National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Except that it is not a liberty that we have today. That horse has left the barn. Now we’ve got to undue the damage that has been done, in a manner most likely to succeed.

Please forgive brevity and typos. Sent using my thumbs.

2 Likes

My idea of reciprocity is that by following the laws of my state, I am following the law no matter what state I am in. We have long ago passed infringement.
There really should not be gun laws. It is not legal to kill people. I don’t think there should be knife laws either.
No one is restricted from taking their hands on an airplane. Think of all the stranglings that could be prevented by hand control laws.
The real problem is not the implement. The real problem is that some people don’t follow laws. When those people are punished properly (murderers serving a legitimate and fitting sentence, like capital punishment) there will be fewer people who disregard laws.
A law concerning guns, knives, or even those “extremely lethal” (severe sarcasm) sound suppressors will never change any persons mind on the value of human life. The value of life must first be disregarded for an inanimate object to become a means for one person to take the life of another.
Will we outlaw matches to stop arson?
Will we outlaw baseball bats and sticks and trees to stop clubbings.
Can we erase arsenic from the periodic table to prevent poisoning?
What about tall buildings? We can prevent a lot of suicide by building height control laws.
I have yet to see a law imposed on goods that does anything to change the moral problems that are the real problem.

3 Likes

I do appreciate your point about morals and violent behavior needing to be addressed. Hallelujah on that.

I think though, that sometimes rules and regulations can be beneficial within the firearms rights community. I can go on forever writing about it, but if I had to use brevity, I’d refer to the questions on the background check form itself. Those persons on that “list”, I think shouldn’t be allowed to legally purchase. One of the reasons, is they should not be encouraged to “own” legally. Think about it in this way, your and my children are also out there in the same community as those strangers. No, I don’t want to make it legal for them to own. It should be harder for them to possess, I’m not gonna make any easier for them.

2 Likes

It is a fact that now every child that is born in the U.S. must have a Soc. Sec. number. Anyone who legally desires citizenship has one as well. What has saved us so far is that a lot of the databases that have our information are not interconnected with each other.

Making a CCW similar to a Driver’s License would fall into that same category.

At least for now.

Another saving grace we enjoy in this country is that our government agencies are just not very competent. They are not staffed by the brightest of people. Just thinking of having to go down to the DMV is enough to cause a brain embolism to burst. Staffing a National CCW Center most likely would be just as much of a nightmare.

But that still begs the case.

The Bill of Rights codifies “self evident truths.” The 1st and the 2nd amendment being chief of them all. Getting lost in the argument of a “well regulated militia” and its meaning will cost you the rest of your days in order to sort out the original intent of those that framed the Bill… As to the kind of weapons the framers called for, that would be the same. It is painfully obvious that what constitutes a weapon today was not reflective of the weapons of the time that the Bill of Rights was penned.

However, I am very confident that the flint lock was equally as devastating to those that only knew the stone tomahawk, and flint tipped arrows; just as an Modern Day Sporting Rifle is to those with flint locks and wrist rockets.

As an armed society, we will never be able to go back to the time when all one had to do to own a Thompson Machine Gun in .45acp was to place an order in a catalog, mail in a money order then wait for the postman to bring it to your door. Or just head down to the local gun store and pick up a car full of weapons and ammo like in the movie “The Highway Men.” That genie will never get back into the bottle.

There will be contention.
There will be compromise.
There will be those that see no need for any kind of weapon.
There will be victims.
There will be those who refuse to be a victim.

We must open a civil dialogue between them all somehow without compromising the rights of any.

Personally, I pray a whole lot. Not a whole lot more than I train though…Of course prayer is a whole lot cheaper.

That is the nature of the beast.

3 Likes

And what manner is that?

2 Likes

Continuing the state-by-state effort. When most states recognize each other, the federal recognition will be closer to “no brainer.” Or perhaps by then SCOTUS will have declared this whole scheme unconstitutional and we will truly have “not be infringed” as the environment.

2 Likes

I agree with the state by state effort. You start with your local cities, burroughs, towns, and counties, then state wide. We need to hold the elected officials accountable and if they do not do what they promise they get primaried and this continues untill they figure it out that they work at our pleasure and not the other way around.

2 Likes

I agree but, when they make more money than the average citizens, do any really think they care when the checks keep rolling in? As the old saying goes; MONEY RULES HERE!!!

1 Like

If you’re talking about the legislature, my state legislature avgerage is just over $17K and the state wage average is over 35K. So where does the money rule there?

2 Likes

Will your state is pretty good, I am from Chicago and I know they get more than that. And not all but some have their hands in something that they should not for some kind of gain. I also might have such distrust for politicians because of this but I do not trust any of them from the past nor present.

1 Like

Everything you said is correct. Because right now, in lots of states, it is a privilege. I’m in Massachusetts. :frowning:

1 Like

I here you. The Daly clan and forward to now. They all talk the talk but never walk the walk. If they once concentrated on real problems instead of the political flavor of the day we all would be better.

Have a nice day
Bill

3 Likes

I here you. From the time of the Daly’s to now. It would be amazing to solve the actual problem we all would be better off.

Have a nice day
Bill

3 Likes

That only works IF the state you moved to happens to recognize and accept your state’s permit/license. A lot of states are set up such that if this state doesn’t accept our permit, then we won’t accept theirs. You’ll notice that Oregon issues permits but won’t accept any other states’ license so none of the other states recognize Oregon’s permits. Since my own state won’t issue us permits at all (so-called “may issue” state, which means “no-issue”) I obtained a UT permit which currently allows me to carry in 33 states on the mainland U.S. Of course, this means I will NEVER visit the states that don’t accept my UT permit. I don’t like being unable to defend myself and my family when we travel.

2 Likes

I have those same concerns. However, as I live in CA and they don’t reciprocate with any state, I can see the value. Currently, 21 states have passed and signed Constitutional Carry legislation. There’s hope for more. CA probably not in my lifetime.

I agree with you, But National Reciprocity is one way to force the issue in those states like CA an NY to follow the Constitution.

2 Likes

Sorry, but I don’t agree in National Concealed Carry Reciprocity. Too many states are allowing concealed carry without any licensing requirement. The idea that some idiot jackass can carry concealed nationwide without any training or demonstration of necessary gun handling skills is not just stupid, it’s insane. Anyone who is going to carry concealed should be educated in the laws in their state and generally applicable statutes across the country.

3 Likes

So I guess you’re not a Second Amendment fan either. A “right” is not subject to training requirements or some other person’s (or government official’s) opinion on your level of skill or necessary training. Getting the necessary education should be a personal responsibility, not a government edict. You can’t have it both ways - honor the Second Amendment AND demand government involvement.

2 Likes

I’m absolutely a fan of the 2nd Amendment. I suggest you read Heller (SCOTUS 1980)

I presume you believe the 1st Amendment gives you the right to yell FIRE!! in a crowded theater? Or that states don’t have the right to require you to show proficiency before allowing you behind the wheel of a deadly weapon (car)?

2 Likes

Sir, I’m an attorney and very familiar with Heller and pretty much every other decision relating to the the Second Amendment at the level of SCOTUS and the circuit courts of appeals.

You either have a RIGHT (which “shall not be infringed - not “shall not be infringed except for this or that”) OR you have a PRIVILEGE granted to you by the government.

Your driver license example is a bad one. I read the constitution very carefully. There is no RIGHT to drive a car - that is a privilege granted by the state, which the state can condition as it sees fit.

Big difference.

3 Likes

Since you have read Heller, you know that Justice Scalia stated, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

So we know 1) The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. And, 2) The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on…laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Apparently your definition of “shall not be infringed” and SCOTUS definition of “shall not be infringed” disagree significantly. In this case, SCOTUS wins, you loose.

1 Like