“The lowest-common-denominator approach proposed by this bill would undermine the core principles of federalism, the traditional police powers of state governments, and the safety of law enforcement officers across the country. It’s absolutely unacceptable for the federal government to dictate that someone can carry a concealed, loaded gun within a state’s border, in violation of that state’s laws.” – New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in New Bill Would Force States to Allow Visiting Gun Owners to Pack Heat Without a Permit [via thetrace.org]
For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Gonzales v. Raich
City and State laws do not supersede the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. It is the Supremacy Clause. City and States that make laws in opposition of the created Constitution are illegal and violate our fundamental constitutional rights. Citizens must understand that the federal government’s legislative powers are limited to those laws that are authorized by the constitution. The 2nd amendment is protected under the Supremacy Clause and any law created in opposition is illegal, regardless of the state or sovereignty of the state. A state must secede to not abide. And secession is a completely different argument and legal matter not likely to hold traction.
Obscure, but not that difficult. The court appears to have stated that for the first 100 years of our country the Second Amendment was interpreted to prevent states from infringing on the RKBA. As is proper, IMO.
” The court appears to have stated that for the first 100 years of our country the Second Amendment was interpreted to prevent states from infringing on the RKBA. As is proper, IMO.”
My understanding is that, un till the 14th A was passed, the Constitution only applied to the Federal government. The 14th A made the protections apply to the states.
I dig the states’ rights concept, but only so far. At the time, it would seem that most people stayed near the home where they were born. I’m sure that the Founders never imagined the many people that cross state lines to work (e.g., MA-NH, NY-CT, NJ-PA). Still, I would have less of a problem with states’ legislating the carrying of firearms if they could only remember 4 simple words: shall not be infringed.
My reading of the 10th amendment would seem to make part of the 14th redundant.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
NOR PROHIBITED BY IT clearly means that the states may not do anything that the federal government is also prohibited by the constitution from doing.
Lord knows that NY, CA and MA tend to rule as if the Constitution does not apply to them.
NY made extortion by politically connected developers completely legal. CA recently did the same thing.
CA disarms 99.8% of the law abiding population outside the home. Criminals love California.
Plenty of people crossed state lines in those days, especially to sell farm goods.
Even a cursory search would tell you that it’s a reference to the supreme court case saying the commerce clause allows the federal government to ban medical marijuana even in states that legalize it.
But justifying concealed carry reciprocity under the commerce clause (the most abused line in the constitution, after the general welfare clause) is the wrong approach. It should either be under the second amendment, which would imply national constitutional carry, or under the full faith and credit clause, which is what makes our driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, dog licenses, and other licenses valid in other states.
Between the full faith and credit clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, we shouldn’t even need the law.
Of course, given the plain language of the Second Amendment, we shouldn’t need to reference either of those pieces of the Constitution.
But considering the state of things, we could definitely use another Amendment, the priority of individual rights amendment, stating that whichever law, state or federal, or whichever interpretation of such law, most strongly upholds or enhances individual rights shall triumph.
I know it applies to the commerce clause. I’m also in agreement with you that the second amendment should stand alone as justification.
What I was getting at, maybe poorly, was that the wording of the decision could be applied in this case. The original intent of the commerce clause was to prevent variations in laws form state to state causing a problem with interstate trade. This sort of patchwork arrangement of laws in various states (looking at you New York and California) is the definition of punitive. It serves no justifiable purpose and unduly restricts the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right while traveling from state to state.
The 2nd Amendment is national constitutional carry. It doesn’t not specify states or commerce, hence it applies Federally.
“The lowest-common-denominator approach proposed by this bill would undermine the core principles of federalism, the traditional police powers of state governments……”
As opposed to ramming O’bumble-care down america’s throat, or transgender toilets, or common core, or any other fascist, progressive horsesh!t he undoubtedly supports.
But those are Good Things™.
I take it that he will soon be calling for a repeal of NFA, background checks, etc.
this I think, definitely this.
Funny Schneiderman has no problem with the Fed’s forcing states to allow abortion, forcing obamacare down everyones throats, etc.
All of this. Now federalism is important. Just a case of using an issue he does not care about as an argument to further a different issue he does care about. A perfect example of a lack of intellectual integrity.
You win the Internet for the day! 🙂
‘A person who lacks intellectual integrity.’ Should be the Webster definition of politician…..
The federal government doesn’t dictate anything on the subject -.- the COTUS already reaffirmed existing rights that have been recognized all the way back to the old roman empire.
Longer than that. Humans have been making and carrying arms for 2 million years. If we hadn’t, we’d have gone extinct.
No claws, no teeth that are useful for defense, walking on two feet, too slow to flee from predators and too slow to catch prey. Without our big brains to create tools and the manual dexterity to use them, we are just pathetic bags of meat.
I have been saying the same thing for years, with one major addition: “and an innate predilection for extreme violence.” When it comes down to brass tacks, humans are successful because they are a violent and dangerous animal. Go armed and be vigilant.
Governments have also been attempting to disarm their subjects for all of written history. Something our founders recognized and stood against.
Humans are pretty much the best endurance hunters out there. Even then we usually finish with a tool, but we can follow an animal almost endlessly until it just can’t run any more, and use a rock to bash its head in.
We’re also great omnivores; we can eat all kinds of crazy stuff and last a long time on some seriously weird diets, giving us plenty of time to finally catch that gazelle that we’re slowly running down.
The first time a democrat ever called for strong individual states’ rights.
The problem is that all these states kinda sorta agreed to play by a basic set of rules (aka, the “lowest common denominator.”) THAT’s federalism.
I’m pretty sure Democrats have called for states rights before…in support of slavery, Jim crow, etc.
Hey,,, where’s the up vote button.
Not to mention denial of voting rights, by why let history get in the way of a narrative…
Yep. They’re only for states’ rights when certain states want to deny, delay, and obstruct constitutional protection of individual rights.
You wish you were as “lowest common denominator” as Vermont.
On a related note…. The arrogance is amazing. Even more amazing is the complete lack of shame for being that arrogant.
Except we have almost zero gun laws and the 2nd safest state in the US.
Feel stupid yet?
They are anti-gun, a condition that completely excludes feeling stupid. Not sure if they started that way or there is some kind of procedure done…. Basically they won’t, can’t, feel stupid.
I think that’s what Chip was saying. Vermont is a pretty darn good “lowest” common denominator.
Ya know, he has a point…. But I do find it entertaining that he’s now an advocate of “States Rights”.
Not really. The last time Demokkkrats started advocating states rights we got a civil war.
Yeah, but back then they _liked_ guns. Now when the fighting starts they’ll be wielding protest signs and bumper stickers.
I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I have read the thing, and the amendments. Unless their is some other defining document regarding the union of the United States I can find no place that requires that once a State becomes a United State it can NEVER change its position. Any civil society must be comprised of persons (or States) who have willingly joined that society. This implies as well that they must have the ability to leave that society at will, otherwise you have tyranny.
The Confederate states, though wrong in their opinion of slavery, had every legal right to secede from the Union. I suggest that if New York has such a problem with federally mandated concealed carry reciprocity (funny, since even State regulation of concealed carry is already unconstitutional) that they announce their intention to secede.
That was actually the recognized case back in the Civil War days. The war did NOT start at the walkout of the Southern States, nor the formation of the Confederacy. That was all acknowledged as legal, although it did make a lot of bankers and legislators as angry as is possible to make a money man when hit in the wallet.
It wasn’t until months later that the fighting started over Fort Sumter. OFC, the winner who wrote the history says that the South fired the first shots, but even if that is true, the North still instigated the incident by seizing the fort, which would then be Southern since the north recognized that secession was legal. But they did not. They decided to resupply it for a siege instead. No one really knows who fired the first shot, since the south says it was the fort. Since they lost, their opinion stays out of the history books, which are written by the winner, as always.
The Union forces did not “seize” the fort. They were in it all along. Nor do I know of a source where the North conceded the legality of secession, although I agree that the Constitution itself does not preclude it, and the essence of the compact is that it is an agreement among the States and the People to form the federal government; that the States and the People are the Sovereigns, not the Federal Government. The Civil War “amended” the Constitution by force of arms, and the Federal Government became Sovereign under the Supremacy Clause.
Oh yeah, he has a point. On the top of his head. Which is lucky since it should fit perfectly under the dunce cap he so richly deserves.
Well dumb ass. If you and your treasonous legislature hadn’t destroyed the 2nd Amendment in your state this would not be necessary.
So I suppose it is also unacceptable for states to honor driver’s licenses issued in other states as well? After all, more people are killed in auto accidents every year – most of them caused by carelessness and stupidity – than are killed in firearms related incidents. Driving isn’t even a right, it’s a privilege (freedom of travel is a right, but a person can travel on foot if necessary). The right to keep and bear arms, however, is just that – a RIGHT. It does NOT stop at state borders. And what about marriage licenses issued by states? THe government interfered in that one, and said states cannot ban same-sex marriages even if the people in that state voted in favor of defending real marriage, defined as being between a man and a woman. Marriage certainly isn’t a “right”, defined by the US Constitution. In fact, at one time marriage was a church matter, so when did the states get involved in the first place?
Stupid commiecrat. Gun control was never about guns – it’s all about CONTROL.
Sorry RichK. But you said it yourself. ” (freedom of travel is a right, but a person can travel on foot if necessary).”
Why would freedom of travel include walking or riding a bike, on a public road way, paid for out of our taxes, but not in an automotive vehicle? At one time, a license was only needed to drive a vehicle if your were a commercial or freight hauler. It was for tax purposes. For most of our history, traveling on a public roadway by whatever means, whether on foot, horse, wagon or bike, for a private citizen, without restriction or need of a permit or license was the accepted norm, and a constitutional right.
But people have been so indoctrinated by the plague of licensing, permitting and certifying required now by the government for practically every activity, people just accept the “need” for a license to drive a motor vehicle, because it’s a “privilege”.
Also like you said, it isn’t about safety, “it’s all about CONTROL”.
“Why would freedom of travel include walking or riding a bike, on a public road way, paid for out of our taxes, but not in an automotive vehicle?”
The ability to travel is a right, but not the *mode* of travel, as it was explained to me once, is not…
The world changes. Once upon a time there were few cars and many horses. But as cars got larger and faster and the roads became congested, it was necessary to implement traffic controls (lights, signs, lanes, etc.), and as an adjunct, it became necessary to teach people what those signs meant, hence licensing. Driver education is more about teaching the rules of the road than it is about safe driving skills, as most CCW class materials are the “rules of the road” for legal carry and the law of self-defense, useful materials in a crowded city. None of that is particularly controversial. It is the issuance of licenses at the discretion of the government that is a political and rights issue.
You need to post here more often, like you use to.
And why doesn’t somebody ask this nitwit if it is okay for the federal government to require every State to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other States?
He’d probably say, “Of COURSE it’s okay, because even gays have a right to get married just like everyone else”. You see, to a progressive liberal, what is wrong is actually right (and therefore A “right”), and what is right is actually wrong (and therefore subject to bans and restrictions and NOT a “right”). They have a very twisted sense of what is right and what is wrong, you see. To them, if it doesn’t “hurt” anyone, and it makes the person doing it happy, then it must be allowed and turned into a “right” (even abortion counts, because the only one being “hurt” is the fetus, but to a liberal’s twisted semantics that isn’t a person anyway until it’s actually born). On the other hand, to a liberal, nobody should have a “right” to keep and bear arms, because if someone uses a gun in self-defense, they might be depriving some poor, misguided victim of “white oppression and white privilege” of their right to what is in someone else’s pockets, or their right to continue breathing the air that is better used by people who actually want to make society a better place by removing the threat.
I bet he had to look up ‘federalism’ to see how it’s pronounced.
Sure. Law-enforcement is really “safe” now after eight years of leftist reign. ?
Because we can’t have any ignorant red neck inbred hicks from Oklahoma or Texas running around in our wonderful state with guns. They might kill somebody who probably needed killing, thus making his grandmother swear that the bad guy was a religious and hard working citizen. We can’t have all of those upright solid citizens shot by the despicable mouth breathers from the red states.
Federal government stepping in to guarantee constitutional rights of citizens!? Hummm, where have we seen that before? Oh yeah, desegregation, voting rights, health care, gay marriage, abortion.Well, last three are made up constitutional rights depending on your reading of certain amendments.
It’s absolutely unacceptable for a state government to dictate that someone can’t carry a concealed, loaded gun within a state’s border. It’s a violation of the Constitution of the United States.
See, that’s the point. The 2nd Amendment was part of the deal when joining the Union. And it has been specifically incorporated against the States.
So the only logical interpretation of this, as per the law, is that the States cannot violate the 2nd Amendment. They can’t. It’s unconstitutional. If they don’t want guns in their State, then they have to exit the Union.
Another arrogant, blowhard downstate NYC liberal who is ruining the entire state for those of us living outside of “the city”. What an embarrassment.
Yet these same people cry foul when states limit abortions. States rights. Just another hypocrite.
When SCOTUS determined marriage licenses didn’t stop at state lines that should have been obvious that the same should eventually happen to a constitutionally protected right in bearing arms.
This needs to be accurately framed as a civil rights issue. And the absurdity of thinking people legally carrying firearms is going to increase crimes because criminals are just waiting to carry legally really is just pure insanity.
Could be a great business opportunity. Buy a hotel in a Constitutional Carry State and turn it condo. gangsters from New York or L.A. establish residency at your hotel, get a State I.D. or driver’s license, then return to NY or L.A. while retaining out-of-state residency. Voila! They are now legally able to carry concealed on their gang’s turf! (/sarc)
This would be the same business model as the companies that provide mail box drop addresses in prestigious areas (Hollywood, Beverly Hills, etc.) for companies located in the sticks.
Hey, remember when the federal government started enforcing the “lowest common denominator” in voting requirements? That’s the way it works with fundamental rights. Local schemes to infringe on fundamental rights, whether by “literacy tests” for voting or “good cause” for concealed carry, are not improvements over the lowest common denominator, they are infringements against a universal right.
Have you ever noticed that liberals only like state’s rights when they want to enslave someone?
It’s the only time they say anything about it. Most have no idea what’s written in the USC
I say again !!!
F—K Him !!! And the rest of the DemoNAZI , RINO tassle-loafer totalitarians !!!! 1st We need to Re-enforce the 2nd amendment…By making it a “Capital Crime” for any Politicians/ Police /Government agency /Landlord /Private organizations, etc…From any Infringement upon any US citizens Lawful Civil Rights! With penalties of not less than $250k in compensatory damages for each incident of infringement incurred…Fines, and prison terms as well….And through the 14th amendment it can be expanded to other rights of course…Force other states such as , NJ, NY, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, California, DC.,etc…To abide by the U.S. Constitutional-Bill of Rights…[Any person in one, or goes into another…Has the same rights as any other person in any other state…] There is No such thing as Pre-crime…And Murder is a Capital Crime…It is ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW….!
You gotta love the duplicity of people intent on stealing your indivual liberties….they preach the Constitution when it suits their purposes, and use it for toilet paper when it doesn’t.
Then comes ” Constitutional Carry ” like ME. , and others that are abiding by our Bill of Rights….Which is how it should be….We have lost control of our government…As my elder father has said…Since the days of Rockefeller…Government within the USA has gotten so large…It has Shadow operations and various factions….And has gone beyond what was intended in a free country…You know “Your” government has gotten to large…When You are petitioning them not to take your “civil rights” away !!! Duh !!!
Wait what’s this? States have to abide by the Constitution? Say it isn’t so.
That picture captures perfectly the appropriate reaction of any politician that realizes he and his buddies just got caught for treason and abuse of power against the The People. No more Eyes Wide Shut parties, no more BS legislation. Your job is to serve The People’s interests, not your own.
And what put The People in this position we’ve been stripped of for all these decades? He’s holding it in his hands.
Proof positive arming Americans is finally getting The People the power they should have always had vs. the government and anyone in political office dictating policy and fleecing The People in the process.
“It’s absolutely unacceptable for the federal governmen to dictate that someone can carry a concealed, loaded gun within a state’s border, in violation of that state’s laws.”
Well then he should work on having the 14th Amendment repealed to restore State’s rights in areas dealing with the Bill of Rights.
Good luck with that…
Yes, god forbid you let armed law abiding citizens into your city that won’t be forced to put up with the cesspool of crime you have forced upon your locals (and which you are openly proud of).
Meanwhile, politicians get armed guards and safe(r) passage. It must be nice on that high horse paid for by the people you let die in the streets.
So a domestic enemy to the US Constitution is trying to lecture free America on the Constitution?
Has this guy ever heard of the 2nd ammendment?
Never mind that CCW holders are background checked according to their desire but he’s declaring them all to be threats to our safety.
Based solely on my reading of the Second Amendment and the wording of the proposed National Reciprocity bill, residents of States that currently “allow” Constitutional Carry will be covered by reciprocity simply by producing ANY State issued photo I.D. There is no requirement for any (unconstitutional) background check.
I note that some of those “lowest common denominator states” have much lower crime rates than New York. Perhaps he could demonstrate his good faith by allowing Vermont residents to carry in New York City and State because they are more law abiding than New Yorkers.
The guy sounds just like a Jim Crow sheriff, don’t he?
-Where was his concern for states’ rights when Bloombucks was influencing policy across the nation & pushing for federal laws?
-Where was his respect for historic local enforcement practices when Bloomberg was running sting operations across state lines?
-Don’t get me started on practically every other policy or enforcement issue where Democrat New Yorkers strive to enforce federal rules as quickly as possible.
If you like your plastic rifle…can you keep it?
Why the heck does the NY AG have a plastic rifle in his hands anyway?
“Why the heck does the NY AG have a plastic rifle in his hands anyway?”
It’s the only thing that still legal in NYC. (Sorry…not.)
Schneiderman is this generation’s Eliot Spitzer. And like Spitzer, I fully expect Schneiderman to be caught in an indelicate position with a person of easy virtue. Hopefully, said person will not be underage, but ya never know.
As a life long ny resident, and concealed carry permit holder I am thrilled that this legislation may finally pass. I have my Florida and Utah as well, but it’s about damn time non ny residents can carry when they come here. The ultimate irony is NY doesn’t issue permits to out if state residents. The issue isn’t as simple as reviewing how stringent another states permitting system is, NY simply denies all persons not from NY automatically. Eric and Andy can say what they want, they along with the Sullivan act helped create momentum for a law like this to pass. Have fun looking like clowns as you continue to arrest people at NY airports with out of state handguns. I see federal civil rights lawsuits in NY states future!
Yeah, but even if it passes, you will still get busted in NYC for carrying without one of their gold plated special issue licenses. Even if it is illegal. And don’t even think about asking for your gun back.
I don’t think Federalism was meant to be used as justification to infringe on rights already laid out in the constitution. But rather to ensure that future non constitutional matters would be left up to the states.
Stop the Presses – New Headline: “NY Democrat Discovers Federalism”
In Hawaii this should be hilarious. Hawaii is technically a “may issue” state; in reality, it’s a “No Way in Hell!” state. Under this law they’d be forced to let in all those strapped tourists. heheheheheheh. (If it passes, watch as the Dem controlled state legislature fakes themselves out of their mumu’s changing Hawaii to a no issue state.
This is the likely outcome in California, New York, New Jersey and posiibly Maryland of a National Carry law. If the state doesn’t allow concealed carry then they won’t have to recognize out of state permits. I think a better approach is for shall issue states to stop honoring drivers licenses snd registration from these states. If Marylanders want to work in Virginia get a Virginia drivers license and tags or take the Metro to work.
Funny how that always works, isnt?
States have the Right to clamp down on our rights for the feds, but they never have any right to protect them against the feds.
Sanctuary cities/states? Sure! Arizona enforcing immigration law? NOPE!
Bans on semi autos, mags, etc? Sure! Firearms Freedom Acts? NOPE!
Secession from America (which I would love to see them try and fail to make it on their own)? Well they are not dragged through the mad as “anti American”, The Right takes about Secession? SEND IN THE TROOPS, MURDER ANYONE WHO HOLDS ANY LIKE MINDED VIEWS!
Whore out the kids at Sandy Hook to limit our rights while trying to claim “I care about kids?” Sure! Dance on the graves at the kids of Waco? Sure! Claim that said kids should not have been murdered by Jack Booted Thugs? You are an “extremist”.
The left is losing, and if we can build the wall, deport the hordes, limit legal immigration they will not have a future as the Whites are leaving the party, and the MSM is dead, we can seize the day.
“It’s absolutely unacceptable for the federal government to dictate that someone can carry a concealed, loaded gun within a state’s border, in violation of that state’s laws.”
So if a state passes a law, even though it violates a person’s civil rights, that law should be take precedent over federal law. Screw this guy. If a state passes a law that says women cannot vote, the federal government should let that state be? What if a state passes a law that prevents black people from owning real property, should the federal government leave it be? Screw that noise.
Liberal hypocrisy at it’s finest.
Gee, anybody wondering what Schneiderman’s opinion was on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban?
This guy seems to forget the part in the Constitution where he breaks the law buy restricting constitutional rights to the people of the state of New York. Federal law trumps state law any day of the week. He soon will realize this for himself. I can’t wait until this law passes. I plan on traveling to New Jersey and New York City strapped.
I really hope our president Trump we’ll deal with these type of leaders in our country that absolutely think the Constitution is a piece of newspaper print. These people shouldn’t be allowed to hold office positions where they in French on the people’s constitutional rights. There should be some type of repercussion for these leaders that think they can make the laws and discard the Constitution free of will anytime they want. I would like to see President Trump put in action A law that will prosecute these people who go against the Constitution and try to take away people’s civil constitutional rights away from them. Some really healthy thankfully jail sentence make it a federal offense so their Federal felons and never can run for public office again plus spend ten years in prison with a hefty fine so basically it completely crushes them financially politically and physically. I think and I hope that President Donald Trump will bring this type of thinking to an end finally. You cannot you will not and you shall not take away the freedoms of the people we run this country they need to remember that. We do the hiring and we do the firing through our vote and when Donald Trump was elected president that turned everyone on their head. Donald is the human hand grenade into this corrupt political system that we’ve needed for at least 35 years now.
I wonder if he knows that a police officer from any state can carry in his state.
It’s the same, just different.
“I wonder if he knows that a police officer from any state can carry in his state.”
But, an officer has a pretty costume and a shiny piece of metal. That makes him or her VERY SPECIAL. (Sorry Acur81 and Hannibal.)
Oh, “Hi Tom!”.
I can assure you this gentleman doesn’t like that fact anymore than he will having regular citizens do it. NY (NYC in particular) had to be slapped in court SEVERAL times for violating the law and arresting people who qualified under LEOSA at the time (coasties, some constable in PA, etc).
NYC (and, unfortunately by association NYS) would love to prevent anyone from carrying there who isn’t specifically given a letter by the commissioner of the NYPD.
No dingbat, it would undermine the strangle hold the progressive left has on sanity and our constitutional rights.
So no armed emai federal LEO s in NY? News to me
Ugh. 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine brah. You’re a lawyer. I was just in what amounts to a pre-law program and I know this.
Yes, yes, the SCOTUS has not seen fit to use the “sponge” on every item in the Bill of Rights but that’s a bullshit argument Mr. Attorney General and we both know it. Either you believe if the original federalism and your state is restricted by your Constitution and the Feds are restricted by theirs OR you don’t. You don’t get to pick and choose. When it comes to the rest of the BoR I’m virtually certain you wouldn’t argue it doesn’t apply to NY.
I strongly suspect that NY will get its way… unfortunately. And if they don’t they’ll ignore the law anyway.
All I’ll tell Mr. Schneiderman is “Go ahead, overturn Filburn”
Very many acceptable uses of federal law over state’s laws can come to mind.
Applying RKBA and gun regulations across the nation would streamline very much of the chaos we face.
And then we just need to keep nudging toward nationwide constitutional carry and repealing the NFA & GCA 🙂
Liberal hypocrisy again.
They have no problem using the power of the federal government to force the states to allow abortions, or to force the states to allow sexual perverts into any bathroom they might choose, or any other way they might want to violate our 1st Amendment religious rights. However, they oppose using the fed to force states to stop violating our 2nd Amendment rights.
You can’t have it both ways, liberals.
Have to agree with you sir. Butt you know that the Democrats were discriminating against the media’s First Amendment rights during the Pulse Nightclub shooting. President Obama omitted from the press release all context concerning Muslim jihadist. He did so and the media caught on to it and they threw a little fit. That’s when Obama realized that the media only were able to be Razzle Dazzle so far as soon as I saw their first amendment rights being trampled they raised all kinds of Cain. Now don’t get me wrong the progressive liberal left media is absolutely ridiculous in this country I don’t even consider them news organizations they are entertainment organizations that are spreading bias political agendas propaganda if you will. Garbage in garbage out.
NY State does not respect FOPA, which involves unloaded firearms with ammunition separate and both locked away. I am not surprised in the slightest that they’re up in arms about National CCW reciprocity.