It’s only called constitutional carry if it follows the Constitution…
This week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx) introduced a bill (SB 446) that many are calling the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.” There is only one thing wrong with it—it is not constitutional in any sense of the word. You see, if it was the “National Constitutional Carry Bill,” then maybe they could call it that. But the problem is that too many people have been deprived of their rights for so long that they fail to see the bill for what it is.
As many states know already (and others are starting to learn), a true constitutional carry is one free of licensing and restrictions. The only restrictions on owning and carrying a firearm are those that are already in place at the federal level. Many states have a “license” for concealed carry or even ownership. But what they fail to see is that the Second Amendment was purposefully written to prevent any restrictions being placed on it. There was a very special reason that the founding fathers included the wording, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
You see, if the rights of the people were to be followed by the words in the Constitution, then no one should have to have a license or pay a fee for the right to own or carry a firearm. Now, I can hear all of the screaming from the anti-gunners—there would be blood in the streets, shoot-outs on every corner. But what those folks fail to do is simply read and look at the states that already have such rights. None of that terrible stuff has happened. Contrary to what the media and anti-gunners would have you think, states that have constitutional carry have not had any of those problems. So what is the problem with getting all states on board with a real constitutional carry bill?
Well, the typical things come to mind: money, power, and control. Take Florida, for instance; with more than 1.7 million concealed carry license holders at $102 each, the state makes over $85,000,000, even if they were all just renewals. That would be a huge loss to a state no matter who you ask.
How can anyone justify making a United States citizen pay to exercise their rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution? And when you charge someone for something, does that not disenfranchise those who are unable to pay the fees? So, in states that require a permit or license, poor people who probably need the ability to carry for self-protection the most can’t carry because they can’t afford the license fees. This just seems wrong to me. As I have heard many times and seen in more than one conversation on this topic, a license to carry is what you get when the government sells you back a right you should have had all along.
So I have a suggestion for Sen. Cornyn. If he really wants to get national reciprocity, all he has to do is make all state laws concerning licensing and carry permits null and void and make the federal law the law of the land, as it was before all these restrictions and laws—and as it should have been all along. It’s only called constitutional carry if it really follows the Constitution.
Chris Wagoner is a Senior OpsLens Contributor and U.S. Army Veteran. He has been in law enforcement the last 35+ years. He specializes in LE Firearms Instruction, and is in charge of a large Police Academy in North Florida. In his spare time Chris is a freelance Military Reporter and owner/founder of the Largest Military Videos Channel on YouTube “3rdID8487”.
To contact or book OpsLens contributors on your program or utilize our staff for your story, contact [email protected].
