'Concealed Carry Reciprocity' Would be Bad for New Jersey

A very bad idea from some years ago has now reared its head again in Washington, D.C.. The “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017″ (H.R. 38) was introduced in the House of Representatives in January with many cosponsors. An earlier version of this bill several years ago did not pass Congress. This legislation would authorize those who have a concealed carry permit in their own states to carry that concealed firearm in all other states. The operative section of the proposed bill provides, “Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State … a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, … who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm … in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm[.]” The bill contains various other requirements, but its basic thrust would be to allow those who have obtained carry permits in other states—often under far less rigorous conditions than in New Jersey—to legally carry those concealed handguns here. The bill purports to implement the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment has never been held to protect the right to carry concealed weapons.

The New Jersey Legislature is currently engaged in an ongoing legal controversy with Gov. Christie over his proposed regulations that would loosen the strict requirements for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Despite the Legislature’s resolution purporting to reject the new regulation, the Christie administration has indicated its intent to implement the rule anyway. The administration argues that the Legislature did not follow the proper procedure under the “Legislative Review Clause” (article V, section 4, paragraph 6), and that the proposed regulation does not violate the “legislative intent” of the concealed carry statute. The Legislature has now sought review of this rule in the Appellate Division, which recently, in a case of first impression, articulated the governing standards for a “legislative veto.” (“Legislative Veto Ruling Was Right,” Jan. 2, 2017). These rules will be applied to this new case.