The first piece of gun-related legislation to reach a vote in Congress since the Tucson massacre has passed the House and may be taken up soon by the Senate.
Is it a bill to ban the high-capacity assault clips that allowed Jared Loughner, in a span of around sixteen seconds, to kill six people, including a nine-year-old child, and wound thirteen others, including the grievous injury to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords? No.
Is it a bill to strengthen the Brady background check system to prevent dangerous people like Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter, from getting access to lethal weaponry? No.
The legislation recently passed by the House would allow the Jared Loughners of the world to carry their loaded, hidden handguns virtually anywhere in the country. Two days after their wounded colleague's extraordinary courage was on display to a national audience in her first TV interview since the shooting, the House majority summoned not an ounce of courage to defy the gun lobby. No wonder the approval rating of the Congress is below 10%.
H.R. 822, which should be known as the "Packing Heat on Your Street Act," would force states to recognize the concealed carry permits of visitors from other states, even if the visitor would be ineligible to even possess a gun in the state where the carrying occurs. Arizona's gun laws are so nonexistent that Jared Loughner, with his history of mental problems and threatening behavior, was a legal concealed carrier until the moment he pulled the trigger outside that Tucson Safeway. He didn't even need a permit to carry, though he could easily have obtained one from Arizona authorities. If he had, under H.R. 822 he could have carried his Glock and its 33-round assault clip into Times Square.
Even conservative senators who aren't troubled by the public safety danger of more people carrying concealed weapons in public places should oppose this bill. Why?
First, when it comes to gun issues, we often hear the refrain from the right, "We don't need new laws, we need to enforce the laws we have." Yet the "Packing Heat on Your Street Act" is a proposed new law that undercuts the authority of states to enforce their existing laws on concealed weapons. Even states that have relatively permissive concealed carry laws still have restrictions that have been built into current law in the interest of public safety.
For example, the State of Arkansas bars concealed carry by persons who have voluntarily committed themselves to a mental institution or who are chronic abusers of alcohol. Under H.R. 822, Arkansas could enforce those restrictions against its own residents, but not against visitors who have licenses to carry from states that lack the same restrictions.
Why should a state's law be unenforceable against visitors from other states?
Second, it should make a difference to conservatives that H.R. 822 involves Congress telling states what laws they can and can't enforce. Conservatives who generally oppose the invasion of state prerogatives by the federal government should blanch at the reach of this bill. Recently Robert VerBruggen of National Review, who thinks "concealed carry is a good idea," nevertheless condemned H.R. 822 as "bad policy from a conservative perspective, as it tramples on states' rights."
As he points out, states now have concealed carry reciprocity agreements with other states, but these are voluntary agreements with other states. Reciprocity forced by the Congress, as in H.R. 822, "goes beyond the proper functions of the federal government," according to VerBruggen.
This is why Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) voted against H.R. 822 in the House Judiciary Committee and on the Floor, even though he wrote Tennessee's permissive concealed carry law when he was in the state legislature. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Cal.) was one of seven House Republicans to vote against the bill. He cited his "deep and abiding commitment to preserving states' rights."
But what about the Second Amendment? Proponents of H.R. 822 assert that the Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon should not stop at the state line and that the Constitution trumps the authority of states to enforce their own gun laws. This assertion invokes the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, but in defiance of what the Court actually said in Heller.
The right recognized in Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller is that of "law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home," not the right to carry guns in public. Indeed, Justice Scalia, a conservative judicial icon and no friend of gun control, in determining that this right "is not unlimited," used as an example the fact that "prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons" have been held lawful by courts since the 19th century.
The right to carry concealed weapons across state lines exists only in the fertile constitutional imagination of the gun lobby. Justice Scalia's "originalism" apparently leaves no room for such a right.
Conservatives don't have to believe that concealed carry of loaded guns in public places poses unacceptable risks in order to be opposed to H.R. 822. Principled conservatives -- even those who think concealed carry is a positive good -- should be driven to the same conclusion.
Individuals from across the ideological spectrum should register their opposition to legislation like H.R. 822. Go to www.bradycampaign.org and we'll make it easy for you.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)
Josh Horwitz: The Real Slippery Slope of Gun Laws
Dennis A. Henigan: "Packing Heat on Your Street": Stop This Bill!
Carolyn Maloney: High Noon in the House
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is carrying government-issued photographic identification and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state, and who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, to carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.
Let me highlight: "in accordance with the restrictions of that state."
That means that if you are legally ineligible in that state to carry a gun... the bill DOESN'T APPLY.
Another aspect of this argument... how many criminals actually go through legal steps to carry guns? If someone gets it in their head that they are going to commit a gun crime, do you think it matters to them if carrying the gun to the crime is legal?
If more people have guns LEGALLY, criminals are less likely to follow through with their crimes. Make it easier for innocent citizens to carry, and a criminal is a likely to think before pulling a weapon on them.
In the case of sprees, one person who carries a gun ILLEGALLY to kill multiple people will probably be a lot less successful if multiple people LEGALLY carry their own guns there as well.
I am concerned that HR822 is an overreach of federal authority, but I recognize that Mr. Henigan's arguments against the bill likely lack any credibility due to his established history of advocating entirely Unconstitutional measures and his reliance upon claims known to be untrue.
Day was marked by flood of background checks requests to FBI.
....Gun dealers flooded the FBI with background check requests for prospective buyers last Friday, smashing the single-day , alltime high by 32%, according to bureau records.
Deputy Assistant FBI Director Jerry Pender said the checks, required by federal law, surged to 129,166 during the day, far surpassing the previous high of 97,848 on Black Friday of 2008.....
Dennis Henigan, of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said he was "skeptical" of the Black Friday surge in gun sales.
"I think there may be no real significance at all." Henigan said.".....
USA Today Friday Dec. 2, 2011.
Even supplied with fact from the government, FBI, and everyplace else the Brady Bunch won't believe the truth. They say it doesn't matter.
Currently there are eleven (10) 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) 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 (28) 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 28 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 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 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.
In summary, unless 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 goal should remain, however, to reduce those regulations and/or restrictions to the absolute minimum that are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. While an extreme goal may be to totally eliminate those regulations and/or restrictions, I believe that will never happen because no one, except the delusional, truly believes that absolutely anyone, without exception, should be allowed to own and carry a firearm anywhere. Only when all regulations and/or restrictions applied to 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, could we have Constitutional Carry.
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 lawful and necessary 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 those criteria and/or restrictions are not lawful and necessary, 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.
Those criteria must be reviewed, by the voters, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum lawful and necessary criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. If, those criteria are not lawful and necessary, 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 “averted”. 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.
Maybe someday the SCOTUS will be forced to answer the question: by what definition of “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is regulation and/or restriction of by whom, how, and where that right is exercised, not a restriction? But until then, under our current legal system, the SCOTUS has ruled that concealed carry is a privilege and 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 clarified in the courts and SCOTUS; and, unless 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.
The Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. 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.
Instead of constant attacks on our 2nd Amendment Rights, maybe there should be a national drive to take 1st Amendment Rights away from liars. Lies are dangerous! After all, lies got us into a war in Iraq, caused the current financial crisis, and are depriving law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional Rights. Let's see how NY Mayor Bloomers and his Mayors Against Anyone But Criminals [or the rich and famous] Having Guns Campaign, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Lawful Citizens From Protecting Themselves, The National Association Against Gun Rights, the Press, and almost all Democratic politicians, like having their cherished US Constitutional, 1st Amendment Right to free speech constantly under attack!
Inquisitor
infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
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!
The United States Constitution
Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
· · ·
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.
[The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."]
THE AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT II - Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
AMENDMENT X - Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
On one hand I do support the idea of States Rights and I don't like the Federal Govt overruling the States' authority...
On the other hand, if Henigan thinks it's a bad idea I'm inclined to support it AND since Dennis has had over 40 years to tell us how the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a bad idea because it tramples on States Rights but has failed to do so....I'm again inclined to support the idea...
Hmmm...What to do...what to do...?
Want more numbers?
In 2005 there were 43,510 car related deaths in the US.
That's over 13,000 more than gun related. Hmmmmmmmm.
There is an average of at least 75,000 alcohol related deaths in the US every single year.
That's about 2.5 times more. Hmmmmmmmm....
What does that really say about these anti-gun people who are "Just looking out for the safety of the American people"?
They really want to do something, ban cars.
Or better yet, ban alcohol, but... wait.... That one has been tried, leading to the fastest rise in crime in the history of the world.
Numbers to think about.