National Gun-Carry Reciprocity Bill Moves to Mark Up in the House

[easy rider]

Personally, I'm not so sure the GOA is right on that one though. The Form 4473 defines fugitive from justice as anyone who has fled from a State to avoid prosecution for a felony or misdemeanor. I know most, if not all, traffic citations in Texas are considered class C misdemeanors, but every other state I've been in classifies them as infractions, unless it's a serious traffic offense. Granted, without clarification, I think it's worthy of concern, but I kind of get the impression the GOA is using that exception as fear mongering to garner support. Just my $0.02.

I don't know if it's fear mongering, if you consider how gun laws of the past have helped with your rights. I don't trust that the fix NICS bill has gun owners best interest. "Trust me, I work for the government" never did garner any trust in me, and I used to work for the government.

 

[Younggun]

A better bill would have simply mandated that UCMJ offenses be coupled with civilian standards of felonies and misdomeaners. Also, considering that the military has a terrible history of reporting anything the bill could deal specifically with that issue.

 

[easy rider]

Younggun for Congress!

 

[JeepFiend]

Oh I trust the government about as far I can throw them...and I got a bad hip, so it ain't very far. I'm just not so sure simple traffic tickets will get you on the list. The one part of the bill I do like is that erroneous records must be resolved and removed in 60 days and additional funding is provided to pay for it. I know of folks that have spent years trying to get their names off of NICS. And even the FBI website says currently they're working on appeals from August 2015.

I am right there with most of you in the belief that a law to make sure people obey laws will likely not prove to help the issues that already exist. I'm just not convinced that thousands of innocent folks are going to be thrown into the database. But even if they are, there is a provision for them to remedy the situation that doesn't presently exist.

 

[easy rider]

The incentive part, I really don't like. That sounds almost like the the McCarthy era of turn in your neighbor. While it's not really aimed at citizens themselves as turning in lists, it is opening up a door for agencies to meet quotas. I certainly wouldn't want to be put on a list just because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Brian Boru]

How does that square with the NRA statement?

I didn't see the NRA deny that the bill will spend half a billion adding more names to the list.

 

[NavyVet1959]

I've looked at the Senate bill and broken the statements down into logical groups to make it easier to read.

Here's the actual text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/446/text

Breaking it down, I get this:
(hopefully the formatting comes out correct)

(a) In General.
    Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary:

    (1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping,
        or receiving a firearm,
           AND who is carrying
                   a government-issued photographic identification document
                   AND a valid license or permit
               WHICH is issued pursuant to the law of a State
               AND WHICH permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm,
         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 other than the State of residence of the individual that:

                  (A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry
                      concealed firearms; OR

                  (B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful
                      purposes; AND

    (2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or
        receiving a firearm,
            AND who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document
            AND is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the
                individual resides
                otherwise than as described in paragraph (1),
        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 other than the State of residence
            of the individual that:

                (A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry
                    concealed firearms; OR

                (B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful
                    purposes.

(b) Conditions And Limitations.
    The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the
    same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal
    or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of
    a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or
    political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

(c) Unrestricted License Or Permit.
    In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to
    impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, an
    individual carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a concealed handgun
    according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the
    State.

(d) Rule Of Construction.
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the
    issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.

(b) Clerical Amendment.
    The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the
    item relating to section 926C the following:

    926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.

(c) Severability.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by
    this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be
    unconstitutional, this Act and amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision or amendment
    to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date.
    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Every state has some sort of provision for at least theoretically allowing the carrying of concealed handgun, even if from a practical standpoint, it's virtually impossible in certain non-free states.

Here's my interpretation of Section (a)(1):

• If you have a CHL from your home state, you can carry there PLUS every other state.
• If you have a CHL from some other state and your home state does not recognize that state's CHL, you can still carry in every other state, but you can't carry in your home state.
• If you have a CHL from some other state and your home state is a non-free state and from a practical perspective, never issues a CHL (even though they claim to have provisions for them), then you can carry in every other state, but not your home state.

Section (a)(2) looks very similar to (a)(1) at first glance, but when I spit it apart into clauses, I realized what I think is the difference. Section (a)(2) appears to be there to handle the states that have Constitutional Carry. For example, Arizona has Constitutional Carry. If you are a resident of Arizona and have a government issued ID that shows that, you would be able to carry in any other state since you can carry in your home state of Arizona.

The House bill (HR38) was a bit different if I remember correctly. I think that linguistically, it is poorly worded. The sentence suffers from a massive run-on, even worse than the Senate bill. Depending upon how you join the clauses of the sentence, the wording of it seems like it could be interpreted that if you lived in a non-free state and had a CHL from a free state (assuming your non-free state does not recognize the free state's CHL), not only could you not carry in your home state under your out-of-state CHL, but you could also not carry in any other state. With that interpretation, I don't believe that it has provisions for those who live in states who allow Constitutional Carry. By joining the clauses a different way though, this is not the case and it does provide for Constitutional Carry. I'm thinking that whoever wrote it deserves their knuckles whacked with a yard stick multiple times.

 

[NavyVet1959]

I'm also not so sure what that provision about "that has been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce" is about. Seems like it would in certain cases prohibit a person from carrying a gun that had been manufactured in the state it was being carried in if that gun had never left the state.

 

[AustinN4]

Also, considering that the military has a terrible history of reporting anything the bill could deal specifically with that issue.

So could have kicking a few generals' asses.

 

[Lunyfringe]

States that have constitutional carry also have CHL you can apply for reciprocity (AFAIK), so that's covered... and they could add it if they don't.
Although I also agree that requiring a license to exercise a God given right is bovine scatology, it's where we're at right now- a broken republic.

 

[busykngt]

JeepFiend, you may refer to it as “simple traffic tickets” but you are electing to ignore or disregard the part of my quote that says when that state issues a bench warrant for your arrest when you become a ‘no show’ on your traffic ticket court date.

 

[NavyVet1959]

JeepFiend, you may refer to it as “simple traffic tickets” but you are electing to ignore or disregard the part of my quote that says when that state issues a bench warrant for your arrest when you become a ‘no show’ on your traffic ticket court date.

Judges seem to take particular offense at being ignored and consider you not showing up for a court date as a personal insult.

I've probably had a couple of bench warrants issued over the years for traffic tickets. Sometimes, your ship is out at sea when your court date comes around and you get a letter months later (mail at sea is SLOW) informing you that a bench warrant has been issued. Sometimes, you get transferred across country to a new base and in all the hustle of getting ready for to move, you forget about a hearing date on a ticket you received a month earlier. You get to your new base and eventually your mail catches up with you and you find that they issued a bench warrant at some point in the past. You figure that you'll never be back in that state again, so screw them, since it was only a speeding ticket.

 

[JeepFiend]

JeepFiend, you may refer to it as “simple traffic tickets” but you are electing to ignore or disregard the part of my quote that says when that state issues a bench warrant for your arrest when you become a ‘no show’ on your traffic ticket court date.

No I didn't disregard it. But like I said, with the exception of Texas, most tickets are infractions, not misdemeanors. The definition of fugitive from justice specifically defines it as fleeing a state to avoid prosecution of a felony or misdemeanor. So when I said a simple traffic ticket, it was to differentiate from something like reckless, wet reckless, or dui...which are pretty much misdemeanors or higher everywhere.

 

[Younggun]

I read the text of the bill to say that if you go to California and something about your carry weapon violates one of their many convoluted laws on what is a horrible illegal death machine and what is just a horrible death machine they haven't banned yet, you're fucked.

 

[Big Dipper]

I read the text of the bill to say that if you go to California and something about your carry weapon violates one of their many convoluted laws on what is a horrible illegal death machine and what is just a horrible death machine they haven't banned yet, you're fucked.

As I understand it, the reciprocity is for the lincensee, not the equipment.

Same thing if you took a switchblade to a state where it is illegal.

 

[busykngt]

Younggun, you’re addressing the reciprocity part (vs. the NICS reporting part), correct? On the reciprocity part, I note by reading the bill, most of the written objections from the House Members, had to do with that concept of unequal “strictness” of the laws between the states. And more specifically the requirements or level of training required. That seemed to be their main heartburn (or at least, excuse) for objecting to the national reciprocity part of the bill. Otherwise, everyone is expected to know and abide by the gun laws (and CHL laws) of the state they’re traveling into. But that’s what is expected now (for the states that have granted each other mutual reciprocity) - so there’s really no change in that regard.
Personally, I have no plans to ever travel back to California, New York, New Jersey, etc. So they can keep their silly-a$$ 10-rd magazine limits or whatever....

 

[oldag]

Personally, I have no plans to ever travel back to California, New York, New Jersey, etc. So they can keep their silly-a$$ 10-rd magazine limits or whatever....

Reached the same conclusion a few years ago.

 

[Younggun]

Younggun, you’re addressing the reciprocity part (vs. the NICS reporting part), correct? On the reciprocity part, I note by reading the bill, most of the written objections from the House Members, had to do with that concept of unequal “strictness” of the laws between the states. And more specifically the requirements or level of training required. That seemed to be their main heartburn (or at least, excuse) for objecting to the national reciprocity part of the bill. Otherwise, everyone is expected to know and abide by the gun laws (and CHL laws) of the state they’re traveling into. But that’s what is expected now (for the states that have granted each other mutual reciprocity) - so there’s really no change in that regard.
Personally, I have no plans to ever travel back to California, New York, New Jersey, etc. So they can keep their silly-a$$ 10-rd magazine limits or whatever....

The concerns being raised over training requirements bother me the most. It goes back to my initial qualms about screwing up the LTC process for free states.

 

[Wedge1]

The chance of the NFA going away is right in line with you or I getting elected as Pope.

 

[busykngt]

...qualms about screwing up the LTC process for free states.

Yeah, I hear ya on that!
But I’m in the school of thought, it probably ain’t gona pass the Senate anyway. I think there are too many Democratic senators from Calif & the northeastern states that are dead set against it.