All the states in the Union recognize driver’s licenses issued by every state including their own.   It wasn’t always that way.  Recognizing licenses from other states became a practical necessity.


The rules are fairly simple and straight-forward:


  • A person must obtain their license to drive from their home state, i.e. the state of their legal residence.


  • The license must be valid.


  • Drivers are required to follow the laws of the state in which they are driving, i.e. the local laws.


If these rules are followed, my Florida driver’s license will be recognized as valid by the remaining 49 states.   I can also use my license in Canada and their license is recognized here.


We Americans don’t give it a second thought when we travel.





Speaking broadly, Americans will acquire whatever it is they want – regardless of what the legal system may say.  Said differently, a market need will always find someone to supply it.  No exceptions.


Examples, you ask?   Think about these:


  • There was a Constitutional amendment which prohibited Americans from possessing or consuming alcohol. The public ignored it.  A colossal failure.


  • Of course there is the War on Drugs. Over the years, it has focused on heroin, cocaine, marijuana and most recently opioids.   Each in its own way has also been total failure that wasted zillions of dollars and took too many lives in their failed attempts.


  • Finally (for those who were driving in the 1970’s) was the federal government’s mandate to limit vehicle speeds on the national freeway system to 55 MPH. I ignored that law from the moment it was passed.  How about you?


THE REALITY is that time has proven these assertions to be absolutely accurate:


  • No person or entity can do a better job of wasting money and other resources than the government can.


  • No person or entity can perform a job and be LESS EFFECTIVE than a government bureau.


  • The government is best at being overpaid observers that produces no benefit or results from its efforts.


In most instances, the public follows the laws and rules which make sense – NOT because the government has demanded compliance.  While I risk oversimplification, I assert that most people follow the laws that mirror the Ten Commandments.



On the other hand, people will do their best to follow their own personal rules when it comes to other items.  The greatest concern is not getting caught.   A few examples:  speed limits, drug (marijuana) laws, tax laws and gun laws are a few in this category.





Currently, I am a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA).  I share their commitment to defending and supporting the Second Amendment.


In recent times, Americans have witnessed too many mass murders – many of them where the weapon of choice was a gun.  I’m going to list some of them.  I want readers to remember their reactions.


  • Sandy Hook, CT. 27 killed, most were 5-6 years old children.  Shooter: mental case.


  • Pulse Nightclub, Orlando. 49 killed.   Shooter: terrorist.


  • Mandalay Bay Hotel, Las Vegas. 58 killed.  Shooter: American citizen; unknown motive.


  • First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, TX. 26 killed.  Family trouble.


  • City of Chicago. In excess of 600 killed, 2017 to date.  Multiple events, largely gang-related.


Following most of these events, there were those who immediately demanded that Congress do, “something.”  They went on to suggest the passage of “common sense” gun control laws.







In case you don’t recognize them, they are the last four words in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.


Yet, even in light of those four words which are extremely clear and quite succinct, some folks still call for ‘Common Sense Gun Control.’   Although, exactly what the descriptor ‘common sense’ actually means remains quite murky, depending on whom you ask.


But, allow me to make an analogy which may help resolve the uncertainty.




We hear this term used frequently.   We can find a crystal clear example of it in a report aired on ABC News last Friday, reported by Brian Ross.  He provided a totally false report regarding President Trump and his possible involvement with Russia during his presidential campaign.  Mr. Ross has since been suspended for the false report.


Suppose we take a ‘common sense’ approach to ending the spread of fake news.  How about this idea:


President Trump will establish a new office named: News Review.   PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OR BROADCAST all news stories would be submitted to the News Review office.  Their job will be to check the accuracy of every story.


There would be three possible outcomes to the review.  They could choose to approve the story without change.   Second, they could make any changes necessary to ensure accuracy in the report.  Lastly, they could block publication/broadcast of the story entirely.


One could argue that such an approach would end the Fake News problem.


Do you think this is a good idea?    I believe that I can predict your response.




Americans would not allow any government agency to fiddle or tamper with news stories in such a manner because it would limit a FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM ensured in the Bill of Rights.


No less a right is my right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It concludes with these words, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”


That includes trying to limit my right with, “Common Sense Gun Laws.”  Bullshit.


Gun laws don’t work.  Gun laws already make it illegal to murder another person.  Other gun laws deny convicted felons from possessing a gun of any type.


Yet, every mass killing by definition is about murdering a group of people.  Many of the killers were convicted felons.  Just think about Chicago’s 600 dead residents.  Illinois has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation.  Are they working?  The statistics make the answer self-evident.





Let’s try something nationally which emulates what a majority of the states have already done.  FYI:  most states take a ‘shall issue’ stance on concealed gun permits.  Some states have ended their requirement for permits at all.


IDEA:  Let’s put concealed gun permits on the same footing across the country as driver’s licenses have been for many years.   A law which would accomplish this has already been introduced in Congress.


Rules are the same.  A citizen would need a permit from his home state.  It would need to be valid.  The citizen would need to follow the local laws of whatever state they are in.  Done.


Naturally, the loudmouths in the gun control crowd will scream that there will be blood running in the streets.


They said the very same thing in every state at the time when the relaxation of gun permitting was under consideration.


There is no blood running in streets ANYWHERE.


In reality, violent crime rates have decreased significantly in every state where more citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons.


As cops know, an armed criminal’s biggest fear is an armed victim.


Due to crazy state laws like those in New York and New Jersey that still pretend to control guns in their jurisdictions, law abiding citizens can become criminals by simply crossing a state line.


Could you imagine the uproar if the same rules applied to driver’s licenses?




The states where there are intense restrictions on owning and carrying a weapon for self-defense will scream with the most fervent protests.  That’s to be expected.  Check out California, New York, Illinois and Maryland for openers.


There are two valid responses to the screeching:


#1 – Your laws aren’t working.  Their murder rates from guns in your states are just as bad – or worse – than in states where gun laws have been relaxed.


#2 – SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  Nothing more needs to be added.


A recent article in American Police Beat quotes James Carver, the retired head of the Nassau County PBA.  “I and 90 percent of the cops believe in strict gun laws …”


I’m not sure who Mr. Carver is talking about.  Street cops who work the streets today do NOT share those sentiments.  Of course, if Carver limited his research to people in the Chief’s office or cops who haven’t been on the street in the last twenty years, his data might be valid.


Last May at Police Week in D.C., I made a point of asking cops at the Memorial, at the Beer Tent and elsewhere about their opinion on armed citizens.


WITHOUT EXCEPTION street cops strongly favor having GOOD CITIZENS in their community who are armed.  To be clear: they DON’T want guns in the hands of the mentally impaired or in the hands of convicted felons.


Street cops often cited that on the streets today, it is very common to encounter a situation where some jerk wants to fight with a cop, unprovoked.  There is no shortage of reports where a citizen came to the aid of a local cop who had engaged such a jerk.


If you see the value of having gun permits moved to the status of being equivalent with a driver’s license, please let your Congressional representatives know.


We cannot predict when a good citizen will come to our aid and make the difference of us going home that day or winding up in a hospital – or worse.


At the bottom line, it’s all about saving just ONE life.







Check out this recent article:




Please check out our Facebook page:  CLICK HERE

Feel free to call me at my home office:  (386) 763-3000.