When the vice presidential candidates were debating abortion policies on Tuesday night, J.D. Vance laid out the Trump campaign’s position that the issue is best left up to the states to decide. Tim Walz, on the other hand, pushed for a uniform national standard, arguing that restrictive laws in one state will put women at risk by forcing them to travel to states with less restrictive laws to obtain an abortion.
“How can we as a nation say that your life and your rights, as basic as the right to control your own body, is determined on geography?”, Walz wondered.
If Walz really does believe that, then he’s a hypocrite. In 2018, at the same event where Tim Walz falsely claimed to have carried a weapon “in war” while calling for a ban on modern sporting rifles, Walz also declared his opposition to national right-to-carry reciprocity.
I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks, we can do CDC research, we can make sure we don’t have reciprocal carry among states, and we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war is the only place those weapons are at.S
Tim Walz claims to be a Second Amendment supporter. In fact, he said in 2018 that he voted to protect the Second Amendment. Yet Walz also believes that your life and your rights, as basic as the right to armed self-defense, depends on geography. Sure, you may be able to get a carry permit in the state where you live, but once you cross the state line your right to bear arms disappears as far as Walz is concerned.
If Walz truly believed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, then why would he oppose right-to-carry reciprocity? Why should Arizona residents be unable to bear arms once they cross the border into California? Why should residents of Albany, New York be unable to carry in New York City, even though they possess a valid New York State concealed handgun permit?
It doesn’t make any sense, and under the “text, history, and tradition” test laid out by the Supreme Court, it’s not constitutional either. Even in California, a federal judge has concluded that the inability of non-residents to lawfully carry likely violates their Second Amendment rights, and has ordered California Attorney General Rob Bonta to work with the California Rifle & Pistol Association to come up with a system where non-residents can apply for a California carry permit.
That’s a step in the right direction, but right-to-carry reciprocity makes more sense. We shouldn’t have to fork over hundreds of dollars and undergo hours of additional training just so we can carry outside our home state. Just as California recognizes out-of-state drivers licenses, the state should recognize valid carry licenses from the other 49 states.
The Democrats in Sacramento would never go for that, of course, which is why a national right-to-carry reciprocity law is needed. I happen to think Walz was correct when he said our rights shouldn’t depend on geography. I just wonder why Walz is at odds with himself when it comes to the right to carry.
