SACRAMENTO, Calif. -(Ammoland.com)- Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) sent a second letter regarding H.R.38 (the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017) to bill sponsor Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and House co-sponsors.
The letter says the pro-gun bill could potentially “leave law-abiding people exposed” because of “a byzantine patchwork of state and local prohibitions” and suggested solutions to 6 individual legal problems in the bill’s text.
The group’s concerns also include “vague and undefined terms,” an exemption to the federal Gun Free School Zone Act they say is “of limited utility,” and the bill’s total reliance on “constitutionally-antagonistic Commerce Clause doctrine.”
FPC also suggests that the measure’s scope be extended to include protections for people in places that are not a “State or political subdivision thereof,” like Washington, D.C. (a federal district), as well as commonwealths, republics, and territories “administered or controlled by the United States (i.e., American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).”
FPC’s letter says that, if H.R38 is passed without some important changes, it “may very well indirectly cause people to be prosecuted and lose their Second Amendment rights over harmless mistakes.” And, if “H.R.38 is not amended to address our concerns,” they “predict that this well-intentioned measure would leave millions of peaceful and law-abiding people exposed to serious criminal liability.”
“As we said in March, H.R.38 is a significant piece of legislation that—properly amended to address the issues discussed above—would establish one of the greatest, if not the greatest, legislative advancements of Second Amendment rights so far in the history of our federal government,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in the letter. “And with just a few simple but important changes, H.R.38 could unlock and protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms for all law-abiding people—especially where it is denied today.”
Explained FPC Spokesperson Craig DeLuz, “Any bill that seeks to expand the right to keep and bear arms must be carefully crafted to ensure protection for all law-abiding people, but especially for those in ‘battleground states’ and cities hostile to Second Amendment rights.”
“If a bill doesn’t protect people in places like California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, then it doesn’t really get the job done,” DeLuz concluded. “Our reasonable suggested amendments would help ensure that people in anti-gun jurisdictions can exercise their fundamental, individual right to bear arms.”
A copy of FPC’s letters supporting H.R.38 can be viewed or downloaded at https://bit.ly/support-hr-38. Gun owners who wish to send letters supporting H.R.38 may use FPC’s free Grassroots Action Tools at https://bit.ly/support-hr-38.
FPC has also established #OurGunVote, a grassroots campaign to urge pro-gun bill passage in the House and Senate, available at https://www.ourgunvote.com/.
H.R.38 is scheduled to be next heard by the House Judiciary Committee at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 29.
About Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC):
Firearms Policy Coalition is a grassroots 501(c)4 nonprofit public benefit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
More information about FPC can be found on their website.
@yzman Clark, if you want an all or nothing be my guest, you’ll get nothing and there will be absolutely zero repercussions, not one single ripple. Want to know why? Because in my more than 40 years of fighting for RKBA Rights I’ve discovered that gun owners rank among the laziest when it comes to activism and, not only that, they are, to an extent, the least cohesive. If you believe that false let’s just look at the facts: how many millions of gun owners are there in the United States? I can’t even begin to guess but it’s a… Read more »
The problem here isn’t only the Federal Government who has no delegated power over firearms, CCW’s included. FedGov is not superior to the States. That being said, the States with their gun laws also violate our natural rights and the 2nd Amendment protections. Asking for permission (CCW, Background Checks) of your overlords in your State or FedGov means you are a subject not a free person. The best solution (and an uphill battle all the way) is getting pro-liberty candidates elected in your State and start repealing laws which violate our rights. We need to start sending pro-liberty folks to… Read more »
Fine, then you won’t have any Rights for the next 50 years, at least. You folks who demand a “pure” “we damand our rights or nothing at all” will get just that, nothing at all. This is the best chance we’ve EVER had to start and you want to trash it because it doesn’t give you everything you want all at once. Do I like Hudson’s Bill? Nope, and I’ve spoken with his LA and told him the fixes that need to be made. Even if they don’t make them this Bill is thousands of times better than what we… Read more »
Before HELLER & McDonald states were able to infringe by just ignoring the plain language. HR 38 can be amended to include public areas of the Post Office and clear up other federal and state violations. The Fourteenth Amendment says Congress can enforce the 14th against states that pass or enforce unconstitutional laws. Illinois won’t even accept an application for a CCW unless you’re a resident of one of four states. Passage of HR 38 will only add a dozen states to the reciprocity list. It will also remove the Corps of Engineers prohibitions. HR 38 is pretty good, schumer… Read more »
@Vanns40…I can appreciate the fact that you are happy that this is the “best chance we’ve EVER had to start”, but to downplay Tim’s concern as one of just not getting what he wants at once, is rather naive & cruel. He, as well as millions of other law abiding gun owners, including myself, feel that anything other than what the original document that ensures our natural, God given rights, is a deviation of “the best chance EVER” that we’ve had from the beginning. It’s becoming aggravating, listening to these compromises that are being accepted or debated on, just to… Read more »
@TimVA, the S.Ct upheld the Gun Control Act of 1968 as a Constitutionl exercise of Congress’ power and authority to control commerce. A lie, of course or it would have been entitled the Commerce Control Act of 1968. However, the real issue is “Can governmental authority be used to deny the Civil Rights of citizens?” The answer is no. For example: various states used their taxing authority in the form of “poll tax” to deny some people their Civil Right to vote.
@TimVA, the Congress uses its authority to control commerce as a basis for gun control.
Let’s not kid ourselves, this bill in any form other than another back door gun control bill will never pass. The 2nd Amendment is and should be the only measure for law abiding citizens to carry in this country. But the Supreme Court refuses to address and rule based on law. Rather, they either refuse to hear any pro-gun cases, or in favor of watering down the 2nd Amendment.
IMPEACH Ginsberg and the rest of the liberals who don’t understand that a right is a right, or it’s not a right.
President Bush, before leaving office, signed into law the Law Enforcement concealed carry bill that allowed certified LE and Retired LE officers the ability to carry in all states. The restriction was they had to qualify annually in their state that they had worked or the state they currently resided in and they could not carry in Federal facilities. This got watered down in the Obama era when the Democrats altered that law to allow states to put restrictions on it. This in effect nullified the entire law and its purposes. If this new law is not made air tight… Read more »
The SCOTUS can’t do squat once it’s replaced with a liberal lunatic. It’s an endless cycle of leaders who impose their ideals on our society. The sad reality is that this nation is divided between folks who respect traditional freedoms and lunatics who are perfectly okay with handing over freedom for a sense of security.
HR 38 needs to be crystal clear that a CCP issued in any state is valid beyond reproach in all 50. If it allows in any way individual states to impose further restrictions as they see fit the bill is useless. Every libtard state will create a border to border gun free zone and we will have moved no further forward at all.