The Second Amendment stops at too many tollbooths
On June 23, standing before a crowd in Pennsylvania, President Trump was asked where he stood on a national right to carry.
His answer was four words: “Yeah, we’re working on it.”
The crowd roared.
For millions of law-abiding gun owners, those words pointed toward something they have awaited for decades: an end to a system that treats a constitutional right like a privilege that must be renewed at every state line.
Let’s be honest about where things stand.
The president has not signed anything, and no national reciprocity law exists today. The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act cleared a House committee last fall but has stalled in the Senate.
Our rights are only as strong as our willingness to defend them.
This is the starting line, not the finish line. But it is the right race to run, because the issue reaches far beyond the convenience of carrying a firearm across state borders.
I think about that every time I drive from my home in upstate New York to North Carolina to visit my son, daughter-in-law, and grandson.
I travel through New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. Four states. Four sets of gun laws. Four different answers to the same question: What rights does a free citizen carry when he crosses an invisible line on a map?
We accept this with almost no other right.
My driver’s license is honored in all 50 states. My freedom to speak, worship, and remain secure in my home does not evaporate at a tollbooth.
President Trump has made the same point since 2015, comparing a carry permit to a driver’s license: If one works in every state, so should the other.
The argument is common sense. The principle beneath it runs deeper.
The Second Amendment does not create the right to self-defense. It recognizes a natural right the founders understood to be endowed by God.
The right to keep and bear arms is not a permission slip issued by the government. It is the people’s right of self-preservation.
The founders knew what they were guarding against because they had lived under it.
Strip people of the means to defend themselves, and every other freedom becomes a favor granted by those in power. Free speech becomes a suggestion. Religious liberty becomes a privilege.
History is brutally consistent on this point: Disarmament often comes before oppression, not after it.
RELATED: ‘Shall not be infringed’ — even if you’re high, Supreme Court rules
Yet over the past century, America has moved from treating the right to bear arms as a birthright of citizenship to treating it, in too many places, as a government-granted privilege hedged in by fees, waiting periods, and paperwork.
The result is a maze of state and local laws so inconsistent that the same citizen, with the same clean record and character, can be legal in one state and a criminal the moment he crosses into another.
That is not the rule of law. That is a trap for honest people.
National reciprocity would cut through that maze. It would recognize a simple principle: Your right to carry should travel with you.
Twenty-nine states already recognize that citizens should not need government permission to carry. The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision also affirmed that the Constitution protects the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense rather than leaving it to the discretion of local officials.
Reciprocity would extend that logic across state lines.
So yes, the president’s words in Pennsylvania were encouraging. But encouragement is not law, and the bill remains stalled in the Senate. It will stay there unless the people who care about this issue make themselves heard.
I have often said that elections are only victories in individual battles. The fight for freedom continues long after the votes are counted.
This is one of those fights.
If you believe your God-given rights should not change the moment you cross a state line, say so. Call your senators. Talk to your neighbors. Make the national right to carry a question every candidate must answer.
Our rights are only as strong as our willingness to defend them.
The founders did their part. The question is whether we will do ours.
Rights don't change with zip codes: Glenn Beck slams Hawaii for using racist roots to restrict 2nd Amendment
Hawaii may be known for its beauty, but little known about the paradise is its anti-gun law — which forced gun owners to leave their firearms at home unless a public place posted that guns were welcome.
The state used its “spirit of aloha” as a reason for the law.
“So in other words, you can’t bring your gun anywhere unless it’s posted. Where the rest of the sane world, if a store owner says, ‘I don’t want guns in here,’ they have to post, ‘No guns allowed,’” BlazeTV host Glenn Beck explains.
“They fenced off 96% of publicly accessible land with a stroke of a pen. 96%. And they called it, proudly, the vampire rule. Because like a vampire, a vampire can’t cross the threshold unless you invite them in,” he says.
However, that all changed this past week in Wolford v. Lopez, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Hawaii's law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public violates the Second and 14th Amendments.
Glenn notes that Justice Alito played a huge part in the ruling, explaining that he “drove a stake through the heart of the vampire rule in Hawaii” when he ruled that your right to carry arms shouldn't end in your home.
“Alito said the Second Amendment means the same thing whether you have a lei around your neck or not. It doesn’t bend to the spirit of aloha any more than it bows to the mayor of, you know, Chicago or New York,” Glenn explains.
“A right is a right. It doesn’t change with zip codes,” he adds.
Hawaii also used an 1865 Louisiana statute as an example of the law being used before.
“If you’re going back and you’re looking for ways to defend yourself and you have to go to the South in the 1860s, it’s probably not going to be something you should say out loud,” Glenn says.
“That statute in 1865 said you can’t bring a gun on another man’s property without permission. And they actually said ‘that’s tradition.’ … No, that’s not tradition. That was called the Black Code. And it was written after the Civil War to disarm free black men so they couldn’t protect their families,” he continues.
“So the instrument that was used for racial disarmament, they said it’s the ‘spirit of aloha,’” he adds.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
DOJ Sues Virginia Over ‘Assault Firearms’ Ban
Enforcement of the ban has already been blocked by a Virginia judge.DOJ sues 2 states over latest gun-grab attempts
Just days before America's 250th anniversary celebration of our independence, the Democrats' latest attempts to take away American citizens' gun rights are being called out by the Department of Justice.
On Wednesday, the Department of Justice sued two different states, both of which are run by increasingly notorious Democrat governors, over their latest attempts to ban certain firearms.
'On April 10, I promised Governor Spanberger that we would sue Virginia if she signed this unconstitutional weapons ban into law. I keep my promises.'
The DOJ sued California and Virginia for their so-called "Glock ban" and the semi-automatic-weapon ban, respectively.
The lawsuit against California is in fact two-fold: First, the DOJ is challenging the ban of Glock-brand firearms, a popular choice of handgun among gun owners.
RELATED: 2A win: Appeals court in DC strikes down high-capacity magazine restrictions
Second, the DOJ is challenging the legality of California's "Gun Roster," which shows which pistols are allowed and which are banned.
The law triggering this ban was signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on October 25. The specific "Glock ban," as well as the ban on any other guns removed from the gun roster on January 1, was set to take effect on Wednesday.
Nearly 40 Glock models were removed from the gun roster at the beginning of this year, meaning they "may no longer be sold, offered for sale, imported for sale, or manufactured in California."
Additionally, more than 70 models from Auto-Ordnance; Magnum Research; Kimber; Sturm, Ruger & Co.; Kahr Arms; Phoenix Arms; Franklin Armory; Sig Sauer; and Nighthawk Custom were removed from the approved gun roster on the same day.
In a state Senate hearing last year to discuss the bill before it was signed into law, the group Gun Owners of California argued against the passage of the bill, warning that the language was "overly broad" and not primarily concerned with the safety of the public:
"By specifically targeting the potential for modification, this bill disproportionately affects potential Glock purchasers and restricts access to one of the most popular handguns available, further demonstrating that this legislation is not about safety but about incremental firearm prohibition."
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a press release Wednesday: “The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California. California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America. We will work to stop this blatant trampling of our rights by the California government to protect the rights of lawful gun owners.”
In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for Newsom told Blaze News:
The Trump administration is once again trying to dismantle California's commonsense gun safety laws. Our response is simple — these laws save lives. California has proven that strong, evidence-based gun safety measures can reduce gun violence while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners. That's why we have one of the lowest gun death rates in America and historically low crime rates across the board. We won't be intimidated by another politically motivated lawsuit. We'll continue defending the laws that protect Californians and keep dangerous weapons off our streets.
In addition to the DOJ's challenge to California, the Department of Justice is also suing Virginia for its newly enacted law that bans the purchase and sale of ordinary semi-automatic rifles.
The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger on May 14, essentially freezes the markets for sales of "assault firearms" in the commonwealth.
Similar to the California law, Virginia's ban was set to take effect on July 1, thus triggering the two lawsuits on the same day.
“On April 10, I promised Governor Spanberger that we would sue Virginia if she signed this unconstitutional weapons ban into law. I keep my promises,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a press release. “Law-abiding Americans should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction for simply exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms owned by millions of their fellow citizens.”
Spanberger's office did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
SCOTUS Will Decide Constitutionality Of So-Called ‘Assault Weapons’ Bans
In their appeal, the plaintiffs argue that 'the very term "assault weapon" is a political slogan masquerading as a meaningful designation.'
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com