BREAKING: Sen. Cornyn Reintroduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Legislation

Sen. John Cornyn (Photo: NRA-ILA)

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is back on the table thanks to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who reintroduced legislation this week that would allow licensed concealed carriers to bear arms in all 50 states.

“This bill focuses on two of our country’s most fundamental constitutional protections– the Second Amendment’s right of citizens to keep and bear arms and the Tenth Amendment’s right of states to make laws best-suited for their residents,” said Sen. Cornyn of S.69, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

“I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important legislation for law-abiding gun owners nationwide,” he added.

The National Rifle Association was quick to applaud Cornyn’s work, noting that concealed carry reciprocity is already a reality in at least 22 states. Moreover, that only 10 states (and the District of Columbia) take the draconian position of forcing law-abiding citizens to surrender their rights when traveling through those jurisdictions.

“The current patchwork of state and local gun laws is confusing and can cause the most conscientious gun owner to unknowingly run afoul of the law when they are traveling or temporarily living away from home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA in a statement. “Sen. Cornyn’s legislation provides a much-needed solution to a real problem for law-abiding gun owners.”

“Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines,” continued Cox. “We thank Sen. Cornyn for his leadership on this important issue.”

More on the legislation:

Protecting Fundamental Constitutional Rights:

  • Allows law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while they are traveling or temporarily living away from home.
  • Allows individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to conceal carry in any other states that also allow concealed carry.
  • Treats state-issued concealed carry permits like drivers’ licenses where an individual can use their home-state license to drive in another state, but must abide by that other state’s speed limit or road laws.

Respecting State Sovereignty:

  • Does not establish national standards for concealed carry.
  • Does not provide for a national concealed carry permit.
  • Does not allow a resident to circumvent their home state’s concealed carry permit laws. If under current law an individual is prohibited by federal law from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under our bill.
  • Respects state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried and types of firearms which may not be carried by the visiting individual.
  • Protects states’ rights by not mandating the right to concealed carry in places that do not allow the practice.

Broad Support:

  • Last Congress, identical legislation had 40 cosponsors. In the 113th Congress, a nearly identical amendment received 57 votes in the Senate, including 13 Democrats.

***

Well, is this the year that national concealed carry reciprocity becomes a reality?  With Dems pushing universal background check and a new federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” will Trump try to negotiate a deal?  Maybe UBCs in exchange for national reciprocity?  Would that even be a deal that you’d want POTUS to consider?

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 23 comments… add one }
  • MASTERMECH48 January 13, 2019, 9:53 pm

    This is the type of legislation that attempts to put, us legal ccw carriers, on par with the BAD DUDES. C/C laws from the criminal side do not mean SHIT. For the rest of us in the legal carry crowd can be befuddled by the fact that we are the United States, Not all 50 states and territories agree on using the same C/C laws. Strange but true.

  • Bob January 12, 2019, 2:02 pm

    Kinda disillusioned with the NRA right now. After they approached the ATF about bump stocks, I don’t trust them. I think I’m gonna save $15 and give my money to the GOA, truly a no compromise organization for our gun rights.

  • Mike V January 12, 2019, 12:53 pm

    What’s the advantage to someone who lives in a state with concealed carry that doesn’t travel?

    I’m sure it’s great for those that wish to travel to or through the restrictive states.

    Just my experience but, I received fund raising calls from the NRA on this last year or two, but nothing for the hearing protection bill, which would actually have been useful to me.

    Is there an angle I’m missing,

    • Old Rogue January 12, 2019, 3:58 pm

      What’s the harm?
      The article is not about MY legislation versus YOUR legislation, it’s about CCs who do or MIGHT travel through other states, and you cannot say that will never be you.

      • Mike V January 14, 2019, 9:36 am

        I’m not opposed, just curious why something with limited impact gets as much attention. Even where I live, there are plenty of states with reciprocity, there are few that don’t. This might benefit me once or twice in life.

        Doesn’t seem to be low hanging fruit judging from the opposition.

        Again I’m not against it.

  • Dano January 11, 2019, 2:40 pm

    Why don’t you guys whine some more and give everything to the democrats? All the arm chair keyboard politicians on here think that it’s easy to motivate 535 members of the two chambers. Be happy for what you have and hope this can get done. Otherwise Dianne Frankenstein would have you all instant criminals without the GOP keeping the lid on liberal traitors like her and the rest of the beta males from the communist states. I live in Vermont and the idiots voting here passed the first gun laws ever in Vermont. Come together to fight these tyrants or forever lose your rights!

  • BRASS January 11, 2019, 2:28 pm

    Why now? Considering the new congress just seated, this has zero chance of making it to the presidents desk unless there is more to this story than this article informs us about.

  • GrampaFriday January 11, 2019, 1:30 pm

    No more compromise. Time to push back the other way. No new background checks, no new bans on parts, nothing. National reciprocity is our right and should be treated as such. I’m sure the NRA would be more than happy to trade all semi-aoutomatics for national reciprocity and think it’s a win, but I’m done supporting “compromise”. It’s time to push forward instead of deciding how many steps back is fair.

  • davud January 11, 2019, 10:38 am

    actually, they couldn’t have, same as they couldn’t earlier last year, because there were only 57 votes in the senate. 60 were needed.

    trump might have signed such a bill if it came before him, but he doesn’t give a sh** about gun rights. he let us know that after parkland when he openly proposed extrajudicial gun confiscation. and did he ever lift a finger to build support for the suppressor and reciprocity bills? nope. a thousand tweets from the guy since he took office, not one in support of gun legislation.

  • KIM January 11, 2019, 9:51 am

    THE REPUBLICANS HAD THE CHANCE TO GET ANYTHING THAT THEY AND THE PRESIDENT WANTED DONE, AND THEY PISSED AWAY THE BEST CHANCE THAT WE EVER HAD WITH A CONTROLLED HOUSE, SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE, YOU WILL NOT SEE THIS BILL AS WELL AS THE HEARING PROTECTION ACT OR ANY OTHER GUN BILL GET THRU THE HOUSE, TO MANY RINOS IN THE PARTY ALL OF THE OLD GUARD NEED TO BE PUT OUT TO PASTURE THEY ARE NO LONGER USEFUL TO ANYONE BUT WE KEEP ELECTING THEM AND WE REALLY HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT OURSELVES NEVER SHOULD WE VOTE FOR AN INCUMBENT

    • Paul E Zoba January 11, 2019, 10:39 am

      Sorry, but this just isn’t true… We had 51 votes in the Senate and it requires 60 to pass a new law. So the statement “the Republicans had the chance to get anything that they and the President wanted done” just doesn’t ring true.

      I think our best chance of gaining Reciprocity is via an amendment to some bill the Democrats really want… DACA? UBC?

      • Mike V January 12, 2019, 12:44 pm

        The 60 vote threshold is to overcome a filibuster right? I think that is a Senate rule they impose on themselves and could be changed.
        Would they change it or even should they change it is another matter.

      • Old Rogue January 12, 2019, 4:17 pm

        “Sorry, but this just isn’t true… We had 51 votes in the Senate and it requires 60 to pass a new law.”

        Nuh-uh.

        In both houses of Congress, you still need a majority (50%+1) to pass a bill. In the House of Representatives, that’s the only consideration.

        In the Senate, the rules are a bit more complex. If the bill makes it to a vote, it needs only 51 votes. But you need to debate before it gets to a vote. The Senate fancies itself the “world’s greatest deliberative body”, and they’ll deliberate as long as somebody wants to. You can force them to stop deliberating by a cloture vote, and that takes 60 votes.

    • toprudder January 11, 2019, 11:50 am

      Not quite. They got 57 votes but it takes 60 votes to pass most new legislation in the Senate. Now the article did say that some of those votes were by Democrats. There were about 51 or 52 Republican Senators last term so did all of them vote for it and in addition there were 5 or 6 Democrats who joined in, or did a few Republicans chicken out and not vote for it–it would have only taken 3 more to pass it. I see 2 problems, there are certain “Republicans” (RINOS) who vote more like Democrats; and we need to get more states to dump their Democrat senators for some true-blue Republicans.

      That said, I agree that introducing the bill in this session is all for show, because it will never pass the House even if it somehow managed to pass the Senate (not likely). In fact, House Democrats are going the other direction, more and more restrictive laws on the law-abiding citizens, and outright bans on certain weapons.

  • Cyrus January 11, 2019, 9:40 am

    I will gladly go for stronger and more thorough background checks in exchange for National Reciprocity ! I am a law abiding tax paying citizen who has no criminal record and holds a CT CCP. I’m not the least concerned about background checks because I have Zero to hide. I am even willing to go through a new background check for a National CCP.
    Lifetime Member of the NRA

    • Bob January 12, 2019, 1:59 pm

      More background checks are the same as universal registration, are you sure you want that? This is something the left has been dying to get passed. I’ve got nothing to hide either, but just what are we talking about when you say, “stronger and more thorough background checks”. Just how much stronger can you get that the system we have now? The FBI already does a thorough check with DD4473.

    • JT January 12, 2019, 5:49 pm

      You probably won’t read this, but that’s not how the background checks are being used, unfortunately. If they truly were instant and the check itself and the record of the check were purged immediately, you’d probably see little opposition to so called universal background checks. But that’s not how it will work.

      The record of the background check that’s supposed to drop off in 90 days out of the NICS and it does. However, the paper 4473 has to be kept for 20 years. After 20 years, they can be destroyed. If the FFL conducting the transfer goes out of business before that 20-year period, they must box up those records and ship them to ATF Out-of-Business Center (ATF National Tracing Center). The ATF is not allowed to computer…ize them per Title 18 U.S.C. 926(a):

      ” . . . such records, (shall not) be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.”

      For about 15 years, the ATF has been transferring this “out-of-business” data to microfilm and destroying the hard copies in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 926(a). The ATF also requires the closing store to transfer hard copies of the Acquisition/ Disposition records or, “bound book”, to the ATF. The ATF has graciously allowed businesses to keep this record electronically and so also requires the electronic copy be transferred to the ATF if one exists. Clearly, this is also in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 926(a) since this electronic record will clearly then exist within a facility owned, managed or controlled by the United States once transferred. The ATF receives millions of such records every year.

      Shortly after the microfilm project commenced, the ATF began to create a “Computer Assisted Retrieval System” (CARS) using this out-of-business data. Since this data is derived from the Form 4473, it contains the name, address, height, weight, race, date of birth, place of birth, and driver’s license number (or other ID number) of every firearm purchaser as well as the serial number of the firearm(s) purchased or transferred. Think of how many transactions must be stored in the CARS. This data exists on a mainframe operated by the United States and is in clear violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

      In the early 2000s, the Microfilm Retrieval System (MRS) project commenced which took this data and added manufacturer and importer information along with “other” data to the database that already included the name, address, height, weight, race, date of birth, place of birth, and driver’s license number (or other ID number) of every firearm purchaser as well as the serial number of the firearm(s) purchased or transferred. Microfilmed out-of-business records are also being converted to digital image for who knows what purposes. This data exists on a mainframe operated by the United States and is in clear violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

      In addition to these new systems, the ATF has operated the Firearm Tracing System for almost 30 years. It contains firearm tracing information from all traces performed in that time period and includes data manually collected from Out-of-Business records and entered into the trace system by ATF, to include:
      – Dealer, importer and manufacturer computer and paper “Bound Book” Out-of-Business records,
      – Dealer “Bound Book” records (computer and/or paper) copied by ATF during annual inspections,
      – ATF Form 4473 copied from dealers and Out-of-Business records,
      – Multiple Firearm Sales reports,
      – data obtained from traditional phone calls to the manufacturer, distributor and final selling dealer and additional data sources, such as some state firearms sales records,
      – Dealer’s “Bound Books” over 20 years old voluntarily sent in to ATF,
      – Data from some antique firearms allowed to be entered in “Bound Books”,
      – Stolen guns reported to ATF and,
      – “Suspect guns” which include (these are ATF’s own examples): individuals purchasing large quantities of firearms (including older C&R firearms), and firearms transferred by dealers with “improper” record keeping.

      It’s not known if all of these databases are linked together but it’s obvious that they borrow data from one another. ATF agents have access to this information via the eTrace System and Online LEAD. Here’s the thing, tens of thousands of people at thousands of law-enforcement centers in dozens of countries worldwide also have access to the eTrace System. Yes, these worldwide agencies have access to this information to include a “description of the original retail purchaser.”

      But good news, the GAO has researched all of this and it’s all legal and in accordance with U.S.C. so we’re fine and should have nothing to worry about, right?

      It’s be great if the NICS was used just for that, instant checking of a potential purchaser’s background in order to process a lawful transfer and then that check and the information gathered to perform it deleted but it’s not and has not and truthfully, I don’t think it will ever operate like that. NICS is being used to stockpile information on every lawful transfer that has ever occurred and will grow even larger if “universal background checks” become a reality. “Universal background checks” means registration. How do you think they will know where to check for assault weapons if a ban comes to fruition? No thanks. I think it’s pretty simple to see how the system as it is currently operated and exists and any “improvements” infringe on our natural rights. This is why any responsible Citizen should not support any form of firearm registration or universal background checks.

      Information on the above can be found on the GAO’s and BATFE’s own websites.

  • Cam January 11, 2019, 9:15 am

    So now that the republicans don’t control it all and they know the house democrats will not let it through the RINO establishment try and act like they are fighting for what we put them in office for.

  • ronald burke January 11, 2019, 8:00 am

    Too little, too late.

  • Loren January 11, 2019, 7:00 am

    Now the NRA-ILA is supporting the lies from RION’s like Cornyn. This article should have said this is a election ploy trick on pro second amendment voters to get their money of his re-election. The NRA-ILA supports Cornyn for the donations NRA supporters send. I remind everyone here the NRA supported the bump stock ban. The NRA has failed when needed the most when it comes to more gun control laws. Even Heller is effectively erased from the law. As anti-gun judges rule against it and the Supreme Court is mute to these judges. The Cornyn bill has no chance to go anywhere with communists owning the House. Same claims were made with Obama care.

  • piper January 10, 2019, 10:38 pm

    Could’ve voted and passed it three weeks ago. And President Trump would have signed it. Not getting fooled by these rino’s.

    • Ampstar January 11, 2019, 6:24 am

      You beat me to it. I thinks it’s funny how these bills come up when there is no chance of them getting passed into law. IT’S ALL THEATER, and it’s meant to keep us distracted/divided.

  • SeppW January 10, 2019, 7:20 pm

    This will be interesting. FOPA doesn’t even protect citizens when passing through DC, MD, NJ, etc and will most likely be DOA in the House.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend