House passes national concealed carry bill to Senate!

a reply to: JBurns

I feel like an idiot for not being more aware of this bill.

I already have a concealed carry permit in the state of Virginia.

Basically, this means I will never have to renew it if this goes through?

a reply to: JBurns


Thank-you for this thread. Please clarify this for me. "In accordance with state laws" means that if "concealed carry" is illegal in Chicago Illinois, it will remain that way after this national law is put into effect?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: JBurns


Thank-you for this thread. Please clarify this for me. "In accordance with state laws" means that if "concealed carry" is illegal in Chicago Illinois, it will remain that way after this national law is put into effect?

Yes. Firearm owners still have to follow the laws of each individual state, city...whatever.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And you think that their lack of concern for states' rights when it comes to concealed weapons permits disproves that how?

It sure seems to bolster the position that conservatives have a very selective concern for states' rights. Civil War? Well that was about states' rights according to countless conservatives (states' rights to maintain the institution of slavery).

In 1963-1964, conservatives dragged out states' rights again in an attempt to stop the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and bring about the end of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

"Mr. Conservative" himself, Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP candidate for President, was a big proponent of states' rights as a justification for voting against it.

Saturday Evening Post - The Civil Rights Act vs. States’ Rights

The day would come, Goldwater predicted in a 1963 Post article, “The G.O.P. Invades the South,” when the region would vote solidly Republican. He noted that Republican candidates were already winning elections in Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia. The South would shift its party allegiance, he said, because of “a profound evolution of political thinking and acting.”

It had nothing to do, he asserted, with white voters being angry with liberal Democrats’ support of integration. Southerners were leaving the party, he said, because they believed in “state’s rights,” and limiting the role of the federal government. They viewed the Civil Rights Act as an intrusion that, Goldwater argued, would eventually lead to “the creation of a police state.”

Civil rights were important, Goldwater believed, but they were “resolved more safely and soundly on the state or local level.”

He lost biggly.

And when it came to affording gay couples the same rights as other citizens to be married, conservatives predictably turned to? You guessed it, states' rights. (for an example, see American Thinker - Gay Marriage and the Death of States Rights)

All of your "virtue-signalling" aside, there's an actual well-established history of conservatives invoking states' rights in defense of bigotry and the institutions it's engendered.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

It's unlikely to pass the Senate but if it did, it would enable you to carry your weapon in any state that issues concealed weapons permits. You'd still be subject to state laws. So if for instance, there was a law forbidding carrying in an establishment that served alcohol, the laws of your home state wouldn't shield you.

So if it does pass, expect some state legislatures to get busy coming up with new laws restricting concealed weapons permit holders. I could even see them creating a new class of weapons permit altogether, distinct from concealed weapons permits for the sole purpose of thwarting this act.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
It's nice to see that after more than a century and a half, conservatives are finally dropping the pretense of giving a # about states' rights. Amirite?

State's Rights my ever-lovin'-arse. This is a basic right of all Americans. That's why it was encapsulated in the 2d Amendment. If the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified, there never would have been a United States. The founders were *forced* to concede this right to the citizenry. That lead them to fluff it just a bit.

What part of "shall not be infringed" are they gonna get away with withholding again?

I hope it passes. I think you have to get a certain size gun to conceal, and mine is on the list. Kimber stainless Ultra carry 2. Its a tiny 45 with a match grade bull barrel . I live in California

a reply to: JBurns

This Bill would Also Enable U.S. Residents the Ability to take Occasional Pot Shots at their Local Representatives who they Feel Do Not Have their Best Interests at Heart Anymore . Bravo ! ............)

a reply to: JBurns

Best news I've seen in a while! I hope this gets to Trumps desk ASAP. I live in one if those sh*t states you mentioned.

I like this law.
I want this law.
I would not vote for this law.

More states rights not less.

a reply to: FauxMulder


That is great Faux, it is always important to see the actual people affected by lawless states. I am 100% for state's rights, but it is certainly within the purview of the federal government to ensure civil rights are being upheld. Their sole purpose is securing our unalienable rights, including 2A and it is nice to see them actually doing something to advance our liberties instead of making excuses to rescind or restrict them.

a reply to: F4guy

That sounds more like a problem, and a common one everywhere, involving the lack of ability to go after those who are obviously out to possibly hurt someone.

If anything, now prey has a chance to meet the predator with a .45 center mask a few times. If well trained, she will empty the clip with extreme prejudice to send a message.

a reply to: visitedbythem


Very nice choice, can't go wrong with a Kimber UC 1911

I conceal carry a Glock 17 every day, and an M&P 40c in the summer. I also have a Shield 40 when a single stack is more convenient

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: F4guy

That sounds more like a problem, and a common one everywhere, involving the lack of ability to go after those who are obviously out to possibly hurt someone.

If anything, now prey has a chance to meet the predator with a .45 center mask a few times. If well trained, she will empty the clip with extreme prejudice to send a message.

My sentiment precisely

Too many innocent victims at the hands of people that are supposed to be trusted family/spouses/friends. These kind of predators are exceptionally dangerous, and this law gives tools to the people most at risk.

There are a lot of law abiding hard working Americans living within high crime neighborhoods in certain cities. In Chicago, several innocent customers were injured and killed at a Starbucks (including a child) when they were ambushed by a gang banger firing indiscriminately at his intended victim. Due to Chicago's draconian gun laws (which clearly have not improved their murder or violent crime rate), no one in that establishment had the tools to defend themselves.

Guns are only part of the equation, of course. Training and knowledge of the law is vital, and true conflict resolution skills are never a bad thing. But this gives those with the proper attitude and knowledge the opportunity to protect themselves from predators.

a reply to: theantediluvian


I never carry in such establishments if I'm going to be drinking. Although I don't go to bars either, family restaurants that serve alcohol occasionally. But I'm a drink-at-home guy.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric


Mag, you will still have to renew it in the same way you do now but it would become recognized in all 50 states as opposed to those states that have entered into a reciprocity compact. For instance certain states do not recognize CPL/CHL/CCW from any other state, which infringes on non-residents'/visitors' right to self defense. Other times, states are de jure "no issue" in regard to issuing conceal carry permits, and this resolves that as well. Several states offer permits to non-residents (including Florida), which would then be valid in your state through the reciprocity bill.

It also stipulates that residents of states which don't require a permit to carry concealed (Constitutional carry) will be recognized by the reciprocity agreement. It is still unclear whether any type of ID or just a state OL/ID card will suffice

This is a major win for gun rights, and indeed the cause of all civil rights. We cannot selectively uphold the BOR, which is why it is important to protect all 10 amendments in the BOR with equal passion and proactivity.

It's still stuck in the Judicial Committee in the Senate. Time to call your Senators and tell them to get off their asses.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JBurns

It also requires firearm owners that are going to carry in another state to become knowledgeable of each states firearm laws, or they could face consequences, regardless of them carrying legally or not.

We already have to do this now, so that's not new. The difference will be we'll at least be able to carry in those states now. For example I live in PA, and have a concealed carry permit. Pretty much all my neighboring states don't recognize the PA carry permit, so no matter how familiar I get with their laws I can't carry in those states. Now I will be able to, except in certain places that are identified by state law, like if they forbid carrying in bars or schools. The bill still significantly lowers the restrictions on where I can carry.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric


Several states offer permits to non-residents (including Florida), which would then be valid in your state through the reciprocity bill.

That would be a huge win for CA residents and a big kick in the nuts for CA anti-gun legislators!!

You can be squeaky clean like myself, and still be denied a permit because, well frankly, they determined my reason was invalid. Nice to know I needed a reason to exercise a Constitutional Right....Its also nice to know about non-residential issuance and reciprocity.

I'm really concerned about the HR 4477 attachment however.....these two bills SHOULD NOT BE COMBINED.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JBurns

This Bill would Also Enable U.S. Residents the Ability to take Occasional Pot Shots at their Local Representatives who they Feel Do Not Have their Best Interests at Heart Anymore . Bravo ! ............)

Yeah, because we're not "enabled" to do so currently.......SMH

Feel free to wipe your chin..