Next Post

The official Congressional website doesn’t have the text of Texas Senator John Cornyn’s bill S.446 (Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017). Fortunately, has uploaded a pdf of it. Click here to read it.

My hot take on Sen. Cornyn’s  bill is that it is not identical to Rep. Richard Hudson’s Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill introduced in January. While both bills would enact national reciprocity for holders of firearms carry licenses, there are a couple of differences.

(1) Constitutional Carry residents need a license. There’s no safe harbor for Constitutional Carry in the Senate bill. If you’re a resident of a Constitutional Carry state, and you want to carry in a different state, you do have to get a license. Now, it doesn’t require those residents to obtain a license from their home state –residents of the original Constitutional Carry state, Vermont, will be okay if they get a license from Utah or other non-resident friendly locale under the Senate version.

(2) This isn’t the bill New Jersey gun owners were hoping for. Rep. Hudson’s bill was very carefully worded in residency-neutral language to allow the possibility that ordinary citizens behind the lead curtain in places like New Jersey or Hawaii that only issue carry licenses to the connected and wealthy.

I discussed some of the potential problems with this seemingly neat idea here. The Senate version doesn’t go there. It states in pretty plain language that it applies to individuals carrying a concealed firearm “in any state other than the state of residence of the individual….” In other words, it’s saying: not your home state. (The analogous paragraph in Rep. Hudson’s bill put the period after “in any state.” It also includes a “rule of construction” that states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.

(3) No property games. Rep. Hudson’s bill included some carefully worded language concerning property, which I also mentioned in an earlier article, potentially giving a foothold to argue against state bans on carry that aren’t on state property (such as bans on concealed carry in bars or houses of worship.) The Senate version openly embraces State law here, stating very clearly that State law must be followed in all of its particulars.

(4) Unrestricted licenses. The Senate bill makes it clear that, in the event a State issues multiple classes of carry licenses (I gather some states in New England like Rhode Island do, and know that the U.S. Virgin Islands does as well,) the out-of-state licenses have to be treated as though they were ‘unrestricted’ licenses. This wasn’t in Rep. Hudson’s bill, and is a good addition, as it provides clarity on something that, frankly, there’s no reason to leave to the discretion of local cops and magistrates.

In short, the Senate version doesn’t quite have the ‘reaching for the brass ring’ feel of Rep. Hudson’s bill. It’s also a little more respectful of State sovereignty than the House bill. These aren’t necessarily bad things.

Don’t forget: these are only just initial drafts. The bills may both change significantly as they go through committee. Stay tuned for more updates.

Next Post


  1. I’m okay with either but I don’t know why they’re calling it the “Constitutional Carry…” bill. Seems confusing.

    • Probably because Cornyn is trying to head off *actual* constitutional carry at the federal level. The guy is a reliable macro-conservative (firm supporters of rights & freedoms as it pertains to large organizations & corporations), but much more wishy-washy when it comes to real, individual freedoms. Which is why he loves surveillance state stuff and watchlists so much, but is generally opposed to significant cuts to spending or authority.

      • @Muzzle Device.. Brother! I serve in the military and l’m stationed here CA.
        Don’t forget a lot of the military (Marines, MARSOC, Navy Special Warfare, ect. ect) is stationed here in southern CA.

        • Don’t be residents of California. Just be stationed there. Ask a law school civil procedure professor about it.

        • “If you want rights, don’t join the military” would be the corollary to that (no offense meant, it’s simple fact; service is about protecting others’ freedom, and giving up some of your own for a time in the process)

        • @barnbwt. “If I want rights, don’t join the military”? Sir, that is a load of BS on a snare drum.
          Because of the work I do, I have the same right as you to defend my family when off duty on american soil. Don’t sit here and tell me I lose that freedom just because I’m in the military.

          barnbwt says:
          March 1, 2017 at 22:33
          “If you want rights, don’t join the military” would be the corollary to that (no offense meant, it’s simple fact; service is about protecting others’ freedom, and giving up some of your own for a time in the process)

        • @FB – To the contrary: you made a choice, deal with it. You’re not the first and you won’t be the last. Some of us actually refuse beers in bars for our “service” but you correctly referred to it as your “job.” Your job was a voluntary contract, that includes all the bullshit that comes with it.

          Soldier the fuck up and drive on, hooah?

        • @Matt Richardson, Respectfully and to the contrary: joining the military does not remove the right to defend your family when off duty. It would be ludicrous to think otherwise.

        • Matt Richardson, your are out of your mind if you think you give up your constitutional rights in the military.

        • @FB – You must be a new recruit! Military regulations prevent you from exercising your rights in many ways. You are a G.I. (General Issue) and belong to the US government, you volunteered and signed a contract! You need to look up the regulations pertaining to ownership of weapons, the government has a lot to say about it. If you live in a state other than your “home of record”, you must follow their laws. Remember, even if you don’t violate a state law, you may be violating UCMJ. God gave you the right to defend your family and property, but politicians insist on regulating or removing those rights when they can get away with it! The Constitution doesn’t give us our rights, all it does is specify what our rights are and limits what government can do. Problem is, that the Constitution is worthless when “we the people” refuse to stop government from violating it!

      • If it is a constitutional right, then EVERYONE should have it.

        Having said that, I got the hell out of CA because I wanted to enjoy my rights.

      • People shouldn’t have to sacrifice (e.g. give up a good job, or move away from family) just to exercise a right.

        I know if WA went the way of CA, I’d have trouble finding good work in other states. The only places with a software industry that can match Seattle are in CA or states with nearly as terrible laws (SF Bay, LA, SD, Boston, NYC, etc.).

      • Not everyone has the finances to move, or may have other reasons not to move. I am one of them. A 4th generation Californian, I have elderly parents (90s) who live here on an original land grant. My father served in WW2 PI and Korea. His father served in WW1. I served in Vietnam and I am 100% disabled as a result. I have the right to live here, see to my parents, and enjoy my constitutional rights as an American citizen. I should not have to relocate in order to enjoy my rights.

        I should also have the support of those who believe in the Constitution and the 2d Amendment no matter where they live. I should not have to suffer the derision and insults flung by people like you against me or my state. After all, it could have been your state which went rogue. In such case, how would you like it if I said, ‘skrue u’, just move? Give up all you have ever known and leave. Would you find that preferable to being asked what we might do to help you?

      • Bullshit! Just because I live in New Jersey doesn’t mean I should be a second-class citizen. States’ Rights be damned, I want my Second Amendment rights and I shouldn’t have to move to get them.

      • You see the most stupid comments on this site, the intelligence some of these morons makes my head spin.

    • Well, there are large portions of NY and some parts of CA where you can get a carry permit just fine.

      If you really feel the need to find something good specifically for NJ\HI\MD etc look at it this way: suddenly those states are going to have residents of other states carrying there. It will sorta deflate the rationale, such as it is, for the silly permit laws as they stand there.

      I’d like to see it cover everyone, but I’m happy to see it cover most people. This would be a win. Not a full win, but a win.

    • If you like in NYC and this act passes, you can go get a virginia conceal carry permit. All you have to do is take an online course and submit finger prints and a form to virginia by mail. Then when you receive your permit you can carry if this act passes.

      Many states that allow conceal carry today recognize virginia’s permit for residents not in virginia.

      • S.446 would not help residents carry in their own states. The bill specifically states that it does not apply to anyone in their state of residence. The House version would work as you describe (if you’re right about the Virginia process; I have no idea on that point).

  2. H.R 38 initially also didn’t have the “in any state” verbage to cover out of state permit holders living in may-issue states. Enough people got in contact with Hudson and he appended the change. I highly recommend everyone contact their local representative not to co-sponsor until it does match H.R 38. Also contact, any other person or group that has access to Texas Senator John Cornyn’s ear.

  3. Oh man, here comes the major screwing I’ve been expecting. Sigh. Keeping Cali and NY and Jersey disarmed so they can live to repopulate and corrupt free states another day.

    This is exactly why gun control is still a viable threat. Half measures that don’t kill the evil at the root.

    • Marco- Correct. You and every other gun owner in America will be backstabbed on this deal, but it will be NRA lobbyists, not Congressman who administer the knife in the back. NRA hasn’t had a chance to collude with police unions yet to see what they would like to have in the bill for “officer safety.”

      NRA lobbyists, anti-gun police unions, and politicians: now there’s a witches brew.

  4. At least, this bill has a chance. It would be for a later law to include NJ, NY, Ca and Hawaii. I think that a resident of one of those states could get an out of state license to use when travelling through the other states. Not perfect, but a start.

    Something to remember is that although it may be legal, you have a great responsability here and many might not realize it until later.

  5. Ah… But here’s the beauty. They only need the neutered version to get it past closure. Then it will have to be reconciled with the hose bill, and I expect I know which bill is intended to come out the other end.

    • I’m curious why you think backroom deals will tend towards freedom rather than elitist tyranny. Which the senate is notorious for.

      • Marco- “I’m curious why you think backroom deals will tend towards freedom rather than elitist tyranny.” Don’t debate with NRA members, you would have to lower your I.Q. by thirty points.

        Wait until the police unions butt in and cut deals with the NRA. Every state in America will end up with criminal penalties for gun-free zones and Duty to Inform as NRA did in Illinois. Later the federalized carry license can be adminstered by ATF.

  6. Get any bill passed and law. States like my NJ can take it to court under the 14th equal protection clause. Don’t let a good bill die because it’s not perfect.

    • Here we go again. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” The Mantra of Losers and Slaves.
      Along with:

      “We need to start somewhere.”
      “This is our best chance at getting some kind of bill passed.”
      “Once we get a bill passed, we can always change it later.”
      “Once we get a bill passed, it only takes a majority to change it.”
      “It’s important to get a working bill passed first.”
      “It takes ten years on average to improve a concealed carry bill.” (Actual quote of Richard Pearson, Masonic Grandmaster of ISRA, the Illinois state tumor of NRA)

      NRA would go out of business tomorrow if the average member didn’t have the I.Q. of a common house plant.

      • So how’s that national Constitutional carry been going? We got that yet? Huh? No?

        Maybe you should learn from the antis how to win victories- incrementally, bit by bit, taking a slice at a time and calling it ‘compromise’

        Because you’re getting nowhere with whatever you’re doing.

  7. This has always struck me as a tricky issue. On the one hand Conservatives and Libertarians are all about States Rights… until the state does something they don’t like then they run to big daddy Fed and ask him to step on the States.

    Of course, OTOH, we have the 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine…

    Eh, once we got away from the Founding theory of this country and the states started ignoring their own Constitutions everything went to shit.

    • States rights had a nice ring to it. Barry Goldwater was really the last chance we actually had to adhere to that. Reagan used it for votes, and didn’t manage to spin it into anything durable.

      States rights is a failed doctrine. Just hear Democrats are now yelping about states rights and federalism to hear the sound of a failed policy. Rightly or wrongly, that doctrine has left us fighting with both hands tied behind our backs. Trump got elected because he finally was willing to take the restraints off. After we win some fights, maybe we can get a bipartisan deal.

      Further though, states rights was mooted with fundamental rights under the 14th amendment. We’re never rolling back civil rights act, so fine. Lets play that way, as opposed to being principled and losing like we have for decades. Especially over fundamental freedoms.

      Trump understands that action, not just refusing to do nothing matters. When you do nothing, it means you lose even after you win. It’s just slower.

  8. Looks like I’m still moving to PA…

    So let me get this straight. If I move to PA, I can use an out-of-state CCW to carry in NJ, but if I stay in NJ, I can’t use an out-of-state CCW to carry in NJ. The amount of sense this makes is exactly equal to zero.

    • “The amount of sense this makes is exactly equal to zero.”

      That is the only thing that makes me think this might work.

  9. “I discussed some of the potential problems with this seemingly neat idea here.” Thank you for this link; I had missed it from 31Jan17. That post is the only thing I’ve seen (other than my own postings and e-mails elsewhere) that seriously considers the risk of Won’t-Issue States arresting victims, prosecuting them on the grounds that the N-R legislation exceeds Congress’ power under the purported/implicit pretext.

    In that respect, I disagree with your opinion that my merely strolling across the Delaware PA->NJ bearing a gun of any manufacture puts me under “interstate commerce”. I might be on merely a stroll. I might buy an ice-cream cone in NJ and eat it in NJ; or, carry it back to PA and eat it at home. None of these strike me as interstate commerce. Likewise, even if my gun were shipped from CT->PA, I’m not convinced that that commercial shipment brings my carry-for-leisure into NJ “interstate commerce”.

    In any case, in that previous article, you identify the risk of any N-R law being found – in part – under the wrong circumstances – an over-reach of Congressional power (whether interstate commerce, 2A, etc.)

    I perceive, for example, that honoring CWPs issued to bearers by the bearer’s home-State, as perfectly WELL founded under IV-1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, . . . of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

    However, if the CWP is issued by a State other than that where the bearer can claim residence, then there is a SLIGHT risk of prevailing in an argument that Congress over-reached; particularly so if the prosecuting State can claim that the bearer is a resident of the State where he is carrying without a resident CWP.

    Now suppose the bearer has claim to residence in a Constitutional-Carry State; the prosecutor will assert: “Show me the ‘Act’!” The defendant will hold-up the C-C State’s statute; which the judge will cheerfully rule (as a matter of ‘law’) inadmissible.

    I hold that the solution to the problem under discussion is a series of “rifle-shots” plus a “shotgun” shot. Let’s find every possible Constitutional power under which a bearer – given the applicable circumstances – can make a claim. E.g., that a bearer traveling in interstate commerce (truck driver, traveling salesman) has N-R under the pretext of interstate commerce. A bearer holding a CWP issued by a State where he has a legitimate claim to residence has N-R under a pretext of full-faith-and-credit. A prospective bearer in a State where the applicant has no claim to residence has a right to a Shall-Issue non-resident CWP under a pretext of due-process and equal-protection. Each of these is a “rifle-shot” to a particular class (persons indisputably engaged in interstate commercial activity) have an unassailable claim to a protection that Congress is empowered to grant. These several bullets will – I concede – leave-out some lamentable number of people (my illustration is a female Vermont-resident hermit who inadvertently carries her shotgun into NY). These may claim protection under the “shotgun” clause that attempts to cover “the People” under all possible pretexts. These remain vulnerable to being victimized.

    I hold that almost all of us who are seriously interested in interstate carry will secure a CWP from their home-State – or a friendly non-resident State – and then use that CPW to carry in NJ, MD, NY, DC, CA, etc. These Won’t-Issue States won’t be able to stop such an N-R regime with respect to the well-targeted protected cases; and, eventually, they will give-up and become (first) May-Issue and (eventually) Shall-Issue with respect to their own residents and non-residents for whom we can’t easily identify an umbrella (our Vermont female hermit).

    • ‘In that respect, I disagree with your opinion that my merely strolling across the Delaware PA->NJ bearing a gun of any manufacture puts me under “interstate commerce”’

      Unfortunately everything is “interstate commerce” thanks to the SCOTUS. Even growing hay on your own property using nothing you bought out of state and with no intention or ability to sell either the hay or the horses you feed with it out of state is “interstate commerce”.

  10. The 2nd Amendment does not stop at the state line and that is what this bill says. I will be happy to finally be able to go through NJ without needing to worry except to comply with the state law. If this bill becomes law I am going to take my M1 and take a drive to AL to shoot at the CMP range

    • Except that as much as we sometimes love “strict scrutiny” we ignore it here.

      The 2A only limits the fedgov… well it did until the 14A incorporation doctrine became a thing…

      Under an “originalist” reading the 2A doesn’t mean fuck all unless it’s in your state Constitution.

      • Meaningless statement. The 14th Amendment, which holds states to the Constitution, was not around ‘originally’ but the practice of making Amendments WAS originally planned for within the original document.

  11. A step forward in securing our rights and someone finds a reason to bitch! BTW, active military definitely deserves to enjoy the rights they protect! Soldier on my young brothers! #alltheway

  12. In this form it s “only! an big privileg only for non may issue state residents and discriminated the may issue residents …………
    That must correct !

  13. Wow, some great thought here, I have read all the posts. First, I did my 6 years at MCAS Tustin, CA. I would not say that you lose some rights in the Military, but you do lose some privilege’s, but you get some benefits. The Military is the ultimate Democrat/socialist institution. You are told when, where, how, and sometimes why. At first you get everything as an entitlement, including food, clothing, medical, dental, counseling, housing, etc. But you MUST do as told/assigned. In this respect you do lose a lot of freedom, but you can always leave if your willing to suffer the shame and possible loss of voting/gun rights. OTH vs. Dishonorable Discharge. But the Military makes all this very clear when you sign your name. Some hate the structure, some love it. But most of us never regret it.

    I spent another 14 years in CA until I could see the writing on the wall. CA, like the other Socialist States will NEVER change, the people have this mentality engrained in them from childhood, from their parents, and their grandparents before them. And in CA’s case the millions of immigrants that came from Socialist and corrupt Countries have further set their law’s in stone. The 9th Circuit has proven this over and over. Even most law enforcement in these States are vehemently anti-gun. They fear an armed public. I have personally had conversations with several that told me how uneasy they felt when they came to AZ or UT on vacation and saw Citizens carrying sidearms, and how they could not believe that it was legal.

    I packed everything up and moved to AZ in 1999. I moved to AZ with $6,000 in my pocket, no job, and nowhere to live. My wife and kid were totally freaked out. Put all my stuff in a storage unit, got a motel, and a week later rented a decent home. I had a job in two weeks, and within a year had a great job that I loved. It just takes guts to say I’ve had enough, and just do it!

    I would be a felon if I had stayed in CA, but in AZ all my guns are legal, my cars are legal, and I’ve had a pistol on my hip every day for almost 20 years now. I used to tell others I was proud that they are staying and trying to fight the good fight, but as the years have rolled on, my position, as with many others ischanged. If you think these Socialist States will ever change, you are wrong. It’s a numbers game, you our severely outnumbered in CA, NJ, CT, etc. and the number of commie-libs in these States just keeps growing. It’s time to get out and protect the Free States that we still have influence over. We need you here, let the commies keep the States that they have. You cannot defeat a State Government that has brainwashed it’s Subjects, and promised them security and false liberty in exchange for votes and welfare. You are overwhelmingly outnumbered, and we cannot help you there.

    Also I, like others in this thread, do not believe that this or any other Federal legislation will pass, ever. Most of the Republicans are not Conservatives on the hill, they are all in bed together with the Democrats, putting on a big show for all of us to see. Sure a tidbit here and there, but the next Democrat/Socialist President will seal our fate for eternity. It’s the numbers again, big Cities, Universities, Government employees, and our young that have no interest in our History, in the Constitution, or in the Millions that gave their lives for our Flag. They will have their cake, and eat it too, we will be forgotten, save for a short paragraph in a history book,about how evil Americans used to once own and carry guns.

  14. No relief for citizens in slave states? This bill can officially suck it now. I either want it all or nothing, tired of these half measures which keep stringing gun owners along to ensure they continue to vote Republican.

    This is the Republicans last shot. If they can’t restore my rights by 2020 my vote is gone.

    • A proper NCR bill should have been on Trump’s desk and signed January 20, 2017. Sloppy GOP work habits keep them from getting their work done. If they were employees in any business they’d have been fired for poor job performance long ago.

    • Adam- “..tired of these half measures which keep stringing gun owners along to ensure they continue to vote Republican.”

      Half measures give NRA lobbyists job security to “fix” the shit bills they put up in the first place. Losing is winning for NRA.

    • Just don’t carry a double stack and critical defense (the plastic inserts get around the hollow point restrictions). But we are better than where we are.

  15. And the back pedaling begins…..

    “We didn’t get what we want, maybe next time….”

    “It’s not that bad…..”

    Uh huh. Told ya so.

    You think these turds are going to improve by way of the committee and amendments processes? They’ll get watered down and worse. Wait until they start piling on the “compromises” and lopping off your freedoms.

    These bills will eventuate in a law that is NRINO: national reciprocity in name only.
    When Trump and the GOP deliver this latest back hand across your front teeth, then like battered wives Trumpkins across the country will just take it and declare “But I LOVE him!!!”

    You heard it here first.

    • 100% correct. Next you’ll hear, “The perfect is the enemy of the good” the Mantra of Losers and Slaves that NRA & ISRA sold to the retarded hicks in Illinois. Then pearls of wisdom such as:

      “We can change that part later.”
      “The important part is to get a working bill passed.”
      “Once we get a bill passed, it only takes a majority to change it.” Etc.
      (Actual verbatim statements uttered by NRA state lobbyist for Illinois Todd Vandermyde circa 2011-2013)

      NRA lobbyists will collude with the anti-gun police unions in the back rooms and hallways, they will insert federal background checks conducted by the FBI, stick in criminal penalties for every violation of the national carry act plus Duty to Inform (for citizens, not cops, they are exempt under LEOSA) and the licensing will end up being administered by the ATF over time.

      Yet another example of why gun owners constantly get taken advantage of by the Republican party and NRA, Inc.: the average NRA member has 7th grade reading comprehension combined with the I.Q. of a turnip, along with a child-like faith that their “leaders” know what’s best for them.

  16. California, NY, NJ are part of the USA, therefore gun rights apply there as well as to Vermont or Wyoming. Any bill that neglects the rights of gun owners in these states is a bad bill. It’s either all or nothing.

    States like New Jersey have so much crime that we should push for mandatory carry bills.. the citizen has a duty to carry, it’s a duty to his fellow citizens. Every citizen who neglects his self-defense allows criminals to flourish and thus threaten his fellow citizens. Think about it. When you leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, you allow car thieves to flourish, you become a crime enabler. The enablers are almost as guilty at the perpetrators of crime. Stop being an enabler: carry your gun, report suspicious activity, fight crime in your neighborhood.

  17. 100% correct. Next you’ll hear, “The perfect is the enemy of the good” the Mantra of Losers and Slaves that NRA & ISRA sold to the retarded hicks in Illinois. Then pearls of wisdom such as:

    We can change that part later. The important part is to get a working bill passed. Once we get a bill passed, it only takes a majority to change it. Etc., ad nauseum.

    NRA will collude with the anti-gun police unions in the back rooms and hallways, they will insert federal background checks conducted by the FBI, stick in criminal penalties for every violation of the national carry act plus Duty to Inform (for citizens, not cops, they are exempt under LEOSA) and the whole thing will end up being administered by the ATF over time.

    Yet another example of why gun owners constantly get taken advantage of by the Republican party and the lobbyists at NRA: the average NRA member has 7th grade reading comprehension combined with the I.Q. of a turnip, combined with a child-like faith that their “leaders” know what’s best for them.

  18. I thought this issue was settled 200+ years ago. If we need a bill saying the second applies with permission in all 50 states why don’t we need a bill for every right guaranteed by the Constitution?

  19. Fortunately there is no such thing as a ‘gun permit’ in Vermont. It’s never had any such thing nor is there any structure for one. It’s in our state constitution as well as the federal one. I’m still fortunate to live in a state that you don’t need to apply to the government for your constitutionally guaranteed rights. Everyone in all the ‘gun permit’ states should begin demanding an application for your 1st, 4th, or 5th amendment protections. When you’re told there is no such thing then you should ask why there is one for the 2nd…

  20. Those of you who advocate the “all or nothing” approach should learn about how the gun-grabbers eroded the Second Amendment from what it used to be. It wasn’t all at once. It was incremental, a little bit at a time. It was what Mayor Willi Brandt of (then) West Berlin called “The Old Salami Game” when dealing with the Russians. They take a just a little bit of your salami at a time, not enough to make a fuss about, but before you know it, they have the whole salami. Our gun rights went the same way – and it’s by the same way we’ll get them back. Take what we can when we can get it.

  21. It lost me at the word “allow”. It should say “enforce”, then show how the Constitution already mandates reciprocity, and go from there.

    Why? Because if the argument is that the government can “allow” reciprocity, then it is establishing that the government can eliminate reciprocity and forbid states from establishing it between themselves.

  22. The problem I see with this bill is that it does not protect concealed carriers from other gun laws passed by anti-gun states. “You have a CCW licence, no problem, however, you are carrying an illegal firearm on this state (not on the approved list, ‘ high capacity magazine’) so you are going to jail”

  23. Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Constitutional – Is a Trojan Horse..
    The bill is a dastardly trick and a Trojan horse for institutionalizing licenses, permits, national ID cards, etc.

    And the end game of all those licenses, permits, national ID cards and such is eventual confiscation of all arms.

    And after that extermination.

    Here is the 2014 edition:

    Also, the federal government has no constitutional authority to make ANY laws dictating who may and who may not carry arms; or under what circumstances people may and may not carry arms across State borders! Arms control of the people is not an enumerated power!

    video on arms, here it is:

    State concealed carry laws which require a “permit” is an idea crafted in the pits of h ell. The real purpose is to register gun owners! People think it is so cool to have a permit for concealed carry – they don’t understand that it is like the free sample of heroin.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here