National Concealed Carry Bill

[xsubsailor]

 

A Republican congressman is prepared to introduce national concealed carry legislation in the next Congress after Donald Trump is sworn in as president.

North Carolina Republican Rep. Richard Hudson introduced a similar bill in February 2015, H.R. 986.

Now known as the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, the bill, which The Daily Caller obtained exclusively, would allow a person with a concealed carry license from one state to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that permits its resident to concealed carry, as long as the person is not banned from possessing or transporting a firearm under federal law. The bill excludes carrying “a machine gun or destructive device,” and the person must follow “the restrictions of that state.”

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/05/gop-congressman-preps-national-concealed-carry-bill-for-next-congress/

[btq96r]

48 minutes ago, xsubsailor said:

” and the person must follow “the restrictions of that state.”

This is the smart part, and honestly as good as we could expect all things considered.  People need to be smart out this.  So, it's not like I could just visit my cousin in Connecticut with my VP9 and 15-rd magazines, I'd have to find some 10-rd ones. 

All 50 states have some kind of laws governing carry, so the info is there...but getting the right info will be key.  State Troopers won't care if you didn't do the time to research, they'll treat it as they see it.

[Oh Shoot]

50 minutes ago, btq96r said:

This is the smart part, and honestly as good as we could expect all things considered.  People need to be smart out this.  So, it's not like I could just visit my cousin in Connecticut with my VP9 and 15-rd magazines, I'd have to find some 10-rd ones. 

All 50 states have some kind of laws governing carry, so the info is there...but getting the right info will be key.  State Troopers won't care if you didn't do the time to research, they'll treat it as they see it.

If passed, after the lawsuits start, seems would be a hard sell constitutionally, that on one hand the states can still enforce state carry restrictions , but can't enforce state reciprocity restriction itself.

- OS

Edited December 5, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[Garufa]

National Reciprocity will lead to National Regulations, then of course, National Restrictions.

No.

[f308gtb]

As much as I like the idea of universal carry, what the bill does is make the FedGov even more into the omnipotent god of the states. The Feds need less power over the states, not more.

I think it's also unconstitutional, but that's a long 14th Amendment debate right there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[300winmag]

I'm going to guess that if LEOSA is constitutional, then a national reciprocity law would be constitutional also.  FOPA for interstate travelers transporting firearms in trunks has not been challenged on a constitutional basis.

States rights have been thrown out the window on many issues.

[f308gtb]

I'm going to guess that if LEOSA is constitutional, then a national reciprocity law would be constitutional also.  FOPA for interstate travelers transporting firearms in trunks has not been challenged on a constitutional basis.
States rights have been thrown out the window on many issues.

Yes they have.

My folks live in Jersey, and I'd like to carry there. But I don't want the Leviathan to solve that problem with an iron fist. Today they dictate NJ has to accept packing TN residents, tomorrow that same principle is used to force TN to accept "married"... oh wait...

Yeah, the horses already left the barn.

But my point is that it's power they were never given, regardless of what we think of the individual uses of that power. We tend not to mind Federal overreach when it suits us, but if we value freedom, less government is always better (up to and including zero).

"The government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."



(But... I'll probably still carry in Jersey if it goes through.)

[Oh Shoot]

53 minutes ago, f308gtb said:

(But... I'll probably still carry in Jersey if it goes through.)

So few permits are actually issued there, Jersey and a few other states might just end their permit systems completely rather than allow us southern crackers to carry there.

- OS

[btq96r]

8 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

So few permits are actually issued there, Jersey and a few other states might just end their permit systems completely rather than allow us southern crackers to carry there.

- OS

Doubt it.  Those cases that led to Illinois being forced to set up a system pretty much closed the door on states outright prohibiting some form of carry.  The process may be as painful as they can make it, but they have to have something.   Since Heller recognized the individual right to carry, and McDonald incorporated it to the states, there is very little ground for even a state like Illinois to stand on.

[Oh Shoot]

5 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Doubt it.  Those cases that led to Illinois being forced to set up a system pretty much closed the door on states outright prohibiting some form of carry.  The process may be as painful as they can make it, but they have to have something.   Since Heller recognized the individual right to carry, and McDonald incorporated it to the states, there is very little ground for even a state like Illinois to stand on.

That case only is binding for IL, wasn't appealed to SCOTUS, or they denied hearing, I forget, but results certainly not incorporated for all the states, like McDonald.

Point is, states so far have the option to do whatever they like regarding weapon carrry, hence why there are still eight that are "may issue".

Jersey and Hawaii are essentially "no issue" now.

- OS

Edited December 6, 2016 by Oh Shoot