Saturday, July 18, 2009

Concealed Carry Reciprosity - Part II

On the Brady Blog, Paul Helmke writes about the seriousness of the pending legislation regarding concealed carry, a topic we recently discussed.

Senator John Thune of North Dakota has introduced an amendment (No. 1618) to the Department of Defense appropriations authorization bill (S. 1390) , which could come up for a vote as early as Monday, July 20.

This proposal would override state law by forcing every state (except Illinois and Wisconsin) to accept the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms by non-residents of their state, even if those persons are legally barred from possessing guns in that state.

Under this proposal, states would be forced to recognize all concealed weapons permits – even if the requirements for out-of-state permit-holders fall well below their own.

Mr. Helmke uses Texas as an example of a state that has training requirements prior to the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Mississippi, on the other hand has none. Under the proposed legislation, Texas would be forced to accept Mississippi concealed carry holders visiting Texas and carry guns. There are many examples of this type of disparity between states' requirements.

But that's not the worst of it. The worst is what we refer to around here as the 10%ers. These are the supposedly lawful gun owners who for various reasons should not be trusted with a gun. Helmke itemizes several high-profile cases in which the shooter was actually in possession of a concealed carry permit.

One of the commenters on the Huffington Post, where the Helmke post is cross-published, a certain JD59, had this to say:


Well I guess I'm one of those scary people with a conceal carry permit. I am an honorably discharged veteran 49 years old. Have worked for several Gov. agencies, have a daughter in college, and a wife that works at Starbucks. Yea, I know I sound real scary.

This is typical of the pro-gun response to a serious suggestion that "[d]angerous people have concealed carry permits who shouldn't be allowed near a handgun, much less be given permission to carry one anywhere in the country."


Mr. JD59 exaggerates the comment to somehow read "all concealed carry permit holders are dangerous." He puts on that practiced self-righteous indignity and with sarcasm tries to mock the suggestion. The fact is no one ever said all gun owners are dangerous, or all concealed carry licensees should not own guns.

My theory that the problem group accounts for about 10% has been met with criticism, to say the least. Many pro-gun commenters claim the true percentage is less than 1%. I'd say a quick glance at the cases cited by Paul and the links provided in his article would suggest 10% is more like it. If anything, that estimate is probably low.

What's your opinion? Why do gun owners who are responsible and law abiding take offense at these suggestions?

Please leave a comment.

28 comments:

  1. "I'd say a quick glance at the cases cited by Paul and the links provided in his article would suggest 10% is more like it. If anything, that estimate is probably low.


    You're FOS MikeB and you know it. The report Paul cites has less than 200 anecdotes over a 14 year period. That's in comparison to the millions of people who have and had CCW licenses.

    Statistically, you're more likely to commit a crime if your a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns than by having a license to carry.

    All you're doing now is being a disingenuous troll to try and generate site hits.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you should apply the rationale for coming up with the "10%ers" to blacks, Jews, and homosexuals who shouldn't be out of jail or shouldn't have children, or shouldn't be allowed to drive, or shouldn't be allowed near children, or shouldn't be allowed to be a drain on society.

    If you believe the above you demonstrate you have no respect for due process and other enumerated rights guaranteed by the constitution as well as our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

    By singling out gun owners you demonstrate your bigotry and hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The fact is no one ever said all gun owners are dangerous, or all concealed carry licensees should not own guns."

    That's a flat out lie.

    Let's just assume your 10% figure is correct for an example.

    OK, what now?

    Line up all gun owners end to end and confiscate the guns from every 10th person?

    Or...

    Do investigations, make arrests, have jury trials, and get convictions of those who have violated the laws?

    Helmke wipes his ass with due process and just wants to ban every gun he can regardless of who's in possesion of it.

    That's what you apparently don't or can't recognize.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Keep this in mind...

    Paul Helmke appears to be arguing that individual states should be able to set their own guns laws, doesn't he?

    But at the same time he argues for Federal gun laws that will trample on the states' power to make their own gun laws.

    Helmke is against concealed carry in any state. This has nothing to do with reciprocity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is what Paul Helmke says...

    "This proposal would override state law by forcing every state (except Illinois and Wisconsin) to accept the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms by non-residents of their state, even if those persons are legally barred from possessing guns in that state."

    This is what the legislation says...

    "To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State"

    So who's lying?

    I will be expecting an answer, who's lying?

    Can you even admit that Paul is lying?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ever here of the phrase, "Pick your battles wisely?"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

    Do you see a trend?

    I find it absolutely comical that the Brady Campaign would expend their few resources on a losing battle.

    But as Napoleon was stated, "Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake."

    The Brady Campaign COULD be an ally in reducing violence in America, but they squander their resources trying to disarm those who have committed no crimes, knowing full well that the criminal element in our society disregard the laws in any event.

    Citing the ever wise Yoda, "that is why you fail."

    ReplyDelete
  7. But what happens to your world view when someone comes along with the actual truth? The real truth? The truth?

    part 1


    (a) Findings.–Congress finds the following:

    (1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

    (2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

    (3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

    (4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

    (5) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

    (6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

    (7) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    (8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

    (b) In General.–Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:“§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

    (a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof–

    (1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–

    (A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

    (B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

    (2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–

    ReplyDelete
  8. part 2

    (A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

    (B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

    (b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall–

    (1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

    (2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

    (c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to–

    (1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

    (2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.

    (c) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

    926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.

    (d) Severability.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

    (e) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Again I ask, who is lying?

    OK, I've beaten you up enough for today, I'll make you a deal out of admitted compassion for you.

    I will give you the oppotunity to rid the streets of America of exactly one handgun.

    If you can provide evidence that there are such things as poisonous snakes on the planet Earth, I will cut one of my handguns into multiple pieces with a blow torch, post the video of me doing this on youtube and return here to provide a direct link to the video.

    Game on?

    Warning, this is all about checking your assumptions.

    I have played this game before.

    If you win, I destroy one of my handguns to be viewed in public over the internet.

    If you can not prove the assertion, you will send one penny to the NRA.

    Deal?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow, I was actually able to find a staunch supporter of MikeB and his beloved Brady Bunch...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzeP2Sh55sk&NR=1

    Is this the voice of reason???

    ReplyDelete
  11. Your integrity is on the line here, will you take up the challenge or hide beneath the nearest rock?

    I thought so.

    I'm on my way to my father's birthday party; I will expect an answer upon my return.

    Checkmate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. kaveman, I definitely do not want you to blowtorch one of your guns on Youtube. Besides, I didn't really understand what the challenge is. Is it about the lie that Helmke is supposed to have told. Well, sorry to say, but I don't get it. Exactly what is the lie? Please spell it out for me.

    Happy birthday to your dad.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I challenge your perception that there are posionous snakes on planet earth.

    Sounds simple enough, huh?

    Prove that there are, and I publically destroy one of my handguns.

    Fail, and you send one penny to the NRA.

    Deal?

    This is your opportunity to rid the streets of exactly one handgun.

    Care to invest one penny in your convictions?

    checkmate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I definitely do not want you to blowtorch one of your guns on Youtube."

    Why not? You distinctly blame firearm owners for the the actions of criminals. This is one less that has the potential of ending up in the hands of a criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  15. you demonstrate you have no respect for due process and other enumerated rights guaranteed by the constitution as well as our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms."

    Joe, MikeB has shown without a doubt that he has no respect for the rest of the Constitution, especially Due Process. He's a bigot, plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  16. kaveman, I'm not sure if I follow you're "poisonous snake" challenge. Is the point that real proof is not possible if the party demanding proof is not cooperative? Is the idea that without some measure of good will and honesty between the interlocutors, no proof is possible.

    If I'm on the right track, wouldn't this apply to both of us?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Since MikeB has to continually make up numbers to maintain his bigotry, here are some real numbers on CCW holders:

    Check out Florida:

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

    Since 1990, Florida has issued over 1.5 million permits. Of these, only 4,800 have been revoked for any reason, and just 167 revocations were for firearms related incidents! Who else has a track record that good?

    But maybe that's a fluke, Let's check out another state:

    http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/other/conceal/Sept302004stats.pdf

    North Carolina. Number of permits issued: 263,000+. Revoked: 727

    Next MikeB will claim these numbers are doctored.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You seem a little nervous to risk all but a single penny.

    But if you want to keep that handgun on the streets of America, I'm OK with that.

    The exercise had to functions.

    1. Being critical of one's assumptions. If you ask 100 people if rattle snakes are poisonous, 99 will say yes and they would be wrong.

    Just because a lie is repeated often and held as common knowledge does not make it true.

    It's not a trick question, just one in which a false answer is so ingrained that it's not examined any further than the usual, "Well duh, sure!"

    2. Here you performed exactly as expected. I set ya up on this one and you took the bait.

    I posted several comments showing you that Paul Helmke is lying through his teeth using word-for-word quotes from the actual legislation and asked you about what you thought about that.

    THEN I asked a stupid question about whether or not there are poisonous snakes on the planet earth.

    You opted to completely ignore the DIRECT EVIDENCE that Helmke is lying to further his agenda and focus on reptiles instead.

    I knew you would and I thankyou for demonstrating the point so readily.

    I created the oppotunity for you to dodge the tough question with the option of answering a silly one.

    You naturally choose the path of least resistence and focused on the silly rather than direct evidence.

    So will you continue to ignore it, now that I have admitted that the purpose of my string of comments was to show that you would?

    Or you could just ask me more questions about snakes, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "This proposal would override state law by forcing every state (except Illinois and Wisconsin) to accept the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms by non-residents of their state, even if those persons are legally barred from possessing guns in that state."

    This is what the legislation says...

    "To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State".

    How does a person obtain a concealed carry license the state in which they reside when they are a prohibited person in that state?

    Paul is lying.

    Can you not see the difference between what Paul is saying and what the actual legislation says?

    ReplyDelete
  20. kaveman, Nobody's lying. Paul's use of the phrase "prohibited person" refers to the state being visited, not the state of residence. In other words, to use his example, a Texas resident would be "prohibited" unless he completes a certain amount of range training. A Mississippi resident, with no training, could visit Texas and carry his gun, under the new law.

    Isn't that a fair reading of what Helmke says?

    ReplyDelete
  21. mikeb,

    Helmke is not talking about prohibited persons in relation to not having range training. He says "even if those persons are legally barred from possessing guns in that state."

    POSSESSING, not even concealed carry, not training, not eye tests.
    POSSESSION. Which means prohibited persons in respect to federal law which prohibts people from possessing guns who are felons, illegal aliens, renounced US citizenship, domestic violence, etc.

    Can you not actually read what he says? He doesn't talk about training. He is implying that someplace like Texas allows lesser felons to concealed carry and they could travel to NJ to carry. It is a lie.

    Similar to a driver's license or vehicle registration, the federal government is making it so that you don't have to jump through all of the hoops of each state to exercise your rights that some state governments have so graciously allowed us to exercise. I don't have to get my car inspected where I live, yet I can drive it anywhere in the country. All a state would have to do is declare open season on its citizens to criminals and repeal their concealed carry laws, then they will be safer.

    Helmke is lying by purposely playing on peoples fears and twisting the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Isn't that a fair reading of what Helmke says?"

    No, it is not.

    You are talking about differences in the requirements of getting a CCW permit. Paul is talking about simply possesing a firearm.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Can you not actually read what he says?"

    MikeB has serious reading comprehension issues, not to mention logical reasoning deficiencies.

    ReplyDelete
  24. So does MikeB support restricting firearms based off of these anecdotes?

    http://tinyurl.com/lknvfb

    ReplyDelete
  25. The phrase "prohibited person" has a distinct legal meaning with regards to firearms Mike.

    I suggest you learn what things mean before you make yourself look bad, though I think it's far too late for that now.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Reputo said, "He is implying that someplace like Texas allows lesser felons to concealed carry and they could travel to NJ to carry."

    He said no such thing. He implied no such thing.

    As someone who likes to call others "liars," you should be more careful.

    Did you really say, "lesser felons?" What the hell are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Lessor felons." Exactly my point. There is no such thing. Being prohibited from owning a firearm (which Helmke talks about) is based on federal law and applies to all states. Not having the same standards for issuing a CCW is an issue each state deals with. Helmke is trying to equate the two - ergo implying exactly what I said.

    I never stated that he said it, only that he implied it - which if you understood the terms he was using, you would agree. Helmke plays on the fact that the majority of the public doesn't have a clue what some of these phrases mean when talking about the law, so by meshing them all together it sounds like we want to issue fully automatic assault rifles (not assault weapons) to felons when they get out on parole and then export them to another state with strict gun control laws.

    If that is not lying and deceiving, then I don't know what is.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Not having the same standards for issuing a CCW is an issue each state deals with.

    Which of course is a completely disingenuous argument for the anti's. We don't have uniform standards for marriage licenses, yet they are accepted nationwide. We have wildly different standards and eligibility for drivers licenses, yet my drivers license is also good in all 50 states.

    ReplyDelete