MENU

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is not the Way You Deal with Those who have Usurped Your Rights!

Written by:

Published on: February 18, 2017

HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, appears to be a good bill for Second Amendment supporters. However, could I ask that we take the premise that if we actually believe in the protections of rights contained in the Second Amendment and knowing how government usurps its authority quite often in order to control the people, that we take a step back and consider a few things about HR 38?

While I agree with the premise of the legislation that Americans do have a right to keep and bear arms across state lines, it’s the problem of obtaining permission to exercise those rights I have a problem with, along with the multiple restrictions of those rights contained in the legislation, such as not being able to carry certain kinds of arms across state lines (ie. machine guns, etc.)

The bill was introduced by Republican Congressman Richard Hudson (NC) in January on the first day of the new Congress.

Rep. Hudson’s office published this summary of the legislation:

“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits. As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to get this legislation across the finish line.”

Let’s be careful when we hear a politician on either side of the aisle reference a “common sense solution” when it comes to keeping and bearing arms.

For instance, what does the Second Amendment actually say?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, follow me here. This Amendment was added to the US Constitution and recognized as a God-given right that cannot be infringed. Yet, we are told that in order to exercise this God-given right, we must obtain a “permit.” You do understand what that means, right? It means we pay the government for “permission” to exercise a right for which God does not charge us. Get it?

So, the states also claim to uphold this particular Amendment. Since it is recognized as a right, and not a permission, why then does reciprocity need to be advanced? Isn’t that implicit in the acknowledgment of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”? And since all the states have agreed that this is a God-given right by joining the Union, should there not simply be a repeal of any and all pretended legislation to restrict, regulate or permit arms crossing state lines by their owners? I think the logical answer is “yes.”

The Supreme Court correctly ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms from federal AND state abuse. If it does, then why is there a need to obtain a permit?

Dave Dolbee writes, “Your driver’s license works in every state, so why doesn’t your concealed carry permit? Just like your privilege to drive, your Second Amendment right does not disappear when you cross state lines. However, conflicting state codes have created a confusing patchwork of reciprocity agreements for concealed carry permit holders.”

Did you catch that? Dolbee recognizes the difference between a privilege (permission) and a right (God-given liberty & authority). Yet, he attempts to mingle the two together to push for reciprocity.

He goes on to write, “Many Americans utilize concealed carry as their Constitutional right to self-defense, and we must guarantee that right is not infringed upon.”

I agree. So, why is there no enforcement of the law against permits, if as Mr. Dolbee writes, it is a right not to be infringed upon? Isn’t the entire concept of a permit based on the fact that it is something other than a right, and that we must obtain permission from the almighty beast, government? I think it is.

Second, for what does this set the stage? Is it really so far-fetched that since the Second Amendment has already been allowed to be abused by the central and state governments that this legislation, though well intended, actually begins to open the door for a national gun owner registration? After all, how will each state verify the authenticity of a valid permit? Will we not be looking at a central database? Furthermore, a database of gun owners is far more dangerous than one that contains just guns, though that would list the guns and their owners.

Once this is accepted rather than illegal laws allowed to stand as justification for pushing permits instead of rights, you can bet someone will follow this up with a national registry. Then, who will be crying?

I agree with Alan Korwin. He writes against it believing that it will eventually become a national permit, and with good reason.

Your right to have a firearm anywhere in America should never depend on getting “papers” from any government, much less the federal powers in Washington, D.C.

If you have a gun — constitutionally protected private property — and you aren’t doing anything inherently wrong, that should never be a crime. There is no victim. No one is harmed. No actual crime is committed. The idea that you need a wallet card to be somewhere you have a legal right to be is preposterous.

Too many gun owners, including some leaders of the gun-rights movement, sincere but totally misinformed and misdirected, are salivating for our permit-carrying president elect to issue some sort of national carry plan.

He concludes as I did above.

The best plan to resolve the travesty of national gun-rights denial Americans have suffered under for generations — worse than racism — is to repeal the restrictions that deny your rights. You don’t need no stinkin’ permits to be black and we don’t need no stinkin’ permits to be peacefully in possession of property.

Repeal restrictions on the right to bear arms.

The next logical step would be to arrest and charge officials who under color of law deny a peaceful person’s civil right to possess arms. Denial of rights is a federal felony under 18 USC §241 et seq. You can’t just deny a person’s constitutional, civil and human rights because you don’t like those rights. That’s got a name. It’s gunism, like racism. This law 18-241 and the ones that follow it were written to prevent haters from denying blacks their rights. Everyone has fundamental rights that need the same protection.

That’s exactly right! Think about it!

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

Comment via Facebook
Comment via Disqus

Send this to friend