Concealed Carry Reciprocity is on the Move: Your Lawmakers Need to Hear from You NOW!
- Thread starter Pawpaw
- Start date
Below is the important text of HR 38.
__________________________________________________________
Short title
This Act may be cited as the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.
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.
(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.
.
__________________________________________________________
Short title
This Act may be cited as the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.
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.
(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.
.
You know I was going to try and figure out which of my lawmakers to call or mail, but that's when I realized that in California we don't have lawmakers.
You can figure out what to call them.
The age of the robber barons never really died here. They just formalized the procedure.
You can figure out what to call them.
The age of the robber barons never really died here. They just formalized the procedure.
Mike, I share your concern.
I wish it would be easy to leave us good guys alone and catch all the baddies.
I was concerned that people living in states that allow carrying w/o permits may not be covered, but as I parse the requirements, I think it is ok.
The next paragraphs are indented to make it clearer:
I wish it would be easy to leave us good guys alone and catch all the baddies.
I was concerned that people living in states that allow carrying w/o permits may not be covered, but as I parse the requirements, I think it is ok.
The next paragraphs are indented to make it clearer:
a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,
You must be qualified either RED or GREEN.
I think that covers residents in the No Permit Required States
If I'm wrong, let me know.
-- I am not a lawyer. Following my advice without consulting an expert qualified and trained in the field may result in expensive fines or uncomfortable incarceration.
who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person,
may possess or carry a concealed handgunand 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,and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm
You must be qualified either RED or GREEN.
I think that covers residents in the No Permit Required States
If I'm wrong, let me know.
-- I am not a lawyer. Following my advice without consulting an expert qualified and trained in the field may result in expensive fines or uncomfortable incarceration.
Thanks for posting Pawpaw!
Looks like kalifornia is in full panic mode.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/12/04/anti-gun-proponents-discover-federalism-badly/
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/12/04/anti-gun-proponents-discover-federalism-badly/
I hate to say that I told you so, but I did. Antigunners trying to poison pill the bill
From GOA:
Yesterday, the House Rules Committee voted to combine the reciprocity and anti-gun "Fix NICS" bills (H.R. 38 and H.R. 4477).
The combined bill now goes to the House floor, with votes scheduled for today.
Because of the united push from gun control groups, the NRA and many House Republicans, the "Fix NICS" portion has an OVERWHELMING majority in the House.
Not only that, a stand-alone "Fix NICS" bill has an OVERWHELMING majority in the Senate. This is further evidenced by the fact that Republican Senate leaders Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn -- along with Democrat leaders Chuck Schumer and Chris Murphy -- are all cosponsors and strongly supporting Fix NICS (S. 2135).
So the result of passing the NICS bill apart from reciprocity would be for gun control to be fast-tracked to President Trump's desk, while reciprocity died under a Schumer-led filibuster.
Interestingly, Senators Cornyn and Murphy did NOT want a combined bill because they want to send Fix NICS legislation to the President.
Senator John Cornyn was quoted in the Daily Caller as saying:
We have good bipartisan support for [Fix NICS]. It's really important and it will save lives, but if we start trying to add other things to it [like concealed carry reciprocity], then I think we risk not doing anything which has sort of been the fate of a lot of the legislation we've tried in the past. So, I'd like to do the fix NICS and then we can move on from there.
Anti-gunners Oppose Combining the Two Bills
Senator Cornyn was not alone in wanting to keep the bills separate.
Democrat Senator Chris Murphy (CT) said that this combined bill would be D.O.A. in the Senate, as he considers concealed carry reciprocity a poison pill. And he was quoted in The Washington Post as saying that the combining of the two measures "is to risk nothing happening."
Prominent anti-gunners in the House also oppose combining the two bills.
When appearing before the House Rules Committee yesterday, Democrat Representatives Jerry Nadler (NY) and Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) argued against combining reciprocity and Fix NICS.
Also appearing before the committee, Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) complained that including concealed carry reciprocity in the bill was a "poison pill" that would kill the Fix NICS legislation. She announced that she wanted to offer an amendment to strike the concealed carry reciprocity language -- a request which was denied by the committee.
Outside of Congress, Moms Demand Action does NOT want a combined bill because they want a Fix NICS bill without reciprocity. You can see their tweet here.
Same with Bloomberg's Everytown, which opposes combining the two bills.
What all these anti-gun legislators and groups realize is that merging the two bills would be the best way to kill the Fix NICS legislation.
Unfortunately, because of a few Red State Democrats, we don't have the votes right now to overcome a Schumer filibuster of the reciprocity bill in the Senate.
And that means that the most likely outcome of two separate bills moving through the House would be for the NICS bill to ultimately get signed into law while reciprocity dies.
Now that the House Rules Committee has combined the two provisions, GOA is not advocating for the bill, because we don't want to pass a bill to make an unconstitutional system deny additional law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights.
(You can view our earlier alert here to see why the Fix NICS bill could better be termed a "Traffic Ticket Gun Ban.")
Having said this, gun owners should realize the silver lining that has emerged. The combined bill has tremendously frustrated the anti-gun Left, because now they fear the NICS bill is dead -- if the House passes the bill today.
What Happens Now?
So, the two provisions (both good and bad) have now been joined together in H.R. 38. The House is scheduled to vote on the combined bill today.
Gun owners will assuredly want to know: What happens next?
Well, if the House does pass Fix NICS with reciprocity, then the Senate will most likely kill the background check language because, as we stated above, leading Republicans and Democrats do NOT want the bills combined.
As recently as yesterday, Senator Chris Murphy said that such a combined bill would be dead on arrival in the Senate.
Of course, the Senate could attempt to strip the reciprocity portion of the bill and send only gun control back to the House. But having just passed reciprocity, the tables would be turned and a vote to pass Fix NICS as a stand-alone bill in the House at that point would be considered a vote to kill reciprocity -- putting our side in a much stronger position to vote it down.
What happens if the House defeats the combined bill? If Senator Cornyn has his way, the Senate will quickly try to send a Fix NICS-only bill to the House.
Will the Senate Move Quickly to Pass Fix NICS?
When asked by The Daily Caller if Sen. Cornyn preferred to wait until the next Congress to pass concealed carry reciprocity, Cornyn replied,
Well I want to get this background check problem fixed as soon as possible, hopefully even this week here in the Senate. And I don't want to do anything [such as reciprocity] to bog down our ability to get that done. I do think at some point we should take up constitutional carry, because I think it's important but combining them, I think, is to risk nothing happening.
If the Senate were to pass a stand-alone NICS bill, the House would most likely agree to it and send the legislation to President Trump.
So if the House defeats the bill today, we will have to expend a herculean effort in trying to kill the Traffic Ticket Gun Ban.
And we will be calling on all our members to bombard their legislators in opposition to a bill that (sadly) has tremendous support in Congress.
Things are happening quickly.
Please stay tuned for more details as they become available.
In Liberty,
Erich Pratt
Executive Director
From GOA:
Yesterday, the House Rules Committee voted to combine the reciprocity and anti-gun "Fix NICS" bills (H.R. 38 and H.R. 4477).
The combined bill now goes to the House floor, with votes scheduled for today.
Because of the united push from gun control groups, the NRA and many House Republicans, the "Fix NICS" portion has an OVERWHELMING majority in the House.
Not only that, a stand-alone "Fix NICS" bill has an OVERWHELMING majority in the Senate. This is further evidenced by the fact that Republican Senate leaders Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn -- along with Democrat leaders Chuck Schumer and Chris Murphy -- are all cosponsors and strongly supporting Fix NICS (S. 2135).
So the result of passing the NICS bill apart from reciprocity would be for gun control to be fast-tracked to President Trump's desk, while reciprocity died under a Schumer-led filibuster.
Interestingly, Senators Cornyn and Murphy did NOT want a combined bill because they want to send Fix NICS legislation to the President.
Senator John Cornyn was quoted in the Daily Caller as saying:
We have good bipartisan support for [Fix NICS]. It's really important and it will save lives, but if we start trying to add other things to it [like concealed carry reciprocity], then I think we risk not doing anything which has sort of been the fate of a lot of the legislation we've tried in the past. So, I'd like to do the fix NICS and then we can move on from there.
Anti-gunners Oppose Combining the Two Bills
Senator Cornyn was not alone in wanting to keep the bills separate.
Democrat Senator Chris Murphy (CT) said that this combined bill would be D.O.A. in the Senate, as he considers concealed carry reciprocity a poison pill. And he was quoted in The Washington Post as saying that the combining of the two measures "is to risk nothing happening."
Prominent anti-gunners in the House also oppose combining the two bills.
When appearing before the House Rules Committee yesterday, Democrat Representatives Jerry Nadler (NY) and Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) argued against combining reciprocity and Fix NICS.
Also appearing before the committee, Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) complained that including concealed carry reciprocity in the bill was a "poison pill" that would kill the Fix NICS legislation. She announced that she wanted to offer an amendment to strike the concealed carry reciprocity language -- a request which was denied by the committee.
Outside of Congress, Moms Demand Action does NOT want a combined bill because they want a Fix NICS bill without reciprocity. You can see their tweet here.
Same with Bloomberg's Everytown, which opposes combining the two bills.
What all these anti-gun legislators and groups realize is that merging the two bills would be the best way to kill the Fix NICS legislation.
Unfortunately, because of a few Red State Democrats, we don't have the votes right now to overcome a Schumer filibuster of the reciprocity bill in the Senate.
