Democrats promise to filibuster and kill national reciprocity for concealed carry in the US Senate

Nov 26, 2016 | Featured


The figure above shows the 32 states that honor a Pennsylvania concealed carry permit (resident).  Interested readers can look up where other state permits are honored here.

Since the November 8th election, there has been some hope that national reciprocity for concealed handgun permits would be similar to that for driver’s licenses.  If you have a driver’s license in Florida, you can drive all the way to Maine or Washington state or drive in Alaska or Hawaii.  That is not the case permitted concealed handguns.  If you are a truck driver who is carrying valuable shipments, and you have to travel in California, Illinois, New York or some other states, you are effectively banned from carrying over your entire trip.  Since you can’t carry in New York state, there is no way that you can go from New England to the rest of the country or vice a versa.

But with only 52 Republicans in the Senate and 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster, Democrats are promising to kill any reciprocity bill.  From the Wall Street Journal:

Peter Ambler, executive director of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a gun control super PAC, said his organization plans to fight national reciprocity “tooth and nail,” threatening a Democratic filibuster of the legislation in the Senate.

“It’s a race to the bottom,” he said. “It allows people that have permits from states with the weakest standards possible to carry [weapons] in the streets of any U.S. city.”

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat and ardent gun-control advocate, said he believes any version of a national reciprocity bill would be “dead on arrival” in the Senate, due to strong Democratic opposition. . . .

The argument about the race to the bottom is easy to deal with.  Permit holders are not only incredibly law-abiding, but there is also no evidence of more problems with permit holders in states that have relatively laxer regulations on who can carry (see chapter 10 of More Guns, Less Crime).



  1. Ed Richtsteig

    Time to give Democrats a taste of Harry Reid’s “Nuclear Option”.

    • Herbert Celler

      We can do it

  2. Jim

    It is long past time to put an end to the “60 vote rule”. Republicans have a lot of work to do to make America the home of Liberty that our Founding Fathers envisioned. We can’t have these far left whackos obstructing.

  3. Jeff Adamson

    What about the “nuclear option” that stinky Harry Reed envoked? All we need now is a simple majority

  4. Kim Stolfer

    IF Democrats (who haven’t learned ‘anything’ from the election) don’t want National Concealed Carry Reciprocity then perhaps the Republicans should rescind automatic National Reciprocity for drivers licenses, marriage licenses etc.?!
    It’s clear these Senators are not interested in the safety of law abiding citizens ‘nor’ the Constitutional provision known as ‘Full Faith and Credit’ but are pushing their own agenda at the expense of fact.

  5. Keith Bailey

    Being that there is no evidence of crime committed by permit holders, danger is not a problem. Perhaps Donald Trump is going to have to do an executive order allowing permit holders to carry in the anti-Second Amendment states.

  6. Fred Miller

    I thought Harry Reid killed the filibuster. Am I mistaken? If there is no filibuster, how can the Dems stop the bill?

    • Me

      Wasn’t that called the nuclear option? Looking at the map I can easily see several states that could change and allow reciprocity. Don’t forget in the 2018 election 20 Democratic Senators are up for re-election. Make sure a Republican Senator or a committed Democratic 2A supporter is elected.

    • Mark Walters

      Only for Obama judicial appointments.

    • Erik

      And that works both ways, Republicans can use the nuclear option as well, and the democrats won’t be able to do squat about it

    • Thorn

      That was only eliminated for appointments.

    • Lew

      I think then in each state if you’re driving through it you’re required to get a drivers license and learn their laws I also feel that all these Congress and senators should not be afforded protection and if they do want it they should pay for it out of their pocket and not ours or every family should beprovided protection at the cost of the government and not our police departments or sheriffs offices

    • Greg

      He only ended it for certain judicial seat votes

    • Matt

      Only applies to appointment of officials not legislation.

    • LuangTom

      No filibusters as they pertain to approving Cabinet and other appointments, not laws.

    • Don Overton

      The filibuster was killed only for certain appointments, not for bills.

    • T

      I think you may have thrown a wrench into the filibuster research there!

    • Jim Scott

      He only killed it for judicial nominees at the appellate court level and lower. The general legislation filibuster is still in place, but Reid has set the precedent to get rid of it with his shenanigans.

    • a

      The filibuster was removed for judicial nominations that are not the Supreme Court. It still exists for all legislation and Supreme Court nominees.

    • A. S. Rosser

      Senator Reid convinced his fellow Democratic senators to kill the filibuster rule for all appointments other than the Supreme Court. He set up the removal of it for the Supreme Court on the assumption that the Ds would retake the Senate. (the results of this election have really upset all sorts of Democratic assumptions, thus all of the dissidence).
      Legislative filibuster has not, so far, been threatened.

    • Doug

      The filibuster is still there, except for federal court appointments (ex. SCOTUS) and executive appointments..

      Obamacare was passed on a series of technicalities that could provide a path.

      However, a budget could be passed that could limit states from being reimbursed for certain programs unless they passed CCW-reciprocity. That would not require a super-majority.

    • Calvin Andrews

      It would be very convenient to the left if you forgot that nagging little fact. The Majority leader can call for a vote to break a filibuster and any time and, thanks to Harry Reid, the vote must be taken immediately and 51 yeas ends it instantly. The WSJ writing about the Democrats threatening a filibuster and not mentioning that the “nuclear option” is still very much in effect, is propaganda at its finest.

    • Hoth

      He only killed the filibuster for lower court appointments.

    • Gene Schwimmer

      The Dems killed the filibuster only for appointing cabinet officers and federal judges, except Supreme Court justices. Filibuster still in place for legislation.

    • David

      I think that “nuclear option” the Dems did on the filibuster was only for judicial nominees.

    • Ed

      I believe that was for nominations only…

    • JimN

      Democrats have a two to one advantage in the filibuster game, they can talk out their mouths and ass all day about nothing.

    • Dan

      He only suspended it for nominations, so this law would still have to get 60+ votes if they filibuster, if they don’t it only needs 51. If it passes on 50 then the VP would get to be the tie-breaker.

    • Wilhelm

      Reid killed the filibuster ONLY for federal judicial appointments, which allowed him to stack the federal courts with anti-Constitutional liberals. McConnell could follow suit and change the filibuster rules, but we all know the GOP is totally spineless, and won’t do it.

  7. George Bratten

    We simply must gear up to outlast the filibuster. We will meet the same problems on the repeal of Obamacare and Supreme Court Judges. Eventually we will have to quit saying we are sorry for governing to Senator Chuck Schumer.

  8. Bbs53

    They will not win this fight. One of the largest reasons that Hillary got slaughtered is the deamonrat position on gun control which has been an abject failure. The NRA will win this one, we will see too it. That is way up on our agenda and you can bet it will happen, libtards or not.

  9. Charles Nichols

    Concealed carry is of no use to me. I don’t carry a purse.

  10. Steven Moshlak

    It can go out on a reconciliation bill between the House and Senate conference committee. They can filibuster, all they like!

  11. Robert

    There should be a national standard if concealed carry would go national. Washington State doesn’t require any training to obtain a CCW permit. The public is exposed to all kinds of unsafe people running around with concealed handguns. As a minimum CCW holders should be required to have a safety course and demonstrate their ability to handle a firearm and shoot some course of fire. I present this as a life long NRA member and retired military and LEO. Along with a person’s rights are responsibilities. It’s simple common safety sense.

    • Hollywood Cracker

      I interpret “well regulated” to mean “competent”, so I have no issue with that. However, rogue liberal states like my home Commiefornia, will not issue permits to the most capable of applicants for any reason. I agree with you because I have no problem upholding my end of the 2nd amendment, so long as my rights are not infringed thereafter. May Trump save us all.

  12. Brigader

    So, you want the federal .gov involved with CCW? Really? You want the BATFE regulating it? Not me…

  13. Geoff

    Even if National Reciprocity passed and gets signed into Law, it changes NOTHING.
    Your CARRY PERMIT would be good, but NOT YOUR GUN and/or AMMO.
    Magazine limits in many States, no Hollow Point bullets in NJ and maybe other States.
    My Taurus 24/7 Pro LS DS 9mm. 17+1 with Federal HydroShok 9mm. 134gr. JHP would be illegal in almost every Democrat controlled State.

    • Cal S.

      Then buy a cheap .357 magnum revolver with lead nose loads. They’re just about as good as any hollow-point out there…

    • Bob

      Doesn’t that depend on how the bill is written?
      I’d argue that NJ ban on HPs violates the 2nd and 14th even now.
      It makes little sense for an item legal in PA to be fealonous in NJ.
      Others have suggested that the NR bill should include language making local violations non-criminal violations (ie tickets) with a max value of $50 or $100.

      • dan theman

        I live in NJ. HP are NOT illegal. If concealed carry were allowed in NJ, you could carry with HP. The only law with HP is IF you commit a crime using HP ammunition (i.e. rob a store) there is an additional penalty.

    • auldzalt

      My 1911 would be gtg in all states. What needs to be rescinded is the ban on handgun purchases across state lines. A Californian can by an AR in AZ even though the AR is not legal to own in CA. Fireworks are bought and taken across state lines all of the time. People buy pot in Colorado and carry it to where it is not legal. I cannot buy a handgun in the PX at Ft. Campbell because of federal law. I do not live in Kentucky. I can purchase all manner of shoulder arms. Archaic laws that with instant background checks make no sense.

    • ray

      Have the reciprocity bill include the guns and ammo covered in the state of origin, as well as the carrying.

    • AsherMaximum

      Changing the carry permit to be legal in every state is not nothing. Yeah, laws that make certain guns, ammo, or mag capacities would still prevent you from carrying as you would in your home state, but you could still carry something, and that’s not nothing.

    • Steve

      That’s not so. A state can have a law against tinted windows, but not be able to pull a driver over with an out of state car with tinted windows. My high capacity magazine would be completely legal in a state with a magazine restriction if I lived in a different state. This is a moot point.

    • Jordan

      It’s a foot in the door to make change. To say it changes nothing is ridiculous. I can’t find any other state but New Jersey that bans JHP. Sure you’d have to follow each state’s magazine limit, but I’d much rather carry 10 rounds in California than be unarmed. It’s not perfect but it’s a huge step in the right direction

    • Chris

      Inaccurate. Federal law is supreme to State and Municipal law. If you’re firearm is legal in the state in which you’re permit is issued, it would be legal to carry in all states, if reciprocity passes.

    • Gareth

      That’s a very good point that’s often overlooked in the rush to pass this long overdue legislation.

    • Joe Staleeen

      Maybe that’s a good idea considering you carry a crap Brazilian gun filled with early ’90’s ammo, har har har!!! lol JK gun pal, but seriously, buy better sh*t. <3

    • Fred

      CCW reciprocity, is better than what we currently have. For states with special magazine and ammo laws, look them up before carrying there. Your solution for CCW in NJ given the info you have provided would be 10 round magazines and FMJ’s.

    • J

      Easily solved Geoff, just by a firearm(s)/magazines for the less friendly states. Cali, get a 10 rd magazine. NJ, here is a magazine with GuardDog loaded up. MS, here is your stupid crazy trigger weight firearm, with chamber load indicator.

    • Dark Alley Dan

      Saint John of Browning knows the way, brother.

      No one can hate a 1911. 🙂

    • Wired

      That’s why we don’t need democrats. They think the world can be a utopian society if we give everyone a job. What they fail to see is not everyone wants a job , they would rather knock you in the head and take what you have instead of working for it. That’s why we need constitutional carry nation wide.

    • Charles M.

      We already HAVE national reciprocity. It’s called the 2nd Amendment.

      Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

      Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

      Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

      Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

      Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.

      Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

      Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

      Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

      Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

      Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772

      Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”

      Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”

      S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”

    • Nighthawk

      Geoff, do you understand the concept of incremental change? Most handguns are 50 state A-OK. If you need to carry around a 10 round mag with ball ammo in it, at least you don’t have to deal with a load of shit like that poor PA woman going into the shithole of NJ. Keeping 10 rd magazines and ball ammo on hand for travel isn’t even a price to pay. If you carry a wheel gun or a 1911 you’ll be fine. It’s too bad your crappy taurus won’t live up to its full ‘potential’ perhaps you can buy a real gun for defense, like a .357 mag wheel gun or a .45 pistol of any kind with a 10 rounder. That aside, incremental change back to the point where 2A isn’t tampered with by state governments in violation of the constitution is on the right path. You’re like someone flipping out that the Sunset of Clinton’s AWB doesn’t get rid of the NFA too.

  14. Drew Donaldson

    This is a bad idea, let the states hash this out.

    If you believe in federalism, you shouldn’t support this.

    • Hollywood Cracker

      I am a California NRA member. The states shouldn’t be hashing out anything that infringes on my constitutional freedoms.

  15. John Browning


    You raise a good point, but national reciprocity would change A LOT. I’d rather be able to legally carry in a cesspool like NYC, and wouldn’t get too worked up that I’d be limited to 10 rounds.

  16. Robert Winkler Burke

    The solution is to defund Prog Ed in K-12, university, law-journalism-film schools; replacing the anti-republic pedagogy with Western Enlightenment!

  17. wjamyers

    ‘You’d think that with all the talk about overcriminalization and mass incarceration, Democrats wouldn’t be filibustering against a law that would result in fewer innocent minorities being sent to prison.’ You’d think… if you didn’t know they are nearly uniformly lying, venal, hypocritical, authoritarian control-freaks.

  18. Patrick

    The GOPe are lining up to play Lucy to our Charlie again: holding the reciprocity football just so we can kick and miss again.

    The GOP is going to drop mega-Billions on “infrastructure” and no Dem can turn that down. It will pass through the Senate with all kinds of riders. Will reciprocity, NFA reform and other real 2A protections be one of them?

    My guess is “no”. The GOPe loves to screw gun owners because they really don’t like us, but they do like our votes. So they play the game thinking that so long as we never get the protections we need we will have no other choice than to give them (NRA) money and (GOPe) power.

    If you see any pro-gun standalone bill, you are getting played for a fool. If they are serious about 2A, they will make pro-gun measures amendments to legislation that will actually pass through the Senate and hit Trump’s desk – basically anything that spends mega-billions on ‘infrastructure’ projects will make a Democrat salivate or at least heed union calls to let is pass.

    Spread the word, because this time we really need to fight back and demand they keep their word.

  19. Michael Mahoney

    It is time to revert to the original process of a filibuster like they made Rand Paul do. Make the Democrats stand on the floor of the Senate. Make the Republicans stay, too. Take it to the limit because the matter in question is settled in the constitution already. Both the privilege and immunities clause and the Full Faith and Credit clause demand permit reciprocity just like drivers’ licenses and marriage licenses.

  20. Carlos

    The next time Democrats control the Senate, they’ll end the filibuster unilaterally. Better for us to do it now and beat them to the punch.

  21. Ingot9455

    Attach it to a budget bill that cuts the budget over ten years by a penny. Then you can pass it with 51 votes under budget reconciliation, just like Obamacare.

  22. Hunter

    Rather than passing another law, how about having Trump simply sign an Executive Order (which is not a law, and doesn’t need to be) affirming/declaring that the 2nd Amendment means what it says, including especially “…shall not be infringed”, and thanks to the 14th Amendment incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States, ALL non-permit-reciprocity States are in (longstanding) violation of the Constitution, and that we’re not going to put up with people’s Constitutional rights being violated any more.

    With a stroke of the pen he could say “I’m not making law, I’m telling you your messed-up laws on this subject are invalid. And believe me, I know messed up laws! I’ve been on the receiving end of a few, let me tell you. Permit reciprocity is now the standard throughout all the States. It’s a great deal. You’ll love it, and if you don’t, then sue me and we’ll let the SCOTUS sort out the details.”

    He could even go one further and say “Permit? Who needs a permit? If you’re not a felon then it’s ‘Constitutional Carry’ across the land, baby!”… but I’m not holding my breath for that one.

  23. Dan

    Horny Reid changed the rules to block Republican filibusters – all the Republicans in the Senate have to do is play by the same rules the damnocraps used.

    No need to stop with National Reciprocity for carry, just establish reciprocity for guns and ammo at the same time.

  24. Doug Greene

    Better outlaw Machette’s also!
    Besides, with all the people that are killing the police, they can’t protect you, when they are dead.
    Having reciprocity could save lives. “Gun free”zone’s and “safe places” are not recognized by criminals or terrorists, all they see are targets, in those environments! Look how well our governments terrorist’s “watch list” works!

  25. Evan Farley

    Are we seriously planning on using federal legislation to support the Second Amendment and then sit back and bitch when the Anti-Gun establishment uses federal legislation to tear it down? The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the federal government from creating ANY legislation in regards to the 2A. This is a State matter and now many of the Pro-Gun crowd want to effectively ignore the intent of the BOR’s because it fits their agenda? We want to FORCE other states to participate with a federal law? Odd.

  26. MarkPA

    Here is the argument we need to give to our Congress-critters: The last few Won’t-Issue States COULD have had inter-State carry on terms that THEY THEMSELVES could have prescribed. They COULD have granted reciprocity to whichever other States met their high standards. They COULD have ONLY offered their own Non-Resident permits. We would have complained; but most of us would have complied and obtained the required permits that would allow us to carry in neighboring highly restrictive States. They WOULD NOT indulge carry in their jurisdictions on their own terms. We have no other political recourse but to appeal to our own Congress-critters to compel these States to comply with the 2A and 14A on terms that treat us – residents of other States – equitably and Constitutionally. These Won’t-Issue States have no one to blame other then themselves.

    • Wired

      Until the gun community comes together and votes the liberals out of office in those blue states you will never have reciprocity in either one of them and being those states are full of democrats who think they know what’s best for everyone you probably never will see it happen either. Our only chance is to get the federal government to pass constitutional carry nation wide. I’m one of those that think the government should stay out of states affairs but when it comes to our constitutional rights like the second amendment then I think they should step up and tell the communist running those democrat controlled states that they can’t stop constitutional Carry.

  27. OathKeeper

    Why is there a 10th Amendment if States aren’t permitted to exercise their Rights as a sovereign State?
    As much of a pain in the ass as it is, citizens wishing to travel to another state should apply for that state’s CCW.
    It’s true that a NY driver license is honored in Wisconsin….but the NY drivers must adhere to Wisconsin laws.
    Truck drivers require special licenses that are governed by federal regulations. Those regulations can be changed at any time, for any (or no) reason AND CAN BE REVOKED JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.
    THIS is what you want for the 2nd Amendment?

  28. MaverickNH

    John, we need a succinct summary article defending CCW Reciprocity that folks can copy/paste on every news site, blog, Facebook, etc. The mainstream media (other than FOX) will not publish anything suggesting CCW Reciprocity is dangerous, ignoring your evidence and/or misleading with anti-gun stuff. How about we try “True News” for once?

    • Kajika Halkawitta

      We, the people, need to understand that laws and law enforcement will never prevent every act of violent crime and that we, the people, must accept the responsibility to protect ourselves and be able to exercise our US Constitutional rights. Support National Concealed Carry Reciprocity! Contact your US congressional representatives and let them know that we need, and you support, the following Bills: H.R.402, H.R.923, H.R.986, and S.498. Also, let them, especially the Democrats, know that Citizens with a Concealed Handgun License:
      o Have no felony convictions.
      o Have never been convicted of domestic violence.
      o Have no history of mental illness or drug addiction.
      o Have passed a background check and have their fingerprints on file with the Authorities.
      o Have passed mandatory training in both the use of a firearm and the applicable law.

      The 13 to 15 million civilians with concealed carry permits (who have taken training, paid a fee and voluntarily submitted to background checks and licensing) are among the most law abiding segments of the population. Better than politicians, judges, and police officers. US DOJ figures show that civilians who use guns in defense are less than 20% as likely as police to use guns wrongly or cause undue harm (2% vs 11%). However, The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons: the “qualified law enforcement officer” and the “qualified retired law enforcement officer”; to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions. Law enforcement officers, when they are outside their jurisdiction and not on official duty, and retired law enforcement officers do not have any legal authority or responsibilities; in fact they are no different from any other people! However, National Concealed Carry Reciprocity bills have been stalled in the US Congress for at least the last 7 years due to blockage by the Democratic Party. What is so special about law enforcement officers, active or retired, that Federal law grants them the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States but does not grant those same rights to holders of concealed carry permits?

  29. James Lamb

    This bill written by a transportation trade group that supports truckers’ rights to carry is about to be introduced in the Senate. This is the bill to get behind as it preempts the states and applies not just to truckers but to all Americans:

  30. Hollywood Cracker

    Democrats have 10 senators up for reelection in states that Trump carried. Do you want to bet your political career on opposing national reciprocity? Senators in places such as Montana might think twice about following Shumer down the road to political suicide.


  1. Homepage - ... [Trackback] [...] There you will find 92895 more Infos: [...]


On How To Be Tom Shillue: Discussing More Guns, Less Crime

On How To Be Tom Shillue: Discussing More Guns, Less Crime Dr. John Lott talked to Tom Shillue about a wide range of topics including the collapse in law enforcement, mass public shootings in the United States, the dangers of gun-free zones, how often civilians...