National Reciprocity - A Good Idea?

  1. Anicius Julianus
    I Would Rather Be In The Fire But the Frying Pan Will Have To Do For Now


    Today we are going to jump into the fray of National Reciprocity – is it a good idea?

    I would think that most of us have heard of the ‘Mexico City Policy’. It is an extension of the Helms Amendment which prevents non-governmental agencies whose work intersects with abortion in almost any form or fashion from “actively promote[ing] abortion as a method of family planning." In essence is removes funding from NGOs which are defined as “… perform a variety of service and humanitarian functions, bring citizen concerns to Governments, advocate and monitor policies and encourage political participation through provision of information.” [1]

    It was put into place by Ronald Regan, cancelled by Clinton, reinstated by Bush, cancelled by Obama and reinstated by Trump. It is a law which is either enforced or ignored by the current President capriciously. Most certainly a Presidential tug-of-war!

    Let’s take a look at what is being proposed by Richard Hudson, a North Carolina House of Representatives member. Here is the text of the proposed law:

    Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

    “This bill amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.

    A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.”

    This is a reasonable, concise, well thought out and sensible proposal. We already have a law, by amendment to our Constitution, which allows us to possess weapons and a recent Supreme Court decision which upheld that right after 217 years of debate. As Justus Anton Scalia said in the Heller case, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Therefore, there should be no restrictions to carrying a weapon from one state to another regardless of the State’s position on that issue.

    But, do we really need another ‘Mexico City Policy’? And what do we have in place legally which will allow us to carry weapons across state lines?

    We don’t need another revolving door law. I believe that we do already have in place laws which will allow us to carry and not be infringed. We all know what it is called, The Bill of Rights. This should not be a shocking revelation to anyone, especially to those of the ‘household of faith.’ ‘Infringement’ is the operative word contained within it’s Second Amendment and as of now we are being infringed upon by not being allowed to carry across state lines unhindered.

    My last question, dear readers, is a rather complicated one filled with legal twists and turns, pages upon pages of legalese and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees paid to either defend or deny and is based upon the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Does a state have the right to negate portions of the Constitution based on its political expediency to the detriment of the rest of the nation?

    Suppose a state judge decided that for all speeding violations a fee of $10,000 was to be imposed and if the miscreant is unable to pay, he must suffer 10 days in the stocks. In both cases that would be considered a violation of the 8th Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment. It would not be upheld in a court of law and the imposing judge would most likely be run out of office, if not tarred and feathered! Why is application of the 8th Amendment any different than that of the 2nd Amendment, or 5th Amendment?

    Finally, to my point: we don’t need another law which allows us to carry our weapons across state lines when we have one, an original founding one for that matter, which allows us to possess weapons, use weapons for various means and to carry them. I am afraid that if this law is passed it will become another Mexico City Policy and upon election of the next liberal to sit in the White House we will lose that ‘right’.

    What is the answer to prevent this forthcoming cycling of this proposed law – organizations at the state level working with legislators to remove state and local imposed barriers to our Second Amendment rights. The state in which I live has an effective organization,, which has been able to achieve such things and would be willing to help those who may need information or help in this area.

    Let’s not have another Mexico City Policy to contend with for us and for those who will follow in our footsteps. Be active in and supportive of your state gun rights organization(s) which work tirelessly to defend our God-given rights to bear arms.

    [1] www.NGo_Org; definition of NGOs

    Share This Article

    Squid1, AGN Jr., Intolerant and 4 others like this.