Does National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Violate State’s Rights?

The author’s wife testing out her new pistol.  Read more about the pistol she selected for concealed carry.  

National concealed carry reciprocity has been a historically divisive topic within the pro-gun community. Now, as a new reciprocity bill makes its way through the U.S. Congress, both sides have had the opportunity to voice their arguments for and against the legislation.

The national reciprocity bill currently under consideration would force state governments to acknowledge other states’ concealed carry requirements. Under this legislation, a person from Missouri, who does not have to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun, could carry that handgun in California without fear of arrest or prosecution.

Proponents of the bill justify their stance on both constitutional and practical grounds. Constitutionally, they argue, the Second Amendment places firearm regulation within the purview of the federal government. The courts have interpreted the Commerce Clause, furthermore, to give Congress broad powers to regulate items sold or transported across state lines. Based on these two sections of the Constitution, the federal government has every right to regulate concealed carry laws, even if state governments disagree.

Practically speaking, proponents say, the current patchwork of concealed carry laws makes it nearly impossible for Americans to travel with firearms. Some law-abiding Americans have even faced fines and imprisonment for unintentionally or unwittingly breaking another state’s laws by transporting firearms across state lines. These Americans should not be punished for failing to grasp the complexities of another state’s firearm laws.

The anti-gun lobby despises the reciprocity bill, of course, but even some pro-gun individuals worry about the federal government overriding state laws. One recent example comes from the National Review, where Robert Verbruggen argues that while national reciprocity can be justified on constitutional grounds, states should ultimately be permitted to decide concealed carry laws for their own residents.

Rather than turning to the Second Amendment or the Commerce Clause, Verbruggen cites a little-known section of the Constitution known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Recent scholarship suggests that this clause gives the federal government the authority to decide the effects that one state’s actions will have elsewhere. If North Dakota passes a law, for example, Congress can determine how that law might affect the residents of South Dakota. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Verbruggen argues, clearly gives Congress the ability to decide how a Texas CCL should be enforced in New Jersey.

SEE ALSO: Why Truckers May be the Key to National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

But despite the constitutional validity of the national reciprocity bill, Verbruggen doesn’t think the legislation is a smart move for those who value states’ rights and a limited federal government. State legislators know the preferences and cultures of the people they represent, he argues, and, therefore, “it is the states rather than the federal government that should decide the question of reciprocity.”

“State legislators know the reasoning behind their own permitting regimes, and thus are well-equipped to decide which other states’ policies are similar enough to justify recognizing their permits,” he continues. “Legislators also know their constituents’ comfort levels with civilian-carried guns and their state economy’s dependence on interstate tourism.”

The debate will no doubt continue as long as a pro-gun president is in office and will likely sign such a bill. The House version of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 was assigned in January to the Judiciary Subcommittee Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. The Senate version was assigned in February to the Judiciary Committee. Neither committee has considered the legislation since that time.

{ 67 comments… add one }
  • GRIM REAPER 6 June 13, 2017, 2:08 pm

    What about cities? Will New York City have to allow me to carry?

  • Theron R Turner June 11, 2017, 9:22 am

    If national carry reciprocity is a violation of states rights, then any reciprocity is a violation of states rights. I.e. drivers licenses from state to state, vehicle registration. The 2nd amendment guarantees us a right nationally. Licenses to drive are issued by the state.

    • Robert June 14, 2017, 7:06 am

      The 2nd Amendment is an unalienable right preserved in the Constitution. A drivers license is a privilege granted by a state to drive on their public roads.

  • john June 9, 2017, 10:10 pm

    The only people who this would hurt are the politicians who deny their (state) citizens’ rights. The fed SHOULD give law abiding citizens the legal leverage they need to rebuke their socialist lawmakers who violate their rights. States would not loose rights to the fed, citizens would gain THEIR rights in spite of the “states'” unconstitutional acts.

  • Jimmy Riggs June 9, 2017, 9:29 pm

    I feel that any federally implemented gun control law, whether it for, or against, open carry, is scary. I don’t want the federal government enacting any nation wide laws affecting my right to carry or not. That is just opening the door for the next administration to enact what laws they think are best. Once we let them start dictating how we defend ourselves, where does it end. Nothing from Capitol Hill is the best solution. Keep the Gov hands off our guns completely.

    • MartyC June 11, 2017, 11:00 am

      I find myself at odds over this debate. While I totally support the 2nd Amendment, does it allow the Federal Govt to impose its will upon the stats? A few years back the Federal Govt passed HR218 which gave carry rights across this nation to both Active and Retired Law Enforcement Officers. ALL states must recognize this Act and cannot deny those listed the right to carry. So I guess precedent has already been set and the debate is over??

    • SkyNINJA June 12, 2017, 7:01 pm

      Then I guess you really feel bad driving in states that you don’t reside in. Driving isn’t even a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

  • DaveGinOly June 9, 2017, 7:21 pm

    “Constitutionally, they argue, the Second Amendment places firearm regulation within the purview of the federal government.”

    As a constitutionalist, I certainly don’t view the Second Amendment that way! Please read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. It states that the Bill of Rights is intended to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” to clarify the limits of the powers enumerated to the federal government in the organic (original) Constitution. The Second Amendment is telling us firearm regulation IS NOT within the purview of the government’s enumerated authority.
    As far as the commerce clause is concerned, yes, it has been interpreted by the courts as giving Congress authority over just about anything that moves (or even may move) in interstate commerce. However, if the commerce clause could have been interpreted to authorize the regulation of firearms or the firearms industry, the Second Amendment refutes that interpretation and must hold sway, because it prevents the commerce clause from being interpreted that way. The Second Amendment was the “last word” on the subject.

    • ejharb July 4, 2017, 8:07 pm

      News flash! They have used the commerce clause to make federal gun laws for a long time now

  • rev_dave June 9, 2017, 3:57 pm

    Those discussions are red herrings. The simple fact is that the Second Amendment says “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. And there is nothing in the Constitution that permits states to infringe on those rights with or without a cause. We don’t have permits for vocabulary usage, nor for going to church, temple or whatever. We don’t have get a permit to prevent having soldiers stationed in our homes. Why should we need permits of any kind for bearing guns?

  • Tony June 9, 2017, 3:53 pm

    I think a good start would be for my state to no longer recognize California driver license. If nothing else it would keep some of them out.

  • Patrick McWilliams June 9, 2017, 3:29 pm

    As I understand the bill, it would extend recognition to licenses issued by states. This would be a setback for the “Constitutional Carry” movement which has seen the elimination of permit requirements for concealed carry in a number of states. This is what we should be working for. By the way, how did reciprocity in regard to driver’s licenses begin? Was this a mandate of the federal government, or were the States able to work this out for themselves? I live in Kansas and the only other state I visit is Missouri. Neither state requires a permit, and I would not like to see them revert back to requiring the expensive and generally irrelevant training requirements for getting a license.

  • JohnE June 9, 2017, 2:52 pm

    Look at it another way. What if one state said you live in California. Californian’s by there own actions be are all mentally insane and therefore since they are not from our state they cannot exercise their right to free speach within our state. Do you think that would go over. If not why does one constitutional right that could be argued as being more dangerous than the right to bear arms get a free pass when the right to bear arms is unconstituionally restricted across all states. National Represipostiy is just a bandaid to say the constitution already allows it.

  • Phil June 9, 2017, 2:30 pm

    Didn’t hear SCOTUS complain about Gay Rights and Marriage recently when that was pushed down our throats, let alone a States Rights issue. Nor did I hear anything about abortion being a states rights issue when that was thrust down our throats.
    Those aforementioned were NOT even listed in the Constitution! So the @nd Amendment is a States Rights issue. Hogwash. It states “…shall not be infringed.” Sad issue is that we as state citizens have to have a permit to carry across state lines.

  • Methadras June 9, 2017, 1:18 pm

    I’m not a legal scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that a federal 50 state national reciprocity concealed carry law would fall under the supremacy clause. Considering the 2A is a constitutional guarantee as upheld by SCOTUS on any number of precedent-setting rulings, I don’t see how states can get away with limiting the right to carry. In fact, I’d endeavor to say that a national reciprocity concealed carry law would, in fact, invalidate a lot of state laws with regards to concealed carry. I live in California, I live in a county that doesn’t allow for a concealed carry as a shall issue statute, but rather a may issue statute, which is offensive to me. I think a federal umbrella for a concealed carry would render all of those laws moot.

    Of course a national reciprocity law would see immediate lawsuit from states like California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, etc.and hold it up in process forever and SCOTUS itself would have to rule on it because of the extent to which it would affect so many laws of respective states that don’t respect the 2A or a citizens right to carry openly or concealed.

    • Diana Berger June 12, 2017, 4:54 pm

      Federal overreach is usually empowered by the Commerce Clause, since even intrastate activity has been construed as having an actionable effect on interstate commerce. An in the supremacy clause issue arises when there’s an actual conflict between laws.

      “Considering the 2A is a constitutional guarantee as upheld by SCOTUS on any number of precedent-setting rulings, I don’t see how states can get away with limiting the right to carry.”

      Because even Constitutional rights are subject to time-place-manner restrictions, and can be limited. That constitutional freedoms can be limited at the state level is nothing new – like warrantless searches or seizures. – and states can “get away” with doing that legally.

      “live in California, I live in a county that doesn’t allow for a concealed carry as a shall issue statute, but rather a may issue statute, which is offensive to me.”

      Not to argue against your position, but I am curious as to what you’d replace the existing law of your locale? I’m not a gun owner, so I’m curious. Would you have “must issue” laws requiring an applicant to meet some guidelines, or permit-less carry?

      “Of course a national reciprocity law would see immediate lawsuit from states like California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, etc.and hold it up in process forever”

      Why would you say that? I think that people have gotten this idea that the courts today are no different than the Dickensian courts of Georgian Britain, where nothing happens. While that may be true in civil cases where at least one of the side’s has the advantage of stalling, in a political case, both sides want the benefit of a firm decision in their favor. The claim underling the Padilla v. Kentucky issue was filed at the state level in in 2004, with a decision in 2010, which is pretty quick considering that the appelant in that case was a resident alien, and the existing law was not expected to be upset. The “Citizen’s United” Case was filed in late 2007, and decided by the Supreme Court in early 2010.

  • A.D. Roberts June 9, 2017, 12:26 pm

    Verbruggan is wrong. States DON’T have the right to in ANY way take away the RIGHTS acknowledged by the Constitution. Of all the places to argue STATE’S RIGHTS, this is the worst. I suspect Verbruggan will eventually come out of his liberal closet and admit that he is in favor of gun control.

  • Texas Vet June 9, 2017, 12:02 pm

    The Tenth Amendment says, “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.” The Second Amendment says “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.”

    I believe that the Second Amendment “prohibits” the States as well as the Central government from “infringing” upon the God given right to “keep and bear arms”.

    As an example, lets say that Texas passes a law that says in order to write an editorial or give a speech, that anyone must take a class, pay a fee, and pass a proficiency test. Would that be declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment? In a heartbeat! So why are concealed and open carry state laws not declared unconstitutional? Because most pro-gun organizations and individuals try to use only the Second Amendment as an argument and accept the infringement by States, since it lets them justify the infringement as being in their favor.

    • Rouge1 June 9, 2017, 3:04 pm

      Texas vet it’s because of a corrupt judicial and corrupt politicians.

  • Dan Cy reigns supre June 9, 2017, 11:57 am

    It is always interesting to see the reaction concerning if it is a gun control issue as in a national ban on semi-autos, The Left is always for it. But in this case, at the national level, it is for guns rights. Suddenly it becomes a ‘States’ issue and States Rights. As I’m always said Hypocrisy is the letter of the day.

  • Rich K. June 9, 2017, 11:41 am

    Better question is, do state laws that prevent or restrict law-abiding citizens from other states from exercising their Constitutional (and God-given) rights to defend themselves from violent criminals violate the rights of those citizens. The answer: yes, yes they do. They are as unconstitutional as Jim Crow laws. They single out a group of citizens and violate and restrict their rights based on the whims and fears of political leftists, rather than being based on reality. Allowing states to continue in this way would be just as bad as if, for example, Alabama was still allowed to have “Whites Only” public bathroom facilities and “Blacks Only” schools. If I am allowed to carry a Glock 19 with a 15 round magazine and Hydra-Shoks for self-defense in my own state, and am not forced by law to try to run away from a violent criminal, I should not have to switch to a 6-shot revolver and semi-wadcutters just because I travel to New Jersey or New York – or even have to do without a defensive firearm. If a person travels to Washington, DC, they should not be subject to arrest and imprisonment for having an empty shotgun shell (and not even any other firearms-related stuff) in their vehicle – yes, this is a real thing in our nation’s capital! Time to tell the totalitarian, hoplophobic, liberal progressives to go f**k themselves and cower in their closets if they don’t like the idea of law-abiding citizens going armed and free anywhere in the country they have any right to be in the first place. Strong Americans – REAL Americans – stand up against criminals and refuse to be victims. Cringing cowards who have no business calling themselves Americans, and who want to rely on the government (and possibly the non-existent mercy of the criminals themselves) to protect their lives, want to restrict the rights of the real Americans and bring them down to their own level.

  • Citizen Rick June 9, 2017, 11:18 am

    I do not feel it goes far enough, the way I see it any individual right under the Constitution should be solely in the hands of Congress to decide how it is exercised, regulated or restricted, not individual states or other political subdivisions. Individual rights under the Constitution should be mandated to be equally exercised anywhere within territories under the governance of the United States. It makes no sense to me that when federal laws allow you to exercise an individual right under the Constitution in any given way that the exercise of such could be restricted or held as criminal anywhere where that law applies.

  • J.D. Schechter June 9, 2017, 10:58 am

    The Constitution empowers the central government to exercise authority ONLY over those powers specifically enumerated in its Articles, ceded to it by the joint and several States – whether they are among those originally ratifying it or acknowledging its authority by joining the Union. The initial 10 Amendments – the ‘Bill of Rights’ – were ratified, as defined in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, as “declaratory and restrictive clauses” having the same authority as the document to which they were amended – e.g. they bear the same weight and authority as the Constitution itself.

    It therefore defied logic and reason that any violation of “…the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” – at either the State or Federal level – be it State ‘permission slips’, federal bans on carrying in arbitrarily chosen locations, or levying a tax on specific arms or accessories – is a clear violation of the law binding government (at any level).

    The willful and malicious misinterpretation of the Constitution in whole or part (e.g. the stretching of the ‘Commerce Clause’ well past the breaking point), or any other artificial curtailment of the rights – including the keeping and bearing of arms – recognized by “the supreme Law of the Land” is null and void, and unenforceable on its face, and any ‘law’, any judicial ‘opinion’ restricting those rights, should, in a rational world, be ignored, and any enforcer thereof prosecuted under federal denial of civil rights under color of law statutes.

  • Roger Bullard June 9, 2017, 10:57 am

    Everyone’s comments are wrong!!!!
    The argument over CCW is the first mistake. No where in the second amendment does it state that you must conceal a firearm to be legal. You give up your second amendment right to the whims of governments, federal, state, county, etc. when you accept they have this right to decide who, when, where, and at what financial cost you must pay for your God Given Right!!!!!
    We must get off are ass and vote these traitors out of office.

  • Bj June 9, 2017, 10:55 am

    It would be no different than a drivers license! The states have to honor those, so they should have to honor a carry permit…

  • Abner T June 9, 2017, 10:49 am

    What’s with all this states’ rights nonsense? We lost states rights after the War Between the States.

  • Jim June 9, 2017, 10:34 am

    Why does anyone think the states have any right to regulate a constitutionally protected right? Every single gun law on the books is a direct violation of shall not be infringed, period end of discussion. Can any state require training, fees, and classes before allowing someone to vote? Can any state require people of different races go to certain schools based on nothing other than race? Can any state require the media only print or broadcast what they deem to be the news? Can a state decided they don’t need warrants before entering any home or business and searching for whatever? What makes anyone believe any state has the power to restrict how a person decides to bear and keep arms?

  • Sharp June 9, 2017, 10:08 am

    The article started with the title/questions: “Does National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Violate State’s Rights?” I do not believe so. The constitution’s and all its amendments are above all states law and/or legislation. That’s why is often the constitution is referred as “The Law Of The Land.”

  • Sharp June 9, 2017, 9:58 am

    It’s been promised “A National Conceal Carry Reciprocity” during election time, but so far there is no serious lobbying or legislation because ther priorities and agendas of our elected politicians are others. The second amendment gives us the constitutional right to concealing in the land (all states,) but so far no one has challenged it in federal courts. Cases like the McDonald vs the City of Chicago proved the 2nd Amendment rights at state level, but not inter-states. Here patiently waiting our elected politicians to fulfill their promises and not loosing hope that someday the majority will come to sense we must have it.

  • don comfort June 9, 2017, 9:41 am

    This would no more violate State’s rights than a Driver License does !!

  • Raymond Phillips June 9, 2017, 9:23 am

    States don’t have the authority to overide Constitutional rights. Period. Quite the opposite. The bill of rights limits anyone from infringing on these inalienable rights and your statements show your true feelings that government can give and take rights at will.

  • Clyde Ginn June 9, 2017, 9:23 am

    The same constitutional argument that legalized interracial marriage, and gay marriage applies here. A state may not nullify an act that was performed legally in another state, simply because the individual moves or travels through the state. The 14th and 10th ammendmendments apply as well as the commerce clause. It is important to not that case law does not specifically say that a state must Grant or perform the previously mentioned acts, only that they must recognize those acts if performed​ legally in another state. National Reciprocity would not force a state to issue CCPs only to recognize those issued to citizens of other states traveling through

  • Al June 9, 2017, 9:19 am

    The 2nd is an ‘enumerated’ INDIVIDUAL right, and as the Constitution states, any right NOT SPECIFICALLY enumerated to the individual or the Federal therefore goes to the States.
    So, as an individual enumerated right, National Carry does NOT violate ANY States rights at all, since it IS an enumerated individual right!
    But as we all know, it all depends on what your definition of “is” is, when it comes to dealing with ‘shylock’ attorneys.
    And that has ALWAYS been the problem with and the bane of the Peoples Representatives.

  • Ray Stone June 9, 2017, 8:48 am

    How come none of the educated politicians and lawyers of our country can’t understand one basic concept?
    We are the United States of America. We have a document called the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Which states in very plain terms the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
    So it comes down to one very simple yes or no question. NY, CA, MA.
    Are you one of the United States of America?
    Yes.
    Then, HONOR MY RIGHTS!
    End of Debate…

    • JoeUSooner June 9, 2017, 10:52 am

      AMEN!! Well said, sir.

    • bison1913 June 9, 2017, 2:38 pm

      Here.. here!

  • Tom June 9, 2017, 8:48 am

    ” Robert Verbruggen argues that while national reciprocity can be justified on constitutional grounds, states should ultimately be permitted to decide concealed carry laws for their own residents.”

    The long established policy of “comity” (the recognition of certain out of state licenses) doesn’t conflict with Mr. Verbruggen’s opinion of the state deciding laws for their own residents.

    What I find interesting is that it’s perfectly acceptable to recognize, for example, an out of state driver’s license which is not a right enumerated in the Constitution, but it’s OK for a state to ignore a constitutional right, such as the right to bear arms.

    Go figure… And Mr. Verbruggen writes for the National Review.

    I find his position to be subtly anti-gun.

  • Cam June 9, 2017, 8:30 am

    If marriage, drivers license and car registrations are accepted in other states then concealed license should also be accepted. Whether the states like it or not after all that is a right specificaly mentioned and protected while the others are not.
    I think full faith and credit has already be established through a civil war.

    • AK June 9, 2017, 9:41 am

      “If marriage…”

      Yes, as we’ve seen, states whose majorities don’t accept the idea of other-than-traditional marriage are told by SCOTUS decision, sorry, not your call, this is a right that transcends state boundaries…it seems national reciprocity in the area of CCW would apply in the same way.

  • Reginald June 9, 2017, 8:24 am

    As the laws stand now, I drive around certain states when I travel. I do not go to states that don’t honor my right to self-defense. I don’t buy food, gasoline or lodging in those states. The Second Amendment IMHO does not protect a citizen’s right to bear arms. It just prohibits the Federal government from enacting laws that prohibit the right. It is a sad state of affairs that states like Illinois, California, New York, and New Jersey don’t believe their citizens have a right to protect themselves. I would never live in any of those states. The United States was a noble experiment but it is time to split it up and let the progressives have the east and west coasts. Texas can form a country with the fly over states. We could keep a military alliance similar to NATO for our mutual defense. Going to California would be like traveling to Canada. Yes I want nation reciprocity but no it is not constitutional.

    • Raymond Phillips June 9, 2017, 9:39 am

      You are wrong! The authority of the Constitution overides State laws as is easily proven by Supreme court rulings on Federal, State, county and municipal laws which violate these rights. In your twisted logic the Constitution is. Useless piece of paper which means nothing. Hardly the case. By ratifying the constitution and becoming states the State governments are bound to the Constitution. Under your logic. States could decide slavery is fine. Get a clue.

    • Rich June 9, 2017, 11:31 am

      Illinois had a change in law several years ago. In fact if you are travel through Illinois and have a ccl then you can carry in your vehicle without restriction. Check the ISP website for specifics. The issue i have with the laws are that each state has different laws with regard to ccl, e.g. mag capacity, ect. In some states if I carry a mag that exceeds their law then its a felony. Kinda tough to follow if you full time rv and thats your home!

  • GRA June 9, 2017, 8:23 am

    The “Full Faith and Credit Clause” … didn’t we once fight a bloody and costly civil war in this country to decide the national so-called government can make laws that all states have to abide by?

    I mean DAMN … would this clause have prohibited the US Civil War?

    Damn ridiculous is it that state sovereignty and rights only apply when folks want it to and nowadays it’s usually the seditious subversives that try to play this double-standard game.

  • Beavis Christ June 9, 2017, 8:19 am

    No it doesn’t violate State’s Rights, it the States violating the CITIZEN’S rights, jackass.

  • Robert Sweeney June 9, 2017, 7:58 am

    When the various territories became states they signed onto the US Constitution and do not have any right to usurp any of it. There should be no argument here; the Bill of Rights pertains to all states! The biggest mistake the framers of the Constitution made was to not incorporate in the Constitution a mechanism for punishing any and all who violate any part of it. Even Supreme Court rulings are ignored by state and city governments with impunity. One party sues for their rights and wins, while others continue to have those rights infringed upon, and no one is ever held accountable. Imagine if every Governor, Mayor, Chief of Police or District Attorney who violated citizens’ constitutional rights were imprisoned for it instead of allowed to continue thumbing their noses at our Constitution! It makes one wonder how the framers courage overlooked this very important detail?

    • Robert Sweeney June 9, 2017, 8:01 am

      I have no clue as to how the word “courage” got into that last sentence. Get an edit button, GA!

  • Alan Russell June 9, 2017, 7:57 am

    Maybe a better question to ask is; Do Federal laws violate States laws? Have Federal laws extended into areas that are not defined as areas of federal responsibility as defined by the Constitution?

  • Infidel762x51 June 9, 2017, 7:54 am

    If it does then so do vehicle registration and driver’s licence reciprocity. And those ar no even in the Bill of Rights.

  • Sam slimovich June 9, 2017, 7:51 am

    SCOTUS had no problem forcing gay marriage down the throats of all 50. Why not reciprocity? The 2nd A certainly trumps the 5 percent or so who parade around in latex to support the LGBT communities right to wed…right?

    • Russ June 9, 2017, 8:35 am

      My point exactly! I’ve been saying this since the SCOTUS Gay Marriage decision . Reciprocity has already been declared constitutional and the law of the land! All other arguements are now moot…

  • Rick June 9, 2017, 7:24 am

    To bad we have states that dont honor the 2nd amendment….

  • James Drouin June 9, 2017, 7:21 am

    “Does National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Violate State’s Rights?”

    No, it does not impose CC requirements, it simply states that States must recognize others States CC licenses, just like they must recognize other States driving licenses.

  • Kevin June 9, 2017, 7:00 am

    States’ rights? For a Bill of Rights issue? Are you kidding me?

    Tell me which state has the option of not letting women vote…
    Tell me which state has decided that slavery is OK…
    Tell me which state requires a permit to talk or write….
    Tell me which state allows police to torture prisoners…

    No. States’ rights are null and void when it comes to constitutional issues – there’s no other way to look at it if we are keeping a republic here. Let states decide whether they will obey the law of the land or not and we no longer have a country…. which is exactly what the globalists want.

    • Rick June 9, 2017, 7:27 am

      Well said….The 2nd amendment is the only one that we have to prove that we need.

    • Infidel762x51 June 9, 2017, 7:56 am

      Exactly.

  • Praedor June 9, 2017, 6:32 am

    No matter the argument, I always go back to drivers licenses. I see no valid reason that licensed concealed carriers in state A should have their license abrogated by magic as soon as they cross a state line. ALL states accept and recognize the drivers license if all others. If state A issues licenses to elderly drivers at age X but state B has special requirements for the same-aged elderly for drivers licenses, they STILL recognize the license from state A! There is no valid argument to not do the same with concealed carry licenses. The ONLY valid criticism I could see is if a state requires some basic firearm training before issuing a license while another state just hands them out to all takers; I could see that states might all need to agree on some basic minimum requirements to issue concealed carry licenses so that all other states would be comfortable accepting out of state licenses. In any case, I DO want a situation where I get a license in my state and, just as with my driver’s license (which are not just issues to all takers but do have minimal standards) it allows me to carry in ANY other state too, including California, Massachusetts, etc. Whether they like guns or not. I’m licensed? I get to carry. The end.

  • Ken W. June 9, 2017, 6:29 am

    The previous posters have said much of what I had intended. I’ll add that States rights end when the infringe upon the rights of it’s citizens. It is ridiculous that one cannot be armed to protect themselves within any of our borders. It’s the same country so a basic right to defend ourselves should not end anywhere within.

  • Giovanni Tallino June 9, 2017, 6:27 am

    If a driver’s license issued in one state must be honored by all the other states and by the District of Columbia, are states’ rights infringed upon? And the number of people killed by guns every year is minuscule when compared to the number of people killed by vehicles.
    And as far as I know, it’s not true that the resident of a Constitutional Carry state (a state that does not require a permit) can carry in another state that requires one. To be able do so he/she must first obtain a carry permit in his/her own state.

  • redmanrt June 9, 2017, 6:25 am

    “State legislators know the preferences and cultures of the people they represent,”
    Many states legislators don’t give a flying rat’s aß about the preferences and cultures of the people they represent.

  • David June 9, 2017, 6:24 am

    No, it guarantees your Constitutional Rights!

    • Rick June 9, 2017, 7:32 am

      I agree, but tell that to california ,new york and other run communist states.

  • David J. June 9, 2017, 6:07 am

    I think we need to look at the broader 14th Amendment issue. The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights apply to the States as well as the Federal Government. The right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. If we interpret the 14th Amendment as it rightfully has in voter’s rights, then State laws that infringe upon this right should be null and void.

  • SuperG June 7, 2017, 10:59 am

    We should never have needed this law if the first place, if “our” federal government was interested in protecting our Constitutional rights. “Shall not be infringed” should mean “shall not be infringed”, and as soon as they let a state restrict honest citizens from protecting themselves, they opened Pandoras box, and empowered the criminals.

  • Mark N. June 7, 2017, 1:31 am

    As far as I can tell, reciprocity is dead this session because there are not 60 votes to override a filibuster. Second, I haven’t familiarized myself with the various bills running around, but at least one requires that when traveling one must have a CCW issued by the state of residence, which most constitutional carry states offer for a small fee for just this purpose. Otherwise, as far as LEO is concerned, you are illegally carrying a concealed firearm no matter where you hail from (unless you happen to be in one of the few con carry states). This makes good sense.

    The one flaw in the states’ rights argument (other than the primacy of the federal power after the Civil War) is that it enables some states to bar the exercise of the right to anyone from out of state (and to many of the residents of the state), as is the case with California which recognizes no other state issued licenses. This is difficult to justify under the Constitution, and if the reciprocity accorded drivers’ licenses is any guide, the claim that concealed weapons carriers from one state will be suddenly incompetent on the use of firearms when they go to another state simply holds no water.

    • Andy June 9, 2017, 7:33 am

      The first non-reciportary state as far as I know is Illnoise. They have deemed their CCW unconstitutional for not accepting any other states. Now recently the state was sued for this. They revamped their system. I think they actually accepted some other states CCW. After 6 months they went back to not accepting anyone else’s CCW.

  • Robert Smith June 6, 2017, 11:25 pm

    ” State legislators know the preferences and cultures of the people they represent, he argues, and, therefore, “it is the states rather than the federal government that should decide the question of reciprocity.” ”
    OK, but gun ownership and CCW are not a matter of preferences and cultures, they are in fact an enumerated right under the U.S. Constitution. To be consistent, Mr. Verbruggen would also have to be opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. States Rights is not an end in itself. It only matters if it serves the purpose of advancing liberty. National Reciprocity advances the greater good of securing the rights and liberties of the people against infringement by the states.

  • Will Drider June 6, 2017, 11:48 am

    People must understand that the natural right to bear arms (OC/CC) in what is now the United States existed for several hundred years. The govermental (Fed or Local) restrictions have a much shorter history and are far from evenly applied to Citizens. Reciprocity is merely a step to restore what was regulated away. The gun grabbers will whine that centuries ago the U.S. was a place with dangerous wild animals, people could live of the land and large expanses of land were without any form of effective law enforcment. I counter that: wild animals still attack people be it a bear, cougar or rabid animal and we can add the domestic animal attacks to that, people still live off the land or supplement their subsistence with wild game, people of old were responsible for ther own safety and security which has not changed with increased populations and establishment of “law and order” as all manner of crimes continue. It is We the Peoples ability to buy, posess and carry arms that has been restricted and which must be fully restored.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend