Rep. Hudson to introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    33,311
    As written, at 0557hrs today , is any Permit.

    What dealmaking might or might not occur in the Senate is unknown.
     

    Vetted84

    Active Member
    Nov 8, 2016
    646
    Some of you must be reading something different than I am reading.

    " 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—"

    I do not believe this bill allows us to carry in MD on a non-resident permit.
    I also do not want to be the one to test it in the courts.
     

    Tomcat

    Formerly Known As HITWTOM
    May 7, 2012
    5,578
    St.Mary's County
    I believe the confusion is due to the difference between the House and Senate versions. House version = any permit, Senate version = home state permit. :shrug:
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,495
    Westminster USA
    Exactly. The HR 38 says " issued pursuant to the law of a state" it does not mention residency

    S 446 mentions state of residency.

    My read anyway
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,495
    Westminster USA
    Differences between the two versions will have to be worked out in conference committee

    If they both pass

    Here is the wording in the Senate version that requires a resident permit first. The House version contains no such language

    The house version uses the word OR to include residents of permitless carry states.


    Some of you must be reading something different than I am reading.

    " 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—"

    I do not believe this bill allows us to carry in MD on a non-resident permit.
    I also do not want to be the one to test it in the courts.

    Senate bill S 446
    .
     

    Attachments

    • law2.jpg
      law2.jpg
      62.7 KB · Views: 227
    • law3.jpg
      law3.jpg
      26.9 KB · Views: 227
    Last edited:

    Schipperke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    18,781
    Some of you must be reading something different than I am reading.

    " 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—"

    I do not believe this bill allows us to carry in MD on a non-resident permit.
    I also do not want to be the one to test it in the courts.


    If it is ambiguous, I'd say Frosh will go with what you are lamenting.

    Maryland having every border now that is shall issue (DE ?) will be hard pressed not to join if everyone on those borders are free to commute and carry here but we are not. Lots of Virginia folks travel to MoCo for work. I strongly doubt this thing gets through the Senate, so moot.
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,495
    Westminster USA
    IMO, neither is ambiguous. Which one will become law depends on what the House-Senate conference committee works out.

    But both versions need to pass first.
     
    Last edited:

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,920
    WV
    I believe the confusion is due to the difference between the House and Senate versions. House version = any permit, Senate version = home state permit. :shrug:

    Not home state permit, but a resident of a state is still bound by that states permit requirement. But a MD resident can carry in any other state with a VA permit, for example.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,274
    Davidsonville
    Reciprocity for states without Sanctuary Cities. Just a thought! Would love to see the behind the scenes talks on the final version. If it passes I would like to believe Hogan will lax G&S requirements soon after and right before Frosh files suit.??
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    can they detach HR38 and vote on the nics fix alone?

    They can strip it on the house floor, but I doubt that will happen.

    I guess they could, but it's obvious with all the dems whining that it's got a better chance with than without in the senate.

    This is 100% correct.

    Now, they could still play shinnanigans in conference and strip out HR 38 from the NICS fix bill after the Senate passes it.

    If this passes and is signed into law some state will sue and it will be in front of the SCOTUS before any case working its way up through the normal court process.

    I doubt it will go much faster than other cases. It'll go at the same speed really.

    The only thing is if there is an PI that SCOTUS issues, and I doubt they'll let that happen.

    I agree. I'll make a bet they'll run to a Hawaii judge just like they kept doing with the immigration laws.

    That's a given. But, Trump is putting more good guys on the bench every day...play chicken if you want to.

    As of today, looks like 4 Senate Democrats (MT, WV, IN, and ND) are on board with NCCR, a 5th (MO) doesn't like NCCR but willing to vote for the bill because FixNICS is attached to it.

    So we're looking at a potential 52 (GOP) + 5 (Dems) = 57 Total. Only need 3 more Dem Senators to agree to a vote on cloture if the Dems choose to filibuster (and likely one or more will).


    Pressure needs to be put on these Senators.


    1) Bill Nelson-D (Florida)

    2) Angus King-I (Maine)

    3) Bob Casey-D (PA)

    4) Martin Heinrich-D (NM)

    5) Tom Udall-D (NM)

    6) Sherrod Brown-D (OH)


    They don't all need to vote for the bill, but if some of them can be convinced to vote to advance the bill that is good enough.

    Wildcard: Pressure Sen. Al Franken and Bob Menendez to resign due to scandals, then only need 58 votes for cloture on the bill.

    That would be too easy. It's not like McConnell is calling for anything more than Franken's ethics investigation. Hell, McConnell's wife basically came out yesterday and said "you know the stakes when you start playing hooky from school."


    Capital Hill Switchboard is 202-224-3121. Not sure why this image has 225

    As written, at 0557hrs today , is any Permit.

    What dealmaking might or might not occur in the Senate is unknown.

    You KNOW they will start swinging deals.

    Remember, it's Cornyn in the Senate that wants a clean NICS Fix.

    If this passes I just might visit Maryland more often.

    I've got your first beer if you do.
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    Separate post.

    If you live in Andy Harris' district, you need to call that post turtle.

    That fence sitter has "no position" on this bill. How that's possible, I haven't the foggiest. I let them have it, professionally, this morning when I called.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,651
    Messages
    7,290,018
    Members
    33,496
    Latest member
    GD-3

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom