Richard Hudson; national concealed carry reciprocity

| January 5, 2017

In the first day of the new Congress, Richard Hudson (R-NC-8) introduced national concealed carry reciprocity legislation. It would, like a driver’s license make a concealed weapon permit from your own country, legal in every other county where concealed carry is allowed, according to Breitbart;

Hudson’s legislation not only establishes national reciprocity for concealed permit holders but also national reciprocity for residents who live in states that require no permit for concealed carry. In the former situation the concealed carry permit of any state would be valid in every state and the “identification document” in possession of a resident of a constitutional carry state would serve as a permit to carry without a license in other states.

Basically, it’s the same law that Joe Manchin introduced in 2012 before he was elected to his full term as Senator of WV. He abandoned that law after Sandy Hook and he formed a new friendship with Chuck Schumer and the other gun grabbers.

Category: Guns

38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
OWB

In theory, I support this. But, Congress has a tendency to make very bad legislation from good ideas. So, will wait to see what they actually do about it.

AZtoVA

Yes, I remember something about Devils and details…..

jonp

An interesting argument in the opposition to this. Do we really want to acknowledge that the Federal Government has final sway over a Constitutional Right and not the State where you reside? If they can issue this how many do not think another Progressive like Obozo won’t run with it and try to ban CCW nationwide?

USMC Steve

The concept already exists in the Constitution in the “full Faith and Credit” clause, although here the congress would be ensuring that it is actually observed and carried out. Your drivers license is good in all 50 states simply because it is good in one. Thus all states must give full faith and credit to its qualifications. The concealed carry is exactly the same issue. The antigun scumbag states have ignored that and chosen not to allow concealed carriers from other states to carry in theirs in direct violation to this clause. Should never have been a matter in the first place.

IDC SARC

pew! pew! pew!

…awww yeahz

Dave Hardin

I thought Republicans were supporters of States Rights. They claimed to be against Federal control of things.

Each state has right to accept a reciprocal agreement with any other state.

Whats next, forced Health Care through some Federal mandate?

CB Senior

Spot on. Maybe NC would like to have the same bathroom rules as California forced on them.

BoomerSooner_Marine

While I understand your position in theory, the federal government does have a role in regulating interstate commerce and travel, which is why your state driver’s license is valid throughout the US because it would become too onerous to individually obtain one from each state. Based on that and other precedence, I believe the feds do have a role in regulating concealed carry permits.

gitarcarver

I don’t think that you are correct here.

The reciprocity of driver’s licenses is accomplished by agreements between the states, not a federal law. In fact, if you look at the back of trucks who travel the interstates, you’ll see inspection stickers from different states. That means the states have control over the laws of the vehicles and the drivers on their roads and not the federal government.

Furthermore, when you move to a new state, that state (not the federal government) determines how long you have to get a new license for that state.

States – not the feds – control licenses on their roads.

Luddite4Change

Drivers license reciprocity is covered by interstate compact for both private and commercial licenses. However, in the case of Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDL), there is a common Federal Minimum training standard for issuance by each state (which they are free to exceed).

2/17 Air Cav

Everyone is right and wrong regarding licensure. There is an interstate compact that 45 states are signatories to. As with all such compacts, it has been blessed by congress. However, the compact goes to honoring another state’s suspension, revocation, and driving record of a transferee, and does not mandate that a person licensed in one state shall have that license honored in another. The obvious issue is the age at which one can obtain a license. In some states, a 15-year old can be licensed and in other states not. Even among the signatories to the compact, there is an exception: Colorado. That state will not automatically honor the duration of a suspension or revocation meted out by another state. Instead, it holds a hearing to determine whether the driver is now a safe driver or still an asshole, though I would guess that second part is not a necessary finding.

2/17 Air Cav

Oh. One other thing. The reason states honor one another driving licenses is not a function of law but of common agreement and reasonable practice.

jonp

A CDL is honored by every state and is transferable to any state you move to. I’ve done it 3 times so far.

Warrior0369

CDL.s both class A and B are federal licenses. The Federal Motor Carrier Act covers the requirements for issue and maintenance. The state issues it but in accordance with federal regulations. I don’t know what this state inspection sticker is as mentioned above. The only stickers I carry are Fuel stamps from the different states. Not inspection stickers.

2/17 Air Cav

Right. CDLs are altogether different than standard, run-of-the-mill licenses.

Hayabusa

I do not see this as a “states rights” issue. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any state or local law that violates it is invalid, period. The Second Amendment prohibits the Federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, and, as with most of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has subsequently incorporated that prohibition against state and municipal governments via the 14th Amendment. So a state law infringing your right to keep and bear arms is no more constitutionally valid than would be a law establishing an official religion, censoring the press, depriving defendants of the right to a jury trial, etc.

The second reason is the “full faith and credit” clause. If Texas has to let you drive its highways on a California driver license, why doesn’t California have to respect your Texas handgun permit? If anything, the presumption in favor of the latter should be even stronger, since bearing arms is a constitutional right, whereas driving is merely a privilege.

So I don’t have any issue with Congress mandating concealed carry reciprocity. What I do have a problem with is them doing it under the guise of the dubious “Commerce Clause”, which has been twisted out of all proportion to its original intent. The law should be based on the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, period.

Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary.

J.R.

Two thumbs WAY up!!!

The Other Whitey

The Supreme Court has ruled that state laws defining marriage as one man, one woman are unconstitutional violations of the 1st Amendment, despite the Amendment itself containing no language of any kind pertaining to marriage, based on a stretch of the freedom of association, which also doesn’t actually appear in the text and is itself a stretch of the indicated right to peaceably assemble.

At what point will the same standard be applied to the 2nd? The libs go on and on about how the rather-specifically-worded First grants all kinds of things that it doesn’t actually say (and I’m not necessarily saying that’s a bad thing in general–there was a time when miscegenation laws would’ve made my marriage illegal; their current popular interpretation prevents this), yet they claim the broader, more permissive syntax of the Second doesn’t guarantee us anything other than flintlocks and can be restricted to any extent by any local jurisdiction that feels like it.

2/17 Air Cav

And the issue you raise was behind many a vote against H. Clinton, I am sure. The Supreme Court with a a Clinton nominee or two–or three–would have guaranteed a new ‘interpretation’ of the language of the 2nd A, exactly the way a “fundamental right” to marriage was miraculously discovered to be hidden in the Constitution for more than 200 years. A Trump presidency does not assure that this still won’t happen, but a Clinton presidency would have.

Dave Hardin

Our civil rights under the Constitution are subject to limitations. There are countless examples of each state applying their own specific standards.

The 4th Amendment does not stop police from setting up random road blocks, yet in other states it does.

The 1st is not an exception to State specific interpretation either. The definition and application of Hate Speech laws varies dramatically.

A mandatory Federal requirement for a specific state to honor the laws of another state has no basis in law. Driving privileges are exactly that…a privilege. No citizen has a “right” to operate a motor vehicle.

The creation of a Federal Concealed Carry permit would resolve the issue. That would create a Federal policy that supersedes any state law. The lack of any Federal CCW creates the flaw in the very foundation of a Federal authority mandate.

Luddite4Change

My only issues with this approach is that the states are not mere subdivisions of the Federal Government. If Texas requires you to go to attend a class and demonstrate proficiency in your weapon, I’d feel somewhat disconcerted that someone from Ohio can carry while visiting the state with a licenses which was issued under much looser conditions.

Also, if the Feds can take this step, whats to stop any other Federal licensing initiative? Doctors, Lawyers, hair stylists?

Dave Hardin

Mandating concealed carry reciprocity is absurd. Using the driving license example, in the state of Indiana you must pull to the right of your lane and stop if there is an emergency vehicle coming in the opposite direction. Doing that in SC will get you a ticket for obstructing traffic.

If the rules of reciprocity were applied by federal mandate, I could turn right on red in any state since it is legal in the state my DL was issued.

