Korwin: Stop the National Carry Permit, ‘Gun Guys’ Pushing in Wrong Direction

Alan Korwin, visit his website GunLaws.com.

Alan Korwin, visit his website GunLaws.com.

Editor’s note: Alan Korwin is the author of 14 books, 10 of them on gun law. His book After You Shoot examines ways to lower your risks after a self-defense shooting. He has been invited twice to observe oral argument in gun cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Reach him at GunLaws.com, where he is the publisher of Bloomfield Press.


The lamestream media told you:

“Do you have a firearms carry permit Mr. Trump?”


“Are you for law and order?”

“Yes. Law and order is very important.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The last thing you ever want is to have the federal government issuing national — or any — firearm carry permits.

The feds do not have this power. The feds should never have this power.

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. It cannot, must not, better not be a national permit in any way shape or form.

The Best Solution

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.

Blind hatred of guns is gunism.

If a national carry solution is proposed that does not include punishment for violators (officials who stop you solely for possession, or harass you, remove or attempt to remove your firearm for any invalid reason, incarcerate you, post signs that falsely indicate you cannot “drink at this water fountain,” or otherwise act against your legal right to keep and bear arms), experience shows they will not obey the law. We see this all the time. The law only matters if it has teeth.

We call this comitatus-style law, like the posse comitatus law. Instead of enacting, “A person may legally bear arms across state lines,” which officials can violate without repercussion, the law must say, “Anyone who interferes with a person legally bearing arms, shall go to prison and pay a fine.”

Punish official perpetrators
who illegally deny your right to arms.


One small step in the right direction is a recognition bill. This would require states to recognize the permits already issued by the states. True, it would further entrench the existing sidearm permit system, but we have to face the fact that it is already in place, and it’s likely a good first step. It advances the freedom of millions of Americans, puts more honest armed citizens out in public, and we know this deters and prevents crime. It also softens the antis arguments.

Despite the terrified but false screams from the agitated and hoplophobic left, having permitted gun owners all over the landscape does not lead to Dodge City and blood at stop lights. They cry about that every time a permit law advances, but it is 100% false every time — another great example of false news — with no corrections ever issued.


A far less desirable choice, it requires states to agree to grant you privileges, which can be removed, typically adds requirements, and involves bickering between unelected bureaucrats on whether you and your state are qualified to have rights in their states. Who do these people think they are?

News is circulating about four bills already in Congress to establish reciprocity, or something. They are: H.R. 923, H.R. 986, H.R. 402, and one Senate bill, S. 498. You can always look up bills by entering their numbers in Thomas.gov: https://www.congress.gov// .  Four numbers, but only two basic sets of text. Both are flawed.

HR923 “allows” people with permits to carry in other states under their ever-changing permit conditions, which you would have to know, somehow. There is no penalty if officials in the other states fail to comply, which we see happen all the time. Almost everyone in America is excluded — 97% of us haven’t signed up for “papers” even though more than half of us bear arms.

HR986 explicitly prohibits arresting a person who is carrying under conditions similar to HR923, an improvement, but the same problems exist. It also creates official make-believe gun-free zones by federal law, a very bad precedent. In an effort to provide recourse, a person has an affirmative defense, so after they arrest you anyway, you can provide proof you’re legal, and then even sue. Thanks.

There is still no real penalty for their criminal denial of your rights. It is time for a law-and-order change to that whole upside-down system. The other two bills are similar to these.

I’ll be watching these. Tell your friends to sign up here for news. https://www.gunlaws.com (scroll to the box)

And support this effort by doing some of your Christmas shopping with us. We have great items you won’t find elsewhere.

All our books, DVDs and other goods are listed here by category and alphabetically https://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm

Constitutional Carry

State after state has enacted this — freedom to carry with no government interference whatsoever.

You can carry a gun pretty much like you can carry a book. It’s called rights.

And everyone knows books are dangerous. Just look at deaths caused by the Quoran, or the Commie Manifesto.

Constitutional Carry works just fine —
People don’t shoot each other just because they’re armed. 
That’s paranoid fear perpetually projected by unstable left-wing reporters and citizens. Anti-rights wackos scream about Freedom to Carry of course — exactly as they do about permit laws — and they’re the exact same wrong. No one is harmed, there are no victims, crime drops, people are safer.

Instructors and ranges make a lot more money too — because the market increases tremendously.

You go from a measly few percent willing to sign up for a permit, to half the public that owns guns.

Get the government out of the way (permits, paperwork, police, pay up, stand in line, register yourself)… and the freed-up market explodes. (At first though, trainers fear losing their government rice bowl.)

Constitutional Carry is the real deal, remove restrictions, restore rights, advance freedom. Society always benefits when liberty is restored. Establish a Culture of Marksmanship.

Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) reportedly is cooking up some good new bill, but it’s not out for review yet. We shall see. Will it include punishment for rogue officials?

And a good next step: Diplomatic Carry: https://www.gunlaws.com/DiplomaticCarry.htm
Read that and salivate.

About the author: Alan Korwin is an American writer, author and civil- and political-rights activist whose work serves the business, legal, news and firearms industries. In 1988, Korwin founded Bloomfield Press, which has grown into the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the nation

Leave a Reply

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

  • Evan Pallesen February 1, 2018, 7:52 am

    Although this is definitely a rabbit trail, it is relevant. States love to tell us that driving is a privilege, but is it not actually an obvious extension of the natural right to travel unimpeded as one wishes, in the course of one’s private business, without requiring permits from governments? Our current licensing system grew out of the desire of the States to tax commerce.

  • loupgarous January 13, 2017, 5:01 am

    I think a good first step would be to get Congress to repeal the parts of the “Firearms Owner Protection Act” which require onerous restrictions under the “safe passage” parts of the act (the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, that the firearms are unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, the firearms are located in a locked container).to permit Americans to drive through cities or states with strict gun laws without being punished. There’s no reason for those restrictions, as the author explains.

    However, the idea of legal challenges of existing restrictive gun laws instead of simply enacting permissive gun laws is unrealistic and requires much expenditure of time and money. The idea that law enforcement personnel ought to be subject to arrest for enforcing duly enacted laws is ridiculous, and will deprive the gun owner of the support of most street cops, who don’t favor gun control except for felons.

  • Patriot December 18, 2016, 2:51 pm

    I wish this was not the case but I am sure it is. The Dems and gun controllers are out for vengeance and harassment and to deny Second Amendment rights as usual. They will say and do all they can to degrade those who believe in the Second Amendment. They cannot accept losing an election. This is already obvious on the TV news media. Their effort to ostracize believers of the Second Amendment will continue as though nothing has changed. Americans who understand and approve the Second Amendment should use every opportunity to criticize the biased news media and biased Dems. They will not slack off and will continue to do as they have done for many years and that is to use any means to win their gun control issue. Hopefully, Trump and the Republicans and the updated Supreme Court will definitively stop the obnoxious gun controllers. Regretfully, we need to emphatically continue the fight to stop the obnoxious biased news media and obnoxious biased Dems and obnoxious biased supporters such as Soros and Bloomberg.

  • Doug December 18, 2016, 1:07 pm

    I’ll tell you what I think. I think the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect our God-given rights EVERYWHERE in the nation. I think the Founders never dreamed that courts would one day interpret Second Amendment rights so narrowly that some states would be able to, practically speaking, legislate the right to bear arms into oblivion. I think the movement to establish national reciprocity has nothing to do with the government GIVING US anything; rather, I see this as a LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION to all the wrong-headed court decisions that brought us to this point in the first place – RESTORING our uninfringed right to bear arms. In other words, I think national reciprocity legislation is an example of our system of checks and balances in action – something we rarely get to see where the Second Amendment is concerned.

  • srsquidizen December 17, 2016, 7:45 am

    The author should note “ism” generally means to embrace something (e.g. racial superiority, gender superiority, favoritism to relatives, a political ideology) or else refers to a medical condition (e.g. autism). So I’m not sure about the word “gunism.”

    The correct term for irrational fear or hatred of firearms is “ballistophobia” which also covers bombs and missiles. If you’ve been in a missile attack it’s probably normal to have some fear of those things. But somebody whose never even been shot going “ballistic” over law-abiding citizens carrying pocket pistols? Well that might be qualify as an “ism” because it’s downright sick.

  • Tom Horn December 17, 2016, 5:45 am

    Highly Logical.

    I have been saying for years we need a Constitutional Amendment that once and for all:

    A. Spells out clearly our INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, separate from any association with a regulated militia.
    B. Spells out the consequences of violating an individuals right to bear arms, or passing any laws which restrict that right (a treasonous offense).

    Only then will we stop the Bloomburgs, Soroses, and Clintons. We must strike while the iron is hot (favorable President, Congress, and perhaps, Supreme Court).

  • Gunny1951 December 16, 2016, 9:53 pm

    Great piece! I don’t agree with the whole “Feds need to enact nationakCCW” concept in any way, shape, or form. It automatically builds a national firearms ownership registry, which is VERY undesirable and illegal. Reciprocity would be nice for those already in possession of their permission slip. 2A does not grant the right to keep and bear arms- it protects the”God-Given Right” to do so from infringement BY the government. Reason being our founders recognized the fact that power breeds corruption and We thePeople would be in need of arms to keep the “power wielders” just a little concerned for their own personal safety. And no other reason. Not shooting holes in paper, rabbit hunting, although those activities are enjoyable to many of us. And they serve the purpose of honing our marksmanship skills. Politicians and those who would cause us or our families harm are unfortunately many times one and the same. And the reason for the decline in violent criminal activity is the same reason many politicians are pushing so hard for more gun control legislation. They’re scared of an armed, skillful populace. Which is exactly what the authors intended. We must continue to push, and push very hard indeed to restore the balance originally intended by the constitutional framers.

  • John December 16, 2016, 5:16 pm

    Theory and reality seldom agree, we (people who live in anti gun states) need the Federal Government to protect our rights from opression by the states. Just as they did for Black voters in the South. Shoveing a copy of the Constitution in your pocket will not stop you going to jail. I would love congress to enact a Federal law that pre-empts states like CA, NJ, MA antigun laws.

  • Capn Stefano December 16, 2016, 4:11 pm

    I’ve never heard Trump say he wanted any form of Federal ID for concealed carry. The way it should be done is a simple law passed in congress, signed by trump, which mandates that a carry permit/license from any state is good in the other 49. This is how driving licenses work

    And yes we need to get to work restoring ARMS liberty.. the 2nd says ARMS, not just firearms. The Founders had mortars, cannons, rockets, hand grenades as well as firearms. It was intended to be a full right of individuals to obtain and train with military weapons. We have given up so much, it will take time to get this back. I suggest repeal of the 86 machine gun ban, taking suppressors off the NFA, and nationwide CCW reciprocity

    Next repeal the ’68 act, then the ’34 act. Steady and constant can win these battles, never give up!

    • Harold December 16, 2016, 6:26 pm

      As usual not one of the gun nuts or the Republican Congress has come up with ideas to reduce gunshot deaths and injuries.
      . And also the Black President of the USA fail to present a simple one page suggestion, and make it very clear to those with limited education. There must be a Gun Control Laws for those that are NOT law abiding Citizens. There is a vehicle control law in all fifty states. I fail to see that the following suggestions will restrict Law Abiding US Citizens from owning a firearm.
      1.NO non-US Citizen will be allowed to purchase a firearm, ammo or gun powder, and Black Powder weapons. .
      2.No felons, nor those that have been diagnosed as suffering from a mental ailment, or anyone arrested and convicted for domestic violence can own or carry a firearm, and black powder weapons.
      3. ALL fully automatic firearms and silencers will be registered with the ATF, and pay the required fees to own it, if approved.
      4. All non-citizens that commit a crime with a firearm or explosives, it will be a federal crime.
      5. Anyone Law Abiding citizens that sell or loan their firearms to an un-lawful person shall lose all their rights to own firearms, including Black Powder weapons also. And they shall serve the same penalties if the firearm is used in a crime.
      6. Only those that have on their person a valid Conceal Handgun License that isn’t over 24 months old would be qualified to purchase firearms, gunpowder and ammo at Gun Shows.
      7. No one under 21 years of age should be allowed to purchase firearms, ammunition or black powder.
      Hopefully if these suggestions were made law, the next step is to get all the states to agree on one test that will allow a Law Abiding Citizen to carry a Conceal firearm License accepted in ALL States.

      • Tom Horn December 17, 2016, 6:00 am

        Wrongo Harry,

        Many firearms enthusiasts (NRA, the above author, for example) have provided many viable solutions to reducing gun crime/violence. As usual, the gun-hating liberals are not listening.

        Examples: Prosecute criminals with existing laws, instead of the revolving door justice system that spits them back on the street. Wayne La Pierre, of NRA, made many suggestions following the Sandy Hook shooting that seemed to have fallen on deaf ears.

        Remember, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. “We sleep at night because rough men stand watch.” Become one of those rough men.

      • Tom Horn December 17, 2016, 6:26 am

        P.S. Harry,

        If an 18 year old is allowed to bear arms for our protection in the U.S. Military, do you think we should restrict an 18 year old from bearing arms for the protection of themselves, their families, and our Country as a civilian? Many of us have been bearing arms responsibly since a much younger age.

      • Outlaw December 23, 2016, 2:12 am

        Most of those are laws already on the books dumbass. Our gunloving president refuses to let his minions prosecute and convict the people who break them Instead he pardons and returns them into society so they can continue to break those laws over and over. But “we need tougher gun laws” according to our King.

      • DaveW February 1, 2018, 7:14 am

        Driving is a privilege. the 2nd Amendment is a right.
        If any right can be infringed, then all rights can be infringed.
        During the Constitutions ratification process, the co-authors of the 2nd were called upon to appear before the legislatures of several states and explain the words and intent of the 2nd. When they were finished, the 2nd was accepted and included in the ratified Constitution. Individual states then included the 2nd in state constitutions, which were ratified by the individual states. When questioned, George Mason said that all able bodied males were members of the militia and should be ready to respond when called upon. James Madison said that members of the militia did not require training for it would be a waste of time and money to march to and fro and waste shot and powder to train to do what they already knew how to do. George Washington said the 2nd gives the people the teeth with which to defend the rest of their rights. He also said that he disdained the militia because they lacked military training and discipline and would, at the first volley, run to hide behind trees and walls.

        The 2nd is not the right of the pro-gun. It is the right of all whether they care to avail themselves of that right. To take away that right denies those who might presently be anti-gun the right to change their view and make use of the 2nd. This happens quite often especially among women who have been the victim of spousal abuse and other physical assaults.

        Prohibition required an amendment to stop the production of alcohol, and alcohol has never been a right. Prohibition was proposed as a public safety move by the progressives of the time. A decade later, another amendment was required to end prohibition. It would seem that if the anti-gun people want to change the 2nd in any way, it would require an amendment. A right deserves at least equal treatment as a non-right.

  • Dwight R December 16, 2016, 3:52 pm

    This is good article but why can’t people understand some basic principles. Most people state that the constitution protects their rights, It does no such thing. People also think that the Statutes are for the ordinary man/ woman but that is wrong also. Statutes are the there to control our public servants when they violate the public Trust/Constitution which they have sworn to uphold. 16 Am iur2d §2 Constitutional Law, a well recognized Law treatise puts it this way “A Constitution differs from a statute… The Constitution is the framework of the government containing the general principles and builds upon which it must function… It represents the will of the people deriving its ‘force directly from the people themselves. Statutes by contrast, are enactments and rules for the government of civil conduct, promulgated by the legislative authority of the state” Since most of us are not public officials the statutes don’t effect us. Things are not going to change until people realize that they are the kings and the public employes the servants. So I have no interest in ever signing up for a CC permit.

