Contradiction, hypocrisy: those words rush in ahead. The bill thus far has more than 200 Republican co-sponsors in the House, many of them conservatives who otherwise complain about attempts by an overbearing federal government to trample on states’ rights in the realms of health care, tort reform, education — you name it. But to promote concealed guns, they’re encouraging big, bad Washington to trample to its heart’s content.
That's pretty much how I see it, and in all fairness, I've read a number of pro-gun guys who agree with us. But not the hard core. The NRA and their followers have an overriding guideline which demands they oppose any gun-control law no matter how sensible and that they support any pro-gun bill regardless of how ridiculous.
The last time we talked about this one the post generated 68 comments and led me to a bit of an epiphany. Never have I read a comparison in the gun debate that I could get behind. But in this discussion the comparison was made between CCW reciprosity and the possibility of bringing your own home speed limit with you when you drive in another state.
When a guy from Arizona goes to NJ with his permit, he should not receive reciprocal rights because the requirements to get his permit were less than the NJ CCW guys.
So, just like the Arizona driver who can't drive over the NJ speed limit like he could back home, the Arizona CCW permit holder is not entitled to carry a concealed gun in NJ because he hasn't met the requirements according to NJ standards.
Frank Bruni summed up HR 822 beautifully. "That’s not liberty. More like lunacy."
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Speaking of lunacy, apparently many hardcore gunloons fear HR 822 is a "Trojan Horse" for gun registration which leads to confiscation which leads to UN control which leads to your daughter being forced to marry someone from the Congo.
ReplyDeletehttp://mediamatters.org/blog/201110240011
It's kind of amusing--the NRA has spent many years fomenting conspiracy theories and far-fetched fantasies that their most hardcore followers are now so detached from reality that the NRA can't count on them anymore.
That doesn't surprise me.
ReplyDeleteYou spread horror stories as reality in order to control the masses, then people begin to believe in all the bogeymen that are out there.
They begin to believe anything.
They are scared of their own shadows and need the biggest, baddest weaponry out there to protect them from ghoulies, ghosties, long legged beasties, and things that go bump in the night.
Reason has no place in this--it's emotion.
You'd think they would go into emotional overload by now.
I have read HR 822 and my understanding is anyone with a permit from another state would be subject to the rules/regulations of the state they are visiting.
ReplyDeleteIs the opposition that States are not being given a choice in reciprocating with other states or some states have more lax "registration" requirements than others? Is it not knowing if the permit is legal?
As Laci pointed out, it appears there seems to be no reason, but emotion, from both sides, when discussing this.
I think both sides are guilty of spreading rumors, and scare tactics.
I don't see why anyone would object to HR 822. The bill merely seeks to require all states to recognize a license issued by one state (except for Illinois, in this case, that doesn't issue this type of license). I'd support the same kind of requirement for marriage licenses--yes, including gay marriages. The Supreme Court has found a right to marry in our Constitution, and the court now also recognizes our firearms rights.
ReplyDeleteThose of us with carry licenses have gone through a background check to demonstrate that we've followed the law and are eligible to have firearms. Out of the six million licensees, only some three hundred over the course of several years have committed firearms crimes while holding the license--that's the number that the Violence Policy Center gives, an anti-gun organization. What other group of people is as safe?
Just what's the problem here?
And once again, our anonymous poster proves he doesn't understand a word of what I have written.
ReplyDeleteIn the previous post, I posted the law:
‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, 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 handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--
‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
‘(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 or permit issued to a resident of the State.
Oh dear, I cut and pasted that!
As Brunit points out Should it become law, any state that grants concealed-carry permits, no matter how strict the conditions, would be forced to honor a visitor’s concealed-carry permit from another state, no matter how lax that state’s standards. (oh dear cut and paste again)
That is a correct interpretation of the law.
At this point, only two jurisdictions would be able to prevent non-citizens from carrying a concealed weapon, DC and Illinois, should this go into force.
Greg, some states want more say in who carries a concealed firearm. That's why they would object to this law.
Greg, my objection on the face of this is that some 30 states do not fully cooperate with providing names to the NCIS data base for checking before firearm purchase, or for any kind of background check for a carry permit.
ReplyDeleteMany of those 30 states have provided ZERO names to the data base, in ANY of the categories.
The issue is the risk of unqualified people entering into states which are rigorous in their checking, creating a danger.
Laci, no need to be an ass when responding. I can read and I read the law correctly....it would subject a permit holder from another state to the laws of the state they were in.
ReplyDeleteNot sure which "anonymous" you are trying to goad with your "oh dear, cut and paste again", but I am not that anonymous.
All you had to say was yes we object because other states requirements may not be as strict as we like, or whatever else the reason.
Anonymous, to avoid the confusion (there are too many apparently different people posting as anonymous) please create a blognomen for yourself.
ReplyDeleteWe recently had a discussion among the admins about requiring an identity - a pseudonym was fine -to differentiate people, but MikeB preferred we not go that route.
Maybe it is time to review that decision, precisely to avoid this kind of confusion.
If you are new here - welcome!
I'm sorry.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone explained what was going on which was why I made the comment about "oh dear, cut and paste again".
We had some goings on in another comment section.
Since you are not that anonymous, please accept my apologies.
You may be shocked to read this, but those of us who believe in gun rights are pleased that the states will be forced to recognize them. We're pleased that California and New York will have to let anyone with a license from any state carry a firearm in their jurisdictions.
ReplyDeleteA right is a right, no matter where on this planet I happen to be. The fact that some governments seek to take away rights is a continuing source of pain and shame for those of us who believe in the natural rights of human beings.
Dog Gone...went ahead an took your advice. Thanks for the welcome
ReplyDeleteLaci, thank you.
PJ, I tend to bark a lot when someone arrives, but now that I know your friendly...
ReplyDeletePJ, I should have also noted that the cut and paste was a joke about criticism that has been made about me.
ReplyDeleteYes, I quote other people.
Yes, I may not attribute that.
But, I will admit it.
It's the substance of the quote that matters, not that it was a quote.
"So, just like the Arizona driver who can't drive over the NJ speed limit like he could back home, the Arizona CCW permit holder is not entitled to carry a concealed gun in NJ because he hasn't met the requirements according to NJ standards."
ReplyDeleteThat is still a poor comparison. A better comparison would be to say that NJ does not want to honor the driver's license or let the AZ resident drive in NJ because there is no driver's test needed to get his AZ driver's license.
The speed limit comparison would be more accurate to say that the AZ resident could not carry is standard capacity magazine or hollow point bullets while carrying in NJ because that is against the law in NJ even though the AZ resident is free to do so in his own state.
Remember, under HR822, the visiting license holder still has to obey the NJ carry laws no matter how backwards or retarded they are.
FWM has it correct:
ReplyDeleteA CCW permit holder doesn't need to meet the local licencing requirements.
But he does have to obey local rules.
I'm not sure what kind of backlash that could cause.
Greg and FWM, Let me put it this way. The average CCW permit holder in NY and NJ is better screened and more responsible than the average CCW guy in AZ. In spite of your continual whining about how the NY and NJ systems are discriminatory against the poor because of the fees and the "may issue" policy prejudices minorities, you must admit the system in AZ where there are no requirements at all, to speak of, allows some irresponsible and unfit characters to obtain the permit.These guys are not welcome in NY and NJ.
ReplyDeleteAnd please tell me what the hell does that have to do with rights? You're already stretching it beyond reason to say the 2A means you can own a gun, I don't buy it, but now what are you saying that the 2A also protects the AZ guy's right to carry concealed in Manhattan?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The Second Amendment doesn't give me any right; it recognizes the right that I have by virtue of being human. A free person has the right to arms, whether in Arizona or in Manhattan.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how the licensing laws of New York or California are good. The discretion that the police have in issuing those licenses doesn't mean a better background check. It just means that the people who get licenses are the people who suck up to the politicians.
Under federal law, a felon or mentally unstable person is not allowed to own a gun, much less carry one. Law only restrains law abiding people. Criminals will do as they wish.
Greg Camp wrote some false information:
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp said...
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The Second Amendment doesn't give me any right; it recognizes the right that I have by virtue of being human.
Your 'right' comes from the agreement in the social contract that we agree to give ourselves these rights. It is not innate, and it is not absolute, but rather subject to whatever limitations we agree to place on it.
A free person has the right to arms, whether in Arizona or in Manhattan.
No, they don't. Even the Supreme Court has consistently indicated that the 2nd Amendment provides limitations and regulations.
I don't see how the licensing laws of New York or California are good. The discretion that the police have in issuing those licenses doesn't mean a better background check. It just means that the people who get licenses are the people who suck up to the politicians.
Actually it DOES mean a better background check. I suggest you educate yourself on the compliance with providing the information about felons and drug users, and the dangerously mentally ill to the NCIS - it is astonishingly BAD. The NCIS data base for checking on who can and cannot purchase or carry is not effective, because of voluntary state compliance. Some states have not provided even ONE name in the time that the NCIS has been in operation. Over half the states have not provided names. State checks range from next to none, to very thorough including domestic abuse incidents and stalking incidents, which the NCIS does not. There is a HUGE difference in state checks - HUGE.
Under federal law, a felon or mentally unstable person is not allowed to own a gun, much less carry one. Law only restrains law abiding people. Criminals will do as they wish.
ReplyDeleteYes, under the law they are not allowed to own a gun. In practice, the check to see if they are allowed relies on the NCIS data base (not the tv show, obviously), and that data base is horrifically incomplete and out of date, althoug some states are very good. It has the potential to be an excellent means of providing information, but only if compliance is made mandatory, which it is not now.
Currently, it is up to each state to fund the reporting of the names of felons and others who are not legally allowed to own firearms. Some states have never ever funded dime one for that compliance. THAT is the problem.
You can read something about that here - (I think this post may have been at least the partial reason MikeB invited me to blog here.) I am always surprised at how ill informed the prog-gun crowd is about the problems with the NCIS. You aren't nearly as secure as you think you are so long as there is a loophole this large in the regulation.
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/01/bangs-and-bucks.html
"
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Bangs and Bucks, the Problems with Threatened Republican and Tea Partier Cuts
There is a proverb that fits the current political situation that we should keep in mind as we watch the State of the Union address on Tuesday night; "Penny-wise is often pound foolish".
As I turned on the local news this morning, there was video of a gunman in a Phoenix, Arizona mall on January 5th going on a shooting rampage. The gunman eventually surrendered to police, and because it did not involve the number of fatalities or a famous person, the story received much less attention than the Giffords shooting tragedy.
With all of the discussions asserting Jared Loughner may be mentally ill, and that it was mental illness that was the problem with Congresswoman Giffords being shot, it is worth noting that Arizona's Governor Brewer just moved to cut the funding for the care of 5,200 of the most severely mentally ill people in that state. They already don't provide the names to the NCIS of most of the dangerously mentally ill; this suggests they won't even be 'on the radar' of that state, at all.
While browsing for sources for this story, I came across this graphic which shows the intersection of inadequate funding for health issues, including mental health care, the beginnings of which date back to President Reagan, and the underfunding of the NCIS gun check data base.
Check out compliance in the state where YOU live, and contemplate your state's funding for the mentally ill, including the dangerously mentally ill. My state, Minnesota, was 6th from the top, with 0 reported. I wish I was confident we had 0 dangerously mentally ill people who shouldn't own guns, but I know that is not the case."
Greg C wrote:
ReplyDelete"Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The Second Amendment doesn't give me any right; it recognizes the right that I have by virtue of being human. "
So, if that was what the Constitution did, recognize our INNATE rights, why did the Constitution as it was originally written not recongize the rights of slaves to be free, women to vote, prohibition and the repeal of prohibition regulating our right to drink or not drink alcohol, the rights of women, the right of 18 year olds to vote, and any number of other provisions we have added?
The Constitution is a social contract between government and the governed. The problem with insisting on the assumption of innate rights is that we don't universally know or agree upon / what those are. If they really were innate, we should have a much greater understanding and agreement of them.
The premise of a social contract, and the consent of the governed vis a vis the government is a far more logical and reasonable premise. It also better accomodates how we balance the rights of the individual and governments, majority and minority, local state and federal entities, etc.
Further,it was a concept very well understood and embraced by the founding fathers of this country generally, and the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution specifically.
Even if I disagree with some of your comment, thank you for your civility and for such an interesting contribution here.
Greg, as Dog Gone has already pointed out, yours is a simplistic view of the 2A. We've been through this a lot, but let me repeat. Being human, according to you if I understand you right, means you have
ReplyDeletea. right to life
b. right to self defense
c. right to own a pistol
d. right to carry that gun wherever you want.
I say there's too much of a jump between b and c.
About "may issue," I think I'll make a new post about it.
My view of rights is the same as the founders of this country. They said that our rights come from God. Now, I interpret the source somewhat differently, but I do assert that our rights are native to us as human beings, not given to us by a social contract. We agree to limit some expression of our rights to live in a society, but that's a concession that must be done sparingly and only in the greatest need.
ReplyDeleteThe European model is that our rights are given to us by our society. That makes rights into privileges--what the society gives, it can take away.
I do recognize that the United States hasn't always lived up to its ideals, but name one group of people that has. When it comes to slavery, women's rights, the rights of gays, and on and on, we haven't been perfect. We are trying.
As for the differences between shall issue and may issue states, I'm willing to make the compromise of accepting a background check. What a modern and dreadful world we live in, where a computer can decide our status, but that's what we have. Are you willing to agree that when the issuing body has discretion, it can lead to favoritism? Can you see how the wealthy and powerful and popular in a may issue state can get licenses, while those without influence cannot? Are you suggesting that they people who are denied in Massachusetts, New York, and California are all poeple with criminal acts in their past? Discretion creates the opportunity for inequality. That's why I favor due process. If you pass the check, you get the license. (Add in training requirements if you will. That's beside the point here.)
Greg Camp wrote: "My view of rights is the same as the founders of this country. They said that our rights come from God. Now, I interpret the source somewhat differently, but I do assert that our rights are native to us as human beings, not given to us by a social contract."
ReplyDeleteGreg.sincerely, I am delighted that you have the comfort and other benefits of a personal relationship with God, no snark.
However, you can claim a legal right from God right after (pun intended) you prove the existence of God, including specifics.
No one here rose to the challeng of providing proof of that right from a divine source - not from the Abrahamic religions not from anywhere else either.
Have a go at the Sihkism; they at least require a ceremonial kirpan, although wherever there is a prohibition on one as a weapon, it can be rendered inoperative(ie. glued into the sheath).
Let me know when yuo can 1. prove God exists; and 2. when you find the religious texts which support a god given right.
It may be your personal belief, but it was not specified in the Constitution as such the way other things were - like Post offices, the three branches of government or any number of other items.
And you are still wrong about the founding fathers (see next comment)
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteYou need to read my comment more closely. I said that I interpret the source of our rights in a somewhat different way. Of course, since by Providence, our founders meant a version of God as found in Aristotle and not in the Bible, perhaps I'm not so far from their ideas after all.
My point is that our rights come to us by virtue of our being. We don't get them from our society. If society is the source of rights, society can take them away whenever it's convenient to do so--something akin to society's supposed right to build a bypass or a shopping center in the middle of my home if that suits some group of politicians. Rights are rights and can only be given up voluntarily or by conviction of a crime.
The founding fathers wrote into the constitution their prevailing idea of the essence of government - the social contract.
ReplyDeleteIt is inherent in the words of the Constitution, we the people.
They wrote what they intended.
Legal decisions support that notion, that rights are not innate OR absolute, that they are in fact defined, redefined, and yes, sometimes even restricted, by consensus. Sometimes, like the franchise, they get expanded.
We arrive at that consensus in part on the basis of moral and ethical positions - like the abolishment of slavery, giving women the vote. We continue to define and redefine marriage, which for example used to restrict marriage to between people of the same race, and now is increasingly not being defined as between people of the opposite sex. AND it is becoming increasingly viewed as a right, not a privilege, to marry the human being you love.
Because of the widespread damage, death, injury to our population, it is perfectly appropriate to restrict guns to a more safe basis.
We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For those 'inalienable natural rights' to be universal, they should be universally recognized; instead there is NO agreement whatsoever on what those rights are, and nowhere - NOWHERE- did I find any recognition of personal weapons as a right.
Now if you would care to show me where one of the recognized authorities, preferably several, agree on this as a natural right, we can start talking.
Btw, when you write:
ReplyDelete"Rights are rights and can only be given up voluntarily or by conviction of a crime."
Um, NO. The right- note the word RIGHT- to vote is increasingly being given back to felons after they have served their sentences, and it is the trend both in the U.S. and worldwide to provide the right and means to vote IN PRISON.
There is good reason for this, which is that when we can persuade someone to participate in their community by voting and especially other aspects of the electoral process, they feel both invested and empowered by it. The result is a huge reduction in recidivism. It is in the best interest of us as a society and as a government to reduce people reoffending against the law, not the least of which is that they become more productive, and we become less a nation of jailers, which is also prohibitively expensive for us to do.
So..no we don't lose rights necessarily by virtue of crime, not even felonies.
But, Greg, how do you get from a right to life to a right to carry a concealed weapon wherever you want?
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteRecall that the Declaration of Independence only says, among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That was never meant to be a comprehensive list. English common law gave us the idea of the right of free persons to have arms. That came from, or at least was in agreement with, the Danes who conquered and settled major portions of Britain in the Middle Ages. Here in America, we have, through much struggle, recognized that all of us are free citizens, not just a few elites. The powerful will always have rights. What we have tried to do here is guarantee rights to all--imperfectly, to be sure, but we're trying.
In response to another comment about felons getting the right to vote, I agree that once felons have repaid their debt to society, they ought to be restored to full citizenship. That means voting, and it means firearms. That may be more than you're willing to return to them.