America is witnessing a resurgence of freedom, which its citizens enthusiastically embrace! The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution upholds the right of citizens to possess and carry arms. However, despite its clear and fundamental purpose, gun rights remain inconsistently regulated across the nation.
For decades, pro-Second Amendment advocates have worked tirelessly to ensure responsible citizens can exercise their right to bear arms without excessive government interference and fought the anti-freedom crowd demanding gun rights be abolished.
As of now, 29 states have embraced constitutional carry, meaning that in these states, the right to carry a firearm is governed only by the Second Amendment—just as the Founders intended—but national protection of gun ownership and carry rights is long overdue.
Despite these victories, a fundamental problem remains: the inconsistency of state laws regarding firearm carry. This patchwork of regulations creates a legal minefield for lawful gun owners who wish to travel across state lines.
Unlike other rights protected under the Constitution—such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process—gun rights are often curtailed at state borders. The lack of nationwide reciprocity forces law-abiding citizens to choose between their safety and their legal security. We must rectify this injustice.
A legislative solution to this issue is already in motion. The Constitutional Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38 and S. 65), introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) and in the U.S. Senate by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), seeks to establish nationwide reciprocity for concealed-carry permit holders and residents of constitutional-carry states. This legislation, which already has more than 120 sponsors in the House and 44 in the Senate, ensures that if an individual is legally allowed to carry something in their home state, they would have the right to carry it across the entire nation.
Some skeptics have previously voiced concerns that reciprocity laws might exclude those in constitutional-carry states who have opted not to obtain permits. However, H.R. 38 specifically avoids this issue, guaranteeing that anyone who can legally carry in their home state can legally carry nationwide.
Final Word: H.R. 38 represents a necessary step toward ensuring the Second Amendment is treated with the same reverence and consistency as other constitutional rights. And it is time to enjoy the new tsunami of freedom our constitution has guaranteed.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Replies
LET THE U.S.A. KNOW THE CONTENT EXPRESSED HERE; WE NEED AWAKENED CITIZENS WHO WILL ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION. HELP FIGHT IGNORANCE: JOIN ME IN BLASTING THESE E-MAILS ACROSS AMERICA.
What happened to reciprocity and the equal protection of citizens and the full faith an credit clause of the US Constitution?
The US Constitution REQUIRES each State to recognze and defer to a citizen's right to the protection of their state laws while visiting or passing through another state... ending most of the problems with states vs individual rights for citizens of another state.
Problems arise when a state refuses to honor the full faith an credit clause of the US Constitution is ignored or violated.
See: Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution,
Demonrats want to ignore/eliminate that so they might seize absolute control.
This is just some of the reasons I love the second amendment!
Reciprocity is long overdue. New Jersey will put you in jail for what you can legally do in neighboring states even though you may just be passing through enroute elsewhere. The problem isn't just with NJ but with the patchwork laws governing firearm carry, concealed or otherwise.
See:Interpretation: Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause...
It is time to demand that clause be honored.
I agree 100%. No other amendment is treated this way because it empowers the people while keeping the government in check!
As do I.
So which one is now higher? Constitutional law or statutory law? Did the Constitution need explanation? Reinforcement? Now which one will the black robed fools look to as THE supreme law?
Statutory law subjects us to codes. Not principles.
Only one can be first. Where was the outcry to demand and defend the real Law of the Land.?
Why do we not see through to the real question?
Christians did the "hoopla dance" over life being Life in OK but not life in CA. Christians called that Victory.
I did not realize Life = borders. I must have missed that math class. Or was it science class? Or was it geography class? I am so confused.
Doesn't that mean that both life and death are acceptable choices? They are both legal. Does legal equal lawful? I am so confused, still. The more I ponder the more confused. I have to ask, maybe someone knows? How can both be right? Here's the real question..
Who the **** are we as a people?
Two piles of pennies. One by one, take a penny out of Stack 1 and add it to Stack 2. Continue.
What is the consequence of continuing to remove pennies from Stack 1?
It is gone.
A footnote in history. In a book somewhere.
Fools in black robes who yet cannot read Stack 1 should not be tempted any more to ponder upon Stack 2. Remember, they have yet to understand ''Not,' define 'Life' or define 'Civil Rights' or 'sex' or 'moral' or 'spiritual, or FREEDOM?' Oh, and "woman."
Does the longest standing Constitution the world has ever seen---it IT worth defending?--DOES IT DEFEND ITSELF?
Did it need a crutch? Is it handicapped?
Where were the Champions for the word,
"NOT?"
The constitution itself is supreme but the commiecrats don't like it because it stalls their attempts to turn the country commie which IS ACTUALLY treason..
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next