House to Vote on National Gun-Carry Reciprocity, Background Check Fix Bill this Week

We definitely need to be looking at our tactics. We’ve been winning the political struggle more or less, but it’s the cultural war that is most important. Just 30 years ago, half the country was in favor of an outright ban of handguns, it was illegal to carry a pistol outside the home in half of the country, even in Texas, a conservative Republican president signed a machine gun ban, and we still had the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban in our future.

Now, concealed carry is legal in some way in every state in the union (with a growing number of states going to permitless carry), and the assault weapons ban is a dead issue nationally. Some of that is successful electoral politics, but some of that is also because the younger generation (I hate the term “Millennial”) is actually more comfortable with concealed carry and less supportive of assault weapons bans than older generations. After all, when I was a kid, only criminals carried concealed pistols and I don’t think I knew anyone who owned an AR-15 (or any semit-auto rifle other than a Ruger 10/22), but the younger generation has grown up around legal concealed carry without incident.

However, while there are more privately-owned guns than there used to be, and ownership of ARs and other scary-looking “assault weapons” has become fairly mainstream, the percentage of Americans who own guns is actually in decline. That is a trend that needs to be reversed if our rights are going to be secure.

Our rights won’t be safe until private ownership and carrying of guns is viewed as unremarkable. Bascially, we can’t breathe easy until the day a citizen can walk through Times Square openly carrying without a second look. We certainly can’t breathe easy when two thirds of Americans don’t have so much as a .22 in their homes.

OK, reading the text of the bill, it says :

“...subject only to the requirements
of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting,
shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document
containing a photograph of the person, and, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than
a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate
or foreign commerce, in any State that—
‘‘(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license
or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or
‘‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the
State for lawful purposes.”

That looks like the phrase “ 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 or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State
in which the person resides” means that a CCW from *ANY* state is valid in all REGARDLESS of if the preson is a RESIDENT of the state that issued...

Does anybody else read this the same way?

A conservative in occupied California (who has no option of going anywhere for the next couple of decades)..

Thanks

That looks like the phrase “ 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 or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides” means that a CCW from *ANY* state is valid in all REGARDLESS of if the preson is a RESIDENT of the state that issued...
Does anybody else read this the same way?

I'm no legal expert but it does appear to be that if you have a CCW from "any" state, ALL states need to recognize it.

SCOTUS' gay marriage ruling would make me think that if passed, this reciprocity bill already passes Constitutional muster for all-states recognition.

I am a lawyer, and, now that I read it again, I think you are right. The first time I read this language:

who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, 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 or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,

On first reading, I thought it meant that you are protected if you have a CC license from any state IF that license allows you to carry in your state of residence. I.e., a Virginia non-resident permit is good in any state if and only if your state of residence recognizes it.

However, reading it again, I think you are right and I was just reading in some commas that weren't there. if you have a permit issued by any state, then by this language, it should be good in any state. If you live in Vermont or another state that allows permitless carry, then you just need your driver's license.

If this passes the Senate as is, there might be some court wrangling over this language. It could have been written a bit more clearly.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.