Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire U.S. H.R. 38 - The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 - as written.

I posted about it a couple days ago. Here is the actual language.....


[quote]115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 38

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2017
Mr. Hudson (for himself, Mr. Smith of Missouri, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Holding, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Palmer, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Kinzinger, Mr. Thomas J. Rooney of Florida, Mr. Walker, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cook, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Chabot, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Amodei, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia, Mr. Emmer, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. DesJarlais, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Zeldin, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brat, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Yoder, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Cole, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Katko, Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Hill, Mr. Olson, Mr. Harper, Mr. Buck, and Mr. Diaz-Balart) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:


Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

“(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.

“(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).

“(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.

“(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.

“(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

“(e) In subsection (a):

“(1) The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.

“(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.

“(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun.

“(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:

“(A) A unit of the National Park System.

“(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

“(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

“(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

“(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:


“926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.
(c) Severability.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act./quote]

At present it at the Homeland Security Committee getting a hearing.

It even requires reimbursement of Attorney fees if you get hassled....... and you will in some places.

Definitely not in favor of having Congress establish authority over CCW. That's a bad, bad precedent.

I didn't read it but perhaps someone who did can respond:

1. Is a state issued CCW license required for reciprocity?

2. What about states that have Constitutional carry and do not issue a CCW license?

I saw something about states who do not "restrict" - meaning no license required AFAIK. So no restrictions, as I see it.

Yes, but if Congress establishes jurisdiction the courts will always defer to them, and Congress can/will then change that law any time they choose to do so.

what i read is that it is strictly a reciprocity between states, not a national concealed carry law. the wording i see problems arising from are " that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce"
some left leaning pros/LEO could use that wording to say personal transport doesn't qualify.

Still looks like you will be screwed in Illinois

California is going to have a stroke, as of now they don't honor ANY outside CCWs. I wonder if they will refuse to honor this law also?

This will force anti 4A state's hands. States like CA, NY, MA, MD, etc. will simply eliminate existing CCW provisions for their residents and no one will be permitted to carry concealed in those states.

Naw, that's just the Commerce Clause, the Feds have to cite it when drafting legislation of this type to maintain control of States rights.

If an item crosses state lines, it can be controlled by the Feds.

Check out the history of the GFSZA and how it had to be rewritten including the CC to be ruled Constituional.

Where's the Forest Svc on this list?

In favor 100% but Vermont doesn't issue any handgun permits or documentation for possession or carry, concealed or otherwise. Essentially we have no handgun laws and any legal gun owner can possess or carry a handgun.

So with no permit issued by my state of residence will I not be able take advantage of this? I do have a Fla non resident carry permit but I don't see that helping much.

Congress and the president could pass a law anytime they want. If they want to limit or regulate carry and have the votes they can do so unless the courts stop them. There is plenty of precedent that the federal government can regulate firearms laws after all there is NFA, GCA 68, the Brady bill assault weapons ban. Its not as if this sets standards for a federal license.