Top Menu

Answers to Your Questions About HR 38 – National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

On December 6th 2017 The US House of Representatives Passed HR 38 – Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.

My intention is to keep this page updated until the bill either becomes law or is defeated.

===============================

THIS PAGE WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 12/8/17 (latest update is two answers to questions about the Fix NICS Title II part of the bill) (Also added the link to contact your senator)

BILL CURRENT STATUS: PASSED HOUSE. Next Step is to go through the US Senate (Contact Your Senator here)

Link to Bill: H.R.38 – Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

=============================

A quick Vocabulary Thing. At several points below on this page I use the phrase “Carrying a firearm under this bill” or something very similar. That is to be interpreted as meaning they have a valid permit from any state or they are from a state where no permit is required to carry concealed.

Question: What are the nuts and bolts of this bill?

Answer: This bill is intended to ensure that every state will honor any concealed carry permit or right from any other state.

 

Question: Why is this bill needed or what does it change?

Answer: Currently states may choose if they are going to honor or recognize the validity of concealed carry permits from any other state. This creates a confusing patchwork model that often confuses gun owners and worse, sets them up to become criminals when they fail to research, understand, and follow the various different gun laws from state to state. This new bill if it becomes law would create some base standard without fully removing the states rights to regulate gun laws.

 

Question: What would this bill force states to do?

Answer: It will require that a state recognize the right to carry a firearm concealed by any person who possesses any concealed carry permit from any state OR by any person who resides in a state where one can carry a concealed firearm legally without a permit.

 

Question: What clause if any does the bill have referring to what gun, ammunition, or magazines that could be carried. Right now many states prohibit magazines with certain ammunition capacity or prohibit certain kinds of ammunition. How would that change?

Answer: The bill allows that anyone who carries a concealed firearm under this new bill can carry A handgun with ANY magazine with ANY ammunition. The way I interpret the bill (and the language is very specific and clear) this would mean that magazine capacity limitations and ammunition limitations would no longer be valid or apply to anyone carrying under this bill anytime or anywhere. (Click here if you want to learn more about current magazine capacity laws including a current map)

 

Question: Would this bill also include non-resident permits? For example if I live in a place where it is difficult or impossible to obtain my local state's permit, and I obtain a permit from a different state from where I reside, would this bill apply to me?

Answer: Yes. The bill clearly says it applies to any qualified person who has been issued A permit from A state which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm. So if you were to obtain a non-resident permit that would entitle you to carry under this bill; anywhere including your home state. (Click here for a list of the most common or easy to get non-resident permits)

 

Question: What do you mean by qualified person?

Answer: I mean that in order for this bill to apply to you, you must not be otherwise prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm per federal law.

 

Question: What if I live in a state that has Constitutional Carry? Meaning if my state of residence doesn't require me to obtain a permit in order to carry concealed then would I still have to obtain one in order to carry nationally under this bill?

Answer: No. The bill, when clarifying the qualifiers allows that the person qualifies if the are “…entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides…” This is especially important for residents of Vermont who have the legal right to carry concealed but have no way to apply for or receive any sort of state concealed carry permit as the state of Vermont has no permitting process or system. That said it would also apply to residents of states like Idaho and Arizona which allow their citizens to carry concealed without a permit but have still maintained a permit option for residents who want to have reciprocity elsewhere. With the passage of this bill those state may choose to cease their permit programs all together similar to what Vermont has done. (Click here for more information about Constitutional Carry and a List of States that currently allow is)

 

Question: What discretion or regulation would the state still have power to enforce?

Answer: The state would still have the power to determine what people with concealed carry permits could do or where they could go within that state. In the same way that every state is required to honor drivers licenses from every other state but each state can still have it's own specific traffic laws. Meaning, if any given state wants to require you to carry with no round in the chamber they could. If they want to make it illegal, even with a valid permit, to carry on public streets or in public parks, or darn near anywhere else… they could. They have to extend to any US permit holder the same rights as they do to their local permit holders and they have to allow any magazine with any ammo. That is what they have to do. Beyond that they can choose to make laws that determine what rights a permit gives someone in their state. This is why it will still be very important to research other state laws and be familiar with these restrictions. (Click here for the best research tool)

 

Question: What does this bill do about school zones and the Gun Free School Zone Act?

Answer: Current Section 922(q) prohibits anyone from being in possession of a firearm within a school zone unless otherwise permitted by the state (and a few other less noteworthy exceptions). HR38 allows that anyone carrying under this bill shall not be subject to the restrictions of 922(q). This means that in states where the law, even for those with a concealed carry permit, does not allow firearms within a school zone, would no longer be enforceable for anyone carrying under HR38. TO BE CLEAR, that does NOT mean that anyone carrying under this bill could have a gun IN a school anywhere in the country. It means that previously if the law didn't specifically allow those with permits to be within 1000 feet of a school with a firearm; if carrying under this bill that prohibition is no longer applicable. Other prohibitions that prevent guns from being in schools would still stand and apply.

 

Question: But could a state opt-out?

Answer: Essentially no. The bill does say it applies to any state that either has a statue under which residents may apply for a permit or licence to carry a firearm (49 states currently) or any state which does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State (the other 1 state plus some of the 49 previously mentioned as well). Now in theory you may say that a state could then choose to do away with it's concealed carry permit program and not allow concealed carry at all. Then they wouldn't have to honor any permits from anywhere right? Well in theory that is right BUT the Supreme court has already ruled that the state has to allow citizens some legal method to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. This is why currently every state has a permit program of some form except Vermont which doesn't require any permit or license to carry concealed. So it would be impossible or at least against the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court for any state to try to opt-out.

 

Question: What does this change if anything about carrying on Federal Property like National Parks?

Answer: Currently the law allows that the prohibition or allowance of firearms in a National Park, Monument, or Memorial is regulated by the state in which that park, monument, or memorial is located. In HR38 that changes to allow that anyone carrying under the bill can carry a concealed handgun in any of the following areas that are open to the public: A unit of the National Park System, a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, public land under the jurisdiction of the BLM, land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, Land administered and managed by the Forest Service.

 

Question: What about the Fix Nics part of this bill I've heard about?

Answer: Previously there was a separate bill (HB 4477) that has now been combined into HB 38. This Title II section of the bill referred to as FIX NICS is intended to better ensure that those who are already disqualified from buying firearms would be more likely to be listed in the NICS database and thus more likely to fail a background check when run. The bill also pushes to better prosecute those who are disqualified when they try to buy a gun and it commissions a study to be conducted on crime committed with Bump Stocks

 

Question: But does the Fix Nics Bill change who can buy guns? I've heard gun grabbers are supporting that part of the bill.

Answer: The comparable bill that is in the Senate is horrible and should not be supported. I understand that it does expand the types of people that would not pass background checks and all around its just a bad thing. That said the Title II section of HB 38 that was passed in the house has no such clause or concern. It simply has language to create an incentive and punish government agencies based on their compliance to existing reporting requirements of the Brady Bill. It also commissions a study to be conducted on crime committed with Bump Stocks.

 

Do you have additional questions or do you think I got something wrong? Let me know in the comments below.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

71 Responses to Answers to Your Questions About HR 38 – National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

  1. Ryan December 8, 2017 at 8:50 am #

    I am hearing rumblings about the language specific to the changes in the NICS system. That was a tag-along to the reciprocity bill. Can you expand upon that part , and possibly post the language that describes these changes so we can decide for ourselves?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 9:21 am #

      Ryan, the Fix Nics Act is now Title II of HR 38. You can find the full text by scrolling down on this page: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text

      In summary I’m less concerned about the Fix Nics act than I was previously. In its current form it doesn’t greatly (or really at all) expand the definition of WHO shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm. It instead works to force government agencies to be compliant with reporting data as currently defined by law to the NICS system. It also commissions some research to be done about the use of Bump Stocks in crime. All around not to horrible.

  2. Bruce Gallup December 8, 2017 at 9:00 am #

    What about Connecticut where our permit doesn’t specifically state “Concealed Carry”. Here concealment is an option. The permit simply states “State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers”.

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 9:14 am #

      The name used for the permit shouldn’t matter. The bill is written to include anyone who has been issued a permit or license to carry a concealed handgun. I understand that the Connecticut permit does that.

  3. Doug Walker December 8, 2017 at 9:15 am #

    The NICS background check system could still arbitrarily [by mistake or by “design”] reject a gun sale without a reason and the aggrieved would have to file a lengthy and possibly an expensive appeal.
    And the aggrieved would get no answer as to why they were rejected…

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 9:23 am #

      That isn’t changing. The Fix Nics Title 2 part of the bill does have measures to enforce compliance by government agencies but doesn’t change what does or doesn’t qualify someone to buy a firearm. That said the system has always been problematic with a 95+% false positive rate.

  4. jimg December 8, 2017 at 9:16 am #

    What about the down side of this bill? I’ve heard there are going to be new restrictions on owning and buying certain types of weapons.

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 9:21 am #

      That isn’t the case.

  5. Ray Yager December 8, 2017 at 9:17 am #

    How does this impact territories like USVI, Puerto Rico and Guam?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 9:24 am #

      Honestly I haven’t thought about it much. In short I guess if those territories have concealed weapons permits or laws currently in place then they would fall under this bill. If not I suppose they wouldn’t be included. That might be a good one to ask an attorney…

  6. Ralph Chubbuck December 8, 2017 at 9:21 am #

    I would like to thank you for taking the tie to shed some lite on this sensitive subject. What you have shared at least opens a dialog in which there is some sense to what is actually happening to and for concealed carry permit holders. Thanks again..

  7. Victoria J Jimenez December 8, 2017 at 9:22 am #

    Thank you. Very informative

  8. Matthew sheets December 8, 2017 at 9:23 am #

    I live in oklahoma and can carry open. Would i be allowed to do the same in another state or would a state like CT, that does not currently honour oklahoma permits, be sble to make it concealed only?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 9:26 am #

      This bill has no affect on open carry laws at all. If you can legally conceal carry in Oklahoma then you would be able to conceal carry in all 50 states.

  9. Michael Shutek December 8, 2017 at 9:23 am #

    But what are we as gun owners giving up? The gun control people are wanting this to pass so they can regulate who can buy guns. That is why Feinstein and other gun control people tacked this on to this bill. Hope it does not pass.

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 9:25 am #

      The current form of the bill; including the Fix Nics Title 2 doesn’t in any way change the definition of who can buy guns.

  10. Michael Shutek December 8, 2017 at 9:25 am #

    More, we are calling upon our membership to contact their Senators and demand they oppose any gun bill that contains language being pushed by Senators’ Feinstein, Murphy, Schumer and others to ‘Fix-NICS,’ which is nothing more than a massive federal gun registry in the making.

    NICS didn’t stop mass shooters in Orlando, FL, Ft. Hood, TX., Las Vegas, NV., Charleston, SC., and many others and expanding NICS will be no more successful.

    But Senator Feinstein isn’t worried about that. She’s simply using the recent tragedies in Las Vegas and Texas to attempt to create the largest federal gun database this country has ever seen.

    But she could never accomplish this on her own.

  11. Cindi December 8, 2017 at 9:26 am #

    Thank you for your updates.

  12. Richard Wenger December 8, 2017 at 9:31 am #

    What about post offices? If I understand the current law correctly anyone that has a gun on their person or even in their car in the parking lot is breaking the law.

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 9:34 am #

      Richard HB 38 would have no affect on this current law or practice… but to answer your question: Federal law very clearly makes it illegal to have a firearm in a post office or any other federal building. That said there has always been some question about the legality of having a firearm in your car on federal property… like the parking lot of a post office. A few years ago a man in Colorado was arrested, charged, and convicted for having a firearm in his car in a post office parking lot. He appealed that decision up the ladder and earlier in 2017 a Federal district court upheld the conviction. This means, at least in that Federal district, that it is for sure illegal to have a firearm in your car or otherwise in a parking lot of a federal building. Only time will tell how this may be ruled in other Districts.

  13. Greg G December 8, 2017 at 9:33 am #

    The article mentions how the proposed law applies to the States. Do you have additional information about how it would apply to US possessions/territories and DC?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 9:37 am #

      DC would be the same as any other state since it is a “state” as to the legal definition and it has a concealed carry permit program in place. I’m not familiar with existing laws in the other territories but I would assume (which means don’t take my word for it) that if those territories have laws that allow residents to carry concealed firearms with or without a permit then they would fall under this bill as well.

  14. Ssgt.alfred Yu December 8, 2017 at 9:35 am #

    Feinstein should consider retiring while she’s ahead she aint no spring chicken and if she’s so concern about people’s 2 amendment she should worry about stopping the war between jerasulam n Palestine!!! Not infringment on the 2nd amendment!!!

  15. Joe December 8, 2017 at 9:58 am #

    NH no longer requires a permit

  16. john cottom December 8, 2017 at 9:59 am #

    very exited for this bill HR38 to be on the table and the progress that is being made..Thanks

  17. john cottom December 8, 2017 at 10:01 am #

    computer problems I think…, I keep trying to send it out but keeps saying error

  18. Charles Farber December 8, 2017 at 10:11 am #

    Your comment to the fellow from OK who can conceal carry there that he can legally carry in all 50 states is not clear to me. I live in NJ and have a AZ CCW. Would I now be allowed to conceal carry in NJ?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 10:33 am #

      If this bill became law you would be able to carry in all 50 states concealed per the laws of each individual state.

  19. GREGORY BREITZ December 8, 2017 at 10:26 am #

    Whatever you do contact your personal state senators and urge them to vote Yes for this bill. This bill will be huge and when it hits the president’s desk he will sign it. We the American people need this bill to go through sewerage your state senators to vote Yes.

  20. John Ridgeway December 8, 2017 at 10:38 am #

    If a person has a False Positive, so to speak, is there a method available to get the NICS report corrected, and is there any expense involved to do so.

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 10:51 am #

      There is an appeal process and often people do need to hire Attorneys to get that resolved. I’m not intimately familiar with it so I’ll refrain from trying to give any specific details but the reason we know the rate of false positives is so high is because those people do go to the effort of appealing the decision.

  21. jim jackman December 8, 2017 at 10:46 am #

    what about NYC which has the Sullivan Law ? it does not recognize any carry permit except its own., not even carry permits from other areas of NY,

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 10:52 am #

      Jim, the way I read the bill it would make the Sullivan Law unconstitutional if this bill becomes law. They would have to start recognizing Any permit from Any state.

  22. Timothy Brown December 8, 2017 at 10:48 am #

    How would this effect Erie County N.Y. where we have several types of concealed carry restrictions! We have concealed carry,concealed carry for work only,and,hunting and target concealed carry!??Toughest laws in N.Y. outside NYC!!

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 10:53 am #

      Timothy, that is actually a super valid question and I don’t think there is a clear answer. There are a lot of counties in NY that have similar various levels of licensing or permitting. I suspect there would be a bit of a court battle to be fought to determine which “permission level” would be extended to those with out of state permits traveling to NY.

  23. Ed Kershner December 8, 2017 at 10:51 am #

    “The state would still have the power to determine what people with concealed carry permits could do or where they could go within that state.”

    Does this mean that non gun friendly states such as CA and NY can tighten the carry restrictions to make it difficult to carry while one is living a normal life doing day to day activities?

    I have heard that if it passes CA would restrict carrying in any public place that has more then X amount of people or not being able to carry within X amount of feet from any retail establishment. Very similar to laws in regards to smoking.

    Thanks,

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 10:56 am #

      Ed, yes your understanding is correct. States have to allow all with permits to do whatever the law allows their local permit holders to do… but they can change those laws to restrict what permit holders can do as far as they are able to do so. The patchwork of reciprocity would disappear but the patchwork of varying state laws would not.

    • Jeramiah J December 8, 2017 at 6:37 pm #

      Ed,

      Thanks for bringing this up. When I read this updated I fear this will be any “left” state or senator will move towards this if this bill is passed. I think it’s a great step but also fear that my state may impose a further restriction on my CCW permit.

      Let’s keep up the positive support on this and more importantly, keep educating ourselves on this!

    • Chris December 9, 2017 at 7:34 am #

      As for the questions about NY and it’s many different restrictions. NY really only has one permit. The restrictions are administrative. If you have a CCP in NY it is technically valid anywhere. However different counties will put restrictions on your permit. If you have a “full carry” permit from Albany and are caught carrying in Westchester after all the hoopla you will definitely lose your permit but you have NOT broken a law. Check it out.

  24. Duane Baier December 8, 2017 at 11:10 am #

    I receive EMAILS from a DUdley Brown with the NAGR IN Colorado. How honest is he when he talks about this new gun Bill? Sounds like all he is spreading half truths and fear mongering. Cam you reply thanks

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 11:11 am #

      Duane, I no longer get Dudley Brown’s emails. Without seeing the email I can’t really comment on it but if it contradicts anything I wrote above then Dudley and I don’t agree.

  25. Duane Baier December 8, 2017 at 11:26 am #

    Thanks I stop his emails also. All he does is rant and rave how the government is going to take away guns from people on social security and veterans. And all the time asking for money. You gave a more concise report about the bill then he ever does. Thanks
    .

  26. Charles Litman December 8, 2017 at 12:08 pm #

    How might this bill affect HR 218 for retired law enforcement officers?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 12:12 pm #

      I don’t think it affects it at all… but it does perhaps remove some of the incentive for retired officers to keep up with HR 218.

  27. Daniel December 8, 2017 at 1:06 pm #

    When is the Senate vote expected to take place and is that the last hurdle?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 2:13 pm #

      It isn’t on their current schedule. Don’t know when it would happen but assuming that Trump would sign it (and he said he would) then yes getting it through the Senate is the last hurdle.

  28. Tony Rickey December 8, 2017 at 2:03 pm #

    Tony Rickey

    This bill in its present form would create a national gun registry would it not?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 2:12 pm #

      No. Nothing about this bill has anything even remotely close to creating a registry.

  29. D Smith December 8, 2017 at 3:54 pm #

    The Democrats keep stating this law if passed is going to put guns in the hands of criminals, this isn’t for the illegal people. It’s for law abiding citizens. Are those in charge really that incompetent. And these are the people who lead our country.

  30. george ennis December 8, 2017 at 4:11 pm #

    in tennessee it states handgun carry permit. it does not state it has to be concealed or open carried, its up to the person with the permit. in texas theirs are concealed carry permits, which means that the permit holder has to have the weapon concealed. if this bill passes, does the permit holder say from texas have to conceal carry in other states, of from tennessee which it doesnt matter if concealed, does it force them to carry according to their home state of permit. or does it make the person from tennessee conceal his weapon if they were in texas?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 5:28 pm #

      George, you are wrong about Texas. Their License to Carry as of 2016 applies to both open and concealed carry… but that isn’t relevant to your question. What the bill says is that every state has to allow anyone with a permit from any state (or anyone who can carry concealed in their resident state) to carry concealed in that state… per the laws that govern concealed carry in that state for permit holders in that state. So put differently… Texas has to allow someone with a TN permit (or any other permit) to carry concealed in TX the same way someone with a TX permit could carry concealed. What the permit or license is called doesn’t matter. The bill doesn’t put any emphasis on the name of the license… only that the individual has been issued something that gives them the right to carry concealed.

      • george ennis December 8, 2017 at 6:16 pm #

        i guess i need to clarify my question….in texas it used to be a concealed handgun permit, it may not be now but used to be. my question is this….if you are from a state that does not require a weapon to be concealed and you travel to a state that only has concealed, would the tn resident be required to conceal their weapon or could they open carry as they would in their home state?

        • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 7:35 pm #

          The bill has no bearing on open carry at all. It only forces states to recognize permits (or legal ability to carry in the case you are a resident of a state where permits are not required) the same way they recognize their own state permit. So, you could only open carry in states where that is permitted per that state’s law. If you are from a state that has permitless carry or constitutional carry or otherwise allows citizens to carry concealed without a permit then you can carry concealed in all 50 states per the laws of any of those states when you are in those states. So for example if I am a resident of Vermont where concealed carry is legal and no permit is required and I travel to California (or any other state), I can do anything in California that a person with a California concealed carry permit could do. If I traveled to Texas where the law allows that a person with that permit/license can open carry then yes I could also open carry in TX.

  31. John Rendell December 8, 2017 at 4:35 pm #

    I am 100% in support of HB38; however, as a Certified NRA, USCCA and TX License To Carry instructor, what I would really like to see along with HB38 is that ALL STATES be required to have some type of program to educate citizens who want to carry concealed to become responsible handgun owners. It is my opinion that States that only require a background check to receive their Concealed Carry permits are doing more harm than good. By putting non-responsible people on the streets with no training you are now creating situations for good people to do bad things regardless of their intent or circumstances should they use their handgun and inflect serious bodily injury or death of another person.

