Press release: WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (NC-08) released the following statement after the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution in opposition to his bill [ED: not on the Mayors’ website], the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38):

“Contrary to this resolution, my bill to provide law-abiding citizens the right to carry concealed across state lines will not increase crime or violence.

It is unfortunate that this group of mayors has decided to parrot the talking points of anti-Second Amendment crusader Michael Bloomberg who has vowed to spend millions to stop my bill instead of working to uphold the Constitutional right of all Americans. Simply put, this resolution is a bridge too far.”

Under H.R. 38, every person who wants to buy a firearm in America would still have to go through a thorough federal background check – Rep. Hudson’s bill would not change that.

In addition, state and local laws would still dictate where law-abiding citizens can and can’t carry a concealed firearm. That means if these mayors want to control where people can carry in their municipalities, then they’re free to do that.

Rep. Hudson’s bill, which is supported by major pro-Second Amendment groups and has 200 cosponsors, would allow law-abiding citizens with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry.

It also allows law-abiding residents of Constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own residents’ right to concealed carry.

It would allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed only if they are not federally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm, are carrying a valid government-issued photo ID, and are lawfully licensed or otherwise entitled to carry a concealed handgun. Each person would have to follow the laws of the state, county and municipality in which they are carrying concealed.

[Click here to read the text of the slightly misnamed Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

50 COMMENTS

  1. The anti-2A community is a cult, or religion if you like. It is entirely about faith in the evil nature of mankind. Such evil cannot be allowed to use the cover of the antiquated, out-of-date, out-of-the-mainstream provisions of the US constitution to protect evil schemes, and totally irresponsible disregard of the will of the people to no longer be held victim to blood lust.

    That’s it. A religion. Heretics are to be burned alive.

    • You could say that about the Pro 2-A community as well “but it’s muh right!”. I hope this bill passes so I can carry in NYC and other places with no problem.

      • “In addition, state and local laws would still dictate where law-abiding citizens can and can’t carry a concealed firearm.” Nope, Nada, None…the bill fixes NOTHING if it does not override state and local infringement.

        • “if it does not override state and local infringement.” Well, it does. Not entirely, but a good deal.

          • Isn’t a local law that determines where and when I can be in possession of a fire arm constitute infringement? If so, the legislation is a sop to the peanut gallery.

              • “It eliminates most gun free zone categories.”

                Apparently I missed repeal of the 1990 act. Reading too much, too fast.

              • It’s § 926D(f). It says that those acting under the bill are not subject to § 922(q). So it’s not a complete repeal. It’s an exemption.

                I’d rather have a half measure than nothing.

              • We got here one half measure at a time in the wrong direction. This is a half measure in the right direction. Depending on how you count, we’re 60-90 years of half measures away to no federal gun control.

              • “We got here one half measure at a time in the wrong direction. ”

                One thing I learned over all these years…when non-liberals/leftists/statists/demoncrats allow the other side a half-measure, the cry becomes, “You got what you wanted, how ’bout you give us something?” The only useful half-measure is when you make absolutely outrageous demands, then accept the “half-measure” that gives you everything you really wanted. And you get credit for “compromise”.

              • What we’re doing this time is called lying. The congressman’s office released the statement which includes: “Each person would have to follow the laws of the state, county and municipality in which they are carrying concealed.” And that, at best, is a half truth. The state, county and municipality in which they are still has plenty of laws that person “must” follow. Just not most of the ones on carrying guns.

      • “I hope this bill passes so I can carry in NYC and other places with no problem.”

        As noted on this thread (by someone else), unless the bill contains federal preemption, all the restrictions in the various states will apply.So, if you now have a second second amendment law (national reciprocity) that is itself restricted by local laws, you have a nice piece of legislation to make you feel good, but the legislation is no good.

  2. But what about constitutional carry states?
    No permit or license here in NH…or Maine or VT…

    • If you do not need a permit/license to concealed carry in your home state, then you would not need one to concealed carry in every other state also.

    • From the article: “It also allows law-abiding residents of Constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own residents’ right to concealed carry.”

      I don’t know if the article was changed after you read it, or if you just didn’t read it.

      • It’s not clear to me whether that means only other constitutional carry states or all states that allow concealed carry with or without a license.

        • If it’s written as it should be, your govt photo ID showing you to be a resident of AZ, or VT, whatever, *is* your license to carry, and the cops of EVERY state would respect it as such.

        • What Larry said, except change “would” to “are required by law to.” You ever see a cop ignore a law?

    • BREAKING: Vermont invades every other state and kills off all their poor minority chilluns (as well as people whose lives don’t matter). Vermont declared new capital of the United States of Vermont.

      • they just start obeying the law of the land again, the 2 amendment is already your “permit”.

      • That’s the way it should be.

        I never understood why if you were allowed to purchase a firearm after not being a prohibited person that you weren’t allowed to possess it outside your home without some sort of permit. You have your gun in your house, your an honest citizen, but you bring it with you to the beach and you’re a low life scumball that needs to be locked away? GTFO.

    • NH still has its pistol/revolver license for those who want reciprocity in other states. Still shall-issue (appealable if denied), and still a modest cost at $10 for 4 years.

  3. “In addition, state and local laws would still dictate where law-abiding citizens can and can’t carry a concealed firearm. That means if these mayors want to control where people can carry in their municipalities, then they’re free to do that.”

    Umm no, HR 38 doesn’t have any bearing on local ordinances but the highest law in the land is still the constitution. Last time I checked shall not be infringed still applies to any cockeyed and misguided schemes put forth by anyone, mayors and presidents included. My rights are not conditionally ‘granted’ to me by some mayor, they are natural rights that are protected and enumerated by the constitution

    Those 4 words somehow aren’t very clear to most people, especially when their job becomes dependent on a vote. May I suggest a civics class to these mayors?

    • HR 38 has a lot of bearing on state and local laws. (I get your 2A point, but until courts start enforcing it, it doesn’t help us).

      “Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)).” This means, we don’t give a f**k what the state and local laws are … (except as provided in subsection (b)). They ain’t the law no more … (except as provided in subsection (b)).

      Now on to subsection (b):

      “(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

      “(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

      “(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

      Subsection (1) means that states can only have laws that allow private property owners to ban guns carried under the authority of the bill. These laws are like Texas’ 30.06 and 30.07.

      Subsection (2) means that the the government can have laws banning guns on government property.

      This bill would actually expand where it is legal for me to carry in Texas. This bill is the super awesome.

      • I’m no lawyer so I’ll take your word for it

        If that’s an accurate translation then these mayors are right and they do have something serious to worry about if this passes, they might actually see some law an order return to their cities!

    • Thank you Mr SCOTUS / TX Lawyer, but States and municipalities will probably violate the law the day it is passed. If the law passes, there will be a lawsuit which may make it to the Supreme Court. The Court has a history of letting local gun control stand like the Heller which let most gun control laws stand

    • I suggest a public flogging for the first offense.
      a public execution for treason on the second offense.

  6. Mayors of urban areas of the US are the 1st LT’s and Captains of the “Free Crap Army” that has arisen in this country. They’re going to complain the loudest about CCW in their jurisdictions, because a) they often derive an income stream from selling off CCW permits, b) their police budgets are plumped up, in part, by keeping the citizenry disarmed, c) this keeps the citizenry begging for more favors and ‘protection’ from these political machines.

    Of course they don’t want CCW in their jurisdictions. Can you imagine what happens in NYC if the CCW issue is taken out of their hands?

    • Not really. The twits active in the big time Mayor’s Club are simply leftist progtards.

  7. The anti’s are scared. I can smell the fear all around them. They know in their pathetic little black chicken hearts , the writing is on the wall. If this law passes it will be the next nail in the coffin of the gun control movement. It will go the way of prohibition , Jim Crow and the war on drugs. A black mark on the history of a free people.

    Once the blue states start getting a taste of freedom all bets are offf. A national law would mean national shall issue. Shall issue is krypotonite to anti gunners. Look at states that have shall issue. Things tend to get better over time for them.

  8. Without preemption on a Federal level, the bill is worthless.

    All of those “Bloomberg” municipalities will enact all sorts of regulations and prohibited locations in a manner to entrap legal concealed carriers.

    There needs to be at least the preempted right to carry on all interstate highways and all areas of accommodation along, or adjacent to, the interstates (rest stops, restaurants, hotels, etc.).

    This also shouldn’t be a “states rights” issue since the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated right and the 14th Amendment prohibits states from abridging the “privileges or immunities of citizens”. If it’s good for Obergefell, it should be good for those wanting to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

      • “The bill IS the preemption that is the entire point.”

        Not actually. It gives permission (yes, permission) for people with permits (or constitutional carry) to travel about with their firearms SUBJECT TO every two-bit “reasonable restriction” that exists wherever one travels. “Preemption” would state that no political subdivision can enact or enforce laws that restrict a person operating under the federal legislation.

        The really cool part of the legislation is cops will need to be familiar with all the permitting systems in all 51 states.

        Or maybe not. They can just decide to arrest you (“Acting in good faith.”), and let the lawyers figure it out.

        • There is actually a “shit ton” (that’s a technical term) of preemption in the bill.

          • “There is actually a “shit ton” (that’s a technical term) of preemption in the bill.”

            I see a ton of exceptions and submission to “reasonable restrictions”. What I have read of “preemption” statutes, they are pretty clear than no political subdivison may make or enforce any law that preempts state law. Creating legislation that merely places CCW permits on par with a driver’s license does nothing to end the slimy snake of “reasonable restrictions”.

            • “Creating legislation that merely places CCW permits on par with a driver’s license does nothing to end the slimy snake of ‘reasonable restrictions’.” This statute doesn’t do that. It partially does away with magazine, ammo, and firearms restrictions. It even preempts most of Texas’ laws on where a gun can be taken. It opens up a ton of federal land.

              • Could be I am just jaundiced regarding any legislation that is necessary to supplement an enumerated right, protected by the constitution. How does simple legislation come to have more effect, meaning, than the original text? Not to mention (but I will), simple legislation can be overturned by simple majority.

              • “Unless we’re ready to water the gardens of liberty, this is where we are.”

                Yeah. “True dat”.

  9. Licensed firearm carriers commit violent crime at a rate an order of magnitude less frequently than do police officers, and yet these pearl-clutching mayors aren’t writing letters asking for police officers to be disarmed, or of the increase in violent crime resulting from LEOSA.

    • “…pearl-clutching mayors aren’t writing letters asking for police officers to be disarmed,…”

      What? Did you just fall off the turnip truck yesterday? Just learn to read? Police are trained, I tell you. Trained. They are not irresponsible gun users. They spend hours at the practice range, every week. Police are not the threat. If bad people didn’t do bad things, police would not even need to be armed. Happily for us, police (and all LEO) are well regulated, and trustworthy with guns. The rest of the great unwashed? Not so much.

      Support your local sheriff.

      /s

  11. The fallout of the Republican’s being shot at a baseball practice might lead to Congressmen being able to carry guns across state lines but never the proletariat. People in power whether they be liberal or conservative want laws that protect them not the proletariat which are all considered expendable.

Comments are closed.