By Jeff Knox


Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- If the hype of the anti-rights crowd and their friends in the media is true, all Americans are on the verge of being gunned down in the streets if a new bill introduced in the House becomes law.
The new “national reciprocity” bill would require all states to recognize the concealed carry licenses and permits issued by other states, and would also protect the right to carry for citizens from states where no license or permit is required.
The bill, H.R. 38, was introduced by North Carolina Republican, Richard Hudson, and is just the latest in a string of similar bills that have been floating around Congress for a number of years.
The key distinguishing feature of this one is the protection of carry rights for people from “Constitutional Carry” states, where they are not currently required to obtain a license to legally carry a concealed firearm.
Vermont, for instance, has never had a law against carrying a concealed firearm, so they have never had a licensing system. Eleven other states do offer licenses, but the licenses are not required for carry within the state. Most Constitutional Carry states also offer licenses so that their citizens who choose to obtain one can avoid hassles and delays when purchasing firearms, and can carry when visiting states where their state’s licenses are recognized.
There is a bit of a rift within the rights community over the idea of federal legislation forcing states to honor carry permits from other states.
The main argument being one of state autonomy. Many gun rights advocates believe such measures violate the 9th and 10th Amendments, and are beyond the authority of the feds. There is also fear of establishment of some sort of federal minimum standard for issuance of carry licenses. The concern is that if a federal standard is accepted, the standard could eventually be tightened to the point that no one would be able to get a license. Many would prefer to just keep the federal government out of the carry debate and leave it with the states.
The Hudson bill avoids any hint of national standards, and addresses the recognition issue from a “full faith and credit” perspective – having states honor them as they do other states’ marriage licenses and drivers licenses.
The basic argument is, if Arizona trusts me to carry a gun, and I do so safely, why would I be considered a threat in New Jersey?
Realistically, most people who commit violent crimes with firearms are not first-time offenders. Most have extensive criminal records and are actually forbidden to even touch a firearm or ammunition under federal law. This fact seems to elude those who are always calling for additional firearm laws. The criminals are already illegally in possession of firearms, so what is another law going to do? Does anyone suppose criminals illegally carrying firearms, are going to do it more, or be more dangerous, if more honest citizens are legally carrying firearms? These laws don’t seem to impede criminals much, and liberalizing lawful carry – with or without licensing – has never resulted in the “blood in the streets” predictions of the hoplophobes.
Turns out that criminals and stupid people do criminal and stupid things regardless of laws, while responsible citizens act responsibly, regardless of the laws.
There are some real concerns among rights advocates regarding the details of H.R. 38. It looks like the bill was written to require states to honor carry licenses and permits, then provisions for honoring the carry rights of citizens of Constitutional Carry states seem to have been added as an afterthought. That amendment makes the original section redundant. Clearly telling states that carry rights from any state must be recognized in every other state, regardless of licensing or permits.
Where Are The Teeth?
There should also be real consequences for any state, or officials who unjustly prosecute someone, or otherwise fail to fulfill their obligations under this law.
Expect to see Congress – particularly the Senate, where the pro-rights majority is very thin – use the existence of the two separate sections, and the disagreement within the rights community, as leverage to water down the bill and divide advocates.
Since the Senate will be the harder test, I would prefer to see the bill advanced there first, rather than going through the struggle and publicity of a big battle in the House, only to have the legislation die in some Senate subcommittee. If we can get a decent bill through the Senate, it should fly smoothly through the House, meanwhile the needed improvements can be worked out for the House version.
The new President has already committed to sign a national carry bill upon arrival on his desk.
So far an equivalent to Rep. Hudson’s bill has not been introduced in the Senate. Hopefully that will soon be rectified. In the meantime, readers are encouraged to give their Representatives a call to urge them to co-sponsor H.R. 38, while addressing its shortcomings.
About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org
Until 2008 and 2010 there was a dispute about whether the Second Amendment was an individual right and whether the Second Amendment applied to/against the States. Heller and McDonald settled those questions. Despite the lower court judges appointed by obama, the election of Donald John Trump as President and he confirmation of Neil Gorsuch as Justice to the Supreme Court has settled the that question. Some evidence is that prior to 1960 the government printed the Second Amendment with only one comma and before the 1968 GCA the government and publishers began using three commas. But in 1959 when Alaska… Read more »
How would this help people in New York, New Jersey and California where you have to show just cause in order to get a permit. It is next to impossible for the average person to get a concealed weapons permit in the states so how does that help them?
It would be legal for people coming in from out of state to carry concealed weapons but I don’t see California, New York, and New Jersey loosening up their permit process for their citizens.
I see this issue not as a 10th amendment or even 2nd amendment issue. I see this as an Article IV Section 2-1 issue. If resident of CT is allowed to carry a gun then any other citizen of the US, regardless of what State they are a resident of, should be allowed to do so also in that State following the same rules. Under National Carry Reciprocity you should have to abide by that State’s Laws. If the law allows for open carry then everyone should be allowed open carry. Article IV Section 2 does not allow for 1… Read more »
Some things to make this bill stronger:
1. Just say “carry”, and not restrict it to “concealed carry”.
2. Remove other off-limits carry places like Post Offices and buildings in Federal Parks.
https://PursuitOfPatriotism.Blogspot.com
NAWW, don’t send it to the Senate first. That’s always a bad idea. If that were the case, it would not be such a sensational bill to begin with probably. I think that is a little bit defeatist and comes from an ignorance of the potential of this TRUMP REVOLUTION. We can sweep these Senators into submission if we put our minds to it. Let’s not forget Trump has TWITTER and can go after any dumb Senator who wants to mess with our 2nd Amendment rights.
“. . . the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.” THIS is the really interesting feature of Hudson’s most recent bill. It puts teeth in the Federal statute that will compel the States to comply. “The Hudson bill . . . addresses the recognition issue from a “full faith and credit” perspective.” Respectfully, this statement is in ERROR. Hudson talks about FF&C but does not include this pretext in the text of his bill. Hudson’s bill’s text depends, for its Constitutional authority, on the “commerce clause”. “. . . that has been shipped or transported in… Read more »