The Horror of Guns Everywhere…Oh My!

By Jeff Knox

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
FirearmsCoalition.org
FirearmsCoalition.org

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

Subscribe
Notify of
41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Macklin
Jim Macklin
3 years ago

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 »

Willard
Willard
3 years ago

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.

Jim Macklin
Jim Macklin
3 years ago
Reply to  Willard

Florida, Texas, Arizona, Utah and New Hampshire issue licenses to non-residents. A resident in NJ, NY, CA, etc can get a state issued non-resident license and carry in their state of residence. When the citizens of California and New York see that a million tourists are carrying lawfully the people will demand “equal rights or new representatives.” For over 100 years states have been passing “feel good laws” and it has only been nine years since HELLER and seven years since McDonald. The Constitution is not self-enforcing, it takes laws and court decisions on those laws to enforce the Constitution.… Read more »

Mike
Mike
3 years ago

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 »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike

, What would your right to equal treatment under the privileges and immunities clause be if the state in your hypothetical was precluded from carrying a firearm? Wouldn’t the equal treatment be equal preclusion?

Phillip Evans
Phillip Evans
3 years ago

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.

http://PursuitOfPatriotism.Blogspot.com

Charley the Tuna
Charley the Tuna
3 years ago

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.

MarkPA
MarkPA
3 years ago

“. . . 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 »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkPA

@MarkPA, You need to read the Heart of Atlanta Motel case wherein the only interstate commerce that the motel engaged in was buying some paper napkins (everything else was intrastate commerce), and that was deemed a sufficient impact on interstate commerce. The napkins were not a pretext too thin.

MarkPA
MarkPA
3 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Thank you Wild Bill. You are addressing the issue here. And, you are quite correct. Since the Wickard v. Fillmore case the courts cheerfully accepted any reference to interstate commerce as a pretext for anything Congress wished to “regulate”. It didn’t matter how thin the pretext was; a cocktail napkin would be robust enough. And, for exactly this reason, I fear that the legislators and the lobbyists lawyers are perfectly satisfied with a N-R bill based upon an invocation of interstate commerce. I would be happy too; except for the original Gun Free Schools Act and the Violence Against Women… Read more »

Jim Macklin
Jim Macklin
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkPA

The FDR Court was very different from a later Court. Just as Scalia and hopefully a Trump appointed Justice[s] will be. As I recall when FDR wanted to impose controls on feed grains and farmer who produced his own seed, planted his seeds and harvested his crop and fed it to his own cattle. He did not buy or sell anything interstate. Yet the government argued that since he raised his own seeds and used his own crop, he wasn’t buying seed interstate and therefore was affecting interstate commerce. If the Dred Scott case is read it will be seen… Read more »

Street Survivor
Street Survivor
3 years ago

The 7 blue Commies from Ct will vote against it.

Captain Witold Pilecki
Captain Witold Pilecki
3 years ago

Trust me, as someone that hails from the sh*t hole known as Kommiecticut, those 7 blue commies have been rendered TOTALLY impotent by this last election. Once a week in my daily local newspaper, is section called “How your U.S. law makers voted” showing a tally of their votes in congress. Every week, their votes are cast in opposition to EVERYTHING the majority puts forth, and they lose every time. It is always good for a laugh. Then they get on TV and lament how extreme the “wascally wepublicans” are, and how they are trying to hold the line against… Read more »

rokflyer
rokflyer
3 years ago

Are we not complicating the issue. We will always have different city, state, and location laws. Basically at this time, it is illegal to even bring, transport, or be in possession of any firearm in many areas. Maryland and New Jersey come to mind, if your an out of stater. In some situations, if your in stater. It comes down to being in possession of your own property. And whether or not your behavior incurrs being searched or investigated by the local PoPo. It involves the right to go where you will, while being a law abiding citizen. Without being… Read more »

Bill N.
Bill N.
3 years ago

As I see it the problem this bill faces is simply States Rights. Look it up. It may be antiquated but it’s still the biggest hill that bill has to climb over. Many will disagree with me but I feel better knowing in a shooting situation I would feel better knowing the person next to me had some training in handling firearms. Let me explain it this way. We all know what happens when a DIY try’s to repair a light switch but doesn’t know how to hold a screw driver or shut off the electricity to that light. I… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Bill N.

N, Sorry brother, but it is not a states’ rights issue. States’ Rights are covered by the tenth amendment. The Second Amendment is an individual’s civil right that can not be infringed, abridged, or curtailed by the federal and state governments (or subdivisions of the state such as counties, cities, or townships.) Driving is a privilege extended by the various states. Thus drivers licenses and light switches are false analogies. Sorry brother, freedom can be messy.

MontieR
MontieR
3 years ago

The sad part here is this, that we have to have “another” law to force states to abide by the constitution. The purpose behind the constitution and bill of rights was and is entirely to restrict government (ALL of them federal state and local), from impeding or regulating ANY of our enumerated rights. The founding ( the foundation) of ALL our laws IS the constitution and the bill of rights specifically put some things OFF limits to ANY government regulation, specifically the bill of rights. It is NOT rocket science. The founders deliberately wrote the constitution and bill of rights… Read more »

Jim Macklin
Jim Macklin
3 years ago

This bill is pretty well written. It does address school zone reciprocity, Corps of Engineers and many other imortant issues, including legal ammunition, i.e. your HP ammo from KS oe AZ would be legal in Delaware, NJ and Maryland.
Missing is public areas of Post Offices.

dj
dj
3 years ago

And Gil is a self evident pervert for just suggesting shooting others. This is a self evident DEMONSTRATION of how these feral human thugs think as common criminals with hand wringing disarmament specialists alike to prefer unarmed helpless victims. Becuz if all victims were armed, violent crime would NOT have any victims. Mostly he’s tolerating a really good chance getting PERMANENTLY retired every time he tries a robbery or worse as a major consequential occupational hazard “nationwide”. Either locked up long term or in the cold ground. The criminal element will/would weed itself out eventually. An armed society is a… Read more »

Fredy Lowe
Fredy Lowe
3 years ago
Reply to  dj

dj,

STOP! This AH Gil is a troll. He posts the most ridiculous statements like this for the sole purpose of getting your goat, which as you can see, he was successful in getting yours with this one. The moderators have removed other recent posts by AH Gil, but if they don’t ban him, We all must make a concours effort to ignore him and hopefully he will go away with barry …

David Telliho
David Telliho
3 years ago
Reply to  Fredy Lowe

He likely is a Soros ‘ plant ‘. Getting paid for every post he does. Sites like Media Matters ( a Soros operation ) is a source of extra income for folks like gil.

George Gee
George Gee
3 years ago

If the “Bill of Rights” is for the entire country, how can individual states violate it? To me “Shall Not Infringe” means that no laws/restrictions can be applied. So if the “Bill of Rights” applies to all states and “Shall Not Infringe” means no restrictions, how can some states tell me that I can’t have a gun that holds 12 rounds? When the “Bill of Rights” was written there were no laws/restrictions on the types of firearms that a citizen could possess. So at that time the “Bill of Rights” was created it was to assure that no governmental body… Read more »

Anon45876
Anon45876
3 years ago
Reply to  George Gee

I’ve often wondered that. Some say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. How in the world, then, can the 1934 National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1986, the Hughes Amendment of 1986 be Constitutional. As to the states: They all ratified the Constitution. How can they ignore an amendment in the Bill of Rights? A right isn’t actually a right if a state government can infringe the right. They don’t use this same logic on any other amendment. The states can’t abridge rights to free speech, freedom of religion, prevent trial by jury, search… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Anon45876

@ANON45, When Congress contemplating all the cross state boundary bank robberies of the 1930s, The attorney general of the U.S. addressed a joint session of Congress and told Congress that they had no power to ban any guns. When asked what to do the AGUS told them, We will control them through taxation. That is why the NFA bans no guns but taxes the transfer as an exercise of Congress’s commerce power, which at that time was a cost that the average person could not pay. I Later, FDR convinced Congress to create agencies with “rule making authority” so that… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Opps, it should be Congress’ taxing power. Sorry. But it is also unconstitutional to tax a civil right (e.g. a poll tax on the right to vote). So lets get rid of the Nat. Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, and the BATFE

Anon45876
Anon45876
3 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I agree with you entirely. The NFA was an exorbitant tax that put these guns out of the reach of most people in a sort of “end around” of the 2nd Amendment. When inflation made the tax much less of a factor over the decades this is where the Hughes Amendment of 1986 came in. And, yes, it is equivalent to a poll tax. I think the whole lot of these laws should be repealed.

Anon45876
Anon45876
3 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I think you missed my broader point about the ridiculous claim some leftists make that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. Why should all other Amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well except for the 2nd?

Charles Nichols
Charles Nichols
3 years ago

There are more than a few problems with this bill. For one, concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment. Another problem is that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to enact the law but even if it were to be enacted by Congress, the courts would strike it down in a New York minute.

Dr. Strangelove
Dr. Strangelove
3 years ago

Where does the second amendment exclude concealed carry? I must have overlooked that part. AAMOF, “…bear arms…” sounds a whole lot like carrying.

La
La
3 years ago

Dr. Strangelove: You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!! The word BEAR means: To CARRY. It does not state any restrictions as to HOW, you carry open or concealed, nor WHERE, One happens to be in their TRAVELINGS.
It is the RIGHT of Americans to DEFEND ourselves!

frijoli
frijoli
3 years ago

The right to defend yourself from people that would ILLEGALLY harm you, should be recognized nationally.

MontieR
MontieR
3 years ago

Please enlighten us on exactly what part of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” allows for ANY (local state OR federal) agent to require ANY form of (permitting) infringement. Do you grasp The RIGHT of the people to keep AND bear, with NO infringement!

Colonialgirl
Colonialgirl
3 years ago
Reply to  MontieR

Hey Montie (are you from canada?) sorry but the two phrases are separated by a COMMA making them separate section, PLUS the militia it is speaking about are citizens providing their OWN firearms (types unspecified) and it makes NO mention and lists NO restrictions on HOW to carry those weapons. ANY legislation mandating or restricting that “Right of the People to keep and bear arms” IS an INFRINGEMENT. Now back to your socialist heaven and turn in all your firearms.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Colonialgirl

@Cg, I think that you are misunderstanding Montie.

Gil
Gil
3 years ago

The right to shoot others should be recognized nationwide.

RM Molon Labe
RM Molon Labe
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

Spoken like a true criminal…That’s how THEY think…We the People only choose to not go down like you…Begging for your life. Sheep like you deserve to be sheared…

David Telliho
David Telliho
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

Democrats have always thought so too. Hence, the mass shooters, except a couple, have all been Democrats. The logical,common sense conclusion, is that Democrats should be banned from owning a firearm. The rest of us need to carry, because one never knows when a nearby Democrat might ‘snap’ .

Evidence8
Evidence8
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

Gil, “Lawn-Guy-Landers,” and the “Joisey Legislature” are right there with the MSM, in thinking that they’re the “Absolute Center of the Universe,” and they’re NOT going to let a bunch of “NRA Lifers” and a few “rogue politicians” create the “Wild, Wild West” within their perception of their Leftist Utopia! Screaming, “There’ll be blood in the streets,” they will watch as the full-implementation of all of The Second Amendment makes the crime rate plummet, insurance rates drop, and doctors are forced to stop asking children, “are there guns in your house?”

hippybiker
hippybiker
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

Gil, I religiously carry a pistol most everywhere I go, except where the law says it’s illegal. The last thing I, most other concealed carry people want to do is shoot someone.

Mick
Mick
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

Gil, can you possibly get any stupider….oops, silly question, of course you’ll out do yourself again !

Colonialgirl
Colonialgirl
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

Gil the liberal anti-gun snowflake spews its load of asinine stupidity as usual.