A bill is making progress in Congress that would allow concealed carry license holders, whose license was issued in one State (their State of residence) to concealed carry their weapons in all States: the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. The bill also would require such a carrier to abide by the laws of the State they’re visiting, including all of that State’s gun-free zone designations. In this way, the reciprocity law is similar to drivers license reciprocity, under which it’s legal to drive in any State so long as the driver both is licensed in his home State and obeys the driving laws of the State he’s visiting.
Naturally, the bill has lots of resistance in the coastal States and cities—jurisdictions run by Progressive-Democrats. The California Police Chiefs Association President Edward Medrano, for instance, has these objections:
The bill would erode local control of issuing concealed carry permits, as the arbitrariness of the issuing authority rules would reduce the requirements for concealed carry to the lowest common denominator. Further, the lack of a national database for concealed carry permits makes it functionally impossible for a law enforcement officer in the field to determine the legal compliance of an individual carrying a concealed firearm.
Both of these objections are disingenuous. The requirement for concealed carry is quite simple, and it’s laid out clearly in the 2nd Amendment [emphasis added]:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The “lowest common denominator” objection also illustrates the utter illogic of Medrano’s objection. It is the multiply varied local jurisdiction rules that are arbitrary. The lowest common denominator standard, accepting that characterization arguendo, would be easily understood and widely so, since it would not at all be arbitrarily varying. Too, a required reciprocity like that in the Act, would put the onus for keeping up with local jurisdiction variability and arbitrariness where it belongs: on the individual and not on the government’s men.
Beyond that, no national database of concealed carry permits is needed. Most States issue concealed carry licenses and require the license holder to have that license in his possession at all times—just like his drivers license. A few States don’t require licenses to carry concealed, but those States are easily identified—by the drivers license the holder still must have with him at all times.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (OK, an interior mayor, but a Progressive-Democratic Party one nonetheless) argue that the reciprocity act would
essentially force the localities to give full faith and credit to permits that are issued on less rigorous grounds [and] remove local governments’ ability to maintain sensible gun standards.
Because full faith and credit is a terrible thing. We’ve also seen what Progressive-Democrat “sensible gun standards” amount to: a citizen having to show to a government official’s satisfaction that a need to carry exists. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the illegality of that arrogant nonsense.
Progressive-Democrats like New York’s District Attorney Cy Vance is even arguing that reciprocity would give Daesh terrorists (and other terrorists, presumably) a leg up. This is just a cynically offered red herring of a scare tactic. Guys like Vance carefully ignore the fact that the leg up is that of an armed citizen or group of us confronted with an already armed terrorist.
The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act needs to go through without any delay.
Funny that they specifically say “full faith and credit”, ie, the exact words the so-called Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution explicitly demands that states give to the records of other states. They know exactly what’s required of them, so their only viable argument is “but we don’t LIKE it!”