Jump to content
ajpaul59

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Hudson, NC

Recommended Posts

Heard Scott Bach on GFH Radio today and he was his usual cautious self regarding the current bill. While he also reads it as providing two way reciprocity that would allow NJ residents to carry on a Florida nonresident permit, he seems not to want this.

 

First he claims it cannot overcome a Democratic filibuster with 60 votes. This ignores that the Senate when Democratic controlled invoked the nuclear option for votes except confirmation of a SCOTUS nominee. Republicans can and will follow suit. Second, he seems to think it's unconstitutional in any event. However, before SCOTUS could hold the reciprocity law unconstitutional, it would first have to declare there is no 2nd Amendment right to carry outside the home. Because if that right exists, then a statute that ensures states cannot deny that fundamental right to citizens of other states when in NJ, for example, would have to prevail over a NJ law to the contrary.

 

Bach clearly wants to play the long game rather than take on the recalcitrant states.

 

I listened to this too and have a couple thoughts.  First, the dems only have to peel off a couple of R's to protect the fillibuster.  There are plenty of old Senate Republicans that might be willing to split with the party claiming to be protecting the institution of the Senate.   Second, it's not that he thinks its unconstitutional, he just recognizes that it is easier to challenge.  

 

 

I think that many of the other states are tired of THEIR citizens getting screwed over by states like NJ and NY.

 

 

Long thought this was our greatest ally. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to this too and have a couple thoughts.  First, the dems only have to peel off a couple of R's to protect the fillibuster.  There are plenty of old Senate Republicans that might be willing to split with the party claiming to be protecting the institution of the Senate.   Second, it's not that he thinks its unconstitutional, he just recognizes that it is easier to challenge.  

 

 

I'll confess that I do not follow the minute details of the Senate, its rules, and who is or is not a traditionalist for such issues.  But I'm not so sure that the Republicans won't use the hammer while they have it regarding the filibuster.  Once they use the nuclear option for any legislation or confirmation, such as the repeal of Obamacare, I think the protection of the institution argument disappears once and for all. 

 

As for the ease of challenge argument, I think Scott Bach is trying to discourage the two way reciprocity and would prefer to proceed slowly and incrementally and bring an equal protection challenge against the 7 anti states once out of state licensees of their own state are permitted to carry in NJ, for example.   The state's right argument exist for one-way or two-way reciprocity and will be challenged by states like NJ with equal vigor in my view.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Concealed+Carry+Reciprocity+Act+of+2017%22%5D%7D&r=1

 

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carryconcealed firearms may also do so in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “ConcealedCarryReciprocityAct of 2017”.

SEC. 2. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.

(a) In general.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

§ 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—

“(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.

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

“©(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.

“(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).

“(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.

“(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.

“(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

“(e) In subsection (a):

“(1) The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.

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

“(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun.

“(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:

“(A) A unit of the National Park System.

“(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

“© Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

“(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

“(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.”.

(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:


“926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.

© Severability.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

The bold part is what worries me the most. If this passes, what's to stop NJ lawmakers from getting rid of "May Issue" and instead taking away all carry options in this state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same ruling that forced Illinois to write laws to allow carry. The Supremes have spoken.

I hope you're right. But even if this is the case, I highly doubt we'll be carrying in 6 months like someone eluded to earlier in this thread. I hope I'm wrong, but like I said earlier, I'll believe it when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

90 days

90 days from the day it's signed by the POTUS which means the bill would have to be passed in 3 months to meet the 6 months time frame. On average, bills that do get passed take roughly 260 days according to Quora. So no, I highly doubt we'll be carrying in 6 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 But I'm not so sure that the Republicans won't use the hammer while they have it regarding the filibuster.  Once they use the nuclear option for any legislation or confirmation, such as the repeal of Obamacare, I think the protection of the institution argument disappears once and for all. 

 

 

The reporting is that the Obamacare repeal will be completed the same way it was passed into law, using a process called "reconciliation".  It only requires a simple majority and isn't subject to filibuster.   So Obamacare probably won't be a vehicle for squashing the filibuster for legislation.   I do agree that once it's gone, it stays gone.

 

The same ruling that forced Illinois to write laws to allow carry. The Supremes have spoken.

 

Moore v Madigan was the case that forced carry on Illinois.  It was decided at the 7th circuit, not at SCOTUS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're right. But even if this is the case, I highly doubt we'll be carrying in 6 months like someone eluded to earlier in this thread. I hope I'm wrong, but like I said earlier, I'll believe it when I see it.

June. I said by June and I stand by my prediction

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong SCOTUS can fast track like they did Bush v Gore

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

SCOTUS already said that there is an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense and that that right is "incorporated" to the states - which means the states can't violate the right. (Heller and McDonald)

 

NJ ignored those rulings.  I don't see any reason they wouldn't ignore this federal law and any SCOTUS rulings - what's the penalty?  NJ goes to jail?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS already said that there is an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense and that that right is "incorporated" to the states - which means the states can't violate the right. (Heller and McDonald)

 

NJ ignored those rulings. I don't see any reason they wouldn't ignore this federal law and any SCOTUS rulings - what's the penalty? NJ goes to jail?

 

That's not what Heller said. There may have been dictum in a concurring opinion but that is not bidding. States can not pass a law in violation of a Supreme Court majority decision. States must abide by the decision under Supremacy Clause. If not President can enforce decision. Think Brown v Board of Ed.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Concealed+Carry+Reciprocity+Act+of+2017%22%5D%7D&r=1

 

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carryconcealed firearms may also do so in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “ConcealedCarryReciprocityAct of 2017”.

