Republicans Who Support The National Reciprocity Act Are Not Hypocrites

The author wearing NICK holster (courtesy thetruthaboutguns.com)

How can Republicans support the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity ActAren’t Republican anti-federalists: politicians who support states’ rights as a check against the power of an overarching federal government? Isn’t their support for national (i.e. federally mandated) concealed carry reciprocity hypocritical? Yes. Yes they are. And no. No it’s not . . .

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court’s McDonald decision codified what should have been obvious to anyone who understands that the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights trumps local and state law. In the words of the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” by any part of government, at any level, anywhere, ever. Amen.

The National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act forces all states to recognize every state’s concealed carry permit. In other words, it forces all states to cease infringing on non-residents’ Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

Smith & Wesson 686 and medical marijuana (courtesy thetruthaboutguns.com)

No, it’s not like forcing states to allow marijuana smokers to smoke marijuana in a state that prohibits it. No, it’s not like forcing all states to recognize non-residents’ driving licenses. There is no constitutionally-protected right to fire-up a doobie or pilot a car on public roads.

The National Reciprocity Act is like forcing states to recognize a non-residents’ First Amendment protected right to speak freely without government censorship or other type of interference. Seen in that context, we shouldn’t need a national reciprocity law.

Prohibiting a law-abiding American from keeping or bearing arms in ANY state for ANY REASON is unconstitutional. In fact, concealed carry permits are an unconstitutional infringement on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. But here we are.

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America Missouri chapter (courtesy facebook.com)

Gun control advocates who oppose national concealed carry reciprocity can’t make the argument that it’s anti-states’ rights. The right to carry concealed is super states’ rights. Nor can antis make that argument because they support federally-protected gay marriage and abortion — neither of which is Constitutionally protected (unless you squint real hard).

So gun control advocates call supporters of the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act hypocrites.

Liars gotta lie. Statists gotta state. Lying statists are a danger to a free society, just as the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is a positive step towards Constitutionally protected gun rights restoration.

comments

  1. avatar tfunk says:

    Except, no, it doesn’t force states to stop infringing our 2nd Amendment protected rights. If it did, it’d be “Constitutional Carry” everywhere, as it should be.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      We’ll get there. It’s a long road, and this is a major bridge over a river of Shit. There’s a ton lies, half truths, fake news, and double agent style turncoats surrounding this bill, because the antis are that terrified of it. They’re pulling out all the stops to try and fight it because they know how detrimental this will be to gun control. You know you’re over the target when you’re receiving the most flak. Support this bill, keep fighting the good fight.

    2. avatar Shotgun Sam says:

      But what about republicans who support the keystone xl’s pipeline to enforce eminent domain on Americans given the pipeline is Canadian, the oil is Canadian, and the customer is China. And the loss of priceless aquifers is 100% American.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        The customers are American refineries.

      2. avatar John Fritz HMFIC says:

        Huh?

        1. avatar Shotgun Sam says:

          Huh is right.

          The rouse is that American refineries are in play . Not so. The tar sands oil will be loaded into tankers and shipped to Asia. It costs too much to have Americans refine it in American refineries. Canada just needed pipeline access to our ports. The republicans supporting the xl are getting personal kickbacks while Great Plains farmers and ranchers are getting the eminent domain shaft.

          Do your homework folks. The mouth breathing Fox newsies just say what their paid to say. Whether eminent domain or national reciprocity, money trumps loyalty to country. The 2aa is just a business model.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I’ve personally seen at least one portion of the pipeline that terminates in a refinery.

      3. avatar ozzallos says:

        Website is not “The Truth About Oil”.

      4. avatar DDay says:

        Hey sam, get off the drugs and get better sources for information.

        Without the pipeline which obama vetoed, the oil from canada was still going to the refineries but it was going by railroad which was owned by big obama donor and supporter warren buffet.

        Now get lost

        1. avatar Rms1911 says:

          Don’t tell everybody about the scam.
          Warren buffet was making a giant pile of money off of the deal.

    3. avatar Porkchop says:

      It really comes down to whether you will accept half a loaf, or continue to have none. Regardless of the arguments for nationwide constitutional carry, it is not politically realistic to expect that it is going to happen any time soon.

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        Yeah, but the whole loaf is ours and we’re coming for the whole loaf!

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        The only way we get national constitutional carry anytime soon is if we do so through the Supreme Court. That would probably require 2-3 more appointments. While possible, that’s very unlikely.

  2. avatar JAlan says:

    No, it’s not like forcing all states to recognize non-residents’ driving licenses. There is no constitutionally-protected right to fire-up a doobie or pilot a car on public roads.

    I don’t know about marijuana, but the full faith and credit clause pretty much does this for driving licenses, marriages, and other such things. I’m honestly kind of angry that this didn’t apply to a constitutionally protected right like the right to carry. Of course, I am not a lawyer, but I’d like to think my US gov course taught me at least something.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Actually I believe that drivers licenses are reciprocated by agreements from Secretaries of State, not the FFAC clause. Otherwise other licenses would apply (PE, etc.)

  3. avatar ironicatbest says:

    My gun wants a new home baby

  4. avatar Hoyden says:

    If I had a 6 pack like those hips….

    I hereby resign from the Senate.

    1. avatar ORCON says:

      The more I read this, the funnier it gets.

  5. avatar Sam I Am says:

    ” In the words of the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” by any part of government, at any level, anywhere, ever. Amen.”

    RF, you, of all people, should be ashamed. The BOR was written well before the 14th Amendment. Do I really need to school you on this? Why?

    The vast majority of the provisions of the constitution, and the entirety of of the BOR applied solely to the central government, prior to 1868. Before that date, the states were almost separate and individual sovereign entities. The states did not delegate to the central government the application of the constitution to the individual states. Prior to 1868, the individual state constitutions were not de facto (or any other way) forced, coerced, mandated, directed, compelled or bound, or in any way obligated, to conform entirely to the constitution of the US. The nation was called UNITED STATES, not THE SUPREME AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND IT PROVINCES. The states united to form a central government. The states in no way considered themselves subservient or secondary to the government they created.

    Bottom line? Prior to the 14th Amendment, the states had the retained power to determine for themselves so-called “gun rights”. The states WERE NOT federally constrained by the 2d Amendment.

    1. avatar ORCON says:

      Yes, yes…and the Union very nearly tore itself apart. The original 13 states engaged in trade wars, placed embargoes in their neighbors, and oh yeah, there was a fucking civil war.

      1. avatar billy-bob says:

        War of Northern Aggression.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      The states weren’t really constrained by any admendments, for a long time. For instance, many states disregarded the fourth and fith amendments until the 1950s/60s when the Gideon ruling occurred. The reason why things have changed since then is because of the realization that the bill of rights is in fact pointless if states can simply disregard it, making the constitution and the Revolution all for nothing. That was not the founders intent.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…in fact pointless if states can simply disregard it, making the constitution and the Revolution all for nothing. That was not the founders intent.”

        How very wrong; very wrong.

        Perhaps a request for the reimbursement of the expense of your education is in order.

        1. avatar Hank says:

          How so? Explain your position a little more.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The founders did not intend to bind the states to the US constitution more than explicitly stated in the constitution and first ten amendments; period. If their intent had been to impose all the provisions of the constitution onto the states, the ninth and tenth amendments were superfluous. No where in the constitution are there words indicating that the US constitution was to be imposed, in its entirety (prior to 1868) on the states. Indeed, the states negotiating the terms of the constitution (through their delegates to the convention) considered themselves completely sovereign and separate from all the other states…except where the states agreed to coordinate their affairs via the mechanisms written into the constitution. The states did not all agree that a central government was necessary at all.

          Having thrown off a central government controlling the individual colonies, the states were not about re-creating a powerful central government able to impose its will on the states, without the consent of the states. We have trouble to day conceiving of this nation as it was founded (and existed) prior to the 14th Amendment. At the founding (including the ill-fated Confederation [Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union), the states considered themselves superior to any created central government. Indeed, if the states were not superior politically, then how could they delegate anything to anyone? To delegate to an entity, one must have the authority, the position, the power to do so. Once you delegate legal authority, the entity to which you delegate thence becomes your agent, not the other way around.

          I am dumbfounded at the number of people who want to talk about their constitutional “rats”, but have have not studied the history of the revolution and aftermath, have not read “The Federalist Papers”, have no clue what a discussion of “state’s rights” is based on. The states already had active, controlling constitutions for themselves; individual state constitutions that pre-dated the Confederation and the Constitution. If the states had intended to have the federal constitution imposed on them, the state constitutions would have been moot, and should have been relegated to the dust bin. Under the idea that the states intended the control on the central government to be a replicated control on the states, there would be no reason for state constitutions to exist after 1791. The states did not contemplate disestablishment as the rulers of the central government, to become mere provinces or political subdivisions. That construct only arose after a bitter exchange of gunfire.

        3. avatar Hank says:

          Ok, I don’t disagree. I’m aware of the change in history where the federal government has usurped a ton on power from the states. My main point though is, why bother writing a BOR, if the states don’t have to abide by them. Doing so would only make the BOR applicable on pieces of land under direct control by the federal government, at that time, would’ve only been US territories. While I very much agree with your points, I just don’t see how the founders would’ve went through the very much trouble it was to include the BOR, if it was to only apply in few, select places across the new country. They had to have understood that a state government could trample a mans rights as easily as a federal one could.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “My main point though is, why bother writing a BOR, if the states don’t have to abide by them.” – Because all the states already had there own constitutions which they were happy with (more or less). They were only worried about this new proposed government.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The BOR forbids the central government from placing certain limits on the citizens of the states. One must disregard entirely the experience of the shift of power since 1868 in order to understand the political imperatives of the constitution. The states did not intend the central government to have the legal authority to impose upon the states any restrictions the states did not agree to allow the central government to exercise. If the founders had intended the states to be subject to the terms of the BOR, there would have been a statement to that effect. Again, to conclude the states were ceding their internal laws and ordinances so as to conform with the restrictions on the central government, the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments would have been unnecessary.

          The founders were wary, suspicious, untrusting of a central government, not their own state governments (for which they already had individual constitutions). If the founders had intended all the state constitutions to be rendered ineffective upon ratificaiton of the US constitution, they had the experience, education, and wherewithal to have made that fact plainly evident, not something deduced.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        The States each ratified the Constitution, effectively making it the Supreme Law Of The Land, FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF HAVING ONE. The Lazy-anna purchase WAS MADE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AUTOMATICALLY RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION, AS WERE ALL OTHER CONTIGUOUS US LAND AQUISITIONS (some of the smaller acquisitions are a little touchier, especially HI, which actually had to vote to adopt, and PR, which had partially adopted the Constitution but not been made a “state”).
        The United States are exactly that, my right to carry in NJ [IT’S PART OF MY AMERICA YOU POS (D) MFs] (and to drive all the FING commie MFs out of CA like St. Patrick drove the snakes iut of Ireland) is equal or greater than even Lincoln demanding a freeing of slaves across the South [greater in that, while both are of divine endowment, and “Constitutional” in authority, the RTKABA also COMES WITH ITS OWN POWER OF ENFORCEMENT].

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      The vast majority of the provisions of the constitution, and the entirety of of the BOR applied solely to the central government, prior to 1868.

      Do you have any evidence of this claim? I think you could argue that the first amendment didn’t apply to the states (it specifically prohibits congress from certain actions), but most of the rest (including the second) refer to people.
      The supremacy clause states, “This Constitution … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      The bill of rights is part of the constitution. Combined with the supremacy clause, that sounds like no state or local government could infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, face their accusers in court, have their cases heard by a jury, etc.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Do you have any evidence of this claim?”

        “This Constitution … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

        Read the ninth and tenth amendments. Those two establish reinforce the sovereignty of the states, the subservience of the central government. The constitution was to be the law of the land insofar as the states delegated specific sovereign powers of the states to that central government. And yes, before, at, and immediately after the ratification of the constitution, states had state constitutions and internal laws contrary to the restrictions on the federal government. There were even official religions in some of the states.

        If the original states had intended for the states to be bound by the federal constitution, there would have been no need for the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. If the federal constitution was intended to apply directly to the states in all respects, amendments saying so were/are irrelevant.

        For references, read “The Federalist Papers” (did you know there were Anti-Federalist as an identifiable group?) and the consolidated letters of G. Washington, T. Jefferson, A. Hamilton and J. Adams.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        That was the common understanding at the time the Constitution was ratified and thereafter. As someone above state, the 14A wasn’t even really applied to the states until well after it was ratified (probably because the justices on the Supreme Court were a bunch of racists who didn’t want blacks to have rights).

      3. avatar Porkchop says:

        The fact that the bill of rights did not apply to the states prior to the ratification of the fourteenth amendment is well-established. The bill of rights was intended to limit the powers of the federal government with respect to both the people and states. Source: Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 247-251 (1833) (fifth amendment takings clause did not apply to states).

  6. avatar Geoff PR says:

    Oh, how I wish I was Sarah T’s gun…

    *sigh*…

    😉

    1. avatar Snatchums says:

      Is it me or is that a whole lotta cant? Almost looks like it’s setup for cross draw but the grip is pointing the wrong direction.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        She may be a leftie, left-handed, not politically Leftist.

        (What a lucky gun…)

        1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          She’s a lefty. And in need of attention.

  7. avatar Nick says:

    Except that the government can impose limits on gun ownership and rights. Just like any other amendment. Constitutional carry is a ridiculous notion that allows people to carry with no training or experience. You may want to reconsider the implications of allowing anyone to carry.

    1. avatar stateisevil says:

      Wrong. Government cannot legitimately curb the MERE peaceful carrying of arms by any free adult because doing so is a right and doesn’t infringe on other peoples’ rights. Why do we “allow” anyone to start a blog or protest on the street corner? Because it’s a mere exercise of a protected activity that doesn’t infringe on any other person’s rights.

      Also, 13 states have constitutional carry and have no problems with it.

      QED

    2. avatar Hank says:

      Nick where did you get such information? Huffpo?

    3. avatar ORCON says:

      Try this out and let me know how it feels on the tongue:

      The first amendment allows people to shoot their mouths off, practice bizarre religions, and petition their government with no training or experience. You may want to reconsider the implications of allowing the plebs to freely associate.

    4. avatar Cloud says:

      Constitutional carry has been the law since the founding of Vermont. Your fail.

      F-

    5. A society based on individual liberty assumes every citizen is sufficiently competent and responsible to exercise their full panoply of rights unless and until he or she demonstrates otherwise. Privileges require a priori proof of training or experience. Rights do not.

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    Yeah here we are…good thing I’m not a registered Republitard. On purpose. Deliberately. I stated earlier-Consitutional Carry. Or an Indiana model.

  9. avatar stateisevil says:

    Government exists in part to protect the natural rights of the people. Protection of natural rights should be law of the land. Therefore, Congress should implement national constitutional carry. This isn’t hard to grasp.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      That would be great but it’s not going to happen soon. However, just like how Florida started the return of carrying rights in the 80s, which eventually expanded into open and constitutional carry (in a ton of states not named Florida), this can be a similar move but at the federal level.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘Government exists in part to protect the natural rights of the people.’

      I’ve got some oceanfront property in Kansas if you’re interested. Government exists to impose the will of the powerful onto those who are weak. Governments only protect the natural rights of the people when the people are strong and the government is weak.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Governments do exist to serve the people. Most disagree on the boundaries of “serve.” Just because governments are corrupted and pursue the benefit of the governors instead of the governed doesn’t mean that’s the true purpose of government.

        Just because a principle has not been, or even cannot be, achieved, doesn’t mean it isn’t shouldn’t be pursued. For example, justice is an impossible goal. That doesn’t mean we should just give up on it and pursue our own selfish desires at the costs of all others.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          From the days of patriarchal tribalism right up until 1776, no government ever gave ‘serving the people’, let alone ‘protecting the natural rights of the people’ any more than lip service. A true enlightenment came with the birth of this country, that the powers of the government should be subservient to the rights of the people. Since the inception of our immaculate constitution, the powers in government have steadily chipped away at those rights of the people. These rights will be continuously eroded, with an occasional interruption (e.g. Reagan) until the people rise up and overthrow the government. Eventually there will be another revolution. Because governments don’t respect rights, they respect po wer.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I don’t disagree with anything in your response to me. But why did rulers even bother giving lip service to serving the people? Why did philosophers throughout history debate the best government and the “just king?”

          I propose that the primary reason is that people, of all classes and times, have an innate sense of justice and know that a system set up for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many is wrong. That’s why people have always justified taking from others for themselves as for the benefit of the abused. “The slaves are incapable of managing their own affairs.” “The various classes are made by God to serve a particular function for the benefit of all society.” “Peasants are incapable of anything more useful than toil and the nobility must keep them from sloth or everyone will starve and die.”

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          People without pow er have an innate sense of justice, people in po wer have an innate ability to rationalize. The beauty or our constitution was to keep those in p ower relatively weak and those without powe r to be relatively strong. If we the people don’t project our po wer, it will be usurped by those in pow er. Basic facts of life here. There’s a reason MAD (mutual assured destruction) worked, in a Mexican standoff, nobody has any pow er over anyone else.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Once again, I don’t disagree. But why do people in power feel the need to rationalize? Why did they teach their children that these ancient belief systems that said what they were doing was right and good? Why didn’t they just teach them Machiavellian lessons?

          I posit the reason was that they actually believed it and/or felt the need to rationalize because deep down, they knew what they were doing was wrong. I don’t believe guilt is a sufficient motivator in the face of great temptation (or often even moderate to little temptation). I believe power is a temptation that corrupts.

          I believe we need systems in place to keep all people (not just this class or that race) from abusing others. In my opinion, the best systems diffuse power as much as possible while retaining just enough power to provide for the common defense of the community from the sorts of threats individuals generally cannot handle themselves. And on that, I think we agree.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I believe power is a temptation that corrupts.”

          Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

        6. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Classic.

        7. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          In the most basic sense, our constitution is a revolutionary document because our system of government recognizes human nature. Everyone rationalizes. If a poor person shoplifts from Walmart, they will rationalize some perceived slight that justifies their theft. The answer to this human weakness is to maintain disparity of power. Even the two party system works to pit one side against the other, so both sides are eager to play watchdog to the other. The legislative, executive and judicial branches are in a sense in competition with each other, which keeps them honest. Unfortunately, part of human nature is that people in power will find ways to circumvent the restrictions placed upon them.

          The ultimate power, under our constitution lies with the people. But the people keep falling asleep, so that gives people in power the opportunity to expand that power. Only a vigilant populous can maintain our freedom, and that is sorely lacking.

        8. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Agreed. I’m just saying that rationalization is a response to guilt because the person rationalizing knows they did something wrong.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Even the two party system works to pit one side against the other, so both sides are eager to play watchdog to the other. ”

          Except when the “two parties” are opposite sides of the same coin.

          You are correct, “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”
          – John Philpot Curran

        10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          But we all rationalize. Even those of us who are in power. Let he without sin cast the first stone.

        11. avatar Excedrine says:

          @Sam I Am –And I have my 5,000-hour and 10,000-hour Death by PowerPoint patches to prove it!

        12. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

          But how many of those in power throughout history have rationalized only outwardly? I doubt very much that It was guilt for most of these rulers, as many of them seemed to have god-complexes and likely thought very little of their subjects. But even the strongest of kings had to know that by sheer numbers the peasants were a huge threat if they ever awoke. By paying lip service to the peasants, saying everything the government was doing was for them, they could maintain their power. It was when the Founders woke up and realized those words for the bullshit that they were that this great nation was born.

        13. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          But why teach these rationalizations to their children instead of Machiavelli? The reason Machiavelli is important in Western political philosophy is that he is the first to advocate a strictly “practical” approach to ruling. It wasn’t a new idea. In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus argues from a Machiavellian perspective. The new thing was that the author was arguing for the “practical” approach.

  10. avatar MDH says:

    “Prohibiting a law-abiding American from keeping or bearing arms in ANY state for ANY REASON is unconstitutional”
    ^
    This!!!

  11. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Then there’s this little piece of the US Constitution called the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.

    Article IV, Section I, I believe…

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Doesn’t apply to licenses. Never has. For example, my license to practice law did not allow me to practice in every state, or any state other than the one that issued the license.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        “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.”

        It could be said that a right isn’t a right if it requires a license, correct? So is a CCW a license… or a record of a judgement by a state that the person in possession of a CCW has passed a background check, which provides evidence to law enforcement that the possessor of the CCW card is, in fact, legally allowed to possess a firearm upon their person?

        Because there are a growing number of states, which we call “Constitutional carry,” that do not require a license of any kind to strap on a concealed firearm and saunter down the street, we have a fundamental question: What is a CCW?

        Since several states allow the use of a current CCW to purchase a gun without going through a NICS check (and Wyoming is one of those), my perspective on “what is a CCW?” is that it is no longer a license. It is increasingly just evidence that I have passed a background check to possess a gun – and that is a record, which is covered by the FF&C clause.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I do believe there is a non-ridiculous argument to be made that the Full Faith and Credit Clause could be applied to “acts, records, and proceedings” such as a permitting process as the CHL, etc. process and Congress could by a general law “prescribe the manner in which such [permits] shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Such a law would look a lot like H.R. 38.

          But the argument that the states are required under the clause to recognize CHL, etc. is at least as ignorant or virtue signally as the statement “shall not be infringed” in response to every 2A issue.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Agree, mere shouts of “Shall No Be Infringed” is the modern intellectual equivalent of, “Bah. Humbug.” However, the comment was a reasoned, non-emotional, organized expression of thought. Doesn’t seem to descend to “virtue signaling”.

          Being an army of one, my influence and credibility is extremely limited, but it has been a decades long puzzlement that the “full faith and credit” provision does not really mean “full faith and credit”.

          Restrictive licensing of doctors, lawyers, engineers, limits on journeyman privileges all seem to be the remnants of the medieval professional guilds, each county or country refusing to recognize the apprenticeships completed in a different county or country. In those days, there likely was not a standardized way of establishing credentials, leaving some professionals less capable because of where they trained. Forward several centuries, and we have relatively common sets of credentialing authorities, and relatively common sets of education for the professions.

          Why should professional education (for gun owners, the CCW) credentials still be blocked from protection of the “full faith and credit” provision of the constitution. Indeed, where in the constitution is “full faith and credit” limited? While accepting that “full faith and credit” provides an opening for the central government to begin “owning” various professions, there remains no rational basis for declaring that state licensing of professionals is exempt. Indeed, how is it that a privilege (driver’s license) is a superior document to a certification that a person has passed criminal background checks?

          Dyspeptic Gunsmith seems to have worked out a reasoned position.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          That’s just not the way it is or ever has been. It’s not like guns are the exception. Driver’s licenses aren’t recognised because of a federal reciprocity law, but because the states agreed to it.

          That’s why it comes off as virtue signalling or ignorant to me. It’s either a statement of “look how literal I am with the Constitution,” or “but it even applies to driver’s licenses, why not guns.”

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Driver’s licenses aren’t recognised because of a federal reciprocity law, but because the states agreed to it.”

          I have been long under the impression that DLs were national because of either the commerce clause, or full faith and credit clause. How did the states come to a nationwide agreement outside those provisions?

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          By saying we’ll recognize yours if you recognize ours. A lot of law is uniform across the country because the states have agreed that it is best to have the same basic laws wherever anyone goes.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          So, these “agreements” are several, separate documents between each state, or maybe numerous pieces of legislation declaring, “We recognize, X,Y and Z from every state.”?

        7. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          And just to be clear, Dyspeptic Gunsmith’s first post is the kind I object to because it doesn’t contribute anything. His second post is a well reasoned argument for why permits should be viewed as an act and record thereof instead of a permit.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Same page, here.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Nicely stated.

          Should forward that analysis to NRA, GOA, heck all of them.

          Might be interesting to see if you can get any of the other Guild organizations to put that forward for their members, also.

  12. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or ‘federal’ government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism by the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.’ – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

    I’m a Republican because that party at least gives lip service to federalism (AKA – the Constitution). Why would any Republican be ‘anti-federalist’? That would make them anti-constitution.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Wikipedia is wrong. The original construct of the political realities of the era of the founding, did not recognize “two levels of government of equal status.” That is because the federal government did not/could not exist without the superior political entities (states) delegating state powers as a means of establishing the central government. If the states and the central government were equal powers, the states could have no ability to then amend the controlling documents. Note, states approve amendments to the constitution. The central government has no authority to approve amendments without the consent of the states. How does that sound like equal power?

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        ‘The central government has no authority to approve amendments without the consent of the states. How does that sound like equal po wer?’

        According to Article 5 of the US Constitution, either the Congress ca n pass an amendment with 2/3 majority and then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or 2/3 of the states c an ca ll for a convention of states where an amendment ca n be added with the consent of 3/4 of the states. No, the fed eral government cannot pass a constitutional amendment without the consent of the states, but the states ca n only pass one without the consent of the feder al congress with a 3/4 majority. If the states ca n conjure up a 3/4 majority, you’d think that garnering a 2/3 majority in the fede ral congress, made up of representatives from the state, wouldn’t be too much of a challenge. I’d say that makes the states and the fe deral government on pretty equal footing.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Not quite. The central government is dependent on powers delegated by the states. The receiver of the delegation becomes “agent” (“works for”) the entity delegating power and authority. Not equal.

          Anyway you cut it, Congress (central government) cannot amend the constitution without consent of the states; Congress does not even have ratification/approval authority. Whether initiated by states, or Congress, the states hold the superior position legally. One party cannot be superior to another in a co-equal relationship.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Sure, the states ultimately have more power to change the constitution than the federal government. But the states ratified the Constitution in 1791 that granted certain powers to the federal government. For instance the states don’t have the power to negotiate treaties, or the federal government has the power to regulate interstate trade so that New Jersey can’t impose tariffs on goods from Connecticut, etc. A little give here, a little take there – this is federalism. You can strain at hairs all you want, the sum total is that the states (combined) have roughly equal power to the central government.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “… the sum total is that the states (combined) have roughly equal power to the central government.”

          NO! Completely wrong. As originated, the central government was subordinate to the states. ALL the power of the central government originated in and with the states. The central government could not exist without permission of the states. No possible way does that construct result in “roughly equal power”. The government cannot establish a new government, replacing the current configuration and powers. The people, through representatives from the sovereign states can dissolve and replace the current government. Would you consider that to be a matter of “roughly equal power?”

          The relation today between states and the central government today are not relevant to the Wikipedia assertion that US federalism was established as a condition of co-equal levels of government.

          Today…..none of the history matters. The states are subordinate to the central government. Why do you think individuals (who created the states) are constantly under siege by the central government? Government controls almost every waking moment of the citizens. When a government can decree that under threat of law that you must call a person by the pronoun they prefer, when a government can, under threat of law, declare speech “hateful”, the states and the people are no longer sovereign, no longer the legitimate source of government power. The states are merely large land holdings of the central government.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Power diffused is power diluted.

          https://youtu.be/-zwFkMvgcus?t=34

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          That was the original intent.

        6. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          My point is that if the states, as a single unit acting in concert, have more power than the feds, that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the states, as they actually exist as 50 different units not acting in concert, have more power than the feds. That is how they are “roughly equal.” The calculus of power is more difficult than calculus. The value of three is easy to ascertain. Political power not so much.

          Technically, the people have absolute (legal/political) power in America. Half don’t care enough to exercise any of their political power. The other half are in two camps that can’t agree on anything because that might give an advantage to the other side. And those two camps have multiple disparate factions in them.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Go back to the beginning. The sovereign states limited the central government’s authority to regulate any and all of the states (the people). Thus, the constitution prohibits the central government from isolating a single state that would be physically weaker than the central government, and coercing that state into acts forbidden not ‘legal’ in all the other states. That single state has the power to restrain the central government from exceeding federal authority in that single state.

          In other words, the constitution (9th and 10th amendments) prohibit the central government from exercising non-delegated authority against the states in general, or one state in particular. Even one state has authority over the central government, in that the central government is prohibited from “divide and conquer” political tactics.

