The exact wording of the bill has not yet been released as it may not have yet been finalized. However, a summary has been released that states any "individual who is eligible to carry a concealed firearm in one state may carry or possess a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) in another state that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms." This wording is very vague and ambiguous. Initially the summary refers to any firearm. However, the summary then switches to handgun. Although the exclusion for machine guns is understandable, as allowing machine guns in the wording would instantly kill the bill, it is interesting the inclusion of "destructive device." This terminology will hopefully be defined in the bill as even a hammer could be argued to be a "destructive device."
I am curious at the additional exclusion of states that don't allow residents to carry concealed firearms. A 2021 court decision on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (Bruen) determined that it is a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent citizens from exercising their Second Amendment Rights. This turned New York into a "shall issue" state or a state that must issue a license upon passing the permit application process. This leaves only Connecticut and Delaware as official "may issue" states according to USCCA. Although the organization warns that some states are officially "shall issue" states, but operate as "may issue" states. Regardless, all states seem to have a permit process to allow citizens to concealed carry, so this exception should not be necessary.
This bill appears to be cosponsored by 171 representatives starting with 117 Republicans and 1 Democrat on January 9, 2023 and later joined by 53 more Republicans. This "bipartisan" piece of legislation is highly anticipated. The maximum number of representatives is 435, so only 47 more representatives are needed in order for the bill to pass the House and move onto the Senate floor to be voted on. I would not hold my breath either for or against this bill as it still has a long road ahead of it and will very likely undergo many modifications on its way.
The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These rights were voted on shortly after the ratification of the Constitution in order to limit the power of government. This amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment protects not only people's right to have guns to defend themselves and their rights with, but also all weapons that are necessary to self defense including Mace. However, it is primarily in the news for protecting gun rights and I am unaware of cases allowing individuals to other forms of defensive weapons.
This amendment was in the wake of the Civil War and served to reunite the country. There are various parts of this amendment, but the first part indicates that, "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This amendment indicates that no right may be taken away from a citizen without a trial. With a trial a person convicted of a felony loses their right to vote and their right to bear arms.
In some states the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to mean that the right to concealed carry or carry any firearm shall not be regulated and therefore does not require its citizens to have a concealed carry license. These states may or may not still issue licenses for citizens interested in obtaining them, typically in order to be allowed to concealed carry in states that accept that states' concealed carry license.