On Wednesday, December 6, 2017, The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 38, The National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
This is considered a huge win for gun owners as state conceal carry permits will be legally recognized and honored in all fifty states.
As it stands now, there are several states that do not observe other conceal carry permits which makes traveling risky if one doesn’t know the laws.
There would certainly be advantages of having a national concealed carry law; however, there may be disadvantages as well.
For instance, the government may have just opened the door to putting themselves in charge of issuing concealed carry permits.
Which would entail more licensing fees and unneeded bureaucratic processes.
After all, the people celebrating the passing of this law often cite the Second Amendment as the only gun law needed.
Putting conceal carry at the national level is a far cry from the much demanded Constitutional Carry which would be more in line with the Constitution itself.
Celebrating the passage of H.R. 38 may be short-lived.
Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) has posted several warnings about the intents of Congress to deceive you.
Massie warned that H.R. 38 would be coupled, in the house, withH.R. 4477, which if passed into law, would empower the federal bureaucracies to add more names to NICS background check system based on the criteria found in U.S. Code Title 18, section 922.
Massie warns that H.R. 38 would likely be stripped in the Senate and that H.R. 4477 would be all we are left with.
This is absent any amendments that may make their way into the Feinstein/Schumer sponsored bill.
After reviewing this bill, this author found that there are no contradictions with existing federal law.
In other words, this bill does not create a new list of new prohibited persons. Rather, it forces these agencies to comply with existing law. This is still a problem.
According to federal law, Title 18, section 922, a person who has been adjudicated mentally defective, or incompetent is considered a prohibited person.
The key word being adjudicated. Federal bureaucracies such as the Veterans Administration and the Social Security Administration have taken it upon themselves to label people incompetent without their constitutionally protected right to due process.
In other words, if you have had a beneficiary assigned to handle your finances because of a little stress or other issues, you are labeled incompetent, and an unelected bureaucrat now has the power to adjudicate your rights away.
This is not due process.
As a result of these bogus practices, thousands of veterans who have served their country honorably have been stripped of their gun rights by the same people who voted to send them to war.
The whole nation should be outraged by this. Prohibiting people who need a little help getting their affairs in order does not and will not prevent people intent on committing murder from doing so.
Clause four has to do with naturalization and bankruptcies. What does that have to do with restricting gun rights? Nothing. The following is the text of Article 1, section 8, clause four.
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Article 1, section 8, clause eighteen is as follows-
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Passing laws, or empowering bureaucracies to strip the rights of law-abiding citizens is hardly necessary or pursuant to the powers vested to the government in our constitution.
Article 6, clause two of the constitution, known as the supremacy clause, specifically states that the Constitution and the laws made in its pursuance are the supreme laws of the land.
To cite this clause as constitutional authority to restrict someone’s rights without due process is the epitome of unconstitutional.
Article 6, clause two-
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
To be in compliance with Article 1, section 8 then would mean stripping all laws that restrict anyone’s rights without due process, period.
Our congressman and women, many of whom voted to send our troops to war, should be fighting to ensure their rights are restored, not restricted based on nonsensical criteria put out by biased agency directors.
They should be fighting to enforce laws that limit the criminals ability to harm law-abiding citizens.
Instead, their feel-good solutions empower those with no intention to follow the law and only disarm those inclined to follow it.
Taking guns away from good men who admit to needing a little help will not stop anyone from obtaining a gun illegally and using it to commit murder.
On the contrary, it may prevent people in need of help from seeking it due to a fear of losing their rights.
Article posted with permission from David Risselada