Poll: National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Last week James Yeager made an argument against national concealed carry reciprocity based on “states’ rights.” That is, that federal legislation requiring states to give full faith and credit to licenses of other states violates states’ rights to self-determination.

Do you agree with Yeager that national concealed carry reciprocity (H.R. 38) should be stopped?


7 thoughts on “Poll: National Concealed Carry Reciprocity”

  1. As strongly as I feel about the inalienable right to individual self-defense (as related to concealed carry of firearms), it is vital to our individual interests to oppose with all our might the usurpation of power by the federal government over the states. While I firmly believe that all government is evil and must be destroyed, I also believe that the closer that government is to our homes, the better we can manage it. The federal government is out of control and must be reined in at every turn.

    1. Well… you’ll notice that I allowed for such a response, so I’m just playing devil’s advocate here (and stirring up trouble [grin]):

      Arguments between anarchocapitalists and minarchists typically devolve to “gov should not exist” vs. “gov should only exist to protect individual rights.” Could H.R. 38 be viewed as the federal government, for once, doing doing doing just that: protecting an individual RKBA from State infringements?

      I’ll just toddle off now and leave everyone else to it.

  2. My fear is the Fed’s will (now or later) decide we need universal training requirements, mandated gun/ammo requirements, physical/psychological testing, and a requirement for a list of CCW holders from each state.
    This could become the progressives wet dream of controlling something into extinction- in effect a national “may issue” law. Long, difficult, and /or expensive classes, mandated very expensive firearms, nearly impossible physical/psychological requirements, and another government list.
    After all, “if it only saves one life”…

    1. @Mike – “This could become the progressives wet dream of controlling something into extinction”

      The Progressives would do this now, if they had the votes. Remember that hag Feinstein? “Turn them all in, Mr. & Mrs. America?” The Progressives DON’T want national reciprocity, because it forces their “gun-free” enclaves to become Constitutional Carry zones by default.

  3. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” 9th amendment

    So what does that means, IMHO it means that the people have rights that no government can take from them which includes state or federal government, someone once wrote;

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…

    IMHO government is here to facilitate our rights not be a barrier to them and as the 2th says “shall not be infringed” means just that even though today we have some unconstitutional laws that are mandated by our governments that are being enforced.

    The main problem isn’t just having new laws.

  4. “Yes. The Constitution’s Tenth Amendment protects states from federal infringements. ”

    Well now, that’s not exactly what the 10th says now, is it. It is how I see the 10th portrayed CONSTANTLY. BUT IT TELLS HALF THE STORY!

    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.

    NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES! (“IT” being the Constitution!)

    The 10th not only protects “States Rights” –
    IT PROTECTS OUR RIGHTS FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LAWS – The 10th PROHIBITS states from limiting, regulating, INFRINGING, suppressing – denying American citizens their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

    The 10th PROHIBITS PROGRESSIVE STATES FROM DISARMING (or EFFECTIVELY disarming) American citizens EVERY BIT AS MUCH as it prohibits them from denying us free speech and freedom of religion!

  5. I don’t like permits. Do not be infringed means exactly that. No background checks. No permits. No interstate or mail-order restrictions whatsoever.

    I should be able to order from Amazon a full-auto M-16A4, a Ruger Redhawk in .44 Magnum, a 9mm Glock G43, and 1,000 rounds of ammo for each, pay for it with Apple Pay, have it brought to my house via free two-day Amazon prime delivery, put the G43 under my coat, the Redhawk on my belt, the M-16 over my shoulder and walk from one end of Manhattan to the other without any cop saying a word to me about it except, “Nice holster!”

    But that ship has sailed. National Concealed Carry is a good small step back towards sanity.

Leave a Reply

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