Concealed Carry Reciprocity – 3 Possible Problems with Bill HR923

If you have a valid driver’s license issued by one state and travel to another state, or even through several states, that license is recognized by the local authority as a validation of your legal ability to operate a vehicle. The issuing state may have an easier or harder test than the state you are currently visiting, but that is okay. You are just travelling through and the operation of a vehicle is similar, no matter where you are. So why not do the same for concealed weapons license holders? In February of this year, Congress proposed a bill to do just that.

Concealed CarryThe bill, H.R. 923, states that, if you are properly licensed to conceal a weapon in one state, you may use that license to conceal a weapon in any of the remaining 50 states. There are limitations, however. More limitations, in fact, than those attached to a driver’s license. When driving through a state, speed limit signs are clearly posted so, even if the state you are in has a lower maximum speed limit that the state you were licensed in, you simply have to follow the clear-as-day signage. However, with concealed carry for example, your issuing state may allow a larger maximum magazine capacity than the visiting, which you must follow, but there will be no clear signage posted for you.

Even worse than magazine capacity is weapon type. Some states outlaw certain types of weapons that are legal in other states. Should you carry one of those weapons, you could be arrested for illegal possession of a firearm, which could lead to your license being revoked and you not being able to pass a background check to purchase weapons in the future.

On the outside, this bill sounds like a great idea, until you consider the two potential hang-ups listed above. The third problem with this bill is that it says, “States have a right to choose who can and cannot own, carry, or use a firearm.” while the Constitution recognizes those acts as a natural right that cannot be infringed upon.

On the anti-gun side, they have concerns as well. There is a belief that a person who is barred from owning a gun in one state could get a license in another state, thus being allowed to purchase a firearm and carry it in the state they are barred from possession in. This is not a valid concern. Yes, some states have stricter laws than Federal laws, meaning a person may not be able to buy a gun in one state, but could in another. And yes, some states allow non-residents to obtain concealed carry licenses. The reason this is an irrelevant concern is the fact that a person must be a resident of that state to buy a handgun. No matter what state his carry license is issued by, he must be a resident of that state to purchase a gun. Therefore, he must go back to the state he is barred in to legally purchase. Also, if he is federally barred from possession, he will not be able to obtain a license from any state.

So, on one hand, passing this bill would be a great thing. So long as you know the state laws for where you are traveling, you can carry a concealed weapon in every state. On the other hand, this bill could be a nightmare, making travelers who wish to take advantage of this freedom more susceptible to accidentally breaking inter-state laws. The bill also creates a conflict of the right to own and carry a weapon.

It will be interesting to see where this bill leads and how it helps or hurts carriers in the future, should it pass. One step at a time, though. We may be able to overturn several of the unconstitutional laws surrounding firearms in this nation, and this may be one of those steps. Let’s just hope it is not the hurdle that trips us.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Seth Belt

Seth Belt

Seth grew up in Southern Arizona before joining the U.S. Navy. While serving in the Navy, Seth was an anti-narcotics operator and an anti-submarine operator for 5 years. He was lucky enough to travel to many of the Central and South American countries, as well as visiting many South East Asian nations and islands. One of Seth’s greatest joys from his time in the Navy was teaching new Sailors firearms education and safety. After leaving the Navy in 2010, Seth returned to Arizona and had a rough time learning how to be a civilian again, often working jobs that could barely pay the bills. After going to school, Seth became an Emergency Medical Technician in the Phoenix Valley, where he now lives with his wife and son.His areas of knowledge cover military, firearms, and emergency medicine.
Seth Belt

6 thoughts on “Concealed Carry Reciprocity – 3 Possible Problems with Bill HR923

  1. I believe that no one should be granted a concealed weapon permit without training in gun safety and laws apply for carrying and use of a gun on another individual. While I agree that reciprocity among states is a good idea, individual training is essential.

    1. most state already require some training prior to issuance of CCW licence , How about bringing back the ROTC into schools and having shooting teams , lets teach firearm safety in school . Education / Knowledge = power / strength .

  2. The only foreseeable way for the bill to work would be for Congress to lay the groundwork for it with the creation of a law that standardizes all aspects of the CHL/CCW license that will be uniformly accepted by every state. And that seems unlikely.

  3. Yes, a good step in the right direction! I wish we could simply obey what the Constitution says, but alas, we live under the rule of twits (with few exceptions).

    For those that argue for CHL/CCW laws (and think they’re useful), why don’t we create permits for speech or to practice religion too?

    One could argue that speech and religion entices people to murder and mayhem, so a permit will prevent it!

    It’s the same bone-headed premise which lead to permitting, asking permission from the government, for the 2nd Amendment.

    Clearly, this approach would be unConstitutional for the 1st Amendment, but some people think this same approach is okay for another freedom….*sigh* Some will never learn.

    Good article, thanks for the info.

  4. This type of law currently exists in many formats and it is in no way overwhelming.
    You mentioned drivers licenses… But only thought as far as speed limit signage. A drivers license is not a right… But thats another argument entirely….. Lane splitting… Right turns/ left turns on red… Rolling stop laws all vary from state to state… Atvs on roadways in SD… Mc helmet laws..these are not always posted at the border.
    I think it is a fine idea. As far as mandatory training for use of a right… Add it to school curriculum .. We had civics.. Riflery.. Etc when i grew up.
    It is doable and smart. It can be instituted with low stress and common sense.
    This is a right we need to push in baby steps … Just the way antigunners try to take this right away.. We have permits.. Allow them to be recognized… Tiny steps… Think gay marriage strategies. I agree the second amendment should not need a card to be used… But small steps….
    As weapons become ubiquitous so the tide will turn. Less angst more hugs
    Take a nongunner to the range, teach them function safety responsibility

  5. Training Safety and Background.
    Very concerned what some states have or will allow as safety training and what their background checks are. I don’t want psychos gang bangers and unstable people walking around armed.
    I know we don’t want Federal oversight but perhaps the States could ensure a standard.
    Good idea but very tricky when you think about details.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *