#ConcealCarry – Odd Stuffing

H.R.38 – Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025 – Again

Is the ramped-up opposition to the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025 from Gun Control, Inc. a good thing? Could the anti-gun zealots read of the room indicate we may see progress on national reciprocity this time around?

Of note, the bill now with 189 Republican co-sponsors, up from the original 119, has passed a committee vote in the House of Representatives and could be placed on the calendar at any time. The President has said he would sign the bill if passed by Congress.

If you haven’t read the bill yet, take a minute and do it now. It’s short. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/38

For those of you paying attention to the activities of Gun Control Inc, you’ve probably noticed an uptick in ads, so-called “research”, reports and opposition to HR 38. Most bear the same false claims they parade out with every constitutional carry proposal in the states. They claim it would be the “wild, wild west” and “blood would flow in the streets” and call it “criminal carry”. They are calling this version a “race to the bottom” that eliminates their highly restrictive state-imposed licensing.

Let’s keep in mind what actually happens when states have implemented constitutional carry, violent crime has gone down.

There are now 29 states where constitutional carry – carrying a concealed firearm without a state issued permit – is now legal. The last 13 being brought in since the current (as of 01/19/24) anti-gun administration began. That’s more than half the states in the country where 46.8% of Americans (157.6 million) now live in constitutional carry states, with 67.7% of the land in the country (2.57 million square miles).

Interestingly enough, the number of concealed carry permit holders, 21.5 million, has gone down as the number of constitutional carry states increased. The reason is understandable as people who once were required to get a government issued permit no longer need to, saving the time, administrative hassle and costs associated with obtaining and keeping a permit valid. Those who do obtain one generally do so for additional benefits such as expanded carry zones, reciprocity with other states and no duty to inform on interactions with law enforcement.

In addition to the ad blitz, Gun Control, Inc. has gotten the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police to come out against HR 38, arguing that it could place officers in both legal and physical danger. This is of course unsurprising since these organizations are controlled by the agency heads of the largest law enforcement departments, appointed by the most liberal/anti-gun city councils in the country. In other words, politicians with badges. Taking their recommendations on safety for the general public comes with a large, and sad, grain of salt.

What do the rank-and-file officers say? According to a recent law enforcement survey of working officers more than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable. A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).

Let’s not forget there is already one conceal carry permit in the form of LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act). However, this applies only to qualified current, retired and separated law enforcement officials. It has also been summarily ignored by several anti-gun states even though the federal law has precedence over the state law. Properly credentialed LEOSA officers have been arrested and had firearms confiscated but released in the morning without charges. It’s the old cop saying, “you can’t take back a night in jail”. This harassment of law enforcement officers carrying under federal law may preview how some states will treat those carrying under a new national reciprocity act.

One of the objections noted by the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police was the potential HR 38 could pierce law enforcement’s qualified immunity. Based on the way the anti-gun states treat officers from other states, you can see why the provision is in the bill.

So why not get a concealed carry permit in the other states? Well, thanks to the diligent efforts of Second Amendment supporters, non-permissive states have been forced to offer their coveted concealed carry permits to out-of-state applicants. This in addition to being forced to offer them to their own in-state applicants. However, it’s not without considerable cost or burden. Non-permissive states have dragged out applications and approvals for months past their statutory limits with no recourse for correction other than the courts.

One individual I am aware of has spent over $10k for him and his wife to be able to carry in 46 states plus D.C., with four more states to go. Is this the kind of access a constitutionally protected natural right should have? How many people could afford the time and money to chase this around the country? Concealed carry permitting, and now especially out-of-state permitting dramatically discriminates against those who cannot afford the time and cost of their licensing schemes.

So, what will happen with HR 38? With only 189 co-sponsors and the Republican to Democrat split in the House of Representatives at 220 to 213, this bill could potentially pass IF the majority stuck together, an unlikely proposition. The prospects in the Senate are much less appealing. With a 53 to 47 Republican majority, there are not enough to get to the 60 votes necessary to pass it as the Democrat side would never allow it.

The anti-gun side is pushing hard to stop this. We need to be pushing back even harder.

This means it’s up to us to let our federal representatives in the House and Senate know our support for these bills. This is especially true for those of us, like me, with RINO representation. They represent US, and we need to remind them of that.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #ConcealCarry, #NationalReciprocity, #HR38, #medium, #mewe, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

Concealed or Open Carry?

I am fortunate to live in a constitutional carry state which includes open and concealed carry as well as strong preemption laws, at least for now. This has remained true despite the state’s best attempts to lean hard left with every do-nothing-for-safety gun control law proposal from the zealots at Gun Control, Inc. As such, the defense of concealed and open carry becomes very important.

I firmly support concealed and open carry, but I also believe some people need to make better choices for the location and situation they are in.

Constitutional carry I’ve written about before. While the gun control folks ALWAYS claim it will be “the wild, wild west” with “blood running in the streets” if passed, the exact opposite has ALWAYS occurred. Violent crime goes down in the states where constitutional carry is passed.

The reason behind this is crystal clear, at least to everyone except the anti-gun extremists. When the civilian population is armed, criminals are less inclined to attack them. Criminals it turns out, aren’t stupid, they are just criminals. If someone has the ability to stop them, they will move on to someone who doesn’t.

Carrying a firearm for your own protection and the protection of your family, while out in public is not just a good idea, but a responsible choice. The more people who do this, the safer everyone is. But how you carry is just as important.

With open carry, your firearm is out and visible to everyone around you. The plus there is it provides a visual deterrent to anyone who may wish to attack/rob/rape/kill you. It’s also a lot quicker and easier to draw from an open carry holster. The downside your firearm is out and visible to everyone around you. It makes you, and your firearm, a target of theft. Beyond that, it also tends to cause unnecessary concern for others who do not understand or support civilian firearm ownership or open carry.

While there isn’t a huge body of evidence on grabbing open carry firearms, it does occur. Notably off-duty officers in NYPD have been targets of firearm theft with exposed firearms. There are of course the anti-gun social media warriors who proudly proclaim they will ‘pepper spray and snatch the gun’ from anyone they see open carrying. I’m not aware of this happening anywhere since most people agree this would be a really, really bad idea.

This brings up HOW you open carry. Sadly, far too many choose the cheapest, one-size-fits-none padded Uncle Mike’s, or similar ill-fitting/non-safety holster for their carry option. While it may work, it’s not a good choice. Holster technology has come a long way, and secure civilian options are available. Paired with an appropriate belt, this would be a far better choice.

But it doesn’t end there. Making the choice to open carry a firearm ‘should’ mean taking a little more responsibility for the safety and security of the firearm. This means not only traditional firearm training, but also firearm retention training.

I can tell you based on my own experience and that of the officers I know and have known, the vast majority of law enforcement officers have not had sufficient training in firearm retention. It just isn’t a priority in most departments, until a tragedy occurs. The civilian market is far, far worse. Training is available, but it’s not commonly offered. And that’s a damn shame.

Bear in mind I’m referring to what I call appropriate open carry. There is also what I call “inappropriate” or stupid open carry. You’ve probably seen one of these folks at some point in your life. Two, three, four – or more – handguns in holsters in various positions on the body, along with multiple back up mags for each, along with knives… lots of knives. Just… no.

The same thing applies to those who strap an AR or AK pattern rifle on their back and decide to go to Starbucks or “patrol” their neighborhood in their finest downrange camo. HELL no!

Some argue if you don’t exercise a right then you lose it. While I agree in principle, that concept doesn’t apply to those who do foolish crap just to see how much attention they can attract. There is a time and place for obvious Second Amendment displays, and rarely do they attract negative attention. Choosing when and where you open carry is as important as how you carry.

My preference is for concealed carry. The plus here is your potential assailant doesn’t know if you are or are not armed. The downside is the visual deterrent of an exposed firearm isn’t there, until such time the firearm is justifiably and lawfully needed. How do you mitigate this downside? By being alert and aware of your surroundings. By not being focused on your phone or some other distraction, you become less of a target in the first place.

New concealed carriers often struggle with the whole concealed concept and are constantly adjusting and rearraigning themselves. For the most part, it’s unnecessary and it just takes a little getting used to. But carrying concealed also comes with some drawbacks such as how and where the best place is to carry on the body. The good news is there are hundreds of options available, and most people will try a number of them until they figure out what works best for them, their wardrobe, body and situation.

The other big drawback is drawing a firearm from under whatever you have concealing it. Warm weather is one thing, but in parts of the country where numerous layers are needed in the winter, it can be a challenge. Here again is where your personal responsibility for adequate training comes in. Drawing from a concealed position is not the same as from an exposed holster. It takes practice and close attention to the fundamentals of safety.

One last thing. If you’re going to lawfully carry, always carry. Make it a part of grabbing whatever you grab before you leave the house for the day, every day. Your safety and the safety of your family is 100% YOUR responsibility. Nobody else is going to protect you.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #ConcealCarry, #OpenCarry, #medium, #mewe, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

ATF Implements Background Checks for Alcohol Purchases (Fictitious Content

The ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) recently announced a change in their regulatory approach. With consideration to the deaths and health dangers associated with the consumption of alcohol, purchases shall henceforward require a background check. This move will synchronize the oversight and governing over the areas ATF is responsible, using firearms and explosives as the model

ATF noted that *alcohol related deaths in the United States far outnumber the deaths in other areas they regulate. In 2022 alone, 13,524 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic incidents. That equals one person dead every 39 minutes. Additionally, 95,000 alcohol related deaths occur each year, along with 47,500 deaths attributable to the long-term health failure from drinking. Stricter regulations of alcohol purchases will certainly be a significant benefit to public safety.

The Bureau also stated that many thousands of individuals around the country are under court order with pre-trial, sentencing and probation restrictions against the purchase and consumption of alcohol. This new effort will be of significant assistance to local, state and federal law enforcement for enforcement of judicial orders as well as help local retailers avoid liability by unknowing providing alcohol to prohibited persons or minors.

The background checks will be in two forms. For on-premises consumption, an instant background check will be conducted based on a valid state driver’s license or non-driver identification card. All purchases will be recorded in the ATF database. The regulatory analogy for this type of check and tracking is renting a firearm at a range and used under the guidance/supervision of trained range personal.

For retail purchases where there will be no supervision of consumption, an instant background check and three-day waiting period will be imposed prior to the buyer being able to take possession of their alcohol purchase. The regulatory analogy for this type of check is a firearm sale at a retail establishment where the purchaser passes an instant background check but must wait three or more days before taking possession of their firearm.

All purchases will be tracked in the new ATF Alcohol Database. The data may be accessed by any law enforcement agency and shall be prima facie evidence of the intent to purchase, possess and consume alcohol. The ATF indicated future plans to use the database to limit the quantity of purchases permissible in a given time period as well as deny purchase based on a calculation of presumed blood alcohol level from accumulated purchases based on the physical attributes on the individual’s ID card.

An announcement on new regulations for tobacco is expected in the coming months.

Of course, all the above information is absolutely, 100% fictious EXCEPT the astricted* section on the number of deaths associated with alcohol consumption.

Can you imagine the public reaction if the ATF were to attempt to conduct background checks and a waiting period for alcohol purchases? It would be as if the 18^th Amendment was never repealed by the 21^stAmendment. How DARE the government do a background check for me to have a drink or delay my purchase of legal alcohol! Unthinkable!

From a pure public safety point of view, the number of lives lost to use of alcohol (a privilege) is far greater than the lives lost for use of firearms (a constitutionally protected right). Yet alcohol is loosely regulated, and firearms are controlled very tightly, with attempts to increase it every year at the local, state and federal level. If politicians actually wanted to save lives, wouldn’t that be the logical place to start?

The difference of course is restricting civilian purchasing, possession and use of firearms makes the population more dependent on government agencies for their safety. A dependent population is more willing to giving up their rights for the promise of safety, even though the government has no ability, and no legal obligation, to protect them. Yet the mere ‘promise’ of safety is enough for many to give up their arms. Gun control is about people control, NOT public safety.

Civilian firearms can and are used most commonly for legal purposes and self-defense. In a long-buried CDC (Centers for Disease Control) studies, the CDC found that civilian defensive use of firearms outnumbered felonious use of firearms by a rate of 3 to 1, to the tune of 2.5 to 3 million uses per year. Note that not all the events involved the discharge of a firearm by the civilian. Often, the mere presenting or challenge to the criminal with a firearm was enough to stop the intended crime. It’s also important to realize this number ONLY includes persons who were not performing defensive duties as part of their employment such as law enforcement or security services.

There is of course that whole guard against the emergence of a tyrannical government thing, but that only matters if we ever envisioned a government that was out of control and tried to illegally control the population based on things like religion, politics or ideology. That would never happen, right?

The reality is YOU and YOU ALONE are responsible for your own safety and the safety of your family, at home and in public. IF a firearm is the right tool for you to use, then accept the responsibility of ownership, safe storage for your individual situation, obtain the training you need and carry on!

And finally, drink responsibly and do NOT drink and drive.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #ATF, #ConcealCarry, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

Constitutional Carry Reciprocity Act, A Real Gun Safety Law

A new and improved version of a national reciprocity law entitled the Constitutional Carry Reciprocity Act has been introduced in both the House and Senate. With the President Elect already committing to sign it should it be passed by Congress; will this finally be the time to get this passed? OR… will it be just another visibility bill killed by the old guard?

The anti-gun left has always equated firearm ownership and use (a right) with driver’s licenses (a privilege). Yet while a driver’s license from any state is valid in every state, concealed carry licenses are generally limited to the state they are issued in. There are some states who recognize other states’ concealed carry permits through individual reciprocity agreements, but some states, typically the most adamant anti-gun states, refuse to recognize any conceal carry permits other than their own.

Just a comment on state lines. These days they mean next to nothing and the closer you live to one, they mean even less than that. We are a highly mobile society and going across state borders is as unceremonious as going town to town, neighborhood to neighborhood, street to street. Politicians love them because they can rule over their domains to their own benefit, but very few people do anything different one state to the next.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, there are now 29 states where constitutional carry – carrying a concealed firearm without a state issued permit – is now legal. The last 13 being brought in since the current (as of 01/19/24) anti-gun administration began. That’s more than half the states in the country where 46.8% of Americans (157.6 million) now live in constitutional carry states, with 67.7% of the land in the country (2.57 million square miles).

Let’s also remember what the anti-gun extremists warned would happen when all these states dropped their permit requirements. They claimed it would be the “wild, wild west” and “blood would flow in the streets”, and called it “criminal carry”. What really happened? Violent crime in the constitutional carry states went down. Go figure.

Also, according to a recent law enforcement survey of working officers, not the politically appointed politicians with badges at the head of the agencies:

More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/ medically incapable.

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).

House H.R. 38 and the Senate counterpart S. 65 says, in part:

“A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State…”

There is already one conceal carry permit in the form of LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act). However, this applies only to qualified current, retired and separated law enforcement officials. It has also been summarily ignored by several anti-gun states even though the federal law has precedence over the state law. Properly credentialed LEOSA officers have been arrested and had firearms confiscated but released in the morning without charges. It’s the old cop saying, “you can’t take back a night in jail”. This harassment of law enforcement officers carrying under federal law may preview how some states will treat those carrying under a new national reciprocity act.

What will it take to get this passed by the House and Senate, and sent to the President for his signature? A miracle.

While the House version now caims “bipartisan support” thanks to the unusual endorsement of one of Maine’s anti-gun Democrats, this doesn’t mean it will pass. The Senate is even less likely since it will require Democrat support due to the razor thin Republican majority. But that’s only part of the story.

While the Republican party holds a majority in both houses, it also contains a record crash [sic] of RINOs who will do anything and everything to stop it. The motivation is in two parts. One that they really are anti-gun elitists who enjoy having firearms protecting THEM, but don’t want the rabble they represent to have them. The other is they don’t want to allow the President to make good on a campaign promise, even if it means their constituents must choose between leaving their firearms at their state line and not be able to defend themselves or break the law of other states in order to protect themselves and their families away from home.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #Reciprocity, #ConcealCarry, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com