Donald Trump: I’ll Sign National Reciprocity if It Reaches My Desk

[SMS]

They made a few amendments after the original was published. It could be he is referring to the second of such measures, although I am frequently confused. You might see if there is anything in your pocket version about that.

Hmm...which amendment speaks to the ability of the federal government to require one state to honor the state issued permits from other states? What mechanism will he use to enact such a measure? Executive order? Legislation?

If he was arguing to push for the supreme court to overturn the constitutionality of carry permits period, then it would be a good thing but this, as it is advertised, is not a pro 2nd amendment or pro constitution position.

 

[tRidiot]

Hmm...which amendment speaks to the ability of the federal government to require one state to honor the state issued permits from other states? What mechanism will he use to enact such a measure? Executive order? Legislation?

If he was arguing to push for the supreme court to overturn the constitutionality of carry permits period, then it would be a good thing but this, as it is advertised, is not a pro 2nd amendment or pro constitution position.

My thought is that States shouldn't have the ability to restrict your Constitutional rights. Personally, I think keeping and bearing arms is enumerated.

 

[TedKennedy]

I dunno... states have to recognize marriages. I’m against the feds telling states what they have to do, but at least this time it tweaks the antis.

 

[SMS]

My thought is that States shouldn't have the ability to restrict your Constitutional rights. Personally, I think keeping and bearing arms is enumerated.

When it comes to states permitting the carry of firearms, that horse is out of the barn. Further bastardizing federalism with a national permit reciprocity act doesn't fix anything or get us closer to the original intent of the Constitution.

I dunno... states have to recognize marriages. I’m against the feds telling states what they have to do, but at least this time it tweaks the antis.

The government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. Tweaking the antis is fun...but this measure, as proposed, is more like pre-election pandering.

 

[tRidiot]

When it comes to states permitting the carry of firearms, that horse is out of the barn. Further bastardizing federalism with a national permit reciprocity act doesn't fix anything or get us closer to the original intent of the Constitution.

I disagree. This is one of those rights that should never have been restricted in the first place.

 

[BobbyV]

My right to protection via firearm doesn't suddenly disappear when I cross a state line . . . if I can legally concealed carry in one state for protection why does it make sense that crossing a state line might suddenly make me a criminal if I have a pistol with a mag holding more than 10rds (among other things)?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I know my position on national reciprosity will alienate and pizz of a lot of people here, but I oppose any form of "national permission" to carry anything that is a natural right, already recognized as an inailenable right in the Constitution; the constitution in which We the People delinetated limited powers to government and set prohibitions against wherein the government may get involved. If such a law is passed, it will be defacto recognition by the federal government that the several states may infact infringe upon the most important right that set us free and allows us to maintain that freedom against all enemies of the people, foreign and domestic. Lift the lid on this toilet bowl of infringement, examine the contents, and flush it all down the draiin to the sewer of bad law - law that would legitimize further infringement. There is only one solution to this dilemma: Remove any and all infringements on the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

If there are people out therre who cannot be trusted with arms, if not executed, lock them up until it can be proven they are no longer a risk to society.

Woody

If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved. B.E.Wood

 

[Rez Exelon]

My right to protection via firearm doesn't suddenly disappear when I cross a state line . . . if I can legally concealed carry in one state for protection why does it make sense that crossing a state line might suddenly make me a criminal if I have a pistol with a mag holding more than 10rds (among other things)?

One of the more amazing aspects of our country is that you have freedom of choice. For instance, you don't have to live anywhere you don't want to go, and don't have to travel anywhere you don't want to go. So if you don't like their laws or that they don't have reciprocity, then you don't have to go there. Full Stop.

 

[Rez Exelon]

Lift the lid on this toilet bowl of infringement, examine the contents, and flush it all down the draiin to the sewer of bad law - law that would legitimize further infringement. There is only one solution to this dilemma: Remove any and all infringements on the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

This. Pushing a federally mandated reciprocity thing doesn't address any core issues with the idea of the second amendment and only fixed a symptom rather than a problem. And in doing so it's legitimizing the underlying issues.

 

[BobbyV]

One of the more amazing aspects of our country is that you have freedom of choice. For instance, you don't have to live anywhere you don't want to go, and don't have to travel anywhere you don't want to go. So if you don't like their laws or that they don't have reciprocity, then you don't have to go there. Full Stop.

Yeah . . . um, I know that. If you think it's reasonable to suddenly become a criminal when you cross a state line or to avoid driving the most common route to another location all due to the laws of another state you've got issues.

And you people who use "Full Stop" in your responses are annoying. Are you Alyssa Milano or something?