The House to take up concealed carry reciprocity bill
According to this story the House is planning on debating a concealed carry reciprocity bill which would allow legal concealed carry permit holders in their home state to carry their weapons across state lines. Here is more:
The House this week will push ahead with legislation allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring their guns to other states.
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled on Tuesday to consider the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. The legislation was introduced in January by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., and followed reports of gun owners getting arrested for traveling through states with stricter gun laws.
“Currently, the patchwork of reciprocity laws and agreements between states is confusing and has caused law-abiding citizens to unwittingly break the law and suffer arrest and detention,” Hudson said. All 50 states allow concealed carry, but with different standards and requirements.
The legislation would also permit concealed carry in national parks and other federally-owned land.
On the surface this seems like a great idea to gun owners but I have serious concerns about this type of legislation. Many states already have reciprocity agreements with each other so my concern is that if this passes it will for the first time give the Federal government a door into regulating state concealed carry gun laws.
This might be all well and good with the Republicans in control of the Federal government but what happens if an anti-gun Democrat becomes President and the Democrats have control of the Congress? Once the Federal government’s foot is in the door the regulations will come and we can be certain all states will eventually have to adopt Federal regulations on concealed carry and we know those regulations will resemble the laws already on the book in the stricter states.
Think about Harry Reid and his decision to end the filibuster for judicial nominations. This seemed like a good idea at the time to Harry Reid but now he regrets his decision because Donald Trump has been filling vacant seats. Much the same could happen here.
Here is the example which comes to mind off the top of my head: Some states, including Vermont and New Hampshire, do not require any licensing for concealed carry. Will the law abiding gun owners in these states be eligible to carry concealed in other states because they are in compliance with their state’s law? It does not sound that way to me, the article says license holders will be allowed to carry over state lines. If I am right this could mean states like Vermont and New Hampshire would have to change their concealed carry laws if they which to comply with the reciprocity law. And I believe this would just be the first domino to fall.
We have not seen the text of this bill so this is all speculation on my part and I could be overreacting but I think it could be a dangerous precedent to let the Federal government meddle in something which has always been left up to the states.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Should the Feds get their claws into this the second amendment won’t be worth the parchment it’s written on. After Trump is out in 2021 we may not see another rep in the White House during our lifetime. The left’s
well honed powers of incrementalism will once again pay off. They will have scored the trifecta: The power, The economy, The guns.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chicago is a realistic example of how ‘gun regulation’ is a farce ~
If things work the course of taking the riff-raff scum out of positions of power (very deeply embedded) in both the CIA & FBI – which are said to be one in the same now- the tide could turn for the better. We’re ‘seeing’ what ‘evil does’ when given free rein and reign. Let’s see what happens with the ‘moral and either people’ stand up and do something to stop them and de-position them!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t have time to watch the video before work but you are right about Chicago. It is the perfect example of strict gun control and we can see how that is working out. If this passes eventually Chicago’s laws, or something close to them, could be the laws of the nation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am afraid you are right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This movie has been coming up in the social circles as relevant today. When considering the mental stability (or lack) of those in positions that are best filled by godly people, but aren’t, this movie does speak to us today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ll have to check that one out, I haven’t seen it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve seen this movie more than once.
THE FUTURE IS NOW!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Brittius and commented:
Bravo, Steve. You hit a Grand Slam. Constitutional Carry, NOT, reciprocity, is needed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for the reblog. I thought most people would be against what I wrote but I am glad to see I am not the only one worried about this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re welcome. It appears to me, that the NRA is behind that, with lobbying, because the NRA’s mission since BHO came to power, was to become a federal gun registry agency. There is concern on my part, that if, the wrong people come to power, be they democrats or republicans, confiscation of firearms is possible. Constitutional Carry, as written in the Twenty-Seven Words, is the most reasonable and prudent means. Too many laws on the books and misused by courts. Look at Weiner. Misuse, because he is not in a penitentiary. Same for the slew, BHO, Holder, Jarrett, HRC, Huma, Lynch, et.ano. If anyone else goes for sentencing, odds are, the Book is thrown. The problem is the judiciary. Meaning, behaviors, of many, would need to be corrected, because many others, are in fact, armed, and never an issue. Today, there is something about USDoD placing civilian mercenary contractors on notice that they may be deployed in the US. No, not against the Common Joe. It is due to multiple, and extremely dangerous terror threats. The general population is dumb and happy. The mercenaries are to prevent people from being armed and protecting themselves at any time, and at any place. How safe I feel (Bull Crap!).
Aside from Constitutional Carry, I advocate, that Stand Your Ground laws, be unified into Constitutional Carry, because people who travel, come under fifty different sets of state laws regarding the Justification Of Use Of Deadly Physical Force. SYG laws would simplify and only have one set of laws to know, anywhere in the US.
I resigned as a Life Member of the NRA, and was also a certified rifle, pistol, shotgun instructor (IRA/IPA/ISA). Now, I belong to the REAL gun lobby, the one with NO COMPROMISE. Gun Owners of America.
“TWENTY-SEVEN WORDS.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think you are right in that the NRA has been pushing for this and I can understand why the NRA and many gun owners support this but I think it is being short-sighted. Or maybe the NRA wants to keep the battle going if an anti-gun politician is elected so they can stay relevant and keep the money flowing in. I fully support constitutional carry and stand your ground.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your concern is well founded…no worries, this will never pass IMO…. we have enough Rinos to keep the GOP in check with this Trojan horse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would though it were….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought I would be the only one who opposed this, I am glad to see I am not alone. I also think this has zero chance of ever becoming law.
LikeLike