Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"
If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

National CCW Legislation?

Republican Rep. Richard Hudson (N.C.) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require states to recognize each other’s gun carry permits.
I have a few issues with this, and I say that as a person who has had a carry permit since before carry permits were cool.

I know that some of the people who are in favor of this make an analogy to driver's licenses. That's a false one, for there isn't any Federal legislation on that. The states, themselves, agreed to honor each other's driver's licenses. (There are some exceptions, which aren't germane to this post.)

Second, remember that what the Congress can do, a later Congress can undo.

Third, this bill shows the utter hypocrisy of the "states' rights" crowd. This bill is being advocated by many of the same people and groups who are oh, so willing to argue "states' rights" when it comes to other things, such as pollution regulation, gay marriage, labor laws, voting rights, segregation, bathrooms and so on and so forth. It's not a terrible stretch to state that those who claim "states' rights" generally fall into three camps: Bigots, oppressors and polluters.

Would I like to have my carry permit honored everywhere? Damned skippy. But this is not the way to do it. For if the Feds pass a law granting reciprocity, it's not a big step for them to start making rules and regulations on that topic. Which could include a lot of things that you might not want to see happen.

This bill needs to die.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

First, nobody on the pro rights side is saying treat permits like driver’s licenses, we’re saying that because we treat the -privilege- of driving universally among the states, carry permits should be recognized every bit as easy.

Second, the proposed legislation merely compels states to honor permits issued pursuant to the laws of other states; this is a pseudo ‘full faith and credit’ argument.

Third, The States don’t have rights, states have authority. That authority ends where the Bill of Rights begins. The 2nd secures a RKBA, the 14th provides for Congress to enforce those rights on behalf of the citizens. For generations, congress has been abrogating this duty, allowing bad actor regimes like NJ and NY among others to felonize mere possession of firearms.

It’s very easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize bills - it’s what you do instead of doing something. It’s called “rationalizing”. People have an incredible capacity to rationalize inaction.

“But this is not the way to do it”... Exactly what is your plan to accomplish universal recognition of carry permits within the USA?

Comrade Misfit said...

Do not impute motives to me. That's insulting.

Driver's license reciprocity exists because the states, themselves, without the Federal government, agreed on it.

I'll state again: The same groups of people who have been dismissive of the 14th Amendment when it comes to civil rights for various minority groups (those who are not heterosexual Christian white males, that is) are now seizing on it for CCW purposes.

3383 said...

Like Big Intrusive Government is bad when it comes to regulating business and taxing income, but good when regulating individual privacy and citizens' sex lives.

I do think the "full faith and credit" can help- marriages made in other states are recognized (which led to protection-of-marriage attempts to withhold that recognition in some cases).

B said...

You are exactly in line with my thinking. Too many jump at the chance to carry anywhere, failing to see the hook embedded in that tasty worm....

I, however, think it is a trap.

By breaking 10th amendment, it becomes a path to even greater power for the Feds...long term.

Short term, it lets the Feds ultimately decide whose requirements for a carry permit are good, and whose aren't. Ferinstance, Indiana has essentially no requirement, except that you can't be a felon....Next door, Illinois makes it very hard to acquire. and we won't even discuss NY, or California or NJ.

I simply don't go places where my carry permit(s) are not honored, whenever possible.

Comrade Misfit said...

B, when I lived there, NYS wasn't monolithic. The permitting was done by county, with a judge doing it. If the judge was a pro-2A guy, you were golden. If not, you were screwed.

There system was really weird. You paid for the gun, got a form, and then took it to your county clerk. The judge would sign off on it, the gun would be added to your permit and then you could go claim the gun.

Turnaround time in one county I knew of was maybe four business days. In a neighboring county, it could be six months.

B said...

Ah, I assumed it was the same in every county.

Lemme restate that to NYC, rather than NYS.

And folks gotta remember that Trump is, at heart, a New York Democrat. I doubt that he has any real care for the Second.

Comrade Misfit said...

MA was about the same, except that the permitting was controlled by the local police chief.

CT also was local, but denials could be appealed to the state firearms board, which was run by the state cops. If the denial was for something like "we don't like people to have permits", which some cities were famous for, the denial would be overturned.

Since in CT, the state cops got to keep the permit and renewal fees, well.....

CenterPuke88 said...

Nah, it's not a "deliberate" trap, in that context. It is however a remarkably stupid idea for the Republicans to float. The big ideal in the late 1990's, if I remember right was Florida (and perhaps, Utah?) CHL's, because the requirements were minimal and they were offered regardless of residency status.

As it is, Texas has so watered down the CHL qualification and renewal requirements to get those people applying out of state to pay here instead, it's a joke. I'm scared what some of these bozos will do sometimes, because the shooting qualifications are a complete joke, and the class length is barely enough to cover basic safety and laws. The absolute lack of understanding of the limitations for carry in Texas is immense, and couple that will the fact these geniuses won't take anytime to learn the rules in another state, should be fun.

More to the point, it is indeed an absolute Trojan Horse of Federal power that will likely end badly for gun owners, given the current demographic trends.

B said...

Dude, I hold both Utah and Florida No-Resident CCW permits. And an Indiana Resident lifetime permit.

The requirements in Indiana are....none. One cannot be a felon, nor convicted of Domestic Violence. That is it. No training. no quals, no "when and where can I deploy Deadly Force"..... You pays yo money and gets yer pink card.

The Florida/Utah class had both classroom time and tests...and were a joke as well. The cklassroom was a waste of time....As was the range qual ("Shoot this 36" x 48" "zombie" target at 10 feet")....I asked what pattern they'd like, and was told..."Just keep it on the paper". No time limit....nothing. (I shot a 4" 10 shot group from the hip, with a reload, in 30 seconds just to show I could). Lots of others in that class showed great skill, but we were all long time shooters.

None of the three above have any real qual or real decent classroom requirements.

While I, as a gun owner and NRA instructor would like to see some basic standards, in places like Illinois these classes are expensive and make it hard (and for some, impossible) to get a permit. Costs can be as high as $1K to get the permit. Which is, really, the intent of the requirements.

Somewhere, there has to be a middle ground.