While the general consensus among the liberty minded hoi polloi has been that concealed carry reciprocity has been a long time coming and overdue, some discussion has also been going around that maybe it's a bit of a knee jerk idea. To put the feds in charge of concealed carry reciprocity leaves an avenue open for various infringements in the future, and obviously certain states have no limits to their own infringements.

What are the ways to prevent these sort of potential infringements, yet still get reciprocity? We should always assume that government looks to increase its own power and reduce ours, so a long term view is obviously important.

A marriage in one state is legal in all others and the federal government didn't have to get involved. Just make it the same.

lots of stuff that is recognized from state to state that is issued at the state level. Some of our elected think they know whats best for us and will save the world by not allowing this type of simple logic to come to pass for firearms

I hope im wrong and its a sound plan that appeals to the new president and his cabinet, maybe they can make it happen?????

what part of shall not be infringed don't these fuckwits understand?

I have a question that relates to this. I'm a noob. Please be gentle with me. My understanding is that there are states who won't recognize a WA CPL because we don't require training. Texas, for example, does. Now - we are a "blue" state so I would have figured it would be much harder here than in super-red Texas. Why don't we require training?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obergefell v. Hodges

That would be incredible to use a case touted by the left to further the cause of freedom. I've heard rumblings about the possibility, but haven't seen anything more.

As if it didn't already promote freedom? My point was the feds did have to step in to force states to recognize some marriages.

^
Why Liberals should love the 2A...
This has been one of my favorite sources to refer 2A-fearful folks towards.

Excellent link sir.

As they would if cpl's were made nationally recognized. You know damned well hawaii commiefornia and New York would fight the hell out of it.

Conservatives understandably don't like the idea of using a constitutionally vague (meaning can be overturned in the future) to something that is clearly spelled out in the constitution. On the other hand, the tenth and other amendments, for some reason, wound up allowing (or it was never challenged properly) states to infringe.

That said, what makes any of us think that a "permit" isn't an infringement on its own?

It is an infringement

You didn't think it would be easy did you? Look at the trouble over marriage.