Trump promised to sign "concealed carry reciprocity" legislation if elected

[Dan_Eastvale]

"Donald Trump promised to sign "concealed carry reciprocity" legislation if he won a second term in office.

Trump has signaled that he intends to loosen gun control laws through executive action and replacing Steven Dettelbach—branded by the President-elect as an "anti-gun fanatic"—as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.


After Tuesday's election, when Trump won the presidency and Republicans have taken control of the Senate. Control of the House of Representatives still hangs in the balance, with several races still yet to be declared.

If Republicans secure the House as well, Trump and his party could pass legislation seen by many as controversial, without significant opposition from Democrats."

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-concealed-carry-reciprocity-1983740

[Garand Hunter]

Let it be let it be !

[mshill]

Still has to get past the Senate phllibuster and Rinos.

[dawgcasa]

I predict Democrats won’t allow ANY legislation tied to Trump’s agenda to get through the Senate for four years, with the exception of the once per year budget bills that can be passed via reconciliation (51 votes). Democrats are determined to lead a ‘rebellion’ for the next four years, and they would view national CCW reciprocity as anathema to their anti-gun rights zealotry.

[BAJ475]

I predict Democrats won’t allow ANY legislation tied to Trump’s agenda to get through the Senate for four years, with the exception of the once per year budget bills that can be passed via reconciliation (51 votes). Democrats are determined to lead a ‘rebellion’ for the next four years, and they would view national CCW reciprocity as anathema to their anti-gun rights zealotry.

OK, so how about attaching CCW reciprocity to a budget bill?

[dawgcasa]

OK, so how about attaching CCW reciprocity to a budget bill?

Non-budgetary items can’t be passed via the 51-vote reconciliation process. The OMB ‘scores’ items in reconciliation bills, and items not tied to the fiscal process (i.e., budget allocation, taxes, etc.) get kicked out. Biden tried to do this several times, hitching non-budgetary items (like election reform) to a reconciliation bill, and they got blocked by the OMB. Trumps 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed via reconciliation … because its a fiscal related measure.

[Dan_Eastvale]

So neither the GOP majority House or Senate will allow any part of Trump's agenda to happen? Ever?
The House will likely have the same majority as during Biden and the Senate will have 53 after the recount of the PA senator race win of the GOP candidate who was ahead by 30,000 votes.

I believe many questionable GOP will fall in line this time

The mandate of the people

[BAJ475]

So neither the GOP majority House or Senate will allow any part of Trump's agenda to happen? Ever?
The House will likely have the same majority as during Biden and the Senate will have 53 after the recount of the PA senator race win of the GOP candidate who was ahead by 30,000 votes.

I believe many questionable GOP will fall in line this time.

I hope so!

The mandate of the people

[R Dale]

Unless something is done to limit states' rights the anti-gun states will just ignore reciprocity the same as they do the 2A currently.

[BAJ475]

Unless something is done to limit states' rights the anti-gun states will just ignore reciprocity the same as they do the 2A currently.

Would you kindly elaborate? Assume Trump signs a national reciprocity bill. I travel to and carry my EDC in CA. I am stopped and acknowledge that I am armed and show the officer my Resident Idaho Enhanced CWL. What do you think could or would happen? Do you think that any officer would risk being sued, or that any prosecutor would attempt to prosecute me?

[dawgcasa]

So neither the GOP majority House or Senate will allow any part of Trump's agenda to happen? Ever?
The House will likely have the same majority as during Biden and the Senate will have 53 after the recount of the PA senator race win of the GOP candidate who was ahead by 30,000 votes.

I believe many questionable GOP will fall in line this time

The mandate of the people

The House can pass Trump’s agenda on a simply majority vote (assuming the Freedom Caucus doesn’t pull any shenanigans for media attention). The Senate is a different challenge, even with a 53-47 majority. Fiscal items like budgets, making Trumps 2017 tax reforms permanent, etc. can pass via a simple majority. But anything like REAL immigration reform, national reciprocity, bans on EV mandates by states, national voter ID, etc., must get past the 60-vote filibuster. That means Republicans would have to figure out a way to get seven Democrats to break ranks … either by offering them something they REALLY want for their state bundled into the bill, or by picking seven Democrats to target that are highly vulnerable to losing to a Republican challenger in 2026.

[splithoof]

Would you kindly elaborate? Assume Trump signs a national reciprocity bill. I travel to and carry my EDC in CA. I am stopped and acknowledge that I am armed and show the officer my Resident Idaho Enhanced CWL. What do you think could or would happen? Do you think that any officer would risk being sued, or that any prosecutor would attempt to prosecute me?

I think that if you were in either Los Angeles County or City, you would be at the very least detained in the back of their patrol car, in handcuffs, while they “sorted it out”. If for some “reason” they couldn’t immediately verify your permit and ID credentials, a trip to the station would be in order, and some time spent in their cage. Because your weapon has now been taken into custody, to get it back would I believe require you to go through the LEGR process. You might walk free after some hours, but your weapon I believe will be another matter. I could easily envision this scenario if Trump were to sign such legislation, California would come up with some form of retaliation. Keeping your weapon from you would be one such way.
Far fetched?…look at some of the absurd things California comes up with.

[natman]

Would you kindly elaborate? Assume Trump signs a national reciprocity bill. I travel to and carry my EDC in CA. I am stopped and acknowledge that I am armed and show the officer my Resident Idaho Enhanced CWL. What do you think could or would happen? Do you think that any officer would risk being sued, or that any prosecutor would attempt to prosecute me?

California governor Newsom calls special session to protect liberal policies from Trump presidency:
California governor calls special session to 'Trump-proof' state laws | AP News

[dfletcher]

Would you kindly elaborate? Assume Trump signs a national reciprocity bill. I travel to and carry my EDC in CA. I am stopped and acknowledge that I am armed and show the officer my Resident Idaho Enhanced CWL. What do you think could or would happen? Do you think that any officer would risk being sued, or that any prosecutor would attempt to prosecute me?

The devil is in the details. I don't want the federal government involved in what has to this point been a field occupied by the states. I don't want the federal government doing for CCW what they've done for immigration.

If the proposal is a federal law along the lines of "each state shall recognize the CCW rights of the other states" (I'm simplifying of course) then how long will it be until a Democratic controlled Senate and House adds "so long as other state requires a background check, psychological exam and 40 hours of PD supervised training to include 16 hrs live fire" to the law?

Even worse, if Congress passes some sort of "national CCW" license to supplant individual state CCWs - I believe S/O Booker has previously made such a proposal and it's of course highly restrictive.

I'm inclined to wait for a court decision, such as was had in MA recently, in which the judge wrote that a person does not forfeit a constitutional right simply by crossing from one state (NH) to another.

[BAJ475]

The devil is in the details. I don't want the federal government involved in what has to this point been a field occupied by the states. I don't want the federal government doing for CCW what they've done for immigration.

If the proposal is a federal law along the lines of "each state shall recognize the CCW rights of the other states" (I'm simplifying of course) then how long will it be until a Democratic controlled Senate and House adds "so long as other state requires a background check, psychological exam and 40 hours of PD supervised training to include 16 hrs live fire" to the law?

Even worse, if Congress passes some sort of "national CCW" license to supplant individual state CCWs - I believe S/O Booker has previously made such a proposal and it's of course highly restrictive.

I'm inclined to wait for a court decision, such as was had in MA recently, in which the judge wrote that a person does not forfeit a constitutional right simply by crossing from one state (NH) to another.

No disagreement that a SCOTUS opinion would be much better. You are not alone in opposing the idea of a federal reciprocity statute. Andrew Branca (LOSD) did a podcast on this issue. Given the proposed court order in CRPA et al v. LASD et al there will be little need for federal reciprocity, because CA is being forced to issue CCWs to non residents and such a permit would exempt the person from the federal school zones in CA, where reciprocity would not.