ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
UPDATED: the Cornyn Amendment ("national reciprocity") and Maryland
UPDATE APRIL 17, 2013, 5:25 PM: Regarding the amendment to S. 649 by Senator John Cornyn (R-Tx.), to establish a type of "national reciprocity" for persons who hold a "carry permit" issued by any state: on April 17, the Cornyn Amendment mustered a substantial majority, 57-43, but under the current agreement by which the Senate is considering amendments, 60 votes were required, and so it fell three votes short.
The main gun control bill, S. 649, is still open to other amendments. Moreover, S. 649 could still be filibustered prior to final passage (if it even gets to that point), in which case 60 affirmative votes would be needed to end the filibuster and send the bill to the House.
The Cornyn Amendment is Amendment No. 719 to S. 649. It is titled "The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013."
The provisions of the Cornyn Amendment differ, in some respects, from the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" (H.R. 822), which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the previous Congress, on November 16, 2011, by a vote of 272-154, but which was not acted on by the Senate. It also differs in some important respects from the "right to carry" proposal voted on by the Senate, the Thune Amendment (Amendment No. 1618 to S. 1390), on which the Senate conducted a roll call on July 22, 2009. The Thune Amendment commanded a substantial majority on that occasion -- 58-39 -- but it fell two votes short of the 60-vote threshold that was required by the agreement under which the Senate was operating on that occasion. The Senate yesterday centered into a similar agreement on nine pending amendments to S. 649, and under the terms of that agreement, the Cornyn Amendment also will require 60 votes to become part of the underlying gun-control bill, S. 649.
Keep in mind that even if the Cornyn Amendment musters 60 votes, it will become part of S. 649, which contains many other provisions, and to which many other amendments will be offered. After the amendment process is completed, the S. 649-as-amended will probably be filibustered, and will die unless 60 senators vote to "invoke cloture" on S. 649 itself. If cloture is invoked on S. 649 and the bill is passed by the Senate, it will then go to the House of Representatives, where the majority-party leadership has a variety of procedural options available, including referring the bill to the House Judiciary Committee (which is the committee that produced the reciprocity bill that passed the House in 2011). So the Cornyn Amendment, as described below, is a very long way from becoming law. Still, it may be helpful to understand its provisions, were it to be enacted this year or at some future date.
What follows is a summary of the provisions of the Cornyn Amendment, with special attention to (1) implications for Maryland residents who hold permits issued by other states; (2) implications for Maryland residents who hold permits issued by Maryland, restricted or otherwise, and who wish to carry in other states; and (3) implications for residents of other states, who hold permits issued by other states, and who wish to carry in Maryland.
I am not a lawyer, but this is not the first time I've read a bill. Nothing here constitutes legal advice -- and it could hardly be legal advice, since the Cornyn Amendment is not a law, but merely a legislative proposal. Some of the statements below may be subject to revision in the light of comments -- part of the purpose of threads such as this is to subject legislative proposals to multiple analysts.
Note: If you wish to post a comment or question on the summary that appears below, please DO NOT "quote" the entire summary. Rather, use the "edit" tool to quote just the numbered paragraph, or portion of a paragraph, to which your comment pertains. Thank you.
(1) In order to exercise the right or privilege that the Cornyn Amendment would establish (or, if you prefer, recognize in statutory form), a person who is carrying the firearm outside his state of residence would need to meet all three of the following criteria: First, he must not be disqualified by federal law from possessing a firearm. Second, he must be carrying "a government-issued photographic identification document." Third, he must either be 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 he must be a resident of a state that allows carrying concealed firearms without a permit, also known as "constitutional carry" (those states currently being Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming, I believe).
(2) If a person meets those three criteria, he or she "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," and may do so "in any State other than the State of residence of the individual," if the state in which he carries "has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms," or allows concealed carry without a permit. This language would apply to every state except Illinois. It would not apply to the District of Columbia because, even though the U.S. Code already defines the District as a state for purposes of federal firearms laws, there is currently no permit-issuance scheme in effect in the District.
(3) The right or privilege created by the amendment overrides any conflicting state or local laws. (The amendment begins, "Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary. . .") However, it does not in any way affect the right of a state to maintain its own standards regarding issuance of permits. ("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.") Thus, there is nothing in the amendment that would force Illinois to adopt a permit-issuance law, for example, or that would force Maryland to relax the system by which it currently issues permits.
(4) The Cornyn Amendment makes no distinction based on the state of residency of the permit holder. In other words, a valid permit issued by Virginia (for example) to a resident of Maryland, would be just as valid, for purposes of the Cornyn Amendment carry right, as a permit issued by Virginia to a resident of Virginia. But, see paragraph no. 5.
(5) With respect to carrying within one's state of residence, one would still be governed exclusively by his home state's permit issuance system. Thus, a Maryland resident who is unable to obtain a Maryland-issued permit would not be able to carry a firearm in Maryland under the Cornyn Amendment. However, with a permit issued by Utah or any other state, he would be allowed to carry in 48 other states.
(6) When carrying under the terms of the Cornyn Amendment, the permit holder is "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. . ."
In other words, when carrying in another state, the permit holder would be required to abide by the same laws that govern resident permit holders in that state. Of course, this is just the same principle that currently applies when carrying under state-to-state reciprocity agreements or under state laws that recognize out-of-state permits. So, for example, since Pennsylvania law says that Pennsylvania permit holders may not carry a firearm in a courthouse, a visiting permit holder carrying under the terms of the Cornyn Amendment also would be prohibited from carrying in a court house.
(7) Under the Cornyn Amendment, a Maryland resident who holds a carry permit issued by Maryland, whether or not it contains restrictions, would enjoy the same national carry right as a person who holds a permit issued by any other state. Within Maryland, the permit holder would, of course, remain bound by any restrictions printed on the permit (and under pain of criminal penalties once SB 281 takes effect), but when carrying in other states he would be bound only by the generally applicable restrictions in place in those states; the individualized Maryland restrictions would not be relevant. That is because any Maryland-issued permit is "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," whether or not it contains specific restrictions, so once the permit holder leaves Maryland, he would be governed by the terms of the Cornyn Amendment and by the laws of the state in which he was present.
(8) When a nonresident entered Maryland with a permit issued by another state, he would have the same carry rights as the holder of an unrestricted Maryland permit. The Cornyn Amendment provides explicitly, "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." Thus, he would be subject to the general state laws (no carrying in a public school, for example), but need not be concerned with the individualized restrictions found on most (but not all) Maryland-issued permits.
(9) The Cornyn Amendment would not confer open-carry rights in any state -- it explicitly applies only to "a concealed handgun." Permit holders will continue to be governed exclusively by state laws with respect to open carry.
UPDATE APRIL 17, 2013, 5:25 PM: Regarding the amendment to S. 649 by Senator John Cornyn (R-Tx.), to establish a type of "national reciprocity" for persons who hold a "carry permit" issued by any state: on April 17, the Cornyn Amendment mustered a substantial majority, 57-43, but under the current agreement by which the Senate is considering amendments, 60 votes were required, and so it fell three votes short.
The main gun control bill, S. 649, is still open to other amendments. Moreover, S. 649 could still be filibustered prior to final passage (if it even gets to that point), in which case 60 affirmative votes would be needed to end the filibuster and send the bill to the House.
The Cornyn Amendment is Amendment No. 719 to S. 649. It is titled "The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013."
The provisions of the Cornyn Amendment differ, in some respects, from the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" (H.R. 822), which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the previous Congress, on November 16, 2011, by a vote of 272-154, but which was not acted on by the Senate. It also differs in some important respects from the "right to carry" proposal voted on by the Senate, the Thune Amendment (Amendment No. 1618 to S. 1390), on which the Senate conducted a roll call on July 22, 2009. The Thune Amendment commanded a substantial majority on that occasion -- 58-39 -- but it fell two votes short of the 60-vote threshold that was required by the agreement under which the Senate was operating on that occasion. The Senate yesterday centered into a similar agreement on nine pending amendments to S. 649, and under the terms of that agreement, the Cornyn Amendment also will require 60 votes to become part of the underlying gun-control bill, S. 649.
Keep in mind that even if the Cornyn Amendment musters 60 votes, it will become part of S. 649, which contains many other provisions, and to which many other amendments will be offered. After the amendment process is completed, the S. 649-as-amended will probably be filibustered, and will die unless 60 senators vote to "invoke cloture" on S. 649 itself. If cloture is invoked on S. 649 and the bill is passed by the Senate, it will then go to the House of Representatives, where the majority-party leadership has a variety of procedural options available, including referring the bill to the House Judiciary Committee (which is the committee that produced the reciprocity bill that passed the House in 2011). So the Cornyn Amendment, as described below, is a very long way from becoming law. Still, it may be helpful to understand its provisions, were it to be enacted this year or at some future date.
What follows is a summary of the provisions of the Cornyn Amendment, with special attention to (1) implications for Maryland residents who hold permits issued by other states; (2) implications for Maryland residents who hold permits issued by Maryland, restricted or otherwise, and who wish to carry in other states; and (3) implications for residents of other states, who hold permits issued by other states, and who wish to carry in Maryland.
I am not a lawyer, but this is not the first time I've read a bill. Nothing here constitutes legal advice -- and it could hardly be legal advice, since the Cornyn Amendment is not a law, but merely a legislative proposal. Some of the statements below may be subject to revision in the light of comments -- part of the purpose of threads such as this is to subject legislative proposals to multiple analysts.
Note: If you wish to post a comment or question on the summary that appears below, please DO NOT "quote" the entire summary. Rather, use the "edit" tool to quote just the numbered paragraph, or portion of a paragraph, to which your comment pertains. Thank you.
(1) In order to exercise the right or privilege that the Cornyn Amendment would establish (or, if you prefer, recognize in statutory form), a person who is carrying the firearm outside his state of residence would need to meet all three of the following criteria: First, he must not be disqualified by federal law from possessing a firearm. Second, he must be carrying "a government-issued photographic identification document." Third, he must either be 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 he must be a resident of a state that allows carrying concealed firearms without a permit, also known as "constitutional carry" (those states currently being Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming, I believe).
(2) If a person meets those three criteria, he or she "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," and may do so "in any State other than the State of residence of the individual," if the state in which he carries "has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms," or allows concealed carry without a permit. This language would apply to every state except Illinois. It would not apply to the District of Columbia because, even though the U.S. Code already defines the District as a state for purposes of federal firearms laws, there is currently no permit-issuance scheme in effect in the District.
(3) The right or privilege created by the amendment overrides any conflicting state or local laws. (The amendment begins, "Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary. . .") However, it does not in any way affect the right of a state to maintain its own standards regarding issuance of permits. ("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.") Thus, there is nothing in the amendment that would force Illinois to adopt a permit-issuance law, for example, or that would force Maryland to relax the system by which it currently issues permits.
(4) The Cornyn Amendment makes no distinction based on the state of residency of the permit holder. In other words, a valid permit issued by Virginia (for example) to a resident of Maryland, would be just as valid, for purposes of the Cornyn Amendment carry right, as a permit issued by Virginia to a resident of Virginia. But, see paragraph no. 5.
(5) With respect to carrying within one's state of residence, one would still be governed exclusively by his home state's permit issuance system. Thus, a Maryland resident who is unable to obtain a Maryland-issued permit would not be able to carry a firearm in Maryland under the Cornyn Amendment. However, with a permit issued by Utah or any other state, he would be allowed to carry in 48 other states.
(6) When carrying under the terms of the Cornyn Amendment, the permit holder is "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. . ."
In other words, when carrying in another state, the permit holder would be required to abide by the same laws that govern resident permit holders in that state. Of course, this is just the same principle that currently applies when carrying under state-to-state reciprocity agreements or under state laws that recognize out-of-state permits. So, for example, since Pennsylvania law says that Pennsylvania permit holders may not carry a firearm in a courthouse, a visiting permit holder carrying under the terms of the Cornyn Amendment also would be prohibited from carrying in a court house.
(7) Under the Cornyn Amendment, a Maryland resident who holds a carry permit issued by Maryland, whether or not it contains restrictions, would enjoy the same national carry right as a person who holds a permit issued by any other state. Within Maryland, the permit holder would, of course, remain bound by any restrictions printed on the permit (and under pain of criminal penalties once SB 281 takes effect), but when carrying in other states he would be bound only by the generally applicable restrictions in place in those states; the individualized Maryland restrictions would not be relevant. That is because any Maryland-issued permit is "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," whether or not it contains specific restrictions, so once the permit holder leaves Maryland, he would be governed by the terms of the Cornyn Amendment and by the laws of the state in which he was present.
(8) When a nonresident entered Maryland with a permit issued by another state, he would have the same carry rights as the holder of an unrestricted Maryland permit. The Cornyn Amendment provides explicitly, "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." Thus, he would be subject to the general state laws (no carrying in a public school, for example), but need not be concerned with the individualized restrictions found on most (but not all) Maryland-issued permits.
(9) The Cornyn Amendment would not confer open-carry rights in any state -- it explicitly applies only to "a concealed handgun." Permit holders will continue to be governed exclusively by state laws with respect to open carry.
Last edited:
