National Reciprocity Permit - Yes or No?

First and foremost, no, that's not my pistol.  I sure wish it was, but unfortunately it isn't.  

Moving on...

In case you haven't been paying attention - and unless you're a gun owner, you haven't been - the Trump Administration is solidly behind the 2nd Amendment, going so far recently as to take the unprecidented  steps of actually suing two states (California and Virginia) over their most recent gun control laws, citing them as being unconstitutional.  And trust me, when this one hits the Supreme Court - and it will, I assure you - and the SCOTUS returns an opinion that yes, those laws are unconstitutional, that's gonna pretty much end the liberal left's attempts at any form of gun control.  It's also gonna make liberal heads explode all over the nation, and THAT is gonna be funny as hell to watch!

Another item that Trump supports is National Reciprocity for concealed carry permits.  This means that your concealed carry permit will be valid in every state in the Union, just like driver's licenses.  He also supports national open carry as well, which is not a bad idea.

When it comes to national reciprocity for concealed carry permits, I'm on the fence about it.  I absolutely see the sense in it - after all, if a driver's license from South Carolina is good in all 50 states, then why shouldn't my Concealed Weapons Permit be good in all 50 states as well?

The first thing that liberals will say is that it's not the same thing because guns kill more people than cars annually, which is true, but what they won't admit is that the majority of those deaths were SUICIDES in which a firearm was used.  Anywhere from 55-62% of gun related deaths in 2024 (the last year for which full stats are available) were the results of suicide.

What the liberals also won't acknowledge or take into consideration is the statistically proven fact that concealed carry permits holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the United States.  So why should you be worried about a law-abiding citizen being able to carry nationwide?  Noooo, let's not talk about that!

While I think that National Reciprocity for concealed carry permits is a good idea, the ONLY reason I can't get 100% behind it is because of the 10th Amendment.  For those not familiar with it, here's what it 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."

So now the first question will be, "Why are driver's licenses good all over the nation?" And the answer is because all 50 states signed the Driver License Compact, which is an agreement stating that the signees will recognize the driver's license from all other states and will assist those states in tracking offenses committed in their state by someone with an out of state license.

And THAT, friends and neighbors, falls squarely within the 10th Amendment.  The individual states got together and agreed on something, exercising their authority as invididual states to do so.

If the individual states ever got together and signed a Concealed Carry Permit Compact, then concealed weapons permits would be good in every state just like a driver's license.  But considering that two states are now being sued by the Feds for their anti-gun laws, I don't think you'll ever be able to get all 50 states to sign such a compact.  The topic of gun control and gun control laws is THE most heated debate in the nation, and I don't ever see a concensus on this being reached.

Trump thinks so too, which is why he's floating the idea of a federal law requiring National Reciprocity for concealed carry permits.  But like I said, the bad thing is that such a law would fly right in the face of the 10th Amendment, and the ink wouldn't even be dry on the document before California, New York, Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, Washington, and a few other anti-gun states would file suit against the federal government.  

And I can tell you right now that such a lawsuit would win, because IMHO any national reciprocity law violates the 10th Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.  I'm also 99.9% sure that the SCOTUS would share that opinion.

So to answer the big question of am I in favor of a National Reciprocity law for concealed carry?  Yes, but only if all 50 states sign a compact (which we know ain't ever gonna happen).  Am I in favor of a federal National Reciprocity law?  

No, because such a law is patently unconstitutional.  Hate to say it, but there it is.

In closing, let me say this:  I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment in its literal form.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to me means that ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional, including laws which require you to have a permit before you can carry a firearm either openly or concealed.  You will NEVER hear me include the word "BUT" when I speak of being a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

I just can't support a pro-gun law that I believe to be unconstitutional. 

Deo Vindice

IHC

 

  

"Perceived" Rights v. "Actual" Rights

 

So in yesterday's post I said that I would expound on "perceived" rights and "actual" rights today; well, I'm a man of my word, so here it is.

Let me say two things right up front:  first, what I'm posting here in this blog are my personal opinions based on my own life experiences unless I clearly state otherwise.  Second, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and that's okay.  Just don't try and tell my I'm wrong, because when it comes to opinions there is no 'right' or 'wrong' - they're just different.  So do us both a favor and don't go down that road.

Okay, so let's get to it, shall we?  (This should be fairly brief, by the way.)

I can sum up the difference between "perceived" rights and "actual" rights with one simple statement:  if it isn't written down on paper in the form of a law or as a part of the Bill of Rights, then it isn't an "actual" right.  Anything else is a "perceived" right.

 Simple enough, right?  Yeah, you would think so, but it's not.

We hear all the time from the libtard left that "healthcare is a right," and "housing is a right," and "a living wage is a right," and all of that other crap.  The bottom lines on that are simple, and there are two of them.

First, you do NOT have a 'right' to anything that requires the labor of another person.  If you want those services, then you must pay for them.  That's the way it works, and no amount of hurt feelings or social outrage by the left is going to change that.  

Second, if it's not on paper or in the Bill of Rights, well, you know...

So what that means is that the "right" to healthcare and the "right" to a so-called 'living wage' are "perceived" rights; that is, someone thinks they should be an actual right, so in their minds they are.  The fact of the matter is that they're not; they're "perceived" rights, which means nothing.

Any time anyone tells me that they have a "right" this or a "right" to that, my reply is always the same:  "Show me that in the Bill of Rights."  So far no one has been able to, so the conversation always ends at that point.

And while I'm at it, let me stir the pot just a little more on the topic of "rights."

There is no such thing as "trans rights," "homosexual rights," "black rights," or anything like that.  All of those are bullshit leftist terms that were conceived to try and give someone's OPINIONS OR FEELINGS a sense of legitimacy. The truth is that they are nothing but opinions, plain and simple.

So that's it.  I told you this was going to be brief. 

Let the leftist outrage begin.

Deo Vindice

IHC