Posted on Jan 15, 2017
National Reciprocity...Why Not? - The Truth About Guns
819
20
11
1
1
0
Posted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
2nd Amendment
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 3
5
5
0
We've been needing this for a long time.
The language of the 2nd Amendment precludes the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be infringed by anyone. Compare it to the 1st Amendment, which is specifically a prohibition on Congress. States do not have the constitutional authority to truncate the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so national reciprocity is really a correction.
The language of the 2nd Amendment precludes the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be infringed by anyone. Compare it to the 1st Amendment, which is specifically a prohibition on Congress. States do not have the constitutional authority to truncate the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so national reciprocity is really a correction.
(5)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
The way things started, SCOTUS saw the Bill of Rights as restrictions on the Federal gov't ONLY. Then there was the idea of "incorporating" those rights, and individually defining them as mandatory for all states in the Union to respect.
The 2nd Amendment RKBA is "incorporated" by the MCDONALD Decision, so it is now the right under the 14th Amendment, of every U S citizen, in every state in the Union.
The 2nd Amendment RKBA is "incorporated" by the MCDONALD Decision, so it is now the right under the 14th Amendment, of every U S citizen, in every state in the Union.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
National reciprocity would be awesome. There isn't any need to get multiple ccl for different states when my drivers license works in all 50. And my truck is way more deadly that my .45 is.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree that it makes sense. However, I'm apposed on the basis of states rights. I believe that it's going to come back and bite us in the future. What goes around comes around.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Tim Grace
My rights as a citizen of the U.S.A. carry the written guarantee. To me, the Bill of Rights trumps state's rights.
States like CA, NY & NJ restrict those rights. National reciprocity only says that my license issued in my state is valid in all 50, much akin driver's licenses or marriage licenses. Why should I become a felon in NJ because I was passing through and stopped for gas?
Most states, even those with constitutional carry, do issue licenses (CPL, CWP, CCL - whatever the state prefers to call them) so that citizens residing in a constitutional carry state could obtain one for travel to other states (or obtain new firearms without a waiting period or, in some cases, another NICS check).
My preference is that constitutional carry be the law of the land. State issued carry licenses are fine, but optional to the citizen. If for some reason you are stopped by law enforcement, and carrying a weapon without a CWP, you should be held until a check is completed (firearm is not stolen and you aren't a felon).
States like CA, NY & NJ restrict those rights. National reciprocity only says that my license issued in my state is valid in all 50, much akin driver's licenses or marriage licenses. Why should I become a felon in NJ because I was passing through and stopped for gas?
Most states, even those with constitutional carry, do issue licenses (CPL, CWP, CCL - whatever the state prefers to call them) so that citizens residing in a constitutional carry state could obtain one for travel to other states (or obtain new firearms without a waiting period or, in some cases, another NICS check).
My preference is that constitutional carry be the law of the land. State issued carry licenses are fine, but optional to the citizen. If for some reason you are stopped by law enforcement, and carrying a weapon without a CWP, you should be held until a check is completed (firearm is not stolen and you aren't a felon).
(3)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
PO1 Tim Grace - You raised am important point. How does an LEO tell the "good (armed) guys" from the bad, without a CCW ? The individual may be free to carry, and be qualified to carry, but at some point he is going to have to prove it. A CCW provides the means of that proof.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Tim Grace
CW3 Harvey K. - The burden of proof is actually on the LEO to prove we are not carrying legally. Yes, carrying a state issued CWP would provide those means & minimize the time we would be stopped by the LEO. The CWP should still not be a requirement.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
PO1 Tim Grace - Agreed. NOT a requirement, but an expedient means of establishing the carrier's legal qualification to carry, saving time and trouble.
"Burden of proof" put on either party implies a delay while the question is resolved.
"Burden of proof" put on either party implies a delay while the question is resolved.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google