Don’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.

Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.

The group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.

Lethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).

Gun Reports - News

NRA Executive Director Chris W. Cox

Cox: National Right to Carry a step closer

(GunReports.com) -- Thanks to the good work of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress is moving closer to restoring one of our fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Second Amendment, writes Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of NRA-ILA on townhall.com.

Ten days ago, the House Judiciary Committee considered amendments to the “National Right-to-Carry-Reciprocity Act” (H.R. 822), which would allow any person with a valid, state-issued concealed firearm permit to exercise the right to carry a firearm in any state that permits concealed carry.

In 41 of these 49 states, law-abiding citizens can carry a firearm without having to navigate an overly restrictive bureaucratic process.

The problem is that some states allow visiting permit holders from other states to exercise their right to carry, and some states do not. As you can imagine, this presents a nightmare for interstate travel, as many Americans are forced to check their Second Amendment rights, and their fundamental right to self-defense, at the state line.

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would solve this problem by simply requiring states that allow concealed carry to recognize each other’s permits. Nothing more.

Read the entire editorial here then come back to GunReports.com to discuss.

Tweet

Reader Comments

The HR 822 is currently moving in the House of Representatives. This proposed bill would require all states to accept concealed handgun carry permits from every other state, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to carry or even possess a handgun in the state where the person is travelling. This legislation is not only about self defense, but rather it would make a major step forward for gun owners' right by significantly expanding where those permits are recognized. Even if guns are equated to installment loans, these are now substantial because the right to be protected does not end when one leaves home. Therefore, this has to be given recognition!

Comment by: angelreinhart | October 27, 2011

@angelreinhart: Couldn't say it better, myself. I find it ludicrous that when I go to visit a relative in Missouri, my Michigan CPL is good in Michigan (obviously), Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri. The minute I cross the border into the People's Republik of Illinois, I become a felon.

Comment by: Slipstick | October 27, 2011

angelreinhart, I think you should review hr 822, or the article above. You would NOT be able to carry in any state that does not issue ccw's. Ill. does not issue ccw's, you would not be able to legally carry in Ill.

Comment by: msg51 | October 27, 2011

Your right so this law really does nothing. We need a national carry thats valid anywhere in the U.S.A. Home of the free

Comment by: Buzz C | October 27, 2011

When will we get some legislation that will force DC to recognize CCLs? THAT is a place you should never go without a gun. And maybe a couple of Rottweilers too. And a bowie knife. And an armed partner. Get a couple blocks off the Mall and you're in dangerous territory. Get lost and you'd better just pray.

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

HR 822 may not be perfect, but it is a huge step in the right direction, and it does give you the right to carry in any state that grants that right to it's citizens. That is better than the hodge podge we have now. I just checked USA Carry and you will be able to carry in D.C. with passage of HR 822. I believe with the passage of H.R. 822 you will be able to carry everywhere except where the gangsters rule (Illinois).

Comment by: msg51 | October 27, 2011

I'm not sure USA Carry is correct on that D.C. business. Last week I read the text of that bill and the other reciprocal carry law that's been proposed on the Thomas Law website. I don't recall seeing any mention of D.C. in either, only 'states', one of which D.C. is not. If "and the District of Columbia" isn't specified in the law, it won't happen in D.C. Bet on that. I just hope my memory is bad and those words ARE included.

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

I checked a couple of other sites that list D.C. but no info. You would assume if congress passes HR 822 it would be a national law and would include DC. But we all know what happens when you assume

Comment by: msg51 | October 27, 2011

HR 822 - no mention of D.C. in the Reciprocity section:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822:

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

Check this out. http://www.theorator.com/bills/issues/guns.html

There are some interesting proposals here, e.g. Senate bill 176, which would establish minimum standards for carry permits in all states, and of course will require each state to 'register' the permits - opening the door for a federal registry of all permits, as they will simply suck up that information and claim it's not 'federal' but a 'collection of state' registrations.

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

There's also HR 645, a bill "to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia". Now, that is refreshing!

http://www.theorator.com/bills/text/hr645.html

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

AND this: HR 2252 To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.

http://www.theorator.com/bills/text/hr2252.html

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

There appears to actually be a lot of support for gun owners and Second Amendment freedoms in Congress. I was surprised at this list, but there is something for everyone here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

While I am in favor of any law that recognizes the right of armed self-defense anywhere in the nation, I must approach such an effort with wary caution. If the law would simply say something like: Anyone of sound mind with a clear record of no criminal conduct is hereby recognized to exercise the right of concealed carry of a firearm throughout the entire United States of America and its' territories and possessions......I think we'd be on pretty firm ground. Of course, the Feds aren't going to give us anything without something in return.....something like a registry of concealed carriers.

Comment by: canovack | October 27, 2011

Well, the actual problem with ANY statement of requirements for the right of self-defense is that the government could easily use the Soviet tactic of false arrest for invented crimes to make a gun owner into a "criminal", or put us into mental institutions for jaywalking in order to deprive us under the mentally unstable justification. Just because it hasn't happened here YET doesn't mean it WON'T - the example of government doing that stuff is already set.

Also, if one believes that the anti-gun movement is connected to and supported by Commie world-government agendas, then one should EXPECT that kind of behavior to become commonplace when they feel 'strong enough' to try it. The Soviets were Commies, after all, and China still uses some of those techniques today to control it's people. But for right now, I'm hoping we're not really in that much danger.

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

You will never get any legislation that simple, it would put lawyers out of work.

Comment by: msg51 | October 27, 2011

This is truly needed. Several years ago I made a delivery to a particularly crime ridden area of NYC. Another driver arrived around 2. At 3:30 we were turned out by a police officer, who happened to stand on the steps of the other drivers rig, and saw the handle of his gun on the doghouse. He was arrested (even though he was asleep in the bunk, and they used the gun to tear apart both trucks searching for anything else. Why they woke me up and searched my truck, I have no idea. The other driver was hauled off and I never saw him again. His gun was leagel in his home state, but not in New York City.

Comment by: spaceseed1 | October 27, 2011

I have to go along with Canovack on this, except on the criminal record because I know some how some states think that even a parking or speeding ticket make you a criminal, and I also now some people like myself that have had a misermeaner conviction just because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time totally by accedent. but that doesen't make me a threat to anyone or even a bad person. I believe that certan felons should never be able to have a gun ever. God Bless America and Our Troops Past Present and Future. Keeping to My Oath Locked Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry. Get the US Out of the UN and the UN Out of the US

Comment by: bear1 | October 27, 2011

I don't have a problem with CERTAIN felons being prohibited - but if they are that dangerous, maybe we should execute them now? Same for mentally insane - depressed for a while is one thing, but some corpse-eating psycho or sex predator should never have a gun. And again, maybe we should just execute them now. (At the risk of hijacking the thread here - did I even tell you guys that I once picked up a hitcher who later turned out to be THE Jeffery Dahmer?) (There are some crimes I don't think anyone should have a chance to repeat, and after which I don't think society should pay to support the perp for life either.) The entire problem comes up with legislation that is sufficiently vague as to permit a distorted view of the definition and leave citizens open to a tyrannical application of the terminology. That is why I'm opposed to any restrictions.

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

Obviously opinions vary on this issue, just as they do on any other issue. I certainly understand bear1's comment, since way back in 1985 I was arrested for beating the shit out of a guy who was rather forcibly panhandling. The case never made it to trial, but it was something that I was concerned with when Texas passed its' concealed carry law in 1995. I should not have been concerned, since the law prescribed that most misdemeanor convictions would not be an impediment to licensure, and an arrest record carried no weight at all. As an aside, if I had to defend myself now at age 70+, I'd be hard pressed not to bring some sort of weapon into action.

Comment by: canovack | October 27, 2011

HR2252 went to senate and has never been acted on. Another thing to consider is this: if the senate were, and I doubt they will, what makes you believe they will not put all kinds of riders such as more stringent requirements to obtain? I can remember years ago that you had to provide 2 reasons why you needed to carry a CW and the 2nd amendment was not acceptable. I fear that if this does indeed pass, we will have so many anti-gun riders put on by the senate democrates, H. Reid in particular, that we will wish it never passed.

Comment by: 7mag | October 27, 2011

7mag - I only meant to say that it's nice to see so many pro-gun bills in the mix, not to say anything about any of them because I just found that list and haven't had time to think about any. So please don't take my posting the link so others could read the proposal as any attempt on my part to support any of them. I haven't gotten to that point yet.

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

C'mon guys, I can't believe you actually believe in a) our Congress and b) the NRA to look out for and safeguard your gun rights. Seriously, look at any of the "report cards" for our elected reps by NAGR or GOA or JPFO in the last 20 years, most (99%) of our friends in DC can not be trusted. Do you really think the final passed version of this bill would not have ANY loopholes / riders that would NOT expand ferderal fingers in the pie and not ratchet down our freedoms longterm? The early draft had explicit language referring to STATES RIGHTS that was stripped in REPUBLICAN committee. 7mag is spot on, this is a 2A trojan horse that has real potential of being a nightmare. It's very discouraging to see blind allegiance to the NRA when they have a clear, easily researched track record of selling us short and shying away from the real tough battles that would turn back the federal beast.

Comment by: SCOTT B | October 27, 2011

HR822 is a Trojan Horse which will give the Federal Government an oportunity to dictate regulations for concealed carry permits. IT IS A BAD BILL>

Comment by: 45longcolt | October 27, 2011

why do we not hear anything about HR2900

Comment by: msg51 | October 27, 2011

Scott B - agreed, BUT, what is your alternative suggestion? I don't see JPFO in court that much, nor GOA, and I'm a member of both and NRA too. If we can't get 2A rights restored in courts and Congress, WHERE do you think that will happen? I want to know so I can join THAT team. Short of a "million-man with guns march' on D.C. to honor our culture, history and heritage, I don't see us getting very far, and even that could turn out badly.

So where is the alternative? You write as if you have one to offer. Tell us.

Comment by: david b | October 28, 2011

David - you'll never have a "million armed citizens" march, because most of us have jobs....

Oh, and now we know why you're a gun-totin' liberal! Do you still pick up hitchers? ;)

Comment by: PVB | October 28, 2011

Hmm. I thought I deleted that comment. And then when I didn't get an immediate response, I thought sure I had....

Well, yeah, we do most of us have jobs. It was just an idea.... I know it would scare the anti's so much they'd have to go change clothes and do laundry RIGHT NOW.

And yes, I still pick up hitchers if they appear OK. At the time, Jeffie was in High School and just looked like a chubby kid - but he did turn out to be really weird. It's a long story. But I still pick up people who seem to be OK - and I know - it's a chancey thing to do. But I did lots of hitching once upon a time, so I return the favors to others. Besides, I usually move a large blade to my left side when i do this, so it isn't seen but can come out and across 'in a heartbeat' - so to speak.

Guess I'm a pretty lousy liberal, huh? But I still don't trust bankers, CEOs and government enough to be on the other side.

Comment by: david b | October 28, 2011

I don't think many conservatives trust any of those people, either....

Comment by: PVB | October 28, 2011

Well, it sure seems the GOP does, and so I don't trust THEM to watch out for me. I mean, isn't one of their 'platform planks' the idea that if we tax working people and give the wealthy big fat breaks, they'll create jobs? THAT has not happened in all of human history as far as I know. I just can't trust anyone that stupid to protect MY interests.

But remember, I'm not satisfied with the other party these days either - because they don't watch out for my interests either. And they are the ones who claim to be on my side. What to do, what to do? HA! I bet we all feel like that. We need a third party... maybe even several more. At least coalitions would force them to work together with SOMEONE.

Comment by: david b | October 28, 2011

Instead of a third, or more, party, how about no party. Each candidate run on his/her own merits.

Comment by: msg51 | October 28, 2011

Hey david b and PVB, don't be feeling lonely in your mistrust. I am still a registered Republican, and I can't see any reason to undo that yet, but trust IS getting to be a damned precious commodity these days. I don't worry much about people I know trying to take advantage of me (because they know that they would end up hating themselves after I reacted), but I do have some concerns with the current crop of politicians. I mean, they are either truly dumb asses, or they have so much baggage from past endeavors that it makes it pretty hard to figure who we really can trust. It is a given that BHO must be voted out of office, but who are we actually going to get out of the Republican primaries that can get the full support of the convention this coming summer? It's getting damned scary, because if we don't get a good solid challenger for November 2012, BHO could end up keeping his job. And THAT would be a big problem for all of us!

Comment by: canovack | October 28, 2011

Didn't take long for this thread to go off topic.

Comment by: msg51 | October 28, 2011

Well, msg51, that sort of thing happens quite frequently in this forum. It is especially true of the folks who have been posting here for several years. We start out discussing something that is germane to the topic at hand, but our long term friendships often lead us off to other subjects. It is part of what makes this forum interesting.

Comment by: canovack | October 29, 2011

.

Comment by: gunsdontkill | October 29, 2011

The 2A guarantees we Americans the God given right to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselves, and our country, just as the 1A guarantees our right to speak freely and to practice any religion. Unlike privileges, such as driving, etc…, God given rights do not require permission (i.e., CCW permits) or registration (i.e., CCW’s, forced liability insurance, etc.) to be exercised, for the point is that they come from God not from government. Furthermore, our God given rights cannot be “checked at the door” when we cross any state boundary. Are we somehow made safe from danger when we leave home for vacation? Every permit, registration, forced insurance, etc., is nothing less than an infringement of our 2A rights.

H.R. 822 is indeed a Trojan Horse, but what’s more is that it denies the very right it purports to protect of those citizens of states that do not require permits. Some have called H.R. 822 a step in the right direction. The only steps in the right direction are those that repeal or otherwise deem unlawful every law in America that infringes upon the rights our fathers protected and paid for with their lives. H.R. 822 does not deal genuinely with reciprocity, but in fact further acknowledges and authorizes wholly unconstitutional permitting and provides, like the Gun Control Act of ’68, the framework for the NRA and our politicians to profit from their assiduous lobbying efforts against the onslaught of resulting obvious infringements. (Continued)

Comment by: gunsdontkill | October 29, 2011

That said, I cringe in fear, as should all Americans, when considering any new pro- or anti-gun legislation. Until we can get “all 58 states” (as Comrade Obama calls them; or was it 57?) to be subject to the COTUS, should we even consider so called reciprocity laws? How would we make any state comply when they very simply pass new laws to work around the decisions of the SCOTUS? If we have the power to force compliance, then should we not force compliance with the COTUS?

If you are of the persuasion that believes in CCW permitting, then please consider H.R. 2900 - Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011. It sincerely addresses true reciprocity for ALL Americans, including those from states without permits. If you haven’t already done so, take the time to look it up.

If you believe as I do, that nearly all gun laws, including permitting, is unconstitutional, then stop giving your hard earned money to the NRA, GOA, SAF, politicians or anyone else, UNLESS it is expressly earmarked for lawsuits to overturn anti-gun laws. If you give your money to an organization that promises to use it to push even pro-gun legislation, then you will get more gun laws. If you only give to them when they file suit to fight gun laws, then the pro-gun lobby will hear you and you will get what you pay for. (End)

Comment by: gunsdontkill | October 29, 2011

I cannot fault anything that you have stated here, gdk, however in the pragmatic pursuit of life as it now exists, I fear that we will be stuck with laws, ordinances, rules, etc for the foreseeable future. It would be great if our rulers.....yes; I said rulers.....accepted all rights affirmed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights unequivocally, without reservation. That isn't going to happen anytime soon, so we are essentially left to deal with life as we know it, as best we can. That said, I do have a concealed handgun license, because if I ever have the need to employ my piece in a self-defensive situation, I would be at least one step up on the ladder of justifiability as a law abiding citizen. It would be just that much more difficult, dealing with the police and courts, if I simply carried my weapon, because the Second Amendment says my right to arms shall not be infringed, and I found it necessary to employ the piece in order to stop an attack on me or my wife. We may not like the way things are, but realistically, we have to live in an imperfect world in which we cannot have all things our way all of the time. Please do not take my message as one of giving in to the anti-Second Amendment types. Since the mid-1960s, I have been fighting onerous gun laws. I was among the first to declare enmity against GCA68, and I have been actively supporting all pro-Second Amendment legislation wherever it arises. The fact remains, however, we are a nation of laws, and we aren't likely going to influence those laws by actively seeking to disobey them.....yet. The time for civil disobedience without consequences has not yet dawned.

Comment by: canovack | October 30, 2011

Colonel! I can't suggest that you're giving in to anyone, since I am taking much the same approach that you are taking. I certainly wasn't suggesting civil disobedience either. I obey ALL laws, as far as I know! There's so damn many of 'em, it's hard to tell! Two thoughts though; 1) We have to be very careful about supporting gun laws, simply because they are dubbed pro-2A. They almost always thicken the quagmire our politicians and 2A organizations have cemented us in. That's why I prefer H.R. 2900. After you've read it, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. And, 2) While some of our nation's lemmings believe the time for civil disobedience is now, I do not either. I see some positive things happening that give me at least a little hope. But we 2A supporters cannot continue to respond to pro-2A organizations the way we have for so long, especially the NRA, because they are our biggest collective voice. And since our money speaks louder than words, we ought to contribute only toward lawsuits that fight to overturn the thousands of infringements instead of wasting our money on crap like H.R. 822 and complaining. It's the only way we will ever peaceably return to our forefathers' vision and intent and protect ourselves against enemies and our own government.

I'll keep my memberships in several 2A organizations minimally active, saving my money and contributing largely only when they ask me to help fight a lawsuit! I will not contribute a penny toward any more gun laws of any kind. Every new law, pro and against, is killing our 2A. We must seriously support only the activities that challenge bad laws. That would be enough to keep us busy for decades to come.

Comment by: gunsdontkill | October 30, 2011

Your point, gdk, is well taken. I became a Benefactor Life Member of the NRA several years ago. I value my NRA membership, but like you, I no longer just keep giving money to them and/or any other Second Amendment rights organization solely on the basis of receiving solicitations from them. So, I will not quit the NRA, since by quitting, we lose any leverage that we might have to influence the actions of any organization to which we might belong. It is far more productive for members to keep telling the organization leadership what we want them to do, and to explain why we don't just blindly contribute to them just because they ask. Like you, I believe we must be very careful about what kinds of laws we support, since as we all know, by the time a bill becomes law, it can acquire a number of amendments and riders that we may not like. Now, since I have become a lazy old man, do you have a link that we might use to take a look at HR2900?

Comment by: canovack | October 30, 2011

Here's the link to H.R. 2900. I don't know if you'll be able to just click it or if you'll need to copy and paste it into your browser. I'm not up to speed with this computer stuff.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2900

Comment by: gunsdontkill | October 30, 2011

HR2900 is a concise and well thought approach to firearms reciprocity throughout the 50 states of the USA. It's most laudable provision is that while HR822 provides for reciprocity based solely on the possession of a valid state CHL, HR2900 takes into account those states that have a "Constitutional Carry" law wherein no CHL is required. In the case of residents of such states traveling outside of their home state, a driver license would provide a defense to prosecution. Now, notice that I used the terms "defense to prosecution" instead of "valid CHL". While we would logically figure that law enforcement entities would be aware of what states provide for "Constitutional Carry", in reality most state and local police agencies aren't likely to be knowledgeable concerning the laws of any states but their own. The bottom line, here, would likely be that it depends on the cop with whom you are dealing, if you do not have a CHL and you are a carrier traveling in a CHL state.

Comment by: canovack | October 31, 2011

I think there's more than just that here. As I was reading HR 822, my CT CCL would be reciprocally recognized in any other state that permits CCL, but I'd have to be compliant with the laws in that state while there - a difficult task for me with limited 'certainty' that I am in compliance somewhere else.

As I have understood HR 2900, my CCL is to be recognized in other states which have CCLs, but I only need to be compliant with my own state's requirements - much easier for me to be sure of, and if I carry a copy of those with me, easy enough for a cop in another state to ascertain if I show him my copy of CT rules.

And as for the Colonel's suggestion about limited knowledge of other state's laws, I'd bet they aren't. Too many LEO's aren't even fully knowledgeable about their OWN state's laws - perhaps because they're too often not held accountable for violating those.

Comment by: david b | October 31, 2011

David b, I didn't get the same meaning from reading HR2900 that you did. In paragraph (1), when it states "subject to the laws of the state in which carrying", I'm interpreting that to mean that your home state CHL is OK for reciprocity in a state that you visit, BUT you must obey the particular laws of the state you are visiting.

Comment by: canovack | October 31, 2011

Well, thanks for sending me back to re-read it canovack. Now I'm not sure it's much better than HR 822.

I think it was section 2 that threw me off - "...may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides,...." which is the way I did understand it originally.

BUT, then there's the part I sort of glossed over before - of both sections - that says "...subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried." which means I still have to know the laws of every other state. E.g. in a place like New Jersey, if they happen to have a law that says 'not within 1000 feet of a vendor of alcoholic beverages' you'd have to know that, because some of those places are hard to see that far away. If a state's law prohibit any concealed carry above .32 cal, one would need to know that too.

Either of these laws is an improvement over today's situations. However, both leave a lot to be desired. It shouldn't be THAT hard to be certain one is in compliance with the law when traveling. Perhaps if one of these is passed and signed, then the states would see some benefit to moving toward Constitutional carry just to simplify life for us and their officers? I'm hoping, but not holding my breath.

Comment by: david b | October 31, 2011

Carrying in a state you are not a resident is no different then driving in a non-resident state, you have to know the laws

Comment by: msg51 | October 31, 2011

Mag51 - I'm going to posit that the situations aren't even close to equal.

At least traffic laws are reasonably consistent, and most of the important stuff like speed limits and where you can't turn left are posted on signs. I don't see that kind of gun info anywhere I go. You know - can I carry a 4" pocket knife AND my gun at the same time? Maybe not in all states. What about my fixed blade? Would I be arrested for not locking that in the car? Can I take my firearm into a restaurant, or not, or does it depend on if they serve liquor there? Is a collapsible baton a legal weapon in X state or not? In New Jersey EVERY round of hollow-point ammo is a separate felony count. I've never seen a sign to tell me THAT as I cross into the state.

Besides all that - I'm not likely to get a felony arrest in some other state for not knowing a particular traffic law even if I am pulled over for it. So, no, I don't agree that's even near equivalent in terms of the burden on me. Do you check on-line for other state's traffic laws before you travel? I do not and don't know anyone who does - but we'll have to do that if we want to travel with a gun - or risk that felony arrest.

Comment by: david b | October 31, 2011

David, I was not attempting to make comparisons. You are correct, It will be virtually impossible to know the laws of every state we might carry in. But the alternative is a national permit that makes all states the same. good luck getting that done and do we really want that. All I'm saying is with reciprocity we will need to aware of the laws in the states we carry. I believe as long as we are traveling through a state it is not as much of a problem as if we are spending time there. I guess the simple answer is if you are carrying concealed, obey all the other laws to reduce the chance of an encounter with a LEO.

Comment by: msg51 | October 31, 2011

msg51 - apologies. I apparently misunderstood, and thought you had a really simplistic view of the situation. "my bad", as we used to say. And you're correct about our need to know the laws where we travel - I'm just still hoping for some situation close to traveling with a driver's license and the local traffic laws.... "Oh, my Draco pistol is illegal here? How about I lock it in the trunk and get my .45 instead? Are you going to give me a ticket?" I wish!

Comment by: david b | October 31, 2011

Thats ok, It is a very slippery slope we are on and there is a small minority that is pushing us downhill.

Comment by: msg51 | October 31, 2011

Not only whitch laws about wher you can carry, like resturants and parks, but what guns you can carry. For instance, you carry have and carry a Tarus Judge in Tx, but you can't even have one in Mexicommiefornia Repulic of, because they classify it as a sawed off shotgun, so that means you have to look up the list of what is aloud in this stinkin state. For instance a friend of mine has a ccw here andused the same gun he had on a permit to renew his permitt and found out it was no longer on the list. Why? because the maker of the gun didn't pay for it to be listed again with the state, so the only one he had was a six inch sigle action that was still on the list. He had to go and buy couple new guns and requalify with them to get them on his permitt. The old ones where revolvers and still in good shape but no pay no get on list, not his fault but the makers for not paying the (what I call) ransume. God Bless America and Our Troops Past Present and Future. Keeping to My Oath Locked Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry. Get the US Out of the UN and the UN Out of the US.

Comment by: bear1 | October 31, 2011

I understand the frustrations that are being vented here as regards the so-called "state-to-state" variations in firearms laws. One of the ways that I have always prepared for a trip that takes me out of Texas is to consult the publication "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States". It is revised every year, and it provides a pretty good run down on the laws of all of our states. That said, however, it does not list the little quirky laws, like where can we eat dinner and have a drink? It also ignores the little quirky things like municipal buildings, etc. And, of course, it doesn't say much about knives, clubs, saps, batons, and swords.

In view of my above comments, what we really need is a law of Constitutional Carry for all 50 states, territories, possessions, and the District of Columbia. Just a plain and simple law that says if you have a clean criminal record, and you aren't a damned lunatic, you can carry your piece where-the-hell-ever you want to take it. Now, guys, please don't fall out of your chairs laughing.....We can dream, can't we?

Comment by: canovack | October 31, 2011