search
top

GOA Backs Different Reciprocity Bill

GOA is backing a new bill being introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA). From the GOA press release, it appears that the primary difference is that it would allow people in states that do not issue permits to carry in any other state without a permit. The only problem with this bill is that we tried it before, and it failed in the Senate. The situation in the Senate has not remarkably improved, and it’s likely that Schumer had a few more votes up his sleeve against the bill if he needed them. The reason the current bill doesn’t have those provisions is that it’ll recover a few needed votes if this goes to the Senate.

Remember that we not only need to pass this bill, we are quite likely to need to override a veto if we want this to become law. At the least, you need sixty votes in the Senate for it. While I’m sympathetic to the aims of the GOA bill, the only impacted state is Vermont, and Vermonters can easily obtain a non-resident license from New Hampshire that gets them around the problem.

I appreciate that GOA is doing a lot better on this subject than NAGR, and they have at least decided to support a similar bill. But I don’t believe their bill is going to go anywhere.

12 Responses to “GOA Backs Different Reciprocity Bill”

  1. Phil says:

    As our enemies demonstrate frequently, there is something to be said for trying. And, last I heard, there is no per-word charge for introducing legislation.

    That said, there is a good chance this bill never was intended to go anywhere, and is intended to be a checkoff for Rep. Broun and its cosponsors, to shore up their pro-gun bona fides.

  2. Matthew Carberry says:

    It would be interesting to look at the ancient Court ruling that declared requiring a permit unConstitional in Vermont and see if it permits the state legislature to offer a voluntary permit, irrelevent within VT, simply for reciprocity with other states. Allow VT to go “Alaska Carry” in effect.

    While I empathize with Vermonters having reciprocity difficulties, it’s their problem to fix, not something that should scuttle an decent nationwide bill making an huge incremental improvement (and striking a blow at the May-issue states in the bargain) for everyone else.

  3. countertop says:

    it would actually be interesting if NRA could work with GOA on this and pass the Broun bill in the house and then get HR 822 passed in the Senate and have the conference committee work out the difference (the politics for Pat Leahy would be troubling, to say the least, if he allowed Vermonters to be the only citizens unable to carry out of state).

  4. Matthew Carberry says:

    countertop,

    You have that backward, it would be interesting if GOA could set-aside its “no-compromise” disdain for the “might as well be headed by Schumer and Pelosi” quislings at NRA long enough to acknowledge that maybe acting strategically as you describe /= Selling Out Freedom.

  5. Weer'd Beard says:

    GOA would rather have a great loss than an imperfect victory.

    Its shameful that this group doesn’t seem to understand that the slippery slope works both ways.

    I want National Constitutional carry, but we’ll need to get Carry of any sort in Illinois, and get rid of the remaining May-issue states’ systems before we can get there.

    Same with the repeal of the NFA which is a worthless law. First we need to get one or two items off the NFA first (I think Suppressors will be the first, maybe SBRs next given the powerful pistols you can get right now, etc)

    Its hard work to get it done in one fell-swoop, its easier to get several small steps passed.

    Of course GOA isn’t about accomplishments, but about the fact that they’re swinging for the fences, and don’t support ANY Democrats no matter how pro-gun they are.

  6. Jacob says:

    This is just a fundraising ploy by Pratt.

  7. A perhaps bigger difference between the two bills is the statement of Constitutional authority. H.R. 822 continues the age-old practice of abusing the interstate commerce clause. H.R. 2200, on the other hand, cites the Second Amendment.

  8. Sebastian says:

    HR822 largely uses the 14th Amendment section 5 power. The Second Amendment only applies to the state through the 14th, so the Second Amendment can’t be a source of power for passing a reciprocity bill.

    HR822 could also plausibly be based on the Commerce power, or the Full Faith and Credit power… but Congress doesn’t need to explicitly say that. They do explicitly claim to be able to do it under the 14th Amendment.

  9. Matthew Carberry says:

    Not sure how the 2A in and of itself and how currently defined works as a justification for reciprocity, unless the bill has Congress define, explicitly, concealed carry as part of the Right and then via McDonald applies it to the states?

    But at first blush that sort of justification could equally well destroy all state carry and regulatory schemes, which simply isn’t going to happen, in the short term anyway.

    Not everything gun-related has to be, or even should be, a pure 2A issue and not every gun problem is a 2A susceptible nail in the real world.

    It’s easy enough to add additional, facially valid, non-CC and 2A related, justifications to 822.

  10. Sage Thrasher says:

    After the Fast & Furious b.s., I don’t much care what Obama does other than pack, but he might let the bill go through for political reasons. Stranger things have happened.

  11. Drang says:

    I had to Google “NAGR”, so GOA “doing better than” them means little. I second–well, third or fourth–comments that the NRA is more willing to work with other organizations than vice versa. (Albeit NRA does often forget to mention those .orgs in it’s press releases.)

top