Question of the Day: Do Republicans Have the Balls to Use the “Nuclear Option” to Pass National Concealed Carry Reciprocity?


“Peter Ambler, executive director of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a gun control super PAC, said his organization plans to fight national reciprocity ‘tooth and nail,’ threatening a Democratic filibuster of the legislation in the Senate,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “’It’s a race to the bottom,’ he said. ‘It allows people that have permits from states with the weakest standards possible to carry [weapons] in the streets of any U.S. city.’ Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat and ardent gun-control advocate, said he believes any version of a national reciprocity bill would be ‘dead on arrival’ in the Senate, due to strong Democratic opposition.”

Well that sucks — if it’s true. And it is true IF Senate Republicans refuse to use the “nuclear option.” That would be passing national reciprocity based on a simple majority in the Senate — an option that Harry Reid and the Democrats first exercised in 2013 in order to clear a backlog of President Obama’s judicial and other appointees. Thus setting a precedent.

Apparently, the Democrat Party doesn’t regret that decision now that Donald Trump is the president-elect. The question is, will Republican Senators make them regret it? Do they have the balls to ram national reciprocity (or any of their other priorities) through over the opposition’s blood-in-the-streets howling indignation?


    1. avatar nativeson says:

      The Republicans have never had the balls to fight for us.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        When the media are busy fighting for the Dem team, the Repugnants are afraid to do anything that isn’t bipartisan.
        And that’s what makes them repugnant.

      2. avatar Realist says:

        Well, the Republicans are certainly better than any other political party in protecting gun rights.

        You folks need to understand that gun laws are not the most important governmental issues in the nation, they are relatively minor, even if gun control cost Hillary the election.

        Be happy that we aren’t getting ready for Australian Style Gun Control. A skimpy 100,000 votes spread over 3 or 4 states made the difference..

      3. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “The Republicans have never had the balls to fight for us.”


        Good thing we didn’t elect a Republican.

        I’m hopeful Trump approaches the next four years by treating it like a very large commercial construction project.

        Meaning, if roadblocks are put in his way, he will do what’s necessary to surmount those obstacles and finish the damn project, using whatever tools he has at his disposal, even the ‘creative’ ones, if necessary.

        The Left is already confidently predicting Trump will fail to successfully implement any of them.

        If he makes the economy ‘great again’ and deports massive numbers of the criminally convicted illegals, he will win re-election in a landslide. That has the potential to completely eviscerate the Republican party.

        The left is doubling-down on identity politics and to hell with the working middle class. That is gonna cost them dearly…

    2. avatar Omer Baker says:

      I agree

    3. avatar Reggie Browning says:

      Yeah. It’s just not politically smart to do, or it wasn’t in the past. Donald Trump seems to have ignored all the old rules of politics and succeeded. And then there is the fact that gun rights voters seem to be becoming an increasingly large and politically savvy interest group. And the fact that the old anti gun media outlets are losing popularity, things might be changing. I don’t know. It’s too soon to tell. They may very well have learned that they need to get off their lazy butts and do something or they could just go back to business as usual, blocking anything the Democrats try to do and then not really accomplishing much when they have power and stymieing progress in either direction.

      1. avatar KCK says:

        Will they have the guts to violate the 1st amendment and make you an enemy of the State if you burn a flag? Or what ever may be deemed unpatriotic speech. Put you in jail, make you a criminal and thus take away your 2A rights.
        I would like to hear opinions on this flag burning tweet.
        It doesn’t sound like very liberty loving.
        I can’t believe 2A lover won’t defend the1A.
        The two support each other.
        If you burn the flag and are jailed for it, it would be time to burn the flag.
        It represents freedom and if you can’t burn it then it is no longer the symbol of freedom.

        1. avatar Reggie Browning says:

          What? When did I ever say I supported that? I was talking about gun rights.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          He was trolling smart one. Hillary sponsored that exact bill in 2005.

          Oh, and flag burning was illegal until the late 80s.

        3. avatar Burley says:

          Flag burning is not speech. There is no “freedom of expression” in the Constitution. Speech was protected specifically because the founds new some jackass would proclaim that his act of vandalism was protected under free speech; It isn’t…

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          HUGE percentages of extremist 1A supporters will not only tell you, but scream into your face that there is *no such thing* as 2A, and you show up here looking for support? Really convinced that you are so *sly*, are you? “Surely these rubes won’t realize what a POS I am being, hee-hee!”

          Doofus, you are making no money here, essentially everyone present supports 1A, go back to your friends and turn your argument around, why do they not support 2A?

        5. avatar Sian says:

          I figured it would just be like a $50 fine.

          Nobody wants it to end up where burning a flag will get you tossed in jail.

        6. avatar int19h says:

          > Flag burning is not speech. There is no “freedom of expression” in the Constitution. Speech was protected specifically because the founds new some jackass would proclaim that his act of vandalism was protected under free speech; It isn’t…

          If burning a flag is “expression, not speech”, and is not covered under 1A, then displaying the flag is the same in that regard, and is also not constitutionally protected.

          How many states do you think would immediately ban the Confederate flag, if that were the case? Can you think of any other symbols that would get the same treatment? Gadsden flag, say?

          Be careful what you wish for.

    4. avatar billy-bob says:

      Actually the Republicans have a lot of balls… Pelosi keeps them in her purse.

  1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:


  2. avatar Jack says:

    They better find them. They better find the balls to use the nuclear option twice a day every day. Elections have consequences. Harry Reid using the nuclear option has consequences.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Not twice a day. Please. Once a day will have me rolled into a ball, laughing until I cry, all day long. Twice a day, might kill me.

  3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    The way to do it would be through the budget. They eliminated the filibuster on budgetary matters a long time ago. Simply deny federal funds for state and local PDs in states that don’t honor every other state’s permits. Pretty standard trick for the Democrats, but I’d be shocked if the Republicans actually did it.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      They should deny federal funds to state and local governments period. That’s how we got into this mess of massive government control of our lives. We allowed this circuitous flow of money, from taxpayers and federal borrowers, to the federal government and back to the states to metastasize.

      Now nobody is directly connected by the money they pay to the government services they receive. It’s just a free for all money grab and power play out there. Cut off the money and a whole lot of nefarious activity will suddenly cease.

      1. avatar Chuck in IL says:


        1. avatar humdinger says:

          ^^this THIS^^

      2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        I agree. But that’s a much bigger hill to climb than national reciprocity.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I’ll bet you would also eliminate a few hundred thousand D.C. jobs in the process, of the people jostling around to influence where all those dollars were going. Suddenly useless.

        1. avatar Timmy! says:


    2. avatar Rick in NH says:

      Just attach it as an amendment to the budget. No need to screw around with defunding anything. And don’t make it a requirement that one have a permit from their home state. Any state will do so that NY, NJ, HI, MA and all the gun banning states have no say.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Make it the first amendment, maybe there’ll be so much agony over the suggestion that they don’t notice #2, repealing the NFA.

  4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    No, at least not in any way that you’d actually want national reciprocity. They’d water it down and load it up with so much crap and compromises just to appease the Democrats, that you’d think the Dems had just captured Congress and the White House with a mandate.

  5. avatar DrewR says:

    Boy I sure hope so. His argument would only hold water if lax licencing requirement states had higher accidental or illegal shootings by CWP holders, but they don’t, so it’s worthless BS.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Their idea of lax licensing is……actually issuing a license at all.

      I still don’t get how Illinois was brought kicking and screaming to licensed carry, but in so many of the other slave states it’s still virtually impossible to overcome their shall issue (read: never gonna get) schemes.

      1. avatar Omer Baker says:

        Illinois was looking at judicial mandate. The anti’s were afraid if they didn’t pass anything it would lead to FOID carry (as long as one had a valid Firearm Owner Identification card they were good to go), but they didn’t have enough support for may issue, so they passed what we got. Not great, but WAY better than it was.

      2. avatar James says:

        The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals brought Illinois’ concealed carry ban down in Moore vs Madigan. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, and to a lesser extent, 4th Court of Appeals protect the coast states like California, Oregon, Connecticut, New York, and Maryland from similar fates.

  6. avatar pwrserge says:

    The GOP? Maybe not. However, Trump’s supporters can be “persuasive”…

    1. So you agree that furher trump is ethically, morally and intellectually corrupt. That man is wholly unfit to be president and commander in chief.

      And his brainwashed followers know this.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        Schizophrenia’s a helluva drug, ain’t it?

      2. avatar SelousX says:

        So what do you propose?

      3. avatar Sprocket says:

        Your tears are delicious.

      4. avatar sagebrushracer says:

        whelp, all your remarks about trump are more than likely true. And those same remarks apply to clinton 160% as well. That witch is so bad, you had bernie supporters voting for trump this time around. Get a firm grip on this worlds reality and try again. Hopes and dreams don’t count as realities BTW.

      5. avatar RMS1911 says:

        granny Mao is going to prison…….?
        your screeching make me fluffy.⬆
        your tears nourish my soul.?

  7. avatar Dave says:

    I’ll pester Mitch McConnell about it. He hails from KY as Senate Majority Leader.

    It would be sweet poetic justice to use dingy Harry’s tricks against him.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      It would. Reid is one of the most corrupt and vicious little twerps to ever have infested DC, and it would be poetic justice to see his tactic turned back onto him.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Well, unless we consider that this tactic may have lost the Dems the Senate. So we want our side to copy it?

  8. avatar Jomo says:

    We shouldn’t do this. The filibuster may be all that stands against erosion of our rights at some future date. Sacrificing tomorrow for a temporary gain today is foolish–no better than Obama’s phone-and-pen strategy. There’s better ways to do this.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Well, if the “Never Trump” team hadn’t been busy tanking the solidarity of the GOP, we might have other options. However, at this point, we need to ram federal preemption and reciprocity down the throats of the DNC. Better yet, expand the SCotUS to 13 members and confirm 100% conservative judges. Final step, federal central voter database with encoded biometric photo ID. Get that done, and the DNC will not be able to elect a dog catcher.

      1. avatar Warren says:

        Oh, pack the courts? Like how FDR wanted to, to ensure a permanent state of progressivism? Yeah, no. That’s nothing but a blatant power grab, and guaranteed to backfire in the worst way possible.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. We will simply succeed where that commie fuck failed. Our goal, however, is not individual power. It’s the restoration of constructional constitutionalism.

        2. avatar Warren says:

          Yeah, I’m not sold on Trump really understanding the concept of constructional constitutionalism. So far he strikes me more as being in the vein of benevolent dictator.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Every once in a while, every republic need a Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

        4. avatar Warren says:

          I don’t think you could have named two more contrasting figures than Trump and Cincinnatus in terms of character traits. Washington is probably the closest we’ve ever had to a modern-day Cincinnatus.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          That remains to be seen. This is the first time in his life that Trump has had any hard power. I’ll reserve judgement until 2018 or so.

    2. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

      You know damn well the DNC will use it the next time they get their grubby hands anywhere near the same setup they have now. They are complete extremists at this point, so F them. The GOP should ram through anything and everything they can, while they can, because the DNC have already set the stage for doing the exact same thing.

  9. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

    The Republicans can be pretty spineless, true. But, remember, it is the Democrats who are more concerned with violent criminals being safe from an armed citizenry.

  10. avatar Sasquatch says:

    Um, no.

    Having said that, it’s been a weird year. The Cubs won the World Series, the Brits voted to leave the EU, and we elected Trump. Who knows what strangeness 2017 will hold?

  11. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Do Republicans Have the Balls”?

    There fixed ya, and them.

    Republicans were given power and they only used it against us.



    G O V E R N M E N T
    D O E S.



    If we were the globalist sh_t-asses of the EU you would’ve likely already gotten the Marie Antoinette treatment.

  12. avatar CarlosT says:

    It may not be necessary. Attach it as a rider to something important, such as an appropriations bill, and let the Democrats squirm over the idea of shutting down the government over this. Explain to your constituents that they aren’t getting their Social Security checks because you want to block reciprocity.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      ^ This!!!!!!

      Let the Democrats go ahead and filibuster. And turn off all federal money to all recipients* until the Democrats stop their filibuster. Let the nation know how Democrats put the nation in great jeopardy (because we stop paying border patrol, homeland security, CIA, military, FBI, NSA, etc. and they stay home from work since fedzilla stopped paying them). Let all the welfare queens know that Democrats stopped their “paychecks”. Make the Democrats take the blame for “shutting government down”.

      * I would probably allow two exceptions: keep social security checks going out to senior citizens and food stamps going out to families with children. Otherwise, cut everyone else off: all federal government employees and all federal government entitlement recipients.

  13. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    All that is needed is for all politicians to affirm their Oath of Office and follow the Constitution.

    Those unwilling can step down now.


  14. Oh we’ll get national reciprocity, but, the price we’ll pay is going to be high. Don’t doubt if it gets bargained with a capacity limit of 10 and/or universal background checks (you know to make a complete registry)

  15. avatar Parnell says:

    I think the GOP will exercise the nuclear option on some other legislation or Presidential appointment before they get to reciprocity. They feel they now have a mandate, controlling all three branches and will now use it to get even with the obnoxious Dem leadership.

  16. avatar Jim Jones says:

    They better use it for the Hearing Protection Act as well.

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      That won’t be a problem, it can be attached as an amendment to any funding bill. Since is changes tax code it belongs as part of that and they can fix the SBR and SBS stupidity in the NFA in the same bill for the same reason.

      1. avatar Jim Jones says:

        I think the HPA would do wonders for the gun industry. Literally overnight, all previously sold firearms will need new barrels or threading, and a slew of new integrally suppressed firearms models will make onto market (if Silencerco can dream up the Maxim, just wait until Glock create their own. The possibilities are endless. I hope that it passes, and fast.

  17. avatar Lt Dave says:

    Since the “nuclear option” was used in one of the most massive attacks on our freedom of choice for healthcare, in the middle of the night, supported only by one party, it is only poetic that it be used to restore the most massive intrusions into the Second Amendment.

    1. avatar HamChuck says:

      “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
      -Barry Goldwater

  18. avatar Buns of Guns says:

    I’m hopeful that the nuclear option won’t be necessary. As its been mentioned, national reciprocity could be accomplished through a budgetary amendment if need be.

    Else, it would be unpopular for democratic senators to waste time and energy throwing a hissy fit over legislation that their constituents either support or dgaf about (I imagine this is the case in most of the US). There are also a handful of dems that will be on board for national reciprocity.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      I wonder the same thing. You need 41 Senators to sustain a filibuster. Are there that many Senators who would give a rip about reciprocity?

      Illinois offers zero reciprocity currently, but since we’ve now had concealed carry for three years and the only “blood in the streets” we have had is perpetrated by the usual gang thugs, I’m not sure this is something our liberal Senators will throw a fit over.

  19. avatar HAFS says:

    Cold f’g day in hell before we get national reciprocity.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Cold ‘fing day in hell before…

      Trump runs for president
      Trump wins the nomination
      Cubs win the World Series
      Trump wins the election

      At this rate, Lucifer is about ready to open up a ski resort.

      1. avatar Sabrina M Gray says:

        I think Lucifer is getting ready to open the bar at this point.

  20. avatar Lt Dave says:

    Since “Dirty Harry Reid” created the “nuclear option” in the dead of night, supported by only one party with no bipartisan support, for the massive invasion of gooberment into our healthcare, it is only right that this option is used against libtards, for the massive restoration of rights under the Second Amendment.


    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I think I like your first draft better.

  21. avatar HamChuck says:

    I doubt it. Although, during that post sandy hook background check debate in the senate, 57 (I think) senators voted yes for a CHL reciprocity amendment to the bill.

    On the other hand, I say we fire those nukes until everything we want is passed, including every court vacancy. The filibuster, as originally envisioned (the whole standing up and talking for as long as possible ala Ted Cruz last year) is the only true filibuster and isn’t in danger of going away. I don’t even think it can without a a constitutional amendment. The founders put supermajorities in the constitution for only a few things. Everyone else has been added by us and can easily be taken away.

    1. avatar None says:

      The filibuster is a senate rule. It’s not a constitutional issue.

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        ^ This.

        And the rules for either body can be changed by majority vote of that body at any time. The stuff we want won’t be a problem as long as the Republican leadership have half a ball amongst them, especially true if Trump uses his national stage to speak on the issue.

        I am more worried about his judicial appointments. That will take a nuclear option variant to get his appointments through, and we truly need a real push on that front because the only hold the left has ever really had on this country is through left wing judges essentially writing law from the bench.

  22. avatar former water walker says:

    NO…they had a majority in borh housescof congress AND SCOTUS and did squat. And all this talk about Trunp being some kind of savior is just talk. Wait and see..

  23. Nope, the dems cut them off years ago. They last time they had them was when they impeached bill clinton. But they were cut off before they could remove him from office.

  24. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Better, how about the federal govt approaches state and local gun restrictions the way they approach other civil rights: through suits, investigations, and withholding funding?

    Start with appearance of discrimination, then move to explicit “equal protection” analysis. Federally sue any state that doesn’t have preemption laws in place, because restrictions in cities disproportionately impact particular demographics. You can have any state and local laws you like, except we won’t necessarily fund you.

    It’s all about maximizing the popcorn.

    Pragmatically, I suspect the metaphorical “hill to die on” isn’t internal state laws, but interstate travel. A federal standard for interstate travel and transport of arms would solve the “going to grandma’s” problem, while allowing individual states to experiment, and individuals to vote with their feet to live under the policies they like.

    I’m bugged when someone flying from A to B can get nabbed for “violating” the laws of C, where they are making a connection (cough – NY – cough.)

  25. avatar Sam I Am says:

    – Republicans are above petty politics
    – If Repubs do that to Dems, then Dems have justification to payback when they are in power again

    1. avatar Warren says:

      Except the Dems did virtually that with the ACA.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Yeah, but that was only for one piece of legislation. They wouldn’t do that again, unless we provoke them. “We won”…but only for a little while. We need to prove we can govern, we are not nutcakes, we are not vindictive, we can cross the aisle to forge bi-partisan support for important items. If we pour salt in the wound it will only make Demoncrats more resolute about destroying us in the next elections. Half the country is terrified because of our reputation. We must use this opportunity to prove we are interested in compromise and moving forward, not being rigid ideologues bent on a scorched earth policies.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Being “reasonable” against Demokkkrats is impossible and it is a waste of time to try. We have the power, it’s time to dismantle the DNC for the next three generations. Hell, we’re one state house way from being able to pass constitutional amendments in straight party line votes.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          In 2018, we have way more governorships up for grabs than the Dems. Attempting to establish single party rule the next two years could cost us a bunch of states you are counting on for amendments. Best to tread lightly; be the adults in the room. If we copy Dem tactics, we are no better than they are. We should always have the moral high ground, regardless of political outcomes. Better to lose with honor than to rule in crassness.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          No, it’s really not. Victory washes away a multitude of sins.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          All very reasonable, Sam. But they already DID it. Just as soon as our reasonable representatives are thrown out on their asses for not keeping their promises, the azzwholes will be right back to f-ing us without the slightest reference to “reasonable”. If it takes nuclear option to keep those promises, they damn well better do it.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          But we will have the moral high ground, and they will always know they are crooked.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          The moral high ground and an empty sack are worth the sack.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Then we offer the same slimy politics as the Demoncrats, with a different wrapper?

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          The ends justify the means. When the survival of our republic is amongst those ends, no means are out of the question.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You put forward the same argument the Left uses…for just about everything.

        10. avatar Pwrserge says:

          A good argument by evil people does not make it a bad argument. The point is that we need to destroy the DNC root and branch. If we can do so legislatively, it saves us quite a few firing squads. They started this fight, we have a responsibility to finish it.

  26. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

    I know CCW reciprocity is important but it is not nuclear material. There are other ways to bypass the filibuster such as attaching it to a bill during the reconciliation process where it only takes 51 votes to pass.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Right beside repeal of NFA, GCA ’68, and FOPA ’86

    1. avatar Warren says:

      This is relevant to the conversation….. how??

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        Who cares? It’s BREAKING, man, BREAKING!

      2. avatar lookandsee says:

        Is it because Anti-gunners see themselves as “good guys” and see themselves “above the law.”?

        1. avatar Warren says:

          This happened in Australia. Still not following why I should care about a kiddy diddler on the other side of the planet, regardless of whether he’s pro- or anti-gun. And more to the point, it’s absolutely irrelevant to the topic here of “should we force CCW reciprocity or not.”

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yes, we should, and we should attach an amendment prohibiting liberals from diddling kiddies. Let’s see them oppose *THAT*!

  27. avatar MAC][ says:

    It’s not worth it. Reciprocity between the states is getting better all the time. If we fight and win to federalize CC reciprocity, we’re transferring authority to the federal government over which we have less control. We’re pretty 50/50 Red/Blue as a country…the next time federal elections end up going to those who are unfriendly to the 2nd Amendment we lose reciprocity and have additional limitations on a national scale.

    I think there are better political fights to be had. If the 6 big blue states + DC want to be irritating with CC, I say let them so the other 44 states can live more freely. We can benefit from state control – power to the states.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      You’re living under the delusion that the power doesn’t already rest with the federal government. This is incorrect.

      The federal government can already strip away any gains we make at the state level. It’s time we play hardball and use the same technique to put the anti-gun nutjobs out of business.

  28. avatar UtahCCW says:

    I hope that Peruta makes it to the Supreme Court and shall issue becomes the law of the land. Then we just need a case to make it on denying other state’s residents recognition of their permit. I noticed that the Peruta filed an extension of the time for requesting certiorari, so I’m hopeful.

  29. avatar 7.62x54r says:

    Whoa!! I haven’t seen that many Adirondack Chairs in one place outside of Lake Placid.

    If all I need is a wooden chair and some ski goggles to survive the Ruskies (Iranians, Chinese, North Koreans etc.) I’m GTG.

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Don’t forget the beer.

  30. avatar Jon in CO says:

    I think it can be done, but without going “nuclear”. The easiest way to do things like this is through education. Taking to regular people. The more people who support it, the better chance we have of accomplishing things that should be standard already.

    It just confuses me so much, trying to understand why Dems are so against people who have been vetted, doing things that don’t hurt anyone.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “It just confuses me so much, trying to understand why Dems are so against people who have been vetted, doing things that don’t hurt anyone.”

      It is not confusing at all once you realize that anti-gun Democrats act on altruism, fantasy, and emotion. Anti-gun Democrats oppose firearms because they have a clinical phobia of firearms. (That covers the “emotion” bit.) Then Democrats go on to rationalize their anti-gun position claiming that non-police are bumbling idiots who will shoot themselves or bystanders … and all cops are crack-shots who will always be there within 30 seconds to save you. (That covers the “fantasy” bit.) Finally, anti-gun Democrats claim that utopia will finally befall us once we eliminate firearms as further rationale to ban firearms. (That covers the “altruism” bit.)

      Saying it in simpler terms, anti-gun Democrats form a position based purely on emotion and then vomit words of fantasy and altruism in a desperate attempt to “win” you over to their side.

      Facts, reason, and logic have no place in their world.

  31. avatar Higgs says:

    I don.t want them to go nuclear. I want them to fight, even if they lose.

    I know its a pipe dream for alot of reasons but here is what I would love to see.

    Start proposing bills that :

    – Fit on one page about one topic in clear language ( Prevents the ” I voted against/for a subsection” defense.
    – Note the section of the constitution that grants federal authority to propose the Legislation.
    – Most should also have a sunset date on when the law must be renewed ( That way Congress can say busy renewing laws rather that creating more)

    If a bill like national CCW doesn’t have the votes…. let the vote fail. Get the congress members on the record. if their is a threat of a filibuster, make them come out on the floor and do it.

  32. avatar Stinkeye says:

    I’m no parliamentarian, but I would think the simplest thing to do would be to call the Democrats’ bluff on it and make them actually filibuster, as in, keep talking for hours and hours and hours. The Senate has gotten so wussified now that just the threat of a potential filibuster kills bills. That’s ridiculous. If you want to gum up the works of the government, it should take a little bit more than just stamping your feet and sucking your thumb, which is what these current “filibuster” threats amount to.

    Get out on the Senate floor and get laryngitis and some bunions, you pussies.

  33. avatar Publius says:

    No, Republican politicians have shown time after time that they’re spineless and will cave the second Democrats call them names.

  34. avatar JFRAME says:

    NO, They couldn’t pass a BB after eating bad Chinese Food.

  35. avatar Almost Esq. says:

    No but, yes. The Republicans will not use the Nuclear Option just to get this through. They will use it to get something that is more near and dear to their hearts passed. This will set the stage for this and another controversial legislation to pass. MAGA

  36. avatar NorincoJay says:

    This authors lack of understanding of a filibuster and what the democrats did to allow Obamas appointees is frightening. The Dems only set a precedent for appointments only. If the republicans got rid of the ability to filibuster non appointments as in bills all republicans will live to regret it when we lose the house. Stupid article with misleading ideas. This article needs a correction.

    1. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

      I am in general agreement with you but in anticipation of taking control of the Senate Reidsville already said the Democrats would abolish the filibuster so the Republicans might as well do it. The problem is that Republicans follow the Constitution and Senate tradition so they are unlikely to do it outside of SCOTUS nominees.

  37. avatar Dave357 says:

    The Senate simply doesn’t have the votes to nuke the filibuster for legislation. The only question is whether it will nuke the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments, should the need arise. SCOTUS is bigger than national reciprocity – even if the reciprocity bill passes, it will likely get nuked by the courts. May issue has to die before nationwide reciprocity is even worth discussing.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      I do not understand what we expect SCOTUS to do with yet another 2A case. They already ruled that states can establish reasonable regulations, that 2A does not mean carry a firearm (however transported) anytime, anywhere. The decision means that even if all federal firearm laws were eliminated, overnight, the states are individually allowed to set certain “reasonable restrictions”. The only way I see SCOTUS expanding 2A is a 9-0 ruling that 2A means precisely what it says, and that the federal government may not establish any law or regulation of firearms. Not likely to ever see such a ruling, and if so, not likely to rule that states cannot regulate their militias (the people) so as to ensure readiness AND public safety (“reasonable restrictions”).

      1. avatar Dave357 says:

        Until SCOTUS affirms the right to bear arms outside one’s home, I don’t see the nationwide reciprocity bill allowing people from shall issue states to carry in may issue states surviving in the courts. That’s why I say pro-RKBA SCOTUS comes first, reciprocity a distant second.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:


          We should not, however, discount the impact of a favorable ruling on the Nichols case. If he wins all the way, open carry would be declared the only “right” stemming from the second amendment. Which might just provide the states legitimacy in declaring concealed carry to be illegal.

          It is all going to be quite entertaining.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I thought SCOTUS already ruled on that, some state or other (IL?), that states could prohibit OC, or CC, but not both, since that would violate the RKBA. EITHER maintains a right to keep and bear, neither is unconstitutional infringement. Was I dreaming?

        3. avatar Dave357 says:

          As far as I know, SCOTUS hasn’t had a chance to consider such a case.

  38. avatar indirect Action says:

    Probably won’t need it. We have enough pro-gun Dems.

  39. avatar Ralph says:

    They have the balls to invoke the Nuclear Option. What they don’t have is the votes.

  40. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    They darn well better pass it if needed.
    There has been enough crap over reciprocity.
    .A drivers license is a privilege.
    Gun ownership is a right that shouldnt even cost a nickel let alone even be issued anything to begin with.
    If its up to me come 2018 or whenever the 2 senators from Florida next come up for reelection.
    Nelson the Dimocract has got to go regardless. Rubio will vote for it. Should be bother to vote at all. I wouldnt expect him to ruin his absentee record after all. And show up for anything this important.

  41. avatar DaveW says:

    Probably not, but we can hope. One thing is sure, there would have been absolutely no chance of anything positive if Killary had been elected.

  42. avatar GS650G says:

    Id like to see them ram a few laws through and go on MSNBC and ask Maddow what she plans to do about it.

  43. avatar Libertarian says:

    White out repeal first the “gun free schoole zone act” (no honoring outstates permits on federal level !) before the communistic states as new york still send you to federal prison if they cought you !!

    And be sure if the carry act passed they make near any public place illegal white state felony too as revenge !!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Problems with the software-generated responses?

  44. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    Come on, people. Walk before running. Pretend it is a construction project. Excavation, foundation, structure, roof. Then worry about the interior decorating. The Dems in the Senate will be having shit-fits about every important appointment, beginning with AG Jeff Sessions and the new HHS nominee Tom Price. Trump will give them Chao in an unimportant post and maybe Romney in a role like Kerry. (Seems fitting.) But it will be just for political show, because his National Security group will usually over-rule. Then it’s on to the Supreme Court. He picked Sessions, Price, DeVos, and Haley. Maybe for you Cruz supporters he actually will nominate Cruz for Supreme Court. Certainly will be someone in Scalia’s mold. Then, no kidding, national reciprocity should be attached to a must-pass financing bill but not one that affects foreign policy, military pay, Social Security, or something else that the R’s would feel compelled to compromise on. It has to be on something that the D states and their Senators need to placate their rabble, and the R’s could care less about. How about continued funding for food stamps or some other welfare program? Or the Medicaid match even though Price wants to turn that all back to the states. This would force fence sitting D’s who are standing for election in 2018 to vote for the financial payoff their supporters demand, and forget about the CCW issue, which isn’t even on the radar for most of their urban minions. Eyes on the prize, but let’s not be greedy and grab randomly.

  45. avatar stateisevil says:

    The question implies all the Republicans want national reciprocity. They do not. They just don’t want to appear to be anti gun.

    The bigger issue is: Why do Democrats care? Why does Blumenthal care? Connecticut is shall issue. We don’t have national reciprocity now because state politicians in and around LA, San Fran, NJ, Baltimore, Long Island, and Boston don’t like guns or liberty. The rest of the country doesn’t give a sh it, or they’re for it.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Why do they care? Guns.
      Keeps their voters happy to see pols “doing something about guns”.

  46. avatar Roymond says:

    Easy: tie it in the same bill as a measure increasing the minimum amount paid to retirees for Social Security. AARP will back that, and it will fly through.

    The fun part would be coming up with a common reason for both. Let’s see….

    The “Retirement Security Act” should do: increased minimums for SS give financial security, and the ability of retirees traveling from state to state to not have to worry about trouble with their self-defense methods gives personal security.

  47. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    GOP balls are in the Dems purses, You want Republicans with balls?? We will have to eventually replace the old-school members with a whole new class of aggressive republicans who still have theirs. I’m 62, I haven’t seen many GOP cajones in action in decades, just a lot of lazy fat career cats looking for warm comfy place to take a nap.

  48. avatar Darkwing says:

    It is not the job of the federal government, it is a job for each state. Get the frelling federal government out of the states business. This is a major problem today.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      No, no it’s not. The 2nd amendment has been incorporated under the due process clause of the 14th. This “states rights” bullshit doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The states have no authority to override federal law or violate the CotUS.

      1. avatar Gary says:

        They sure as hell do have a right to. The Fed’s have fingers in far too many pies. National Reciprocity is the same as gay marriage, abortion, and all the other bullshit. I would love to see it, but not at the expense of more Federal control. I live in a free state with Constitutional Carry laws, and we don’t sweat the Fed’s rules about suppressors, etc, NFA be damned. We can tend to our own areas within our States borders, and expect other patriots to be able to tend to theirs, not need the Fed’s to come in for ANYTHING. That’s the Democrats way of doing things, making one big melting pot of progressive crap everyone has to eat. Bunch of statists, so much for liberty, huh?
        It IS a States right issue, just as everything NOT listed in the US Constitution as being under the purview of the Federal gov. No healthcare, no education, gun control or lack of, none of it.

  49. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    Why am I not surprised? Here we are barely 3 weeks removed from dodging the bullet of a Hillary Clinton administration that would’ve cemented decades of a liberal activist SCOTUS majority that surely would have swept in unimaginable firearms restrictions and bans after the high court finished reinterpreting and dismantling the 2nd amendment; yet all the familiar TTAG regulars have settled upon national CC reciprocity as a pressing issue President Trump and Congress should tackle post-haste. Seriously? If nothing else it made for a good morning chuckle since just about all the usual [email protected]$$e$ except for the Nutty Buckeye and Goofy Hoosier chimed in with predictable commentary.

    There’s a staggering list of issues that threaten our Republic which the new administration and Congress must address quickly, and I hate to break the news to you fellas, but national CC reciprocity aint on or anywhere near the top of that list, probably not even in the top 100.

    I do however predict that the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act does have a much greater probability for success than does ratification of the Dean Weingarten U.S.- Mexico International Concealed Handgun Reciprocity Treaty.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Your point is well taken; National Reciprocity is #101. Somewhere near the top of the list is filling the seats of SCOTUS with original-meaning-ists; and, that ought to get us a SCOTUS that will respect the 2A and the 14A.
      In any case, a politician must dance with the one(s) who brung-her. We PotG were one of those who brought Trump over-the-top. So, Trump owes all of us politically; and, he needs to be reminded of that fact. In 2 years there will be another round of Congressional elections; in particular, there are a lot of Senate seats up for grabs. Depending upon whether Trump is faithful / faithless to the PotG we will either give him a more compliant Congress; or not. In 4 years, Trump himself will be up for re-election.
      We need to respectfully urge Trump to remember his promises to protect the 2A. He should get the message. We also need to be patient; we won’t get all we want in the first 100 days. Nor will we get all we want – EVER.
      The most important thing for us to learn is that we can’t expect a president to do all the heavy lifting for us. We should NOT WANT a president who is so powerful as to be able to do so. What our lord-and-master can give us, he could also TAKE AWAY. We need to be grateful that we will have a President who will sign pro-gun bills and appoint SCOTUS justices who will defend the 2A. The rest is up to US.

      We need to keep those cards and letters flowing into the offices of our Congressmen urging them to sponsor our legislative agenda; and, to our Senators, urging them to support Trumps SCOTUS appointments. Only a limited number of bills are going to get through the Congressional process. We need to push the LOW-HANGING FRUIT.
      Many of us – we PotG – are foolish. We want it ALL; and we want it NOW. If these voices are the prominent ones among us then we will fail. Instead, we need to think about what we are likely to be able to get through Congress. To illustrate, I’ll use examples from the NFA’34.
      The foolishly impolitic among us will want to rescind the NFA’34 in one-fell-swoop. The chances of that happening in 2 or 4 or 8 years are ridiculously low. What might be the lowest-hanging fruit in the NFA’34? Almost certainly, silencers. What is next? So, let’s consider SBS and SBR as candidates. An SBS is AKA a “sawed-off shotgun”. People will consider that term a pejorative. The merits of SBSs just won’t matter; it’s the rhetoric. An SBR is something that the public just doesn’t understand; and, so, they won’t care. Which of these two is the lower-hanging fruit? Can we figure this one out? Suppose we got this far; we could try to take on AOW. Not that we get anything meaningful out of AOW, but it just wouldn’t get anyone all that worked-up. And, we claim it’s ridiculous to send someone to prison for 10 years for not buying a $5 stamp. Move DDs to the law on explosives; now, you get rid of the $200 stamp and treat DDs like dynamite. Perfectly logical. What’s now left of the NFA’34? Hughes amendment and MGs. If we finally accomplished all the other steps, we could then probably repeal the Hughes amendment; and, that would be enough.
      We need to pick our battles and the sequence in which we pursue them. We need to build acceptance among the voters so that they allow their Congressmen to vote our way.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      THE first thing you do when you win an election (governing power) is eliminate everyone who disagrees/disagreed with you. Sooner or later, nominal allies will turn on you; get rid of them now.

  50. avatar Latoure says:

    The republicans will use the nuclear option
    Many times in order to Keep Trumps promises. Why would republicans just sit there and lose a bill vote when they have an ace card in the hole each time something’s up for vote? I don’t see the CCW Bill being any different. Harry Reid is regretting the day he invented this option. Lololol. Word of the day: Nuk’em! Hahahaha. It’s our turn now folks.

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