Make National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Law a Reality

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D’Andrilli

Handgun Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Make National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Law a Reality
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -( In the past eighty years the American people have seen their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms slowly whittled away through enactment of a multitude of restrictive federal and State gun legislation. Such gun rights that remain are treated more as a privilege, granted by Government, than as a right, embodied in the People, as codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights.

With the slow, inexorable, insidious movement toward de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, many Americans grow increasingly unaware of the loss of their most cherished right.

Those who seek to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms find themselves frustrated. They see themselves treated like second class citizens.

Now, no rational, sensible person inside of government or outside it would deny a person his or her natural right of self-defense. Yet, by prohibiting the average law-abiding American citizen from carrying a handgun in his or her own defense, Government is, nonetheless, effectively denying the American citizen his or her natural right of self-defense. For, a handgun is, in many life-threatening situations, the most effective means available for ensuring one’s life.

The right of self-defense is a corollary to the Second Amendment, as the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, pointed out in the seminal Heller case. Yet, many States, including the District of Columbia, routinely ignore the import of Heller and, in so doing, denigrate the import and purport of the Second Amendment.

The State Governments of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Hawaii, and others, dole out handgun carry licenses sparingly, if at all, to a privileged few.

And, who are those Privileged Few?

This Is What We See:

  • Politicians can carry a handgun concealed because they make the laws.
  • Police can carry a handgun concealed because they enforce the laws.
  • Retired Police Officers can carry a handgun concealed because that is their entitlement.
  • State and Municipal Judges and U.S. Supreme Court Justices can carry a handgun concealed because they interpret the laws.
  • The Rich and Famous can carry a handgun concealed because restrictive gun laws are generally waived for them.
  • Private Bodyguards can carry a handgun concealed because they protect the Rich and Famous.


Criminals can carry a handgun concealed because they simply disregard the laws.


But You – The Average Law-Abiding Citizen – 

Cannot carry a handgun because you obey the laws, and are routinely denied the right guaranteed to you in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!


This Is What We Know:

The President-elect, Donald Trump, championed the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We trust that Donald Trump will not soften his stance once he takes the Oath of Office and that he will honor his promise and commitment to the American People. [in fact he owes a debt of gratitude to the NRA who moved mountains to get him elected.]

Even so, Americans must not rely on our President-elect alone to secure our Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Americans must make national handgun carry a reality. To accomplish that means we must make national handgun carry a priority.

To effectively preserve and protect the Second Amendment we must strengthen it. The true strength of the Second Amendment, as a fundamental right, rests in the full, unrestricted exercise of it. Congressional draft legislation to effectuate national handgun carry would do just that. National handgun carry impetus is, to date, the best exemplification of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as our founders understood that right and had intended it to be exercised.

Congressional draft legislation to effectuate national handgun carry does exist. Pending are three House bills, H.R. 923, H.R. 986, H.R. 402, and one Senate bill, S. 498. .

What is the status of these bills? They sit stalled in Congress. They have been suspended in Committee for over a year. But, as President-elect Donald Trump will soon assume the mantle of the U.S. Presidency, we must get Congress cracking on them. There is no longer any reason to sit idle.

Those Congressmen fearful of incurring the wrath of Hillary Clinton, had they acted sooner on the national handgun carry legislation, can certainly rest easy now. Hillary Clinton’s political ambitions along with her antigun agenda are dead.

Clinton’s political dreams and her antigun agenda both died when she lost the U.S. Presidential election. There is now no excuse, especially by Congressional Republicans—if any excuse previously existed—for foot dragging; nor is this a time for the American people to rest on their laurels now that Donald Trump has secured the U.S. Presidency. There is much work to be done and much in Obama’s un-American legacy to be undone.

And, don’t for a minute think the antigun forces are going to forbear their destructive activity to defeat the Second Amendment just because they lost their most strident and powerful benefactor, Hillary Clinton. We must hit them hard. Getting national handgun carry legislation passed will be the most effective means at our disposal to defeat them and to defeat their destructive agenda.

The Arbalest Quarrel is doing its part to get the ball rolling on national handgun carry legislation. The Arbalest Quarrel has, since its inception, been a strong, unwavering advocate of the Second Amendment. We have pointed out vociferously and unceasingly that the Second Amendment is not to be ignored or trifled with.

The Arbalest Quarrel is currently working with several organizations and with public radio to get the message out that the American people want national handgun carry legislation.

We want national handgun carry legislation passed quickly, and we want national handgun carry legislation passed with no strings attached.

President-elect Donald Trump, the U.S. Congress, and the average law-abiding American citizen—all of us—need to work on this together and straightaway to see federal legislation enacted to level the playing field among the several States.

All law-abiding American citizens of legal age should be allowed to carry a handgun concealed in every State of the Union. That is consistent with the true import and purport of the Second Amendment.

Will you help us help all Americans preserve, protect, and strengthen our sacred Second Amendment right? Please provide us with your thoughts.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I appreciate your message. But can we start using a graphic that doesn’t have people pointing guns at each other? That green poster up top shows the top and bottom stick figures pointing pistols at the left and right stick figures. Not a good start to setting an example


They should pass a law that there are no laws stopping law abiding citizens from concealed carry and it is against the law to make laws that change that.
Hope that everyone gets my point. You are arguing laws that shouldn’t be in place. The second amendment is the rule that says that plain and clear, all these other rules, regs and req. shouldn’t even exist.
No one has the right to say if you can or cant protect yourself, God given, constitution given or law (sherrif, police).
End of point.


Some answers are very correct but fall short. Others are so for out in “left field” they are blatantly WRONG. One person wrote “The Constitution gives me the right to carry!”! This person is obviously an uneducated, brainwashed progressive liberal. Our Constitution DOES NOT give or grant Rights! That is a progressive propaganda lie of the “Godless” socialist liberals. Our individual, unalienable – inseparable from our human existence – Rights are endowed upon us by our Creator, “THAT TO SECURE THESE {pre-existing} RIGHTS” , to protect them from tyrants and criminals, our Constitution and thus our government was conceived and… Read more »

Jim Macklin

From 1790 until 2008 the Second Amendment was not “incorporated” as a mandate to the States. Thus many States did enact many anti-gun laws. Those laws against slaves having arms were wiped out by the Civil War. Many were re-enacted after the Civil War by renaming SLAVE CODES to BLACK CODES in the South. By about 1900 gun control laws were enacted in the Northeast as crime control, the NY Sullivan Law was the pattern. It was promoted as anti-crime but in fact was written my a criminal gang leader, Tim Sullivan who was the leader of the Irish 5… Read more »

Wayne Clark

Good points all…with the exception of Gill. “Arms”, are not limited by one man’s objection as to what is understood. My one wish…& I feel it is reasonable, given the current laws regarding licensing requirements…is to make the licensing fees comparable to from state to another. I read that one state (can’t remember which), made it’s licensing fee $10 so EVERYONE qualified to get one, could afford it. My state, just lowered it’s fee (a few months ago) to $100! Yay, TN! When you live on an income that stretches every dollar till the next check, saving up for a… Read more »


Wayne, you are taking a very pragmatic approach; rare in these forums. I saw the Shall-Issue movement as highly positive from a political perspective. I was hesitant about the Constitutional-Carry movement – NOT from any PRACTICAL concern; only from a POLITICAL concern. I don’t make very much of this “right” vs. “privilege” distinction. E.g., I had to apply for a “license” to take a bride. It never occurred to me to rant and rave that taking a spouse was a natural right not a “privilege” to be dispensed (or withheld) upon paying a (modest) fee and stipulating to certain prerequisites… Read more »


This is a test. I believe my comments are not being posted.

Bob in Florida

Gil, Other have responded – some more thoroughly; some more succinctly; and others much more eloquently than I; however, let me provide my interpretation of the issue. You are correct, the Second Amendment does, in fact, state, “. . .the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That, to me, is one of the “certain unalienable rights” considered in the Declaration of Independence, to have been “endowed by their creator”. To me the keeping and bearing of arms is directly related to the mentioned unalienable rights of ‘life’ and ‘liberty’. So as discussed in… Read more »


Again, well said.


Bob; OK, let me stipulate for the sake of argument that you are right in PRINCIPLE and right in PRACTICALITY. In my opinion, a full-auto M-16 is the quintessential militia arm of today. Moreover, it is hardly more dangerous to public safety than an auto-loader which, in-turn, is hardly more dangerous than Winchester or Colt’s repeater. Yet, even though you may be right on principle and practical grounds; it does NOT follow that you are necessarily right on POLITICAL grounds. Can you see this distinction? Suppose we beseech our new President Trump to see things our way. After all, surely… Read more »

Bob in Florida


I don’t disagree with you – I have no illusions that Trump, or any other politician, would (or should) spend their political capital trying to get that the definition of ‘arms’ included anywhere. I don’t even believe it is necessary – the wording of the 2nd Amendment should be left exactly as it is.

I was merely pointing out that IMHO people who try to argue about what ‘arms’ should, or shouldn’t, be ‘allowed’ is a waste of time and energy.


We seem to be in agreement. Neither of us wants to amend the word “arms” in the 2A. Neither of us wants Congress to amend the word “arms” in the 2A. I think we are both inclined to a very open and inclusive interpretation of the word “arms” as used in the 2A. Notwithstanding all the foregoing, the way our system works is that Courts have no practical alternative to interpreting the terms in the Constitution and applying them to a case brought before them. A real example of this is the recent SCOTUS case where MA convicted a woman… Read more »

Jim Macklin

The Second Amendment does not GIVE anyone the right to keep and bear arms. It guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. As was said by the SCOUS, “6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.” That dicta in Cruikshank has been superseded by HELLER and McDonald which ruled that the right… Read more »


Rediculos. Please stop fighting about the interpetation of the second amendment. The facts are, guns are on our streets, all if them will never be taken away because they can be home made including other countries providing them to good or bad people so it will never end; therefore, I have a self proclaimed right to ameans equal to or equivilent of what the bad guy has because I choose to protect myself instead of expecting someone else to do it, in addition, upon my own choosing, I determin who I will protect with my weapon be it a family… Read more »


We need to keep the Feds OUT of matters that principally apply to public safety WITHIN each of the several States. Yes, it means we have “crazy contradictory laws and regulations”. Nevertheless, it is precisely because of this federalist concept of our Federal powers vs. States’ powers that we have been able to defend the 2A to the degree we have it today. If we had a Federal carry law then we could not have had the CWP “revolution” across fly-over country. We would not have had the creeping expansion of Constitutional-Carry. As it is, our Federalist system has meant… Read more »

Jim Macklin

I agree with most of what you say. There is one Constitution and fifty state constitutions. The “States ” created the Federal government and each State can have laws unique to that state. Zoning laws and building codes can vary state by state. California needs building codes that recognize that earthquakes are common and destructive. Kansas and Oklahoma have earthquakes too, but building codes do not have to be as strict since quakes are not as destructive. Details such as real property laws, such as setbacks, rights of way and easements can vary state to state, even county by county… Read more »

Wayne Clark

Jim, what you bring out is very true. Certain elements of state jurisprudence needs to be left to the state, whereas, other elements…such as carrying for protection…needs that uniformity of law. Not only would that end an otherwise legal carrier in one state from becoming a felon by crossing state lines but it would make the paperwork llighter & save taxpayers money. No license SHOULD be required, espescially if we base licensing on differentiating between the good guys & bad guys, because as you well know, bad guys are going to be armed regardless, so why should the good guys… Read more »


A Federal license that supersedes a state license and supersedes state gun regulations is the best answer to the crazy contradictory laws and regulations we have now. Pass a background check, get a license, follow some simple set of Federal regulations for carrying, storage and transportation of weapons and ammo and you don’t have to worry about getting prosecuted from town to town, state to state for a million differences in the local laws. If you like the current state law where you are, then fine don’t get a Federal license and just stick to your state and read through… Read more »


I wholeheartedly agree. I fear the current bills in congress will not penetrate states with draconian laws like California, New York and New Jersey.
I will only call it a victory if congress pass a mandated federal concealed carry permit.


Cecil, you are right. Government has proven itself INCAPABLE of fairly administering “May-Issue” or a useful training “requirement”. The best way to go at this – I believe – during the Trump administration is to push Congress’s power to “prescribe” the “discipline” of the militia; and, the several States’ duty to “train” according to that prescription. “Discipline” what did that mean in 1792? What does it mean today? Sure sounds like: Stop; Don’t Touch; Run-away; Tell an adult; Loading-discipline; Muzzle-discipline; Trigger-discipline; Target-&-backstop-discipline. Nearly all male students will grow-up to be militia-MEN. Whether Congress sees fit to define the militia as… Read more »


This is all great, but with great power comes great responsibility. Anyone over the age of 21 can carry, well I do think that if you have buy a gun you should have some education on how to handle a firearm and how it works. You can buy a car and you have to have a licence to drive it,Right? Well ,buy a gun and amo and have never handled a firearm,or even loaded a gun,and you can walk out of the firearms dealer with a gun. Education about guns and how to handle them. This would be a great… Read more »


Education about any weapon you carry is a good thing, having it as a contingent to allow possession of a firearm is just another way to let the government restrict. If we have freedom to ‘bear arms’, it will be easier to have places to practice, people to train. The ‘car example’ is a false narrative, there is no listing of cars (or wagons, horses, flying carpets) in the constitution. Nice try, but poorly thought out.


“With great power comes great responsibility” By choosing to be armed, an American citizen ACCEPTS that responsibility. (That’s a period, right at the end there) Lawful gun owners have a great record of safety, and take their “responsibility” quite seriously. Your concerns should focus on where the problem is – criminals and gang members who are generating the massive bulk of the statistics that are being trumpeted to disarm LAWFUL gun owners. You should arrange some sort of class to educate THEM about gun safety and handling. Think they’ll show up? Your comparison to a license for a car is… Read more »

Duane J.

The REAL litmus test will be the statesmen that vote to repeal the bastard hughes amendment instead of the politician wannabees that ONLY give our 2nd Amendment lip service. We shall see….

E. Andre Bessette

It is about time that we are allowed to carry in all states. All states go through the same Federal data base for you to take possession of a legally bought weapon. They all access a federal data base for your back ground check. ,What is the reason to deny me carry in Mass, CT, Jersey etc.when I passed back ground checks in New Hampshire? Am I any less trustworthy in another state? If I am a threat in Mass or others, why wouldn’t my home state deny me a permit to carry? It makes no legitimate sense other than… Read more »

Political Girl

Nice try Gil. These arguments have been made before. Clearly you understand what the term “arms” means. Are you arguing there should be no regulation of arms at all? Here’s the deal … If you don’t want a gun then don’t buy one. As a singlewoman, I choose to protect myself with one. Isn’t it great to live in America?


If you say the 2A means nothing more than guns than you never were serious about the 2A means the right to take on government forces.


I don’t see where guns are mentioned in the 2A. If people think they have a right to guns because of the 2A no questions asked then they are also free to own grenades, mines, artillery and nukes.


IN a country of WE the people, Gil, WE are the government, the police, the Military as well as filling all of the civilian roles. We do have that right. It’s just not acknowledged by those that seek to BE governed.


Guess what Gil… You CAN own artillery!


You are correct, of course, that the 2A uses the word “arms” not “guns”. What did “arms” mean in 1792? What does it mean in 2016? What will it mean in 2116? All pertinent questions. And, yet, we don’t have to address and answer every question that strikes us as pertinent. How would it be useful if we could reach an answer, acceptable to the People, about nukes today? It would be useful in that it would inform – and probably answer – the questions about artillery, and then mines and then grenades . . . derringers. But here is… Read more »

Bob in Florida

Damn good answer, MarkPA


Thank you Bob; you GET-IT. Alas, too many of us People-of-the-Gun fail to recognize that we are in a POLITICAL fight. Either we WIN the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens in the forum of public debate; or, we will have to fight with our lives in a new revolutionary war. The latter is to be avoided at all possible cost. We have just 4 years – at most 8 – of a sympathetic Trump administration to try to win the war for the 2A peaceably. Thereafter, we are almost certain to return to the ancient regime of politicians… Read more »


Well said, twice.


You are right… Guns are not mentioned. You are right again… We ARE to be free to have all types of arms. Possession of arms (the right to keep) and the right to carry those arms (the right to bear) are to be uninfringed. Use of those arms SHOULD be governed like any other tool. If I use my arms to cause harm to others, then I should be punished. I have the right to own a car, and drive it, but not to run over people. There is no difference. I also have the RIGHT to own a tank,… Read more »


“All law-abiding American citizens of legal age should be allowed to carry a handgun concealed in every State of the Union. That is consistent with the true import and purport of the Second Amendment.” – Consistent only if there is no permit required. We should not have to fear going to jail simply because we neglect to ask for permission to exercise our rights. We should not be presumed guilty of criminal action or intent, and required to pay fees for background checks and permits. Instead of persecuting us for exercising our rights, the government should be tasked with ensuring… Read more »


The Constitution gives me the right to carry! Force every state recognize that! No more little laminated pieces of paper that give you permission. You do not have to ask the government if you can carry a gun. It’s your right! Future leaders have the power to take away reciprocity.