Jump to content
TedderVision
TexAgRepublican

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Recommended Posts

Mr. Swanner, with thanks to Mr. Hudson, introduces

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act”.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:


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 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.

“(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, base, or park.

“(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.

“(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).

“(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.

“(d) (1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.

“(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

“(e) In subsection (a):

“(1) The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.

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

“(f) (1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun.

“(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of 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.

“(F) Land administered and managed by the Forest Service.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for such chapter 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 section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section 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 section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act prohibits a law enforcement officer with reasonable suspicion of a violation of any law from conducting a brief investigative stop in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

SEC. 4. CERTAIN OFF-DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ALLOWED TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM, AND DISCHARGE A FIREARM, IN A SCHOOL ZONE.

Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2)(B)—

(A) by striking “or” at the end of clause (vi); and

(B) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix) and inserting after clause (vi) the following:


“(vii) by an off-duty law enforcement officer who is a qualified law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926B) and is authorized under such section to carry a concealed firearm, if the firearm is concealed;

“(viii) by a qualified retired law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926C) who is authorized under such section to carry a concealed firearm, if the firearm is concealed; or”; and

(2) in paragraph (3)(B)—

(A) by striking “or” at the end of clause (iii);

(B) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting a semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:


“(v) by an off-duty law enforcement officer who is a qualified law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926B) and is authorized under such section to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(vi) by a qualified retired law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926C) who is authorized under such section to carry a concealed firearm.”.

SEC. 5. INTERSTATE CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY FEDERAL JUDGES.

(a) In General.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by inserting after section 926D the following:

Ҥ 926E. Interstate carrying of firearms by Federal judges

“Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a Federal judge may carry a concealed firearm in any State if such judge is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for such chapter, as amended by section 2(b) of this Act, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926D the following:


“926E. Interstate carrying of firearms by Federal judges.”.

PES: This bill amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.

A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.

Additionally, the bill specifies that a qualified individual who lawfully carries or possesses a concealed handgun in another state: (1) is not subject to the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm in a school zone, and (2) may carry or possess the concealed handgun in federally owned lands that are open to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PLAYER NAME
Republicans Democrats
NAT EV BUS MR ML SJW  PRO GLO
Change 5 0 0 1 -1 -2 0 -3

Nationalists love the push for gun rights, while liberals worry that this will circumvent existing gun control laws in more Democratic states.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I believe this bill is highly inconsiderate at this time with light of the recent shootings.  This is terrible timing for such a bill.

I move to table this bill until the next session.

Mr. Speaker, I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Doomhammer said:

Mr. Speaker,

I believe this bill is highly inconsiderate at this time with light of the recent shootings.  This is terrible timing for such a bill.

I move to table this bill until the next session.

Mr. Speaker, I yield

Mr. Speaker I second the motion and yield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

The Second Amendment is non-negotiable. I am proud to sponsor this bill. Licensed and regulated concealed carry in the hands of responsible gun owners saves lives. You don't lose your Second Amendment right to protect you and your family just because you crossed into another state.

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Hands off gavel*

Mr. Speaker,

Could the gentlewoman from California specify what shootings she is referring to? The Mall of America shooting last year? If so that gun wasn't being concealed carried.

I yield

*Hands on gavel*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker a question

Can anyone cite a case where this law would actually change anything?

also

I guess this is a point of clarification. Let me give a scenario and someone can explain this to me and the rest of the American people. If someone is a resident of Texas which issues a concealed carry permit, and they were traveling to California which may issue a permit, would this bill require California to honor their permit from Texas? Is that a fair reading of this bill?

I yield. 

Edited by Jsawrie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker I apologize I want to make one more point. 

The congressman from Texas can simmer down with the “shall not be infringed” 2nd amendment Wild West rhetoric on this bill. No ones arguing for taking away guns. I know his NRA donors like the buzzwords when they stroke his...checks but we’re debating, if I’m correct, if one state should be compelled to honor a permit it may itself not issue. 

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

Can anyone supporting this piece of legislation explain to me how it does not infringe upon states rights?  We seem to have quite a lot of states rights advocates in here; yet, when it comes to an issue they believe is important regardless of the majority of Americans wanting MORE gun control and LESS loose gun laws, I am confused as to the merits behind this bill regarding the infringement upon states rights.  If a state has reasonable gun control laws that do not infringe on someone's 2nd amendment rights, why is it that the loose laws of one state should be applied to all states?  Wouldn't Republican logic be, "If you don't feel safe in a different state without carrying your gun arsenal, don't go there."?

Mr. Speaker, I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

Let's say a family from my home district in Houston decides to take a vacation to New Orleans. Let's say they decide to drive there on I-10. Let's say a member of that family has a valid concealed carry license. I believe that such a license should still be valid after they cross the bridge into Louisiana. It's not like they all of a sudden lose their Second Amendment rights when they move into another state. The need to protect themselves and those around them doesn't go away just because they traveled into a different state. 

I yield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TexAgRepublican said:

Mr. Speaker,

Let's say a family from my home district in Houston decides to take a vacation to New Orleans. Let's say they decide to drive there on I-10. Let's say a member of that family has a valid concealed carry license. I believe that such a license should still be valid after they cross the bridge into Louisiana. It's not like they all of a sudden lose their Second Amendment rights when they move into another state. The need to protect themselves and those around them doesn't go away just because they traveled into a different state. 

I yield. 

Mr. Speaker,

If let's say a member from your district in Houston, Texas, decides to start a business in Texas and wants to operate in New York.  Does he operate on Texas Law or New York Law?  The answer is he must comply with Texas Law in Texas and then file as a foreign corporation in New York and comply with New York state law.  Texas law is not be the same as New York law and vice versa.  If business law respects states rights, why wouldn't gun laws be respected by states rights?  If the state the visitor is traveling in acknowledges the concealed carry license, then the family in your example is fine; however, why should one state be forced to comply with a law they disagree with from another state? 

This bill essentially promotes a lack of safety.  If a state has loose gun laws where it is easy to buy a gun, someone could get a license without proper screening or training in one state and then enter a state where that same person who should never have had a gun in the first place due to stricter screenings can go to another state and commit a crime with it.  This bill assists criminals who can find the state with the weakest gun laws and acquire guns in that state only to then go into more safer states and cause harm.  This bill makes the country less safe.  A Texas permit may not be the same as a Louisiana permit.  My response to the gentleman from Texas is, that family in your example should respect Louisiana law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker, 

I appreciate the gentleman ignoring my hypothetical for replacing his own but I made my selection for a reason. If a person travelling to a more strict state does that state have to submit to the federal mandate. 

The gentlewoman I believe is right. This possibly infringes on states rights to dictate their own concealed carry laws and for people to abide by them. The fact of the matter is that state laws for the vast majority of laws exist to those states. If this is the new standard then Colorodans are in theory able to smoke marijuana at their leisure in any state is that not true? My fear is that this law violates the tenth amendment by violating states rights. Can anyone provide a case why this doesn’t. Also no one has said why we need this law. What Instance has a person been prevented? Or is this just an appeal to get the benefit of their NRA backers?

I yield

Edited by Jsawrie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Hands off gavel*

Mr. Speaker,

Concealed carry holders are some of the most law abiding citizens in our country committing crimes at one-sixth to one-tenth the rate of police officers who themselves commit crimes at a fraction of the rate of the general public. Regression estimates show that each percentage increase in concealed carry holders is correlated with a 2.5 percent decrease in the murder rate. Concealed carry holders have as well stopped numerous mass shooting incidents for which we thank them. Concealed carry promotes greater safety and the gentlewoman from California has shown no statistical basis for her claim that this bill promotes a lack of safety. As for why this bill is necessary, one can look at the cases of Donna Gracey or Shaneen Allen both of which were arrested merely for being in a state where their concealed carry permits weren't recognized. These are arrests that didn't need to be made and these women did not pose some greater threat to the public. The second amendment does not differentiate between concealed carry or open carry both of which are apart of constitutional rights to bear arms. In the 2008 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs Heller it was made clear what it is meant by bearing arms, Justice Scalia quoting Justice Ginsberg's writing in a previous case said the following "using a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment indicates: 'wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in the case of conflict with another person". A firearm being in the clothing or in a pocket is concealed carry. In the 14th amendment it explicitly states that "no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says that "Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article". Being that the Supreme Court ruling of McDonald vs Chicago has ruled that states and municipalities must honor and abide by the Second Amendment it is within our grounds as Congress to protect the Second Amendment rights of citizens traveling outside their home state. "Shall not infringe" is not a buzzword, it's the language of the Constitution and are guidelines from which we run this country. It is not wild west rhetoric it predates there being a Western United States. You don't have to like the wording, but you can't claim to support the Second Amendment if you oppose it.

I yield

*Hands on gavel*

Edited by Kurt Faulhammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. speaker,

that didnt answer my question so I’ll ask it  more simply. Does this bill require states to comply with laws from other states? 

I yield for an answer

Edited by Jsawrie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker

Nor did the congressman answer my other question. Should Coloradans have the right to consume marijuana wherever they may be outside the state because of their home state? Where is the line? What’s different about those things? I’ll wait for you to flip a coin and decide. I yield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×