CCL Reciprocity Angers Anti-Gun Groups

[Lawdog]

Trump Says National Carry Reciprocity Is 'In the Works'

[John Kloehr]

I hope so. It also might be his statement just spurred his staff to get it going.

 

However let's have a bit of an argument about this:

 

The Second Amendment is the only constitutional right that stops at state borders

National right-to-carry reciprocity is a critical safeguard for the Second Amendment that has so far eluded American gun owners, thanks to inaction in Congress. The right to keep and bear arms is the only constitutional right that stops at state borders, making it legal to carry a firearm in one state while a felony in a neighboring one.

 

 

 

What about voting? My right to vote ends at my county line. Depending on the race like a city mayor, it ends at city limits. Of course, if I move, the right does travel with me to the new place and I lose it where I left. Reverse if I move back. There is no place I could move to in the US where I would not have a right to vote, but my right to vote is not universal, it is very localized. I can not run around on election day voting for a mayor in every surrounding town, or across state lines to help elect a senator there. If I want to vote in another state, I need to move there.

 

I also challenge the statement it is due "to inaction in Congress." If it is a right, it depends on no law or permission slip. This is part of why I insist permit-less carry is not constitutional carry. When my state made a law saying no permit was required if I could otherwise get one, a later administration could take this away. Permit-less carry is not the same as constitutional. While congressional action would benefit those of us who wish to travel, do not give up objection to the means used to provide it. If you do, your right just became a privilege.

[Blackwater 53393]

I agree with most of your statement on voting, but the rules were set from the beginning on voting for the most part! Districts and counties, (including parrishes) have always been delineated to promote, (if not insure) proper representation in different environments and under different conditions.  Gerrymandering aside, it hasn’t changed very much except to allow more people to vote.

 

I totally agree with the idea that the Second Amendment should be out of the reach or control of legislators except for the setting of penalties for crimes committed with firearms!  I somewhat take exception to the requirement for background checks. It’s an infringement, but it is logical where the transaction is made between parties that have no knowledge of one another.  I suppose that it’s an inconvenient but necessary safeguard. So the statement that the Second Amendment is not unlimited makes some sense here!

 

There is much that bears examination and more that bears reexamination!! But none of it should be subject to the whim of parties, politicians, or some perceived majority!!