Posted on 03/07/2018 6:48:52 AM PST by rktman
When the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act was first introduced in January of 2017, it quickly garnered support from a number of Republicans in the House of Representatives, but this was not an indication of how the average American gun owner feels about the controversial legislation.
The bill's creator, Rep. Richard Hudson, justified the Reciprocity Act by saying, "Our Second Amendment right doesn't disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that."
For libertarians, this bill is not a matter of our Second Amendment right; rather, it's a matter of federal overreach. Under Concealed Carry Reciprocity, state gun laws would be rendered null and void, as anyone with a concealed carry permit in one state would be able to travel across state lines while armed.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The 14th Amendment applies applies the federal BOR to the states so the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is constitutional.
Case closed.
I agree with you. However, try that legal approach in NJ. I have had CCP from several states over the last 25 years or so. My current permit is recognozed as valid in 34 states. I can't visit my Sister in NJ unless I go unarmed or jump through a series of ridiculous hoops by disassembly of pistol, put disassembled pistol in a locked container, and store ammunition in a separate compartment of my truck. (Read truck bed) All of those hoops are accomplished at the Pennsylvania border. Then when I get to her home I must reassemble the fire arm and have available for self defense. Bottom line.....I don't go to the State of NJ for any reason.
Lets see if I got this right:
State cultural differences allow the different states to mandate different abortion restrictions? Nope.
State differences allow some states to enforce Jim Crow Laws? Nope
State differences allow some states to impose additional restrictions on self-incrimination? Nope
State differences allow sone states to prohibit carrying arms? You bet!
“The government is supposed to work for us, not against us.”
1. Who does he mean by “us”?
2. That goes for State and local government too.
3. “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”
CCW is a state issue. New York doesn't have reciprocity with your state? Then don't carry there. Don't feel safe in New York without a sidearm? Then don't go. Simple as that.
Your #2. Unless it wrinkles some AFSCME rules. Them unions.
Pass the law, have New York or California or whoever take it to the Supreme Court, and see what they say on the matter.
There is no question “National Reciprocity” violates the 10th AMendment. BUT it is a good place to insert the wedge against libtards, for a change. Let us have National Reciprocity until the SCOTUS can blow it away with “The 2nd A IS ‘national reciprocity’.”
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As someone with strong libertarian views, I don't appreciate gun grabbers telling me what I do or do not think about governmental powers.
No, I suppose a state could still keep their own subjects disarmed.
... as anyone with a concealed carry permit in one state would be able to travel across state lines while armed.
Oh, the horror.
Exactly...once something is “federalized”...it usually is loaded with so many restrictions or crap that it is impossible or not worth doing. Keep it at the state level and let the states recognize reciprocity. Don’t like your state’s laws regarding carry and reciprocity? Vote in different legislators.
The basic problem is that, though keeping and possessing of arms are without a doubt Constitutional, appeals to raw mindless emotionalism has kept the principle from being uniformly institutional.
States in which concealed carry is illegal should therefore recognize concealed carry licenses from states where it is legal.
Simple.
The oath of your elected officials includes the promise to protect the constitution.
So any gun law should result in feds sweeping in to annul it just like they do for any other civil right abuse.
On some level that sounds reasonable. But guess what? The seat of government is in DC. I should have a right to freely travel there for a redress of grievances. And I should be able to do so with all of my rights in tact.
...what is to stop them from saying that those CCW permits must have 40 hours of training? Or can only be issued to those above a certain age? Or other requirements?
Not all states have the same requirements for receiving a drivers license, but all licenses are recognized in every state. States should issue CCWs as they determine. And they should honor the CCWs of the other states.
And should you have the right to do that in the White House or the Capitol?
Not all states have the same requirements for receiving a drivers license, but all licenses are recognized in every state.
Not really, no. Kansas is an agricultural state. You can get a drivers license, with restrictions, at age 14. That license is not recognized as valid in Missouri or Illinois or Colorado.
Drivers licenses are valid in other states because other states choose to recognize them. CCW permits are recognized in other states when those states choose to recognize them. If one or the other is not recognized in a given state then there is nothing the federal government should be able to do about it. It's a state issue.
Exactly. So National Reciprocity is a way to force the SCOTUS to act.
Sorry, the Liberaltarians can “states rights” right up their ass on this issue!
The 2nd amendment doesn’t change when you cross state lines, the author is FOS.
“....the 2nd Amendment creates a right....” Uh, what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.