Our old friend and 2A champion Dave Workman calls for reciprocity of concealed carry nationwide. I join him emphatically in that call. Our marriage licenses and drivers’ licenses are recognized across all state lines – why not our right to protect ourselves and our families?
Agree but we also need strict rules about gun free zones.
What is a “Gun Free” zone?
A “gun-free zone” is a location which prohibits self-defense, enabling criminals to use their guns free of return fire.
As soon as Minnesota passed a “shall-issue” carry permit law my wife and I both got our permits as soon as possible. There is required training in the applicable law of self-defense in MN, and there is also a shooting test requirement. We did that three times while we were living there.
When we moved to NW Wyoming my MN permit was not valid, but (back then) out-of-state visitors could open-carry in WY but not concealed (that has since changed). I renewed the address on my MN permit so that when I needed to go back to finish closing on the old house I was legally carrying. After one year’s residency in WY we could legally carry concealed and I allowed my MN permit to expire. But lately my wife is thinking about some out-of-state travel through non-constitutional carry states, and so I’ve gotten my WY carry permit.
There is no classroom training required and there is no shooting test requirement. If you can prove that, at some point in life, you’ve had some kind of firearms training you’re good to go after a criminal investigation done by the State of WY.
Just a question: How would a proposed carry permit reciprocity bill reconcile the vastly different levels of training and shooting tests throughout the various states?
I know that is one reason why MN refuses to recognize WY permits, and so in return WY refuses to recognize MN permits. I’m not saying that ANY carry permit is a good thing (the US Constitution is plainly and obviously clear on the topic), but here we are.
“How would a proposed carry permit reciprocity bill reconcile the vastly different levels of training and shooting tests throughout the various states?”
That really is not a problem, in my view. That is often an argument thrown up against Nationwide Reciprocity. (Warning: Strawman coming! 🙂 ) It is the old “Our requirements are super high in ‘Our State’. Therefore, our Concealed Carry Holders are a ‘Cut Above’ every other State. We don’t want ‘Low Class and Poorly Trained oafs’ from those ‘Other States’ invading ‘Our Perfect System’. Who knows what problems those ‘Low Class Fools’ will cause? They might even get someone killed! We need to keep those ‘Unwashed Masses’ out of our ‘Perfect State’. If it saves even one life….’
Enough with that Elitist Horse Manure! Statistics show that concealed carry holders are among the most Law-Abiding People that exist on the face of the Earth. Their crime rates are a tiny fraction of the General Population and are even lower than the crime rates for Law-Enforcement Officers. Concealed Carry Holders are NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER going to be a Problem irrespective of how much training they have had.
So, using the varying requirements, between States, as an excuse to not recognize the carry permits from other States is just out-and-out B.S. in my book. It is a rationalized excuse trotted out by the firearms-prohibition crowd simply because they don’t want to do it and will float any excuse, that they can dream up, to justify not doing it!
My home State, Tennessee, recognizes the carry permits of ALL Other States. It has never been a problem here and it won’t be a problem if expanded Nationwide.
As you can guess from the above rant, I am 100% in favor of Nationwide reciprocity!
TN_MAN, you are so right! This may be your best essay of all.
TN_MAN:
I did not say that I thought that it would be a problem, and I also noted that the US Constitution SHOULD be all the “carry permit” that anyone needs.
I was simply asking, in today’s environment of collectivist/statist/authoritarians, HOW this would be resolved. It’s a problem (that some states will attempt to refuse to recognize permits from other states) that exists, and must be addressed. How a carry-reciprocity bill WILL address this is what I was asking, not whether or not it “SHOULD” need to be addressed.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
“How a carry-reciprocity bill WILL address this is what I was asking…”
My rant was not directed against you or your comment, personally, but rather against the excuse of varying State standards being used (as it has long been done, for many a year) to limit carry across State lines.
However, to answer your question more specifically, my Reading of H.R 38 indicates no effort to standardize standards across States. Rather, the proposed bill simply overrides State Law with a Federal Statute that permits Interstate carry for those holding carry permits. The language of the Bill (as current written – may be subject to change to get it to pass) states:
“(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.”
Boiled down, it make a carry permit issued in one State valid in any other State which issues carry permits to its own residents, assuming that the permit is valid and there are no other violations of Federal law.
So, no effort to adjust for different training/education standards. That is what bothers the firearm-prohibitionists so much! Some Blue States barely recognize or issue even residental carry permits. Having to recognize the permits of 49 other States is a “bridge too far” for them.
We can expect all the usual “blood will run in the streets” B.S. propaganda from all of these Blue States. It is B.S. but they will push it anyway.
@TN_MAN: … or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun…. [bold emphasis mine]
The way this is worded would seem to say that a person from a Constitutional Carry state does not need a permit anywhere in the 50 States. You KNOW states which require permits (and have so-called “high standards”) are going to gripe about and oppose this.
My question about this bill regards this clause: … a concealed handgun … that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce….
Obviously this means that DIY/home-built handguns are probably out, but could this mean a person cannot carry a brand of handgun manufactured in their home state, since it likely didn’t leave the state between manufacture and final sale, and therefore arguably did not enter “interstate commerce”?
For example, will it disallow a person from Massachusetts from carrying a pre-2023 Smith & Wesson? Or a person from Tennessee from carrying a post-2023 one? (S&W relocated from MA to TN in 2023.)
Unless the act of crossing state lines with a concealed handgun, pursuant to this bill, can be construed as having been “transported in interstate commerce”, I can envision some “creative” prosecutors taking advantage of this “loophole”.
@ Archer – “that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce….”
I expect that the authors of this bill felt that they needed to include this language. Congress has broad authority to regulate interstate trade under the “Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. By including this provision, this law is brought within the scope of the “Commerce Clause”.
I guarantee that the Firearms-Prohibitionists will hand-pick a left-wing Judge and immediately seek to challenge this law upon passage. They will attack the power of Congress to override State Laws. Ironically, they will raise a 10th Amendment challenge (normally, as Statists, the Left hates the 10th Amendment almost as much as they hate the 2nd. 🙂 ) to the law.
Without this type of language, there is a real possibility that the law might well be struck down, by the Supreme Court, on 10th Amendment grounds. They might find that Congress has exceeded its authority in overriding State Laws.
However, by including this language, this law is brought under the umbrella of the Commerce Clause and can be found Constitutional, by the SCOTUS, for that reason.
So, despite potentially creating a “loop-hole” for Blue State Prosecutors to exploit, as you point out, I expect that it is still necessary to include this type of language in the bill.
Short answer, they don’t. States are not allowed to deny someone the privilege (not right) to drive a motor vehicle across state lines simply because they don’t agree with the written and applicable driving test of the other state.
Last time I checked, just 28 States recognized the Arizona “Concealed Weapon Permit”. The card doesn’t have a photo, just the physical description of the holder. In as much as the holder will also have an Arizona driver Licence, with a photo, I never did see the problem.
Eight hours instruction (including range time), ten shots, five each at 5 and 10 yards, 14″x16″ target, 7 ‘hits’ minimum.
The Dirty Little Secret about several of the “restrictive” venues was that the training and legal requirements weren’t that strict, other than the “discretion” requirement. It was easy to qualify for a license as long as you were politically connected, but impossible if you weren’t. The publisher of the New York Times “had a need” to carry, but a taxi driver did not. Likewise, the restrictions on where you could carry weren’t as strict as many shall-issue states. After all, if TPTB only issued licenses to its cronies, why inconvenience them?
I am against the national government legislating a national reciprocity law. What the national government can give, it can take away. And the 2nd Amendment forbids the national government from interfering with gun rights. This is a nose in the tent issue that will lead to even more restrictions by the national government than we already suffer from.
If the government gives us national reciprocity and then takes it away, the worst that happens is we’re back to where we are right now.
Black Wing
Arizona non resident can help, as can Utah CPL.
Google AZDPS and Utah CPL training for more information.
True. The bill says a valid permit from “a State”. It does not specify the person’s “home State” or “State of residence”.
Hey Mas, on a completely separate note, inspired in large part by your example, I’ve finally started writing my first book, with the 50th anniversary of the Beretta 92 pistol series!
Accordingly, I’ll be frequently citing at least two books of yours (which I’ve already added to my Bibliography page), namely “The Semiautomatic Pistol in Police Service and Self-Defense” and “The Gun Digest Book of Beretta Pistols: Function, Accuracy, Performance.”
Wish me luck please!
“with the **topic being** 50th anniversary of the Beretta 92 pistol series” I meant to say!
Good luck!
Thanks Mas! Be happy to send you an inscribed copy when it’s published!
Or do the right thing and declare government permission slips to practice a civil right as unconstitutional, making the laws consistent with the constitution and you can carry pretty much anywhere outside of a prison.
the very requirement or mandating of a ?MOther May I Card” is an egregious violation of the plain language of our Constitution. WE all know that. But I suppose for now any tiny scrap of relief from government is better than nothing.
Some states require blood test to get a marriage license.
Some states don’t.
Some states make you parallel park to get a drivers license.
Some don’t.
Yet there hasn’t been a problem with DLs and Marriages being recognized in all 50 states.
I feel the differing requirements for a carry permit or license are not a major issue.
Dr. Duke:
Very nice analogies…if we can get the states to acknowledge that getting a carry permit in ANY state is much more onerous than getting a marriage or driver’s license, then it should be an easy bill to pass.
I’m guessing that:
A) They won’t acknowledge reality (for this, or anything else), and
B) It won’t be easy to pass.
They won’t acknowledge that — despite what Obama and others have said, and despite multiple media “investigations” (read: they just tried it for themselves and reported what happened) proving the contrary — guns are actually NOT easier to legally purchase than books or fresh fruit.
So I won’t hold my breath waiting for them to acknowledge that non-Blue-state carry permits are not handed out like candy on Halloween.
Are there any other legal documents issued by the individual states that are NOT recognized as legal by the other individual states? As goes the argument that ones’s marriage license and driver’s license are recognized by every state, obtaining one’s concealed carry permit (license) is more complex by comparison. Therefore, it seems reasonable that if the state that issued both your marriage license and driver’s license sees fit to issue you your concealed carry permit (license), after meeting all that state’s requirements, reciprocity should be granted to all the other states.
Of course all legal requirements only apply to all law abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, do not obey any such legal requirements.
“Are there any other legal documents issued by the individual states that are NOT recognized as legal by the other individual states?”
Sure, there are bunches of them. For example, hunting and fishing licenses are State/location specific. You can’t buy a fishing license in Florida and then use it to fish in Alaska, for example.
The same thing with Professional licenses. If Florida issues you a license to be a barber, you can’t use it to set up a barber shop to cut hair in Topeka, KS.
However, nobody expects to use these kind of licenses on an Interstate basis. That is really the question. Let me frame it this way:
Question: Should a concealed carry license be location specific (limited to a specific area such as a State or, even a County or City within a State) or should it be considered an Interstate Document (not location specific within the boundaries of the U.S.)?
There is a broad consensus that Marriage licenses and Driver’s licenses ARE NOT location specific. On the other hand, there is also a broad consensus that hunting/fishing licenses and business licenses ARE location specific.
Supporters of the 2nd Amendment want a concealed carry license to not be restricted to a single location. They argue for concealed carry licenses to be placed in the category of universal licenses along with the Drivers/Marriage licenses.
However, the firearm-prohibitionists always seek to limit the scope of 2nd Amendment Rights. They argue for concealed carry licenses to be location specific (limited to, at most, the region of a single State). They would place it in the category with hunting/fishing/business licenses. By doing so, they can (neatly) restrict the scope of the Right to Bear Arms.
That is the real argument here. Is the 2nd Amendment a 2nd Class Right that may be limited in scope by geography? Or is it a First Class Right with universal appeal such as the Right of Association (by marriage) or the Right of Unrestricted Travel (by Driving a vehicle)?
In the Bruen Decision, the Supreme Court claimed that the 2nd Amendment is not a 2nd Class Right. If that is true, then it should not be restricted by geography and those States who refuse to recognize the carry permits from other States are WRONG.
1st Class or 2nd Class? That is the question.
My answer to the prohibitionists on whether a carry permit (license) should be location-specific or not:
A hunting or fishing license is a measure to control and preserve fish and wildlife populations (to prevent over-fishing and -hunting), and must be location-specific because the fish and wildlife are location-specific. IOW, using your example, the license to hunt or fish in Florida, issued by the Florida Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (or equivalent state agency), applies to the fish and game in Florida; it’s not intended to be valid in Alaska, which has its own state agency for its own fish and game and issues its own licenses.
However, marriage and driver’s licenses — and the privileges they allow — attach to the person or people named on the licenses. They are not location-specific; they are person-specific, and therefore follow the person/people wherever they go.
Likewise, the right to self-defense, and the right to carry defensive tools to facilitate it, attach to the person exercising the right. It is also not location-specific because a person has the natural right to defend him- or herself wherever they are and have a right to be, even outside his/her state of residence.
Because the right facilitated by the carry license attaches to the person, not the location or state that issued it, it 100% should be valid across state lines.
Archer – IMHO, you are 100% correct. The Right to Bear Arms is Person-specific. As you point out, it is not location limited. For example, it is not the case that you have the right to self-defense in your home but must submit to attack outside of your home. Many laws, especially of the “Stand-Your-Ground” type, directly list that the individual has a right to defend himself in ANY PLACE where he has a right to be.
This is one reason why the Left hates Stand-Your-Ground laws so much. The Left really does not recognize a personal right to self-defense. As Statists, they feel that authority to protect the subjects, of their rule, resides solely with the State both on a National level (via the armed forces) and on an individual level (via the police forces).
In other words, they have a philosophical problem with any individual raising a hand in self-defense. This is shown by so many actions of the Left such as:
1) Using their left-wing prosecutors to go after and attempt to punish anyone who engages in self-defense.
2) Opposing the 2nd Amendment at every opportunity.
3) Passing draconian anti-gun and anti-weapon laws that seek to punish anyone who owns and carries any kind of weapon for self-defense. Whenever they can, they make it a FELONY to carry a weapon with the intent to go armed even for self-defense.
4) Resisting handing out concealed carry licenses. Opposing National Carry Reciprocity. Passing “Carry Killer” laws that throw roadblock into carrying a firearm for self-defense. Limiting the scope of carry licenses by insisting that they be geographically limited.
5) Labeling human-violence as ‘Gun Violence’ and then pushing their GUN FREE ZONES agenda as a solution.
6) Pushing RED FLAG laws that seek to strip individuals of their 2nd Amendment Rights. Often without even a hearing wherein the individual can obtain due process.
When one views the actions of the Left, as a whole, it is clear that they fundamentally disagree with the entire concept of the Right of Self-Defense.
They are Statists. In their view, only THE STATE has the right to use force. Any individual who does so usurps the Authority of THE STATE.
If the State fails in its duty to protect you? Well, that is just too bad. In their view, better to be robbed, raped, or be murdered then to usurp the Authority of THE STATE. Being a VICTIM is GOOD, in the Leftwing Worldview. Being a defender and usurping the authority of THE STATE is BAD.
THE STATE is their Godhead. To usurp its authority is sacrilegious. Better to die than be a HERITIC to GOD-STATE!
So, the Left doesn’t ever want to recognize the 2nd Amendment as an Individual Right. You can imagine what they think when you also tell them that it is attached to every individual and follows them wherever they go!
I had to listen to a long rant by an optometrist whose IL license was not Valid in CO. See also lawyers, doctors and teachers. It is going to take Federal legislation which won’t happen unless someone in the house is smart enough to attach it to something 60 Senators want. This is how we got National Park carry. Sort of
And also, if you live in a Constitutional Carry state (NC should be next), then that should be honored in all, territories too.
National concealed carry will likely become an actuality at some point. And while I am in favor of such things without condition or duty to perform, I am also aware most people will not voluntarily take on the duty that comes with the right. That is, the duty to inform yourself on the topic of judicious ise of deadly force. On that subject – and I’m sure I’m preaching mostly to the choir on this page – MAG40 is one of the BEST things I’ve ever done in my 63 years, and I cannot recommend it highly enough for those who haven’t. Shameless plug for the host here, but well deserved. Mas, you are a national treasure!
Stay safe!
There is a very serious issue that needs to be specifically addressed in every national concealed carry reciprocity bill in order for it to be a law that truly protects our constitutional right to Bear Arms & that is the issue of what types of guns, magazines, & ammunition will interstate carriers be permitted to carry. Without a stipulation that cities, states, & all other jurisdictions are prohibited from restricting semi-autos, “high capacity” magazines, certain calibers, hollowpoint ammunition, or any handgun which they consider to be an “assault weapon” from being carried concealed by out-of-state permit holders, then any concealed carry reciprocity bill will be ineffective at best & more than likely meaningless. Multiple states ban high capacity magazines. Maryland bans everything which they define as a “Saturday Night Special” or which is not on their Approved Firearms List. It’s against the law in the state of New York to even possess a handgun without a New York Pistol License & the issuers are allowed to restrict what you are allowed to own, as well as where you are allowed to possess it. Massachusetts is similarly restrictive. New Jersey prohibits the possession of hollowpoint ammunition. California prohibits almost everything, as do several cities such as NYC. True concealed carry reciprocity cannot exist if states & cities are allowed to prohibit your gun of choice because it does not conform to their standards. The same is true if anti-gun jurisdictions are allowed to set aside any number of areas as “sensitive places” or “gun-free zones” which may include public streets, parks, or public transportation (subways, buses, etc.) where firearms are not permitted.
I realize that the sponsors of the proposed concealed carry reciprocity bills which I am aware of will argue that any bill containing these kinds of restrictions on state & city jurisdictions cannot possibly be passed through the congress & the senate to be signed into law. They will also argue that it is better just to “pass something” now & to modify it later gradually through further legislation or through the judicial system. The result of that will be that concealed carry reciprocity will remain pretty much the same as it is now & any modifications will take decades to wind their way through the legislative & judicial systems. It is not enough to pass a law stating that “All state concealed carry permits must be & will be honored by every other state” unless it includes the phrase “…without any restrictions by those states, cities, & jurisdictions therein.” Barring that, our only hope of true concealed carry reciprocity will be a Supreme Court ruling which states that the Second Amendment acknowledges the Right of every American citizen to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection everywhere that it is deemed necessary by it’s owner, & that will never happen unless a majority of supreme court justices are replaced by new, conservative, pro-second amendment justices like Thomas & Alito, which is not likely.
Mas, I hope you will express my concerns to the SAF & other second amendment organizations & lobbyists so that they will at least try to address these issues when drafting concealed carry reciprocity bills. Possibly they could pass a bill in which all out-of-state concealed carriers are legally guaranteed the right to carry any handgun, magazine, & type of ammunition that is legal for them to carry in the state where their concealed carry permits were issued.
While I’d REALLY like to see it, the only way National Reciprocity is going to pass is as a rider to some must have spending bill.
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. Dave above raises good points. There’s entirely too many deeply cherished delusions here along with vested opposing interests.
Let us not forget the messes with states like IL, and also the HR 218 permits also. Wisconsin has folded that into their CCW laws, so it’s even more of a mess.
Interesting, but also tedious, discussion. I can’t help but notice that, as we do the modern version of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Democrats can have about four years of open borders, legalize marijuana and nine months of abortions, have George Soros prosecutors let criminals out of jail, make shoplifting legal, allow violence from Leftist demonstrators, allow minors to have transgender surgery and medication without informing their parents, allow anti-Jew demonstrations on college campi and in cities, and debate about whether an ordinary judge can have authority over the US President. Not only are marriage licenses required to be recognized by all 50 states, but even gay marriage licenses are required to be recognized.
In other words, the Left gets to have things their way, most of the time.
Since CCW holders are more law-abiding than police officers, there shouldn’t even be a debate about the impact of the proposed reciprocity law.
Our side lost the culture war a long time ago. However, I am encouraged by the fact that 29 states now have Constitutional Carry, and even New Jersey has better gun laws than the United Kingdom. The fight of Good versus Evil never ends.
I see what you’re saying, and you make some fair points. A lot of the recent top-down mandates have favored the Left’s pet causes.
But not all. The border is starting to be enforced again and criminal aliens are being caught and deported. Universities that allow anti-Jew and anti-Israel violence are being federally de-funded. District judges entering nationwide injunctions are getting shot down. And if this upcoming season ends up being another “Summer of Love” attempt, I wouldn’t count out Leftist “Mostly Peaceful Protesters” learning the hard way that regular Americans (and the federal DoJ) don’t think “Mostly” is good enough.
But back to the main point: The fact that 29 States have Permitless Carry, and that number keeps only going up, means we’re only losing the culture war in the media — which has always been biased against us, so you can’t trust them anyway.
On the ground, in non-socialist State legislative chambers, and at the highest levels of the Judicial system, we’re mostly winning. That does not happen unless we’re doing well on the culture front.
I’d much prefer National Constitutional Carry, and I know that’s already been hinted at here but I just wanted to add my voice to it.