Anti-Reciprocity Op-Ed Makes Excellent Case For Reciprocity

By Tom Knighton

Not everyone agrees with national reciprocity. That’s obvious of any pro-Second Amendment legislation but especially true of one that will allow a resident from one state to carry in another. People being able to carry a firearm at all is controversial in some circles, for crying out loud. People being able to do it without the express permission of their betters? Unthinkable!

UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler took to the pages of the New York Daily News to underline just how wrong national reciprocity actually is.

In the process, he’s reminding us of every reason to support it.

The Concealed Carry Act works by requiring states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. This sounds pretty harmless, like drivers licenses which are recognized nationwide. But the devil is in the details.

Unlike drivers licenses, some of the most populous states have only a relatively small number of concealed carry permit holders. New York, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii have may-issue permitting policies that restrict public carry significantly.

In Los Angeles County, with 10 million people, only a few hundred ordinary civilians have concealed carry permits. They are awarded only to people who can show a special need to carry, such as victims of stalking.

See? What did I tell ya? I mean, if I didn’t already support the idea of national reciprocity, this alone would have sold me.

The fact is that the Second Amendment makes absolutely no mention of “need” when it talks about the right to keep and bear arms. There’s no clause in the amendment arguing that the government can and should stop anyone else from getting a permit unless they can make the case that their situation warrants being armed. None.

But Winkler isn’t done. Not by a longshot.

The Concealed Carry Act requires states like California Click to see the original article