President Trump is due to address the National Rifle Association convention this weekend. There’s no doubt that he’ll get a standing ovation for, well, lots of things. But especially his support for national concealed carry reciprocity. Which, as The People of the Gun know, will be the most important fight for gun rights in our lifetime.

That’s discounting the fight that gun rights advocates have already won: the struggle to place a conservative judge on the Supreme Court so that the Court will recognize Americans’ right to bear arms outside the home without government infringement. Well, without having to prove a need to local or state government.

Obviously, the correct position is constitutional carry. An American shouldn’t have to have to ask the government — any government — for permission t0 bear arms. But a Supreme Court ruling striking down all “may issue” permitting schemes would move gun rights-defiling states like California and New Jersey a long, long way towards restoring residents’ firearms freedom.

Good luck with that! Meanwhile, national reciprocity.

If Uncle Sam can pass a law mandating that all states recognize each other’s concealed carry permits, it would be the equivalent of Dorothy pulling back the curtain on The Wizard of Oz.

When armed out-of-staters enter may-issue “gun free zones” like New York City and nothing happens, it will undermine the entire rationale for that city or state’s gun control regime. No blood in the streets? So . . . what is the point of may-(a.k.a., no)-issue again?

At the same time, a national reciprocity law would motivate gun residents of may-issue cities and states to push for “gun reform” [sic]. If out-of-staters can safely carry in our city or state, why the Hell can’t we? Why not indeed.

National reciprocity would trigger a sea change in cultural attitudes towards guns. Which is why the civilian disarmament industrial complex is gearing-up to fight it tooth and nail. Like this [via thetrace.org]:

Law enforcement officials are one prominent source of opposition. They argue that the bills would complicate, not simplify, their jobs. Baltimore County Chief of Police Jim Johnson, the chairman of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, told The Trace that the reciprocity proposals put police officers in danger, forcing them “at 2 o’clock in the morning” to confront armed out-of-staters with unfamiliar credentials.

Groups like Johnson’s are likely to play a big role in opposing the national reciprocity legislation; their involvement helps counter claims that opposition to the bills comes largely from coastal liberals.

Prosecutors also represent a similarly potent source of resistance.In a March Wall Street Journal op-ed, New York Police Commissioner James O’Neil and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. argued that a national concealed-carry policy would represent “a dangerous and unwarranted interference with state and city laws.”

Gun safety organizations are also gearing up for a major push against the proposal. Everytown for Gun Safety, which provides a portion of The Trace’s funding, has vowed to spend heavily against lawmakers who support the bill. Borrowing a page from the NRA, the group says it will score members of Congress based on their votes for or against the reciprocity measure.

So the antis know there’s everything to play for. As indicated above, their chief argument is state’s rights! A funny argument from people who support national protections for gay marriage and abortion, the right to which is difficult (though not impossible) to find in the text of the U.S. Constitution.

So what are the odds of passage?

A national concealed-carry bill could easily pass the House, where Hudson’s bill had 188 co-sponsors as of mid-April. President Trump has said he would happily sign it. But it faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where Republicans would need 60 votes — including eight from Democrats — to overcome a filibuster from Democrats, which, on this bill, is considered inevitable . . .

Democrats remain confident they can block the measure. Senate aides said that some Democrats who backed the bill in 2013 when it had no chance of becoming law would likely now oppose it.

Chris Cox, head of the NRA’s lobbying arm, has stopped short of predicting passage.

“It’s going to be a hard fight,” Cox said in January.

Well, there’s nothing the NRA likes more than a hard fight (especially for fund-raising). And if Republicans used the filibuster-filleting nuclear option for Gorsuch’s nomination, would they have the stones to use it for national reciprocity? We shall see.

71 Responses to National Reciprocity and the NRA: The Battle Begins!

  1. Won’t this allow a future administrations to put nation wide restrictions on concealed carry? I am all for less restrictive gun laws, unless they will be more restrictive in the future. Who would be in charge of the nation wide carry permits? The Federal government, or state governments? When the next far left president is elected (which there will be someday) will that president have the power to further regulate concealed carry permits? I really need more information to know whether or not this is a good thing, it sounds great but long term, it may not be.

    • Bingo. First, it’s going to take an unholy assortment of “compromises” ever to get this thing passed. Once you plunge into the legislative process, you never know what will emerge.

      In the 1980s, the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act was supposed to allow owners safe passage through hostile anti-gun states. Instead, we got the Hughes Amendment to it, which made all new (1986 and beyond) machine guns illegal for sale to the public. That’s why why 50 year old rusting trash machine guns go for thousands of dollars: the marketable supply was capped.

      Beyond that, travellers still get arrested gir being im possession of firearms, because FOPA has no teeth.

      All that national reciprocity, forced on states by the feds, will do is give you kinda sorts one step forward and definitely two or three steps back. There will be so many toothless provisions and exceptions to them that it won’t be worth anything.

      Now the feds will have their foot in the door to regulate (into oblivion) carry licenses across the country. This deal making president can’t even scrape together a billion dollars to build a wall, without caving in to Democrats and their empty threats. You expect a flawless reciprocity bill out of him?

    • Ok… Are there nation-wide drivers licenses? This is no different. Quit spreading fake news, this has nothing to do with national licensing.

      • Agree. Read the bills, or just the title. National Reciprocity, not National Permitting.

        This foot in the door stuff is just nonsense. The NFA, GCA, and Hughes Amendment is a lot more than a foot in the door.

        Do y’all honestly believe that Democrats need any excuse to pass gun control? It’s a plank of the party’s platform.

        Read the bills. Lobby for the House Bill. It limits gun free zones, legalizes all manner of handguns and ammunition nation wide, and allows every law abiding citizen to get a permit from any state and carry in any state, regardless of residency.

        The worst bill would only set a national standard for national reciprocity to apply. The Senate Bill doesn’t even do that.

    • I agree with this too. I moved to Texas because I was sick of bureaucracies I had no hope of ever affecting infringing upon my personal rights.

      Every time the federal government gets their hands on some new lever, they’ll push it this way and that without any meaningful representation for those that are actually being affected by it.

      We lose a good argument against federal gun control if we can’t just say “You’re in Rhode Island- pass your own laws and let Arizona do what it will, it’ll never affect you”.

      • National reciprocity doesn’t [necessarily] mean there will be a national standard for licensing. Just as there isn’t a national standard for drivers’ licenses.

        • Real ID anyone? When we made driver’s licenses federally accepted, it was only a matter of time before the feds shoved mandates down our throats. It’s a slippery slope and the federal government will always look for more control.

  2. Without 60 votes to invoke cloture, concealed carry reciprocity is DOA. I think the Senate should go back to the old rules: if you want to filibuster, you have to stand up and talk. When you sit, your filibuster is over. The new rules allow one side in a closely divided house to block any bill supported by less than 60 votes, and this in large measure is responsible for the current logjam in congress.

    • They can use the nuclear option. F**k the Dem minority, they’re the ones that gave us Obamacare. Now they can know what it feels like to have something jammed down their throat.

      • I’d be a little careful with this …

        Passing a bill on to the President for signature is different than confirming a nomination​ for an appointed position.

        I’d rather they simply reinstate the physical requirements for conducting a fillibuster and leaving it at that for now.

      • Nope, no Nuke Option needed. If they really want to pass this all they have to do is attach it to the budget just like the Democrat bunch did with Obamacare. They could do the same with the HPA as well….that is how we will know if they are serious or just doing it for votes.

      • Don’t be so stupid.

        1) You can’t use a “nuclear option” on a standard bill; they used it on a Supreme Court nominee which is an entirely different case.

        2) If you think giving Senators with more than 50 votes the ability to pass bills benefits you, think about when it doesn’t. Every stupid rule or law that benefits one side, eventually comes into the hands of the other side.

        • If it can be done for appointments and budgetary action (reconciliation) then I see no reason why it can’t be done for ordinary bills.

          Furthermore, thanks to the Republicans nuking the filibuster for Gorsuch, I would expect this very action as a retaliation from Democrats as soon as they regain power, regardless of whether the GOP does it now or not.

        • Democrats already used the “nuclear option.” Under Obama. More than once. And fruther, before 2003 this bullshit wasn’t even a thing.

    • I see it being fairly close. There are enough Trump state, pro 2nd Amdt, “shall issue” state Senate Dems up for reelection to potentially get it over the top, and if they don’t vote for it, it will assuredly be used against them in the next election. They can parade around with the family shotgun all they want in campaign ads, but it won’t help when NRA ads start running pointing out that they refused to vote for cloture, thereby killing their constituents’ rights to go armed and protect themselves when traveling to or through anti-2nd Amdt states like CA, NY, and NJ.

    • They don’t have new rules. They’re just not strictly enforcing the rules. Any bill can be passed with 51 votes if the majority is willing to invest the time under the current rules.

  3. “As indicated above, their chief argument is state’s rights!”

    I’m all for state’s rights.

    The state should be allowed to choose the mode of carry, as long as it’s shall issue and either concealed or open carry…

    • I’m all for states rights as well. However when it comes to constitutional protection the states as well as the feds have absolutely zero rights to ignore the second amendment. Telling me how I must bear arms, demanding I ask for and pay for the privilege, and where and when I may do so is a right they do not and should not have.

    • The power is still with the states – to varying degrees. We will still need a state permit – issued by our respective states. The state will still have the power to determine their own eligibility requirements, fees, certifications, etc. That many of those states no longer have the authority to deny a license without good reason is immaterial.

    • But many counties have neither in CA and that’s the problem. Clearly in violation of 2A. CA operates above the citizens’ rights contiuousl

  4. IF it gets passed, CA, NY, and NJ will immediately sue claiming its validity under the commerce clause is unconstitutional. As much as I’m for National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, I think they may be right. The commerce clause has been tortured quite heavily.

    • This has nothing to do with the commerce clause. It’s about full faith and credit. If TX has to honor a NY marriage license, NY has to honor a TX concealed carry license.

      • Perhaps not.
        H.R. 38 § 926D states “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”.

        That “has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce” is the tiny little section that both allows the federal government to rule over state sovereignty and will open the door to litigation from said states.

        Even TTAG has concerns:
        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/01/johannes-paulsen/will-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-mean-liberation-new-jersey-gun-owners/

      • Exactly.

        BTW I’ll never understand these masochists whine about government overreach, then when the opportunity arises to incorporate the 2nd amendment or force states to stop disrespecting identically-credentialed licenses, it’s “going too far” and “will definitely backfire.”

        The “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act” wasn’t an overreach?

        That act of congress didn’t tell one state to stop ignoring credentials, it said there is a superior class of person that is not subject to ANY licensing scheme anywhere.

        I mean, who are the qualified individuals?

        Wikipedia says:
        1. is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and [sic?] has statutory powers of arrest, or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);
        2. is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
        3. is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;
        4. meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
        5. is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
        6. is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

        Would being on the reserves for a county sheriff department qualify for this? You donate to a sheriff’s campaign and promise to show up with a trail with a generator or two and some diesel cans if the dam happens to break someday?

        In fact, yes [PDF Warning]
        https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjAq-e4q8XTAhWJxlQKHSAvA9UQFggwMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.handgunlaw.us%2Fdocuments%2Fagopinions%2FNYCtLEOSARulingPeoplevsRodriguez.PDF&usg=AFQjCNE72b7EZqJOMLqyzm9yteqJszxp2A

        Part time constable department guy from PA gets arrested in NY and the case is dismissed. New York: People v. Rodriguez Indictment number 2917

        The moral of the story is that there is an entire class and system of buddy-buddy that is already ignoring state-specific requirements with absolute impunity, and will continue to do so.

        It’s actually tempting to look into LE reserves and see how hard it could possibly be to qualify in some county somewhere.

      • Volokh wrote about this subject:
        http://volokh.com/posts/1184739962.shtml

        Basically, the full faith and credit clause applies to court decisions. Marriages fall under such authority while other licensing (driver’s license, professional licensing, etc) has not and does not. Nor does gun licensing, as of now- unless a case were to be established in court to that effect.

        • There are several Art. I Sect. 8 powers that allow for this type of legislation. Also Sect. 5 of the 14A.

          The Commerce Clause definitely works unless SCOTUS over rules about 80 years of precedent, which would vastly limit federal power.

  5. Well, there’s nothing the NRA likes more than a hard fight

    Really? Because I don’t see them fighting in New Jersey, for example. They declared the state hopeless and left. So how big of a fight should I expect from them on this bill?

    I don’t see how national reciprocity will pass. There’s no way they can get enough Democrats to support it. Not unless they get to include major amendments that will effectively cripple the bill. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that’s what happens, and the NRA will cave and compromise, most likely leaving the blue states no better off than before.

    • NRA is a bunch of sellouts, which is why I’ve never joined.

      Don’t ever forget– they fought hard to STOP Heller.

    • My fear is that Democrats will offer the following “compromise”: implement universal background checks and declare that everyone on the terrorist watch list and do-not-fly list cannot purchase firearms.

      National concealed carry reciprocity is not worth universal background checks and declaring that people on government lists (who government has not charged nor convicted of any crimes) to be ineligible to purchase firearms. There is nothing in New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Illinois, or New York that I just have to go and visit. And while I would like the option to visit Hawaii, California, or Oregon while armed, I can live without visiting those states as well.

      • That’s my concern as well, a ‘compromise’ that will potentially make all of us worse off. We’re all going to be added to one list or another, and it’s all downhill from there. If that’s the only option, it will be better to leave things the way they are.

      • I don’t think democrats will offer that “compromise” as it goes way to far for them

        I do wish there could be a blockchain or otherwise style of background checks that anyone could use and that the govt could not and would not have the theoretical ability to use as a registry. They wouldn’t be able to know who got checked

        I feel like that is a real possible compromise or even it not I think could be voluntary for private sales. Democrats should be doing that, anti-gun stuff is ultimately meaningless in reducing crime as all here know, and gave us trump besides

        • “I do wish there could be a blockchain or otherwise style of background checks that anyone could use and that the govt could not and would not have the theoretical ability to use as a registry.”

          There is no need for that.

          Look, it’s simple – firearm registration is not needed in *any* form.

          If law enforcement runs your name and you are a prohibited person in possession of a gun, off to prison you go.

          For a *long* time. It won’t take long for that news to spread in the thug community…

  6. There is no utopia including for the second amendment. As a black gun owner I did not have gun rights before 1870. And even then the law was not enforced equally in many parts of the country. The black codes jim crow etc., etc.
    National reciprocity is the modern day answer to getting everyone’s rights back. That is just the way it is. The second amendment purist are never going to get your fantasy world.

    I wish we could go back to getting our Arms through mail order purchases with direct delivery to our homes. That is how black people got a gun when no white store owner would sell them one. Back in the day you could have gotten a Thompson sub machine gun delivered to your home. But mail order and home deliver are gone and never coming back.

    • “I did not have gun rights before 1870.”

      You were alive in 1870? Just kidding, I agree in truth there really hasn’t been much time in this country’s history were the second amendment was ever respected for what it said.

      Any immigrant group was usually barred or limiting from owning or using firearms in someway or another because they were considered dangerous or mostly composed of criminals.

      The utopia where the constitution is always followed will never exist there is always a politician looking to consolidate power and smooth their agenda. If that means steam rolling a few civil liberties it’s considered a small price to pay in the name of “progress”

      • America now is a better place than before 1900. And its better than any other country. These cities and states should have to pay $10,000 a day for violating someones gun civil-rights. That is the only thing that will get their attention.

        • We are definitely better off today than 100 years ago but we as a country are forgetting our fundamentals and the ideas that made our country great

          Instead of fining them the government could cut off all federal funding to those states for violations of constitutionally protected freedoms. That would get their attention more quickly, since those states with the strictest gun laws also have huge social programs. It would of course be immediately met with lawsuits by those states for any number of BS reasoning

    • Direct mail order guns aren’t quite gone.

      The CMP will ship an M1 Garand, fully functional (if in need of a little TLC) direct to your door without a local FFL transfer.

      The NICS check still happens, but you complete an equivalent of the 4473 at home, get it notarized, and mail it off to the CMP; they run the check before selling & shipping you the rifle.

    • Chris, another item most people are unaware of, when the draft was reinstated for WW1 blacks were not allowed to register because President Wilson was against training black soldiers in using rifles and in military tactics.

      • Yes, Wilson was a rabid racist, as were many Democrats of the era, an era that extended all the way up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, when Democrats (wrongfully) seized the moral high ground because Johnson signed the bill, even though they had fought the bill tooth and nail through Congress.

        • Mark
          It was senate leader Lyndon B Johnson and senator John F Kennedy and others who voted against the voting rights act that President Eeisenhower asked for. The president wanted to fix the problems his former black soldiers told him about discrimination back home while they were fighting and dying in Europe and else where.

          John F Kennedy was a racist pig. And Johnson too.
          Check out the book “The Bystander” by Nick Bryant. It explains the racist history of John F Kennedy.

      • rusty chains
        The main reason why white progressives like Wilson so much is because of the League of Nations he created. He was our first globalist president. He also helped fund the Birth of a Nation film.
        The republicans before him racial integrated the federal government. Yes the federal government was tiny compared to today. But it was racially integrated by the previous republican presidents.

        President Wilson destroyed all that and set back race relations for a hundred years. Wilson the progressive hero is just plain evil. The white progressives have always covered up for him.

  7. “Law enforcement officials are one prominent source of opposition. They argue that the bills would complicate, not simplify, their jobs.”

    How would it make their jobs more difficult? Are they currently assuming that everyone carrying a gun is a criminal and therefore guilty until proven innocent?

    This should make your job easier, anyone with a concealed handgun should be assumed to be carrying legally until otherwise noted.

    Even if this passes the people’s republic and NJ/NY will just find a way to pass laws to create more gun free buildings and institutions or pass a law that all businesses are required to post a “no concealed weapons” sign on the door.

    • Most of those laws would be preempted by the House Bill. Only laws criminalizing carry in state government buildings and people who choose to prohibit carry on their own property would be allowed.

  8. After McDonald, the state’s rights argument has lost its appeal. Unlike before, the Second now applies to all of the states, and all of the cities and towns within each state. A state cannot rely on its own constitution to limit rights; instead it must recognize and apply the federal right. A reciprocity law simply provides that a person licensed in one state is deemed to be licensed in all states, an application of the Second amendment nationally. A state, claiming its sovereign rights, cannot overrule the Constitution. The ony limitation on reciprocity isa that it does not limit a state’s right to control the exercise of the right to carry of its own citizens and residents.

    • To be a bit more precise, Federal law and constitution provide a floor on self defense an gun rights, not a ceiling. For example, the Supreme Court has essentially said that a state must provide some right to carry outside the home, but can, essentially do this by allowing either concealed or open carry, but doesn’t have to provide both. States like AZ here provide both, which is just fine.

      • And New Jersey allows neither type of carry.
        Theoretically, there’s a way to apply for a NJ carry permit, but unless you’re a cop or the governor, you’re not getting one!
        NJ state courts have upheld the denial of carry permits to rape victims, attempted-murder victims, etc., basically saying “Come back after you’ve ACTUALLY been murdered, not just a victim of ATTEMPTED murder, then maybe we’ll believe you were in danger!”

        • Technically, NJ ‘allows’ both open and concealed carry, but only if you happen to be important enough. In which case if you can get a permit, you can carry either way. Of course in practice no average NJ resident can get a permit, thanks mainly to the ‘justifiable need’ clause. And if by some miracle you local police chief approves your application, the local judge surely won’t. I think SCOTUS said this is basically OK. I worry that the new associate judge will keep things the same.

      • I agree with your first sentence, but not your second. Technically, the Supreme court has not reached the “carry outside the home” issue, only signaled ambiguously where it thought that issue might go. That signal was promptly ignored by 2d, 3d, 4th and 9th circuits, which have applied to what constitutes no more than “rational basis” review to gun rights cases, dressing it up in pretty “intermediate review” language. that have applied a “sliding scale” review based upon their opinions as to the importance of the right asserted, despite the Heller majority rejecting precisely such an analysis. As Justice Thomas has pointed out, these decisions which the Supreme court has refused to reviesw have relegated the second amendment right to a second class status, despite its primacy in the view of the founding fathers. It is truly an appalling spectacle.

  9. First off, Trump getting a standing ovation from the NRA reminds me of Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, neither deserves the recognition. Perhaps Trump may come through, but until he does I’m not patting him on the back.

    And please do not say he’s better than Hillary, because I would definitely concede that The Donald is better than most politicians, and I’m one of the pro who voted against Clinton, both times I was able to.

    Second, instead of the general government forcing states to recognize licenses, I think those states where the right is not infringed should move to not recognized OTHER LICENSES from states that do not recognize theirs. Imagine truck drivers from New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California getting pulled over and arrested for not have a valid license in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, etc. THAT would force those tyrannical states to think about they would like to proceed, while keeping the nose of the federal camel out from under the tent.

    • At least Trump signed the roll back on the mental health BS. That’s not nothing but talk, which is what Obama had accomplished before he was granted the Peace Prize.

      I lost most of my respect for the Nobel committee for that … and a lot of it for Mr Obama, who if he had a shred of humility should have declined the honor until his Presidency was over.

      • the nobel peace prize has been nothing but a “prom queen” contest for globalists and leftists for a long, long time. long before obama. exhibit 1: yassar arafat…

    • The only real victory we could possibly have is if the supreme court rules that states like CA (where I live) can not regulate firearms, or limit what the regulations can be. Here they pass firearm laws just to see what the court will uphold and what they will strike down (then other states follow what has been upheld). They are using the legal system against us, we need the legal system to work with us and for us.

    • i agree on driver’s licenses, and disagree on Trump.

      Trump made promises, he should be applauded for those promises, and he needs to be held accountable for those promises.

      if the NRA gave Trump the cold shoulder, what would his motovation be to follow through on his promises? he needs the votes of the NRA members and NRA members need to show him they support him as long as he keeps his promises.

  10. National Reciprocity does nothing more than force the states back into compliance with Article IV Section I of the Constitution as far as guns are concerned. The feds and the states both regularly spit on the 10th Amendment so keeping the whole bunch in compliance is a Sisyphean task.

  11. My only concern with national reciprocity is that it will get bogged down in a committee and instead of just requiring states to recognize each other’s permits like driver’s licenses, in order to get enough votes to move forward, they will tack on some minimum requirements for concealed carry permits. That might be a wash in states that already have onerous and expensive requirements but it could be a pain for those of us that live in more gun friendly states.

    I’m confident I could pass the qualification requirements but I really don’t want to have to shell out the bucks when they start nickel and dimeing you each step of a long drawn out process like they do some places. I’m coming from the perspective of someone that lives in a state where all you need is $20 and not be a felon. I’m willing to support some of that for the good of the country but within reason.

    I do look forward to being able to drive across Maryland or Delaware without having to unholster and lock up.

  12. If the democrats want to filibuster it, let them stand up and do it. Let them stand there for hours and days disrupting all of government over this. There are plenty of pieces of legislation they are going to want to block- make them choose their battles instead of just ‘threatening’ a filibuster.

    Giving up and using them as an excuse awards zero credit from me.

  13. I don’t know about everyone else, but when I visit another state, I’m always out carrying at 2am In neighborhoods I probably shouldn’t be in.

    /heavysarc

    Do these cops really believe this? Or are they too stupid to come up with better scenarios of why they want people disarmed? Either way, dumb.

  14. Oh, and this:

    “That’s discounting the fight that gun rights advocates have already won: the struggle to place a conservative judge on the Supreme Court so that the Court will recognize Americans’ right to bear arms outside the home without government infringement.”

    I keep seeing this sentiment here and it makes me chortle every time. We know NOTHING about that conservative judge on the 2nd Amendment except that the one case he had on it, he found against the gun owner. And even if he is another Scalia, there has been no change in the court makeup so if you think we can expect it to recognize the right to bear arms outside the home “without government infringement” we’re talking rainbows and unicorns now.

    • That case was specifically not about the 2A. Other than that you are dead on.

      I am very hopeful about For such based on the questions and statements he has made in oral arguments. They’re along the lines of “where does the statute say that” or “well that is what the statute says.”

  15. “If out-of-staters can safely carry in our city or state, why the Hell can’t we? “……Because state elections have consequences.

    What would prevent those in NY, CT, NJ, CA, etc from simply getting an out of state non-resident license that they would be forced to recognize.

    • And herein lies the problem. Guns will have been better, along with oil production under Obama. But we’ll get rid of North Korea, like we did Vietnam…Iraq…Taliban…Al Qaeda…ISIS…Libya…Korea part 1…armed and trained Taliban against Ruskies…Iran…Noreaga…Pinochet…El Salvador…Cuba…etc.

  16. if Republicans cannot pass this, and build the border wall, then there is NO PURPOSE TO even have a Republican party.

    democrats will ALWAYS seek ever more gun control, and will NEVER control immigration so that it is in the best interests of any one except the democrat party.

    if Republicans cannot close the deal, in what may be the last time of holding both houses of congress and the executive branch for decades (if ever), then they are useless.

Leave a Reply

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