House Republicans Advance Bill Making It Easier to Carry Guns Across State Lines

By | December 1, 2017

  • December 1, 2017 at 11:00 am
    AlJohn FranKonyers Hypocrite Groapologists says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 24
    Thumb down 23

    Hooray for defenders of the 2nd Amendment in their fight against those who would leave innocents defenseless against criminals!

    MAGA with this action, as well as this other key step for 2017;

  • December 1, 2017 at 11:07 am
    alexjonesisakook says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 29
    Thumb down 11

    I too applaud this decision. A woman from the Philly area drove across the bridge to NJ and forgot that she had her legally licensed pistol in her car. She was pulled over, found to be in possession of the gun, charged with a felony and promptly jailed. There either needs to be reciprocity / consistency across state lines or have the laws more clearly posted.

    • December 1, 2017 at 2:40 pm
      Confused says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 14
      Thumb down 4

      So if someone has a valid prescription for medicinal marijuana in a state that allows it, but brings the drugs to a state where it’s still illegal, I presume you believe they should NOT be found guilty of possession in the cross over state (not federal prosecution; state prosecution)?

      • December 1, 2017 at 2:53 pm
        alexjonesisakook says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 10
        Thumb down 1

        That’s an interesting point, Confused, and I’ll unashamedly tell you I don’t have an answer. My personal opinion is that I don’t believe there should be a “One size fits all” test when it comes to some laws, but should depend on the individual situation. In the instance I referenced earlier, the woman was a law-abiding citizen who legally carried a firearm in her home state. Without knowing the gun laws in the state of New Jersey, she accidentally brought her firearm across state lines. In this circumstance, I don’t believe she should have been charged with a felony or detained. Maybe they could have confiscated her firearm while she was in New Jersey and let her have it back when she left.

        My opinion on marijuana use is quite a bit more liberal. I have no problem with it either recreational or medicinal. I personally choose not to use it, but I don’t have a problem with those who do as long as they’re not hurting others.

        • December 1, 2017 at 7:23 pm
          Confused says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 1

          Thank you for your well reasoned and rational response. There are many who see today’s world as simply black and white with no shades of gray. Always nice to come across a thoughtful and honest mind who understands the One Size Fits All option isn’t nuanced enough for the complex issues we’re dealing with.

          • December 4, 2017 at 10:57 am
            mrbob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            When an amendment is passed protecting the right to keep and bare medical marijuana then I will agree with you completely on the subject Confused. Until that time as we as a country for whatever reason have agreed to allow the federal government to control medicine the law is the law regardless of how stupid.

            We need to limit the size and power of the feds and put more power back to the states as the founders had desired.

            Drain the swamp of all career politicians.

          • December 4, 2017 at 3:51 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            “When an amendment is passed protecting the right to keep and bare medical marijuana…” Why do we need an amendment to use a plant or any other unaltered item for consumption?

            “We need to limit the size and power of the feds and put more power back to the states as the founders had desired.” That is exactly the opposite of what this law does. It is a federal law that will limit the power of the individual states.

          • December 5, 2017 at 4:18 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 4

            “Why do we need an amendment to use a plant or any other unaltered item for consumption?”

            Unaltered does not equate to safe.

            We should we screen any supplements or have the FDA involved with the supplement industry? There is a method of using rice to extract the sweetener inside the rice. It’s considered a “natural” sweetener. Until people realized that all rice has a small amount of potentially harmful ingredients taken in excess, which guess what? Grinding up rice takes a ton to get a small amount of syrup (sweetener). In other words: It is potentially harmful. This is an attempt to make use of a potentially harmful method as a hallucigen. You are again trying to disprove your audience by proving them hypocrites and are trying false equivalency. It not only makes you a smart alec, it makes you a fool, and unethical, and sleazy, and immoral. Maybe you should go to your priest on this, if you’re really a Catholic, as to your methods to discredit people with different beliefs than you (essentially say they aren’t logically consistent).

            Another few items: The government shouldn’t be involved at all right? We should stop all imprisonment to make government roles at zero right?

          • December 7, 2017 at 6:03 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            @Ron; Why create laws that prevents sale of harmful natural substances? The Constitutions provides citizens the right to Life (Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness).
            Arsenic sales would violate that right.

      • December 1, 2017 at 2:55 pm
        Redge says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 3

        Well considering one is against federal law and the other isn’t your argument is invalid even though you are talking about state prosecution. It’s comparing apples to oranges.

        I think Marijuana should be federally legalized. Stupid not to collect taxes on it, but that’s a different discussion.

        • December 1, 2017 at 7:29 pm
          Confused says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          You’re right – they are similar concepts, but it definitely wasn’t a perfect analogy. Just trying to point out interstate and sometimes federal laws conflict with each other and we need to be aware which Rule of the Land we think should apply when they’re different.

        • December 2, 2017 at 7:03 am
          AlJohn FranKonyers Hypocrite Groapologists says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 8

          Actually, it’s stupid to consider TAX REVENUE as a reason to federally legalize marijuana. AND ignoring the social suffering costs associated with marijuana ARE NEVER DISCUSSED by proponents of its legalization. Those costs to society FAR outweigh any TAX REVENUES gained by taxing if it would be legalized. Further, if, after it might become legal to use, the taxation of it would start out modest, but rise anytime Socialist / Communists decided to increase spending to secure more votes from liberals and moderates, to try to stay in power to continue their vicious spend and tax and spend cycle.

          • December 4, 2017 at 11:02 am
            mrbob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            Aljohn,
            I would like to see an analysis on the social costs of enforcement actions, including incarceration Vs the cost of treatment. Me thinks we may be better to let adults make decisions even if stupid, regarding drugs, vs the cost of enforcement and incarceration.

            Are there other cost certainly but I think we can all agree that the only winner of todays policies are organized crime.

            Remember back to the basic economic equation as long as there is demand there will certainly be those willing to supply.

          • December 4, 2017 at 12:15 pm
            Hmm says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            What are the social suffering costs? Since they are never discussed, I’m curious to what you may know on that topic?

            If they far outweigh any tax revenue benefits, the social suffering that accompanies the legalization of marijuana must be immense.

            Any examples or figures?

          • December 4, 2017 at 3:22 pm
            alexjonesisakook says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 0

            Yogi–by that argument, gambling, alcohol and tobacco should all be illegal yet the government makes millions off all of them. All cause more harm than good, yet there are those who partake in moderation and nobody gets hurt. It really shows that the government ultimately doesn’t care unless they can make a buck.

            I realize that you’ll label me a libitteral and that the odds of either of changing our minds are slimmer than the Browns making it to the Super Bowl, but I thank you for the discussion nonetheless.

          • December 4, 2017 at 4:38 pm
            AlJohn FranKonyers Hypocrite Groapologists says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 7

            @MrBob; the internet is searchable; use BinGoogle or other search engines. You’ll be amazed at the societal pains and consequences caused by pot use. There’s so many studies and reports of sad incidents of loss of life, loss of jobs, loss of family relationships, by stoners who can’t accept the facts.

      • December 1, 2017 at 5:41 pm
        GroPoLaeur Bear says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 3

        Why is this becoming an issue? Can’t you stay on topic?

    • December 2, 2017 at 12:06 pm
      AlJohn FranKonyers Hypocrite Groapologists says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 2

      People who cite isolated incidents as a reason to oppose something HIGHLY beneficial to everyone, and/ or use denigrating names to describe those they oppose, or try to associate legislation with an individual who DOESN’T represent the overall population, are demonstrating their inability to debate the facts and discredit the data.

  • December 1, 2017 at 1:26 pm
    Dodie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 6

    This is good decision, however, rejecting an amendment that would ban violent offenders from qualifying under the law, as well as a change that would have prevented forum shopping, which means a New York resident barred from obtaining a concealed carry permit could instead send away for one from somewhere else is not . These amendments are reasonable.

    • December 1, 2017 at 1:36 pm
      RightNYer says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      No, they’re not reasonable. The amendment to exclude violent offenders was rejected because it was ALREADY the law. The bill proposes to cover anyone who is “not prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm.” Since violent offenders already are, the amendment would have been unnecessary.

    • December 1, 2017 at 2:02 pm
      Redge says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 2

      I agree with the violent offenders amendment, although its already against federal law for someone charged with domestic violence to possess a firearm, another layer of security doesn’t hurt. Where I disagree with you is on “forum shopping”. I live in California, one of, if not the strictest gun law states. While I am on the 5 year waiting list to be interviewed to be able to apply for a CC permit, the chances of me being able to apply are almost zero. Why? Because I don’t carry large amounts of cash or valuable for work. That’s basically the only way to get a CC permit here. It doesn’t matter that the worst crime I’ve committed is going 10mph over the speed limit or that I have several training certifications and years of firearms experience.

      I work in some of the most dangerous places in the country. Doing commercial insurance means I have clients in areas like Compton, LA, Long Beach, San Bernardino, Santa Ana, etc.. And 9 time out of 10 I am alone, but wanting the ability to protect myself doesn’t matter.

      So once this law passes one of two things will happen, at least in my specific situation. One, the state will see that all of these residents on their waiting lists are just going out of state get their CC permits and realize that since they are going to have to abide by this law anyway they might as well collect the fees and taxes that go along with it instead of letting another state collect them or they will continue being stubborn. Either way it benefits the people in states like mine who are willing to pay the fees and taxes and go through the training. I don’t see a downside to this anywhere.

  • December 1, 2017 at 1:38 pm
    Redge says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 7

    Wow, could this article be more slanted? Notice that every point mentioned was negative and ZERO were positive?

    How about mentioning the fact the places with higher CC permit percentages have less gun crime?

    How about mentioning the fact that its already against FEDERAL law to own firearm if you’ve been convicted of domestic violence?

    How come they don’t talk about how much training and how many background checks you have to go through to get a CC permit?

    Or the fact that its almost impossible to get a CC permit in many states like CA or NY and how well trained and law abiding citizens cant even apply for one because wanting to protect themselves is not “just cause”.

    How about mentioning the fact that this bill will only protect law abiding citizens from criminals who have illegal firearms already?

    This article is a joke.

  • December 1, 2017 at 1:39 pm
    CalDude says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 18

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • December 1, 2017 at 2:17 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 4

      Well CalDude, California sure showed the country their true beliefs on the Steinle trial, didn’t they? What a travesty. Feel sorry for her parents that justice was not served.

      • December 1, 2017 at 2:29 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 11

        Ah yes, what Faux Newz and Rush are focusing on today rather than #happyflynnfriday – I listened.

        As I understand it from the facts of the case, the shooting was an accident. Yes, he was undocumented, much like the Polish workers our president paid $4/hour.

        • December 1, 2017 at 2:50 pm
          Redge says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 1

          A violent illegal alien who had been deported 5 times already steals a gun from a park rangers car after he was released from jail and not deported because SF is a sanctuary city and shoots an innocent girl. Seems like an accident to me. Couldn’t have been prevented at all.

          SF handing him over to ICE after he was released from jail wouldn’t have helped right? Tighter borders wouldn’t have helped right? This was all just a tragic accident, huh? Everyone is a victim here.

          And you’re so right, violent criminals and undocumented workers trying to make a living are the same, just innocent victims.

        • December 1, 2017 at 5:03 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 1

          The shooting was an “accident”?!??!?

          Imagine if your relative was “accidentally” killed by a convicted felon who was committing another felony just by possessing a weapon (which had been stolen).

          Imagine if some innocent numbskull decided to pull the trigger on a gun in a crowded public area and your daughter was killed.

          Man, liberals have so little compassion when you really boil it down.

          • December 5, 2017 at 1:44 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Who’s a liberal? I’m trying to take the conservative approach I hear peddled out here all the time. What is it Yogi always says when it comes to losing lives due to a lack of access to quality healthcare? Or, a mass shooting in Vegas? Oh yeah, no one is guaranteed immortality. I’m just trying to take the GOP approach to Americans dying.

          • December 5, 2017 at 3:22 pm
            integrity matters says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Liberals think it is okay to kill babies. So is this really a surprise?

          • December 5, 2017 at 3:53 pm
            alexjonesisakook says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Integrity–

            Pretty offensive statement. Ever been in a situation where you might have HAD to choose abortion as a medical option? I have, during what turned out to be our second miscarriage (we’ve had 4, luckily we have also had 2 beautiful daughters). By the grace of God, we didn’t have to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy as the decision was made for us, but there was a time when we very nearly had to make a decision. Our political views had nothing to do with it.

            Another time, my good friend and his wife had an “oops.” She was also being treated for lymphoma at the time. They had to make the hardest decision in their lives. Neither of them are hardly “liberals”, in fact I believe he voted for Trump this year.

            I hope you never find yourself in either situation but if it makes you feel better to make broad-sweeping generalizations, please go right ahead as it’s your right.

        • December 1, 2017 at 5:09 pm
          Perplexed says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 1

          How do you shoot someone 3 times by accident? Did you read this rats history? He’s violent and has been deported numerous times. Sanctuary cities are a travesty and only there to protect illegals who will cast votes for liberals.

  • December 1, 2017 at 3:41 pm
    Dennis J. byrne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 8

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen in my lifetime a federal government less representative of the wants of the American people. 62% of the public wants an end to oil & gas subsides. 72% want the minimum wage raised to at least $15.00 an hour. 68% support a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. 83% support lowering student loan interest to 3.4% or lower. The Buffett rule – a minimum 30% tax rate for millionaires is supported by 71% of Americans. And a whopping 92% of voters support background checks for ALL gun purchases. And yet on every single one of these issues, bills to address it were introduced by democrats and blocked by republican filibusters in the Senate and of course were never even allowed to come up for a vote in the House asylum. All this and yet what do the few voters who voted in 2016 give us? Vote republicans in both the Senate and the House. The American voter is the very definition of cognitive dissonance. Enjoy this cesspool swimming. You voted for it

    • December 1, 2017 at 4:13 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 0

      Cognitive Dissonance: knowing something and ignoring it. Ignorance: not knowing important facts. The Federal Government released a study a long time ago estimating that 60,000. violent crimes are prevented every year by a citizen with a gun. Not a cop. A private citizen.

      How many murders would you estimate were stopped if 60,000. violent crimes were prevented? (Florida State study estimated 1,000,000. violent crimes are stopped annually).

      And yet all the left ignorantly talks about are the roughly 4,000. committed by someone with a gun annually.

      All of a sudden, self-righteous posturing begins to look a little foolish.

      • December 1, 2017 at 6:02 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 2

        Craig, there is a gun in about every home in Switzerland and yet almost no gun violence. I wonder why that is.

        • December 1, 2017 at 7:20 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Because our country has about 30% of the country that is functionally illiterate and can’t find decent pay for jobs that went to illegals a long time ago. And Switzerland doesn’t.

      • December 2, 2017 at 11:11 pm
        Doug Fisher says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        Please cite this federal study. I have heard of similar numbers, but it was always involving cops, not just citizens.

        On the other hand, the FBI keeps citizen “justifiable homicide” stats on hand and there were about 200 one year. Of course, in that same year, there were TENS OF THOUSANDS of people killed by guns.

        The numbers rarely add up. Guns in the right hands (well-trained police officers) = good. Guns in the hands of Joe Sixpack, who has never received training on proper usage, storage, and cleaning = bad.

        Gun ownership should absolutely be treated like a license in a modern society. Just like we don’t allow Grandma Cataracts behind the wheel of a car, we shouldn’t allow anyone and everyone to own an instrument designed and purposed for killing.

        just my 2 cents.

        And Dennis: thanks for the post, but you should source your stats for those of us who actually care.

        • December 4, 2017 at 12:23 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 4

          Substitute Stoner Steve for grandma cataracts and you’re getting close to a meaningful suggestion. Cataracts are easily and cheaply treatable.

          Modern society shouldn’t treat gun ownership any differently than Colonial/ Revolutionary days. Responsible, mature people are given the right to own guns by the US Constitution. That right doesn’t change because a small faction of Socialist / Communists want to seize control over the People and put down any dissent by People without a means to defend themselves from oppressive rulers.

        • December 4, 2017 at 4:35 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 3

          “Cite the study.” The usual liberal response to their own ignorance. And then whey I cite the study, you will discredit it for some inane reason (too conservative!).

          Order the book: “Republican Like Me”, written by the former CEO of PBS, a liberal of course. In it, he cites the research that he was unaware of that changed his mind on gun control.

          PS Only a little over 4,000. people are killed by someone with a gun. The remainder are suicides. And before you jump on that train, consider Japan, where guns are illegal but suicides are higher than in the U.S.

    • December 1, 2017 at 4:55 pm
      Redge says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 1

      Dennis, lets do a little breakdown and fact check on your comment.

      1- Raising minimum wage to $15 would be a nightmare and more people would lose their jobs then benefit. You see it happening in the fast food industry already where they are replacing employees with kiosks. Minimum wage is not intended to be lived off for a lifetime, its intended to be a first job type situation to gain experience then move on or up and start a career.

      2-There already is a path to citizenship, its 6 steps, it costs $595 and an additional $85 biometrics fee, and takes 6 months to a year to complete. It is significantly easier than other countries like Japan, Australia, Germany, etc..

      3- I agree with you on the student loan interest, but that has more to do with lenders than it does with government. People getting the “student loan interest tax deduction”, only average a $200 refund. Predatory lending is what needs to be stopped.

      4-Considering the federal tax rate for individuals making $415,050 or more and $466,950 for joint income is 39.6%. I think 30% sounds great to them!

      5-Background checks are are already required to ALL gun purchases unless it’s a private party sale or gift.The “gun show loophole” doesn’t exist. Just go and try to buy a gun without a background check, you will see just how difficult it really is.

      You are obviously very far left in your beliefs and your false information reflects that. Don’t get me wrong though, people from the far right are just as bad. Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian this particular bill is good for everyone.

  • December 1, 2017 at 3:44 pm
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    About time.

  • December 1, 2017 at 4:00 pm
    Scott D says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Concealed carry permit holders have been proven to commit LESS crimes than law enforcement officers.
    If a person cannot legally own a gun then they CANNOT have a concealed carry permit and this legislation does NOT permit them to “hide” a gun when crossing a state line.
    The false information being spread by the left and all those uninformed is truly hard to understand.
    Don’t people understand the basic fact that people who don’t obey laws have been hiding their illegally obtained guns and crossing state lines all along? Is that so hard to understand or are some people really that close minded and dumb?
    This law simply allows law abiding citizens who legally can own a handgun and who legally have a concealed carry permit to be able to carry their gun when they leave their home state without the fear of being arrested for wanting to protect themselves and their loved ones.
    Why has the 2nd amendment been the ONLY right that we lose when we cross a state line?
    Why should a state, like NY, NJ, and MD have the right to tell us our 2A right does NOT exist in their state? That is absurd!

  • December 1, 2017 at 8:44 pm
    Clifford Ishii says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Democrat gun control/gun laws can be circumvented by having and carrying a Jo staff as an alternative weapon

  • December 4, 2017 at 9:51 am
    Dani says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    It is my right to own a gun. I have a CC permit. I go into not so hot neighborhoods for commercial insurance. I have been trained and keep a clean gun. Some of my family resides in a county that is known for hunting& fishing. The kids learn at an early age ” proper handling “. In PA we have pretty good background checks. The out of state CC issue would be great for my husbands occupation , he does commercial and police towing. He needs to be safe. I am also a past victim of domestic violence. Would have liked to have known how to handle and protect myself way back then. You can tighten up the CC laws a tad but it’s a choice and freedom remember.

  • December 4, 2017 at 4:15 pm
    Ron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    “This is just simple, common-sense legislation that says if you’re a law-abiding citizen … we’re not going to turn you into a criminal just for crossing an invisible state line,” bill sponsor Rep. Richard Hudson.

    So, why not say this about all state laws? If someone were to obtain marijuana in a state where it is legal, then cross into a state where it is not, is that not the same predicament?

    “The American people are sick of the liberal elites in New York and San Francisco trying to tell us that we don’t have the right to defend ourselves,” Hudson also said. Then don’t go to those states.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/major-concealed-carry-bill-picks-up-momentum-steams-toward-house-floor.html

    • December 4, 2017 at 4:19 pm
      Ron says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Another doozie from that article, “Hudson argues his bill says law-abiding citizens with concealed-carry permits must follow that law of the state they are in.” What happens if you’re in a state where it is illegal to conceal, even with a permit? Does each person carrying need to know the laws in each states where they travel?

    • December 5, 2017 at 5:19 pm
      integrity matters says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Ron,

      All good questions. According to the Supremacy Clause, Federal laws wins over State laws when there is a conflict between the two PROVIDED the federal government is acting within its constitutional powers. Otherwise, the state laws prevail.

      States decriminalizing marijuana may be an overreach since they are in direct conflict with the Federal law. This is why the neighboring state may have a “right” to arrest the individual.

      In the gun issue, all US citizens have a constitutional right to own guns. The laws against conceal/carry walk dangerously close to trampling on those rights. They officially don’t, since all states permit gun ownership. Apparently those states believe gun owners should display their guns when transporting them.

      • December 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        Most drug offenses, especially possession to which I was referring, are prosecuted under state laws, not federal. Therefor, the supremacy clause would not apply.

        As with the drug offenses, gun laws are prosecuted the same way.

        Why are you so against states being able to apply their laws the way they see fit? Since when do Conservatives favor federal oversight over stats’ rights?

        The times, they are a changin’



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features