Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC), the primary sponsor of the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act that was introduced last week into the House, has clarified that the Act should apply to state firearms licenses issued to non-residents.
In an statement to the Free Beacon this week, Mr. Hudson was quoted: “My legislative intent is to ensure a non-resident carry permit is recognized, and I’ve confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff.”
Courts will sometimes turn to the intent of the drafters of a law if they find the language of the law itself unclear. (For an example of when they don’t, however, see the Court’s 2012 Obamacare decision, where it found that a tax existed where no intent to impose one was ever expressed.)
So let’s take a look at the Bill as it stands today: does it suggest anything about firearms licenses issued to non-residents?
Here’s the relevant text:
[A] person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce….
The text says “a State”. It doesn’t say “State of residence” or “his/her home State” or anything else along those lines. Looks clear to me…although do me a solid, Rep. Hudson, and get that statement of intent into the Congressional Record when you can.
As a reminder, Congresscritters like hearing the opinions of their constituents on pending bills, so if you like this Bill, you and twenty of your closest gun owning friends might want to let them know.
Utah does not require qualifying non-resident Concealed Firearms Permit applicants to hold a carry license from their home state if their home state does not recognize the validity of a Utah license. Arizona, on the other hand, will issue a license to qualifying individuals who are either Arizona residents or U.S. Citizens, with no home state license requirement. (“Qualifying” meaning people who aren’t legally prohibited due to past criminal, mental health issues, illegal immigrant status, and so on.)
“who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,”
Being a resident in the peoples republic of Calif I can see a problem with the last five words, ” in which the person resides”. The jackwagons at the capitol will twist this to avoid implementation by tying it up in the courts for the next few years. This particular wording needs a little clarification.
And then there’s carrying in to the state.
Sure, your standard capacity pistol is legal next door, but in California it’s a high capacity automatic assault machine pistol that doesn’t meet our safety guidelines and melts at such a low temperature it’s sure to blow your arm off. Here’s a hefty fine, a confiscation, some time on jail and a felony charge to keep you safe. You. Horrible. Monster. But you’re free to carry here you child killing terrorist, it’s the law now.
“…or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides…” The way I read that clause, it protects people in Constitutional carry states: as long as you have picture ID proving that you’re from a state where you’re entitled to carry without a permit, you’re good to go. Also, if you’re able to get a permit in *any* state you’re good. California has no say in the matter. Aside from their goofy “safe roster” and magazine limits, that is. (I don’t own any Cali-legal carry pieces, so I’d be out of luck on that front.)
The “shall not issue” states will use firearm type and registration restrictions as the “gotcha.” Sure you can carry, but not that unregistered assault pistol you bought from your wife’s cousin at a gun show parking lot in Missouri loaded with cop killer hollow points. “Put you hands behind your back – get in the car.”
I feel like saying lets pass the bill to find out what’s in it…
Don’t get e wrong, this should be passed and signed ASAP.
The clauses are separated by an “or”, so it means they are separate qualifying conditions. It’s not an “and”, meaning that both conditions must be satisfied to qualify.
To translate to English, you qualify for national reciprocity if either 1) you have a concealed carry permit, resident or non-resident, or 2) you are allowed to carry in home state (some flavor of Constitutional carry).
I don’t know what the implications would be for a California resident who can’t get a California permit, but can get a non-resident permit from somewhere else. I don’t know if it would help with carrying in California or even if that’s the intent. This is the bill’s description:
But the bill’s language is not totally clear, one way or the other. If California weren’t compelled under the act to allow their residents to carry under non-resident permits, then you’d have the situation where someone could carry in every state except California, the state where they live.
Mandatory part as nobody can get an ccw in new york city, hawaii ore new jersey
The Utah ccl is very popular here in Hawaii for that reason. When this passes it will shake the foundation of the democratic monolopy here.
Stuck in Maryland here. Never even bothered to apply for a permit.
I think such a position actually weakens the bill, and its ability to end state infringement of the right to bear arms.
The strongest justification for the bill is that a) all 50 states (ostensibly) issue resident carry licenses, and b) the equal protection clause (and, thanks to Obergefell, the full faith and credit clause) prohibits states from denying non-residents the equal protection of a given state’s carry laws. That is to say, a resident of State A, who possesses a resident carry license issued by State A, cannot be denied the equal protection of the carry laws in State B, due to State B refusing to issue a carry license to non-residents (or by State B failing to honor the license issued by State A).
If the resident of State A possesses a non-resident carry license issued by State C, while carrying in State B, that justification is weakened, because from the perspective of State B, State C is not privy to the decision of State A or State B to issue (or to honor) a carry license for a resident of State A.
Also, State B would likely have a valid claim that State C has no authority to issue carry licenses to residents of State B, where State B is operating under statutes by which a given resident of State B is not issued a carry license. I think this would likely be a valid states-rights challenge (accepting, for the sake of argument and because it is the current landscape, that states have authority to deny their own residents the right to carry by refusing to issue carry licenses), that would jeopardize the underlying law itself.
The same argument was made in the case of marriage licenses and got thrown out. Next case.
Your faith that judges will rule consistently and not inject their own politics into such a case is absolutely adorable.
So is your lack of understanding of how a Trump SCotUS would rule on the issue.
The strongest justification for the bill is that a) all 50 states (ostensibly) issue resident carry licenses,
Fortunately this is incorrect. Here in Vermont there is no such thing as a gun permit. You don’t need any such thing to carry concealed or otherwise. The only ‘gun law’ is you cannot carry a loaded long gun in a motor vehicle. Towns and municipalities cannot regulate firearms possesion, just discharge (no rifle shooting in city limits for obvious reasons, just shotgun). Oh’ and by the way, approximately 52% of households have a firearm, and we are the safest state for violent crime again (3rd year running).
You are correct: all 50 states either allow for permit-less carry, or else issue carry licenses. I suppose I erred in assuming that constitutional carry states would be understood to be constitutional carry. Alas, TTAG pedantry strikes again.
Looks like I may have to get a non resident Utah ccw.
$50 bucks, two passport style photos, and a four hour class was all it took me to get Utah permit here in PA. The instructor was really cool. He started by telling the class that he knew we were probably already aware of a lot of the material he was going to present ( very rudimentary stuff, what is a semi auto, what is a revolver, etc.) and if anyone had questions to let them fly. Not a bad experience at all.
I haven’t attended a cow palace gun show in years. There was always a class there for utah ccw. If this closes to reality I’ll check and see where the classes can be had here in CA.
Get a non resident VA permit instead. It is cheaper and requires no in person class time.
That wording clearly indicates non-resident permits are excluded. If I reside in NY and have a SC non-resident permit, the SC permit does not permit me to carry “in the state in which I reside”. If Rep. Hudson, legislative counsel, and the Judiciary Committee staff read it differently we are all in big trouble lol.
I think this proposed law will very quickly be found unconstitutional because it denies states the right to control conduct while in their state. EG: While you can legally drive you must conform to each state’s traffic laws and it’s not legal to vote anywhere other than in your state of residence. Hope I’m wrong but I don’t think so lol.
However, I think that loosening the CCW rules when travelling into and through non-resident states could pass constitutionality because Federal law does govern many aspects of that conduct currently. I’d be happy going at least that far.
Driving is behavior just as much as the speed at which you drive and where you park. What keeps a state from prohibiting certain automobiles because they aren’t “environmentally responsible” or refusing to honor out-of-state licenses for drivers younger than 21 or older than 70 because both groups are high risk? States honor each other’s vehicle licenses. It’s a gentlemen’s agreement, not federal law, just like concealed carry reciprocity is now.
Remember the 55 mph national speed limit? It was implemented by threatening to withhold federal highway funds from states that didn’t reduce their state speed limits. Concealed carry reciprocity could be implemented in the same way.
Pass any carry anytime anywhere by natural born non felon citizens or your state gets no Section 8 housing or SNAP$? On the other hand. If my state was to do a pass on these programs would be to the good.
Constitutional Carry could be reimplemented the same way.
States already don’t have that authority (government entities don’t have “rights”, only enumerated authority from the people, who are the entities who have rights). Bearing arms is a natural right constitutionally protected against infringement. Further, in states that have provisions for residents to carry firearms, it is a violation of the equal protection clause to deny that same provision to non-residents.
Bad analogy. The more-accurate analogy would be states that deny the ability of non-residents to drive in the state.
Voting is not a constitutionally protected right (nor is driving, for that matter). States have a legitimate, compelling interest in limiting participation in the states’ democratic process to residents of that state.
Disagree on the former –
As written, it appears to allow those with a license issued by a state, wherein such license permits the carrying of a concealed firearm, or those who are entitled to carry by virtue of their residing in a given state, are covered. If you read the latter clause as to mean that the state of residence is a limitation based on your state of residence, I think you are misreading – trying to go that route would mean that the license itself is entitled to carry in its state of residence. I know of no anthropomorphic licenses, which renders that reading untenable.
As to the latter, while the state may legislate the manner in which you operate the vehicle (turn on red, speeding in construction zones, etc.), they cannot ticket you for the construction or design of the vehicle. CA can’t ban a non-resident for not going PZEV, MD can’t ticket the AZ registered vehicle for being overtinted. Behavior can be controlled (where you can carry, definition of brandish, etc.), but I don’t believe they will be able to control design of that design is legal in the operator’s home state (as the weapon will need to be imbued with its carrier’s state of residence since it doesn’t carry a separate registration of residence like a vehicle. And I say carrier instead of owner to account for loan of the weapon.
Agree with you on the first part, not so sure about the second part. Unlike roadworthiness for vehicles, there’s no nationwide standard on what’s carryable, and as far as I’ve seen, this legislation doesn’t address the question. Your reasoning makes sense, but I don’t see anything written in this law that would keep a state from maintaining its own restrictions on what type of gun is allowed for carry.
Komiforna for many years has had “special” laws regarding Automobiles and Trucks. Most emissions/envirowacko related.
I swear Commifornia has a damn law against anything you can think off, except being a pervert, that’s fine.
Part of it is that you would need to adhere to each state’s laws. ‘handgunlaw.org’ is the best source of info, updated every 2 weeks. Don’t fly anymore, but will drive coast to coast. I look up every state I will be traveling in & make notations of pertinent laws. My CCW is good in a staggering 40 states total, I need the other 10. Very discretely ignore some of the no good 10, but will not chance the Communist Block of NY, NJ,CT, MA. I just ignore MD, good in DE & RI.
I’ve used handgunlaw.org as well, it’s a good resource as far as it goes.
The phrase I dread reading is anything saying you have to check local laws–i.e., the state doesn’t pre-empt localities. That means I have to be concerned about every frigging dot on the map I drive through, because they don’t (and can’t) catalog local laws (that would be an immense task.)
concealed is concealed–don’t stick out (driving, etc)–no, you may NOT search my vehicle–better to have it & not need it than to need it & not have it–join the USCCA
What could possibly go wrong with implementation is it were to pass.?
Bwaaahaaaahaaa
I can already here the antis screeching here in CA. I have an AZ non resident permit. I need to let my Republican congressman know to support this bill
According to the quoted paragraph, you’d not be able to carry in CA (or anywhere else, at least not as a result of this law alone) because CA doesn’t recognize non-residential permits. See my comment below.
Ironically, me and my in-state permit would be able to do so.
Um… Nope…
Read it carefully.
There are two conditions.
