Government

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Advocates Could Get Major Win With New House Bill

Congress Mulls Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill

Congressional support is growing for a bill that would force all states to honor concealed carry permits issued in any other state, allowing citizens to take their firearms across state lines.

If passed, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 would be a huge win for Second Amendment advocates, giving a gut punch to many state and municipal gun control efforts.

Originally introduced this past February by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R- FL) and Heath Shuler (D-NC), The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act now has 241 co-sponsors in the House, making its passage there likely.

A companion bill is soon to be launched in the Senate, and if it gets enough Democrat support to avoid a filibuster, it would probably pass there too.

The bill, H.R. 822, essentially says: If Florida awards you a concealed carry permit, every other state has to honor it, with narrow exceptions. This will greatly lessen “may issue” politics and bureaucratic obstructionism across the country when it comes to gun rights.

For those who live in notoriously anti-gun areas like New York City, it appears one would still need a permit from your home state to concealed carry within that state if the bill passes.  Individual states will still be allowed to regulate concealed carry permits for their residents.

For example, If you live in New York, things could remain complicated. You would need a New York permit to carry concealed in the Empire State.  If you received an out-of-state permit from Florida, that permit would allow you to carry any other state in the country, except your home state (New York), Chicago, and D.C., which do not allow for concealed carry under any circumstances.

Excluding the home state exception, even the strictest jurisdictions would be required to honor permits from the most lax. While the bill explicitly references the 14th amendment on due process and equal protection grounds, it also makes references to interstate commerce, stating that any qualifying citizen could:

“Carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person.”

The bill also states that:

“The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.”

The authors of this bill appear to be accepting one interpretation of states’ rights (home state regulations will be respected) while drawing on the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to allow travelers the right of self-defense while moving between states.

Congress Mulls Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity BillBut it is still far too early for gun rights advocates to celebrate, as this is not the first time such a bill has been proposed. The National Right to Carry Reciprocity act of 2009 (H.R. 197) never became law, though it was close, and had substantial support from Senate democrats.

The American Bar Association opposes the bill, claiming states should have ‘“broad discretion” on gun regulations. And the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will muster all of its political forces and use every bit of leverage it has on Capitol Hill to prevent the bill’s passage.

President Obama could veto the bill if makes it to his desk, but his poll numbers are almost rock bottom and its an election year. A presidential veto could unlikely on purely political grounds. There are a lot of gun owners in the U.S., and plenty of them are swing voters.

As the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 would finally clarify concealed carry regulations, many are hopeful that the bill will pass and 2011 will be a banner year for the Second Amendment.

Comments (206)

1 2 3 4
  • libertytreecaretaker
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:08pm

    This legislation sounds like a step in the right direction. But in California we have full comunist control of our state and I live on the outskurts of LA County. We have a may issue state with a 99.9 rejection rate on ccw’s. And for open carry we have schools(with a majority of english as a second language students) on every other block which will get you a felony charge if you come within 1000 feet. The only law abidding way to have a firearm with you other than your home or business, is to trans port between your home and the firing range locked in your trunk unloaded with the ammo locked in a seperate case. Please help defeat communism!

    Report Post »  
    • SpankySpankerton
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:25pm

      In California, your best bet is to either work in Hollywood, be a trust fund baby that donates millions to democrats, be a card carrying member of the democrat elite, or be a public union boss.

      All of those folks get CCW permits anytime they ask for them. The rest of us just have to take our chances and call 911.

      You know 911….Just minutes away when seconds count.

      Report Post » SpankySpankerton  
    • libertytreecaretaker
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:30pm

      How do we dismantle this California crime ring?

      Report Post »  
    • TH30PH1LUS
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:32pm

      God bless Cliff Stearns and Heath Shuler !

      @ libertytreecaretaker:

      Can you move north? The further north you go in this State, the less Communist it becomes. There are many conservative communities in Northern CA where CCW is much easier to obtain.

      Also, consider that if this legislation passes, ALL states must show reciprocity. You could obtain a CCW in another State, and even the Freedom-haters in LA would have to honor it.

      Hurrah for the Constitution!

      Report Post » TH30PH1LUS  
    • timtritt
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:07pm

      Having lived in a notoriously difficult county (Sacramento) to get a CCW, the key is to elect a Sheriff in LA County that is pro 2A/CCW. That takes a candidate that will make it an issue, even if they ultimately lose the election. Then you have to push the issue at every opportunity (debates, questions, interviews, etc…).

      Report Post » timtritt  
    • Marci
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:36pm

      Sounds good, too many states have trampled on the 2nd amendment in the name of states rights while hypocritically surrendering to some federal laws (as a matter of agenda) and laying down. Enough is enough.

      Report Post » Marci  
    • 420 Patriot
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:17pm

      The Holywood mentality does contribute. You want to hurt their efforts? Stop going to the theatres. Wait for the DVD. Holywood would still make some money, but it would hurt their efforts to contribute money to officials.

       
    • cessna152
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:30pm

      I live in NJ and I ain‘t gonna’ be able to carry here legally. I have a Florida CCW and can carry in 33 states. I am trying to move out of this state for many reasons and this is one of them.

      One thing that concerns me… is this a “back door” for the Federal Government to find out who the gun owners are? Just throwing that out there…this just sounds too good to only benefit “we the people”.

      Report Post » cessna152  
    • Ookspay
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:03pm

      When I lived in LA county (La Crescenta). I just carried mine where ever I went. Screw them and their unconstitutional laws. People would smoke doobies in bars where cigarettes were not allowed. Very wierd place indeed. Eventually I just had to get the he!! out.

      Report Post » Ookspay  
    • SanRemo1959
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 5:17pm

      Someone in Cal need to grow the cojones to strap on his piece an walk right into the nearest public school. Let them arrest you. Take it to the Supreme Court who’ve already ruled all gun regs other than “the right to bear arms shall not be impinged upon.” Come on guys, it’s not that hard. Grow a set. We did it in Fla.

      Report Post »  
    • libertytreecaretaker
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 5:52pm

      My wife an I work for her family business that has been here for 60 years and only if the company folds do I have the option to move to northern AZ like I want to. I know CALGUNS website are working hard to turn these commies around but it is an up hill battle. We just resently got back the ability to purchase semi-auto pistol grip rifles legally with the invention of a twenty dollar part called a bullet button.

      Report Post »  
    • libertytreecaretaker
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 5:57pm

      @sanremo1959
      We are completely controlled by democrats! A bold political move like that would be suicide by cops and if you survive without the cops blowing your head off, the Gov. Moon Beam would find just enough lethal injuction to make an example of you!

      Report Post »  
    • SanDiegoCountyCitizen
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 6:01pm

      Two words for my fellow Californians: Civil Disobedience!

      Report Post » SanDiegoCountyCitizen  
    • Abraham Young
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 6:11pm

      This legislation is crazy, purely crazy. The Constitution already guarantees our right to self defense – we don’t need the agreement of any State. Period. End of story. Some of you seem to think that loading up on legislation will somehow make amends for your inability to enforce the Constitution to begin with. I tell you you are barking up the wrong tree. You are more likely to damage the Constitution with your well intended legislation than liberals could ever do by themselves alone.

      Please folks, get a grip on yourselves and START UNDERSTANDING what you read.

      Report Post »  
    • Secret Squirrel
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 8:49pm

      .
      What part of “To keep AND bear arms” do they need explained to them?
      If you people in California keep electing communists, then I don’t feel sorry for you.
      Move.

      Report Post » Secret Squirrel  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 10:25pm

      @ libertytreecaretaker

      We just resently got back the ability to purchase semi-auto pistol grip rifles legally with the invention of a twenty dollar part called a bullet button.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Yes. I just got one. I also bought a Raddlock adjustable bullet button to install after I take possession of it. Not to mention the 30 round magazines that I “found” -snicker-

      …but those mags are hidden and ready to go if the SHTF.

      Report Post »  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:46am

      This is WAY over due. But it is still too restrictive for my tastes.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:49am

      In Idaho, the CCW is a Concealed Weapons Carry. NOT A Concealed Firearm Carry. You can carry what ever weapon you feel most comfortable with. Sticks, knives, guns, rocks. Dealers choice.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • US Citizen
      Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:59am

      I believe this is a State issue and shouldnot be a decision by the federal government. The federal government doesn’t have the power to tell states how to function. If your state has a Essex up view of the 2nd then change it or move. I avoid traveling through states that don’t honor my Concealed carry permit.

      Report Post »  
    • Wolf
      Posted on September 16, 2011 at 9:42am

      @Libertytreecaretaker… Sorry, Buddy- you‘re wrong on this ’sounding like a step in the right direction’. The 2A says ‘shall not be infringed’. When we allow them to pass any kind of firearm legislation, the 2A is being infringed. Any Kind of legislation. Regardless how good this bill seems on the outside, any time a freedom is regulated, that freedom is lost. Once this bill is passed, there will be back doors for more regulation of firearms.
      When has CONgress ever passed a law that didn’t have riders that over-write the law?

      Report Post »  
  • palerider54
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:03pm

    I plan my vacations and trips according to the right to carry my Glock 40 cal. States that will not let me carry concealed, I not only avoid if possible but when I have to travel through Georgia for example, I make sure I spend no money in that state. Then I like to keep receipts like filling up before I enter the state, the hotel room before I enter the state, and after I leave the state, and even the picnic lunches we bought before entering the state.

    I then send copies of all the receipts to the Georgia tourism office with an explanation as to why I avoided the state or at least did not spend any money while going through it.

    Report Post »  
    • noline
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:21pm

      Ditto that brother

      Report Post »  
    • Tickdog
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:48pm

      That is an awesome idea.. Love it!

      Report Post » Tickdog  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:11pm

      Great deal man, I do the same thing. I can’t remember the last time I set foot in Illinois for example.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • georgiavietvet
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:28pm

      georgia is a must issue state. i have a ccw and live in georgia.

      Report Post »  
    • paulusmaximus
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:32pm

      I think this is a better Idea then a new law. If you can require states to except you concealed carry permit you can be required to have a permit to carry a gun at all! States like money and will respond accordingly.

      Report Post » paulusmaximus  
    • arx
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:52pm

      Georgia honors Florida’s permits. Just double checked it. Sure you aren’t mistaken?

      It’s IL and WI I always have to worry about when travelling north.

      Report Post » arx  
    • aCAD
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:07pm

      Pale rider – Great idea, don’t know why you are picking on Georgia though. We have a “shall issue” on concealed carry permits. Also, Georgia has reciprocity agreements with any state that honors Georgia permits.
      I too plot my travel based on states gun laws – as best I can.

      Report Post » aCAD  
    • The_Hut_In_Co
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 5:11pm

      @Palerider try this link.

      http://www.nraila.org/recmap/georgiarec.pdf

      My Co. permit is good in Georgia.

      Report Post » The_Hut_In_Co  
    • SanRemo1959
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 5:24pm

      Then stuff your wallet, strap on yer six shooter, and come on down to Florida, my man!! And then just dare some liberal to look at you crooked. Get this, you can not be charged with murder for shooting someone in Florida unless the prosecutor can prove that you were not in fear for your life! I’m telling you it is paradise down here for us gun carrying patriots.

      Report Post »  
  • We the people of the republic
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:03pm

    KISS…… Keep it simple stupid.
    This is a terrific move toward our constitutional rights.
    I agree we should have all rights given to us by our founding fathers and I agree not everyone should have a gun. but the idea is to weed out the bad not limit the group in whole from bearing arms.
    We have a system that would work if we kept it simple.
    To many officials make their own rules and no one has stopped them or challenged them when this began. Now it is plainly out of control. Our laws have become so complicated and in favor of large oversight and control over the citizens of our nation that we are having to work feverishly hard at just keeping the freedoms we are still somewhat allowed.
    Lets face the truth…. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS BY NOT STANDING UP SOONER AS “WE THE PEOPLE” IN LARGE ENOUGH FORCE. AND LETTING OURSELVES GET DUPPED AS WELL AS VOTING FOR SOME SELFISH REASON FOR YOUR NEEDS ONLY AND NOT FOR THE GOOD OF ALL, AND VOTING FOR PEOPLE YOU ARE LESS THAN INFORMED OF WHO YOUR VOTING FOR.
    I myself have felt alone in my endeavors and have recieved mountians of adversity everytime I state the truth. To many people are just so self absorbed and care nothing about this nation AND ONLY what they can SCAM from it.
    Shame on you people who are this way and also on you hypocrites that say things in defense of America then do NOTHING TO GET INVOLVED and change the behavior toward freedom and our rights.. STARTING WITH YOURSELVES AND YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR..
    STOP TH

    Report Post » We the people of the republic  
    • SgtB
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:33pm

      If I cannot trust another adult human being of sound mind to carry a loaded firearm without inciting brutal violent attacks on others, I cannot trust that person to be a part of my society in general. The only place for such people is prison or that other place for bad people. I think that every adult, no matter their history should have the right to defend themselves from harm until they prove through their own actions that they personally are an animal capable of nothing but evil. Then we deal with them appropriately.

      While I was deployed, every person had a weapon with at least 60 rounds and no one ever got shot accidentally and fights between members never involved their guns. And these were young, 20-25 year old males of all races and backgrounds. While it is fair to say that these men were better trained and regimented than an average person, it is obvious that it is not the presence of weapons that makes a person turn evil, it is the person himself.

      Lastly, it would be far simpler to ban cats or dogs than to ban a creation of the human mind and human skill. To completely rid the world of guns you would have to destroy all the manufacturing ability of the human race. For if even one person remained with the knowledge of how to make a gun, the guns could be remade. Their is not a person alive who can remake a species.

      I say let everyone who wants to carry a gun carry a gun, and everyone else can carry their own weapon of choice. Remember, ARMS is any weapon.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • Ookspay
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 5:49pm

      @SGTB, Very good points and well written as well. Thanks for your service!

      Report Post » Ookspay  
  • JLGunner
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:58pm

    I would love to see New York City forced to repeal their total ban on guns and have to adopt the same policy we have here in Florida.

    Report Post » JLGunner  
    • DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:04pm

      The only requirement should be that you are not currently imprisoned. It is a RIGHT. Therefore a free man cannot lose it and there is no requirement for it. If you are imprisoned justly, you have infringed on your own rights(all of them, not just the 2nd). Once you are freed from prison you retain your 1st amendment right; therefore you should retain them all. You have paid your debt. If you are a danger to society you should not be released. If you are however in society again you have the RIGHT to defend yourself from those whom may wish you harm; including the government. It is a right, not a privilege. There should be no firearms laws concerning restriction of any kind at any level.

      P.S. Yes, you should be able to yell fire in a movie theatre.(1st amendment) There should be repercussions for causing such mayhem from those in the theatre.

      Report Post » DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)  
    • SanRemo1959
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 5:37pm

      Jerico; I thought you were making some brilliant reverse sham arguement with your postulate concerning the yelling of fire in a crowded theater and all the bloody mayhem and stoppled toddlers that would potentially result from such an act but then it hit me, if the Supreme Court can split such hairs when it comes to the first amendment, what’s to say some future Supreme Court might decide to split a few of their own, only this time concerning our cherished 2nd amemdment? Answer: nothing. Which is why your point about the 1st amendment protection of those who wish to scream fire in a crowded theater must be protected at all cost, lest we start down the slippery slope of whittled rights that may very well end with a “1984” style neutered, pistolless populace. Boy the brilliance of Glen’s followers never ceases to amaze me.

      Report Post »  
  • DanWesson455
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:56pm

    I would argue this just sets the clock back to when a Free Man could travel anywhere in this country armed for his self-defense. Before the progressives started with their rules and regs. Can yo imagine Davey Crockett having to go to the Alamo with just is Buckskins and no weapon? Or travel a wagon train from St. Louis to Calif or Oregon and not have your weapon of choice?
    Then again, I hate the idea of the Federal Gov’t dictating to States what is right or legal when I am a true believer of States Rights as in Republic. What we are suppose to be.

    Report Post » DanWesson455  
    • JohnBirch
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:04pm

      But the point is the 2nd is a right under our constitution and not to be infringed by states rights.

      Report Post » JohnBirch  
    • Banter
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:06pm

      As many have said above, this is a constitutional issue, not a states-right issue. Constitution is the law of the land. The second amendment is your right and permit to have and carry guns in the USA.

      Report Post » Banter  
  • 1911HeadBanger
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:52pm

    If it passes the Obama Cheerleaders in the Senate, Obama will still more than likely veto it. However, with pressure on the 2012 election, he may very well sign it. He‘s still trying to convince us he’s Reagan. Even if he does sign it, it will be purely a political ploy. If he vetoes it, it will energize the NRA and gun owners.

    Report Post » 1911HeadBanger  
    • db321
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:45pm

      You must watch this Video – Well Done – Obama’s Attack Watch!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYKRokgX00

      Report Post » db321  
    • cessna152
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:41pm

      This dope ain‘t gonna’ sign that… are you serious? He is here to destroy this country and has 16 months more to do it!!

      He [still] wants to spend more and more money even though over 70% of Americans are against it. He is dead set on destroying this country… no WAY will he sign that!

      Report Post » cessna152  
  • John 3:16
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:44pm

    I think this is a great idea. The gun permit is just another tax,however. I think all that should be required is to have one CWP class and range qualifing and then no more renewing the tax me please gun permit. It should be up to the gun owner to stay up to date on the safe usage of his gun.

    Report Post » John 3:16  
  • Parnell3rd
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:41pm

    “Where guns are illegal to own, thereby denying citizens 2nd Amendment rights, the citizens are not allowed to defend their life and property from criminals who violate the law. These Cities and States who deny law abbiding citizens their rights are taking sides with criminals.”MPS

    Report Post » Parnell3rd  
  • JD Carp
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:41pm

    By definition a conceiled carry permit is an infringment of my 2nd Ammendment right to begin with!

    Report Post » JD Carp  
    • jdog777
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:52pm

      exactly… First the fed will write the rules and then they will regulate it. They will be the one’s deciding who gets the guns. This is a ploy to federalize gun control. I live in AZ, because we protect our 2nd amendment rights, I don’t have to have a permit to conceal carry. I think if the fed gets control of conceal carry laws… they will force States to adopt their version of the law.

      Report Post »  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:53pm

      Great point! The Second Amendment is my permit.

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • JohnBirch
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:08pm

      and a big ROGER THAT!

      Report Post » JohnBirch  
    • Meyvn
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:39pm

      Yes. The 2nd amendment should be all that’s required. I too, fear this could be a ploy to federalize gun control. Be on your toes folks.

      Report Post » Meyvn  
    • banjarmon
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:13pm

      amen!!!

      Report Post » banjarmon  
  • Attention2Detail
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:35pm

    The constitutional justification is in the article. The 14th amendment also comes into play. Both are a little ambiguous, but much less than nearly every other law passed by Congress. Oh yeah, there’s also the 2nd amendment. The refusal of states to recognise permits issued in other states violates the 2nd amendment. There is also the precedent of driver’s licenses. By law every state must recognise licenses issued in every other state.

    Report Post » Attention2Detail  
    • AxelPhantom
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:49pm

      The second ammendment describes a right, driving on a tax payer road is a privilege.

      Report Post »  
  • JesusForPresident
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:31pm

    We already have this…it’s called the Second Amendment! Why do we even need a permit to carry at all when we’re already given that right by the Second Amendment? I look at this not as the Feds exerting power over the states, but as the Feds reinforcing what is already an inalienable right.

    Report Post »  
    • JohnBirch
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:40pm

      Boy, wouldn’t it be nice just to get back to our basic foundation of Rights?

      Report Post » JohnBirch  
    • Favored93
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:44pm

      Amen and Amen!!!!!!!!!

      Report Post » Favored93  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:15pm

      I can, and have, walked around with my gun on my hip in the open, fully loaded. Ohio is a no-license open carry state, and as long as you‘re not in Cleveland where they ignore the law and you’re acting peacefully, most of the time you’re left alone.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
  • Ceefour
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:30pm

    We are DOOMED”’the blood will flow in the streets like a nsaturday nite in new york city

    Report Post »  
    • Banter
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:37pm

      Yet, this has not happened in states that honor the 2nd amendment. The statistics have been throughly vetted at this point proving areas where gun ownership is outlawed, only the outlaws have guns, and the crime rates soar.

      Your liberal outcry is based on nothing.

      Report Post » Banter  
    • Attention2Detail
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:38pm

      You’re joking, right? Have you ever been in New York City on a Saturday night? Right now the only ones with guns are the criminals and the cops, and both know that you don’t have one and both are a little trigger happy. Maybe the knowledge that some tourist might have a gun will slow them down a little.

      Report Post » Attention2Detail  
    • bhelmet
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:38pm

      It flows in NY b/c ONLY the criminals have guns. You are the proverbial dull crayon in the box.

      Report Post » bhelmet  
    • JohnBirch
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:42pm

      @Banter…
      I think Ceefour was kidding

      Report Post » JohnBirch  
    • Banter
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:51pm

      I hope so. If you are kidding then I take back my response. Put the proverbial smiley face :-) in your statement, then we can move on to the real liberal nuts who truly believe this sentiment.

      Report Post » Banter  
    • Banter
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:56pm

      If you were kidding, then I take back my response. Use the proverbial smiley face in your statement, then we can move on to the real liberal nuts who believe this sentiment.

      Report Post » Banter  
  • AxelPhantom
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:29pm

    This may actually pass the Senate, they may see it as precident to make all states recognize the gay marriges performed in other states.

    Report Post »  
    • TEA4Me
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:46pm

      Except there is actually a constitutional right to bear arms and there is no such right to marriage, gay or straight. Any Federal law requiring states to acknowlege gay marriage could, and should, be considered unconstitutional.

      I would be more concerned about the precedent that might be set if Obamacare is not struck down as unconstitutional. If the Feds win the Obama care case, then Washington will have a precedent to pretty much madate anything they want on the citizens of the US.

      Report Post » TEA4Me  
    • AxelPhantom
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:59pm

      Tea, agreed there is a difference between a right and a privilege, problem is they don’t see it that way, I don’t put it past them to twist it around, like pretty much everything else. Then it goes to the courts.

      Honest question, no trap, just interested in your thoughts. Do you consider voting a right or a privilege?

      Report Post »  
    • TheWholeTruth
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:03pm

      If you knew your Constitution, you’d understand that is not the case. The 2nd Amendment has been slaughtered. Regulations on gun ownership and the bearing of arms (look up the word ‘bear’) are completely unconstitutional. They all simply ignore the part “shall not be infringed.” If you want to see what that really means according to our Founders: http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/meaning-of-shall-not-be-infringed.html

      The right to make laws individually by the States (yes it is CAPPED) on such things as marriage and the other such subjects, is strictly up to the individual State. They are, after all, sovereign entities. Their laws do not cross State lines. BUT, the 2nd amendment is a guarantee to all people. The Feds nor the States can make laws that infringe this right.

      People really should start learning what our Constitution means as per the Founders.
      On our Rights: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/rights/

      I would suggest that everyone browse the last link and learn what kind of country our Founders gave us.

      Report Post »  
    • TheWholeTruth
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:09pm

      @AXELPHANTOM It is a right with exceptions. You can not keep a person from voting due to race, sex, or age (once 18). BUT the States hold the right to set other restrictions as they see fit. They may not can keep a woman from voting but they can keep a woman who is a felon from voting etc. Check out this blog (also browse the other links to the right on the page) http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/voter-eligibility/ She just explains it so much better than I can in such a short space. And, she uses the Federalist Papers to back her up. Have I mentioned that she’s a Constitutional Attorney and a brilliant writer? NAAAAA.. but she IS

      Report Post »  
    • Kalidor835
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:26pm

      @AxelPhantom, I tend to look at voting as more of a responsibility. Unfortunately there are too many irresponsible people that either don’t educate themselves about the candidates, don’t vote at all, or both. A perfect example of this was the poll done after the 2008 election which showed the majority of Obama voters under the age of 26 didn’t even know what the issues were. This was the exact opposite when compared to McCain voters in the same age group.

      Report Post » Kalidor835  
    • encinom
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:43pm

      TEA4Me
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:46pm
      Except there is actually a constitutional right to bear arms and there is no such right to marriage, gay or straight. Any Federal law requiring states to acknowlege gay marriage could, and should, be considered unconstitutional.

      I would be more concerned about the precedent that might be set if Obamacare is not struck down as unconstitutional. If the Feds win the Obama care case, then Washington will have a precedent to pretty much madate anything they want on the citizens of the US.
      __________________________________
      But ther is the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” so a marraige performed in one state is valid in another.

      Report Post »  
    • Kalidor835
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 7:02pm

      Actually, encinom, a given state doesn‘t have to recognize any marriage performed in another state and it doesn’t matter whether it’s gay or straight. Just because they choose to doesn’t mean they have to. An example is WV doesn’t recognize gay marriages performed in other states. I know a lesbian couple who thought they’d be cute and get married in MA but when they tried to file state income taxes as married had their return denied.

      Report Post » Kalidor835  
  • GoApple
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:29pm

    Standing ovation! STANDING OVATION! HERE HERE!! I am from Phoenix Arizona and recently went into Chicago for a very long business road trip and traveled with my firearm. There was a lot of stress being a lawful gun owner on this trip for me. Felt like I was going into another country at times. Just trying to figure out all the States different regulations and laws was extremely difficult when I went into 9 different states on this one trip. For instance what information was updated and current on each website, what website to use for the information, what was fact from fiction and what was law etc. etc. Who does and does not have reciprocity for my concealed carry permit was a mess I promise you. I had no problems except worry that I was or was not practicing each states law appropriately.

    Keeping it simple as always, always works best.

    Report Post » GoApple  
  • General Lee
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:29pm

    The States should not be able to make laws that negate our constitutional rights.

    Report Post »  
  • Banter
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:29pm

    Now maybe I won’t have to drive around ILL (I think the state motto is – we despise legal gun ownership) to get to WI from FL. And now that WI is part of the CCW reciprocity, I’m legal when visiting.

    Could be a banner day for responsible gun owners if it passes.

    Report Post » Banter  
  • Attention2Detail
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:27pm

    This would be great. I live in Pennsylvania but often have to travel to New York. This would allow me to take my lawfully owned and legally carried firearm with me. It always seemed wrong to me that the one place I couldn’t carry was the one place that I would be most likely to need it.

    Report Post » Attention2Detail  
  • libertydude
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:26pm

    Why do we need legislation to force the states to comply with the 2nd Amendment? What about “…shall not be infringed.” is unclear? Any infringement imposed by any government (federal, state, municipal) is unconstitutional and should be removed. This would by default enable carry across state lines.

    Report Post »  
    • rlmeals
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:43pm

      Exactly! This is what I don’t understand…we have rights given to us by God (which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights). The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But does this mean that the states can take away rights we’ve been given in the Constitution? We have rights that abolish slavery, allow women to vote, protection against illegal search and seizure, etc.; wouldn‘t everyone say it’s “unconstitutional” if one state decided that they would exercise their 10th amendment rights and would allow slavery, or tell women they can’t vote, or that local cops under the city government jurisdiction are allowed to barge into people’s houses without a warrant, etc.? Then why is it considered “Constitutional” to say the states can ignore the 2nd amendment by way of practicing their 10th amendment rights? Seems like a double standard to me, picking and choosing what part of the Constitution they want to follow.

      Report Post » rlmeals  
  • jakartaman
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:26pm

    This should be a no brainer – 2nd amendment and all!
    Besides it will drive the local commies crazy!!!!

    Report Post »  
  • JQCitizen
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:26pm

    It is a basic right under our Federal Constitution; – No state should have the right to infringe it to begin with.

    The same is true of Abortion. And that is why I agree with a Constitutional Amendment recognizing the sanctiity of human life IN THE WOMB, just as one was passed to recognize the rights of slaves in the 14th ammendment.

    In an Ideal World people would use their intelligence to assume the true meaning of the Constitution, but we don’t live in an Ideal World, do we?

    Report Post »  
  • need-more-ammo
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:26pm

    You can guarantee pass or not, the criminals will carry their illegal guns anywhere they want. It’s ludicrous to think that law abiding citizens shouldn’t be permitted to protect themselves EVERYWHERE.

    Report Post »  
    • Gary Fishaholic
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:56pm

      Agreed!! Doesn’t the concealed carry permit put you on a government list to keep track of you or is that just a local list? I don’t want to be on any list for them to come and try to collect my gun when they see fit to.

      Report Post » Gary Fishaholic  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:21pm

      @Gary

      Your local county Sherriff issues the permit, not the state or federal government. If you’ve bought one gun through a gun shop, they already know you have a gun.

      I don’t agree with the notion that I need a permit to carry concealed, but I have one so that my children don’t see their dad go to jail for the rest of his life for daring to exercise a right in “the wrong way”. On the other hand, I open carry without worrying about permits around these parts. Six one way, half dozen the other I guess.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
  • loadingmyclips
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:22pm

    This would be great!!! I really get nervous traveling to Shitcago because of their anti-gun rules and their lowlife thugs. I leave my .45 at home in IND. and take a chance that harm will not come our way. Why should I be deprived of protection in one of our most dangerous cities, when I have a valid Carry Permit and legal firearms??

    Report Post » loadingmyclips  
    • team1blazer
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:15pm

      Bad Idea. NEVER leave home without your personal protection and your permit to carry (constitution). Even if you are arrested for carrying without a permit (not likely unless you are stupid enough to pull it without cause), you can file a lawsuit. Either way, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

      Report Post » team1blazer  
  • Aaryq
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:21pm

    It’s about time. I’ve been beating my elected officials up with letters and emails to push something like this through. BZ Congress.

    Report Post »  
  • JohnBirch
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:21pm

    Don’t get me wrong….as a CCW permit holder, I want this.

    But I question the Constitutionality of the feds tellings States what they must do.

    I’m listening………..

    Report Post » JohnBirch  
    • General Lee
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:28pm

      The States should not be allowed to make any law that negates our constitutional rights.

      Report Post »  
    • jakartaman
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:28pm

      The 2nd amendment is not a state issue – Its a Federal right

      Report Post »  
    • AlansTigg
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:30pm

      like telling the states what to do would be a new thing? They use the commerce clause to justify just about everything

      Report Post » AlansTigg  
    • JohnBirch
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:33pm

      Excellent points!

      Report Post » JohnBirch  
    • ItTakesFaith
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:34pm

      It’s not a “States Rights” issue… but more an issue of protecting our Constitutional Rights…! This law closely follows the various “gun ban” court cases that have been making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court that will likely conclude with the individual’s right to own any firearm that is readily available in other states… In other words, CA, NY, NJ won’t be allowed to ban “assault weapons” that can be purchased in TX, etc…

      God Bless America…! It’s about time…

      Report Post » ItTakesFaith  
    • dont_drive_slow_in_the_left_lane_obliviot
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:39pm

      The right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the US constitution, therefore the right to prohibit bearing of arms is not reserved to the states under the 10th. So while we are all weary of federal intrusion this one is constitutional.

      Report Post » dont_drive_slow_in_the_left_lane_obliviot  
    • encinom
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:39pm

      “The 2nd amendment is not a state issue – Its a Federal right”

      Regarding well regulated militas. Here we have the Federal Government negating the State laws.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:24pm

      “The right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the US constitution, therefore the right to prohibit bearing of arms is not reserved to the states under the 10th. So while we are all weary of federal intrusion this one is constitutional.”

      Ding, winner. Exactly correct. Beck needs to come to terms with this as well, he seems to think that a state could become utterly fascist, as long as it is not the FedGov doing it, under “state’s rights”. Like you say though, the power is specifically designated to the FedGov regarding the Bill of Rights. No state can violate these inalienable rights, period, full stop.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
  • TXPilot
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:20pm

    Well, it’s a start in the right direction, so let’s hope it passes.

    Report Post » TXPilot  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love