  32. D C Harwood December 8, 2017 at 5:08 pm #

    I strongly advise against assuming that a non-resident permit will cover you anywhere except in the issuing state. This will be a grey area until a court with jurisdiction over the ground you’re standing on issues a definitive ruling. I live in NJ, and I’m pretty damn sure NJ will not accept a FL or UT non-resident permit to enable my carry in the Garden State. HR38 is intended to deal with reciprocal recognition of permits issued by the several states TO THEIR OWN RESIDENTS.

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 5:30 pm #

      DC, it isn’t an assumption. The bill is explicit in that regard and the sponsor and authors of the bill have been very clear on that point. I’m not saying it couldn’t be challenged or ignored… but I am emphatically saying that in the bills current format it does apply to anyone with a permit from any state regardless of residency. If the bill becomes law in its current format then NJ would have to honor a permit from Florida held by a resident of NJ. That is super clear in the bill… not a grey area.

  33. Jesse December 8, 2017 at 6:43 pm #

    If i live in NY and get a permit from Virginia can i purchase a pistol in NY?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 7:31 pm #

      I’m not familiar with laws that govern when and how you can buy a gun in NY. I understand there are a variety of different licenses for different gun related activities in various NY counties. It isn’t perfectly clear which of those licenses, or if it would be multiple of them, would be considered the governing standard which would be applied to those who have a permit from a different state. What is clear is that in some degree NY would have to recognize Virginia permits regardless of the residency of the permit holder and NY would have to grant those permit holders some degree of concealed carry ability.

  34. Stephen Denton December 8, 2017 at 7:17 pm #

    In the state of Oklahoma any one with a concealed carry license may also carry openly. I have checked with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) and there is no restriction on the number of weapons a person can carry on their person or in their car. Would any state laws have an effect on this under the new bill?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 7:26 pm #

      I’m not sure I understand your question fully. In short Oklahoma laws only apply in Oklahoma. This new bill if passed would require the other 49 states to recognize the Oklahoma concealed carry permit but when in any of those 49 states you would need to follow the state laws of the state where you are traveling.

  35. Rodger Craft December 8, 2017 at 9:44 pm #

    do you know which states that do not have an open carry law?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 8, 2017 at 9:47 pm #

      Opencarry.org is the best resource.

  36. Rodger Craft December 8, 2017 at 9:46 pm #

    Alabama residents can open carry what other states can do this

  37. M.J. December 9, 2017 at 12:27 am #

    In California, your license has to have the make, model, and serial number of the gun you are carrying. how will an out of state license that does not have this information be upheld in California that requires it for their Concealed weapons permit ? Sense out of state licenses have to obey The states there in laws. And my Utah and Nevada licenses do not require me to list my pew Pew’s information.

  38. P.H. December 9, 2017 at 1:26 am #

    M.J.

    As I understand the current wording of HR38, CA will no longer be able to enforce that law because they will be required to recognize ALL other states permits and they do not have the authority to make rules for others states permit language content requirements. Much to the same my home state of NJ has current laws about mag capacity and ammo types that will be null and void for anyone who carries under this new federal law as currently written.

    • Jacob Paulsen December 9, 2017 at 11:29 am #

      That is how I understand it as well. Thanks P.H.

  39. Wm December 9, 2017 at 6:04 am #

    anytime the fed government is involved with anything in ten years it will be screwed up and now we could be forced into no carry, the feds should not be allowed to have a say in this, leave it up to the states and work together among our self

  40. Craig December 10, 2017 at 3:17 pm #

    I’d be concerned that some States will rapidly modify laws to add restrictions that would make it more difficult to carry. What would prevent a State from placing ridiculous restrictions out there to purposefully inhibit this law? I can’t imagine that States like NY or California would ever allow visitors to come into those States with handguns. What are the risks here of ending up with a worse situation for some of us?

    • Jacob Paulsen December 11, 2017 at 9:31 am #

      Craig, that is a valid concern.

Leave a Reply