Next Tuesday, Nov. 15, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on legislation that would require all states to honor the concealed carry licenses or permits issued by other states, and the bill – H.R. 822 – is taking fire from certain corners on both sides.
This legislation should not be controversial at all in the wake of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the case brought against the Windy City’s handgun ban by the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation, but quite the opposite is true.
Gun prohibitionists have been furiously trying to portray the legislation as a covert and clever mechanism to destroy the states’ authority to regulate firearms within their borders. There have also been the gratuitous predictions of more dead police and increased danger to local communities from legally-licensed, traveling armed citizens (who curiously haven’t harmed anyone in their own communities). Two of Capitol Hill’s most fanatical anti-gun extremists have called on President Barack Obama to threaten a veto if the legislation reaches his desk.
“We strongly urge you and your administration to make clear your opposition to, and issue a veto threat for H.R. 822. Passing H.R. 822 would jeopardize public safety and would be an insult to states like New Jersey and New York that purposefully have strong gun ownership laws. In a country with almost 300 million guns, we need to be strengthening our gun safety laws, not weakening them.”—Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Some in the firearms community have been kicking the legislation as either “not enough” or as a covert and clever mechanism to institute a federal licensing standard that will undermine the Constitutional Carry movement.
The National Rifle Association has issued an advisory to its members that refutes these claims:
H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing or registration system; does not establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit; does not involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permit; and it does not destroy or discourage the adoption of permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.—National Rifle Association
Timing of the legislative battle could not be better for concealed and open carry advocates in Wisconsin. The state’s new concealed carry statute just took effect on Nov. 1, and judging from the public rush to apply for carry licenses, there is a huge interest in that state for the right to carry firearms for personal protection, a right twice denied by former anti-gun Democrat Gov. Jim Doyle, and only now achieved thanks to the pen of his successor, pro-rights Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
An editorial in the New Richmond News, however, would have Badger State residents believing that the sky was falling (while unintentionally reinforcing the argument that Wisconsin citizens have wanted concealed carry and would rush to exercise their rights). After all, a majority of Americans support gun ownership, as this column reported.
Nov. 1 was the first day people could apply for concealed weapons permits. You would have thought it was a Black Friday sale.
That day out-of-towners drove to Madison to apply for their permits in person rather than mailing them. By late afternoon almost 150 applications had been received at the Department of Justice office.
By 9 a.m., Nov. 1, more than 80,000 people had downloaded permit application forms from the DOJ’s website. By noon, about 800,000 people had logged onto the website.—New Richmond News
Misunderstanding what concealed carry accomplishes has always been a problem among those who do not feel comfortable with the thought of armed citizens in their midst. Wisconsin anti-gunners better get over that one fast because their state will now recognize carry licenses from 25 other states, Washington among them, as this column reported. Likewise, considering what Robert VanBruggen wrote in the National Review, there is also a misunderstanding of the complete ramifications of the McDonald ruling by people who evidently haven't thought this through.
The only other justification for the law I can even think of is the “full faith and credit” clause, which requires states to respect each others’ “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” — but this case would seem to fall under the “public-policy exception.”—Robert VerBruggen, National Review
That is, the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens in all states equally, and this right is a civil right that crosses all state borders and city limits. This – at least in theory – means that all law-abiding citizens who choose to go armed have that right within the borders of the United States, subject to local regulations, which change from state to state. Therein may lay a dilemma, but reasonably intelligent gun owners should be able to understand the basics about where firearms are prohibited and where they are allowed.
VanBruggen simply doesn’t get it. This issue goes beyond “full faith and credit.” It’s a full blown civil rights matter. As a law-abiding citizen, one has the civil right to keep and bear arms under the federal constitution, and that (theoretically) means if you can peaceably carry a firearm in Montana, you should likewise be able to peaceably carry that firearm in Maryland.
You may also contact your Representative by phone at (202) 225-3121. Additionally, you may CLICK HERE TO EMAIL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS.—National Rifle Association
As this column noted Thursday, there are nearly 345,800 active Washington concealed pistol licenses now in circulation. With that many legally-armed citizens on the streets, one might think there would be a constant flow of blood in the streets at their hands. To the contrary, as one street-savvy Seattle cop told this column recently, people typically involved in gang shootings, armed robberies and the like are not prone to applying for CPLs because they wouldn’t qualify due to age restrictions or, more likely, their criminal histories.
Watch next Tuesday’s vote on H.R. 822 carefully. See if the voting does not pretty much go along party lines. See which party supports it, and which party opposes it, and read what this column said. Washingtonians should pay particular attention to how Congressman Jay Inslee, now running to be this state’s next governor, comes down on the question.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE by clicking on the link above
And Don’t forget to visit:
VISIT THESE GUN RIGHTS EXAMINERS ON-LINE:
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard | Oakland Yih-Chau Chang
ALSO VISIT:
‘Winning Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time’
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
READ:
America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age
These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns
Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns
Comments