I don't want the Federal Government anywhere near my LTC. I can already carry in 32 states right now and Illinois is the closest place that I cannot carry besides Mexico. Once they standardize it, they will try to limit it. Look at how they dangled highway construction funds over the heads of the states to raise the drinking age and then to lower speed limits. I don't see either of those as federal issues. They will do the same with concealed carry. I would like to see federal property open to concealed or open carry to anybody with a license to carry in any state. This would cover all national parks, forests, and Washington DC. It would exclude prisons, courthouses, police stations, Congress, the White House, and military bases. AD military should be able to carry on non critical portions of the military bases.
To support federal reciprocity is to suggest that the Federal Government has a say in gun rights. They do not. I agree with you whole-heartedly.
Depends on how it is worded. The federal government can act on the full faith and credit clause, due process clause and privileges and immunities clause, all as a means to protect the rights of the law abiding.
The Federal Government doesn't issue drivers' licenses to enforce full faith and credit. There's no need for a reciprocity law to enforce the Constitution. Just as another gun control law won't stop crime because it's ignored, a law requiring the government to follow the Constitution will simply be ignored. The Constitution already requires the government to follow the Constitution. In fact, since the government was created by the Constitution with only the powers explicitly granted in the Constitution, when those in government act outside of that they are acting without the authority of the government and the Constitution - they are acting as criminal tyrants.
One of the Supreme Court Justices once, correctly, pointed out that the 10th Amendment is redundant. The government can only do what' authorized in its creation - in the Constitution. But, you're right, the 10th gives a clear way to discuss and consider violations of the Constitution.
The federal government doesn't need to issue a CCW permit to enforce FFC and the 14th amendment. If the state of CA refuses to follow federal law, the federal government can take the state of CA to court to force compliance.
And countries such as South Africa have a much higher murder rate than the USA with much more restrictive gun laws, your point?
Sure, all liberals have to hear is someone from a university reporting their study supports anti-gun narratives and they accept it as truth. They don’t examine the study’s methodology or review the challenges of those critical of a study. It’s confirmation bias on steroids. https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...fessor-claims-rtc-laws-increase-violent-crime https://econjwatch.org/articles/do-...nt-crime-a-comment-on-donohue-aneja-and-weber
No. I find it somewhat humorous that many liberals will read the headlines of an anti gun story in a left biased newspaper like the LA times or hear one from news casts by NBC, CNN, or MSNBC and accept it as if these sources represented peer reviewed scientific publications and then are often cited as credible sources by those wishing to support their incestuous narratives. But then, when you see the knowledge displayed by many Americans in the street, you understand. It’s something well known and exploited by leftist and DEM strategists; many Americans get their knowledge and set their opinions based on headlines, bumper stickers, and 60 second new segments. If a study is reputed to be conducted by a PhD from a University, it must be true, sine the source must be Real Smart to be a professor from a university. One thing I find interesting, is virtually 100% of shootings, categorized as ‘mass shootings’ are stopped by a good citizen with a gun... a true statement unless you don’t see LE officers as ‘good guys’.
