DustinD added:
Note: This does not do anything but reciprocity, no national license. I think that is the way to go, if we had a national carry license it would stop progress, falsely legitimise requiring permits, and make all the states vulnerable to creeping incremental attacks that would be hard to repeal. Essentially it would open a new front the the gun rights battle.
Something like that I could get behind, but I know darned well what happens when something like this comes up on the floor. Sneaky Rules changes, slippery amendments, later twisted interpetations of "reciprocal" and "honor" and "full faith and credit," a single word here, a simple reference to other laws already on the books elsewhere, and the entire intent of the legislation can be changed right under our noses.
We got in one good zinger like that on the National Parks concealed carry thing in the form of an amendment to something the Administration
really, really wanted and the Administration couldn't wiggle out of that one, but don't forget, that technique works both ways.
Let's face it, there is an inherent conflict between the "full faith and credit" and the "left to the States, or the people" clauses.
Couple this with the distortions of the commerce clause's intent which have led to outrageous encroachments on not only States' rights, but individual rights, and you can see why I, personally, feel that legislation such as this would require almost
omniscient monitoring of the lawmaking process for this kind of thing.
When the NRA-recommended legislation is debated on the floor, we --all of us, you and me and the other guy at the range --will have to watch that legislative process every cotton-pickin' second like a cat watching a very clever mouse.
I hope that the NRA-ILA can be that omniscient. Even if the session goes to 2AM.
There. I said it, and I ain't takin' it back.
Terry
