I have had a lot of reservation on the topic of National Reciprocity. Specifically, that it will create a unified national database of people who carry a concealed weapon. Once they know exactly who is carrying, it is a small step in knowing who to visit first. I remember the terror that shot through the hearts of people with the 1968 Firearms Act and having to fill out papers to buy a gun. Talk then circling around the idea that it is exactly what happened in 1930’s Germany. I’m not sure about all that entailed, but the fear was real and palpable to my fathers generation. Why isn’t this bothering anyone else? Has this subject already been/being discussed here or by Tim? Where can I find information on the possible downsides to this legislation? Anyone else have some trepidations about this…?
How can the government pass a law on something we already have a God given right to? Time to clean out the politicians. Tar and feather them.
I did sign the National CC Reciprocity Act petition today. I am a veteran and a retired Army officer. I’ve carried open and concealed. I do agree that a national CC Reciprocity policy is needed but I also believe that it MUST include the requirement for a comprehensive background check of the holder. It is my opinion that the right to protect ourselves is not absolute and may be restricted from individuals who have demonstrated that they do not have the level of responsibility to use that right safely. I also do believe that the requirement to obtain proper concealed carry training is an essential part of obtaining that right.
Noble effort but Demorats will never pass.
I don’t know if this is the right way to do this. But here goes. Why is there so much negitivty here??? All of us True Blooded Americans have a Right here!!! How about all of us stand up and Fight for it, together!!! It’s been done before! Why not now??? Is this not America??? You all just need to grow a pair, and stand up for what you really believe in!!! All we need is a leader!!! I don’t know much about politics, but I’m ready to march, and defend Our constitutional rights, and ready to die for what our ancestors fought and died for…Question is are you???
I signed the petition, but let’s face it. This is nothing more than an exercise in futility. This legislation should have been introduced 3 years ago. Democrats are in power now. Even if by the grace of God Almighty himself enough Dems vote for this, both in the House and in the Senate, it will be vetoed by POTUS.
The White House is only required to respond to petitions on the White House website, and that page was taken down the day Biden was sworn in.
This petition is pointless.
Let’s turn this around. If someone has demonstrated, as you’ve said, that they don’t have that level of responsibility, what are we charged with regarding their protection?
If we deny someone the right to protect themselves, are we not then responsible for their protection? And what if we fail in that responsibility, do we too lose certain rights, having demonstrated we cannot meet some arbitrary level?
Or is the government responsible? And if that model is agreeable, why not then make it universal, and prohibit everyone from protecting themselves, and let the government take care of us all?
I just received an email purporting to represent me, a member of USCCA, as being in favor of National Reciprocity This is dead wrong. The low standards of a state like MS or AL should not usurp the higher and entirely reasonable standards of a state like mine in NC or WA.
Reciprocity laws reward the lowest standards across the nation and subject all of us, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, to the consequences of the most unstable and violent among us having the easiest and legal access to deadly weapons. That is entirely unacceptable.
It is absolutely reasonable and respectable to expect citizens to demonstrate they are capable of discharging the incredible responsibility that comes with owning, carrying, and if/when necessary using a firearm. This is just common sense.
That is an interesting idea. By virtue of the constitution, the federal government, the state governments and the municipal governments are charged with enforcing the laws of the land at each level. They implement that by law enforcement and the justice system for their citizens. The constitution currently grants citizens the right to arm themselves in their home as upheld by the latest Supreme Court ruling on that issue. As the constitution states, all powers not specifically designated to the federal government accrue to the states. And so the right to have and carry weapons outside the home is regulated by the states. If the federal government were to try and change the scope of the 2nd amendment in any way that would need to be ratified by the states and upheld by the courts. So, yes the government has the duty to protect us, from enemies foreign and domestic.
The underlying principles of the constitution, as understood by its framers, were based upon the philosophy of people such as John Locke, an English philosopher. One essence that was fundamental is that people exist in nature with free will, but when they join and participate in a society, as citizens, they must give up some of their free will rights to receive the benefits of membership of that society. Such as not taking the law into their own hands. Otherwise that society will fail.
No lawful citizen is prevented from surrendering their membership in this society and leaving to join another or move to someplace not ruled by a society. You just can’t have it both ways and expect it to work.
I am a federal officer (sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution). I am currently on the retired list. I can instantly be recalled to active duty by a stroke of the President’s pen until I die or resign my commission. I obey all the laws of our land to the best of my ability and enjoy the benefits that are granted to me. I hope all my fellow U.S. Citizens will do the same.
What ammo?
How is it that NO ONE in power of our wonderful government (choke choke) (that wants to take our rights away) understands, that all the laws in the world are meaningless to the (bad guy) criminal. All these reticulas new and old laws are only aimed at one thing and one thing only, and that is to disarm the American public so that total control can once and for all be accomplished! Wake up!! And once that happens, I hope you like planting rice, wearing the same little gray hats. Hello Communism! While I am on the subject, are you getting fed up with hearing the word “gun violence” please call it what it is “people violence” !!! and you have to ask yourself the question, when the bad guy gets in his truck or car and mows down several people killing them why don’t they call the car or truck violence?? and dido on the use of a knife , baseball bat etc. So why are they (Our wonderful government)(not) outlawing these forms of killing human life?? Again we live in a very sick and upside down world and it is only going to get worse. The bad guy will always be, no matter how many laws you pass or think of passing, there bad for a reason.
By the way Justin47 hit the nail on the head!
Thanks for your post Michael769.
I appreciate your sharing about the value of education and training. One thing our community imprinted upon me is being responsible and safer with the use of firearms. To me, it instills teaching discipline.
With the idea of national reciprocity, my first reaction is I would like it. Personally, I’m guessing that a “national” reciprocity would not pass, but I’ve been wrong before.
I see one of the Pro’s is being able to travel out of state within the U.S., and legally “carry”. I’m fortunate in that I can carry in 40 states, but not all can, as it’s not an easy process for us, and it still doesn’t include all 50 states. I’m grateful that some states do allow for carry without a permit, but I fear not requiring a permit means that person received less education and less training, and that concerns me from a “being responsible and safer” owner or carrier.
However, someone else pointed out to beware of the downstream ramifications, that if such a nationwide law were passed, beware if said law could possibly include limitations and end up taking some of our rights or freedoms away. Or will each state law overrule and trump the federal law? Could such a national law include fine print that could hurt some of our ideals or other values? And remember, changing or reshaping federal laws is a slower process, due to its magnitude.
Some of us do think that education, training, and background checks add value and responsibility to our ownership and carry rights. Another had posted elsewhere about looking at management of firearm use via critical thinking and reasoning.
When I hear our pro-firearm community argue that background checks or rules and regulations do not reduce crime but hinder law-abiding responsible “owners”, I get the impression that’s like mixing “apples and oranges”, mixing two or more completely different topics. I worry that such basis could actually hurt our cause, because it detracts us away from other more manageable rules and regulations we can be working on.
Other regulations or programs might be more appropriately targeted to reduce crime, such as education, jobs, social services, mental health work, tough laws, police and law enforcement.
However, the value of background checks, education and training for owners and carriers, can help reduce accidents, help others learn safe handling, help reduce theft of firearms, help reduce firearms getting into the hands of children, and teach how to best know when to or not to shoot in an emergency event; All values which our community instilled in me also.
One thing I also see, is that current U.S. government officials do come off as “anti-firearm rights”, so I can respect and admire we respond back to that climate. Sure sounds complex.
Though in support of our rights, I too signed that USCCA petition this past April 30th. In case anyone hasn’t yet seen the USCCA article & video with Tim S., I attempted to attach a link below:
Is anyone concerned that if this passes, it sets a bigger precedent that the Federal Government has authority over local sheriff and state regulation? Do we want the Feds issuing CCWs?
Thank you Burdo, I think we agree on all the key issues. I am sorry to say that the 2nd Amendment is all too often used as a threat when it is not one. The 2nd Amendment is limited in its scope and that has never actually been significantly challenged. The Federal Government cannot make significant changes to it without agreement of the States to amend it. And I believe that is a significant challenge to the concealed carry reciprocity law. On it’s face, it appears to me that to be a Federal law it would need to amend the 2nd amendment which would require concurrence of the states. And that gets more complicated by States such as New Jersey which only grant concealed carry to its own state residents. I would expect they would aggressively fight reciprocity.
Maybe we should consider national concealed carry law standards, to be adopted by the States, as a starting point. Which, if well prepared and vetted, might lend itself to a subsequent conforming Federal mandate of reciprocity by those standards?