IMI Systems Quote of the Day: The Best Argument You’ll Read for National Reciprocity Today – Enter to Win 1000 Rounds of IMI 9mm Ammo

University of Arizona assistant professor in the University of Arizona’s School of Sociology and School of Government and Public Policy Jennifer Carlson.

“From the technicalities of guns themselves as mechanical objects, to the ways in which case law has enshrined certain doctrines related to self-defense, it is exceedingly difficult to wrap one’s head around everything. To paraphrase one California police chief I interviewed, you practically need a law degree to understand the intricacies in which local, state, and federal laws interface with the administrative bodies that are in charge of enforcing them.” – Jennifer Carlson in Americans have ‘complicated’ views on guns [via futurity.org]

ENTER TO WIN 1000 ROUNDS OF IMI 9MM AMMUNITION


Click here for more information about IMI System Ammunition

Entries will be added to TTAG’s mailing list and shared with IMI Systems

comments

  1. avatar The Punisher says:

    That’s not a case for “national” anything. It’s a case for the opposite.

    People have the right to bear arms. Period. Neither States nor the Fedgov should have any business regulating the ownership or use thereof for lawful purposes. Therefore any State or governing authority who makes a law regarding lawful ownership or use thereof is clearly out of bounds. It’s tyranny, not a law. It should be nullified immediately by mass peaceful non-cooperation of the law, in a very public fashion.

    Telling the Fedgov they should nationally regulate already unlawful concealed carry permits is the exact OPPOSITE direction you want to go. Be careful what you wish for.

    If National Reciprocity passes I feel very sorry for our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren…all it will take is one shift in the political winds and then you’ll have 50 state national registration and then disarmament. Because now they’ll appropriate funding and manpower to creating a structure around this thing and they will make it so civil disobedience to the disarmament command will be nigh impossible.

    1. avatar Special Ed says:

      We don’t need everyone to agree to give us permission. We need them to adhere to the Constitution.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Ok Punisher, I’m getting a little sick of you pushing this debunked retardation. National reciprocity DOES NOT give the federal government the authority to regulate concealed carry. Anybody who claims otherwise is pants on head retarded. What it DOES is force states to apply the faith and credit clause to concealed carry permits just as they recognize marriage licenses and driver’s licenses. Quit pushing your ancap bullshit into places it does not belong.

      1. avatar The Punisher says:

        Sure thing buddy.

        When has ANYTHING in the history of this country ever stopped the government from doing what it wants to do?

        Probably the only thing that HAS kept us as relatively free as we are is private gun ownership and the threat of an armed rebellion.

        Anything that puts the fedgov in control of that and you’re asking for problems. Probably not immediately, but down the line. They will build up a structure around it, mark my words. And once that structure is entrenched, good luck once the political winds change and they decide to use that structure for the opposite goal.

        Government has no business “licensing” marriages or drivers. So much fail here!

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        Ya pwrserge, I get what you’re saying, however, full faith and credit spread equally is an argument to equalize ‘carry’ states down to the non-carry ones. IT IS, just another way, POS (D) gun-grabber states can force you to be more like them.

        Yes, I also agree that, should a national reciprocity act pass, it MAY cause of flood of pro-carry swing in otherwise nutclip states, and that the flood might take a while to recede (and may not) I also agree with Punisher’s reluctance, as we’ve only had the full faith and credit of the Federal government used against us so far, and the “We’re the government, we’re here to help (you bend over and take it)” is the law, not the exception.

      3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        So, let’s see pwrserg… you have no problem at all with “regulation” of everyone by the non-voluntary government? You trust them all to follow the “laws” and the constitution? You don’t object to the eventual complete ownership of your body, mind and property… by that same non-voluntary government?

        Those with the power to grant you something… even something you think you need seriously – already have the power to take it away, and destroy you utterly whenever they please. Why would you trust them? Why would anyone else, if they understood that?

        Or do you truly believe that this (or any) non-voluntary government actually has any legitimate authority to control the lives and property of the population? If so, then tell me where this authority came from… and don’t say it is the “constitution.” From where did that bogus “authority” come?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok… The ancap bullshit is strong today.

          1. Nothing in the reciprocity acts regulates PEOPLE. It simply forces the states to recognize licenses issued by other states.
          2. The swing you clowns are complaining about can happen at any time anyway. A state has exactly zero authority to nullify federal law.

          This ancapistan bullshit has to stop. It’s basically just as retarded as communism. It ignores the fact that human beings have natural tendencies. The idea of a stateless government is pants on head retarded. If by some miracle you managed to get your system in place, you’ll have warlords running around with their own little fiefdoms inside a decade.

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          None of us are talking about a society with no rules. A voluntary society is what we seek. Voluntary association, voluntary cooperation, nobody controlling anyone but themselves and their voluntary communities. Truly free markets, with each person making their own choices for their own reasons, responsible for themselves and living with the consequences.

          You don’t want freedom? You don’t want anyone else to talk about individual liberty? Tough toenails.

          Not no rules… no rulers of others, and no slaves.

          The thing remains… YOU don’t get to choose for me.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          “I don’t get to choose for you”… Until I show up with my multi-million dollar private army and you have no way to stop me as my personal fortune vastly outfunds your “voluntary” contributions. Have fun with feudalism, because that’s exactly what you’re going to get. Your ideology fails because it assumes that evil people with the ability to get others to voluntarily follow them do not exist. History has proven you wrong dozens of times over the centuries.

        4. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Oh, that’s rich. And your non-voluntary government has prevented that? No indeed… the non-voluntary governments ARE the war-lord oppressors with large armies… all over the world.

          No sale.

        5. avatar GunDoc says:

          Pwrsrge,

          You need to stop dictating to people that are older and wiser than you. That’s me putting it politely.

          The simple truth is, like UBC, National Reciprocity is a solution that would make things far worse.

          This has nothing to do with AnCap (which I find hilarious that you have a problem with, since it is pretty much the hard opposite of Socialism…very telling). It has to do with the fact that the law is already on the books. It’s negative law, and it explicitly says what the Fed AND State gov may NOT do.

          The Constitution says that States may make laws MORE RESTRICTIVE OF GOVERNMENT, but never less.

          States that have abrogated their responsibility to uphold the law need to have their peepee slapped. Hard.

          The only current bill that would accomplish this would be the SAGA Act, HR 3576.

          The National Reciprocity bill is nothing more than a backdoor overreach, and once a Libtard gov returns to power (which it most definitely will), it is a perfect tool to remove the right to carry in ALL states. I’m not quite sure why that’s so difficult for you to comprehend.

          You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you need to spend more time studying.

        6. avatar Stereodude says:

          Pwrserge is not even as close to wrong as you all want to make him out to be. You’re apparently all advocating for a fairy tale society like it’s still the pre-industrial revolution. Like groups of like-minded people can come together and form agriculturally based mostly self sufficient close-knit small societies that each set their own rules and decide how they’re going to live. Sorry, but that’s not the world we live in.

          Frankly, given the world view that’s being espoused by many of you I don’t even see why you’re even interested in concealed carry reciprocity. Those are just other groups of people who have decided on different rules for their region and societies. Who are you to tell them that they’re wrong? If you don’t like their rules, don’t go there.

        7. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          “…I don’t even see why you’re even interested in concealed carry reciprocity. ”

          I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am NOT interested in any non-voluntary government permission to carry, concealed or otherwise. I don’t HAVE any stinking “permit.” Never did and never will. If you do want one, none of my business and I don’t care. By the same token, my situation is none of your business and the compromises you make can only be imposed on me by force. That seem good and right to you?

          That’s the issue… really. Not how many “states” are going to give you that permission… no matter how you slice it.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’m anti-ancap for the same reason I’m anti-socialism. Both theories are retarded and don’t work with actual human beings in a modern society. Ever heard of the horseshoe theory? That’s why I’m a CONSERVATIVE and not a Libertarian.

        9. avatar Stereodude says:

          While I don’t disagree with your specific sentiments MamaLiberty the reality is you can’t get that all at once in anything close to a single fell swoop. Forcing states to accept concealed carry permits from other states is a good intermediate step that improves the situation we have now.

          The situation isn’t impossible. You don’t put the Feds in charge of defining the standard for all states to follow for concealed carry licensing/permitting. They set a minimum standard for forced intrastate reciprocity. If a state wants to have more lax standards for their residents they can. It’s just that other states won’t have to accept it (but could).

          It’s not really any different than Driver’s licenses and ID’s and the Real ID act. A state doesn’t have to issue their residents ID’s that comply with the act if they don’t want to, but the Feds won’t accept an ID that doesn’t meet it.

          It seems like you want to throw out the good while you wait for perfection. This is an incremental fight and how you’re going to jump straight to perfection is beyond me.

        10. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          I think that you and several others here have missed the whole point… By what authority does the “state” do ANYTHING? You can exercise the natural authority you have over your own life (the actual premise of self defense), or you can give it away to anyone else, including the state… But you cannot give away anyone else’s natural authority over themselves.

          “It’s not really any different than Driver’s licenses and ID’s and the Real ID act. ”

          The “state” has no legitimate authority to do these things, any more than they do issuing “permits” to carry a gun or to defend yourself.

          But the “state” will continue to wield that power as long as people continue to accept that tyranny – and believe that the state, of any kind, actually has authority to do so. That’s what has to change.

        11. avatar Ing says:

          Doesn’t happen often, but I’m with Serge on this one.

          Ensuring national reciprocity — defined simply as each state accepting every other state’s license to carry — is absolutely the federal government’s job. It’s spelled out (literally) in the Constitution.

          Are you right to be afraid that national reciprocity would be a pretext for yet more suffocating federal interference with individual rights? Yes, absolutely.

          But as Serge points out, the government has been doing that for a long time on the flimsiest of pretexts (or none at all) and will continue regardless. So there’s no reason why it shouldn’t also do something it was actually meant to do along the way.

        12. avatar Stereodude says:

          So what’s your solution MamaLiberty? You’re never going to put that genie back in the bottle. Playing Don Quixote on the internet and hoping you can convince enough people to agree to turn back the clock isn’t going to happen, so what exactly are you advocating? What’s your practical solution? Concealed carry illegally hoping you don’t get caught and prosecuted? Not concealed carrying because you can’t do it on your terms?

        13. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          “My solution” would be individual liberty for everyone, everywhere. I can’t do that for everyone, but I can live that way as much as possible myself. I judge each action and choice by the non-aggression principle. That covers a whole lot of territory. I do not initiate force against anyone, or ask anyone to sacrifice anything for my benefit. I mind my own business, rather than trying to decide anything for other people. I negotiate and cooperate, rather than attempt to impose my will on others by any means. I live a life of integrity, with truth my goal. I engage in voluntary association with a great many people, and pursue mutual benefit and pleasure from doing so.

          As for the gun I carry, you can read what it means to me here. I Carry a Gun – Get Over It https://thepriceofliberty.org/i-carry-a-gun-get-over-it/

          I’ve carried both openly and concealed – all the time, everywhere – for many years. Wyoming no longer “requires” any permit to carry concealed, and that’s fine. I never asked anyone for permission before, and don’t intend to, regardless of the outcome of this idiocy.

          I just retired after 10 years as a certified instructor for handguns and self defense. Many of my students went on to get a “permit,” and that was their business. I found no reason to wear that dog collar…

      4. avatar Charlie Foxtrott says:

        The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not appear anywhere in the language of the national reciprocity bills. The Commerce Clause, however, does. The national reciprocity bills use the Commerce Clause to regulate what you do with your firearm once you leave your home state. Just like the existing Gun-Free School Zones Act, where the Commerce Clause is used as well, a national reciprocity law can apply conditions for carrying your firearm outside of your home state, including a federally regulated carry permit. So, yes, national reciprocity does give the federal government the authority to regulate concealed carry outside your state of residence and your Full Faith and Credit Clause argument is thoroughly debunked.

        As for the posted TTAG article. It’s nonsense! National reciprocity does not change state and local laws. Many restrictions on what one can carry where and how remain in place. All restrictions on residents remain in place. If anything, gun laws will become even more complex.

        If ever enacted, national reciprocity will be challenged in court, where state and federal governments argue about who is allowed to infringe upon that right. Do we really want this?

        1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          The Commerce clause was used as a tactical measure since it is well supported in case law. The Feds don’t need the reciprocity bill to increase power they already have.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “As for the posted TTAG article. It’s nonsense! National reciprocity does not change state and local laws.”

          Oh, but it damn sure *will*, if it is enacted into law.

          I can see the fallout from that law impacting out-of-state carriers like this:

          California pitches a ‘petulant two-year-old’ fit when forced to comply and the State Legislature passes a ‘gun safety’ law that bans carry within 5,000 feet of any school or church, thereby creating a de facto city-wide ‘gun free zone’.

          And you damn sure know the ‘9th Circus’ will find that to be perfectly constitutional.

          National carry will create a *huge* mess in the courts that will require SCOTUS decisions to sort out.

          And when SCOTUS eventually swings back Leftist, count on Heller being flushed down the crapper to the glee of the Leftists the same way as Dred Scott…

      5. avatar Ralph says:

        I can understand the suspicion toward the Feds, but pwserge is absolutely correct.

        National reciprocity doesn’t open the door to anything. The Feds have so many doors that they don’t need another one.

        Wake up.

      6. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        I am with Serge on this! You don’t automatically become divorced for the duration of a business trip! You don’t have to stop at every state line and apply for a temporary driver’s license on a trip to grandma’s house. This is something that the full faith and credit clause should have covered, but the slave states have to be kicked into compliance. All this would do is force compliance on states that wish to destroy parts of our Constitution.

      7. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Says you, calling in live from the land of unicorns.

        ANYONE who thinks a national reciprocity bill will read substantially similar to “All states must recognize as legally valid in their own jurisdictions the licenses to carry a concealed handgun issued by other states” and that’s it, is beyond retarded. Such a person has zero understanding how politics and the legislative process work in the real world, as opposed to unicorn land.

        As for marriage licenses, please, for the love of God, educate youraelf on that topic. There have been many exceptions to interstate recognition over the years. States weren’t required to recognize a license valid elsewhere if the marriage were abhorrent, such as polygamous or incestuous.

        Some states have laws against marriages stemming from marriage evasion. That’s when a state refuses recognition of marriages between its own residents if those residents married out of state specifically to evade their own state’s marriage laws. Another example, you and your step child may marry in Florida, but that marriage is legally void in Texas. (Not only may marriage licenses be denied recognition, but out of state divorce decrees can be and are successfully challenged in court every day. Be careful what you wish for!)

        Recognition as we know it today grew out of population mobility, blending of social norms, and convergence of states’ laws, or SCOTUS rulings (interracial and gay marriage), NOT a federal legislative sledge hammer, which is what you’re asking for here.

        I can keep going, but I’ve made my point. I can provide a full refutation of your driver’s license parallel, as well, if needed. I’ve done so in here before. Hopefully, you realize that this topic is far more complex than can be illustrated and understood through simple statements and expedient analogies. You should take this opportunity to get better informed, instead of trying to browbeat people.

  2. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    Hell you need a masters in law and need to have every state’s concealed carry law and reciprocity list in you back pocket just to make sure you don’t catch a felony if you get pulled over for a moving violation.

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      That is precisely why there needs to be less “law” applied to this not more. No need for nanny state fedgov to “grant” us anything or force the States to “recognize” jack.

      Timeless:

      “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” – Atlas Shrugged

  3. avatar jwm says:

    Constitutional carry nation wide is the only way to go.

    1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

      I wholeheartedly agree!!! We never should have had this permit system implemented in the first place. Notice that the only place it is acceptable to pay a tax (yes your permit fees are a tax), train, and obtain a permit to use a right is concealed carry. Really, it shouldn’t matter whether your T shirt or jacket “hides” your gun. Sure when they were first conceived back in the 1800’s it was because open carry was the preferred method of carry and concealed carry was though to be the practice of criminals but since then we have become more enlightened to the benefits of keeping your gun out of sight and the benefit of not scaring the bejesus out of some antigun wingnut who happens to be in line behind you at Walmart.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Open carry.

      KEEP YOUR GUNS FOR THE END OF AMERICA !

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      +1 to jwm — Constitutional carry is the way to go.

      And the way we get there is exceedingly simple: fedzilla enforces 18 U.S. Code Section 242: deprivation of rights under color of law. Note that any jurisdiction which enforces concealed carry laws does so under threat of violent force with a deadly weapon (police will attempt to shoot anyone who resists) and kidnapping (false arrest and imprisonment) which means the perpetrators and their accomplices can face life in prison and possibly even the death penalty as well as 10s of thousands of dollars in personal fines.

      Also note that the perpetrators and their accomplices include the police on the street, police chief, prosecutors, judges who preside over proceedings, bailiffs, and the governing body which declared that carrying firearms was illegal or subject to restrictions.

      After fedzilla sends a few cops, prosecutors, judges, and legislators to prison for 25 years and fines them $100,000 each, watch how fast they repeal all the various illegal firearm laws.

    4. avatar RMS1911 says:

      It’s already the law since 1791 but almost nobody knows it today.

  4. avatar Swilson says:

    “…you practically need a law degree to understand the intricacies…”

    Hmm, wonder if that might be a problem, at least for citizens trying to do the right thing.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      To them, it’s not a ‘bug’ it’s “The Plan”.

  5. avatar Groveton says:

    Internal conflict: Completely behind the 2nd amendment but also firm believer in states rights. Ignoring for the moment the ‘states shouldn’t regulate ownership’ argument because the fact is they do. Do I want California laws here in Texas? No. Do I think Texas has the right to push Texas laws on California? No. (though California would be better for it)

    Straddling that barbed wire fence on this one.

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      People like Serge think I’m retarded, but you’ve hit the nail on the head as to why I consistently push for de-centralization of everything.

      It is immoral and evil for Cali to push its’ laws (whether just or tyrannical) on Texas and vice versa.

      Same goes for the central government. And actually even within states the same principle applies. Why should Austin be able to tell the people of El Paso, hundreds of miles away, how to live their lives?

      How many people from rural areas in States all over this country complain on this site and others DAILY about how they hate that their state capitol or large urban cities in their states get to dictate how they live when their lives in a rural setting are completely different from people living their lives in urban areas?

      All we do is circle jerk around trying to pretend that square pegs fit into round holes and use force and coercion to get other people to do what we want. Frankly, it’s disgusting.

      1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

        I think that it boils down to individual freedoms vs collective regulations. If national carry is enacted based on the ideals of limiting the encroachment of rights by state governments then that’s good. If it’s implemented in a manner adding additional regulation and complexity, that’s bad. Reality is it would likely end up somewhere in the middle. I would prefer states like NY/NJ/CA/MA to do the right thing, but that certainly can’t be counted on. I view National carry not as “the” regulation for carry, but rather a minimum requirement for each state. If the state you’re in wishes to have fewer or even no regulation on carriers that is their business. Even if it’s not everything now, a step in the right direction is a good thing. The “incremental blight” that gun grabbers use can certainly cut the other way as well. Expectation that something like federal constitutional carry will just materialize out of nowhere is absurd. I would think virtually all the states that have it went through a gradual process of progressively reducing regulation to get there.

      2. avatar Stereodude says:

        So then you’re actually not for any sort of reciprocity. You think every locale and region should be able to infringe on your second amendment rights because only the federal gov’t is forbidden from doing so. I guess your HOA can prohibit you from having guns in your house and your only recourse is to either move or attempt to change the HOA’s rules. I mean it doesn’t get much more local than your HOA and apparently the Bill of Rights doesn’t restrict your HOA…

        What an odd view…

        1. avatar The Punisher says:

          Not odd.

          If the HOA says you can’t have guns, guess what? I VOLUNTARILY don’t live under that HOA. Nobody comes out from the HOA with an army or guns and forces me to abide by the HOA.

          You’re acting like the “Bill of Rights” is some holy writ. It’s merely a piece of paper that tried to tell the national government what they couldn’t infringe. It said nothing of the fact that states couldn’t infringe on them. It wasn’t until the 14th amendment that language concerning the states even appeared.

          But even then I’m not saying that the State should even legitimately be able to infringe on those rights…that’s the point…if any “authority” says you can’t defend yourself is that a legitimate thing? Of course not, it’s absurd. likewise if the “authority” says hey it’s ok to murder people is that a legitimate thing? Of course not, it’s absurd. But in both instances that’s exactly what we have with State and Federal governments. We get lawful practices outlawed and banned and unlawful practices encouraged and extolled.

          And I’m the one with odd views…

    2. avatar That One Guy says:

      Let me see if I can help you down from the fence:

      There are things that the individual states can rightly regulate within their borders, and there are things that are immutable nationwide concepts. The rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are part of that latter group. Any state that wants to be a part of the nation at large has to play by those rules. Anything that is not addressed by the BoR is fair game for the states (by way of the 10th).

      I don’t want CA laws in TX and I can appreciate why CA might not want TX laws, but there shouldn’t be any state-level laws with respect to arms. The national law against infringement (the 2A) preempts any state law, because any further law (state or federal) can rightly be considered infringement.

      Of course, in practice, the 2A has been gutted at state and federal levels, which has allowed for the current mishmash of laws, regs, and practices. The only available course at this time is a steady return to originalism. One way to make progress in that regard is to specifically end state-level infringement by federal decree, but that does open the door for an expanded federal-level infringement as Punisher notes.

      1. avatar The Punisher says:

        That One Guy,

        Actually you’re not correct.

        The Bill of Rights was only concerned with the Federal, National government that the Constitution was about to create and empower. It was ratified in secret, by committees and not by the congresses of the states. It was actually a coup.

        That said:

        “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.”

        So if Georgia did want to prohibit people from owning guns it very well could – if the people of Georgia, via their state government, willed it. So that means that States could become completely tyrannical – and the national government should be powerless to stop it. But, in fact, it was always destined – via the Constitution and radical judges on the supreme court – to create a national beast that would usurp the states.

        The Bill of Rights reflected the values and attitudes of the people of the several states. And yes, they basically are sacrosanct. But better to have a patchwork of laws and various little tyrannies and bastions of liberty alike than to have a 50 state blanket of tyranny enforced by the fedgov, which is what we now have and are constantly asking for more.

        We have the government we deserve.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          First 3 of the Bill of Rights were distributed to the States and ratified in 1791.

          https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/bill-of-rights/

          https://www.usconstitution.net/ratifications.html

          To become a State (getting past the original 13), the (future) State had to ratify and adopt the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme law of the land.

        2. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

          Do you think there is any significance to the fact that the 1st Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…” but the 2nd says “…shall not be infringed.” without limiting the prohibition to any particular govt body?

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          Yes, in the Former, you hunt / kill Congress, in the latter, it’s open season on even foreign country MFs, and includes satan, space aliens, viruses, mother nature, bi-polar disorders, and most addictions.

    3. avatar Marus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      I don’t believe there is a conflict. The constitution doesn’t simply apply only to the federal government, there is more to it than that.

      The Constitution defines the structure and function of the US federal government, yes. It assigns powers to the federal government, and restricts how those powers may be legitimately exercised. All of that is true, but whether or not an amendment applies only to the federal government is not simply an artifact of the constitution defining the federal government, but also dependent on the specific wording of the amendment itself. The second amendment simply denies existence entirely to the power to infringe upon that right at any level of government within the United States.

      The US constitution is also a contract between constituent states. By agreeing to this contract the states agree also on how they will participate in the federal government through the election of their senators. They agree to adhere to subsequent constitutional amendments if the proper procedures were followed in passing the amendment in the federal body composed of representatives of the states.

      All states also agree that “congress shall pass no law” regarding religion/speech etc.

      However they also agree that “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Agreeing to this simple statement was part of the price of membership, as well as giving up the authority to regulate acts of commerce between the constituent states to the federal government to which that power was assigned.

  6. avatar ironhead says:

    Shall not be infringed….. why do you need a law degree for that?
    All you need is a second grade education.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      That’s right, you shouldn’t need a gun to ‘splain it to them, but if you do, that’s your right.

  7. avatar The Duke says:

    The bureaucracy is a feature not a bug. Scare people into not trying and you end up getting what you could never achieve through legal means

  8. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    “There are two turning points in the American history of gun politics: First, the emergence of crime as a political issue in the 1960s and 1970s under the mantra of the “war on crime.” Second, the transformation of the National Rifle Association in the 1970s into a robust political lobbying organization.”

    I suggest that MS Carlson left out something in her discussion about the second point.

    The change in the NRA activities was a response to the “war on crime” of the democrat party and their movement on gun control.

    There wasn’t much in the way of gun control then. Any adult could walk into anyplace that had a gun of any kind for sale, lay down the money and walk out with it. Democrats started their efforts to limit that ability based on “war on crime” rhetoric.

    In those days the NRA was about the only nation wide organization for POG so it evolved due to concerns we all have today….well, a lot of us anyway.

    1. avatar Parnell says:

      You seem to forget that the NFA was passed in the 1030’s as a response to the crime wave epitomized by the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Crime and the fear of it has always been the driving force of gun control. The change in the NRA highlighted the realization that gun control was a civil rights violation.

  9. avatar wd-40-40 says:

    What model will the fed gov use, that ALL states will agree to? Constitutional carry-not likely, finger prints and a B.G. check-nope, hours of class lecture, safety training and storage with hours of compitenancy(sic) range live fire training, having to re train every 5 years with lots of restrictions yeah, probably. I like Washington state’s model B.G. check W/ fingerprints. I prefer *Constitutional carry* or nothing.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      The Fed Gov won’t be using any “model” for acquiring a permit. You’ll still need to follow the laws of the state whose permit you want to get.

      Reciprocity simply means that your Washington State permit is recognized in Oregon the same way an Oregon permit would be.

      1. avatar The Punisher says:

        At first…but in time, who knows.

        Pandora’s box will be opened.

        Once Fedgov gets asked to intervene where the States are in dispute…well then you get the full force of the nanny state involved.

        Be careful what you wish for.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          “Pandora’s box will be opened.”

          Please tell me that you’re kidding. Pandora’s Box was opened in 1934.

  10. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    I’m having a hard time warming up to the idea of federally mandated recognition of my Illinois Concealed Carry License in all 50 states.

    Even today, if I travel to a state that recognizes my license, I need to read up on that state’s laws, especially regarding prohibited areas. There are places I can carry in Illinois but can’t in Missouri, and vice-versa. It’s pretty easy to get tripped up in the details, and national reciprocity wouldn’t change that.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Actually, if our courts resumed practicing Common Law, most of this would go away as well.

      Example:

      Bailiff calls court to order and judge announces, “State of New York versus John Doe for carrying a concealed handgun without a license”.

      Judge then asks the prosecutor, “Mr. prosecutor, who is the victim? Who suffered an injury [physical or monetary]?”

      Prosecutor responds, “Um, no one.”

      Judge then says, “Case dismissed with predjudice. Bailiff, please arrest the prosecutor. And notify police that I am issuing a warrant for the arrest of the police officers who WRONGFULLY arrested the defendant.”

      That would clear-up this garbage really fast.

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        I love that, personally. Won’t happen any time soon I fear.

      2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        Devil’s Advocate – the Prosecutor would answer “The people of New York were harmed, in that their right to live in a weapons-free environment was violated”.

        In fact from the slimy stuff most prosecutors seem to pull, he’d probably file 8 million counts of the same offense.

      3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        Doing away with victimless crimes would require legalizing drunk driving and throwing out most of each state’s motor vehicle code. You could roll through stop signs and speed through school zones as long as you didn’t hit anyone. Also say goodbye to laws against prostitution and illegal drugs.

        The outcome wouldn’t be good.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    “you practically need a law degree to understand the intricacies in which local, state, and federal laws interface with the administrative bodies”

    Nuts to that. I have a law degree, and 40 years of experience, and a special interest in firearms, and I can’t keep track of the bullshit surrounding guns.

    This Byzantine intricacy is by design, and one of the reasons why I fear the Imperial State.

  12. avatar David says:

    We must all be more pragmatic. The States and Feds are going to interfere in our lives regardless of the Constitution. We need to gain ground, even an inch at a time.

    National Reciprocity will force the “Non-Issue” states to accept concealed carry, and they will soon become “Shall Issue” states by default. (they will accept the reality that they can’t deny their own residents permits while non-residents have them).

    This will make 75 million more citizens eligible for concealed carry. This will add to our momentum, gain more popularity, and continue to shift public sentiment. ” The Government” does nothing. The politicians that run the government always cave to public sentiment. Anything we can do to change public sentiment about gun owners and CCW helps us.

    When is the last time you were nice to a gun-control advocate? Take one shooting with you as soon as possible.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “When is the last time you were nice to a gun-control advocate? Take one shooting with you as soon as possible.”

      And place them downrange.

  13. avatar Wally1 says:

    One of the major problems is that in about the middle of 2007 a major population shift occurred in the USA. More of the population since 2007 now live in major metro areas (cities) than in rural area’s. History, (the romans, etc.) shows in every major civilization that this trend has occurred, it caused a turning point and started a decline, eventually resulting in crisis, collapse and civil war. We are not immune.

    Why, Because the large population centers start to be able to dictate to the rest of the population laws and policy based on perception rather than fact. Non producers dictating policy to producers who have little or no say in their future.

    This is starting now, just take a look at the liberal left and their agenda of subversion and distortion of facts. Whenever they start talking about “common sense” gun laws, you can guarantee it’s not about safety or reason, it’s about control. Don’t be fooled, the 2nd amendment is the only right that really matters, without it the rest of the bill of rights might as well be toilet paper. Just my .23 cents worth ( adjusted for inflation).

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