Thursday, November 17, 2011

Josh Horwitz on HR-822

Richard Poplawski. Omar Thornton. Paul Michael Merhige. Jason Hamilton. Nidal Malik Hasan. George Sodini. Christopher Speight.

What do these men have in common?

# 1: They all committed mass murder (three or more innocents killed) with guns.

# 2: They were all concealed handgun permit holders.

And they're not alone. Since 2007, at least 19 mass shootings have been perpetrated by individuals who had obtained permits to carry concealed handguns in public.

In the clearest one-sentence description of HR-822 I've seen yet, Josh sums it up like this?

The net result of the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act" is to make the weakest state laws in the nation the Law of the Land.
Is that what we want? I don't think so. The sad fact is some gun-rights folks are on our side, but for the wrong reason. They feel the hypocrisy of the supporters of this bill is not for them. The folks who want this reciprosity are generally against government interference, except when it comes to gun rights.  Then anything goes.

So the gun-rights folks are divided into two groups, one more pathetic than the other.  The supporters are hypocrites who accept big government when it suits.  The gun-rights folks in opposition of HR-822, feel the way they do, not because it makes sense or that it will save lives, but just because they hate the government so much that even when it would benefit them they can't accept it.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Somehow, the fact that guns start out as legal commidities keeps getting left out of the picture.

    Shall issue means that a lot of people who shouldn't even think of owning guns are walking down the streets packing heat.

    So, no surprise we have a few whack jobs committing crimes or otherwise shooting people.

    Come on, gunloonz, admit it--this is just the cost of "freedom".

  2. I am sure that there will be a lot of crying and gnashing of teeth by the anti-freedom loons--Bloomburg already threw a little temper tantrum--but this has yet to pass the Senate. Then the liberal's lord and savior will have to sign or veto it. This is hardly a done deal and no one truly expected it to fail in the House did they?

  3. How is this a violation of the rights of states? The states retain rights not ennumerated in the Bill of Rights, but the Second Amendment specifically identifies arms as belonging to the people. The Supreme Court has confirmed that interpretation.

    Laci the Dog,

    Put the cost into perspective. The best that people like Horwitz and the Violence Policy Center can come up with is some three hundred licensees who have committed murder over the last four years.

    Medical doctors and automobile drivers--who are much more regulated, as you point out often--kill many times that number every year.

    This is my line of reasoning: Here is a group of people who have a much better safety record than many other groups, but are less regulated. What's wrong with allowing them to continue doing what they do?

  4. "The best that people like Horwitz and the Violence Policy Center can come up with is some three hundred licensees who have committed murder over the last four years."

    Again. It's important to note that CCW are *supposed* to be law-abiding citizens. They're not supposed to be felons, kooks, or criminals. Yet, we have over 300 murders and thousands of crimes committed by these so-called "law-abiding" citizens.

    When I hear excuses like GC's, I'm reminded of the Catholic Church abuse scandals. A common argument from the Catholic Church is their priests actually commit sexual abuse at lower rates than the general public. But that's a dodge and we all know why: priests are *supposed* to be held to a different standard given their responsibilities and standing.

    Similarly,the fact so many so-called "law-abiding citizens" commit crimes indicates the process isn't working.

  5. Greg, I hate to break it to ya, but the Supreme Court did fuck all in Heller-McDonald.

    FYI, Those decisions did not overturn US v. Miller, which is still good law.

    The "individual right" interpretation is intellectually and historically dishonest and unable to withstand scrutiny.

    But, Greg, you are too much of an ignorant dumbfuck to know any of that.

  6. Laci the Dog and Democommie have switched personalities. I wonder who's suffering more.

    What Heller and McDonald have done is establish a principle that can be acted on in the future. They are recent decisions, so it's not a big surprise that there aren't many citations yet. Just wait.


    Three hundred murderers divided by six million licensees is one half of one percent. Add in any licensees who commit any felony or major misdemeanor, and the number is still tiny.

    Why can't you address the point that this class of persons is safer than many other groups in our society? Any group of humans will have a few bad actors. Ours has shown itself to be one of the best. Of course, you won't be satisfied short of absolute perfection, but I do have to wonder why you don't focus on groups who pose a much greater danger.

  7. Today I posted that the House approved it. I'm kinda hoping the Senate does the same and Obama has a chance to veto it. That would be the maximum drama and it would put the president's weak ass on the line. Although, come to think of it, I wouldn't really want it all the come down to the guy who continues running wars all over the place and STILL hasn't shut down that cesspool called Guantanamo.

  8. "I'm kinda hoping the Senate does the same and Obama has a chance to veto it."

    I hope so too. I don't think he will sign it or veto it. He will simply allow it to become law. Then during the election, the gunloons can't say he vetoed a gun bill and he'll point that out to the bitter-clingers then he'll turn right around and tell the anti-freedom loons that he didn't sign a gun bill.


    Currently there are eleven (11) states that do not recognize concealed weapons carry permits issued by any other states in violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (CA, CT, HI, IL MA, MD, NJ, NY, OR, RI, & WI) Of these one (IL) does not have any provisions for issuing concealed weapons carry permits and does not allow concealed weapons carry.

    Conversely, there are eleven (11) states that honor all other states' concealed weapons carry permits in compliance with Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (AK, AZ, IA, ID, IN, MI, MO, OK, SD, TN, & UT). One state (VT) does not require a permit for concealed weapons carry and therefore does not issue concealed weapons carry permits.

    The remaining twenty-seven (27) states recognize some other states' concealed weapons carry permits but do not recognize other states' concealed weapons carry permits, again in violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. These remaining 27 states are also not consistent with each other thus creating a mind-numbing and constantly changing environment for travelers with valid state issued permits for concealed weapons carry.

    In some states, you can not even possess a handgun without a permit and permits are only issued to residents with a “demonstrated need”; effectively violating residents' U.S. Constitutional, 2nd Amendment rights .

    We should have the right to protect ourselves in any state while traveling or on vacation. All but one state have passed concealed carry laws because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves their home. However, as listed earlier, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform, is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and creates great confusion and potential safety and legal problems for the traveler. H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized in accordance with Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, while being subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have the least restricted permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State. It would authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state to carry a concealed handgun in another state in accordance with the restrictions applied to the least restricted concealed carry permit of that state. This provision protects the ability of the various states to determine the conditions of concealed carry, much like they determine their individual state traffic laws.

    The bill would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

  10. “ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED [Amendment II].” This statement does not create, limit or endow a right; it is an affirmation of a people's right. It also does not delegate to the United States the power to infringe upon that right. Instead, it prohibits any infringement of that right by any entity, not just the United States. “THIS CONSTITUTION . . . SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING [Article VI].” All the States have reviewed and ratified the US Constitution, in its entirety, and are thereby bound by it. “THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE [Amendment X].” The right (and the power) to “keep and bear arms” is reserved to (and belongs to) the people and the power to infringe on that right is prohibited by Amendment II.

    This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations [Article IV, Section 1 and Amendment XIV] to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!

  11. Under our current legal system, the Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. The power of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from having 2nd Amendment rights needs to be challenged in the courts and SCOTUS; but, until the ability of the Federal Government to exercise that power is overturned, that power remains. Once the ability of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from exercising 2nd Amendment rights is established, then there must be identification of those actions that would cause a person to be disenfranchised The Federal Government currently has such a set of criteria.

    Those criteria must be reviewed, by the voters, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people and if any or all of those criteria are even applicable. If, as now, those criteria are too broad or even not relevant, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria through legislation and/or the courts.

    Once there is a set of criteria, there must be some means of identifying those people that, by their own actions, have violated those criteria and therefore have been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights and/or conversely identifying those people that have NOT been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights. A system, such as Vermont's, whereby each and every time a person's ability to exercise 2nd Amendment rights is challenged, an independent verification must be done, is extremely cumbersome. Under such a system, people will be treated as if they have been disenfranchised until the authorities get around to finding out otherwise, since “the danger” has already been neutralized. So, who is going to certify that individuals are NOT disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights? The Federal Government or State governments? Right now, the States have assumed that responsibility. However, the States in assuming that power have also assumed that they have the power to add even more criteria and/or restrictions to the people's 2nd Amendment rights. Some States have further assumed that power extends to denying anyone the “right to keep and bear arms” (known as “may issue” or “discretionary issue”) for any reason. Those State criteria and/or restrictions must be reviewed, by the voters, State Legislatures, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. A prima facie assumption in that review should be: “Are any criteria and/or regulations beyond those at the Federal Government level necessary or even permissible?” If, as now, those criteria and/or restrictions are too broad or even not relevant, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria and/or restrictions through legislation and/or the courts.

    Once a person has been certified as NOT being disenfranchised from rights under the 2nd Amendment, there needs to be a way for that person to prove they are NOT disenfranchised A concealed weapons permit issued by a State is currently recognized as acceptable proof of that person's ability to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. However, some States have assumed, in addition to their power to regulate the peoples' rights under the 2nd Amendment, that they also have the power (and right) to NOT recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other States. Such action is prohibited under the US Constitution and must be eliminated through the courts and/or legislation.


    Until all regulation and/or restriction of 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, there is a need for the issuance of concealed weapons permits and interstate recognition of those permits. Our ultimate goal remains, however, to reduce those regulations and/or restrictions to the absolute minimum or eliminate them. Only when all regulations and/or restrictions applied to 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, can we get to Constitutional Carry.

  13. Inquisitor, welcome.

    You wrote:
    "Inquisitor said...
    Under our current legal system, the Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment."

    We also deny full rights to do many things to people who are mentally incapacitated. Would you like to see all the crazy people who are dangerous have guns? How about criminals who are in jail?

    Rights are not absolute, nor has it been determined by past Congress, Presidents, and the Supreme Court that those rights may not be regulated appropriately.

    What you are arguing is not only foolish, and stupid, it is not consistent with the Constitution. You are cherry picking and you are arguing for an unreasonable and extremist interpretation that clearly has been rejected - by the states and all three branches of the feds.

    That is the position of a gun loon - short for lunatic.

  14. H.R. 822 states: "... a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm . . ."

    According to Federal law: The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
    o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
    o Fugitives from justice.
    o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
    o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
    o Illegal aliens.
    o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
    o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
    o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
    o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
    Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.

  15. IF the government is going to regulate 2nd Amendment rights then those regulations need to be reviewed to make sure they are LAWFULL and REASONABLE. Also, if there are regulations there needs to be a means of LAWFULLY enforcing those regulations. LAWFULL and REASONABLE do not confer the power to violate the Constitutional rights of lawfull citizens!

  16. Inquisitor,

    Welcome to the fight! Hip, hip, huzzah, and don't stop till they strike their colors.

  17. Inquisitor, nice screed, but one major problem.


    Greg, we will not strike our colors unless you can provide some reason that withstands scrutiny.

    But, you have yet to do that.

    And you cannot do that in regard to the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment which was the one presented in US v Miller and expounded by Justice Stevens in his dissent to Heller.

    McDonald is an aburdity based upon nonsense.

  18. Laci the Dog,

    Reviewing the Miller case, I see that it has a number of irregularities, chief of which was the fact that the defense counsel did not present an argument, due to the defendant's inability to pay. I note also that Miller has been referred to only in a small number of cases since 1939.

    I suppose that it comes down to which case is in support of your side. Heller and McDonald lean my direction, while Miller goes for you.

  19. I don't know, Laci, if I have to read three more comments like those from The Inquisitor, I may just shut down the site.

  20. Mikeb302000,

    And why would you do that? Having second thoughts about free speech as well?