Hidden and Loaded Guns Legislation in Congress 2017

                                Concealed Carry Legislation in the 115th Congress

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced the first piece of federally mandated concealed carry legislation of the 115th Congress on January 3rd, 2017. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38) would create national reciprocity for state concealed carry permits, and is similar, though not identical, to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 (H.R. 986), which Rep. Hudson introduced in the 114th Congress. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and has 177 co-sponsors, three of whom are Democrats. (The two Democratic co-sponsors are Henry Cuellar of Texas and Collin Peterson of Minnesota.)

From Orange County Rep Ed Royce (R) from District 39 is a Co-Sponsor of H.R. 38 and so is Rep Mimi Walters (R) from District 45.

H.R. 38 would allow any person to carry a concealed handgun in any state, provided they (i) are not prohibited by federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm; (ii) are carrying a valid photo ID; and (iii) carrying a valid permit/license issued under the law of any other state that allows the person to carry a concealed firearm, or is otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in his/her state of residence (i.e., is a resident of a so-called “Constitutional carry” state).1

H.R. 38 provides that, in the event of arrest or other detention, “presentation of facially valid documents” is prima facie evidence that an individual has a valid permit (and therefore has the right to carry a concealed firearm), and that a person may not be arrested for violating laws related to possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe the individual has not complied with the law.

H.R. 38 exempts a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under the terms of the bill from the federal prohibition on carrying firearms within 1,000 feet of a school zone. The bill also includes a provision to specifically allow a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon to carry that weapon in the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and on lands administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.

Position: Brady opposes H.R. 38. Many states have adopted sensible rules and requirements that require safety training and education before a concealed carry permit can be issued. Other states have no requirements related to issuance of a permit and allow concealed carry as a matter of Constitutional right. If H.R. 38 became law, it would supplant strong state concealed carry rules with those that apply in the weakest states, effectively allowing any person with permission to carry in the weakest concealed carry state to be recognized to carry in the strongest state.

H.R. 38 also fails to recognize state laws that have expanded categories of prohibited purchasers to include domestic violence offenders, convicted stalkers, etc. As a result, an individual who may be a prohibited purchaser only under expanded state law in California because of a domestic violence conviction, could qualify for concealed carry in a Constitution concealed carry state that only performs background checks based on the federal categories and the concealed carry would technically be required to be recognized in all states. Obviously this is a perverse result, but it is what would happen if H.R. 38 became law.

1 A “Constitutional carry” state is a state in which a person may carry a handgun without any permit or license. Such a right is typically provided for by statute, rather in the state’s constitution.
 
Talking Points:
• H.R. 38 flouts state law and ensures that the most permissive concealed carry rules become the law of the land. It takes traditional notions of state sovereignty and turns them on their head, saying that the state with the weakest laws should determine the rules for concealed carry in every other state. This is absurd and would be akin to saying that because the speed limit is 85 in a rural, less populous state, any person who has lived in or traveled through the state should be able to drive 85 everywhere in the United States, whether they are in a school drop-off zone, a densely populated city, or a crowd at a parade.

• Law enforcement officers are charged with understanding the law in their state and charged with putting their lives on the line every day in situations with individuals brandishing weapons and putting public safety at risk. The carrying of concealed weapons makes it much harder for law enforcement officers, who must make snap decisions about “good guys” and “bad guys” to quickly discern one from the other and appropriately protect public safety.

• States that have stronger concealed carry rules require gun safety courses, practical training and storage training, among other requirements, that help those seeking to qualify for a concealed carry permit to understand best practices and how to qualify for a permit in a manner that recognizes important public safety considerations. These sensible state legal requirements should not be supplanted by a federal law that eviscerates these standards in favor of no safety or training requirements.

• Approximately 40 percent of gun sales occur
This would be akin to saying that because the speed limit is 85 in a rural, less densely populated state, everyone from that state or who has ever passed through that state should be able to drive 85 everywhere, whether in Manhattan, or Los Angeles, or Washington, D.C. That is not sound policy, and clearly flouts traditional notions of state’s rights. It also puts law enforcement officers at greater risk because they are held liable for enforcing the law and using appropriate force, but when anyone can carry a gun at any time, it makes it much harder for police to identify bad guys from law abiding concealed carry holders, putting everyone at greater risk. H.R. 38 represents an encroachment on state’s rights and undermines appropriate standards for public safety and should be rejected.