It's time for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity
The crazy quilt of concealed carry reciprocity laws among the states too easily snares law-abiding gun owners in needless confusion and possible legal hassles. Sen. John Cornyn has just the legislation to fix the mess.
“Each state decides which permits from other states it recognizes as lawful, and some recognize none,” reminds Emily Miller of The Washington Times. Mr. Cornyn's Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would resolve that problematic situation by requiring all states to honor all other states' concealed carry permits.
“It's like a driver's license,” says the Texas Republican. “It doesn't trump state laws. Say you have a carry permit in Texas; then you use it in another state that has a concealed carry law.”
Cornyn's bill would keep law-abiding permit holders from falling victim to what he calls the tendency of some states “to play ‘gotcha.'”
Ms. Miller cites the outrageous case of a Florida man held for three hours at a traffic stop while Maryland police searched his car — because records showed he had a concealed carry permit. He didn't have a gun with him and wasn't even cited for a traffic violation.
And why should a traveler going from, say, Pennsylvania to North Carolina via Ohio be forced to secure that weapon in a different fashion in the Buckeye State?
With all 50 states now allowing concealed carry — Illinois, forced last year by federal courts, was the last to do so — this is an ideal time to bring full reciprocity to America's concealed carry laws.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The climate summit: Down for the count
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- Harrisburg escapades: Come clean
- The medical device tax: An abject failure
- Saturday essay: Awaiting the peat
- Sunday pops
- The Box