.jpg)
Read more: I Actually Read HR 38 : National Carry Reciprocity & Guess What I Found?I doubt the Senate will vote in favor. Maybe the problems can be fixed in conference. That really depends on how much you trust out elected officials not to screw us. Maybe the best thing to happen would be to kill this thing and start over again, but then we're back to how much can we trust our elected officials not to screw us.
Here's my suggestion for a fix. The law need have only one sentence. If your are a U. S. Citizen and can carry concealed legally in your home state, you can carry concealed legally in any State in the Union. How's that sound? Too simple? I don't expect perfect, just better.
3 comments:
Of course they define "Firearm" to include the magazines (in our out of the gun) and ammunition. If they didn't, then localities would say that you couldn't carry magazines or ammo. The definition only applies to this law, which even the article makes clear.
This is, if not "fake news," it's certainly a fake headline.
When I read it I interpreted the definitions to assure that "firearm" or in this case "handgun" included the mag and the ammo which if legal in your home state must be tolerated in all states. This implies to me that my 12 round mag would not get me jailed in NY and if I could find any, hollow points would not get me jailed in NJ although there was a certain amount of leeway for "investigation" in any case.
Plenty of welfare for lawyers in there although the prospect of paying your counties entire annual budget out in a settlement should keep it to fairly low levels.
BTW, yes, it's too simple: as drafted, the law covers those who can't get a permit in their home state but can get a non-resident permit (e.g. residents of Hawaii, Delaware, NYC, much of CA) -- your version does not.
Post a Comment