Posted on 03/10/2017 4:53:02 PM PST by marktwain
On Saturday, 25 February, 2017, Senator John Cornyn (R) Texas announced that he will introduce the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in the Senate this week. From the dailycaller.com:
Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn announced Saturday at the general meeting of the Texas State Rifle Association in Austin that he will introduce the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in the upper chamber next week.
The bill is said to mirror H.R. 38, in the House of Representatives.
A similar national reciprocity bill was put forward by Senator Cornyn in 2013. It came within 3 votes of overcoming the Senate fillibuster. 57 senators voted for it, 43 against it. After the 2016 election, that number should have switched to 58, assuming that all Republicans vote for the bill, and all Democrats who voted for it before will still vote for it. The Democrats who voted for it in 2013 are:
Joe Donnelly of Indiana
Jon Tester of Montana
Tom Udall of New Mexico
Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Mark Warner of Virginia
Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Those senators are all still in office.
33 senators voted against it, and are still in office. The turnover of 10 senators who voted against the bill from 2013 to2017, only switches one vote with clarity. Of the 33 who are still in office, five are up for election in 2018, in states that Trump won. Those five senators are from states with large numbers of concealed carry permits. One, Missouri, is now a Constitutional carry state, which means that everyone who votes in Missouri, over the age of 20, is now a potential legal gun carrier. The numbers of permit holders in those states has increased from those listed below:
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
51 and done...
“51 and done...”
Change the rule and be done with it.
How would this bill effect states like HI, CA, IL, and NY? Would residents of these states be allowed to us non-resident permits in their home states? I do realize there would be political pressure (or not) in these states when all out of towners are packing heat while the resident citizens cannot.
I know Trump will sign it. He campaigned on it.
It would be the law of the land. Sucks to be liberal CA.
The Senate Bill S. 446, does not provide for non-resident permits in the person’s state of residence.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/446/text
The House Bill H.R. 38, does provide for non-resident permits.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text
The House bill is better, but the Senate bill is still a large step forward.
Liberals only obey and enforce laws they like. Liberal states police would arrest and the DA would prosecute anyone from out of state who carried under this law. You can count on it.
Then extend the wall around Kommiefornia.
They will need to resolve this. My Nevada permit should be valid five miles from my home if I enter California, or fly to D.C. or New York.
Geez, California ain’t like this much.
If you have a Nevada permit, and are a resident of Nevada, your permit would be good in every state, in both bills.
If you are a Hawaii resident, and have a Florida permit, your permit would be good in every state except Hawaii, in both bills.
Let me me know when its time to buy Trailer Parks in Henderson and Reno areas, for all the Californians to set up homesites to earn Nevada residency. (It could be that simple, except that California franchise tax board won’t let anyone off that easy if they also maintained a CA residence. For CCW reciprocity, maybe it would be that easy since different courts would have final say (state vs fed)).
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. Rent out room, for whatever days a year someone needs to qualify as Nevada resident. Could create a booming industry.
The gun free school zone needs to be ended. Or at least restricted to school property only and not the surrounding 1000 feet including streets.
Those States would have to suck it up....
Just propose a national Constitutional Carry bill.
What are the prospects of it surviving the legal challenges if passed?
Devil’s advocate here. Isn’t this something for the states to handle on their own?
There is now a strong legal precedence for this. In creating the “right” of gay marriage, did not the SCOTUS use reciprocity as the rationale for extending it to all states?
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.