National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 Enters the Senate

by March 14, 2012 03/14/12

We don’t follow the political game much here on ITS, but I feel that the Senate bill, S.2188, is an important one to many of our readers like it is to me.

Essentially, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 is the Senate companion to H.R. 822, which was introduced to the U.S. House last November and passed by a vote of 272-154. There’s been some healthy debate on the merits of such an act, which would allow anyone with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry concealed in any state that issues a concealed firearm permit, or that doesn’t prohibit carrying concealed for lawful purposes.

Much like a driver’s license from one state is valid in another, the Right-to-Carry reciprocity would allow traveling concealed-carry permit holders the same rights to self defense as they have in their home state.

As mentioned by the NRA-ILA here, these bills will not create federal gun registration or gun owner licensing, nor would they allow any federal agency to establish a federal standard for a carry permit or impose gun control restrictions of any kind. The bill would also have no effect on states that allow carrying concealed without a permit and residents of those states (Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming and Vermont) would be able to carry in other states by obtaining a permit from a state that offers non-resident permits.

While I don’t like government intervention as much as the next guy, I really feel that this will help more than it will hurt. Living in Texas I hate that I travel to Vegas every year for the SHOT Show and can’t carry due to Nevada not recognizing the TX permit. They certainly recognize other states, but snub TX for some reason. Perhaps they don’t like our Tactical Governor?

What are your thoughts on the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act? Do you think it’s a good thing?


Are you getting more than 14¢ of value per day from ITS Tactical?

Please consider joining our Crew Leader Membership and our growing community of supporters.

At ITS Tactical we’re working hard every day to provide different methods, ideas and knowledge that could one day save your life. Instead of simply asking for your support with donations, we’ve developed a membership to allow our readers to support what we do and allow us to give you back something in return.

For less than 14¢ a day you can help contribute directly to our content, and join our growing community of supporters who have directly influenced what we’ve been able to accomplish and where we’re headed.

Click here to learn about all the benefits and Join!


ryanburbridge
ryanburbridge

Mo no no no this is bad! Don't let the fed get ahold of your rights! I would rather just keep breaking the law and carrying my gun with me everywhere. I will never ask permition to protect myself.

mattkoyak
mattkoyak

I'm with Mattice on this. It's a big win - too bad I live in IL. Regardless of the fact that the crime rate in my town here continues to rise, local law enforcement continues to reduce head-count and criminals continue to arm themselves to the teeth, I loose regardless of the outcome... but I still support it.

andrew jackson
andrew jackson

Let me begin by saying this is going to sound hypocritical. As a LEO I am entitled to carry anywhere in the nation, but I fear the passing of this law will lead to more illegal weapons into the high crime area where I work. I am all for the constitution but the reason why states are allowed to make their own rules are because the demographics, culture and attitude of those states are very different. Criminals are criminals and will exploit and break any law they can. With the passing of this law it will be much easier for them to legally carry where I work. For example someone could forge a copy of a ccw permit from another state. As a patrol officer is very hard to distinguish real credentials from fake credentials especially in this day and age where technology is advanced and cheap. If that were to happen this criminal could go around armed and most likely not be brought to justice free to commit what ever act he wants with that weapon. As a person working where armed perpetrators are a very real threat I do not want to see more of them in my area. I understand the frustration of not being able to carry in a different state then where you have been licensed. But remember that not all states are the same. On a final note I'd like to state my opinion that the greatest tactical weapon that everyone possesses is not a firearm but their brain. Its amazing how much trouble you can stay out of by avoiding it. And I say that realizing that sometimes trouble finds you.

Jeff
Jeff

The new law would only apply to states that issue CCW permits. I have family in Illinois, and it sucks that I have to break the law to defend myself there. Illinois would not be included, or required to recognize our permits, because they do not issue any. The law says that any state that issues a permit would have to recognize a permit issued in any other state. I think that if the law passes, we would have a lot of states legislate laws against CCW, and just stop issuing permits alltogether to avoid having to recognize a permit from another state. Sorry man.

Jeff
Jeff

Could you please give us the definition of "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" as you see it, and explain how issuing a LICENSE, (which is a record) required by LAW in order to drive, (the creation of said law being a judicial proceeding) would not be covered. Your argument regarding jurisdiction doesnt connect. I am glad that there doesnt have to be a law telling the states to recognize each others DL, but when they choose to ignore the same reasoning regarding CCW, and there is a provision in article IV.

scorpionmedic91
scorpionmedic91

My wife and I do a lot of road trips, sometimes not planning where we go just kind of seeing where the road takes us. My #1 priority is protecting her with my will, knowledge and what I carry with me. If I am able to carry my weapon with me at all times when we are on our little road trips and not have to worry if this state we are entering accepts my CCW it is one less thing to be concerned about. If my drivers license is good all around the nation so should my CCW. It is about time!! Keep up the great work guys!!! We do not fight because we hate what is in front of us We fight because we love what is behind us.

Justin
Justin

This only makes sense. Having a CCW in Ohio has reciprocity in Alaska but not in Pennsylvania? Are you kidding me?

I could however, if I was willing to jump through 100 burning hula hoops, apply for Florida's conceal and carry permit (eligible by having one through Ohio), and then have reciprocity through Florida to carry a concealed weapon in Pennsylvania.

Oh the headache. Let's hope this passes.

Justin
Justin

This only makes sense. Having a CCW in Ohio has reciprocity in Alaska but not in Pennsylvania? Are you kidding me? I could however, if I was willing to jump through 100 burning hula hoops, apply for Florida's conceal and carry permit (eligible by having one through Ohio), and then have reciprocity through Florida to carry a concealed weapon in Pennsylvania. Oh the headache. Let's hope this passes.

gary
gary

It's my constitutional right to bare arms.Along with passing all backgroud checks, I as an American should be able to excercise my right to carry anywhere,any state,night or day. If the powers that be are thinking straight they will pass this bill.

Joe
Joe

Agreed, with federal law comes federal rules. They will (100% chance) change how the certification/classes are done, and make it much more complicated.

The communist states such as Ca, NY etc with actually have a say in how the other states distribute their permits.

Michael Mauldin
Michael Mauldin

It's a trap!

Once the Feds start telling states they have to recognize other states CCW/CHL, then the Feds will try to homogenize the permits. It's the proverbial camel's nose under the tent flap. It's just another attack on the 10th amendment.

One of the best things about the USA is the right to vote with your feet. The Federal Govt. by its very nature wants to make that right irrelevant.

Michael Mauldin
Michael Mauldin

It's a trap! Once the Feds start telling states they have to recognize other states CCW/CHL, then the Feds will try to homogenize the permits. It's the proverbial camel's nose under the tent flap. It's just another attack on the 10th amendment. One of the best things about the USA is the right to vote with your feet. The Federal Govt. by its very nature wants to make that right irrelevant.

D. Hide
D. Hide

I don't think it's likely that it will pass. However, bringing it to light and the fact that it even exists shows that more people are accepting of this Right that we have as human beings, as they do our other Rights. What we need is a change in attitude and mindset, and just having a bill like this out there can do that for us in terms of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Court of Public Opinion is changing for the better.

-DH

D. Hide
D. Hide

I don't think it's likely that it will pass. However, bringing it to light and the fact that it even exists shows that more people are accepting of this Right that we have as human beings, as they do our other Rights. What we need is a change in attitude and mindset, and just having a bill like this out there can do that for us in terms of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Court of Public Opinion is changing for the better. -DH

GEORGE
GEORGE

Laws after laws after laws...sheesh...! let us carry if we choose to...unless...you know the exceptions..

Anthony
Anthony

Im praying that all goes well this bill , and I am going for my CCW training tomorrow and love the concept because I had hard time deciding where to go for my CCW permit class based on how many states the class would cover, its ridiculous that damn near every states has different and confusing laws like for instance in Omaha Nebraska you can carry a fully loaded weapon(even if its in plain view) in your car, but int eh rest of the cities you can , it makes no sense ( that the 2nd Amendment is not standard in all states, Illinois has no carry at all ! isnt that 1 of the most dangerous and violent states in the United States? Why would I risk getting car jacked or killed based on not being able to carry legally all they are doing is forcing people to carry illegally----> Ridiculous

James
James

Gibbs' Rule 13. Never ever involve lawyers, things are bound to turn nasty.

You can't expect anything better from politicians! This is not going to end up well for anyone. I hope this goes away quickly and quietly. There is no way California, Illinois, New York, and Hawaii will let you have the freedom you do elsewhere without giving something else up. Would you rather have the freedom you do in some states currently or federally imposed California style regs nationwide? I don't understand the thinking that passing a law can possibly give you more freedom, excluding the Constitution.

If states are governed by the people within those states, than clearly the majority of the people in anti-2A states have no problems having their rights withheld. Pearls before swine.

James
James

Gibbs' Rule 13. Never ever involve lawyers, things are bound to turn nasty. You can't expect anything better from politicians! This is not going to end up well for anyone. I hope this goes away quickly and quietly. There is no way California, Illinois, New York, and Hawaii will let you have the freedom you do elsewhere without giving something else up. Would you rather have the freedom you do in some states currently or federally imposed California style regs nationwide? I don't understand the thinking that passing a law can possibly give you more freedom, excluding the Constitution. If states are governed by the people within those states, than clearly the majority of the people in anti-2A states have no problems having their rights withheld. Pearls before swine.

Sean
Sean

Driver's license is a good analogy, mainly because the criteria for obtaining one can vary from state to state. I live in WA, a shall issue state. All you must do to get a CPL (concealed pistol license) in WA state:

1) visit sheriff/local PD

2) fill out paper work, finger prints and DNA cheek swab

3) if no criminal or other violation is found within the time frame (30 days?) the permit must be issued.

No class required, no judgement. If you actually are a prohibited person, but Barney Fife forgot to finish the check after the deadline, you automatically win. Of course it may be revoked later.

My wife and I each have permits for convenience, more than daily carry. Having the permit allows use to avoid federal NICS checks for new gun purchases, and frees us from transport restrictions, etc.

It's perhaps ironic with all the other left wing stuff my state does, it has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country.

Sean
Sean

Driver's license is a good analogy, mainly because the criteria for obtaining one can vary from state to state. I live in WA, a shall issue state. All you must do to get a CPL (concealed pistol license) in WA state: 1) visit sheriff/local PD 2) fill out paper work, finger prints and DNA cheek swab 3) if no criminal or other violation is found within the time frame (30 days?) the permit must be issued. No class required, no judgement. If you actually are a prohibited person, but Barney Fife forgot to finish the check after the deadline, you automatically win. Of course it may be revoked later. My wife and I each have permits for convenience, more than daily carry. Having the permit allows use to avoid federal NICS checks for new gun purchases, and frees us from transport restrictions, etc. It's perhaps ironic with all the other left wing stuff my state does, it has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country.

Jerry
Jerry

I haven't looked at the Senate bill, but if it follows the House bill, you still will not ne able to carry in Illinois and DC. It only pertains to states that allow concealed carry.

New Yorker
New Yorker

Actually, the reason this is being done is because there is sure to be a supreme court case soon about this issue. The constitution requires all states to recognize the licenses of other states. At the moment, the political climate is such this illegal behavior of not recognizing handgun licenses is acceptable. But think of it this way: What would happen if one state refused to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, particularly those involving homosexuals? Or what about the chaos that would ensue if driver's licenses were not recognized universally in the country?

The curious thing is that the right to own weapons is a constitutional right, whereas marriage for instance was only regulated to further eugenics goals. Automobiles were of course not around in the 18th century, but it would be hard to imagine any country stating citizens have a right to drive.

Anyway, this bill is an attempt to allow places like New York City to continue to illegally recognize the licenses issued by other states, or even the State of New York.

New Yorker
New Yorker

Actually, the reason this is being done is because there is sure to be a supreme court case soon about this issue. The constitution requires all states to recognize the licenses of other states. At the moment, the political climate is such this illegal behavior of not recognizing handgun licenses is acceptable. But think of it this way: What would happen if one state refused to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, particularly those involving homosexuals? Or what about the chaos that would ensue if driver's licenses were not recognized universally in the country? The curious thing is that the right to own weapons is a constitutional right, whereas marriage for instance was only regulated to further eugenics goals. Automobiles were of course not around in the 18th century, but it would be hard to imagine any country stating citizens have a right to drive. Anyway, this bill is an attempt to allow places like New York City to continue to illegally recognize the licenses issued by other states, or even the State of New York.

geeknik
geeknik

Part of me wants to see this pass so that I can carry in California when I travel out there every other month (I have a valid license in Oklahoma, but California doesn't recognize it), but part of me wants to tell the government to fuck off because they are interfering in matters that they really have no business interfering with.

JLS
JLS

Last time I read the Bill of Rights and it gave us the right to bear arms I didn't think it said anywhere but Illinois. I am a Tennessee "the patron state of shooting stuff" CCW holder, and I occassionally have to travel through Illionois as well. This is a great Bill that has been introduced and I strongly support it. I strongly encourage you all if you haven't already done so to contact your State Senator and tell them to support this bill. They may not but the voice of the people needs to be heard on this one!

jerry james
jerry james

If u have a valid permit from any state it should be valid in u.s. even say u live in ohio and move to in. u have a valid permit u should nt have to redo it for tht state u already have 1 which i have lifeime for in. why should i have to change it? carry permit is carry permit in the u.s

Clyde
Clyde

This is a great bill, but i live in MO, and work in IL, where they are the ONLY state in the Union which doesn't allow a CCW program. I support this bill 100%

MSgt Jay Mattice
MSgt Jay Mattice

If this passes, it will be a great day in American history and a big win for the NRA. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

MonkeyPuppet
MonkeyPuppet

While this may seem like good news to some, we must remember that ANY encroachment by the federal government into domestic matters is a bad thing. It is disturbing that while berating federal legislators for interfering with domestic affairs such as healthcare, education and communications, some of those in the pro-liberty crowd welcome interference that seems favorable to them.

We cannot pick and choose which abuses of power we tolerate from the federal government. Article I Section 8 of U.S. Constitution gives the list of limited powers for Congress and the first 10 Articles in Amendment to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) sets clear limits upon the exercise of those powers.

10th Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States [the federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This means that IF we are to accept the absurdity of concealed carry laws, it must be left up to the States to determine such policies/mechanisms for themselves.

This legislation is not the answer. If anything, it would be well within Congress' power to enact legislation reflective of American jurisprudence. That being that the States are prohibited from limiting, infringing or restricting the unalienable right to self defense by whatever means an individual deems necessary for themselves. This would prevent the States from requiring permits, licenses or registration of any kind with regard to the right of self defense.

In other words, Constitutional Carry is the ONLY policy or mechanism that is constitutional.

MonkeyPuppet
MonkeyPuppet

While this may seem like good news to some, we must remember that ANY encroachment by the federal government into domestic matters is a bad thing. It is disturbing that while berating federal legislators for interfering with domestic affairs such as healthcare, education and communications, some of those in the pro-liberty crowd welcome interference that seems favorable to them. We cannot pick and choose which abuses of power we tolerate from the federal government. Article I Section 8 of U.S. Constitution gives the list of limited powers for Congress and the first 10 Articles in Amendment to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) sets clear limits upon the exercise of those powers. 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States [the federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that IF we are to accept the absurdity of concealed carry laws, it must be left up to the States to determine such policies/mechanisms for themselves. This legislation is not the answer. If anything, it would be well within Congress' power to enact legislation reflective of American jurisprudence. That being that the States are prohibited from limiting, infringing or restricting the unalienable right to self defense by whatever means an individual deems necessary for themselves. This would prevent the States from requiring permits, licenses or registration of any kind with regard to the right of self defense. In other words, Constitutional Carry is the ONLY policy or mechanism that is constitutional.

Topher
Topher

"as a LEO" I think you miss the point. A criminal doesn't give one damn about one law let alone any law. Gun Control as it is known today is nothing more than VICTIM DISARMAMENT. The criminals will NEVER turn in their guns to a program. Besides that this proposed law is already in existence, The first and second amendment work together. Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. " I can legally carry anywhere because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If you continue to be undereducated you will open up a world of lawsuits upon yourself thanks to 42 USC 1983 which strips you of your immunity when you break the law to enforce the law. Good luck and keep your head down.

ryanburbridge
ryanburbridge

Glad to see someone els gets it! A+ on your history exam!

It's sad to see this many "gun" people so eager to beg for permission.

Why do these people not just carry? Oh because the love security more then freedom. And you know where that leads... They will have neither!

ryanburbridge
ryanburbridge

Glad to see someone els gets it! A+ on your history exam! It's sad to see this many "gun" people so eager to beg for permission. Why do these people not just carry? Oh because the love security more then freedom. And you know where that leads... They will have neither!

Topher
Topher

Even more interesting... Article one Section 10 Clause one "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. " Look up what a "Letter of Marque" is. I think the fact that "No State shall...grant Letters of Marque" should be on every one's mind. Here is a hint. A letter of Marque is a *gasp*

"License." This goes for animal, driver's, ccw, tax, enter your verb here, etc license.

Spiff
Spiff

You had a cheek swab? I got my CPL in the People's Republic in Seattle. ID, yes; fingerprints, yes; cheek swab, no. (License issued in October 2011)

Topher
Topher

Even more interesting... Article one Section 10 Clause one "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. " Look up what a "Letter of Marque" is. I think the fact that "No State shall...grant Letters of Marque" should be on every one's mind. Here is a hint. A letter of Marque is a *gasp* "License." This goes for animal, driver's, ccw, tax, enter your verb here, etc license.

@Porkulus
@Porkulus

"The constitution requires all states to recognize the licenses of other states."

False. Can Caesar's Entertainment open an unrestricted casino in Los Angeles? If not why not? They have a casino operator's license in Nevada.

@Porkulus
@Porkulus

"The constitution requires all states to recognize the licenses of other states." False. Can Caesar's Entertainment open an unrestricted casino in Los Angeles? If not why not? They have a casino operator's license in Nevada.

Matt
Matt

I'm glad someone else mentioned what I am thinking. It's one thing to say that states should respectively recognize other states mandates, but then, why should they? And why should the federal legislative arm pass a law that REQUIRES states to do that? Isn't that exactly what we have trouble with over a wide range of other regulatory issues? Like was said -- it's all good when it's something you want. What about something you don't? There's no easy answer. Of course I am for it, but it has to be a constitutional amendment, so that each state must abide, without the strong arm of the federal government enacting some other piece of legislation to manage this one. We all know what I'm talking about, right?

TFA303
TFA303

This bill is Constitutionally valid, includuing the 10th Amendment test, as it's explicitly authorized by the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, Section 1.

This clause requires that states respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." and gives Congress the authority to set the terms of how the states do so.

For once, they're actually doing something that they're supposed to do.

@Porkulus
@Porkulus

"We cannot pick and choose which abuses of power we tolerate from the federal government. Article I Section 8 of U.S. Constitution gives the list of limited powers for Congress and the first 10 Articles in Amendment to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) sets clear limits upon the exercise of those powers."

A-freaking-Men. Feels like I'm alone sometimes. If it's okay for the federal government to abuse its power to do something you like, don't complain when they abuse it to do something you dislike.

Name ONE THING that ended up better for the people after the federal government got involved. Just one.

Joe
Joe

Agreed, with federal law comes federal rules. They will (100% chance) change how the certification/classes are done, and make it much more complicated. The communist states such as Ca, NY etc with actually have a say in how the other states distribute their permits.

TFA303
TFA303

This bill is Constitutionally valid, includuing the 10th Amendment test, as it's explicitly authorized by the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, Section 1. This clause requires that states respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." and gives Congress the authority to set the terms of how the states do so. For once, they're actually doing something that they're supposed to do.

@Porkulus
@Porkulus

"We cannot pick and choose which abuses of power we tolerate from the federal government. Article I Section 8 of U.S. Constitution gives the list of limited powers for Congress and the first 10 Articles in Amendment to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) sets clear limits upon the exercise of those powers." A-freaking-Men. Feels like I'm alone sometimes. If it's okay for the federal government to abuse its power to do something you like, don't complain when they abuse it to do something you dislike. Name ONE THING that ended up better for the people after the federal government got involved. Just one.

@Porkulus
@Porkulus

Granting a license is not an act, record, or judicial proceeding.

Tennessee, for example, has NO JURISDICTION OVER what laws Kentucky passes.

n1ghtstr1k3
n1ghtstr1k3

I second this thought and the article below does a good job explaining that this is really just another gun control bill. The feds want nothing to do with helping you keep your rights, their only concern is limiting or taking them away. In the face of the evidence from just the past 10 years you have to be extremely naive to believe otherwise.

"The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly “pro-gun” Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits.

You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to “verify” out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress “must” create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders."

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011112114980/us/homeland-security/trojan-horse-gun-bill-hr-822-moves-to-the-senate.html

JT Thomas
JT Thomas

Drivers Licenses, Legal drinking age limits, Legal driving limits. Thats three.

Nunzio X
Nunzio X

The interstate highway system.

@Porkulus
@Porkulus

Granting a license is not an act, record, or judicial proceeding. Tennessee, for example, has NO JURISDICTION OVER what laws Kentucky passes.

n1ghtstr1k3
n1ghtstr1k3

I second this thought and the article below does a good job explaining that this is really just another gun control bill. The feds want nothing to do with helping you keep your rights, their only concern is limiting or taking them away. In the face of the evidence from just the past 10 years you have to be extremely naive to believe otherwise. "The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly “pro-gun” Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits. You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to “verify” out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress “must” create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders." http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011112114980/us/homeland-security/trojan-horse-gun-bill-hr-822-moves-to-the-senate.html

@Porkulus
@Porkulus

Driver Licenses: If you think the fact that your driver license is good in all 50 states is due to federal usurpation, you're wrong. Your driver license is good everywhere because the 50 states have all decided to allow you to drive without being licensed in their jurisdiction while visiting, not because of some federal legislation. This is analogous to the reciprocity we currently enjoy between certain states where CCW is concerned.

Drinking age limits: If you think that is the proper role of the federal government, we're not going to agree on much.

Legal driving limits: What limits? Speed limits? As far as I can tell, the states have differing licensing requirements.

@Porkulus
@Porkulus

Driver Licenses: If you think the fact that your driver license is good in all 50 states is due to federal usurpation, you're wrong. Your driver license is good everywhere because the 50 states have all decided to allow you to drive without being licensed in their jurisdiction while visiting, not because of some federal legislation. This is analogous to the reciprocity we currently enjoy between certain states where CCW is concerned. Drinking age limits: If you think that is the proper role of the federal government, we're not going to agree on much. Legal driving limits: What limits? Speed limits? As far as I can tell, the states have differing licensing requirements.

@Porkulus
@Porkulus

Better off? Lets see, since the feds got involved the states have been continuously subject to the mantra of, "change your behavior or you will lose highway funds."

That's because providing appropriations to the interstate highway system is an abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

The people are less free from an abusive federal government because of the interstate highway system.

Not to mention it was built and is maintained with borrowed money that has no chance of ever being repaid.

@Porkulus
@Porkulus

Better off? Lets see, since the feds got involved the states have been continuously subject to the mantra of, "change your behavior or you will lose highway funds." That's because providing appropriations to the interstate highway system is an abuse of the interstate commerce clause. The people are less free from an abusive federal government because of the interstate highway system. Not to mention it was built and is maintained with borrowed money that has no chance of ever being repaid.

The Latest
Squawk Box

Whether your GPS has run out of power or you’re in a survival or E&E situation, the ability to navigate using a map and compass is one of the most valuable skills you can have and something that everyone should take the time to learn to do. Get started or brush up on your land nav skills by checking out our past articles on itstactical.com.

8 hours ago
Leave a Comment