National concealed carry reciprocity legislation

[Spike Jones 5 2002]

On the first day of the 115[SUP]th[/SUP] Congress, Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced national concealed carry reciprocity legislation. This is a far cry from an actual law, but the fact that it is making its debut so early in the legislative year is promising to millions of self-defense enthusiasts. Best of all, the proposed legislation covers Constitutional carry.

Rep. Hudson’s office published this summary of the legislation:
“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits. As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to get this legislation across the finish line.”

 

[MikeBrennan]

“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits"


BS.

The second amendment is a restriction placed upon the federal government by the States. It is not a request for permission or a grant of rights. Rights are not "granted" by state.

Nothing good will be gained by nationalizing reciprocity.

Leave it to the States.

 

[wtburnette]

There are pros and cons. Yeah, states should have final authority, but if we keep it that way, it'll never happen that we can carry anywhere, like we should be able to. You'll always have strongholds of liberal BS like CA and NY. I'm all for constitutional carry and/or national reciprocity pushed by whoever can do it.

 

[LarryC]

“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits"

BS.

The second amendment is a restriction placed upon the federal government by the States. It is not a request for permission or a grant of rights. Rights are not "granted" by state.

Nothing good will be gained by nationalizing reciprocity.

Leave it to the States.

I have to disagree, in this case the issue is that no state should be able interfere with our constitutional rights. There are many instances where Federal law is used to prevent states from enacting laws restricting the states from infringing on our rights. Laws against discrimination by states regarding Race, Religion etc. is already in place. If the above law is passed it certainly would eliminate all the various "traps" set by liberal states to prevent honest citizens from protecting themselves in those states. Obviously criminals are not effectively restrained from carrying firearms, only law abiding citizens. Personally, I cannot see a downside to this law.

 

[ATM]

I have a problem with any law purporting to provide law-abiding citizens any right. That's just absurd.

 

[KLB]

I have to disagree, in this case the issue is that no state should be able interfere with our constitutional rights. There are many instances where Federal law is used to prevent states from enacting laws restricting the states from infringing on our rights. Laws against discrimination by states regarding Race, Religion etc. is already in place. If the above law is passed it certainly would eliminate all the various "traps" set by liberal states to prevent honest citizens from protecting themselves in those states. Obviously criminals are not effectively restrained from carrying firearms, only law abiding citizens. Personally, I cannot see a downside to this law.

What about the precedent of the Fed being involved in our right to carry. What happens the next time the pendulum swings and the Dems have control of Washington again? Do we end up with a new Federal license with requirements along the lines of NY and California?

 

[Spike Jones 5 2002]

Saturday 01/07/2017 I attended the meeting with Congressman Pete Visclosky in Michigan City, city hall.
He stated that the individual states do not have the right to prohibit Gay rights and Immigration of people just because they might be a threat.
I challenged him as to why a state can prohibit our constitutional right to carry a weapon across state lines.
I have a drivers or marriage and it is honored in all 50 states.
He stated that should be set by the courts.
At a previous town meeting Congressman Pete Visclosky.
He stated that the United States should adopt the gun laws like Chicago has in effect.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yeah, states should have final authority,

States do not and should not have the final authority over our rights, e.g. Mississippi. We fought a long bloody war to stop the tyranny of the states.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I have a problem with any law purporting to provide law-abiding citizens any right. That's just absurd.

We tried the libertarian ways--magical thinking, wishing, and writing an L. Neil Smith book--but those did not work.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He stated that should be set by the courts.

Pete never understood the Constitution.

 

[HoughMade]

We tried the libertarian ways--magical thinking, wishing, and writing an L. Neil Smith book--but those did not work.

We're not supposed to think about what is and how to get to what should be. We're supposed to harrumph around about what should be and how we don't have it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We're not supposed to think about what is and how to get to what should be. We're supposed to harrumph around about what should be and how we don't have it.

Like I care about libertarian starwood points.

 

[ATM]

Which of us understands libertarianism more, do you suppose?

Keep talking, I'll get you a bigger shovel if you like.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Which of us understands libertarianism more, do you suppose?

Keep talking, I'll get you a bigger shovel if you like.

I've read everything L. Neil Smith has written. I understand libertarianism more by far.

 

[ATM]

I've read everything L. Neil Smith has written. I understand libertarianism more by far.

Just keep proving your lack of understanding, that's all I ask.

 

[migunner]

If you live in Indiana State gun laws are the way to go, if you live in thr Republik of California or NY, then the federal rules look better.

 

[ATM]

If you live in Indiana State gun laws are the way to go, if you live in thr Republik of California or NY, then the federal rules look better.

They're all illegitimate, so why should it matter which infringement one prefers?

 

[actaeon277]

Visclosky never met a gun law he didn't like.
He's consistent.

 

[KLB]

Visclosky never met a gun law he didn't like.
He's consistent.

He is a poster child for the need for term limits.

 

[HoughMade]

I've read everything L. Neil Smith has written. I understand libertarianism more by far.

Much like Subud, I will readily admit to having a passing familiarity with it, but that I am no expert. There's a lot of things that have no bearing on my life or reality as a whole that I am not an expert in.