Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017
I’ve seen quite a debate, especially amongst the “firearms crowd”, regarding the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017”, or as it’s commonly called, “National Reciprocity”. As a firearm owner with a concealed carry permit who frequently travels between states, I find this whole situation quite vexing. It’s bad enough that each state has it’s own rules about where and how I may be allowed to carry, but which states will recognize what licenses is confusing enough that multiple books and websites exist to help a gun owner keep track. Add to that the fact that some states have notorious reputations for giving little credence to federal laws regarding the interstate transportation of firearms and I can see why people would desire this type of legislation. The question is: Does Congress have the constitutional authority to tell states what documents they must accept from other states?
There are actually two constitutional clauses we need to look at: The “full faith and credit” and the “privileges and immunities” clauses. Lets start with the later.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 2
Today we tend to refer to our state of residence, but the state we are a citizen of is a more constitutionally accurate way to see ourselves. The privileges and immunities clause says that the laws of any state in the union must treat someone from another state the same as someone from their state. In truth the law cannot say that it applies differently based on what state the person resides in. This would appear to be a problem since, as a citizen of the state of Tennessee, several states including California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York deny me the “privilege” of carrying a firearm because I am not a resident of that state. Other states may not recognize certain permits, but will allow me to obtain a “non-resident” permit to carry a weapon in their state. In other words, in these states I am not entitled to the same privileges as a resident of that state. And yes, I know, carrying a firearm is not a privilege but a right. However, several states and even more courts seem to think they can infringe on our rights and view certain types of bearing arms as privileges.
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.
U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 1
The full faith and credit clause states that each state must recognize the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. So, when we travel to another state they are required to recognize our drivers license and our marriage license, but not our weapons license? This certainly looks like a situation where Congress could exercise their authority to make a law prescribing how such acts and records should be proved and what effect they will have. There are a couple of problems I see though, and both exist in the change to U.S.C. Title 18, Chapter 44 § 926D.
The first is “a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm”. The problem here is this law continues to place unconstitutional federal firearm laws above state law. The U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government authority to determine who may or may not posses, transport, ship or receive a firearm. This law is a further violation of the 10th Amendment’s restriction of federal jurisdiction to those powers enumerated within the Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
U.S. Constitution Amendment X
Congress simply has no authority to pass laws outside of their enumerated powers. Since those laws were not created pursuant to the Constitution, they do not qualify as the supreme law of the land under Article VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; … shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
U.S. Constitution Article VI
The second issue is “who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm”. The issue is somewhat subtle, it took me several readings to understand why this didn’t quite fit. Notice how it says someone carrying a license issued pursuant to the law of “a State”? Based on this language if this bill should become law, someone living in a state where they were not entitled to a carry permit or license could receive a non-resident license from another state and bypass their own state’s laws. Creating a mechanism for a citizens of one state to bypass that state’s laws is not the purpose for, or an enumerated power of, the federal government. The good news is this problem is easily fixed by changing that phrase from “a State” to “the State in which the person resides”.
To summarize the purpose of this bill, to insure that the public act of issuing a weapons permit or license that is recognized by all states, is good. There still are a couple of problems though: Congress does not have the authority to determine who can posses a firearm, nor can it legally create a method for the citizens of a state to bypass their own laws. That makes the real question: Will Congress fix the issues in the bill before it becomes law?
