"House Passes Concealed Carry Reciprocity"

What law would have stopped a millionaire with a pilots license and no criminal history from committing mass murder in Vegas?

 

Your impressions of Baltimore don't mean jack diddly squat.
Baltimore: 19th out the 100 most dangerous cities in the US
ttps://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous

Baltimore also had the 4th and 25th most dangerous neighborhoods in the US.
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods

And I've been to 9 of the 25 cities on the last list.

 

Correct! Thank you for pointing this out! And 'we, the people', do have the right to amend the Constitution, but some political faction that takes over a city or state government cannot throw out anything in the Constitution of the United States just because they don't like it....

 

I expect "Progressives" to rediscover the 10th Amendment, in a big way.

 

Idaho doesn’t require a concealed carry permit but if you live in Idaho and wish to carry concealed in Washington state, you get an Idaho concealed permit and Washington will recognize it.

 

That would be true if the state allowed for open carry. We have a constitutional right to carry. The state could choose to ban open or concealed but not both.

 

No, without any obfuscations or diversions, I present the States' Rights position from the perspective of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Why would its citizens welcome federal intrusion to force it to emulate the permissiveness of states with far higher rates of firearm fatalities?

 

Your right to self defense does not go away when you cross a state line.

 

No state will issue a carry permit to a felon.

 

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Your opinion to the contrary means nothing.

 

Only if he is willing to commit a federal felony for each gun.

 

I agree that carry permits need to be universal in fact I would prefer that gun laws be universal for all US states. I know that rankles the so called states rights guys but that eliminates confusion between states.

 

The way I see it thec2nd amendments gives me the right to own and use nuclear weapons to defend my family and myself. Unabridged is unabridged.

Ps edit I mean not infringed means not infringed.

 

So long as you agree it protects the right to keep and bear every class of firearm as well - have at it.

 

If caught, it's like a drive to the suburbs, and I don't honk breaking the law is going bother that type of individual

 

We got of citizens "militias" around these days? And the wackos living in the woods earring beans don't count

 

Then you are wrong, nine hundred and ninety ninth time, NO Constitutional right is absolute, FACT

 

Another johnny come lately checks in, read the thread, the documentation is above, a lot of States make it possible for felons to obtain weapons

 

The right to bear arms and freedom of speech are two constitutional absolutes.

 

The whackadoos in the woods playing militia is not what the Constitution means when it says a well regulated militia.

 

The Constitution does not indicate any restriction on types of arms. You may be able to launch an argument that nuclear weapons were not even conceived as theoretical weapons so the founding fathers did not see any need to restrict types of weapons since back then weapons were limited to muskets, cannons, bayonets, lances, swords and grenades. let's see what the SUPREMES say if I challenged the government saying that I cannot have nuclear weapons.

 

There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government can develop nuclear missiles so it's unconstitutional for the US to have them.

 

You seem to miss the fact what you describe is already against federal law.
Not sure why you think more laws will stop this particular practice or the lack of more laws makes it possible.

 

As I said:
Your opinion to the contrary means nothing.

 

Which is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand.
No state will issue a carry permit to someone that cannot legally own a gun; as such, forcing sates to recognize out of state permits will do nothing -- and that's "nothing" in the most precise definition of the word possible - to increase the number of people with guns who cannot legally own one inside or outside the issuing states.