RKBA Ping List
This list is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
If you would like to be added to or deleted from this Ping List, please FReepmail me.
Linked info at article link.
RKBA Ping List
This list is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
If you would like to be added to or deleted from this Ping List, please FReepmail me.
Did I read that correctly? Cornyn proposed this bill? Mr Uniparty RINO Cornyn?
He must be reading the tea leaves that say this bill will not get to Trump’s desk.
I already have this. National Reciprocity means that it is those states that don't currently allow me to carry to recognize my right to carry. Who is to say that California, New York, and/or all the other leftist states will recognize my CCP as lawful?
The minority demands NOTHING !
Here in Missouri you don’t need a permit to carry.
Wonder how it would work for us?
Be very cautious...the idea is excellent. Congress can screw up a flip flop. Look at the details. Those will be critical. If the bill is longer than a sentence or two it should be a no go
H. R. 38
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017”.
SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) In General.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and 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 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, 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.
“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
“(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.
“(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).
“(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.
“(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.
“(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. “(e) In subsection (a):
“(1) The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.
“(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.
“(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun.
“(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:
“(A) A unit of the National Park System.
“(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
“(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
“(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
“(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.”.
(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
“926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.
(c) Severability.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
They should introduce a separate bill that makes the banning of all “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines as unconstitutional in all 50 states. Then make the Supreme Court vote on it. They have punted for far too long on the second amendment.
They can’t filibuster this according to current congressional rules right? I thought the only thing they could filibuster was Supreme Court nominations.
Wait. Wouldn’t such a federal law be anti-10th Amendment and state sovereignty? Wouldn’t this be an example of the “central planning” that we don’t like? Confused here.
This is a great bill. It got 57 votes in 2013. It should have a minimum of 58 votes this year. Trump/Pence/Cornyn only need to pick up two more votes to hit 60 to get it past a fillibuster.
The are four Democrat Senators that voted against it in 2013 coming up for election in 2018, that are running in states that Trump won in 2016. They are:
Bill Nelson, Florida Over - 1,400,000 permits
Claire McCaskill, Missouri - Over 171,000 permits
Sherrod Brown, Ohio Over - 574,000 permits
Bob Casey, Pennsylvania Over - 1,000,000 permits
All of those permit holders are voters.
Not terribly excited about this bill, in part because it incorporates the commerce clause as a basis. The several States have their own reciprocity agreements, which seems different from what this bill is purporting to offer. Also, there is no provision for Constitutional carry, or for carrying in States with restrictive/no gun carry rules. Moreover, what if CA or NY bans concealed carry completely after this bill is passed?? The GOA-backed bill is better. I would improve it by giving the innocent the right to sue for civil rights violations if any government official violates the RTC. It would need to be a tightly written statute so that it would not be abused.
Expect vicious opposition from the lying weasel Cornyn himself. He has a closet full of flip flops. He's a dyed in the wool demoncrat no matter what party letter he has behind his name.
This is the son of Jimmy Carters’ SOS? He was addressing the NYC Republican Party? SO he’s the Manhattan District Attorney but not the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY/Manhattan, who’s Preet Bharara who President Trump chose to retain in one of his first post-election choices.
My problem admittedly without much thought is that conservatives are strong on “states’ rights” so why are they making this federal legislation? If TX want open carry, that’s the choice of the people there, and if NY doesn’t want it, it’s similarly their choice. This could be opening a mega can of worms.
A flat out lie and Vance knows it.
I got one that doesn’t require any new ‘law’. It’s called: defend the Rights of the People, suppressed and usurped under Color of Law. An inalienable Right, as re-affirmed in the 2nd Amendment.
I as well have no faith in anything coming out of Cornyn’s mouth. He goes back home and talks like a conservative, then when he gets back to DC you can normally find him trying to put his snout up the Quisling Juan McCain’s backside.
I wonder how my Nebraska permit and firearms would work in, oh Maryland, with their 10 rd mag capacity ban?