S. 845, the erroneously titled ‘Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009,’ would create a national system for the carrying of concealed handguns, commonly referred to as CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) licenses. The bill would allow individuals with state-issued CCW licenses to carry their handguns in any state that issues concealed handgun licenses--today the vast majority of states.
One of the problems with that is states like New Jersey have very strict criteria for issuing the license while many other states do not. The results would be that out-of-state license holders would be able to legally carry their guns in New Jersey contrary to the wishes of the voting public, citizens at large and political representatives.
And that's not the worst of it.
"This year, there have already been three confirmed mass shootings committed by concealed carry permit holders. In April, Richard Poplawski ambushed four Pittsburgh police officers, fatally shooting three and injuring one. In March, CCW holder Michael McLendon killed 11 people, including the wife of a deputy sheriff, before taking his own life following a gun battle with police in Alabama. In February, CCW holder Frank Garcia killed four people in a shooting rampage in upstate New York.
Around here we refer to these characters as members of the 10% club. As vehemently as pro-gun folks deny even the existence of this 10%, they claim it's less than 1%, and as much as they demand proof, which is another way of denying what has been proposed, my theory stands. Furthermore, I don't think I'm the only one proposing such an outrageous theory either. I say anyone with a minimum of common sense and honesty would accept it as valid.
Law S. 845, just like the recent legislation that guns be allowed in National Parks, is indication of the powerful influence of the gun lobby in Washington. Often against popular opinion, often against common sense inself, these pro-gun victories do not augur well for the future of america.
What's your opinion?
This could have all been avoided if we never embarked on the nonsense of licensing a right.
ReplyDeleteYup. I'm with Aztec. We should have never had CCW. If I have to ask government permission and pay a fee I'm no longer exercizing a right.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteShould states be forced to recognize marriage licenses granted in other states?
Some states have blood tests and others don't.
Should states be forced to recognize driver's licenses granted in other states? Some require a vision check every renewal others don't. Some required thumbprint, others don't. Some require senior citizens to retest some don't.
New Jersey have very strict criteria for issuing the license while many other states do not.
And has that strong criteria for restricting people's rights made New Jersey SAFER?
NOPE. This, as much as you deny it, is about people's rights - NOT GUNS.
Which state would you rather live in Vermont or New Jersey based on crime rates, suicide rates, etc?
I'm not a big fan of national reciprocity. I believe this is a state issue but well within the fed's power (for a change) under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
ReplyDeleteI would be more inclined to support this legislation if it said that any CCW holder could carry in any state. Instead, all it does is remove a state's ability to negotiate reciprocity with other states. We don't need this but I'm not going to cry if it passes.
As far as the Gun Guys rubbish that you insist on including in this discussion, you were able to point out three CCW holders that committed crimes. For the sake of your example, I'll accept your 10%. That means that there are only 30 concealed carry holders in the country. Since this law only applies to 30 people, I don't think it matters very much.
Oh yes, let's pull out the fringes, say that we aren't painting the whole group as a fringe, and then go ahead and paint the whole group as part of the fringe.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, can someone give me some links that show these three had CCWs. Searching google, the only thing I can find are links to blogs that state this. I am not even looking for picture copies of their CCW, just a news story (not editorial) that states it as one of the facts. I have read through many and it wasn't in any of them.
Second, so they had CCW and they murdered people. Guess what? That is illegal. A felony. Breaking the law. If these people had not had a CCW, would their crimes have not been committed (heck, how many of them used a handgun to do the murdering - from what I remember it was the evil assault weapons)? Had they done anything before the murders that would cause them to not be allowed to own firearms?
Having a CCW does not give you any right to murder people. A CCW does not make it easier to conceal a firearm (it only allows you to legally carry a concealed a firearm). Before any state allowed CCW, criminals were still carrying concealed. Right now in all 50 states and DC, criminals continue to carry concealed and have no intention of applying for a government permission slip.
Three have committed murder this year. Assume that 30 more commit murder by the end of the year. That is 33 out of a population of what - 5 million? 0.00066%!!!! You are still 10 times more likely to be murdered by someone without a CCW than someone with one (assuming 15,000 murders and 300 million people = 0.005%).
How does not allowing reciprocity decrease crime? Does someone intent on massacre even think twice when they see "No Guns Allowed"? Why do some think that more laws that only the law abiding follow will reduce crime?
So 3 people with CCW commit murder (which they could just have easily committed without the CCW). Did they have driver's licenses also? What about library cards? Did anyone look to see if they are licensed to transport hazardous waste? Heck, all three may be certified for lead abatement. All of those issues (including the CCW) have no bearing on the fact that they committed murder. None of those licenses (including a CCW) made it any easier for them to committ murder. Nor should be paint other CCW, driver's license, library card, or hazardous material transport holders as "potential" murderers because of them.
If we need to get rid of "potential" criminals, then perhaps we should all go down to the local sheriff's office and turn ourselves in. Of course, we would have to wait in line while all of the deputies are turning themselves in.
mikeb, your problem is you see a story like this and you think "Gun owner who happens to be a murdered." Therefore you focus on the gun owner part. I look at it and say "Murderer who happens to own/use guns." Therefore, I focus on the murderer part. It is rather consistent because then it really doesn't matter what the tool the murder used is, he is still a murderer.
"Often against popular opinion"
ReplyDeleteIf so, explain why the NRA alone has 20 times the membership of even the largest anti-gun group.
Explain why the majority of anti-gun groups have to be financed by conglomerates instead of being able to survive on grassroots support.
Can you or will you just make up more numbers and claim it as a 'theory' (another word you don't know the definition of)?
"I say anyone with a minimum of common sense and honesty would accept it as valid."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, anyone who disagrees with you on this point lacks common sense and is dishonest.
For every 1 instance you can find of a CCW permit holder committing a crime with a gun, I can find 100 cases of a legal DGU.
That's a fact. Know why? Because I just said it was, and that should be good enough for anybody with the minimum of common sense and honesty.
Bob asked, "And has that strong criteria for restricting people's rights made New Jersey SAFER?"
ReplyDeleteMaybe it has, Bob. Considering the fact that there is considerable violence in the urban centers of New Jersey, and considering the fact that they are now forced to procure most of their weapons from out of state, do you really think easing the gun laws in New Jersey would result in less crime and violence there? I don't.
Thirdpower said, "If so, explain why the NRA alone has 20 times the membership of even the largest anti-gun group."
ReplyDeleteWell, Third, I have a theory about that. The average gun owner is passionate about his right to own a gun. The average non-gun owner is apathetic. That's it.
So they have an opinion but they don't really care about it.
ReplyDeleteHow then can it be 'popular'?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteCompare the crime rate of Newark New Jersey with Dallas or Houston....any major difference?
Regardless of how far someone has to go to get a prohibited item...they will. Your story about the gun smuggling into Canada shows that. The drug trade from Central America shows that....gun control hasn't made the average person in New Jersey safer - it has just trampled the rights of the law abiding.
"The average non-gun owner is apathetic. That's it."
ReplyDeleteThat's right Mike, the anti-gunners have virtually NO grassroots support.