TexasCHLforum.com

We don't need another amendment. We need to make them obey the first ten. That could get unpleasant but Thomas Jefferson warned us about that.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

The inconvenient truth is when Congress claims justification in the commerce clause, at least nine times out of ten, they're intentionally and knowingly acting against the US Constitution. Instead of honoring their promise to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" they are undermining and attacking it, and choosing of their own free will to become one of the "enemies, foreign and domestic" named in that oath. The solution to the problem is unpleasant but obvious.

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/oathoffice.html

In that case, the constitution trumps federal law, so LEOSA and most (all?) federal gun laws are null and void.

RoyGBiv wrote:Is the lack of reciprocity from some shall-issue states due to our issuing CHL's to under-21 military?
Are there other "major" reasons?

If our under-21 rules are the reason, it would be nice if those other states could offer reciprocity "if the license holder is at least 21"... This would be an easier carve out than amending each state to match TX.. and a step forward at least..

It's an excuse, not a legitimate reason. The drinking age in British Columbia is 19. If a 19 year old from Vancouver goes to Seattle, he can't legally purchase alcohol because the age limit is 21 in Washington State. They could do the same thing with concealed carry if they wanted. It also makes you wonder if they refuse to recognize LEOSA from states that have cops under 21.