You are suggesting that the specific laws of another state be extended to apply anywhere. If a resident of a state that has the death penalty commits a crime that mandates it application for the crime…must the state which the crime was committed have to enforce their laws because of his residency?

David

I believe the proposal mandates recognition reciprocity of the license but requires that said license holder comply with the rules of the state you are in – you have a Texas license in Ohio, you have to abide by Ohio law. For instance, Texas now has open carry by RTC license holders – the Ohio permit holder would be able to open carry in Texas, but a non-permit holding Ohioan would not.

A reasonable compromise may be for the Feds to establish a common standard (such as requiring Texas-style permitting only with a class as well as range qualification). States meeting those standards automatically have reciprocity; license holders from other states not meeting those standards will have to negotiate reciprocity on their own.

Dave Hardin

Cool, the law in SC requires you to be a resident or apply for special consideration on a case by case basis.

Ergo, people from other states can not carry.

Jonn lives in a Wild and Wonderful land, he can barge into his local Biscuit World wielding a 338 lapua with a pistol grip if he wants.

The peachy people of Georgia have decided he can not go into a Waffle House with a BB gun.

Once again, the only way Federal Authority will apply is if they create a Federal CCW. FCCW would then take precedence over State and Local policy.

Gun Nutz can still be Gun Nutz and do it Nation wide then.

Silentium Est Aureum

Oooooh. I love Biscuit World.

USMC Steve

In this case, and the Supremes have weighed in on the Full Faith and Credit clause issue on other things, the Constitution says this is the deal. Thus republicans have nothing to do with this, since there were none in 1787. And as to each state having a right to accept such things, no they don’t. Not since the civil war ended,and they never did if the Constitution specified otherwise regarding LICENSING issues. That is the specific issue here: issues of licensing by a given state being ignored by other states. In some cases they do it, in some cases they don’t.

nbcguy54ACTUAL

Every other Amendment to the Constitution is recognized by each state at face value and pretty much without conditions. Only the Second has been allowed to be mangled by the states.

I support the new bill…

A Proud Infidel®™

Hey, the left forced the gay marriage and other crap on us, so they can sit and spin on their complaints about it.

WE SHALL OVERCOME!

NavCWORet

It’s great unless you live in a state like MD where it’s damned near impossible to get a CCW without indisputable proof someone is trying to kill you.

A Proud Infidel®™

Just think then if you lawfully obtained a CCW Permit from say, Alabama which issues to out of State Residents while living in MD then you could possibly carry with that?

USMC Steve

Exactly correct. It should be legal, and under this, it would be, whether or not the socialist democrats in control like it or not.

Jay

Which is why im keeping my NC one even though I just got one from FL as well. Rather have too many than not enough.

The Other Whitey

If this works, I’ll just get an Arizona nonresident CCW, and “may-issue” California, Governor Moonbeam, and Comrade Newsom can blow me.

Silentium Est Aureum

How much you wanna bet that NV and AZ are gonna build some HUGE Cabela’s or such right across the borders of I-8, 10, 15, and 80?

2/17 Air Cav

I agree that the posture assumed by some regarding states’ rights is mistaken. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights accrue to the individual, not states. Through incorporation, as Hayabusa wrote, the prohibitions once applicable to the federal government were extended to the states. As a matter of logic, then, if the 2nd A accrued to the states to do what each will, then the states would be in the rather odd position of both being empowered to infringe upon a right that it is prohibited from infringing upon. The only reasonable position to take, consistent with the 2nd A as an individual right is that, subject to certain and reasonable exception, such as children, felons, drunks, and lunatics, the right of each citizen to carry a firearm may not be infringed.

USMC Steve

I agree with that. And the restrictions you mention are currently pretty much in place when one tries to buy a firearm, at least from an FFL dealer.

2/17 Air Cav

Ugh. “As a matter of logic, then, if the 2nd A accrued to the states to do what each will, then the states would be in the rather odd position of being empowered to infringe upon a right that they are prohibited from infringing upon.”

Wilted Willy

They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!