  • rt66paul December 16, 2016, 3:46 pm

    The federal level has already given me a permit to carry – it is the state level that is the problem. personally, I feel that the states should not have that power, but, since they do, the Feds could force the states to honor any gun license and/or type of firearm a resident of another state narmally uses and/or carries in his own state, or even any license that one state allows for out of state residents.
    This “gunism” is a prejudice is rampant in our society and has to stop.

  • Daryl James Poe December 16, 2016, 2:35 pm

    Establish a Culture of Marksmanship. Excellent.

  • srsquidizen December 16, 2016, 1:26 pm

    Quite correct that we don’t want the Feds issuing GUN permits. It should instead be a “background check card” that is NOT tied to firearms ownership in any way whatsoever. The card would have uses totally unrelated to guns and also issued to people who don’t own a gun (e.g. for expedited airline boarding and sports event admission). So having one would NOT put holders in any federal “gun owner” database anymore than having a Medicare card. However, federal law would mandate if it’s legal for you to be armed in your home state (by permit or constitutional carry) you CANNOT be arrested for carrying in ANY state. You just present this generic “good guy” card to local LEO’s. That’s all we need. NOT federal permission to own or carry a gun!

  • DavidInCO December 16, 2016, 12:46 pm

    In the article you mention that there should be laws punishing illegal confiscation of guns otherwise there won’t be protections. I am not sure I accept that argument. There are many states that currently have laws that allow them to illegally confiscate anything they want based upon “suspicion” of a crime. And people don’t get their stuff back innocent or not. I don’t trust the states any more than the feds to do the right thing. I am fairly certain there will always be a back door by politicians to be able to snatch and grab whatever they want.

    • Henry Cole December 16, 2016, 1:52 pm

      I agree I don’t trust Law Enforcement anymore than I do the Fed’s. I think there should be law’s to protect individuals that are accused. If they are acquitted there property shall be returned within 72 hours.

  • noduty2submit December 16, 2016, 12:20 pm

    Hi Guys!How about just \”keep and bear Arms?!\” There is NO LAW restricting Arms.
    So why posses and carry anything? (unless you are paid to do so in commerce.)1) \”Firearms\” are LEGAL FICTIONS: they don\’t exist in the eyes of the law!
    2) Your \”License to Carry\” is a COMMERCIAL CONTRACT.
    3) \”Gun Laws\” are NOT LAW, they are: \”acts authorizing the making of contracts with the government…(Supreme Court reporter at 74 U.S. 666).\”Thank you for ending the ignorance! And actually supporting the Second Amendment for once!Videos:
    The Truth About Gun Laws, part 1 of 2:
    The Truth About Gun Laws, part 2 of 2:

  • jim December 16, 2016, 11:10 am

    Great opinion piece! Many 2A advocates have become hypnotized by this sham of a give-back by anti-2A mouthpieces and legislators. It is a wolf in lambs clothing. Do NOT allow the Federal Gov’t to legislate restrictions, or supposed “allowances” on your 2A RIGHTS.

  • RichardB December 16, 2016, 10:59 am

    Until there is universal recognition of the right to carry concealed, Don’t let the Feds deep into the handgun carry debate. Just because there is a conservative (sort of) Congress NOW, in ten years the libs will have the White House and Congress again. With their foot in the door, by requiring the states to recognize other states permits, Congress can then set the STANDARDS for all the states to follow.
    Do you want the next Nancy Peloisi to write mandatory requirements for handgun licenses? I’m not a lawyer, but are there already mandatory federal standards that all states must follow for drivers licenses?
    The current reciprocity way is messy but it works except for a few states.

    • noduty2submit December 16, 2016, 12:22 pm

      concealed \”carry\” is NOT a right!How about just \”keep and bear Arms?!\” There is NO LAW restricting Arms.
      So why \”carry\” anything? (unless you are paid to do so in commerce.)1) \”Firearms\” are LEGAL FICTIONS: they don\’t exist in the eyes of the law!
      2) Your \”License to Carry\” is a COMMERCIAL CONTRACT.
      3) \”Gun Laws\” are NOT LAW, they are: \”acts authorizing the making of contracts with the government…(Supreme Court reporter at 74 U.S. 666).\”Thank you for ending the ignorance! And actually supporting the Second Amendment for once!Videos:
      The Truth About Gun Laws, part 1 of 2:
      The Truth About Gun Laws, part 2 of 2:

  • mike ryan December 16, 2016, 9:09 am

    The SECOND Amendment is my carry permit – Click bait!! Like they said in Blazing Saddles – “We don’t need no stinking badges!!”

    • Vanns40 December 16, 2016, 11:16 am

      Tough words mean nothing. Let me know when you plan on exercising your Constitutional right in NJ so I can come and video your being arrested and carried off all while showing the police a copy of the Constitution and trying to convince them it’s a permit to carry in NJ!

    • GradyPhilpott December 16, 2016, 11:53 am

      You need to watch “Treasure of Sierra Madre.”


  • Robert December 16, 2016, 8:47 am

    The problems with this opinion piece are:

    1) No one has been talking about a Federal carry permit; it’s national reciprocity for current State CCW permits that is being discussed. Just like we currently enjoy with driver licenses.

    2) The absurd idea that we all need to wait for some unknown future date when the powers that be become enlightened enough to recognize the inherent morality of the right to self defense and rescind all of the unconstitutional gun laws. In the meantime, we are to prove our moral superiority by refusing to accept government issued carry permits and either go unarmed or thumb our noses at the current laws and carry arms without a permit, thereby offering ourselves as martyrs for the cause.

    Uh, no thank you. I prefer to have the means to defend myself and my family right now, without making myself a criminal in the eyes of the law. The push for Constitutional Carry can continue on while taking advantage of current State permit laws, and even while expanding those laws with things like national reciprocity. The all-or-nothing approach is one of diminishing returns. Right now shall-issue and stand-your-ground laws are encouraging millions of Americans to take up the responsibility of personal self defense, despite the current administration and the media doing everything they can to discourage it. If we all refused to accept these laws, saying, “No thanks! We’ll wait for our Constitutional Rights to be recognized!”, the number of gun owners would be dwindling, not increasing. It’s a numbers game; the more people who recognize the need for Constitutional Carry the closer we get to achieving it; and the more people who obtain CCW permits now, the faster our numbers will grow.

    • Vanns40 December 16, 2016, 9:36 am

      I was going to comment and then, lol and behold, you hacked into my computer and stole my thoughts, virtually word for word. Korwin has a habit of going off on a tangent, into waters never charted and more importantly he touches on topics we absolutely don’t even want explored.

      As for a previous comment regarding the tired “the Second Amendment is my carry permit…”, please, carry your gun in NY or NJ and let us know how that turns out. We all need to stop with the cliches and start dealing with reality. That reality is that the meaning of the Constitution has been corrupted and usurped by not only the Federal Government but also by the States. Posturing will not restore our rights (which predate the Constitution, by the way), electing politicians and having judges appointed who will interpret not make law will.

  • Steve G December 16, 2016, 8:28 am

    I always enjoy Korwin’s articles. Lucid arguments, candor, and courage in spades. Keep them coming Alan.
    By the way he is right about this topic and about the good stuff available on his website…..as usual.

  • John December 16, 2016, 8:22 am

    You will never get all the States to agree to allow people to carry. Since that cant happen, it should be a federal thing so someone doesnt forget to check the laws before crossing another State. States are to independent, this is the United States of America. We are all the same,

    • mpdugas@gmail.com December 16, 2016, 10:02 am

      A “Federal Thing” is a two-edged weapon; in a pro-gun administration, we like it.
      If Hillary had a “Federal Thing”, we’d be disarmed by now.

      Be careful what you wish for…

    • Slingblade December 16, 2016, 2:19 pm

      And that is where you are 100% wrong…there is no such thing as “States being too independent”. (that’s “too” not “to” BTW) That sort of backwards mentality is EXACTLY where this country took a serious turn for the worse a long time ago. Speak for yourself because we are NOT all the same and thanks be to God for that!

  • Glenn U. December 16, 2016, 5:40 am

    The second amendment does grant us the right to keep and bear arms. Also it does grant us “RESPONSIBILITY” not to break laws I.E.,stand your ground, fight or flee, to shoot or not shoot, is it legal to carry in a post office, courthouse etc. When we are issued these papers for concealed carry it means that we have been educated. States with current reciprocity agreements post in a nutshell format their laws on concealed carry. As with my current concealed carry permit and travel between states it’s always a good idea to review what effects you in your home state and know before you go.

    • Jay December 16, 2016, 8:29 am

      Gleen my comment is not directed at you but for all of us! We Must Understand once and for all!! The Constitution does Not Grant Rights! The Constitution only grants the Federal government prescribed, specific, enumerated powers and restricts what they can and cannot do to limit our natural born creator given Rights! This was put forth in writing by our brilliant forefathers in the Ninth amendment! (9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.) We have Rights, these rights despite what any government says, projects and deems within their power to regulate is Unconstitutional! Just because over the years, the government has infringed upon our rights willy nilly does not mean they have the power to do so, unless we continue to cover our heads and just like the status quo, allow them to!

  • mtman2 December 16, 2016, 4:27 am

    An article as things should be spoken of.
    Not half baked 1/2 “gun control” = that’s go along to get along.
    Isn’t that who WE call RINO’s for comprimising- all the way to the guillotine.
    The whole idea for “shall not be infringed”- is it’s none of anyone elses business what I have or do -if it doesn’t harm the innocent.
    This helps keep folks “innocent” even ones in gubmint …

  • Robert Smith December 13, 2016, 3:59 pm

    “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.”
    True in theory but in reality it is very much dependent and that is not likely to change. National CC would instantaneously restore gun rights in the “virtual no issue” states. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens would have their civil rights restored. They would start buying and owing guns again. They would become politically engaged on gun rights issues in their own states. The state legislatures would then start repealing their anti-gun laws. Democracy in action. We just need National CC to kick-start the process.

    • Blasted Cap December 16, 2016, 6:33 am

      The thing is, just like states issuing CC permits, the feds would have to set ground rules for qualifying for the permit. Do we really want that? Those people can screw up making a peanut butter sandwich. Who would oversee the program? National database? Nationwide “Constitutional carry” would seem to be a better route.

      • Vanns40 December 16, 2016, 9:45 am

        No, the “Feds” would have nothing to do with who qualifies or who doesn’t. National Reciprocity simply states that ANY permit from ANY State WILL be recognized in every State, period. Very similar to the driver’s license compact.

        • Steve B December 16, 2016, 3:31 pm

          I have seen several mentions of drivers license and nation wide acceptance. However, a drivers license is a privilege, while the second amendment makes keeping and bearing arms. a RIGHT. The penalties against those who refuse those rights should be spelled out and enforced. Unconstitutional acts need some penalties to enforce them. Also recovery of illegally seized property needs to be enforced.

  • Mark N. December 13, 2016, 2:55 am

    Although I agree that a national CW is a bad idea, on a number of grounds, I think that national reciprocity, such as we have for driver’s licenses, is a good first step. It will serve to educate the public that armed citizens from other states will not be shooting up the town. That may (unlikely, but may) persuade the CCW banning “virtual no issue” states such as NY, NJ, Md and California, to revise their extreme positions on gun laws. I would hope that citizens of those states would complain loudly, and hopefully effectively, that the fact that tourists can carry in those states but residents cannot is inherently unfair and even unconstitutional.

Send this to a friend