House expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity bill

Great news gun rights advocates! The House is set to take up the national concealed carry reciprocity bill this week, which would allow residents permitted by their home state to carry a firearm in all 50 states, much like current/retired LE already have HR 218. Residents living in states with Constitutional carry laws would also be able to carry in all 50 states. In all cases, the carrier is still subject to local laws and is responsible for knowing each state's specific laws regarding judicious use of deadly force.

The House is expected to take up gun legislation this week to expand concealed carry rights, the National Rifle Association’s top legislative priority

source: USA Today

The source article is decidedly biased against this bill and firearms in general, but it stands a great chance at success. Now that we're getting a few victories under our belts, it is time to expand our push into the hearing protection act. This will reduce the sound of firearms to a non-dangerous level, making it safer to shoot and defend ourselves without running the risk of permanent hearing loss/damage. Every developed nation in the world permits suppressors, with very few exceptions. In many European countries, for example, they aren't even regulated as firearms.

It would be nice to see the GCA repealed and a more modern replacement take its place for comprehensive background checks, but no arbitrary date restrictions on machineguns. The NFA is in place (with its tax stamp system) because outlawing machineguns was considered to infringe on the second amendment, whereas the GCA made MGs made after a specific date non-transferable. In effect, it has enriched a small group of people who posses these transferable MGs. For instance, I paid over ~20k for my RDIAS when it really costs less than a dollar to manufacture. These are archaic, outdated and overly restrictive laws IMO.

I intentionally posted this in current events and not the mud pit. I have no desire to engage in a slug fest over gun rights. We can agree to disagree right now

a reply to: JBurns

As a ccw holder myself, this allows me to use my carry more in line with my original intentions. Being able to shoulder carry my Super Redhawk when I'm hiking camping etc..in dangerous game areas with the family is appealing....

Nice!

My CCW permit cost way too much and was way too much of a PITA to get.
Once I got it, my state passed a law saying I didn't need it anymore!
Go figure, but I do love getting some rights back.


Now if only they'd get on with the hearing protection act, so I could hunt without ear protection.

a reply to: BlueJacket


Great to hear BlueJacket

This is a great step in making the gun-free states safe again. They especially have major crime and gang problems, which an influx of armed citizens will stymie. Whether it has any major impact on the crime level is unknown, but it sure will prevent a lot of people from becoming victims. It will also assuredly leave a lasting impression on the criminal dumb enough to attack an armed citizen.

Criminals better think twice before attacking an innocent person. Reducing the attack surface and making the environment much less soft target rich.

This is going to be a great time period for constitutional rights. When people start getting a taste of that liberty, they will realize how much more they want and demand the rollback of a lot of redundant federal agencies as well with the tax reductions that are coming. I feel like this next decade is going to be like a renaissance for constitutional rights and rule, a golden age of sorts.

With that trend, the Sheriff's offices around the country should be able to begin cracking down on sanctuary cities soon. The Sheriff is the only constitutionally recognized law enforcement agent. His word will be final and these corrupt liberal mayors will be forced to yield in their subversive cultural tactics which threaten our democracy.

Yea, I got all general ranty there, my bad. I think as mentioned by BlueJacket, this will be very important for those who journey and vacation through the wilderness of our country, especially in the mountains. Safety is important in the wild.

a reply to: JBurns I am in full support of this.

I may be wrong in my interpretation, please tell me if I'm right or wrong.

State A allows concealed carry. State B does not.
Someone from state A goes to state B, carrying a concealed weapon. Someone from state B is not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, but the person from state A is.

If the above is right, isn't the person from state B being put at a disadvantage, turning into a kind of second class citizen, when compared to people from state A?

a reply to: ArMaP

No.

States that have a concealed carry permit would have to recognize permits from other states. If you’re not allowed to carry, period, then there’s no permit to be honored.

a reply to: JBurns

Trump is still meeting a lot of resistance, but the country is moving in the right direction for the first time in a long time. This Bill is long overdue. There have been a lot of silly regional gun laws restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens for far too long. Freedom for all!

If it was good for the Feds to nationalize gay marriage rights it is good for gun rights as well. We should be legalizing freedom.

originally posted by: ArMaP
I may be wrong in my interpretation, please tell me if I'm right or wrong.

State A allows concealed carry. State B does not.
Someone from state A goes to state B, carrying a concealed weapon. Someone from state B is not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, but the person from state A is.

If the above is right, isn't the person from state B being put at a disadvantage, turning into a kind of second class citizen, when compared to people from state A?

Nah, person from State A will defend the person from State B with the same tenacity as if he/she were his/her brother/sister.

Have no fear!

Cool, I'd still rather carry around a sword tho...

originally posted by: Thorneblood
Cool, I'd still rather carry around a sword tho...

With a name like Thorneblood, I can envision it.

Renaissance fair, here you come!!!

originally posted by: Shamrock6
States that have a concealed carry permit would have to recognize permits from other states. If you’re not allowed to carry, period, then there’s no permit to be honored.

I think I wasn't clear or I am not understanding your point.

If a state doesn't allow their residents concealed carry but they have to accept it for residents from states that allow, don't the residents from that state have less rights?

originally posted by: six67seven
Nah, person from State A will defend the person from State B with the same tenacity as if he/she were his/her brother/sister.

That's not what I was asking about.

Have no fear!

I do not, I'm in Portugal.

a reply to: ArMaP

I imagine it's a first step, a bit like how some states have recreational marijuana and others dont. So while someone can come to Washington state and buy an ounce they can't take it down to Arizona. Chances are, at some point, you will be able to get either no matter what state you are in and have it apply nationally.

originally posted by: JBurns
Great news gun rights advocates! The House is set to take up the national concealed carry reciprocity bill this week, which would allow residents permitted by their home state to carry a firearm in all 50 states, much like current/retired LE already have HR 218. Residents living in states with Constitutional carry laws would also be able to carry in all 50 states. In all cases, the carrier is still subject to local laws and is responsible for knowing each state's specific laws regarding judicious use of deadly force.

The House is expected to take up gun legislation this week to expand concealed carry rights, the National Rifle Association’s top legislative priority

source: USA Today

The source article is decidedly biased against this bill and firearms in general, but it stands a great chance at success. Now that we're getting a few victories under our belts, it is time to expand our push into the hearing protection act. This will reduce the sound of firearms to a non-dangerous level, making it safer to shoot and defend ourselves without running the risk of permanent hearing loss/damage. Every developed nation in the world permits suppressors, with very few exceptions. In many European countries, for example, they aren't even regulated as firearms.

It would be nice to see the GCA repealed and a more modern replacement take its place for comprehensive background checks, but no arbitrary date restrictions on machineguns. The NFA is in place (with its tax stamp system) because outlawing machineguns was considered to infringe on the second amendment, whereas the GCA made MGs made after a specific date non-transferable. In effect, it has enriched a small group of people who posses these transferable MGs. For instance, I paid over ~20k for my RDIAS when it really costs less than a dollar to manufacture. These are archaic, outdated and overly restrictive laws IMO.

I intentionally posted this in current events and not the mud pit. I have no desire to engage in a slug fest over gun rights. We can agree to disagree right now

I just don't want to be shot in the chest in a movie theater while checking on my kids during the previews by a retired cop with cc.

a reply to: ArMaP

There is no state that is “no-issue.” There are some that are “may-issue” that are in effect no issue, but they would still be required to honor permits.

a reply to: the owlbear

Damn thats specific.....

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: the owlbear

Damn thats specific.....

It happened. Years ago.
www.cnn.com...
The guy then just sat down and watched the guy he shot bleed out.
Didn't bother to help. Just sat down with his gun.
Second degree murder charges.

a reply to: the owlbear

Ahhh ok....that clarifies it a bit.