Well, we'll have to see if this gets through the R controlled House and Senate

https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1877089603317862465

Beyond overdue!

While I’m not a fan of big government, this would be a welcome bill.

I'm not a fan of big gov but this is not that.

This is limiting gov constraining our natural rights. Natural rights should be borderless.

Haven't read the bill or summary but I hope they also favorably deal w/ carry restrictions and gun free zones.

Gonna be interesting visiting Maui and packing

I'm not sure this would gain us as much as we think. Sure, a state may need to "honor" your permit, but they would still be free to impose whatever restrictions they want on the actual conduct of permit holders in much the same way as they impose their own driving regulations while still honoring your license.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
I'm not sure this would gain us as much as we think. Sure, a state may need to "honor" your permit, but they would still be free to impose whatever restrictions they want on the actual conduct of permit holders in much the same way as they impose their own driving regulations while still honoring your license.

I'm afraid your right . These leftist have no problem ignoring laws , subpoenas , and anything else they disagree with .

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
I'm not sure this would gain us as much as we think. Sure, a state may need to "honor" your permit, but they would still be free to impose whatever restrictions they want on the actual conduct of permit holders in much the same way as they impose their own driving regulations while still honoring your license.

Uhhh, Pretty sure we'd gain RECIPROCITY! Nobody said Nationwide Constitutionl Carry here. Commie states already impose restrictions...Commies are gonna be Commies! Not sure what you think we're thinking, we just want our CCW Permits to be 'honored', just like our Drivers Licenses...Nothing More, Nothing Less! And by that, we'd be gaining a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:]
Uhhh, Pretty sure we'd gain RECIPROCITY! Nobody said Nationwide Constitutionl Carry here. Commie states already impose restrictions...Commies are gonna be Commies! Not sure what you think we're thinking, we just want our CCW Permits to be 'honored', just like our Drivers Licenses...Nothing More, Nothing Less! And by that, we'd be gaining a lot.

Maybe, but gun friendly states generally already honor your permit and aren’t the problem. Let’s say CA is forced to honor your permit. They could still say that damn near every inch of the state is off limits to CCW or limit you to a 5 shot .22LR. Blue states will jack with you any way possible.

Full Text of H.R.38 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act:

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed 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 “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act”.

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:

Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun 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.

“(c) (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.

“(C) 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.

“(F) Land administered and managed by the Forest Service.”.

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

(c) 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.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
I'm not sure this would gain us as much as we think. Sure, a state may need to "honor" your permit, but they would still be free to impose whatever restrictions they want on the actual conduct of permit holders in much the same way as they impose their own driving regulations while still honoring your license.

Absolutely this.

When the Bruen decision came down, California under our childish governor, newscum, threw a tantrum and tried to change the CCW carry policy. Under the older policy, those allowed to carry could do so anywhere unless government restricted or posted "NO FIREARMS". He tried to change the policy to where you could NOT CARRY ANYWHERE unless posted "FIREAEMS ALLOWED".

While I would welcome national reciprocity, it would not surprise me if our dickhead governor, and there would be others like New York and Massachusetts, would attempt to impose a similar set of restrictions.

The bill seems to not allow state gov to restrict, for example, in businesses. The business, as a private entity, could restrict carry on their property. But the state could not restrict it for private businesses. Unfortunately, they can perhaps still restrict for state parks.

If so, this would still be beneficial. In any case, still want it. For example would allow CA CCW to carry in OR. I'd rather have this bill pass than not pass.

Also, eventually these newscum laws are unconstitutional and he knows it. Eventually it will get repealed when it gets to court.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
I'm not sure this would gain us as much as we think. Sure, a state may need to "honor" your permit, but they would still be free to impose whatever restrictions they want on the actual conduct of permit holders in much the same way as they impose their own driving regulations while still honoring your license.

A step forward is not a step backward. Here is one not-so-small gain. Just imagine traveling (driving) all over the country and not having to side step commie states like NJ or NY for fear of being arrested and thrown in jail for having a firearm in your car with your state License To Carry in your wallet. There have been plenty of examples right here on SF of folks asking things like, "Which states should I avoid when driving from here to here, while having firearms with me?"

I see it allowing people to travel interstate and not have restrictions on the ability to travel with their firearms.

You would of course have to go by the laws in that state, which is no different than having to obey that states laws anyway. If you state has an 80 mph limit on highways, you can't legally drive 80 in another state with a 75 MPH limit, ie you follow the laws of the state in which you are standing at that time.

NY has already tried to ban firearm carry in businesses, forcing the business to put up a sign saying it's ok, among other private property. I believe that got pulled back by NY as it was clear they were going to be taken to task in federal court and would lose.

This is a step forward, eliminating NY States blockade on firearm possession in travel, same for NJ...

One step at a time! While this law doesn't do everything we'd want, it does do something very good.

Once this goes into effect there will be further actions to regain our rights. I expect that commie states will be sued for violating Bruen etc, and other new legal cases will push back the boundaries.

There is no final victory in this battle for our rights. Even if we were to get everything, somebody the very next day will be scheming and fighting to take something away again.

So celebrate every small step forward, which this will be if it gets signed into law.

This bill has been introduced every session since at least 2017. Same number: H.R.38. I hope it passes this time.