a fight though.
Interestingly, last night Megyn Kelly reported on the introduction of a bill in California to declare all of California a Sanctuary STATE.
Statewide.
And the bill is expected to pass.
And Gov. Moonbeam is expected to sign it.
If the federal government goes for reciprocity (which California politicians would likely feel as having guns being shoved down their throats against their will) and, simultaneously, California defies the Feds regarding illegal immigration (perhaps the primary driving force behind Trump’s election) …
… that’s sounding an awful lot like “irreconcilable differences.” The Reciprocity Act may very well usher in a #CALEXIT. And CALEXIT may usher in a century of rational, reasonable government for the remaining US of A.
Proposition 187
Apparently on the CA books but never enforced
I don’t think so, this sounds like something new. Dems held a press conference yesterday about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hl-Fj48aaU
“Interestingly, last night Megyn Kelly reported on the introduction of a bill in California to declare all of California a Sanctuary STATE.
Statewide.”
Let ’em.
Trump has stated the spigot of Federal dollars will be shut off to those that defy him on issues of immigration.
California really does need to secede. The odd thing is, Cali just may have enough of the states to agree with them on that.
Think about it – Their own nation, a laboratory where they can experiment with Progressive ideals, like no second amendment, a sanctuary nation…
Exactly. They get exactly what they want, and we get exactly what we want. Sure, NY/NJ/well, all of NE will throw a fit, so … they can go too.
Only thing I’d ask is that we negotiate a period of time where citizens (yes, I said actual, legal citizens) can choose which place they want to live. And bus tickets for everyone. Leave no citizen behind in the wrong place – let the conservative californians come on in here, and let’s ship the Austinites and the Chicago group and all the rest of them over there.
“If you’re in Massachusetts, you can’t carry a mag that holds more than 10 rounds. Etc.”
Sure you can. As long as the mag was made before Sept 1994 (preban).
This is long – sorry for the verbosity. It is an excerpt from an email I sent to Congressman Hudson’s staff:
While I support getting this done quickly and with the least resistance, I am afraid that passing a bill that simply requires out of state residents to follow state law will result in major issues for concealed carriers.
There are several issues that I am concerned about. The main issue is ensuring that states that are vehemently anti-gun are not able to block concealed carry through the enforcement of other laws. Let me provide a few examples:
1. Permits for possession or ownership of guns. I am sure you have heard the story of the woman who ended up in a NY airport and was arrested for possession of a gun without a permit. This is a very clear example of how NY could try to block reciprocity. If an non-resident shows up with a valid CCW permit, but no possession permit, then NY could potentially arrest that individual for failing to have a permit. They would argue that the permit requirement is separate from the CCW permit.
2. Magazine capacity limits. This one is a real concern for people in the West. In California, it is illegal to possess a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds (this law was passed last year and then re passed as Prop 63 in the last election). I own a standard capacity Glock 19 – one of the most common firearms in the country. It holds 15 rounds. If I drive to California, I currently have to plan ahead and make sure I leave my 15 round magazines at home and use my 10 round mags. While I own 10 round mags because I used to live in California, I suspect most gun owners in Utah don’t have those extra mags. So the owner has to go and acquire 10 round mags before being able to travel. If I happen to drive to Nevada or Arizona and then decide to go to California without planning ahead, how do I proceed? Do I ship my 15 round mags back and be unarmed or try to find 10 round mags (which I probably could once I get to CA) – but you see the point – CA will definitely enforce the 10 round limit – and it puts a major limitation on my ability to travel. And I am limited to 10 rounds while in Nevada and Arizona, despite the fact that the law allows for larger capacity. This is not even to mention the CCW carriers who might be surprised by the law or misunderstand it – maybe just assume it is ok to have one that holds 15 as long as you don’t load it over 10, for example.
3. Firearm storage laws. Another area that causes concern is storage – if I travel to a state that has a strict firearm storage law it can be a huge impediment to having my gun. I have to arrange to have a compliant storage container (in California, a container must be approved by the CA DOJ). I also have to be able to store it somewhere while I’m not carrying. For me, I typically fly and I use a CA DOJ approved case. I stay in a hotel and then when I’m in the office, I keep the case in my suitcase. How does a CCW carrier deal with this if they work for huge company? In Utah, it is illegal for a business to prohibit employees from keeping a gun in their car in the parking lot, unless the business provides a safe storage location. If I work for Google in CA, I would be effectively prohibited from bringing my firearm to CA – because I would not be able to keep it in my car and would not be able to bring it into my work.
4. The Sign Issue. Across the country laws vary greatly on whether or not a sign prohibiting guns at a business is enforceable. In Utah, signs on private businesses have no force of law – if the owner of the business sees your gun, they can ask you to leave and if you don’t, they can trespass you, but you can’t get in trouble for just being in the business with your firearm (this includes bars (you are allowed to drink while armed, just not be intoxicated) and banks and schools (including public schools). If I am traveling to another state and I have my firearm and signs have the force of law, what am I to do? If I have no car and I have my firearm, just by walking into the store I would be committing a crime. But I don’t have anywhere to put my gun.
Texas has adopted a sign rule that allows signs to have the force of law, but they have to comply strictly with the statute (they are huge). It probably works well in most of the state, because businesses don’t want to anger gun owners, but in states like CA, that won’t be the case – if national reciprocity passes, “No Guns” signs will be everywhere in the urban areas of the state and carry will become impossible.
Just a quick separate note on this issue – from my perspective, Utah is the very best state when it comes to carrying with a permit (I will admit I do not know the laws in NC, so please forgive me). The reason I say that is that I can carry anywhere – and this is more than just a desire to have my gun with me. If there are limitations on where I can carry my gun, it will reduce the frequency I carry it – but more importantly, if I am prohibited from carrying my gun in certain places (like businesses with signs or bars or restaurants that have a bar liquor license (such as Washington state or NM)), then I have to do something with my gun. Typically that means putting it in my car. I have heard anecdotal stories of places in states where signs are enforceable where criminals watch people walk to the door of a business and then see the sign and then walk back to their car and put their gun away – then the criminal steals it out of the car. No one wants criminals to obtain stolen weapons. In Utah, the only places I cannot carry are the post office and secured areas of the airport and police stations. There are other limitations, but they don’t impact me (like secured mental wards). This means that I almost never have to put my gun in my car (as another aside, I have a custom built 3/16 steel hidden storage area for that purpose, but I rarely use it for my gun). In order to make carry practical and effective, we have to reduce the daily interruptions to carry.
As I have said above, I know we want to push this through, but let’s think hard about how effective it will be and how anti-gun states will work to circumvent the law.
None of those issues should be addressed in a simple, federal reciprocity bill. Its sole purpose should be to require that states that issue carry permits to their own residents honor the state-issued resident carry permits held by residents of other states.
NY State can require its own residents to get permits for their firearms, that are purchased and possessed in NY State. NY State cannot require residents of other states to obtain a permit in order to purchase or possess a firearm. A national reciprocity law would have no impact.
As an analogy: California can require its residents to pass vehicle inspections, emissions tests, etc. in order to register/plate a vehicle that those residents drive in California. But California cannot require residents of other states to pass those same vehicle inspections, emissions tests, etc. in order for those residents of other states to drive their vehicles in California.
As for the rest of the issues – mag limits, force-of-law of signage, etc. – they exist today, with state-managed reciprocity. As an Indiana resident, when I carry in Ohio, I have to be cognizant that signage in that state carries the force of law. I am responsible for knowing the laws. Federally mandated reciprocity would be no different.
We do NOT want the fed.gov involved in establishing standards for carry OR for licensing. The only interest of the fed.gov is ensuring equal protection of the laws of the several states, for both residents and non-residents.
All your concerns are well taken; nevertheless, we can’t allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
All are problems won’t be solved by any one bill. We need a relatively simple National Reciprocity law that will open a crack in the “blue wall” of gun-control of the last 10 jurisdictions. Thereupon, some of us will take advantage of the new NR law despite the kinds of limitations you illustrate.
For example, I live in PA and need to travel to: NJ; DE; MD. It really IS realistic for me to learn the State laws governing carry in these 3 additional States. Someone from AZ might not; but he doesn’t come to the East coast and doesn’t have any immediate need to carry in these States.
Those of us who need to travel in nearby gun-control States will begin to break-down the resistance of their local cultures against guns. Yes, it will take a while. But it will happen. Eventually, even these States will be put under so much pressure to relax their laws that they will fall into line.
Look how much progress was made in 40 States over the last 30 years. Through local pressure laws change and bilateral reciprocity was adopted. Eventually, Shall-Issue laws began to change into Constitutional-Carry. Reciprocity changed into unilateral Recognition.
Same thing will happen under National Reciprocity. In 5 – 10 years, the laws of these last 10 jurisdictions will look much different from how they look today.
Fully agree with Chip and Mark. I have an NC resident permit, which some consider to have the “maximum” reciprocity of any permit in the country. Just not in the usual suspect locations. If I had reciprocity in those locations and chose to carry there, IMO so what if they have 10 round mag limits? One of my hand guns, the most likely one for carry when traveling, is 6+1. The other has 17 and 10 round mags. Big deal, I would take the 10 rounders. Let’s be honest about mag capacity. Except for 9mm and .40 double stack, just about everything else, from pocket.380’s like I would take on a trip to .44 magnums and 1911’s, holds less than 10 rounds. I would venture the same for rifles. If you could take a regular AR, not a Frankengun, to NY but had to bring 10 round magazines, would that really be such a burden? It’s like some states still cling to 55 mph in order to write more tickets and others have 65 and 75 mph on the open roads. You are not moving to these states, so just deal with it for the week that you are visiting. Now travel through is another story. We also need a really strong law that allows a traveler from let’s say PA to VT, passing through NY, to not be hassled or arrested if the 30 rounders are “properly” stored, and no kidding, requires the jurisdiction that does the hassling to pay all costs when the case is thrown out. Much better would be if violation by a state or local jurisdiction really seriously put their LEAA grants in jeopardy. As a much wealthier person than I once said – money talks, bullsh*t walks – and no politician wants to stand up and tell the local cops that he or she lost the LEAA money due to personal hoplophobia.
Better than nothing,
Lets see if it survives those saviors of the republic….the congress.
I guess everyone in a state that is “may issue” could apply for a non-resident AZ license and carry in their state!
Not really.
If you live in a Trump state, there’s a very high likelihood that you have reciprocity with the other Trump states. If you live in a Clinton state, there’s a decent chance that you can carry in several Trump states.
But many of the Clinton states offer very little reciprocity – and where they offer it, it is probably only with a select, few other Clinton states. Some, like New York, do not offer any reciprocity whatsoever.
Again, no. Federal reciprocity, as typically proposed, relies on state-issued resident carry licenses. An Indiana resident carrying in California under federal reciprocity would need to rely on the Indiana LTCH, not, say, the Utah non-resident permit.
“Some, like New York, do not offer any reciprocity whatsoever.”
More true than you know. New York State doesn’t even have reciprocity with New York City.
While this would be a step in the right direction, we’re still on the wrong road.
I’ll take what we can get but this still puts carrying a firearm more on the side of privilege than of a right. (“Permits? We don’t need no stinking permits!”)
I’d be happier if the entire country was made constitutional carry and any state or local official endeavoring to throttle or squelch this right should be prosecuted by the Justice Dept.
This seems good for a free state person who would for some reason want to visit ca, ny, DC, or other slave states. However, for a California resident just wanting to carry on California, they will still be screwed.
“If that isn’t “commerce” in the truest sense of the word, it isn’t clear what is.”
Commerce is selling goods, which has nothing to do with this.
So… clear now?
” . . . may . . . carry a concealed handgun . . . that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, . . . ”
Does anyone know WHY this, and other bills, include the “interstate commerce” reference? AND, if so, why we PotG ought to consider this a GOOD IDEA?
It seems to me that the interstate-commerce pretext is a really BAD idea for the following reasons:
– If National-Reciprocity (NR) is based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce then we the People will understand that NR is merely a whim of Congress to be passed today and later rescinded at the mood of Congress;
– If NR is pretexted on Interstate-commerce then it could be plausibly-challenged as an invalid – merely technical – pretext. E.g., a CT-manufactured gun is sold to an FFL in PA to a customer who carries it to NJ on a non-commercial errand. That it was sold from CT –> PA puts the gun in interstate commerce; that it was carried from PA –> NJ does not.
– We ought to seek some Constitutional basis that appeals to our intuition that NR is “that which the Constitution requires”; i.e., that it is the correct and natural interpretation of our Rights.
It does us little – perhaps NO – good if we get NR on some thin pretext that a future Congress could rescind or a court could over-turn. The pretext of “interstate commerce” seems to INVITE the Democrats to introduce a bill to rescind NR just as soon as they recover control of both chambers and have a compliant President. This pretext is so thin that it practically invites the Courts to graciously rule it UN-Constitutional. Why should we find these prospects acceptable?
We ought to insist that NR be based on a Constitutional basis that is unassailable and resonates with popular sentiment. I see 3 such bases:
1. 2A – “bear arms”
2. 14A – equal protection of the laws and due-process
3. full-faith-and-credit clause
I hold that if my State of residence, or any other of the 49 States, has certified me to be “able” to exercise my 2A rights then all other States must give that “act” the full faith and credit that the Constitution mandates. This seems like the “driver’s license” analogy and would – if so enacted – be accepted (begrudgingly or not) as that which the Constitution mandates. IF my perception on this point is correct then I think it would be very difficult for gun-controllers to get their Congress-critters to rescind the NR Act. To do so would seem to fly-in-the-face of what the Constitution requires. I don’t suppose that this sentiment would be adopted by the public overnight; rather, that NR would become an accepted state-of-the-law over 4 – 8 years of the Trump administration and then become accepted as “correct” Constitutionally.
Placing full-faith-and-credit as a cornerstone basis suggests that we would all need to get a “permit” from either our home States or (e.g.,) FL. Residents of VT and the several other Constitutional-Carry States will object. I have 2 responses.
First, it is a relatively modest burden (for those of us who need NR) to get a permit from either our home-State or a Non-Resident permit from the most accommodating State. I see this modest burden as merely a TEMPORARY concern; see Second. Most of us (who need NR) already have a permit from some State; we just have to renew it once or twice.
Second, the growing list of Constitutional-Carry States could alter their laws ever-so-slightly to maintain their C-C status while at the same time qualifying their residents for NR with a home-State “permit”. They could simply alter their C-C law providing that a resident could have his State Driver’s License “endorsed” with a “Carry Permit” merely by checking a box on the driver’s license application form. Perhaps a State would run a NICS check if the box is checked; but this shouldn’t be essential. In any case, the motorist who checks the box could maintain that he isn’t really “registering” himself as a gun owner; he is merely asking for the Concealed Carry endorsement on his driver’s license just in case someday he might choose to carry.
We ought to ask ourselves as the community of the PotG: Do we want NR on a basis that:
– will “stick” and be sustained when the gun-control crowd returns to power; or,
– appears, at the moment, to be expedient in lots of superficial ways (appeals to our Principle of the “Commerce Clause)
This is NOT the time for half (half assed) measures. Constitutional carry nationwide for citizens visiting another state. NY/CA/NJ/MA/Moscow can (UNCONSTITUTIONALLY) limit the rights of their citizens for all I care.
AND no publicly accessible business may restrict the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of a citzen (concealed or open carry).
This Rep is attempting to split the baby/hair by soft selling incrementalism. I call BS. Marxists LOST.
Pass the law and then do as most here already have. Choose NOT to be in a RED STATE. I left NY 16 years ago and at the time had a full carry permit. NYC endorsement and all. NYS licenses at least mine was a lifetime permit. Good until revoked. Not a 7 year deal as far as I know, Issued by XX county. I did at one point in the past call my ex sheriff and asked whats the status of my permit. I was told as long as I have a valid NY address Im still good. I have no desire to ever set foot in NY, NJ or California for the rest of my life. Except Im to be planted in NY and fully expect my family to plant one of my now Illegal non registered in NY hand guns with me. Just something Id like. It doesnt have to happen.
My family will see what happens. Me I will never know…………………………………..
Why don’t states tie gun carry reciprocity with driver license reciprocity? If NY doesn’t recognize CCLs from NC, SC, Georgia, and Florida, for example, those states don’t recognize the right of NY drivers to operate vehicles in their states. I bet if enough NY snowbirds got ticketed they’d push their state legislators to adopt reciprocity. Imagine a line of state troopers in the Sunbelt staking out NY drivers–as they drive out of the South, having spent their tourist dollars–for ticketing. Even better if every state surrounding NY adopted this tactic and kept ’em all penned up!
Hope it will be passed.
Um, there is a residency requirement: “… a person … who is carrying a valid license or permit …which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm …in the State in which the person resides may possess or carry a concealed handgun … in any State, other than the State of residence of the person…”
Comments are closed.