NY Times Acknowledges the Need for National Concealed Carry Reciprocity – Quote of the Day

The New York Times' Gail Collins isn't a fan of constitutional carry.

courtesy youtube.com

“As you know, there is absolutely no national consensus when it comes to the right to carry a concealed weapon in public places. You have Missouri, where you can just buy a gun and put it in your pocket. You have places like California, where people are carefully screened, trained and tested before they can get a gun and permit. The N.R.A. yearns for a federal law that would allow Missourians to tote their guns around California, no questions asked. And here it is!” – Gail Collins in Oh Lord, Now the Gun Thing’s Back [via nytimes.com]

comments

  1. avatar Baldwin says:

    “The N.R.A. yearns for a federal law that would allow Missourians to tote their guns around California, no questions asked. ” Well, duh!

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      I think the NRA yearns for a federal law that would allow everyone to tote their guns around California, no questions asked.

      One problem with HR 38 is that your state of residence must recognize your permit or constitutional carry. So a Californian who has nonresident permits from AZ and OR won’t be able to carry in California, but those of us with resident permits from our states will.

      1. avatar Darren says:

        Incorrect. This bill is specifically written so that a resident of a state like NJ where citizens cannot obtain a NJ permit can obtain a non resident permit from another state, and then be good to carry in all 50 states. As long as it stays with the current wording when (if) it gets to Trump’s desk, people of those oppressive states will finally be emancipated.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          Upon rereading it, I think you’re right.
          I think earlier I read State in which the person resides in 926D.a to apply to an issued permit and the constitutional carry exemption, but it doesn’t.

          So now California will just declare that the entire state is a state park, and say you need a CA license to carry in state parks. 😉

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This bill is specifically written so that a resident of a state like NJ where citizens cannot obtain a NJ permit can obtain a non resident permit from another state, and then be good to carry in all 50 states.”

          Really?

          Then this is odd, from congress.gov:
          “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

          This bill amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.

          A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.”

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          ” carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.””

          Read it more carefully, Sam.

          Non-prohibited persons who reside in NJ are *eligible* to carry, and NJ *chooses* not to issue them a permit.

          NJ gets to hang itself on its own 2A bullshit. 😉

          New Jersey thought they were being oh-so-clever with *may* issue, by piously claiming they respected the 2A…

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          H.R. 38 requires a “valid license or permit,” that allows for concealed carry, from “a State,” not the state of residence.

  2. avatar fiundagner says:

    And the problem with this is???

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      It gives a majority of NYT readers the vapors.

      Which is not a problem from the perspective of most TTAG readers, but it might be amusing to carry some smelling salts along with the firearm just in case.

  3. avatar El Bearsidente says:

    “You have places like California, where people are carefully screened, trained and tested before they can get a gun and permit.”

    No, the correct term is “harassed”. Trained and tested is nobody in Califailure.

    1. avatar Bhryphon says:

      You have places like California, where out of 40+ counties some are shall issue and others are a rubber stamp no issue, ironically causing the same problems we have nationally. Zones where rights are denied due to state overreach right next to zones where everyone can carry.

      We are just trying to make the national arena match what California already has.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Actually the correct term is ‘infringed’.

    3. avatar 2aguy says:

      Yes…..that screening process worked real well in San Bernadino, and the Isla Vista shootings……not to forget all the street level gun crime that is rampant in California…..

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        Rampant crime in parts of LA and Riverside. Some of the lowest crime rate places in the country are also in California cities with virtual gun bans: Irvine (OC), Los Altos, Pleasanton and Menlo Park all come to mind.
        Guns or lack thereof are just one small factor in a much larger matrix of causes for crime.

        1. avatar Peter says:

          Irvine (OC) was shall issue until recently.

    4. avatar Huntmaster says:

      You have places like California where 7 time felon illegal aliens, who have been deported five times are allowed to murder people with stolen guns and the only thing they are convicted of, is having the gun illegally. Cause the killing was the guns fault.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        We need to hold this verdict up as an example that not only can’t the police and legal system protect you from these people, but after they kill you or your loved ones, they can’t even get a conviction when they take the bastards to court.

    5. avatar Berry says:

      My california CCW was 8 hours classroom and 8 hours firing range. Taught by ex head of swat department, NRA law enforcement trainer.
      Class consisted of california law, federal law, shoot don’t shoot conitions. What do do if you had to shoot, how to deal with law enforcement if you have to shoot and on and on…
      Range time was spent on target acquisition, accuracy, drawing from concealment, situational awareness, practice on clearing malfunctions, reloading, trigger control and even how to deal with a family member being taken hostage.
      To say we were not trained is baffling.

  4. avatar No one of consequence says:

    First line of the article:

    “The House Judiciary Committee just voted to make it impossible for a state to always keep people convicted of violent offenses from carrying concealed weapons.”

    Nothing like leading off with a lie, a half-truth, and a false premise all in the same sentence, for setting the tone of the article.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      And that’s the left’s narrative, always has been, always will be…

  5. avatar Carrucan says:

    Garcia Zarate was highly trained? Oh wait, California laws only apply to those who obey laws. Criminals and criminal aliens can “find” weapons and shoot anyone they’d like with total impunity. The Zarate verdict confirms that state’s bias toward aliens and its disregard for the rights and safety of its citizens. There is no way I’d spend a dime in that state. The NAACP recently claimed that Missouri was unsafe for travel and the state should be avoided. I’d posit that California is much less safe and that state should be avoided, but that doesn’t meet their political narrative.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘Garcia Zarate was highly trained?’

      He must have been. I don’t think I could get any of my guns to fire just by stepping on them. And to get the jury to buy it, now that takes talent. (Or 12 incredibly ignorant jurors.)

    2. avatar Supermike says:

      “The NAACP recently claimed that Missouri was unsafe for travel and the state should be avoided.”

      To clarify, that warning is for “people of color”, because – based on the statement – the state (and of course, by extension, ALL cops) are so racist.
      https://www.npr.org/2017/08/10/542663699/for-the-first-time-naacp-issues-travel-advisory-for-missouri

      To which I offer… “yeah, that’s the problem”. 🙄
      https://www.google.com/amp/fox2now.com/2017/09/01/two-police-officers-shot-in-downtown-st-louis/amp/

      https://www.google.com/amp/www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/gangs-in-st-louis-may-not-be-driving-violence-in/article_312eecae-330a-58cc-b4cb-114816ee6cb3.amp.html

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jncwE-wW6Nk

      https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Gang-Related-News?st=MO&p=9

      As per the usual, the NAACP is playing the victim card here. Are there racist cops? Sure. Are ALL cops racist? Absolutely not. Perhaps if the NAACP would stick to their mission, it wouldn’t be as much of an issue.

      1. avatar Tyrone Biggums says:

        Whereas Detroit should be avoided by anyone not currently in residence there, not just white people…

      2. avatar Tyrone Biggums says:

        “Perhaps if the NAACP would stick to their mission, it wouldn’t be as much of an issue.”

        Actually… A blanket smear campaign accusing white people of being racist is their mission.

      3. avatar Tom in NC says:

        “Are there racist NAACP Members? Sure. Are ALL NAACP Members racist? Absolutely not.”

        FIFY

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          “Are there racist NAACP Members? Sure. Are ALL NAACP Members racist? Absolutely.”

          FIFY

    3. avatar Ironhead says:

      My wife and i went to california last year, ahe wanted to see yosemite, alcatraz, the golden gate bridge, all the touristy stuff.
      The people we met in yosemite were very nice down to earth people.
      Then we went to san francisco. After being assaulted twice in 24 hours by homeless people, once in broad daylight in front of the entrance to the alcatraz tour, and the pompous attitude we received from everyone else, we will never go back.
      Its a shame really, its a beautiful place to visit. Too bad its filled with @$$holes.

  6. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    Is it just me or does her picture look like the Emperor from Star Wars just before he shoots electricity from his fingers?

    1. avatar Jack says:

      Yes. I had to go back and look but it was a chuckle. Thanks for that.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      It was my first thought too.
      https://goo.gl/images/Cz4hFK

  7. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The title should probably be ‘NY Times Inadvertently Acknowledges…’ Read like you’d expect from a NYT opinion piece. Obviously written by someone who’s never actually touched a real gun before.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Read the full article, and all the comments. Still cannot find anything that points to NYT acknowledging the need for national reciprocity. What did I miss?

  8. avatar million says:

    “We are having this conversation two weeks after Wisconsin eliminated the age limit for hunting licenses. So far there are 1,800 happy Wisconsinites under the age of 10 with the right to put their little fingers on the trigger, several less than a year old.”

    Is her point that any parent in the country is going to let their 1-year go (crawl?) off hunting and handle a firearm under anything but safe conditions? Clearly she is having paranoid delusions.

    FTR, in VA, we have the legacy license which you can buy for your kid before they turn 2.

  9. avatar MarkPA says:

    “Instead, we’re supposed to respect the judgment of the state whence they came. People, do you have this kind of confidence?”

    The Won’t-Issue States have brought this National-Reciprocity bill down upon themselves. They have no one else to blame but their own stubbornness.

    Suppose there were no pressure, or not enough pressure, on Congress to pass N-R; just imagine that. Then, there wouldn’t be a N-R bill with all the Progressives’ objections. How might the Won’t-Issue States have lessened the pressure?

    The Won’t-Issue States COULD have issued Non-Resident CWPs on a SHALL-Issue basis to all qualified applicants. They could have set high fees. They could have had multi-day training requirements; tests; range qualifications. They could have precluded anyone with a late library book.

    Had the Won’t-Issue States done so then many residents of adjacent States would have submitted to these States’ onerous requirements. They would have CWPs on the States own terms. Thereupon, these gun-carriers would have less interest in pushing for N-R; so much less interest that the push for N-R would probably not motivate Congress to craft such a Federal measure to force the Right to Bear Arms upon the States.

    But, the forgoing “alternative history” is a fantasy. The Won’t-Issue States would NOT suffer to permit visitors from other States to carry on terms they could have dictated themselves. Consequently, those gun-carriers living in border States were left with no alternative but to petition their Congresscritters for a redress of this grievance.

    N-R is the worst possible outcome from the viewpoint of the Won’t-Issue States. These States could have compromised on terms they dictated themselves. But they WOULD NOT do so. Therefore, they will submit to whatever N-R scheme that Congress sees fit to impose upon them.

    1. avatar KCK says:

      You mean ” California wont be allowed to impose on out of staters”. enforcing constitutional rights is not imposing on Cali state government. Remember to not succumb to their “point of view”

  10. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    According to “government” at all levels, none of us have any actual “rights” today. They may hand out an occasional privilege to some, but that can be taken back at the whim of any government employee. And that, increasingly, includes the privilege of being allowed to live.

    Why do so many people believe that such non-voluntary government has any legitimate authority to control the lives and property of others?

    Who owns your life and body? YOU do. Claim it and live it.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Mama, I agree with your sentiments.

      It recently occurred to me that our form of government is distinct in a very fundamental way from all/most others. In both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, We-the-People explain that our form of government vests sovereignty in the body-of-the-People.

      It’s not exactly that each individual is – in all respects – sovereign in himself. Rather, it is that the several governments (federal, State and municipal) are the “subjects” of the People. In all/most over governmental schemes, their people(s) are the subjects of the government.

      Once this notion is firmly entrenched in one’s mind, it becomes nonsensical to say that the People are to be deprived of the power to redress a tyranny by government. That’s not to say that it’s easy to sort-out this power structure where the People are superior to government (and government’s agents). Nevertheless, it is clear that to completely dis-empower the People so that government can impose its corporate power upon any/all of the People is nonsensical.

      If we recall the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, we are forced to confront the prospect of segregationists committing violence against civil-rights protestors. And, history makes clear that many of these segregationists were local police! Some Blacks of the era refused to dis-arm; they would defend themselves, families and civil-rights protesters. How did this use of arms by a segment of the People fit into the scheme established by our founding documents?

      Let’s examine the platform of the loosely organized Black-Lives-Matter movement. We can prescind – for purposes of our discussion here – from the veracity of the BLM claims of tyrannous behavior of police vs. young Black males. Whether the claims are absolutely-true; partially-true; true only to a statistically-insignificantly extent, BLM supporters assert that tyrannous behavior IS a phenomena of current police practice.

      Well, then, BLM advocates, what do you make of this? Is it the case that young Black males are the “subjects” of government; and government agents have the sovereign power to do what they will? Or, do you hold that the People – including those who hold dear the civil-rights of minorities – are the proper vessels of sovereignty? If the latter, then how shall the People – at the ultimate stage of the struggle – to prevail in asserting their rights? Do their rights exist only to the extent that governmental officials – elected by the majority – choose to recognize these rights? In terms of the adage “Speak softly, but carry a big stick”, where is your “stick”?

      Why should government take any of your grievances to heart? They don’t agree that the behavior of their agents is tyrannous. Their judges don’t believe so. Your complaints are summarily dismissed. Are you content to let your complaints fall on deaf ears?

      Clearly, this dispute as to police treatment of young black males is one best thrashed-out on the battlefield of rhetoric. Yet, there is little reason for one side to bother listening to a minority viewpoint when that minority is powerless to press its point home.

      Under such circumstances, it seems baffling to me that any minority would persist in insisting that its members remain disarmed while, at the same time, imagining that it’s negotiating partner (which IS armed) will take it seriously. The logic seems to be that to be effective one must commit to a state of perpetual impotence.

      Some of the Blacks of the Civil Rights movement – notably the Deacons for Defense and Justice – did not subscribe to this proposition.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        You are pointing out the logical folly of liberals who believe Trump will be/is a dictator, stalinist, authoritarian who wants to force tyranny on the public, a public the liberals believe should be shorn of the very tools to protect themselves from Trump.

        Liberalism is a mental disorder.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “If we recall the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, we are forced to confront the prospect of segregationists committing violence against civil-rights protestors. And, history makes clear that many of these segregationists were local police! ”

        Preach it, brother Mark in PA.

        People like Gail Collins are reacting the very same way to lawful people carrying concealed weapons the same way southern Whites did to the prospect a Black man would sit down next to them on a public bus.

        And, guess what? They didn’t like it, but they got used to it.

        The facts are on our side. People with valid carry permits are over *5* times MORE law-abiding than those who don’t…

  11. avatar Vincent says:

    I can’t believe anyone could trust the federal govt to do anything right, especially anything involving guns. I believe ccw-R should stay at the state level. I agree with the notion that one should just move to a free state.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      All states are supposed to be free. That’s sorta why we have a constitution and a federal government.

      Otherwise 51% of the voters in a given state can make it illegal to be a white male.

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    Meh…the gutless Republitards won’t get anything done. A moot point…

  13. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    National Reciprocity means we’re going to have to jump through all the same hoops as a Californian, even in states that are less strict now. It will require a universally accepted procedure for granting the handgun permits. And there’s no way California and New York won’t have their way. Therefore this bill will die in congress, I don’t see the less restrictive states getting on board with CA/NY permit procedures.

  14. avatar Ogre says:

    Don’t get too hopeful yet. While things are looking good at the present time for the National Reciprocity Bill to pass in the Congress and get signed into law, that won’t be the end of it. The crybaby won’t-issue states (and in California probably some of their Marxist cities, such as Los Angeles and San Francisco) will probably file lawsuits against the NR law, hoping that liberal/progressive federal judges will void it as a violation of states rights, and the whole issue will then be entangled until it gets to higher courts, possibly even the SCOTUS. So even if the NR law passes and goes into effect, that is no guarantee that it will continue operating as we might wish.

  15. avatar Jeff says:

    Yep, we want federal laws and state laws to be Constitutional. What a concept!

  16. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    In states like California and New York, ironically, the only people who enjoy constitutional carry are criminals. Though there are laws on the books that theoretically punish prohibited persons specifically for possessing or carrying firearms, these are almost never charged. Typically, if a felon commits a crime with a gun, they are very rarely charged specifically with the possession.

    The effect of this is that criminals carry without much fear of charges resulting from violation carry laws. If a law-abiding person is caught carrying a gun in these states for personal protection however, these folks will likely face criminal charges.

    This is how “liberals” define “logic”. Gun control is not about guns. It’s about control.

  17. avatar Icabod says:

    “If you count every gun crime that involves four or more victims as a mass shooting, we’ve had 397 so far this year, ”

    No, there were 27 mass shootings. The FBI defines a mass shooting as when four or more people are killed. In fact a review of the “397” claim finds that 170 of these had no deaths. In many cases the shooter is “unknown.” When you link to the news articles (when the links don’t give you a “page doesn’t exist”) you discover most are “shots fired” and police find several wounded. Seems many are gang shootings.

  18. This bill is subject to political reality. The authors have started at a point that allows them to give ground without making the bill useless. The reality is that – to pass in the Senate changes are going to have to be made. In the end, if this passes, to qualify for mandatory reciprocity, permits/licenses will have to meet specific background check and training requirements. It doesn’t matter that training increasingly seems to make little difference, it’s going to take such a standard to get the bill passed.

    How much training can be required? Well, based on long standing precedents for armed guards, the most training you government can require for a permit is 16 hours. That’s what IL went with. However, I doubt that that much training will be the standard for reciprocity. My guess is that, to get it passed, we will have to agree to an 8 hour training requirement and a live fire requirement.

    Of course, that is just for reciprocity – states can still do what they want. For instance, here in Idaho, we have Constitutional Carry, a standard permit that is issued with a background check and any firearms safety training, and an enhanced permit that requires an 8 hour class with live fire. We also recognize any permit from any state. While if my guess is right, only the enhanced permit would qualify for reciprocity, I would not expect anything to change here in Idaho.

  19. avatar Warlocc says:

    I enjoy the “states rights” part of the argument.

    Everybody defends states rights when the Feds are doing something they don’t like, but as soon as it’s a cause that they do like (marriage licenses, anyone?), nobody cares about states rights anymore.

  20. avatar Libertarian says:

    Public Buses – Felony under Missouri law (See 578.305.4 RSMo)

    MetroLink Trains – Misdemeanor under Missouri law (See 70.441.1.(2) and 70.441.3.(11) RSMo)

    NoGo Zone in Missouri !!

    Local governments are allowed to regulate open carry and the discharge of firearms (except in self defense); however, ccw permit holders are exempt from ordinances banning open carr

    And missouri is not an constitunal carry state !

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Public Buses – Felony under Missouri law (See 578.305.4 RSMo)”

      When we bump the SCOTUS balance in our favor, that and many more like it will be needed to be slapped down on Constitutional grounds by the Court.

      And high-flipping time…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The SC is the least of our worries. It is the federal court system at the lowest to the highest level that is the area needing focus. Lower courts are defying the SC at almost every turn. We might be able to out live the liberal SC justices, but the lower courts still rule the day.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Trump’s actually doing a pretty good job on the district courts (the trial level).

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Trump doesn’t get to advise and consent to his own nominees.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Does that mean that he is appointing shitty judges?

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          No, it means he does not control appointments, only the nominations. The Senate is where the mischief lies.

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I see, your being technical with my word choice, which I can appreciate as a lawyer. The Senate is actually doing a pretty good job of confirming his nominations. There is a New York Times article I read bemoaning that fact.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          It puzzles me as to why there are hearings on nominees. Should be a quick matter to determine if a list of nominees contains anyone who is not an origionalist. Once the list is culled, vote approval for the entire list. Only takes 51 to confirm.

        7. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Because that’s not how things are done. That’s really the reason. There are often drastic consequences for doing things in a manner other than the way they are usually done.

          In the article I mentioned, people were having the vapors over the committee having hearings on more than one nominee at a time because that isn’t how things are normally done even though it happens sometimes. It was done in the Obama administration, but not as much as it has already happened in the Trump presidency. People were also having the vapors because Trump wasn’t letting the ABA pre screen nominees. No Republican has done this since Bush the elder because the ABA is a leftist organization (maybe far left, I don’t recall). The Senate is also confirming members who the ABA says are unfit. Once again, vapors. One of the reasons many are “unfit” is because they don’t have enough federal trial experience. (Trial experience is hard to come by, federal trial experience is even harder to come by).

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Because that’s not how things are done. That’s really the reason.”

          Of course not. Ergo Trump.

          We are in the era of pure power politics, and the Repubnants want to act as though we live in the ’30s/’40s. Harry Reid said that when he reduced the vote hurdle for federal judges other than SC, he was setting the state for making the same change for SC justices (thinking the Dems would retain power). Power politics at its best. Time our side understood we need to be playing smash-mouth football.

        9. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Couldn’t agree more, though I do find the whole situation worrying. We’re not far from the line across which political violence is justified. My dad, a lifelong Democrat, has expressed such sentiments in favor of the conservative side of things. That’s how we got Trump.

  21. avatar cisco kid says:

    While Right Wing Fanatics are always screaming States rights but they conveniently ignore the fact that it is technically a State Right to regulate firearms not the Federal Government but since the Constitution has always been a joke to wipe your ass with this has been ignored as much as the Supreme Court has consistently trashed the 2nd Amendment and in their latest ass wipe decision reversed their Heller ruling and refused to hear a semi-auto ban and confiscation which effectively outlaws all modern firearms which would include guns dating as far back as 1896 and the first semi-auto pistols and rifles. Since there are Republicans lining up against Reciprocity its a dead deal already and if by some miracle it would pass the corrupt Supreme Court would side with the anti-gun law suits against it and again making it again a dead deal. One of the reasons the Supreme Court refused to hear the case is that they side with Public Opinion not the Constitution and there are so many examples of this trashing of the Constitution I could fill up this page with Historical examples so the recent rash of almost weekly mass killings made the complete ban on all semi-auto weapons inevitable, the silencer bill history and the reciprocity bill a laughable joke. The 2018 and 2020 elections will pretty much end gun ownership in the U.S. because the Supreme Court ruling against all modern weapons makes it legal for States to ban and confiscate them all and with many states you can take that to the bank.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “… because the Supreme Court ruling against all modern weapons makes it legal for States to ban and confiscate them all and with many states you can take that to the bank.”

      *Snort*

      Heard the exact same thing about Trump winning the nomination, being elected, being inaugurated, etc, etc, et-fucking-cetera.

      Got some bad news for ya, sport – things aren’t gonna be going the way you seem to think they will be going.

      And we will be laughing all the way at you… 😉

    2. avatar Excedrine says:

      It’s you left-wing fascists that screamed “state’s rights” all the way up until the Civil War, which you lost. It’s you left-wing fascists that screamed “state’s rights” all the way up to the CRA of ’64 and VRA of ’65, which were passed because you lost. It’s you left-wing fascists that constantly wipe your lazy, fat asses with the Constitution. It’s you left-wing fascists that have universally gotten every single solitary prediction wrong about the 2016 election cycle. It’s you left-wing fascists that are going to get every single solitary prediction wrong in the 2018 and 2020 seasons, too.

      And we’ll be here to rub it all into each and every single solitary one of your blank, gaunt left-wing fascist faces all over again. 😉

  22. The big issue nationally concerning keeping and bearing arms is that any entity that feels the need for infringing on our natural right of self-protection can ignore the demand made in the Second Amendment to our Constitution guaranteeing our right to keep and bear arms by demanding our right “shall” not be infringed. That means no entity can infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

    Our right to bear arms for self-preservation is a side benefit from the real reason for the Second Amendment. We the people are supposed to be ready to act, on a moments notice, to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, as a well-regulated militia having but one goal. That goal is to prevent tyranny by our own government.

    Tyranny at the hands of government is the reason our country exists. Settlers came to North America to escape tyranny at the hands of the King of England and the Church of England who, at times, worked hand in hand to control the people of England. Finally, some brave souls left England to form a better life for themselves as free people with liberty to determine their own courses in life without the British monarchy controlling.

    A people’s militia, well-organized (to provide good utilization of available resources for the best results) to be able to put down government, run amok of the Constitution, and replace those people with others to serve as interim government until regular elections can be held in the manner directed by the Constitution.

    The existence of the United States as a free, Constitutional Republic, depends on citizens being active participants in managing our country by making sure that those we elect to serve as our voices in that management do what we want them to do. Also, that everything they do is in strict accordance with the Constitution, as written and legally amended in accordance with Article V. thereof.

    Without the people, government would not exist in the United States. Our government is comprised of people we have chosen through our election processes to serve us as our voices because we are too many spread over too large an area for us to participate ourselves. How many are chosen to serve, how long they are to serve, and what they do after being chosen is detailed in concrete instructions in the Constitution.

    The chosen people that comprise government are weak and will take advantage of unguarded temptations, over time, that have no penalties for abuse. Once taken, the products of temptations taken will come to being served before, or instead of the people and the country. When that takes place, government will have run amok of the Constitution. Then, the Second Amendment can be brought forward for its intended purpose.

    From the Declaration of Independence:
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    That time is approaching, people, keep your arms clean and ready. Practice your skills and teach others to be as skilled in the use of arms for the time will come for their use to prevent our utter despotism and loss of our Constitution.

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      Brother John you can really sling the bull shit. The real facts are that the Founding Fathers were the “original Swamp Rats” that replaced the British over lords with a new set of crooks and slavemasters (themselves). The Founding Swamp Rats feared democracy and therefore rejected a truly democratic parliamentary government and then instituted a representative government founded for the filthy rich and by the filthy rich. Their original purpose was to get out of paying the small amount of taxes they were paying to support the British Government which resulted in biting off the hand that was feeding their bank accounts and contributing to the prosperity of the Nation. When the Swamp Rats started the revolution it was to fill their pockets with gold not the American peoples. It all resulted in the U.S. being cut off from the British world wide trade market that was benefiting the U.S. through worldwide trade. It set the U.S. economy back years and led directly to a second war with Britain again over trade. Even more insidious it also led to Germany thinking that in 1914 the U.S. would not come to Britain’s aid if they started a war in Europe. as they thought that since the U.S. had fought two wars with Britain they would let Germany have its way with Europe when they invaded France. The slave trade also ended far later than if we had stayed part of the British Common wealth as well. We also lost a large part of our population (the loyalists) who said “to hell with the U.S.” and they immigrated to Canada. This was at a time when the U.S. could ill afford to lose highly educated men that were so necessary to running the country and making it prosperous.

      Its interesting to note that the Swamp Rats and their crooked representative government set laws that prevented minorities and women from voting and even people that did not have the required amount of land to be eligible to vote. Today the tradition is carried on with gerrymandering which lets the politicians pick who votes for them rather than the other way around and a crooked electoral college that twice has completely trashed true democracy by putting in power the Republicans that heartily lost the popular vote. The latest insult resulted an incompetent Moron who has put our Nation at great risk both militarily as well as economically and has torn our Nation apart by playing on and enhancing the racist fears and hatreds of the unwashed.

    2. avatar cisco kis says:

      And I forgot to add that the Swamp Rats deliberately wrote the Second Amendment in the most vague of terms because they knew eventually they would probably have to disarm the people to keep themselves in power and down through the years the Supreme Court had consistently trashed the Second Amendment for that very reason. The Scalia ruling was an aberration of history which the Supreme Court has now quickly reversed paving the way for the complete outlawing and confiscation of all arms by the civilian population. In other words they are right back on track once again.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        @crisco kid — You actually forgot to add that the founders deliberately wrote the Second Amendment in the most unambiguous of terms and that any so-called “vagueness” is and can be only inserted into its “interpretation” by far-left gun-grabbing lunatics like you.The Scalia ruling was actually in keeping with prior precedent which dates back to at least 1875 in Cruikshank v U.S.. It’s actually any “collective” reading that’s a recent aberration, pulled entirely out of thin air in Salina v. Blaksley (1905). So, no, the way has not been cleared for any mass confiscation of any kind, anywhere. In other words, you are right off-track once again. As is usual.

        As well as literally everything in your screen above this as well is categorically incorrect, also as per usual. For you, that is, no one else. None here slings any bullshit besides you and 2Asux.

  23. avatar Casey says:

    Funny, I just moved to Missouri and had to sit through 8 hours of the worst mandatory training I’ve ever heard of and shoot a qualifier to get my MO CCW. Yes, we have constitutional carry, but Gun Free zones carry force of law UNLESS you have a CCW, in which case it’s simple trespass. So, no, it’s not that simple.

    And when I say worst, I mean “instructor repeatedly and intentionally sweeps himself and everybody else but insists it’s okay because he made sure it wasn’t loaded” worst.

  24. avatar Rick K. says:

    Never so happy that I moved to Missouri! Thank you, NYT!

  25. avatar robert p cosenza says:

    gail collins better get your facts straight.you can,t buy a guy in missouri or any other state,with out a federal back ground check,before you can obtain a gun.so stop lying to the people,the right of the people,to keep and bear arms shall ot BE INFRINGED.read the dick act of 1902. go trump

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