Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Is it doomed? It passed the house, but can it pass the Senate and Obama's veto pen? Will we finally end the oddball mix and match honoring of this state license in that state or vice versa rules? According to the NRA it appears to at least be a possibility.

The New York Times also seems to think it is an issue worth looking into if it has a chance of passage. The NRA article delves deeper into the various poison pill and other amendments that attempted to weaken the bill... the NY Times article gets more into general concerns of the possibility of weakening restrictions on concealed carry permits in states with high restrictions by allowing people with other state permits a way around some of their rules.

Overall this bill doesn't seem to be as ground shaking for or against expanding guns rights or intruding upon regulations. Only one State (and the District of Columbia) outright ban concealed carry and they'd be unaffected. For the other 49 states it would certainly simplify the registration process to something more on par with the DMV along with its legal recognition.

One complaint coming from those groups who either overtly or subtly oppose most gun rights issues up for current legislation... they actually tried to pull a "states rights" cards on something Republicans consider an issue that the 14th Amendment incorporation holds against the States, as with free speech and others. It was a bit of a due process twilight zone. It's sad that the opposition to this bill comes from how well it might play among the masses after decades of being misled or just plain ignorant about what powers the federal government has, which are reserved to the states, and how rights protected under the 14th Amendment play a role. It leads to a lot of partisan flip-flopping, but in this case a pretty dramatic one as one local paper makes clear after my U.S. Representative attempted to make the bill apply even to those areas without a concealed carry bill:

But one of Johnson’s congressional opponents as well as the director of the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the amendment was politically motivated.

“While I support concealed carry, I think it’s the job of the Illinois Legislature to bring it to fruition. I don’t think it’s something the federal government should impose on Illinois,” said David Gill, a Bloomington physician seeking the Democratic nomination in the 13th Con­gressional District. “It sounds like Mr. Johnson and I agree on the issue. But in his desperate attempt to overcome a 20-point deficit in this new congressional district, he’s attempting to pander to voters by making promises he can’t get through Congress.”

Mark Walsh, head of the Chicago-based anti-gun group, said concealed carry is a state’s rights issue, and that Johnson and the other Illinois Republicans are pushing the measure to energize their base.

...

A second Democrat running in the 13th District said he had not read Johnson’s legislation.

“I’m a hunter and a Second Amendment proponent. I believe the Second Amendment provides a constitutional right to bear arms and I would defend that in Congress,” said Greene County State’s Attorney Matt Goetten. “I have not read Congressman Johnson’s amendment, so I can’t comment specifically on that.”

In his letter to colleagues, Johnson noted that some may view the amendment as an infringement on state’s rights.

“(H)owever, the 14th Amendment explicitly protects against infringement of all rights in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Indeed, Congress has even passed a law that allows former law-enforcement agents to have CCW. Why can these citizens be allowed to guard their home, person or family while the remaining law-abiding citizens of Illinois cannot?”

Food for thought.