Jump to content
ajpaul59

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Hudson, NC

Recommended Posts

I receive this today:

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Passes out of House Committee

Dear DowntownV,

There was great news coming out of the House Judiciary Committee today!

By a 19-11 vote, the Constitutional Carry-friendly reciprocity legislation was voted out of the House committee and is now on its way to passage by the full House.  

This is H.R. 38, which was authored by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC).

The legislation would allow anyone with a permit, and anyone from a Constitutional Carry state, to carry in any state in the country -- thereby countering the fascist laws of anti-gun states.  

In particular, it would allow residents of repressive states to get non-resident permits and thereby circumvent local anti-gun officials.  John%20Velleco-Shaneen%20Allen-Louie%20Gohmert.png

The term "handgun" would be defined to include "any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into a handgun or its magazine."  

This would circumvent efforts by states like Massachusetts and California to effectively ban guns by banning and/or registering magazines and ammo. 

Suffice it to say that pushing the GOOD version of reciprocity to the verge of House passage and enactment is a huge accomplishment which should not be underestimated. 

Speaking of the "good version of reciprocity," the House committee fended off an attempt by Democrats to delete the Constitutional Carry protections in the bill. 

By a 17-8 vote, Republicans defeated an anti-gun amendment offered by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) that would have sought to limit concealed carry reciprocity to permit holders only.  

Gun Owners of America opposed this amendment and was happy to see it go down to an inglorious defeat.

Nevertheless, there was some bad news. 

The House committee passed a "Fix NICS" bill which will result in more innocent people being thrown into the NICS system. 

The six heroes who voted against background check infringements were Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Ken Buck (R-CO), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve King (R-IA), and Raul Labrador (R-ID).

Gun Owners of America has strongly opposed this legislation, and you can see our previous analysis herehere and here.

Having said that, we are inclined to believe that the GOOD reciprocity bill is a much, much bigger deal for us than Fix NICS is for the gun grabbers.  

Both bills now advance to the floor of the House.

Please stay tuned for further updates.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Executive Director

Follow me on Twitter: @ErichMPratt

P.S. Thank you for all your activism in favor of H.R. 38.  Stay tuned for more updates.  In the meantime, don't forget to check out the latest Firing Back podcast, which provides needed ammunition to counter the talking points from your liberal anti-gun friends and family during the holiday season.  

I have Utah, FL. and ME. for the past 8 years, NEVER let them expire!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 68chris said:

Here is the proper way to read this to clear up any confusion.

In the above bill, commas are ‘ands’. To qualify to carry in NJ, as a NJ resident, you must meet all of the reqirements written that are seperated by commas and the final “and” at the end of the sentence. A comma is never used to describe the last of multiple items. “and” is used.

NJ residents should not care what is written after the “or”, it means nothing and does not apply to NJ residents.

 

 

The grammar purists will come along soon enough to tell you all about the Oxford comma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AdamM said:

Here is a link to the NRA-ILA for just that purpose.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171127/concealed-carry-reciprocity-is-on-the-move-your-lawmakers-need-to-hear-from-you-now

Click on the "Write Your Federal Lawmakers" in the article.

Just sent mine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GRIZ said:

The 55 mph speed limit,  .08 blood alcohol, and other things get tied to Federal highway money.  They were requirements to get it.  That's how the Feds get states to comply.

and if they mean business, it's exactly how they can do it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

the way i'm reading this, the ONLY thing states like nj will be able to do is to do their best to create harrassment to those who choose to exercise their right to carry.

Conceal carry party outside of Weinberg's office?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hudson's Bill as written would require NJ to recognize concealed carry permits of other states including those held by NJ residents because as NJ claims they do issue concealed carry permits.

Here are scenarios if Hudson's Law Passes as written

NJ could change NJ law and not allow any concealed carry permits. This would negate Hudson's law for NJ Residents, but would open up other legal challenges. Based on the decisions in Chicago and DC NJ would likely lose.

NJ could ignore the Federal Law. The Federal government can not force the states to accept a federal law just like national speed limit and drinking age except under interstate commerce, treaties, and a couple other exceptions. In the past the Federal government threatened to cut off highway dollars to require states to adapt to the Federal Law. Due to the Obamacare decision the Federal Government could no longer threaten to cut off highway dollars or Medicaid funds if the law is unrelated. However the Federal government likely could cut off Law Enforcement funding to insure NJ compliance.

NJ could challenge the law in the courts under the 10th Amendment, but that would likely fail because the 10th doesn't have precedence over the second.

NJ could accept the law as they did with stun guns but that is unlikely.

Regardless the law will protect those residents of other states that have a home state CCW Permit. NJ would also have to comply regarding residents of other states because the Federal Government has the right to pass such laws under the commerce clause.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Hudson's Bill as written would require NJ to recognize concealed carry permits of other states including those held by NJ residents because as NJ claims they do issue concealed carry permits.

Here are scenarios if Hudson's Law Passes as written

NJ could change NJ law and not allow any concealed carry permits. This would negate Hudson's law for NJ Residents, but would open up other legal challenges. Based on the decisions in Chicago and DC NJ would likely lose.

NJ could ignore the Federal Law. The Federal government can not force the states to accept a federal law just like national speed limit and drinking age except under interstate commerce, treaties, and a couple other exceptions. In the past the Federal government threatened to cut off highway dollars to require states to adapt to the Federal Law. Due to the Obamacare decision the Federal Government could no longer threaten to cut off highway dollars or Medicaid funds if the law is unrelated. However the Federal government likely could cut off Law Enforcement funding to insure NJ compliance.

NJ could challenge the law in the courts under the 10th Amendment, but that would likely fail because the 10th doesn't have precedence over the second.

NJ could accept the law as they did with stun guns but that is unlikely.

Regardless the law will protect those residents of other states that have a home state CCW Permit. NJ would also have to comply regarding residents of other states because the Federal Government has the right to pass such laws under the commerce clause.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

they will accept the law, but create as much harassment as possible, up to and including that one will "take the ride" if found with a firearm, just to "confirm" that their permit is legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they will accept the law, but create as much harassment as possible, up to and including that one will "take the ride" if found with a firearm, just to "confirm" that their permit is legitimate.

 

That's if the jackboots violate the law and the constitution. Unfortunately there are many that will and the ones that wouldn't have retired or are about to retire. They should err on the side of Liberty not Safety. When one infringes on Liberty for Safety they deserve neither.

 

There needs to be a serious change in policing. Community Policing needs to return and Protect and Serve needs to be drilled in LEOs heads. Regardless of what the courts have decided.

 

Anyone who doesn't believe their duties are to Protect & Serve and uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State by refusing to enforce Unconstitutional Laws should not become or be a law enforcement officer.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, capt14k said:

That's if the jackboots violate the law and the constitution. Unfortunately there are many that will and the ones that wouldn't have retired or are about to retire. They should err on the side of Liberty not Safety. When one infringes on Liberty for Safety they deserve neither.

There needs to be a serious change in policing. Community Policing needs to return and Protect and Serve needs to be drilled in LEOs heads. Regardless of what the courts have decided.

Anyone who doesn't believe their duties are to Protect & Serve and uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State by refusing to enforce Unconstitutional Laws should not become or be a law enforcement officer.

This comes up a lot, here and in personal conversations. I wish there was 1A discussion on this topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

they will accept the law, but create as much harassment as possible, up to and including that one will "take the ride" if found with a firearm, just to "confirm" that their permit is legitimate.

Oh kinda of like, Guilty, until you prove your innocence?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, voyager9 said:

Yeah. I’m kinda with Peel on this. Confused. 

not sure how #3 doesn’t mean the permit can be issued by any state but recognized by your state of residence. 

and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State

I live in NJ and have a permit from "a State", in my case FL, the "a State" is key in my mind

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Downtownv said:

I receive this today:

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Passes out of House Committee

Dear DowntownV,

There was great news coming out of the House Judiciary Committee today!

By a 19-11 vote, the Constitutional Carry-friendly reciprocity legislation was voted out of the House committee and is now on its way to passage by the full House.  

This is H.R. 38, which was authored by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC).

The legislation would allow anyone with a permit, and anyone from a Constitutional Carry state, to carry in any state in the country -- thereby countering the fascist laws of anti-gun states.  

In particular, it would allow residents of repressive states to get non-resident permits and thereby circumvent local anti-gun officials.  John%20Velleco-Shaneen%20Allen-Louie%20Gohmert.png

The term "handgun" would be defined to include "any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into a handgun or its magazine."  

This would circumvent efforts by states like Massachusetts and California to effectively ban guns by banning and/or registering magazines and ammo. 

Suffice it to say that pushing the GOOD version of reciprocity to the verge of House passage and enactment is a huge accomplishment which should not be underestimated. 

Speaking of the "good version of reciprocity," the House committee fended off an attempt by Democrats to delete the Constitutional Carry protections in the bill. 

By a 17-8 vote, Republicans defeated an anti-gun amendment offered by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) that would have sought to limit concealed carry reciprocity to permit holders only.  

Gun Owners of America opposed this amendment and was happy to see it go down to an inglorious defeat.

Nevertheless, there was some bad news. 

The House committee passed a "Fix NICS" bill which will result in more innocent people being thrown into the NICS system. 

The six heroes who voted against background check infringements were Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Ken Buck (R-CO), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve King (R-IA), and Raul Labrador (R-ID).

Gun Owners of America has strongly opposed this legislation, and you can see our previous analysis herehere and here.

Having said that, we are inclined to believe that the GOOD reciprocity bill is a much, much bigger deal for us than Fix NICS is for the gun grabbers.  

Both bills now advance to the floor of the House.

Please stay tuned for further updates.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Executive Director

Follow me on Twitter: @ErichMPratt

P.S. Thank you for all your activism in favor of H.R. 38.  Stay tuned for more updates.  In the meantime, don't forget to check out the latest Firing Back podcast, which provides needed ammunition to counter the talking points from your liberal anti-gun friends and family during the holiday season.  

I have Utah, FL. and ME. for the past 8 years, NEVER let them expire!

 

32 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

no. more like guilty, good luck proving your innocence.

 

5 minutes ago, galapoola said:

and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State

I live in NJ and have a permit from "a State", in my case FL, the "a State" is key in my mind

Gentleman, I refer you to the RED highlight in my early morning post....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jackandjill said:

Who said it will pass on monday ? Big fight is in Senate. Last time they defeated similar bill with couple of votes. Long way to go.

they may be getting this through committee so they can add it as a rider to the tax or budget. tax and budget will not get 60 votes in senate, too many democrats who oppose anything republicans do not to mention demonizing current president. If there is any defense spending in a bill, CCW reciprocity can be added like they tried with the Thune bill some years back. again, budget allows for reconciliation (51 votes like AHCA) so this bill can be added and ride the coat tails of a budget bill easily. then we'd  need only 50 senators min (VP is tie breaker). this may be the timing and strategy to thwart the schummers of the world

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, galapoola said:

they may be getting this through committee so they can add it as a rider to the tax or budget. tax and budget will not get 60 votes in senate, too many democrats who oppose anything republicans do not to mention demonizing current president. If there is any defense spending in a bill, CCW reciprocity can be added like they tried with the Thune bill some years back. again, budget allows for reconciliation (51 votes like AHCA) so this bill can be added and ride the coat tails of a budget bill easily. then we'd  need only 50 senators min (VP is tie breaker). this may be the timing and strategy to thwart the schummers of the world

IF that were the strategy, what general timeline can we expect this to get out of Senate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see NJ knee-jerking like this:

Carry on other state's permits is legal, as long as you are not in a prohibited location.

Prohibited locations include either stopping or traveling within 1,000 yards of any:

  • School (to include corporate training facilities)
  • Playground
  • Day care facility
  • Court house
  • Police, Fire or EMS facility
  • Medical Facility (including clinics, drug stores and assisted living facilities)
  • Post Office
  • Mass transit facility
  • Public utility facility or office
  • Airport/Harbor/Marina
  • Municipal, County, State or Federal Agency
  • Library
  • Municipal, County or State Park
  • House of worship
  • Business that sells or serves alcohol
  • Business that caters to minors
  • Urban enterprise area
  • Suburban enterprise area
  • Designated high-crime/enforcement area (subject to frequent changes)
  • Gathering of 10 or more people
  • Home of anyone designated as a "gun-sensitive-person"

Once you're drawn out all those 1,000 yard radii you may find a couple spots in the Pine barrens that aren't covered.

Additionally, failure to completely conceal a firearm is punishable by mandatory 5 year imprisonment/$100,000 fine.  Better keep those shirts/jacket hems low...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask how this will pass through the house and senate without amending the language that allows someone to circumnavigate tough to impossible state laws restricting residents' right to a carry permit. It's like saying as a NJ resident, it's OK to get your drivers licence in Utah cause the test is easier then taking it in NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

I can see NJ knee-jerking like this:
Carry on other state's permits is legal, as long as you are not in a prohibited location.

Prohibited locations include either stopping or traveling within 1,000 yards of any:

  • School (to include corporate training facilities)
  • Playground
  • Day care facility
  • Court house
  • Police, Fire or EMS facility
  • Medical Facility (including clinics, drug stores and assisted living facilities)
  • ...

Of course they will do this! You nailed it. If this passes, "tooth and nail" they will fight - ironically, all while passing legislation that softens plea bargaining, reduces bail and otherwise puts the career criminals most likely to commit crime back on the streets. The sheer stupidly is mind-boggling. :facepalm:

But that's why, Stage 2: The Lawsuits will be so important. It's also why the appointment of Gorsuch and ongoing appointments to the Federal appeals and other courts (and perhaps another SCOTUS app't or two) will become so very critical! For those of us (like me!) who pinched our noses and voted for Trump based primarily on his ability to shape the courts and cut down on judicial activism, this will feel like "winning". (I certainly haven't felt anything at all like "winning" seeing some of the legislative flops as of late - or - when reading his god-awful, unrestrained, cringe-worthy Tweets, that's for damn sure! Sheesh.). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man you guys go from winning- martial law- to secession faster then a Tesla in ludicrous mode.

lets talk once it’s signed by trump.

2 minutes ago, carl_g said:

I have to ask how this will pass through the house and senate without amending the language that allows someone to circumnavigate tough to impossible state laws restricting residents' right to a carry permit. It's like saying as a NJ resident, it's OK to get your drivers licence in Utah cause the test is easier then taking it in NJ.

What’s the driving age in Kentucky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Of course they will do this! You nailed it. If this passes, "tooth and nail" they will fight - ironically, all while passing legislation that softens plea bargaining, reduces bail and otherwise puts the career criminals most likely to commit crime back on the streets. The sheer stupidly is mind-boggling. :facepalm:

But that's why, Stage 2: The Lawsuits will be so important. It's also why the appointment of Gorsuch and ongoing appointments to the Federal appeals and other courts (and perhaps another SCOTUS app't or two) will become so very critical! For those of us (like me!) who pinched our noses and voted for Trump based primarily on his ability to shape the courts and cut down on judicial activism, this will feel like "winning". (I certainly haven't felt anything at all like "winning" seeing some of the legislative flops as of late - or - when reading his god-awful, unrestrained, cringe-worthy Tweets, that's for damn sure! Sheesh.). 

How many states have reciprocity agreements now? How many are constitutional carry? Only a few states will sue. But be assured NJ will be one of them.

32 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

I can see NJ knee-jerking like this:

Carry on other state's permits is legal, as long as you are not in a prohibited location.

Prohibited locations include either stopping or traveling within 1,000 yards of any:

  • School (to include corporate training facilities)
  • Playground
  • Day care facility
  • Court house
  • Police, Fire or EMS facility
  • Medical Facility (including clinics, drug stores and assisted living facilities)
  • Post Office
  • Mass transit facility
  • Public utility facility or office
  • Airport/Harbor/Marina
  • Municipal, County, State or Federal Agency
  • Library
  • Municipal, County or State Park
  • House of worship
  • Business that sells or serves alcohol
  • Business that caters to minors
  • Urban enterprise area
  • Suburban enterprise area
  • Designated high-crime/enforcement area (subject to frequent changes)
  • Gathering of 10 or more people
  • Home of anyone designated as a "gun-sensitive-person"

Once you're drawn out all those 1,000 yard radii you may find a couple spots in the Pine barrens that aren't covered.

Additionally, failure to completely conceal a firearm is punishable by mandatory 5 year imprisonment/$100,000 fine.  Better keep those shirts/jacket hems low...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jus like they are doing with once completely prohibited stun guns now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeke said:

How many states have reciprocity agreements now? How many are constitutional carry? Only a few states will sue. But be assured NJ will be one of them.

As I said earlier... they would not even NEED a law like this if it weren't for the shenanigans already pulled by states like NY and NJ. The legislators here are NUTS. All these other states where people have concealed carry... the statistics are clear. They aren't the wild west. People are not running around shooting their neighbors. Credible researchers have been entirely unable to show that concealed carry causes crime - because it doesn't.

I'm a logical person - I go where the facts lead me. My conclusion is... our legislators are not really concerned about crime... they never were... for them, it's about control. Pure and simple. After digging into these issues for almost 2 years now, I'm totally convinced of this.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, carl_g said:

I have to ask how this will pass through the house and senate without amending the language that allows someone to circumnavigate tough to impossible state laws restricting residents' right to a carry permit. It's like saying as a NJ resident, it's OK to get your drivers licence in Utah cause the test is easier then taking it in NJ.

That's kinda of the situation we have right now. It's not so much the state says it's ok but they turn of blind eye to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, carl_g said:

I have to ask how this will pass through the house and senate without amending the language that allows someone to circumnavigate tough to impossible state laws restricting residents' right to a carry permit. It's like saying as a NJ resident, it's OK to get your drivers licence in Utah cause the test is easier then taking it in NJ.

that kind of stuff is done much more often than most people think. getting a dl from a state other than where one resides that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

that kind of stuff is done much more often than most people think. getting a dl from a state other than where one resides that is.

Or getting a FL dl cause you have a dui here. Or a Md cause your an illegal.

granted, you get popped with an out of state, and suspended instate you find yourself facing a gavel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

that kind of stuff is done much more often than most people think. getting a dl from a state other than where one resides that is.

OK maybe it does, I am not sure but regardless.. my point is that that if this happens(for NJ residents) it is a work around, loop hole, whatever you want to call it. I don't see how that would be able to stand. Believe me, I hope it happens but I don't see it, not the way its worded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...