It’s Time for the Senate to Finally Vote on National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

senate national concealed carry reciprocity

courtesy AP

By Roger Katz

The Arbalest Quarrel has been at the forefront in the call for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Posting our first article on the subject in 2015, in our “Roadtrip with a Handgun” series, we have remained a strong proponent of national concealed carry, and have since published two dozen articles on the subject.

We were very pleased when the Republican controlled House at long last passed their version of national handgun carry. But that was almost one year ago. The House bill is titled, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” 115 H.R. 38.

The House immediately sent the bill to the Senate for consideration. But there has been no action on it to date. It has been sitting idle in the Senate Judiciary Committee ever since. That is unacceptable. Millions of American gun owners want it, need it, and have the right to have it.

We cannot wait any longer because once a Democrat majority takes over control of the House on January 3, 2019, we will likely never see it. The measure would have to be brought up in the House once again in the new Congress. It would then have to be voted on, and passed and that won’t happen—not under Speaker Pelosi.

The Democratic Party leadership that will define the measures to be taken up and voted on by the full House has no desire to strengthen the Second Amendment.That is not part of the party’s agenda. Indeed, their goal, for decades, has been remarkably consistent. The aim of Democrat leaders is to weaken the Second Amendment to the point that the fundamental right set forth in the Second Amendment ceases to have any practical effect.

It is therefore imperative for the Senate to bring the current House version of the bill to the Floor of the Senate for a vote by a full complement of Senators. The Senate would hopefully then pass the bill, and get it onto the desk of the President Trump for his signature. There is still some time, but the Senate must act now, without further delay.

National Handgun Concealed Carry Reciprocity Would Be a Good Thing; a Rational, Positive Step Forward.

A few readers have argued against passage of national handgun carry reciprocity, asserting the right of the people to keep and bear arms—as one of our fundamental, inalienable, and natural rights—rests beyond the lawful control of government to regulate. If so, this would mean that present federal, state, and local government regulation of the exercise of the right is invalid, and unlawful.

That view is understandable. The Arbalest Quarrel hasn’t been unmindful of the issue whether government can legitimately regulate our fundamental, natural, enumerated rights.

The tension between governmental power on the one hand and the rights and liberties of the people, on the other, was, in fact, a focus of attention for the Founders of the republic. They came to an understanding, if guardedly and grudgingly by some, that, for the fledgling republic to exist and persist through time, it would be necessary to establish a strong national government.

But, having thrown off the yoke of oppression created by one autocratic ruler, the founders, who met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787, had no desire to draft conditions, albeit unintentionally, that would allow for imposition of yet another such ruler, this one of their own making.

The answer for the Framers of the Constitution, referred to as anti-federalists, was to place an express Bill of Rights into the Constitution, to protect the rights and liberties of the people. The anti-federalists saw inclusion of a Bill of Rights as necessary to curb a tendency of a national government to exercise and accumulate ever more power at the expense of the people to whom that government was, after all, designed and expected to serve.

The federalists were opposed to this idea, but not because they were against securing fundamental rights and liberties for the people. Rather, they felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and redundant, as the power and authority of a central Government would be express and limited. Everything else—rights, liberties, powers—would reside in the respective states and in the people.

Further, the federalists felt that, by placing emphasis on a formal Bill of Rights, that would obscure the need for creating an effective and efficient government that could provide both national security and strength, and, at once, promote liberty. But, we have seen how this has played out 200+ years later. Thankfully, the anti-federalists’ demand for inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution prevailed over the federalists’ objections against such inclusion.

The federal Government has indeed, through time, become very effective and efficient in amassing unbridled power, along with securing, for itself, extraordinary levels and layers of secrecy, even as the American citizenry, conversely, has lost its own fundamental right to be free from unlawful Government searches and seizures.

But, is there any statement in the Constitution prohibiting Government regulation of fundamental rights, as some readers assert? Let’s look at a few clauses.

The “Necessary and Proper Clause”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution states in part that Government is “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. . . .”  This clause would appear to be an express limitation on Government regulation, certainly of the enumerated rights, as set forth in the first eight Amendments, apart from the unenumerated rights referred to in the Ninth and Tenth. If so, the “necessary and proper clause” does restrain federal Government regulation of the Second Amendment and of other fundamental, enumerated rights of the people.

The “Supremacy Clause”

Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution states in part, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . .”  The “supremacy clause” is essentially an assertion of federal preemption. The idea alluded to is that the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties are the Law of the Land and are subordinated to no other laws. But, contrary to some views expressed, the supremacy clause is not an assertion of the sanctity of the Bill of Rights, beyond the power of Congress to regulate. In fact, at least some antifederalists were much concerned about it, fearing the clause would give the federal Government too much power over the States. Yet, it may also be argued, that the supremacy clause implies that the enumerated rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are—since an express part of the Constitution, along with the Articles—well beyond the power of the federal Government to lawfully regulate. In that respect, the supremacy clause serves to contain and restrain Government regulation of the citizenry’s fundamental, enumerated rights.

The “Commerce Clause”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution sets forth the power of Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  National concealed handgun carry reciprocity does implicate interstate commerce, but whether Congressional power to regulate the carrying of a firearm across State lines amounts to an over-extension of the commerce power, at the expense of the States, will require further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Will Happen When National Concealed Handgun Carry is Passed by the Senate and Signed into Law by the President?

Were the Senate to pass national concealed carry reciprocity and the President to sign it into law, it would be an odd thing, indeed, yet possible to see anti-gun groups and some pro-Second Amendment groups both opposing the law. Yet, both sides could do so, albeit each for its own reasons, both claiming Congress had gone beyond its authority to regulate firearms’ possession.

However this might play out, the Arbalest Quarrel feels that, given the myriad antigun laws already enacted, there would be far more to gain from having this one, at this moment in time, than not. National concealed carry reciprocity would serve as a significantly pro-Second Amendment federal law to counter the plethora of state and federal laws that limit citizens’ gun rights. Still, we understand and respect such misgivings some pro-Second Amendment people may have on the matter.

 

Roger J. Katz has practiced law for the federal Government in Washington D.C., for the State Government in Arizona, and has been in private practice in Ohio, New York, and Arizona. Roger is a co-founder of Arbalest Group LLC, creator of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog, dedicated to strengthening the Second Amendment, preserving our Bill of Rights, and maintaining a free Republic

This article was originally published at arbalestquarrel.com and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar anonymous says:

    Come on guys. Commiefornia, Masshole, The land of Mary, and New York, don’t want this kind of thing. They believe that their people are not responsible enough, not intelligent enough, not moral enough, to have the responsibility of owning guns, carrying guns, anything gun related really. So that freedom must be taken from them. Is the problem that their people can’t rise to the challenge of bettering themselves to be moral, ethical, responsible people? Nope. The problem is the view that they can’t. To embrace that view is to also embrace gun control. It is the view that they will never be able to better themselves to that degree. To embrace gun control is to embrace a pessimistic view of the capabilities of people, and a resolve that our goals aren’t to rise to something great, but to settle into something small. All the while, the leaders, the rich, the popular – those people get to keep that which the regular populace cannot have.

    1. avatar Freebird says:

      The Senate will sell the people out as they always do , they are comped. , owned , ” Regulatory Capture ” its called. Democrats will pass crazy bad bills , the Senate will posture and put on an ACT of disapproval … they will remove an item or tow , AND THEN PASS FURTHER INFRINGEMENTS ……. just like always.

      Yellow Jacket Time Cometh ………..

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        “The Senate will sell the people out as they always do . . .” Exactly. The Senate leadership, like most of the House, is UniParty. They may a show of being “conservative” from time to time but there is actually very little daylight between elected Republicans and elected Democrats. We shouldn’t expect anything out of them.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      this issue cries out for compromise…some sort of “safe-passage’ bill might pass…need to see some alternate proposals

      1. avatar Nickel Plated says:

        We already have a “safe-passage” law. It’s called the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. See how well that “compromise” worked out for us.

        Frankly Frank, fuck your compromises.

    3. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      Too effing bad for all the moonbat states. 2A is FEDERAL. All states have to honor all amendments. They don’t get to pick and choose.

      Our Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.

    4. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      2A is FEDERAL. States can suck it. If this doesn’t pass every gun rights organization should pool their resources and file a lawsuit to prevent drivers licenses from being good in all 50 states.

      All of us need to #HeedTheCallUp

      1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        Funny that you mention driver licenses. Reciprocity of US state driver licenses across state lines is due to agreement between the states and is not the result of any federal legislation.

        Here is another interesting aspect. Let’s assume for a moment that Republicans have 60 votes in the Senate or use the nuclear option to pass National Reciprocity, which they don’t right now. Several states will sue and this will come before SCOTUS. SCOTUS will need to decide if reciprocity of carry permits are within state jurisdiction or federal jurisdiction.

        Either way, we will not like the outcome. National Reciprocity by federal law will be ruled unconstitutional if SCOTUS decides reciprocity of carry permits are within state jurisdiction. If SCOTUS decides reciprocity of carry permits are within federal jurisdiction, we just opened up Pandora’s box for further federal gun control laws.

        All that is really needed is to sue the states that do not allow out-of-state visitors to carry for the violation of the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS would need to decide if a constitutional right ends at one’s home state border.

  2. avatar Stateisevil says:

    This is PURELY academic. Even if they were to get it to the floor, which they most certainly will not, it doesn’t have the numbers to pass.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      In a perfect world, it would have been brought to the Senate floor in 2017, and we would have had the opportunity to kick the RINOs who voted against it to the curb in the 2018 primaries. (which probably explains why the GOP leadership wouldn’t let it out of committee)

      1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        The same question goes to you: Which Democrat Senators do you think would have voted on cloture for this bill? All Republican Senators could have safely voted on cloture for this bill, even RINOs, as it was assured to get filibustered. Know how your government works!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          One modification to your explanation….Republicrat senators would refuse to set aside the cloture rule in favor of simple majority.

        2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          Senate Republicans didn’t use the nuclear option for the Wall, Replace ObamaCare, etc.. It is business as usual in DC. Only those that simply do not know how our government works think that National Carry Reciprocity had a chance in the first place.

      2. avatar Yarbles says:

        Agreed.

        This is the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT SO FAR BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

        To expose those in the DC SEWER that oppose a Constitutional Govt and work for the Globalist Deep State.

        No one expected Mr. Trump to win. His own party especially. RINOs like GHW Bush (may he rest in hell next to his buttbuddy McStain) and Mitt the shit Romney voted for Hillary and stated so publicly.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          don’t really think trump supports this…based on his comments….

      3. avatar drunkEODguy says:

        This right here. It’s too late now, Dems will filibuster until Jan if it comes to a vote, doubt the Senate Repbus can or want to get the five more votes for cloture. If anything, this bill will be allowed by both parties to come to a vote which will go straight down party lines and fail to pass. Then, both parties can reaffirm their bonafides and say “We tried to pass/defeated CC reciprocity” as fits their party brand and use it for self promotion and attack ads next election cycle. Mark my words.

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          Five more votes? Please explain!

    2. avatar Seizure doc says:

      Even if it passes it will be ignored or circumvented by the liberal states. If all I can carry is a 22cal revolver what difference will it make ? I don’t disagree that national reciprocity is right but that is not where the real battle lies.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      Okay, so do it. Make people vote against it. Make people vote for it. See what your elected senators do.

      Because right now? They don’t want to have to show you.

      1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        It takes 60 votes in the Senate to end the debate on a bill. All Republicans, even those opposed, can safely vote for cloture this bill, knowing that the Democrats will filibuster it. Again, this bill doesn’t have the numbers to pass. This IS purely academic.

        1. avatar Nickel Plated says:

          Remember, you don’t get anything if you don’t ask. Keep asking for the same thing over and over, and eventually they might cave just to shut you up.
          The gun grabbers already have every wish list law written up and saved on their hard drives. Ready to go as soon as an opportunity (shooting) arises. How do you think they have these laws ready to go for a vote the very next day after a shooting?

          Somehow we just can’t get our shit together. We will sit and wait and waffle around for weeks after a shooting before speaking up. “Oh but we can’t be too hasty, can’t rush to judgement, gotta give time to grieve.” Meanwhile the grabbers are running circles around us. Why is national reciprocity or suppressor deregulation not being introduced every single legislative session? Yea it will get voted down. So what? There’s no penalties for getting your bill voted down, so why not try? The antis learned this long ago. We however seem to be riding the slow bus.
          If our wishlist laws don’t get introduced over and over every year, while the antis do, it’s kinda hard to blame the legislators for thinking that the majority supports gun-control and noone cares about reciprocity.

          Make the sleazebags show you where they stand.

        2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          As I have posted so many times in this thread, know how your government works. Also, it helps to know the subject being discussed. National reciprocity has been continuously introduced in Congress since 2007:

          – 115th Congress (2017 – 2018): H.R.38 Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 and S.446 Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

          – 114th Congress (2015 – 2016): H.R. 986 Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 and S. 498 Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015

          – 113th Congress (2013 – 2014): S.1908 Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014

          – 112th Congress (2011 – 2012): H.R.822 – National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, S.2188 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 and S.2213 – Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012

          – 111th Congress (2009 – 2010): H.R.197 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009, S.845 Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 and S.371 Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

          – 110th Congress (2007 – 2008): S.3207 – Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2008 and H.R.861 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2007. Continue reading at: http://gunbelts.com/blog/national-concealed-carry-reciprocity/

          PS: You may also want to read the comment by DN below about how the national reciprocity bill has been used multiple times as a poison pill to stop gun control.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Make the sleazebags show you where they stand.”

          We already know, unequivocally, where the sleazebags stand – they stand for election.

  3. avatar yitz says:

    in nyc your carry permit application is expected to be accompanied by documentation that you make cash deposits of about 1k a day. so in order to be considered worthy of being able to protect yourself, you have to be literally rolling in cash.

    for this, our founding fathers threw off tyranny…

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Which politician or bureaucrat do you have to deposit all that cash in to get a permit?

      1. avatar yitz says:

        haha…wish I knew 😉

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      What they are saying is $1000 is worth protecting. You and your family are not.

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    They should send it up to DJT as a big middle finger to the Left.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      Which Democrat Senators do you think will vote on cloture for this bill? It takes 60 votes in the Senate to end the debate on a bill. Learn how our government works!

      1. avatar Nickel Plated says:

        I’m more interested in which Republican’ts will vote against it.

        Remember, Trump didn’t have a chance in hell of becoming president, until he ran and became president. If you never do shit then you will never get shit done. Yea it’ll get voted down. So we introduce it again next year, let it get voted down again, and again, and again. But keep it fresh in people’s mind.
        If you never speak up, you can’t blame the legislators for not giving a damn what you have to say.

        Remember, there’s no penalty for getting your bill voted down.

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          All Republican Senators can safely vote on cloture for this bill, even those that are opposed to it, as this bill gets filibustered by the Democrats. Know how your government works! Don’t get dragged into this scam of political grand standing.

          National reciprocity has been continuously introduced in every Congressional session since 2007. It will get introduced with the next session as well. It won’t even make it out of the House in the next Congress.

          PS: There is a penalty for voting down this bill. It can’t be attached anymore to gun control legislation during the same session as a poison pill. Read DN’s comment below.

      2. avatar Scoutino says:

        Let them debate until they are blue in face and when they had enough of debating, vote on it.

        And for using it as a poison pill, is it so hard to introduce the same bill with slight changes again?

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          You apparently missed my last sentence: Learn how our government works! You apparently have no clue how the Senate works. Have you ever heard of a filibuster? Do you know how it actually works?

          There simply isn’t going to be a vote on H.R. 38! Democrats will filibuster it and they would happily even partially shut down the government over it, if it came to that.

          A bill that has been voted down typically isn’t a threat anymore as a poison pill if it gets reintroduced in the same Congress. It’s that simple.

  5. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Let’s pretend….

    President signs Nat’l Reciprocity into law. Within weeks, there will be a federal, nation-wide injunction preventing the law from taking effect. NR is stalled for weeks or months. Maybe the injunction holds indefinitely because no one challenges it. With only one federal district/appeals court defying the law, SCOTUS will deny cert. Nothing changes; same old same old.

    Let’s pretend….

    The law is signed, and no one mounts a legal challenge. Then what? The states will reject the law and play “Make Me”, as they have done with Heller and McDonald. Nothing changes; same old same old.

    Let’s pretend….

    The law is passed and signed. No one objects. States implement with 100% compliance (I said, “Let’s pretend….). Pro 2A gun owners are happy, anti-2A supporters are hurt, but grudgingly accept the new status quo. Then….the government comes under the complete control of the anti-gun party. NR is mere legislation, and repealed immediately. Chaos ensues, and we return to the status of today. Having won the legislative battle once, if and when a “pro-gun” government takes full control of government, the claim will be, “Well, we tried and succeeded once; then we lost. Time to move on.”

    Let’s pretend….

    Convention of the States convenes and manages to get a new amendment ratified in the states. Where is the enforcement mechanism? Courts? Same courts that today refuse to enforce the constitution as written, as intended? Is this not a situation of attempting the same over and again, expecting different results?

    Am I a constitutional absolutist – Absolutely. But I live in Realsville. Am I a pessimist? Yes – because when it comes to government, I am rarely disappointed.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      You forgot an important one:

      Let’s pretend….

      The law is passed and signed. It gets challenged and makes its way to SCOTUS. SCOTUS decides that under the Commerce Clause the federal government can regulate private, non-commercial activities that involve personally-owned firearms when visiting another state, as they interfere with Interstate Commerce. Democrats win in 2020. They immediately move to enact strict federal gun control, such as mental health checks, social media background checks, training requirements, insurance requirements, etc., under the SCOTUS-approved extension of the Commerce Clause. Checkmate!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “..under the SCOTUS-approved extension of the Commerce Clause. Checkmate!”

        Covered that under the scenario that the law passes, SCOTUS rules, and states/courts ignore SCOTUS as they have with Heller and McDonald.

        But, your scenario would indeed qualify as a “Let’s pretend…” exercise.

    2. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Good law. Bad law. I’m the guy with the gun.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Good law. Bad law. I’m the guy with the gun.”

        Having your gun has nothing to do with it. The exercise is about understanding and managing expectations regarding the NR legislation.

        1. avatar GunnyGene says:

          I reckon you never saw that old comedy, huh? 🙂

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I reckon you never saw that old comedy, huh?”

          Caught me. Focused on my own literary brilliance, and forgot to look up.

        3. avatar GunnyGene says:

          You’re welcome, Sam. 🙂 😉

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      An injunction can’t just stand. It is a temporary measure until a matter is decided on by the courts.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        You’re saying federal courts cannot issue permanent injunctions?

        “Temporary” can last longer than one might think. If an injunction is challenged all the way to the SC, it can effectively be “permanent”. If the SC refuses review, the injunction status remains IAW the federal ruling just below SC (which means injunction affirmed, otherwise there wouldn’t be any ruling to appeal).

        BTW, the SC is NEVER going to issue a ruling that sets aside all gun suppression laws. This means every gun suppression law on the books will have to be appealed to the SC, and SC will decide to review, or not review every law. Obviously such a scenario is impossible.

  6. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

    Me thinks the author wants to make a name for himself. How many times have I seen this call for action on H.R. 38 in the past weeks on various gun blogs and via various YouTube channels? How many of those had the same author?

    Those who actually know how our government works know that H.R. 38 is dead. It was dead on arrival from the get go. Those that believe in its passage have simply been hoodwinked.

  7. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    All states that voted for Donald Trump should ban together and send in notices of secession because the government in d c no longer serves the people. This is in the constitution and explained in the federalist papers.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      The Southern States said the same thing and tried to secede and that was before they had security cameras watching your every move. George Orwell’s 1984 just came a few years later but now its here.

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Theoretically if ALL the states that went for Trump seceded, it’d probably work. That’s way too many states for the blue states to overcome. If anything that wouldn’t even be secession, it would expulsion of the undesirable liberal states.

      2. avatar GunnyGene says:

        The South of this century is not the South of the 1800’s, technologically or otherwise. Although the Mason-Dixon line might have to be redrawn a bit.

  8. avatar Matty 9 says:

    I’m actually more concerned with the Hearing Protection Act!!!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I’m actually more concerned with the Hearing Protection Act!!!”

      Perhaps you have been busy with a productive life, but….

      “Hearing protection” is not about protection, but allowing people to buy silencers, whose only purpose it to allow people to shoot other people silently, and escape capture and punishment. Any other explanation is simply cammo for propagating more crime that goes undetected, thus unpunishable. “Hearing protection” is about letting people shoot and kill their neighbors silently, and get away with it.

      Please keep up with the current anti-gun thinking and propaganda.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        and taking wild game out of season undetectably.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “and taking wild game out of season undetectably.”

          You are correct. Forgot about poachers. So yeah, them too. Using silent guns to kill animals is an unfair fight. Without the sound of a gunshot to warn all the other animals, hunters and poachers are dishonorably making all kinds of unknown species extinct.

          Oh yeah, and other people in the hunting grounds need to hear gun shots so as to know they are endangered by some bloke who can’t seem to find a suitable supermarket for their food.

          Stuff like that.

  9. avatar harry323 says:

    I say screw it. Everyone should vote democrat in 2020 and let the revolution begin.

    1. avatar Tom T says:

      Yup. It has to get worse before it can get better. Why drag it out for another generation to deal with?

      1. avatar Don says:

        Let’s try to go the other way… Hard right full on hard core conservative Republican win in 2020, then let the head exploding libtard Left start the war. Looks better that way and maybe by then we’ll have a lead mine and smelter here in the US again so we can make more ammo more easily.

        1. avatar possum says:

          That bugs the shit out of me too. One import ban( anything made in X) could possibly be the end of lead bullets. I like my lead bullets. … Just thought of this, Flintlocks, dirt, charcoal, rock, lead from automotive batteries. But flintlock, kinda where “their” pointing Gunn control .anyway.

    2. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      I’m in but why wait?

  10. avatar Michael in AK says:

    Soap box, ballot box or cartridge box….We keep losing on the first two….

  11. avatar Kyle says:

    never ever gonna happen. You can scream all ya want. Our government is looking at once going on in france and thinking, wow, we better frigging disarm our serfs soon, or we aren’t going to be able to stop them with our Antifa protection squad…sorry, I mean police officers. (At least in portland).

    Constitution is just bird cage liner at this point.

    1. avatar Tom T says:

      Sadly accurate.

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Yes you are so very right about all of this. The Supreme Court also realizes a disarmed public is a docile one and easily defeated if they even try to protest or resist. Absolute power absolutely corrupts and the Supreme Court is a poster boy for all of this.

  12. avatar Alessio Ventura says:

    Unfortunately I recently had to move from Florida to New Jersey for work. I kept my Florida residence, but now spend most of my time in NJ for my job.

    I am a firearm collector and have 30 guns of various types. I decided to send 5 of them to NJ from an FFL in FL to an FFL in NJ.

    I was shocked at what I had to do to get my own weapons back in NJ. Firstly, it’s about a $60 transfer fee per firearm. Secondly, you can only get one weapon every 30 days unless you ask for a dispensation from the state police by filling out more forms. So, I had to get 5 permits from the local PD, which took over a month because they needed to do background checks, including interviewing two people who knew me, and two other people who knew my wife. Then we both retrieved one gun a piece, so the 3 remaining have to wait until the NJ state police approve the dispensation to transfer more than 1 gun in a 30 day period. Of course the bad guys do not follow any of this.

    When I asked the PD if I could apply for a CCW, they basically laughed and told me that unless republicans control the state house and the governor’s office, there is no way in hell that I would get one. They said I could apply but that I was wasting my money..they said, “We believe it is your 2nd Amendment right, but the sherif is an elected official and a democrat and he denies all CCWs.” They also told me that you can’t use your gun in your home for self defense unless you have exhausted all attempts to escape, “There is no ‘Stand your Ground’ or ‘Castle Doctrine’ in NJ.

    So, even if there is reciprocity, I won’t have a NJ CCW with which to reciprocate. I have one in FL.

    Folks, NJ is literally a Communist state, no joke.

    1. avatar Widdler says:

      Almost the exact same way things are here in hawaii, i understand. They know who has what, where they are and how many, speaking legally of course. Isn’t the cheapest state to move out of either, not like just renting a U-haul

  13. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    The Republicans sat on their dead asses for 2 years under Trump and never did a damn thing about the carry law. They also never did a damn thing about the new silencer law either. And the lower courts for the last 2 years have upheld every anti-gun law passed and the Supreme Court has refused to hear all of the appeals. This is standard procedure and will be in the future. Election year promises are soon forgotten.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      there was some momentum there…and then the mass shootings happened…and everyone ran for cover…we’re backpedaling now….

    2. avatar Kyle says:

      It may not be right and it certainly isn’t fair, but if you want to exercise your 2nd amendment rights, opps, i mean permissions, from the state, you’ll be doing them illegally in any state with a view of an ocean.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    I share ya’lls optimism😖😩😏

  15. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Lol we fell for the carrot dangling at the end of the stick and y’all are still falling for it. They no longer need us so it will die. Then the next 2 yrs will be about blaming the libs.
    THEN miraculously a push will come again come time for POTUS re-election and the carrot will again dangle.
    The 2 carrots are this and the hearing protection act.

  16. avatar Docs Holliday says:

    It’s time to take reasonable action on gun control and eliminate all existing gun laws and expand the Second Amendment.

  17. avatar Matt in Flordy says:

    National Reciprocity is a terrible idea. Even if this passed (and it won’t.) Essentially you would be giving antigun Mecca’s like NJ, NY, CA, IL etc a chance to trample on your gun rights.

    If you think nyc is gonna let you stroll around times square packin’ a g17 loaded with hollow points you’re nuts… How about a psych review where you get to explain your social media history?

    This nonsense would open up a can of worms on ccw permit holders.

  18. avatar Michael says:

    …the legislature is in session and neither life or nor property is safe. -30-

  19. avatar possum says:

    What???? Vote, vote on what? Oh okay vote on wether the peasants can be armed according to the Constitution. So a dumb old possum thinks, ,” So your voting out or in a constitutional right.” A dumb old possum doesn’t trust the powers that be very much, because they seem impudent and lacking, leadership qualities, with career above country. As a governor once said, ” I don’t have time for what they think they need or want, I’m busy being a politician”.

  20. avatar robert a says:

    Establishment Republicans are useless……

  21. avatar DN says:

    Another article by TTAG on Reciprocity that contains none of the easily researched information on where this bill is and why, and why it was never going to pass and therefore misinforms and disinforms the readership of TTAG.

    This bill did not have 60 votes in 2013 and doe snot have 60 today. The abilty to get to 60 today is harder not easier. Ir needs a bunch of Senate Democrats to pass. The Senate Democrat Leader in 2013 was forma state that allowed carry and the Senate Democrat Leader today is from a powerful state that does not allow concealed carry.

    This bill’s real effectiveness is the same as it was in 2013. As a monkeywrench to throw in as an amendment to more egregious gun control.

    The National Reciprocity bill is a highly effective thing for us — it is sitting there able to kill egregious gun control as a “poison pill” amendment. Why does TTAG not report on how this was done in 2013, when national Universal Background Check was a sure thing to pass, but a strategy of tacking on National Reciprocity as an amendment killed the Democrat efforts?

    GOA, NRA, SAF all know this. They keep it alive and advocate support for it to keep it alive as a monkey wrench.for this reason. Obviously they cannot openly say this, but Second Amendment advocacy media like TTAG can write about what it actually is so rank and file Second amendment supporters dont get all twisted up in knots about what is a very effective tool and think we are losing, when the entire point is to sue it to roadblock new national gun control.

    National Reciprocity Is successful. It already killed a major new national gun control effort after Newton, and right now it threatens other new efforts.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      NR may be good at sabotage, but overall it is just legislation subject to newer legislation from congress, or the SC.

  22. avatar Darkwing says:

    It is time we have a national Constitutional carry law.

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