Navigation


“National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012” introduced in U.S. Senate

March 14, 2012 | by
“National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012” introduced in U.S. Senate

“National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012” introduced in U.S. Senate

Today, March 13, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.”  The bill is the Senate companion to H. R. 822,which was approved by the U. S. House last November by a vote of 272-154.

S. 2188, like H.R. 822, would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state’s laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders.

Today 49 states either issue carry permits or otherwise authorize law-abiding people to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. 41 states have fair “shall issue” permit systems that allow any law-abiding person to get a permit.

In contrast to dire predictions from anti-gun groups, Right-to-Carry laws have been enormously successful.  Interstate reciprocity will serve as a fundamental protection of the right to self-defense by providing people with the ability to protect themselves not only in their home states, but anywhere they travel where carry concealed carry is legal.

Contrary to the false claims of some, these bills would not create federal gun registration or gun owner licensing, nor would they allow any federal agency to establish a federal standard for a carry permit or impose gun control restrictions of any kind.

These bills would have no effect on permitless carry laws, currently on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming and Vermont, that allow concealed carry without a permit. In addition, Vermont residents would be able to take advantage of S. 2188 and H.R. 822 by obtaining a permit from one of the many states that offer non-resident permits.

Please contact your U.S. Senators today and urge them to cosponsor S. 2188.  You can call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 or send them an email by clicking here.

, , , , ,

  • CharonPDX

    Thank you for this excellent write-up!  Can’t wait for it to pass, no more goofy patchwork quilts, and I can finally welcome some of my out-of-state friends who don’t visit because of lack of reciprocity.

    Wrote a letter to my Senators yesterday to express my support.  Note that I would highly suggest anyone that has a Senator may be “mildly anti-gun” (as opposed to the impossible-to-sway “strong anti-gun”) write extolling the virtues of personal freedom and personal rights.  That this is NOT a crime issue, it is a personal rights issue.

    (And, for the more liberal-leaning Senators who have expressed support for marriage equality, this is a good first step – if we’re going to insist that every state recognize every other state’s legal concealed handgun license, we should insist that every state recognize every other state’s legal marriage license.)

    • Fourthrowe

      or we could insist that states STOP recognizing ALL marriages since marriage is a religious institution and not under the purview of any state.

      • Fourthrowe

        To clarify, I’m not against marriage, straight or gay, but the state has no more business meddling in it than baptism or communion. The state may recognize civil unions between straight or gay couples for tax or insurance purposes, but has no business administering religious institutions that transcend national boundaries.

    • Houma

      Marriage licenses are not recognized across state borders now? Really? Or is this some reference to some kind of gay marriage thing?

  • All I can say is I hope nationalizing a concealed carry permit works, because there absolutely ARE risks in going this route!   Depending on which party is in power at the time, they potentially could make changes that could adversely affect ALL of us at that point.   If an administration is pro gun then things go well for everybody.   If they are anti-gun, well you can finish the sentence yourself.

    Meanwhile, I’d like to know what’s wrong with the original permit the founding father’s gave us ALL!   (see attached image).

    • Fourthrowe

      The Feds have already set the precedent of meddling in national firearm laws so I don’t see how this is a slippery slope.

    • Fourthrowe

      You need to re-read the article and bill. Nobody is suggesting we nationalize the permit system; people like you need to stop spreading that BS! It is simply reciprocity, which means each state recognizes each other’s permit. For example, a Florida resident such as myself wouldn’t have to give up the right to defend my family when I get military orders to a state that is VERY restrictive like Hawaii or Maryland.

      • Chucksmith208

        Exactly Fourthrowe! Well stated. It is important for folks to understand that this is not a national CCP. However, I am always wary when the federal government starts dictating to states, what to do or not do.

        As a law abiding citizen that has fulfilled the requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit, my inalienable right to self defense should not end at the state boarder.

        I travel extensively through out this great country. I take my concealed carry permit very seriously. My character, maturity, firearms training, attitude, etc., do not change when I leave my home, travel to a different town, nor when I cross a state line. However, when entering a state that does not have reciprocity with my state, my legal status immediately changes. The absurdity of that scenario is what law abiding concealed carry permit holders constantly deal with.

        Every state recognizes the state issued license I have to operate a car and motorcycle. My ability to operate a vehicle does not change when I enter a different state and neither does my legal status to do so. (Does anyone know what arrangement governs this recognition? Is it a voluntary agreement between states of a federal law?) The constitutional rights of a citizen are supposedly recognized by every state, regardless of a persons state of residency. The inalienable right to self defense should be no different.

        Until all states adopt the policies of Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont this bill seems to be the best option.

        • Jason

          From Article 4 of the US Constitution:
          Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

          So this law would actually be *Constitutional*, which is a rare thing in DC. This is also the part of the Constitution that forces CA to accept our non-CA driver licenses and vehicle licenses.

          I find it odd that you mention getting a “permit”, then talk about an “inalienable right”. If you need a permit or license, it’s not a right, it’s a privilege. I think most gun-rights supporters accept things like permitting and background checks or other “reasonable gun control”, without realizing that it’s another step towards registration or outright bans.

          I would prefer a federal law that points out there are no exceptions listed in the Second Amendment, therefore all gun restrictions, whether federal, state, or local, are unconstitutional.

          • Chucksmith208

            That is why I mentioned the 4 states that currently do not require any permit process to carry concealed. It would seem to me that the position of those states is that concealed carry and personal protection is an unalienable right that is exempt from any type of licensing, permitting, regulation, etc. That is my basic position, but getting states like CA, NY, or MA to accept that anytime in the near future is not realistic. So, the next best thing right now appears to be the current bill in congress.

          • Tglinke

            I believe that the issuance of permits to carry concealed may be unconstitutional, but I would rather go through the process of getting my permit renewed over and over again then allow criminals to run around with firearms with no ramifications. Follow the link and tell your senators to approve this act.

          • Bakerboy

            Tglinke, I see where you are coming from. But criminals are already running around with firearms without facing the consequences, and we already do not “allow” them to. My liberty (and yours) is so much more important than possibly preventing a crime that might occur by keeping restrictive laws in place.

          • Hollywood

            You hit the nail on the head!  We need to stand our ground, I myself participate in permitting because of the many felonies that I could rack up carrying concealed and then would never get to own guns and barely find work at that.  But, I don’t agree in permitting for things that are my constitutional rights.

          • Metalman

             Jason, I think you hit it on the head.  Article 4 says that each State shall already consider each others public acts as good.  That means all non professional licenses are already good from State to State.  I would like to see a case brought regarding this issue.  If article 4 means what it says, we need no new laws regarding carry from State to State.

          •  But the states never set up receprical law reguarding drivers licenses it just evolved to where every state accepts all other states licensces.

          • This bill if passed allows anyone to go to any SHALL issue state and get their permit/license. Utah is only about $70 for 5 years and renewal is only $10-20. I live in Arizona but I prefer requiring a SHALL ISSUE permit. There’s too many absolute fools without any knowledge of firearms laws running around packing heat. I’ve seen several AZ cases of people without a CCW permit shooting people without justification. Fact is CCW permit holders are more law abiding citizens than the rest of society. Many non felon punks looking for trouble carry when there’s no requirement for a permit. The trash most of the time won’t both getting a permit. Permit holders usually act more law abiding for two reasons: 1. They have a history of obeying the law hence no criminal record to prohibit them ie: crimes of moral turpitude within 5 years & you can’t get a UT permit. 2. Once they have a permit they want to keep it so they tend to act in a more responsible manner. It’s a nice way for the police to sweep the trash from the streets since the trash don’t have a permit. As mentioned I’m in a no permit required state. The first state with a major city (over 1 million) people being Phoenix. People who disagree with me don’t live in AZ to see the difference. I pray Mitt wins next Tuesday so this will be signed and I can carry in L.A.

        • Anon

          The federal government mandated that all states recognize each others’ drivers licenses.

        • Andyweaver

          Chucksmith208, You reference that every state recognizes your drivers licence. That is not quite correct. For example, Virginia being a commonwealth state, they can deny your right to operate a motor vehicle in that state even if you have a valid licence from another. To clarify….I moved from Virginia to Ohio. Left with a valid licence from Virginia and then obtained a valid Ohio. My old insurance company failed to inform the Virginia DMV and subsequently had my licence suspended in Virginia for not providing and up to date insurance on my vehicle. EVEN though i wasn’t even there. My right to drive in Virginia was suspended which is the same as if I lived there. It was stupid, but I had to prove I didn’t live in the state  at the time they suspended my licence then pay $75 to reinstate a licence I didn’t even have!!
          With all that being said every state (even if they have conservative carry laws) does not have to accept ANY out of state conceled permit if for any reason. Only if that state has an existing agreement with your home state.Even then there are restrictions and stipulations to the rule.

          • rone

            YOUR OVER COOKIN THIS BOYS !!!
            National Carry will give you the right to carry nationwide. It does not supercede the “state” law governing how to “legally” carry and act in the use or handling of your gun while in that state.

      • Justin w

        How do you get your firearms from Florida to Hawaii in the first place?

        I’m surprised to see two Democrats leading this, hope there’s no tricks behind it.

        • guest

          I can’t speak for West Virginia, but rest assured, any senator, Democrat or Republican, from Alaska is pro run rights. People who still see this as strictly a division between parties have not been paying attention. It comes down more to geography, where does the Senator hail from, then party. Just ask any Democrat from the Rocky Mt states,…

          • Joejoe

            Joe manchin ran a campaign add where he shot the cap and trade bill with a 12 gauge. If that tells you anything. One of the few democrats I vote for.

        • Jason

          Uh…check the gun in luggage. Carry it on a personal plane or boat.

          The two democrats are from pro-gun states. If you look at votes for gun laws, democrats from states without any major cities (e.g. WV, AK) frequently vote pro-gun.

          • Fourthrowe

            Exactly, I checked them in aircraft luggage. Unloaded, declared, in a locked container, with no more than 13 lbs of ammo per passenger.

      • RiverRat57

         Or us poor truck drivers that just want  to be able to defend ourselves in the “GUN FREE ZONES” I.E. LA, Chicago, D.C, NYC.

        • Hollywood

          This is the exact reason my family refuses to make a road trip into California from Oregon and canceled our trip to Disneyland.

        • Doc_3513

          I am
          also a truck driver and if i can protect my family (and myself) at home why can’t i protect my self on the road, isn’t that my home also?

        • Jerry

          Isn’t there something in the Constitution that says they can’t inhibit our right to travel. When Chicago tells you that you can’t go there with your pistol they are either prohibiting you r right to bear arms or inhibiting your rights to free travel

      • You might care to look at the very first word of the Act . . . “National”.    This absolutely is an attempt to nationalize the various permits by making them all valid in other states.   You’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.   No where in my posting did I claim they are trying to federalize them all into a single permit.   Reading is fundamental . . . do try and keep up.

        • utimmer43

           Yes, and the second word: “Reciprocity”.  Put the two together and you have “national reciprocity”, meaning that every state involved recognizes every other states’ permits as they would their own permits. And that is where it ends.

          “Nationalize: To convert from private (in our case- state) to governmental (in our case- federal) ownership and control”.  No where does the act define criteria for obtaining a permit, nor does it define areas where a firearm may or may not be carried.  Those issues are expressly left to the states. The only abuse that could happen is if the law is changed to allow for such.  At that point it becomes a completely separate issue.

          BTW, I prefer the Thune/ Vitter bill which I believe has yet to be introduced.  But if this is the one that moves forward, I’ll take it as a step in the right direction.  Our rights were not snatched away from us overnight, likewise we will not win them back all at once.

      • Promontorium

        His worries are valid. What the bill states is irrelevant. If someone wants to add or subtract some things that would completely undermine the bill, they can do it, and depending on who has the voting power it can be pushed through. Do you not remember it was a credit card bill that had allowed for guns to be carried loaded in national parks? 

      • Jerry

        Very true. Each state being it’s own sovereign entity makes the rules and the Federals agree not to mess with the rights that state gave you. But states like New York have never honored other state’s permits and not many states in return will honor a NY permit. States should forget their pettiness and all come together with very similar guidelines and laws and then let reciprocity do its thing.

      • Vom Brunhaus

        NJ very Difficult state

    • RDY762

       There’s a way to handle any problems.
      Never vote a Constitution-cRAT in ANY office.

    • Jerry

      The 2nd amendment or the Constitution did not GIVE us any gun rights. It mainly means “What gun rights you have already issued by the state you live in will not be touched by us, the Federal government. The colonies or conception of states were set up first and BEFORE the Constitution was drawn up. Therefore that trend continued as each individual state being it’s own sovereign entity within a group of other sovereigns. States and the conception of states came first. The Constitution agreed to let things alone and let the states control these things. Your permit rights reside within the Constitution of your state only.

  • Rodgerroadstar99

    It’s such a shame we have to take one tiny step at a time to protect our right to self-protection.

  • Sandyn313

    The US government has no business getting involve in this. This is a states issue.

    • Steve McNally

      I disagree.  No state should have the right to revoke a right that we have at the federal level.  How would you feel if some states individually revoked your freedom of speech as soon as you crossed their border?

  • Redneckfuller1977

    what makes ILLINOIS so special that they dont have to follow the rest of the country?

    • the bill applies to all states that have a CCW law.  Illinois doesn’t not permit concealed carry at all

    • Sherm

      Illinois allows only mobsters, gang members, robbers, felons, rapists, or anyone engaging in illegal activity to carry a concealed weapon. This allows protection for those involved in illegal activity and encourages participation from those who would fear physical harm from responsible citizens.

    • Bob

      We have some A–hole politicians (democrats) Chicago and Cook County runs the whole state. I went to Igols  March 7 and they think we are the closest we have ever been for CWC. I have my fingers crossed.

      • OCS

        OCS,
        Bob wish you and all of us that IL. joins the other 49 states and finally allows CC permits…..hope it’s on a “will” issue basis.  I live in NY  under the Sullivan Law
        that only allows you to CC in NYC if your permit was granted in NYC!!  DUH,
        it’s the one place I feel most unsafe in the state!  Mine was issued outside of NYC
        so I can CC anywhere in the state, but NYC…ah the logicl of it all…LOL

        Understand that Sulivan was a politician(a crooked one at tha..LOLt) and want only his “guys” to have CC in hisplat ground NY City!!  Interesting a crook actually helped to creat one of the most restrictive CC situations in the country!

  • Jackragusa

    It’s about time our legistrators grow up. This is long over due.

  • So if I lived in NY, MD, NJ, or any other May Issue state, how would this bill benefit me?

    • Jpage63

      It would allow you to carry in all the states except IL if you had a CCW from your home state.

  • JHinSD

    The article does not specify between Resident and Non-Resident permitees…does the bill?  In other words, I am a Resident of Kalifornia and have Non-Resident permits for UT, NV and FL.  Would this “National Reciprocity” bill thus allow me to concealed carry in Kalifornia?

    • Jpage63

      The house bill specified home state permit,  I don’t know what the senate bill says.

    • Dagunner

      All states will recognize all other states permits.  So, yes you should be able to carry in Kalifornia with a permit from another state

    • billy bob jim bob george

       After reading the text of the house bill (H.R. 822), I can tell you that it did not specify anything about resident vs non-resident licenses.  This could be considered wonderful news, or terrible news, depending on who gets to make the call on that.  If case law determines that non-resident licenses are included, great!  If not, we’ve got more work ahead of us.  Either way, it’s a great step towards reinstating my 2nd amendment rights.  (Note:  This analysis is assuming that the senate bill [S. 2188] will contain the same text as the house bill.  As the official text has not been published by the Library of Congress at the time of this writing, no guarantee can be made.)

  • Stevemeyer9825

    love it it is about time

  • Steve McNally

    It would mean that, if you have a CCW in one of those states, that your permit would be valid in any other state that issues CCW permits.  This legislation has nothing to do with “Shall issue” or “May issue” states.  All it says is that any state that has a CCW permit program would have to accept CCW permits from other states.

  • Steve McNally

    I would have to double check, but I believe it only applies to permits issued to you by your state of residence.

  • Dagunner

    I forwarded the NRA-ILA copy I had and put it out to those in a group I belong to on Facebook.  I encourage everyone to contact your senators about this, regardless of their party.

  • rsm

    I’m all for unfettered reciprocity, but would this push states like California, Hawaii, and Oregon to just stop issuing permits all together? Would NY just become like Illinois? Just a thought,.. 

    • Bob B.

       Possible, but I see that as unlikely.  States that are difficult-to-issue typically have tried repeatedly to stop issuing and simply cannot get the needed public support.

    • Guest

       I’m in a California ‘may issue’ county – nearly ‘shall issue’. Land area wise, probably most of California will issue permits, it’s just the major metro areas that don’t.

  • Dive1

    If this bill passes in Senate it will be a great victory for all of us who have supported it for many years. To bad for the people from Illinois will not be able enjoy what the rest of us will have. the comfort knowing you will be able to protect yourself and family no matter were you travel in the continues US

  • The fact that States were allowed to make any law that superseded the US Constitution only furthers the cause of a National Reciprocity Act. We’ve all, most likely have State-issued drivers licenses that required each motorist to pass a written and practical exam to demonstrate the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. The same holds true with a carry permit, where applicable. Why do we require legislation to “reinstate” that which was provided by Constitutional right? It’s not about safety. The CDC and other organizations that play the number game would tell you that gun death (accidental or intentional) numbers should be aggregated based on the number of guns per capita versus automobile deaths. There’s way more cars than guns so factor in the actual risk of a law-abiding citizen carrying his or her handgun across state lines and doing absolutely nothing unlawful with it are pretty high versus a lawful motorist crossing into another state and having a car accident that kills someone. The law of averages would say ban all cars!

  • Fgehring

    I am certainly in favor of this bill. My only concern is that New York and California will find some way to get out of it.  Most of the guns that people carry are not legal in California.  I can see California arresting anyone carrying a gun that is is not permitted in California. At the present time, New York will not honor any other state’s permit.  I do not think Senator Schumor will ever vote for this bill.

  • Ryancampbell02

    As I am bout to be gettin my CHL this is great news. As I am in the military and the though of money down the drain for evey military post I am transfered to. thanks for the headline and thanks for watching our countrys back here at home as we are abroad. 

  • Nbuildermatt

    This is what we need as nation. I truly hope this passes. Thank you N.R.A.

  • Drjukebox

    S 2188 is the 1st step to national gun control. CCW should be left to indivduall states to contol

  • Frez

    If I live in California ,but they wont give me a permit (I understand it is very hard to get one in California, not that Im a bad person or anything), can I go to a states that allows nonresidents to get a permit and come back to California and carry the gun concealed? If the bill passes that is.

  • Charles

      The chances for this bill to become law are very good.  Remember that in 2009 National Reciprocity passed the Senate with 58 votes but 60 was needed to bypass parlimentary proceedure.  The 2010 election changed the makeup of the Senate making passage very likely now.  Obama MIGHT sign it if he needs election year votes. The bill could also be attached to another bill Obama wants like the National Parks carry law, which Obama DID  sign.   This is a VERY good bill and needs our support and calls to the Congress.

    • StoutCortez

      I hope you’re right, but some of those 58 voted for the bill only because they knew it would fail. Some Dems actually got permission from Harry Reid to vote “yea” to please the folks back home, but that was only because Reid was sure of the count. They would have voted “nay” if they had to.

  • hazard123

    It sickens me to ask permission to exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights.

  • EyesWideOpen

    This
    bill is a bad idea. Some states DO NOT MANDATE ANY: TRAINING TESTING or
    MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECK, while others require eight (8) hours
    training/testing along with mandatory background checks. So if the bill
    becomes law, untrained, individuals who do not even know basic handgun
    safety can carry in states that previously required equivalent training
    and testing before granting reciprocity.The states that have high
    standards for training, testing and background checks already have
    reciprocity.

    Therefore, why risk having the some federal anti-second amendment group
    or individual, who happens to gain power, being in a position to
    restrict or essentially remove our gun rights.

    I say, “LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE!!!”. Let the states that aren’t granted reciprocity, do what is required to gain it.

    • Shake N Bake

      EyesWideOpen: Do you have facts to back that up?  You are just another fear monger that cries that there will be blood in the streets, and the return of Dodge City.  How do the statistics compare between mandatory training and background check States and States that do not require any training or background check?
      ……..
      Crickets

  • StoutCortez

    I would love to see national reciprocity, and I believe that the framers of the Constitution would think it’s fine for law-abiding citizens to be armed, but the political reality is this:

    1. Senate Democrats would need 41 votes to kill this bill through filibuster. I think they have the 41.

    2. If the bill does end up passing and goes to Obama’s desk, Obama will veto it. (He’ll claim to be pro-gun, but he’ll find some excuse.)

    3. While New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii (as well as New York City, San Francisco, etc.) are technically “shall issue,” they are in practice “no issue” to regular Americans. So under this bill New Jersey (for example) would have to recognize the permits of citizens from Alabama and Alaska, but the Soprano State’s own citizens still could not carry. Nor would New Jersey citizens be able to carry in any other state without obtaining a nonresident permit. That problem will be hard to work around.

    There is another angle to this, though:

    Proponents of homosexual “marriage” fear that such arrangements will not be honored by other states. In fact, many proposed bills specifically exempt states from having to recognize same-sex marriage from another state. It is vaguely possible that Democrats, figuring they’ve lost the firearms battle anyway, are willing to cede this issue to the pro-gun side so that they can claim a similar kind of “recognition” for one of their pet issues. Just possible.

    Even if the bill passes and Obama signs it, New York City, the District of Columbia, the State of New Jersey, and several other anti-gun locales will throw every technicality they can think of in the way of people desiring to carry. My guess is that even with national reciprocity, you will in many places still be arrested for carrying, even if the charges against you have to be trumped up.

    If this bill passes, you will then see the entire edifice of the left-wing media go to work. They will pull out all the stops. We’ll see anti-gun propaganda, lies, and distortions 24/7.

  • Great. I live in the “fiftieth” state – Illinois!

    • Fpicray

      My condolences.  The people in Illinois need to un-elect the mobster politicians.  That is why IL. will never have CC, it causes the mafia that runs IL. concern.  The people may fight back.
      Are you sure IL. is a state?

  • Alfredo Matos

    I live in Puerto Rico and we have a very restricted gun law. In PR is considered a privilege and not a right to have a gun and a carry permit. Senator Rios have submitted a bill (PS 2466) to change the actual law as a right, aligned with the Second Amendment.We are nearly 60,000 guns owners in PR in which believe the right to have and carry arms reciprocally were ever Our fifty Star flag Stands. We have identified 12 legislators that will not have our vote in this next elections. 
    We support our mainland gun rights also.
    Alfredo Matos- NRA Instructor

  • KCromm

    I disagree that this law will not beget more laws, specifically that of gun-control / gun registration laws.

    This law is NOT needed.
    The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution already covers what this “law” is bragging to do.As Cobra noted: The 2nd Amendment is my gun permit.  It has an Issue Date and has no End Date, of which is not needed.

    • StoutCortez

      I admire your sentiments, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in its lengthy and generally favorable Heller and McDonald decisions, specifically noted that the Second Amendment does not invalidate laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. A state can’t prohibit you from owning a gun, but it can prohibit you from carrying it concealed. If you are arrested for carrying in New York City, a Second Amendment argument won’t succeed in court. Luckily, the places hostile to concealed carry are few and shrinking.

      I agree that we have to be very careful about this proposed law. We must cut off every possible avenue that could later be used against us.

    • Fpicray

      I agree with the second amendment being our gun permit.  But, there are courts that do not, and sorry to say, you may pay a very high price to make your point.

  • genem

    According to GOAs web site there are two different bills, one sponsored by Thune and Vitter and the one being discussed here. The one by Thune and Vitter sounds better to me.

  • Taotaogalu

    Wonder if it also applies to the Us territories like guam where i live,really hard to get a ccw permit here maybe get one out of state so i could carry concealed here finally

  • This will provide some peace of mind for those Americans who spend their time traveling the country. It’s vital that individual states maintain their respective provisions as not all locales are created equal. Let’s just keep this simple. I pray it goes through with a strong majority vote.

  • John Travel

    Long overdue. but I will believe it when I see it! By the way, if GOVERNOR CHRISTI of NJ is such a great friend of Conservatives, why is it impossible to own firearms and NO CARRY PERMITS FOR LAW ABIDING CITIZENS? Same goes for Romney in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts and their archaic gun laws…

    • StoutCortez

      I lived in NJ for more than half a century. Christie is a conservative only when compared to the likes of far-left Jon Corzine, Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez, and Loretta Weinberg. Christie is not pro-gun.

      NJ’s once-formidable pro-gun blue-collar and rural population has been fleeing the state for 30 years. The voters of NJ are now dominated by latté liberals, academics, the chronic poor, members of public unions, soccer moms, ACLU types, and Asian immigrants. Being anti-gun in NJ does not hurt a politician the way it does in most states. Illinois will go “shall issue” before NJ does.

      • Chucksmith208

        Agreed…Christie, while having some definite positives, has two major deal breakers that prohibit any support. First; his position on firearms. Second; he’s is so eager to lower the flag for drug addicts and criminals. While as governor he has the authority, the gesture is cheapened when it is treated so casually. Why don’t ya just hand out Grammy Awards to our soldiers while you’re at it Gov. Christie and see what Holywood has to say about that…

  • White Doberman

    If it passes I will actually say, “God Bless America.”

  • starwalker_wa

    I have just done a search of Senate material, and I find S-2188 nowhere.  I find it onerous that we must ask permission of government to practice our Second Amendment rights,  God-given rights that do not extend fgrom governmet, bur are Inalienable, according to our Founding Fathers.  I have contacted both of our =Senators from Washington, and one has responded,  Now it just remains to be seen what they will do.  They both voted Nay the last time this came to a vote, when the democrats decided a super majority was needed.  The bill needed 60 votes to pass, and we got 58.  Talk about things that make you go Hmmmmm.

  • Shane34652

    The only problem is once it passes the senate it still has to go th the white house. That will be a problem with an anti gun prez from an anti gun state.

  • Thor

    This NOT the bill to support-it is a compromise when Senators Thune and Vitter have already introduced a better reciprocity bill.  Two Reciprocity Bills: A Strong Bill verses a
    Compromise

    Read the difference below!

    Pro-gun Senate champions John Thune
    (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) have decided to stand their ground on their
    concealed carry reciprocity legislation, despite pressure from gun rights
    compromisers to weaken the bill.

    Specifically, Senators Thune and Vitter are sticking with their version of
    the bill, which recognizes the right to carry concealed by residents of
    “Vermont-style” and “Constitutional Carry” states.

    Such states do not require residents to obtain the government’s permission
    before carrying a firearm for self-protection. There are currently 17 states
    that have either enacted legislation in the past or have introduced
    “Constitutional Carry” laws in their legislatures this year.

    Current law:
    Vermont
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Montana
    Wyoming

    Considering legislation:
    Colorado
    Georgia
    Iowa
    Kentucky
    Maine
    New Hampshire
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota (on governor’s desk)
    Virginia

    More states are being added to the list all the time. The Thune-Vitter
    legislation will fully recognize gun owners’ rights in these states.

    A competing bill, however, pulls the rug out from under “Constitutional
    Carry.” Sponsored by Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), the
    compromise bill still requires a government permit for reciprocity, regardless
    of state law.

    So while the states are moving in the direction of more freedom, the Begich
    and Manchin bill would keep even the most pro-gun states tied to a permitting
    system. Why are they doing this? After all, criminals don’t get in line at the
    police station to get a permit. It’s the law-abiding gun owners who go through
    the process of proving their innocence before being “allowed” to carry a
    firearm.

    We have a message for Begich and Manchin: gun ownership is a right, not a
    privilege.

    It is vitally important that your two Senators hear from you right away.
    Urge them NOT to support the compromise bill, and instead support the pro-gun
    legislation offered by Senators Thune and Vitter.

    ACTION: Contact your Senators. Insist
    that they cosponsor the strong pro-gun Thune-Vitter reciprocity bill, which
    protects Constitutional Carry, and urge them not to support the Begich-Manchin
    compromise.

  • DG

    I currently hold Utah and Oregon and have applied for Arizona, it would be nice to not have to keep paying to get permits just so that I can travel for business.  Reciprocity is just that, the recognition of another states permits.  Utah requires an FBI background check, how much more do you need to do? The problem is the idiots that do not know how to use a firearm and several states do not require range time.

    • Arizona already recognizes Utah’s and Oregon’s permits. You could also get a Florida permit and get permission to concealed carry in a good majority of the states. Although i still agree i don’t understand why we need to do that anyways. People should be able to carry where ever they want if they are proven not to be a criminal by a background check.

  • blogengeezer

    Interesting that many Senators and Representatives, both State and US, Dem and Rep, across the nation approve of CC. Those that I am in contact with, themselves Carry. They apparently have an insiders opinion on the dangers that are increasingly roaming among the law abiding, in their case, the law ‘makers’. Many in NM are staunch supporters. Being Dems in a primarily Dem (Dependency) state, helps. Our Dem ex gov, Richardson, now lobbying for South America, signed the bill for CCW. Our present Rep Gov Suzana Martinez, formerly a district prosecutor, has carried daily …for years. Our legislators *most of them) know the ramifications of prohibitive laws that affect even them.

    A few agenda spewing ‘public servants’ (professional Bureaucrats) are vociferously adamant (with full media support) against Any weaponry in the hands of the lowly masses. For them, the more restrictions, regulations, fees and bans, the better. The voters will silently deal with them…. as election time rolls around. In order to placate ‘anti gun’ factions and get approval for CC in beer/wine restaurants, we in NM, were ‘forced’ to end Utah reciprocity. Hopefully the bill being considered, ends the ‘placating’. As ‘potentially’ ;>) vulnerable national travelers in an RV, we would very much like the issue cleared, so that we could more fully ‘enjoy’ travel in all contiguous states, rather than the present system of threatening fear… like ‘illegal’ foreign travelers.

  • Loneagle

    like someone say before it should be like your driver license,they keep trying to take away our rights as lawful Americans. while people are gun down like in Chicago were a 6yr old girl was killed by drive by.they should spend there time ending guns put in wrong hands.

  • Bad Juju

    Guns will never be the problem. So why regulate them. People who use guns illegally will carry anywhere they want to. History has proven that time and time again. So why can’t law abidingpeople carry anywhere?

    I don’t think like a criminal, but if I did….. I would think twice before victimizing someone if there is even a 1% chance they could be armed.

    Anti-gunners I have found are the people who are ok with being victims. Just my own observation. It gives them something else to complain about…..

  • I feel its needed,because of the posiblity of being attacked in another State,Everyone has the right to protect themselves from harm,and as people know,a Criminal doesn’t have to abide by Laws,So if you are attacked,or assaulted in another State,You can be absolutely SURE ,there NOT be a Cop around the corner,or in the Vicinity to help,And then it brings up a case,that who is responsible for your protection in other States, if and when you are attacked,That is why States have Police Forces.

  • rone

    Nationwide carry does not eliminate STATE LAW for conceal carry. It forces states to accept all CHL’s from any state. The bill must and will, by design, include minimum national standards for acquiring a Conceal Handgun License. The national standard, established by the NRA is 4 hours. Remember, a CHL gives you the right to protect your life and that of your loved ones and in some states third party intervention is allowed. Hero’s, cowboy’s and idiots in general are always in the news and,  DO NOT require or need a CHL to show their ignorance. Case in point, Joe Horn in Houston/Pasadena TX. No CHL, interviened as third party on neighbors behalf and killed two theives. He lost his house, pention and everything he owned to fund his defense. Then you have Zimmerman in FL. A  Conceal Weapons License holder who, on the surface, if you “DO NOT READ ANYTHING” into the situation………was involved in a fatal shooting……….the ONLY CLOSE eye witness, deceased. Testamony of other alledged witnesses, from a distance, in the dark, will more than likely blur when seated before a grand jury after the penalty for purgury is read and result in a “NO BILL” by the grand jury.

  • Not from Chicago

    We need to be careful of the wording. I live in the corrupt state of Illinois. I have a Utah issued permit that allows me to carry concealed in 30 + states (but not my own state where I live) . It appears the Thune Vitter bill specifies National Reciprocity for a state issues permit from the state you live in.
    That might just void the very restricted rights I have today.

  • NRA_lifer

    Don’t do it!  If full reciprocity passes, a State CCP essentially becomes a National (aka Federal) CCP.  I know that this is not the INTENT of full reciprocity supporters, but the Justice department sure would have a strong argument to regulate since State boundaries would no longer be an issue.  Be careful what you wish for…..you may get something else.

  • cs

    DC does not allow CC, so how would reciprocity be applicable? 

    • rone

      Duh…………….thats what their workin on.

      • Infant Begonia

        But its called Reciprocity, therefore if a state or city I.E. DC does not allow CC there can be no reciprocity. Just like Illinois will not be covered under the reciprocity rule neither will DC. This is why it is strange that DC is highlighted under the applicable states/cities on the reciprocity map above…..DUH

  • Hey, just be happy that you don’t live in Illinois! Yes, we need National Reciprocity and I’m all for it but I’ll be a lot Happier when we finally have our Right to Carry in Illinois.

  • Dreamaker2010

    Ok, when is this going to be voted on and if approved, in effect? I am planning a camping, hiking trip from florida to california. I plan on being in remote areas the kind of place you want to bringSmith 3w

  • Promontorium

    What this means as a law enforcement trained military veteran and law abiding citizen of the state of California is that perhaps one day, people far less responsible than I am, with far less reason to do so will be allowed by the government to bring their guns into my state and conceal-carry where my corrupt anti-constitutional government won’t allow me to do the same. 

  • Did it pass or not? and why can’t I find any recent information (like right now after the voting has finished)

  • Jerry

    It’s a pipedream since 2011. Will NEVER get past Obama. This nation SHULD have put forth a Federal pistol carry permit for the whole USA and never mind all 50 states putting forth myriad laws and not issuing licenses like Chicago and Washington D.C. had been. But I suspect it will fall short of becoming law.

Quantcast