Gun Grabbers Are Pretty Upset That National Reciprocity Might Allow People To Carry Loaded Firearms

Would you carry an unloaded one? CBS’s 60 Minutes is Very Concerned over guns being loaded

The showdown over the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Of all the political and cultural issues that divide red states from blue ones, none is more volatile than guns and who can carry them.

Conservative rural states like Arizona and West Virginia allow almost anyone to carry a loaded firearm in public, while in urban states and big cities, it can be a felony.

But a piece of legislation quietly churning its way through Congress may change all that by making gun permits more like driver’s licenses, transportable across state lines. If you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in your home state, you would be allowed to carry it in all of them.

Loaded.

Robyn Thomas, the executive director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says forcing states to accept any and all gun permits would make the weakest laws in the country the new norm.

Robyn Thomas: Someone who lives in Nevada, who’s able to carry a loaded, concealed weapon in Nevada could now bring that loaded gun into Los Angeles, into San Francisco, and carry their loaded weapon, even though in San Francisco that’s not someone who would get a permit.

Steve Kroft: So this law would essentially usurp the gun laws in cities like New York and Chicago and Los Angeles.

Robyn Thomas: Absolutely.

Loaded (and, shockingly, the 2nd Amendment takes precedence over State law)

Scott Yarbro: For me, it’s just a way of life. It’s like when I get up in the morning and I get dressed, I get my wallet, I get my watch, I get my keys, I get my phone. It’s the same thing to get my gun.

But in most big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and New York, guns are a cause of fear and concern, not comfort. And law enforcement has lined up against strangers from far away places walking around their cities with loaded guns in violation of their own laws.

Loaded. Though Scott supports this.

The central tenet of Concealed Carry Reciprocity is that the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry guns anywhere they want but that idea is more aspiration than factual.

Steve Kroft: Is there such a thing?

Robyn Thomas: Absolutely not. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled on the Second Amendment in 2008. And what the Supreme Court said is that you have a right to have a handgun in your home for self-defense. And it absolutely does not include a right to carry a loaded, concealed weapon in public. And right up until the Supreme Court says it is your right, that is a fallacy that they’re pushing, in the hopes that it will become the truth. But it simply isn’t the truth as of right now.

Loaded. I missed the part in the 2nd where it says specifically that you can only have a gun for home defense (which liberals try and stop, as well)

But Tim Schmidt of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association thinks it should be.

Steve Kroft: The Bill of Rights doesn’t say that anybody could walk around with a gun in their pocket or a gun in their hostler– a concealed weapon. It doesn’t say that.

Tim Schmidt: Steve, with all due respect, it actually does. It says you have the right to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed. Telling me where I can and can’t carry a gun, telling me where I can and can’t protect my family and loved ones, that’s an infringement. Yes, that’s gone on for a long time in our country, but we’re finally fixing it.

Kinda the point of “keep and bear arms”.

Loaded ones.

If this passes, I might just have to get my concealed carry permit, just for when I visit the parents in NJ. Of course, since people can’t see a concealed firearm, it takes the fun out of watching liberals freak.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

34 Responses to “Gun Grabbers Are Pretty Upset That National Reciprocity Might Allow People To Carry Loaded Firearms”

  1. Hugh Evan-Thomas says:

    It would be pointless and probably dangerous to carry a pistol with the magazine out. I carry my DA/SA with a chambered round, decocked and safed.

  2. Jeffery says:

    That’s our problem! Too few shootings, LOL.

    In any event, this horse has long since left the barn. We’re a nation of guns. We need to adjust to the fact that thousands of innocents (including hundreds of children) will die each year because of it.

    How do police officers ever get shot? They carry the best firearms, are trained in their use, and are vigilant. Yet, many get shot by miscreants every year. If they just had a good guy with a gun around to protect them…

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      The courts have confirmed (twice) in suits brought by police that the police have no duty to protect the citizenry. If you got your wish and all legal guns disappeared, exactly who would protect the citizens from all of the criminals with illegal guns or other weapons?

      • Jeffery says:

        What is it you don’t understand? I didn’t say we shouldn’t have guns. That will never happen. I have two safes full of guns. We just need to accept that the ammosexuals amongst us are more likely to shoot themselves or innocents than to stop a bad guy with a gun. Don’t deny the truth just because you don’t like it. You can keep your gun. we get it. You “feel” safer. It is just more likely that your gun will be used to kill you or a family member than it is a bad guy. As a nation we should accept that compromise. The anti-gun lobby should give up.

        “We should all have guns to protect us from men with guns!” Makes sense.

        You do realize that the homicide rate in the US, with our 100s of millions of legal firearms protecting us, is higher than any other advanced nation. We even kill at a higher rate than Rwanda, Iran, Niger, Ghana, and Sierra Leone, to list just few of the nations that kill their residents at a lower rate than we do (there are over 120 less violent nations than the US). Easy access to guns is only one reason. Perhaps American men are just inherently more violent than Rwandan, Iranian and Ghana men. Maybe it’s genetic.

        Our guns are not going away, but please don’t pretend that they are keeping us in anyway, safe. They’re clearly not.

        • McGehee says:

          I have two safes full of guns.

          Hope you’re getting plenty of range time. A gun in a safe isn’t much more useful than no gun at all.

        • alanstorm says:

          We just need to accept that the ammosexuals amongst us are more likely to shoot themselves or innocents than to stop a bad guy with a gun.

          Yeah, except for the fact that it doesn’t happen that way.

          • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

            Jeff gets his talking points from DU or some other “reliable” source. Facts don’t matter, only little Jeffie’s feelz.

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    Yet, many get shot by miscreants every year.

    You misspelled blacks, angry little black guy.

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      Jeff is black? Can’t be, I’ve been assured that blacks can’t be racist and Jeff is the most racist fella you’ll ever meet.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Yep, an angry little black guy who hates white people.

        Jus’ax him, yo.

      • Jeffery says:

        Peckerwoods always feel picked-on when Black men (or women, or Mexicans, or gays, or Muslims) demand equal rights. Your free ride is over boys. Deal with it.

        • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

          Peckerwood? Hilarious. White nationalist I’d beat you into a coma for, but peckerwood?

      • Jeffery says:

        Hillary,

        You white supremacists must sh!t yourselves at the idea of a multimillionaire entrepreneur married to white woman, living a white suburb. And with guns, no less.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Uh, not really.

          Do you know of any, angry little black guy?

        • Dana says:

          Not exactly. Most conservatives are sports fans, to some extent, and we have the NFL and NBA full of black millionaires, many of whom have white wives and girlfriends. A lot of sports fans cheered when Colin Kaepernick was leading the 49ers to the Super Bowl. They objected to Mr Kaepernick only once he opened his mouth and started trashing our country.

  4. Hugh Evan-Thomas says:

    Jeffy, second amendment. deal with it, loser.

    • Jeffery says:

      Huey,

      You must be new here. I think the 2nd Amendment is dumb, but support it anyway, as I am a supporter of our Constitution (unlike our almost president). We have full gun safes.

      Suck my balls. Deal with it, loser.

      • gitarcarver says:

        You must be new here. I think the 2nd Amendment is dumb, but support it anyway, as I am a supporter of our Constitution (unlike our almost president). We have full gun safes.

        Oh Jeffery, you must think that people can’t or don’t remember your rants against the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, the Eight Amendment, the body of the Constitution.

        We are not that naive and remember the hate that you spew forth and is continuing to be exhibited in your posts.

        After all, hate is all liberals have.

        • Jeffery says:

          See a neurologist. Your dementia is worsening. Seriously. You used to be much smarter and less dishonest.

          We’ll discuss our Constitution whenever you want. Of course, you prefer to just tell lies.

          After all, Con Men not only have hate, they have dishonesty and ignorance.

          • gitarcarver says:

            See a neurologist. Your dementia is worsening. Seriously. You used to be much smarter and less dishonest.

            It’s always projection with you, isn’t it?

            We’ll discuss our Constitution whenever you want. Of course, you prefer to just tell lies.

            We have discussed it before Jeffery and you hate the document and what it stands for. Frankly, that’s okay. You have the right to be as dishonest as you want.

            But we both know that I am right about you.

            Of course, you prefer to just tell lies.

            After all, Con Men not only have hate, they have dishonesty and ignorance.

            Once again, more projection and hate from you.

            It’s all you have Jeffery. In your blood courses the burning white hatred of liberals and you can’t stand it that people see you for what you are.

            The truth hurts when all you have is hate.

        • Jeffery says:

          Just more hateful projection from gc…

          Sad.

      • alanstorm says:

        Our almost-president? That’s funnt – Hillary never struck me as a self- defense supporter.

      • Dana says:

        Wouldn’t you have to actually have balls to ask Mr Evan-Thomas to suck them?

  5. Jeffery says:

    After President Obama won his landslide elections, the loony far-right feared the Feds were going to take their guns as part of the plan to oppress the citizenry. Didn’t happen although the gun manufacturers did make a figurative killing.

    Since tRump was installed, your fear is no longer the Feds, but Negroes everywhere.

    You just can’t make this sh!t up!

  6. gitarcarver says:

    You just can’t make this sh!t up!

    And yet you just did.

  7. alanstorm says:

    …even though in San Francisco that’s not someone who would get a permit.

    Since basically no one gets a permit in SF, that’s a moot point.

  8. Dana says:

    To me, concealed carry isn’t the issue; open carry should be legal.

    If I’m carrying for personal protection, doesn’t it make more sense for a possible assailant to know that I’m armed, and decide to take his ‘business’ elsewhere, rather than depend on being able to pull a concealed weapon to defend myself after I’ve been attacked? Who knows? The assailant might have gotten the drop on me, before I could react!

  9. Jeffery says:

    In general, the greater the gun possession from state to state the more firearms deaths there (deaths per 100,000 residents).

    Alaska is the highest in possession and rate of killings. But LA, OK, WY, MT, AR, are close behind. States low in both are CA, NY, NJ, RI, MA, CT. Hawaii is a real outlier, high firearm possession but low deaths from firearms. The Hawaiians might just be superior to mainlanders.

    From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/

    OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

    Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

    CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

    Most female homicide victims are killed by a husband, an ex-, a common law husband or a boyfriend, not by strangers.

    • gitarcarver says:

      Sorry Jeffery, but that is a 20 year old study you are citing from and the numbers have changed.

      Furthermore, the study only dealt with the times a weapon was fired in self defense, and not when the weapon was brandished or used as a deterrent without being fired.

      Current data suggests that even with the 30,000 deaths from a firearm, a firearm is used in self defense somewhere between 800,000 and 3,000,000 times.

      But we are certainly glad that you are posting articles that want to limit people’s Second Amendment rights as you are such a strong believer in the Constitution.

      That’s what happens when all you have is hate – you don’t even realize how your own words condemn you.

      • Jeffery says:

        Wormtongue,

        You’re a liar, as always. And a slippery one, at that.

        For the last time, we will not give up our guns, period. You are safe to shoot yourself, your family or your neighbor by accident. The chances that you’ll shoot or even just deter a “bad guy” bad guy are remote, but you make up scheiss to ease your concscience.

        Americans die every year, so that we can “feel” safe. We’re not. Your “feelings” are more important than the lives of those around you. But as a NuCon Man, you don’t care about others anyway.

        At one time you argued honestly. Now you are like tRump. Power corrupts, doesn’t it.

        All you have is hate.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Guns don’t kill people, angry black men with guns kill people.

          But the angry little black boy already knows that.

        • gitarcarver says:

          Wormtongue,

          There ya go. Once again with the name calling.

          You’re a liar, as always. And a slippery one, at that.

          Which part of my statement was a lie, Jeffery? The fact that your study was dated almost 20 years ago?

          It’s on the paper itself. Perhaps you didn’t read the excerpt as closely as you should have and just went with it because it seemed to support your point of view?

          Or the figures on gun defense?

          The numbers are fuzzy and it is understandable that they are. The fact of the matter is that even the CDC says that guns are used in ACTIVE defense against crimes 100.000 times a year. Other studies indicate the number is higher. Still, the fact of the matter is that being armed can protect innocent people from becoming victims.

          It almost seems that you would rather have people be victims than allow people the most basic right – the right of life and liberty.

          That would be consistent with your hatred of the Constitution and probably other foundational documents of the country as all you have is hate.

          Your position leads to this question: “would you rather have people defend themselves? Or would you rather have people be victims at least 100,000 times more a year?”

          We all know your answer is going to be to allow people to be victims, especially in liberal bastions where politicians hate minorities and women so much they want them disarmed to become victims.

          You support those politicians because all you have is hatred of others.

          Americans die every year, so that we can “feel” safe. We’re not.

          As you live near a liberal bastion, it is hard not to see that would be your view as you are caught between blindly supporting liberals’ hatred (policies) and seeing the effects of those policies.

          Your “feelings” are more important than the lives of those around you.

          One cannot argue with your logic here as there is none. Are you really trying to say that the “feelings” I have that people have the right to life, liberty and self-defense actually means I don’t value the lives of those people?

          Once again, all you have is hate to think that someone who thinks that people have the right of self defense means they don’t value the lives of the people. Your statement is stunningly ridiculous.

          But then again, as you age, the hate inside of you eats you up more and more.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5944 access attempts in the last 7 days.