[RedStateRocker]

You are probably right, *BUT*- parsing the language:

(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm;

-— California does; it’s hard to get without being connected, but it *IS* possible

or
‘‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the
State for lawful purposes.”

So California *DOES* have a statue, and the wording uses *A* state:

and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of *a* State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm...

I mean you are probably right, but the wording says that IF your state and any statue that permits carrying AND you have a valid license from “a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm “..

I am hoping that the NRA hired lawyers smart enough to word it precisely in this way, to throw a lifeline to us ‘behind enemy lines.

[SkyPilot]

Good analysis. I think the NRA does have brilliant lawyers and I hope they had input into the bill’s language. I think the problem is that weak Republicans are claiming that this bill won’t “override” a state’s “own laws” - so they know it is watered down. They only seem to want protection for people who have valid concealed carry permits in states that actually issued them to citizens who are traveling into states like New York, California, New Jersey and that they could get in trouble with the law y having their guns on them. Residents of the states that violate the 2nd Amendment are left to twist in the wind.