House passes concealed-carry reciprocity


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The House has passed the gun concealed-carry reciprocity bill that had been approved by its Judiciary committee last week.

The bill’s fate now rests with the Senate and its mix of leftist Democrats and weak-kneed Republicans.

Share

23 comments

  • Cotour

    It needs 60 votes in the Senate to move on.

    The Conservatives / RINO’s in the Congress have knelt at the alter of the NRA.

    Enough said.

  • Cotour

    Here is some more Congressional symbolism.

    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-vote-democrats-president-740453?yptr=yahoo

    Pure politics and pandering to their base.

  • Nick

    “The Conservatives / RINO’s in the Congress have knelt at the alter of the NRA.

    Enough said.”

    No, not really. Blue states like California trMp on this fundamental right. It’s not kneeling before the NRA to recognize that.

    There have been many people who have died because they couldn’t get a gun, many who have saved their own or others lives when they had it.

    And many who have been caught by blue state “Statist” police when their only crime might have been having a permit and gun, while traveling through a state that makes it a felony just to have one there. People who have been good law abiding folks ruined in the alter of gun hate.

    So, no, not enough said.

  • Cotour

    Nick:

    Its just my analysis.

    This nation wide, 50 state, reciprocity related to licensed concealed carry guns is much too complex and politically explosive (no pun intended). There is reciprocity related to shipping wine (But not hard alcohol) between states and that took years to nail down and not all states participate, and that is not really that controversial.

    Reciprocity related to concealed hand guns between states is another story all together IMO. States rights and states politics will out weigh any symbolism that the Congress or Senate are willing to dabble in.

    How close do you think the criteria in getting a concealed carry license in Houston, Texas and New York, New York is? Do we really think that some agreed upon metric might be agreed upon to where reciprocity would take place? There are currently state laws regarding concealed carry and then there are local city laws regarding concealed carry. The potential complexity is mind boggling.

    It might be a good idea or it might be a bad idea, but answering that question and turning it into agreed upon law is something else, and its going to be decided within states from where I sit.

  • wodun

    Do we really think that some agreed upon metric might be agreed upon to where reciprocity would take place?

    That is the danger because Democrats would certainly abuse this to make concealed carry come with significant regulatory punishment.

  • Robin Fox

    I am a New Jersey resident and this law would do nothing to allow me to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the US beyond what is currently allowed. However, my friend who lives in Texas, would legally be able to carry his concealed weapon in NJ when he comes to visit me.

  • Nick

    Robin. Untrue. The law as I last saw it allowed you to get a ccw in another state. It would basically allow nationwide carry. Whether that is the current version I do not know.

  • Nick: I do not think you are correct. I think the law as designed is to allow those who have a concealed carry permit in their home state to be able to travel without risk of arrest should they enter a state that does not allow concealed carry. In other words, if you live in New York and cannot get a concealed carry permit, this law will do you no good. However, if you live in Arizona, have a legal permit, and travel to New York, New York cannot arrest you for this.

    I might be wrong, of course. This bill is in the hands of Congress, and they change things continually, but as the law was proposed this was how it was supposed to work.

  • Rob M

    Criminals do not care about the current illegality of crossing state lines with weapons, so this only allows for law abiding citizens and legal residents to exercise their natural right of self-defense.
    Ironically, it was the decision on marriage so celebrated by the left that set the precedent of forcing all states to recognize a license issued by a single state. This single state standard, if continuously upheld, will eventually be applied to virtually every field and profession. It will surely cause alot of wailing, quiet a few problems, a boom of small business creation, and a draining of blue state’s near empty coffers.

  • BSJ

    I heard on the radio this morning that with States that don’t require a permit, like VT, I would be able to carry in other States without a permit as well.

    I haven’t seen that spelled out in the bill yet…

  • Jhon

    BSJ Look at Bob’s previous post on this and you will see that addressed.

    Robin, Maybe you apply to Florida and get an out of state permit.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfcT9KM7mqk

  • wayne

    I would put forth the proposition;

    I tend to think we are somewhat co-mingling apples & oranges in this back-n-forth, but I’m not awake enough to explain it clearly.

    Rob M– you bring up some interesting points.
    I have a State issued license (Michigan) for my Profession, but it’s only ‘valid’ in about 27 other States. If I travel to any of the other 23 States, I can’t legally practice my trade.

  • Robin Fox

    Jhon, even if I obtained a FL permit, I would still not be able to carry in my home state of NJ. In order to get a concealed carry permit in NJ, you have to get a judge to sign off on it. I am not rich enough to afford to buy a judge nor am I well-connected enough to have one in my hip pocket. This is just how things are done here.

  • Cotour

    I think the chaotic and confusing nature of this conversation regarding this subject says it all. This is going to remain in the control of states one way or another.

  • Cotour

    Reciprocity: “the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one country or organization to another.”

    This word “Reciprocity” seems to have two actual meanings in this concealed carry issue context. The definition of reciprocity has a general meaning of mutual benefit between party’s, and the word reciprocity as I believe it would in fact be applied in this CC instance would require a formal agreed upon reciprocity recognition individually between states as it is with the shipping of wine between states. And then we must ask, what about the many different laws duly passed in the individual cities?

    The potential complexities are enormous to say nothing of attempting to secure agreements among 50 state klegislatures on the transportation and use of firearms across state lines. My head spins.

  • wayne

    Cotour–

    -This is no more a “complex” idea, than me driving my car to NY State; my drivers license is valid across State lines, as is the license for my car, and my car-insurance.
    (The presupposition, should-be, for less regulation, not endless interventionism.)

    -Without seeing the actual text of the Law, we are all speculating to some degree.
    There is an article in the WSJ today that does state; the reciprocity provision is attached to a requirement that States supply more detailed & expanded “gun” registration information, to the national database.
    It’s hard to tell if this is a net gain or loss overall.
    Probably part Show-Vote, part expanded-control, when all is said and done.

  • Cotour

    Wayne, you keep telling yourself how “simple” all of this “reciprocal” CC is, no biggie.

    This one particular issue might take a second place to abortion between the states, or it may take its #1 spot.

    Yeah, simple.

  • Tom Billings

    Cotour said: “This one particular issue might take a second place to abortion between the states, or it may take its #1 spot. ”

    As it should be at the #1 spot!

    This is only one of many steps in getting back through the fears of elites to real simplicity.

    The Second Amendment is simple in its statement…”shall not be infringed” ….

    Fear of gun owners *not* connected to elites is the driving force behind gun laws in every “may issue” State. I see it here in the Portland Metro area at every party this becomes a topic of discussion within. First they came for freed black gun owners. Then they came for non-WASP immigrant gun owners, then they came…… The key is to generate dependence on the police, who are controlled by each State’s elites.

    Until we are back to every State abiding by …”shall not be infringed”… we will be fighting this. We will be fighting the oligarchs who would set themselves over us by a combination of restriction and dependence. Even if this passes in acceptable form, it is only another step back to…”shall not be infringed”…

  • Cotour

    Yes, the Second Amendment is simple in its expression, but complex in its application. You bring out my primary point, complexity. Whether by design or not.

    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.”

    You emphasize and isolate the term “Shall not be infringed”, but what of the references to a militia and the state? A militia is specific to a state and not the Federal government. Why would a Federal law over ride a states right to regulate what is plainly identified as something being a function of a state?

  • Cotour

    Where this CC issue will go from an activist states point of view.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/07/menendez-throw-ccw-permit-holders-into-prison-for-a-long-time-if-they-enter-jersey/

    “People violate our law — we are a state that has decided that we are against concealed carry weapons. We have stronger gun laws. We believe we have made the states safer as that,” Menendez told The Daily Caller Thursday. “They violate our laws, then whatever is the law, and they are found guilty of it, they should pay the consequence.”

    He continued, “I find it amazing that Republicans who believe in state rights all of a sudden have a problem observing the state rights of those states that think that stronger gun laws is the way to protect citizens and that’s what I have to say about it.”

  • Cotour

    An interesting development concerning any new gun control legislation, concealed carry reciprocity.

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/jim-jordan-gun-control-concealed-carry-reciprocity/

    I have stated before that I did not think that this bill would ever be passed and / or enacted.

  • Steve Earle

    Wayne said:
    “……This is no more a “complex” idea, than me driving my car to NY State; my drivers license is valid across State lines, as is the license for my car, and my car-insurance.
    (The presupposition, should-be, for less regulation, not endless interventionism.)……”

    Rob M said:
    “…..Ironically, it was the decision on marriage so celebrated by the left that set the precedent of forcing all states to recognize a license issued by a single state. This single state standard, if continuously upheld, will eventually be applied to virtually every field and profession. It will surely cause alot of wailing, quiet a few problems, a boom of small business creation, and a draining of blue state’s near empty coffers…..”

    Both excellent points. It is at heart a simple concept: Your State honors our citizens licenses while they are traveling/visiting in your State, and in return our State will honor your citizens licenses while they are traveling/visiting in our State. If you change residency then you now fall under that States regulations.

    I wish the Right was more vociferous about the point that ALL choices come with consequences. You lefties wanted the SC to make Gay Marriage the Law of the Land? OK, then this is one of the consequences.

    Instead, they allow the Left to separate issues and emotionalize them, thus controlling the narrative….. For instance, every time a liberal cries “If it only saves one childs life!” the response should be to ask about their position on late-term abortion. There are countless examples of this. The R’s are horrible at even clearly stating their views, never mind knowing how to play the game to move their agenda forward…..

  • Cotour

    A friend emails me :

    “you can have a democracy without guns and/or with gun control. But you can not have democracy without free speech. ”

    And

    “There are many, many, too many variables. One constant, is the gun. Which do you think is easier to control?”

    I replied:

    You do not “Control” the gun, the gun means nothing without the “someone” who uses it. Isn’t the one constant the someone? The someone will get what ever they need to do what they desire to do. There are 400 million guns in the country, more guns than people, which is easier to “control”? Control being a relative term, influencing or limiting the behavior of is a more accurate term. And the behavior of guns is not influenced because they are inanimate objects, they are machines. You influence or “control” the actions of people who choose to use them. If there are no obstacles (fear) to potential actions then there is no “control” .

    Agreeing that there are many, many weapons in the country including semi automatic hand guns, which is the most often used and most effective weapon in school shootings, and the AR style of rifle is seldom used.
    If numbers of deaths is the metric to be “influenced” or “controlled” then by that logic trucks should be limited because the most people killed recently was in Niece, France by a religious nut who was driving a truck. I think he ran over and killed about 100 people.

    Andres Brevic who lived in Norway, a very Socialist and unarmed society, killed 72 children on a private island a couple of years ago. Why? because he could, he knew there would be no weapons to oppose him. As far as Democracy goes, you can have a Democracy without the people being armed but then you are left with the government basically owning the people. Do you want to be owned?

    America is unique on the planet and its uniqueness is based in the construct of the Constitution that recognizes that the government is a function of the people and not the other way around. Mr. Obama wants you believe the opposite, all Liberals / leftists sell the concept that the people are a function of the government. The Founders understood that the people must be armed or the government would soon assume a dominant position over the will of the people. Its the nature of power.

    Are firearms dangerous? Not inherently, they are dangerous only in the hands of people who are determined to do harm, or take over, or kill the Jews, or kill the whites, or kill the blacks, or kill the “Irish”, etc, etc. All of the people who will be set upon to be “owned” by the government or killed by someone who does not like how they look or worship, or what school they attend need to be able to arm themselves to counter those actions by bad actors.

    What you propose by having a Democracy without the people being armed is an idealistic thought, but there is no free speech when the government owns the people. So what kind of Democracy do you have then?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *