Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues

Bookstore
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 Kindle Publications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Discount Books
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

More
 BHM Forum
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Lost Password
 Write For BHM


Link to BHM

Massad Ayoob on Guns

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.



Massad Ayoob

NATIONAL CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY

Monday, January 30th, 2017

Of all the legislation we advocates for gun owners civil rights are expecting from the new administration, long-hoped for national reciprocity for concealed carry is in my view the most important.  There are too many jurisdictions where residents can’t get permits to carry unless they’re judges, movie stars, or super-rich with political pull.  Law-abiding gun carriers in “free states” can’t exercise their right to protect themselves and their families in public when business, pleasure, or family take them to numerous American jurisdictions from Hawaii to New York. Behold the already introduced HR38.

As written, it would appear that a resident of, say, San Francisco who currently pretty much has to get elected to the city’s Board of Supervisors to qualify for a permit, would be able to carry in their home city on a non-resident permit from Utah or Florida if HR 38 became the law of the land.  And their law-abiding friends and relatives all over the country could carry for their and their loved ones’ protection while visiting.

Predictably, the possibility of nationwide concealed carry drives the anti-gunners nuts. The National Rifle Association and its Institute for Legislative Action has this to say about that.

Many on the pro-gun side have stated that they don’t like the idea of Federally-enacted reciprocity.  One reason often stated is, “What the Federal government gives, the Federal government can take away.”  So, if we get it and four or eight years from now it is repealed, where are we?  Why, right back where we are now. So, what will we have lost compared to now?

Another argument against the bill is that it violates states’ rights. That’s debatable. Here’s a scholarly take on it by old friend and brilliant researcher Clayton Cramer.

NRA-ILA is supporting it. Ditto Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and an organization where I’ve long served proudly on the board of trustees, Second Amendment Foundation.  Needless to say, I support it too.

I am very much interested in you folks’ take on it.

50 Responses to “NATIONAL CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY”

  1. Dennis Says:

    I am in favor of reciprocity legislation, but I expect the legislation will end up requiring some standardization on basic training, proficiency, and background checks, and require “constitutional carry” states to set up a permit system in order for their citizens to be covered. This is what occurred when nationwide carry for law enforcement officers came about.

    I would prefer a reaffirmation by the Supreme Court of the 2nd Amendment as an inalienable, individual right, not to be infringed on or regulated by the government, as was originally intended, in an clearly worded, unambiguous ruling.

    Don’t forget that “those who dream of totalitarianism” will never give up. Sorry Dave, I can’t help myself. Still friends.

    My fear with this legislation, if successful, could, in the future, suffer the same fate as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.

  2. Jim Hilbun Says:

    I have 5 licenses. When I travel there is still the chance I will travel through a state for which does not have reciprocity with any of my licenses. This is just a problem waiting to happen and almost like entrapment.

  3. Fred Says:

    National Concealed Carry Reciprocity would great and exactly what this country needs. However, it must happen on its own merits (there are many) and not because of a negotiated settlement in which something like Universal Background Checks, or weapon/ammo/magazine restrictions are given to the dogs in order to get the bone. There is no compromise to this. Learn from the past and commit no more mistakes.

  4. Penrod Says:

    Another way to achieve protection would start with charging the entire DC City Council, the DC Mayor, and the Chief of police with felony violation of the existing 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights, moving on to charge Chicago, California, Maryland, and Hawaii legislators.
    Relevant part of text:
    “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;…

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

    THAT would get their attention. Especially since they are guilty.

    Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

  5. Gary V Says:

    I’m located on the West coast and if I remember some stats, I think there is only a single (1) CCW issued for San Francisco County……. I assume that is our illustrious Diane FineStein’s permit. “Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in!” I regress………

    I agree there will probably be some compromise: i.e. training, picture ID, etc.

    But what will happen in, say California and other states: where you come from “firearm friendly” Wyoming and can carry a 50 round magazine, unlike the California Law = Ten (10) round max magazines; a firearm cannot be within one thousand (1,000) feet of a SCHOOL yard = gun free zone; if left in a vehicle, muse be locked in a approved container; etc. etc. etc.

  6. Tom606 Says:

    Oh No! If this becomes law, then currently crime free cities like Chicago, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, etc. where no honest residents have access to evil firearms will see their once peaceful streets run red with blood and bodies pile up in mass when crazed gun nuts under the influence of diabolical assault weapons blast everything and everyone in sight.

  7. Steve from MA Says:

    There’s no doubt this will drive antigun big city mayors, governors, and, of course, liberals, absolutely nuts. In the short term, it would make all of us LTC people want to travel more more knowing we’re safer in LA, NYC, etc.! In the long term, the potential adverse effects have been mentioned. Additionally, states that don’t require LTC now will need to enact one to get their citizens a state card so they can go national? Can we grandfather in us old guys carrying LTC now so we just get the new National Firearms Security card without hassles? Or do we all not get a new card, just show our state cards when traveling? Does some 1984 President get the master list and round us all up someday?

    Is Congress smart enough to cross dot the i’s and cross the t’s and not $&&@ it up? Time will tell.

  8. TN_MAN Says:

    Naturally, I am a strong supporter of concealed carry reciprocity. Given the crazy patchwork of carry laws across the U.S., it is badly needed. There are several web sites that do nothing except try to keep up with this national patchwork of laws and provide a resource so that concealed carry holders can try to figure out all of the various laws in all the various States.

    Of the provided links, I found the paper by Clayton Cramer most interesting. He discusses all the various ways that a National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Law could be found “Constitutional” by the courts. There appears to be numerous ways to justify it ranging from the 2nd and 14th Amendments, to a Right to Travel to the Commerce Clause.

    It was interesting to me that he skipped over Article IV – Section 1 – The Full Faith and Credit Clause. This clause says:

    “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the Public Acts. Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

    This clause has been applied in various areas including orders of protection and marriage licenses. The issuance of a Concealed Carry License is certainly an official act of a State as much as the issuance of a marriage license.

    Furthermore, this clause gives Congress direct authority to “proscribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved.”

    I make no claims to be a legal expert on Constitutional Law but why couldn’t concealed carry reciprocity be constitutionally justified under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause”? To my simple mind, it seems a more direct path and more logical approach than using McDonald vs. Chicago to “incorporate” the 14th Amendment and then base the justification upon some extension of that!

    Yet, Clayton Cramer did not even mention this as a possibility! I find that strange. If there is some problem with this approach, perhaps someone who knows more about the Law (then I do) can explain it to me.

  9. Marc-Wi Says:

    I like it as a clean bill but is that what we’ll wind up with?

  10. Curtis Says:

    Conscientious, honorable, moral, self-regulating gun owners have been maligned by various societies’ “progressive” glitterati since the days of matchlocks and flintlocks. Fast forward to January 2017.

    First, Dems are in the dumpster nationwide, having experienced epic, numbing losses of federal, state and local executive and legislative offices. Boom, boom, out went the lights!

    Second, our enduring Republic has a President who holds a current NYC resident license to carry a firearm for personal protection, as does his oldest adult son. Be still, our collective and individual hearts.

    Third, the two older adult sons of the aforementioned President are avid, enthusiastic big game hunters and conservationists whom the late great TR, an 1895 Lever Action .405 Winchester Rifle fan who hunted African game with gusto, would most definitely admire. That’s a fact, Jack!

    Fourth, this is not the time to break bread with, to chat with, to compromise with, to converse with, to dawdle with, to debate with, to drink tea with, to make peace with, to say pretty please to, to take leisurely strolls with, or to waste valuable minutes and hours listening to the hysterical, incessant wailing of 2017’s “progressive” glitterati about alleged apocalyptic results of private firearms carriage being deemed lawful in all fifty states of the USA and about the clear meaning of the Second Amendment as written so wisely by the Founding Fathers in the 18th Century. (Yes, that was a deliberate, run on sentence.)

    Fifth, right now is the perfect time window in which to advise all hateful haters of firearms and all hateful haters of those law abiding citizens of the USA who own and carry firearms to hear this unambiguous message loudly and clearly: “Shut up and get out of the way! H.R. 38 is on a roll, big league, and it will not be stopped. Believe me.”

  11. Jo Ann Says:

    National reciprocity should be similar to the current drivers licenses situation and kept as simple as possible. Each state sets its standards for issuance – there is no universal trading standard. Many of the states that issue out-of-state permits are becoming restrictive as to where else the permit is valid.
    I hope the legislation passes and soon.

