Tag: Act

Posted on

States Vs Federal Constitutional Carry

Wayne Thorn

I recently had written to my U.S. Congressman about the upcoming HR 38 Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and HR 645 National Constitutional Carry Act, telling him how I would want him to vote on these two bills on the HR 645 he sent me a letter stating that he thought that it should be handled by the State’s not by the Federal Government.

March 26, 2025

Dear Mr. Thorn,

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 645, the National Constitutional Carry Act. This bill was introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on January 23, 2025. It has since been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further review.

The National Constitutional Carry Act ensures the protection of Americans’ Second Amendment right by prohibiting any state or local government from imposing civil or criminal penalties on an individual eligible to possess a firearm in a public setting. The bill also invalidates any standing state or local statute, regulation, or law that prohibits an individual from carrying a firearm in public.

I adamantly oppose any regulations or laws that would make firearms or ammunition less accessible or more difficult to obtain for all law-abiding Americans. For this reason, I have co-sponsored several pieces of legislation relating to the protection of our Second Amendment rights. I’ve previously co-introduced the Stopping Unconstitutional Background Checks Act, which prohibits federal funds from being used to expand the licensing requirements for individuals attempting to obtain a firearm. Regulating a legal hobby the same as a federally licensed gun store is extreme government overreach and infringes on the rights of law-abiding Americans. I also cosponsored H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which amends federal law to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines. A qualified individual must be eligible to possess a firearm under federal law, carry a government-issued photo ID, and carry a valid concealed carry permit.

Safe and responsible firearms ownership is part of America’s foundational document, the Constitution, and continues to contribute to individual and public safety. While I am a supporter of constitutional carry and have advocated for laws that protect and strengthen this right, constitutional carry is largely a matter of state law and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Florida Legislature. I am an opponent of the federal government infringing on state rights and taking matters out of the hands of our duly elected state legislators. Should you want to discuss the matter of constitutional carry further, I encourage you to contact your state legislators by visiting www.myfloridahouse.gov and http://www.flsenate.gov. Meanwhile, I have and will continue to vote to defend the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. The longtime head of the Florida NRA, Marion Hammer, said “The NRA has no better friend than Daniel Webster.”

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. To stay updated on what’s happening in Washington, sign up for my weekly Webster Wire. Thank you for allowing me to serve as your U.S. Representative.

Your servant,

Daniel Webster
Member of Congress

I thought that maybe he could be right, so I researched the Constitutional Carry law for each of the states and sent him my investigation on this topic. What I found was very surprising.

States Vs Federal Constitutional Carry (19 page PDF)

This 19-page document examines state Constitutional Carry laws and provides an in-depth comparison of firearm purchase and concealed carry permit requirements in three selected states. I then conducted the same analysis for states without Constitutional Carry laws.

Despite the existence of Constitutional Carry in some states, many still impose their own regulations on purchasing, carrying, and using firearms—some even stricter than federal laws.

Meanwhile, states without Constitutional Carry laws often have even more restrictive policies, making firearm ownership and carry rights significantly more burdensome.

The Second Amendment states: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed1.” and the states are infringing on our Constitutional Rights.

I asked him whether this was truly what the people wanted or if he simply believed it was the better option. I also requested any poll data he had on his constituents’ opinions.

I’ll let you know if he responds!

Tell me what you would be: [email protected]

Foot Notes

  1. In the context of the Second Amendment, “Shall not be infringed” means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be violated or diminished, ensuring that this fundamental right remains protected.; ↩︎

Posted on

“Keep Americans Safe Act” – Evidence Shows Magazine Limits Do Not Reduce Crime

Wayne Thorn

I am writing to urge all of us to oppose the Keep Americans Safe Act. While I understand the intent behind this legislation, history and research show that restricting magazine capacity does not reduce crime and only infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The Urban Institute’s 2004 report, which examined the impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (in effect from 1994 to 2004), found no measurable reduction in violent crime as a result of magazine capacity restrictions. The report concluded that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” This study, along with crime data from 1990 to 2001, provides clear evidence that limiting magazine size does not deter criminals but does place unnecessary burdens on responsible gun owners.

Restricting law-abiding citizens’ access to standard-capacity magazines puts them at a disadvantage for self-defense, especially in rural areas where law enforcement response times can be significant. Criminals do not adhere to magazine restrictions, leaving responsible Americans more vulnerable to attack.

What we don’t need is passing ineffective legislation that restricts constitutional rights, what we do need is to focus on enforcing existing laws, addressing mental health issues, and targeting violent offenders. Contact your representative to please vote NO on the Keep Americans Safe Act and stand up for the Second Amendment.

Call 202-224-3121 to find your Congressional representative.

Contact me below about anything, comments on articles, questions you may have, etc. 

Posted on

Defend Veterans’ Rights: Support H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

Wayne Thorn

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1041) is a crucial piece of legislation that protects the constitutional rights of those who have served our country. If you are a veteran or a supporter of the Second Amendment, now is the time to take action and contact your representative to demand support for this bill.

What is H.R. 1041?

Currently, thousands of veterans are unjustly stripped of their gun rights simply because they have a fiduciary trustee managing their VA benefits. Under current law, if the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) appoints someone to help a veteran manage their finances, that veteran can be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as mentally incompetent—without due process. This means that veterans, who have honorably served our country, can lose their Second Amendment rights without ever being deemed a danger to themselves or others by a judge.

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1041) seeks to correct this injustice by ensuring that no veteran is automatically placed in NICS unless a judge determines they pose a danger to themselves or others. This bill restores fairness and prevents bureaucratic overreach from unjustly infringing on veterans’ rights.

Why This Matters

  • Protects Due Process: Veterans should not lose their constitutional rights without a fair legal process.
  • Prevents Bureaucratic Overreach: The VA should not have the power to decide who can or cannot own a firearm without a judicial ruling.
  • Respects Those Who Served: Veterans fought to defend our freedoms; they should not have to fight their own government to keep their rights.

How You Can Help

H.R. 1041 needs strong support from both veterans and Second Amendment advocates. Here’s what you can do:

  1. Contact Your Representative – Call, email, or write to your congressional representative and urge them to support H.R. 1041.
  2. Spread the Word – Share this information with fellow veterans, gun rights supporters, and your community.
  3. Join Advocacy Groups – Organizations like the NRA, GOA, and VFW are fighting for veterans’ rights—consider joining them in their efforts.

Time to Act

The rights of our veterans are on the line. No veteran should be denied their Second Amendment freedoms without due process. H.R. 1041 is a common-sense bill that ensures fairness and protects the very people who fought for our freedoms.

📢 Contact your representative today and demand they support H.R. 1041!

Let’s stand up for those who stood up for us.

Call 202-224-3121 to find your Congressional representative.

Contact Me: About anything, comments on articles, questions you may have, etc.

Posted on

Hearing Protection Act Would Remove Suppressors From NFA!!

Wayne Thorn

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution stands as a cornerstone of our nation’s founding principles, guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This right is not merely a historical relic but a safeguard of individual freedom and a cornerstone of our national identity. However, in recent years, this constitutional protection has come under increasing scrutiny and threat, with legislative proposals aimed at imposing restrictions that many believe infringe upon this fundamental liberty. It is imperative for all of us who cherish our freedoms to take a stand and ensure that our voices are heard.

I urge every 2A supporter to contact their House or Senate representative and demand unwavering protection of our Second Amendment rights. Now is the time to remind our elected officials that the phrase “shall not be infringed” is not open to interpretation or compromise. By speaking out collectively, we send a clear message to our government: we will not tolerate any encroachment on the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Together, we can preserve and protect this essential right for generations to come.

Below is a copy of both Bills so you can compare them.

SENATE BILLS-118s401is (English) PDF: DOWNLOAD

HOUSE BILLS-118hr152ih (English) PDF: DOWNLOAD

When you look at both of them they’re pretty much the same except for the House bill.

In the House bill sec 6, 1, B

If I could advocate for a change, it would be to allow the freedom to manufacture personal suppressors without the requirement for serialization, whether they are homemade or purchased.

Throughout much of U.S. history, there have been few restrictions on the personal manufacture of firearms for personal use. Historically, individuals were generally free to make firearms for themselves without legal barriers.

HERE ARE SOME OF THEM

During the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution (1787) and the ratification of the Bill of Rights (1791), there were very few restrictions on firearm ownership or manufacture. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, explicitly stated, “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.” This reflected a cultural and practical necessity for firearm ownership during the era.

However, there were a few notable restrictions or practices related to arms regulation during this time:

1. Militia Service Requirements

  • Many states had laws requiring able-bodied men to own firearms for militia service. These laws mandated that individuals possess arms and ammunition in working condition, effectively making firearm ownership not just a right but an obligation for many.
  • For example, the Militia Act of 1792 required all free, able-bodied white male citizens aged 18 to 45 to equip themselves with a musket, ammunition, and other supplies for militia duty.

2. Class and Racial Restrictions

  • Some laws restricted firearm ownership for enslaved people and free Black individuals. For example:
    • Virginia (1640s onward): Laws prohibited enslaved people from owning firearms, and even free Black individuals often required special permissions.
    • Other colonies and states had similar restrictions aimed at maintaining control over marginalized populations.

3. Firearm Use in Public Spaces

  • Certain municipalities or colonies enacted laws to regulate the carrying or discharge of firearms in specific settings, such as within town limits or during public gatherings. These restrictions were often aimed at preventing accidents or maintaining public order, not disarming the populace.
  • For instance, some towns prohibited the firing of guns during celebrations or near public buildings.

4. Storage and Maintenance Requirements

  • In some places, laws required firearms to be properly maintained and stored to ensure they were available for militia use. This was less about restricting ownership and more about ensuring readiness.

5. Restrictions on Gunpowder

  • Many towns and cities had regulations on the storage and transportation of gunpowder due to the risk of fire and explosions. For example:
    • Boston (1720s): Laws limited how much gunpowder could be stored in homes and required it to be kept in designated storage facilities.

Notable Absence of Restrictions:

  • There were no federal or state laws restricting the manufacture of firearms for personal use, and individuals were free to make or modify their own weapons.
  • Serialization, background checks, licensing, and other modern regulatory mechanisms did not exist.

Summary

At the time of the Constitution’s writing, most restrictions related to firearms were tied to militia service, public safety, and social control (e.g., racial exclusions). There were no federal restrictions on personal firearm manufacture, and the prevailing attitude strongly supported widespread ownership and use of arms, both for individual self-defense and collective security.

I just emailed my congressman to express my support for this bill. I also suggested a change to remove Section 6, 1, B, as it restricts the ability to manufacture personal suppressors and requires serialization for purchased suppressors, which I believe should not be mandatory.

I encourage all 2A supporters to reach out to their House and Senate representatives and urge them to stand against any attempts to impose restrictions on our Second Amendment rights, which clearly state, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Let’s make our voices heard and protect our freedoms.

SUBSCRIBE

CONTACT ME: [email protected]

About anything, comments to articles, questions you may have, etc.