Some Good News - CC Reciprocity proposal

[HoosierQ]

Some folks in Washington get it.

**********************************************************

FORT WAYNE -
A congressman from northeastern Indiana has proposed a law that would allow people who legally carry a concealed weapon in their home state to also do so any other state that allows concealed weapons.

U.S. Rep. Marlin Stutzman says the proposed measure would eliminate confusion among law enforcement and gun owners about which states have agreements about concealed carry laws. He also says the right to self-defense is the cornerstone of the Second Amendment.

He says the law would ensure that if you're legally carrying a concealed firearm in one state, you can do it in another. He says the bill would not force states that prohibit concealed carry to change their laws.

http://www.wthr.com/story/21080894/stutzman-proposes-concealed-weapon-law

 

[beatledog7]

He says the bill would not force states that prohibit concealed carry to change their laws.

And how many states would that be?

Mandatory state compliance with another new federal gun law? It would seem convenient on the surface for those who travel state to state, but it's just another opening for increased federal intrusion.

If the Feds can mandate CCW reciprocity, then they'll say they can legitimately control the CCW process.

No thanks.

 

[Tirod]

Most of the reciprocity issue is getting done because of interpreting our Constitutional rights. States commonly respect each others drivers licenses, marriage licenses (no, don't go there, ) etc. After all, we have Constitutional rights that exist above the state's power to restrict.

The .gov isn't "allowing" us to have them, and the reverse is true, it can't take them away. What it does when attempting to remove our rights is to restrict our access or ability to exercise them.

This is the point a lot miss - we still have the right. It's inalienable. Why we have a problem is that other citizens won't respect it and attempt to restrict it.

If you were a poor American of African descent in the South of the 1930's, you still had the right to vote. What was lacking was either cash to pay a poll tax, or somebody to recognize it and hand you a ballot.

California is presently proposing more onerous gun laws, which will restrict the exercise of the 2d Amendment rights of their citizens. Bans, sunsets, and being required to turn guns or magazines in will only work for those who willingly give up their right by giving up their guns and magazines.

If you don't give them up, you are still exercising your rights. We are already seeing indications that New York gun owners aren't buckling under, they have been vocal and out front they will not give in and obey.

There is one right above all rights in the Constitution - the right to disobey. What you have to prepare for are the consequences of it. If that is acceptable, fine.

You do know that authorities simply cannot arrest everyone, and when they do, it only increases the outrage against an unconstitutional situation? Politics is a matter of bluff, posturing, and words. Action is something politicians can't live with. The NY state can't afford to arrest 100,000 citizens who refuse to turn in their guns. There simply isn't resources, and in the long run, the ones who tried would lose.

Take a long look at the Civil Rights actions in the '60's. Things changed. People resisted. They burdened the authorities, who finally relented and the people's will was done.

Getting National Reciprocity has been that kind of struggle, there is one state left with no CC, and the courts are imposing on that Legislature to act by passing a law. Since it would not address the issue and respect our rights, it was taken to court, and forced to do so.

The government isn't a monolithic giant in charge of everything.