Three Arguments Against National Reciprocity And Why They’re Wrong

Gun control advocates are staring down the barrel of a bill for national concealed carry reciprocity. To say they’re not comfortable with the idea is like saying action demanding Mom Shannon Watts is a tyrannical Bloomberg shill. Although the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is stuck in post-Vegas shooting development hell, the antis are busy decrying H.R. 38’s deadly (i.e. imaginary) potential. Here are the three arguments they’re using and why they challenge a box of rocks for brainlessness.

1. Dangerous gun owners will “wander” into “safe states”!

latimes.com loves them some gun control: Mere weeks after Las Vegas, the GOP is quietly pushing a gun-lover’s pipe dream. The idea that someone from a state that respects the Second Amendment’s prohibition against government infringement on all Americans’ right to keep and bear arms could carry a gun in California is beyond galling. It’s dangerous! So much so that

In fact, a dozen states put no restrictions at all on who gets to carry a concealed firearm so long as people meet minimal federal qualifications for being able to buy a gun. Other states should not be forced to live under such loose rules if they don’t believe those rules to be safe.

Gun owners from Arizona, where no permit is required for carrying a concealed weapon, should not be allowed to wander armed into a state such as California, which has some of the strictest gun controls in the country, without meetings its requirements.

The Times‘ “argument” fails on two major points.

First, the LA Times is lying about the bill. The law’s text is crystal clear: it only applies to an American “who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm.”

Anyone carrying under H.R. 38’s provisions would have to meet federal and state permitting requirement. Anyone carrying without a permit (i.e., “Constitutional carry”) would not qualify. Period

Second, all Americans carrying outside their home state would have to adhere to the rules and regulations of the state they’re visiting/living in. As they do now. For example, when I had a Massachusetts carry permit, I couldn’t carry an ammunition magazine in Massachusetts if it held more than 10 rounds (unless it was a pre-ban GLOCK magazine).

2. National concealed carry reciprocity tramples on states’ rights!

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman recently wrote a letter to Congressional leaders (i.e., his base on the sympathetic press) claiming that national reciprocity would violate state’s rights. It was co-signed by the AG’s of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, Oregon, Virginia, Rhode Island, D.C., Delaware, Iowa, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, Washington, New Mexico and North Carolina.

The missive trotted-out the same old “blood in the streets” logic gun control advocates have been selling since, well, forever. The state’s rights bit went a little something like this:

The Constitution and our system of federalism primarily reserve policing and protecting public safety to the States to accommodate the great diversity in geography, population, culture, and tradition among them. We would not mandate that one State honor another’s fishing, liquor, or hunting permits, yet the proposed legislation applies that same flawed approach to the far more serious issue of who may carry a concealed firearm.

Mr. Schneiderman and his fellow AG’s seem to have forgotten the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. You know, like free speech and the right to assembly. And the McDonald decision, which incorporated the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms (i.e. declared that it trumps local and state law).

Truth be told, the whole idea of requiring a government permission slip to bear arms is unconstitutional. But the idea that a state can trample on a Constitutionally protected right returns us to the days of slavery and post-civil war Jim Crow laws. Shame on these AG’s!

3. National concealed carry reciprocity would hamstring the police!

While I’d like to use another source to moot the “argument” that national concealed carry endangers law enforcement officers, Mr. Schneiderman’s letter is as good (i.e. bad) as it gets:

The legislation would endanger our state and local law enforcement officers. Police officers on the beat would have to determine—often in an instant or under duress—whether an armed individual not permitted to carry a concealed weapon under local laws, may legally carry in the state in which he purports to be licensed, with no way to determine if a permit is legitimate or if it is revoked, suspended, forged or otherwise invalid.

Even more alarming, officers would be further challenged when they encounter an individual claiming to be from one of the 12 states that allow concealed carry without a permit. A police officer patrolling city streets at 2 A.M. who spots a gun under the shirt of a suspicious person lurking outside a nightclub could (in order to avoid a potential lawsuit under the House bill) be forced to turn his back on any suspect who merely asserts residency [in] a “permitless” state.

In short, requiring officers to conduct traffic stops and other police activity with no ability to authenticate every other State’s carry laws would pose an extraordinary and unnecessary risk to our communities and to the men and women who put their lives on the line everyday to protect us.