1. You have a permit issued by a state. (no mention of a residency requirement)
2. You live in a state where you would have the right to carry regardless. (the residency requirement people keep fucking up)
Will be tough for this to work, since many states are socialist/Marxist cesspools, regarding what and how to carry especially regarding magazine capacity and “approved handguns.” I can carry my pistol with a 20rd magazine (or any size for that matter) in Ohio but in Virginia, I can’t carry a pistol with more than an 18 rd magazine. If I want to carry an AR-15 pistol in a bug out bag in Ohio it’s perfectly legal but not if I drive to MD (even if MD issued permits which they do not unless you are under an active threat and thats no guarantee that you’ll get one either even if you are an ex cop).
So Ohio finally got rid of that 30 rounds = machine gun law?
In short, yes. Over a year ago. Ohio now has no laws regarding mag cap.
Revolvers. I’m so behind the curve I’m in the lead. Revolvers solve all those mag limit hassles.
Bet I could carry a k frame and a j frame no problem at all.
I own ten-round mags for all my favored carry guns; those are good almost anywhere. When at home my >15 rounders are all grandfathered against our mag limit (which has to be the most ignored, given-the-bird law in human history).
I have one 9mm combat tupperware that is supposed to have a 16 round mag. But CA. Having 6 less rounds than what it was designed for makes it feel “off” in my hands. It’s never failed to work. It just don’t feel right.
I don’t entirely disagree with that attitude, but I figure a gun I’m familiar with, with a weenie mag in it, is better than no gun (or an unfamiliar gun).
Mind you, my preferred mode in places like CA is to bring my .40 S&W which holds (at most) 12. I don’t take too much of a hit when I take it. (OK, bastiches, if you’re going to cut my round count, I’ll up my caliber.) Maybe I’ll start bringing the GP100. It doesn’t have to be concealable since I am not even remotely legal to carry there (it’s for defending myself in my hotel room, and taking to the range; I try to visit a certain range every time I’m there).
But I certainly CAN bring a full size 9mm with those ten round mags, if I want to.
The full text of the bill covers the gun, magazine, and ammunition provided it’s legal under your permit.
As I read it, if your home state (A) does not recognize your right to carry with a non-resident permit from another state (B), then this law won’t force state C to recognize your permit.
Thus, folks in California who obtain (say) a Utah permit would be screwed in any state that doesn’t recognize non-residential permits. (Unfortunately Colorado is one of those.)
That’s a really strange reading. I think you’re overthinking it a bit.
Basically, if you have a resident or non-resident permit, you can carry in a state where you are not a resident. If you are from a state with permitless carry, and you would qualify, you can carry in a state where you are not a resident.
I already thanked my Congressman in person for supporting this yesterday (He seemed receptive to my request for NFA repeal and the “still a pistol” picture I gave him, so maybe it’s just his DC staff that’s terrible)
For Florida, the Constitution Revision Commission is happening soon (may warrant an article, but my knowledge about it is limited to it’s website). With this we won’t need the legislature to co-operate (beyond nominations who will get this on the ballot) and have an advantage in how Democrats simply don’t show up to mid-terms.
Rick Scott and the Senate head are currently accepting applications for their nominations (I called the office and recomended my former state legislator, as I have in writing from him that he would introduce legislation to repeal the NFA and GCA if he won federal office, which he sadly did not).
Ignore this. Posted in wrong article.
In order for this to work, the phrase “. . . or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides . . .” would need to be deleted.
It’s laughable that the Rep and all those government experts can’t see that . . . or the Rep refuses to admit that.
The “or” simply distinguishes between (1) the person who has a license from A STATE from (2) the person who is allowed to carry a firearm in his or her state of residence without a permit or license.
Mr. Hudson was quoted: “My legislative intent is to ensure a non-resident carry permit is recognized, and I’ve confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff.”
Oh well okay then! At least his good intent is there. He means well and has checked this out with all the lawyers. I feel better now trusting this guy with my basic constitutional rights! I’m sure that when NRA and the police unions get their snout into this legislation, it will not get worse, just better for all of us after taking into account officer safety!
Richard Pearson from ISRA (Illinois state rifle association, the state tumor of NRA) told me in 2014 that it takes an average of ten years to “improve” a concealed carry bill. Illinois was the 50th state and all to adopt concealed carry, so I guess we’re slow learners here.
Pearson, ISRA and NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde haven’t lifted a finger to remove the criminal penalties from our carry bill, or the hundreds of gun-free zones, or the public transportation ban, (but that only affects black people in Chicago so I guess that’s okay) the unelected Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, or the Duty to Inform.
Philando Castile will never happen here, because Richard told me himself that Illinois’ does not have Duty to Inform, it’s only if the officer asks. I am so glad that we have people like Richard Pearson to tell us how to think correctly!
Anyway I’m looking forward to taking a trip to D.C. to meet with the ATF for my background interview and DNA sample for my federalized carry license after this great legislation is passed. I haven’t been to Washington since my 8th grade bus trip!
This bill is getting uglier by the week as more and more details surface. In the very unlikely case that this should ever pass both houses (…how does Hudson intend to get the necessary votes in the Senate? Short of 60 Ayes, this thing is sure to die in filibuster), I have a strong feeling that states like NJ or CA will have a field day in the courts with NCCRA.
Julius- Here’s what will happen. NRA and the police unions will get their snout in this legislation, mostly behind the scenes of gun owners and NRA members. The police unions will demand and get criminal penalties for gun-free zones, plus Duty to Inform for citizens, although cops and retired cops have no DTI in LEOSA.
NRA will betray us to the anti-gun police unions as they did in Illinois’ 2013 concealed carry bill. Expect eventually that there will be criminal penalties for all violations of the nationalized carry bill, plus Duty to Inform means that police can arrest and kill whoever they want at any time, like Philando Castile in Minnesota.
NRA lobbyists like Todd Vandermyde now create their own job security to “fix” the shit bill they put up in the first place, and NRA lawyers can take their garbage bag to court and bill out millions of hours in the next ten years.
You figured out the plan at NRA HQ- lose. It’s all they know how to do.
This is a state’s issue not a federal government issue. The feds should not dictate to the states. That being said, I do not need government permission to do something, a right, that was given to me by my Creator, that right od self defense and to have the tools to to defend myself
How is denying the constitutionally protected right to bear arms a state issue?
As a MD resident I am excited over this bill but I will not be one of the test cases. I’ll wait till a few others go through the court system before I carry.
I checked with both NRA/ILA and Cong. Hudson’s office. Both told me my home state (NJ) would be required to honor my non-resident CCWs from AZ & Fl.
Parnell- if you checked with NRA/ ILA and someone told you all is well, they lied to you. Chris Cunningham is over state and local affairs at ILA, which means that he supposedly supervises fifty lobbyists in state legislatures.
When Illinois state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in state Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” concealed carry bill, Cunningham had no clue whatsoever what Vandermyde had done as of spring 2013. Illinois’ carry bill passed in July 2013. If you think there is some master plan at NRA, Inc. to look out for you and yours, there’s not.
Vandermyde’s former boss William Dugan was president of the Intl. Union of Operating Engineers local 150 in Countryside, IL, before Dugan was convicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 2010. After Vandermyde’s boss was taken down by the Chicago U.S. Attorney and FBI, Vandermyde only shows up in 2011 IL Secretary of State business records as a registered lobbyist for NRA, not the 150 union. It seems that NRA only pays the worst people they can find.
Apparently Chris Cox and Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA are not capable of conducting a background check for criminal associations on contract lobbyists like Vandermyde. Don’t trust your life to NRA, Inc. NRA HQ is a whorehouse infested with liars and rats if what they did in Illinois is any indication.
This, of course, raises the question of what’s a 50 state gun? Is there such a thing? I think a 1911 with the standard seven round round GI magazine might qualify, but it might need to be a specific model to be California compliant.
So, would it apply to Canadians? Some Canadians get carry permits in US states without being either a resident of that state, nor an US citizen.
“So, would it apply to Canadians? Some Canadians get carry permits in US states without being either a resident of that state, nor an US citizen.” The statute should apply to Canadians (if a Canadian is “a person”). I don’t know if Canadians can legally obtain a CCW license from any state, but they can definitely be residents of Constitutional Carry states like Vermont.
