Where politics is personal not partisan

2A Talk – The Tale of Two Gun Rights Bills

Legislation
2A Talk - The Tale of Two Gun Rights Bills

Senator John Cornyn and Congressman Richard Hudson might be pushing our country closer to sane laws that actually protect gun rights.

As the new administration moves forward to keep its promises on a number of campaign ideals, we have the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. Not surprisingly we have two bills being circulated in regards to concealed carry reciprocity. However these are not the same bills. Not by a long shot. It is important to recognize the differences between the two, and also why I fully support the House bill introduced by Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), and not the bill introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX.).

I won’t bore you with a side by side verbatim comparison of language used in each bill, but suffice to say, that John Cornyn’s bill is a cave to the anti-gun establishment. The House bill has far more teeth to protect the rights of the individual, and allow citizens to carry in every state in the nation. It forces the states to recognize that their laws, as draconian as they may be, do not hold water. If Rep. Richard Hudson’s bill were to pass, it would cause the Bloomberg-funded astro turf anti-gun folks to pop a gasket. You can read Hudson’s Bill here. The competing bill from Senator Cornyn has not been officially introduced, but can be read here, thanks to the freebeacon.com.

While both bills provide national reciprocity for gun owners, and this is a good thing, we cannot ignore some specific differences in regards to wording, which are a big deal. The House bill provides safe harbor for constitutional carry. If you are from Arizona, Alaska, or any other constitutional carry state, all you need is a valid ID. So whip out that driver’s license, and you are good to go. How awesome is that?

‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any

9 State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided

10 in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements

11 of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal

12 law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving

13 a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document

14 containing a photograph of the person, and who is car-

15 rying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant

16 to the law of a State and which permits the person to

17 carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a con-

18 cealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,

19 may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a

20 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped

21 or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any

22 State that”

Now for those of you living in a free state, this might not be a big deal, but those of us in California, New Jersey etc, the following section is huge.

“‘‘(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine

4 for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded

5 into the handgun or its magazine.”

This section basically throws out the entire idea of 10 round magazine limits, draconian “safe hand gun” registrations, and other useless laws which infringe on our rights as citizens. If you have a right to carry a hand gun with a standard capacity magazine, then you are good to go.

READ
2A Talk – Balancing Safety - Gun Rights and Mental Illness

The Senate bill does have verbiage which adds clarity for restricted and unrestricted licensing. While this is a minor point for many, I do feel adding this onto the House bill would alleviate potential issues in the future.

The one item the bills do not address is getting rid of state residency requirements. For citizens living in states with draconian permitting requirements, we don’t see any relief here. As an example, in California we have to qualify on each firearm by serial number, and if we replace a gun, we need to go through the long process of getting that one added to the permit. The ongoing process costs hundreds if not thousands of dollars, which is discriminatory against low income individuals. A minor change on state residency requirements would make the House bill an absolute gem. As it stands now these are only drafts. Moving forward I hope to see positive changes which might actually help those of us stuck in gun ownership hell.

image_pdf

Last updated by .

Daniel Silverman
About Daniel Silverman 21 Articles
Daniel is a 45-year old-husband and father to nine children in the central valley, California. He has been a conservative political activist in California since 2010. Daniel has been a contributor to blogs such as The Truth About Guns, and other new publications. The focus of his activities has revolved around gun rights within the state of California. Daniel is an active board member of Gun Rights Across America (GRAA.) His career is as an Information Security Administrator for the country’s largest winery located within the central valley.
Contact: Twitter

2 Comments on 2A Talk – The Tale of Two Gun Rights Bills

  1. The Senate bill not only fails to cover magazine capacity, it doesn’t address the issue of ammunition type. In NJ, no person other than a peace officer of that state, a person carrying under federal law or an out-of-state peace officer on official business, may carry hollow point ammunition in a handgun or if the gun is unloaded and in a vehicle, in the vehicle together with hollow point ammunition in that vehicle (unless in non-stop transit through the state). This applies to NJ CCW holders, but not to active or retired law enforcement officers carrying pursuant to the U.S. Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act. There is an exception if hunting with a handgun in NJ and possessing a valid state hunting license.

    Since each hollow point bullet constitutes a separate felony in NJ, this provision (which was added to LEOSA in 2010) is important. And even LEOSA does NOT cover magazines.

Leave a Reply