John Cornyn Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity in Senate

He does this ever year as virtue signaling - like antis propose their bills. Note that when there was a possible chance to pass this in 2017 with Trump and a GOP Congress, Mitch and Ryan fled from the bill after a rampage. Mitch says if they get the Congress back and the Presidency, then they will pass the bill, probably standing on the Brooklyn Bridge.

It's a fund raiser, send a check.

Just like every politician, he vamps for the cameras. He knows currently it doesn't stand a chance.

Also, w/ the current wave of new firearms owners...?



... it is also a recruiting tool.




GR

While I appreciate his gesture, I'm also a bit scared by it. In situations where one party owns the joint, anything that can be passed on a national level by the stroke of the pen of the party in power can just as easily be rescinded when the other party gets their turn.

armedwalleye said:

While I appreciate his gesture, I'm also a bit scared by it. In situations where one party owns the joint, anything that can be passed on a national level by the stroke of the pen of the party in power can just as easily be rescinded when the other party gets their turn.

Click to expand...

Although, in this case, that would then be a Constitutional issue as well.






GR

He refuses to acknowledge a very real problem with National Reciprocity.

Which is that what a Nation Permits a Nation can also Deny.

And, that's before sorting out how to get 50 completely different standards to match enough to be valid.
Recall that eight States functionally have no concealed carry, and it's hard for find a compromise with "divide by zero." Then, there would be sorting the 30-40 variations on where/when for carry, too (in/out of bars; restaurants; amusement parks; city/state parks, etc.)
Political compromise tend to the middle, and "away" from more freedom towards "more restriction."

Do any of us want our State permits restricted just so that they can be compliant with 49 other States?

CapnMac said:

He refuses to acknowledge a very real problem with National Reciprocity.

Which is that what a Nation Permits a Nation can also Deny.

And, that's before sorting out how to get 50 completely different standards to match enough to be valid.
Recall that eight States functionally have no concealed carry, and it's hard for find a compromise with "divide by zero." Then, there would be sorting the 30-40 variations on where/when for carry, too (in/out of bars; restaurants; amusement parks; city/state parks, etc.)
Political compromise tend to the middle, and "away" from more freedom towards "more restriction."

Do any of us want our State permits restricted just so that they can be compliant with 49 other States?

Click to expand...

It is already National.

The issue is already a 2nd Amendment one, and possibly an Article I/sec.8 as well.




GR

OK, we know that this won't pass this year. But what about the intersection between national carry reciprocity and the expected SC decision on "shall issue"? If, next year, the SC rules that the Constitution requires "shall issue" licensing, and then NY tries an end run with difficult-to-meet, but "objective," standards, I can see national reciprocity being used as a vehicle to impose a set of uniform licensing standards. Perhaps not as stringent as what NY might propose, but more stringent than what we have in most states today. This could be sold as a "bipartisan" compromise.

Neither side will compromise legislatively. That would screw up the usual hair on fire fund raising.

AlexanderA said:

Perhaps not as stringent as what NY might propose, but more stringent than what we have in most states today.

Click to expand...

Yes sir. For the most part, Idaho is a constitutional carry state already. However, a couple of years ago both my wife and I took the class and got our Idaho "Enhanced" Concealed Carry Licenses just so we could legally carry on-campus at Idaho State University. We have ties with ISU and end up on-campus there every once in a while - for our grandson's graduation just last weekend as a matter of fact.
Nevertheless, I doubt that either my wife or I would be willing to take an even more "enhanced" CCW class just so that we could meet the more "stringent" licensing regulations for carrying everywhere in the nation including New York and California.

Aim1 said:

......until 2024 when we hopefully have a Republican senate, house, and presidency?

Click to expand...

What has changed in the US to allow that?

Nothing.

Don't want to go into politics predictions, folks.

GEM said:

He does this ever year as virtue signaling - like antis propose their bills. Note that when there was a possible chance to pass this in 2017 with Trump and a GOP Congress, Mitch and Ryan fled from the bill after a rampage. Mitch says if they get the Congress back and the Presidency, then they will pass the bill, probably standing on the Brooklyn Bridge.

It's a fund raiser, send a check.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm a Republican, but republican politicians pull these stunts all the time.

When they have a real chance of passing something they don't do anything.

And my FL state Republicans do the same

Cornyn is a waste of oxygen. And wait 30 seconds and he’ll be yelping about state’s rights and federal overreach on some other bill.

Cornyn is the worst kind of RINO. Just got done chatting with Blumenthal about finding common gun control ground. I had to vote for the guy. Wont happen again. Says he wants national reciprocity when he knows there's no chance in bloody blue blazes it'll ever pass. I won't give him one red cent.

Where was Cornyn when Trump was in charge?
This is hypocritical virtue signaling, at it's worst. He's only introducing it, because he KNOWS it won't pass, even if it did, Homey The Clown would veto it.

It's national reciprocity; not national permit.

Thru NAFTA, now USMC, we have Fed mandated driver license and semi truck rules reciprocity with other countries.

You can get something like 6 CCPs to be able to carry in 30+ states but as soon as we get to 50 it suddenly can't work?


Our side is often self defeating. The other side must love that about us.

AlexanderA said:

If, next year, the SC rules that the Constitution requires "shall issue" licensing, and then NY tries an end run with difficult-to-meet, but "objective," standards, I can see national reciprocity being used as a vehicle to impose a set of uniform licensing standards. Perhaps not as stringent as what NY might propose, but more stringent than what we have in most states today.

Click to expand...

Right now NY is hardly the poster child for "stringent" CCW standards. There's no state-mandated training or qualification for a CCW permit -- just the background check and a judge's signature. Some counties require training, but it's usually little more than "take a class." That often ends up being NRA Home Firearms Safety because, oddly enough, the law as written prohibits any live-fire training before receiving your permit.

The judges have total discretion -- that's the rub in this "may issue" state. They don't have to give a reason for denial. I don't call that "stringent" -- I call it "arbitrary" and "capricious." If something is stringent, you can study and practice for it. But if a judge doesn't like your face or your tattoos or whatever, there's nothing you can do. I think an objective standard would actually be an improvement here.

I am unimpressed. The Republicans missed the opportunity to pass such legislation when they had control of the both House and Senate from 2007 to 2011. Of course Obama would have vetoed it, but that is no excuse for not passing it. This time it is just another political stunt aimed at keeping some voters happy.

Just more political BS.

armedwalleye said:

While I appreciate his gesture, I'm also a bit scared by it. In situations where one party owns the joint, anything that can be passed on a national level by the stroke of the pen of the party in power can just as easily be rescinded when the other party gets their turn.

Click to expand...

Like Obamacare?

Just a short few weeks ago Cornyn was saying he was going to work with Dems to find “common ground” on gun control legislation.

My theory is that he got so much blow back from it that this is just an attempt at damage control.

Cornyn is the text book definition of a RINO and an embarrassment to the state of Texas

Garandimal said:

It is already National.

The issue is already a 2nd Amendment one, and possibly an Article I/sec.8 as well.




GR

Click to expand...

Article IV Section 1:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.