federal Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (HR 38)

When I first heard about this, a month or two ago, my initial impression was "great."
But was concerned about the Feds again throwing their weight around, trampling States Rights.
Link to a brief, excellent article that drills down to the heart of the matter.

HR 38 is an unconstitutional gimmick



https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/07/19/from-duty-to-be-armed-to-permission-to-carry/

Whoever wrote that piece should get an award. Well done.


Sent from an unidentified bayou mobile device

I'm going to start this with the fact that I am not a lawyer but these are my opinions.

I just saw a video on this and after reading the text of the law, I don't buy the authors premise that a person in Connecticut, or any other state that has constitutional carry, would need to make there legislature pass a law allowing a permit and then go and get there permit. Here is a section of the text from the law, emphasis mine:

*(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.

Click to expand...

The person from Connecticut need only prove that they are from Connecticut, ie with a driver's license, to have the right to carry in any other state that either has a statute which allows residents of that state to apply for a permit, like Louisiana, or if that state does not prohibit concealed carry, like the constitutional carry states.

I underlined the word handgun because that is defined later to be:

(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.

Click to expand...

It is my understanding, as well as that of the Gun Owners of America, that this would thwart "efforts of states like Massachusetts and California to ban guns through a technicality." If I am legally allowed to have a magazine that is greater than 10 rounds in my state where my permit is valid, then this covers that magazine in all states. Also, I could carry those scary hollow points in places like New Jersey. That seems like a pretty good win.

The bill also allows for the carrying of concealed handguns in 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.

Click to expand...

The law also removes the federal prohibition on carrying in a school zone. This would not affect us in Louisiana since the state still outlaws it under RS 14:95.2. It would no longer be a federal crime however.

ETA: Just realized the major benefit to this part of the law. Under federal law, it is illegal for someone to carry on or within 1000 feet of a school, very similar to that of Louisiana, with the exception that "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." Emphasis mine again. Therefore, if I traveled to Mississippi and was within 1000 feet of a school, it could be argued that I was breaking federal law. The argument would be that Mississippi did not license me to carry a concealed handgun, they just agree to honor it. This would make that argument go away. Sounds like another win to me.

Now, I want to say that I agree with the basic sentiment of the article posted above. I think we should have the right to carry without having to go through legal hoops like we currently do. With that said, we have tried, in this state, to get constitutional carry passed, and it didn't work out. I don't think we should stop that fight, but this would get rid of one of the common things said when the debate was going on about constitutional carry. I, and others, said we would still go through the process of getting a permit, even if it wasn't required in this state so that we could carry in other states. This bill would make it so that we could carry in those other states without needing a permit from this state.

ETA: Here is a link to the full text of the bill. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr38/BILLS-115hr38ih.xml

HR 38 is not an infringement of 2nd amendment rights. They've already been infringed. This is a federal enforcement of 2nd amendment rights, giving more teeth to the constitution itself, and rolling those existing infringements back (if only a little).
Maybe you could make the argument that it's an infringement on states rights but only as an extension of individual rights, so I don't understand the conflict. Individual rights>states rights>federal.
Oh, since it's less than a total rollback of all gun laws we should argue or vote against it? Pull your head out. By that argument any other roll-back of federal gun law is also unconstitutional. There is no conflict with supporting HR38 and ALSO fighting for the complete rollback of federal gun law. GOA is behind it. MAC had a great discussion about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-b_1fx-_uA
It's not a compromise, it's the real deal. Write your congress critters now, right now, do it now.

https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1538

Louie Gohmert Explains His Vote Against the NICS and Reciprocity Bill Today

I had changed my mind and wanted to see this bill become law because the acceptance of various forms of ID were accepted
and no impositions on Constitutional Carry States...
But HR 38 is no longer a clean bill, unlawful crap is now attached
he can explain it far better than I...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nMOWG1MErY