Lawmaker Wants Concealed Carry For Lawmakers In DC

One Republican lawmaker believes that concealed carry reciprocity for members of Congress should be considered as part of possible security upgrades after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot at practice for the congressional charity baseball game early Wednesday morning.

Under Rep. Barry Loudermilk’s proposal, members who are allowed to conceal carry a weapon in their home state would be able to in Washington. Loudermilk, R-Ga., said the problem is that the nation’s capital does not recognize concealed carry licenses from other states.

“There are several things to look at,” Loudermilk said. “First of all, if this had happened in Georgia, he wouldn’t have gotten too far. I had a staff member who was in his car, maybe 20 yards behind the shooter… who back in Georgia carries a nine millimeter in his car. I carry a weapon. He had a clear shot at him. But here, we’re not allowed to carry any weapons here… Most of us are here in D.C., so how are you supposed to have it here?”

My real point of contention is the following statement:

“I think we need to look at some kind of reciprocity for members here,” Loudermilk said. “But also we need to look at security detail. If Scalise hadn’t been on our team, it would have been really bad.”

Why allow members access to a right and continue to deny the right to citizens? I am all for allowing concealed carry in DC — but it needs to be available to all, not just a special class of citizenry.

Read the rest of the article: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/barry-loudermilk-wants-concealed-carry-for-lawmakers-in-dc-after-scalise-shooting/article/2625970

4 thoughts on “Lawmaker Wants Concealed Carry For Lawmakers In DC

  1. I agree with the sentiments here, but think Loudermilk should have kept his mouth shut about a staff member carrying when back in Georgia. Unless you’re presenting a show of force, don’t let them know what you’re doing.

  2. Congresscritters aren’t the only ones being shot at, by any means.
    So why not a straight-up reciprocal law?
    Oh, yeah, because these congresscritters are better than us.

  3. I agree with you on point, but perhaps if congress-critters get reciprocity, a future lawsuit could argue for ‘equal protection’ reciprocity for the rest us crappy-low-life-citizens?

  4. I applaud your idea, but experience tells me that our elected officials have excluded themselves from so many of the tedious regulations that they simply don’t have time for with no such repercussions that I cannot quite fathom what you suggest would actually happen.
    IOW, fat chance of that happening.

Comments are closed.