National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced!

Rep. Richard Hudson. (Photo: Wikipedia)

This week, U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.

With 58 cosponsors, bipartisan support and the backing of many pro-gun organizations, the bill seeks to ensure that law-abiding citizens who are licensed or permitted to carry in their home state, can also carry when traveling around the country.

“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that,” said Hudson in a press release.

“The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face,” he continued. “It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits.”

The bill, if passed, will do all of the following:

  • Ensure that valid concealed carry permits issued in one state are valid for carrying concealed handguns in other states that recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry;
  • Allow those from constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry;
  • Put the burden of proof clearly on the state to show that an individual carrying concealed did not comply with the law, thus protecting law-abiding gun owners from onerous civil suits;
  • Provide legal protections against states that violate the intent of this bill, making attorney’s fees and damages available to victorious plaintiffs in civil suits, as well as to defendants who prevail in criminal cases; and
  • Allow individuals who are carrying concealed to do so in the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, and on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.

It’s important to note that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 does not tell the states that they have to adopt a certain concealed-carry issuing standard (e.g. May Issue versus Shall Issue versus Constitutional Carry). In other words, the states retain the authority to determine the regulations and process for one to carry in public.

“As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to get this legislation across the finish line,” said Hudson.

SEE ALSO: Korwin: Stop the National Carry Permit, ‘Gun Guys’ Pushing in Wrong Direction

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, wholeheartedly endorsed the bill.

“This legislation provides an answer to the confusing patchwork of concealed carry permits, particularly with regard to states where laws make unwitting criminals out of legal permit holders for a simple mistake of a wrong traffic turn,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.

“It safeguards a state’s right to determine their own laws while protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” continued Keane. “We thank Rep. Hudson for his leadership on behalf of America’s hunters and recreational shooters.”

With Trump set to take office and a GOP majority in both chambers, this bill has a good chance of becoming law.  Certainly better than previous iterations of National Reciprocity did with Obama in office.  We’ll keep an eye on it and update you as it makes its way through the legislative process.

{ 67 comments… add one }
  • Virginia Concealed Carry Class September 15, 2017, 7:03 am

    Thank you.

  • Mark from Bristol January 9, 2017, 9:52 pm

    “Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that,”

    Gosh, am I glad to hear that. I’m from Indiana, have a life time concealed carry permit. I also have a Utah concealed carry permit that works in most of the other states. But then we get to Michigan, almost hopeless Illinois…and forget about the Peoples Republics of New York or California. The concealed carry laws and rules need to be the same across the board, nationwide. I’m a huge fan of OUR Constitution and STATES RIGHTS, but states rights don’t trump our 2nd Amendment.

  • Ron Spn January 9, 2017, 3:31 pm

    You don’t need no Federal Statute on Carrying openly when the Cops and the FBI don’t care whether you got a weapon or not, they just return it back to you no questions asked. So, you shoot whoever you want to, soon as your plane lands in the airport.

    • Cyrus February 17, 2017, 8:20 am

      Can someone please explain to me what this idiot is talking about?

      • ron February 17, 2017, 11:03 am

        He is just a idiot

    • gary February 17, 2017, 11:14 am

      IDIOT ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • L. & S. January 9, 2017, 2:56 am

    Any movement towards reasonable and consistent laws regarding firearms is great. However, gun laws also need to be the same.
    The Liberals who run California are only interested in exploiting gun ownership through a myriad of ridiculous laws to “make CA safe” I’m sure limited gun purchases, permit to purchase ammo along with “assault weapon” ban and a ten day “cooling off period” for all firearms will be as effective as a no gun zone sign on a gun range.

  • jacl whip January 8, 2017, 5:40 pm

    This bill has one major flaw: it only includes citizens with a home/resident state ccw permit. If you live in one of the “May Issue” liberals states such as MD, NJ, HI, CA, most of MA, most of NY, NYC, most of RI etc. the average citizen cannot get a home/resident ccw permit for regular self defense. THIS BILL LEAVES OUT 1/3 OF THE ENTIRE USA POPULATION!!

  • ron gipson January 8, 2017, 11:39 am

    It’s about time! I have been thumping that bible for many years. It will take Trump and Trump supporters being UNITED to get the bill through.
    Kurt, you may find in your class on the Constitution that the teaching of the constitution in all public school has be the law since the beginning. It would be wise to bring back the Pledge of Allegiance as well.

  • Kurt January 7, 2017, 1:25 pm

    There are some really intelligent people posting on this article even the ones that I don’t completely agree with.
    Like someone stated above what the government gives the government can take away.
    we need to understand our rights and act accordingly.
    I have been taking the course form Hillsdale collage on constitution 101 and finding out how little I know about the Constitution and the Bill of rights.
    This should be a required course in our public school systems and use to be but somehow it went by the way side .
    God Bless and fight the good fight
    Kurt

  • Wayne January 6, 2017, 7:06 pm

    Yes, they can pass this Bill and make National CCW. However, what will most likely happen is some of these States will adopt and pass new laws to severely restrict where you can carry in that State……no public venues, places that serve alcohol, sporting events, places that post their businesses…..etc, etc. So, yea they’ll probably pass it and it won’t do you much good when some restrict it.

    • full moon January 7, 2017, 2:47 pm

      Governor Brownback of Kansas preempted establishments from quickly throwing up no carry signs in their windows. By making them null and void, unless they apply to the states attorney generals office to receive OFFICIAL signage.
      We open carry, conceal carry in a Constitution carry state. The playing field is now level for the man protecting his family or himself in public. No longer have to hunker down in the bedroom from intruders and pray, like California, Illinois, New York.

  • Geoling January 6, 2017, 3:25 pm

    A). The FedGov has no Constitutional authority to consider and enact national reciprocity!
    B). National reciprocity is a TRICK to lead us to national gun registration/licensing! Be careful what you ask for!
    C). If the FedGov wants to open the door to national concealed carry all it has to do is enforce the 2nd Amendment, force states to honor this inalienable right, which it DOES have the Constitutional authority to do!
    D). Watch out for the NRA to aggressively support and lobby in favor of this legislation. This is the NRA’s weakness, lobbying for things that can be abused and turned against us, without regard for Constitutional authority. The NRA should be lobbying to achieve C above…aggressively!

    • Joe M. Zorn January 6, 2017, 4:15 pm

      Your Item C is inaccurate. Since the beginning, the constitution as guaranteed the STATES RIGHTS over all matters that they do not specifically agree give to the Federal government. So the Federal government cannot just force this issue, unless all state representatives and senators, as well as the Executive branch vote and agree to give this right to the Federal government. That’s what they are trying to do now with the recently introduced “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017”.

      So that takes care of your Item A.
      As for Item B, nothing in the introduced ‘Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017’ addresses national gun registration. So for the same reason, the Feds cannot force it on the public.
      Item D is purely conjecture on your part, so I have no defense, except to say that I somewhat agree, as well as disagree to your thoughts.

      • Geoling January 6, 2017, 9:24 pm

        The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is superior to all States Constitutions in the Republic. States cannot override it. So, your assessment of my item C is incorrect. I will not take the time ot provide you references to this fact, find them yourself. Item A stands alone withour regard to item C, which is clear to understand, expecially to one who understands the clause delegating specific responsibilities to the FedGov and reserving all others to the States and the People. So you are incorrect in your assessment of my Item A also. As for Item B, you just wait till this passes and you have to be fingerprinted and registered with the FedGov to exercise your national reciprocity and see for yourself if some form of registration surfaces. As for item D, the facts support this, as much as I appreciate most of what the NRA has done, they have a few severe weaknesses, this being one example. Bottom line is this. “Making national reprocity legal” is the wrong approach. This approach by definition is “giving permission”. Deregulating something that constitutionally should never have been regulated removes restrictions instead of granting permission, a MUCH better approach, and a constitutional one at that.

        Your agreement is not needed but thanks for your opinions just the same.

      • Joe McHugh January 7, 2017, 8:19 am

        Joe M. Zorn, you and Geoling have brought up good points about this proposed Federal Gun legislation. However, you are both falling into the trap that all levels of American government set. Every law is a two edged sword, it can cut both ways.
        The Second Amendment is almost foolproof in the manner it was written, and yet the anti-gun liberals still try to convince everyone that the prefactory clause is a condition for the operative clause.

        I suggest something slightly different that all levels of government can use to ensure the safety of the public, and yet leave the Second Amendment intact. Scrap All firearms related laws in the code books of the Federal and state governments.
        Replace all of those laws with the single firearms related law that follows:
        1) It shall be illegal to threaten, injure or kill a law-abiding fellow citizen with a firearm.
        Section A) It shall be illegal to knowingly sell or otherwise give firearm access to a convicted violent felon, or a person who was adjudged as being a danger to himself or others.

        I invite anybody to argue that any other gun regulation would be needed with the exception of those areas that have metal detectors such as courtrooms. Schools, churches, theaters, and other public gathering places should never be designated as “Gun Free Areas”. A gun free area is a free, and safe fire zone for any crazy who obtained a firearm illegally.

        And now for the liberal fear about private ownership of firearms. There can be no “safety” in a free society. As long as people can exercise free will, some will misuse firearms. It would be impractical to try to control firearms when the public has justifiable access to the credible means of self-defense that they represent.

        I’ll say it right now, violent criminals need to spend a lot more time under close supervision, at least until they need a walker to get around. When such a person deliberately threatens or harms another with a gun or knife, he should forfeit his access to such weapons for the rest of his life. It’s not a “mistake” or a “joke” to threaten someone’s life with a gun. Any person who is adjudged to be a danger to himself or others should be cared for for the rest of his life. Any psychiatrist who takes it upon himself to judge that a confined patient “is no longer a threat to society”, should be thrown in prison if that former asylum patient ever harms another law-abiding citizen.

        If the government feels that it must act to protect the people from firearm related crime, it should control those that have violated the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Once a person is identified as being a threat to innocent people, the government should control them. However, such control cannot, must not, infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

      • RD Lankes April 14, 2017, 2:11 pm

        Mr. Joe M. Zorn: The Second Amendment has already been approved by the states and is an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The truth of the matter is that people have been abridging the rights of law-abiding citizens in an effort to control criminals. That seems to me to be indicative of insanity – the folks that draw up those phony baloney laws are actually trying to eventually confiscate all of the guns. Given that they are actually insane, let’s collect all of those personnel and put them away, as they are a danger to themselves and others. QED

  • Tom Horn January 6, 2017, 11:26 am

    Go back and read Korwin to find out what is wrong with this bill.

    https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/korwin-stop-the-national-carry-permit-gun-guys-pushing-in-wrong-direction/

    2A should be the only permit you need, period!

    • gary February 17, 2017, 11:21 am

      WHAT PART OF ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???????????????? ALL registration, background checks etc are unconstitutional PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That may not be a popular thought but it is the Constitution as written. Until they rewrite the school books and brainwash the next generation to believing something else. As ADOLF HITLER said ‘tell a big enough lie enough times enough people will believe it and it will become FACT’. This is straight from the Democratic/Saul play book.

  • Fb January 6, 2017, 10:29 am

    This bill is worthless for May-issue counties. I wonder if any of the co-sponsored representatives on the bill recognize this doesn’t help millions of people in this country.
    A very pathetic response from the so called trump second amendment coalition, NRA and GOA, ect. Ect.

    • Ross Walters January 6, 2017, 11:27 am

      I’m afraid if you live in CA, MA, RI, NY, MD, NJ, or CT and are not a relative or friend of those in power you have lost your legal right to carry.
      There is always the hope a 5-4 Republican Supreme Court might come to your rescue but the chances are pretty slim.
      Don’t blame Trump or the NRA. They didn’t put those liberal politicians into power, your neighbors did.

      • Geoling January 6, 2017, 9:29 pm

        We should not allow our inalienable rights to be taken away by men (or women) in black robes. These men/women did not grant us these rights and cannot take them away. The very foundation of the Bill of Rights is that the items recognized in them are inalienable and cannot be “taken away”. We can give them away, men (and women) in black robes can say they don’t exist, but inalienable means differently. These rights were endowed upon us by our Creator not by mortals.

        In the end, as throughout history, it is up to us to defend our Liberty, each of us, as there always has been and always will be evil men wanting to take it away.

    • Joe McHugh January 7, 2017, 1:10 pm

      Fb, the new bill is worse than worthless, it is ludicrous in concept. The state of Vermont does not have a permit, or license program to carry handguns. If an armed Vermont resident drives across the border into New York, his driver license would be all that the New York law enforcement people need to see to allow him to proceed on his way.

      Now consider the resident of New York state, who would have to apply for a gun license that might take up to a year to acquire, if ever. New York is a “may issue” state, and the police official might not like your face and refuse to sign the license application. The driver from Vermont is allowed to enforce his Second Amendment right without requesting a gun license to do so. I’m pretty sure that this would be an outright violation of the New York resident’s Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment that affords equal treatment before the law.

      So what are we seeing here? We observe many states that deliberately abuse a citizen’s rights in at least two constitutional amendments, the Second and the Fourteenth. What would prevent a state from abusing the other rights that individual citizens should have according to the Constitution? Hint, the Congress has mandated that all individuals purchase medical health insurance policies with their after tax money. Call me crazy but that seems a lot like what would be expected from a tyranny.
      “You can earn your compensation, but we will control how you spend it. Henceforth, you will buy broccoli instead of Twinkies because it is healthier for you.”

      When did the “trusted” representatives become our masters? I’m almost sure that they started out as our employees.

  • Bnb Services January 6, 2017, 10:26 am

    I would like to see Congress enact something more comprehensive like:
    >The manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership or possession, including the concealed carrying, of federally regulated firearms or other items used for self defense cannot be otherwise restricted or infringed.

  • Gary B January 6, 2017, 9:30 am

    While deeply flawed, it is merely ‘introduced’ and I expect many changes before a vote. Gotta start somewhere.

    • Geoling January 6, 2017, 9:32 pm

      It is incredibly important that we stop asking our “elected officials” (i.e. public servants) to PASS LAWS giving us permission to do things that are inalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator. Rather we should be aggressively demanding that our public servants abide by their oaths to protect and defend our Constitution by REMOVING regulations that infringe upon our rights. Laws passed giving permission are only a vote away from being removed by another vote.

  • Robert J. Lucas January 6, 2017, 9:24 am

    Amendment II.
    “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”.
    If all fifty States followed the 2nd Amendment, as stated, there is no issue. If States decide not to follow the 2nd amendment as stated, those States should be prosecuted by Federal Law. Interpolation of Amendment II, should never be allowed. When will this nation enforce the laws that have already been written without interpolation?

  • Russ January 6, 2017, 9:09 am

    Finally! Gay marriage licenses have to be recognised by all States according to the Supreme Court! We can thank that decision for a National Reciprocity law.

  • Carroll Hale III January 6, 2017, 8:23 am

    Why not just create a “shall issue” federal CCW license with specific, reasonable training requirements and if you get that license, it supersedes state licensing? Doing that would effectively sidestep the argument that lawmakers would have where a state with a fairly rigorous licensing procedure shouldn’t have to honor a license from a constitutional carry state or a state that has comparatively lax CCW licensing standards or, like in some states, either don’t issue, require you to show a need for one, or make issuance discretionary based on the whim of some public official. States could issue a state license (or not, as the case may be), reciprocate with other states as they saw fit, but the federal license would stand good in every state.

    • robert January 6, 2017, 8:32 am

      As a law abiding citizen, my Federal License to carry is the 2nd Amend.

    • Russ January 6, 2017, 9:05 am

      A Federal license? Are you nuts? Why not a Federal ID, National Police etc. Forget the States rights….

      • Carroll Hale III January 6, 2017, 10:50 am

        If I’m not mistaken, we already have Federal IDs–That’s what your Social Security Number is, a unique identifier for each citizen. National police? Seems to me the FBI qualifies, as does the Federal Marshal Service and Secret Service.

        In any event, there’s ample precedent for federal law to supersede state law–look at interstate commerce laws, or EPA regulations. For that matter, the entire US Constitution and Bill of Rights supersedes state laws to the contrary…

        As I said, a federal license would get around the argument many lawmakers have regarding states being forced to accept licenses from other states where the licensing requirements are not as strict. While I don’t agree with the need for a CCW license at all, under our current legal system, we have CCW licenses, so until we change that, we have to work within the system as it stands. My suggestion seems a valid way to overcome specific objections to nationwide CCW reciprocity. I wonder if, for the purpose of interstate travel with a CCW, and since interstate transport of firearms to sellers falls under federal interstate commerce laws, those might be brought to bear on this issue?

        • Aardvark January 6, 2017, 3:48 pm

          I agree with most of what you are saying, but why shouldn’t the states CCW licenses be valid in all states like a drivers license is. I am a strong supporter of the Constitution, but I also feel there is a difference between Constitutional carry in 1791 when the population was less than 4 million, and today when the population is well over 300,000,000. I would back Constitutional carry, but I would have a hard time opposing required training such as I received to get my enhanced CCL (and I continue to train a couple times per month). I’ve seen videos and read too many stories about people chasing robbers out of stores and shooting them in the back as they flee, in crowded areas of towns. Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility and people need to get training. But too many people think they can go to a range a couple of times a year, and that’s all the training they need. It’s just impossible to know what you don’t know.

          • Carroll Hale III January 6, 2017, 7:24 pm

            Regarding the comparison between driver licensing and CCW licenses being accepted across state lines, the difference, as I see it, is that driver licensing requirements are essentially identical from state to state, whereas CCW licensing isn’t necessarily so. Hence my suggestion that a single standard for CCW licensing would fix that.

            I’m ex-LEO, so I went through some pretty fair training regarding the responsibilities of carrying, concealed or open. I’ve been licensed to carry concealed in three different states, and each one had very different requirements to obtain the license. In one state, all I had to do was apply and go through a background check, no other training required. The other two both required training, one just a classroom course, the other was granted due to my trained LEO status.

            I’m all for people who choose to assume the responsibility of carrying being trained in the legal aspects of shoot/don’t shoot as well as spending enough range time to be a proficient marksman.

          • Jimmy Costi January 7, 2017, 8:46 am

            I agree with any of those who said for all CCW holders ,actually , anyone using a firearm so especially a sidearm to have training. it’s amazing the things you can learn, muscle memory, Mind Over Matter it takes practice but practice from correct instructions in the first place

      • NealS January 6, 2017, 1:28 pm

        Russ, I think you might have misunderstood Robert’s comment. He is saying the 2 Amendment is his right to carry. Maybe he will have to carry a copy of the 2nd Amendment around with him since there are so many that don’t understand it.

    • joe January 6, 2017, 10:27 am

      Centralization of authority is our problem, not the answer. A Federal permit system can be destroyed as soon as the Dems take back over after we have 4 years of tax-and-spend war mongering Republicans again.

      • Phoenix Guy January 6, 2017, 11:24 am

        After reading all the commits below I have decided that many of you are so stupid you should never be able to carry anywhere.
        Reading comprehension is lost on a majority of you, go back and read the article again and then slowly rethink about what you said.
        If you don’t get it after the 3rd or 4th time ask your 8 year old to explain it to you.

        • sharonnah January 6, 2017, 2:02 pm

          Egocentric, verbal bullies shouldn’t be allowed to carry either.

      • Aardvark January 6, 2017, 3:54 pm

        Tax and spend, war mongering republicans? Wow, still bitter about Hilliar losing? You make a statement like that when I am now paying more for health care than I do for my mortgage, and the federal unfunded liabilities are approaching 20,000,000,000,000,000? I think you’re a little back asswards on the tax and spend debate.

    • Joe McHugh January 7, 2017, 9:08 am

      Carrol Hale III, ANYTIME the word “reasonable” is used in discussions involving a citizen’s right to arms, you are inviting a legislator to exercise HIS or HER interpretation of what is reasonable.

      Example: A competent, law-abiding individual would get the training that he or she needed to carry a lethal weapon, such as a handgun. The very word “competent” describes a person who would not think of not demonstrating reasonable responsibility in this matter. The person who would not show such responsibility might discover the wonders of what ignorance can bring about, unless that person intuitively understands the danger that the muzzle end of the firearm represents.

      This is the thing, if firearms training is made mandatory, the government can make such training and testing so complex that few would be able to pass the test. There is also the cost of such training to consider. The politicians could make the cost of gun training so expensive that the poor people could not afford it. And let’s not forget that calls for liability insurance for each privately owned firearm. Guess what that might cost. The dishonorable politicians would not do this by accident, they would do it purposely. Most politicians fear an armed populous. These are the “leaders” who might abuse the rights of the people in order ” to protect them”. The real reason would be to protect themselves from an enraged and desperate populace.

      All governments tend to become tyrannical over time, even the “democratic” ones. The Founding Fathers realized this proclivity of the government elite, and provided the Second Amendment to prevent such a possibility. Two groups of people resist the intent of the Second Amendment. The first group is the aforementioned “trusted” politicians, and the second group is the liberal automatons who follow the liberal elite.

      As others have stated, constitutional carry is the only law needed for competent, law-abiding citizens. background checks are OK, ………as long as no information about the firearm in a transaction is recorded in a data bank, or even on a document in the gun dealer’s files. The idea is to keep the government ignorant of who has what firearm, it’s the whole point of the Second Amendment. The government can only use such information to abuse the people’s right to arms.

      • DRAINO January 8, 2017, 9:41 am

        Since when does a citizens 2A rights depend on “training”…????? Just because you have some training with a firearm doesn’t mean you have more of a right to a firearm.

        If there were never a possibility of the govt turning against the citizens(and we know that’s not likely) , then yes, a national license of some sort MAY be a good idea. But as stated already, our forefathers had the intelligence and experience to know that gov’ts tend to get out of control. And yes, what they fear most is an armed populace (and rightly they should……and NEED TO fear the populace that put them in their positions). Until all the greed and hate are gone from this world, people NEED to bear arms…….freely.

  • DRAINO January 6, 2017, 7:49 am

    A good step toward constitutional carry for all states.

    AMERICANISM!!!! NOT Globalism!!!

  • Ross Walters January 6, 2017, 7:46 am

    As I understand it, this bill does not require states like California or New York to honor a Michigan or Ohio concealed pistol license since those states don’t recognize their own citizens right to concealed carry.
    In other words if I travel to Massachusetts or Rhode Island carrying my concealed weapon they can arrest me even though I may be a perfectly legal licensed carry person in Pennsylvania.
    This bill, as written doesn’t meet the standard of ‘nationwide reciprocity’.
    We need legislation that mandates ALL 50 states recognize a law-abiding citizen’s carry permit.

    • Elnonio January 6, 2017, 9:00 am

      The states you mention may have very restrictive policies that result in few CCLs being issued, yes, but they do have CCLs on the books and thus can be said to recognize their own citizens right to carry.

      Only a state that does not have CCL nor constitutional carry of any type can be said to not recognize their citizens right to carry.

      • DRAINO January 8, 2017, 9:48 am

        “Only a state that does not have CCL nor constitutional carry of any type can be said to not recognize their citizens right to carry.”
        That’s a bunch of malarkey, right there! A bunch of legalistic BS. The 2A is absolute. No if’s, and’s or But’s. Wake up and smell the BS you are being fed, you Sheep.

        AMERICANISM!!!! NOT Globalism!!!!

  • Jay January 6, 2017, 7:29 am

    The whole point of the matter is not being addressed by this bill or any other! The whole point and fact of the matter is this, The second amendment is my concealed carry permit and until we have out infringed on rights restored, we are only giving into the fact that our right is now a regulated privilege, it is not! Enough is enough and we need to stop this fake feel good measure and demand our rights be restored, Period!

    • robert January 6, 2017, 8:15 am

      Beautifully said! Living in VT, I enjoy Constitutional Carry, and under the 2A, I would expect to be able to go anywhere else in this country and be able to carry. Even the slightest infringement on that right, including the need for permits, is a miscarriage of justice and a blatant violation of the Constitution.

    • Geoling January 6, 2017, 9:40 pm

      What he said! Stop asking the FedGov to give you permission to partake of your inalienable rights!!!

  • Rob January 6, 2017, 6:34 am

    Jack, this is a situational training exercise, not a course of action law review.

  • Devin January 6, 2017, 6:22 am

    As someone living in California who has long been furious about the state telling me self defense is not a sufficient enough need to obtain a cc permit, I can say that this bill is very disappointing as written. I live in Los Angeles county and while some living in counties with sheriffs who abide by the constituation have no problems obtaining a permit, it is nigh impossible to here. I had high hopes when a bill was introduced it would mandate shall issue or allow for obtaining an out of state permit which CA would be forced to recognize.

    That said this is going to be a much easier bill to pass and although it’s an important step I think it’s far too shortsighted. States rights are incredibly important however when those states routinely infringe on their residents constitutional rights it is time for the fed to set them straight. Here’s hoping the legislators get the balls to or we get lucky enough for the Supreme Court to actually hear a case on it in my lifetime.

    • Robert January 6, 2017, 10:38 am

      You might actually be in luck here. According to this if the state has any carry permits issued then they have to honor other states. This would allow you to get a permit in another state and California would have to honor it. It’s kind of a roundabout way of doing it, but, dealing with a state like California sometimes it takes something like this to get it done.

      • ProtoCulture January 6, 2017, 7:43 pm

        What we need is one state then willing to issue to non-residents. I know Arizona will happily issue to a non-Arizona resident if they already have a CCW permit in their home state. We need some state to take that one step further.

        • DRAINO January 7, 2017, 5:24 pm

          Uh, there are a few states that give permits to non-residents. FL does for sure…..and there are others, just not sure which ones they are. I think TX. But I do know there are states that do. Not sure about the “giving up your states permit for theirs: but that doesn’t sound familiar. The FL one is very coveted in the southeast because of its reciprocity.

      • Curty January 7, 2017, 9:17 am

        The only way you can do that is if you change your state of residency. I carry a CCW from Colorado and I also had one from North Dakota and they both had a requirement that you have to live in the state for that states residency requirements Unless you just got out of the armed forces.

  • Jack January 6, 2017, 4:32 am

    “It’s important to note that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 does not tell the states that they have to adopt a certain concealed-carry issuing standard (e.g. May Issue versus Shall Issue versus Constitutional Carry). In other words, the states retain the authority to determine the regulations and process for one to carry in public.”
    the above paragraph makes this entire story seem useless. If a state can still determine the regulations for a person to carry in public then this national law is null and void if states like California and New York say no to any in public carry. Either we can carry in all 50 states (if the law is passed) concealed in public or we cannot, which is it ?

    • Mitch Spence January 6, 2017, 6:34 am

      If you are carrying concealed in an intelligent manner, no one will know, reciprocity on regs or not. Otherwise, stay home if you are that scared.

      This bill is a huge step forward.

      • Mike January 6, 2017, 9:23 am

        HUGE!

      • Joe McHugh January 6, 2017, 11:59 am

        Mitch Spence, Oh great! If I don’t trust my state governor to honor my inherent right to carry a credible means of self-defense, I should hide in my home? My state governor is Andrew Cuomo in Albany, New York. The only thing that I would trust him to do is have me thrown in a dungeon for daring to carry a concealed handgun in New York City. The last time I looked, New York City was part of New York State.

        Question: what gives the Federal Government, state governments, or local governments the right to deny me from enforcing my Second Amendment right? Why should I pay for a permit or license to personally make use of ANY of the amendments in the Bill of Rights? Such rights are either rights, or they are not.

        As a law-abiding citizen I should have the right to carry any arm that I want, without government permission. As a matter of fact, if I haven’t been convicted of a violent crime, or found to be an adjudged dangerous psychotic, the government should be kept ignorant whether or not, I choose to enforce my right to carry a concealed handgun. There is only one reason that the people in government try to regulate the use of firearms among law-abiding citizens. Those elite “leaders” don’t trust an armed populace. Pssst! It’s not important, or even necessary that the government trusts the people. It’s only important that the people in government earn the trust of the people. They are or EMPLOYEES, not our correction officers!

        When did the people allow the government to even concern itself with privately owned firearms? Would anyone allow the government to restrict a person’s right to stand on a soap box and inform the passerby about anything he wished to say? What make the Second Amendment less enforceable than the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment? None of the inherent rights of righteous citizens should be abused by the government, that’s called tyranny. If a person commits a crime throw him in jail. If a person is adjudged to be dangerous to himself or others, confine him to a facility for proper care. ALL OTHER CITIZENS should be able to do anything that does not trespass on the rights of other law-abiding citizens.

        Let’s consider another way of illustrating the point. A law-abiding, competent citizen should be able to carry a fully operational Army flame thrower, if he decides to do so for say, exercise reasons. (They weigh about 80 pounds.) Why would anyone fear such a scenario if he is not actually incinerating nearby people? Did I mention that he was a law-abiding person? Outrageous example? Not really because there are NO Federal or state laws against walking on a city street with a fully operational flame thrower.

        To summarize by posing the question: Where does the government get the nerve to abuse one of the people’s inherent rights that are inscribed in the Bill of Rights? Worse, why do the people put up with such abuse?

        • Slingblade January 6, 2017, 3:01 pm

          Hey Joe McHugh, where is it in the 2A that states gun RIGHTS are only to be for “law abiding citizens”? That whole NONSENSICAL mindset is what started all our gun RIGHTS problems to begin with!

          • Joe McHugh January 6, 2017, 11:12 pm

            Slingblade, You are right. The Second Amendment does not describe, other than “…the people…”, who may own guns. It doesn’t even use the words gun or firearm, it says “…arms..”. Arms can be anything that could be employed as a weapon, such as guns, knives, hammers, etc, etc.

            Now let’s consider what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote “…people…” into the Second Amendment.
            Call me crazy but I almost sure that they didn’t mean the violent highway robbers who robbed and sometimes killed their victims. And I’m pretty sure that insane people, who are determined in court to be dangerous to themselves or others, would have been denied access to any kind of weapon by the Founders. To think otherwise would be somewhat naive.

            “…NONSENSICAL…”? From the legislator’s viewpoint, anti-gun laws are perfectly sensible. Very few elected legislators are comfortable with the reality of an armed populace. They simply do not trust the people. This syndrome manifests soon after being elected, if it did not already exist in their minds.

            These politicians know that they cannot outlaw firearms outright, so they dream up “crime fighting” regulations to make enforcing one’s Second Amendment right all but impossible. To ensure their safety from an angry populace, they continually try to require gun registration under the guise of “background checks”. If they were honest, they would draft a bill that would only require a background check without the recording of every detail about the firearm being purchased.

            Before the 1911 Sullivan Law was passed in New York State, there were no gun laws, except for bar room check ins, in some western towns. If it weren’t for the alcohol prohibition in the early 1930’s, the gangsters wouldn’t have caused safety concerns among the general public. Every time an elected legislator wants to look like he is earning his money, he dreams up another way to make it harder for law-abiding, competent citizens to obtain guns. After all, it for crime-fighting, right? What righteous citizen would complain about stopping the criminals from acquiring guns?

    • Rrudytoo January 6, 2017, 8:07 am

      First and foremost, I want every state to honor its citizen’s right to carry but I also believe in each state’s right to self-govern. I do not want to see a Federal government bully any state into confirming to its will regardless of the issue…….we’ve had enough of that over the past eight years. The laws in a state are influenced by the voters and we have three ways to vote in our respective states: at the ballot box, with our wallets and with our feet.

      • Michael January 6, 2017, 9:28 am

        I thought the same until I someone pointed out that the 2nd Amendment is guaranteed by the Constitution…that was adopted and legally binding upon the States. Therefore this is not a States rights issue, but a Constitutional issue and as such, the States are obligated to follow the Federal law if enacted. Now, forcing States to recognize a driver license would be another matter, as the Constitution do not enshrine the right to drive a vehicle. Hope that puts your mind at ease on the issue.

      • Kevin January 20, 2017, 8:21 am

        I would point out that state and federal “rights” have no particular bearing on what is an INDIVIDUAL right.
        It’s like saying that certain words are outlawed, or that a state could enable slavery. Tell me – WHICH constitutional rights are given to any state to infringe on? Yes, that’ right – the only right important enough to actually CONTAIN the guarantee that it “Shall not be infringed”….

  • ProtoCulture January 5, 2017, 9:48 pm

    Now they need to work in “Shall issue” language. Dumb backwards states, such as California will react to this law by becoming even more restrictive just to spite rest of US. In fact, shall issue language is far more important than reciprocity ever could be. Still, a step in the right direction.

  • BillyBob January 5, 2017, 7:33 pm

    Thank You !

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend