Ccw reproposidy out of committee.

[azsunfun]

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday night advanced the bipartisan “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” out of committee in a party-line vote, clearing the way for a floor vote on the issue in the near future.

The concealed carry act, introduced in January by GOP North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson, would allow U.S. citizens with a valid permit to carry concealed weapons in other states that allow concealed carry.

The bill was passed out of committee in an 18-9 vote, according to the National Rifle Association (NRA), which has backed the legislation.

If passed by the House and Senate, it would impact nearly 22 million Americans who hold concealed-carry permits, according to cosponsor Kansas GOP Rep. Tracey Mann’s office, citing data from the Crime Prevention Research Center.

President Donald Trump has also expressed his support for concealed carry reciprocity.

“Our Second Amendment right does not disappear when we cross invisible state lines, and this commonsense legislation guarantees that,” Hudson said in a statement introducing the bill. “The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act will protect law-abiding citizens’ rights to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits.

“I am proud to see such strong and widespread support, and I will not stop fighting to get this legislation signed into law,” he added.

 

[DLC]

That is GREAT news!
when you think about it - Kinda stupid to have to get one from other states that don’t recognize other states CCW permits

BUT
they recognize their Drivers License….

 

[mark49]

As it stands now I have a CCW in California and one in Arizona. Adding Arizona gives you Nevada. This is crazy. I've been watching this idea floating around for years. Its time has come

 

[Andy B.]

I can carry in 27 states I'll have to double check this is a big fuck you to states like CA. I wonder if those lib states will fall in line? Fed law supercedes state law but we still have sanctuary cities which violates fed law......

 

[Sleek-Jet]

This will be headed to SCOTUS, since it goes directly against precedent that States are allowed to "reasonably" regulate firearms. I'm sure CA, IL and NY (and a few other states) are already writing their briefs for the suit. The only way to keep it out of the courts is to amend the constitution.

 

[Caydens Cat]

I can carry in 27 states I'll have to double check this is a big fuck you to states like CA. I wonder if those lib states will fall in line? Fed law supercedes state law but we still have sanctuary cities which violates fed law......

We all know the saying, “Judged by…. carried by”.

 

[rrrr]

This will be headed to SCOTUS, since it goes directly against precedent that States are allowed to "reasonably" regulate firearms. I'm sure CA, IL and NY (and a few other states) are already writing their briefs for the suit. The only way to keep it out of the courts is to amend the constitution.

I think the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling opens the door for a successful review on this one if it goes before the Court. The universal concealed carry right was expanded greatly, and a further challenge for the right to CC across all state lines might produce a win.

In the landmark case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court struck down New York's "proper cause" requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license, ruling that it violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Background:

New York's law required individuals to demonstrate a "special need for self-protection" to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun, which the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.

The Ruling:

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that New York's law violated the Second Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.

Key Arguments:

Challengers' Argument: The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, along with two individuals who were denied licenses, argued that the "proper cause" requirement was unconstitutional because it violated their Second Amendment rights.

State's Argument:

New York argued that the "proper cause" requirement was necessary to ensure that only those with a legitimate need for self-defense could carry a concealed handgun.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court found that New York's law was not consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, and that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

Consequences:

The ruling has significant implications for gun control laws across the country, as it sets a precedent for how the Second Amendment applies to public carry.

Further Developments:

Following the Supreme Court's ruling, New York enacted the Concealed Carry Improvement Act of 2022, which limits permits to individuals of "good moral character" and restricts where licensed owners can carry concealed guns.

 

[FlyByWire]

I’ve had my 50 state CCW for 15 years.

I hope this passes so you peasants get to have the same privilege. I think this is a very good thing (if it happens)

 

[tostark]

I’ve had my 50 state CCW for 15 years.

I hope this passes so you peasants get to have the same privilege. I think this is a very good thing (if it happens)

Don’t sell yourself short. All US jurisdictions! ( HR 218)

 

[Lumpy]

This would be ideal for CA residents. The only reason I haven't got mine is due to time…ya literally have to spend an entire weekend and then some here in CA. If this were to pass I could just take the AZ course online, send my finger prints and pay the money. We all know CA is going to fight like hell to stop this from happening.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

I think the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling opens the door for a successful review on this one if it goes before the Court. The universal concealed carry right was expanded greatly, and a further challenge for the right to CC across all state lines might produce a win.

In the landmark case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court struck down New York's "proper cause" requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license, ruling that it violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Background:

New York's law required individuals to demonstrate a "special need for self-protection" to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun, which the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.

The Ruling:

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that New York's law violated the Second Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.

Key Arguments:

Challengers' Argument: The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, along with two individuals who were denied licenses, argued that the "proper cause" requirement was unconstitutional because it violated their Second Amendment rights.

State's Argument:

New York argued that the "proper cause" requirement was necessary to ensure that only those with a legitimate need for self-defense could carry a concealed handgun.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court found that New York's law was not consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, and that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

Consequences:

The ruling has significant implications for gun control laws across the country, as it sets a precedent for how the Second Amendment applies to public carry.

Further Developments:

Following the Supreme Court's ruling, New York enacted the Concealed Carry Improvement Act of 2022, which limits permits to individuals of "good moral character" and restricts where licensed owners can carry concealed guns.

Even so, the SCOTUS has said that states can impose "reasonable" restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Nothing in the above case said New York must issue a CCW, just that the state government's standard at the time was to restrictive.

I think the Second Amendment is absolute and most any restriction violates one of the founding laws of this country. If this national reciprocity does pass it is going to be interesting to watch at the very least.

 

[4Waters]

This would be ideal for CA residents. The only reason I haven't got mine is due to time…ya literally have to spend an entire weekend and then some here in CA. If this were to pass I could just take the AZ course online, send my finger prints and pay the money. We all know CA is going to fight like hell to stop this from happening.

CA just won't issue CCW's

 

[oldboatsrule]

CA just won't issue CCW's

Vote Bianco in 26 and CA will !

 

[4Waters]

Vote Bianco in 26 and CA will !

Definitely voting for him

 

[Caydens Cat]

CA just won't issue CCW's

Not true. Sheriffs and laws have substantially changed the last 10 years for some counties. Don’t get me wrong, they don’t make it as easy as other states like AZ/TX, but we are moving forward ever so slowly.

I'm in San Diego county. A cause statement is NO longer required. This was a hang up for many applicants. Still a drawn out process of 16 in-class hours of instruction, must qualify EACH firearm, and it takes 6+ months. Little steps guys…

 

[jetboatperformance]

I always recall the questions I was ask "why do you need this ? " Then to have the interviewer be the decision maker make that determination

 

[DWC]

I always recall the questions I was ask "why do you need this ? " Then to have the interviewer be the decision maker make that determination

SB county asks but is also helpful.

 

[DarkHorseRacing]

Token spelling nazi post for the title word; Reciprocity

 

[4Waters]

Not true. Sheriffs and laws have substantially changed the last 10 years for some counties. Don’t get me wrong, they don’t make it as easy as other states like AZ/TX, but we are moving forward ever so slowly.

I'm in San Diego county. A cause statement is NO longer required. This was a hang up for many applicants. Still a drawn out process of 16 in-class hours of instruction, must qualify EACH firearm, and it takes 6+ months. Little steps guys…

Ca can decide if it will allow CCW issuance within the state

 

[DLC]

Ca can decide if it will allow CCW issuance within the state

But
the Supreme Court will determine if an Az CCW is recognized in Ca. and other restricted states

that alone will be HUGE !

 

[4Waters]

But
the Supreme Court will determine if an Az CCW is recognized in Ca. and other restricted states

that alone will be HUGE !

It's my understanding that is only if the state issues CCW's, so if the state doesn't issue CCW's then you can't carry in that state even with a CCW from another state.

 

[azsunfun]

The argument in committee was that's the only constitutional right, 2nd amendment that is dissolved at by borders, I think they are shooting nationally, big BUT when gop held both houses it failed.

 

[rrrr]

Even so, the SCOTUS has said that states can impose "reasonable" restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Nothing in the above case said New York must issue a CCW, just that the state government's standard at the time was to restrictive.

I think the Second Amendment is absolute and most any restriction violates one of the founding laws of this country. If this national reciprocity does pass it is going to be interesting to watch at the very least.

I'm hopeful because contrary to your statement above, the text in Bruen did indeed expand the basic right to carry to all 50 states, and further established that while restrictions can be mandated by state law, they must be narrowly defined, be minimal and specific, and are subject to judicial review.

The Ruling:

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, found in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen that it violated the Second Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court found that New York's law was not consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, and that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

The proposed act before Congress doesn't go any further than the ruling the Court made; it seeks uniformity in the right to carry across the 50 states, which is what Bruen apparently established. It does not seek to create or expand any new specific limitations in the manner the Court has already approved, like the prohibition on carrying in certain public places like government buildings and venues that serve alcohol. That will still be prerogative of the states.

Essentially the legislation codifies into law the right to carry nationwide that the Supreme Court's Bruen decision greenlighted. The key to the successful implementation of the proposed legislation is that decision, because it peremptorily quashes any legal objections states or other plaintiffs would raise after the bill is passed into law.

If the proposed act is signed into law and legal challenges are brought against it, further clarification of Bruen will be made by federal courts, including district, appeal, and the Supreme Court. I believe that scenario would establish unmistakable clarification of the Supreme Court's intent already made in Bruen; that the 2nd Amendment gives US citizens the right to carry in all 50 states and codifies universal reciprocity into law.

Any future restrictions on universal carry imposed by state legislatures may still be subject to examination in plaintiff's actions against each specific limitation, but the limitations must not exceed the reasonableness standard established in Bruen and any subsequent state law.

 

[Good Stuff]

Here’s a personal take. It’s not one that I would go lobby for but I have lots of personal observations that have shaped it. There are people out there with CCW permits even in CA that should not have them. I came to this realization strictly at renewal classes where people are incapable of operating their guns on a range when they have been licensed to carry those weapons in public for at least two years. Everything from sweeping the firing line with their guns, being unable to load them, unload them, know if they are loaded or unloaded, just all around clown shows for my past 3 renewals. How the hell do you fix issues like this in states where there is no training requirement? It’s honestly something that does concern me with nationwide carry reciprocity and no national standard of training. Then again even with the fairly strict requirements in CA those people still have permits. Having grown up my whole life with and around guns hunting and shooting, I honestly feel more in danger at shooting ranges and dedicated shooting areas than anywhere else. Last time I went shooting up at Bison in Havasu a group of old guys set up pistol targets diagonally in the area and were shooting across our firing line and were pissed that I very calmly approached them and asked them to rotate towards the hill since their rounds were traveling extremely close to us. I have an extremely small circle that I am comfortable being around with loaded firearms and we all prefer to go out to places where no one else is shooting for our safety. It’s a pretty crappy feeling to be excited about my rights being expanded and uneasy about others having the same rights.

 

[Kachina26]

Here’s a personal take. It’s not one that I would go lobby for but I have lots of personal observations that have shaped it. There are people out there with CCW permits even in CA that should not have them. I came to this realization strictly at renewal classes where people are incapable of operating their guns on a range when they have been licensed to carry those weapons in public for at least two years. Everything from sweeping the firing line with their guns, being unable to load them, unload them, know if they are loaded or unloaded, just all around clown shows for my past 3 renewals. How the hell do you fix issues like this in states where there is no training requirement? It’s honestly something that does concern me with nationwide carry reciprocity and no national standard of training. Then again even with the fairly strict requirements in CA those people still have permits. Having grown up my whole life with and around guns hunting and shooting, I honestly feel more in danger at shooting ranges and dedicated shooting areas than anywhere else. Last time I went shooting up at Bison in Havasu a group of old guys set up pistol targets diagonally in the area and were shooting across our firing line and were pissed that I very calmly approached them and asked them to rotate towards the hill since their rounds were traveling extremely close to us. I have an extremely small circle that I am comfortable being around with loaded firearms and we all prefer to go out to places where no one else is shooting for our safety. It’s a pretty crappy feeling to be excited about my rights being expanded and uneasy about others having the same rights.

People are stupid. There was a guy at one of my renewal classes that told a story about how the TSA would not allow him to carry his 'tactical pen' aboard the airplane. It was a fucking weapon. You can't even bring nail clippers and this dude couldn't understand the issue with a weapon? And he somehow thought a room of 200 people trying to recert and go home was the place to relay this little anecdote?

 

[rrrr]

Ca can decide if it will allow CCW issuance within the state

But
the Supreme Court will determine if an Az CCW is recognized in Ca. and other restricted states

that alone will be HUGE !

It's my understanding that is only if the state issues CCW's, so if the state doesn't issue CCW's then you can't carry in that state even with a CCW from another state.

There have been two different suits before the Supreme Court styled as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Both have been decided since 2022. The effect of the Court's decisions in these cases have appeared to make it clear that citizens of all states have the right to carry, subject to state imposed limitations the Court has defined as reasonable and customary in accordance with the documented history of such limitations.

In other words, the Court has said states cannot make arbitrary restrictions that would exclude the greatest number of the citizenry; they must be narrowly constructed and properly balance the 2nd Amendment rights with general public safety.

Since both of the decisions were made in the last few years, there either haven't been new laws written and passed to broaden citizen access to carry, or if they have, they're under appeal by the usual anti-2nd Amendment forces.

The above doesn't mean my statements are all inclusive or 100% correct. My opinions are based mostly on the most recent Bruen decision. It is a landmark case, with the possibility of another Supreme Court decision that will positively affirm 50 state carry. It's just a matter of time until a more specific challenge to restrictive state carry laws, like those in California, winds its way to the Court.

 

[rrrr]

Here’s a personal take. It’s not one that I would go lobby for but I have lots of personal observations that have shaped it. There are people out there with CCW permits even in CA that should not have them. I came to this realization strictly at renewal classes where people are incapable of operating their guns on a range when they have been licensed to carry those weapons in public for at least two years. Everything from sweeping the firing line with their guns, being unable to load them, unload them, know if they are loaded or unloaded, just all around clown shows for my past 3 renewals. How the hell do you fix issues like this in states where there is no training requirement? It’s honestly something that does concern me with nationwide carry reciprocity and no national standard of training. Then again even with the fairly strict requirements in CA those people still have permits. Having grown up my whole life with and around guns hunting and shooting, I honestly feel more in danger at shooting ranges and dedicated shooting areas than anywhere else. Last time I went shooting up at Bison in Havasu a group of old guys set up pistol targets diagonally in the area and were shooting across our firing line and were pissed that I very calmly approached them and asked them to rotate towards the hill since their rounds were traveling extremely close to us. I have an extremely small circle that I am comfortable being around with loaded firearms and we all prefer to go out to places where no one else is shooting for our safety. It’s a pretty crappy feeling to be excited about my rights being expanded and uneasy about others having the same rights.

There's no doubt many people shouldn't be licensed to carry. But the facts are those that have CCW authority have taken classes, submitted to state examination, and they're not random criminals. Further, statistics show that unlawful firearm actions by CCW individuals are miniscule.

In other words, there are licensed dumbasses carrying handguns, but it's highly unlikely any harm will be caused by their stupidity.

 

[FCT]

Here’s a personal take. It’s not one that I would go lobby for but I have lots of personal observations that have shaped it. There are people out there with CCW permits even in CA that should not have them. I came to this realization strictly at renewal classes where people are incapable of operating their guns on a range when they have been licensed to carry those weapons in public for at least two years. Everything from sweeping the firing line with their guns, being unable to load them, unload them, know if they are loaded or unloaded, just all around clown shows for my past 3 renewals. How the hell do you fix issues like this in states where there is no training requirement? It’s honestly something that does concern me with nationwide carry reciprocity and no national standard of training. Then again even with the fairly strict requirements in CA those people still have permits. Having grown up my whole life with and around guns hunting and shooting, I honestly feel more in danger at shooting ranges and dedicated shooting areas than anywhere else. Last time I went shooting up at Bison in Havasu a group of old guys set up pistol targets diagonally in the area and were shooting across our firing line and were pissed that I very calmly approached them and asked them to rotate towards the hill since their rounds were traveling extremely close to us. I have an extremely small circle that I am comfortable being around with loaded firearms and we all prefer to go out to places where no one else is shooting for our safety. It’s a pretty crappy feeling to be excited about my rights being expanded and uneasy about others having the same rights.

I will never go shooting up Bison when others are there. The amount of ignorance when it comes to gun safety I’ve seen up there is scary. Like idk how nobody has ever died. Or maybe they have?

 

[mark49]

I've not seen the CCW ppl as stupid. This will be my 47th year in San Bernardino County. Yep I'm that older guy! You still have to qualify with the RO, if you're sweeping your weapon or can't load, reload etc., your asked to come back. My point, you must be fairly gun savvy to be issued a CCW in CA.

Just for the fun of it. In the 1980s all you had to do to get your CCW in San Bernardino County was, get two had written letters of "character references", fill out a one-page application, local background, fed background, a very simple in person interview. A a cop showed up to talk to two neighbors, pay $40 bucks total and in two months you're done! A typed IBM piece of paper is all you got

Note: that at the time, if you had a hunting license cert or military you skimmed right to front of the line. I had my hunting license.

 

[HB2Havasu]

This will be headed to SCOTUS, since it goes directly against precedent that States are allowed to "reasonably" regulate firearms. I'm sure CA, IL and NY (and a few other states) are already writing their briefs for the suit. The only way to keep it out of the courts is to amend the constitution.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that states can "reasonably" regulate firearms. I believe this bill will pass the Supreme Court muster as it has the requirement that you shall possess a CCW to carry legally across state lines to be reasonable regulation in the interest of public safety. I'm sure the Left is going to lose their minds over this!

 

[FROGMAN524]

I’ve had my 50 state CCW for 15 years.

I hope this passes so you peasants get to have the same privilege. I think this is a very good thing (if it happens)

I may have to join the MCSO posse part time for such benefits.

 

[bilz]

I have one particular neighbor i would not want interviewed in a ccw application. I would not want them to know any of my business.
Funny, we had to go to LACO Med Center(General Hosp) last week. Wife got popped with a nail file through the x ray machine.