Texas Senator John Cornyn courtesy tesastribune.com

It boggles the mind that marriage licenses and driver’s licenses are recognized in every state of the union, but not my concealed handgun license. You’d think that the “full faith and credit” clause would take care of that, since all 50 states now have some sort of concealed carry law on the books and the court recognizes that carrying guns is a constitutionally protected act. Senator John Cornyn, from the great state of Texas, just proposed a new bill that would eliminate that double standard and provide for universal reciprocity. I’m guessing that it’s the result of the pressure he feels from his fellow Texas Senator Ted Cruz to make him stand out in an election year, but either way I’ll take it. Press release after the jump.

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) today introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014, which would allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that also has concealed carry laws. The legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Sens. Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Graham (R-SC), Boozman (R-AR), Inhofe (R-OK), Crapo (R-ID), Burr (R-NC), Cochran (R-MS), Johanns (R-NE), Enzi (R-WY), Moran (R-KS), Roberts (R-KS), and Portman (R-OH).

“This bill strengthens two of our nation’s most fundamental rights, ensuring law-abiding gun owners can lawfully carry their weapons into like-minded states, while respecting the rights of states to adopt laws that are best-suited for the people of that state. This is an important affirmation of the Second Amendment and one that has been a top priority of law-abiding gun owners in Texas for some time. It is time to get this done.

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014 would treat state-issued concealed-carry permits like drivers’ licenses, allowing law-abiding citizens with concealed carry privileges to concealed-carry in any other states that also permit it by law.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

129 COMMENTS

    • That Act would be complete with two sentences:

      1. All states must code DLs and state issued IDs signifying whether or not the person is eligible to own firearms under applicable laws.

      2. All persons with the appropriately coded DL/ID retain the unqualified Constitutional Right to possess firearms and ammunition.

      • No, that act would be complete with one sentence, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      • I don’t think I want that information on my driver’s license, though I’d settle if it meant reciprocity…

        • Since the anti-gun freaks are all up in arms about keeping gun out of the hands of those that are otherwise prohibited, and I must confess, I agree with that agenda, if this helps in that aspect and reduces infringement of those who lawfully carry, then we should have no problem with it.

        • “…anti-gun freaks are all up in arms about keeping gun out of the hands of those that are otherwise prohibited…”

          Which still leaves the question of who decides the criteria of what person is prohibited, maintains and enforces the prohibition. I believe that falls on the government and it is hard to conceive of that not violating the “…shall not be infringed.” provision.

          Every time we get this same consideration, by people who should know better: “It makes me nervous/uncomfortable/afraid that such and such group of people have the right to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms so I think that we should let the government deny them those rights.” At what point, then, do you demand the government stop adding offenses that include YOU on the list, and once disarmed, how will you enforce that demand?

          Life is not without some degree of risk, that’s why we carry. No law, no list, no degree of draconian enforcement activity (see prohibition) will prevent criminals from getting the arms they want and/or need. The ONLY thing that can be accomplished by legislation is to disarm the law abiding citizens and create an ever larger and more dangerous black market for firearms. I personally would prefer to take my chances on encountering the occasional bad guy with a gun, however he obtained it, than letting the government take away my RKBA piece by piece until I am a slave to their every whim.

        • I have a problem with it being on my Driver’s/Operator’s License. That just opens a gaping door for universal registration!

      • I kinda like that. Your driver’s license is also a firearms “license” that says you haven’t done anything egregious enough to result in due-process removal of rights — which means that 90-some-odd % of the population will have said license (or state ID or equivalent).

        It won’t say anything about whether you actually own guns or whether you’re currently carrying one. Even the people who hate guns and would never own one will have a green dot on their ID saying that they could have one.

        • If that is the case, why bother? Just affirm the efficacy and applicability of the Second Amendment! Even the die hard “the 2nd Amendment only covers the militia” would have to cede the point that anyone holding a driver’s licanse is also of the demographics to belong to the militia!

      • There’s too much information on your dl as it is. What would keep some anti-gun employee from the DOL from secretly adding something forbidding you to own a firearm? With all the bar coding and everything.

      • There should never be anything about concealed carry or anything about gun ownership on drivers lic. or state IDs. The police are becoming paranoid enough without that information being available on IDs. This would be a defacto national registration. Not Good.

  2. Well this is some wishful thinking, but if it works…. Maybe if this goes through and the Republican party gets wise to what gets them votes from the POTG maybe they will tackle the NFA items. Here is a compromise you can tax that suppressor or SBR but sell them over the counter without the extra hoops.

    • Chances of passage in the current Senate – pretty damn slim.

      Chances of having a list of Senators who voted against it for use in the upcoming campaigns this fall – Pretty damn exciting!

  3. The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014 would treat state-issued concealed-carry permits like drivers’ licenses…

    Yes, but will it treat state issued driver licenses like carry permits? Oklahoma allows AZ residents to carry concealed….

    Still no complaints about steps in the right direction.

  5. This should have been passed years ago.
    The excuse that one states training or certification to acquire a permit to carry isn’t much different then any other licensing laws state to state.
    A valid drivers license in state X should be no different then a drivers license issued in state Y .
    Since being armed is a god given natural right to protect yourself with what ever is available to the individual at the time.
    Driving isn’t a right.
    It is indeed a privilege.
    Yet they respect drivers licenses state to state.
    Talk about hypocrisy folks.
    Its just a lame brain excuse for not following for the “common sense” as the libitards like to say about everything else gun related.
    Nation reciprocity is a common sense reform if there ever was one.

    • Driving is a right. Just because it is currently being infringed upon by thugs does not make it less of a right. The only people who say it is a “privilege” are thugs working for the government.

      • Exactly right; the first right is to carry a weapon to defend ones life; another fundamental right is the freedom of unrestricted travel on the roads our tax dollars paid for,. The fact that we are in motor vehicles instead of on foot, horse or carriage doesn’t change this.

        Why so many people have such a hard time comprehending this basic truth is beyond me,

      • If driving is a right… and rights cannot be infringed…. then how can our government regulate driving? We always hear that no right shall be infringed, do you really want to follow the logical extension of your argument?

        How about we worry about getting straight with the Bill of Rights (the 2nd and the 4th, especially), then we can tackle the rest.

        • What would be “the logical extension” of no regulation of a civil right like driving? I think the same thing that happens when we have constitutional carry; ie,( no regulation of how we carry a weapon). The good people continue being good people, the bad people keep being bad and doing stupid things with stupid people and there is NOT blood in the streets.

          The same thing would happen with driving, most people drive smart regardless of the laws, they would keep driving smart if there wasn’t laws and regulations for everything; and the bad drivers that ALREADY ignore the current traffic laws will keep doing stupid things driving in stupid ways; what all of us good drivers already deal with every day.

          Except, now, the government wouldn’t be involved, growing ever bigger and ever more tyrannical and regulatory.

    • Driving is absolutely a “right.” The problem is, those who are fond of the “driving is a privilege” argument have twisted the discussion in such a way that most people don’t know any better anymore. But let’s look at the facts:

      Anyone can drive any time, in any vehicle they choose, if it’s done on private property. Nobody denies that. The argument is typically “driving on public (i.e. “government owned”) roads is the privilege.

      Okay. Sounds reasonable to most people. The problem is, that it’s wrong!

      The REAL three branches of government are State, Federal, and WE THE PEOPLE. We The People are the one true government. We make up 50 different State Governments, and we send a portion of our State Government to Washington to form the Federal Government. It is ALL OUR GOVERNMENT.

      And through extending that logic, you can see that the “public roads” belong to the public. Anybody who pays taxes has partial ownership of every public road in the whole damn country. And because of that, driving on those roads IS A RIGHT. Period.

      • I like where you’ve gone with that. When I think about where the “Driving is a privilege” theme was indoctrinated into my thinking, it had to be during state-sponsored driver’s ed classes in high school. Imagine that…. indoctrination going on in public schools, who woulda thunk it?

        • The funny thing is that in legal parlance a “privilege” cannot ever, under any circumstances (supposedly), be suspended when rights can.

          The client/lawyer privilege, doctor/patient (though they are finally managing to crack that.), spousal privileges, etc.

          But the right to travel freely can be suspended upon incarceration if you are convicted of violating the rights of another.

          Maybe we should have driving legally recognized as a privilege, same as concealed carry.

        • Wrong answer, Marcus. Privileges are “suspended” or waived all the time. Sue someone for personal injuries, and you have waived the patient-physician privilege, and yes, despite them arguing to the contrary, this extends to mental health professionals (psychiatrists and psychologists, etc.). Embroil your attorney in a fraud, and the crime-fraud exemption will eliminate any privilege. As it is, the privilege only extends to the communication itself, but not the where, when, who was present, or the basic subject matter of the communication–all are not privileged. If any one is present who is not a party to the attorney-client relationship, the privilege is lost. Or if the client blabs to someone else who is not within the scope of the privilege. And the attorney-client privilege can be overcome in exceptional circumstances where the interests of justice demand. The spousal privilege evaporates when one spouse sues the other. And so forth and so on. Nothing in law is hard and fast–were it so, we wouldn’t need lawyers.

          A privilege is not a right. It is benefit or advantage conferred, in this milieu, by a governmental agency. and being granted by a governmental entity, it can be revoked by that governmental entity. The legal privileges described above are almost entirely creatures of statute, and are revocable by a change in law.

    • We are faced with the dilemma that the RKBA is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right and that ANY costs imposed by the states, including mandatory training, are prima facie unconstitutional. Some (few) states tend to recognize this, such as Washington, and must issue a CPL if you meet minimum qualifications that do NOT including any mandatory training. This is the main reason that my CPL is not recognized in as many states as some others.

      The training and testing procedures for a driver license, however, are fairly standard nationwide, as are the (majority) of traffic laws. Based on this criteria solely it makes a little more sense that every state would recognize a DL and not a CPL.

      So long as individual states are allowed to devise and enforce their own myriad of unconstitutional restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of their residents (and visitors), reciprocity between states will remain problematic.

    • Driving is indeed a right, read the 9th amendment: just because it’s not mentioned by name in the BoR doesn’t mean it isn’t a right.

      Also, FWIW, you don’t need a DL in any state to drive. You can go out, buy a car with cash, and drive it on private property all day long if the owner permits it. A DL is just if you want to drive on gov’t roads, which happen to be most everything out there and one of the most effective ways to get from point A to point B in this country.

  6. Not a good thing , from my perch.

    While I like the idea of politicians actually trying to pass good laws, there are serious problems at work here.One, this violates the 10th Amendment by involving Federal power yet again into a place it is not Constitutionally authorized.

    Two, Obama would choose impeachment before he’d sign it into law.

    Three, realistically, who here thinks such a law would actually be respected in anti gun districts? NJ, NY, MD, CA, HI, IL , and others would just haul you outta the car and go “NYET” once you cite the law.You’d be released, after a weekend in jail and your gun got confiscated.Think about how the New York/New Jerseys Port Authority ignores the FOPA and arrests travellers without local handgun permits.
    That’s what wed expect with any national reciprocity setup.

    Next, unlike cars there’s no national campaign to ban automobiles.How long would it be before some leftist turd gets to the Oval Office and decides to change the definition of a Federally recognized CCW permit eligable for reciprocity to mean “may issue, subject to review and discretion of local law enforcement, and requiring good and substantial cause for issuance and renewal.” Remember , good cause CCW permits have so far been upheld as legal in appellate court.

    Lastly, there are no free lunches in politics.The antis will be sure to try to add a rider to the bill , and if they must they’ll do it in the wee hours like the 1986 Hughes Amendment.Anyone want to go back to a nationwide 10 round magazine limit again? Mark this-there is no way a national reciprocity bill will either pass the legislature or be signed into law under the current White House without a universal background check requirement for all gun purchases.That we can bet our ammo stashes on.

    And all of that, so that folks in No-Carry jurisdictions end up arrested anyways.

    NYET!

    • ST wrote, “… realistically, who here thinks such a law would actually be respected in anti gun districts? NJ, NY, MD, CA, HI, IL , and others would just haul you outta the car and go “NYET” once you cite the law.You’d be released, after a weekend in jail and your gun got confiscated.”

      I agree that police in those regions would be tempted to behave as you described. And affected citizen would sue the officers and police departments who participated in their ILLEGAL arrest, kidnapping, and imprisonment, and prosecute them under U.S.C. Title 18 Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. The officers would be prosecuted for felonies and spend decades in prison and pay thousands of dollars in fines personally. This happened recently in Louisiana to police officers who attacked and killed people who were not breaking any laws.

    • ST also wrote, “Think about how the New York/New Jerseys Port Authority ignores the FOPA and arrests travellers without local handgun permits.”

      In all the examples that I have seen, neither entity has arrested travelers who were passing through New York City which is what FOPA protects. Rather, the New York/New Jersey Port Authority arrested people who attempted to check-in firearms for a return trip which means that New York/New Jersay was their travel destination.

      • See Revell v NY/NJ Port Authority.

        It was a lawsuit filed by George Revell for wrongfull arrest on the part of the NJ Port Authority , who slapped on the cuffs after his flight to Vermont was diverted to Newark due to a mechanical problem.Since his landing in NJ was unscheduled, the airline paid for his overnight hotel since the next plane wouldnt arrive until morning.He took his checked handgun to the hotel, stayed the night, then went to the airport to finish his trip.At which point he was arrested at the terminal for lack of local documentation.

        In practical application the FOPA should have protected him.In practice, the trial judge ruled that Revell should have surrendered his property to the police or airline for safekeeping during his overnight stay.

        People in similar circumstances who are connecting though have been hassled.Mas Ayoob wrote that he almost got arrested flying out of JFK with his guns at one point.The only reason he didn’t was because he’s a part time LEO himself.

        • I am aware of the cases you cited ST and those are gray areas. Nationwide reciprocity would be much more concrete: either someone has a concealed carry license from their home state or they don’t. If a citizen has a valid license, there is no reason and no wiggle room for the local police to do anything legally.

          In simple terms nationwide concealed carry license reciprocity would be much more solid for citizens than F.O.P.A. right now.

    • As for your last paragraph ST, that could well be. We will have to cross those bridges when we come to them.

      Keep in mind that this bill will almost surely pass the House and I have a hunch that it will even pass in the Senate. I am also pretty sure that our Communist in Chief will veto it. The real question is whether or not Congress can pass it a second time with a 2/3 majority to override the veto. I would be pleasantly surprised to see that happen.

      • I’d love to see the expansion of freedom, even though Obama would likely hate it. I wonder what his slick little TelePrompTer – given denial speech would sound like. Probably some crap about child safety. It would be even better if there was a sufficient majority to bypass Obama.

        Meanwhile, rights are being denied to millions of American who can’t get a CC permit or who cannot carry in other states.

        • Well think about this. Imagine how irate someone in a may (meaning “won’t”) issue state will get when he/she realizes that damn tourist over there can pack and he/she cannot because their own sheriff/governor/whoever is a dickweed who has been given arbitrary power.

    • It’s not violating the 10th Amendment…it’s reenforcing the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms means I should be able to carry a gun ANYWHERE. If I want to carry it in a school, on a plane, in a post office…heck if I went to visit El Presidente I should be able to carry it without infringement… There should be no place that is part of the United States where I shouldn’t be able to carry ANYTHING I want.

  7. Can anyone tell me why the “Full Faith and Credit” of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution that these people swear to uphold isn’t operative here?

    “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

    • It isn’t operative on CCW permits, because a CCW permit itself is unconstitutional.

      Contrary to common thought, even a shall issue CCW permit isn’t authorized under the USC.There is no clause which grants states the right to regulate the activity of keeping and bearing arms, and thus that doesn’t fall under the “faith and credit” clause.

      A CCW permit is a legislative permission slip to exercise your own already recognized Constitutional right.It’s akin to having a permit to vote.If a state government tried to license voting, they’d be sued into oblivion.The Constitution wasn’t written for states to grant full and due credit to limitations on previously stated civil rights.

      Now, with that stated I do recognize socially speaking our nation is long way culturally from ever accepting permit less carry.Too many jelly spines going to the polls quivering at the thought of undocumented gun owners running loose,as it were.So, with that reality in place ,how can other states recognize each other’s permission slips?

      The 14th Amendment!Since Heller already established case precedent stating the 2nd Amendment is a civil right (/duh) ,it’s just a matter of arguing before The Big Court that the civil rights of a gun owner are not equally recognized between Shall Issue State A and No-Issue State B.That’s the foundation of the civil rights case law regarding Jim Crow and racist legislation.There’s no difference on concept between a black man not being able to rent a hotel in a different state , and black/white/Jewish/Arabian man not being able to carry his legally acquired gun in the same circumstance.

      • Well Kentucky, being a commonwealth state, allows open carry without any permit. I’m Joe Snuffy with a handgun and I can walk around with it on my hip without having any documentation whatsoever.

    • From Southpark:
      Kyle: Isn’t that fascism?
      Gerald: No, because we don’t call it fascism. Do you understand?
      Kyle: Do you?

  8. right on. instead of being trampled on he’s standing up for our rights. I would like to see Diane Fienstein eat this bill.

    • In spite of its limited possibility of even coming up for a vote, I suspect Feinstein will choke on it.

  9. “…while respecting the rights of states to adopt laws that are best-suited for the people of that state.” Hmmm, sounds pretty hokey to me. How about this – constitutional carry in all states. You’re welcome. Problem solved. No need for any more dang legislation !

    • Well if our government did that, it would illustrate that we don’t need them for very much. And if we don’t need them for very much, they are not very important. Their collective egos could never withstand that.

      • I believe that Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution of the United States of America lists EXACTLY those things we believe we need a federal government for. The list is short and limited.

        They are needed for those things only. The problem is that they keep dreaming up ways to impose themselves on things they have no business addressing.

  10. Pure political douchebaggery by Senator Cornhole. The guy is under threat of a serious challenge by Stockman and needs now a win or at least a marker he can throw down to the Conservative/Tea Party folk to try and pull votes from Stockman. Cornhole is a disappointment. Don’t buy his brand of bullshat.

    • He’s trying to counterbalance his “See a shrink, lose your gun rights” legislation he’s also proposing.

  11. So my question is whether there is similar legislation covering said drivers licenses and marriage licenses? Or is the Constitution “Full Faith & Credit” clause all that it takes?

    • All the states participate in a “compact” to recognize DLs but I’m not sure if it has Federal participation or authorization.

      Still, the Constitution says “full faith & credit” so I guess we just need this “enabling legislation” BS to make it real.

      • It doesn’t. I remember when I lived in Louisiana that it recognized the DLs of only 26 other states as sufficient as a “bond” when giving a traffic ticket, which meant that if you had a license from a non-compact state, they would haul your ass off to jail for a speeding ticket where you could post cash bail. (Actually, in New Orleans, it didn’t matter what license you had–if it was an out of state license, you went to Central Lockup regardless. Institutionalized corruption at its best.)

  12. ” You’d think that the “full faith and credit” clause would take care of that”….you would also think that “shall not be infringed” would take care of that as well.

    The problem with laws like these is that they merely reinforce the idea of government having the right to infringe a right.

  13. Marriages licenses are not recognized in every state. First, the license is only good for you to marry in the state of issuance. You can’t get a marriage license issued in PA and get hitched in NJ, you need the license for the state you’re getting married in. Second, marriages are not recognized in every state. If you marry a same sex partner in CA and move to TX, TX does not recognize that union – nor will they allow you to divorce from a marriage they don’t recognize.

    Bad, bad, analogy.

  14. Why on earth would the Senate even take this up for a vote as it’s currently made up? Obama would never sign it even if they attached amnesty, unlimited unemployment, the assault weapons ban, and citizenship for Uncle Omar to it.

    • Ooh. You just gave me an idea. Maybe the Republicans are finally starting to play ball like the Democrats. Perhaps the Republicans are feeling a lot of pressure to extend unemployment payments. So they are coming out with national reciprocity. If the Democrats want longer unemployment payments, they have to approve reciprocity. No Democrat, including the President, want to received the ire of the masses for not extending unemployment payments. And the Republican challengers could point to Democrat incumbents who denied the extension of payments.

      From a political perspective, that could be a really good move. The Republicans would come out looking like heroes to both sides. And the Democrats would look like villains to both sides.

  15. There are 2 words that ruin this idea. Tenth Amendment. While I am a second amendment advocate I am also a constitutionalist. We can not dump on one amendment to promote another. And communist states like new york and california will sue based on the tenth.

    • The “Full faith and credit” clause, or even the Commerce Clause should cover it with no 10th amendment worries. This is the issue that the Commerce Clause was meant to cover. It was never meant to regulate the actions of private individuals or companies, only the regulations passed by each state. The Commerce Clause should be used to dismember all of the California and Masshole firearms “options” requirements that stifle free trade between the states.

    • Except that the 10th amendment doesn’t justify a state curtailing your 2nd amendment rights. This isn’t a 10th amendment issue. The 2nd amendment already says that we Americans can’t have our 2a rights infringed. So don’t try to use 10a to justify the states’ efforts to destroy 2a. It doesn’t work like that.

  16. Good luck getting the anti’s in CA to agree to anything like this. Feinstein and her crew would rather jump off the Golden Gate Bridge than agree to let out-of-state visitors bring more guns into the Peoples Republic of California.

  17. Ah Yes… the time of year where every politician is on your side…a car in every garage…a chicken on every pot….a gun in every hand……typical B/S on every election year I go by there past record and judge / vote that way…

    • That’s about the sound of it. A bill that has no chance of passing to try and garner some votes for nothing.

  18. Bwahaha, can you imagine how the NYPD would flip shit if they suddenly had to recognize a Texan carry permit?

    • They wouldnt recognize anything.The antis already ignore established case law and the US CONSTITUTION!

      As in, the law of the land.

      Just like a bad guy planning to commit a felony won’t care about breaking a misdemeanor gun law, an anti gun Mayor, city manager, or police commissioner who’s made a career defying the US Constitution won’t suddenly kowtow before the weight of legislative Federal statute.

      Then there’s the judiciary. All it takes to ruin things is a wiseguy like the judge in NY who struck down the 7 round limit but upheld the rest of the SAFE Act, and we’re back to Square One.

      Think “The National Reciprocity Act only entitles the bearer of a CCW permit to an affirmative defense in court after an arrest”. In other words, they still don’t recognize your permit.You just get treated like a Grand Theft Auto charachter and exit jail a day or so later without your guns or ammo.

    • IF (yes that’s a big if) this passes expect citizens in restrictive states/counties to pitch a fit that they can’t get permits while most others out of state can carry there. I would expect this law would eventually lead to more liberal permit laws everywhere.

    • NYC is its own country, doncha know. With the seventh largest army in the world (NYPD). They have their own Navy and Air Force. Kelly said so.

  19. Haven’t read the bill yet, but there needs to be massive fines on liberal states that WILL harass gun owners otherwise. This massive fine should also be imposed on FOPA as well. Something like,

    “Any state or locality that falsely arrests an individual for conduct protected under this law shall be fined the cost of the victims legal fees plus 100,000 dollars.”

    Otherwise they WILL arrest and harass you. NYC will not give a fuck, they’ll just ignore it and arrest anyone. Massive fines and threat of swift action will be the only way to make this work.

    • The Federal Government CANNOT levy fines on the various States. They CAN block tax revenues which would normally go back to the State in question in order to promote specific policies.

      Diane Feinstein would literally nail herself to a cross on the Senate floor rather than see this bill pass.

  20. This is to put democrats in red states in a bind. Presented as stand-a-lone bill or attached to a government benefit, red state dems have to vote yes, but will be primary-ed out by a leftest libturd. Next the libturd will be defeated by a republican (RINO they hope) in the general election…and assuming it gets brought to the floor in either chamber on this election year of our great land.

  21. The author and the Senator (And well, most Americans) have a poor understanding of what that clause actually means. It has about nothing to do with cross state respect of permits and licencees. It has to do primarily with Judicial rulings. Things like recognizing criminal convictions, judgments, child support, and the like.

    The reason another state accepts your DL or Marriage license is because every single state has with it’s own body of laws provisions for doing so. Drivers licenses are recognized only for a limited time span out of state. Every state is different but after some time period you have to get that state’s license.

    Another state has no innate duty to recognize another’s marriage license (but they would if a court ruled you common-law married, see the difference?). The same goes for Law Licenses, Exotic Animals, Building Permits, etc….

    It doesn’t have to do with respecting another state’s LAWS as it does it’s RULINGS.

    • This is not about moving to another state. As long as I maintain my residence in VA, I can visit Texas for years, or maintain a vacation home there, and continue drive on my VA DL. Certainly I can drive coast to coast without concerning myself with the idiosyncrasies of each state.

      One unintended consequence of this law might be that all states streamline their laws, which would necessarily require some restrictive states to loosen, and liberal states to tighten, their gun laws.

      Perhaps a better “solution” would be for the Feds to develop a “model” CCW law and grant Federal reciprocity to all state permits. Then travelers would only have to follow then Federal Model law when out of state, or the state’s law if less restrictive. Also watch for state to state reciprocity to go through massive changes or die completely.

      • You……proved my point? Yes you’re right, you can visit Texas with a VA DL, however it’s not because of some sort of overarching constitutional duty or federal law. It’s because Texas, like every other state, explicitly, as codified in their body of laws, allows you to. CCW is the exact same thing, except with states picking and choosing what other states licenses they’ll accept. If one day, Texas decided they didn’t want to accept licenses from California, they could do that.

        And you’re right with the way it would have to be done. If the Feds passed a law that said each state has to accept every other states CCW permit it would die in court. If they said we’ll create a universal civilian Federal CCW, then say that it’s good for the entirety of the USA, that would work.

  22. I’m not celebrating this. Uniform reciprocity unfortunately means uniform issuing standards. It would mean states with easier (constitutional) issuing standards would likely have to add more loops to jump through in order to meet the reciprocity standards.

    In the great state of Alabama, where we have no training requirement, I suspect we would see something similar to Florida’s requirements.

    • If adopting a Federal standard, they’d likely start with the state that has the toughest requirements and then make it much, much tougher.

      • That’s a good point. Illinois, New York, CT, RI, NJ, and Kalifornia aren’t likely to just accept this without their own training requirements. This is dangerous territory.

    • When you drive into New York from Arizona, do you have to pass a driving test?

      There’s a difference between “National Reciprocity” and “National Carry License.” Well, there is but of course neither one is going to happen without there being a liberal carrot attached to it, so forgetaboutit.

  24. This is just last minute posturing by a spooked bunny of a senator afraid of being “primaried” by Rep. Stockman. Sorry, Cornyn, too little, too late. You had your chance to support Cruz and the conservatives last year when it counted. Some cheezy, 11th hour, go-nowhere reciprocity gimmick isn’t going to cut it.

    It’s actually a poor idea, anyway, as other commenters have noted. The states themselves can enter into their own bilateral agreements or, better yet, throw it open unilaterally to universal recognition, as many have done, any time they want. There’s no need for federal involvement whatsoever.

  25. I think this bill nas a snowball’s chance in hell of passing the Senate. Maybe the House, but not in a veto-proof majority. Never in the Senate, even in a mid-term election year. But so what. It is time to bring out bills to recover rights. As long as we are only reacting to halt passage of gun control bills, we are not being nearly aggressive enough. Our people ought to put forth TEN bills to restore rights that have been infringed for every gun control proposal. Get the gun control people to play defense for a change.

    Knowing this bill is probably a non-starter, the realist in me thinks that Cornyn is trying to protect his seat from a primary challenge by Stockman and in so doing showing to his constituents that he is responsive to their wishes. Either way, I like the result. Put the damned antis on the defensive. Get more discussion in the national debate from our perspective rather than the damned “mothers”.

  26. I should add that the only way this bill would pass Constitutional muster would be for it to create a Federal CCW permit, and then say that it’s good in the entirety of the USA. You can shoe horn the reciprocity angle by granting the Federal permit automatically if you have a qualifying State one.

  27. Wishful thinking at best. This doesn’t stand a chance of passing in the Senate–it’ll fall to a strict party-line vote, and never make it to the House (where it would almost definitely pass). Every Senate Democrat will vote the bill down and it will die a sad, lonely, quiet death six weeks from now when nobody’s paying attention. No point in considering what the President will do (He’d veto it), but I suppose it’s the thought that counts?

    • Perhaps not every D… in some purple areas it could be a great way for one to show his moderation… but they’ll count and make sure it can’t pass.

  28. The odds of this passing are between getting struck by lightning twice in consecutive days and a chimp typing hamlet at one sitting with no errors.

  29. Lots of great thoughts here. But as Nick pointed out, this is just a cynical move by a politician seeking to avoid the judgement of his constituents. The bill will never make it out of committee, let alone get a vote on the senate floor.

    Besides, Cornyn has been in the senate for years. He’s had numerous times he could have offered legislation supporting the 2A.

    • My thought exactly. A reciprocity bill passed the House before, but never made it out of committee in the Senate. There is no reason whatsoever to anticipate that this bill will get a vote as long as the Democrats control the Senate. Reid will not allow it. Hell, he may not even assign it to committee–he has that power as Senate Majority leader. And even assuming that it made it through both houses, it will be vetoed, n ifs ands or buts about it. Someone above suggested that Obama would “risk impeachment” for vetoing such a bill–which is utter nonsense. The President has the express Constitutional power to veto ANY bill presented to him; thus the exercise of the veto power is not an offense, much less an impeachable offense.

      Realistically, this bill, having zero chance of success, must be construed as nothing but a political, and cynical, ploy.

  30. A logical first step. It may have to be re-introduced a few times, but I’m hopeful it will eventually pass. Take out all the legal jargon and it’s as simple as these laws:
    A drivers license from your home state, a marriage license from your home state, a nursing license from your home state. All valid in all 50 states, but otherwise subject to the laws of the state you’re in at the moment.
    Ted Cruz is the only frightening part.

    • Nursing license? I don’t think so. Pretty sure that all professional licenses must be issued on a state by state basis where the individual engages in the profession, it just doesn’t matter where you get your training. I know for sure that a law license is only good in the state of issuance, without a petition to the court to allow practice on a one time basis. (Licenses used to be good in all federal courts, and they are for federal employees, but now even the federal courts require the lawyer to be licensed in the state where the court is located or be admitted “pro hac vice.”) Doctors are the same–all are licensed by a state medical board. Contractors, architects, insurance agents, the list is seemingly endless. The purpose of the requirement is to assure that each professional is subject to discipline in the state where the practice is located.

      They don’t call them “licenses” for nothing.

  31. John Cornyn is an establishment RINO and running scared. He pushed back against Ted Cruz and is in line with Boehner, McCain, McConnell and Graham. This is a political play since he’s running scared of Steve Stockman this primary. Guns and God in Texas, he’s hitting part one. Seriously, he’s an example of what’s wrong in DC. He voted for defunding Obamacare AFTER he helped kill it. What a two faced scumbag. There is no way this bill will pass nationwide, he’s just getting his name out.

  32. I can see where some may think this is a good idea, but this bill would give even more power to government that it shouldn’t have.
    As noted above, having to apply to the state for permission to exercise your right is already further down the path than we should be. This bill would just reaffirm a power that states have wrongfully seized for themselves.

  33. Does anyone seriously believe that Harry Reid will even allow the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to be introduced on the floor of the Senate?

    I’d be willing to bet that that bill wouldn’t even make it out of a Senate Committee with a Democrat in the Chair. It would surely be tabled for “further consideration”, and left to die without a recommendaton.

    It’s a nice gesture, but a fools errand. Cornyn is simply posturing.

  34. I’m sure that the Democrats in the Senate will push this bill with the same fervor that they showed for Obamacare.

  35. Too many difficulties to work out. Even with driver’s licenses, they are not actually universally reciprocal. E.g., a 14 year old can have a DL in South Dakota. But cannot drive in Nebraska. And a 16yr old from New York, cannot drive in NJ (age is 17 there)

    There is also several interstate compacts that most states participate in and help standardize offenses, points, etc. Add to this the close similarity in laws…only where they differ, age, but then the state you are in takes precedence over home state. Heck, an individual state can suspend driving privileges in that state, while you could still drive in other states.

    And what about the situation where the average resident of a state cannot get a license to carry, would that state be forced to recognize permits of non-residents! Really? Talk about unequal protection under the law.

  36. Your marriage license is valid anywhere in the U.S, but one not in accordance with your desert monotheism of choice might not be. Say a Saudi who emmigrated with three wives, or (gulp!) gay people. Martiage of the latter offends only proponents of Leviticus, rather than people of every religion.

    This even applied not so long ago to interracial marriages.

    We’ve a long way to go on a lot of rights, sir, as well as universal reciprocity. Look only to alcohol laws or age of consent. Having a daughter, I looked very carefully at the latter…

    That said, this is a Good Thing, and I can hardly wait to use my Kansas CCW in Ilinoise, Massachusetts or Калифорния – should this indeed make it past Antigress and Obama lin Biden – and pass Constitutional muster.

    After all, the Feds dictating to sovereign States, Commonwealth, Republics andso on what they may legislate… Perish the thought! >;{>

  37. Were to start…
    1. This legislation isn’t going anywhere so calm down.
    2. All marriage licenses are not recognized across state lines (“Gay marriage”)
    3. We don’t need a law that “strengthens” rights, we need to remove judges who by legislating from the bench, infringe rights.

  38. Cornyn is A RINO. The proposed legislation is good, but watch out for what might be inserted before the bill is voted on. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

  39. I wonder what it says about mag restrictions and such…for example where I live I can carry anything…10 miles to the south of me apparently magazines made after 1994 with more than 10 rounds dangerous…or something dumb like that.

  40. “…which would allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that also has concealed carry laws.”

    So if you live in a “may issue” state like MD, you’re still screwed.

    Gee… thanks.

  42. What about states that don’t have them or states like liberalfornia or communist york? It shouldn’t be an option for the federal or state government to infringe on constitutional rights!

  43. Needs to be called ‘Safe Schools’, ‘Gun Safety Act’, or ‘Victims against violence act’… Haven’t you Republicans leaders learned anything?!? It is all in the name of the law. If it doesn’t have a nice name, they might actually want to read the law.

  44. I’m all for a national reciprocity law….as long as it cannot be turned into a national firearm registration law.

    With that said, I don’t think it’ll pass…but like other good ideas, it took some time and a few tries to get it passed. Being that I am a Texas resident, I would like to see better firearm laws in Texas. Arizona has better firearm laws that Texas and Texas totes itself as a premier firearms state. There are very few pro-firearm laws in AZ that I disagree with and would love to see Texas and other states model some of those AZ laws.

  45. It should be that you can carry in all states whether they have a conceal carry law or not.. as it is our Constitutional Right under the 2nd Amendment..

  46. Absolutely no CCW code on driver license. That would reveal my concealed license to public records leading to registration of gun ownership. Most state laws prohibit this public disclosure. AZ and some other states have State Constitutional carry and actually all US citizens do too by our 2A rights that restate natural right of self defense. All state and local laws prohibiting carry are unConstitutional but politicians have erroded our rights.

Comments are closed.