Top Menu

Challenges to Donald Trump’s Proposed National Reciprocity Bill

trump-with-rifle-ap-photodanny-johnston-640x480

With Donald Trump making his way into the White House on January 20th, many gun-owners are rejoicing. And with more fervor than with a typical Republican incumbent. Mr. Trump has stated in no uncertain terms his love of the 2nd Amendment. He plans to fill the supreme court with pro-gun justices, stated that he believes their should be no limit to what guns the public can purchase, and is planning on putting forward a bill that would mean national reciprocity for concealed carry.

This means that there would be one succinct rule on your ability to carry concealed around the country. No more state borders, no more reciprocity maps necessary. Just one country, free for permitted concealed carriers to travel to whichever state they please, period.

However with any governmental and legal change, there will be some pushback and compromise may be necessary on some key issues in order to get it passed. What’s worse is that it may not even get passed at all. Just because Trump will be in office does not mean that all of his plans will pass. There will be some challenges to all of his ideas and today we are going to take a look at a few challenges that may face his planned national reciprocity

CHALLENGE 1: CAN TRUMP GET IT THROUGH CONGRESS?

capitol-panoramic

Voting in the Congress does mean that you need a simple majority to push legislation through. This is something that the usually pro-gun Republican party has right now in both houses of Congress.

Getting a proposed National Reciprocity bill through the House should not be a problem at all, but when it comes to the Senate, things get a little hairier. While the Republicans have a 52-48 lead in members of the Senate, they fall short of the magical “Super Majority” of 60 and that’s important.

Were the Republicans to have 60 seats in the Senate, they could overrule an attempt at a Democratic filibuster. But with only 52 seats, this bill will have to reach across the aisle and have 8 Democratic Senators agree with its content, or it is very likely that National Recprocity could die on the floor of the Senate.

CHALLENGE 2: FORCING THE STATES TO FOLLOW EVEN FEDERAL LAWS CAN BE DIFFICULT

cannabisleaf1

Now let’s say that Challenge 1 is overcome and national reciprocity does get passed into law. That’s it? Law of the land. Done and dusted, right? Not quite. Just because a mandate is passed down by the federal government doesn’t mean that the states get no say in the matter. Let’s take a look at a huge issue that is the opposite way right now. Something that the federal government maintains is illegal, but some states do not. Marijuana.

This election saw recreational Marijuana legalized in California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada, bringing the total number of U.S. States with legal pot to 8. This, while the U.S. deems it a Class I substance, akin to Heroin.

Now how do states get to go against U.S. Law? It’s simple. Due to the fact that we are a Republic, the states get a say in what goes on in their borders. Therefore any state can amend its constitution to go against the grain of government by amending its own constitution. It’s how sales taxes are different, drugs are criminalized and how states have different reciprocity for concealed carry permits.

Challenge 3: IF IT HAPPENS, STATES MAY ONLY EXTEND THE RULES THEY HAVE NOW

And since the states have rights all their own, even if National Reciprocity became a reality tomorrow, it only requires that states extend the same rights to permit holders from any state that they extend to permit holders of their own state. So if the state of Hawaii which has some of the most restrictful concealed carry laws in the country was ordered to open its borders to carriers from all 50 states, those entering the state would still have to abide by these stifling rules.

And on the worse end of that spectrum, seeing that some states may be against national concealed carry, they may look to those states with restrictive rights and take a page from their playbook, starting a wildfire of red tape, so that many may be deterred from carrying at all.

So while it is nice to be excited for someone who shares the ideals of the common gun owner, in Donald Trump, remember to stay vigilant to these ideas that are being talked about. Just because an idea sounds good on paper, doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen, or if it does that it will be anything like what was originally intended.

, , , , , , ,

23 Responses to Challenges to Donald Trump’s Proposed National Reciprocity Bill

  1. Jerry November 20, 2016 at 1:57 pm #

    So wait a minute, same-sex marriage is the law of land and all states have to comply, but with national reciprocity

  2. Jerry November 20, 2016 at 2:00 pm #

    Continuation:

    There is the possibility of red tape concerning our rights.

    As a African-American CCW holder this selective discriminatory tactic which some states may presue is asking for a lawsuit all the way to SOCTUS.

    • Mark December 1, 2016 at 7:43 pm #

      Yes, but if Clinton won, we’d be clinging to our states rights on pro 2A state laws. I would. Nullification works both ways. We don’t like it when the progressives push something down our throats. Let them live with their delusions and watch their crime and assaults increase.

  3. Ken November 24, 2016 at 7:48 am #

    If passed it will require the Department of “Justice” to go after states that refuse to honor the law. That’s why states that had same sex marriage amendments ended up having to change, because the feds sued all the way to the Supreme Court.

  4. Jim Slack December 1, 2016 at 4:34 pm #

    Jim
    I believe that conceal and carry should be across all borders in the USA. If one state doesn’t allow you to carry then our governor shouldn’t allow people to carry that don’t allow us to carry in their state

  5. MAS December 1, 2016 at 4:45 pm #

    The problem is that government, at all levels, infringing upon law abiding citizen’s UNALIENABLE RIGHT to keep and bear arms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGAL!!!

  6. gary December 1, 2016 at 4:58 pm #

    I Agree that any law bidding citizen that has a cow permit should have the right to carry in any state in the united states, and yes if I can’t carry in your state you can’t carry in my state, fair is fair. I hope Donald Trump gets that rule for a national united states carry law I am for it.

  7. John Luvaro December 1, 2016 at 5:08 pm #

    I’ve been carrying a concealed handgun in the PRC, (Peoples Republic of California), for 30 years without a permit. Permission is NOT required to exercise a Constitutional right. So I really don’t care if National CCW Reciprocity becomes “Law”.
    (“We don’t need no stinking permit” )”. l

    • RJW December 1, 2016 at 6:01 pm #

      And if you are caught John you may end up with a long time in prison.

      • MTB December 1, 2016 at 8:18 pm #

        Bs, it’s a misdemeanor !

  8. Ron Ploeger December 1, 2016 at 5:35 pm #

    Illegal “law” I agree 100 %

  9. Ron Ploeger December 1, 2016 at 5:36 pm #

    As you stated ,I agree

    • Everett H. December 1, 2016 at 6:38 pm #

      Individuals that enjoy the leverage of protection of carrying concealed legally, believe in doing it the right way. Are law abiding, and not looking for trouble. I travel a lot, and obtained CCW’s from Arizona and Virginia, to fill in the gaps because of my travels. Police or no man or woman, badge or no badge, title or label, will ever be responsible for my safety or my loved ones. Just need to come correctly enforce the laws, and clean up after I take out the trash.

      • MTB December 1, 2016 at 8:20 pm #

        Good points!

  10. Chester Pack December 1, 2016 at 6:34 pm #

    I say if the federal government can force all states to perform homosexual marriage then they can force all states to accept any and all federal law including illegal drugs and accepting federal carry law.

    • Riker December 1, 2016 at 7:21 pm #

      Totally 100% in agreement with Chester Pack on his comment.

  11. B.Zerker December 1, 2016 at 7:43 pm #

    This will undoubtedly eventually end up before the SCOTUS. Both fortunately and unfortunately, while the court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment (2A) with their Heller and McDonald decisions, they only decided those cases regarding the KEEPing (owning) of arms and disregarded the BEARing (carrying) of them altogether. Nevertheless, 2A is now seen as a “fundamental right” (self-defense is a right given to us by God). In Justice Scalia’s majority ruling, the court recognized the right to “keep” arms as a “fundamental right” and now the courts must treat it as such or face Title 18 & 42 charges. This requires that ALL future cases involving the keeping and bearing of arms must now be heard and ruled upon with “strict scrutiny” to determine the Founder’s intent and they know that the Founders put NO limits on owning and carrying arms at the time the states ratified the Constitution. This is why anti-gun Hitlery and the socialist Democrats wanted liberal justices appointed to the bench, justices that would overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions.

    Since Scalia’s death, with the court at eight members (four pro-2A and four outright hostile to it), there have been two cases that dealt with the bearing (carrying) of arms, two cases that it declined to hear. The reason for that is now the court is required to rule on 2A with “strict scrutiny” and the liberal justices voted against hearing those cases because they would have been forced to rule that bearing (carrying) arms for lawful purposes is a constitutional right. Being that it is now seen as a fundamental right, 2A can no longer be subverted or infringed upon by government(s) easily. This is because Article VI dictates that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law and that Marbury v. Madison (5 US 1370) requires that any state or federal law, or part of it, that supersedes our constitutionally guaranteed “fundamental rights” is a “fiction of law” and unbinding. The liberals justices know that a SCOTUS decision declaring that bearing (carrying) arms for lawful purposes would render ALL laws that subvert the right of keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying) arms unconstitutional. If/when a Trump court rules that bearing (carrying) is a right, which they must do, there will then be no need for CCWs so reciprocity will be unneeded. The whole country will then be a constitutional carry republic!

  12. grant ford December 1, 2016 at 8:01 pm #

    I agree Chester. That is a big problem in our country. Lack of same laws for all and fair and equal treatment. I served over 20 years in the military and there you learn fair and equal treatment by regulations, it should be the same for laws and rights for all in civilian .life. I am a firm beliver that Donald Trump will undoubtably be the best president we have had snd possible equal to President Regan. God Bless our country.

  13. PA CCW December 1, 2016 at 8:06 pm #

    For those of you “in the know”, you understand that some State Laws are “SHALL” carry statutes; and other States are “MAY” carry jurisdictions. In “May” carry States like Delaware, the State MAY grant you permission to carry concealed, if you jump through all their hoops and dance to their tune – BUT DO NOT HAVE TO ISSUE A PERMIT TO ANYONE … Good guys or Bad guys. The burden of proof is on YOU, to convince THEM that you have a dire need to carry and that you are ‘worthy’ to carry, in their opinion THEY make the rules, you play THEIR game – simple!

    In “Shall” carry States, like Pennsylvania, the State SHALL issue you a CCW upon your application and payment of applicable fees … UNLESS YOU HAVE A CRIMINAL, PSYCHIATRIC OR VIOLENCE HISTORY.

    Typically the MAY ISSUE States will not reciprocate with SHALL ISSUE States. IMO, any Federal Country-Wide CCW reciprocity statutes would have to first address those issues.

  14. Allan S Müller December 1, 2016 at 8:07 pm #

    A Federal law to allow CCW across all the states should be just that. All states must recognize all permits from all states.

    Maybe it should be the states test all applications and the Federal government ISSUES the license. Making the permits same for all people. States test all applicants and actual permit issued by the federal Government accepted in all states.

  15. Doug December 1, 2016 at 8:53 pm #

    I thought the Senate democrats suspended the Super majority rule so they could pass Obama’s Unaffordable Care Act. This would be an opportunity to use this action for a vote on reciprocity. FYI

  16. Andy December 3, 2016 at 3:39 pm #

    The author of this article couldn’t be more wrong:

    Challenge 1 can be overcome by appending reciprocity to another “must pass” bill, e.g., the way Obama allowed carry in national parks. It can also be overcome by pressuring Democrats in red states and states that voted for Trump who are also for reelection in 2018. Finally, Republicans can force an *actual* filibuster on the Senate floor and vote the moment there are no more speakers.

    Challenge 2 is not really a challenge and comparison to Marijuana is bogus because it’s the *opposite* of reciprocity – it’s federally illegal and locally legal, while reciprocity would be federally legal and locally “unwelcome.” A huge difference. Reciprocity would be a “federal get of jail free” card.

    Challenge 3 is at least a double-edged sword. On one hand, states such as CA *want* to have less restrictive CCWs since it’s one of the perks for the cronies and rampant nepotism, so restricting it would have an immediate effect *in-state*. On the other hand, federal regulation can be expanded to include a “minimum standard” to prevent these types of games, which would be a game over for the anti states.

    I’d say the only interesting issue is *how* they are going to pass it. (If they don’t, there will be a massive backlash from the base.)

  17. Larry Muhr December 3, 2016 at 11:54 pm #

    I am no authority on the law, but we have drivers licenses from our respective state and they are honored in all of the states. Why wouldn’t a CCW be the same? In Colorado, the CCW is given by the County Sheriff, and I assume it is that way in all states. I don’t know what records are kept in the sheriff’s office nor what records the state has. I guess this would be a good project for me!

Leave a Reply