Hooray concealed Carry reciprocity? Not so fast

[driftdiver]

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/hooray-concealed-carry-reciprocity-not-so-fast

Our congressional Republicans run away from most opportunities to pass conservative policies. Worse, they squander their few opportunities to pass conservative-leaning legislation that almost all of us can agree on. Case in point? The concealed carry reciprocity bill.


Almost all factions of the GOP believe that there should be universal carry and reciprocity between the states, similar to driver’s licenses. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38), sponsored by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-NC, is the best reciprocity bill and has 213 co-sponsors. It should have been passed out of the House months ago or even during last Congress. It should already be on the president’s desk. But no.

[driftdiver]

Article explains why the house passed it.   It's not good.

[INVAR]

Key points from the article:

• The entire rule of this bill was dishonest. Many members weren’t even aware of the fact that there was a gun-control provision because it still had the title H.R. 38 — the reciprocity bill — with no mention of the NICS provision

• There is absolutely no commitment in the Senate to pass a reciprocity bill. But the Senate will pass the NICS bill by itself. Thus, why should conservatives agree to support a preemptive surrender on NICS when there is no ironclad commitment to pass any reciprocity bill?

• In a nutshell: The last NICS “improvement” bill was passed under a Republican president and then was used by a Democrat president to go after seniors and veterans. And now Congress is trying to repeat the process.

• In short, this bill will pressure federal agencies and states to place as many names as possible on the list to meet quotas.

Folks, this is just a glimpse into the dishonesty of the GOP and its allies: the enablers of the Left.

[thackney]

...The bill gives $500 million over five years to the states to mine names of those suspected of any possible criterion for denying them a firearm and placing them into NICS without due process. Federal agencies are also threatened with the loss of bonuses if they fail to comply with the new mandate. The agencies, not the courts of law, will adjudicate individual rights for denials...

This is not a bill we want made into law.

If the Feds want to push the states into accepting conceal carry, it should be done by enforcing the 2nd Amendment, not adding new federal laws and regulations.

[Jazzhead]

Almost all factions of the GOP believe that there should be universal carry and reciprocity between the states

Not those of us who respect the 10th Amendment.   

[driftdiver]

Not those of us who respect the 10th Amendment.

@Jazzhead
Funny how you are ok using the 10th amendment to suppress the 2nd amendment.

[thackney]

@Jazzhead
Funny how you are ok using the 10th amendment to suppress the 2nd amendment.

Requiring a permit does not equal "shall not be infringed".

Federal laws to force one state to accept the laws of another state is not a conservative stance.

[driftdiver]

Requiring a permit does not equal "shall not be infringed".

Federal laws to force one state to accept the laws of another state is not a conservative stance.

@thackney
Allowing states to infringe the 2nd amendment rights is not a conservative value.

The Federal govt should protect the 2nd, not ignore the states and local govts efforts to block it.

[driftdiver]

It seemed weird that this bill rushed thru the House with so little comment by the left.   This article explains why.

This is a bad bill and will make it easier to prevent you from purchasing a firearm without due process.   

Its GOP sponsored Gun Control supported by the NRA.

[INVAR]

Not those of us who respect the 10th Amendment.

Funny how the 10th doesn't apply to homosexuality or abortion in your world.

[thackney]

@thackney
Allowing states to infringe the 2nd amendment rights is not a conservative value.

The Federal govt should protect the 2nd, not ignore the states and local govts efforts to block it.

Agreed the fed should protect the 2nd.  So do that, enforce the 2nd amendment as written in the Constitution.

Do not add layers upon layers of Federal law requiring States to accept differing State Laws, without any means of the local population having control in their own state.

[driftdiver]

Agreed the fed should protect the 2nd.  So do that, enforce the 2nd amendment as written in the Constitution.

Do not add layers upon layers of Federal law requiring States to accept differing State Laws, without any means of the local population having control in their own state.

@thackney
IMO we shouldn't need a concealed permit to carry.   There's a very real danger of them turning the CWP into a firearm license.  Already many people think you have to have a permit to own a firearm.

Concealed carry reciprocity is a very difficult task and the current method of different states deciding what to accept seems to work ok.  Except for states like NY, CA, IL and MD.

[thackney]

@thackney
IMO we shouldn't need a concealed permit to carry.   There's a very real danger of them turning the CWP into a firearm license.  Already many people think you have to have a permit to own a firearm.

Agreed.

Concealed carry reciprocity is a very difficult task and the current method of different states deciding what to accept seems to work ok.  Except for states like NY, CA, IL and MD.

Agreed.  Having the Fed step in to force reciprocity is a bad idea.  It will turn into a federal permit program.  And really screw things up for the states that already have constitutional carry laws.

[Smokin Joe]

@Jazzhead
Funny how you are ok using the 10th amendment to suppress the 2nd amendment.

No surprise when you consider he is all in with using the 14th to suppress the First.

[Smokin Joe]

Agreed.

Agreed.  Having the Fed step in to force reciprocity is a bad idea.  It will turn into a federal permit program.  And really screw things up for the states that already have constitutional carry laws.

Yep. The reason I renewed my CCW permit is not for in-state, but for when I am elsewhere. Besides, mine includes other dangerous weapons besides firearms.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Requiring a permit does not equal "shall not be infringed".

Federal laws to force one state to accept the laws of another state is not a conservative stance.

I'm uncomfortable with a lowest common denominator rule for concealed carry permits.  To me, the single most important thing on which people need to be educated/trained is exactly where they are permitted to carry, and where they are not; restrictions such as whether you can consume alcohol while carrying, and how you should intereact with a police office if you are carring and happened to be stopped/pulled over.  This last one is important.  I think states should have the right to specify some minimal level of training for permitting people to carry within its borders.

[txradioguy]

Looks like it was a classic political bait and switch. Sad to see the NRA helping to further the violations of gun owners rights.

[thackney]

I'm uncomfortable with a lowest common denominator rule for concealed carry permits.  To me, the single most important thing on which people need to be educated/trained is exactly where they are permitted to carry, and where they are not; restrictions such as whether you can consume alcohol while carrying, and how you should intereact with a police office if you are carring and happened to be stopped/pulled over.  This last one is important.  I think states should have the right to specify some minimal level of training for permitting people to carry within its borders.

I think the biggest success of conceal carry permits (and not being frequently used in crime) is the carrier has some skin in the game, something to lose, that helps motivate their behavior.  But the fact of the class, registry and cost tends to limit the carriers to those already in this mode.

I am not in favor of the feds being involved.  Keep it to individual states and let the voters push the issue.