MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

House Pisses Off Gun Control Advocates, Opponents With Concealed Carry Bill

The bill dramatically liberalizes concealed carry laws nationwide.

HolsterVlue/DreamstimeToday the House passed a major new gun bill that has managed to piss off both gun control advocates and champions of the Second Amendment.

HR 38, known as the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, passed on a mostly party-line vote of 231–198.

Described by the National Rifle Association as its "number-one legislative priority" for the year, the bill allows a person with a valid concealed carry permit from one state to carry in any other state.

The bill replaces the country's confusing patchwork of reciprocity laws that govern where a concealed carry permit holder can possess a firearm outside their home state, and is a major win for gun rights advocates.

Also included in the bill was the Fix NICS Act, which was rolled into the legislation on Tuesday.

The Fix NICS Act—unveiled as a response to the Sutherland Springs shooting—included some pretty mild additional reporting requirements for federal agencies submitting information to the federal firearm background check system. (You can read Reason's coverage of the bill here.)

Combining the two measures likely helped get the whole legislative package over the finish line, but the sausage-making has upset both ends of the political spectrum.

Democrats from states with strict regulations on firearm possession were predictably incensed at the bill's undermining of their concealed carry permitting regimes.

"Some states give concealed carry permits to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors. Those folks are coming soon to a community near you," wrote Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) on Twitter. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) echoed that point, saying that HR 38 "would damage state and local governments' ability to craft gun laws appropriate to their needs."

Also opposed to the final legislative package was a clutch of hardcore gun rights activists who supported the concealed-carry provisions of the law but were opposed to the background check provisions.

Most vocal on this front was Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who chairs the House's Second Amendment caucus and who wrote a lengthy Facebook post "blowing the whistle on the swamp" for logrolling on this bill.

"The bill" Massie wrote, "encourages administrative agencies, not the courts, to submit more names to a national database that will determine whether you can or can't obtain a firearms."

According to Massie, this puts administrative agencies in the position of adjudicating Second Amendment rights, something he says should be left up to the courts.

From my reading of the NICS Fix Act, that seems to be overblown. Administrative agencies are already required quarterly to send information on people who are prohibited from owning firearms to the Attorney General. The NICS Act requires these agencies to submit an additional semi-annual report verifying that they are doing this.

Seems like a pretty small price to pay for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity.

Photo Credit: Vlue/Dreamstime

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Longtobefree||

    Of course, all this covers the fact that carry, concealed or open, is a constitutional right.
    Coming next; first amendment permits to speak, attend church, and post online.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    *shrug*

  • ||

    Good thing you are wrong.

  • Sigivald||

    The Supreme Court - and any reading of "keep and BEAR arms" that isn't insane - disagrees with you.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Of course, all this covers the fact that carry, concealed or open, is a constitutional right.
    Yes, but what about artillery control? Does the 2nd Amendment cover that as well, or can a state ban me from having an anti-aircraft canon in my backyard?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The 2A is generally agreed to apply to small arms (handheld). Sadly...

  • Longtobefree||

    Actually, a militia does need artillery. But I suspect actually firing it from your back yard would violate a few noise ordinances.
    Read as a whole, the 2A is about being able to raise a militarily capable militia unit from 'ordinary' citizens. So attempting to ban "assault rifles", or any other thing, is an infringement. Saying it 'only' applies to self defense is to assault the entire purpose. Now, maybe we no longer use militia, but we no longer use single page, hand type set printing presses either. But I don;t recall the New York Times saying their web page is not covered by the 1A.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Heh, a militia needs a helluva lot more then artillery these days.

    That said, I can respect that you're against artillery control as well. Most folks that whine about the 2nd Amendment and gun control don't really think it through that far.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Nah, we got our bags of KClO3 and PKs. We're good."

    -the Taliban

  • Zeb||

    You say that, but the US has been fighting more or less the kinds of militias that US civilians could put together in Iraq and Afghanistan for how many years now?

    I think people often underestimate the ability of that kind of force to take on, or at least hold at bay, a major power. Yes, the US military could probably bomb the shit out of everything and win. But they generally don't.

  • ||

    Actually we HAVE thought about it. Because your question gets asked all the time as if you catch us in a quandary:

    "HUR HUR WHAT BOUT ARTILLARY HUR HUR"

    Dude, we've thought about it. The people who wrote and passed the Second Amendment owned cannons. Artillery pieces are also hard to hide, so we'd probably have a good idea who has them.

  • Sigivald||

    "Dude, next you'll tell me they thought people could own their own warships!!! That's so crazy it can't ever have been true!"

    "What do you think a letter of marque and reprisal means?"

  • BYODB||


    Artillery pieces are also hard to hide, so we'd probably have a good idea who has them.

    I'd love to know what the fear is when it comes to this anyway. What, like anyone with half a brain and a chemistry book can't make something more dangerous than an artillery piece out of household chemicals?

    Give me a break. People who are against the obvious weapons are oblivious to what can actually be weaponized.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Read as a whole, the 2A is about the states being able to raise a militia.

    Therefore all federal firearms laws are unconstitutional. A state, however, can regulate arms to the extent it doesn't conflict with the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th.

    So yes, a state can restrict cannons. The Feds can't.

    In my head.

  • latentprints||

    Actually the state's have no more power to regulate arms because they were formed under the basis of the Declaration of the Causes and Necessities to Take Up Arms and the Declaration of Independence ... by that they were instituted for the preservation of certain unalienable rights, which would include the right of revolution also referred to as the the right and duty to alter or abolish our institutions should they become despotic.

    Beyond that, the Second Amendment, based on Article 6 would be extended to the States, even if you attempted to disregard the purpose for the state governments being instituted. On top of that, the organizing, arming, and disciplining of the state militias fell to Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, so the purpose of the Second Amendment was and has always been to reaffirm the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should the federal government fail its obligation and the states remain silent.

  • 68W58||

    Plenty of people own functional artillery pieces, go to a Civil War re-enactment sometime.

  • Phos||

    My wife got to fire the cannon at Fort Concho last weekend with her Girl Scout troop. Unfortunately the firing pin hit her hand and gave her a big bruise.

    Her dad has a grenade launcher attachment for his Czechoslovakian military rifle. We ordered him practice grenades from Israel for Christmas one year. He was the envy of the other dads in the neighborhood. His friends birddog proved handy for retrieving them after launch.

  • MarkLastname||

    This is like the moronic "fire in a crowded theater" bullshit argument in favor of incarcerating people for criticizing feminists on Twitter. Grow up and learn to how to logic.

  • Sigivald||

    It does cover artillery.

    From 1789 until this very second it has been and remains legal to own cannons, mortars, and suchlike.

    (Since 1934 they've been limited, without an NFA stamp, to muzzle-loaders, and no explosive shells, but ... perfectly legal.

    With exactly the same NFA stamp exception and timeline, hand grenades were and still are legal.

    Quelle horreur!)

  • Devastator||

    Hold on Pedro, one step at a time. No matter how much you want it this country has more voices than us libertarians (all 3% of us). Perfection is the enemy of the good.

  • hello.||

    Koch brand libertarianism doesn't include gun rights. Reason and Cato are both in favor of gun restrictions. Feel free to cut up that 3% accordingly.

  • Red Tony||

    ...he writes on an article celebrating a bill that appears to be mostly a rollback of gun control.

  • Red Tony||

    Got an email today from the NRA encouraging me to write my representative telling them to pass this. Glad to see it passed.

    (I didn't write them.)

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Well just because of that I'm going to vote against it.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Fuck you! What about bump stocks?

  • Longtobefree||

    According to Trump, the tax bill will bump all stocks

  • Devastator||

    Bump sucks are will on their way to becoming illegal. Just go buy a pack of rubber bands

  • Zeb||

    This seems like a good thing.

    Although, to take advantage of it, I'd need to get a permit again. Which means talking to the police on purpose.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Are you in a constitutional carry state?

  • Zeb||

    Yes.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Sometimes you have to ask for permission.

  • Longtobefree||

    Seems like a bad thing, because it implies that a permit is required to exercise a constitutional right.
    Did you get a first amendment permit to speak freely on the web site?

  • Mitsima||

    Haha, suckers. For only $500 USD I got a lifetime global permit from the Prince of Angola that lets me speak freely anywhere on the Internet.

  • Red Tony||

    You got ripped off. I got a $200 one from the Sultan of Benin.

  • Zeb||

    Right, but it's a lot better than all of the other laws currently on the books that also imply a permit is required to exercise a constitutional right.
    Let's face it, the courts aren't going to adopt the "no restrictions at all" interpretation of the 2nd anytime soon. And there is no political will to do it either. So while it's not pure, unadulterated good, it's as good as we are likely to get.

  • DaveSs||

    Its one of those things I like because it makes visiting my folks back in IL slightly less hassle (IL at least does allow out of state CC in your car)

    But I don't like because Federalism, though on the other hand the states do have to abide by the Constitution as well and in this case, a dozen or so really are not and this is correcting that.

    Wonder what the chances of it being struck down are. Then again FOPA impotent as it is(NJ/NY violate it all the time), is still here

  • Phos||

    By the full faith and credit clause, Congress can pass general laws dictating the effect and documentation required for legal acts between the states. So ignoring the 2nd amendment*, until this passed, it was up to each state to determine that by default.

    *As is the custom for most statists.

  • ||

    I'd argue that the 14th Amendment, Section 5 power is even stronger to use for this.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This fan of federalism likes the forced reciprocity but doesn't like backdoor registry.

  • uunderstand||

    You don't want to register your back door don't buy one.

  • esteve7||

    bring up the story reason had earlier about a single black mother who lawfully had a concealed permit had her life ruined when stopped in new york

  • ||

    It was New Jersey, not New York, and her permit was from Philadelphia. Not saying she deserved what happened, but if you're going to carry it's prudent to know the laws of the states you are going to be in.

  • hello.||

    The point, you dumbfuck, is that this law would address that kind of prosecution.

  • ||

    When did I say I oppose this law? No call to be uncivil.

    New Jersey doesn't consider a Pennsylvania permit to be lawful authorization to carry in New Jersey. Their position might be at odds with my interpretation of the US constitution, but unfortunately that won't keep them from arresting you. Government does all kinds of shit I believe unconstitutional.

    If a libertarian and gun person can't be super picky about technical accuracy, who can? One of the reasons gun people have to be is some jurisdictions are straight out to get you for anything they can. Wish it was not that way, but it is.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Someone from Virginia is going to get arrested in NJ for carrying hollowpoint ammunition.

    Can California create a new class of carry permit that isn't valid within 10,000 feet of a school and then treat out of state permits as equivalent to that?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Reciprocity does have some interesting problems-- as you say, there may be restrictions about the type of gun you're carrying. You gonna get arrested for having a Glock in Massachusetts?

  • DaveSs||

    They got that mostly covered
    From the bill:

    "(2) The term 'handgun' includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.

  • Devastator||

    Ah good, I was wondering how my 30 count extended cartridge would hold up to legal review

  • Phos||

    Unless "loaded into" can be interpreted to preclude magazines that protrude out.

  • Sigivald||

    Extended cartridges are hard to chamber and kinda expensive.

    I suggest not wildcatting your carry gun.

  • Bubba Jones||

    So I will be able to open carry an ar 15 pistol with a 30 round magazine in California?

    Or is this just concealed? Trench coat?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    In the several weeks I've been visiting this site, my biggest complaint is probably your stance on guns. I believe that as libertarians, we should reconsider our mindless support for "gun rights" for three reasons.

    1 - Common sense. Self-explanatory, really. Gun safety legislation is just common sense.

    2 - The left-libertarian alliance. It's clear that for libertarianism to have a future, we need to ally with progressives and Democrats, and they are usually the ones pushing sensible gun violence prevention measures. We are on the same side as progressives when it comes to open borders, and embracing their stance on guns would strengthen this partnership.

    3 - The Constitution. For centuries, it was correctly understood that the Second Amendment, at most, protects a collective right to own a gun while serving in a militia. The idea of an "individual right to own a gun" is an intentional misreading of the Constitution by right-wing judicial activists. For us libertarians to have any credibility when discussing Constitutional issues, we need to limit ourselves to advocating for Constitutional rights that are actually in the Constitution. Like the right to access abortion care, or marry someone of the same sex.

  • ||

    Great satire. I lol'd.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You had me going until that last sentence. Very subtle trolling—congratulations.

  • EscherEnigma||

    For the first century and change, the Bill of Rights wasn't held to limit state action, just Federal action. It's not until you get to "Incorporation" at the turn of the 20th century that the courts started applying the Bill of Rights to states.

    So keep that in mind. Everytime you say a state shouldn't be able to do X because of something in the Bill of Rights, you're only right because of "activist judges".

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yes, thank God for activist judges.

  • Morbo||

    It's not until you get to "Incorporation" at the turn of the 20th century that the courts started applying the Bill of Rights to states.

    No. The BOR was incorporated when the 14th Amendment was passed. "Incorporation" is just the weak half-assed attempt of modern courts to overturn the Slaughterhouse cases which effectively nullified the 14th Amendment.

  • Phos||

    Actually the 9th and 10th ammendments made it clear that some powers/rights are held by the central government, some by the states and/or the people. It specifically say that some powers are prohibited to the central government, and some to the states. With the exception of the 1st ammendment limiting the powers of congress, the rest of the Bill of Rights list rights of the people/actions forbidden to government. If a right is reserved to the people, then it is prohibited to the federal, state, etc governments.

    The 14th and incorporation might finally (PARTIALLY) honor this, but it is there from the beginning. US state and federal actors ignoring their oath has a long history.

  • Zeb||

    Actually the 9th and 10th ammendments made it clear that some powers/rights are held by the central government, some by the states and/or the people.

    They did do that. But the problem is, they didn't specify which rights and powers were for the states and which for the people.

  • MarkLastname||

    False and irrelevant.

  • BYODB||

    Because it makes total sense that natural rights are only respected by the Federal government when those natural rights are not at all respected by the State. Just because the Federal Government says that you can't be jailed without a trial doesn't mean that a State can't just decide to throw you in jail because they feel like it.

    Makes sense, right?

    /sarc

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I support open borders and the right to own an FGM-184 without a background check.

    {the troll using the OBL-t handle's head explodes}

  • EscherEnigma||

    I can respect that.

    I think you're deluded if you think such an expansive view of the 2nd Amendment will ever be supported by the SCOTUS, but I can respect that you're actually serious about it.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    No, I don't think it is protected by the 2A. See my reply to you above. I just think it *should* be. Just as the right of open immigration rightly ought to be protected by an Amendment, but isn't.

  • Phos||

    One could argue (and I have) that since immigration is not and enumerated power (per Article 1, Section 8) then immigration is to be controlled by the states. [Except two limited powers regarding the importation of slaves. see Article 1 Section 9]

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    A lot of commenters here think that it *is* an enumerated power. Regardless, state-level would be a better situation than the current one.

  • BYODB||

    Having a State decide who is a citizen of the Nation is ludicrous, unless you're saying that a State can naturalize people to become a citizen of said state. At that point, of course, no one could go over State lines and we would look more or less like a Pre-EU Europe.

    Or, in other words, you're a Confederate. Cool beans.

  • BYODB||

    That's because immigration (naturalization) is an enumerated power of the Federal government.

    Article 1, Section 8

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    I suppose one could make the argument that just because someone is an immigrant to the United States, as in they're just within the borders of America, that doesn't mean they could necessarily kick you out it just means you wouldn't be legally a citizen or have the right to work or really engage in anything other than walking around various places like a homeless vagabond, but that seems a bit silly.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "I suppose one could make the argument that just because someone is an immigrant to the United States, as in they're just within the borders of America, that doesn't mean they could necessarily kick you out it just means you wouldn't be legally a citizen or have the right to work or really engage in anything other than walking around various places like a homeless vagabond"

    *OR*

    It could mean that someone is allowed to immigrate to the United States, NOT be a legal citizen, and HAVE the right to work and really engage in anything other than walking around various places like a homeless vagabond. Like, say, marry a nativeborn person without having a DHS chimpanzee breathing down their neck trying to figure out if it's a sham marriage, or start a business without having to worry about ICE swooping in to protect us all from the specter of ethnic food trucks, or for that matter just stay with a friend for a few years without justifying the creation of a 100-billion-dollar 4th Amendment violation styling itself the "CBP".

    US citizenship is a privilege. Freedom of Association is a human right- not of the foreigner, but of the native-born consumer, employer, befriender and suitor. Only enemies of the latter insist on conflating it with the former.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Be careful, he might start thinking we're impressed by his large vocabulary.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    You'd best be careful firing off that PPSh-41 you call a mouth, REMF, or I'll strap a W-80 to an AH-64D and fly it up your I-95.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This is why we're best friends.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    EWW COOTIES!

    KILL IT! KILL IT WITH AN M2A1!

  • AlmightyJB||

    He usually has to pay extra for that

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    That I offer the services of my flamethrower and tactical nuclear warhead arsenal at wholesale prices, is why we're best friends.

  • EscherEnigma||

    It's not my large vocabulary that impresses you. /eyebrow_waggle

  • Red Tony||

    Are beer guts back in fashion?

  • Sigivald||

    A little heavy, honestly.

    I mean, I respect its capabilities, but I'd rather carry around an M-72, even if it doesn't do half the fancy stuff...

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Consumer choice FTW!

  • KBeckman||

    No, I'm pretty sure private ownership of guns would still be covered by the ninth.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Jesus, another Beltway Cosmotarian. At least Tony, Buttplug and John all have the gumption to actually be partisan assholes....

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    You had me going, until that last sentence. That was carrying the charade too far.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Some states give concealed carry permits to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors. Those folks are coming soon to a community near you.

    He's talking about cops here, right?

  • Vernon Depner||

    No—cops never get convicted.

  • JuanQPublic||

    "Some states give concealed carry permits to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors. Those folks are coming soon to a community near you," wrote Rep. Mike Thompson (D – Calif.) on Twitter.

    Because everyone knows someone who has been in a fistfight is a potential violent murderer.

    'Tis the season for complete projection about people they know nothing about.

  • Sigivald||

    Yeah, considering how easy it is to commit a felony these days, maybe without even knowing it, people who got convicted of a "violent misdemeanor" whose maximum sentence wasn't a year don't sound real dangerous.

    (e.g. I just checked local law. Here in Oregon, "recklessly causing injury to another" is Assault in the Fourth Degree, generally a Class A misdemeanor. A Class A misdemeanor has a maximum sentence of 1 year, which IIRC makes it "a felony" for Federal gun law purposes.

    Any injury, and not even intentional - and it's disqualifying!

    Note that recklessly causing serious injury is Assault 3, and that's a straight-up felony.

    Other class A misdemeanors that might be considered "violent" by a Representative: "Menacing".

    Reckless endangerment - risking, but not even causing, serious injury.

    All of those are, if I remember the weird Federal "felony means a year or more" rule right, the violent misdemeanors he's worried about that ... already mean you can't get a gun, Federally.

    I want him to tell me which states and which offenses he's hyperventilating about.)

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "'Some states give concealed carry permits to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors. Those folks are coming soon to a community near you,' wrote Rep. Mike Thompson (D – Calif.) on Twitter."

    Oh, don't worry, Rep. Thompson, they had already made their travel plans. You won't have to rearrange your Xmas dinner's seating plans or anything.

  • Juice||

    Fuck, is it sanctuary cities or concealed carry causing all this crime? Which freedom is leading to our loss of security? We have to know so we can stamp it out.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    It's the weed, man. It always leads back to Big Weed.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    See Tony's paper on Stormfront, "The Negroid's Genetic Predisposition to 'Reefer Madness'"

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    And why would I re-read my own article?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That was for Juice. I just replied to the most recent message because I have a sense of decorum.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    ...but his comment didn't mention weed...

    ...I'm starting to detect some possible... *disingenuousness* in your comments.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That paper is relevant regardless of your comment due to being repeatedly cited by the Trump administration against Sanctuary Cities. The paper does not discuss Sanctuary Cities, but it was still repeatedly cited.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Ah, I see.

    Perfectly logical on our Dear President's part though: what other explanation is there for why those silly Colored city council members would oppose such common-sense enforcement of our laws?

  • Red Tony||

    I never wrote anything like that.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Watching "safe and secure" Republicrats attempt to stamp out liberty and save us from ourselves week after week goes well with a Benny Hill soundtrack.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    It's a beautiful thing when advocates on opposing sides of an issue can come together and agree on something.

  • Ron||

    My only worry is that if it passes soon there will be a national permit process that will be even harder to get

  • Devastator||

    The background check is basically a national permit test. It just got a little harder.

  • mjerryfuerst||

    States have widely differing standards for concealed carry. Imposing one state's rules on another is like an infringement on a state's sovereignty

  • Juice||

    Maybe, but it's doing so in a constitutional and freedom-increasing way (despite the registration part).

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    You mean like driving laws? Standards for licensing aren't uniform but you can drive in any state you want.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I would argue (as a rabid 2nd amendment supporter) that driving laws are more uniform than firearms laws. Or maybe I should say that the firearms variances are far more glaring and more likely to lead to controversy. And I would also argue that most people would agree there's a big difference between a state that doesn't allow say, semi-autos with more than 10rounds and a state that doesn't allow wheel hubs to extend more than 2" from the wheel well.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I'm a 2A guy too. I'd rather see all state firearms laws erased and a federal standard covering everything. But this is a start.

    Also, since we're talking about CC permits, I think the licensing analogy is apropos.

  • Longtobefree||

    There is a federal standard. It is called the constitution; sometimes more specifically the bill of rights. And it says you have the right to keep and bear arms. Your very own, personal arms. It also says that right shall not be infringed.
    But then again, the fourth amendment says the cops can't take your stuff just for the hell of it, and yet they do, so maybe there is a reason to be able to raise a militia from time to time.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Also, since we're talking about CC permits, I think the licensing analogy is apropos.

    Ehhh, I'm not sure. Some states require firearms safety courses to get a CC permit, others, like mine, merely require you're a law abiding citizen in good standing.

    I don't know of any state that doesn't require some sort of driving test to be licensed there. Yes, if you move to a state, you may not have to take a test if you have a valid license from another state, but those differences seem pretty glaring to me.

    Plus, as I stated above, most people would be very concerned about the TYPE of firearm you might carry across state lines, as opposed to the type of car you drive across state lines.

    If your state had a law that say, banned 4 cylinder Kias, driving laws would be a lot more tricky.

  • Rat on a train||

    Virginia doesn't require a driving test if you complete a private driver training course.

  • Zeb||

    Complete it successfully. Which is pretty equivalent to passing a test.

  • AzWarrior||

    @ Diane Reynolds (Paul.) Not true at all. Some states allow right turns on red lights, others don't. Some states require motorcycle riders to wear helmets, others don't. I could go on, but the point is made.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    How many of those offenses result in 20 year prison sentences? Why is this simple point being missed?

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, you see, driving is only a privilege, not a right. So it has more flexibility in reciprocity. The feds can dictate that marriage licenses must be accepted from state to state regardless of local preferences, but something as basic as the bill of rights gets no such respect.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I think we're getting off track, because I sense we all generally agree what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. But the fact is, some states disallow certain types of firearms or ammo. So that puts a lot of pressure on CC holders every time they cross state lines- lest they find themselves facing felonies for something that's perfectly legal in their own state. Those differences in laws don't really exist in the realm of 'driving' (in the subthread above).

    50 state reciprocity is absolutely something I support, but as the commenter posted above, a lot of law abiding people in Virginia are going to be facing 20 year prison sentences if they drive into New Jersey. That needs to be figured out. I don't have the answers-- and no, wishing upon a star that all state level gun restrictions disappear by next friday ain't it.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Those differences in laws don't really exist in the realm of 'driving' (in the subthread above).
    Practically true in most cases, but not technically true.

    Many states micro-manage what accessories you can put on your car, so you can have a California legal car that's illegal in Arizona and vice-versa. It's just that most of those laws largely go unenforced because unless a cop stops you for some other reason he's not going to notice that you've got an illegal modification (in his state).

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Again, my point is, you're not looking at 20 years in prison because my GPS has a suction cup on the windshield (illegal in Cali, I believe). I'm really talking about matter of degree and severity here.

  • Eeyore||

    I think it is the opposite now. The phone MUST be mounted on the dash or window. Concealed carrying your phone is now against the law while driving.

  • AzWarrior||

    They do make radar detector-detectors, which the police use to pull over drivers with radar detectors where they have been made illegal, and an out-of-state driver can and does get cited for that even if it is legal in his home state.

  • Agammamon||

    Those differences in laws don't really exist in the realm of 'driving' (in the subthread above).

    They do though. Think about tinted windows, for example. What's legal in AZ can be illegal in CA. Or lightbars.

    CA requires lightbars to be covered with an opaque covering while on public highways, AZ has no such requirement.

    More than one of my friends have gotten tickets for too dark tint or not having a lightbar cover while in CA - on AZ registered vehicles.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Actually, that's the Full Faith and Credits clause, and it doesn't apply to marriages the state wouldn't grant.

    Which is why during that two year gap between Windsor v. United States (2013) which struck down DOMA Article II, gay couples that got married had federally recognized marriages, but many states wouldn't recognize them†.

    Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) didn't say that states had to recognize other state's same-sex marriages, it said that all states had to grant them.

    Now, if the SCOTUS had struck down DOMA Article III, your snark would be relevant, but as is, the Full Faith and Credits clause never came into play.
    ________
    †This got really fun with divorce. Texas wouldn't divorce gay couples that got married in Massachusetts, but it also wouldn't let them enter into a new marriage because they were married in Massachusetts.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Try again. From the actual Obergefell decision:

    Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

    Thanks for playing.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Driver's license recognition is due to state reciprocity agreements, not federal action. There's nothing forcing Nevada to recognize a California driver's license.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Yes, but that's because driving isn't controversial. If states stopped recognizing other states' drivers licenses, there'd probably be a pretty big outcry for federal involvement to keep "commerce regular"... if you get where I'm going with this.

  • EscherEnigma||

    No, I really don't.

    The comment-chain (as far as I care) started with "isn't imposing one state's standards on another state violating state soverignity", to which Unicorn said "like driving?"

    Except that it isn't like driving, because states willfully agreed to that reciprocation, and did not have it forced on them by congress.

    Your hypothetical is not relevant.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    My hypothetical was a response to your assertion that there exists state reciprocity agreements for driving. Few exist for CC. Therefore, my hypothetical is entirely relevant. IF states DIDN'T have reciprocity for drivers licenses, I'd suspect that there'd be a very large clamor for the feds to force reciprocity on them... and as for where I'm going with this, that MIGHT just actually be a proper application of the commerce clause.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Few exist for CC.

    Um...click on just about any of the blue states on this map.

  • Zeb||

    New York doesn't seem to honor anyone's permits. Which sucks for people in the freer parts of New England. NY has us walled off from the rest of the country.

  • creech||

    My God, it looks like 33 states have no annual auto inspection! All those beater, unsafe, rolling death traps are coming to your safe auto state to skid on their bald tires and broadside your women and children and people of color.

  • Bubba Jones||

    This is the best comparison.

  • Rat on a train||

    I am not required to test emissions. I am coming to your state to pollute your air.

  • Devastator||

    None of them have the right to sovereignty in this case anyway (refer to amendment 2) so states rights don't really come into this matter. It's already illegal to limit gun rights. I have no problem with this law.

  • Rich||

    HR 38 "would damage state and local governments' ability to craft gun laws appropriate to their needs."

    FTFY

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Is that card from your shall issue state going to save from unpredictable reaction by LEO when it finds out you're armed in a state where only union bros and cop killers will be CCW? Shit, they freak out in states where it's legal.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    No. Every time you CC, you're risking being shot in the back multiple times by a cop and that shooting being entirely justified on the thinnest of grounds.

  • Rich||

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    +1 [choose one] A. Professional Courtesy B. Union rule C. FYTW

  • Rich||

    D. "Mistake"

  • Mitsima||

    "Mistake" almost always gets 'civilians' off the hook

  • Bubba Jones||

    TSA routinely catches people with guns and doesn't press charges.

  • Rich||

    This was a TSA employee reporting for work. If no charges, then xi should be strip-searched, interrogated, fired, and placed on the terrorist watch-list.

  • Mitsima||

    Admittedly I am a simple man with a simple mind, but I've never understood why a marriage license from State 'x' must be honored everywhere under Full Faith clause, but a CCW license can be ignored at will.

  • Rich||

    Hmm, M. I think you're on to something here. What if State X refuses to recognize your so-called "religion"?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Because marriage is a much slower killer, which is much harder to prove as cause of death to a court.

  • Agammamon||

    Marriage licenses, drivers licenses, all sorts of things have automatic reciprocity. But there's never been any rhyme or reason as to what the FFC does or does not cover.

  • Zeb||

    With marriage, I think it's largely just how people think of marriage. People don't consider the state licence/registration primarily. If you are married, you are married.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    So Congress is passing a law that ensures the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    What would we do without them?

  • some-yahoo||

    That's the way I see it. Both the House (HR 38) and Senate (S 446) versions of the bill contain:

    A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.

    So if your state of residence is one of the Constitutional Carry states, such as VT, NH or ME, you can carry in all 50 states once it becomes law.

  • Agammamon||

    or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in,

    Hmm, this is going to cause a lot of consternation once people realize that in states like AZ, *anyone* over 18 and who is otherwise legally allowed to possess a firearm are also automatically allowed to carry it concealed - no license required.

    I guess this might mean that an AZ resident could mosey on down CA way with a gun in his pocket and no paperwork from the state and still be legal.

  • James H||

    AZ doesn't require a permit for CC, will that mean no reciprocity?

  • Agammamon||

    AZ doesn't require - so anyone coming to AZ could concealed (or open) carry without a permit. Like they can do now.

    AZ residents couldn't take advantage of reciprocity without an AZ concealed-carry licenses - which while AZ doesn't require them, still issues specifically for situations like this. As even before this bill there were a few states with mutual reciprocity agreements.

  • Agammamon||

    Some states give concealed carry permits to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors. Those folks are coming soon to a community near you.

    Given that the Federal definition of a felony is anything that has a *possible* 2 year or longer *maximum* sentence . . . I'm not worried about those who have been found guilty of nothing more than a 'violent' misdemeanor. I'm not even worried about 90% of the people who've committed a 'violent' felony since that 'violent' prefix seems to get tacked on for simply having a weapon somewhere in the vicinity.

  • Agammamon||

    From my reading of the NICS Fix Act, that seems to be overblown. Administrative agencies are already required quarterly to send information on people who are prohibited from owning firearms to the Attorney General. The NICS Act requires these agencies to submit an additional semi-annual report verifying that they are doing this.

    Seems like a pretty small price to pay for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity.

    What

    The

    Fuck

    Man?

    I thought we were American libertarians here. You know, the sort of people who understand that having 50 different near-sovereign legal jurisdictions provided more freedom than under a single unified one? That believe the point of the states was to allow experimentation in those 'laboratories of democracy'?

    This bill is nothing but another power grab by the Federal government. And for what? For the convenience of the small number of people who travel from Arizona to Maine?

    National reciprocity is a major fucking price to pay. There's nothing good that can come from it.

  • some-yahoo||

    I don't know about you, but I'm a libertarian, where you seem to be advocating states rights.

    Are you for repealing the 2nd Amendment, too?

  • Agammamon||

    States rights are now unlibertarian?

  • Mitsima||

    This is the argument that has me on the fence. If we are to do this all legal and Constitutional-like, a court, ideally, would have to enforced the 2nd on the 50 through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, just like any other right. So while I do appreciate having my freedoms asserted through legislation, it seems to me that previous legislation already had it covered. As Aggy said, this is a federal power grab that can be used as precedence when the other Statists try to flip it to ban firearms nation-wide.

  • Rebel Scum||

    undermining of their concealed carry permitting regimes.

    With the wording of a certain amendment to a certain document in mind, something like national reciprocity* should already be the law by default.

    *As a believer in constitutional carry, I do not support any permitting regime.

  • Rebel Scum||

    It would damage state and local governments' ability to craft gun laws appropriate to their needs.

    Say it with me: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The overwhelming majority of firearms legislation is unconstitutional on it's face.

    Elijah E. Cummings

    Also know by his porn name, "Elijah E. Cummings".

  • Mitsima||

    To be consistent, in addition to the 2nd - which only bars the feds from abridging - we need to keep in mind that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Thought I'd chime in here to get my "fuck off slaver" responses that always come up in these discussions, and support of anything but pure libertarian no law at all in Deadwood position.

    Politics is the art of compromise, and as someone stated above there are more than us 3% card carrying libertarians that live here. I'm good with this legislation that does somewhat enhance the NICS while granting something we gun people have all wanted but a number of individual States would never grant, national reciprocity. If this means I can travel from NY to CA without becoming a de facto law breaker, I'm good with it. Better tit for tat than no tit at all. Personally I look forward to walking down Broadway, Michigan Avenue, and Market Streets with my pistol in my pocket.

    Fuck off slaver in 1, 2 ,3....

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    SUCK OFF FLAVOR

  • Over40VictimOfFate||

    Concealed Carry Repricocity passes the House, huh? Yeah, well that's nice a gesture. but ya'll all don't get too excited just yet ... still needs 60 votes to break a Demo filibuster in the Senate. And I kinda don't think the Demos are feeling a lot of that bipartisan give-and-take can't-we-all-just get-along compromising spirit here lately seen as how the R's have shut them out of having input on, well pretty much anything and everything since the election.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online