more good guys with guns is always good but as I stated in another thread the LEOSA act has to have ALL qualified american citizens included, these carve outs for select people has to stop.the second amendment is for everyone.
2 Likes
I completely agree, but the problem is finding the the votes to do it. There is currently a zero percent chance they will be able to pass nationwide reciprocity. Hopefully that changes in the future, but in the mean time, which is better? SOME good guys with guns, or none? If there were to be a challenge to LEOSA, and assuming a court strikes it down, that wouldn’t mean that everyone gets to carry everywhere. It would mean NO ONE would. It’s an equal protection question, not a 2nd amendment question. The courts have already said that everyone has the right to carry, but they have left it up to the states to create their own standards (so long as they are objective and not “may issue.”). The only way to override those standards is new federal legislation. FWIW I think it’s a moot point anyway. No chance the special operations carry bill passes. Honestly, if LEOSA didn’t already exist and it were introduced today, I don’t think it would pass either. Democrats have zero interest in expanding gun rights for anyone.
Maybe if everyone was treated equally, the special groups who wouldn’t be getting treated special anymore would fight alongside the normies and nobody would get violated.
1 Like
We already do, brother. Still need 60 in the Senate to pass anything (unless the filibuster gets nixed, but that’s another topic entirely). If your opinion is, “Id rather nobody have national reciprocity than any particular group,” I respect that. Like I said before, I think there’s a very good argument that LEOSA violates the equal protection act. I just wanted to emphasize that the courts can only strike down laws, they can’t make new ones.