Constitutional Carry is What We Need, NOT National Reciprocity

Bob Irwin highlights the latest self defense and other shootings of the week. Read them and see what went wrong, what went right and what we can learn from self defense with a gun.

American Flag Guns
Constitutional Carry is What We Need, NOT National Reciprocity
Bob Irwin
Bob Irwin

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- Firearm scientist John Lott's released a new report 07-20-2017 on concealed carry in the United States, with an updated estimate of more than 16.3 million legally licensed armed citizens.

It shows that a growing number of Americans are taking responsibility for their own safety.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb commented, “John’s report comes at a critical moment when Congress should be discussing national concealed carry reciprocity legislation that was introduced in January.”

The current proposal for this has 200 co-sponsors.

The 61-page report shows increased concealed carry from 2007 through 2015 coincided with a decline in the national murder rate, from 5.6 to 4.9 per 100,000 population.

Comment:

National Constitutional Carry seems a better idea. Asking Congress to regulate CCW’s might come back to bite gun owners in a few years!

If national reciprocity passes, I do not believe that CA, NY, NJ, VA, HI and several others will comply.

States opposed to honoring outside permits will sue under states’ rights theories and get an immediate injunction from some liberal judge in their state.

Until the lawsuits reach the United States Supreme Court, there might be lots CCW holders finding themselves in violation of conflicting laws. There will be years and years of expensive litigation.

The alternative, Constitutional Carry, will have the same fight but will prove a bit easier to defend as the constitution actually says citizens have a right to keep and bear arms.

National reciprocity will certainly provide full employment for lawyers on both sides.

It’s just an opinion, don’t shoot the messenger.

Bob Irwin, Las Vegas

About Bob Irwin

Bob is retired after 30 years of ownership of The Gun Store & Indoor Range in Las Vegas. He continues his 2A issues show “Fired Up with Bob Irwin” on YouTube and on KSHP 1400 AM radio (Sunday mornings at 9 a.m.) As a firearm instructor of Concealed Firearm Applicants, Armed Security Officer and Law Enforcement Academies over his career, Bob appears frequently as an expert witness for firearm & use of force cases in Federal, State and local courts.

  • 27 thoughts on “Constitutional Carry is What We Need, NOT National Reciprocity

    1. All you guys commenting here are spot on. But I live in New Jersey where just possessing a magazine with hollow point bullets will get you mandatory minimum of 5 years in states penn with no possability of parole. Big words from some patriots out there but when your entire life and your family are on the line it’s not so easy to excersize a right that has been stolen by the tyrants. There are 9.8 million people here but 2,000 have CCW permits ask yourself. Is it worth it to stand up and get kinetic? One might as well because the alternitive is almost as bad.

    2. Steps, one at a time. The Dred Scott case had the Supreme Court listing the rights that black people were not entitled to have, just everybody else.
      The right to go armed, singly and in company, to cross state lines adn visist as long as they wanted, the right to a speak on politics…
      The Declaration is NOT A LAW that can be enforced but it does provide a guide to what the laws mean.
      Constitutional Carry would be nice, but National Reciprocity is not concealed carry regulation, it is enfocement of te 14th Amendment. “No State shall make or enforce…” and Congress enforces by law.
      I want something ASAP. HR38 is a good first step. If schumer, et al, wants to ban guns they can do that without HR38 as a foot in te door.
      Constitutional Carry is passing in the States, when 40 States have Constitutional Carry it can pass Congress as a Constitutional Amendment.

    3. We need NEITHER, we need the ENFORCEMENT of the Declaration of Independence and the PROTECTION under the Constitution. We DO NOT need new laws that transfer more power and authority from us, We the People, to the governments, both state and federal.

      Substituting one form of government tyranny for another still leaves us suffering under the hands of tyranny.

      The ONLY authority given, by consent, to the governments, is to SECURE our Rights, and that includes our FUNDAMENTAL Right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS (plural). Not to dictate who shall have permission to exercise their Rights, {(except by the Fifth Amendment, “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. (That means through Judicial proceedings, in a courtroom, with proper evidence of proof)}, BUT, to secure, to protect and to preserve so that everyone can EQUALLY exercise our individual Rights!

      “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will (Not the governments’) within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the Rights of the individual.”
      Thomas Jefferson

      There is no such thing as “Constitutional Rights”. That is PROPAGANDA that brainwashes people into thinking our Rights come from our Constitution and “thus are at the will of tyrants”! Constitutional Carry is propaganda! The Constitution does not give us the Right, it only PROTECTS our pre-existing fundamental Right given to us by our Creator! National Reciprocity is also propaganda against our fundamental Rights because it is dictated by the government AND HAS NO VALUE IN SECURING OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT! It violates it!
      “…that they are endowed by their Creator (NOT the Constitution or the government) with certain unalienable (inseparable from our human existence) Rights, that among (NOT all of them but just a small sample) these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”
      “Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important “Right”…. The unlimited power of the “sword” is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe

      So, What Is The Prime Directive of Government? “That To Secure These Rights”!!!!!
      Overstepping this authority given by consent is an act of tyranny.

      “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility towards every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” -Thomas Jefferson

      Sic Semper Tyrannis

        1. The Declaration of Independence is the foundation upon which the Constitution is written. The DoI clearly states “We hold these truths to be self evident … That they(We the People) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … That To Secure These Rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

          Ignoring these self-evident truths, the true relationship between our Creator endowed Rights and government authority, removes the foundation upon which our Constitution was built and thus allows “men”, tyrants, to rule over us and over our God-given Rights without our oversight. The Constitution was written by men and is subject to the control and will of a small group of elitist men. Without the enforcement of the DoI, the self-evident truths, the proper relationship between our Creator endowed Rights and government authority, we will be ruled as subjects under the the will of that select group of men by proxy through the “Constitution” as is in some other countries. Without the enforcement of the DoI our “house” will be built upon the moving sands of the tyranny of men.

          The DoI is the bulwark of our Constitution, enforcement of that foundation is thus essential to its true strength! Our unalienable Rights preexisted long before the government/Constitution. The Constitution defines and limits the government for the supreme purpose of securing our Rights, not controlling them, as defined in the DoI! .

          The Constitution INCLUDES the Bill of Rights. The BoRs was added to our Constitution as further PROTECTION from encroachment by our government upon our already pre-existing Creator endowed Rights. The Bill of Rights DOES NOT grant Rights, it PROTECTS pre-existing Rights. And if you think our Rights are limited by and to the Bill of Rights I refer you to the Ninth Amendment.

          The more people refer to “Constitutional Rights” or our Constitution or to the Bill of Rights as the ultimate source of authority, the more people are brainwashed into thinking that our Constitution, controlled by that select group of elitists, is our only ultimate rule book. When, in reality, our Constitution was written and our government formed by the people who actually individually OWN the Creator endowed Rights, who have consented to the government the authority to secure our Rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence! No more, no less. The Constitution only brings form to that government that the true owners of our Creator endowed Rights have granted and consented to. “We the People” have the ultimate power and authority by the unalienable individual Rights that have been endowed upon us by our Creator.

          So, no. I did not mean the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. I meant exactly what I said.

          1. @CTK9, Isn’t it amazing how many modern people these truths are not self evident to? The impotency of our educational system is outrageous!

          2. One small refinement. It is not quite correct to say that every Right enumerated anywhere in the Constitution is an endowment by our Creator (whomsoever she may be). It would be more correct to say that some such Rights were humble men’s attempt to express a Creator-endowed right to be honored and guaranteed by government. Other Rights might not have crossed the Creator’s mind; but men saw fit to make a purely political decision that they ought to be guaranteed by government. To illustrate a candidate case for the latter, the first Right found in the Constitution is to be free of conviction for treason except on the testimony of 2 witnesses to the same overt act, or, confession in open court. Personally, I find the idea far-fetched that our Creator specified 2 witnesses. Perhaps she hadn’t thought of the matter. Or, perhaps she would have been satisfied with just 1 witness. I can’t be sure; although I admit that others may have greater conviction than I. With respect to the 2A, we hold that the Creator endowed ALL men (and likely women) the right to K&BA. However, the Founders undertook to guarantee this natural right only to “the People”; aliens need not apply. Whomsoever is outside the class “the People” keep or bear arms at the pleasure of Congress.

    4. Register to vote in the primary in your state. Vote for a real constitutional conservative candidate. Then we can replace these turds that keep getting re-elected! Its better than having to fight a war to take back our nation.

    5. We already have “constitutional carry” – or we should have everywhere in OUR constitutional republic. The operative clause of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the entire land (see: Article VI, Clause 2), clearly dictates that: “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This means that the states cannot subvert or supersede that right with inferior statutes or codes. Our problem is that modern politicians, since 1934, have overstepped their limited authority and have usurped OUR “secured” constitutional guarantee to freely ‘keep (own) and bear (carry) arms’ unencumbered by the unlawful usurpations by government(s). “We The People” do not need a new statute (not a law) in order to freely exercise a constitutionally “secured” right. The SCOTUS has weighed in on this topic in many instances where constitutionally “secured” liberties (not privileges) are concerned. This includes in Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 which states that: ‘No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect, and that any “thing” that is in conflict is null and void of law.’ Another is: Norton v Shelby County: 118 USR 425 which states that: ‘An unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no right, it imposes no duty, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.’

      1. To keep and bear arms – this is a God given right which people who became complacent let the government under the guise of for the public safety violate by infringement. Now we have the Sucker Mom’s, and other various Snowflakes out campaigning to restrict our right even more. I am licensed and have every right to carry, regardless of what Johnny Law says, but it makes life easier if you are in compliance with the law. Unfortunate but the facts.

        When you break it (the operative statement of the 2nd Amendment) down it means We the People have the right to carry what ever we want for personal protection.

        To keep – “Its mine and you can’t have it”
        To bear – “I can carry and I have it with me!”
        This is why it is so fundamentally important to fight these ass hats at every turn.

        Another way I’ve seen our 1st and 2nd Amendment put is like this –
        1st Amendment – ” I can practice my religion freely and associate with whom I choose, I can assemble peacefully and question my government.”
        2nd – “Because I said so.”

      2. Very well said and as accurate and true as anyone can write.I all so believe in constitutional rights and our 2nd Amendment, we as American’s should all just take back our right and carry our weapon’s as we see fit to protect our families and ourselves in these dangerous time’s.

      1. By agreeing to their “licensing SCHEME”, you are voluntarily waiving your guaranteed rights and to be subject to their unlawful CODES they like to call “law”. You waive your immunity and subject yourself to their “scheme”. I’ll just leave at that.

    6. See I’m against Constitutional Carry because as one swipe of pen it can be given to use it could be taken away with a swipe of pen if the wrong person becomes POTUS. Enforce national reciprocity instead.

      1. No one can,with the swipe of a pen, eliminate a constitutionally protected right. It takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress and the acceptance of 2/3 of the state’s for an amendment to the Constitution.

      2. at present, there IS no “national reciprocity”. And the very term “reciprocity” infers that permission from one’s state of residence to enjoy our right to arms is first necessary BEFORE some other state must “recognise” it. Thus even a reciprocity law does not cure states like California, New York, New Jeresey, Massachussetts, Connecticut, Maryland, which adamantly deny their residents the rightful exercise of an inalienable RIGHT that is not conferred by the Constitutioin, but predates and is independent of that document. It is merely named and redognised by that document.

        No, a return to the original intent of that Second Article is necessary… the RIGHT to arms SHALL NOT BE infringed.. that means, not limited, shortened, fenced, conditional upon any action of the one making use of that right, cannot be licensed, regulated, curtailed, shortened, qualified, incur any cost or burden or precondition…… THAT is not open to any abuse. It leaves no one out.

        Reciprocity in fact will leave out residents of states and counties like New Jersey, Maryland, District of Columbia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Your City, Chicago….

        1. I live in MD. One version of National Reciprocity (the House version, I think) provides that every state must honor the concealed carry licenses issued by any other state. Some states currently will issue carry licenses to residents of other states. Such a license wouldn’t do me much good now, as a MD resident, unless I happened to spend a lot of my time in that other state. With the passage of a “strong” natl. reciprocity law, I could get a carry license from another state & my home state of MD would have to honor it, even though I couldn’t get a similar license from my home state.

    7. The current proposal for this has 200 co-sponsors.”

      Actually up to 208, unless I’ve been lied to by the official US Congress website…which actually doesn’t sound so farfetched.

      On a more substantive note, there’s an overstated understanding of sponsorship, that it’s interchangeable with “support” and is an accuate barometer of a bill’s chance of actually becoming law. The only true measure of that is the number of people actually signalling that favor by vote, and there’s not only no telling of when that will happen, but no indication of what those co-sponsors are doing to even reach that stage. I read an article recently which made a compelling case that a bill’s chances of being passed were often invertly related to its number of sponsors, often because sponsorship was a safe substitute for actually taking a position on a matter, so that pro-gun politicians can grab street cred without actually expanding the rights of voters they’re ostensibly representing. How true that is arguable. What’s beyond debate is the reality that sponsors are NOT voters.

      In any event, previous incarnations of the bill – which died in commitee enjoyed 217 sponsors. The senate bill’s support is even more anemic – 37 sponsors, about what the last bill had. The last sponsor enlisted in May; prior to that, it was several sponsors in March. That means that, one sponsor aside, we’re reaching the 6-month mark without significant displays of support.

      “National Constitutional Carry seems a better idea. Asking Congress to regulate CCW’s might come back to bite gun owners in a few years!”

      I don’t see how the reciprocity bill does that – it doesn’t give congress a power it doesn’t have as much as taking power from gun-control states. That’s academic of course until the law is challenged in the courts, and its supporters will have to argue under which of Congress’s enumerated constitutional powers were used to write the law. Commerce is the reliable power, having been used to back federal laws in areas that were traditionally state matters, but that power may be overextended as it is, If we couldt rely on the 2nd amendment we probably wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with. Constitutional carry is easily the preferred option, but given political realities, that preference has to be weighed against poltical feasibility. Of course, that’s all over the next bridge, which we won’t reach until the passage of the bill, which isn’t especially likely.

      “Until the lawsuits reach the United States Supreme Court, there might be lots CCW holders finding themselves in violation of conflicting laws. There will be years and years of expensive litigation.”

      Isn’t that where we’re already at? Seems we’ve got a headstart on that race.

      “States opposed to honoring outside permits will sue under states’ rights theories and get an immediate injunction from some liberal judge in their state.”

      …or a conservative judge who prefers states’ rights theories to freer gun laws.

      1. They have absolutely ZERO LAWFUL POWER TO use enumerated power, including commerce, to violate, or in the this case even “infringe”, on our constitutionally “secured” liberties under any circumstances – including so-called “national security.”

    8. My opinion is that we PotG need to decide whether we prefer: progress; or, perfection. Yes, ideally, in a perfect world, we would like perfection and we would like it now! Yet, realistically, those of us who are sober recognize we aren’t going to get perfection now; nor, are we likely to get it ever. So, we had better figure out how to achieve progress; incremental recovery of our rights. We ought to convene a study by our Constitutional lawyers to figure out which tactics toward inter-state carry would stand-up to the inevitable counter-attack. By way of illustration: intER-state carry by truck drivers; intRA-state carry by truck drivers carrying goods that have traveled in intER-state commerce; Shall-Issue CWPs for NON-Residents; . . . That is, FIRST, get every narrow category of carrier that the last 10 jurisdictions would have the hardest time opposing. LATER, get more categories of carriers that they might oppose, but only with considerable risk of losing. LAST, make States recognize out-of-State permits; perhaps the weakest and most vulnerable. Would the Won’t-Issue States try to litigate the last measure? Perhaps; but, they would still have to live with FIRST and LATER categories. Why would they bother to win the LAST battle when the war was already lost?

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *