A year and a half in, and the Republican controlled Congress still hasn’t passed Nat’l Reciprocity Legislation. While Trump gives lip service to 2A supporters, I’m not holding my breath for this bill to go up for a vote, much less pass, though.
3 Likes
Lets have some hope at least 
3 Likes
I’m not and have never been a supporter of national reciprocity. I draw a hard line at having to ask permission to carry. I’m holding out for national Constitutional carry.
I know; “perfect is the enemy of good” etc. But in my book, asking permission for a God given right is not good. And, I can see some of the states like MA, IL, CA etc. pushing for a deal like AL, MS, AR etc. having to come “up” to their standards like UBGC (closing the “gun show loophole”), requiring a certain minimum insurance coverage, minimum levels of accredited training, and so on.
I would rather go in the other direction: straight up Constitutional carry and no state can pretend to have Constitutional carry when it really doesn’t, like Tennessee and several other states.
1 Like
So, to be clear, you understand that your state CPL would function as a nationwide carry license and the operational term as a verb is in fact the objectional part?
1 Like
Yes, I understand that. I also understand that as it is now, the only reason I even need a CPL is if I will be visiting or traveling across a state that requires a CPL. Did you know that 29 states now have some form of Constitutional carry? A couple of them restrict it to state residents only, unfortunately.
I would rather see our efforts being concentrated towards requiring all states to adopt Constitutional carry and eliminating all necessity to ask the government for permission. We have a right to keep and bear. To accept a CPL requirement is to give up that right in favor of a paid privilege.
From what I’ve seen in the past, most pro-gun people would simply accept such a “win” and stop fighting to regain our rights.
1 Like
Seems worse than that.
To accept a CPL requirement is to accept that carrying becomes illegal whenever the grantor decides the grantee no longer warrants permission.
That is one hell of a concession, one that leaves “shall not be infringed” with no operative meaning at all.
And having to pay the grantor for that permission adds another point of control. If you’re broke or unwilling/unable to use whatever payment system the grantor requires, permission can be withheld, creating yet another avenue of infringement.
We already see businesses refusing cash or certain denominations. If that progresses from fewer options to no option at all, the required form of payment becomes another gate between the people and their rights.
1 Like