          I would submit that in the beginning, a state had the reserved authority/sovereignty to resist central government illegal attempts to forcefully overthrow the state authorities. Indeed, a single state retained the right to rebel against an unjustified invasion of that state. The powers retained by the states are not predicated upon all the states asserting those non-delegated powers only in concert with one another. At the founding, even a single state had sovereignty over the central government. Else, a state could not even sue the central government for breaches of the constitution unless all the other states (or a majority?) joined in the court action.

          As is my favorite meme, today the states are vassal states of the central government.

        8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          ‘ALL the po wer of the central government originated in and with the states. The central government could not exist without permission of the states.’

          ‘Today…..none of the history matters. The states are subordinate to the central government.’

          Perhaps the states should have thought of this before they delegated their authority to the fe deral government in 1791.

          ‘When a government c an decree that under threat of law that you must ca ll a person by the pronoun they prefer, when a government ca n, under threat of law, declare speech “hateful”, the states and the people are no longer sovereign, no longer the legitimate source of government po wer.’

          Um… this phenomena is primarily propagated by state governments. And hopefully, they’ll be reigned in by the SCOTUS.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Exactly. The federalists were the party advocating for the Constitution. The Republicans argued for the preservation of the Union. The Republicans have argued for “states’ rights” when the federal government was perceived to be exercising authority beyond the Constitution. A bill that can be passed under no less than three different enumerated powers is not an exercise of authority beyond the Constitution.

  13. avatar Lawbob says:

    “The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court’s McDonald decision codified ”

    Judicial decisions dont codify.

    Legislatures codify.

  14. avatar FlamencoD says:

    So, one comment that I haven’t seen mentioned by anyone in discussing this is that very liberal states like CA, NY, etc., that currently issue permits will pass a law that they will no longer issue permits. Not sure why no one seems to see that coming. That’s my only concern, the wording about the if the states issue licenses part.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Even the 9th Circuit would have a hard time sidestepping that 2A violation. But you are right that that is the easiest way to beat either of the reciprocity bills.

  15. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Hey, that S&W 66 needs to show up to go with my 2.5″ and 3″. They’re loney. No interest in the weed, you can keep it.

  16. avatar Maxi says:

    In an ideal world there would be no democrats and none of their stupid, unconstitutional laws. The 2nd amendment would be the only carry permit everyone needed. Criminals would be in jail, everybody else could just have guns.
    Unfortunately this is not the case, idiots exist and they made unconstitutional laws. And untill we have enough judges in the supreme court to kill the nfa act and all that stuff in one strike, we will need small fixing laws like the HPA and national reciprocity. Even if the federal government and the raison d’être of these laws suck.

  17. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    The actual bottom line with this will be an ever increasing number of “prohibited persons” and more states prohibiting CC altogether. Read it and weep.

    Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Passed by U.S. House! What You Need To Know
    https://mylegalheat.com/blog/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-passed-by-u-s-house-what-you-need-to-know/

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      Individual states will have to come up with new categories of prohibited persons which, under this bill, cannot include people merely because they come from out-of-state. The bill itself does not nothing to create new categories.. nor does it stop states from adding them (unfortunately). They’d have to abolish CC altogether to make that happen.

      There are only a handful of states where that’s even possible, nevermind plausible. The usual suspects come to mind.

  18. avatar Don from CT says:

    One of the few legitimate uses of Federal supremacy is to force a state to stop abridging citizen’s rights.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Precisely the power the constitution was designed to stop. Protecting the “rights of the people” was to be a state matter. The constitution protected the states and citizens from the overreach of the central government. In the beginning, if an individual state constitution required the people of the state to practice one sect of religion over another, it was considered something to be worked out within the state. The only restriction was on the central government creating a national religion. (Even then, the central government was not mandated to be hostile to any and all religious activities).

  19. H.R. 38 shouldn’t be necessary, but, things being as they are, it is.

  20. avatar Zebulon says:

    Be careful what you wish for. If we force states to accept other states CCW then they could ask to nationalize the CCW standards. So, first step is national reciprocity. Second step is national CCW license registration.

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