• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Constitutional Carry tracker.

ChevyGuy91

NES Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
22,916
Likes
23,496
Feedback: 19 / 0 / 0
I don't think we have a thread to track the progress nationwide, and I wanted to share this somewhere.

COLUMBIA — If a House panel has its way, gun owners would be allowed to carry their weapons — concealed or openly — in South Carolina, whether they have a concealed weapons permit or not.

The House Judiciary subcommittee on Thursday easily passed a constitutional carry bill 3-0, with the panel's three Republicans voting in favor.

"It just simply says if I can legally own and I can legally carry, then I don't have to have a permit to do it in the state," the bill's sponsor, Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, said.

http://www.postandcourier.com/polit...cle_0ba38834-04d4-11e7-ba0f-93ca2f601dfd.html

It is great to watch this map turn green!

Rtc.gif


From wiki:

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas[disputed]
Idaho (residents only)
Kansas
Maine
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Dakota (residents only)
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming (residents only)
 
Last edited:
The trend is towards constitutional carry, clearly.

So remind me why we need "national reciprocity" again? Even without constitutional carry, with permits like FL and UT you're already covered in most of the country.
 
The trend is towards constitutional carry, clearly.

So remind me why we need "national reciprocity" again? Even without constitutional carry, with permits like FL and UT you're already covered in most of the country.

Exactly. This is the way to achieve it the end goal.
 
The trend is towards constitutional carry, clearly.

So remind me why we need "national reciprocity" again? Even without constitutional carry, with permits like FL and UT you're already covered in most of the country.

To force the evil states that don't recognize the constitutional rights of US citizens to recognize our constitutional rights.
 
I understand the idea of turning the states all blue then green being the best scenario there could be, but that will NEVER happen for us in the NE. With states like NY, NJ, MA, etc that have us all now and, most likely, forever landlocked away from the "rest of the country" that share reciprocity through multi state licenses. I can't honestly say I believe these states will ever transition to recognizing and allowing CC rights on their own.
 
It's not new, it's existing. I live in a CC state, I go south and what I'm doing legally here makes me a felon. That's ****ed up.

It is absolutely new for the federal government to have any say whatsoever in the recognition of concealed carry permits. What I am others are concerned about is precedent.
 
The trend is towards constitutional carry, clearly.

So remind me why we need "national reciprocity" again? Even without constitutional carry, with permits like FL and UT you're already covered in most of the country.

Because you shouldn't even need a permit to exercise a right, and national reciprocity is one step closer to national constitutional carry. Take a page out of the left's nook and chip away a little at a time until you achieve the ultimate goal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Because you shouldn't even need a permit to exercise a right, and national reciprocity is one step closer to national constitutional carry. Take a page out of the left's nook and chip away a little at a time until you achieve the ultimate goal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You shouldn't need a permit to exercise a right, but the feds should force the states to recognize the permit you shouldn't need to exercise that right.

reece.JPG
 
The trend is towards constitutional carry, clearly.

So remind me why we need "national reciprocity" again? Even without constitutional carry, with permits like FL and UT you're already covered in most of the country.

Because nobody should have to beg permission from a bureaucrat to carry a defensive tool?

- - - Updated - - -

At the cost of establishing a new federal power?

Because the feds are not involved in gun laws now?
 
It is absolutely new for the federal government to have any say whatsoever in the recognition of concealed carry permits. What I am others are concerned about is precedent.

Who said anything about permits? Do you have your 1st amendment permit handy?? How about your permit to exercise your right to not incriminate yourself??

Carrying is a civil right, not a privileged. What does 'shall not be infringed' mean to you???

Should states be able to dictate which water fountain you can or can't use based on whether or not you have a permit to use said water fountain? Or based on your skin color? F that sauce.
 
Who said anything about permits? Do you have your 1st amendment permit handy?? How about your permit to exercise your right to not incriminate yourself??

Carrying is a civil right, not a privileged. What does 'shall not be infringed' mean to you???

Should states be able to dictate which water fountain you can or can't use based on whether or not you have a permit to use said water fountain? Or based on your skin color? F that sauce.

If this was a law about using fedgov to enforce the 2A as written against the states, this would be a different conversation entirely. But that's not what this is about, is it?
 
If this was a law about using fedgov to enforce the 2A as written against the states, this would be a different conversation entirely. But that's not what this is about, is it?

Is it bigger than a bread box?

Are you saying that the federal government has nothing to do with licensing people to carry firearms and has left that decision to the individual states and the federal government should stay out of the issue of licensing completely concerning the second amendment for the simple reason that it would establish a precident whereby the federal government itself is endorsed licensing.
 
Back
Top Bottom