A THOUGHT ON ST. PADDY’S DAY

My concern about “National Concealed Carry Reciprocity” is simple. Liberal anti-gun type folks, like San Francisco for example, will wind up making the rules for who can have a CCW nationwide.

At least the way it is (local), we have a chance to vote the rascals out. If it goes national, they win.

My 2 cents

The passage of national reciprocity would certainly make interstate concealed firearm carry less complicated. For me, to travel from California to Utah via I-15 I have to have the firearm locked up & unloaded in CA, stop in Nevada to unlock & load, stop before entering Las Vegas to secure & unload, north of Las Vegas, stop again to reload. Then upon entering Arizona, I pause to reflect & appreciate the freedoms afforded us by this great state. Then into Utah where my permit is recognized. Whew! My California Congresswoman is Diane Feinstein. I am at a loss as to how begin to ask for her support of this bill (Any help on the wording is appreciated). Anyway, It pains me my armed rights are being infringed, while dealing with privileged drivers passing me at 85 miles an hour on the interstate…

Mas:

In a short phrase – I am all for it.

It is not an assault on states sovereignty as some folks claim ( or fear ).

Reasons:

The proposd law does not empower the Federal Government in any way. It merely requires any state that issues a concealed carry license, concealed handgun license, whatever your state calls it – must honor a similar license isued by another state. No state is compelled to have a concealed handgun license, and any state that does not, will NOT be required to recognize one. The only state in this category is Illinois, so once again we have a “Chicago Exception”, but I avoid Illinois like the plague anyway.

Proponents present Constitutional backing for this as ” Full Faith and Credit ” – States are required to recognize magisterial acts ( the mundane legal administrative activities) of other states, ie- my Texas driver license is good in Massachusetts and Minnesota. A court judgement from Oklahoma can be enforced in New Hampshire, etc.

Opponents consider concealed carry licenses not as mundane administrative acts of a state, but rather the conferring of a special privilege upon special people only after long and arduous process and deliberation. This is why Mayor Bloomberg’s friends can get a New York City pistol permit.

The ” special privilege ” position is the way states view, say professional licenses. As an example, I am licensed in Texas to practice professional land surveying; I cannot do so in North Dakota without paying a fee, proving my character and fitness and taking and passing the North Dakota professional land surveyors exam. The same goes for engineers, doctors, dentists, architects and lawyers. Professional licensing is not a magisterial act ; being able to practice a profession is a privilege carefully controlled by each state in the interest of protecting the public health , safety and welfare. The state limits practitioners to those who have acquired long years of education and experience, coupled with the passing of rigorous and lengthy qualification examinations.

This where the “privilege” argument crashes and burns.

I do not have a constitutional right to practice a profession; I do, on the other hand, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Heller and MacDonald, have the fundamental Second Amendment right to self-defense. How can a fundamental liberty stop at a state boundary line? How can it be dependent on the mere whim of a legislature or an administrative bureaucrat?

As I said , Concealed Carry Reciprocity gives no power to the Federal Government ; it merely reinforces the Constitutional truth that Concealed Carry licenses are mundane administrative acts of the various states, not grants of feudal privilege to the favored few and therefore each state should honor the licenses of the other several states, exactly as they do drivers licenses.

Regards

GKT

Sorry, Mas, but I disagree.

I benefit from LEOSA, but I opposed it from the beginning based on my strong respect for the principles of federalism.

The 14th Amendment, which our courts now recognize as applying to the states thanks to McDonald and Heller, *should* mean that every restriction on keeping and bearing is null and void. That would mean Vermont’s non-existent licensing requirement, combined with New Hampshire’s very, very short “places prohibited” list (courtrooms; that’s the whole list).

With you being a long-time policeman in western NH, just across the river from VT, I know you’re familiar with the laws there.

Yes, it would be nice to force freedom of carry everywhere, but if we ignore basic constititual principles, we’re no different from those who insist the 2nd Amendment only applies to the collective militia owning flintlock muskets.

The McDonald application of the 2nd to the states via the 14th *should* mean all bans or restrictions are null and void. But, it’s coming from the very same federal government that is more restrictive than all but a couple of states.

What the feds giveth, they can also taketh.

The way I see it is just people starting to realize it’s already in place and needs to be recognized, the 2nd amendment.

In reading the previous comments, I must say that GKT has certainly made the best and clearest case for Concealed Carry Reciprocity, that I have ever seen.

Mass, I also agree with you 150%, that Obama is a Gun Hater, and and American Hater, who absolutely needs to be put out to pasture, as soon as possible.

However, as far as the NRA being the ultimate source and power regarding gun rights, I will have to totally disagree with you.

Ever since the Clinton Gun Ban, the NRA has been turning soft, and finding ways to look out for it’s own interests. Case in point cutting a deal to exempt itself from the recent law preventing organizations from telling people the records and voting history of politicians before elections.

On the other hand, the other gun rights organization, Gun Owners of America (GOA), is still the “junk yard dog” when it comes to fighting any and all opponents to the Second Amendment.

I am a Life Member of both outfits, but now-a-days, I only trust and support GOA when it comes to giving me anti-gun alerts, and telling me who and what our enemies are, and being confident that they will totally fight for whatever few of our God Given, and previously Constitutionally Rights that we may still have left.

Anyway, Keep up the Good Work, Mass, and don’t let the bastards grind you down

Paul

I will second everything Paul Edwards says above. The little snippet from James is also quite worthy of consideration, as well.

My rights do exist- paper or no paper, license or no license, etc- but today’s fact of the matter is that my rights are basically receiving only MARGINAL acceptance and recognition by the government.

If NOTHING else, passing CCW reciprocity will “update” the government/legislatures and public at large as to what our (2nd A) rights are supposed to actually mean, at least in part. Thus, I can see little actual harm in getting this topic out in public- especially if the vote goes in our favor (and in keeping with the Constitution!).

-Just another GOA Life member, who has not (and maybe never will) knowingly give money to the NRA due to its actions over the last decade, at minimum.

Not sure whether concealed carry should be a federal law, though having no states reciprocal with MA is certainly a pain. You could argue that it flows naturally from the 2nd Amendment (if muskets were 6 inches long, maybe).

As with many things, will be decided by the loudest voices, i suppose.
S

KBCraig;

I am not sure constitutional principle has gotten us where we are today with the limited good that has come in the realm of rights in the last thirty years.

We have gotten this far because more people are carrying guns. They are doing so because of laws that you say are unconstitutional (and you have a point to an extent), they get permission slips to exercise their rights…but they are the bills that were able to get passed. Every time more people carry guns the more free we are. Anything that simplifies carry means more people will choose to do so and the more free we are.

Constitutional carry is on the march because of shall issue. Anything that facilitates more people carrying furthers the issue of eventual 2A rights of the type you advocate.

OK guys, tell me if you will, just what legislation has GOA gotten passed and just what legislation has the organization kept from passing?

GOA is nothing but a money cow for Larry Pratt. No BOD, no magazine or print newsletter, just a presence on the internet and e-mail. Granted, he has a very nice web site, which costs a lot of money to create and maintain but he takes in more than enough.

The NRA on the other hand, has a BOD, publishes financial statements, publishes several magazines and works hard, and successfully, not only in legislative matters but in hunting, collecting, competing and so much more.

Sure, I’ve disagreed with certain NRA actions over the years but then I sometimes disagreed with my wife during our 48 year marriage. We didn’t divorce because of it. If you dislike the direction the NRA takes on some issues then support candidates for the Board with who you agree, or become a candidate yourself. You can’t do that with the GOA! Don’t, please, denigrate the largest and most effective gun rights organization in the country!

In one on one conversations with GOA members I’ve found the vast majority are disgruntled former NRA members who didn’t get their way over some issue, and turn to GOA because of the constant sniping at the NRA by that organization attracts them.

We’ve got four million members, some who hunt, some who collect, some who compete and some, like myself, who simply believe very strongly that our country desperately needs the Second Amendment. The NRA can’t please all four million of us every time. Instead of cutting at the NRA, go out and enlist as members some of those eighty-six million gun owners who don’t belong. Didn’t old Ben tell us to hang together or hang separately? The only effective place to hang is the NRA.

Yes, the reciprocity bill should be passed. However it doesn’t mean squat to me living in Illinois where the only places I can have a gun is in my home, at the range, or in between those two places.
We have a governer who hates guns, and a mayor in Chicago (thank goodness I don’t live there) who is as bad as the previous mayor, Daley, was in his opposition of ANY kind of firearm for ANY use: target, plinking, or protection.
You would not believe the restrictions on legal firearm ownership in Chicago since McDonald was ajudicated in favor of gun owners. And Illinois/Chicago will honor reciprocity?

I would go for any law which places more guns in the hands of good people. The war against the anti-gun liberals will not be won in one big stroke, but in many smaller battles that will gnaw away at their diabolical agenda.

That said, I would agree most laws since the Ten Commandments, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were enacted to increase the power of government, whose mission is to control and regulate us as much as possible above and beyond what’s necessary. The above three sources of simple rules and some common sense are all that’s required for society to function properly, not thousands of laws and regulations designed by greedy lawyers and power hungry legislators to increase their influence and make money.

More Guns – Less Crime, and in Ireland, More Sticks – Less Snakes.

I support the National Carry Bill. Yeah, it’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction and will help out our side. I miss my home state of CA but I have no intentions of going there to visit unless I can carry.

I’ll agree the NRA is more moderate and GOA is far more hardlined. I like and support both groups. I also support my local 2A group, RMGO. What gets me is all the politics on our side. For example, all the stuff our side is saying against the National Carry Bill.

Just recently, the NRA backed some legislation in CO to remove the ability of the state to confiscate firearms during emergencies. RMGO flat out ignored that legislation because it wasn’t theirs or because the NRA sponsored it. The bill almost passed. Would it have passed if RMGO helped as well? I don’t know. But I doubt it would have hurt.

I do NOT trust our Federal Government when it comes to reciprocity any more than I trust them to stop spending other people’s money.

I live in Arizona, a state that understands that the US Constitution is the only carry permit you’ll ever need.

My fear is that by saying the federal government can give us permission to carry, we give them power through the back door that they don’t have.

My friend says we need to take one baby step at time, but I resent having to ask Big Brother for something that is rightfully mine.

BTW, if this law passes, will Arizona citizens be able to carry without ccw since it is an automatic right here? I believe that we recognize a Texas common law marriage even though we don’t have that institution.

I have an Arizona issue ccw just so I can travel out of state. But I resent having to do so.

Of course, on this blog we are mostly concerned about our guns.

quote “he also is quite likely in his next term to go for the hard core “gun control” agenda he always supported before he got elected.” MAS above.

As you indicate, much of middle America seems to have already accepted that 0bama will serve a second term as President. I have heard many discussing the “saviour” of 2016….. if there is such.

I am suprised by the number of people who have told me that they will NOT vote, period. And those from 18 to 80 who believe that the only economic hope for this Nation is higher taxes, FIAT money, and more massive government programs.

Will December 2012 be the end of life as we have known it?

I am sick and tired of catering to whiners. No different than those who filed environmental litigation to stop a bridge between MN and WI since 1992. The original project would have cost $82M. It will now cost over $700M because of the lawsuits and other cost increases in twenty years. One of the lawsuits involved ‘visual pollution’. WTF is THAT and why was it even allowed to proceed? It required Congressional mandate to build the bridge.

I absolutely detest that additional law must be passed to enforce existing law against subordinate sovereign authority (states, counties, municipalities, etc.). We have so many laws that no one could possibly get out of bed in the morning without unknowingly violating some obscure law or ordinance.

Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, “shall not be infringed” is part of the fundamental law of these United States. Unlike 1A, 2A was not constrained to restrict only Congress. Becoming a state automatically adopts the U.S. Constitution as fundamental and no subordinate authority can restrict a right reserved to The People of these United States. This should not require court review, 10th Amendment, 14th Amendment or other application. The right to keep and bear arms is abundantly clear in plain English (although, some knowledge of 18th Century American English is necessary to properly interpret the intent).

Prior to the mid-19th Century in the U.S., people bearing arms were no less common than cell phones are today. Few questioned it because it was UNDERSTOOD as reasonable, necessary and a protected right of a free people.

For some inexplicable reason, it is now subject to considerations of ‘public safety’, ‘militia’, ‘reasonable restrictions’ or other creative interpretation that some argue negates “shall not be infringed”. The improper USE of arms IS restricted. In many cases, rightfully. Similarly, improper use of cell phones is restricted (texting while driving, etc.). Some would ban cell phones as their ultimate solution.

I support passage of national reciprocity as necessary, but only because a bunch of creative interpreters suggest that a fundamental HUMAN right of self-defense is somehow subject to ‘reasonable restrictions’ (their reasons, not yours).

I have been a firearms instructor since 1968. I am a former LEO and have thousands of cops and private citizens on my customer list. I have not heard of one who misused a firearm. I earn a living conducting ‘carry permit’ classes, but I have no problem with 2A being the only carry permit we need. I would like to believe that I could reduce my rates and fill a classroom several times a week because responsible people would seek training if no permit were required. If not, I’ll find something else to do. In any event, we don’t need a government permission slip to exercise our other rights.

Yet.

Obama will not get a second term if we have anything to say about it. If this bill passes the senate he will veto it.

To be able to respond to Mt. Williamson’s denunciations of Gun Owners of America (GOA), I will need to give some perspective and background as to my sources and experiences with the NRA.

A very good friend, co-worker, hunting, camping and shooting companion of mine, was invited back in the 1990s, before Clinton, by Harlon Carter, to visit the NRA Headquarters.

He is a previous Border Patrol PI (Prior to BPAs and ICE), as well as retired Bureau of Customs (Prior to Customs Service and Customs Border Enforcement) person, like myself, who, in his time, successfully duplicated all of Bill Jordan’s Ariel shooting feats.

He spent the day visiting every part of the NRA headquarters facility that he could, and spoke too many of the people there while doing so. Being a published author, singer and song writer, as well as an experienced investigator and public speaker, he has developed the knack of quickly analyzing people he encounters, and accessing their background, feelings and political inclinations.

He found that many of the people at the NRA headquarters had little or no gun interests, background or experience for the area they occupied.

Further, he found that the NRA seemed to have been infiltrated by, if not taken over by, individuals from a public relations firm that had little or no feelings or concern for the basic mission of the NRA, which previously had been committed to defending the Second Amendment, as well as furthering the firearms knowledge and education of the American people, and seeing that young persons of military age, were knowledgeable and competent with current military type firearms.

Since then, I have not found anything to contradict his opinion and evaluation of the NRA, and as years pass, the NRA has done little that I have observed personally, to keep me up-to-date on Second Amendment issues, dangers, or to provide information as to contacting Federal, State or local legislators,

I feel lucky to receive even one or two such items a year, from the NRA, whereas I receive at least monthly information from the GOA.

As to exactly what, and how much, either organization has done during a particular year, both organizations seem to annually claim complete credit for everything that passes or has be thwarted during each year.

My feeling is that the NRA, today, has too much to lose by engaging is any “Backs to the wall, Fight to the Death” struggle, and that they are far too worried about keeping what they already have, as well as cutting dealing with the devil, if it appears to suit their short term best interests, and lessens their risk of failure or defeat.

Mr. Williamson is certainly, and completely entitled to his opinion of both the NRA and GOA, however, my experience with both outfits tells me that while the NRA has a long history of supporting the Second Amendment, and standing up for the Constitution, their time and their ability and desire for the all-out defense is waning, while the GOA still carries the good fight to our enemies.

Gun Owners of America has been working with the sponsors of the soon-to-be-introduced Thune-Vitter reciprocity bill, and we can report that there are at least 15 cosponsors on the bill!

By contrast, the Begich-Manchin Democrat compromise bill (S. 2188) has only one additional cosponsor.

Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) plan to introduce their bill early next week — and thus, their bill won’t receive a number until then.

But we need a whole new round of emails to get even more original cosponsors on their bill. Again, the Thune-Vitter legislation will not only allow permit holders to carry out-of-state, but NON-PERMIT HOLDERS from constitutional carry states, as well.

Sadly, we have been receiving emails from our grassroots activists showing that the NRA is taking aim at our position on these two bills.

Hence, we would like to make the following points in order to prevent any confusion.

1. NRA POSITION: “There is no Thune-Vitter bill because one hasn’t been introduced. Therefore, it is impossible to ‘support the Thune-Vitter bill rather than the Democrat-sponsored S. 2188.’”

GOA RESPONSE: As stated above, Senators Thune and Vitter are currently gaining cosponsors before the actual introduction of their bill. This is a common practice that legislators use in order to make a “big splash” with a large number of original cosponsors. For anyone who works on Capitol Hill to claim ignorance of this process is, quite honestly, laughable.

2. NRA POSITION: The Begich-Manchin bill “does not undermine or abandon permitless carry. Groups suggesting this are simply lying or incapable of reading the bill. Residents of Vermont, or any other ‘Constitutional Carry’ state, who wish to carry out of state could simply obtain a nonresident permit (just as they do now) and enjoy the benefits of S. 2188.”

GOA RESPONSE: Subsection (c)(2)(B) of S. 2188 requires that anyone benefiting from carry reciprocity possess “a valid license or permit that … permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm.”

In other words, S. 2188 fails to protect NON-PERMIT HOLDERS in constitutional carry states — and these gun owners represent the MAJORITY of law-abiding citizens who can carry.

There are currently five states where citizens can carry without the government’s permission: Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and most of Montana. And the South Dakota Governor currently has a bill sitting on his desk to enable citizens to carry guns without prior government permission.

In addition to all of this, there are eleven states which are seriously considering “constitutional carry” legislation: Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia.

Many more states will move in this direction after the beginning of the year.

But what if the federal government holds up an enormous “carrot” for pro-gun activists to obtain permits, irrespective of whether their states require it? The answer is that the incentive for these activists to push for “constitutional carry” will vanish.

S. 2188 will snub non-permit holders in “constitutional carry” states, while the Thune-Vitter bill will grant reciprocity to them.

Unless one thinks that New York’s crime problems result from “vicious killers” from Vermont, Alaska and the other constitutional carry states, then there shouldn’t be a problem enabling average citizens to carry concealed without permits. After all, criminals don’t line up for carry licenses.

3. NRA POSITION: “S. 2188 would not … impose national standards.”

GOA RESPONSE: Well, GOA never said it did. And thankfully, this is an issue where GOA can claim victory, as previous reciprocity bills over the past several years have included such “national standards.” But this is just another example of how your activism makes a real difference!

Both Begich and Manchin HAVE YET TO CAST A PRO-GUN VOTE during this Congress. (You can check this out by viewing their voting records on the GOA website.) So why would we trust them to do the right thing on gun legislation? Is this just an attempt to reelect Democrats and keep Harry Reid in power?

Ideally, there should be no question. Anyone who is a citizen in good standing ought to be able to carry a gun just about anywhere. (I don’t mind requiring it to be concealed in urban areas. See? We can make reasonable compromises.) That being said, if this passes, a lot more people will be able to carry while they travel. Carry license holders behave with their guns, despite all the gun grabbing handwringing. National reciprocity will continue to demonstrate the responsibility and safety of those of us with licenses.

Since we don’t live in a perfect world, I’ll celebrate this large step forward if it happens. I’ve already written to my two senators to ask them to support this bill.

I am a shooter and I have been my whole life, in fact I have one in the holster on my hip right now. With that being said, let’s all remember all the dire predictions that were made before Obama was elected about what would happen to our gun rights…

As voters, we were assured that Obama would ban guns for home defense, eliminate our right to carry, ban common rifle ammunition, ban the manufacture/sale/possession of handguns, etc. How many of these things have actually happened or even been attempted? Did Obama sign a law allowing us to carry our loaded guns into national parks? Yes he did. Did he sign a law allowing us to take guns on trains the same way we do on planes? Yes he did. He hasn’t vetoed any pro-gun legislation or passed any anti-gun legislation as president, that I am aware of. So maybe he’s not trying to steal our guns and eat our babies like we were told. The fact is, he hasn’t done any of the things we were told to fear (which also happened to lead to a gun buying boom) and now the story has changed so that he is waiting until his second term to pass all the unpopular anti-gun legislation that he loves. Given his track record, he hasn’t cared about passing unpopular legislation in the past (obamacare) and think that bodes well for us.

Let’s all be reasonable and realize that no single politician can change things as radically as they or their opponents would have us believe. I know this will be an unpopular sentiment here, but it comes from someone with great respect for Mr. Ayoob, and a love of shooting: Life has gotten a lot better in the last few years. I can only speak for myself, but since Obama was inaugurated, I came off a 9-month unemployment stint, got a fantastic job, bought my first house, had my first baby, and have bought 4 handguns, 3 rifles, and 1 shotgun (with money made at the aforementioned great job).

So here’s what I say: Quit being afraid, there are 80 million of us and a bunch of out-of-touch millionaire politicians (left and right) will not override us. Fear is the poison of our generation, and it’s purpose is to get us to focus on “hot button issues” so that we don’t notice what’s going on behind the curtain. So go buy a gun and carry it safely, because that’s the best way to promote the 2A. Since no one is willing to give Ron Paul a serious shot, this guy is going to vote for Obama and not worry about it. Whoever you vote for, choose them for what they will do for our country and our economy, not for guns, abortion, gay rights or any other thing they can’t really change.

1. I’m all for national reciprocity. If I can carry on a Texas CHL in Hawaii (where my grandkids live) Hawaiians are going to be asking why they can’t carry on a Hawaii license.

2. Whatever you think of the NRA-ILA in the courts and legislatures, it’s the NRA that’s winning the gun rights war. Their tens of thousands of instructors are conducting hundreds of thousands of beginning shooter classes and getting millions of new people to the range. It is those voters, inoculated against gun control, that are turning the tide.

You can pay for membership, donate cash or hours to the education programs, or to Friends of NRA events, or to other NRA tax exempt programs, and none of your efforts will go to the legislative side of the NRA.

i wholeheartedly agree Mr. Ayoob, and i am happy that you as a public figure and LEO have these views. there are LEOs, including chiefs who have the opinion that only LEOs and the government should have guns. a carry permit is just like anyother license and should be honored in all states. if the people who are against law abiding citizens carrying firearms were really interested in seeing crime decrease, they would support this legislation.

Obama will not get a second term if we get out and vote, and encourage those who have resigned to his second-term presidency to do the same. WE can’t give up. Never stop fighting for our God-given rights, for it is up to us to ensure we protect them!

My question is why are there not consequences to lying as a government representative? I can’t remember one truth that Obama has uttered since he has been in office.

Also did not Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor tell the vetting committee she agreed that the second amendment guaranteed individual gun rights, then vote against same at the first opportunity? Why is she not being aggressively challenged to step down – her position expects the highest level of ethics and she has not shown that she has any after she lied to Congress. I know a lot of “smart Latinos” (her words) with strong ethical and moral beliefs that I highly respect, and she is not one of them.

Mas, another great and poignant article. Thanks for keeping us thinking.

To keep our Second Admendment Rights, there are three things we need to do this year.

1. Kick our Dear Leader out of the White House.
2. Take over the U.S. Senate.
3. Keep the House of Represenatives.

Since occupying the Oval Office, the Dear Leader has not done anything for the good of our nation. He has wasted hundreds of billions of failed social programs, prolonged the recession, caused the greatly increased cost of gas, destroyed millions of American jobs, continued the devaluation of our currency, enacted gun control “under the radar”, made us look like a nation of fools in the eyes of the world by doing stupid things like apologizing for no reason and bowing to kings and emperors, etc. etc. Sure, he has created a few jobs, maybe like the one Mr. Moretto was able to get, and sign off, reluctantly, on a few pro-gun bills. However, what Obama gave us now can easily be taken away if he continues to occupy the White House next year, when he doesn’t have to throw us some crumbs to get re-elected. Even if the Republicans take the Senate and keeps the House in November, our Dear Leader can still veto anything he wants without the Congress having the majority votes to override him. It would be a draw at best, but remember, he can still attempt to put in more liberal, anti-freedom Supreme Court justices which would screw up the United States for decades.

All of the Republican presidential candidates have their flaws, but any one of them is better on his worst day than Obama at his best.

If the Dear Leader gets re-elected in November, we don’t need the Mayan predicted apocalypse to destroy America and the rest of the world. I was premature in predicting HillBilly had the sign of 666 😉

Anyone who posts pro-Obama stuff in this community is, for all intents and purposes, a Judas Goat (look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_goat).

Also, never forget Gunrunner/Gunwalker/Fast and Furious/whatever you want to call it- THE GREATEST CRIME AGAINST GUN OWNERS in recent history. Those deeds alone are impeachable offenses- much less an automatic DQ for re-election.

Re: Andy,

where is it written that you have to walk the party line and swallow whatever is fed to you to respect Mr. Ayoob and love guns? If anything, it seems like you should be recruiting people like me, who are more liberal but may not vote for a congressional candidate if they are espousing anti-2A views. I would think that would be a better formula than the one you appear to be following: “he likes something I like, but he doesn’t believe exactly what I believe so I’m gonna call him names!” Also, I would hardly consider outlining how Obama is not as evil as everyone said he would be, as being “pro-Obama stuff.” I just felt deceived after I voted for Bush, and I felt like McCain turned into a different person this go round, and in the end I think things have actually improved in the last few years, that’s all.

Re:Tom606 and Gary of Ohio
I know that I’m probably wasting my breath with this but I wanted to encourage you to set aside your blind hatred for Obama and consider the facts rather than rhetoric. Obama didn’t get us into this mess, he inherited it. Even though he isn’t your first choice in a candidate, things have gotten better. Devaluing the currency may seem like a bad thing because we want to have the highest currency in the world, but the truth is, a devalued currency is one of the best ways to increase US manufacturing. For example, my company had it’s best year ever, breaking $5B for the first time in it’s 30+ year history due to increased international sales, 100% US manufacturing.

To the point of Sotomayor, I assume you’re talking about McDonald vs. Chicago. Her vote was not against the 2A, it was against the right of the federal government to override state laws. You would have agreed with her decision if it had been limiting the right of the federal government to force a state to enact tougher gun laws.

In the end, I didn’t tell you to vote for anyone because that’s not going to change how the uninitiated feel about guns. This is how you can help the 2A: carry your weapon, do it safely, raise kids who respect firearms, defend yourself if neccesary, and be a leader in your community so people know that we’re not just crazy yokels clinging to our guns, we are also: blue collar workers, intelligent professionals, academics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, black, white, Latino, young, old, liberal, conservative, rich, middle class, poor, rural, urban and we are all clinging to our guns. We are a diverse group, it’s just that if your not a white, middle class, middle aged, suburban/rural conservative, then you’re assumed to be a liberl-elite gun-hater. And I’m here to tell you that’s not true. Maybe if gun-lovers would stop pushing away any liberal gun-lover who approaches them, this wouldn’t be a matter of Rep vs Dem, because Dems would realize that it matters to us too. The 2A is not just for republicans, and you aren’t the only ones who care about it.

Finally, it is a tradition as old as civilization that politicians lie. You may say that Dems lie more than Reps, but I disagree. They are all cut from the same cloth and that cloth knows that you don’t win elections by telling the truth, because fiction always sounds better than reality. One of my favorite quotes of all time goes something like this: “Find the man who doesn’t want to lead and make him your leader, for the man who desires the power is the last equipped to wield it justly.”

I would honestly prefer to see most restrictive laws challenged on the fundamental right found in 2a. Having to pick our way through all these pidly laws on a state and national level simply further establishes fed and state ability to restrict same.
That said, I’m not one to live in the world I would like, but the world that is. I would like to see this law pass if for no other reason than it will bring some sort of leveling to the state playing field.
Like others I can see this backfiring at some point, but I’ll take an imperfect victory now over the hope of an unlikely to materialize flawless victory in the future.
For the record, I don’t think our current president is going to push for anti gun laws. I don’t doubt he’d sign one if it crossed his desk, but I haven’t heard anything other than fearmongering on this topic of late. Clinton pretty much established that taking on pro2a community directly results in a substantial backlash that no politician or party wants to face down. There are larger idealogical issues he can bring to the table, ones that will carry less cross party risk and more direct benefit.

Several people don’t seem to believe that Obama will enacted anymore anti-gun laws, if re-elected to a second term.

Since we already know that Obama is basically anti-Second Amendment, and if he is serving a second term as a lame duck, assuming the can’t find a way to sort of legally run for a third or forth term that is, what would he have to lose by passing any anti-gun law, or signing off on the UN Small Arms Treaty which is not only totally anti-gun, but also completely negates our Constutution and our National sovereigty as well?

with all due respect

Senators Thune and Vitter Introduce Reciprocity Bill with more than 25 Cosponsors

Today, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) introduced legislation to recognize national reciprocity for gun owners who can legally carry concealed firearms in the state where they reside.

The Thune-Vitter bill, S. 2213, was introduced with a huge show of support. Twenty-nine Senators sponsored or cosponsored the bill, and this is, in large part, thanks to you! Because of all your efforts over the last week, the following Senators signed on in support of the legislation:

Ayotte (NH), Barrasso (WY), Boozman (AR), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Coburn (OK), Cochran (MS), Cornyn (TX), Crapo (ID), DeMint (SC), Enzi (WY), Graham (SC), Grassley (IA), Hatch (UT), Inhofe (OK), Isakson (GA), Ron Johnson (WI), Lee (UT), Lugar (IN), McConnell (KY), Paul (KY), Portman (OH), Risch (ID), Rubio (FL), Sessions (AL), Thune (SD), Toomey (PA) Vitter (LA) and Wicker (MS).
This bill, the Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, treats concealed carry as a RIGHT belonging to the people – not a privilege granted by the government.

“Rather than establish a national standard, our bill will ensure that law-abiding citizens are able to carry concealed firearms while at the same time respecting the laws of the respective states they visit,” said Sen. Thune.

The Thune-Vitter bill provides national recognition for concealed carry permit holders (who have obtained one from their home states), but it also recognizes the right to carry for residents of Constitutional Carry states (where no permit is required).

This is a huge win for gun owners! Constitutional Carry is currently the law in five states, and more than a dozen states have legislation to move in that direction.

A competing bill, S. 2188, offers reciprocity ONLY for permit holders — and thus it would prevent many gun owners, who can legally carry in their home states, from carrying firearms when they travel out-of-state. This compromise bill, sponsored by anti-gun Senate Democrats Mark Begich (AK), Joe Manchin (WV) and Max Baucus (MT), would deal a severe blow to the momentum we have in passing Constitutional Carry at the state level.

It is crucial that Senators support the Constitutional Carry-friendly bill, and to oppose any efforts to weaken the Thune-Vitter legislation.

ACTION: Contact your Senators right away. Thank those who have sponsored S. 2213. If your Senators have not yet cosponsored, please urge them to do so … and to stay off of the Begich-Manchin bill.

“Just” a note about the apologist’s statements above:

Obama didn’t “inherit” RECORD US DEBT, a NATIONAL CREDIT DOWNGRADE, and RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT; he (and his administration) CREATED them. That anyone would think things are “improving” these last couple years- especially in the face of THOSE FACTS ALONE- is a sign of extreme ignorance. It’s really difficult to imagine people exercising that degree of denial on how damaged this country has become under Chairman Obama- but there it is right among us, in people who claim to be “one of us” as well.

I’m not even going to address the rest of the apologist bullhockey, because anyone willing to ignore or dismiss the massive problems I mentioned above is already too far gone to bother exposing to reason. As the Borg from Star Trek might say, “he’ll make an excellent drone.”

Justin,

It is extremely difficult to accept other gun lovers who do not see the danger in the Obama administration and simply can’t believe anything is wrong with where our country is headed, or that another term of this group could be disastrous for our second amendment rights. Your not seeing reality is a very scary thing to those who are.

I was also disappointed with Bush, especially in his second term when he should have been doing more on the economy and other domestic issues. However, I believe he did many good things, was a moral and honest man (albeit not a particularly bright one), kept the country safe, and did not lie. Everything coming from Obama has been a lie, from day one, with a goal to fundamentally change the very basis of the country and how it works – to a socialist state, a format which has never proved to be self-sustaining or that treats all classes of people the same.

I started to list a few examples where Obama has lied or gone around legalities to put his agenda into place. After a full page and just getting warmed up, I quit. Anyone who is honest with what is happening can see what he has done. I am certainly not blind. His actions are quite planned and obvious. After three plus years, he needs to take responsibility for not improving things – which is his way of placing his agenda. Bush is long gone.

Things might have improved for a few businesses, there are always industries that do well in economic downturns – look at the firearms industry. Obama has been tremendous for their bottom line the last three years. Look around and see what is really happening, the number of businesses going under and people without jobs, then look me in the eye and tell me that things are better for most Americans under this regime.

I suggest you who have experienced such a growth in business share half of your profitability with everyone in this forum. Mr. Obama would be proud of you.

Will give you the benefit of the doubt on sotomayor until I go back and research again. I also don’t like her arrogance. If you are that damn qualified, show me.

And, yes, I realize we are of all colors, races, backgrounds…. You might be surprised to find out my background. Most of us are not either conservative or liberal on all issues either – it varies depending on the issue – and most people forget that labels and political classifications do not tell the entire picture.

I just don’t feel I am entitled to the fruits of your hard work. I and all Americans should be working and earning our own way, which I have done since high school, including paying off all my school loans on my own and living responsibly so you did not have to pay off any of my personal debt. I also don’t like the government sticking their nose in our business or making basic freedom choices for us. That is not its place, or the American way.

I hope we all see the current administration for what they are and replace them. Would love to recruit you and those like you (many of my friends are quite strongly liberal), but until you all realize that there is a problem and actually admit it, nothing will change. I am afraid because of the denial of so many that the potential for a second term will mean the end to America as it was designed and as we know it. The best solution is to work within the existing framework and make appropriate changes.

One of my favorite sayings that if you throw a frog into boiling water, it will fight and jump out, but if you put him in cold water and gradually turn up the heat, he will cook without realizing it. This is how the current regime is working, quietly, behind the scenes, with lots of diversion so people don’t see what is happening before it is too late. Sorry so many American’s can’t simply realize what is happening.

Do agree that we all need to lead by example when it comes to how we handle ourselves when it comes to guns. Good point.

Mas, sorry this might have been off-track. Happy belated St. Paddy’s day and thanks again for offering thought provoking articles and helping all of us to better ourselves.

At Paul Edwards:
First, the President doesn’t make laws; he just signs or optionally vetoes ones that pass up the chain of command. Second, Treaties aren’t binding unless congress ratifies them (the act of the president signing them is a formality, not a requirement.)
As to the rest of your comments, someone once told me not to attribute to malice what can be dedicated to incompetence. Lots of people want to paint our current president as an evil doctor doom, with the power to shatter the world with his evil. I just don’t see it. He barely got the healthcare bill past with a majority in both houses and couldn’t pass cap and trade at all. The man can’t lead, makes constant mistakes, and doesn’t have the unified backing of his own party. I won’t vote for him, and I’m sure if he got a piece of antigun law on his desk he’d sign it., but I don’t see him getting a piece of anti gun law through congress since the guy could barely get passed a law that his party did want to see past.
The country isn’t Illinois, and the same issues that work in Chicago don’t work the same way nationally. All democrats don’t hate guns (as demonstrated by the concealed carry law currently in the senate.)
So, no, I don’t think he’ll pass antigun legislation or sign the UN treaty, though not for any of the reasons you’ve mentioned.