And that means that the most likely outcome of two separate bills moving through the House would be for the NICS bill to ultimately get signed into law while reciprocity dies.
Now that the House Rules Committee has combined the two provisions, GOA is not advocating for the bill, because we don't want to pass a bill to make an unconstitutional system deny additional law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights.
(You can view our earlier alert here to see why the Fix NICS bill could better be termed a "Traffic Ticket Gun Ban.")
Having said this, gun owners should realize the silver lining that has emerged. The combined bill has tremendously frustrated the anti-gun Left, because now they fear the NICS bill is dead -- if the House passes the bill today.
What Happens Now?
So, the two provisions (both good and bad) have now been joined together in H.R. 38. The House is scheduled to vote on the combined bill today.
Gun owners will assuredly want to know: What happens next?
Well, if the House does pass Fix NICS with reciprocity, then the Senate will most likely kill the background check language because, as we stated above, leading Republicans and Democrats do NOT want the bills combined.
As recently as yesterday, Senator Chris Murphy said that such a combined bill would be dead on arrival in the Senate.
Of course, the Senate could attempt to strip the reciprocity portion of the bill and send only gun control back to the House. But having just passed reciprocity, the tables would be turned and a vote to pass Fix NICS as a stand-alone bill in the House at that point would be considered a vote to kill reciprocity -- putting our side in a much stronger position to vote it down.
What happens if the House defeats the combined bill? If Senator Cornyn has his way, the Senate will quickly try to send a Fix NICS-only bill to the House.
Will the Senate Move Quickly to Pass Fix NICS?
When asked by The Daily Caller if Sen. Cornyn preferred to wait until the next Congress to pass concealed carry reciprocity, Cornyn replied,
Well I want to get this background check problem fixed as soon as possible, hopefully even this week here in the Senate. And I don't want to do anything [such as reciprocity] to bog down our ability to get that done. I do think at some point we should take up constitutional carry, because I think it's important but combining them, I think, is to risk nothing happening.
If the Senate were to pass a stand-alone NICS bill, the House would most likely agree to it and send the legislation to President Trump.
So if the House defeats the bill today, we will have to expend a herculean effort in trying to kill the Traffic Ticket Gun Ban.
And we will be calling on all our members to bombard their legislators in opposition to a bill that (sadly) has tremendous support in Congress.
Things are happening quickly.
Please stay tuned for more details as they become available.
In Liberty,
Erich Pratt
Executive Director
You are correct, it does not. Saying FixNix is "anti-gun" is an out-and-out lie.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...-self-defense-legislation-pending-in-congress
The reciprocity and nics bills are now combined.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4477/text
-----------------------------------------
While totally unrelated to improving nics background checks, they have also slipped this little doozy in there:
SEC. 6. Attorney General report on use of bump stocks in crime.
(a) In general.—Using amounts made available for research, evaluation, or statistical purposes, within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report that—
(1) specifies the number of instances in which a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime in the United States;
(2) specifies the types of firearms with which a bump stock has been so used; and
(3) contains the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether subparagraphs (B)(i) and (C)(i) of section 924(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, apply to all instances in which a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime of violence in the United States.
(b) Definition of bump stock.—In this section, the term “bump stock” means a device that—
(1) attaches to a semiautomatic rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(28) of title 18, United States Code);
(2) is designed and intended to repeatedly activate the trigger without the deliberate and volitional act of the user pulling the trigger each time the firearm is fired; and
(3) functions by continuous forward pressure applied to the rifle’s fore end in conjunction with a linear forward and backward sliding motion of the mechanism utilizing the recoil energy when the rifle is discharged.
---------------------------------------------
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4477/text
-----------------------------------------
While totally unrelated to improving nics background checks, they have also slipped this little doozy in there:
SEC. 6. Attorney General report on use of bump stocks in crime.
(a) In general.—Using amounts made available for research, evaluation, or statistical purposes, within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report that—
(1) specifies the number of instances in which a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime in the United States;
(2) specifies the types of firearms with which a bump stock has been so used; and
(3) contains the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether subparagraphs (B)(i) and (C)(i) of section 924(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, apply to all instances in which a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime of violence in the United States.
(b) Definition of bump stock.—In this section, the term “bump stock” means a device that—
(1) attaches to a semiautomatic rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(28) of title 18, United States Code);
(2) is designed and intended to repeatedly activate the trigger without the deliberate and volitional act of the user pulling the trigger each time the firearm is fired; and
(3) functions by continuous forward pressure applied to the rifle’s fore end in conjunction with a linear forward and backward sliding motion of the mechanism utilizing the recoil energy when the rifle is discharged.
---------------------------------------------
How many times has a rifle been used with a bump stock in a crime?
Once?
Once?
Pshaw....facts!
Thinking facts might be in our favor in squashing it down the road.