New US Congress to Draft National Right-to-Carry Legislation

The Constitution of the United States and its amendments are national law. It was ratified by the original 13 states and accepted by states that joined the Union thereafter. This includes the Second Amendment. 

State governments have defied and countered the articles and amendments of the US Constitution, just as the federal, central government has ignored and defiled constitutional law regarding state rights.

State governments can add to, but not counter constitutional law. For example, the Second Amendment states that:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to ensure that proper background checks are conducted, state governments have initiated a concealed carry permit system. The concept that lawful citizens, those not convicted of a crime, an adult who is at least 21 years of age, and mentally stable; can apply and receive a concealed carry permit.

There are state governments that still do not comply with the Second Amendment and refuse to recognize that the Second Amendment, including Conceal-Carry permits issued by any state, are not permitted.

The US Supreme Court Justices have failed to honor their oaths of office by allowing state governments to counter constitutional law.

Anyone with a valid conceal-carry permit may carry a concealed firearm in any state of the Union, according to the Constitution of the United States.

Thus, the US Congress is considering legislation that will require states to honor valid concealed firearm carry permits issued by other states sometime in 2015. Logically and in conjunction with the concept of the separate branched divisions of the federal government, Congress should not have to pass such a law – if the US Supreme Court were performing their duties per their oaths of office.

Daniel Webster (not the one who created the first American dictionary), director of the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research apparently is not knowledgeable of constitutional law, who the Washington Post reported saying:

More guns in a fairly unregulated environment make it not hard at all to see how problems can occur at some point later on.

States that have adopted Right-to-Carry laws have not shown an increase of violent crimes as gun control (draconian government control of people from cradle to grave) freaks have continually predicted.

When Illinois finally adopted a Right-to-Carry law, the Brady Campaign folks dubbed the move as “dangerous”, and the Violence Policy Center stated it would increase mass murders and the murder of law enforcement officers. New York remains an anti-Second Amendment state, yet two officers were murdered with firearms in retribution recently. It is an example that if lawful citizens are not allowed their right to carry and defend themselves (and others) – only criminal citizens (and law enforcement) will have firearms.

At present, 42 states have Right-to-Carry laws and there are 12 million Americans who have legal, valid carry permits. The national murder rate has fallen to an all-time low. Despite evidence proving them wrong, gun control freaks like Daniel Webster continue to chant their unconstitutional rhetoric based upon their opinion and not statistical fact. 

When a citizen fron one state is traveling across the United States and has a valid concealed-carry permit - it should be recognized in every state of the Union. The only exception would be if a citizen was traveling by public air transportation for obvious security reasons. But, if a person is traveling from one state to another or across several states in an vehicle - there permits should be valid in all 50 states. 

This congressional move to force state governments to honor the articles and amendments of the US Constitution may be able to pass Congress, but will certainly be vetoed by President Obama, just as he threatens Keystone legislation. Once again, if the US Supreme Court justices do what they are paid to do - it can declare that Obama's veto is unconstitutional and so are state governments who counter constitutional law, in this case, the Second Amendment.

Those local municipalities who think they are performing a public service by publishing names and addresses of firearm owners should be stopped by their state governments and the media that publishes them should be taken to court in a libel suit. Imagine, if the NRA would publish the names and addresses of homeowners who do NOT have firearms. Those listed would not only become victims of burglary and other criminal actions, but would certainly have the right to protest because their right to privacy would be violated. 
The Second Amendment insists that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but it does not demand that all citizens own firearms. Progressive political activists who call themselves "liberal" seem to think they can dictate and counter freedom of choice and individuality; burdening others with their ideology with demands that other citizens be forced to comply with their intrusive mentalities. They think nothing of governing other citizens' lives and believe their life is better by providing those that operate our government to make decisions that belong to individuals. Progressive-liberal-socialists think that the state can run their lives better than they can, and others should be forced to do the same. That is mob rule, not rule by law; and it is why the Founders created a system of government that limits the power and authority of the federal, state, and local governments.

In the past five decades (and more) the federal government has steadily ignored constitutional law because Justices of the US Supreme Court have not honored their oaths of office and have made decisions based upon consensus and examples of foreign laws. In addition, as in the case of the income tax system, when the US Supreme Court makes a decision that legislation (or in this case the 16th Amendment) is unconstitutional, it is the duty of the Justices to ensure that the US Constitution and its amendment are upheld and that no new amendments are added that counter the articles of the Constitution. It is the duty of the Justices of that court to ensure that all states comply with constitutional law; and in turn, it is the right of any state government to refuse to comply with any federal law that counters the articles and amendments of the US Constitution.

It has been long overdue that the federal government reform itself and return to what the Founders created and the US Constitution demands. If those states that border the US-Mexico demarcation line must see to their own defense against invaders because the federal government ignores immigration laws - they have a right to do so.

The federal government is authorized to coin and regulate the national currency, be involved in foreign affairs that include trade and treaties, and perform its duties in accordance to what the constitutional law dictates; abiding by the limitations of power and authority prescribed.
The educational system needs to be turned over to state governments. Arguments that waste time and energy of the US Congress, and the US Supreme Court with arguments over marriage, should be turned over to state governments in respect to deciding whether same sex marriages should be legal. State governments issue marriage licenses, not the federal government; and unless an amendment is made in the US Constitution, the federal government has no authority or obligation to dictate marriage laws. Since most marriages are sanctified by religious doctrine, traditionally, churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques have the right to refuse to marry couples of the same sex. If the 16th Amendment and the income tax system is repealed - the argument would mostly fade away. The income tax system is not only intrusive, but it is unfair as to who pays or who does not pay and how much. Persons that are single to do not get tax credits like married couples - part of the argument of same-sex couples getting married. 
As you can see from these brief examples, which should include the dissolving of the Federal Reserve system, there is much work to do in order to get our nation back on track towards a constitutional republic whose government powers and authority are limited and delete legislation and regulations that counter those liberties and rights of individuals, organizations, and state governments. The federal government cannot properly administer those obligations, like the post office system and foreign affairs, so why are citizens insisting they oversee personal private sector affairs like health care, marriage, et cetera.

Now is the time to initiate that much needed reformation of the federal government in its intended and constitutional form as a constitutional republic, now that the Republicans have a chance to prove they are constitutionalists by effectively using their majority in the US Congress. It will require extensive labor, but laws that have passed and are countering the limitations of the federal government must be rewritten or repealed - and that includes the 16th Amendment.