The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee held a committee bill markup hearing, a key initial hurdle before legislation can be considered for full House approval. The process gives legislators opportunity to amend the base bill before full consideration of the House. Several bills discussed during this particular markup covered pro-Second Amendment and pro-law enforcement priorities.
The approval of the bills passing out of committee is a great sign for Second Amendment supporters and the right of self-defense. It shows pro-firearm, pro-industry Members of Congress are making good on their promises to constituents as well as ensuring President Donald Trump makes good on his promises.
After all, the president declared, “I will sign concealed carry reciprocity. Your Second Amendment does not end at the state line.” President Trump made the promise in a video during the presidential campaign last year, according to Fox News. That is relevant as concealed carry reciprocity has long been a priority of Second Amendment advocates, and H.R. 38 – the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) – was one of the bills gaining support and advancing out of the markup.
H.R. 38 – Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act
The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, H.R. 38, was introduced again this Congress. Rep. Hudson has championed the issue for several years in his attempts to get the legislation passed. NSSF has supported his efforts throughout that time. H.R. 38 would eliminate the confusion of varying state-by-state laws and provide protection for Second Amendment rights for concealed carry permit holders. The legislation would allow concealed carry permit holders, authorized by their home state, to carry a concealed firearm in other states provided they comply with the law in other states – much in the same way a driver’s license is recognized.
“This legislation eliminates the confusing patchwork of laws surrounding concealed carry permits that vary from state-to-state, particularly with regard to states where laws make unwitting criminals out of legal permit holders for a simple mistake of a wrong traffic turn,” NSSF’s Larry Keane has stated. “It safeguards a state’s right to determine their own laws while protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”
“Our Second Amendment right does not disappear when we cross invisible state lines, and this commonsense legislation guarantees that,” said Rep. Hudson in his own press release. “The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act will protect law-abiding citizens’ rights to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits. I am proud to see such strong and widespread support, and I will not stop fighting to get this legislation signed into law.”
After a long debate in the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Hudson’s bill was approved by a vote of 18-9. The next step is full House consideration.
H.R. 2243 – Law Enforcement Officer Safety Reform Act
The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Reform Act (LEOSA), H.R. 2243, is bipartisan legislation that was introduced in the House by U.S. Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) and Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) to improve the original LEOSA of 2004, which gives qualified law enforcement officers – whether they are active-duty, retired or no longer working in law enforcement – the ability to carry concealed firearms in any U.S. state or territory, regardless of state or local laws.
The original legislation contained numerous exceptions that prevent qualified law enforcement officers from adequately protecting themselves and the public, including bans on concealed carry rights in certain states, local and federal government property. Rep. Bacon’s legislation would expand the law by allowing qualified officers to carry their concealed firearms in state, local and private property that is otherwise open to the public, national parks, certain federal public access facilities and school zones.
“The LEOSA Reform Act enables those individuals we already trust with our safety to be able to continue to provide that service without being encumbered by well-intentioned, but misguided laws,” Keane said about the LEOSA Reform Act. “Handcuffs belong on criminals, not law enforcement who are working to protect their communities.”
The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Reform Act passed out of committee markup by a vote of 13-11.
H.R. 2255 – Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act
Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.) is leading the effort to pass H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, to allow federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service firearms. Currently, federal law enforcement agencies that upgrade or change the firearms issued to their agents and officers are required by Federal Management Regulations to destroy unneeded firearms. Rep. Fry’s legislation would allow certified federal law enforcement officers, who are authorized and eligible, to purchase their former service firearms.
H.R. 2255 passed by a vote of 14-9.
H.R. 2267 – the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Data Reporting Act
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced H.R. 2267, the NICS Data Reporting Act. This bill would require the U.S. Attorney General to submit to Congress a report that includes the demographic data of persons determined to be ineligible to purchase a firearm based on a background check performed by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Rep. Massie’s legislation was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote, sending the bill to full House for consideration.
H.R. 2184 – the Firearm Due Process Protection Act
Republican Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) introduced the Firearm Due Process Protection Act, H.R. 2184, which received bipartisan support in the markup by also receiving a voice vote of approval. Whip Emmer’s legislation would provide a legal recourse for law-abiding Americans who were improperly denied the ability to legally purchase a firearm due to administrative errors during a background check.
Second Amendment rights played a key role in President Trump’s presidential victory, as well as several U.S. senators winning key swing state seats returning the U.S. Senate to Republican control. More than 26.2 million law-abiding Americans became first-time firearm owners in just the past five years, demonstrating the importance of self-defense and home and community safety as a top priority.
The positive movement in Congress of these bills is a great sign as legislators are listening to their voters, acting and carrying through on their promises to safely guard Second Amendment rights.
Matt Manda is Manager, Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
These seem like reasonable bills, I am interested in how they progress.
“provide protection for Second Amendment rights for concealed carry permit holders“
I’m in agreement with this, as long as there are uniform permitting requirements that require both classroom instruction on rights and responsibilities, as well as skill demonstration on a live fire range, before the permit is issued.
as long as there are uniform permitting requirements
2A states, in part, “The Right to Keep and BEAR Arms”. To “Permit” a Right means it’s not a Right.
Also, comrade, can I see your permit to post on a website which indicates that you have sufficient classroom instruction on rights and responsibilities, as well as a 100 page hand written document that demonstrates proficiency of such?
Please explain first why a “permit” to “bear arms” is required (sadly, I didn’t include that in my message below. That should be #1…).
“Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution, why is this not “already so” [that is, can anyone explain why the FF&C clause isn’t used in a legal defense“
Hey, I agree with this, I’ve mentioned on here before that this should apply. Just as you observe, drivers license, marriage license, concealed carry license, I think the clause refers to each of the various states recognizing the official acts of the other states.
I think one should have the right to possess and bear arms on their own property, but when it comes to entering shared social spaces, I think it is reasonable to require our fellow citizens to exhibit a modicum of knowledge and skill before they are permitted to carry lethal weapons in public spaces.
In any case, no rights are absolute
“Chris Wallace asked Scalia in 2012 about semiautomatic weapons and extended magazines, and he said: “What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.”
ttps://www.theusconstitution.org/news/there-are-no-absolute-rights/
In other words, poll taxes. You white colonizers are all about keeping a boot on necks.
“You white colonizers“
No, the white colonizer is Elon Musk’s Nazi grandfather with his Emerald mines in Zambia:
ttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahv3IKzMdHA&pp=QAFIAQ%3D%3D
So the 200 acres you’ve claimed to own in WV just magically never had anybody there before you?
And remember. Shrieking ‘nazi’ at the top of your lungs got kamala elected. Oh. Wait…….
“So the 200 acres you’ve claimed to own in WV just magically never had anybody there before you?“
Asked and answered previously, it seems your memory is as bad as Tulsi Gabbard’s.
“With no resident Native population at the time of European-American settlement, West Virginia now has no federally recognized Indian tribes or tribal lands. Indians present here today originated elsewhere or descend from people who did, as do all other West Virginians.”
ttps://www.wvencyclopedia.org/entries/805
So you’re folks just teleported into a vacant land and took over? You have no shame, miner.
No, I’m sorry to inform you that unlike in your favorite comic books, we don’t have the ability to teleport as of yet.
You somehow missed the encyclopedia entry that I provided, here’s the pertinent point:
“With no resident Native population at the time of European-American settlement, West Virginia now has no federally recognized Indian tribes or tribal lands“
I really don’t understand your interest in West Virginia land, you left West Virginia years ago, and ended up in the liberal paradise of California.
You voted with your feet to live in California, regardless of the claims you make today.
Poll taxes?
You keep mentioning poll taxes, do you really miss them that much?
Why not make the training and permitting process free, wouldn’t cost that much, we could hire 11B retirees and pay a decent wage to train the next generation of rifleman.
If you’re really doing that, I think you’d have to offer it to everyone without fees, though of course you’d need extra tax money to fund it. Bloomberg should fund it since he’s interested in gun safety. He could set up a trust to keep the funding going. If people don’t want to take part, they could opt-out.
You know it would never happen. Most of these people want to use permits as a barrier. We saw how they handled that in NY, CA, and HI. They only allowed the wealthy and well-connected to get a permit.
You keep saying rights are limited. Like a true fascist, miner.
No, it was Justice Anthony Scalia who said all rights have limitations.
But you have been backing that statement ever since. miner. If you claim they are limited you won’t mind a ban on abortion? Voter ID?
You guys keep setting up these rules in hopes of gutting our rights as if those same rules cannot be turned against you. Kind of silly when the dems are in shambles and the future for the left looks bleak.
“But you have been backing that statement ever since. miner“
Yes, on this issue I think Justice Anthony Scalia is correct, he lays out his reasoning which shows that tradition supports the idea of limitations on both the type of arms and the location.
I noticed you responded with a personal attack, without actually addressing the content of Justice Scalia’s position.
Weak.
“You guys keep setting up these rules in hopes of gutting our rights“
I didn’t set these rules up, it was Justice Anthony Scalia on the United States Supreme Court, who opined that rights have limitations.
What other rights would you like to subject to training and a test? Your right to free speech or to go to church? Your right to not self-incriminate? How about your right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, that could be a fun one. Or, how about your right to not quarter soldiers, everyone forgets that one. Sorry, you failed the test, have fun putting up a squad of hungry Marines. Oh, you couldn’t make the 6th Amendment training because it was offered only one day last year and you had a family emergency? You don’t get the right to a lawyer or a jury or to know what the charges against you are, have a nice day at your trial.
Rights do not have prerequisites and cannot require a test or mandatory training because then they are not rights but privileges awarded subjectively. Who sets the standards and schedules the training? What if you can’t make the training? Rights are rights because they can be exercised by anyone. Freedom is inherently dangerous but that’s what makes it so great. It’s far better than any alternative.
I “like” the idea of Conceal Carry Reciprocity however:
1. Given the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution, why is this not “already so” [that is, can anyone explain why the FF&C clause isn’t used in a legal defense already? – eg, I don’t get pulled over for having an out-of-state license plate or marriage license]
2. What’s to suggest that States don’t ignore this as they ignore FOPA and other Federal laws. Either Federal law trumps State Law [we fought a war about this, and the Feds won], or it doesn’t.
3. Unless these are tied to the Budget Reconcilliation Bill, does this have a snowballs chance in he** of passing the Senate?
I hate carveout legislation. Something something 14th Amendment. Something something some animals are more equal than others.
“What’s to suggest that States don’t ignore this as they ignore FOPA and other Federal laws.”
Exactly. They need to add a provision providing for the personal liability (no qualified or other immunity) of LEO’s / officials / judges who violate the provisions of CCR bill. Otrherwise, places like NYC who gleefully ignore FOPA will just continue to do so.
LBK – can we just start applying 18 USC §242 – denial of rights under color of law. That should already come with zero immunity as anyone operating under “color of law” would nominally have immunity to begin with.
Here’s the full quote:
“While not explicitly arguing in favor of stricter regulations, the judge suggested there’s room for more gun control legislation in relation to “modern weapons” of the 21st century during an interview with Fox News Sunday on July 29, 2012, shortly after the deadly theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado:
CHRIS WALLACE: You wrote in 2008, the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority opinion that said the Second Amendment means what it says, people have a right to bear arms. Question: how far does that constitutional right go? Can a legislature ban semiautomatic weapons or can it ban magazines that carry 100 rounds without violating an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms?ANTONIN SCALIA: What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation. There were certainly location limitations where –CHRIS WALLACE: But what about these technological limitations? Obviously, we’re not talking about a handgun or a musket. We’re talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute.ANTONIN SCALIA: We’ll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s to keep and bear. So, it doesn’t apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be–it will have to be decided.CHRIS WALLACE: So, how do you decide if you’re a textualist?ANTONIN SCALIA: Very carefully. My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.“
“Currently, federal law enforcement agencies that upgrade or change the firearms issued to their agents and officers are required by Federal Management Regulations to destroy unneeded firearms. Rep. Fry’s legislation would allow certified federal law enforcement officers, who are authorized and eligible, to purchase their former service firearms.”
Destruction is wasteful, and limiting sales to “certified federal law enforcement officers” invites corruption (they’ll profit by reselling). Why not dispose of unneeded guns on the used-gun open market, like other agencies already do?
Common sense, Bob. They ain’t got it.
Knowledge tests? Easy enough. From the 3rd grade on students will beging introductory Militia familiarization. At the 7th grade begin weapons familiarization. 9th grade begin life fire training.
Builds a Militia, ensures firearms Knowledge and should suffice every leftists wish for gun safety.
On their 18th birthday every student should be issued what ever standard issue the military uses and ammo. Free.
“On their 18th birthday every student should be issued what ever standard issue the military uses and ammo. Free“
Yes, it will certainly be much safer if every 18 year-old has a full auto M4 to take to the keg party, spring break, etc.
There’s a reason that the United States Army keeps all the weapons in a secured arms room, unavailable to the young soldiers.
We’ve seen that movie before.
No caveouts for law enforcement. They do not deserve any special rights just because they’re the state’s enforcers. They have the same rights as any other citizen, no more and no less. If a non-sworn can’t carry there, law enforcement shouldn’t be able to either unless it’s active official business. And especially if they’re retired, they’re regular citizens again. If it’s too dangerous for average Joe, it’s too dangerous for a cop too because he’s human too.
We The People Need President Trump To Sign That Bill Now