July 20, 2009

Carry Reciprocity Agreement Brings Out The Bedwetters

If Chuck Shumer and the New York-based media are against it, it must be good for America:

A measure taken up by the Senate Monday would give people the right to carry concealed weapons across state lines as long as they obey the concealed gun laws of the state they are visiting. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said his proposal would reduce crime by providing reciprocity to carry concealed firearms. "My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws," he said.


Thune's bill, supported by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, would allow people with concealed weapons privileges in one state to transfer that right to other states, contingent on their following the laws of those other states. Many state gun laws specify locations where concealed weapons can, or cannot, be carried.

It does not, Thune said, provide for a national carry permit and would not permit the concealing of weapons in the two states Wisconsin and Illinois that do not allow the practice.

Gun control advocate Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the amendment "could endanger the safety of millions of Americans."

He said in a statement that "to gut the ability of individual states to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense," he said.

This may come as a shock to the uninformed, but most states with concealed carry permits already have some sort of reciprocity agreement with other states. For example, my North Carolina concealed carry permit is honored in 31 other states. New York concealed carry permits have considerably less clout, being honored in only 13 other states.

Critics that insist this amendment would lead to violence are all predicted on the absurd illogic that a person who is licensed to carry a firearm in his home state would be overcome with a murderous desire urge to commit a violent felony the moment they cross the border into another state where they did not previously have reciprocity.

It's a laughably foolish premise that an educated, rational person would ignore, and yet the apparent de facto position in a number of editorials in northeastern news organizations.

The echo is so harmonious that almost makes me wonder if news organizations have been orchestrated in some manner—perhaps by a panicky senior Senator from New York?

On second thought, I'm sure I don't want to know.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2009 10:50 PM

CY.....well said, Man! I'm with you 100% on this one. Actually, maybe 101%.

You see, if I were the chief potentate in charge I would rule that we already have a national carry permit, concealed or open carry. It's called the Second Amendment.

Posted by: Dude at July 21, 2009 12:23 AM

Chuck just wants every American to be as safe from violent crime as are New Yorkers.

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 21, 2009 11:31 AM

Surely, you're not suggesting that a duly elected offical of the United States Government would attempt to manipulate the 4th Estate in a manner which is not in the best interest of The People?
(sarcasm alert!)

Posted by: GEJ at July 21, 2009 04:01 PM

Imagine if we treated the Driver's License the same way we treat the CCW permit.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at July 21, 2009 04:03 PM

I live in Nevada, Missouri and we have an unusual open carry law. You can openly carry; however, it has to be unloaded. I suppose you could use it to club someone with but what good it is otherwise I don't know.

As for Schumer, he and the editors in question all hail from the "guns are evil" school of thought. Guns just go out on rampages and there's nothing law abiding citizens can do about it. No thought is given to WHO has guns, the guns themselves cause the problems.

I have to admit I'm baffled by the people who can, with a straight face, say that "a woman's right to an abortion should never be restricted" even though such a right is not in the Constitution and at the same time argue that the Second Amendment - set down in black and white - doesn't mean what it says and gun owners should face all sorts of restrictions.

I'm not an anti-abortion absolutist. I can see where there would be reasons a woman would need one, in exceptional circumstances. I just can't see why such exceptions should mean no restrictions at all on them.

I have a feeling the gun-control advocates aren't so much worried about controlling guns as controlling people and they'll never be happy as long as Americans insist on their Constitutional rights, including the ones the lefties don't like.

Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at July 21, 2009 04:12 PM

Actually true to the long standing liberal democrat tradition: that of marked mental illness and warped daily delusions, in addition to their bedwetting personal terror which reveals itself to their embarrassment when the concept of arming ALL law abiding American citizenry as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is on the table, one such as our glorious Sen. Schumer, speaks on behalf of all his Senate and House cronies.

Chuck just wants every American criminal to be as safe as possible from armed citizen's lethal and legal counter-attacks, thwarting these criminal thugs, possibly ruining their whole day , possibly their criminal careers, with a body bag.

Indeed , these career politicians, like career criminals, do fear the armed citizen patriot of 1775 and of 2009.

I wholeheartedly agree: If Chuck Schumer and the New York-based media are against it, then it IS good for America

Posted by: TheSaveASealClub-A-LiberalFoundation-Patriot at July 21, 2009 08:00 PM

Chuck Schumer has a permit to carry. Apparently he feels his life is more important than yours.
His comment on todays news was comical.He said if this is passed people will go to New Hampshire and buy back pack full of guns and sell them. ???
What the hell is wrong with that man? It made no sense.

Posted by: Joe at July 21, 2009 08:51 PM