SEC. 2. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.

(a) In general.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

§ 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—

“(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.

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

“©(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.

“(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).

“(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.

“(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.

“(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

“(e) In subsection (a):

“(1) The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.

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

“(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun.

“(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:

“(A) A unit of the National Park System.

“(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

“© Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

“(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

“(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.”.

(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

“926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.

© Severability.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

The bold part is what worries me the most. If this passes, what's to stop NJ lawmakers from getting rid of "May Issue" and instead taking away all carry options in this state?

 

Do you mean like the ones granted for Security Guards and Body guards?

I think the outright banning of carry would send it right to the Supreme court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean like the ones granted for Security Guards and Body guards?

I think the outright banning of carry would send it right to the Supreme court.

Outright ban would be overruled. See Illinois.

 

The way I read that statute it also will allow magazines over 15 rounds in handguns and hollow point bullets thus negating two restrictions.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Concealed+Carry+Reciprocity+Act+of+2017%22%5D%7D&r=1

 

A BILL
...

“(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—

“(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 bold part is what worries me the most. If this passes, what's to stop NJ lawmakers from getting rid of "May Issue" and instead taking away all carry options in this state?

 

I expressed the same concern.  Someone correctly pointed out that NJ does have a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm.  They almost never issue a permit but they do have a permit that you can apply for.

 

And since (1) and (2) have an "or" and not an "and" between them, NJ only has to meet one of the two conditions - which it does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I called Hudson's office o Thursday to thank him, I asked his staffer how we could help.

 

Contact your reps! She said.

 

Good luck! ( I'd use the Shanneen Allen case as an example of why this is needed. )

 

http://m.house.gov/representatives/states.php?state=NJ

 

Btw up to 134 co sponsor.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ2AS working Rep. Hudson to get clauses added to the bill that specifically benefit NJ:

http://www.nj2as.org/nj2as_makes_federal_dubut_fighting_for_nj_ccw_and_national_reciprocity

 

 

... NJ2AS has been fighting for New Jersey gun owners in regard to the national reciprocity bill for months now, and we are very happy to report that our requested changes were accepted in the final draft of the bill. The big changes we fought for which were added to the final Bill are the following:

 

1. Allowing NJ residents to carry in New Jersey with any State permit.


 

2. Having the magazine in the firearm be protected by the law to prevent NJ from arresting people with standard capacity magazines.


 

3. Having the ammunition loaded in the magazine and firearm be protected by the law so people are not arrested for carrying hollow-point ammunition.


 

Our most recent meeting we discussed an additional change to the legislation that would protect ammunition intended to be loaded into the firearm as well any magazines not loaded into the firearm. As we know New Jersey's overzealous government will find any reason to arrest any individual with firearms or ammunition, regardless of criminal intent, while simultaneously releasing violent felons (convicted of firearm offenses) into the streets under the guise of compassionate release. These proposed changes would protect individuals from being arrested for any loose or unloaded ammunition which an individual may possess in addition to any spare or backup magazines which are not loaded in the firearm. ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it passes in the House, it will likely die in the Senate.... unless they have the balls to enact a nuclear option like the dems used a few years ago to change the rule on cabinet confirmation voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it passes in the House, it will likely die in the Senate.... unless they have the balls to enact a nuclear option like the dems used a few years ago to change the rule on cabinet confirmation voting.

There are ten democrats in the senate who are at risk in 2018. Don't be so sure that we can't get to 60.

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.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • See doctor and attorney first.  Submit application that will be deny waste of time.   
    • Love this guy!  https://nypost.com/2022/07/01/a-93-year-old-man-shoots-los-angeles-home-intruder-police/?dicbo=v2-6c03b65b29bff46c4e7697ddb95ec567
    • I like the dot as low as possible in the slide with the lowest irons possible. If you’re buying a complete milled slide I think Gray Ghost Precision is having a pretty good sale on their slides right now as well. JW makes nice slides, but their prices  are generally an little higher. I’m still a big Brownell’s fan. Can’t beat it for the money. If you already have the slide and are sending it to be milled, I recommend: DP Customs: https://www.dpcustomworksllc.com and  Maple Leaf Firearms: https://www.mapleleaffirearms.com I have Glock 19s done by both of them and the work is outstanding, priced well, and quick turnaround with good comms.
    • Thanks for the reply back. I’d like to move forward with a RD for at least one handgun and see if it helps with my old eyes for better consistency. I was leaning towards battlewerx because it looked like they were a one stop shopping experience but they are out of stock on the cowitness sights. Jagerwerks looks like they may come in cheaper and had good reviews so kind of at an impasse for the moment do to the sights. Since you mentioned in an earlier posing would you go with the lower 1/4  cowitness or the 1/3? Of course I re-opened an older thread and added a twist so would you still get the lowest  sights even with the rear sight dovetail in front of the RD? Either way I think green dot would do the trick for me, I have the SIG SAUER ROMEO5 Green dot on a long gun and its a huge difference from the standard red dot. Hope to decide before the Fourth because both have holiday pricing in effect. Thank you in advance and have a great holiday. 
    • Come Together (metal cover by Leo, Hannah, Rabea, Erik & Truls) - YouTube
×
×
  • Create New...