Please support this in a short text e-mail to your 2 elected senators, and your 1 Congressional District Representative.
Just copy and past the same note to each that they vote for this:
(Maybe 2025 is the year we will see this happen.)
U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) has reintroduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38).
Representative Hudson, the longstanding champion of this legislation, along with more than 120 of his colleagues have sponsored this bipartisan bill to provide nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry license holders and residents of Constitutional Carry states.
I try to keep it cordial and respectful when asking an elected representative for support or their vote on anything; not that it is likely to change their mind if made up but, if the bulk of the communications that they receive is in favor of an item, and has not pissed them off alienating them from your cause by being unnecessarily rude.
Maybe they will seriously consider it in terms of gaining voters for their reelection bid.
As Biden-Harris-Waltz tickets found out a pissed off constituency / electorate is no why to win an election.
If the bulk of your voters want something, and your up for reelection, it might be shrewd to give them what they want.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said before here, I’m not in favor of this bill for one simple reason. Right now, concealed carry is a states issue. As soon as we open the door to the federal government regulating it, don’t you think they’re going to change it to be a very anti-2A thing once the other party gets back in office?
If we open the door for the federal government to start regulating concealed carry, they’re going to keep doing it. How many legal gun owners have been unjustly harassed by the ATF? Now imagine if the ATF suddenly became empowered to legally harass law abiding citizens when the next administration comes in.
That’s why I don’t support this bill. While it has good intentions, I’m looking at the bigger picture of years down the road, and I don’t see anything good coming from it.
We have had a major change of administrations, the one that just took office is a lot more pro-2A and likely to support this than the past blatantly anti-2A administration.
I see the constitution (2A) as federal. It is not a State constitution. It shouldn’t be a state law. The only firearm state laws are opposed to the constitution. If we don’t follow the federal gun law, we have no 2A. If we uphold the constitution, we have reciprocity. We can’t fight for our rights if we are afraid to lose them.
Here’s how I think about it. Everything that’s not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution is left up to the states. The way I read the constitution (and other important documents from the founding era) is that the founding fathers envisioned a very small federal government and everything else left to the states. Everything else, including regulation of most things.
We’re in the total mess we’re in today largely because the federal government has overgrown and overstepped what it was designed to do. In my view, adding another thing to the federal government’s control is not the way to fix the system. At best, that would be using the system for a few years. It’s no secret that everything the federal government touches gets exponentially worse within a few years, and there’s no reason to think concealed carry would somehow be an exception. It would get caught up in the bureaucracy that plagues this nation.
I advocate for what the founders believed in: leaving this issue up to the states. Yes, it is way more difficult to get it done this way, and way longer. It will take decades and educating the general public. But the results will be better, more efficient, and longer lasting. You won’t have 535 elected officials and several thousand unelected bureaucrats determine the course of a nation of 330,000,000 people. I advocate for grassroots change, which seems to be the only kind of change that lasts.
In the story of the tortoise and the hare, the tortoise wins for a reason. We live in an instant gratification society, but sometimes we need to slow down and take the long approach to things, even when it’s painful to do so.
So what you are saying is you want the states that don’t follow the constitution (2A)to catch up to the states that do. Not for all the states to follow the constitution(2A) because it would take too long to get all the states to follow the constitution. If other states lose their constitutional(2A) right then all would. That makes sense, I think. Do you think that will make the country safer or individual states safer?
I’m sorry you think a president/congress being elected guarantees that congress will, and always will, exclusively follow the Constitution as we see it. Somebody has mislead you greatly about how our government works, and I suspect you are unaware of even recent US history as it relates to Congress passing laws
No I think DJT being elected and with us behind him guarantees that Congress will and always will exclusively follow the constitution as we see it. My eyes have seen the coming of the glory of the Lord. If you have faith, you will believe it.
I think we are better off with faith/the power of positive thinking/or whatever you wanna call it then we are without it.
SINCE June 21, 1788!