Ok the NRA is trying to do their job and get stuff voted on in Congress.
Good News: CCW Reciprocity may actually get a vote in the House and will probably pass
Bad News: It doesn't apply to us folks in May Issue states. Despite having CCW permits from two other states I will not be able to carry in any additional locales.
A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.
So, thanks for nuthin, NRA.
Hey, get them to pass "You Virginia non resident CCW permit means you can not carry in Maryland, T-Bolt, no matter what your home state thinks" and then get the Senate to pass it, and then get Trump to sign it, and you get a GREAT big donation from me the next day. When you offer to send me a leather jacket for becoming a Patron or Benefactor member, I'll tell you to keep it. Put that jacket money to better use elsewhere than just handing me swag. I got swag. A valid in Maryland toter's permit. If you come through.
18 comments:
The NRA is fairly savvy about what they can get passed.
"or be eligible to"
Doesn't this cover you though? Even though you don't actually *have* a carry permit, wouldn't you be "eligible" to have one since you don't have any disqualifications (Such as felon, domestic violence, etc.)
I understand your disliking of the particular, but the question is:
Shall we have the bill killed? Do we allow Perfect to be the enemy of Good Enough?
Oh, I will stand at the back and applaud politely. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.
I think the "or be eligibloe to" is a sop to the half dozen + Constitution Carry state. I hope LOTS of them visit Maryland and carry all over the place.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Get this through and there will be an article IV challenge and it will end up in the Supreme Court.
"I hope LOTS of them visit Maryland and carry all over the place."
Ding ding ding... We have bingo!
The idea is having people in the restricted state to complain loudly. Imagine some visiting Miamian in NYC using his gun to defend himself. The storm of crap coming out of the locals? "How come he can defend himself and I have to bribe some cop $15,000 for a permit?"
Shall Issue suddenly becomes a very important electoral issue.
"The NRA is fairly savvy about what they can get passed."
This doesn't make sense. The congresscritters from the may-issue states won't vote for ANY version of this bill, so it shouldn't matter in the first place.
I don't know if it will help, but I emailed my Congressman and recommended the bill be amended in a way that would help non resident permit holders.
The words you posted are not in the text of the bill you are commenting on - House Bill (HR 38). Not even close (the word "qualified" never appears once, for instance). What you have written here in this otherwise excellent blog is unfortunately (and completely) wrong.
Here is the actual verbiage, which is completely opposite your reading:
"...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..."
I'll help. There is an "OR" clause, meaning you need to satisfy one OR the other.
First clause: "issued pursuant to the law of a state". Not YOUR state, but A state. You can live in MD and have a FL/TX permit.
Second clause: "is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the state in which the person resides". This is the Constitutional Carry provision - it allows people from ConCarry states who do not have an actual permit from their home state to carry anywhere else, provided they meet the evidentiary requirements elsewhere in the bill (valid state ID).
Moreover, this bill supercedes state law. You can live in CA and carry in your home state with a TX permit, subject only to CA state laws regarding private property and governmental property only. So people can ban you from their property and the gov't can ban you in a park, but not in other places.
The language you identified did exist in versions proposed in past years but the language you quoted was never proposed in HR 38. Perhaps you read the older versions and got confused? It's easy to do.
You really should modify your post before it gets around. As hard as it is to get the lazy squishes in the GOP to do anything pro-2A, we don't want to demoralize even one of our fellow citizens in thinking that this bill is anything other than what it is: a damn good law if we can get it passed.
Oh, and just to be complete: the Senate version of reciprocity does limit carry for may-issue states and fails to cover ConCarry states, but even then it uses a newer form of the language. That makes me think you just confused the old bills with the current ones.
I copied the words from https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38
Where did you copy the words from, Patrick?
You copied from the summary, not the text. Patrick copied from the text.
So which text is my goddamn congressman voting on?
The only portion of a bill that can become law is the text, plus any amendments made to it. The summary is never to be trusted, because the devil hides in the details.
It's rational for to us to expect Congress to describe something accurately, but only if we expect Congress to be a rational body. Ahem.
To answer your specific question, your Congress-critter votes on the text of the bill regardless of what the summary says. If the summary says you get free ice cream, but the text says you must pay ice cream to the gubbermint as a tax - you better be ready to start scooping ice cream into the national larder.
The confusion is absolutely understandable, and the bill author wasn't trying to mess with gun owners. There is a rational reason that the summary does not match the text but it has to do with parliamentary procedure and Rules of the House and I won't bore you with them unless you are genuinely curious. If anything, that discrepancy hurts HR 38 due to confusion among the citizens who should be supporting it.
In any case, it'd be really good if you and Uncle got word out on the real details so that everyone sees that this is a good bill. Right now forum-verse is talking about ways to "kill" HR 38 based on many people (not just you) not seeing into the actual details because the sausage making machine in DC is messy.
It's your blog and I am only a guest. Not trying to hijack. Just making a polite request. And again...you have my email and are free to contact me direct any time. I suspect we've met personally in the past.
Thanks.
You still didn't link the text.
It is the same li k you already posted - just chose to read the text under the link that says "text". Or here is a shortcut: www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text
Same place where the summary is, just click the tab that says "text".
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text
Post a Comment