Why National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is Unnecessary

Last week, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015, a bill that would pretty much grant universal concealed carry reciprocity in every state that has concealed carry laws on the books.

The idea of universal concealed carry reciprocity makes perfect sense, as Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, pointed out in his statement supporting the CCCRA.

“The current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home,” said Cox.

“Senator Cornyn’s legislation provides a much needed solution to a real problem for law-abiding gun owners,” Cox continued.

The bill wouldn’t create a national permitting standard nor would it create a national registry of concealed carry permit holders, it would simply allow a licensee to carry from one state to the next provided they follow each state’s laws with respect to concealed carry. The parallel that proponents draw is that of a driver’s license in that one can drive in another state with an out-of-state license, but must obey each states’ respective speed limits and traffic laws while traveling through.

“Our fundamental right to self-defense does not stop at a state’s borders. Law abiding citizens should be able to exercise this right while traveling across state lines,” added Cox. “This is an extremely important issue to our members and we thank Senator Cornyn for leading the fight to protect our right to self-defense.”

Yes, all of that is true, but there is a question of whether such legislation actually has a chance of clearing both the House and Senate and then leaving the president’s desk with his John Hancock. The odds of any bill becoming law are quite slim, as bill tracking site govtrack.us informs us, “Around 10,000 bills and resolutions are considered by the U.S. Congress in each two-year session, but of those only about 4% will become law.” But what about a pro-gun bill becoming law with an anti-gun administration in the oval office?

It’s an interesting question because early on before his Second term in office Obama signed at least two pro-gun bills into law, one removed the ban on carrying firearms in checked baggage while traveling on Amtrak and the other allows concealed carry permit holders to carry into national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone provided there is not state law prohibiting it.

Yet, the landscape is obviously very different now. Following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama has taken a decidedly anti-gun position. The president has repeatedly called for bans on many commonly owned and widely popular firearms as well as magazines that hold over a certain number of rounds. It stands to reason that Obama would certainly veto any pro-gun bill that landed on his desk, especially considering that the Senate rebuffed the gun control agenda he put forth following Sandy Hook.

It would then be incumbent upon the the House and the Senate to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Given that the bill isn’t all that controversial — at least 42 states have a permissive ‘shall-issue’ concealed carry law already on the books and all 50 states have some form of concealed carry issuing standard (the last state to overturn it’s ban on concealed carry was Illinois in 2012) — I believe pro-gun lawmakers could rally some additional support and get that two-thirds majority. But that support wouldn’t come without strings attached and perhaps tossing a bone to anti-gunners.

What would that bone be? If I had to guess I’d venture: universal background checks. That is to say, certain lawmakers wouldn’t agree to support the reciprocity agreement unless the Senate and the House agreed to pass a bill that would require background checks on all private transfers, including those made over the Internet and at gun shows. Depending on how the UBC bill is written, it could be a heavy price to pay — and one that is ultimately not worth it.

When I think about it I’d argue that with or without a federal law granting it, national reciprocity is inevitable. Over the past decade, courts and judges around the nation have increasingly affirmed that the Second Amendment basically means what it says, i.e. we have a right to keep and bear (carry) arms. As more court rulings iterate this very logical and sound way of interpreting the Second Amendment, more states will continue to create reciprocity agreements with one another until virtually every state has an agreement with every other state. Sure, anti-gun Legislatures will fight it tooth and nail in states like New York, New Jersey, California, among others, but eventually their untenable arguments and predictions of a “wild, wild west” fallout will lose footing and reason will prevail.

So, while I support Sen. Cornyn and the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, I also am inclined to say that with the bill or without it, national concealed carry reciprocity is on the horizon. At this point, resistance is futile.

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

{ 58 comments… add one }
  • Dennis November 30, 2016, 3:38 pm

    Numerous points:
    Drivers license..good analogy…..You must pass a test every where that I know of…..You pay a fee for your license and your plates. Most if not all states require insurance. Your insurance cost is based on age, diving record, economic strata, etc.
    If you wish to carry a firearm, you should be insured. The cost of court, lawyers, wrongful death or injury suits is staggering, same as with an auto accident. If you don’t want to take a course to learn the legal / illegal use of the weapon you carry, be prepared for very expensive insurance, as you are a greater risk. I hate the idea of making insurance companies wealthier, but in our litigious society, it is not something you want to be without anymore than health insurance. Self protection is a worthwhile goal, whether from bad guys who wish to harm you or the law which can also harm you if you don’t have the right weapon.

    • Darryl Verser March 4, 2017, 3:30 am

      driving is not a right. protecting yourself with a gun is. there is the difference.

  • B_Cubed November 28, 2016, 11:15 am

    If the issue is background checks, just require the federal background be performed when an application for a concealed carry permit is submitted.
    Also improve the federal background reporting system making mandatory to report all felony convictions and court ruled findings of mental incapacity for the purpose of owning a firearm.

    • MikeWV January 6, 2017, 9:17 pm

      A background check is required in all states issuing a CCP.

    • Abnormal March 24, 2017, 9:48 am

      I live in Texas but originated from NY, embarrassed to say, yet my background check for my LTC went all the way back to NY over 40 years ago for the background search. It was approved and I was permitted by Texas as appropriatel. However, I can drive my car all the way to NY for a visit of family but if I carry my carry gun in any form or method (unloaded, disassembled, and in pieces or all in tact) as soon as I cross the PA/NY border I become an instant felon. There is so much wrong in that. I would go there every year except that slone prevents the trip. There are a lot of places along the way that are just not safe to stop. If an emergency stop is needed then it could be over. That is a long and pretty drive but can also be dangerous too.

  • Jennifer November 25, 2016, 5:20 am

    I am all for any form of legal conceal and carry minus a database or registration with the state. I took more than the min state requirements on training but chose not to pay a fee to obtain a permit. I should not have to pay a fee to exercise my right to self defense. Nor get put on a state list. Missouri passed a bill that does not require a permit for conceal and carry. I love it!!! Everyone has the right to choose their level of knowledge for safety. Ex military or LE trained obviously would have better training but lasttime I checked we lived in America not Iraq and we don’t have a war going on in the homeland so extensive weapons training to the average person is not neccessary and a waste of time and money. I also feel strongly for making alcohol illegal and marijuana legal as alcohol serves no health purpose or quality and I have a feeling most of the rednecks would be carrying their guns into bars. Marijuana doesnt impair your judgement anywhere close to alcohol and in some case increases your concentration. I am NOT condoning being under the influence while handling any sore of tool by the way but can see a drunk pulling a gun long before a stoner would.

    • Jolly Santa High on Life November 28, 2016, 10:00 am

      I agree, if reciprocity is passed, I don’t won’t states sharing lists of CC persons, only the person themselves need supply it if lawfully requested or they feel fear lethal force from law enforcement and good judgment says just show it now and sort out rights infringement or misconduct later.

      I actually agree with you that Alcohol is wasteful and harmful to both consumer and society outside the limited consumption seen in religious observances. An impaired driver is one of the most dangerous individuals in society!

      While we are on the subject, as you mention no medicinal value, actually Ethanol Alcohol is prescribed in Hospitals in certain cases of Methanol Poisoning, and the Hospital Pharmacy would keep a bottle of Whiskey or Vodka for administration of a shot or 2 a day until the Methanol Poisoning is abated. This is the only known medical use of Alcohol prescribed by Physicians as an actual prescription filled by an actual Pharmacist known to this writer.

      While we are banning things, I would like to add Tobacco to this list, clearly it should be outlawed as well. The most recent research published about a month ago is demonstrating that even briefly inhaling second hand tobacco smoke can cause approximately 20 or more mutations per lung cell!!! Additionally it is causing mutations in places unexpected such as the Urethra and Bladder, etc.

      Have you read the law on drug use or addiction prior to purchase of a firearm? They say no way Jose.

      I disagree with the recreational legalization of Cannibus. I do agree that Cannibus has some medicinal use and just as Oxycodone or Cocaine, which are both used under Medical Prescription for Medical Reasons, isn’t legal for RECREATIONAL use with very good reason, and neither should Cannibus.

      A quick reason why is no one will be able to afford decent Car Insurance in matter of a few years in those states. That is just the beginning, and Factories and Industry may leave your State if legal there. Because Risk requires them to assume everyone is impaired.

      FYI, Cocaine is rarely used medically, but has seen use in major nasal or sinus surgeries immediately after surgery only while still in the operating room placed there on a sterile tampon like dressing dipped in sterile water and dosed in Cocaine by the Surgeon’s own hand and placed by that same hand and no other. (I mention this, because I know some people would say medical cocaine? Say what?) In WW1 it was also placed directly into gunshot wounds as local anesthetic.

      If I was a Juror, and learned you used your CHL, CCW under impaired recreational circumstances, just like you accused and maligned people calling them “Red Necks in Bars” I would be more open minded to prosecution or a wrongful death suit against you.

      You can do your own research, but sound research across decades has shown Cannibus impairs people’s judgement and perception centers in their brain, and if you are smoking it you are more than 8 times likely to get Cancer than Tobacco smokers are, and that is actually saying something as Tobacco is possibly the most Carcinogenic consumer substance in the USA.

      But ultimately, and ad a potential Juror there is Reasonable Doubt in my opinion that by nature you are reckless to abuse a substance without Medical Legitimacy and Supervision, and both your Judgement to use lethal force and your perceptions of fear for your life can be clearly brought to greater question.

      We don’t let drunks on the Range, and I sure will quit my business with a Range if I see impaired “Stoners”, as you called them there.

      Stay high on Life and keep Medicine for Medical Reasons. It’s a bright beautiful world to go enjoy, you don’t need to distort your perception of it to do so. And I am quite sure many people prescribed medical prescriptions would happily hand them in to be well or healthy again.

      Some food for thought.

      Merry Christmas.


      • Ed Sjolin March 3, 2017, 7:13 am

        Jolly Santa – While I can find no fault with much of your tender, I DO find fault with your depiction of “cannabus” (sic). In actuality I think you may be referring to cannabis, of which there are several transmutations including “sativa” and “indica”. As to efficacy of cannabis as a medical addendum there are many, including
        1. Pain remediation
        2. Treatment for several epilepsy symptoms
        3. As an appetite stimulant for chemotherapy patients
        4. Stress reduction in certain types mental disease
        As the negative side of the coin vis-a-vis cannabis is concerned, these negatives are minuscule in relation to certain legal S & D’s (stimulants and depressives) currently available to anyone of legal age. In view of this fact, there is no valid reason why the laws against consumption of cannabis are not repealed. It is fatuous and inane to continue to prosecute people for minute amounts of marijuana while allowing previously convicted drnken drivers to purchase alcohol so, please, sit down and shut the hell up about something you are abysmally ignorant of.

        Hoppy Easter,


    • BobsMyName December 24, 2016, 9:02 pm

      Do you smoke the weed Jennifer? Obviously not a scotch lover!
      Do you smoke weed to get high or for the taste? I don’t drink to get messed up… I actually enjoy its taste.

    • George January 7, 2017, 3:34 pm

      You speak as one with great knowledge of dope, pot, or in your case medical marijuana.

    • Aardvark January 23, 2017, 12:04 pm

      Jennifer – Neither drunks or stoners have any business carrying a weapon of any kind while they are impaired. Any recreational drug, including alcohol and pot, cause impairment in judgement. As for your comment on “everyone having the right to choose their level of knowledge for safety”, I do not agree. It is every gun owners responsibility to be professionally trained and educated on the safe use and storage of guns. While I don’t like the government being involved in dictating what training and knowledge you must possess, I also realize that there are many people who will neglect getting any training, and that scares me too. I have seen many training videos of CCW holders chasing robbers from stores, shooting them in the back as they flee and/or shooting toward crowded city streets or parking lots.

      • Vincent August 10, 2017, 9:33 am

        While I totally agree with somethings said here about cannabis I think a bit of critical looking at the facts may be in order:
        1. While I totally agree, after years of being around users of both cannabis and liquor users a person who is drunk is far more likely to do something stupids in the way of causing a fight. In 30 some years I NEVER saw a cannabis user do this but many drunks did. I never saw a women get so stoned she did not know she was sexually attacked but this is such a bad problem with alcohol it is included in the rape laws on most states. A FORMER friend raped at least 5 women this way including my best friend.
        2. This does not mean we should ban alcohol although I do think we should legalize cannabis. Each person is responsible for his or her action.
        3. No person under the influence of either should be carrying firearms.
        4. As for cannabis being more dangerous than tobacco this is very mis leading. Cannabis can be cooked into foods, made into drinks or candy and this problem goes away. Further that study equates equally amounts of cannabis and tobacco. NOBODY takes 2-4 hits off a cigarette or cigar and the puts it aways for 2-3 hours like you do with good cannabis!! Good grief nobody smokes modern cannabis like a cigarette!! You would be fast asleep after you ate your Oreos and milk!

        By way of disclosure I have not used cannabis in many years and I rarely drink. I do not use cannabis due to the likelihood of drug testing and this, the least likely drug to cause trouble, stays in your system 30-45 days while things like heroin of speed are gone in 2-4 days. I rarely use alcohol due to the fact it makes people STUPID and many people violent so I do not like to be around people drinking. I do not want to have to shoot someone simply because they can not hold their alcohol so I stay away from them. Would I use cannabis if I could? Probably yes for both medical and personal reasons but like carrying in certain states that right has been taken from me by lawyers elected to office that have their heads up and locked.

  • Nick November 13, 2016, 6:43 pm

    I remember when I took my CCW in North Carolina, requires you to take a class where you have to shoot at least 50 rounds into a target. It was very obvious that this one older woman had never shot or held a gun before. The first thing she does is draw with finger on the trigger and sweep everyone to her right before putting her gun to the target the first shot was early and hit about 3ft in front of her straight into the ground. Needless to say she was asked to leave and take a basic handgun course. That is why you need live fire classes.

    • Aardvark January 23, 2017, 12:12 pm

      That’s scary. My enhanced CCL classes in Idaho required a one day course on safety and legal issues. Then we had a separate one day course that consisted of about 4 hours of classroom dry fire training with NO ammo allowed in the building. Then we went to the range for another 4 hours of live fire. By that time all the “newbies” were pretty well trained to NOT point their weapon at anyone else, or to not put their finger on the trigger until they were on target and ready to fire. It was very well managed and covered the basics of firearm safety quite well.

  • Andrew March 23, 2015, 10:16 am

    I think this would be a great leap for 2nd amendment rights but my problem is are they going to start to require actual live fire training with each concealed carry class? I live in Utah which at this point does not require any range time in order to get a permit to carry. I used to assist a friend of mine with his CCW classes and I can tell you that some of the people taking those classes I wouldn’t want anywhere near me with a loaded firearms. My friend even offered free live fire training with his classes and I would say maybe 20% of every class actually did it. If this law is passed I believe they need to standardize the CCW course and require the person receiving the permit to show a certain level of proficiency with a firearm on the range and in the class room before they are allowed to carry.

    • GlocksRock May 24, 2016, 12:42 pm

      I agree, Andrew! I have been at indoor shooting ranges where people like those you describe are shooting a lane or two away, and needless to say, I was wishing I was somewhere else! While I am not a fan of anyone regulating my 2A rights. I do believe there has to be a standardized format for receiving a CCW, as well as REASONABLE fees for such a permit. I live in California, so that should show why I say “reasonable”.

      • Jennifer November 25, 2016, 5:28 am

        We should NOT have to pay a fee to be safe. We already pay taxes for police and its obvious response times suck for LE and they cannot be there for everyone in their time of need. I also agree for a class and rangetime but I refuse to pay the state or any state for a right to protect myself. I also dont want to be on some list to be monitored. If the FBI tried tracking my phone it would show me in another country even though I am in the US.

    • James September 16, 2016, 11:36 am

      The only gun control that should supported is that the person in control of the gun should know how to control it. If you can not safely handle a gun and can not hit what you aim at then you don’t need to carry it. Of course you should have the right to learn to achieve these two goals.

    • Michael Curry Jr January 6, 2017, 7:21 am

      You are definitely right, no one should be able to get a ccw permit without a live fire class being part of the requirements. Anyone can sit through a class and then take a multiple choice test afterwards, but that doesn’t mean that they could hit a building right in front of them. Everyone needs some shooting practice. I didn’t think that I would agree with any of Illinois’ laws, but they make it part of the ccw class, you have to take 30 shots from 3 different distances, and you have to score a certain percentage between your 30 shots to even get your certificate to pass the class. EVERYONE should have to do some live fire time to safely get your ccw permit. People want their permit to help stay safe, but who’s safe around anyone that has a permit but hasn’t ever shot a firearm

  • Eric Bradley March 9, 2015, 6:05 pm

    The solution is simple…Constitutional carry.

    We The People must present a united front and force the upholding of the United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights on which this country was founded. Any politician who tramples these rights should be immediately removed from office and charged with treason.

    Just like in the case of Shaneen Allen, unconstitutional laws should be challenged on every front. And in the examples of the New York Safe Act and Washington State I-594, citizens as a whole need to shout loud and clear “WE WILL NOT COMPLY!” and law enforcement officers need to stand up in resolve that they WILL NOT ENFORCE unconstitutional laws that prevent the basic human right to self defense. It is a proven fact that criminals do not follow gun laws. It is also a proven fact that violent crime levels have dropped in every state that has adopted concealed carry. The predictions of “blood running in the streets” by anti gun blowhards have not come to pass. It is far past time to allow ALL law abiding citizens to level the field in the basic human right of self protection regardless of what state that they live in.

  • Joe McHugh February 26, 2015, 8:48 pm

    Hey S.H. Blannelberry, why would a universal background check for gun buyers be a heavy price to pay? Are you really saying that a violent felon or an adjudged dangerous psychotic should be able to purchase a firearm without being subjected to a background check?

    Let me help you out here, even the National Rifle Association, (NRA), would applaud a universal background check regulation for licensed gun dealers. Such a bill could sail through the Congress with no objections. However, there would be one caveat.
    The universal background check bill would be limited to being a background check, only. No language about recording or reporting of the firearm details, like the serial number, could appear in the background check bill.

    Why would anyone want information about a firearm that a competent, law-abiding adult citizen wants to buy at a gun dealer store? What possible interest would the government have in such information? There is only one reason that any government would want to know who owns what gun. Gun registration is needed by an authoritarian government to confiscate guns any time it might wish to do so.

    The requirement to record information about the firearm being purchased is the single reason that law-abiding Americans oppose background checks to buy a firearm. If the potential buyer is a righteous citizen, why should he or she allow the recording of the details about the gun being purchased? This is not a facetious question. However, no Democrat has been able to answer it without looking like a supporter of tyranny. But then, the Democrat elite and tyrannical oppressors are becoming indistinguishable.

    Reasonable Democrat sponsored background check laws? What a laugh!

    • Jennifer November 25, 2016, 5:34 am

      The background checks now are even more than they should be. I had to take a 2nd background check for my promotion into management at work. Im also transgender and changing my name legally soon along with license social security card etc etc I can only imagine the headaches I will get trying to get a firearm under my new identity. LGBTQ are slowly turning more progun and regardless how you feel about us as people we are a more targeted group than others. Proof was Orlando. I refuse to become a victim of violence!

  • gunsmith357 February 25, 2015, 2:44 pm

    as a new york resident we have the safe act if you think it can’t get worse your wrong and if you think this will correct itself over time ,not in my life time. you need to force compliance on states like ny,nj,ca , etc.an example is that i recently aquired a ne w rifle in 270wsm. i’ve looked for ammo in every gun shope/sporting goods store in a 65 mile radious to no avail. i can find it on line but due to the safe act we can no longer receive ammo through the mail. think your frustrated how would you like to have a new gun you can;t shoot? federal resiprocity M U S T be forced on states like ny or it won’t happen. ny does N O T reconize the U S CONSTITUTION.

    • GlocksRock May 24, 2016, 12:46 pm

      Have a friend/relative in another state or region send you some.

    • James September 16, 2016, 11:50 am

      My friend, Come to WV for a visit. Buy all the ammo you can carry, Don’t go home and tell everyone you bought 2000 rounds. Enjoy target shooting and hunting with your 270 WSM. Better yet visit and fall in love with WILD WONDERFUL WEST VIRGINIA and call it home. We could use some more like minded people here too.

    • Jennifer November 25, 2016, 5:36 am

      From my understanding its NYC thats preventing this and not NY as a state? As the concentration of people are in NYC? I may be wrong on that

      • Manshooter November 28, 2016, 9:37 am

        Yes sir, you are wrong. It is ALL of NY State, not just NYC.

        • Charles Dietz December 25, 2016, 11:17 am

          I think what he’s referring to is the fact that rural upstate NY is vastly outnumbered as far as voting goes. Out of the millions of people living in the city there are only around 400,00 registered as Republican. In this last election over 90% of the states counties voted republican, yet all 29 electoral college votes were awarded to Hillary hours before the other counties had even reported in. The same goes when gun legislation is presented. We are so vastly outnumbered by the cities that rural upstates voice is quickly silenced. When all of our major cities in NY are Democrat strongholds we are presented with an insurmountable hurdle when it comes to legislation.

  • BRASS February 23, 2015, 1:24 pm

    That future may come or may not. If it comes it might be within the next ten years and it might not. Waiting for reciprocity, in my mind, likely past my life, is a high price to pay for…. not needed. If the trend is pro-gun and that eventuality is as the author says, inevitable, I would say pass reciprocity now and rectify any shortcomings as needed, after it passes.
    If you are never as crossed swords with the long arm of the law over a concealed carry issue, if you never really need to carry in states not covered under you home state CC permit and if no ones life or welfare is on the line, waiting is easy.

  • Desert Rat February 23, 2015, 12:53 pm

    If the NRA would get off its butt and sue some of the more restrictive states on this issue, we would not need to wait for a new federal law. For years the Interstate Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution has been used successfully to strike down state laws that interfered with one’s right to freely travel across state borders…mainly in cases where one state’s restrictions made it unnecessarily difficult to cross into it from neighboring states. The right to travel state-to-state while carrying a firearm in your vehicle for self defense needs to be protected using a Commerce Clause suit, especially with the huge number of Baby Boomers retired and on the road.

  • Hoofhearted February 23, 2015, 12:47 pm

    See Constitution of the United States, Article IV., Section 1. The Full Faith and Credit clause. Enough said.

  • steve hammill February 23, 2015, 12:42 pm

    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    Cancelled a non-essential trip to NYC over Christmas because I could not even keep my firearm in my hotel room. If they don’t respect my freedom, they don’t get my money.

    While I do not believe a public, commercial enterprise can block my 2nd amendment rights with a sign, I respect the rights of the business to run the way that it wants to run. They just don’t get my money.

    Never been to Mall of America and my wife never will either now that I know they have a no guns sign at the door.

  • steve hammill February 23, 2015, 12:42 pm

    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    Cancelled a non-essential trip to NYC over Christmas because I could not even keep my firearm in my hotel room. If they don’t respect my freedom, they don’t get my money.

    While I do not believe a public, commercial enterprise can block my 2nd amendment rights with a sign, I respect the rights of the business to run the way that it wants to run. They just don’t get my money.

    Never been to Mall of America and my wife never will either now that I know they have a no guns sign at the door.

  • lah053 February 23, 2015, 11:32 am

    A 50 state wide coverage is indeed necessary. Each anti-gun state has placed little rules in very little print in their rules an laws covering concealed carry. Who knew that MA has a ridiculously high fee for outsiders for concealed carry. Same with NJ another anti-gun state. As long as there is no uniform federal law covering concealed carry you will continually run the risk of violating a state law as in New York King of the anti-gun states.

  • Jeffrey L. Frischkorn February 23, 2015, 9:25 am

    Here is why a national concealed carry law will – and maybe, should – never pass… It involves the differing qualifications to obtain a permit, even in “shall issue” states.. Here in my home state of Ohio a person desiring to obtain a concealed carry permit must attend a class of several hours and then show proficiency on the range to the satisfaction of the instructor (who also had to meet certain criteria).. In the class I took at least one of the older gentlemen failed badly in this regard… While could have hit the broadside of a barn at seven yards it was doubtful his bullet holes would have grouped very well.. Students then must submit to a background check… A look each quarter at the county-by-county concealed carry permit applications approve shows a lot of folks are interested in obtaining the documents… Yet the data also shows that any number of people have had their permits revoke, almost certainly for violating the law, and we’re not talking about a speeding ticket, either.. So this begs the question: Why should Ohio – or any other state with a list of concealed carry requirements and some of which are even more strict that those in Ohio – allow someone who never took a class, has never had to prove he or she can handle and shoot a firearm even reasonably well, or even provided assurances he or she is legally allowed to possess a weapon – to waltz into or through the state? Don’t get me wrong. Concealed carry is a good thing. A very good thing.. I do it every day.. But to water down a state’s right to manage and regulate who can carry concealed so that anyone, from anywhere and either issued a permit with no questions ask, sorry, but this is where I part company with the NRA. An organization which, by the way, both my wife and I are members.

    • Richard February 23, 2015, 2:55 pm

      Currently, every person that has a CCW permit from any state has gone through a background check. This should make a
      CCW permit one of the best ID’s possible. The different levels of training required by states to get a CCW permit are not constitutional in my opinion. Constitutional carry is the best way to go because it’s against the law everywhere for prohibited person from possessing a firearm or for anyone providing a prohibited person a firearm so just bust the violators when caught and stop wasting time harassing the vast majority of law-abiding citizens.

  • MarkPA February 22, 2015, 9:45 pm

    We need to get National Reciprocity to a floor vote in each chamber in 2015. We need to get every Senator and Representative on-the-record as to whether he supports us or not. Obama won’t sign the measure unless it’s attached to a MUST-pass bill; and, that’s always a possibility.
    But suppose, for the moment, that it’s a stand-alone bill and Obama vetoes it. Now, it’s REALLY important to get an over-ride vote to each floor in 2015. It is this vote that will really count. The best RINOs and Blue-Dogs money can buy won’t be there for us; they won’t over-ride Obama’s veto. These are the guys who have to be primaried before the 2016 election.
    Our legislators are playing with us. They are free to vote with us in the House when they know the Senate won’t pass the bill (and vice-versa). They are free to vote now in both chambers when they know Obama won’t sign the bill. Assuming the Republicans take the White House and both chambers in 2016 do you think we will get a majority in both chambers for National Reciprocity? You can be sure that any such bill will fail by just one or two votes. Then, we will be asked to wait patiently for 2 more years. And, 2 years after that.

  • Mark N. February 19, 2015, 2:01 am

    A reciprocity bill is indeed necessary. California grants reciprocity to no other state, and is, with a large Democrat majority in both houses and the real possibility that the next 12 years will feature democratic party governors, unlikely to change that any time in the foreseeable future. A judge in NY just ruled that people who have managed to get a NYC home ownership permit may only take their firearms to ranges authorized by the City and within city limits. NYC does not have reciprocity with anyone, including the rest of the state of NY, and it and NJ love to ignore FOPA, charging people passing through with illegal possession of firearms despite the immunity. Washington State, with a population majority in Seattle, is starting to dictate anti-gun policy in a state that was historically friendly to guns and gun ownership. Having a CCW that is just as valid nationwide as a driver’s license is a HUGE benefit.

    • Jim Howerton February 23, 2015, 11:18 am

      I agree with you, Mark. I was born in Spokane in 1958 and my dad was a huge elk hunter, along with deer and smaller game. Washington no longer resembles the State that I was born in, being so far left it’s ridiculous. If a law-abiding citizen doesn’t need the ability to conceal-carry in a place like NYC, then where do we need it? Criminals in that city are well armed and a law making their being armed a felony is the definition of stupidity. It’s just made regular taxpayers fair game for the criminal element. At least here in Michigan I’m able to conceal-carry at almost all times.

  • Ron February 18, 2015, 11:38 pm

    In 2 years I suspect that there will be a new and more conservative administration living in the White House, and that conservatives will retain control of both houses of congress. That would be the best time for such legislation to come to a vote. I also am a former federal LEO and enjoy the freedom to carry in all jurisdictions, but I remember when that was not so and I had to research each and every state I planned to travel through for their specific requirements or bans. Not an enjoyable experience at all. I’d love to see national reciprocity become a reality, but timing is everything.

  • teebonicus February 18, 2015, 7:32 pm

    Disagree. Article IV reciprocity IS needed, so that states like NY, NJ, MD, CA, etc. etc. etc. can’t stop me from carrying my FL licensed handgun there.

    Is it a perfect answer? No.

    Does it get 80% there?


    • DaveGinOly February 23, 2015, 10:23 pm

      You invoked Article IV. I presume you believe what I believe – that Art. IV requires States to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other States (on the same principle that they recognize each other’s marriage and driver licenses – hell they even recognize marriage licenses issued by foreign countries). So why not just use Art. IV to enforce concealed carry reciprocity by challenging the states that don’t comply withe the article’s requirements? No legislation is needed to do this.

      On a similar note, SCOTUS has said that a person cannot be required to give up one right in order to exercise another. If you legally own a firearm in your home state, you should be able to travel with impunity to or through any other state with that firearm. How is it that States (like NJ, NY, CA, etc.) can require property owners (firearms are property) to give up their right to the property (not being able to carry it is a loss of the property’s use and enjoyment) in order to exercise their right to travel from one State to another? Such policies are clearly maintained in defiance of a very simple constitutional principle already declared by SCOTUS.

      There are plenty of sound constitutional principles, already declared by SCOTUS, that can be applied to firearms rights. Why aren’t we doing so? If the courts applied these principles honestly to firearms and firearms rights, as they have to other property and natural rights, many of the problems facing us would disappear in short order, and the corrections would be relatively immune from legislation for having been settled on principles that are difficult to deny without putting other rights at risk (rights that more people are concerned about).

  • teebonicus February 18, 2015, 5:26 pm

    Whether or not this bill would get Obama’s signature has nothing to do with whether or not it’s necessary.

    It unarguably IS necessary. I should be able to go to Manhattan and carry concealed, whether Manhattan likes it or not.

    THAT is the overarching priority.

  • USMC69 February 18, 2015, 3:51 pm

    What does Universal Background Checks have to do with concealed carry reciprocity? This is the real problem. Tying all these little amendments to a non-related bill. Better yet, just pass a law reinstating our 2A rights. The point of having a Federal Government was to insure its citizens of several things – one of which includes the right to not go from being a law abiding citizen to a felon just because you entered another State.

    • teebonicus February 18, 2015, 5:29 pm

      Re: Just pass a bill that reinstates our 2A rights.

      That’s essentially what this bill would do. It would take the restrictions of NY, NJ, MD, CT, MA, HI etc. etc. etc. completely out of the equation for people who held permits.

      If you don’t think that would be a GIANT step forward, you’re nuts.

      • WILLIAM WYATT February 23, 2015, 10:01 am

        The big problem will be states like California that have outlawed so many different guns that you are illegal with 90% of concealed carry guns anyway–they need to fix that system of taking away every kind of gun there is.

        • haroldtx February 23, 2015, 1:28 pm

          One of the problems are inconsistent penalties for committing a crime with a firearm. All States should have minimum penalty with unlawful use of a firearm at hard labor. Non citizens who are charged with a firearm violation should get deported. The USA should only issues tickets and fines (their picture and fingerprint taken) for first time Pot users with small amounts of Pot or any other drugs. There should NOT BE a crime for having a Pot pipe or other drug equipment, it should just be taken away by the police. States should come down hard on illegal gun sellings. Any Felons caught with a firearm in a vehicle, the vehicle should be confiscated.

          • Larry February 24, 2015, 3:11 pm

            So what you are telling me is that since I accidentally committed a “felony” 49 years ago my vehicle should be confiscated if I were to be found with any kind of firearm in my vehicle? Are you kidding me? Screw you and all of those who think a “felon” is some really bad person who commits crimes all the time. You obviously have no idea of what constitutes a felony in amurica! (properly misspelled) I entered a “closed place of business during hours of darkness” what that charge DOESN’T reveal is that I went inside to see if someone may have been incapacitated due to the door standing WIDE OPEN. I was only 19 at the time and stupidly thought that helping someone in distress was a good thing. Obviously not in the Communist States of Amurica!!

          • Skip June 15, 2015, 7:52 am

            @Larry… RIGHT! You accidentally committed a felony. How stupid do you think we are? And “yes” you should be considered a convicted felon for the rest of your life and lose any privileges that goes with that. Your stupidity is not our fault… man up to the fact that you made the “mistake”… you were convicted after all the evidence was in.

    • Walt February 23, 2015, 8:16 am

      What it has to do with reciprocity is nothing. However, politicians want to get something for their supporters and causes in return for their votes. Why do you think Obama signed the national parks bill? It was attached to something he wanted. No one should ever see what goes into making a hot dog or a law.

  • Gary L Griffiths February 18, 2015, 1:37 pm

    So a law mandating national reciprocity isn’t necessary, regardless of the recent travesties when out-of-state gun owners have been hassled or arrested by law enforcement officials, because the writer is afraid that someone will sneak in universal background checks? If such an amendment were to be offered as a “poison pill” to the bill, I seriously doubt it would be approved in the current Congress. As a retired Federal LEO, I enjoy concealed carry rights nationwide. It’s well past time that those responsible enough to go through their state permitting processes should also have that right.

    • David J. Remick February 18, 2015, 5:37 pm

      Well said Chief, well said!! I am living 2 miles from the border of another state. If I make a wrong turn I am in that state and illegally carrying unless I fork over another $75 for an out-of-state concealed carry permit. Ridiculous!!

      • MarkPA February 22, 2015, 9:33 pm

        You are so lucky!
        I live 2 miles from NJ and I couldn’t get a NJ permit while still alive.
        A RI resident had a MA non-resident permit application on his desk for a year. One evening he rushed off to help a friend in need in MA and neglected to dis-arm. The good news is that he stopped is attacker and was acquitted. The bad news is he wound up in a MA prison for not paying the $100/yr for the right to carry in that State.

      • MarkPA February 22, 2015, 9:35 pm

        You are so lucky!
        I live 2 miles from NJ and I couldn’t get a NJ permit while still alive.
        A RI resident had a MA non-resident permit application on his desk for a year. One evening he rushed off to help a friend in need in MA and neglected to dis-arm. The good news is that he stopped is attacker and was acquitted. The bad news is he wound up in a MA prison for not paying the $100/yr for the right to carry in that State.

      • freedom February 23, 2015, 11:16 am

        We all ready got a permit its called the constitution when people realize that our country will be better off

        • mtman2 February 23, 2015, 9:16 pm

          This IS exactly the right answer ~!!!
          For all of the so called public employee-vermin trying to strip Americans of their God given right to bear arms
          = SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED = means exactly what OUR Founders said in as clearly and simply as possible.
          Criminals will never respect laws of any stripe period. These so called un-Constitutional and anti-Bill of Rights laws are an attack on the American-citizen and do absolutely nothing to stop criminals but strips honest folks of rightful selfdefense, from criminals both on the street and in public office ~!

      • freedom February 23, 2015, 11:16 am

        We all ready got a permit its called the constitution when people realize that our country will be better off

    • LAH053 June 15, 2015, 12:50 pm

      I agree with you as a medically retired LEO I cannot conceal carry into Illinois or MN with my Wisconsin Concealed Carry License as my department does not afford us the luxury of a retired LEO I.D. As you know a EO cannot carry concealed without it. In Wisconsin we must purchase our states’ Concealed Carry License but we DO NOT ENJOY any special status even though I am retired primarily due to 2 Line of Duty Injuries. I have contacted my legislators and even the Governor’s Office without response (go figure). It puzzles me as the unions here do not initiate the proposal to the state nor will a politician make any kind of effort. I also requested that a special code be added o the drivers’ License information so that any officer nationwide will know that the person he/she has stopped may be carrying concealed. In turn I also requested a code that also identifies all other concealed permit holders who are not active or retired LEO’s. I mistakenly believed this was common sense approach to Officer Safety Nationwide, but apparently I am sorely mistaken.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend