It's been nine months since the Tucson shooting, in which the U.S. Congress almost lost one of its own -- Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- to gunfire. And how has the Congress responded to the shooting that so gravely wounded Rep. Giffords, while ending six innocent lives, including that of a nine-year-old girl, and injuring twelve others?
The House Judiciary Committee next week likely will report out a bill, H.R. 822, that will make it possible for dangerous people like the Tucson shooter to legally carry concealed weapons in virtually every state in the nation. The Senate may take up similar legislation any day now, in the form of an Appropriations Amendment.
Arizona's gun laws are so weak that Jared Loughner did not even have to get a permit to legally carry his hidden Glock, with its high-capacity assault clip, to the sidewalk in front of that Safeway. But he was certainly eligible for an Arizona concealed carry permit, and if he had obtained one, H.R. 822 would have enabled him to carry his Glock into Times Square.
This dreadful piece of legislation -- which should be known as the "Packing Heat on Your Street Act" -- would force states to recognize the concealed carry permits granted by other states, even if the gun carriers would be ineligible for a permit in the state where the carrying occurs. In fact, the version adopted by the House Judiciary majority last week would allow non-resident concealed carriers to pack heat in states where they were previously ineligible even to possess a gun. So much for states' rights. Under H.R. 822, the Congress would prevent states from enforcing the restrictions they have deemed necessary for public safety against out-of-state gun carriers.
In an ironic twist, during the same week the Judiciary Committee was considering this bill, Rep. Curry Todd, a Tennessee State legislator who championed a bill to allow concealed carry permit holders to take their guns into bars in his State, was arrested for possessing a handgun while intoxicated. (Perhaps we now know why he felt so strongly about the issue.) Apart from the irony, the legislator's arrest demonstrates the folly of making it easier for individuals to carry loaded and concealed weapons in public. It is simply too difficult to ensure that those who get these licenses are, in fact, responsible, law-abiding citizens.
A recent Brady Center report documents thirteen cases of murder by persons who were legal concealed carriers until they pulled the trigger, including Jared Loughner. The "Packing Heat on Your Street Act" only exacerbates the problem by allowing such persons to carry their guns into virtually any state. Under this legislation, if someone with a Virginia concealed carry permit were caught armed and intoxicated in Tennessee, the State would be powerless to arrest him for gun possession while under the influence, even though it could enforce the same law against Tennessee residents. Does this make any sense at all?
Even now, dangerous individuals are bypassing their own states' concealed weapon restrictions by obtaining permits from more lenient states. Take the case of Marqus Hill, who obtained a Florida permit after his Pennsylvania permit was revoked. At the permit revocation hearing, Hill had assaulted a police officer. With his Florida permit making him, once again, a legal concealed carrier in Pennsylvania, last year Hill shot 18-year-old Irving Santana 13 times and was charged with homicide.
Some states, like Utah, literally have gone into the business of issuing concealed carry licenses to non-residents. Last year, the State made $2.5 million from issuing the permits to individuals from all over the country. Dan Morain of the Sacramento Bee discovered that over 16,000 permits had been issued to Californians, even though California doesn't recognize Utah permits. Under the "Packing Heat" bill, everyone with a Utah permit will be able to carry virtually anywhere.
It's not too late to stop this insanity.
Think about the innocent victims of a legal concealed carrier in Tucson and call your U.S. Senator, and your Representative, now! 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: A Gun Lobby Bill That Conservatives Should Hate
Margie Omero: Views Might Be Changing Toward Gun Laws Not Actually Up for Debate. So What?
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics
Poor Dennis. The Joyce Foundation better up the ante next year.
Clue: Do not allow Wayne LaPierre to identify them for you --- think for yourself --- if you have the ability to do so.
Technically he was not a legal carrier as under AZ state law, it is illegal to carrier concealed in order to commit a crime. Since he was carrying with the intent to commit a crime, he was therefore not a legal carrier.
And regardless of the legality of his carrying of the weapon, it was totally irrelevant to what he did, as it is totally absurd to think that he wouldn't have carried out his plan if he wasn't able to carry the gun to Safeway legally, or that making it illegal for him to carry would have stopped the shooting from happening. Indeed, he was pulled over by a cop shortly before the incident, and the cop had no reason to suspect he had a weapon in the car.
“The contact was very cordial,” said Jim Paxon, a spokesman for the department. “Mr. Loughner was very forthcoming with his license and registration and insurance. The officer did a visual examination of the vehicle. He had no probable cause to search the vehicle or detain the subject.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/politics/13giffords.html
Yes, but 25 states do recognize Utah's non-resident permits and those 16,000 people may travel to those other states, no all of which have a non-resident permit system in place. For example, if a Californian is going to Montana and is unable to get a permit in California due to that state's arbitrary discrimination practices (they can deny you a permit because you part your hair on the wrong side), and since Montana does not have a non-resident permit system, the person can get a non-resident permit from Utah which is accepted by Montana. So while it does not afford them any benefits in California, it can when they travel outside the state.
I am told it helps greatly to be a major political supporter of the local sheriff. What's so unfair about that? As long as the sheriff is a Democrat, that seems like a perfectly reasonable filter.....
Actually that is incorrect. Under this legislation, the only thing which carried over from the issuing state is the permit to carry. A person carrying in a state other than the issuing state must comply with the carry restrictions the non-issuing state, to include prohibitions on locale and circumstances. In this regard it is treated just like a driver's license -- if the person has a license from California where right on red is allowed, that does not give him the permission to make a right on red in NYC, where it is prohibited. Likewise, if a person has a permit issued in a state which allows concealed carry in bars and has no provisions restricting carry while intoxicated, this would not give them the permission to carry in bars or while intoxicated while in a state which prohibits these things.
Fabricated term created recently by the leaders of the Brady Camp to arbitrarily demonize an object.
Hmmmmmm......I'm gonna go with......"Nuh uh".
As for the Utah Concealed Firearm Permit, they also include a special FBI Background check, to make sure potential carriers are not career criminals.
"An armed society, is a polite society".
Do you know that this goofy slogan comes from a pulp SF novel written in the 30s? In it Heinlein imagined a eugenics-based "utopia," which had completely abolished democracy and equality. Society was dominated by genetically enhanced gunslingers. Only gunwearers were entitled to what we call normal courtesy. In the course of the novel one character explains that the real purpose of an armed society is to kill of the weak, slow people.
Is this where you get your ideas?
The class I went to, was at a local Feed Store. Pleasant, informative, and painless.