Posted on Dec 5, 2017
AMERICANS! CALL YOUR U.S. REPRESENATIVES! HR 38 MUST PASS!
2.89K
40
30
7
7
0
AMERICANS CALL YOUR U.S. CONGRESS MEMBERS! NOW IS THE TIME!
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has passed H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, and it is now headed to the U.S. House floor for a vote. Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him/her to vote for H.R. 38!
Your fundamental right to keep and bear arms should not end at the state line. This bill would ensure that law-abiding citizens do not lose the ability to protect themselves when they travel from state to state. And it would ensure that anti-gun jurisdictions do not harass travelers for exercising their constitutional rights.
Contrary to what Everytown (@everytown), Bloomberg, and other anti-rights group followers (#gunviolence, #gunsense, #STOPCCR) want you to think H.R. 38 DOES NOT:
Read more at the link...
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has passed H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, and it is now headed to the U.S. House floor for a vote. Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him/her to vote for H.R. 38!
Your fundamental right to keep and bear arms should not end at the state line. This bill would ensure that law-abiding citizens do not lose the ability to protect themselves when they travel from state to state. And it would ensure that anti-gun jurisdictions do not harass travelers for exercising their constitutional rights.
Contrary to what Everytown (@everytown), Bloomberg, and other anti-rights group followers (#gunviolence, #gunsense, #STOPCCR) want you to think H.R. 38 DOES NOT:
Read more at the link...
AMERICANS! CALL YOUR U.S. REPRESENATIVES! HR 38 MUST PASS!
Posted from chriswagoner.us
Gun Control
Bill of Rights
2nd Amendment
Concealed Carry
Self Defense
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 5
5
5
0
Always amazing to see which laws should be at the State level and which ones should be overruled by Federal government. Especially interesting to see an argument for armed adults on school grounds in this bill. It's not enough to open carry across state lines, you want to conceal carry across state lines.
(5)
(0)
SGT William Howell
MAJ James Woods I agree completely. While I am pro gun and pro carry. I am even more anti Federal Government forcing laws on a state.
(3)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SGT William Howell - I have no problem with owning a gun nor open carry vs. conceal carry. I agree with you that if we want the states to dictate what's in the best interest for the states then why do we need this bill.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
https://chriswagoner.us/2017/04/25/national-reciprocity-is-way-overdue/
By Chris Wagoner:
On the very first day of the new 115th Congress, Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced national concealed carry reciprocity legislation. As a concealed carry license holder himself, this is something that President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly said he supported.
The idea of being able to carry your firearm from one state to the next if you are licensed or allowed to carry in your home state has been long discussed. Previously, legislation such as this would have had very little possibility of passing, especially with a Democratic White House where it was sure to be vetoed before the ink was dry. But it appears, with the inauguration of the new Republican President-elect looming, that Congress has already started to seriously consider the kinds of things that it could not even dare to think about before.
The main issue in the past has been the state-to-state disparity in requirements for getting a concealed carry license. Some states require substantially more training, others require an applicant to go through a background check, and still more require the approval of local law enforcement officials. This list goes on. Our many states cannot make up their collective minds about what the requirements should be.
Some states that are more progressive in thought have no requirements, instead preferring to operate under what we call “Constitutional Carry,” which means you can carry a firearm without a license or other requirements as long as you are not a convicted felon or other federally-prohibited person.
This is as it should be nationwide: there should be no requirements by any state to allow a citizen to carry a concealed firearm, or for that matter, to openly carry a firearm, as it is a Constitutional Right.
Maybe we can hope that once national reciprocity goes into effect, states that are heavy on requirements will realize that these significant restrictions are simply not needed.
If this legislation passes and is signed into law, it may mark the dawn of a long-awaited realization that we should not regulate rights like we regulate privileges, such as driving a car. We need to help people to remember that rights are not something to be regulated, taxed, or licensed. You do not sell a right back to the people by making them get a license to exercise that right. Our rights are meant to be exercised no matter what state we find ourselves in. Our rights do not change because of a magical line on the ground.
By Chris Wagoner:
On the very first day of the new 115th Congress, Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced national concealed carry reciprocity legislation. As a concealed carry license holder himself, this is something that President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly said he supported.
The idea of being able to carry your firearm from one state to the next if you are licensed or allowed to carry in your home state has been long discussed. Previously, legislation such as this would have had very little possibility of passing, especially with a Democratic White House where it was sure to be vetoed before the ink was dry. But it appears, with the inauguration of the new Republican President-elect looming, that Congress has already started to seriously consider the kinds of things that it could not even dare to think about before.
The main issue in the past has been the state-to-state disparity in requirements for getting a concealed carry license. Some states require substantially more training, others require an applicant to go through a background check, and still more require the approval of local law enforcement officials. This list goes on. Our many states cannot make up their collective minds about what the requirements should be.
Some states that are more progressive in thought have no requirements, instead preferring to operate under what we call “Constitutional Carry,” which means you can carry a firearm without a license or other requirements as long as you are not a convicted felon or other federally-prohibited person.
This is as it should be nationwide: there should be no requirements by any state to allow a citizen to carry a concealed firearm, or for that matter, to openly carry a firearm, as it is a Constitutional Right.
Maybe we can hope that once national reciprocity goes into effect, states that are heavy on requirements will realize that these significant restrictions are simply not needed.
If this legislation passes and is signed into law, it may mark the dawn of a long-awaited realization that we should not regulate rights like we regulate privileges, such as driving a car. We need to help people to remember that rights are not something to be regulated, taxed, or licensed. You do not sell a right back to the people by making them get a license to exercise that right. Our rights are meant to be exercised no matter what state we find ourselves in. Our rights do not change because of a magical line on the ground.
National Reciprocity is Way Overdue
By Chris Wagoner: On the very first day of the new 115th Congress, Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced national concealed carry reciprocity legislation. As a concealed carry license hol…
(4)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
MSG Jay Jackson - It is every bit as much the issue of my country as it is that of my state.
REPOST
The 2nd Amendment has been "incorporated" by MCDONALD. No state has any more right to deny the individual RKBA than it has to re-institute slavery.
REPOST
The 2nd Amendment has been "incorporated" by MCDONALD. No state has any more right to deny the individual RKBA than it has to re-institute slavery.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I have long advocated for this. However, how can you conservative support this? Is this not the Federal Government stepping on States rights?
(2)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SSgt Christopher Brose - The hypothetical argument of this bill is to allow conceal carry across state lines regardless of state laws. If there are no states that have issues with conceal carry as long as you have a permit then why do we need this bill? Thus my hypothetical response, if a state's law has limitations or restrictions on conceal carry, why does Congress feel they can overrule the state? If this is about saying my CCW permit from one state is good in every state like a driver's license, didn't you just argue that is already the case now because there are no states that restrict conceal carry?
Bottomline, differing conceal carry laws in each state does not violate 2nd amendment and this bill smells of random BS to overrule state laws when it comes to differing right to carry laws.
Bottomline, differing conceal carry laws in each state does not violate 2nd amendment and this bill smells of random BS to overrule state laws when it comes to differing right to carry laws.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
TSgt (Join to see) - Boo hoo. You have to ask permission from your local and state government to carry a gun in public. Add that to the list of other things we have to ask permission from the government before having a privilege. California: you can own a gun, we're just going to regulate where you can carry it in public. Again not a violation of 2nd amendment because they haven't taken away your right to own a gun. Spoken like a true far right Libertarian where you want to do whatever you want without any regulation by any form of government or authority. Get over it. It's called living in a civilized society with rules.
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Maj James Woods
1. Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine
AKA violation of 2A
2. To bare (carry on person) arms is a RIGHT not privilege as you like to call it
3. You and your ilk don't get to decide what a civilized society looks like
4. Your self righteous and insulting behavior is unbecoming of an officer and you, sir, are a disgrace to the oath you took. Have a nice day :)
1. Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine
AKA violation of 2A
2. To bare (carry on person) arms is a RIGHT not privilege as you like to call it
3. You and your ilk don't get to decide what a civilized society looks like
4. Your self righteous and insulting behavior is unbecoming of an officer and you, sir, are a disgrace to the oath you took. Have a nice day :)
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
MAJ James Woods - You wrote, "States are not violating the 2nd amendment when a state says you can carry in our state you just can't conceal carry." That is a completely hypothetical argument, based on vapor, because no such states exist in reality. There is no state that prohibits concealed carry while allowing open carry. Since that's the case, compelling states to recognize CCLs issued by other states is completely constitutional.
"Thus my hypothetical response, if a state's law has limitations or restrictions on conceal carry, why does Congress feel they can overrule the state?" Because such laws represent an infringement on the person's right to keep and bear arms, which is an enumerated right. A state does not have the right to truncate a person's legal ability to carry a weapon just because that person is from another state, or punish a person simply for doing so. That's the point of the legislation.
"Thus my hypothetical response, if a state's law has limitations or restrictions on conceal carry, why does Congress feel they can overrule the state?" Because such laws represent an infringement on the person's right to keep and bear arms, which is an enumerated right. A state does not have the right to truncate a person's legal ability to carry a weapon just because that person is from another state, or punish a person simply for doing so. That's the point of the legislation.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google