P320 Enty: Federal Reciprocity Now!

securedownload

By Lindsay S.

Anyone in the CCW community knows that the case for federal reciprocity is a big deal. The rest of the world seems to get lost in the world of gun control debate and forgets that we are not our weapons. But we have faces. We have families. We have stories. This is my story that shows why we need reciprocity . . .

It was a blazing hot Midwest summer day. My four small children and I were headed to my parents’ house in Illinois when my daughter uttered those five words every parent on a road trip hates to hear, “I have to go POTTY!” When you’re by yourself with 4 children under 7 years of age a bathroom break is quite the ordeal.

While most people think Illinois means Chicago, I come from the 80% of the state that is full of…nothing. Miles and miles and miles of nothing. So when you find a gas station you’d better stop. There won’t be another one for a while. I pulled off at a gas station that was unusually busy. So busy that the absolute only parking spot was around the back of the building.

As I parked I noticed the van next to me. Mostly because you couldn’t NOT notice it. It was the kind you think of as you tell your children never to take candy from the man inside. It was a big, beat up, blue conversion van straight out of an episode of Criminal Minds. There was a mattress tied onto it and what I could only assume was the driver, was standing on the sidewalk in front of it.

I really didn’t have time to worry with it. My little lady had to go BAD. It was urgent. So I unloaded everyone and herded them toward the door. As we passed, the driver of the van said hi. I smiled and said hello back, but kept them moving.

When we returned to the van I noticed that the man had opened the side door of his van that was nearest mine and was standing in front of it. In order to put my baby in his car seat I would have to turn my back on the man standing 2 feet from me in the creepy van. This was not a situation I wanted to be in. My adrenaline kicked in. I was reassured by the fact that I knew I could defend myself if I needed to as my gun was safely tucked against me. JUST KIDDING! I’m in Illinois! And there’s nothing Illinois likes better than a helpless victim.

Had I been in my home state of Missouri my attitude would have been more one of “oh hi creepy guy. I sincerely hope you have the very best of intentions or you will have just made a very serious miscalculation.” As it were, crossing the border meant disarming a mom of 4 traveling along lonely stretches of road by herself. Because we moms are dangerous.

I took a deep breath (partially out of nervousness and partially to try not to breathe the pungent air coming from his vehicle or person, I couldn’t be sure.) There were at least a dozen jugs of some kind of yellow fluid stacked inside the van and the seats in the back had been removed. Seriously. Could you possibly be any creepier? Why, yes. Yes, he could.

As I tried to break a world record for fastest time strapping a baby in a car seat, I felt him entirely too close to my back. “What a cute baby. How old is he?” Um…I don’t remember. “Where are you headed?” Oh, to see family. They live really close by. Like next door. In fact they’re probably watching us right now. Dang it. Why won’t he leave? “It sure is hot out here.” Yeah. Sure is. “I’m going to Oklahoma.” That’s nice. I shut the door and quickly spun around to leave. He stepped in front of me. Crap. “That’s a really beautiful family you’ve got there.” Thank you. Please let me live. He wasn’t moving. He inched closer.

A million thoughts running through my head. Could I take him? Probably. But only if he’s not armed. What are the odds a man a mattress and a dozen bottles of something that looks like urine in his van actually gives a darn about the law? Could I run? Nope. My babies are in that van I’m not going anywhere. Do I have anything I could use to fight him off with? My keys. I don’t like my odds against a knife or gun. Would anyone hear me if I screamed? Nope. The parking lot that was packed when I pulled in had not a single soul in it now but me and him. It would be a long shot that the clerk would hear. Why, oh why did this have to happen in Illinois? I tried to remember what I was supposed to do in this situation. Pee on him right? That’s what the liberals said. I guess I shouldn’t have gone while we were inside. Why was I not allowed the right to feel safe? Why couldn’t I defend myself and my babies?

He was now severely invading my personal space. My heart was beating too fast. This wasn’t going to end well. Then…my saving grace. My phone that I had in my hand beeped at me. A message from my soldier friend currently deployed to Afghanistan. His picture- in uniform and holding a weapon- popped up on my screen. Mr. Creep was close enough to me to see it and for some reason took a step back.

“Well I’d better get going” I said. “Yes. Have a safe trip,” he said and backed away. I tried not to RUN to the other side of the van. I immediately got in and locked the door, my hands shaking and explained what had happened to my friend who felt helpless on the other side of the world.

“I couldn’t defend myself. There was nothing I could have done. I’m so angry,” I said. Even sitting here now almost a year later the whole thing makes me furious. I have a CCW and spend a lot of time at the range. I am good with my gun. All of them. I’m no threat to anyone who isn’t a threat to me or my children. I have a God given right to protect myself and my children. Hindering my ability to do so is absolutely unacceptable. I am no less a responsible gun owner when I cross the border into Illinois as I am in Missouri. (Though admittedly, any encounter with IDOT does have a tendency to make me a bit crazy)

There is simply no good argument against federal reciprocity. My CCW should cover me in all 50 states. I shouldn’t have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to get permits in every state I might set foot in. I am the same person, carrying the same weapon with the same intentions regardless of my geographical location. And most importantly, I am a mom with four small children to protect and the absolute right to do so, regardless of my geographical location. So if you would prefer to wet yourself as your means of defense because that is somehow in your mind morally superior, that’s your prerogative, sweetheart.

As for me, I prefer to be able to live my life without fear, knowing if someone decides that they would like to behave badly, they will have picked the wrong woman. And I would appreciate if my constitutional rights to do so were upheld by those who swore to uphold them.

comments

  1. avatar TT says:

    If you like gun rights, don’t advocate for passage of federal gun laws. Advocate for the repeal of federal gun laws. What constitutional provision authorizes Congress to regulate the carrying of firearms or to mandate how states regulate it? Please do not say the commerce clause.

    1. avatar TroyBilt says:

      Yes more of this please!!!

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      So what’s your answer, TT? How do we get reciprocity in, say, five years instead of five centuries?

    3. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Talking about “federal reciprocity” is very close to talking about Federal Supremacy trumping States’ Rights.

      The only thing at the Federal level that overrides States’ Rights is the Constitution.

      1. avatar kevin says:

        from the constitution

        “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

        This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

        The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

        The second paragraph, also known as the supremacy clause, means federal law can supersede the states only if it is “made in pursuance thereof”

        Lets leave ignoring parts of the constitution we don’t like to the anti’s, like when they start chanting about a regulated militia, and maybe try to remind people who talk about federal supremacy about the “in pursuance thereof” part. It may not be as easy to understand, but it’s probably almost as important as “shall not be infringed”

    4. avatar Nathan says:

      Article 4, Section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

      To me this alone is a case for reciprocity. It’s pretty much saying that if you have a license in one state, it is valid in another, like drivers licenses

      1. avatar int19h says:

        What this means is that, if a citizen from one state comes to another state, he should enjoy all the privileges and immunities that the citizens of that latter state are entitled to. What this means in practice is that, if they have carry permits, they must allow you to obtain one, whether you’re a citizen or not. It doesn’t mean that they have to recognize your out-of-state permit – what privilege another state has granted to you is not their concern.

        1. avatar michael nieto says:

          Bearing of arms is not a privilege

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @michael nieto: However, the People are allowing government to treat it as such. Fighting for a privilege in place of the right is dangerous to Liberty.

        3. avatar Glenn says:

          What that means is that if you are married in one state, you are married in all states.

          It means laws prohibiting cohabitation do not apply to you when you cross state lines with your wife.

          Somehow all licenses and rights are not created equal in the eyes of the overlords.

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          When did personal relationships become any of the government’s business anyway?

        5. avatar int19h says:

          >> What that means is that if you are married in one state, you are married in all states.

          That still remains a matter of dispute. Most states with no same-sex marriage in them don’t recognize such marriages if performed in a different state.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Rich: It has been claimed by tyrants to be their domain since antiquity. Of course, we know it’s not and it certainly isn’t an enumerated power of our government. For government to even pretend that it has dominion is obscene.

        7. avatar Hannibal says:

          Which they don’t, incidentally…

    5. avatar MacBeth51 says:

      How about this?

      Article IV
      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.

      That pretty much covers it, I’d say

    6. avatar G-d says:

      (y) (y)

  2. avatar Vhyrus says:

    I am not going to say you don’t deserve to carry a gun, but it sounds like you may have overreacted just a bit. He didn’t actually threaten you. He didn’t even seem like he was going to threaten you. He sounded like a guy who probably was a bit (okay very) socially challenged hitting on you. I’m sure that’s uncomfortable but nothing he did would have justified pulling a gun or even threatening to pull one.

    1. avatar Dev says:

      Overreacted? A woman alone with her kids in a rural area and someone who is obviously lacking in social grace is very slowly invading her personal space? From the story she had a lot of restraint. If someone appears suspiciou8s and makes us feel uncomfortable, we’re supposed to not let it bother us and hope the person just is awkward and not a threat? That’s a ridiculous attitude you have there, my friend.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        You’re right, she had every right to pull a gun on an unarmed man who made no threatening movements or statements. My bad.

        1. avatar 45acp says:

          Go back and read the article again. She wasn’t going to pull the gun on him at that moment. She was studying her options if the situation continued and escalated, and she didn’t have the best option available to her because she happened to be out of her home state.

          If you’ve ever taken a self-defense course or spent much time on the streets, you learn the warning signs, and that guy was displaying several of them. Good for her for being aware and thinking ahead.

        2. avatar Sn00 says:

          I also like how she takes her kids over there even though the guy is right by her car, rather than going back inside the gas station to call the cops.

          She then has her back turned to this guy and lets him get right behind her and her kids, THEN she worries about answering her phone, with the aforementioned creepy guy still right behind her.

          Again, it’s good that he was so scared of a picture that he left.

        3. avatar Sn00 says:

          @45acp

          How aware was she when she went out there with her kids with the guy right next to her car, had her back to him, and let him get that close all that time? If she had any awareness, she would have gone back inside the gas station to call the cops.

        4. avatar 45acp says:

          Snoo – She was hoping that she could get in her car and get out of there without the situation escalating. The cops might not have bothered to come out for a vague report of a creepy guy, and toting four kids in and out of the gas station is not easy. She was hoping that he was just a harmless creep and would stay in his van. So she committed to a strategy that in retrospect wasn’t the best, but when she made the decision it was a valid decision.

          As far as turning her back to the creep – have you ever put a kid in a car seat? How exactly would *you* do it without turning your back to the guy?

        5. avatar Sn00 says:

          @45acp

          Obviously, I wouldn’t have any special method for accessing the car seat. She shouldn’t intentionally go outside by the guy, knowing that she would have to spend all of that time turned away to get her kids in the car.

          Also, she pointed out that when she was coming outside, his door was now open, right next to her car.

        6. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

          @ snoo, yeah lets just have people call the cops everytime they get scared instead of feeling secure because she has a gun. This article wasn’t about her wanting to pull on him, it was about her having that OPTION. You are the kind of person that has no business owning a gun, considering you certainly know nothing about self defense.

        7. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          Don’t. Feed. Trolls.

        8. avatar TheBear says:

          So many internet commandos…..

    2. avatar Sn00 says:

      And she let the guy get close enough to her, either from behind, or right beside, to see her screen on the phone that beeped and that she answered right at that moment, with a picture of a “soldier with a weapon” which scared him off.

    3. avatar 45acp says:

      She didn’t over react at all. Somebody invaded her space and displayed other warning signs, she didn’t have an exit plan, and her alarm bells are justifiably ringing full time. Good for her for not being oblivious.

      She didn’t say she would’ve drawn at that moment, but she was pointing out that if the situation continued, she didn’t have much in the way of self-defense options because she just happened to be in a different state.

    4. avatar juliesa says:

      Nonsense. My own unfortunate experience taught me NOT to be polite to strangers in parking lots. It’s the reason I carry a gun.

      Attackers frequently try to make conversation before raping or robbing.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        If he was intent on harming her, a text message would not have stopped him.

        1. avatar Sn00 says:

          But you don’t understand, it was a (perfectly-timed) text from A SOLDIER WITH A WEAPON! Even though he was close enough to see her screen, and she was distracted enough to worry about her phone, in a deserted parking lot, that scared him off.

        2. avatar juliesa says:

          He gave all the signs that he was intent on harming her, up until the phone call.

          Potential victims are not mind readers, so all we can do is take sensible precautions, according to the location and the behavior of the stranger. She got lucky. I wasn’t lucky, because my attacker followed through after acting just like this guy did. I learned from that never to let a stranger get close to me if I’m alone.

        3. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

          Yeah it did stop him because he was afraid of retribution.

    5. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      Vyrus your the one that doesn’t deserve to own a gun. Your in here playing arm chair commando and you know what? people that do that are the ones that don’t know jack shit, and end up getting other people killed in real world situations. So go sell all your guns now to a real man. You don’t deserve them.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        Grammatical errors? Check.
        Cursing? Check.
        Referring to someone as ‘not a real man’? Check.
        Poor reading comprehension? Check.

        Looks like we got a classic case of internet tough guy here. Seems to be pretty advanced, too.

    6. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Obviously none of you have had to wrangle four small kids by yourself on a long trip. It makes herding squirrels look positively simple. Be ashamed of yourselves.

    7. avatar Richard says:

      Of course if he was an attractive man in a nice car saying these things….
      Who knows?

      Seriously, i understand that people have a built in reaction to “bad” types, but his actions weren’t anything too horrible, and honestly the “badness” of him probably came down to looks, income level, hygiene, and intelligence.

      1. avatar TheBear says:

        …all of which can be the hallmarks of mental instability.

    8. avatar Justin_GA says:

      Screw man made laws. Carry a pistol if you want. Especially if you are a women. There are concealed places that no one would ever find it unless they did a strip search…..like bra holsters. Gang bangers have concealed weapons on them and if you look at the statistics on how often they get tried for concealed weapons violations it’s a joke. Don’t tell me a female citizen with 4 small children is going to raise a police officers suspicion enough to get a search for a concealed weapon. Come on……

      1. avatar JR says:

        This point has a lot of merit, but the thinking does change when you have children that depend on you. An arrest can have far reaching consequences not only for you but for your children as well.

        Risk is a product of both likelihood and consequence. The likelihood of getting caught illegally carrying may be small, but the consequence is very large.

        Just like with carrying in the first place. The likelihood of being attacked ‘on the street’ may be small, but the consequence is huge.

        I can respect a person’s right to weigh the risk for him/her self and choose to obey the law.

        The real issue is to be put in that situation to have to make that particular choice. That is the very definition of immoral.

    9. avatar IdahoPete says:

      Give me an effing break. Guy gets right into her personal space, starts asking personal questions of a total stranger, commenting on her children, acting like a total creep, and you want her to treat it like an awkward attempt to be friends? Can you say “condition Red”?

      I empathize with Lindsay – absolutely HATE having to drive through the People’s Republic of Illinois when I drive east to see the family. I NEVER stay overnight in that place, and the only time I stop is to drain my bladder. My Idaho CWL is recognized by every state I cross between here and Kentucky, EXCEPT Illinois. At least I don’t have to drive through Chicago, but I will guarantee you I am watching all of my fellow travelers at the rest stops in that place, and I keep a small can of pepper spray with me when I leave the vehicle.

  3. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

    Logically speaking, you’re correct. Federal reciprocity is logical from the perspective of “I’m not any less responsible once I cross state lines than I am in my own state.”

    However, from a legislative perspective, this concept runs into a roadblock with the Tenth Amendment, which states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    Because the decision to grant federal reciprocity is not an explicitly established Federal power, it’s a decision that should be left to the states. For the federal government to grant that reciprocity is to abridge the Tenth Amendment, and we already have too much Constitution-trampling as it is.

    I’m all for reciprocity, but I don’t think federal legislation is the way to get there.

    1. avatar Kelly in GA says:

      I can understand where you and TT are coming from, but Congress and the Federal government do have the right to pass legislation to enforce rights enshrined in the Constitution. We always crow the line “shall not be infringed” around here, and I agree with the premise here that Federal reciprocity would easily be obtained by using the 2A as it’s basis. The Federal Constitution states that the right shall not be infringed, and here is a law specifically guaranteeing that right in this form throughout the 50 states. I understand the 10A aspect, but I think that a specific enumerated right, with Federal legislation backing it up holds more water than the 10th allowing states to pick and choose who can carry a gun in their state. An example to my reasoning would be this hypothetical: the state of Georgia allows people from 30 different states to practice free speech. So, as long as you are from one of those 30 states, you can come to Georgia and protest and make speeches to your heart’s content. Not from one of those 30 states? That sucks, no free speech for you, and if you try, we will arrest you as a felon. Would you support federal law to guarantee your right to protest, or would you let Georgia hide behind the 10th?

      1. avatar TT says:

        I would let Georgia get sued for violating the 1A. I would never advocate Congress passing a law that regulates how states protect free speech. The idea that any law passed by Congress is ok as long as I like the law instead of recognizing that limited federal power should means sometimes Congress can’t do things even if I like them is how we got the over-sized federal government we now have.

        1. avatar Kelly in GA says:

          Fair enough, I understand the sentiment for needing a smaller Fed and agree with you, but in this case I think even the Founders would have considered it a basic tenet of federal responsibility to pass a law to force rogue states to follow the Constitution. It doesn’t expand federal power, at least not to me, it simply ensures that the people have their rights, one of their actual rights.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      Article IV provides:
      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.

      Section. 2.

      The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
      – – – I believe that these two articles serve as a basis for the fact that State-issued drivers’ licenses are honored inter-State. And, I believe they would support a Federal law requiring each State to honor every other State’s CCWs under the 2A. It is the province of Congress to adopt laws that implement the provisions of the Constitution. I can’t see why it would be unConstitutional for Congress to look at Article IV and 2A and conclude that a law compelling national reciprocity was necessary and proper to carry out these provisions.
      – – – Another tack would be to claim power under the commerce clause. When a citizen travels from one State to another it is a reasonable assumption that he will almost certainly engage in interstate commerce. Congress could decide to protect interstate commerce by authorizing interstate carry.
      – – – It occurs to me that truckers, railroad employees and pilots are engaged in interstate commerce. Trucks are subject to hijacking; to a lesser extent, trains and planes. At a minimum, Congress could adopt a law authorizing interstate carry by persons engaged in interstate commerce. That would establish a pretext that any traveler could assert an interstate commerce claim. A traveling salesman or any other traveling businessman would have a compelling claim. A mother visiting grandma with the kids would have a weak claim. However, after a few years of getting used to interstate carry, explicitly providing for mothers visiting grandmothers would be just pushing the pebble across the line.
      – – – I think that national reciprocity by a Federal law is a bad idea whose time has come. Why haven’t we seen this extension of the right to bear arms introduced as an amendment in every statute? Is this a failure in Republican leadership (such as it exists)?

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        ^ This!

        Thank you MarkPA for writing this comment. Your thoughts are clear and you provided the Constitutional rationale for your arguments.

        I agree with all of your points, reasoning, conclusions, and strategies. And I as well am flabbergasted that someone (whether Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian) hasn’t pushed this forward until Congress gets so sick of seeing it that they finally pass it. It just goes to show how utterly broken our federal government is.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        >> I believe that these two articles serve as a basis for the fact that State-issued drivers’ licenses are honored inter-State.

        To the best of my knowledge, the only reason why licenses from other states are so honored is because Feds attach those strings to their highway funding. Even then, when you move from state to state, your license is only honored for so long, and depending on which states it is, you may not be able to simply exchange it, and will have to re-do the exam in the new state.

        >> And, I believe they would support a Federal law requiring each State to honor every other State’s CCWs under the 2A.

        As I noted in another thread, the current standing interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause (which, I think, also happens to be the logical one) is that the state must extend fundamental rights and freedoms that it guarantees to its own citizens, also to citizens of other states that are in its jurisdiction. 2A is a fundamental right, so it qualifies. But if the state requires permits from its own citizens, then it would fulfill P&I Clause by extending the same permit application process to citizens of other states. It does not obligate it to respect the carry license from another state.

        Now, you could argue that Full Faith and Credit Clause should cover that. But I don’t see how that is reasonable, given that the license is issued by a particular state for purposes specific to that state. If one state in the Union could issue a license to anything, and force the other states to recognize it, then what happens to state sovereignty?

        (BTW, for the same reason, while I’m pro-same-sex-marriage, I also don’t support the use of FF&C to force states to legally recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.)

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      Alaskan, you are on questionable legal grounds. The power to regulate commerce is directly granted to the Federal government by the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment, enacted after Article 1, actually confirms the ability of the Federal government to exercise its powers, and under the commerce clause that can be construed to include national reciprocity.

      Not everything is “commerce,” to be sure. But if you look to United States v. Lopez, which tossed out the first Gun Free School Zones Act, you will see that while there are limits, the scope of the commerce clause is very wide.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “The power to regulate commerce is directly granted to the Federal government by the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution.”

        That is correct. However, the working definition of the key word “regulate” that Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have been using for the last 70 or so years is an abomination that is not the legal definition of the word “regulate” that the Framers wrote into the U.S. Constitution.

        The Framers wrote the word “regulate” with its common meaning of the day which was to make something work well, smoothly if you will. They did not mean to control, restrict, and inhibit as many people think today. Thus, Congress violates the U.S. Constitution if they make laws that restrict or interfere with the free flow of goods and services across state lines. Rather, the U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to remove barriers to the free flow of goods and services across state lines.

        For example some states wanted to protect local products so they decided to tax competing products from other states. The Commerce Clause empowers the federal government to nix such laws because they impair the free flow of goods and services across state lines. That is the intention of the Commerce Clause. It does not empower Congress to impede the flow of products and services — such as the various laws that prohibit the sale of firearms between residents of different states. Even worse, the Commerce Clause certainly does NOT empower Congress to declare the good people cannot possess firearms within 1000 feet of a school.

  4. avatar J- says:

    US Constitution, Article IV, 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.”

    Technically, CCW permits SHOULD have 50 state reciprocity, as do drivers licenses and marriage licenses. However, since the gun issue is sooooooooo… political, nobody at the Federal level has had any interest into trying for enforce Full Faith and Credit with CCW.

    But I have an idea. I would like to see the GOP make the Dems an “offer they can’t refuse.” The GOP needs to put forth a bill that recognizes Full Faith and Credit for gay marriage licenses and CCW permits.

    If you are a stone cold social conservative and don’t believe in gay marriage, you should still support this, here’s why: Full Faith and Credit technically applies to gay marriage licenses away, but like CCW it is too political for Federal enforcement at the current time. I believe, that Full Faith and Credit for gay marriage is inevitable and will be enforced at the federal level in the next few years, perhaps as the last act of the Obama admin. Rather than fight it (and lose) down the road, the GOP should use it now as a bargaining chip for CCW.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      I am a Libertarian, and I support this message.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      J-, most licenses are not entitled to full faith and credit. If they were, my license to practice law in New York would be recognized in Florida. I assure you it is not.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Yup. Most higher degree licenses aren’t reciprocal.

      2. avatar kevin says:

        I’m not a lawyer so please excuse my ignorance on this, but doesn’t a licence to practice law come from the bar association which is a professional organization rather than coming from a states congress meaning it wouldn’t be covered under “public acts”.

        1. avatar JeffR says:

          They’re usually issued by the state Supreme Court and administered through a state agency.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        The law in Florida is very different than the law in New York. Someone who makes it their business to represent others in a legal battle cannot just know basic constitutional law.

        Carrying a gun in New York is not that different than carrying a gun in Florida. There are some legal differences, but they are minor and can be easily posted and learned. It’s much more analogous to the full faith and credit given to driver’s licenses.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Or marriage, if you prefer.

        2. avatar JR says:

          Okay, try medicine, then. The license to practice medicine is issued by the State, and is not a license to practice in another state.

          Human anatomy is the same across state lines, so the “law is different there” argument disappears.

          The problem with ALL these examples…law, medicine, driving, marriage, etc…is that they are NOT enumerated rights very specifically codified into the Constitution with “shall not be infringed.”

          I think we have to force the conversation to a point where the fact that Right to Keep and Bear Arms is “special.” We cannot allow this particular right to be morally equated with other behaviors like driving.

          It’s not equivalent. It is mentioned explicitly in the Founding Document of our Nation. Even the “Right to Privacy” is not explicitly mentioned; that is inferred from “secure in their persons.” But the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is actually there.

  5. avatar KBCraig says:

    Why not treat carry licenses like driver licenses?

    Guess what? We already do!

    There is no federal law requiring reciprocity of driver licenses. It took decades of cooperation between the several states to get to where we are today.

  6. avatar Pashtun6 says:

    Yeah I don’t think a picture would scare somebody off like that, in fact I know it wouldn’t. As for the stereotypical child molester with the mattress, maybe he lives in it because he’s homeless, and the pee bottle could simply have meant he didn’t want to get out of the van at night to go.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      It said there were at least a dozen of the jugs of “something.” If it was pee, he must not have wanted to get out of the van for like weeks.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        And the term “Vagrant” springs to mind. I think the po-po might have an interest in that.

    2. avatar JR says:

      “Yeah I don’t think a picture would scare somebody off like that, in fact I know it wouldn’t. “

      Sorry to be blunt, but you KNOW squat. What is your qualification to make this statement?

      Victim selection and the psychology thereof has been studied at great length for a LONG time. The simple conclusion is that ANY hint that even suggests you are not the “ideal” victim works toward deselection.

      Note that a lot of attackers that attack those that clearly can fight back tend to be young and relatively inexperienced. Older attackers have learned from their mistakes, and thus “default” to “don’t attack” because they have time on their side.

      He did not HAVE to attack HER…it may not have been the photo, or it may have been. It may have been just the fact that that phone rang / beeped. It may have been something in her body language, or any of a 100 other things…

      But, you don’t KNOW what it was.

      “As for the stereotypical child molester with the mattress, maybe he lives in it because he’s homeless, and the pee bottle could simply have meant he didn’t want to get out of the van at night to go.”

      So, you are also an expert on “typical child molesters,” too? I want to know what your field is since you are making some pretty strong claims and essentially giving what could be taken as “advice” that could, if used as you describe, get someone killed.

      If he HAD attacked her, how many folks criticizing her here in the comments would be the first out of the gate with “situational awareness fail.”

      Seems folks can’t win for losing. Gut feeling says “this guy is trouble” and she tries to learn something from it and make a larger point on a gun rights web site and people criticize her for improperly interpreting the danger. Let the guy attack her because she failed to ‘notice’ or ‘act’ properly and she’d be blasted for that as well.

      I’m beginning to see how it works. Criticize everyone for everything.

      1. avatar TheBear says:

        This is a good post.

        And at the end of the day, I am going to side with a woman’s intuition every day over an anonymous and annoying poster on the internet.

  7. avatar Peter says:

    TL,DR. Leave the emotional rhetoric out of it. If you want to argue law and Constitution, then do so. Like others have posted, the federal government has no place telling states what they must do unless specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      Using logic doesn’t sway the other side of the debate. Emotional stories like this /will/.

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    It’s summertime, and the brats who were busy flunking out of school last month are now ensconced in their mommies basements, writing stupid comments to post on TTAG.

    It happens every year.

  9. avatar Kelly in GA says:

    I assume that was directed at me, so here you go.

    I’ve been around this site since, honestly I don’t remember, but it was well before my father passed, which was Easter 2012. Back then, 50 comments was a MASSIVE response to an article. Back then, we would have intelligent discussions and respectfully disagree with each other. There was no discussions about flaming back then, because we even treated our resident trolls (MikeB###### anyone?) with a level of respect that many of the new people on here don’t even show to folks on their own side. We would leave long comments about how someone was wrong and give facts to back up our positions. Now, because of folks like you who insist on attacking anyone who slightly disagrees with them, we have entire comment threads get deleted because things get way out of control. So, again, how about just showing some respect and give logical comments, like the one I have below to Alaskan Patriot and TT about the merits of federal reciprocity and the 10A. They respectfully disagreed with the author, and I respectfully disagreed with them. That’s my entire point, is it too much to ask for a little respect? You don’t have to like every word printed here, but you also don’t have to be an a$$ every time you see something you don’t like.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “I am a mom with four small children to protect and the absolute right to do so, regardless of my geographical location.”

    BINGO!!!! DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!!!!!! We have a winner. I have stated almost verbatim the same thing many times.

    1. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

      You’re a mother of 4 too? Didn’t know that.

      I hate to disagree just slightly with the OP, but let’s not go with the “I’m a mom, therefore…” justification for laws and regulations, regardless of which side of the argument you’re on. The 2A guarantees are there for everyone, mothers or not. It’s just that our supreme court and (some) state governments are too stupid to understand it. Remember, the Demanding Action Moms think it’s perfectly fine to come up with their version of this and say “I’m a mom, I hate guns, therefore let’s ban guns because then, moms will feel safer.” Again, the 2A is there as part of everyone’s basic inalienable rights. There should be no need for gender or role specific arguments.

      1. avatar TheBear says:

        But…. that’s why laws get passed.

        I don’t live in a perfect world and neither do you.

  11. avatar ST says:

    I dislike being That Guy, but it has to be said -and no one else so far has.

    Federal reciprocity will not happen in our lifetimes.

    Why?

    Call up a map of the US, dear reader, and you’ll observe several states with the names “New York ” “Hawaii” “California” and a sewage filled district called “Washington DC”. These places are populated by people who buy lock stock and barrel into the false God of gun control. Even if a Federal law were passed which was upheld by our see-saw SCOTUS (which, BTW, I’m sure would rule against us on the grounds it infringes on state rights….) , those states would simply ignore it and arrest out of state CCW permit holders anyways , as New Jersey already does to the poor souls caught transporting legal firearms in their state despite the FOPA.

    Bottom line-there will always be places in America where only cops and robbers can carry.

  12. avatar Jus Bill says:

    OK, here’s my gripe with Federal reciprocity.

    In order to stand ANY chance of becoming an actual thing during my lifetime, the CCW reciprocity standards would need to satisfy the strictest of any US licensing jurisdiction. That means DC. NY City, LA and Chiraq. CT. MA. MD. Get the picture?

    Keep dreaming, but I seriously doubt that places like that will relax their standards to allow a Concealed Carrier from a Constitutional Carry state to carry in their “People’s Democratic Paradise.” Ever.

    This is the reality of politics. And it’s a shame, but there it is.

    1. avatar JR says:

      I was going to post a similar point above in response to the “reciprocal driver’s license” example.

      I have a state issued driver’s license, and yes, it is observed in other states. However, when I am in one of those other states, I still have to obey their traffic laws. If stopped and ticketed, I don’t think I get to claim, “well, that’s okay in my home state.”

      Either the driver license example is not a good comparison or that’s how reciprocity would HAVE to work so long as each state has its own carry laws.

  13. avatar kevin says:

    Well, I’ve been convinced by some comments on here, and by a quick check on Wikipedia, that the feds actually do have the authority to enact national reciprocity. That power comes first by the full faith and credit clause, mentioned by some earlier posters, and second by the first part of the tenth amendment.

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”-10th AoA

    the key part of the tenth amendment in this case being “nor prohibited by it to the states”. when taken as a whole would mean the power not to give full faith and credit to concealed carry liscences of other states is prohibited to the states by the constitution under article IV section 1

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I for one would not stake my freedom from arrest on the ignorant hive mind that is Wikipedia. It is not close to being Lexis or Nexis.

      And remember, once you allow the Feds the ability to “Grant” a constitutional right, you also imply that they can “regulate” or “revoke” that right should it please some bureaucrat in Agency X or the Department of Y to do so.

      I DO NOT trust Government to do anything in MY best interest. But I fully expect them to do everything in THEIR best interest. From ‘up close and personal” experience of decades.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Paragraph 2 & 3, +1000.

      2. avatar kevin says:

        first point I wasn’t counting on wikipedia to keep me out of jail. I was merely counting on them to get the text of the full faith and credit clause and of the tenth amendment correct. I’m pretty sure they can copy and paste pretty well.

        second point I was not talking about rights I was talking about powers (powers are granted). People have rights, like the right to bear arms. Governments have powers,granted by the people, like to power to adjudicate maritime law which the feds have but states do not. that power would be in article III section 2. I was saying that states do not have the power under the constitution to deny “full faith and credit” of “public works” of other states. the power to make laws to enforce the full faith and credit is actually an enumerated power under article IV section 1.

        It would also be nice to see the feds use a power the constitution does grant for once instead of just powers that it doesn’t, but I’m not holding my breath.

      3. avatar Richard says:

        I think you missed the mark by a mile.

        The constitution isn’t “granting” a right, it is simply stating a right. Not granting it.

        The federal government, by it’s nature, is designed to handle things that involve more than one state. The federal government acknowledges that we have the natural right to keep and bear arms.

        The federal government is therefore almost obligated to ensure reciprocity.

        It’s pretty simple stuff really.
        No one is granting a right. It’s just being protected.
        You can’t “revoke” a right.
        The feds exist to handle interstate issues.
        Carry laws, and CCW/CDW license reciprocity is an interstate issue.
        Therefore, by the constitution, and the nature of the federal government, the feds are obligated to enact federal reciprocity.

        1. avatar kevin says:

          I was about to reply, but then I realized your reply wasn’t aimed at my reply but someone else’s reply instead. I think…

  14. Give that lady a P320. Now.

    Superb article, mam. May God bless you and your family.

    1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      I agree. But everyone in here is set on keeping women away from the gun world by flying off the handle about this. You know, we’ll so keep our rights by excluding others from the past time.

      1. The good news is that of the hundreds, and probably eventually thousands of people who will be reading this article, only a very small few will bother to read the comments and so, they will be spared the obnoxious remarks.

        1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

          That truly is good to know

  15. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    Reciprocity is a no brainer, have never understood why it is NOT already accepted without a big legal bruhaha. Oh, yea, leftards.

  16. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    I travel south quite frequently, between Eastern Washington and the Yuma Arizona area. That route takes me through Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada and California.
    I hold concealed weapons permits in Washington and Arizona, but none of them are valid in Nevada and California. Hence going through Nevada, I have to stop, unload my weapon until which time I’m done with the short leg of the drive through Nevada and California.
    I guess my rights to self defense end at the border for those states.
    It really is just beyond retarded.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      The fact that you can HAVE a pistol to unload separates us from much of the world.

      1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

        You mean as opposed to being born a poor black child in some impoverished country as opposed to being a Montana born white boy? Yes I recognize the good fortune. I have also traveled extensively in other parts of the world and further recognize what I have and I don’t take it for granted.
        One thing to remember, the world is a violent place. It always has been and always will be. Humans are a violent species. There will always be weapons. If you take away guns, which is impossible, then there will be knives, clubs, pellet rifles, sling shots etc. Where does it end?

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Where does it end?”

          One by one, as each person figures out how to be Free and does so. Those who don’t want freedom will find a master; all that Free people really need to do is keep those masters from dominating us.

    2. avatar c4v3man says:

      In Nevada, we have open carry (on your person) and open car carry, both loaded obviously. No idea if these laws apply to non-nevada residents, IANAL. Bear in mind, there are some stupid firearm laws that apply specifically to the Las Vegas area that we are trying to eliminate through state law preemption, however they still stand at this point.

      Sorry for your troubles.

      1. avatar T M says:

        Use to live in Nevada, and car carry applies to everyone. Been stopped by police a few times there with a handgun and there was never a problem, even without a CCW.

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Good article( well except for picture popping up thing). I don’t get the excessive trolling. Geez the woman has a photo holding 4 kids…and I also live in Illinois. I have had a homeless a##hole practically get in my van as I was putting my infant son & 3 year old in car seats( in Chicago). I came within inches of bashing his head in with a baseball bat. Yes I’m a big white man but my point is carry SOMETHING. Pepper Blaster, spray, taser, stun gun, knife…and I have a razor sharp ax in the van, a tire iron and a bat. I’m working on a CCL but I will NOT be completely disarmed. The penalties for any of these weapons are still better than being a victim.
    Please no lectures…I don’t give a damn if you have a contrary opinion…especially in a gun paradise state.

    .

    1. avatar juliesa says:

      When my son was an infant, I used to lock myself in with him in the backseat while securing him in his carseat, then unlock to get out and go to the driver’s seat, and lock again. It worked well, but it would be difficult to do if there were more than one child to deal with.

      1. avatar juliesa says:

        Also, while getting into my car, I twice screamed at panhandlers to stay away from my baby, and they did. Why do most Walgreens come equipped with panhandlers?

        1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

          Yeah they are all over. They must have a policy for store personal to not confront any of them. They must figure the little bit of annoyance they create is not worth the mess it would cause if every store was out confronting the homeless.
          On a personal note, if I was a Walgreens manager, there would be no bums on my stores property…PERIOD. My dumpster would have dead bums in it.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Maybe they have the cheapest smokes in the area? Or let them use the restrooms?

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Foot traffic. Surprisingly generous foot traffic, in fact. Yes, I’ve been there and done that, and didn’t even get the lousy t-shirt, but I’m doing much better now, thanks.

          A possibly interesting factoid I noticed while street begging — the amount of generosity appears to be inversely proportional to how rich they look. And it doesn’t make much difference what’s written on the cardboard sign. 🙂

    2. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      They all have a problem with non OFWG’s owning guns. Its unfortunate.

  18. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I am compelled to point out two grave mistakes in the author’s mindset regarding this scenario:

    (1) She should have NEVER approached her vehicle to load her children BY HERSELF when there was a large van — with a creepy driver — parked next to her vehicle — with the side door open — driver standing there mulling around — no other cars in the parking lot — behind the gas station and out of view and hearing range of anyone inside. Period. No exceptions. Even if she were armed AND able to shoot the man upon attacking her AND the man was immediately incapacitated, does she really want to subject her children to such a horrific and traumatic event?

    (2) As The Truth About Guns has stated before, a handgun is NOT a magic talisman. But the author seems to think that she would have been just fine if she were armed and the man attacked, in spite of the fact that she not only let the man get within contact distance of her, she TURNED HER BACK TO HIM. The reality of that situation is the man could have easily incapacitated her and she would never have even had the opportunity to deploy a handgun for self-defense.

    I agree that the author’s scenario was dangerous. And being armed would have been of little to no value when she allowed the man to close within contact distance and turned her back to him.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I was going to comment on the “magic talisman” thinking, too. You nailed it. Yes, the author might have been in a better position to defend herself if she had been armed, but if she had been armed and conducted herself in exactly the same way (likely, since she did so unarmed), and the creeper had intended to harm her or her children, he had every opportunity to do so. That gun on your hip won’t be worth much to you if you turn your back on a potential attacker to buckle your kid in his car seat and you get clocked with a tire iron.

  19. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    Sn00, or the tin-man dead cowboy from a while ago, I believe you assume these stories are fake because you default to dishonesty in any serous discussion. As it’s your default mode you assume others operate the same way. Every liar I have ever known ranged from anti gun to just timid about guns and every gun owner I know occupy the top echelons of honest people. The safe assumption is this story is legit because this is a gun oriented site.

    Some MDA drone submitting a fake story as a prelude to some big reveal is more believable that an actual gun owner making it up.

    After all, the progressive play book does actually advocate this very strategy.

  20. avatar John L. says:

    General question, folks:

    Is there a way to block particular posters from the reader, rather than the site-management, side? Eg if I don’t care for Buffoon360’s writings, I can automagically just not load them with the rest of the article? (for those of a certain age: the way we used to be able to block posters in the early newsreaders for Internet forums. For fellow motorcyclists: rec.moto and Andy Woodward, for instance).

    Particular comment re some things I saw posted earlier and have now been taken down (apparently):

    It’s the lady’s interpretation that the picture of a solider on her cell phone scared the bad guy away.

    The only way to be sure is to ask the creepy guy, but my take is that it wasn’t that photo in particular, it’s that she was then holding a communications device with a potentially open channel … e.g. a way to call for help that might also provide location info automatically.

    Or perhaps it’s just that he got interrupted by something.

    Either way nobody else was there, and nobody else was inside his head … but the thing is, whatever the reason it seemed to work. Not that I would count on that, but in this instance it seemed to.

    1. avatar Matt in Tx says:

      I agree, it seems that the trolls are breeding and I do not want to read or reply to them. The SNOO creature is just another anti who is trying to poison the well or ruin it for the rest of us.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I don’t know how you folks are reading your posts, but I just look at the “[whoever] says” line, and if it’s from one of the idiots, I ignore it.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      John L. – “blocking posters from appearing”

      Just use your standard issue brain installed at the factory. (Your mom.)

      When I see posts by some of the Fu*kwits who comment here, my brain automatically skips the offending drivel.

      Works wonders speeding up reading the blog in general, and lowers the blood pressure as a free bonus. Try it!

      I’m allso an old-timer from the days of USENET.

  21. avatar Robert Farago says:

    I deleted the posts because of our policy: no flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators. Or gun control advocates. Or anyone really. If you have something to say please keep it civil. Otherwise you – or anyone else flaming – will be banned.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I have to agree with sn00 here. I read his/her comments earlier and all I saw was someone who questioned whether the author told a true story … and explained why he/she questioned the story. To be totally honest, I have my doubts as well.

      The reality is that The Truth About Guns accepts comments and even articles without going to great lengths to authenticate the veracity of those comments and articles. I do NOT say this as a criticism of this site. I am simply stating a fact. That being the case, I believe it is healthy discourse if people alert us when they have doubts — especially when they go to the trouble to explain their doubts.

      Case in point. The author of this article describes a full parking lot at the gas station and the only available parking space is next to the creepy van. (The author implies she was smart enough to avoid the creepy van but had no choice.) Then, moments later after her daughter goes potty, the author exits the gas station and the entire parking lot is empty. I find that highly improbable and, along with other nuances, raises my doubts. Does this mean that my comment here should be deleted?

      1. avatar Robert Farago says:

        Commentators are free to question the veracity of any report, article or comment. Comments are not deleted for their editorial perspective. All we ask is that the comments are civil. Commentators who engage in flame wars will have their comments removed. Persistent violators will be banned from posting.

      2. avatar JR says:

        “I read his/her comments earlier and all I saw was someone who questioned whether the author told a true story … and explained why he/she questioned the story.”

        Did you read all those posts…see them before some of them got deleted? Just curious.

        In my view, asking / questioning is good. Being a jerk about it is not, and cutting into people that disagree with your own largely baseless, unsubstantiated assertion about the story is not good in any way (asserting is not questioning or even posing that issue for serious discussion).

        There have been a number of the P320 submissions that folks have wondered if the stories were true. But, true or not, the story was a springboard for a larger discussion.

        In this case, the larger discussion was federal reciprocity. There has been a lot of good discussion on this page on that topic, and some thought provoking stuff has been posted. Good back-and-forth, really, and I think it’s fair to say no “easy” answer.

        But sniping contests over whether the premise of the springboard is true or not, sniping done in good 12 year old d1ckish fashion, really does not help anything. Such sniping is quite a bit beyond questioning the story.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “I think it’s fair to so no “easy” answer.”

          Maybe not, but I hope we all agree that there’s only one right answer: nationwide Constitutional Carry. There can be no other way, because every single possible other path leads to eventual confiscation and tyranny.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Aye! Constitutional carry is the only long lasting solution, Rich.

          (Thread replying is intermittently broken. I wonder if this happens when many posts are deleted under certain server conditions.)

        3. avatar JR says:

          “there’s only one right answer: nationwide Constitutional Carry.”

          Agreed. My state has a Constitutional Carry bill in the state legislature this year.

      3. avatar lizzrd says:

        Big +1 on this.

  22. avatar former water walker says:

    Oh…thought I was hallucinating. Thanks RF.

  23. avatar Joe Smo says:

    We can’t have are cake and eat it too. The last thing we need is the Federal Government overseeing concealed carry. It could turn into a all or nothing situation. Leave it to the States, STATES RIGHTS!! ….Remember?

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      States don’t have the right to violate your rights.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Try breaking a few traffic rules in your home state and tell us how that works out for you, m’kay?

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          You are conflating what happens when you violate a state law with what happens when the state passes a law that violates your rights.

          But that’s probably my fault; I wasn’t clear.

          By passing laws infringing on your right to bear arms, a state is violating your rights, and not because you are accused of a crime and going through due process, but just because. I’d say the FedGov has every business telling states “Hell no, you may not do that, not to your own people, and not to people from other states.” Which is what I meant when I said that the state doesn’t have the “right” to violate your rights. The fact that the FedGov is in fact just as big a hazard to your rights as any state government is, doesn’t change the fact that it *does* have business preventing a state government from violating your rights.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          When you break traffic rules, it’s not a violation of your rights to ticket you, because Implied Consent. When you got your drivers’ license, there was in implicit agreement on your part to obey the traffic laws.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      I am less concerned about state’s rights than MY rights. Maybe that’s because my state is so interested in its own rights over mine.

  24. avatar TxGal says:

    I’m retired so can wear what I want and chose to wear blue jeans I buy at sporting good stores that have larger/more pockets. Right hand pocket has Ruger LRC .38 Hollowpoints, five round speed loader in smaller pocket. Left pocket key chain and canister of mace. Mace is in event going to someplace where CCW forbidden (avoid if at all possible)
    I’ve been in situations that were in orange approaching red alert, for a woman it is different. For the most part we were raised to be polite, problem is being polite can get you seriously hurt or killed. Since I was raised with older brothers, not so inclined to be ”polite” from the time I moved to Dallas in late 60’s to present, In fact have probably scared more guys than have scared me. In polite society with people I know & trust am a lady, but even then mess with me and I will open up a can of whoop-ass on you. More women need to be less candy ass and more assertive. Understand you act like a rabbit, you are the prey bad people are looking for, be a loud raging bitch, most will back off and pursue easier targets. That’s just the way it is and always has been.

    1. avatar juliesa says:

      Exactly. I had to unlearn my polite upbringing. My parents are the best, but they didn’t prepare me for what real life is like for a young woman out and about in public.

      I’ve been rude to some men who probably didn’t deserve it, but tough titty. The potential price of being polite to strangers when you’re in a vulnerable location is too high to pay.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Tried to raise my daughter like this. I worry a bit less now that she’s a former Marine.
        Still can’t get her to carry though. 🙁

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Tom – I thought there was no such thing as a “former” Marine… 🙂

        2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          I believe the phrasing is “ex-Marine”, but I’m not one so…

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          The way I understand it, if you’re a Marine that’s no longer on active duty, like honorably discharged, you’re a “former Marine.” To quote something I heard on TV decades ago, “The only EX-Marine is Lee Harvey Oswald.”

          Having been in the AF and shared beers with Marines, I’d be confident that that’d be OK.

  25. avatar Ken kaniff says:

    This article sounded so fake. How would he see the picture of the “soldier with a weapon” pop up on your phone? And even if he did why would it stop him. What’s a picture of a soldier in Afghanistan going to do to stop anyone?! Obviously some people will make up anything to try to win the sig.

    1. avatar TxGal says:

      “Soldier with a weapon” pop up on your phone? And even if he did why would it stop him. What’s a picture of a soldier in Afghanistan going to do to stop anyone?!”
      A guy who lives in his van, going with that since yellow liquid in milk jugs = urine. Not likely to be the sharpest pencil in the box. Saw the photo because on smart phones a photo assigned to a particular contact will pop up on the screen, people tend to hold those in front their face, instead of holding to ear with old flip phones. Saw bad ass soldier, would not have known where he was at that moment, for all he knew the soldier was the woman’s friend, husband, brother, and may not far away, maybe even close enough to kick the guy’s butt. Predators do not usually have a reputation for critical thinking, they react instinctively.
      I’ve always thought best to save a nasty attitude for when it can count, like for self protection, not reacting to a posting on the Internet, if you get my drift.

      1. avatar JR says:

        All these people saying that the photo on the phone would not deselect her has a victim should review what experts say on victim selection.

        To wit: ANYTHING, no matter how small or inconsequential it may seem or illogical as it may be to you, can effectively deselect a victim in the mind of the offender. The reasoning is because he only has a split second to make the decision and there is no down side for him going “no go” and trying to find someone else.

        William Aprill gives some good insights on this.

        Podcast:

        http://ballisticradio.com/2013/07/14/podcast-ballistic-radio-episode-19-july-14-2013/

        Transcript of that podcast:

        http://www.dsbscience.com/download/BR20130714_WilliamAprillDeselectYourself.pdf

        In short, the violent offender’s “logic” is different than ours. Just because it does not make sense to US why he MAY have been scared off by a photo on a phone doesn’t mean he wasn’t.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        A predator would have probably been attentive enough to dump his pee jugs. This guy was just a schlub.

        1. avatar JR says:

          Perhaps, but schlubs can be dangerous, too.

          A woman traveling alone with four children can look might vulnerable. She’s probably distracted and exhausted, both good for getting inside the OODA Loop.

          And even if THIS guy was not a threat…her point stands. If she was to face whatever TTAG’s readership decides is a “real threat,” she would have been unarmed to do so (or risk jail herself, and losing her children, etc).

  26. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    IMHO, we are gaining ground in the carry area.
    The first part of this year has seen small wins for our side.
    Idaho, Georgia, Florida, Illinois…
    We can’t let up. We need to keep the pressure on.
    As the story here relates, the potential for really bad things to happen aren’t limited to states that allow concealed carry. Bad people doing bad things are everywhere.

    Let’s keep at it until all states recognize this right.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Not a small win in Illinois. It’s HUGE for those that live here. But you are so right. I personally thought it would take much longer.

  27. avatar GuyFromV says:

    I like guns.

  28. avatar Jared says:

    You folks are your own worst enemy. If the Federal government passed reciprocity to protect states from trampling on a natural fundamental human right, then so be it. Besides they can do so via the 14th amendment.

    For all the state’s rights rangers, should FOPA be repealed so New York can throw you in prison and ruin your life for transporting a pistol through the state?

  29. avatar Ken kaniff says:

    What’s with the deleting posts that don’t agree with the consensus on here? I didn’t “flame” anyone. Pointing out how ridiculous it was a picture of a soldier would stop anyone. I agree w snoo. Don’t turn into MDA Facebook page, Robert.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Posts are only deleted for flaming/ad hominem attacks. All viewpoints are welcome. Civility is required.

  30. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    This should be PLASTERED on MDA’s FB page. Shannon should be goaded into a response

    1. avatar JR says:

      It’s quite likely Shannon’s people have already been here today (and in other stories this weekend)…claiming the post is not true, or other similar tactics.

      That’s what they’d do, in any event. Her response would be some talking point, “Well, if the poster DID have a gun, the bad guy may have just used it on HER and HER BABIES!”

      Or, the old chestnut…”Gun owners just see attackers in everyone. That kind gentleman just complimented her children and because she lives in fear like all gun owners do, she over reacted.”

      Or, maybe it could have been “Since DGU’s are a fantasy, something that never happens, this woman is fooling herself into thinking a gun even COULD have protected her.”

      They’ve spent a lot of time and money coming up with the bullet list…whether the points matter, are relevant, make sense or are truthful or not makes no difference.

      Such is the life of a PR hack…

      1. Agreed!!!!

        Well said.

  31. avatar John in Ohio says:

    That’s a good article, Lindsay S., and thank you for submitting it. However, even if we had national reciprocity today, there are probably a thousand or more situations in which government could strip you of the privilege. How about we fight for rights instead of privileges? One of the disadvantage of fighting for the privilege to carry is that government can simply deny an individual based upon whatever reasons they choose to implement. Another disadvantage is that by fighting for a privilege, we cut our numbers who are motivated to fight for the actual right. Those who “have theirs” will not be motivated to fight for the privilege of those who “can’t have theirs.” Fighting for the right to keep and bear arms is a more inclusive and permanent solution. Fighting for the right ensures that we don’t fragment our strength in numbers. There is motivation for all to fight for the right of everyone. Once reestablished, the right to keep and bear arms will endure through many more generations of government encroachment than would a privilege. A privilege is merely one legislative session or one regulatory meeting away from being neutered or curtailed. Besides, arguing for a privilege is begging the indulgence and understanding of government whereas fighting for the right is demanding that which is ours. Which fight is the American fight; begging our betters for permission or demanding our unalienable rights?

    1. avatar Ted Unils says:

      The problem with the simple belief that concealed carry is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment is that such an argument is based on the false premise that the SCOTUS lacks authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution and that all Supreme Court precedent will somehow become null and void. Such a belief is simply not realistic or grounded in fact.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I’m not going to read your snide insults while you ignore what’s replied back to you again. We’ve already done that dance. Whenever you now post; did not read, will not read. Have fun replying to yourself, skippy. 😉

        1. avatar Ted Unils says:

          If ignoring and denying simple facts helps you make it through the day, stick with that John.

  32. avatar Sock Monkey says:

    No reciprocity. Emotional appeal is not an argument for reciprocity. Instead, we need more progressive state laws in backward places like Illinois, and we need, eventually, constitutional carry in all fifty states.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      You’re not getting that.

      Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The ‘good’ here would be law-abiding citizens being able to defend themselves regardless if they have family in New Jersey or can only find work in New York…

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        Well if the “good” is the unintended(?) consequences is that that (in the only and most likely manner) a Federal Reciprocity will be based on standards from the most anti-2a State, than I’ll definitely take perfect with no chance of passing.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          All this wishy-washy waffling over how much concession we’re going to make to the grabbers just to get crumbs in return shows a striking parallel to the whoopla on college campuses about what rape is. They’re both full of words and blather about what the meaning of “NO” is.

          Shall Not Be Infringed means Shall Not Be Infringed, and armed women don’t get raped.

  33. avatar John L. says:

    Uncommon_sense:
    I take your point, but rereading that part of the story, she says that there was not a soul in it, not that it was vacant of cars.

    I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong; just that you can have a parking lot full of cars yet empty of people.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong; just that you can have a parking lot full of cars yet empty of people.”

      At a gas station? Where were they?

      1. avatar JR says:

        Inside?

        Lots of gas stations, especially in remote areas, have ‘blind spots’ in the parking lot. She did say it was around back.

        Or, maybe at work? Lots of places have people park in the back lot while they carpool to work.

        Other explanations possible. Her version on this point is not completely far fetched.

  34. avatar Michael says:

    M car is my property, I should be allowed to carry in my property, regardless of where I take my property.

  35. avatar gloomhound says:

    Should have entered her vehicle from the door opposite the van even if that entailed crawling across the center console to get to the drivers seat and locked the doors at once. She could have then driven to the front of the gas station and secured the child in public view. Not trying to second guess Ms S but rather to inform someone else if they find themselves in a similar situation.

  36. avatar Dave s says:

    back to the reason we wont get reciprocity. (only moms with little kids should be criticizing our correspondent guys!)

    1, Federal Politics. Can you hear the media cry about migrating firearms on the freeways? Then there is getting the states to agree

    2. Different State Standards. Recently a state lowered its requirements to allow military members under 21 to carry. If your state says you have to be 21, there goes that reciprocity, and you can figure states might not agree with the federal compromise, no matter what it is.

    3. Drug laws. I expect that Colorado and Washington will be sued into allowing persons lawfully using pot have state CCW. Putting them into more direct opposition with the federal prohibition against “habitual users”. That will give the feds more reason to hold up the process.

    These are some reasons we wont see a national CCW reciprocity any time soon.

  37. avatar ckirk says:

    Great points made earlier. Don’t fight for Federal Reciprocity. Everyone should fight for the states that ignore and trample our fundamental rights to self-protection and the 2nd Amendment. As one who lives in NJ this is desperately important.

    The fear of a Federal law is that if we give the Feds the legal right to govern gun laws, eventually they will.

  38. avatar Garibaldi says:

    My advice to this woman is to carry pepper spray. Legal in all states without any license required (except in wonderful Taxachusetts where you need at least a FID, but it looks like they will be changing that soon).

  39. avatar Ted Unils says:

    Federal reciprocity is something any rational concealed carry supporter should get behind even though the effort is a daunting uphill battle that the anti gun radicals will fight at every turn.

    A similar uphill battle was the 10 year plus effort for passage of the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act allowing LE officers to carry in all 50 states. Radical liberals like John Kerry with broad support of the Democratic Party, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and a surprising number of LE agencies fought and delayed the legislation for years, but it finally became federal law in 2004 thanks to a rational, persistent, and focused grass roots effort by individual LE officers nationwide. The push for concealed carry reciprocity should be based on a similar rational, persistent, and focused grass roots effort.

    Reciprocity in all states with no restrictions or shall issue laws for licensed carry of concealed weapons could one day achieve similar success, but absent a Supreme Court decision that changes current precedent leaving regulation of concealed weapon carry to the States, legislation mandating reciprocity in all 50 States is and will remain a nonstarter because the anti-gun States will fight it for obvious reasons while some pro-gun States will oppose opening the door to any Federal involvement with concealed weapon carry at the State level, and who can really blame them.

    The contention by hardliners that unrestricted carry is mandated by the 2nd amendment along with their delusional almost sovereign citizen like denial that the U.S. Supreme Court has and will continue to exercise authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution does nothing to advance the cause of concealed carry reciprocity.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      The Supreme Court doesn’t have “authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution.” The Constitution is what it is. The SC has the authority to determine if a particular piece of legislation fits within the Constitution’s limits.

      They’ve been abusing that authority terribly, which is why it is necessary for sovereign citizens to stop knuckling under to the Establishment and get the Constitution reinstated.

      1. avatar Ted Unils says:

        Pretending, denying, and playing games with semantics does not alter reality, “authority to determine if a particular piece of legislation fits within the Constitution’s limits” is exactly what the SCOTUS does to carry out the well established and undeniable role of INTERPRETING the U.S. Constitution.

        Neither the sovereign citizen movement on the fringes of the radical right or the socialist progressive movement on the fringes of the radical left offer anything that even resembles a cerebral or rational thought in a discussion of the 2nd amendment.

  40. avatar jim smith says:

    While the reciprocity laws among states are a nuisance, they affect relatively few gun owners – but a national reciprocity system would allow the feds to affect every gun owner and I think it’s a bad idea. I cite as an example the federal takeover of driver’s licensing requirements for heavy trucks. Before the requirement of a federally sanctioned commercial driver’s license (CDL) in 1986, anyone with a driver’s license could drive a heavy truck (semi class) after a little instruction and practice. Now it requires extensive testing, certification and training and in many cases requires applicants to spend thousands of dollars to attend a sanctioned truck driving school. In addition, it’s a huge bureaucracy that requires periodic medical exams, extensive record keeping and special endorsements for various types of trucks and trucking (i.e. air brakes, hazardous materials, buses, tankers, multiple trailers, etc). I’m not saying all of these things are bad as they are a result of a few people not accepting personal responsibility for their actions – but if the feds impose this level of control on something that is relatively non-controversial like trucking, imagine what they would do with firearms.

    1. avatar Ted Unils says:

      All valid points Jim.

  41. avatar Ted Unils says:

    Federal reciprocity is something any rational concealed carry supporter should get behind even though the effort is a daunting uphill battle that the anti gun radicals will fight at every turn.

    A similar uphill battle was the 10 year plus effort for passage of the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act allowing LE officers to carry in all 50 states. Radical liberals like John Kerry with broad support of the Democratic Party, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and a surprising number of LE agencies fought and delayed the legislation for years, but it finally became federal law in 2004 thanks to a rational, persistent, and focused grass roots effort by individual LE officers nationwide. The push for concealed carry reciprocity should be based on a similar rational, persistent, and focused grass roots effort.

    Reciprocity in all states with no restrictions or shall issue laws for licensed carry of concealed weapons could one day achieve similar success, but absent a Supreme Court decision that changes current precedent leaving regulation of concealed weapon carry to the States, legislation mandating reciprocity in all 50 States is and will remain a nonstarter because the anti-gun States will fight it for obvious reasons while some pro-gun States will oppose opening the door to any Federal involvement with concealed weapon carry at the State level, and who can really blame them.

    The contention by hardliners that unrestricted carry is mandated by the 2nd amendment along with their delusional almost sovereign citizen like denial that the U.S. Supreme Court has and will continue to exercise authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution does nothing to advance the cause of concealed carry reciprocity.

  42. avatar Sian says:

    “He stepped in front of me. Crap. “That’s a really beautiful family you’ve got there.” ”
    Right there. That’s probably when I would have rammed my keys into his throat without warning and then kicked the living shit out of him.

  43. avatar JAMES SWARTHOUT says:

    as gun owners we should all boycott IL., N.Y.’ Calif & MASS. STOP BUYING ANYTHING. DON’T ORDER ANYTHING. GET THEM WHERE IT HURTS. IN THEIR WALLETS. AND WE SURE DO NEED A FED. RECIP. LAW.

    1. avatar ckirk says:

      …don’t forget NJ….

  44. avatar THE BIG J says:

    “I am good with my gun. All of them. I’m no threat to anyone who isn’t a threat to me or my children. I have a God given right to protect myself and my children. Hindering my ability to do so is absolutely unacceptable. I am no less a responsible gun owner when I cross the border into Illinois as I am in Missouri.”

    So why weren’t you packing heat? ESPECIALLY as a parent who’s responsibility is to protect her children? Why do you place unConstitutional edicts and fairy tale rules above you and your family’s safety and lives?

    So now we have to ask PERMISSION? To hell with that and any one standing in the way. Yep, you too “law” man.

    ATM’s and gas station locations, while traveling, especially at night, are places YOU GO ARMED.

    At the end of the day, people have a decision to make. The bottom line is, anything can happen, no one is going to protect you in small fragment of time when trouble comes calling.

    Going into such non-permissive areas one needs to have plans and scenarios. Bring along a attache case with padlock or a metal locking travel gun case to throw hardware in if stopped by law enforcement. Safe passage law. Keep your mouth shut, answer nothing, consent to no searches in case of vehicle stop while traveling on roads in such states. Pay cash at diners, gas stations, no tracking if an “incident” should occur at these places, and if it does happen, no witnesses and leaving the scene is optimal.

    Again, this is not a debate, some people will never disarm, and those that try must be equally willing to accept death.

  45. avatar Yossarian says:

    NO – We do not need to ask the Federal government to claim more rights for themselves. That has already been going very badly.

    The Second Amendment is intended to keep the Federal government from infringing upon the RKBA, but the States are allowed to be more restrictive.

    What we need to do is not visit those States or municipalities which would deny us a right to self-defense.

    Freedom doesn’t mean getting to do whatever you want. It’s something that we earn by sacrifice. And sometimes that means sacrificing when those things that you want would enslave you.

  46. avatar THEBIGJ says:

    “I am good with my gun. All of them. I’m no threat to anyone who isn’t a threat to me or my children. I have a God given right to protect myself and my children. Hindering my ability to do so is absolutely unacceptable. I am no less a responsible gun owner when I cross the border into Illinois as I am in Missouri.”

    So why weren’t you packing heat? ESPECIALLY as a parent who’s responsibility is to protect her children? Why do you place unConstitutional edicts and fairy tale rules above you and your family’s safety and lives?

    So now we have to ask PERMISSION? To hell with that and any one standing in the way. Yep, you too “law” man.

    ATM’s and gas station locations, while traveling, especially at night, are places YOU GO ARMED.

    At the end of the day, people have a decision to make. The bottom line is, anything can happen, no one is going to protect you in small fragment of time when trouble comes calling.

    Going into such non-permissive areas one needs to have plans and scenarios. Bring along a attache case with padlock or a metal locking travel gun case to throw hardware in if stopped by law enforcement. Safe passage law. Keep your mouth shut, answer nothing, consent to no searches in case of vehicle stop while traveling on roads in such states. Pay cash at diners, gas stations, no tracking if an “incident” should occur at these places, and if it does happen, no witnesses and leaving the scene is optimal.

    Again, this is not a debate, some people will never disarm, and those that try must be equally willing to accept death.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email