Jump to content


Photo

House passes bill allowing concealed carry across state lines


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 22cal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 04:42 PM

Ya! Now to the Senate.

#2 22cal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 04:47 PM


HOUSE
December 06, 2017 - 04:45 PM EST
House passes concealed carry gun bill



BY CRISTINA MARCOS 4,030
TWEET SHARE MORE
Two months after the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history, the House on Wednesday passed legislation that would allow people to use permits for carrying concealed handguns across state lines while also boosting the background check system.

Despite bipartisan support for enhancing background checks for gun purchases, the bill passed along party lines, 231-198, due to Democratic opposition to the concealed-carry reciprocity measure.

Six Democrats voted with Republicans to approve for the package. Fourteen Republicans voted "no."


The gun policy measures were originally two separate bills. But House GOP leaders opted to combine them so that lawmakers only had to cast one vote.

Attaching the concealed-carry reciprocity measure puts the bipartisan measure to beef up background checks in jeopardy in the Senate.

The legislation as passed by the House faces an uncertain future in the upper chamber, where Democrats are sure to block the concealed-carry measure, but a bipartisan coalition has enough votes to break a filibuster on enhancing background checks.


Under the House legislation, people with permits for carrying concealed handguns could do so in any state that allows concealed weapons.

People could only use their concealed-carry permits in other states that allow the practice if they are carrying a valid government-issued photo ID and are lawfully licensed to possess a concealed handgun. They would still have to adhere to established state and local laws.

Concealed-carry reciprocity is a top legislative priority for the National Rifle Association, which has resisted proposals to restrict access to guns in response to mass shootings.

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the author of the concealed-carry bill, compared the concealed-carry reciprocity measure to how driver’s licenses and marriage licenses are recognized across states.


He gave an example of a single mother in south Philadelphia who had twice been mugged and purchased a handgun to protect herself. But she traveled to New Jersey, which didn’t recognize her Pennsylvania concealed-carry permit.

"If I get married in North Carolina but I move to Arizona, I’m not a single man again. They recognize that marriage," Hudson said during House floor debate. "The concealed-carry permit should be recognized the same way."

Gun reform groups lobbied against the concealed-carry measure. Mark Kelly, the co-founder of a group named after his wife, ex-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), said that the policy doesn’t work if people aren’t properly trained.

Kelly recalled how a well-intentioned man with a concealed gun almost shot one of the people responsible for wrestling the shooter who nearly killed Giffords in a 2011 shooting to the ground.

“The situation that played out in the Safeway parking lot that day shows the potential for tragedy and bloodshed when untrained people carrying loaded guns react to a crisis. Even with the best intentions, an armed person without the extensive firearms training that is required to respond under pressure in a crisis will risk making the situation worse, not better,” Kelly wrote in a Washington Post op-ed.

States have varying requirements for carrying concealed weapons, like gun safety training, age limits, and prohibitions on individuals known to have abusive pasts.

The package also included a bill from Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) that would ensure authorities report criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and penalize agencies that don’t report to the FBI.

Democrats supported the background check measure but balked at including the concealed-carry reciprocity.

“Unfortunately, the dangers posed by the concealed carry reciprocity portion of the bill greatly outweigh the benefits of the NICS improvements,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), the acting ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

The shooter responsible for the Nov. 5 massacre at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, was prohibited from buying or possessing a gun due to a domestic violence conviction while serving in the Air Force. But the Air Force failed to enter the criminal record into the federal database used for gun background checks.

Another provision in the bill is in direct response to the Oct. 1 shooting in Las Vegas, which killed nearly 60 people and injured more than 500 others.

Law enforcement authorities found a dozen devices known as bump stocks, which are used to make weapons fire more rapidly, in the Las Vegas shooter’s hotel room.

The measure would require the Justice Department to report to Congress on the number of times a bump stock has been used in a crime. It’s far less stringent than bipartisan bills introduced in Congress since the Las Vegas shooting to prohibit the manufacture, sale and use of the devices.

But ahead of Wednesday’s vote, the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced on Tuesday that it is considering a possible ban on certain bump stocks.

