CCW surge continues

[Dave Workman]

Concealed Carry Surge Continues as New Congress Takes Over

The surge in concealed carry is continuing across the country, and now that the 115th Congress has been sworn in, many in the Second Amendment community are looking to see whether there is swift action on one major issue: National concealed carry reciprocity.

Concealed Carry Surge Continues as New Congress Takes Over


Legally-armed citizens fight back, even in Chicago!

When a legally-armed citizen traded gunshots with a would-be robber on Chicago's South Side Chatham neighborhood, it reminded people in the Windy City that it is possible to fight back, which may be something the "capitol of carnage" desperately needs.

Legally-armed citizens fight back, even in Chicago!

Read More

 

[mjbskwim]

How many times are you going to make me write this
LEAVE THE FEDS OUT OF THE COCEAL CARRY BUSINESS
THEY WILL SCREW IT UP LIKE THEY DO EVERYTHING ELSE
They want to take our guns. Believe if you must that trump doesn't want to. But the government does.
A national reciprocity will just make a better,more accessible list of people of interest.
Work on the states first. Get people to go to their home states to change those laws then it will happen on its own.
Without the Feds screwing us
LEAVE NATIONAL CCP RECIPROCITY ALONE

 

[Dungannon]

I'm okay with national concealed carry reciprocity, so long as it is a federal law that every state has to honor permits from other states. Nothing more than that is needed: worst thing that could happen - federally issuing concealed carry permits.

 

[mjbskwim]

I'm okay with national concealed carry reciprocity, so long as it is a federal law that every state has to honor permits from other states. Nothing more than that is needed: worst thing that could happen - federally issuing concealed carry permits.

That's not even close to the worse that could happen

 

[DB is Here]

That's not even close to the worse that could happen

Still unconstitutional or illegal to have a National Registry though. WHat am I missing? Curious.

 

[mjbskwim]

Still unconstitutional or illegal to have a National Registry though. WHat am I missing? Curious.

OK my take is if the Feds get hold of it you will have to take a bunch of classes,they will make you have a shnit ton of bonding and restrict what you can carry. They would come up with more given the time.
Then they would have a better registry of who has guns. Maybe ever start a national registry to make it the same as the most restrictive states. Heck maybe take Idaho and other states constitutional carry away. Frank that!
I just don't see how it is better to have the Feds do this when the states can do it better.
YOU WILL NEVER GET THE WORST STATES TO GO ALONG ANYWAY!!!!
California won't. NY and NJ won't. You think Massachusetts will?
How about Illinois ?
He'll no! So why bother? Don't do business there.
If guys like Dave would just work on the mostly free states to have reciprocity with the states like Idaho,Utah,Florida and the others that do the non resident 30+ state permits,or work with states like WA to have an enhanced permit that takes a NRA class,then more states would except more out of state permits.
It can work itself out without it going to D.C. for them to bubblegum up.
I don't care how good anyone thinks they are some states will never except national reciprocity. So leave them alone and let them have the laws they want.
And let us free states have the laws we want.
My way would get more states involved faster

 

[nwslopoke]

Still unconstitutional or illegal to have a National Registry though. WHat am I missing? Curious.

Talk to California about that.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Rep. Hudson Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill

 

[Jim Horn]

I understand the concerns about a US federal law. Clayton Cramer has done some serious research on it and is worth the short read:

Clayton Cramer.: National Carry Reciprocity

PS: He's very much on our side! I've had the pleasure of working with him professionally. Not many software engineers / university professors that get quoted by the Supreme Court in multiple 2nd amendment cases...

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Clayton Cramer has done some serious research on it and is worth the short read:
...

Summary
Congress has authority to require states to recognize concealed carry licenses from any state and even to prohibit businesses from refusing to allow licensees to carry on private property. Passage of such a law has the potential to expand interstate commerce and improve safety for licensees across the nation.

 

[Stomper]

I get it about politicians STEALING your RIGHTS, then basically "selling" them back to you in the form of a "permit" or "license", but....

One of the U.S. Constitutional REQUIREMENTS of the Federal government is to defend the U.S. Constitutional rights of all citizens regardless of any Federal/State/Local law that may violate those rights. You don't think the Federal government has any business smacking back unconstitutional state laws? For example, were they wrong to force an end to segregation? Of course not.

It wouldn't break my heart one bubblegumming bit if there was Federal legislation that outright nullified any & all anti-2A laws from the Federal level all the way down to your local Illinois county and township patchwork BS, Oregon not withstanding.

My Constitutional rights don't stop at my property line, city limits, county lines, or state lines... and I'd like that to be the case (again) before I'm 190 years old.

 

[mjbskwim]

I understand the concerns about a US federal law. Clayton Cramer has done some serious research on it and is worth the short read:

Clayton Cramer.: National Carry Reciprocity

PS: He's very much on our side! I've had the pleasure of working with him professionally. Not many software engineers / university professors that get quoted by the Supreme Court in multiple 2nd amendment cases...

Not finding much of anything at that link to read.

 

[mjbskwim]

I get it about politicians STEALING your RIGHTS, then basically "selling" them back to you in the form of a "permit" or "license", but....

One of the U.S. Constitutional REQUIREMENTS of the Federal government is to defend the U.S. Constitutional rights of all citizens regardless of any Federal/State/Local law that may violate those rights. You don't think the Federal government has any business smacking back unconstitutional state laws? For example, were they wrong to force an end to segregation? Of course not.

It wouldn't break my heart one bubblegumming bit if there was Federal legislation that outright nullified any & all anti-2A laws from the Federal level all the way down to your local Illinois county and township patchwork BS, Oregon not withstanding.

My Constitutional rights don't stop at my property line, city limits, county lines, or state lines... and I'd like that to be the case (again) before I'm 190 years old.

I get this,I do but I just don't have much faith that ANYONE in government wants to give us our gun rights back.
I DO have faith in the fact that 99% of them would rather none of us have guns. Not for hunting either. Heck if you can hunt you can feed yourself and wouldn't need the government.
With this argument we still need to remember it's about control not about guns.

 

[DB is Here]

Talk to California about that.

States aren't National though. I hate the thought of a list, just trying to determine if that's the true end-game.

 

[theshake420]

OK my take is if the Feds get hold of it you will have to take a bunch of classes,they will make you have a shnit ton of bonding and restrict what you can carry. They would come up with more given the time.

What is so bad about taking classes? We don't want drunkards going around driving in boats and blowing themselves up in boats. Have you ever seen a boat explode? Its real not just a James Bond movie. Boats explode instantly when they crash.

And what do you mean by bonding? What is so bad about saying hello to an instructor?
The kinds of restrictions are trivial. If you need a fully-automatic uzi as a concealed protection device you need better choice in friends.

 

[mjbskwim]

What is so bad about taking classes? We don't want drunkards going around driving in boats and blowing themselves up in boats. Have you ever seen a boat explode? Its real not just a James Bond movie. Boats explode instantly when they crash.

And what do you mean by bonding? What is so bad about saying hello to an instructor?
The kinds of restrictions are trivial. If you need a fully-automatic uzi as a concealed protection device you need better choice in friends.

W.T.F?????
No idea WTF you are talking about

 

[oknow]

What is so bad about taking classes? We don't want drunkards going around driving in boats and blowing themselves up in boats. Have you ever seen a boat explode? Its real not just a James Bond movie. Boats explode instantly when they crash.

And what do you mean by bonding? What is so bad about saying hello to an instructor?
The kinds of restrictions are trivial. If you need a fully-automatic uzi as a concealed protection device you need better choice in friends.

are you for real????

 

[Sgt Nambu]

GOVERNMENT! Leave my constitutional rights alone!!! You all have an agenda and couldn't interpret a trd!

Thank you for your cooperation!

 

[mjbskwim]

GOVERNMENT! Leave my constitutional rights alone!!! You all have an agenda and couldn't interpret a trd!

Thank you for your cooperation!

So maybe the Feds do like WA does with the no preemption clause. Making it illegal for states to make laws greater than OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
But that won't happen either. Again,just leave the states alone than the idiots vote in gun control freaks. Let them have their laws that put their folks in jeopardy.
It isn't going to change any commerce. Crud they still make guns in those states. What,a salesman is going to lose a multi million dollar sale cause he can't carry a gun?
Hell no!

 

[PaulB47]

I looked at Hudson's bill (some skimming...). There does not appear to be any federal list involved (of course any amendments would need to be scrutinized). It's mostly a prohibition for states to prosecute individuals carrying with an out of state license. It does not address "constitutional carry" aka "vermont carry" at all, which means that would remain illegal outside your home state.

This is part of what is called "incorporation", which has been done for most of the bill of rights already (using the 14th amendment to enforce on states the federal bill of rights). It certainly amounts to another centralization of power, which is not a good thing, but power is so centralized already that worrying about it now amounts to closing the barn door after the horses are escaped.

The only real drawback is that the few states that serve the "needs" of gun prohibitionists (e.g. California) will be forced to accommodate gun owners. That's not bad from our point of view on this specific issue, but it's bad when that sort of thing happens to us. We have federalism for very good reasons, and this is against federalism (and I should add, against the 10th Amendment - but then the 14th Amendment violates the 10th also).