Should this not already be covered by Article IV, Section 2 and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution?

I wish this had been pushed back when the GOP controlled the Senate. It still would have been a very uphill battle, but there is no chance now.

Jim, The cynic in me thinks the timing is deliberate - its all for show, and wasn't supposed to have a chance.

Well, I can't write to my senators and ask them to support it. They both do. Burr and Dole -- just one of many reasons I love the Tarheel State.

In the letter that US Senators John Thune and Ben Nelson wrote they say that the law applies to persons who have a permit from their home state, but the actual bill just says it applies to a person has a permit from any state.

And even though the title of the bill says it is for reciprocity for non-residents the actual text of the bill says a person who has a permit issued from any state may carry in any other state. So, it appears by the text of the bill that someone living in say Illinois could posses a permit from say New Hampshire and would be able to carry in Illinois with that permit.

These discrepencies are rather curious.

I live in Illinois and its my only chance to protect my family and self. I would like to see nra really get going on this. Does anyone have any idea what this would do for the democratic party if this was passed? I think they would be a shoe in on the next election.

This bill is my only chance to carry in my home state of California, or should I say, "The Democratic People's Republik of Kalifornia." I posses three non-resident permits; Utah, Nevada and Florida, which allows me to carry in 32 states that honor receiprocity. Even with three concealed carry permits, the chances of successfully petitioning my local police chief for a California carry permit is slim and none, and slim just left town.

Where are the co-sponsers listed?

I beg to differ!

It is easy to get a concealed carry permit in Los Angeles county. A mere 5,000 dollar contribution to the re-election fund of the sheriff and even felony assault is no obstacle.

You recall that Pelosi suggested that if Condi had a personal stake that she might be more amenable to Pelosi's policies. Everywhere but California, that is called corruption.

What's with the restriction to firearms that have been shipped or transported in intrastate or foreign commerce? A permit holder goes to a state where there's a factory, purchases at the local dealer -- perhaps before any out-of-state shipments have been made, perhaps a style prototype that will never be shipped -- and then can't carry it in that state? Understanding that legal language has little to do with the English of engineers, am I totally mis-reading this?

HTOM- That interstate language is inserted pro forma so that the bill will fall under the regulation of interstate commerce powers that the US constitution grants Congress. The US congress can not just make various states honor other states' concealed carry laws. Their proposed legislation needs to fall under one of the powers granted to congress by the US constitution. This bill asserts that it falls under the regulation of interstate commerce power.

Strange. Here I thought it was Article IV Section 1 that would apply, if any federal involvement was required at all.

Section 1. 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.

The full faith and credit clause of the US constitution affects what states cannot do with regards to the actions of other states. It does not give the US congress power to create any type of legislation.

In order to use the full faith and credit clause to enforce a different state's CC permit within a state, someone would have to sue that state asserting that the state's refusal to acknowledge the other state's CC permit within its own borders is a violation of the US constitution's full faith and credit clause. A suit like this would probably fail.

On the other hand the regulation of interstate commerce power given to the US congress is absurdly broad as currently interpretted by the courts. So it can give Congress the power to make staters honor one another's CC permits, even if it seems only tangentially related to interstate commerce.

Ooops, the full faith and credit clause does not let Congress make substantive laws, it can make procedural laws.