Saturday, November 19, 2011

More on the Bizarre HR-822

 via The New York Times op-ed by Gail Collins

Here’s an example of the way the House plan would work. California has very strict limits on who can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, involving extensive background checks by local law enforcement. Utah, on the other hand, is really mellow about the whole thing. You don’t even have to live there to get a Utah permit. Just ask the 215,000 non-Utah folks who’ve gotten one. And, in Florida, “it is so easy that a staffer in one of our offices was able to complete the form in less than 30 minutes,” said Representative Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat. 

Under this bill, California’s strict rules on gun permits are now expanded to include anybody who drives into the state waving a Florida or Utah permission slip.

As I said before, I can't believe the gun-rights folks are pushing for this. It violates every possible notion of common sense and public safety. It's almost like cheating, first you can get a Utah or Florida license through the mail with practically no requirements then you can use it in any state you want? It's bizarre.

But, the most pathetic part is that the gun-rights folks who do oppose it, do so for the wrong reason. Some of them are so adamant about states' rights, that they oppose federal government interference even if it's something they want. It doesn't matter to any of them if this law would result in less gun safety than before.

What's your opinion? Do you think it has a chance of getting Senate approval? If so, would Obama veto it? What do you think?

Please leave a comment.


  1. As I've mentioned before, if you want a carry license in California, you have to be a major donor to a politician or a celebrity. The thing that your side refuses to acknowledge is that California's system has nothing to do with safety. It has nothing to do with need. It's all about cronyism.

    Besides, I don't see how the nation will be less safe if this bill becomes law. The states that are reasonable about carry laws haven't experienced the bloodbath that has been predicted. The only thing that will happen will be that the citizens of California will realize that the rest of us get to carry in their state, and Californians will demand the same right for themselves.

  2. This is the "import guns from Utah to California for criminals, drug gangs, and assorted thugs" act. This will increase gun trafficking by 1000x.


    Yes, because drug gangs and assorted thugs all have Utah gun permits and are just waiting for this bill to traffic illegal guns.

    Are you just trolling for a response or are you really retarded?

  4. Oh, come on, POed Lib, I thought this was the "Packing Heat on Your Street" act.

    By the way, do you believe that all states ought to recognize marriages performed in any state? How about the people who travel to Nevada to get married? How about gay marriages? I've been arguing for a long time that those deserve the same recognition that any other marriage gets.

    Of course, if we instituted a may-issue policy on marriage licenses, we might see a reduction in domestic violence.

  5. i don't have a Utah license, but I do have a Florida non-resident permit. I had to demonstrate training by a certified instructor and pass a background check to get it. The problem here is what, exactly?

  6. Well, the thing is, some of the folks in AZ and AK who have concealed carry permits are considered unfit in NY and MA.

    Only the most extremist fanatics could think it's a good idea to honor their permits anywhere they go.

  7. Mikeb302000,

    I see nothing extreme in asking all states to recognize the documents of any state. That's done without question with drivers' licenses, and it should be done the same way with marriage licenses.

    You say that some people in Arizona and Alaska are seen as unfit by the states of New York and Massachusetts. The problem is that these may-issue states look a lot more like a crony system that favors the powerful, rather than a system that is concerned about safety. Are you aware that Alabama is officially a may-issue state? Licenses are issued to "suitable persons." We in the south understand that to have meant white people during Jim Crow days.

    Are you being inconsistent here? Are you supporting a system that favors people with influence because it will mean fewer guns on the streets? Perhaps you don't really believe that rich people are better, but since there are fewer of them, you'll tolerate an unjust system to achieve your goal.

  8. That crony-system argument is bullshit. You're making that up or repeating what others have made up. The fact is the may issue state has a better chance of keeping legally owned guns out of the hands of unfit people. Lots of guys have a history of beating up their wives but haven't yet been imprisoned for it. The folks who make the decision about concealed carry permit issue are in a unique position to know who they are. You call that cronyism and favoritism. Bullshit.

    In AZ they have such low requirements there are bound to be some losers in there carrying a gun with a concealed carry permit. New York does not want them coming for a visit with their guns.

  9. In may issue states, celebrities and politicians and the wealthy (one in the same?) obviously have a "need" for a license, but, apparently, you trust those people.

    I want a licensing system that follows a set of rules, not the opinion of someone who may not like me or who is dissatisfied with the level of my campaign contributions.

    This bill is going to pass. If not this year, then the next or the next year after that. Get used to it.

  10. Wow, you really think it's coming eventually. I doubt that.

    As far as your fear that someone's opinion would prejudice you, that's just self-centered paranoia. With proper oversight and due process, that kind of abuse could be kept to a minimum while many unfit people could be identified and denied.

  11. Mikeb302000,

    The astonishing thing for me here is that you trust the government to make the right decisions. Of course, from your other statements, the right decision is to deny a license to carry or even to own in most cases, so I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised. To me, the government always needs to be the one that has to work hard to deny me anything, not the other way around. The government has to justify itself to me, not the other way around.

  12. Greg, You're being totally biased about that. If you had a couple drunk driving charges and an accident or two and they suspended your driver's license, wouldn't that be right and just.

    If you couldn't pass the driving test in the first place, wouldn't it be right and just to deny you the right to drive?