Poll: Are you in favor of national CCW reciprocity?

Assuming that the Trump administration is serious about draining the DC swamp (and we here at TZP disagree among ourselves on whether they’re serious or whether it’s even possible), at least some gun laws and regulations have got to change.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (of Aaron Zelman’s home state of Wisconsin) has introduced a bill to kill the ATF. But as TZP-friend Kit Perez points out, this poses extreme dangers from the ruthless, corrupt agency at the same time it creates hopes.

Others would like to focus on sending the NFA or GCA ’68 to well-deserved obscurity.

Still others are putting their best expectations and hard work into the increasingly popular (and brilliantly named) Hearing Protection Act, which would remove suppressors from NFA status.

But one of the very biggest changes a lot of gun owners would like to see is legislation ensuring national CCW permit reciprocity. New Jovian Thunderbolt, on his popular gunblog, says if there can only be one pro-gun law included in the vast job of swamp draining, let it be this one.

Even if a reciprocity law didn’t bring all the benefits NJT hopes, there’s no doubt it would affect millions of gun owners and reduce the outrages that have been committed against innocent people who crossed state lines believing that their carry permit, like their drivers license, was valid anywhere.

Others (like yours truly) are suspicious of national reciprocity legislation for various reasons.

But given that a reciprocity bill probably has a decent chance of being passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Trump, what do you think? Is it a good idea? A bad idea? And why?

Take the latest TZP poll at this link or below and tell us.


10 thoughts on “Poll: Are you in favor of national CCW reciprocity?”

  1. National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is a good temporary solution, if it can be passed quickly. Assuming that it includes ALL gun owners who can legally carry in their own states, whether with or without a permit, since the number of states that allow permitless carry is growing.

    I’d prefer for the Supreme Court to recognize “full faith and credit”.

    The actually correct solution, though, is for the Supreme Court to recognize that the Second Amendment includes concealed carry, and that it MUST be recognized by ALL the states.

    1. Agreed. Between the full faith and credit clause and the words “…and bear…” in the 2A, it would seem we have a pretty solid court case. We will likely have limited political capital once the GOP chokes on its own hubris. Therefore, I submit we 1) have a plan and 2) execute it decisively.

      Passing laws to cover what’s already in the Constitution seems to be a waste of that capital.

  2. Did you ever hear the saying: Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile? That’s what this is headed for. Sure, it sound good now, but there isn’t anything government can’t screw up, and the feds are especially good at it.

    ‘Reciprocity between states for all who are “legally” eligible to own a gun… And how long do you suppose before that noose will be tightened to eliminate vast numbers of those now deemed “legal?” And when the feds are in control of that, just what is anybody going to do about it? Even if Trump is gun friendly (and one wonders), the next administration may use this to wipe out the right to self defense across the board. Why hand your enemy a weapon?

  3. Hamilton once said;

    “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

    However that is something our Bill of Rights does and many laws of men of their day since have violated anyway.

    Shall not be infringed was written within the confines of Natural law and therefore cannot be limited by men. IMHO the more men’s law complies with Nature’s law the better for us all.

    “To understand political power aright, and derive from it its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.” John Locke

    Therefore if the men of today want to reiterate the right we already have I find that no more wrong then the reiteration given to us in our Bill of Rights as long as (& this is the important part) it does not denied to us what already is rightly ours.

    Therefore it’s all about the fine print for me.

  4. Our freedom has not been taken away from us in huge chunks, but incrementally. So it must be, that we take it back, in small bits and pieces. And if this is but the first piece, then so be it. That many are leery of this measure, I understand, because of the possibility of giving ammunition to the gun grabbers in the future by accident. I don’t think that at this point we can afford to pass up the chance to gain back our rights, at the risk of some future risk of something that might not happen. It seems to me that a step towards more gun rights is never a step in the wrong direction.

  5. It is a bad idea because it further ‘regulates’ an inalienable right that supersedes even the — much-vaunted but ineffective — constitution for the united states. We do not need more laws, we need fewer laws. We need government at all levels to back out of our daily lives until all they do is protect our individual rights — and nothing more … ever again.

  6. When someone “allows” me to do something, it follows that that someone could “not allow” me to do it just as easily. I think of it as getting a present from someone who bought it with my money.

    The only result of nationwide ccw for me is that I might not be a criminal quite as often. My behavior won’t change.

  7. Agree with Comrade X. It’s all about the fine print. A National Reciprocity Act cannot be used to establish minimum training standards, or any mandatory training, or be used to establish an agency for oversight. It should only further expand and explain that the 2A is a right that will be not be infringed.

    As Thomas Jefferson once said, ” A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.”

  8. I would love to carry in any state, and because of that I have multiple permits. It’s not perfect, but it is what we have. My fear is that the Fed’s will decide, through another federal law, they can regulate training required, allowable weapons, ammo, and who is eligible. In effect, a federal “advanced” endorsement before you can carry in all 50. It’s a perfect way to put carry out of reach.
    “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.”
    – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *