正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act has been introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson—mandating reciprocity for concealed carry permits and residents of permitless carry states. Today on Minuteman Moment, Ben breaks it all down & how YOU can get involved.

84,126 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

10 条评论

KeepAndBear.org 🔫 的头像
KeepAndBear.org 🔫1 年前

Massie's bill is better - no permits/licenses just like all the other rights. Speech, press, expression, religion, assembly, petition, security, due process, jury trial, speedy trial, face accusers, discrimination, etc... None of those require license/permit/waiting/tax stamp/training/fee/etc nor have serious criminal penalties when you fail to do such nonsense. Why support this bill over Massie's bill is far superior, and gun owners are tired of pussy-footing around the right to bear arms that "shall not be infringed."

Spaceballs The X Account 的头像
Spaceballs The X Account1 年前

The problem is that states like New York will arrest you anyway and toss you in jail to rot while they spend 10 years appealing the law in federal court Not saying we shouldn't do it Just saying we need to be careful and make sure there are provisions that prevent arrests and hold police and politicians accountable if they do it anyway

KeepAndBear.org 🔫 的头像
KeepAndBear.org 🔫1 年前

@GunOwners @RepRichHudson Federal criminal prosecution of such state actors would make this kind of crap cease completely and immediately. The laws are already on the books. 18 USC 241 and 242. That or perhaps just shooting the bastards.

Bear Arms 的头像
Bear Arms1 年前

@RepRichHudson RECIPROCITY is inferior to NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY. You guys should be supporting Thomas Massie's bill H.R. 9534 instead of this compromise.

Gerard 的头像
Gerard1 年前

@RepRichHudson Can we just get a constitutional carry across all states instead.

The Irish Patriot 的头像
The Irish Patriot1 年前

@RepRichHudson Constitutional Carry or bust. This is just a stop gap

The doods 的头像
The doods1 年前

@RepRichHudson I shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission to protect myself from the government.

Nin10dofan 的头像
Nin10dofan1 年前

@RepRichHudson YOU SHOULD NEED A LICENSE OR A PERMIT. THIS IS STUPID WE WANT CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY

J. Austin Carter 的头像
J. Austin Carter1 年前

@RepRichHudson I don’t like that this (possibly) limit this to concealed carry. Without text of the bill, I can only speculate. But, I’m not ignorant that this could make it easier to pass in a Bi partisan fashion. But would prefer Massie’s full constitutional carry bill.

Ausch, IF, CPA, 5'3 144 IQ 🏳️‍🌈 的头像
Ausch, IF, CPA, 5'3 144 IQ 🏳️‍🌈1 年前

@RepRichHudson How would a law like this impact things like magazine size limits and prohibited gun lists in states like CA?

相关视频

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

Thomas Massie

229,372 次观看 • 1 年前