Current status of National Reciprocity Bills

[American1776]

Last week I read that there were 200 co-sponsors of the House bill and some co-sponsors in the Senate (no number stated). The bills have been referred to committees in both houses. Whether there will be hearings or just a mark up of the bills to get them to a vote is not clear. The exec is highly likely to sign them upon passage.

However, the legislation is not a panacea. Within the bills is language that requires the permit holder to abide by the laws of states not just his or her state when carrying in any state. So, in the anti 2A states they can pass laws in response to the reciprocity legislation that make CC practically impossible.

I imagine that NY, NJ, MA, CT, WA, CA, OR, MD would enact laws that set requirements that none of us will be able to meet. Unless the national act deals with that I see it as a political move not a practical move.

I have both PA and AZ licenses. Between the two I can pretty much visit any state except for the ones mentioned above in the bowl of alphabet soup.

I hear you on that one. But here's something to consider as well. Whatever carry restrictions that NY, NJ, CA pass so as to muck up National Carry folks, those restrictions will apply to the people in those anti-states *with* active permits. Those people tend to be the most powerful and connected folks, and they will not stand for their own permits to be made null and void in their own state.

What I see happening is this: *If* a version of National Carry passes both House and Senate (this is a big 'If', because I've read that we don't quite have enough Dems in the Senate to get it passed), the president will sign it into law. The very next day, NY and NJ and CA will all file lawsuits, and defy the law. They will announce that anyone caught carrying a gun from out of state will be arrested at gunpoint by police, and taken to jail.

The local circuits will most likely uphold the lawsuits, and it will eventually go to SCOTUS. By that time, we *might* have a 6-3 Conservative majority, and the law will be upheld.

 

[richardw]

MA already has training requirements.

The majority of states have training requirements fo a CCP. I am in PA, which does not require training, but that would have no affect on my right to carry in say New Jersey, which would have to honor my permit.

NJ has outlawed HP bullets, so I could bot HPs in my gun. NY could ban semi automatic pistols so I would have to buy and carry a revolver. The federal bills do not deal with such things so antis in state governments could come up with state laws that would effectively limit the practicality of carrying while still required to honor another state's permit to carry.

 

[Maple Trapper]

In NY, when I got my CC license, there was no training requirement in the county I got my license in. That training is now, in my county quite broad. My wife just got an application for her handgun license, It states that she must show proof of knowledge of safe handling of a firearm by producing one of the following: hunting license, hunter safety certificate, pistol safety course or military DD214 or current military ID.
That's pretty broad and quite simple, and this is Madison County, in NY state.
I wonder if other states would accept such "training". Right now, NY does not accept any other state's licenses for a handgun in NY.
In NY each county sets the standards, every adjoining county to us requires specifically a "Pistol Safety Course certificate".
My CC license is valid throughout the state, except in New York City and vacinity.

 

[ladder13]

Usual suspects come out against it.


Concealed-handgun carry bill triggers pushback from coastal mayors, police chiefs | Fox News

 

[AZretired]

Currently my Michigan CPL is good in 40 states. I can live without the other 10. I do have relatives in New York and New Jersey and kept my LEOSA card active for that that purpose. Right now I have no thought of ever visiting NY or NJ again. I agree that it will be long time before they ever accept out of state permits.

 

[BC38]

Last week I read that there were 200 co-sponsors of the House bill and some co-sponsors in the Senate (no number stated). The bills have been referred to committees in both houses. Whether there will be hearings or just a mark up of the bills to get them to a vote is not clear. The exec is highly likely to sign them upon passage.

However, the legislation is not a panacea. Within the bills is language that requires the permit holder to abide by the laws of states not just his or her state when carrying in any state. So, in the anti 2A states they can pass laws in response to the reciprocity legislation that make CC practically impossible.

I imagine that NY, NJ, MA, CT, WA, CA, OR, MD would enact laws that set requirements that none of us will be able to meet. Unless the national act deals with that I see it as a political move not a practical move.

I have both PA and AZ licenses. Between the two I can pretty much visit any state except for the ones mentioned above in the bowl of alphabet soup.

FWIW, here in WA we don't have restrictive CCW laws. Getting a CCW is quite easy, and we even have legal OC. WA just doesn't have reciprocity with many other states, and all sales require a BGC. That is the extent of our restrictive gun laws (so far )

If the new law just says that you have to observe the laws of the state you're carrying in, then that wouldn't be a problem for out-of-state CCW holders - unless the states start passing laws that put more restrictions on out of state carriers - which would seem to be totally in conflict with this new national reciprocity law.

 

[BB57]

Last week I read that there were 200 co-sponsors of the House bill and some co-sponsors in the Senate (no number stated). The bills have been referred to committees in both houses. Whether there will be hearings or just a mark up of the bills to get them to a vote is not clear. The exec is highly likely to sign them upon passage.

However, the legislation is not a panacea. Within the bills is language that requires the permit holder to abide by the laws of states not just his or her state when carrying in any state. So, in the anti 2A states they can pass laws in response to the reciprocity legislation that make CC practically impossible.

I imagine that NY, NJ, MA, CT, WA, CA, OR, MD would enact laws that set requirements that none of us will be able to meet. Unless the national act deals with that I see it as a political move not a practical move.

I have both PA and AZ licenses. Between the two I can pretty much visit any state except for the ones mentioned above in the bowl of alphabet soup.

Three comments:

First, you've resurrected a 2016 zombie post on the 2016 bills - not the thread on the current bills in the house and senate bill for the 2017 session.

Big difference - different administration, different majorities.

Second, a large number of co-sponsors is sad to say usually a bad thing.

Politicians are bottom feeders and they climb on board bills as co-sponsors for their own agendas. The end result in this case is that the concealed handgun reciprocity bills have become omnibus bills that cover a wide range of issues, and as such they are becoming increasingly unlikely to pass. We might still get lucky, but the odds are getting a lot longer.

Third, among the usual suspect who come out and oppose this are gun owners who fear that more progressive legislation at the national level will prompt their liberal nanny state legislatures to crack down on local gun control.

My thought on that is that has, in the short term those folks are probably right and that sucks for them - but they should instead focus on fixing the problems in their state and stop spreading the suck to the rest of us.

 

[steelslaver]

Everything they get involved in they try to fix. But, IMHO they are terrible at fixing things, especially political football's like like gun issues. Everyone keeps.measuring it against the drivers license. But everyone in America drives and messing with that would be very unpopular with everyone. Not so concealed carry. Hardly.

 

[oneounceload]

Reciprocity does not mean permitless, unrestrained open or concealed carry. It WILL mean that NJ, NY, CA, DC and all of the rest of those states WILL have a say in where, when, why, how and what can be carried and you can bet it will become a useless weight on your belt by the time they get all of their exceptions included. A federal governemnt "one size fits all bill, no matter the subject matter, NEVER fits anyone, never works or costs whats supporters said it would, and in general is a total waste of government money time and effort.

Just say NO to more Fed intrusion into your life.

 

[Watchdog]

Just say NO to more Fed intrusion into your life.

You must not be in favor of national reciprocity, then. The only way we're ever going to have it is through legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by whoever is president...because as it is now, we can't even get all fifty states to agree on just state-to-state reciprocity.

 

[steelslaver]

You must not be in favor of national reciprocity, then. The only way we're ever going to have it is through legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by whoever is president...because as it is now, we can't even get all fifty states to agree on just state-to-state reciprocity.

Not true. Although unlikely a Supreme Court decision would do it and do it better than congress, because a bill passed through congress and senate then signed into law by the President would still be subject to reviews by the Federal courts.

I don't think anyone here is against national reciprocation. I think a lot of us are against the fact that any such bill would effect how states could issue permits and try to make them uniform. Anyone who thinks that states like CA, IL, NY, NJ are going to somehow allow me with my easy to obtain, must issue concealed WEAPON (yes it my state it is a weapon permit) just waltz into their state with anything Montana will let me carry is dreaming. No way the bill will be simple and not allow any restrictions by the anti states. If any such law was pasted it wouldn't be one or 2 pages of simple language. Hardly. Then after passing every letter on every page would get tortured in many of the Federal court districts as every little part of it slowly made its way to the Supreme court and anyone's guess as to a decisions by them. Federal laws always come with federal CONTROLS. Montana is doing just fine with our system. Don't need any federal input. By the way anyone with a permit from any other state is welcome to carry here. No permit? No problem to open carry or carry in your car here. Some of the rest of the states might be messed up we are not.

If you haven't noticed once the feds get their hands on something it never remains simple and always gets more restrictive (for your own good of course)

The Federal law is already simple and to the point. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Hows that working out for us. How is a permit not an infringement. How is one state saying I can not carry a gun there not an infringement.

Sorry, but I am VERY cynical about congress magically fixing something they screwed up. Be an interesting first though.

 

[Watchdog]

Not true. Although unlikely, a Supreme Court decision would do it and do it better than congress...

Well, that can't happen unless a case comes before the Court. To the best of my knowledge, a national reciprocity case isn't pending before the Court. And the Court can't just arbitrarily render a decision, they can't make new law.

Regarding the bill, itself, if you actually look at it, it really isn't a total/full national reciprocity bill. Without getting into a line by line dissection of the bill, what it's supposed to do is "amend the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms." (the bold print is mine).

In other words, even with so-called national reciprocity as the law of the land, you (from Montana) or me (from North Carolina) still wouldn't be allowed to carry our concealed handgun into New York or any other state that doesn't allow it for its own residents. Now, I could be wrong about that, but I think my interpretation is correct.

As late as June of this year, the NRA trumpeted that the "concealed carry reciprocity effort gains steam in Congress." Well, it's done no such thing. All it's gained is more tag-along sponsors who want to make their gun owning constituents believe they're doing something for them.

So without dragging this old thread out any further than necessary, the current status of H.R.38 (the original subject of this thread) is that it's been languishing in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations since January 12, 2017. For all I know, it could have several other bills stacked on top of it by now.

I think I've said this before about this bill...the way things are in the world and this country in 2017, probably the last thing on the minds of those in Congress is another obscure run-of-the-mill gun bill like those that get introduced every year.

Every time this subject comes up in the 2A Forum, we all (myself included) end up saying the same ol' things over and over. Fear of the feds, federal intrusion, this state, that state, NRA says this, Supreme Court, Congress should, blah blah blah.

This thread's well over a year old now. Just like H.R.38, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. There's really nothing new to see here.

 

[LostintheOzone]

There is nothing wrong with the federal law that regulates non felons and concealed weapons. Why, because there isn't any.

Congress can't even pass a budget without a huge deficit, yet people want them to regulate against the states, who by the way, pass budgets every year without deficits.

Now tell me again why congress needs to get involved with this. If my congressperson voted to pass a Nat'l rep bill they could kiss my support goodbye. Bad ju-ju.

 

[American1776]

Well, that can't happen unless a case comes before the Court. To the best of my knowledge, a national reciprocity case isn't pending before the Court. And the Court can't just arbitrarily render a decision, they can't make new law.

Regarding the bill, itself, if you actually look at it, it really isn't a total/full national reciprocity bill. Without getting into a line by line dissection of the bill, what it's supposed to do is "amend the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms." (the bold print is mine).

In other words, even with so-called national reciprocity as the law of the land, you (from Montana) or me (from North Carolina) still wouldn't be allowed to carry our concealed handgun into New York or any other state that doesn't allow it for its own residents. Now, I could be wrong about that, but I think my interpretation is correct.

As late as June of this year, the NRA trumpeted that the "concealed carry reciprocity effort gains steam in Congress." Well, it's done no such thing. All it's gained is more tag-along sponsors who want to make their gun owning constituents believe they're doing something for them.

So without dragging this old thread out any further than necessary, the current status of H.R.38 (the original subject of this thread) is that it's been languishing in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations since January 12, 2017. For all I know, it could have several other bills stacked on top of it by now.

I think I've said this before about this bill...the way things are in the world and this country in 2017, probably the last thing on the minds of those in Congress is another obscure run-of-the-mill gun bill like those that get introduced every year.

Every time this subject comes up in the 2A Forum, we all (myself included) end up saying the same ol' things over and over. Fear of the feds, federal intrusion, this state, that state, NRA says this, Supreme Court, Congress should, blah blah blah.

This thread's well over a year old now. Just like H.R.38, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. There's really nothing new to see here.

All 50 states, including D.C. and NYC, issue carry permits. Illinois and Wisconsin were the last states that didn't provide any provision for a carry permit, and now they went shall issue.

In states like NJ and NY, permits are issued (there's a law on the books that governs permits). NJ and NY has set up their permit systems so as to only permit who they want to carry a gun (celebrities, politicians, friends of the ruling class). Everyone else is denied when they apply. So, if the law passes and is signed, NJ and NY and all the other states, since they DO issue permits to carry, must recognize other states permits.

What NY and NJ HATE is the fact that this law essentially strips them of their tyrannical corruption in keeping all the peasants unarmed.

 

[changemyoil66]

At least NY issued permits. Hawaii issued ZERO in 2016, 2015, 2014, etc...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[ladder13]

All 50 states, including D.C. and NYC, issue carry permits. Illinois and Wisconsin were the last states that didn't provide any provision for a carry permit, and now they went shall issue.

In states like NJ and NY, permits are issued (there's a law on the books that governs permits). NJ and NY has set up their permit systems so as to only permit who they want to carry a gun (celebrities, politicians, friends of the ruling class). Everyone else is denied when they apply. So, if the law passes and is signed, NJ and NY and all the other states, since they DO issue permits to carry, must recognize other states permits.

What NY and NJ HATE is the fact that this law essentially strips them of their tyrannical corruption in keeping all the peasants unarmed.

you are correct about NYC but NYS is whole different animal. Handgun permits are much more easily obtainable the farther you get away from the city.
Each county has their own rules regarding pistol permits, as they call them. The wait may range from somewhat irritating to downright torture.
The County I lived in had a 15,000 out of 100,000 residents with a handgun permit.Pretty darn good considering the female(not that they weren't armed either) and underage population. Of course the County is run by mostly pro gun politicians and a very gun friendly Sheriff. There was a very good chance the guy standing next t you at the store or on the street was carrying a firearm.
Also, there's plenty of red necks and hillbillies in NYS also, more than people think. Everyone "upstate" has a long gun.
When they had that manhunt for the guys who broke out of jail a few years back, the joke was better the Troopers find them first because the citizens were going to shoot em' on sight, and they would have.
Get north and west of NYC and it's just like any rural area in America. Unfortunately, the power structure is concentrated in the city. And, the big city politicians have no intention of allowing any sort of reciprocity, no matter what the law says. Witness D.C.

 

[Remixer]

Sadly i live in a state that issues very few carry permits (NJ).. NJ has Justifiable need which it seems very few can obtain. Even as a NJ gun dealer who can sell / transport firearms i was told not to bother applying for a CCW outside of my shop.

Only hope we (Might) have was national reciprocity.

With all that i'm not even sure if N.R. would help states like NJ where its residents cannot obtain a Carry permit... Would the supreme court say a NJ resident who obtains a FL carry permit is under the jurisdiction of Florida when he or she is in NJ? I think NR would help a Florida resident carry within the state of NJ not a NJ resident carry in NJ.