Quote of the Day: ISIS Supports Concealed Carry Reciprocity

“It would be completely legal for a person to bring a loaded gun or guns in New York as long as it was legal to possess them in the person’s home state. A guy from Idaho, where there’s no permitting requirement whatsoever, could carry his gun into New York city loaded, into Times Square.” – New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. in Manhattan prosecutor: Gun law reciprocity bill ‘supported, I am sure, by ISIS’ [via thehill.com]

comments

  1. avatar Omer Baker says:

    Yes, because ISIS wants armed resistance. These people are truly mentally deranged.

    1. avatar Bob h says:

      Yes because ISIS WONT carry a gun ANYWHERE they aren’t allowed to by signage… ?

    2. avatar Blue says:

      The gun ban crowd from NY suffer acute hoplophobia. They should be involuntarily committed and administered a thorazine drip starting with Bloomer, Commie-O, Shoomer, Durbin and this clown.

  2. avatar Peter says:

    What an idiot. And this sort of people are in charge of the law. 😀
    So what exactly is stopping the ‘guy from Idaho, where there’s no permitting requirement whatsoever’ from bringing his weapon into Times Square? The law? LMAO!

    1. avatar Alex Waits says:

      That was my initial reaction, that there is nothing keeping a man from carrying a gun into times square. As it should be.

    2. avatar Bob h says:

      This guy actually thinks the only reason ISIS hasn’t shot up time square yet is because of NY’s “may issue” permitting process… what a retard.

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      The law prevents that guy from Idaho from carrying a gun to Times Square. The law is a mighty deterrent against crime.

      If it was legal for him to carry a gun there, nothing would prevent him from going on a murder spree. Do you think the law is a real deterrent against crime?

      Hmm…I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something not quite right with this…

    4. avatar JasonM says:

      The law prevents that guy from Idaho from carrying a gun to Times Square. The law is a mighty deterrent against crime.

      If it was legal for him to carry a gun there, nothing would prevent him from going on a murder spree. Do you think the law is a real deterrent against crime?

      Hmm…I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something not quite right with this…

    5. avatar DaveW says:

      What is stopping someone from Idaho from driving a truck into Times Square and running down as many pedestrians as he can hit on the fly?

      1. avatar MikeJH121 says:

        Gotta be those seat belt laws….or merely the group hug think of the lefties wishing hard for Utopian dreams. All the while thinking POTG and Trumpers need to die.

    6. avatar Paelorian says:

      “Guys from Idaho” are about the last men on Earth I fear, much less in Time Square. Does anyone really fear “guys from Idaho” visiting their state and bringing violent crime with them? As usual, New York City leadership refuses to acknowledge the actual faces of crime. Doing so would not be politically convenient to their constituency, who prefer to be lied to about those responsible for their problems. It’s not themselves or their neighbors they blame for their problems: that is, the people responsible. No, they’d rather worry about “guys from Idaho” and all that implies which I won’t get into here..

      To praise “guys from Idaho” further, I hope to become one myself. Maybe Montana, Wyoming, or Utah, but Idaho may be the most attractive of all. It’s Rawles’s favorite.

  3. avatar Fffghll says:

    I know Lawyers lie for a living, but come on man! That’s not what the bill says, and he knows it! It calls for recognition of valid permitted concealed carry of other states in states that allow concealed carry. Just using fear mongering to oppose something he thinks people shouldn’t have.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Most of the versions I’ve seen require that people from a Constitutional carry state have a permit from that state, or has that changed?

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Both versions that are currently introduced allow for carry by a non-prohibited person from a Constitutional Carry state to carry in any state. But apparently I lie for a living so you should trust the guy who either hasn’t read the bills or doesn’t understand what he read.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          “But apparently I lie for a living so you should trust the guy who either hasn’t read the bills or doesn’t understand what he read.”

          See…. you couldn’t even get through one full paragraph without lying. /sarc

  4. avatar David J. says:

    This is proof, once again, that the Left never lets the facts get in the way, or that they never read anything and just use the DNC talking points. The reciprocity bill only provides for reciprocity where it is already legal to carry firearms in states that issue CCWs. It would still be illegal to carry a gun in NYC or New York State.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “It would still be illegal to carry a gun in NYC or New York State.”

      Then that isn’t carry reciprocity.

      A concealed carry permit *can* be acquired in NYC. You just have to have the ‘connections’.

      There is some form of permitted carry in *all* 50 states…

      1. avatar Robert Farago says:

        Hawaii hasn’t issues a concealed carry permit since 2000. Not one.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          *SINCE* 2001.

          Then there are people there that have a valid permit, issued pre-2001?

          (I do get the point you were making…)

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          But the do have concealed carry laws, and that’s what matters under the statutes. (Just to be clear).

          To Geoff’s point, permits under the Hawaii statute are only good for a year. They are generally issued for a term less than a year in contravention of the statute, i.e., illegally.

          My knowledge of Hawaii law is from memory of an interview on CNLive.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Trump has a NY CCW. Doesn’t that meet the standard?

    3. avatar Maine Constitutional Carry says:

      Both New York State (very difficult) and NYC (almost never) issue concealed carry permits — but NY State permits are not valid in NYC.

      Hence, both NY State and NYC would be subject to the provisions of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity.

      One nice feature of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is that NY State permits would have to (finally) be recognized by NYC.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        This kind of crap is why Florida has preemption in place. Otherwise, jackwagons in Tampa would be trying to pull this.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “One nice feature of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is that NY State permits would have to (finally) be recognized by NYC.” I’m not sure if that is the case. I’ve never read either statute with such a system in mind. Each bill is materially different. The House Bill would permit a resident of Hawaii to carry on an Arizona license; the Senate Bill wouldn’t.

    4. avatar clst1 says:

      New York is a “May Issue” state. NY residents can get carry permits, but they have to jump through a lot of hoops to get one. It is quite likely that there is someone in Times Square carrying right now.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        It’s quite likely there are MANY people carrying concealed in Times Square right now.
        How many of them are doing so legally is up for discussion.

  5. avatar Geoff PR says:

    If it came down to it to get the votes for nation-wide carry reciprocity, I may grumble, but I’d be fine with basic safe gun handling be required.

    I might add, since what would be taught in that class will be no different than what *every* child should be taught in public school. The four rules, knowing what end of the gun the bullet exits, that removing the magazine in a semi-auto weapon does not mean it’s empty, etc.

    Having been taught that in school will be considered satisfying the training requirement.

    Flame away…

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      In theory sure. In practice, the next Dem administration, or the one after that, would twist that “basic” requirement into something so onerous as to make the law useless.

      And that’s why we can’t have political compromise – because our opponents hate us and are fundamentally untrustworthy.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        I agree our opponents hate us and are fundamentally untrustworthy.

        Since the required training will be in school, you won’t graduate until you pass it. They will tire rapidly of holding back students for graduation…

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          Same assumption applies here, too.
          Where, in the 2A, do you see something along the lines of, “…upon graduation from high school”?

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        You beat me to it. You’re exactly correct.

        Any compromise we make with these people will always be in the form of a concrete, immediate concession from us, in exchange for a wishy-washy, readily-made-moot concession from them to take place some time in the future.

        We always end up screwed by the Democrats in such deals. Meanwhile, Republicans will in their usual wimpy way say “Well, we tried; we did the best we could” and we’ll just accept that.

        National reciprocity is guaranteed to produce this miserable phony step forward, two real steps backward type of outcome. You will be sorry.

      3. avatar Bob h says:

        They could very well modify the requirements by adding days of class time, hundreds of dollars in fees and taxes, and some kind of registration of permit holders. However if the Dems had a majority nessisary for that they could just repeal national reciprocity outright.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      There ARE ways to advance the cause of N-R. (One of them is NOT threatening to hold our breath until we get nation-wide Constitutional-Carry – or turn blue – whichever comes first.)

      First obvious step is Massie’s (SP?) to mandate DC-Reciprocity (and Shall-Issue for Non-Residents). It avoids any issue of States’ Rights. It avoids DC politicians’ claims that their constituents are incompetent. The issue narrows to whether we The People have our 2A rights when we travel to the seat of government to petition for redress of grievance. We should all want to know whether our respective Representative and Senators support this minuscule measure; or not.

      There are lots of special cases; such as interstate truck drivers and drivers (intRAstate) of hazardous materials. We trust these guys(gals) to drive 18-wheelers at 65 mph just feet away from us in our VWs. Who thinks they can’t be trusted to carry in their cabs? Who thinks they don’t deserve to defend themselves (and hazardous cargo) when resting at deserted rest-stops?

      What justifies some States refusing (or limiting) Non-Resident permits?

      What justifies Won’t-Issue States policies of issuing CWPs to men-of-means who only carry pocket-change (and American Express) outside the home? To minimum-wage employees of armored-car companies? To politically-connected personalities? To people who pay big-enough bribes? Inasmuch as non-residents are – by definition – deprived of any political recourse, shouldn’t a Non-Resident permit be Shall-Issue on the same terms (training, testing, criminal-record) as Resident permits are issued (however rarely)?

      We should recognize that each small chip struck-down in the last 10 Won’t-Issue jurisdictions will face less skepticism than any broad N-R measure. Each small chip makes it marginally easier to strike-down the next larger chip.

      Training and testing are a sensitive issue; I’m concerned about the slippery-slope. Yet, I think it would be manageable. E.g., “anoint” the NRA to prescribe the training & testing requirements. Or, require that a permit holder meet the training & texting requirements it imposes on its own municipal police.

      My preferred approach would be to promote Congress “prescribing” the “discipline” required for the “militia” and insist that the several States execute their responsibility to train according to that “discipline”. THIS specific power of Congress is enumerated; therefore, there is no Constitutional issue.

      The primary vehicle should be gun safety courses in the public schools. (It’s for the children!)

      A secondary vehicle could be a Militia-person’s card that would exempt the bearer from State carry laws. Presently, bilateral Reciprocity covers about 35 States; leaving only 10 – 15 jurisdictions in an “un-free” condition. Leave bilateral Reciprocity as it is; deal only with the fact that the remaining 10-15 jurisdictions impede the ability of Congress to rely upon the militia when they travel (i.e., outside their homes) in these few jurisdictions. Should an ISIS attack break-out in Times Square, militia[wo]men who happened to be on-sight would be disarmed and disabled. Would Congress prescribe the discipline for the militia so high that veterans couldn’t meet it? Unlikely.

      There are lots of possibilities to consider that would push the cause of a relatively broad N-R law along. Are we PotG clever enough to identify the possibilities and get behind those that seem to be good tactics?

    3. avatar clst1 says:

      First of all I agree that people should have training if they are going to own or carry firearms, but there is no other right that the government requires training for.

      Firearms training in school, as an elective, would be great, but there will always be parents who do not want their children exposed to firearms of any description.

      The words “shall not be infringed” are very important. Federally required training is an infringement even if the curriculum is from the NRA.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        “First of all I agree that people should have training if they are going to own or carry firearms, but there is no other right that the government requires training for.”

        In fact, the 2A expressly forbids it.
        “…shall not be infringed.”

    4. avatar Big Bill says:

      I must assume then, that you’d be happy with a basic literacy test for voters, too, then.

  6. avatar Sarge605 says:

    I think I knew a girl named Isis, once. I’m sure she’d have supported reciprocity! Cool girl!

    1. avatar Snatchums says:

      I used to think Isis was a really pretty girls name, to the point of when I was younger I really considered naming a daughter that. Why must everything I cherish be defiled by assholes?

    2. avatar Blue says:

      The Isis I knew looked good in a white mini-dress.

  7. avatar Cliff H says:

    This guy has not noticed that there are a lot of people getting shot in NYC even with the current laws?

    How would making New Yorkers and tourists legal to carry for protection make it any worse?

    1. avatar ThatPedanticGuy says:

      Because if legal carriers start shooting the gang bangers and thugs it will thin out his voting bloc?

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    As an AG he must be kinda bright. Does it hurt to make such a stupid argument in public where everyone can see or is he so blinded by “the cause” that he’s numb to the stupidity?

    1. avatar None says:

      There are no longer consequences for lying. Also, no requirements for doing your job well. Why would he feel any pain or shame?

    2. avatar DaveL says:

      It’s New York City. The overwhelming majority of the public is “blinded by the cause” and numb to the stupidity. That’s how these clowns get and keep their jobs.

    3. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      In “progressive” campaigns being bright is not a requirement. Only requirement is to gain support of the “progressive leadership”. All else is just campaign rhetoric.

    4. avatar Alex Waits says:

      your comment reminds me of something written by L ron hubbard.

  9. avatar The Duke says:

    Wow the fear in this guys voice! You know you’re desperate when your arguments devolve solely into fear mongering. Why would ISIS support armed targets (can’t call them victims if they fight back)

    Im waiting for them to start claiming the Nazis want reciprocity because guns will cause your children hate Jews!

  10. avatar rc says:

    Wow, New York county, you’ve got yourself a keeper there….I’m sure ISIS would be thrilled about reciprocity, since we all know they are very concerned about obeying firearms laws to the tee and I’m sure lack of reciprocity is really holding them back.

  11. avatar DerryM says:

    Proof positive that Liberalism is a mental illness.

  12. avatar David says:

    Imagine, if you will, a Deep South politician saying the following in the 1950s:

    “It would be legal to openly practice miscangeniation in Alabama, as long as it was legal to marry a Negro in your home state. Just think of it, and person could enter our state with a Negro wife and threaten our citizens.”

    Your (likely) reaction of visceral disgust to this argument pretty much sums up how I feel about Senator Moron’s testimony above.

  13. avatar jug says:

    What a crock of shjt!
    Normalize your state and city laws with the rest of the nation!
    Problem solved, with plusses for your own state and city!

  14. avatar Swilson says:

    So IS supports national reciprocity…? Never thought I’d have anything in common with them, I’ll be dogged.

  15. avatar Soylent Green says:

    Riiiiight…’cause ISIS is waiting for CC permit reciprocity before they can carry a gun into NY and illegally wreak havok?

    Is that what passes for logical arguments these days? Scaring the sheep with the ISIS bogeyman in order to bend them to your will?

    1. avatar Lhstr says:

      I don’t know. All shootings are done by liberals without permits, that includes mass shootings. I don’t believe any of these shooters were ccw. Of course back in Abe’s days no permits were required, but they were still liberals. Certainly not NRA nor Republicans, and ccw ppl., just saying.

  16. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    AD-Vance there is confused. When people get killed, that there’s a law against it may satisfy a D A, but is cold comfort to the cold dead. (Actually, that there’s a law and people end up dead anyway is worse.)

    It is a disease of people who work in law to be more concerned with what is “legal” than what people do, and not at all with how that works out for the people under that law. For people living their lives, the point is more life, with the law and its wranglers worth paying if they do, indeed, secure us more life than they cost.

    For people under the law, a murderer could do murder all day, if the doing left all alive and unharmed with as much life remaining as before. We ban murder as an awkward means to retain more life to be lived.

    There are many other ways to stay alive, that work better sometimes. For example, the fundamental armed self-defense argument goes: “This guy is trying to kill me, despite your law and wrangling. Now that you’ve failed — and B T W, you’re fired — I’d like the means to keep myself alive myself.”

    Despite the overlords’ preference to dissolve the people and appoint another, their project is doomed. They forget that we are not cattle wrangled for their benefit, but their customers who must benefit from the wrangling. And that the law is just a mechanism with no value on its own. Worse, they forget that we sustain them entirely, while without them our lives might be worse, but would go on.

    They’d starve, but we would too. Thus, policy must reside with the people the law works on, not with the people who work the law. They’re too confused to be in charge of anything.

  17. avatar Joe R. says:

    New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. SUPPORTS BEND OVER AND TAKE IT, if you’re not a well heeled cash-n-carry permitted folk from the illegal cop dealing.

    F NY / NYC

  18. avatar Green Mtn Boy says:

    WOW! This guy’s an IDIOT! I’d like to see it from his point of view, but I can’t get my head that far up my butt. Fortunately you don’t have to apply to the government for your constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Vermont, so there is no such thing as a gun permit, concealed or otherwise. BRING ON NATIONAL RECIPROCITY NOW!!!

    1. avatar Lhstr says:

      I’ll drink to that!

  19. avatar Joe says:

    Yeah, ISIS really wants a bunch of people ready to shoot back when they try something.

  20. avatar Jack says:

    ISIS doesn’t need permission. Dumbassery

  21. avatar ConcernedAmerican says:

    From Idaho:
    Carry in Times Square…Sounds Good to Me!!
    And there is Permitting Requirements, the Sheriffs Office doesn’t just hand them out. you just do not need one if you are a resident of Idaho, are 21, you can conceal carry with out a permit.
    The Problem with most people who call see the “Constitutional Carry” and freak out are unaware that it is not “Constitutional Carry” it is permit less carry as long as you are 21, not a felon and blah blah blah….unfortunately we may never see Constitutional Carry ever again.

  22. avatar former water walker says:

    Is PUTZ a good ole’ NYC word?

  23. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Well, by denying review of the Peruda case, the Supreme Court has basically affirmed that carrying a firearm on your person is no longer a protected right within the Ninth Curcuit, but a privilege and so the states may regulate it however they wish. I’m sure Michael Bloomberg will be pushing restrictive legislation in each Ninth Circuit state very soon.

    So one moral option for some people may be to simply carry concealed anyway as a form of civil disobedience. The criminals already do anyway.

  24. avatar Nine says:

    I’m going to guess that the fellow from Idaho is a nice, well adjusted, intelligent sort of man.

    So just why the hell would he even want to set foot in Time Square? There are far better vacation destinations.

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    I hadn’t realized terrorists obey carry laws.

  26. avatar Zog says:

    I heard ISIS supports ObamaCare too!

  27. avatar Kyle says:

    To paraphrase Ronald Reagan

    Just because they support what I want, does not mean I support what they want.

  28. avatar Libertarian says:

    Wrong the Idaho guy need the idaho ccw ore any other ccw and it not effects the enhance permit in idaho and mississipi ^^

  29. avatar Ernest Pike says:

    This is a prediction and not a wish.
    National Reciprocity will only pass in conjunction with Universal Background Check. It will be defeated in the first SCOTUS test on grounds of federal overreach but UBC will remain. Remember a strong 2A court will also be a small government, states’ rights court. If the test doesn’t happen until the court leans the other way we are surely lost.
    Hearing Protection Act is a better option even if you don’t care about silencers. It will show the weakness of the National Firearms Act and lead to reduced restrictions which cannot be contested. Geometry and innovations currently restricted by gun control law will be encouraged and other restrictions will soon follow mufflers and go away.
    We should not compromise HPA in favor of reciprocity because the later will not last in court, and will bring universal background checks and owner registration with it. Remember 2A does not limit States from making restrictions.
    Also, in the last decade we have gone from one state with constitutional carry to one quarter of the states having it. Carry rights are a decision for each state and it will be stronger and longer lasting when made by the several stated and not forced on them by the federal government.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Anyone who thinks the Court will rule that Congress doesn’t have the authority to pass national reciprocity hasn’t been paying attention for the last 90 years.

  30. avatar MyName says:

    Every time someone argues against national reciprocity because “That means someone from somewhere else could carry a scary gun here – ahhhhh, help!” I ask them this: What action, that harms another individual, can a person perform with a gun, in this or any other location in the United States, that is not already illegal? (Other than, of course, justified defense of self or others)

    Never have gotten an answer. If everything that can be done with a gun that causes unjustified harm is already illegal, what is the point in restricting gun access or carry in any way at all?

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      The difference to them is permission to carry versus the knowledge criminals carry anyway. They cant wrap their heads around permitting something they not only fear but want to see abolished as if criminals would be hampered if they were successful.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        I think your right that the issue is the permission. This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that its all about power and control. I think this is also evidenced by the frequent statements from the pro-control factions that refer to loosening gun restrictions as “giving” guns to whatever group of people. This, to me at least, clearly belies their impression that they are the throttle on peoples rights and privileges. I personally find this appalling.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          *you’re*

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          Bullseye.
          Don’t think liberal anti gun people are unarmed. They don’t want you to tool up but you can be sure they are either armed or rely on armed security.

  31. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I have news for the causation prosecutor.
    An american terrorist group has had concealed carry for over 140 years. Its called the Klu Klux Klan. I’m sure this causation prosecutor supports the KKK just like Jewish lawyers, homosexual lawyers, atheist lawyers, socialist lawyers all support the KKK marching through black neighborhoods carrying guns under the bed sheets they are wearing. They are very proud of their support of the KKK. First amendment correct?

    But they don’t support law abidng black people carrying guns. Or is seems anyone else. Except the government guns. They do support them.

  32. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    I miss the days when people were held accountable for their actions and what they said.

    The internet has raised a generation where stupid is acceptable and accountability is replaced by “tolerance” regardless of merit or relevance.

    Sad times.

  33. avatar El says:

    I wonder where the bad guys get their permit to carry a pressure cooker bomb into Times Square.

    Anyone intent upon doing harm can do so because they don’t care about laws and permits. Only the law-abiding citizens are disarmed and vulnerable because of idiots like that in government.

  34. avatar Helms Deep says:

    Always the same Mindset with the Anti-Gunners ” Must Control the ..’ Little People ‘ .”

    They are very quiet about the MILLIONS who have Ignored their registration schemes ( not valid laws at all )

  35. avatar clst1 says:

    Due to reciprocity of driving privileges my drivers license is acceptable in all 50 states, but I still have to obey the various state and local laws, even if they differ from my home state laws.

    With national firearms reciprocity I would still have to adhere to the various state and local laws on open or concealed carry although they may differ from my home states laws. If a New York resident can carry in Times Squares then an out of state permittee should be able to carry in Times Square.

    I travel to several states that recognize my CL, and always try to stay in compliance with the laws of the state I am visiting. I refuse to travel to any state requires that I disarm at the state line.

  36. avatar Ralph says:

    Cyrus Vance, Jr. is a third generation social parasite.

    His grandfather (actually his father’s cousin who adopted his father — got that?) was John W. Davis, a former Democrat Presidential candidate. He was nominated in 1924 by the so-called the “Klanbake” convention. What does that tell you?

    His father was, among other things, Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of State, until Senior resigned to protest the attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. I guess that he just didn’t give a shit about Americans languishing in Khomeini’s prison.

    And Junior now is also suckling at the public teat and screwing everyone in sight.

    The death of America will not be a foreign country, BLM, Antifa or any other street thugs. It will be at the hands of the political class, because it pulls all the strings. And the hereditary political class is the worst of the worst.

  37. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    So this mythical man from Idaho that is so potentially lethal when he gets to Times Square…. Wouldn’t he be just as dangerous in downtown Boise? Has anyone check the crime rates in Idaho? Do they have many shooting sprees there?

  38. avatar Darkman says:

    Laws Do Not and were Never Intended to Prevent Crime. Laws are put in place to punish offenders. Unfortunately most liberals don’t believe in personal responsibility so punishing a Law Breaker goes against their Beliefs.

  39. avatar skiff says:

    Bob Dylan wrote a song about ISIS. It’s on his DESIRE album from 1976 which i have. Bob was way ahead of his time.

  40. avatar LHW says:

    Didn’t know that isis wanted people to fight back.

  41. avatar Texas Irregular says:

    Just like the OpEd piece in the LA Times from the LA prosecutor and police Chief, All the progressive politicians and their cronies are circling the wagons and getting the word out on their version of how reciprocity will work. Damn the truth!
    Wonder if there was this kinda hysteria when driver licenses became recognized nationally.

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