Hang on. Why is this “issue” — a cop determining if a carry permit is legit or revoked, suspended, forged or otherwise invalid — not an issue in states that recognize other state’s concealed carry permits now? In other words, how stupid does Mr. Schneiderman and his (to a man) Democratic co-signers think we are?

Stupid enough to, again, accept the lie that H.R. 38 (or its Senate equivalent) would allow Americans without a state-issued concealed carry permit to legally carry a concealed firearm into a state that requires a carry permit.

I don’t expect the mainstream media to expose the fallacies underlying gun control advocates’ “arguments” against national concealed carry reciprocity. I beseech The People of the Gun to hit up the comments sections underneath offending editorials and “news” stories spreading the lies and disinformation. We all need to tell the truth about guns, and firearms freedom.

comments

  1. avatar kenneth says:

    I beseech The People of the Gun to hit up the comments sections underneath offending editorials and “news” stories spreading the lies and disinformation. ”
    And just how are we supposed to do that? When all of the disinfo sites either have comments disabled, or any truth is immediately censored into the memory hole?

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Your local newspaper probably has a comments section beneath each online article. You can start there.

      These usually require a sign-in account, but not necessarily a paid subscription to the newpaper itself. I comment all the time on the Houston Chronicle’s website, chron.com, for example. I have a screen name, but no subscription.

      1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        I also comment on many sites like you say. And experience left wing moderation too. Our fight is two fold. Not just against the lies from gun grabbers, but the left as a whole and it’s grip on the media as a whole. The suppression of truth is communism.

  2. avatar strych9 says:

    With respect to #3:

    How is it a safety issue? Is the out of state permit card going to shoot the officer?

    Pardon my ignorance of policing, but I would think that at worst this creates a paperwork issue. The officer safety issue comes from people who use/attempt to use a gun against the police. Somehow I doubt that CCW holders will do that and the number that would use their permit to “lay a trap” is near if not right at 0.

    I’m no danger to the police here in Colorado. Why would I suddenly get a hankerin’ to skin my smokewagon and shoot it out with the cops just because I crossed a state border?

    1. avatar John says:

      Ummm…

      No reason. Why do you think they need a reason that makes sense? Well, other than they HATE you. They don’t just disagree with you, they actually hate you. You are the ‘Other’; to be ridiculed and shunned. They cannot countenance that you, as an ‘Other’, would be responsible and safe. They hate you for your freedom and liberty. And, their deepest fear is that responsibility, freedom and liberty might gain a foothold in their neighborhood.

      It keeps them up at night. http://www.breitbart.com/tinseltown/2/

  3. avatar The Punisher says:

    Number 2 isn’t entirely wrong. Some of reasons cited, such as the “blood in the streets” nonsense, is not the point.

    You do not want Fedgov telling all 50 states what they can and cannot do. If infringing on the 2nd is “unconstitutional” then surely trampling the 10th amendment is also “unconstitutional”.

    “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.”

    Yes, one can argue that the States should also not be able to trample on the sacrosanct rights. I agree. And yet I find this laughable:

    “But the idea that a state can trample on a Constitutionally protected right returns us to the days of slavery and post-civil war Jim Crow laws. Shame on these AG’s!”

    Really?!?

    You mean like New York, New Jersey, California, oh wait – any State that requires any sort of permit to carry a gun, whether concealed or not…you mean that kind of trampling, or did you have something else in mind?

    Which brings us precisely to the point as to why you don’t want Fedgov involved: If the people of California cannot change their “local” State governments’ unconstitutional laws then what makes anyone think that when, not if, in the future the Fedgov decides that since it has now weighed in on the matter and can exert some form of control over the situation, that now it will be legally binding on all 50 States – and that’s it – everything else is a moot point because it’s federal law.

    Places like Montana and Kansas have passed laws stating that suppressors or full auto weapons manufactured and sold exclusively within the State do not fall under the “Commerce Clause” and thus make any Federal Law moot. Didn’t stop the ATF boys from rounding up the buyer and seller of Kansas-made suppressors that were unregistered and never left the State…

    The Marijuana laws would be exactly the same except that the Fedgov is basically looking the other way on those states that have legalized it because – you guessed it – the popularity of the legalization and the crap storm it would cause if they tried to enforce the federal statutes.

    And yet gun owners can’t get a clue. Instead they just ridicule the individuals who choose to flaunt the unconstitutional federal and/or state statutes.

    So Robert, rather than argue for permission from the Nanny State you should be arguing for popular mass non-compliance to all unconstitutional Federal and State statutes.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Except, the power to deny concealed carry has already been denied the states. Thus, the 10th amendment doesn’t come into play.

      1. avatar The Punisher says:

        Erm…where? By whom?

        The Fedgov isn’t supposed to have any power unless explicitly given by the States. So the “power train” should go:

        People –> States –> Fedgov

        It’s not supposed to work any other way.

        Thus, if a State tries to take away a right, which is a natural thing, not anything “granted” by any governmental entity, except God, then it is the responsibility and right of the people to either not follow the unjust law or to abolish their State government and start again.

        1. avatar Mercury says:

          The incorporation consequent of the 14th Amendment means that the Bill of Rights also restricts the States. Just as state legislatures are prohibited from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech (or the press, or to assemble, etc.) so too are they prohibited from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

          Thus, the only applicable clause in the 10th Amendment here is “…or to the people.”

        2. avatar Danny338 says:

          Would you consider the following:
          People—> States—> Federal
          \__________/

          What I’m trying to say is that the authority of the Federal government actually comes from the People. I am not sure that it is not within the Federal government’s authority to enforce the Constitution upon the States. There is at least one delegated power that could be used in such a way. I agree that it is the people’s responsibility/duty to not abide unconstitutional laws, both state and federal. That is why the Sixth Amendment is so important, it is supposed to preserve trial by jury in all criminal prosecutions. A person makes their case to the jury that the law, whether local, state, or federal, is a violation of their rights as expressed in the Constitution. The jury has the power to declare that person ‘not guilty’ and according to some of the founders, have the power to declare the law unconstitutional and null and void.

          Just food for thought.

    2. avatar TruthTellers says:

      The ATF boys only went into states like Kansas and Montana to round up those dangerous suppressors manufactured and possessed in the state is because the Executive branch told them to. With Trump as President now, he can issue and executive order that states that NFA items manufactured, distributed, and possessed in individual states and never cross state lines are not subject to enforcement of BATFE.

      Will it stir up a shitstorm? Yes, but as you pointed out, it would give Trump the incentive to go after states that legalized marijuana by cutting their law enforcement funding.

      As for concealed/open carry, the correct way to resolve the issues of reciprocity is the SCOTUS needs to hear a case around that issue and rule that states like NY, NJ, CA, etc. violate an individuals 2A right to keep and bear arms. But SCOTUS has an affinity for not taking up 2A cases, Republicans in Congress are too scared to turn off potential voters by voting one way or another, and that leaves the Executive branch as the only branch to fiddle with guns and Obama did everything in his power to deny people their 2nd amendment, going so far that those who have representative payees were no longer qualified to buy a gun.

      Trump needs to do the opposite and not just by undoing what Obama did with Executive Orders, but make new ones of his own. He can start with what I suggest above.

      1. avatar The Punisher says:

        Everything you just wrote only points to the utter insanity and tyranny of the government we have in the US.

        The executive “could” do this or “should” do that. The SCOTUS “should” do this, but they have an affinity to not “do this”…

        And here “we the people” sit with our thumbs in our noses, wailing and gnashing our teeth and voting and hoping that all of our supposed elected representatives and chief executive will just “do something” about all this.

        Pssssh.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “But SCOTUS has an affinity for not taking up 2A cases,…”

        Make that *currently* not taking up 2A cases.

        We’ll have to wait until Kennedy or another Leftist justice vacates the bench and are replaced with a conservative justice before we can state as fact SCOTUS is out of the business of granting cert. to 2A cases…

        1. avatar The Punisher says:

          Oh sure…just keep the faith in the black-robed wizards who rule your world.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          They did pretty well with Heller and McDonald, considering Kennedy was in the mix.

          If you had told me two years back DC would be shall-issue, I would have laughed at you. I can’t help but wonder if those two cases had an impact on the lower court in DC that ruled carry was constitutional…

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      “You do not want Fedgov telling all 50 states what they can and cannot do.”

      I most assuredly want the Constitution telling all 50 states what they can and cannot do, but they aren’t listening. Thus, paranoia notwithstanding, National Reciprocity is the only answer.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Bingo. Without the fed.gov there are no rights, constitutional or otherwise. 51% of the voters in any given state in any given election can do away with all the amendments if the fed.gov doesn’t step in.

        We are not city states. Nor do we want to be. San Francisco, L.A., New York city……..need I go on?

        We are a nation and the fed.gov is supposed to protect all our rights.

  4. avatar Danny says:

    Some states require more training than others, and I do not see why a state that lets you get a license with just a 1-hour class and a ten-question quiz should be able to trump the requirements of a state that requires several hours of instruction and a live-fire range test.

    Sorry, people of the gun are wrong — really wrong — on this one. If they want nationwide carry, they should legislate a federal CCW license.

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      Or not.

      Because, you know, freedom.

      1. avatar Danny says:

        Talking like Tarzan is not the same thing as making a valid argument.

        1. avatar The Punisher says:

          Yes, because my previous post was obviously not precise and to the point…

          No valid argument?

          My argument was: Because Freedom.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          In my more ideal America, kids would get real gun safety education in the public school, if the didn’t get it at home first.

          As far as I’m concerned, the gun safety they get at school would *automatically* qualify them for a carry permit one they hit legal age.

          I don’t have a problem with basic gun knowledge (4 rules, etc) being taught before carrying.

          I also would have no problem if driver licenses had data on them indicating prohibited person status…

    2. avatar livewire says:

      Or maybe, just maybe, they’ll start to realize their stupid classes don’t help, cost money, and are otherwise unreasonable… and abolish them.

      1. avatar Danny says:

        That is a policy argument that should be made to the state’s own legislature, not to some neighboring state’s legislature, and certainly not to the Congress in D.C.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Danny,

          States did not codify 16+ hours of training for “public safety”: those states required 16+ hours of training in order to prevent as many people as possible — especially poor people — from being legally armed.

          Let’s be honest: it does NOT take hours for a person to learn how to safely operate a handgun. Rather, it takes about 15 minutes. Here are the “training” points with respect to self-defense:
          (1) Keep handgun in a properly fitting holster.
          (2) Only take your handgun out of your holster when there is a reasonable, credible, and imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
          (3) Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you are pointing at your attacker.
          (4) Once you are pointing at your attacker, squeeze trigger.
          (5) Repeat as necessary until your attacker is no longer a reasonable, credible, and imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
          (6) Put your handgun back your holster after the threat is gone.

          You can read that in less than two minutes. And you can practice drawing an unloaded handgun, aiming at a target, squeezing the trigger, and reholstering at least 12 times in 4 minutes.

          As for people who claim that you need hours of marksmanship practice before you can reliably put rounds on target in self-defense scenarios: they are lying. If you can point your finger at an attacker who is 10 feet away, you can accurately point a handgun at that attacker who is 10 feet away — EVERY TIME — without any practice.

          Using a handgun for self-defense is not rocket-science. Basically, you just point and click.

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      So what’s the magic number, Danny Boy? Ten hours? A hundred hours? Four hours? Tell us so that we may awed by your perspicacity.

    4. avatar neiowa says:

      “lets you get a license blow that statist BS out your muzzle prog.

    5. avatar Pete says:

      Except these no-reciprocity states are being disingenuous when they claim it’s a safety training or even a “safe handgun roster” issue. These states don’t issue carry permitsc at all outside of law enforcement and personal protection for the rich and famous. That’s the restriction the truly care to maintain.

    6. avatar tdiinva says:

      Here is the flaw in your argument. Person in state A with no live fire requirement practices weekly while person from state B with a 16 hours of class and live fire requirement passes his test and then seldom if ever practices. Which person is better prepared to carry a firearm?

      Concealed carry classes do not teach you how to effectively use a gun no matter how much time you put in or whether you are required to do live fire or not. The only value such courses have for carry a gun is informing you of what the rules of engagement are in your state. Empirical evidence shoes that the outcome of a DGU had nothing to do with the amount and type of training the defender has had.

  5. avatar FB says:

    Very weak arguments!

    1. Dangerous gun owners will “wander” into “safe states”!
    A majority of the US states already have reciprocity. Adding the remaining 8ish liberal states will not make a difference.

    2. National concealed carry reciprocity tramples on states’ rights!
    State rights trample on the constitution. “Shall not be infringed”. Need to say more?

    3. National concealed carry reciprocity would hamstring the police!
    Does the opposite. FBI stats show armed communities lower crime significantly.
    The mass majority of law enforcement agrees with reciprocity.

  6. “You mean like New York, New Jersey, California, oh wait – any State that requires any sort of permit to carry a gun, whether concealed or not…you mean that kind of trampling, or did you have something else in mind?”

    Because a Constitutional right has been successfully trampled, doesn’t make the trampling ok.

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      You’re right it doesn’t. But you’ve missed the forest for the trees.

      Let’s just imagine that 40 States completely adhere to their State constitutions and the citizens of those 40 States enjoy complete liberty and freedom. 10 States decide to descend into tyranny and abuse their citizens’ rights to varying degrees.

      Those in the 10 States of tyranny can, perhaps, move to one of the States that is free or each of those 10 states can fight for their rights individually. But that still means that 40 States are free and so a larger population is free.

      Put Fedgov in the mix and you ensure that if it wants to do something tyrannical then that tyranny is spread out amongst all the states. And this is in addition to the state governments and their varying degrees of tyranny.

      Do you not see the problem? It is better to have a patchwork of laws and know that there are “go” and “no go” zones rather than use force and coercion against the states.

      What if the “will of the people” in California truly is to ban all guns? Well better to let California descend into tyranny and let the freedom lovers get out than to have a 50 state Federal ban on guns…

      We don’t need a federal say on marriage, on marijuana, on guns, on anything really. Decentralized, local autonomy is better. Can there still be tyranny? Of course. But on a smaller and more manageable scale.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “Do you not see the problem?”

        Yes. Paranoia.

      2. avatar BecauseWeSaySo says:

        So any state that wants to could once again legalize slavery. Do we think anyone is down for that? State’s rights have their limits, and it seems to me they should not/cannot be in conflict with the US Constitution.

        The drug laws are federal statutes, not part of the Constitution. Why are drug laws constitutional? Alcohol is a drug and it took an amendment to the Constitution to “prohibit” it. But with any other drug the FedGov gets to do whatever it wants and the states have to kiss their azz.

        1. avatar joetast says:

          The States could “try” to bring back slavery, they could try!!!

  7. avatar MontieR says:

    Contrary to the disingenuous LIES of the anti gun NUTS. NO state has the “right” to disregard the constitution. The constitution is the BASIS and foundation for ALL law in this country. The second amendment CLEARLY states “THE PEOPLE”, (not the militia) have the right to keep and bear arms, PERIOD. ANY law regulation or permitting scheme is a constitutional VIOLATION, PERIOD. Anyone saying ANYTHING differently is LYING to you.

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      And yet…

      What do we find all across this country today?

      Some authority the Constitution has…

  8. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    “with no way to determine if a permit is legitimate or if it is revoked, suspended, forged or otherwise invalid”

    That’s my favorite part. Aside from carry licenses, how do they confirm the validity of driver’s licenses, all day long, every day, coast to coast? How do they let people om planes with out of state licenses? Or into federal or state facilities? Or into bars ir rent cars or, or, or a million other things regular and routine?

    As for the police, they punch it into a computer which connects to all states’ databases. In many states, the carry license program is administered by the same agency as driver licenses. Regardless, the systems are all connected.

    I don’t know, I want to be mad at the statists who insult out intelligence with these asinine arguments. Then I recall that they only do so because there really are that many stupid people out there who fall for them. So maybe the blame rests with the idiots who walk among us.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      So you’re calling for a (legalized) national registration database??

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        No registration database required, just an ‘flag’ if the individual is a prohibited person or not.

        No serial numbers, or any other gun data, just if you are or are not a prohibited person…

  9. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Actual enforcement of the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution makes national reciprocal carry unnecessary.

    Article IV, Section 1:

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    My dirvers’ “license” works in every state. My marriage “license” works in every state. Why is my concealed carry “license” not?

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      There are many, many holes in the drivers license and marriage license comparisons that you even posing that question reveals that you’ve done precisely zero thinking or reading om this topic.

      I could educate you, and I would be happy to as I have others on this issue, but dude, you have to come to class with your homework done. I can’t start from scratch every time.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Your drivers license works in every state because the states agreed to recognition. And BTW, such recognition does not always apply. Look it up.

      Full faith and credit has never applied to licenses. If it did, my license to practice law would have been valid in every state. I assure you it was not.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Ralph,

        Then what was the point of the full faith and credit clause? Please show me an example. I honestly have no idea at this point what to think about the full faith and credit clause.

      2. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

        Then what does the clause actually do?

  10. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Reason #2 is about the only time any liberal would care about state’s rights.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      That and sanctuary state nonsense.

  11. avatar GunDoc says:

    National Reciprocity is a solution in search of a problem. This needs to be tackled state by state. Passing a law creating a Federal permission slip is a mistake.

    The only law that would help is the SAGA Act, HR3576. Hopefully H.R. 38 and its Senate equivalent die.

  12. avatar Gregolas says:

    National Concealed Carry is Constitutional because:
    1,Because self-defense is an inherant Natural Right guaranteed by the 2d Amendment to EVERY individual, therefore
    2.. The “Full Faith and Credit Clause” requires that all states recognize the legal enactments of other states.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Sigh. This is getting old.

      The full faith and credit clause has never applied to licenses, ever. If it did, my license to practice law would have entitled me to practice law in every state. It did not.

      1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

        Then explain it to us. All I ever see is a guy denying it. Sigh.

  13. avatar Sam I Am says:

    As noted here, often, by others, the second amendment is my national reciprocity law. I do not like any legislation that attempts to overturn, or supercede the constitution, unless that legislation is in the form of a constitutional amendment published for ratification. If mere legislation can reinforce, enforce, propagate, repeal or impose “gun rights” in the states, mere legislation can reverse the first, or severely constrain it.

    We would be hit with apoplexy if the anti-gunners proposed national legislation to make illegal, any reciprocity between states. (We would retain the RTKBA, but not the ability to concealed carry in any state but that of our residence; not an infringement).

    Let this one go. It will eventually be used to choke us.

  14. avatar Tt78 says:

    National reciprocity does trample states’ rights, but they really don’t want to go down that road considering all the other federal statutes and court decisions that do the same.

  15. avatar UtahCCW says:

    1. “National concealed carry reciprocity would hamstring the police!” has already been dealt with in the law. HR38 specifically says: “Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.” Certainly rebuttable, but not easy to do on the street unless the cop can check with the state that issued the license or identification.

    2. Comparing to licenses does not work. We do not have a “right” to drive. We do have a right not to have our right to bear arms infringed. And before Mcdonald, we might not have been able to enforce this right against the states, but with incorporation, we have a right to do so and states are bound by the amendment. This is entirely different from a commerce clause analysis – McDonald creates totally independent basis for congressional action to ensure that infringement does not occur. On the flip side, it does not create any basis for laws that don’t enforce the amendment – laws that infringe.

  16. avatar #2Arally2017 says:

    Do you all have a #2ARally2017 @ UR State Capitol on Nov 5th for Gun Rights? If not get one going plz. Link below! Plz Share! Thanks 4 sharing!
    https://www.facebook.com/2A-Capitol-Rally-1414981381948986/?__fns&hash=Ac0Jl7Xo0fFO0lez

  17. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Again, the D-party is making a “states’ rights” argument to restrict a constitutionally enumerated natural right.

    They do seem to do that from time to time.

  18. avatar joleolsen says:

    OP states, “First, the LA Times is lying about the bill. The law’s text is crystal clear: it only applies to an American “who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm.”

    Anyone carrying under H.R. 38’s provisions would have to meet federal and state permitting requirement. Anyone carrying without a permit (i.e., “Constitutional carry”) would not qualify. Period.”

    I am not sure that is accurate. The Senate Bill (S.446) does have language that limits reciprocity to only permit holders. H.R. 38 references both people with permits and “or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides.” That seems to cover people in Constitutional Carry states. Am I wrong?

    H.R.38
    Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
    “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, 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, in any State that—

    “(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

    “(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      House and Senate, different bills on the same subject. Normal ops. We shouldn’t squander resources dealing with gun-grabbers just yet. It is highly unlikely either bill will be adopted in its entirety. Reserve your efforts for pushing whatever the final bill (after conference committee mark-up) states, or doesn’t state.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “That seems to cover people in Constitutional Carry states. Am I wrong?” – You are correct. Also, many state laws would be preempted by H.R. 38. It limits gun free zones and almost any state laws/regulations on concealed handguns, their magazines and their ammo.

  19. avatar Gman says:

    National reciprocity, if passed, will be challenged and end up in the SCOTUS. And the president upon which it must be upheld is the same as same sex marriage.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “And the president upon which it must be upheld is the same as same sex marriage.”

      Not quite. Guns – bad for society; same sex marriage – very good.

  20. avatar TEXAS IRREGULAR says:

    As former Law Enforcement we had no issues checking Driver License and Identification Cards from other states.
    States can easily adjust to another ID in their systems.

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