D.C. example (Concealed Carry) and HI, CA, other restrictives
IL and DC did until long drawn out court battles finally overturned them. Check out HI, and the fact that virtually NO ONE has a CC permit.
Yep, NY, MD, HI, NJ, DE, CA, MA and probably a few more are going to take it to the courts
This is the point I was making. There is no state where the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes is actually prohibited - because it cannot be prohibited. They've put (in some states) all kinds of restrictions - but they can't prohibit it. That is why H.R.38 was written that way so that anywhere that it would legally be allowed anyway the reciprocity would be allowed.
The other aspect of this is D.C. itself.
Of course we know that D.C. is an area where they don't want you to have a gun at all. Concealed carry itself has always been a battle there.
The following on D.C. is taken from Wikipedia.
DC is a "may issue" jurisdiction" as of October 2016. The status of concealed carry licensing in the District of Columbia is currently in flux between "may issue" and "shall issue "due to pending court challenges. On July 26, 2014, DC's ban on open and concealed carry was struck down as unconstitutional in Wren v. District of Columbia. A Restrictive May-Issue concealed carry licensing law was enacted in September 2014. Under the new law, an applicant must show "good reason," to qualify for a concealed carry permit. However, on May 18, 2015, the "good reason" requirement was ruled as likely unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction was issued against DC from enforcing that requirement. This effectively required the District to grant licenses on a Shall-Issue basis to qualified applicants who have passed a criminal background check and completed the required firearms safety training. Judge Scullin did not issue a stay of his ruling, but the Appeals Court did so on Jun 12, 2015, effectively leaving the restrictive 'good reason' requirement in place while litigation continues.
On May 17, 2016 a separate case (Grace v. District of Columbia) was decided by District Court Judge Richard J. Leon. The Court issued a preliminary injunction that the good reason requirement was likely be unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The order said that anyone who met the eligibility requirements for a concealed carry license absent the good reason stipulation cannot be denied the license; the order was not stayed originally, but was subsequently stayed on May 27, 2016.
The following is not from Wikipedia, but is just typed by my own hand to further elaborate on this issue.
When H.R.38 gets passed none of the above D.C. court stuff will really matter because people in D.C. will be able to get a nonresident permit from somewhere (like VA) and it will be honored in all 50 states.
Yes, states like CA, HI, and also the federal district of D.C., will of course challenge H.R.38 once it's signed into law. But they won't be able to do anything about it. Places like CA if/when they challenge the federal gov't in court over H.R.38 once it's signed into law, won't succeed. (CA's) argument/case will be dismissed or it'll simply fail along the way somewhere in the process, setting a wonderful precedent for us.
First of all, this is because the States have no rights to deny rights.
https://therealwritewinger.wordpress.com/2017/01/12/states-have-no-rights-to-deny-rights/
Second of all, and this is important, under the Supremacy Clause, Congress is allowed to make sure that unconstitutional law by states can be preempted or unconstitutional law can be repealed under that use of that Clause as well.
How will Congress do this?
Example:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/preempt-and-repeal-unconstitutional-state-gun-control-laws
"The administration should adopt a policy that it will support the activity of the Second Amendment Caucus and pro-Second Amendment Congressmembers, when they use their authority under Article VI Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution to pass bills intended to preempt state gun control laws that violate the U.S. Constitution or to repeal federal gun control laws already on the books that violate the U.S. Constitution, so as to protect our right to keep and bear common and modern arms, where Congress unmistakably and expressly asserts the desire for preemption in the language of the bills proposed."
That's how the Supremacy Clause can be used to completely put a stop to any and all court actions by states like CA, HI, federal district of D.C., etc. Not to say they won't try in court, but the cases will ultimately be dismissed.
Cheers.
Oh, by the way, in case you are wondering, we have the votes now, too.
This is how gun laws will get repealed - like SSA's Gun Ban or the NFA (and how new ones like Concealed Carry Reciprocity will get passed): By votes of 235 - 180 in House and 57 - 43 (or 52 - 48 without four Dems and one independent) in Senate - and with President Trump's signature. Curious about how I get those numbers? See recent votes on H.J.Res.40.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/40/actions
It won't be hard from here on out to replicate those vote numbers for future pro-gun bills.
FORWARD.