Lawmakers had been pushing for the Trump administration to clarify whether bump stocks violate the ban on fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986.

“The regulatory clarification we begin today will help us to continue to protect the American people by carrying out the laws duly enacted by our representatives in Congress,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

#3 armadroid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 12

Posted 06 December 2017 - 05:23 PM

In before lawsuits from 50 states



#4 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 06:15 PM

Is I'm not mistaken, doesn't the law say that as long as you have a concealed carry permit from ANYWHERE that you must be allowed to carry a gun?

If so, may issue is gonna be totally gutted.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#5 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 06:18 PM

Is I'm not mistaken, doesn't the law say that as long as you have a concealed carry permit from ANYWHERE that you must be allowed to carry a gun?

If so, may issue is gonna be totally gutted.

 

True statement.

 

Much more information in this thread:

 

http://illinoiscarry...c=64281&page=11


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#6 luckydawg13

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,751 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 06:27 PM

If it is ever going to happen it will be under Trump's administration

Kid's that Hunt and Fish don't Mug old Ladies 


#7 NRApistol

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:15 PM

 

Is I'm not mistaken, doesn't the law say that as long as you have a concealed carry permit from ANYWHERE that you must be allowed to carry a gun?

If so, may issue is gonna be totally gutted.

 

True statement.

 

Much more information in this thread:

 

http://illinoiscarry...c=64281&page=11

 

The way I read it, in addition of photo ID requirement there is this: "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"



#8 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:47 PM

 

 

Is I'm not mistaken, doesn't the law say that as long as you have a concealed carry permit from ANYWHERE that you must be allowed to carry a gun?

If so, may issue is gonna be totally gutted.

 

True statement.

 

Much more information in this thread:

 

http://illinoiscarry...c=64281&page=11

 

The way I read it, in addition of photo ID requirement there is this: "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"

 

 

Please read this post:

 

http://illinoiscarry...64281&p=1118253


Edited by kwc, 06 December 2017 - 07:52 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#9 NRApistol

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:57 PM

I read all the text.  I also listened to all the hearing.  The clear intent was you must have a license or permit from your home state OR come from a constitutional carry state. Good luck getting rid of your Illinois License and carrying nationally on a non-resident or constitutional carry.

 

Forum experts have at it  :phone: 



#10 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:07 PM

I read all the text.  I also listened to all the hearing.  The clear intent was you must have a license or permit from your home state OR come from a constitutional carry state. Good luck getting rid of your Illinois License and carrying nationally on a non-resident or constitutional carry.

 

Forum experts have at it  :phone: 

 

You must be hearing and reading what you want to hear and read, instead of what the text and author actually intended. Rep Hudson has addressed this multiple times. Here is one example:

 

http://freebeacon.co...-carry-permits/

 

I'm not being a "forum expert." The bill's primary sponsor was clear, and the debate in the House Judiciary Committee covered this.

 

A permit from "a State" will allow you to carry in "any State." "Home State" is not referenced in the bill. End of story.

 

Believe what you want. Doesn't matter to me.


Edited by kwc, 06 December 2017 - 08:18 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#11 NRApistol

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:24 PM

 

I read all the text.  I also listened to all the hearing.  The clear intent was you must have a license or permit from your home state OR come from a constitutional carry state. Good luck getting rid of your Illinois License and carrying nationally on a non-resident or constitutional carry.

 

Forum experts have at it  :phone: 

 

You must be hearing and reading what you want to hear and read, instead of what the text and author actually intended. Rep Hudson has addressed this multiple times. Here is one example:

 

http://freebeacon.co...-carry-permits/

 

I'm not being a "forum expert." The bill's primary sponsor was clear, and the debate in the House Judiciary Committee covered this.

 

A permit from "a State" will allow you to carry in "any State." End of story.

 

Believe what you want. Doesn't matter to me.

 

I hope you are correct.  You are quoting info about a year old.  Since then language has been added for constitutional carry states.  If I understand your point of view "lowest standard"  with constitutional carry added in, why would anyone need a license or permit?  I`ll hang on to my Illinois but I expect my non-resident licenses to become obsolete. IF this becomes the law of the land.


Edited by NRApistol, 06 December 2017 - 08:25 PM.


#12 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:33 PM

 

 

I read all the text.  I also listened to all the hearing.  The clear intent was you must have a license or permit from your home state OR come from a constitutional carry state. Good luck getting rid of your Illinois License and carrying nationally on a non-resident or constitutional carry.

 

Forum experts have at it  :phone: 

 

You must be hearing and reading what you want to hear and read, instead of what the text and author actually intended. Rep Hudson has addressed this multiple times. Here is one example:

 

http://freebeacon.co...-carry-permits/

 

I'm not being a "forum expert." The bill's primary sponsor was clear, and the debate in the House Judiciary Committee covered this.

 

A permit from "a State" will allow you to carry in "any State." End of story.

 

Believe what you want. Doesn't matter to me.

 

 

I hope you are correct.  You are quoting info about a year old.  Since then language has been added for constitutional carry states.  If I understand your point of view "lowest standard"  with constitutional carry added in, why would anyone need a license or permit?  I`ll hang on to my Illinois but I expect my non-resident licenses to become obsolete.

 

 

The text hasn't changed since introduction on January 3.

 

Being an Illinois resident, which is (clearly) not a Constitutional Carry state, this bill would require you to have a permit from somewhere.

 

This arrangement does set up an awkward situation whereas a resident of Missouri (a permitless carry state) could carry in Illinois without a license, but you would still need one. An AZ or UT license would suffice for you.


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#13 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,114 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:34 PM

Honestly I wouldn't be too happy about this passing and having the possibility of getting through the senate.  

 

This is nothing but a turd sandwich with mustard on it.  

 

You not only have the NICS stuff added in, which brings up right back to the whole "too dangerous to fly, too dangerous to own a gun stuff", which is in the bill.  

 

Then you have the possibility in the way this bill is designed, for an eventual democrat majority in congress to not only repeal the bill, but concealed carry as a whole.  The mechanism for that is right in the bill and the way they're making the case through the commerce clause.  

 

All this bill does is give the federal government FAR more power over the states.  Do we really want the federal government to have more power just because it's something that we want right now, even though it could be used in the future to take those same rights away from us?  Dems are playing long ball on this one.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#14 luckydawg13

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,751 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:34 PM

It should be just like a driver's license and the Cost
Should be the same in every State

Kid's that Hunt and Fish don't Mug old Ladies 


#15 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:34 PM

But for now, this is all academic anyway. We have a LOOOONNNGGGG way to go before this becomes law, if ever.


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#16 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,114 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:42 PM

But for now, this is all academic anyway. We have a LOOOONNNGGGG way to go before this becomes law, if ever.

They'll probably need 9 dems to come over in the senate.  I don't think Rand Paul will side with the GOP on this one.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#17 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:42 PM

KWC,

 

After reading the top of the first page of the text of the bill, I think I disagree with you:

 

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection ( :cool:) 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—

 

 

Since only an Illinois license allows an Illinois resident to carry in Illinois, we will need to have an Illinois license to carry in all states.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#18 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:55 PM

Soundguy, youre parsing it wrong.

To simplify:


_________

...who...

(1) 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

(2) is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,

_________


Line 2 (my delineation for clarity) refers only to residents of permitless carry states.

Parsing it any other way doesnt make grammatical sense.

.

Edited by kwc, 06 December 2017 - 08:59 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#19 67vtx1800

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 245 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 14

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:57 PM

You can either carry with a permit issued by a state. Or carry permitless if your home state allows. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by 67vtx1800, 06 December 2017 - 08:59 PM.

No Print 1/5er 98 Days to Active


#20 NRApistol

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:12 PM

kwc,  you read " is issued pursuant to the law of a State"  and see that as from ANY State  

 

I read " is issued pursuant to the law of a State"  and see that as not the law of a CITY or a COUNTY or a TERRITORY ect.

 

It`s not a matter of simplify... that`s a degrading commit.  It`s a matter of different opinions.



#21 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:20 PM

KWC,

 

It seems to be quite clear without parsing... You are reading it wrong!


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#22 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,206 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:23 PM

KWC has rightly divided the text.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#23 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:27 PM

It`s not a matter of simplify... that`s a degrading commit.  It`s a matter of different opinions.


The /to simplify/ line introduced my attempt to restructure and isolate the clauses in a straightforward, readable manner. It was not meant to be a degrading comment at all... my apologies if it came across that way. [...baffled...]

Edited by kwc, 06 December 2017 - 11:10 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#24 TRJ

    Joyful Stoic

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,889 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:27 PM

Guys. I think your all reading this situation wrong. I think fix nics is the bill and reciprocity is the poison pill. I don't think this has a chance in the Senate. Which is the point. Ryan didn't want reciprocity yet he knew fix nics was going to pass regardless which he also doesn't want. By combining them it's makes fix nics poison in the Senate and they can all say they tried but failed. Nothing more than political theater.

#25 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:28 PM

KWC,
 
It seems to be quite clear without parsing... You are reading it wrong!


Then so is the author.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#26 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:50 PM

Yeah... I'm out! I missed that "or" . I cannot imagine (except for the poison pill thought) the intention would be to disrupt the licensing schemes of many states. It is either poorly written or perhaps a sham. Dirty tricks.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#27 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 08:42 AM

It`s not a matter of simplify... that`s a degrading commit.  It`s a matter of different opinions.


The /to simplify/ line introduced my attempt to restructure and isolate the clauses in a straightforward, readable manner. It was not meant to be a degrading comment at all... my apologies if it came across that way. [...baffled...]

Agreed. I thought your use of "simplify" was like to "simplify" an algebraic expression. Not to simplify for ignorant people.

Thanks for the straightforward article.

Edited by OldMarineVet, 07 December 2017 - 08:43 AM.


#28 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,114 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 11:12 AM

The problem I have with the bill aside from what others have mentioned and I did above, is that any time politicians use the commerces clause, it's always to expand federal power and control over the states.  

 

The states were designed by our founders to have much greater power than the fed.  The bill of rights didn't even apply to the states (they didn't have to recognize them if they chose not to), until the 14th amendment was added.  

 

We've always had 3 options for making changes in our states.....voting people out, forcing politicians to make the changes we want, or moving to a state that more aligns with our beliefs.  

 

I for one can't be a hypocrite and cheerlead the fed into taking more power than they should have, when I criticize them for doing the same thing but it happens to be something that I disagree with.  

 

A true carry bill would use 2A as the sole basis for national reciprocity, not something that can be used later against us.  

 

Conservatives used to be for limited government, what happened?  Getting a gift with strings attached isn't a gift a conservative would take.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#29 mbnut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 12:17 PM

Now if a resident from Indiana has a non resident Utah and Illinois has to recognize it would that not be a open door for lawsuits if they failed to recognize a Illinois resident with a Utah non resident permit. Seems to me like it would be a double standard.
NRA Life Member
ISRA Life Member
ISRA Range Member
GOA Member

#30 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,206 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 02:17 PM

The problem I have with the bill aside from what others have mentioned and I did above, is that any time politicians use the commerces clause, it's always to expand federal power and control over the states.  
 
The states were designed by our founders to have much greater power than the fed.  The bill of rights didn't even apply to the states (they didn't have to recognize them if they chose not to), until the 14th amendment was added.  
 
We've always had 3 options for making changes in our states.....voting people out, forcing politicians to make the changes we want, or moving to a state that more aligns with our beliefs.  
 
I for one can't be a hypocrite and cheerlead the fed into taking more power than they should have, when I criticize them for doing the same thing but it happens to be something that I disagree with.  
 
A true carry bill would use 2A as the sole basis for national reciprocity, not something that can be used later against us.  
 
Conservatives used to be for limited government, what happened?  Getting a gift with strings attached isn't a gift a conservative would take.  

It's all about balance of power. The fed *should* impose the recognition of fundamental rights where states are abjectly denying them.

This isn't about small gains for some, it's about the total elimination of progressive controlled states and municipalities' ability to deny a basic human right.

Edited by tkroenlein, 07 December 2017 - 02:18 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users