HR 38 National conceal carry reciprocity

[THE KING]

https://youtu.be/OcuROFfbgcA?si=sRfIGY4OIzN3qcwE

[THE KING]

[drumgod]

Is there a companion Free Speech Reciprocity bill?

A right should not need mandated reciprocity. IMO, wrapping it in the trappings of a "privilege" is a big mistake and a step in the wrong direction.

[MrTriple]

On 1/7/2025 at 1:00 PM, drumgod said:

Is there a companion Free Speech Reciprocity bill?

A right should not need mandated reciprocity. IMO, wrapping it in the trappings of a "privilege" is a big mistake and a step in the wrong direction.

Ideally, you'd need the bill to explicitly outlaw permit requirements to carry, which would be difficult to achieve with the current makeup of Congress, but that's definitely a good goal to have.

 

However, you could structure the bill to clearly favor permitless carry, and allow individuals from permitless carry states to carry on only a driver's license or ID as opposed to being forced to get a permit when they visit states that still mandate the permit.

[lilguy]

It will take 60 votes in the Senate unless they can get it through combined with something else. Not gonna happen IMHO.

[ragsbo]

I don't like the government at any level having a say on what constitutional listed rights you can exercise, where you can, and how you can. That isn't a right, that is government permission= which they could take away!

[THE KING]

https://youtu.be/3-3a1owEWj8?si=drCZ0FAlhmw7njwL

[djmarkla]

I believe this will. Never happen. Most republicans are cowards when it comes to protecting the second amendment.

[John Q Public]

Snowballs in heck.

[Quiet Observer]

Here is part of the bill.

Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
“(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 machine gun 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.

 

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, or base.

 

“(c) (1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.

 

Text - H.R.38 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress 

[Quiet Observer]

On 1/10/2025 at 8:22 PM, ragsbo said:

I don't like the government at any level having a say on what constitutional listed rights you can exercise, where you can, and how you can. That isn't a right, that is government permission= which they could take away!

Governments write constitutions. Who decides what actions are included under a right or when a right is violated? 

[Quiet Observer]

On 1/10/2025 at 7:12 PM, lilguy said:

It will take 60 votes in the Senate unless they can get it through combined with something else. Not gonna happen IMHO.

Why would it take 60 votes? 

 

"The Senate votes on bills, resolutions, motions, amendments, nominations, and treaties in a variety of ways. If one-fifth of a quorum of senators request it, the Senate will take a roll-call vote. In a roll-call vote, each senator votes “yea” or “nay” as his or her name is called by the clerk, who records the votes on a tally sheet. In most cases a simple majority is required for a measure to pass. In the case of a tie, the vice president may cast the tie-breaking vote. In a few instances, the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, including: expelling a senator; overriding a presidential veto; proposing a constitutional amendment for ratification by the states; convicting an impeached official; and consenting to ratification of a treaty. Under Senate debate rules, it takes a three-fifths majority of those duly chosen and sworn to invoke cloture and end debate on a piece of legislation. Senate rules also require a two-thirds vote to invoke cloture on a measure that would amend the Senate's rules though the measure itself requires only a simple majority vote for adoption."

U.S. Senate: About Voting

I added bold to make it easier to find the specific sentence.

[Euler]

60 votes are needed to close debate.

[Quiet Observer]

Thanks!

[JTHunter]

IIRC, that 60 vote requirement is called "cloture".  Somebody correct me if I misspelled that.

[gunuser17]

 

 

The Senate tradition of unlimited debate allowed for the use of the filibuster, a loosely defined term for action designed to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment, or other debatable question. Prior to 1917 the Senate rules did not provide for a way to end debate and force a vote on a measure. That year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as "cloture." In 1975 the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the 100-member Senate.

 

This is a rule that could be changed as it was for judges but given what happened after democrats first opened that door, I expect it will not happen again.

 

Edited March 30, 2025 at 02:37 PM by gunuser17

[lilguy]

On 1/10/2025 at 7:12 PM, lilguy said:

It will take 60 votes in the Senate unless they can get it through combined with something else. Not gonna happen IMHO.

I repeat myself.

 

Anyone care to name the needed Democrats who would vote to support this. It would be much easier to nome those who would filibuster such a bill to death.

[John Q Public]

It's never going to happen full stop. heck we can't even get standard cap mags back. SC doesn't seem willing to honor the 2nd fully. With all these BS Judges playing whack-a-mole with Trump EO, they will be busy, and IMO they are scared to go all in on the 2nd. They could have done so already, but the stopped short.

[ragsbo]

On 3/29/2025 at 1:12 PM, Quiet Observer said:

Governments write constitutions. Who decides what actions are included under a right or when a right is violated? 

evidently NO ONE since we get getting screwed out of our constitutional rights right now and NO ONE CARES!