  12. Tom Tomasi Says:

    Mas,
    What is you take on the variability between the states on training requirements to get a license. There is everything from “fill out a form” to 2 days of training with a qual course on the range. Everyone will apply for an application from a state that grants licenses to non-residents with no training. Do you think people should be allowed to conceal carry with absolutely no training in safety, handling of a pistol or legal criteria (AOJ) ?
    Thank you

  13. Jack Says:

    We as a nation are long overdue in recipatotory carry.
    As an example I’m a retired police officer and I can carry in all 50 states under LEOSA however I’ve encountered police supervisors who stated it only applies to active officers which is not the case. Another example my CCW from my home state while traveling my spouse who has her concealed carry permit has to leave her gun at home because we have to stay in one state for a week that doesn’t recognize our permit.

    This is all patched up, misinformed police officers in some cases and chances of getting arrested just to legal carry. One law in every state would eliminate all of the guess work and you’re not going anywhere without you’re concealed weapon if you choose so.

  14. Walt White Says:

    I never understood why the “full faith and credit” that makes my driver’s license, marriage license, and license plates good anywhere doesn’t apply to my concealed pistol license.

    Having said that, most if not all states say you have to be a resident of the state that issues a drivers license. I can understand the same logic applying to concealed pistol licenses.

    Finally, I think the whole idea of a license to save your life is obscene. But I think this is the best we can hope for right now.

  15. glenb0 Says:

    I’m all for it. If there are bugs, we can work them out after getting it passed.

  16. Tionico Says:

    I read the study your friend provided. Good stuff. But I felt it to be weak in that it failed to deal with the “shall not be infringed” part of that Second Article, which I take to be a mandate for all government at all levels to assure our right to arms is NOT infringed… by anyone anywhere at any level. They did it with the Civil Rights Act…. no one can be prohibited public accomodation on the basis of race. Anywhere.
    As each state ratified the Constitution as a part of its joining, that state agreed to all the terms and provisions of the WHOLE US Constitution.. that INCLUDES our right to keep and bear arms.

    FedGov are not provided any authority to infringe on our right to arms. By the wording of that Second Article, states are prohibited infiringement.

    That aside, I am firmly planted on the idea that any true reciprocity bill MUST recognise that anyone who has the right to carry concealed in their home state, or any other state, also clearly has that right in any OTHER state. And if California have a temper tantrup because some guy from Florida can now carry in their state and they’ve not granted their Mother May I “permission”, then I’d say California either need to JOIN the union completely as they pretended to do back in ought fifty nine, or go ahead and leave. It REALLY frosts me to have to drive through that hellhole, disarmed, because their stupid gummit REFUSE to stop infringing upon MY right, enjoyed in nearly every other state. The Mother May I Caard I have that “allows” me to drive my car on their poorly maintained roads is little different than the Mother MayI Card that recognises my RIGHT to carry at home, and in nearly every other state.

    No way can California’s, or New York’s whimsy force their rules on someone from a different state. MY state has no training requirement. Fine, That only means I did not pay money to attend one of their “state approved’ courses… instead I’ve spent MORE money to train and equip myself to a far higher standard than their ridiculous minimum….. just not THEIR way.

    As pointed out in your friend’s article, states with no training mandate demninstrate no moe frequent issues than states like Ohio that require 12 hours training.. at HUGE expense. So WHERE is the harm? Nowhere.

    Any law that purports to allow for national reciprocity but does not recognise the right to carry for residents of states that allow it with no paperwork ks not true recuprocity. The entire concept is based on a false premise.. that states have the authority to mandate a precondition, costing me time and money, to get their PERMISSION (the Mother May I Card) so that I CAN carry in that state. HOW can anyone fail to see that as an infringement? Mandating, as a preconditon, that I pay a fee and/or resent myself at some specified location and perform certain specified actions prior to exercising that RIGHT? What, do the State of Massaachussetts have the authority to mandate a similar set of preconditions before I can open my computer and smack on these black plastic squares and speak my mind? Nope.

  17. Dave--VA Says:

    I have been an advocate of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity for many years, so I support this bill, although it is not as strong as I would like it to be. The weakness of it is that it makes each person subject to the concealed carry laws of the state in which they are present, including certain places that are off-limits to firearms and laws governing defensive use of force. In a state that is determined to strip people of their 2nd Amendment rights, that could render this law meaningless & we will have gained nothing.

    This bill needs to have provisions to prevent anti-gun states like New York, Massachusetts, California, Maryland, & New Jersey from restricting what type of gun you may carry, what magazine capacity you may carry, what calibers you may carry, & what kind of ammunition you may carry, as well as when, where, & how you may carry them. Failure to prohibit them from regulating out-of-state concealed carriers will allow them to make it virtually impossible for you to carry there without violating some law. For instance, New Jersey prohibits hollow point ammunition. Several states prohibit high capacity magazines. New York requires you to have a NY firearm owner’s license to possess a handgun within the state. In Maryland, residents are only allowed to own specific guns which have been approved by the state, so if you are not carrying one of those, you might be subject to arrest. Many large cities are even more restrictive.

    Furthermore, there has to be a severe penalty of some kind to punish states that violate the intent of this proposed reciprocity law when it is implemented. The states which I have already mentioned, as well as several cities such as Washington, D.C., have repeatedly shown that they will do as much as they can to prevent citizens within their boundaries from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, even when ordered to cease doing so by the U.S. Supreme Court. Imagine what other restrictions they will think up if they are allowed to do so with impunity. Those who deny citizens their 2nd Amendment rights must be aggressively prosecuted & severely fined.

    I agree with Fred that there must be no compromise on this. It is so rare to have a pro-gun congress, senate, president, & hopefully a pro-gun rights supreme court, that we must strike while the iron is hot because we may never have this opportunity again. Any compromise or ambiguity in the final legislation will be a defeat which will come back to haunt us.

  18. John Moelter Says:

    Is there any legislation in the works that would remove restrictions against self defense (hollow point) ammunition in places such as New Jersey?

  19. Spencer Says:

    At least some of the CCW permits lack of reciprocity problems, I think, are due to many states’ insatiable hunger for revenue. If there were national concealed carry reciprocity then those states would have to find something else to tax, charge a fee, or–gasp!–they might have to operate within reasonable budgets.

  20. Chris_L Says:

    I am in favor of the law, but there is an issue.

    As we all know, there are a number of “civil rights” issues that are going to be addressed at some point by the current administration. Gay marraige, voting rights, etc. I’m sure you all know what they are. The administration is arguing that these are issues for the individual states to decide, not the federal government.

    If the reciprocity bill passes, it will surely be challenged in court. If the Supreme Court upholds it, it will create another precedent for federal override of state laws relating to these matters.

  21. Nick42 Says:

    Policy wise, I like this idea, but I don’t think it’s constitutional. It violates the principle of federalism and I don’t see any enumerated power granted to the federal government that would allow such a law to be passed.

    Despite Lopez, current commerce clause jurisprudence would likely allow this after Raich, but I think that decision was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

    I would like to see the safe passage provisions of the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act strengthened so that there is a remedy available to citizens when anti-gun municipalities violate it.

  22. Andre Says:

    We need the bill passed. Last year i went on vacation to Oakland,California to visit my niece by train,but i carried. Later that year I went to Hawaii but left my pistol at home for 7 days because it was a no win situation with their restrictive gun laws. You shouldn’t have to be without your sidearm just because of other states goofy rules. If left alone these laws would only get worse with the leftist’s agenda.

  23. Jamie Drury Says:

    Well, national reciprocity pretty much concedes that the state has the right to decide who can be armed. All it does is make a bad situation temporarily more palatable. I’d rather see permitting by the states outlawed on the grounds that any “permit” is unconstitutional. There are no permits required to exercise rights guaranteed by any of the other amendments I’m aware of.

  24. Objectivist Dad Says:

    State’s rights have been violatedoing to the point of near extinction, but that doesn’t justify piling on.

    The Fed will almost certainly, at some point, establish minimum standards for permits which will violate the 2nd.

    Aso to what will we lose if it’s passed and repealed, compromising with the enemy is always a loss. We’ll be agreeing that the Federal govt has authority over this matter and so the anti’s will use it to push for a Federal permit system. Once that happens, then they’ll work on tightening it, or adding more “common sense” regulations like registering the guns you will carry (to help law enforcement of course). The slippery slope is real, and very dangerous.

  25. Eddie Says:

    I wish we could get this in the form of a constitutional amendment rather then a federal law. An amendment that clarifys that no state shall infringe any of the individual rights outlined in the constitution would be great.

  26. Geoff Says:

    I am neutral on it. It matters not if it passes to me.
    As I have posted on many sites, National Reciprocity will not change anything.
    Sure, your Concealed Carry Permit will be valid in all 50 States, BUT NOT YOUR CARRY GUN AND/OR AMMO.
    Magazine limits, bans on Hollow Point Ammo, many handguns illegal in some States.
    Just look at California and the Handgun Roster of legal handguns.
    http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/safeguns_resp.asp
    I carry a Taurus PT24/7 Pro LS DS 9mm. 17+1 with Federal HydraShock 135gr. 9mm JHP. Not on the list.
    Illegal in New Jersey, New York, California, Hawaii and probably many other States.
    National Reciprocity does nothing for me.

    What is a person supposed to do? Buy a handgun that would legal in whatever State they want to visit? Or go unarmed?

  27. Roger Willco Says:

    Here’s an idea, but it is probably a dream. I believe it was in 1954 that President Eisenhower used the National Guard to make sure the rights of some black school children were not infringed, as they went to a previously segregated school. I see that as the President making sure the right of a citizen was recognized by a state.

    Could this happen again? Could President Trump declare that the Second Amendment SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED in any jurisdiction? Then, when a jurisdiction tried to prosecute some law-abiding citizen from exercising their right to keep and BEAR arms, the President would reach down, interfere in the prosecution of that citizen, and tell the authorities to stop persecuting that citizen, and stop denying them their constitutional right.

    New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has pardoned six individuals who were being oppressed by NJ prosecutors and cops, I believe.

    The Second Amendment should be recognized as it was in the 18th century. We shouldn’t need a license to exercise a right. However, I guess I could live with the permitting process if it wasn’t too oppressive.

    As a last resort, we can do what the Left does; civil disobedience. Those jurisdictions in which marijuana is now legal, are actually in violation of federal law. The federal government, which allows illegal immigration, and prohibits individual states from policing their borders, is in violation of federal law. Sanctuary cities are in violation of federal, and probably state, law.

    See, civil disobedience is OK if the Left does it.

  28. TN_MAN Says:

    I have read over the many concerns expressed above. In my view, all these concerns can be address by the following approach:

    1) the Law to enable National Concealed Carry Reciprocity should clearly state that Congress is enacting this legislation using their powers under the “Full Faith and Credit” Clause (Article IV – Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution).

    2) The law should require each State to honor any carry permit issued by any other State.

    3) The Law should state that any firearm and ammunition combo that is legal to carry concealed in the State, that issued the License, is automatically legal in any other State.

    4) The Law should also state that any local ordinance which is enacted with the primary purpose of preventing concealed carry under this law is hereby preempted by this Federal Law and is null and void.

    5) Finally, if a court finds that a local jurisdiction willfully violated the provisions of this law so as to interfere with legal carry, the court may require the local jurisdiction to pay all court costs and to compensate the damaged party, for any costs or loss of time, at a rate of 10 to 1.

    This gets by all the objections. For example, the argument about licensing a right. Well, you would have to argue that in the State that issued the license. All this law is doing is (once a license is issued) require other States to honor it.

    The objection about treading upon States Rights is also moot since the U.S. Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to issue general laws in the area of public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings. The Carry License becomes just another license to honor (like a driver’s license). No trampling on State’s Rights here.

    Finally, the concerns over hostile States using unreasonable laws to shut down carry is nullified. Let’s face it, if you are driving in California with your out-of-State car and it does not meet California emission standards, you don’t get arrested for it. You may have to meet those standards if you become a resident but not for a visit. There is no reason why the “equipment” used for concealed carry should be any different.

  29. Sean F.Alexander Says:

    Outstanding artivle, hope HR38 becomes law before the end of the year!

  30. Chris Says:

    My concern is the left could use this as a vehicle for nation wide defacto registry of gun owners. Imagine democrats being in control of the WH and Congress with the ability to change the rules of a nationwide CCW license holder.

    Just face it. Some liberal enclaves will never change and will always fight it. Unless the people who live there decide they want it changed and vote accordingly, we are better off challenging state gun control laws in the courts.

  31. Gary Griffiths Says:

    While I am in favor of national reciprocity in concept, I doubt the current bill has much chance of passage, in the face of staunch Democratic opposition. I’m also leery of passing something that could serve as a basis for setting minimal training and marksmanship standards that could evolve into nearly impossible standards.

    Instead, how about a law denying Federal law enforcement funding to any state or subordinate governmental organization which does not recognize the concealed carry licenses of all other states and subordinate governmental organizations. (The subordinate governmental organizations specifically target cities, like New York City, that don’t even recognize permits from other parts of the state.) The beauty of this law would be that it, being a revenue law, could be passed by simple majority in both houses of Congress, thanks to the Democrats’ previous “Nuclear Option.”

  32. Kurt Says:

    I’m really on the fence on this. While it would be wonderful, and vastly preferable, to be able to carry anytime, anywhere, anyhow (concealed or not), this is kind of a step in the right direction.

    What I hope is that if we get this, that it doesn’t ossify into hardened law that you *must* have a permit to carry concealed.

    I truly hope this is just the first step towards true, full, constitutional carry.

    Kurt

  33. tony york Says:

    we need a national constitutional carry, not a reciprocity that allows states to dictate unmanageable limits on the number of restrictions that they can impose on citizens while in their states.

  34. tony york Says:

    unmanageable limits via the number of restrictions*

  35. Patrick Says:

    After reading the text of proposed bill H.R.38, it appears that CCW permits issued by states to non-residents, (AZ, FL,VA come to mind) will NOT be valid in states which do not recognize out-of state permits. Residency requirements will make the use of permits obtained from states issuing non-resident permits invalid. As it stands now, non-resident CCW permits issued by AZ is not recognized in CA. This bill does nothing to relieve CA residents based on the wording of the reciprocity of residence requirements.

  36. Lucius Says:

    I read the proposed bill and it clearly states that the carry license has to be from the state in which you reside. Since it’s almost impossible for NYC residents like me to get a carry permit, I think it does nothing in our favor, even as in my case, I also have Utah, Arizona and Florida non-resident carry permits. Please, let me know if my interpretation is incorrect.

  37. Mr. Bill from Tejas Says:

    The Bear in the Room

    IMHO: Far more learned than I have debated, postulated and interpreted the Second Amendment for over two centuries. I make no claims to being a final authority on it.

    That being said, I do have my own thoughts about two words in its language: “and bear” as in “. . . keep and bear arms.” The word “and” by itself sets “keep” and “bear” apart from each other, and affirms that these are two different things, much like the common wedding vow phrase, “. . . to have and to hold . . .”

    The meaning of “keep” is self-evident. “Bear”, in its simplest form, means to physically carry. But it also may mean to conduct oneself in a specified manner, i.e. ‘She bore herself with dignity.’ ‘Bear’ may also be used in respect to obligation, as in ‘No one likes to bear the responsibility for such decisions.’

    I believe the writers meant to imply all of these definitions when they included the word “bear”. And therein lies part of the problem as I see it.

    For someone to conduct themselves in an appropriate and accountable manner with firearms they must first be educated, something the founders saw as part of family life. In pre-Bill of Rights America, there were no schools, no NRA and no instructors to pass on reliable gun training. The idea of firearm safety was, in all likelihood, a way of life with and around firearms rather than the written rules we know today. This knowledge was, with exceptions, passed down within the family unit. One can easily imagine that offspring were not allowed to be armed while alone until the parent trusted them. The parents, of course, had a vested interest in seeing that their children got it right.

    Compare that to now. There is no standardized system to pass on firearms related knowledge. It is up to the individual. It seems most people are focused on the “keep” while disregarding the “and bear” parts of the 2A.

    See the problem?

    We may have a ‘gun culture’ in this country but it’s not the same culture of 18th century America. There are vital parts of it missing. Namely, the heritage of passing down the responsibilities of gun ownership like a birthright along with ‘pa’s squirrel rifle’.

    I think that’s at the root of why people are upset about pro-gun legislation today. Bills like H.R. 38 emphasize the ‘physical carry’, but not the ‘responsibility carry’ I spoke of. I believe the writers meant for this to be a self-regulating amendment, void of government influence or interference. This is evidenced in the phrase “A well regulated militia . . .” And it did for most of its life so far, up until the government entered the picture in the name of public safety with the National Firearms Act of 1934.

    So where does that leave us? Required training? Then it’s no longer a right and becomes a privilege like a driver license. So much for constitutional carry. No, it has to be voluntary, an instinct to respect firearms and personally accept the responsibility required for accountable ownership. To raise this way of life in our country from the dead now is fraught with issues, and would take decades if not being impossible altogether.

    So what is the resolution? A concerted effort of dedicated gun owners, beginning and advancing a grass-roots movement to educate and foster a gun culture throughout our country which emulates the atmosphere our founding fathers grew up in. It is painfully obvious though, this is a difficult goal that doubtless generations to come will not see to fruition.

  38. RonS Says:

    I know you guys all know more about the laws, but I worry that any federal law involving CC law could become a liability. Right now, if you don’t want to live in San Fransisco due to the gun laws and difficulty of getting a CC permit, you can move.

    What happens when there is a national law establishing uniform standards, licensing, qualifications and then they start changing it? That’s how gun banners work. Death of a thousand cuts. Higher fees. Harder tests. Longer, deeper, more expensive background checks. We are never more than two years away from changes in the balance of power.

    “Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may one day inherit.”

  39. Mary Beth Robinette Says:

    I would LOVE to be able to carry my firearm anywhere in the US.!!! My concern is that “probably” the only way it will get passed will be that ALL States accept one standard, and that the only standard accepted will be the MOST restrictive!!!
    I can’t see CA or other coastal States going along with the rules approved by “real”
    gun States……sad but true!
    AND, if that is the case I would rather let things be, even though I TRUELY, and
    desperately would like things to be different!

  40. TN_MAN Says:

    @ RonS:

    Your concerns exactly show the proper nature of an acceptable Federal Law. It should not be and MUST NOT BE a law that ESTABLISHES A SYSTEM for a National Concealed Carry License. It must not include any registration requirements, set any standards for training or types of weapon/ammunition, create any database of concealed carry holders, charge any fees or require any paperwork. If that is what it gets twisted into, then it needs to be rejected by gun-owners and the NRA ourselves.

    As a number of people have pointed out, such a Federal System could easily be twisted, by the liberal Left, into a tool to support Gun Control rather than a vehicle to expand Gun Rights.

    Instead, it must be a Federal Law that ONLY ESTABLISHES reciprocity for concealed carry with the carry license being issued by and the standards set by the individual States.

    Reciprocity and legal protection from rabid anti-gun States is what is wanted and needed. A National Concealed Carry System, under Federal Government control, is what we want to avoid.

  41. Will Says:

    If the bill doesn’t force states to recognize non-resident permits, then it will be crippled as far as influencing the may-issue states. CA will NEVER go to shall-issue, so most of the residents will not see any benefit. None of the others will either.

    Waste of political effort.

  42. Mas Says:

    Some thought-provoking commentary here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/01/johannes-paulsen/will-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-mean-liberation-new-jersey-gun-owners/

  43. Roger Willco Says:

    Mr. Bill from Tejas,

    I agree with what you wrote. Just wanted to add one or two things. I think there was an additional way to learn firearm safety in the 1700s, not just from the family. There were militias, modeled on the militias in Switzerland, which still exist. I am guessing that each county had a militia, and you are right, they were not part of the government; on purpose. These militias became our modern-day National Guard around the time of World War One. The National Guard is part of the government, so it would probably not be used to combat tyranny the way unorganized, or non-governmental militias would.

    We should have kept the Minute Man concept and the concept of unorganized (I mean non-governmental) militias till today. Some, like the Michigan Militia, have tried to revive the concept. So today we could have the family, the NRA and other pro-gun organizations, shooting ranges, the Boy Scouts, and county militias, unaffiliated with the government, to foster ideas of self-defense, common defense, and firearms safety, as well as general disaster preparedness. In other words, the family plus these other organizations could foster the gun culture you wrote about. I think today’s gun culture is pretty healthy, but I bet it has more resistance than the gun culture of the 1700s had. I figure only Quakers were against guns back then, and even they probably used them for hunting, but I don’t know that for sure.

  44. uncle dave Says:

    Just do it! Quit over thinking it! You got the mo, use it! The reality is that if we can crack the nut of California some how, we will turn the tide forever! Some it becomes normal there, the media content will fix the rest!

  45. Jeff Hopton Says:

    The states not allowing CCW or the right to bear arms are violating the 2nd Amendment! So a National right to carry nullifies there Liberal attack on the 2nd Amendment.

  46. TN_MAN Says:

    @ Uncle Dave:
    I don’t think that getting reciprocity passed is quite the “Slam Dunk” that you portray. For one thing, once Congress gets seriously to work passing it, we can expect the Left-wing dominated media to pull out all stops to oppose it.

    I listen to the Leftists on National Public Radio (NPR) from time to time. They are usually good for a laugh. Anyway, by experience, I know their style. They are masters of the “one-sided account” and the “pre-determined conclusion”. Here is a hypothetical example of how they work:

    Suppose that Donald Trump was to tweet, tomorrow, that he found the sunrise over Washington, D.C., as viewed from the White House, particularly beautiful. Here is how NPR would respond:

    First, they would get video footage of the sunrise and send it to a half-dozen experts (in sunrises and the appreciation of same), in the Liberal academic world, and ask their opinion. Anyone who agreed with Trump that it was beautiful or even said it was OK would be dropped on the spot. They would not have any impact in NPR’s upcoming news report. However, those who hated the sunrise would be given full voice. They would be interviewed and allowed to point out all possible flaws in the sunrise. Therefore, the conclusion reached by this (select) panel of experts would be that (a) Trump is WRONG (again) and (b) this sunrise was, in fact, one of the most ugly and hideous to have occurred over Washington, D.C. within the last 20 years.

    The story would conclude with the NPR interviewer wryly commenting that, if Donald Trump’s judgment is so poor that he cannot even tell a good sunrise from a bad one, how can ANYONE possibly expect him to be qualified to hold the highest office in the land?

    If anyone thinks I am overstating the bias of NPR with the above hypothetical example, just listen to a few of their “real life” hatchet jobs on Trump. You will soon realize that I am downplaying matters if anything.

    Therefore, we can expect NPR and their types (which still pretend to journalism) to run a string of one-sided negative pieces against the bill. Other (more lowbrow) members of the left-wing press will use unabashed fear-mongering as their approach. We will hear stories from them implying that the reciprocity bill is (a) the end of American Civilization, (b) it will be a return to the days of the “Old West” where everyone is walking around with a “Hogleg” struck in their belt and (c) blood will be running ankle-deep in our streets.

    So, do not underestimate the depths to which the Leftists will sink in order to torpedo this bill.

  47. DesEtude Says:

    Let’s get this done. With Republican majorities in the House and Senate, and a gun rights advocate in the White House this should be relatively easy task. Let’s not waste this opportunity.

  48. Michael Bogrand Says:

    KEEP THE FEDS OUT OF THE CARRY PERMIT BUSINESS. I can’t say this enough,they will screw it up and make it impossible for everyone that can get one now,not be able to get one.
    Besides,in your first paragraph you stated the obvious,those places will NEVER recognize any permit but their own anyway. Even if the Feds do reciprocity,places like NY ,NJ,CA will still arrest you and take you to jail.
    I hope it never happens and I wish you and Workman would realize the Feds will mess it up for all of us.
    I’ll get my Idaho enhanced and spend my money in free states that recognize it.
    To hell with the rest of the states. Their people made their beds and they can lay in them now.

  49. Liston Matthews Says:

    On Friday, April 10, 2015, I had the opportunity to ask The Donald a question about guns and caught it on thevideo below. That was at the NRACON in Nashville. Since then he published a very good position paper.

    What about a Senate bill?

    https://youtu.be/Maxu2L55XuU

  50. Van Cronkhite Says:

    I so hope to have national reciprocity this year. I had a NYS CCW until I moved to Florida, it was revoked due to me no longer being a state resident. And I still own land in NYS!

    My concern is that the federal government has to do nothing more then to uphold the second amendment to get the same results, and that would actually be constitutional, the congress had in mind (in part) specifically the second amendment rights of newly freed slaves with the passage of the 14th amendment, and one senator stated on the open floor of congress, that southern states should not be readmitted to the union with voting rights in congress, until they respected the rights of the emancipated slaves to keep and bear arms.

    How much do we let DC micro-manage us. We are suppose to be “The” United States or “These” Unites States? As a side note, and an example, I am for gay domestic unions, I am against the feds cramming it down the states throats. I am for a woman’s right to an abortion, against Roe V Wade. The federal government should stick to the powers it has in the Constitution and not to legislating anything it wants.

Leave a Reply

 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.