One was the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill, Thomas Massie’s, and the other one was the Concealed Carry Reciprocity that had to do with permits. And it has been a lot of feedback where people want the constitutional carry one. So let’s go over this bill. It’s quick, it’s easy. It’s technically five pages, but it’s all spaced out. It’s like 12 paragraphs. And I’m going to show you exactly what it says and what my problems are with it. And I know Thomas Massie and his office watch the channel. Hopefully we can fix this bill, sir, and make it one that the country really wants.

I don’t think we need a bill. I think the Second Amendment says what it says, but without further ado, here we go. Here’s the bill. It was submitted on September 11th of 2024 for this session of Congress, which is ending. It’s currently HR 9534, zero chance that it’ll pass this session. It will be resubmitted. And here is what the bill says. It says, be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in the United States of America in Congress assembled. This act may be cited as the National Constitutional Carry Act. Congress finds the following one, recognizing the preexisting right to self defense.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees individually to American citizens, the right to keep their arms, including the rights to bear arms in public to the Second Amendment decrees that these rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and was enumerated in order to preserve the security of a free state. Three, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court confirmed that quote, there seems to us no doubt on the basis of both text and history that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Four, in McDonald v.

City of Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment fully applicable to the states. Four justices concluded that the rights protected by the Second Amendment are fundamental to the nation’s scheme of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition, and therefore incorporated to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Thomas agreed that the rights protected by the Second Amendment are both fundamental and deeply rooted and as such are enforceable against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. Five, recently the Supreme Court acknowledged in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v.

Bruin that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the individual right to carry arms outside of the home for self-defense. Further, the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment’s otherwise unqualified command only accommodates laws that are consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Six, certain states and localities have enacted gun control laws that are not consistent with the text of the Second Amendment or this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The criminalization of peaceable public firearms carry is repugnant to the original meaning of the Second Amendment. I’ll pause right there because everything he said so far is 100% correct.

It’s actually been case law. It was Supreme Court decisions. And I also want to say it’s New Year’s Eve Day. We’re starting our New Year’s sale over at Blackout Coffee. Save 25% on all coffee with code NEWYEAR25. Links down below, blackoutcoffee.com slash G&G. If you haven’t tried our cold brews in a can, they are phenomenal, phenomenal. And it’s a chance to get them for 25% off. Check us out, blackoutcoffee.com slash G&G. Thank you for your support of our company. New Year 25 is the code. Back to the bill. Seven, any state or local restriction on the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms impairs the ability of the Second Amendment to achieve its textually specified purpose, the security of a free state.

It goes into Section 3. It says in general, Section 927 of Title 18 U.S.C. is amended to read as follows. Section 927, the right to keep and bear arms. A, no state or political subdivision of any state may impose a criminal or civil penalty on or otherwise indirectly dissuade the carrying of firearms, including by imposing a financial or other barrier to entry in public by residents or non-residents of that state who are citizens of the United States. And otherwise eligible to possess firearms under state and federal law. B, any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a state or a political subdivision of a state that criminalizes, penalizes, or otherwise indirectly dissuades the carrying of firearms, including by imposing a financial or other barrier to entry in public by any resident or non-resident who is a United States citizen and otherwise eligible to possess a firearm under state and federal law, shall have no force or effect.

All right, so what he’s saying is as long as you are not federally prohibited or prohibited by your state or the state that you’re in for whatever your criminal history might be, there is nothing a state can do to inhibit your lawful carry of firearms in public for self-defense. I agree. Now we’re getting to the area where he kind of goes against what he just said. I’ll explain it for you and I want you to tell me in the comments if you believe or agree with rather what he’s saying. Okay, first let’s clean this up. C, the term state as used in this section includes the District of Columbia, so this is for Washington DC, includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States, not including the Canal Zone.

D, the term public as used in this section, and here’s the problems, guys. One includes any place held open to the public regardless of ownership, but in the case of a privately owned location held open to the public does not include a place where the owner communicates clearly and conspicuously a prohibition of firearms on the premises. And two, does not include a place where screening for firearms is conducted under state law. And then the last part is the clerical amendment, the table of sections for such chapters amended by striking the item related to section 927 and inserting the following, the right to keep and bear arms.

All right, here’s my issue. Sounds great, right? Everybody’s like, yes, it’s constitutional carry, but it’s not because, and this is the quote my friend said to me, human beings have rights, not states. And if a place is open to the public, then it’s really not a private place. And if it’s open to the public, our rights, to keep and bear arms, should extend into that facility. We should be able to protect ourselves in private businesses, if they’re open to the public, and I agree with that. How do we get there? Well, we remove stuff like that and just say if the place is open to the public, then the public have all of the rights that the public have.

I also believe in private property rights for like my home, your home, you can set the rules of your castle. But if I own a business that’s downtown, it’s open to the public, and I don’t specifically take the take a hold of people’s safety, meaning I don’t put armed people there to protect them, then I shouldn’t be able to say they can’t have their own their own guns to protect themselves. Because crime happens everywhere. In a blink of an eye, things are happening. You can’t even ride a subway that is controlled by the National Guard without being worried that you’ll be slashed in the neck or burnt alive.

So and that’s an area that is a gun free zone because the guns are the problem. No, it’s the criminals that are a problem. So I think Thomas Massey kind of had a little double talk here. He’s saying no, no state or any subdivision of state can infringe on this right to keep and bear arms. But if you have a private place that’s open to the public, then you can if you put up a sign. And in most states, signs hold no weight of law. They just don’t. And the second part where he says it does not include a place where screening for firearms is conducted under state law.

That is one of those things, I believe, like if you follow my channel for the last couple of years, anytime there’s a major ruling that’s pro-Second Amendment, the anti-gun states and groups, they always look for the way to bastardize what those justices said. They look for an open door that they can jump through and use as a loophole. That’s a loophole. He just put a loophole in this bill. If I’m a state, like if I’m Kathy Hochul, I’m going to say, OK, well, if I can just do lawful screening by state law everywhere, then I can keep people’s guns out of there.

So then I’ll just post a magnetometer at 25 buildings, and now those 25 buildings are off limits. So those two things I disagree with. And one other thing that my buddy Alan said is, why is the government legislating behavior at private businesses? And I never thought of it that way, and I agree. They have no right to tell you what you can and can’t do in your private business. It’s the same reason Kathy Hochul is getting sued by GOA and his five lawsuits total about her telling all the private businesses in the city, in New York City, that they were now gun-free zones, like the entire Times Square area.

And the third thing, I’ve put it again here as I’m editing, because I forgot to say it, we’re past the point of the sun beaming on my face, past the point of giving up stuff to get stuff. No more concessions, period, point blank. The Republicans have all three branches of government starting January 20, and it’s time for them to honor what they said they would do if we honored them with our vote. No concessions to get anything back. And that’s that. Sorry, not sorry. Let me know what you think down below. I appreciate you all. Thank you so much for your time.

Don’t forget, 25% off blackoutcoffee.com slash GNG use code NEWYEAR25 and get you some of the best coffee on the planet. Made right, well made around the world, but we roasted ourselves, we flavored ourselves, grind ourselves in Florida, and we ship it to you. Have a great day. Take care. Thank you. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.