Why Second Amendment Supporters Should Oppose A National Reciprocity Law

Why Second Amendment supporters should oppose national reciprocity.

courtesy americanvision.org

Reader Justin Russell writes:

Let me start by stating that I am a Second Amendment absolutist. I don’t believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed for any reason. In fact, unlike most TTAG readers I even believe that most “criminals” or “felons” should be afforded their rights to defend themselves with a firearm after they have served their time or paid their penalty. If the person is too dangerous to have a gun after serving their sentence then frankly that person deserves to no longer breathe.

But I digress. My point is to establish my bonafides as someone who isn’t part of the “I support the Second Amendment, but…” crowd. If one can afford it, they should be able to own rocket launchers, machine guns and silencers or mount lasers on sharks or whatever they believe provides them protection and safety. Or helps in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Likewise I am also a “liberty absolutist.” By that I mean that unless someone is already breaking a natural law that is causing harm or has a real victim then they should be left in peace. This means I don’t support prohibition against certain plants, nor do I support speed limits. In short – I want government out of most aspects of my life.

Unfortunately we live in a country that has strayed far from its roots. This is evident in many respects across various issues. We no longer value letting our neighbors decide how they want to live. We want our federal overlords to blanket enforce their will across the vast landscape of the whole American Empire.

Some say we are on a dangerous precipice. I disagree. I think we tipped over the precipice more than one hundred years ago. Heck probably almost since the founding itself. The ideals and the documents that made this country what it is were ripped to shreds long ago. As early as 1791 President Washington was already leading an army of over 13,000 men to “suppress” people who resented being taxed into oblivion for the whiskey they were producing. The process has never stopped.

Which brings us to guns and the right to keep and bear arms. To have the federal government mandate that every state shall observe every other state’s concealed carry permits is the definition of tyranny…a clear violation of states rights. It’s no different than ordering every state to define “marriage” however the feds say it should be defined. This is the opposite of freedom and liberty.

But wait, you say, I should be able to carry my gun in Times Square and walk down the Vegas Strip while packing! Perhaps, but perhaps the people who live in those locales genuinely do not want you to do so. We can argue whether that’s right or wrong until we’re blue in the face but it doesn’t change the fact that if national reciprocity becomes law, we’re only getting the people in these states agree at the end of the barrel of a federal gun. We won’t have “won” anything. We’ll have only have managed to use the abusive, tyrannical power of the federal government to do our bidding on this particular issue.

That isn’t a win, that’s a loss on all counts and by any measure. And what proponents of national reciprocity fail to understand is that any entity that has the power to enforce the mandate on the other states also has the power to take it away.

Just as we who support the Second Amendment profess, we don’t just merely “like guns” or want them for hunting. We understand that the fundamental nature of owning and bearing arms is (supposedly) to keep government in check (or, in our case, not).

Likewise we can’t look forward in time and know that some future Congress and administration, using the precedent that national reciprocity would create, would use it to enact a national ban on some kind of gun(s), restrict ownership to so many rounds of ammunition or limit magazine capacity. Nation wide.

Further, we can’t know if they would use this legislation as a stepping stone to create a federal database of gun owners or enact a national permitting system. I argue that it can and will come to this. We need only look at history to know our fate.

All that said, I still come back to the fact that any permit is already an infringement on our Second Amendment rights. Isn’t it better to know that New York, New Jersey and California are gun rights hell-holes and just avoid them if one chooses? What about the people who work and live there?

It’s very simple. Vote with your feet and your wallet. Or work within the political framework to change it. Unfortunately, Democracy being what it is, that means that if 50.1% of any group doesn’t see eye-to-eye with you, you lose. So again, either live with it or do what it takes to move to freer pastures.

So be careful what you wish for. Concentration and consolidation of power is never a good thing. While the bill in question here involves guns and seems to further a civil right, many believe it’s something that gun owners should applaud and support. But that’s short-sighted at best and just plain idiotic at worst. Rather than advocate for wielding abusive hammer of federal power, we should be working for changes that result in less concentration and consolidation of power in D.C.

We should be cheering for the Brexits and Catalonias of the world. That means that more people will have more freedom to choose how they want to live and be governed rather than being dictated to by a central bureaucracy hundreds or thousands of miles away. Likewise, at home we should be advocating for the Texits and Calexits. This only contributes to more freedom and political experimentation.

After over 200 years of history, we can see what the Founders who created this nation got right and what they got wrong. We don’t have to be content to live in a left/right, two-party system. What would the possibilities of gun rights, free speech, or human rights be if more places were allowed to live by their own laws and rules?

Would that result in pockets of tyranny that are worse than we see from D.C.? Perhaps. But we might also see pockets of even more freedom and liberty created. Would you move to Texas or Montana or some other jurisdiction that not only respects the absolute right to bear arms, including machine guns and silencers, with no permits or licenses? What if the tax rate was non-existent or extremely low and there were no federal taxes or IRS to worry about? What could that do for your personal? Or for your business’s?

Sadly, because so many of us advocate and support faulty, dangerous initiatives like national reciprocity that only strengthen the the federal government’s power, I fear we will never know.

comments

  1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    States have no more enumerated authority to infringe upon RKBA than does the federal government. Thus, the federal government acting to prevent states from infringing upon RKBA is not, and cannot be, a violation of “states’ rights.”

    The people of New York City do not have the authority or right to infringe upon my inherent, natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right to RKBA.

    Federally mandated state reciprocity of state-issued firearm carry licenses grossly *expands* the protection of individual exercise of RKBA. It is a net positive, and the calculus isn’t even close.

    1. avatar Another guy says:

      I’m with Chip on this…net positive.

      1. avatar Kris says:

        Really? In recent history, has the nation dictated what California does or, more often than not, does California start something and the rest of the nation follows suit? Look at their government, taxation, gay marriage, environmental standards, gun bans… they set the standard for other tyrannical states to follow.

        Federalized National reciprocity will become a nightmare for the 35+ states that are currently “free.” This political tactic is akin to suggesting that we’ll coerce the fox into submission by forcing him into the hen house. Instead, the next presidential administration will let CA, NY, MA, CT, NJ, IL, etc dictate the rest of the state’s gun laws through nationalized CCW laws.

        We’re going to regret this terribly.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          That’s not at all how this bill works. The reciprocity portion grants no authority to the executive branch to take any action whatsoever.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          You mean like they did in 1994? That genie is out of the bottle. The idea that this bill will magically create new precedent is absurd. That precedent was set back in 1934. On the other hand, when the SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd amendment under McDonald v Chicago, it gave us the tools to fight back for a change. Failing to pass strong protections for 2nd amendment rights is not wisdom it’s cowardice.

        3. avatar Kris says:

          TX Lawyer & pwrserge:
          This bill doesn’t need to “work that way.” It’s the bills and SCOTUS cases that will follow as a result of this bill. For example, It’ll be justification to establish national CC licensing standards “as determined by the Director of [insert fed dept].” Or SCOTUS will determine that one state’s standards adversely impacts another state, therefore blah, blah, blah. And don’t bother bringing up legal precedent or constitutional rights because none of the 3 branches of government have cared about either of those things for a very long time and lack of constitutional justification will not protect us from them.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “…the bills that follow…”

          …could follow regardless, under Democrat control of Congress. I’ve never understood the reticence to advance our rights through legislation, merely because some different, unrelated legislation could be passed some time in the future.

          “…and SCOTUS…”

          I hope it gets to SCOTUS, where some amicus brief can gently remind them of the precedent they set with Obergefell.

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          What Chip said.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          That’s… not how federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident firearm carry licenses work.

          Federal carry (concealed or otherwise) laws are not in any way a part.

        7. avatar The Punisher says:

          You are all getting too far into the weeds here.

          You can say, “that isn’t how the bill works” all you want.

          The FedGov can and will do as it sees fit.

          Just do YouTube searches of local, State and Federal agents and law enforcement daily and routinely doing things that are “unconstitutional” and getting away with it.

          So tell me again how this will be a “net positive benefit?”

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          So tell me again how this will be a “net positive benefit?”

          Shaneen Allen could probably explain it to you.

        9. avatar Matt says:

          An interesting point that Kris touched upon. Does having national reciprocity squarely put gun rights into an area where they can be regulated under the commerce clause? It seems likely since there is literally something happening interstate. Making up some way it affects commerce would be trivial, true or not.

        10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Gun rights already are regulated under the commerce clause. Go to your neighboring state, and try to purchase a firearm.

          That said, the exercise of bearing arms is not a commercial activity. Not even John Roberts, who invented out of whole cloth a novel, enumerated tax authority for the federal government to uphold ObamaCare, could pretzel-logic his way through that one.

        11. avatar Matt says:

          They already have the groundwork laid as you have pointed out via example, it’s not too much of use of the imagination to see how it can be expanded. One easy example:

          NYC says people knowing anyone can brings guns into their city now affects tourism negatively, meaning we loose money from people who come from out of state to spend their money in our city because they no longer want to knowing anyone can have a gun in NYC blah blah blah. Congress use the commerce clause to do XYZ.

        12. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “Making up some way it affects commerce would be trivial, true or not.” – True. Most thinks “affect interstate commerce.” Look at Gonzales v. Raich and Wickard v. Filburn to see how far the Commerce Clause has been ruled to extend.

          I’m not saying I agree with it. I’m saying that’s how it is.

        13. avatar Matt says:

          I agree totally, and as I was typing that last response, I said to myself “wow that is really close to that wheat case back in the 40’s.”

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      Chip is correct. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, which was specifically intended to incorporate the Second (even though technically it didn’t need such, as its wording already indicates ‘incorporation’), Congress has the authority to enact laws to make sure the states don’t deprive anyone of their rights.

      Of course to be clear, the legislation should have begin with the words “Pursuant to the Second Amendment, and under the authority and requirement of the Fourteenth….”, to make it clear that the purpose is nothing more nor less than enforcing the Constitution against those who would strip (or nibble) us of rights. Once upon a time Congress actually did that kind of thing — that they no longer do is a sign of in how much contempt our politicians hold the supreme law of the land.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        This a hundred times.

    3. avatar Hank says:

      Exactly. Natural rights are not subject to the democratic process. Just because guns aren’t popular in area, it doesn’t give that area the authority to ban guns. Just like if blacks aren’t popular in an area, it doesn’t give that area the authority to ban blacks.

    4. avatar Michael S. says:

      You’re missing his point. That’s not the original intent, nor was it how things went for the first century. It wasn’t until incorporation of the BoR by the courts came to be that it was an issue. It was perfectly accepted, and intended, that states would have their own say so. Just because the federal government was prohibited from doing something didn’t mean the states were. The 10th amendment kind of spells that out

      That’s the only way this works, this experiment of ours. Forcing different states with different principles to “shutup and deal with it, because ‘Murica” isn’t the federal government’s job. It’s all fine as long as “your team” is winning. Let the tides shift, and the koolaid isn’t so sweet.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “It wasn’t until incorporation of the BoR by the courts came to be that it was an issue.” – The courts didn’t incorporate the BoR. The the states, by and through the 14A, did, and the courts eventually started enforcing the 14A.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Kindly point out the verbiage of the second amendment that limits its scope to the federal government. Compare with and contrast against the verbiage of the first amendment.

        The People wrote into the constitution an explicit acknowledgement of the preexistence of their right to keep and bear arms. It would make no sense whatsoever for the people then to imply that they intended some of the several states to have authority to infringe upon that right.

        The second amendment was ALWAYS absolute, and applicable to all levels of government subordinate to the constitution.

        1. avatar Michael S. says:

          Wrong and wrong. Gotta love revisionism. The courts decided incorporation was imposed by the 14th. There were many early Republic federal/Supreme Court cases where the issue of incorporation of rights was addressed. It was found that the states and local governments were not beholden as the Constitution only prohibited the federal government from doing those things. This whole reciprocity bill flys in the face of original intent. It’s unconstitutional from two perspectives. One, the federal government, by allowing only people with permits or from Constitutional carry states to carry, is infringing (by exclusion and omission) upon those who don’t. They’re also, by passing a law that overrides state firearms law, establishing the precedent that they are the ultimate authority on who can and can’t carry. Mark my words, this is a trojan horse that antis will seize upon.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Wrong and wrong. Gotta love revisionism. The courts decided incorporation was imposed by the 14th.

          I’m not talking about the courts or incorporation. I’m talking about the original intent of the authors.

          There were many early Republic federal/Supreme Court cases where the issue of incorporation of rights was addressed. It was found that the states and local governments were not beholden as the Constitution only prohibited the federal government from doing those things.

          Can you cite such a case or decision that involved the second amendment?

          (And, again: my statement had nothing to do with judicial review or precedent case law, but rather the original intent of the authors.)

          This whole reciprocity bill flys in the face of original intent. It’s unconstitutional from two perspectives. One, the federal government, by allowing only people with permits or from Constitutional carry states to carry, is infringing (by exclusion and omission) upon those who don’t.

          Under federally mandated reciprocity, the federal government neither allows nor disallows anyone to carry. The states do that, by issuing carry licenses.

          They’re also, by passing a law that overrides state firearms law…

          Again, no. Federally mandated reciprocity does not change a single state law. States still decide which of their residents to whom to issue licenses. States still decide where and how those who carry may do so.

          …establishing the precedent that they are the ultimate authority on who can and can’t carry.

          Still wrong. Under federal reciprocity, the states, not the federal government, are the ultimate authority on who can and can’t carry.

          Mark my words, this is a trojan horse that antis will seize upon.

          The antis don’t need Teojan horses in order to advance their agenda, and federally mandated reciprocity thoroughly damages their cause.

    5. avatar Graham says:

      I came here to rant on this article, but I don’t think I could have possibly done so as eloquently or concisely as you. Thanks for your contribution.

      As a person who lives in NJ by circumstance and not choice, I am frustrated and betrayed by the attitude among some in the firearms community displayed by this article. It’s all well and good for them to have their rights and smugly tell me to vote with my feet. I wonder, would those same folks be so callous about an obvious infringement of my civil rights if citizens of NJ were forced into labor camps, stripped of their right to vote, or denied the right to publish criticisms of the government? I certainly hope not. If so, it begs the question: what is the point of the second amendment at all, if not to safeguard our bothers and sisters against government tyranny. That *includes* State governments.

      1. avatar The Punisher says:

        I’m the author.

        I’m saying that using the hammer of the FedGov is not the way to go about it.

        As you’ve plainly stated, working to fix NJ is hard enough for the constituents of that State, so using the FedGov seems like the easy and obvious way to go about it…but it isn’t.

        That’s all I’m stating. It’s not about the bill today right now or how it’s “supposed to work”. It’s about what it will be used as a precedent for in the future. And to be sure it will be used.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “It’s about what it will be used as a precedent for in the future.” – This is my biggest problem with your argument. Congress doesn’t need any precedent to pass a new law. The courts don’t need a similar to have existed in the past to uphold a law as constitutional. There are already federal laws regulating not just guns, but where people can carry guns.

  2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    I am a 13th & 14th Amendment Absolutists. No slavery, no time ever. We don’t need any Title 18 Section 1983 to enforce civil rights . It just gets the government up in our business. Sarcasm font off.

  3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Oh, and by the way: we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a federal, constitutional republic.

    If 50.1% of the people want to infringe upon my natural rights, they can go piss up a rope. The very purpose of a constitutional republic is to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      True and well said.

    2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      TAG so needs a “LIKE ” button

      1. avatar Rob says:

        Agreed.

        For now….

        CHIP CHIP HOORAY!!!

        That should suffice 🙂

    3. avatar GS650G says:

      Everyone forgets the Constitution is the playbook we are supposed to be following. Somewhere we lost that notion in regards to arms and we’ve been on the defensive end ever since.

    4. avatar The Punisher says:

      Really? And how’s that “Federal Constitutional Republic” working out for everyone?

      Why do we even have state borders at this point then? Since we truly want and demand an empire to ensure all of our rights from afar why not just abolish the internal borders? That seems to end the argument once and for all no? That way we can just ensure that there is no California or NY or NJ…just let the Feds be the Supreme Law of the Land, which is what it seems everyone is advocating for here.

      What could possibly go wrong?

  4. avatar Nanashi says:

    Not being poisoned with NICS expansion and using the old “withhold federal money until compliance” would be prefered.

  5. avatar SDR says:

    So there should not be national reciprocity of drivers licenses? Marriage licenses?

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      Or any other licenses/permits…right?

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      SDR,

      There should not be any licenses for anything — or at worst exceedingly few licenses.

    3. avatar Mike in KC says:

      Shouldnt need the liscence or permit to begin with. Everyone should be pushing “constitutional” carry reciprocity is the point.

      1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

        Theoretically I agree. Politically, one step at a time.

      2. avatar Steven says:

        As much as I do agree with you, I don’t see that ever passing

  6. avatar txJM says:

    Bullshit.

    If you claim that this bill is a slippery slope, then you must admit the same about the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

    And you can’t. In fact, we as a community gladly parade it in front of state governments that would hope to encroach.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      + Ya, there’s a BOOMING SILENCE from this guy and others about the avalanche falling down the face of the, surprisingly and unnaturally speedy, EVEREST SIZED, glacier that is gun-control and all of the piss ant little states’, and piss ant Circuit Court’s bench-regulation crap that’s been coming the other way since _____________________ ?

      That said, THIS PARTICULAR BILL is a bag-of-ass, and because of the NICS fix cr_p should be drug through the streets behind a pair of horses then hung upside down, with its family, in the capital.

      ANYTHING COMING OUT OF YOUR GOVERNMENT WITH THE WORD “FIX” IN IT SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO BE A TYRANNICAL PONSI SCHEME.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        What, specifically, do you hate about the NICS fix?

    2. avatar The Punisher says:

      It’s way past “slippery slope”.

      If everyone is for this bill then they should also just ask Daddy FedGov to abolish all the States, period. Then all of the arguments go away.

      Just Bill of Rights the heck out of it. Damn any people of any location that feel otherwise, regardless of if it’s their rights they are pissing away. Just force the right on ’em. Git ‘er done. Right?

  7. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    If people had personal responsibility…I might be OK with all the author’s ideas…but so many people blame everyone/everything BUT themselves for their actions.
    We have laws/rules/regulations because so many people have NO self-control and there has to be penalties for their transgressions.
    There are some people that should NEVER own guns…for a variety of reasons.
    Likewise…there are those that should not drive…vote…or have children.
    But…who gets to decide? And what benchmarks are used?
    Slippery slopes all around.

  8. avatar JasonM says:

    To have the federal government mandate that every state shall observe every other state’s concealed carry permits is the definition of tyranny…a clear violation of states rights.

    That is the most idiotic statement I’ve read on this site. Ever. Including all the quotes from The Trace, Mark Kelly, or MDA. You could spew the exact same idiocy about passing the 13th amendment. “Forcing states to end slavery is the definition of tyranny…a clear violation of states rights.”

    When the states ratified the constitution they agreed to cede certain powers to the federal government. Article 4 specifically grants congress this power:
    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.

    1. avatar AZgunner says:

      Agreed. I appreciate different viewpoints being offered. But this author is awful. This article clearly demonstrates a complete ignorance of Basic constitutional law.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        This article thoroughly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of our system. The “using the precedent that national reciprocity would create” line of reasoning is a good example.

        Our government is one of enumerated powers. If the Constitution grants the government the power to do a thing, then it can do that thing. That’s the starting point.

        Congress has several powers that authorize it to make laws about guns. The most obvious to legislators is the commerce clause. That’s what they are going with here. The most obvious to me is Sec. 5 of the 14A in conjunction with the 2A. (Sec. 5 grants Congress the authority to enforce the 14A). Then there are the Art. I, Sec. 8 provisions regarding the armed forces and militias, specifically providing for the arming of the militias.

        So the government has the power to do this thing under those enumerated powers. Now we move to the next question: Is there anything in the Constitution specifically limiting Congress’s power in regards to guns? The obvious answer is “yes, the 2A.” Then we must ask what is that limit, and does it prevent the proposed law? A law that says “states have to allow for the bearing or arms under these conditions” does not violate the 2A. I don’t thing it fully enforces it either, but it definitely doesn’t violate it.

        Also, the whole “this is dangerous precedent” argument ignores the last 100 years (roughly) of legislation and jurisprudence. We’re already well into the danger zone.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        The author is more than a little anarchist in his beliefs.

  9. avatar Roymond says:

    Rocket launchers? Then you’re no Second Amendment absolutist, you’re a Second Amendment expansionist: you want to add in things that were not meant.

    The term “keep and bear arms”, with reference to an individual, meant the ordinary arms of the common soldier — nothing more, and most definitely nothing less.

    Now if you own a business that employs numerous people, you are de facto the head of that unit of the militia, and may have ordinary weapons of a militia unit, which would be the ordinary weapons of a military unit; the same is true if you’re a landowner with multiple employees (or large or extended family, or tenants/renters). You militia unit, then, may have rocket launchers of a kind ordinarily used by a military unit — just as a town or village may have the same.
    (For that matter, if you’re a tenant in a residential complex, and you can get most of the others there to cooperate, that would qualify as a local militia unit.)

    The antis want to twist the language of the Second Amendment to make it mean something it doesn’t. It behooves us to make sure we hew as closely as possible to the actual meaning.

    1. avatar Arizona Free says:

      I’m part of the rocket launcher platoon the guy that says “Fire”. I wanted to be the guy that pushes the button but the old carpel tunnel flares up.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      @ Roymond

      Bullsh_t, the Drafters of our Founding Documents DID NOT KNOW THAT WHAT THEY WERE ATTEMPTING WOULD SURVIVE TO BECOME THIS. THEY WERE NOT CERTAIN THAT IT WOULD SURVIVE UNTIL

      THEY

      COULD

      DRAFT

      ANYTHING

      ELSE.

      In the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE they recited that we are endowed with unalienable rights FROM OUR CREATOR, and that we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      THE “CONSTITUTION” WAS MERELY THEIR ATTEMPT TO SAY HOW WE ALL WOULD AFFORD EACH OTHER THOSE THINGS, AND TO PUT EVERYONE ON NOTICE THAT THE COUNTRY WAS INITIATED

      AND

      ORGANIZED

      SOLELY TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS – UNDER GOD.

      The Constitution IS EFFECTIVELY our 3rd version so far. IF WE CHANGE THIS ONE, OR PAUSE TO WRITE ANOTHER IT WILL HAVE EVEN GREATER PROTECTIONS OF WHAT I WANT OUT OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, OR WE WILL HAVE-AT UNTIL THOSE QUESTIONS ARE SETTLED.

      WE

      GRANT

      EACH

      OTHER

      The RTKABA and “ARMS” ARE A N Y T H I N G USABLE AS A WEAPON up to and including asking GOD to smash the entirety of the rest of the UNIVERSE on your FING head.

      “the 2nd Amendment is not your permission for the Author to keep and bear arms, it is, rather, the unalienable right that prevents you from having to ask the Author permission to start (for your own desired reasons, AND THROUGH THE POSESSION OF YOUR OWN MEANS) the next Civil War, because the Author hereby forswears that no request for permission will come the other way if the Author is so inclined.” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, Pg. 107]

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        “DID NOT KNOW THAT WHAT THEY WERE ATTEMPTING WOULD SURVIVE TO BECOME THIS. THEY WERE NOT CERTAIN THAT IT WOULD SURVIVE UNTIL

        THEY

        COULD

        DRAFT

        ANYTHING

        ELSE.”

        They sure-as-sh_t weren’t going to write-away, their own right(s) to compel, by ARMS, anyone in the future from starting over, either coalesced as a group, or individually.

        1. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

          Brother if you keep this up I am going to come to your house and forcibly take away your CAPS lock button. Not seriously but damn, you have to learn to make an argument using adult style paragraphs.

      2. avatar Spartan357 says:

        Dude, the caps button on your moms computer keeps getting stuck. You probably spilled some cool aid on it.

      3. avatar JOE R. says:

        I LOVE MY CAPS LOCK KEY. IT MAKES EVERYTHING I SAY HAVE MORE EFFECT.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I too am annoyed by your capslocks, rants, and quotes from that book, but damn Joe, that was funny.

          I have always appreciated your hot tub/holster comments.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          That last short all caps Joe R. ‘Is a totally fing hacked Joe R., and should be removed now, and people shouldn’t be allowed to post in someone else’s login.

      4. avatar Nonnymouse says:

        “up to and including asking GOD to drop the entirety of the rest of the universe on your head…” Nice.

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      The term “keep and bear arms”, with reference to an individual, meant the ordinary arms of the common soldier — nothing more, and most definitely nothing less.

      Do you have a citation for this claim? There were many private artillery pieces during the early years of the republic.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I agree. Having a personal interpretation of something is fine, but if you want other people to believe you, support it with actual some kind of actual support other than your own say so. And if you don’t want people to argue that you’re wrong 1) don’t state it as authoritative fact and 2) don’t do it on the internet.

    4. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Last time I checked rocket launchers were man-portable just like a common arm. Perfect example of this is the Russian RPG-7 routinely wielded by ONE person daily in combat images all over the world.

      Then again the 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms which is an all encompassing term, not just handheld weaponry but ALL weapons capable of defeating an army which is the whole point of the Amendment to begin with.

    5. avatar The Punisher says:

      You do realize that people in the time period of the founding fathers privately owned gunships right? They had cannons on them.

      It is not an “expansion” in any sense to the “right to keep and bear arms”. Where does the 2nd amendment say what is limited? Where is it defined what a militia “needs” to protect the State or for defense?

  10. avatar 2aguy says:

    The Rights of the individual are what both the states and the federal government are supposed to protect. When the states violate those Rights, slavery, jim crow, come to mind, then the federal government has to protect the individual from those states. When the federal government violates the Rights of the individual, then the states must act to protect those Rights. While good points are made, The Right to Bear Arms, is an individual Right that was not created by the Constitution and it is not dependent on the Constitution. That some states violate the Right of individuals to carry a gun is a wrong that needs to be stopped. The federal government needs to stop it. When the federal government over steps……and tries to use this act to violate those same Right to gun ownership, then the states will have to act.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      +1
      2aguy said the same things that I was going to say.

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. There are no “State’s Rights” that permit any state to violate the natural and Constitutional rights of the people. The federal government has the right and responsibility to ensure that no states will violate the rights of the people.

      Lyndon Johnson did the right thing when he sent in the US Army to enforce desegregation in the Mississippi (I think) schools. If only some modern Presidents had the same courage when it came to the 2nd Amendment.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Preach. Additionally, the right of the people to be well armed makes them the last line in the defense of freedom. Even if the system fails in several places, the people shouldn’t have to step in. (The checks and balances of separation of powers and federalism have many fail safes built in).

  11. avatar Bill Johnson says:

    I don’t agree with you, but I do applaud your articulate presentation of your views. I believe you and I would be able to calmly and rationally discuss our differences, and maybe even persuade each other on a point or two. This is the kind of discourse and debate men of reason and good will are capable of. This is the kind of discourse and debate the Left is utterly incapable of.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      This! Plus eleventy billion!!!

  12. avatar Deltasierra777 says:

    “All that said, I still come back to the fact that any permit is already an infringement on our Second Amendment rights.”

    Ok I follow..

    “But wait, you say, I should be able to carry my gun in Times Square and walk down the Vegas Strip while packing! Perhaps, but perhaps the people who live in those locales genuinely do not want you to do so.”

    You lost me. So you say anyone should be able to carry anywhere. But some people may not like it so you shouldn’t be able to. So even though we should be able to carry anywhere we can’t make a law saying we can because there can be a law saying we can’t? You are fighting yourself in your own post.

  13. avatar JS says:

    I agree philosophically that there should be no infringement on 2A issues, but the reality is we have lost that already. I sit in the great state of Commiefornia which is much further along in taking away my rights than the rest of you (HI, NY, NJ, etc. excepted). Reciprocity is a crumb of a right being tossed at us but the alternative of where we were sitting is worse. The challenge is half of the population is willing to give up some of their rights while the other tries really hard to hang onto them. What to do? They are not going to leave us alone, ever. No Hughes act repeal. No dissolving of the ATF. We might get suppressors but thats a maybe.
    What frustrates me is there is probably enough voters that believe in the 2A to change this (assuming they can get one member of their family to vote with them) but we cant do it. We bicker among ourselves and will sacrifice the other firearms owners to keep our piece safe. Its sitting in front of us waiting to be taken back.

  14. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I think we tipped over the precipice more than one hundred years ago. Heck probably almost since the founding itself. The ideals and the documents that made this country what it is were ripped to shreds long ago.

    I agree wholeheartedly. Bravo sir!

  15. avatar rc says:

    “To have the federal government mandate that every state shall observe every other state’s concealed carry permits is the definition of tyranny…a clear violation of states rights.”

    Yeah, you lost me right there. The 2A already covers the basic rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms and certain states completely ignore the Constitution (and not just that particular amendment either). They have no ‘states rights’ to deny citizens their agreed upon (since 1787) constitutional rights. This is simply a corrective to that situation. So no, that torpedo’s the entire argument you are trying to make as far as I’m concerned.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “since 1787” – And if not in 1787, then at least since 1868.

  16. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Your argument is essentially that it is not okay for the feds to infringe on the rights of the individual states to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. You justify this by saying that if 50% plus one vote is for infringement, then that is all well and good. The problem with your justification is that states are required to adhere to the enumerated rights listed in the Amendments, no matter how voters in that state feel. Would you tell Trump that since Hillary got more votes, he needs to get out of the White House? The reason we have the Constitution is to control the excesses of a pure democracy.

  17. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Why Second Amendment Supporters Should Oppose A National Reciprocity Law”

    Zzzz…

  18. avatar Gapharmd says:

    Nice try but it was obvious that you were a fudd and liar the second you contradicted yourself.

    “Perhaps “.

  19. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I agree with the author by-and-large that victimless “crimes” should not be crimes.

    Having said that, we do need some minimum standards in any area where large energies or high levels of toxicity are involved. Should the following be legal as long as no one was injured:
    — drive 95 m.p.h. in a neighborhood
    — deploy land mines in national forests
    — run bare wires at waist level carrying 6,000 volts
    — shoot guns at a low angle toward the horizon in a city
    — store tons of explosive chemicals outside in $3 buckets
    — store tons of toxic chemicals outside in $3 buckets
    — fly jumbo jets forever without any maintenance

    Clearly, none of those things should be okay. So, who defines and enforces such minimum standards?

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      Yep uncommon sense…and everyone get high and do whatever you want. He really needed to interject with “I’m a libertarian-don’t bogard that joint”. National reciprocity affects me not a whit. What I want is Constitutional Carry.

  20. avatar W says:

    “To have the federal government mandate that every state shall observe every other state’s concealed carry permits is the definition of tyranny…a clear violation of states rights.”

    No, it’s a statement of individual rights.

    The federal government has powers. The states have powers. Individuals have powers. National reciprocity is the federal government telling the states that they have to respect individuals’ rights of self defense and bearing arms. This is true even if the individual is in a state other than his home state. NJ shall not deny a citizen from Texas their 2A right.

  21. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    That is NOT the reason. The reason is: gun hating states will take this legislation and impose a bunch of draconian regulations which will effectively invalidate carry permits everywhere.

    Also, states have not agreed to give up their prohibitions. You’ll still get arrested in NY, NJ, MD, CA and have to spend a small fortune defending yourself and be lucky to avoid state jail no matter what the federal law says.

    This is all a huge waste of time and resources. We should have been spending that time and money on the SAFE act and national Constitutional Carry.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Paragraph 1: How?

      Paragraph 2: You can sue the states and individuals involved for damages and attorney’s fees.

      Paragraph 3: How could that help if this bill can’t? (I’m not conceding that this bill can’t help, but that appears to be your point).

  22. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The government and states don’t have rights. People do. The bill of rights is a declaration of rights people already have, not actually something that grants those rights.

    Also, people who would restrict our rights have no issue using the federal government to encroach our rights already. GCA 68, NFA 34, Hughes Amendment etc. are all such. Don’t forget that they already did federal 10 round mag limits and it wasn’t the courts that caused it to stop but rather an expiration date. The sword cuts both ways, and every once in a while we should take a swing.

    Not only that, but it also goes with what I call “incremental blight.” That cuts both ways too. What’s going to happen when the blood that is supposed to run thick through the streets fails to materialize after this passes? What are they going to say then? When CC came to Illinois you’d have thought it the end of the world listening to the speech of Rahm.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “GCA 68, NFA 34, Hughes Amendment etc. are all such.” Exactly. Do people not realize that almost all gun law that affects most of us is federal already?

  23. avatar rt66paul says:

    With rights comes responsibility. Licenses are needed in hunting and fishing(and limits also). Back in the 18th century, many animals were hunted out, almost wiped of the face of the earth. We need some controls and agreement on those controls by all concerned, so our grandchildren can enjoy the land as we do(or should).
    The over population problem is another issue, but proper management of natural resources, game and timber limits are the only reason we have game. No one person should have the rights to a forest(like the royals did back in Europe), no one person should be able to profit from his exclusive rights to public land.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      The reason for the accepted legality of licensing for hunting and fishing is because, in America, wild animals have always been considered the property of the states.

      With overpopulation, are you talking about animals or people?

  24. avatar PavePusher says:

    If the Second Amendment can be treated differently across state lines, so can the Thirteenth.

    Is that what you want? Because I could use some honkey slaves…..

    1. avatar ORCON says:

      Honkey slaves are a bit feisty, just ask the Brits.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Racist. I don’t care what race my slaves are.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I prefer sweatshop labor, far lower overhead. I wonder if Foxcon would be interested in a joint venture?

  25. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

    I love the “It’s not the perfect bill/doesn’t put us immediately back to totally zero infringement” crowd. They’re cute, if not a bit naive.

    The anti’s and progressives were always content to play the long game to erode our rights. We need to do the same to gain them back.

  26. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    None of this reciprocity law will affect me personally in any way.
    To me since Ill take what I can get out of all this. I dont want Gubbermint in any of my daily discourse.
    Some things can be quite distasteful. This while not what Id like, nor should be. It is for now acceptable.

  27. avatar Bill says:

    The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to limit the ability of the government (states included) to infringe on certain inalienable rights. From that perspective it really doesn’t matter whether Californians or Texans don’t agree with certain amendments, the whole point is that these amendments are limitation on states rights.

    And it’s not tyrannical to enforce these if we truly believe these are rights- not all government power is bad. This is one of the few things are government absolutely should do. This was the very intent of enshrining certain rights in a national document. It’s absolutely bonkers to clean we’ve strayed from our roots in this regard.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “It’s absolutely bonkers to clean we’ve strayed from our roots in this regard.” – Accept that we’ve gotten to the point that federal intervention is needed.

  28. avatar Andy says:

    Interesting article Dan Zimmerman, and well written. However, I disagree, completely. Wholeheartedly.

    First, when you begin fear-mongering, and basing decisions and actions/support (or lack thereof) on SPECULATION, or, “what they could do”, you use a over-used tool of the left, to control people based on fear and speculation.

    Second, the federal government has grown too large & overreaching, everyone agrees. But sometimes they get it right. This is one of those times:
    Our Constitution states that NO STATE, may make a law, and no citizen is obligated to follow a law, that infringes on their constitutional right. California, or Time Square as you said, do not get to say whether other law-abiding Americans can, or cannot have guns in their little “safe space” States.

    It is unconstitutional, and finally, Congress is addressing this issue with a Bill.

    Blind mistrust of Congress benefits no one. Actually reading the bill and understanding it’s legal ramifications does help. Your article, while well written, informs no one of any facts.

  29. avatar Hank says:

    Incorrect. “States rights” it’s a myth. States have powers and authorities, but no “rights”. The constitution goes both ways, no government should be trampling on individual rights, wether it’s state, federal, or local. If all the residents of SF California unanimously decided to ban freedom of the press within city limits, it would be deemed illegal by other branches of government. The same standard must apply to gun control.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      States’ rights aren’t a myth. There an idiom or euphemism for the 10A and the principles of federalism it represents.

  30. avatar ORCON says:

    Mmmm…you do understand that the Whiskey Rebellion wasn’t the result of frivolous spending and wanton abuse of power, right? Our fledgling republic was in dire financial straits and needed a mechanism to service the debts accrued during the Revolution.

    More importantly, as others have already pointed out, your premise is flawed in a number of ways.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Wasn’t it (the tax on whiskey) also Hamilton’s way of controlling the economy (or at least an aspect of it)?

      1. avatar ORCON says:

        I don’t know about that, but Hamilton’s argument was that the import duties had been raised as high as they could be with out causing harm to the economy and the least objectionable tax that was found was an excise on “luxury goods” and booze was the winner.

        Hamilton did seem to be of mind that a nation that shared a financial interest would be more resolute and unified in matters of trade, commerce and policy, I won’t comment on if it was a political tactic or a genuine belief.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Corn was difficult (expensive) to get to market. Whiskey was easy because you distill the corn locally and throw the barrel in the river and let it float to market.

          The way I heard it, for some reason, Hamilton wanted the corn to come to market and not the whiskey, so he got a prohibitive excise tax put on whiskey.

          Now, all this is stuff I learned years if not decades ago. Most of what I know about the Whiskey Rebellion is from elementary school. The reasons for the tax was probably from a book much latter.

        2. avatar ORCON says:

          At first blush that would make sense but the whiskey tax was applied to all distilled spirits, both domestic and imported. A property tax would have lead to mass revolt and a flat out income tax was incomprehensible, so the best worst option was to tax something that nearly everybody made or consumed that wasn’t a critical commodity (though I would argue that man cannot live on bread alone, pour me a tax free bourbon). Most families at this time had the means to produce spirits and often used it in lieu of cash to pay obligations or in barter for goods and services, and that’s where the real problem arose. Hamilton was not an agrarian and, compared to his contemporaries, I have a hard time not seeing him as a proto big-government corporatist. The policies Hamilton pursued as our nations first Secretary of Treasury didn’t take into account the impact on people in what we would consider “fly-over country” today, who considered it a defacto income tax, and thus, the rebellion.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “I have a hard time not seeing him as a proto big-government corporatist. The policies Hamilton pursued as our nations first Secretary of Treasury didn’t take into account the impact on people in what we would consider “fly-over country” today, who considered it a defacto income tax, and thus, the rebellion.” – That, except for the “didn’t take into account” part, is why it was believed he had this policy. Hamilton believed America needed to be an industrial/commercial power while Jefferson believed America needed to be an agrarian nation with principled yeoman farmers as the base of the nation. Hamilton’s policies were designed to push the country from a rural agrarian society to an urban industrial society. Or so the argument went.

  31. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Much talk, Constitution says I have the right to bear arms, and I do. It’s a misdeamnor anyway, grow some balls, support the Constitution.( busted in 1991 for concealed carry) and proud of it ,because Shall not be infringed

  32. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘To have the federal government mandate that every state shall observe every other state’s concealed carry permits is the definition of tyranny…a clear violation of states rights.’

    States don’t have rights, they have powers as defined in the Constitution of the United States of American and the 10th Amendment. Individuals have rights and the 2nd Amendment says that those rights ‘Shall not be infringed’ and if it wasn’t clear that these infringements were not allowed by either the federal government or the states, it was codified into the constitution with the 14th Amendment. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states that ‘The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.’

    IMHO the imposition of a permitting system is in itself a blatant infringement. Would it be considered an infringement on voting rights if you first had to take, at your own expense, a civics course and then pay for a permit to vote that had to be renewed every 5 years? But I’m not opposed to incrementalism. It’s better than fighting a civil war to get our rights back.

    But there’s nothing wrong with ‘The Congress’ imposing the Bill of Rights on the states. If they don’t like it, they can secede.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Also, if states had rights it would be states’ rights or state’s rights, not states rights.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Well said.

  33. avatar M Dale says:

    I read the article with interest and find the comments, at least some, to be very enlightening. After reading this I read an article from the 10th Amendment center http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/12/08/from-duty-to-be-armed-to-permission-to-carry/ that I also feel is very good and on point.

  34. avatar Old Man from the Prairie says:

    I read the article with interest and find the comments, at least some, to be very enlightening. After reading this I read an article from the 10th Amendment center http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/12/08/from-duty-to-be-armed-to-permission-to-carry/ that I also feel is very good and on point.

  35. avatar Steve says:

    “To have the federal government mandate that every state shall observe every other state’s concealed carry permits”
    The bill does not do that. Have you read it? This is all covered by the end of page 3. Your permit will only be valid in another state that has a permitting system set up and doesn’t prohibit concealed carry. Further, it doesn’t supersede any laws that allow private individuals or organizations from prohibiting firearms on their premises.
    Here’s the link to the bill text. I encourage everyone to read it directly before basing their position on this misinformed article. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr38/BILLS-115hr38eh.pdf

  36. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    I agree with the author on many points but his premise that this law would make it easier for the federal government to infringe later is incorrect. They could do any of the undesirable things he mentions now and national reciprocity would not make any of these things easier.

    If Hillary Clinton were president and the Democrats had a few more votes they WOULD be doing these things now so any momentum that we can achieve to move us off the precipice of a potential civil war would be a good thing. ( To be clear, I believe that any sort of restriction that would ban or try to confiscate firearms could very easily lead to civil war in this country.)

    The reality is that we are literally one election away from Congress being able to pass banning all sorts of things and even though national reciprocity doesn’t solve that problem specifically, it does move us in the right direction.

  37. avatar JW says:

    Among other things, the civil war and the 14th ammendment made it clear that the federal government has the power to uphold individual civil rights (like the right to keep and bear arms) and prevent infringement of the same by the states… in my opinion one of the more legitimate exercises of federal power.

    I do think it would be best if the courts simply struck down ALL the unconstitutional federal and state infringements on gun rights, as they generally do with infringements on free speech, but until then, baby steps 🙂

  38. avatar kap says:

    we have 20 + k gun laws on the books and this kook { Democrat} wants to add a few more so his buddies {ISIS] can tear our meat house down, its not about the constitution its about how our sex starved and perverted politicians want to cripple America so they have power and Authority over you. first destroy all moral law then give the perverts the right to persecute you for not having their beliefs. the unelected bureaucrats have more control over our lives with their unchecked rule making than the gutless, spineless Congress and most of the rules are not reviewable by the courts as they are suck ass dependent on the Bureaucrats

  39. avatar Jason Dupea says:

    Nope. States don’t have those rights. Full faith and credit is in the Constitution, and concealed carry reciprocity is just enforcing that Constitutional law in the proper Constitutional role of the federal government. States have rights against the federal government, but not against the people, and denying out-of-state concealed carry is against the people, not the federal government.

  40. avatar Michael says:

    I do also have some concerns about the “National Reciprocity Bill” in the hands of the Federal Government. I think it will eventually be used for some ill gotten means. To that, I noticed an error in your article, and one with any level of education should never make. States do not have rights, people do. States have powers as listed in the 10th Amendment.

  41. avatar Jeremy says:

    How in the world are we supposed to advance gun rights when we can’t even agree on national reciprocity?

    The democrats are against the reciprocity law. If the democrats could use the law to infringe on our rights, then why are they opposing it? My thoughts are that they aren’t able to finagle it in their favor. So pass it. If it turns out to be the wrong move, then ignore the law, just like you’re morally obligated to.

  42. avatar GS650G says:

    The bottom line is carrying a gun concealed or not has been labeled dangerous, unacceptable, provocative and subsequently illegal. Anti gun forces got that position on the higher ground a long time ago because of incidents which gave them justification.
    Sucks but that’s the reality. You want to be armed, great. But outside the home you have to play by their rules. And every high profile shooting, crime, or event involving firearms makes carrying them around scary to a lot of people. People who vote and don’t like guns.

    So if we can get a federal permit that identifies us as a non criminal possessing a firearm that keeps the police from handcuffing us, taking our gun, harassing and even charging us I say let’s have it. We can’t change all those minds out there but we can carve respect for our decision to arm up. The alternative is plain to see all over the world.

  43. avatar MLee says:

    @ Justin Russell
    Well Justin, I take your entire argument and dismiss it as total garbage. REALLY!
    If you said you had actually driven across the USA with your concealed weapon and had actually researched the gun laws of each state of intended travel and obeyed each law, your opinion would have meant something. But you have not done that. Instead you puke out some literary garbage and use New Yorks Times Square as a really REALLY extreme example. Catch a clue Justin, the gun carrying folks of the USA aren’t collectively craving to go to New York City and hang out in a tourist trap like Times Square with fat old men in ugly shorts with selfie-sticks.

    I can carry in Las Vegas, but do I go there….well, actually I do, but that’s besides the point. I was in NY also, but I really had no desire whatsoever to go into NY City even though I have a buddy in the 31st floor next door to the Dakota overlooking Central Park. The point is, NY isn’t the big draw for every concealed carrier out there. Millions of people travel interstate highways every day and carry, but trying to obey the laws is realistically unworkable, and that is a cold hard fact, because I HAVE DONE IT Justin.

    In my letter from Washington State Rep Cathy McMorris Rodgers:
    “I support H.R. 38 because it protects the Second Amendment rights of citizens when they cross state lines. By setting a uniform standard for people with a license or permit to carry a handgun to do the same in other states with similar laws, we are providing certainty to law-abiding gun owners across America.”

  44. avatar cisco kid says:

    quote———————–After over 200 years of history, we can see what the Founders who created this nation got right and what they got wrong. We don’t have to be content to live in a left/right, two-party system. What would the possibilities of gun rights, free speech, or human rights be if more places were allowed to live by their own laws and rules?—————————–quote

    Its obviously you flunked History Class as in the past we ended up with Right Wing States who trashed Constitutional Rights. We had whites only drinking fountains, Whites only restaurants, laws that took away minorities rights to vote, gun laws that discriminated against minorities, laws that forbade minorities from marrying white people. Laws that banned people from erecting minority churches and religions. It goes on and on. That is why the Feds stepped in and said enough was enough and the Constitution applied to all peoples not just the privileged white majority.

    You are right about States Rights being crushed by a Federal Reciprocity Law but the Right Wing are all hypocrites and can and will look the other way when crushing states rights benefits any of their causes. Just like the Far Right telling voters to vote for Roy Moore the pedophile because if your Republican Pedophile its cool and ok to run for office but not if your a Democrat that just patted a few women on the ass. Ditto if your a Republican President, Quote: “I can do anything, even grab em in the pussy”. And so far he has been proven right, he can, and with the Republican hypocrite voters that’s cool too.

  45. avatar LHW says:

    Just because the majority in a state doesn’t like it, the shouldn’t be able to trample on the rights of the minority.

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