28 January 2015

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill

Stutzman to Introduce GOA-Backed Reciprocity Bill for Concealed Carry

Not a GOA member yet?  Make sure to join Gun Owners of America!

It's a problem as fresh as today's headlines.

A Pennsylvania woman with a concealed carry license drives over the New Jersey line with a gun in her car.  In a routine traffic stop, she is arrested and charged for violating New Jersey's unconstitutional gun laws. Only a national campaign saves her from a decade in prison.

And that's just the point:  In an era where states like New York and California use draconian and labyrinthine gun laws in order to try to outlaw guns by fiat, a legal gun owner shouldn't risk a life behind bars because he or she drives across a state line into a socialist-leaning state. 

A Floridian shouldn't live in fear of a move that takes him through New York, or a Virginian, of a trip through Maryland.

So it is good news that, after a campaign that has lasted for over a decade, we are now within striking range of passing reciprocity legislation that is friendly to citizens living in constitutional carry states.

Congressman Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) has told Gun Owners of America that he will be introducing this reciprocity bill within the next few weeks.  This bill will prohibit states like New York and California from cancelling the Second Amendment rights of Americans from other states. 

If you have a concealed carry permit -- or if you come from a freedom-loving state that doesn't require one -- you can carry anywhere in the country without fear of losing your constitutional rights because of where you are.

With six constitutional carry states -- and at least four other states which may pass those laws this year -- the Stutzman bill is a particularly important contrast to competing bills which would require states like Vermont to change their pro-gun laws in order to benefit.

Now, we know that some of our members would argue:  "Why shouldn't principles of federalism allow states to spit on the Second Amendment if they want to?"  We respect this view, but respectfully disagree.  Gun grabbers have no problem creating national rules to take away our Second Amendment rights, irrespective of what we do.  So it's time they were hoisted on their own petard.

In addition, the Supreme Court (correctly) ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the reach of the Second Amendment extends beyond just the federal government and applies to all 50 states.

In this landmark decision, the Court noted (approvingly) that anti-gun Justice Stephen Breyer was "correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated." (p. 44)

Why are we so optimistic about Stutzman?  The answer is that we now have a filibuster-proof majority to pass it in the Senate -- if we can get the new GOP leadership to give us the opportunity to offer it as an amendment to a must-pass bill. 

ACTIONContact your Representative.  Ask him or her to call Congressman Stutzman and sign up as an original cosponsor to the Stutzman "constitutional carry" friendly reciprocity bill.


PioneerPreppy said...

Like that new header pic btw.

The part about the gun grabbers wanting to allow a state to go against the 2nd is like arguing they want states to be able to institute slavery again.

What a bunch of dorks.

Rev. Paul said...

Thanks, Preppy - that's Lake Hood, here in Anchorage. And I agree with your assessment about the dorks. :)

Rob said...

Padre, I am not a gun owner, what is difference between this group and the NRA??

Rev. Paul said...

Rob, in many ways they're similar. The NRA was historically about training & marksmanship, whereas the GOA is principally a case of "let's band together to stand against those who want to take away the 2nd Amendment." These days, there's not much difference, except perhaps in how the money is spent. The NRA is a larger organization, too, with some 4 million members.

Old NFO said...

One hopes it will make it, but I can see Chuck U and Dingy Harry throwing a hissy fit if this gets to the Senate... sigh

Rev. Paul said...

True, NFO, but they won't have Mark Begich from Alaska to stab us in the back, this time. He - the supposed "hero" of the Alaskans and their constitutional carry - cast the deciding vote against the last bill. And he wonders why he got booted by the voters.

Samuel Gonzalez said...

Hello Way Up North

You have a nice blog here! My name is Samuel Gonzalez and I run The Last Tradition. I’ve been doing it since 2009 and I’m pretty dedicated to what I do. I’m always looking for other good blogs to service my readers and yours fits the bill. Check out my blog and if you like what you see I hope you add me to your blog roll. I’ll do the same for you. Hope to hear from you soon!


Well Seasoned Fool said...

The antis will have a fit, especially if the Lightbringer doesn't veto it.

Rev. Paul said...

And wouldn't that be a hoot? :)

Guffaw in AZ said...

You beat me to it! I'm getting ready to post the very same thing from the GOA!
Great minds think alike?


Rev. Paul said...

Guffaw - either that, or "burned-out bloggers go with whatever shows up in e-mail". :)

Guffaw in AZ said...



B said...

Yes, we'd all like to be able to carry everywhere. But:

Thing is, this IS a states rights issue. If they get this bill passed (which they won't) then it opens up a WHOLE CAN of worms regarding states rights. Passage of this bill would not, in the grand scheme of things, be a good idea.

I really think that if you are so stupid as to drive into a state where the carriage of a gun is outlawed, then you deserve what you get. THe people of the state choose their representatives and they make the laws. If they REALLY wanted them to change, then they'd elect new people.

Rev. Paul said...

Mr. Gonzales, I've added your blog to my roll - it looks like a good one!

B - I'm not entirely in agreement with your statement, since the Supreme Court has specifically said (in Heller, I believe) that the Bill of Rights trumps State laws. The whole idea of this new bill is to protect the rights of someone carrying legally in their own state to cross a state line without fear of penalty from contradictory requirements. I think that's a good idea.

Samuel Gonzalez said...

I'll add you to mine