Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 98

Thread: Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too

    Hello all,

    First off, when H.R. 38 (Hudson's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act) was introduced, I was very excited. I supported it (and still do). (Astute observers of the bill will notice it has no related bills listed in the "related bills" section.)

    But when Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill (S.446) was recently introduced, I was utterly dismayed by it and resolved to oppose Cornyn's bill.

    Why?

    Reading carefully into Cornyn's bill, there is a sharp difference between S. 446 and the originally introduced (and vastly superior) H.R. 38. Cornyn's S. 446 states in part:

    "Rule of construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.”

    So -- under Cornyn's bill, the Concealed Carry "Reciprocity" wouldn't even exist. Any State would be able to simply write a law saying that they would prohibit reciprocity and that would be that.

    On the other hand, H.R. 38 is explicitly written to allow for preemption. It literally begins with the phrase, "Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof" and ensures there is federal preemption (with the exception that State laws would still be allowed to permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their (private) property, and State laws would still be allowed to prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park).

    Under H.R. 38, I would be able to (in California, New Jersey, New York, etc..) obtain a non-resident concealed carry permit from Virginia and (assuming H.R. 38 were to be signed into law as it is written now), I would then be able to rely upon the Virginia permit in any state. That is the author's express intent and he wrote it that way. You cannot do that today. In like manner, someone who has a concealed carry permit in California already, would be able to (if H.R. 38 were to be signed into law) rely on their permit in any other state.

    Not with Cornyn's bill! Cornyn apparently is willing to sabotage our efforts.

    I urge readers of this post to OPPOSE Cornyn's S. 446 and to SUPPORT H.R. 38 (the REAL Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill). Contact your Congressmembers (simple form here for you to do that) and let them know - NO to S.446, YES to H.R. 38.

    Thank you.

    p.s.: I also urge you to read, sign, and share on your facebook my petition for repeal of unconstitutional state laws by federal pre-emption. Notably the Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367, which has been introduced but not yet passed, already incorporates a federal preemption clause (as does its counterpart in the Senate, S.59), so it looks like some pro-2A Congresspeople are already thinking about this. If you doubt that Congress has the authority to do federal preemption over unconstitutional acts of the states, just remember -- States have no rights to deny rights, and Congress can indeed use the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution to engage in federal preemption to prevent unconstitutional acts by States.

    I also want to add that I would support S. 446 if it were literally a "copy and paste" of H.R. 38, but it is not. S. 446 as it is currently written attempts to sabotage real reciprocity efforts.
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  2.   
  3. I would disagree that the language in HR 38 is allowing a person to get a non resident permit from another state and then become legal in their state of residence. You would need to be issued a license from the State in which you reside, or if your state allows unlicensed carry, you would be free to do so in the rest of the States as well. Ie. Florida does not have the authority to issue a license that lets me carry in Illinois (my home state).

    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—

  4. #3
    When/if it goes into joint committee they will iron out the differences.

    In the meantime it is too soon to pick nits on either.

    The best thing is to get both passed so they CAN go into committee.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
    I would disagree that the language in HR 38 is allowing a person to get a non resident permit from another state and then some become legal in their state of residence. You would need to be issued a license from the State in which you reside, or if your state allows unlicensed carry, you would be free to do so in the rest of the States as well. Ie. Florida does not have the authority to issue a license that lets me carry in Illinois (my home state).
    This is actually not correct. H.R. 38 would allow a person (any person eligible to own a firearm) to get a nonresident permit from another state and then use it in their state of residence.

    Proof

    "My legislative intent is to ensure a non-resident carry permit is recognized, and I've confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff," Hudson said.

    Also, the text of the bill supports what the news article (linked to above) indicates, as follows:

    Here's the relevant quote from the bill about who would be eligible to carry and how the permits issued by states to nonresidents are addressed by H.R. 38:

    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.


    The "license or permit" which it refers to above does not say "concealed carry weapon permit or license." It simply is any "license or permit." In many states (but not in all) there is a permit or license which you obtain when you obtain a handgun. Additionally, in many (a growing number) of states, no license is required and constitutional carry is state law. In CA that would be a COE (the COE does not permit you to carry concealed, but it would certify eligibility to carry concealed if you were to also request a review from an issuing official such as a Sheriff). IMHO the bill would be better if they removed the proposed language, "and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State" so that the license or permit would clearly be any license or permit issued. However, since H.R. 38 contains a preemption clause, if someone in CA obtained a nonresident CCW permit from Virginia, THAT PERMIT would be considered (under federal law) to be, in the words of the bill as proposed, " 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." WERE THE PREEMPTION PROVISION NOT INCLUDED IN H.R. 38, no-one would be able to make such a claim - which is why Cornyn's bill is so dangerous to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity movement.

    Note that it said pursuant to the law of a State - not pursuant to law of "the" State. Because it was written in such a way ("a State,") that means that it applies to anyone who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State. Arguably the proposed law could be clarified and improved by replacing "a" with "any," but the bill's meaning is clear.

    Note also the "or" provision: "or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides." This includes people that already have a concealed carry permit from the state they reside it, but because the word "or" is used, it doesn't propose to require that you have to get the concealed carry permit from the state where you reside. You could get it from any state that will issue it to you and then it would be honored.

    This will be true under H.R. 38 for anyone who meets the following conditions:

    (you live in a state that) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm (even in California, this condition is met, so technically a California resident would be able to apply for a VA nonresident CCW... and so on)

    and

    (the state) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

    I don't know of any state that prohibits the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes, because they can't. They can put up bureaucratic obstacles but they can't prohibit it. Not even in D.C. have they been allowed to prohibit concealed carry, although they have certainly opposed it at every turn there.
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  6. #5
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    When/if it goes into joint committee they will iron out the differences.

    In the meantime it is too soon to pick nits on either.

    The best thing is to get both passed so they CAN go into committee.
    Actually, right now is the time to get rid of Cornyn's terrible bill. If Cornyn wants to sabotage Concealed Carry Reciprocity by explicitly refusing to utilize federal preemption, that is his problem. It doesn't need to be ours.

    I am not the only person to point this out. The Daily Caller pointed out that Cornyn, looking for Dems to support his alternative, wrote it so that it "does not mandate the right to concealed carry in states that do not allow the practice and, according to Cornyn’s office, “does not allow a resident to circumvent their home state’s concealed carry permit laws.”

    Screw Cornyn! He's in the same gun-controller crowd that wanted to use watch lists to unconstitutionally restrict who would have access to guns. Fortunately, the rest of the Republicans defeated his awful proposal. Or did we all forget that so soon?
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  7. #6
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    I think it's also worthwhile to emphasize that President Trump is probably NOT on board with Cornyn's proposal.

    Quote from Trump's (pre-election - and hasn't changed yet) Statement on Second Amendment Rights:

    President Trump: "Driver’s license works in every state, so a concealed carry permit should in every state. If we can do that for driving- a privilege - then we can do that for concealed carry, a right."

    A RIGHT!

    NOT A PRIVILEGE, CORNYN!
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  8. It can be there intent all day long but the words in the document don't back it up.

    It quits becoming a reciprocity bill and turns into national licensing under that interpretation.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. Quote Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
    It can be their intent all day long but the words in the document don't back it up.

    It quits becoming a reciprocity bill and turns into national licensing under that interpretation.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #9
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post

    (...)

    It quits becoming a reciprocity bill and turns into national licensing under that interpretation.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    I kind of agree (even though I think that the preemption provision included takes care of the problem as mentioned). Still, although I think my point about the preemption provision preserving the full intent of the reciprocity bill is valid, I think it could be written better (the current language makes it too easy to challenge the bill legally) and I'll be writing in to encourage that some words be modified or removed to make it a stronger bill before passage so that when states like CA and NY sue over it (which they will..) then it will hold up.

    HR 38 needs to be even stronger than it is now not weaker, IMHO. More teeth, not less. (This is also why Cornyn's betrayal via S.446 is absolutely not an option for us to support. If Cornyn would remove his ego and just copy and paste H.R.38 into S.446 then I wouldn't oppose S.446 but as it stands obviously S.446 is a betrayal by Cornyn of the concealed carry reciprocity movement. Cornyn's attacked the 2nd Amendment before, he'll do it again, he can't be trusted.)
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  11. And one would have to hope that states keep issuing non-resident permits.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast