Concealed Carry Reciprocity: The Washington Post Hates You And Always Will

Tom the Dancing Bug, good guy with a gun

courtesy boingpoing.net and Ruben Boling

‘Good guys with guns’ can be dangerous, too. Don’t gut concealed carry laws. the editorial at washingtonpost.com argues. As a good guy with a gun, I’m not feeling the love there. And guess who’s dissing Americans exercising — or wishing they could exercise — their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, as Congress prepares to do the right thing and pass the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act? . . .

Mark Kelly is a Navy combat veteran, retired NASA astronaut and co-founder with his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, of Giffords, formerly known as Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Giffords? One word? Like Cher? Hang on. Didn’t the gun grabbing group known as Americans for FInal Responsible Solutions rebrand itself as The Gifford Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence? Oh wait. They’ve got that one running too. Anyway . . .

By giving Mr. Kelley a platform, and somehow forgetting to give equal ink to a pro-gun rights writer, The Post shows its disgust Concealed Carry Reciprocity. And here’s what the former astronaut/proto fascist has to say on the subject:

What would it mean for law enforcement? Nothing good. The bill would impose a threat of personal litigation on all law enforcement officers by allowing anyone whose ability to carry a concealed gun is mistakenly questioned by law enforcement to personally sue the officer.

This bill would also effectively require them to be an expert on nationwide gun laws as they work to determine if it’s legal for someone from out of state to be carrying a gun in whatever state they might be visiting. Just as concerning, it will mean that more law enforcement officers will have to confront more people with guns.

And think back to the tragedy in Tucson: When law enforcement officers arrive at a crime scene where multiple people are holding guns, how do they even know who the good guy is?

We need politicians to show courage and listen to the American people, who want stronger laws to make them safer, not giveaways to gun lobbyists that threaten the safety of our communities. And that’s exactly what this irresponsible bill would do.

Black is white. Up is down. And Mark Kelley and The Washington Post hate you. And always will. I wonder why that is . . .

comments

  1. avatar Rokurota says:

    Why do anti-CCW people always bring up Zamudio? A gun owner who had the awareness to NOT shoot an innocent disproves their “wild West blood in the streets” scenario, “barely” notwithstanding. Close only counts in horseshoes.

  2. avatar anonymoose says:

    That guy in the cartoon looks like he came from something on /pol/ or Stormfront.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      That’s what the left would call a “dog whistle.” They are either trying to suggest, or unconsciously assuming, that the typical American gun owner is an Aryan, and thereby, a white nationalist

    2. avatar RidgeRunner says:

      or King of the Hill

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        Gottdangit, Bobbeh.

        1. avatar Eric says:

          that’s the guy from the Duluth underwear commercials!

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        Oddly enough, Hank had practically nothing to do with guns at any point on the show…an odd omission of actual Texan culture, considering how thorough Mike Judge was otherwise (he’s a massive lib is why)

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          That’s easily explained. Cotton taught him to shoot at a very young age. He basically has a PTSD episode every time he tries to shoot. Bobby was a natural though. Hank supported him and was very proud when Bobby wanted to get a gun rack for his bike.

  3. avatar sph says:

    The police will have to presume innocence upon encountering a citizen carrying concealed? The horror!

    1. avatar John says:

      No – they will do what they’ve always done. Assume everyone armed is a threat until the situation is cleared up. As they should. The bad guy goes to jail and the good guy goes home.

      1. avatar Screw Blue says:

        Yeah, the good guy goes home in a body bag… Oh did you mean the cops? Because those jackbooted thugs shoot first & ask questions never.

        1. avatar Temerity says:

          Yes, you’ve wisely and judiciously summed it up, thank you. As in, all politicians and lawyers are crooks. All [insert your least favorite nationality/race] are [insert epithet of choice]. Stereotype much?

        2. avatar TStew says:

          Strange, I didn’t get shot by the last cop I had a business interaction with…and I was armed. Well armed.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        They can assume we’re threats all they want, but they have neither the right, nor the constitutional authority, to disarm us “for their safety”. If I can’t demand a cop hand over his gun for my safety, then he shouldn’t be able to demand I hand over mine. And the odds of a cop shooting a white male (like me) during an encounter are much higher than those of a white male shooting the cop.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          In principle you are absolutely correct. But the supreme court disagrees, and that decision drives police training, police policy, and criminal and civil law. The cops CAN order you to disarm if there is reasonable suspicion/probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and they CAN arrest you for obstruction if you want to play street lawyer and argue the matter at gun point….. again, on principle, you win…. on statutory and case law, you lose.

  4. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    I see poor finger and muzzle discipline.

    The article itself is depressing. Most of the comments below it are maddening.

  5. avatar pwrserge says:

    “Blood in the streets I tell you! Blood!”

    Mark Kelly is a disgrace to the Navy and the entirety of the United States Armed Forces. Those of us who remember the letter of our oaths know that the CotUS is not subject to popular vote of the machinations of state governments.

    1. avatar Bo Jackson says:

      Why do you keep referencing something you did for only six months, tough guy? Or are you going to keep pretending you did more than that?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Quite a bit more, actually. But the details are more than your little mind can understand.

        1. avatar Bo Jakcson says:

          Maybe you should update your CV to reflect that, Sergei. Of course, you wouldn’t happen to be lying, would you? Stuff like making up deployments before you were ever enlisted, or being an NCO, when you only made it to PFC? Why don’t you tell us why you actually got out after only 6 months?

        2. avatar Bo Jackson says:

          It’s not use deleting it. I already have a copy.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Maybe I don’t put every detail of my service in my CV? The one on LinkedIn hasn’t been touched in years? But thanks for letting me know that I need to update my privacy settings. Good job on the stalking though…

          FYI, I was reserve out of High School, I didn’t put it there because it was not relevant. I also didn’t put my half dozen secondary degrees or my grad school data because I haven’t used LinkedIn in half a decade. I don’t need to, the people who need to see my full CV have my full CV. My rank was deliberately understated because that was my rank at the end of the active duty segment of my contract. Funny thing, ranks tend to go up when you’re in the reserves, even inactive reserve.

        4. avatar Bo Jackson says:

          Oh, and you better fess up. Being a stolen valor coward doesn’t look good, and neither do all the comments you make tying into that.

        5. avatar Bo Jackson says:

          You were in high-school at the age of 23? If you keep lying, things aren’t going to go well for you.

        6. avatar Smitty says:

          Only six months of service?
          What was it, an administrative separation for failure to adjust? Or did you piss hot for weed?

          Before you respond, I did a full twenty years in the military.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Like I said, more complicated than you could understand. I was reserve out of high school, after college I went active for six months, but wacky things happened. Why do you think it took me five years to finish a four year degree? (Despite going to summer school every year.) Those would be the deployments.

          I don’t need to “steal valor”, I never claimed to be anything other than what I am.

        8. avatar Bo Jackson says:

          You know, it’s really stupid to keep lying when someone can check what you’re saying. And no, it’s not that complicated. Deployed days count toward active duty time on you DD-214. You’ve pretended to be a real tough guy, but you’re nothing more than a fatass pretending to be something he’s not. Nothing wacky happened other than you being a failure that watches little girl cartoons into his 30s. I appreciate the fact that you’re not that tough when you’ve know you’ve been had. Also, thanks for admitting this is Sergei. I’m sure people are going to love your posts irl.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          Smitty you know damn well that a failure to adapt never makes it six months. At six months active you’re eligible for VA benefits, they tend to wash you out long before that. Yes, my final rank on active duty was E2. That was not my final rank on separation.

          As for “stealing valor”… I don’t believe I ever claimed to be decorated in any significant way or that I was some sort of war hero. FYI, medical separations take a while, especially when multiple rounds of surgery and physical therapy are involved.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          So you have a copy of my DD-214 then, do you Bo? Sure you do. Fuck off.

        11. avatar Bo Jackson says:

          Bo knows, Sergei. In fact, you and I have met. That’s how I know who you are.

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’m sure we have Bo, but the details of my military service are not something I generally talk about. Again, you caught me, I was not something I never claimed to be. Good for you.

        13. avatar Bo Jackson says:

          Of course, you have claimed things that aren’t true. When you try to be tough and people call you out on it. It isn’t because you’ve suffered some great injury. It’s because you’re fat and short. You were never an NCO, and you were never in combat. You are a liar, and lying about stuff like this has consequences.

        14. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh, and if you really knew me Bo, you’d know that there are days when I need a cane to walk. There’s a reason for that.

        15. avatar pwrserge says:

          On a side-note Bo… Do you know what a separated plantar tendon feels like? Do you know how badly it fucks up your leg for the rest of your life? You don’t know me Bo. You’re just some third rate SJW stalker who managed to dig up a LinkedIn account and is using partial information I chose to share with the world to dox me. Good job kiddo.

        16. avatar Bo Jackson says:

          Yeah, so hard that you manage to get yourself to shooting competitions without issue. I’ve never seen you with a cane, and the fact remains that you haven’t yet explained how you came to have a service length of 6 months as an E2, exactly the time required to get a new private to that rank. I wonder how an NCO with multiple deployments like yourself ever got there. Couldn’t possibly be that nothing you say is true, could it? Nice job deleting your minds account, but I have a copy of that too.

        17. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          What the heck is this all about?

        18. avatar pwrserge says:

          Wow… you really are a stalker Bo… If you’ve ever been to a competition that I’m at, you’d notice that I don’t tend to stay on my feet for very long. You’ll also notice I don’t do anything crazy and always wear heavy boots to lock my ankle. The fact that I can do them at all is a major personal accomplishment for me. One I’m proud of. But please Bo, next time you see me, feel free to walk up to me like a man and ask me about the details of my life. I’d be happy to explain them to you.

        19. avatar pwrserge says:

          Manse Jolly, Bo here is a doxing piece of shit who thinks that he knows me after digging up some partial data from my LinkedIn account.

        20. avatar Bo Jackson says:

          What, you’re not even going to threaten to throw me out of a helicopter? You’ve gone soft. Of course, I already know what I need to know about you, and since you won’t explain here for everyone, I guess you’re more interested in everyone outside knowing about how much you love little girl cartoons, or how much you hate those darn porch monkeys (your words). It’s funny how you’re not talking about using nerve agents, shooting me, or anything of the sort when you realize others are aware of the kind of person you are, a pathetic fat man that constantly makes excuses for himself.

        21. avatar pwrserge says:

          Kiddo, I already gave you a full explanation of what happened. See above.

        22. avatar Bo Jackson says:

          No, you haven’t, and anyone with half a brain can see that. You’ve lied about several things and postured as if you were some decorated badass, which you are not, nor have you ever been. Of course, you’re no longer posturing because both you and I know you’re weak, short, fat “man” that masturbates to little girl cartoons. And now everyone else knows as well.

        23. avatar Troll Hunter says:

          Wow… You gaggle of jackasses really have nothing better to do, huh?

          Dur… False flags! Muh valor!

        24. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah, fair point. It’s a sore topic for me. (quite literally) I’m done with this jackass. He can believe whatever he wants to believe. The people who know me know the truth.

        25. avatar JasonM says:

          I don’t care if you insult pwrserge, but why do you have to take your anger out on cartoons? They do nothing but entertain us.

        26. avatar RyanC says:

          One way to know this clown was a fat troll, is to go through the trouble of looking him up, etc. That seems like too much work.

          The other way to know this clown was a fat troll, is to read the angry, bitter rantings and say to yourself “Only a fat troll would write these things.”

        27. avatar AKM Sarah says:

          So you imply that if Pwrserge is fat, watches girl shows and has crippled ankles, that matters…why? It doesn’t as long as he is on our side and isn’t an anti, or a Fudd. I’m more concerned with what appears to be your fetishistic, obsessed trolling, bro. It’s a little disturbing.

        28. avatar jwm says:

          AKM Sarah. You’re assuming that the guy attacking serge is on our side. Trolling has taken a nasty, stalking turn here lately. Maybe he/they believe they’re going to degrade or disrupt or even destroy TTAG?

        29. avatar AKM Sarah says:

          Jwm, I was assuming that Serge is on our side, and the other guy is a weird character assassinating stalker, but I suppose I could be wrong either way. One reason I could be wrong is that I don’t spend any time digging into the personal lives of the people I encounter here.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      Not to butt into an ongoing, and rather entertaining, argument here but I’ve been meaning to ask if you tried those unweighted squats and if they helped you in any meaningful way.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        To some extent yes. I managed to lose 10 lbs in the past six months and build up quite a bit of muscle tone.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Nice. Congrats. Glad they helped a bit.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… The vigorous exercise program that I’ve had for the past year has really helped. I was able to participate in and help run almost a dozen shooting competitions.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Crazy how much that shit helps, even if it hurts like hell in the beginning.

          At one point I wanted to murder a few doctors and physical therapists but they did get me back to 95% and now that fancy rosewood cane hangs on my wall as a reminder not to do stupid shit again while muttering something about how I can hack it.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah. I’m pretty much the same at this point. Haven’t needed the cane in months. As I said elsewhere, gettting back to the point where I can do action shooting matches is a huge personal accomplishment for me. Hopefully, I’ll be able to get back to the point where spending a day in full kit doesn’t kill me anymore.

      2. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Best all round exercise is swimming. I do 2km non-stop most weekends in under an hour. My son, who’s 9, joins in and can do 1km in under 30 minutes.

        In addition I walk 15000 steps a day on average and my dog is responsible for about 9000 of them. And 5x a week a floor exercise routine of 50 pushups and 80 sit ups.

        1. avatar former water walker says:

          Geeez…I thought I(and JWM) had some trolls. I got your back Serge…

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Thanks guys. The end of my military service was not a happy period in my life. They hit a sore spot. Took me a second to walk it off. I’m proud of what I did, but I’m hardly a war hero like JWM. I may have been a reservist POG that screwed up his career by the numbers, but god damn it I held up my hand, took an oath and meant every word. I’ll be damned if I let some SJW stalker claim that the things that damn near destroyed my life didn’t happen.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Swimming is good depending on what you’re doing, goals and what strokes you’re using.

          Swimming is cardio and cardio causes weight loss. When you lose weight you lose muscle mass no matter what you do. If you’re trying to gain muscle to lose weight then you want to carefully tailor the amount of cardio you get to your goals and how much you lift.

          I used to lift and then swim a mile. I wondered why I couldn’t add to my ass (or much of anything else) with the amount of lifting I was doing. Talked to the doc, cut back the swimming to 1/2 mile per day and voila, significantly increased lifting gains.

          Oh, also Bo is a troll and not even a very good one. He’s just a retard with a keyboard. Ignore him.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          Swimming is good depending on what you’re doing, goals and what strokes you’re using.

          Swimming is cardio and cardio causes weight loss. When you lose weight you lose muscle mass no matter what you do. If you’re trying to gain muscle to lose weight then you want to carefully tailor the amount of cardio you get to your goals and how much you lift.

          I used to lift and then swim a mile. I wondered why I couldn’t add to my ass (or much of anything else) with the amount of lifting I was doing. Talked to the doc, cut back the swimming to 1/2 mile per day and voila, significantly increased lifting gains.

          Oh, also Bo is a troll and not even a very good one. He’s just a moron with a keyboard. Ignore him.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          I’m not a war hero. Period. I did my duty best as I could.

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    According to Mark Kelly,

    This bill would also effectively require [police] to be an expert on nationwide gun laws as they work to determine if it’s legal for someone from out of state to be carrying a gun in whatever state they might be visiting.

    Thus, requiring someone to be an expert on nationwide gun laws to determine if it is legal for someone from out-of-state to be carrying a gun in whatever state they might be visiting:
    — is BAD if that “someone” is a police officer
    — is GOOD if that “someone” is a concealed carrier

    Once again, we have someone demanding that we give up our rights in order to make government employees’ jobs easier. That, my friends, is utterly disgusting and heinous.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      He has to comply with the state he is in, which the cop should be aware of, and have a permit from his state. Wow, what an expert the cop has to be.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        The cop would have to remember the thirteen states with constitutional carry, because people from those states would be able to carry nationally with just a DL or state ID.

        That’s pretty tough. What do you expect the cop to do, write down the names of thirteen states?

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Or, I don’t know, google it?

    2. avatar higgs says:

      This is a lie.

      You have to be an expert Now to know if its legal or not using the current reciprocity agreements between states.

      If I understand the bill correctly the current language requires CCP holders to abide by the state law of where they travel, not were they reside. So the Police only need to know there own states laws.

      the truth is that this law will not let the antis discriminate the way they want to.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        I think the point is they claim police would have to know the laws of other states to determine if the person of interest was lawfully carrying concealed. Of course, these idiots fail to recognize that there are multiple reciprocity agreements between various states now, and it doesn’t seem to have presented much of a problem.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          After this law gets passed, if a cop is digging that deep in to someone’s business, then they have bigger problems then weather or not the CCW permit is legit. If the CCW is not a prohibbited person, but the CCW is not good, then were looking at a misdemeanor investigation at most, which will more often then not come out to nothing and be a huge waste of time for all parties involved. Here’s whats going to happen when this this bill passes:
          – Blue states (minus vermont) shit pants and scream “blood and horror!!” for two months.
          – Nothing happens.
          – Some cop, somewhere, does something stupid, and gets sued, and maybe gets fired, and maybe goes to jail.
          – After 12 months everybody calms down and police/CCW interactions will go like this:
          “Sir, do you know how fast you were going?”
          “Officer, I have to tell you I have an out of state CCW and I’m armed.”
          “Okay,…. do you plan on shooting me today?”
          “No.”
          “Are you drunk/high, a convicted felon, have a DV restraining order, or otherwise a prohibitted person?”
          “No.”
          “Okay, then I think we’ll be just fine.”
          – The world will go around and antis will find something to scream about and we’ll scream back at them.

  7. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    He’s a traitor and a paid political shill. There already is a lot of reciprocity between states, it just hasn’t been federally enforced. As far as I’m aware, the current situation hasn’t led to ‘blood in the streets’. The point about opening up law enforcement to lawsuits is pure baloney. Since when has an individual cop (or police department for that matter) been sued for any wrongdoing? They have some sort of institutional immunity! Kelly’s piece is full of BS ‘what ifs’ and is designed to pander to their base.

    And why would a cop need to know in detail 49 other states CCW laws? The fact that the person has a valid CCW from their home state should be enough! At the moment, the burden is on the CCW holder to know, understand & comply with a patchwork of differing legislation, most of which is designed to trip up the unwary.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      The part about lawsuits is not baloney. The bill specifically states that cops (or departments) that try to deprive people of the rights that HR 38 protects are subject to lawsuits, unless they have probable cause of some actual crime.

      So cops can’t just go around harassing or arresting people for carrying guns legally. The horror!

  8. avatar JAlan says:

    I have a good way to determine who are the good guys. If they shoot at you, then they are bad, if not, then you reserve judgement. I know that police in our great country like to act fast, but at some point you have to accept increased liability for them if it means more safety for the rest of us.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Not to be crass, but their job description is literally to risk their lives protecting our rights and safety. If they don’t like that:

  9. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Concealed Carry Reciprocity: The Washington Post Hates You And Always Will”

    Well, the feeling is mutual, and always will be…

  10. avatar Parnell says:

    “The bill would impose a threat of personal litigation on all law enforcement officers by allowing anyone whose ability to carry a concealed gun is mistakenly questioned by law enforcement to personally sue the officer.” Really? I guess I have grounds to sue if a cop asks to see my driver’s license? I’ve read the bill and there is nothing in it prohibiting law enforcement from asking to see ID. Just another bald-faced lie from the left.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      He has a really aggressive definition of “questioning.”

  11. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    Democracy may die in darkness, but it’s always darkest right under the lamp-post.

  12. avatar Ogre says:

    Pravda-on-the-Potomac (aka The Propaganda Department, aka the Washington Post) never saw an anti-gun writer that it didn’t like, in this case Kelly. Its Editorial Board does an efficient job of trashing gun rights, too. The WaPo is staffed by superior urbanite progressives who look down at the average non-progressive citizen and think that what they want should be enforced on the “little people” of America.

  13. avatar dan543 says:

    “Joe Zamudio was shopping at a drugstore nearby when he heard the shots. Allowed to carry a concealed weapon under Arizona law, Zamudio recognized the sound of gunfire and rushed to the scene with his gun in his jacket pocket, his hand on his weapon and ready to fire. But then Zamudio — a good guy trying to do the right thing — almost shot another good guy.

    As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. Zamudio confronted him: “Drop it, drop it!” he yelled.”

    Ok, so kelly’s strawman did something really stupid. As a concealed carrier, I’m not a cop. Yes, I’m justified in using deadly force to stop a forcible felony, but I sure as $h1t am not going to go charging into a chaotic situation about which I know very little, point a gun at someone and demand they Drop It! Good way to get shot.

    Zamudio needs to go back to CCW class. You’re not a cop. You’re carrying a tool that enhances your ability to defend yourself or someone else from death or grievous bodily harm.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “I [Zamudio] never pointed it at anyone, so how could I have almost hurt anyone?”

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      “Yes, I’m justified in using deadly force to stop a forcible felony, but I sure as $h1t am not going to go charging into a chaotic situation about which I know very little, point a gun at someone and demand they Drop It!”

      Joe Zamudio didn’t point a gun at anyone; he didn’t even draw his gun.

      Where did you get this garbage at?

  14. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Something I read somewhere else made the claim that states like NY, which has strict licencing requirements and recognizesw no other state’s carry licenses, would be forced to recognize licenses from states with so-called lax requirements.

    Actually, we hear that kind of generality all the time, but this claim was specific: in Georgia, you are not ineligible for a carry license even if you have a domestic violence conviction. So licensed wife beaters (licensed to carry, not to beat) may carry in NY, a place where they never would have received a license in the first place. Hmmm. How about that?

    I looked up Georgia law and, well, it’s true. Sort of. There are some circumstances that would allow someone to be granted a GA carry license, even though that person is otherwise a prohibited possessor under federal law. HOWEVER, Georgia law also mandates, as in deprives of any discretion, that the State defer to federal prohibited possessor standards and deny your application if you’re federally barred.

    So I guess it’s possible that some NY and GA license standards might differ, like the proficiency demonstration or the length of the class. I don’t know. What is clear is that federal law still applies and you won’t get to carry legally in NY on a “lax” Georgia license, at least not from a federal standard as the other article claimed.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “even though that person is otherwise a prohibited possessor under federal law. … What is clear is that federal law still applies and you won’t get to carry legally in NY on a “lax” Georgia license, at least not from a federal standard as the other article claimed.” – The bill does not apply to prohibited persons. That’s one of its requirements. Anyone claiming otherwise is wrong.

      (Not disagreeing with you, just clarifying).

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        That’s fair. I appreciate the clarification.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      It’s not legal to conceal something that it’s not legal to possess in the first place.

      GA could pass a law saying that convicted felons can possess guns. That wouldn’t invalidate the NY law against convicted felons possessing guns, or the federal one. So it would still be legal for an NY cop to arrest a Georgian felon for being a felon in possession of a firearm, even if he had a valid carry permit.

  15. avatar UH-HU says:

    NATIONAL RECIPROCITY, WILL IT MEAN DUTY TO INFORM OR NO REQUIREMENT TO INFORM OFFICERS ON TRAFFIC STOPS.???
    SORRY MY CAPS BUTTON STUCK, NEED NEW KEYBOARD; SPILLED COFFEE
    MY STATE, NO DUTY TO INFORM POLICE UNLESS THEY ASK YOU TO GET OUT OF VEHICLE

    1. avatar Ragnar says:

      Concealed is concealed. Don’t ask, don’t tell.

      1. avatar The Punisher says:

        That’s bad advice. Some States require that you inform the officer if they contact you in any way (traffic stop).

        This reciprocity deal is a bad move. Mark my words but it will be expanded upon and abused in the future.

        What FedGov touches FedGov kills.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      It depends on (1) whether the statute is interpreted as to preempt duty to inform laws and, if not, (2) what state law says.

    3. avatar clst says:

      The way I read the bill, you would have to adhere to the carry laws of the state, or jurisdiction, you are traveling to or through.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        That’s how I read that part of the bill, too. A valid out-of-state carry permit gets treated the same as a valid in-state carry permit. The visiting carrier still must abide by that state’s laws, just as any in-state carrier would have to.

        That’s another area of this bill that hasn’t been sufficiently discussed: variability among state firearms laws. In all the foolish comparisons to driver licenses, I expect a great many people truly regard state differences in firearms laws similarly. For example, in some states, it is legal to turn right on a red light, unless specifically barred, in which case a sign to that effect must be posted . Same with U-turns. In other states, these can be outright illegal.

        It’s the driver’s responsbility to know the laws. Well. An out-of-state licensed carrier may assume that the relevant differences in firearms law are few and fairly inconsequential, earning a traffic ticket, like making an illegal U-turn. In reality, firearms laws vary widely and the consequences for violation can be draconian.

        If this gets signed, expect a new TTAG recurring feature detailing the latest wayward out-of-state licensed carrier caught up in a legal nightmare somewhere for carrying in ignorance and violation of local laws.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The bill isn’t actually reciprocity. It just protects the right to conceal carry of qualified individuals. For example, someone from the three states Texas has no agreement or unilateral recognition of cannot open carry in Texas under the bill.

        2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          I’ve read the bill twice and do not reach the same conclusion as you do, though I am not an attorney. Let me re-read it with an eye toward that interpretation and see what I find. Let’s table this for now.

          As an aside, though, this is exactly the sort of potential confusion over the law that could get people in serious trouble. If a licensee, as you describe, from a state whose licenses are not recognized by Texas, attempted to open carry in Texas, then that could amount to a serious offense. Depending on the circumstances, that could be a Class A misdemeanor or even a third degree felony.

          Imagine that: a pro-firearms law that ends up making a felon out of someone and debarring them from firearms ownership for life.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I broke it down for someone on one of these recent posts. If I find it I’ll post it here again. When I replied to you, I was on my phone. I’m not carefully quoting and describing parts of a bill on my phone.

          But yeah, there are all sorts of pitfalls in following a new law. Often lawyers who practice in a certain field don’t understand new laws in that field. Even when the meaning is fairly straightforward.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Found it:
          “Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section,” – the preemption of local law. Also known as “why.”

          “a person” – who.

          “who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,” – qualification for who #1.

          “who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person,” – qualification for who #2.

          “and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm” – qualification for who #3A.

          “or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,” – qualification for who #3B.

          “may possess or carry” – the act who may do.

          “a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,” – the object which can be acted upon.

          “in any State” – the where the who (subject) can possess or carry (verb) the gun (object)(for the purposes of this discussion, the modifications to the object by adjectives and such will be ignored).

          A person who meets the qualifications can possess or carry a gun in any state because the federal government says so. Not because the federal government says all states have to recognize a state’s permit as valid.

          Anyway, that’s my reading.

    4. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

      @UH_HU lol – Now that’s some funny $h!t right there! Almost as funny as the “Serge & Bo” show earlier.

  16. avatar Mark N. says:

    I’ll just leave this here: Good Gal
    with a Gun Stops Wannabee Cop Killer

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5f4_1512587143

  17. avatar GoD says:

    Retard Mark Kelly a shill and a failure and his brain damaged wife, Gabrielle Giffords did not have a brain b4 she was injured……all giving lip service to the Antigun Soros,Bloombags Billions just like NotAnytown and moms without a life
    Its all about the money! They have no heart or passion in the game and all have body guards with guns or gun permits themselves to show how YUGE hypocrites the whole bag of nuts are!

  18. avatar Bo Jackson says:

    Bo knows, Sergei. In fact, you and I have met. That’s how I know who you are.

    1. avatar Remmi300blk says:

      Terrell Davis would run circles around you brah.

  19. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “This bill would also effectively require them to be an expert on nationwide gun laws as they work to determine if it’s legal for someone from out of state to be carrying a gun in whatever state they might be visiting.” – If the cop can’t look at someone’s driver’s license and use Google to determine if they are from a Constitutional Carry state, or look at the driver’s license and permit and see that they exist, then that cop shouldn’t be allowed out without adult supervision. That’s the degree of expertise needed.

    1. avatar Hoystory says:

      I also like how the cop can’t be counted on to be an expert on nationwide gun laws, but the current state by state mishmash of gun laws effectively requires everyone with a concealed carry license to be an expert on nationwide gun laws. The district attorneys in states like New York, New Jersey and California aren’t particularly understanding or forgiving when the common folk get it wrong.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        It’s hard enough to understand your own state’s gun laws. I know plenty of people around here don’t.

      2. avatar Arizona Free says:

        The ghetto lottery just got bigger. I have a feeling in California the law won’t be looking for reasons to arrest anyone with a ccw. Criminal behavior has been downgraded to keep people out of jail. It’s doubtful they will want a ton of civil rights lawsuits from law abiding people.

  20. avatar Defens says:

    Breaking: HB38 passed the House

    Or in the words of the Washington Post: “WASHINGTON — Republicans rammed a bill through the House on Wednesday that would make it easier for gun owners to legally carry concealed weapons across state lines, the first significant action on guns in Congress since mass shootings in Nevada and Texas killed more than 80 people.”

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      It was joined with the Fix NICS bill. I will now quote the entire Politico article on the issue.

      “The House passed legislation to permit concealed carry license holders to conceal a handgun in other states.

      The ‘Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,’ a top priority for the NRA and other gun-rights groups, passed 231-198. Senate Democrats are expected to block the measure.”

  21. avatar Dev says:

    HufflePo is saying that reciprocity is a danger to abused women now: https://huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a26d1cce4b06d807b4f8a63

  22. avatar cisco kid says:

    I think one point Right Wing Morons fail to understand is that there should also be a Federal Test before a person can carry a gun across State Lines. Training varies tremendously from State to State running the gamut from Hillbilly States that put a gun in someone’s hand and say “good luck, hope you don’t blow your head off or some one else’s when carrying it” to other States that have poor training to a few States that have professional training. Of course the law must also be written to trump all state laws as well or the reciprocity will not only not work but result in so many lawsuits over wrong arrests or contested arrests that greed monger lawyers will be in greed monger heaven in lawsuits for decades and decades to come. Never mind that its supposed to be up to the State to have the right over the Feds in gun control laws because the Feds have raped that Constitutional provision decades ago. Federal Law overrides State Law always whether on paper or whether through gangster persuasion by withholding Federal funds for various state projects like highway repair. As Mao Zedong once said “Power comes from the barrel of a gun” and the Feds have all the big guns so end of argument. In other words the States can get on their knees and start sucking you know what and don’t forget to take the Constitution and wipe your ass with it.

    1. avatar bobnotaub says:

      you should have to take a test before you bring your free speech to this blog.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      Somewhere in that tirade was the assumption that mandatory training makes a difference in either the outcomes of defensive gun use or the number of accidents/bad shootings by licensed concealed carriers. In short – it does not. Studies have shown that there’s no particular difference in the numbers of shootings, the numbers of unlawful shootings, or the number of accidents by trained vs. untrained CCWs. Most mandated training – even the supposedly extensive training in some states – is pretty minimal.

      I doubt that many folks who carry concealed will deny the usefulness of training, but as a mandated requirement for CCW issuance, it is a hot topic. Another requirement of unproven value and the potential for governmental abuse, through high fees, limited access to training, etc.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Peddle your Moronic Babbling to the unwashed. People have to understand the laws on when and when you cannot shoot which by the way brings up another subject that until you started ranting I hand not thought about so thank you for screwing up and giving me way more ammo to shoot back at you and here it is.

        And to say that training does not prevent accidents is about as ignorant as claiming the earth is flat contrary to modern scientific facts or that the world is not in a permanent destructive mode from global warming. Come on can’t your write anything serious.

        Ever think about how many states have different criteria over when its legal to shoot and when it is not? We have Nazi racist states like Texas where you can execute people for pissing on your lawn (a slight extradition but not by much and I could quote cases but don’t have the time right now) to states that are very strict on when you can use deadly force (generally the few advanced civilized states). So my point is that how in the hell would a person traveling through numerous states not run the extreme risk of going to jail for decades because he had no idea when he could or could not shoot as he whizzed through numerous states. I think if the Democrats think about this one the bill is really going to run into some heated opposition and the news media would have a field day with it.

        And by the way your last statement is exactly what I first posted about and that is that many states do have minimal to no training what-so-ever. Precisely my original point and why we need a hard hitting no nonsense Federal Training program before just any yahoo right out of Podunk junction can load up and start blasting away with a 16 shot clip while on vacation. And don’t tell me the term clip is not to be used instead of magazine or you will wish you never brought the subject up. Fair warning.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Fair enough…

          Where can I get one of those 16 shot clips?

          Just tell me which store.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          Try taking your own advice, for once, and go peddle your own moronic babbling — the ONLY moronic babbling to be seen here (besides that other troll) — where literally everyone else around you doesn’t already know better than you. Y’know, some place that isn’t here. People actually already understand when not to shoot people, and there are already laws that punish people if they shoot someone that didn’t need shooting. So, thanks for screwing up once again yourself, and giving us way more ammo to shoot back at you, not the other way around.

          And to say that training prevents accidents is what’s actually about as ignorant as claiming the Earth is flat, and your saying that mandatory firearms training prevents accidents is what’s contrary to all available evidence. We already know for a fact that you can’t write anything serious, factually accurate, or even logically sound.

          The actual variances between state “shoot-no-shoot” criteria are really quite small. We actually have Nazi racists states like The People’s Republikkk of KKKommiefornia where there is no duty to retreat if you’re threatened in your home by an intruder to states like Washington where Castle Doctrine is already long-established Common Law and doesn’t even need a statute to be enforceable in court (like an actually civilized state). So, your actual point is that no one should be able to carry anything, any time, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever because you’re a low-life, gun-grabbing ghoul. The DemoKKKrats don’t think, period, and neither do you. The so-called “news” media are already having a field day with it, not that it’s going to matter much because almost no one puts any trust in them, anyway. As well they shouldn’t.

          And by the way, it’s actually your last statement that’s exactly what we post about here daily and that is that many gun-grabbers do no real research whatsoever. Precisely our original point and why we don’t need a hard-hitting, no-nonsense federal training anything before just any yahoo right out of mommy’s suburban basement can load up more lies and condescension and start blasting away with their willful pig ignorance while not looking for work or going to sk00l. And don’t tell us about the proper usage of the term “clip” or you will wish you never brought up the subject. Or any other subject, for that matter. Fair warning to you, not the other way around.

    3. avatar Huntmaster says:

      When you start your comments with “I think one point Right Wing Morons fail to understand” you simply disqualify yourself as rational and reasonable human being. Nobody is going to take you seriously. This is because any rational and resonable person who wants to win either hearts or minds does not start off with insults. Pretty simple concept. It’s a core competency usually covered in nursery school.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Yea and if your God Herr Drumpf had followed your advice he never would have won the Presidential Debates. As much as I loath the beast he certainly made fools out of all the other candidates. So you know where you can stick your advice.

        1. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Troll

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          Yeah, if your God Herr Hildabeast had followed your advice, she would be in jail where she damn well belongs. She is rightly loathed even by her own party, and even by most who held their noses and voted for her. So, you know where you can stick your advice.

    4. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Which ones are the Hillbilly States?

      Seven states — Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and now Missouri — do not require a permit to carry a concealed handgun within their borders.

      What State are you from?

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        You just named the moronic states. You answered your own question. And yes my state does indeed require mandatory training on when and when you can and cannot shoot as well as safety training as well.

        The only problem with most training is that it does not flunk people as all people should not be allowed to get their ccw until they can pass the test. This is a matter of life and death its not just going through the motions to be pro-gun and being an irresponsible hill jack so you can say we are pro-ccw and no one is to be denied so if you shoot someone you should not shoot or accidentally shoot someone its just chalked up to “collateral damage”.

        Again this is my whole point to begin with i.e a professional no nonsense Federal Test and since the Morons that run our government are not capable of coming up with such a profession test (and I am not being facetious in any sense of the word) I can and would point these thick headed Neanderthals to a professional foreign program long ago put in place and long ago proven to be very successful. And if you do not know which country this is then again your light years behind what Europe has been doing for decades and decades. Guess which country it is.

        There is I reluctantly admit one major problem with my whole idea and that is the average hillbilly in the U.S. could probably never pass this professional test because of the failure of our educational system to produce people anymore that can understand written instructions in order to study for such a test or take notes when in class before a test is given. Its beyond anything they have ever experienced. And if you ever even glanced at some of the scores on the (everyone that takes this test passes) you would realize I am not exaggerating in the least.

        I am not hard heart-ed either as I realize some times women are threatened with immediate death from nut case husbands that cannot survive without being led around by the nose 24 hours around the clock so what do you do with them. Deny her the gun and hope she does not kill herself or someone else accidentally until she gets at least some rudimentary training or deny her the ccw so her husband can kill her. If we lived in a civilized country most swoop in and throw the husband the hell in jail for awhile and if later she has been found to be lying then she takes his place. But we don’t have that here its cheaper because of law suits just to cremate all the dead bodies. Sometimes even the Constitution gets in the way of common sense. Of course if we had more government funded safe houses for women that would keep both of them out of jail but hey do you think the Republicans would ever fund any money for social programs, heaven forbid it might save lives and jail time but that would cost money that would be better spent on bombing and killing thousands of women and children in foreign countries for greed, power and profit. Heaven forbid we would ever do that as well or we are right back to where I started a Federally funded professional program for a ccw given this time right “inside the safe houses” for women which the Republicans would never spend the money on either.

        As you can all see we live in an ignorant hillbilly country that lets anyone go to a gun show and buy a gun and in some states simply start packing it. Is it any wonder civilized countries regard the entire U.S. as a society gone completely mad. At least they are not surprised as they watch re-runs of the Beverly Hillbillies too and its only they who realize it was never a sit come it was for real.

        1. avatar n64456 says:

          If those “ignorant hillbillies” are so bad and dangerous; then why are more than 75% of the murders and shootings in this country committed by urban Democrats?? Is it because A: Urban people are violent animals; or is it because B: Democrats are violent animals??

          Well….. We’re waiting……

        2. avatar AKM Sarah says:

          Nice novel cisco too bad though, stopped reading after federal requirement chapter one…

        3. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Don’t feed the troll.

        4. avatar AKM Sarah says:

          I marvel that he actually fatigues his little fingers writing all that. You ever notice how the trolls always write the longest comments? Just going on and on, bloviating about nothing. I think it is a symptom of psychological instability.

        5. avatar Red in CO says:

          I admit I only skimmed, but… wow: I’m actually impressed; I’ve rarely seen someone out that much effort into trolling. In your barely coherent, minimally punctuated ramblings, you may have managed to hit every leftist talking point and attitude, even the ones that are totally unrelated to anything at hand. Bravo!

        6. avatar Excedrine says:

          He actually just named some of the few actually civilized states. He answered your question. And no, you didn’t even live in the States, nor do you have a CCW or any of the other things you’ve ever claimed to have or even to be.

          The actual problem with most training is that it’s even required in the first place. No other right is subject to this. None whatsoever. So, no, you actually can’t say that you’re pro-CCW because you’re pro gun control. Yes, the two are, in fact, mutually exclusive — yes, yes they are. Also, no, if you shoot someone you’re not supposed to shoot you’re actually liable for it and will at least be made to pay damages if charged and convicted of manslaughter or homicide.

          Again, your actual entire point to begin with is that no one should ever be allowed to carry thing, anywhere, at any time, for any reason whatsoever because you’re a low-life, gun-grabbing ghoul and you’ve never seen a gun control law you didn’t like. You also actually can’t, and thereby won’t, point to any successful foreign program because none exist and they’re entirely irrelevant and inapplicable to us, anyway. The only thick-headed Neanderthal here is you. So, no, we’re actually light-years ahead of Europe and not the other way around.

          There are actually several major problems with your whole idea, starting with the very existence of the idea itself. Nevermind that you couldn’t pass any “professional training,” whatever that’s supposed to mean, so that’s why you want everyone else to be subject to it because you’re merely projecting all your own flaws and inadequacies onto everyone else. that’s what you gun-grabbers do, after all. It’s all you’ve ever do and all you’ll ever do, and it’s literally the only premise that all of you have ever or will ever argue from. Oh, and the failure of our “education” system is also on you far left idiots, as well, because your lot has in fact been running the entire show for going on four decades now. (No, it’s not a funding problem, either, so don’t even go there.)

          You are actually quite hard-hearted, too, as you damn well realize that gun control hurts — not helps — women and the elderly and infirm the most. You even admitted just how it does, too. It’s always easier when the gun-grabbers gut their own (non)arguments for us. If we lived in an actually civilized country, we wouldn’t have gun-grabbers like you deliberately disarming women and constantly telling them that they can’t defend themselves with guns and should wait for the police (who have no duty or obligation to do so by the way) like the sexist you are. But, we have that here because it’s cheaper for you to simply have them cremated instead of actually having them able to have a fighting chance at defending themselves — just so you can claim you “did something” and score brownie points on social media with all the rest of your regressive left (but I repeat myself) buddies. We already have more than enough government-funded (and even privately-funded) shelters for battered women — and strangely, also thanks to sexists like you, absolutely none in the whole of these United States for men and/or boys — but, hey, do you think DemoKKKrats would ever want women to be able to defend themselves and threaten the far left plantation they want to keep women on?

          As you can actually see, we live in an ignorant urbanite country that still wants to permanently shut down all gun shows and never let anyone carry a gun, anywhere, ever. Is it any wonder that the U.S. actually regards most of the rest of the entire world as a society gone mad? At least we are not surprised when they rightly get egg on their face when their policies blow up in their faces, and it’s only we who realize we correctly predicted the end result.

    5. avatar Excedrine says:

      @crisco skinhead — What you “think” is irrelevant, and what you left wing morons fail to understand is that there actually shouldn’t be any test, period. There currently no states that have any “professional training,” whatever that’s supposed to mean, required before issuing a concealed carry permit. Nor could you name any because there aren’t any, and that’s why you didn’t name any. Of course, the law actually need not be written to trump all state laws to make it work, and would only result in any lawsuits whatsoever if some shitheel with a badge decides to either continue or take up the habit of stopping peaceable people without probable cause. Nevermind that it’s actually not supposed to be up to the state, either, because the Second Amendment is rightly incorporated against the states — it’s well and truly out of their hands, too. This is much to your chagrin, I’m sure. Oh, and you’re about the only one here would ever wipe their ass with the Constitution in the first place, being that you’re constantly on your knees fellating whatever gun-grabber trash that gets spoon-fed to you.

      Never forget that you’re still a sexist, racist, classist piece of gutter trash garbage by mere dint of supporting gun control in the first place, too.

  23. avatar N64456 says:

    “Voters want Democrats to stop shooting people”

    Fixed that for you…

  24. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…When law enforcement officers arrive at a crime scene where multiple people are holding guns, how do they even know who the good guy is?”

    Did he just admit to the cops showing up AFTER the crime has been committed? Isn’t that also admitting that we are our own first responders?

  25. avatar matt says:

    Have I missed something? Wouldn’t the onus be on the person carrying to know what the CCW rules were in the state they are in? Not the LEO knowing what the rules are in your home state.

    Look, you’ve got a CCW or not. I think it makes an uncomfortable amount of sense if we are going with 50 state, and all territories and the district, universal recognition of CCWs, that we’d also need some way to look up if a CCW was legitimate. Whether that is a national database of CCWs, or all state databases have hooks that another state LEA can access.

    Really I’d rather just see CCW be controlled at a federal level and one set of laws and rules behind it that applied across the entire country, so there wasn’t trying to figure out what laws you were subject to going state to state.

    Then again, that also sounds like a good way to have a liberal congress and president some day decide to basically block CCW across the entire nation.

  26. avatar JJ48 says:

    Well, I don’t want stronger laws, so does that mean I’m not an American Person?

    Also, I don’t know who that is in the picture, but the poor trigger discipline indicates that at the very least he’s not “Well-Trained Guy With-A-Gun”.

    P.S. To any cops out there worried about showing up to a firefight (though in most cases the shooting will be over and done and a surviving Good Guy will likely have his gun holstered by the time the police arrive) here’s a hint: the Good Guy is the one who ISN’T shooting you or unarmed victims.

  27. avatar Erica says:

    Horrible what happened to his wife, the attacker was a loon so many who have an agenda….However, why punish the good when a few wreak havoc. According to GIFFORD logic (or the institute for Gosh I am For F*@king the Ordinary, the Respected and the Decent folks)
    We are not to punish all muslims because several hundred thousands muslim terrorists are killing and terrorizing millions around the world, hello Kelly… We are not to shut down funding of Planned Parenthood although they are killing babies and selling body parts, hello Kelly…..We are not to agreesively pursue solutions to black on black crime (esp Chicago and Baltimore) if we try to help, Whites would be called racists, hello Kelly… We are to believe that all men are naturally Mass Shooters because most of the shooters were male, and that White Men are real problem, this country is sick!

  28. avatar George says:

    I do not believe folks from constitutional carry states(a good thing !) would be allowed to carry elsewhere by virtue of that alone. Most of these states still offer optional carry permits for the express purpose of allowing reciprocity agreements with other states. Here in VA we honor everyone else’s permits, but our 2 Dem Senators who supposedly represent us, will vote against VA permits being honored in all the others(think I’m good in 38 states between the VA and Utah paoerwork).

  29. avatar TweetyRex says:

    I tier of the endless personal bashing that is totally off topic. I had to read endless bullshit and personal attacks to get to the end so I could make a SALIENT COMMENT related to THIS ARTICLE!
    1) Federally mandated training: Look at how the armed flight crew situation was handled. MORE training than police departments require, manditory mental health screening. If you “fail” not only do you not get to carry, you might also loose your job (if we can’t trust you with a gun, how can we trust you with 200 lives and multimillion dollar aircraft). The training was only offered in ONE place in the country, in the ass end of nowhere, and the pilots had to take vacation time to go and pay for it themselves. Needless to say, not many pilots applied (as was the plan, the whole program was just to shut up the people that wanted someone on the plane able to fight back on their behalf).
    2) Trained law enforcement officers are the only ones we can trust with guns: My local agencies have to qualify twice a year, and most officers only practice the week before quals. They also get to try as many times as they need to pass. I practice twice a week and complete at least once a month. Who do you want to show up if YOU’RE the hostage?

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