This hypothetical Canadian would still need American issued photo ID.
The problem I see with the reciprocity law is that fails to protect you from states that have differ law regarding magazines and ammunition types. If you travel to a state that bans magazines of more than 10 rounds and your firearm has 15 round mags, you are in violation of the state law, even when they have to recognize your CCW. Same if you pass through a state that forbids hollow point ammo (NJ). Those states might have to recognize your CCW, but they’ll get you on the fine print.
That is why you comply with the State’s law you are passing thru. Ruger makes CA & MA compliant handguns such as the LCR; legal in both of those Communist Controlled Areas of the ONCE free US. I have one permit & it is good for 40; the ones it is not I either ignore or avoid (NY, NY, CT, MA). “handgunlawus.org” is best source of compliance info.
“([A] person) (who) (is carrying) (a valid license or permit) ((which is issued pursuant to the law of a State) (and) (which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm)) (or) (is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides)”
So your license or permit must be issued by a state and must be a concealed carry license or permit for guns (it can cover other things too, but that doesn’t matter). Basically the “which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm” means that a driver’s, fishing, hunting, law, etc. license isn’t good enough.
The or is disjunctive meaning it separates one part from the other. I believe the bill should be read as follows:
([A] person) (who) (is carrying) (a valid license or permit) ((which is issued pursuant to the law of a State) (and) (which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm)) may possess or carry a concealed handgun. ([A] person) (who) (is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides) may possess or carry a concealed handgun.
It is my OPINION that someone can carry or posses any non-NFA handgun with any magazine and any ammunition in any state. I have quoted relevant passages of the bill below.
The bill applies to (concealed) handguns that have been shipped or transported in interstate commerce. That’s all of them (that are concealed) that weren’t made in the state you are in (and maybe more).
The bill defines a handgun to includes “any magazine for use in a handgun” and “any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.” So only take magazines that work with a concealed handgun that you have and keep all of your ammo in those magazines. I’m concerned about the singular “its magazine.”
I’d say under this bill that a California resident is allowed to have (but maybe not acquire) any handgun, magazine, and ammunition that has been in the stream of interstate commerce. I’d ARGUE that a right to have a thing grants a right to acquire.
I’d also say that since the bill applies to “concealed” handguns, don’t let anyone ever see your handgun while in a state in which it would be illegal if not for this bill because it would no longer be concealed. Also, don’t let them see your mags or ammo either.
After reading the comments and then analyzing the bill, I have concluded that this bill is much more expansive than simple reciprocity. For example, I believe it narrowly legalizes the possession any non-NFA concealed handgun in states that have restrictions on those handguns.
As always, don’t be a test case.
Page 2
“8 ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any
9 State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided
10 in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements
11 of this section”
“17 carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a con-
18 cealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,
19 may POSSES or carry a concealed handgun (other than a
20 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped
21 or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any
22 State” (emphasis added).
Page 3:
“4 ‘‘(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede
5 or limit the laws of any State that—
6 ‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to pro-
7 hibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms
8 on their property; or
9 ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of fire-
10 arms on any State or local government property, in-
11 stallation, building, base, or park. ”
Page 5:
“3 ‘‘(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine
4 for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded
5 into the handgun or its magazine”
My biggest concern with this bill is the award of “reasonable attorney’s fees” for the carrier in both criminal and civil cases resulting from violation from this bill. If you hire an attorney, and the judge decides the fee is unreasonable, you will be stuck with the difference. I’m sure that there are judges, especially in jurisdictions that are most likely to violate this bill, that will do whatever they can to stick it to gun owners.
I would want the bill to give reasonable, or actual, whichever is higher, and actual costs. I’d additionally include punitive or stated nominal damages in some amount.
I am glad the bill goes at least as far as it does in trying to make to where a defendant can not only beat the wrap, but also beat the ride.
Comments are closed.