Friday, November 18, 2011


So, got to work today and, before I even had a chance to take my jacket off, had someone demanding of me "Hey, did they really pass a law establishing National Concealed Carry?!"  (HR822 Passes! UPDATES)

My first reaction was to say something like ""What am I, your news service?" or "Ah, been listening to the Libtard RUMINT Network again!" or maybe "Aren't you old enough to actually follow reputable news agencies and do some research on your own?"

But, no, I patiently explained that HR822 simply says that, per the Full Faith and Credence1 clause of the Constitution, any state which issues a concealed carry permit (under whatever name) to it's own residents must honor those issued by other states to their residents, just like a WA Driver's License, or marriage license, is valid in Florida.  I further pointed out that this meant you still wouldn't be able to carry in Illinois or DeeCee, and offered up a second grade Social Studies observation that, just because it had passed the House does not mean it's law, it still has to pass the Senate, and then by signed by the President.

Jeeze, Louise, people, pay attention.

Of course, these people were the gun owners who are uncomfortable with no training requirement for a CPL, and who think a long gun purchase should have the same background checks as handguns, and waiting periods, etc.  (And went and got a Curios & Relics license for the discounts, and other benefits...)

(See Tamara's post View From The Porch: Sea Change., which I also referenced in my previous post, She's right, you know.)
At first, as I posted here somewhere, I was wavering on this issue; like this guy, I thought it was a "State's Rights" issue.  As I mulled over the issue, I came to realize that States Rights don't trump a citizen's Constitutional Rights; Tamara & Shootin' Buddy responded to that guy much better than I could have phrased it .

I personally believe that this bill will die in the Senate, UNLESS all the Democrats who are up for re-election next year decide they need this to suck up to the gun owners in their districts; if this happens, it will be because The Fix Is In and His Imperial Majesty is going to veto it anyway.  I mean, you just have to realize that Hawaii has "discretionary issue" on the books, with a grand total of ONE permit issues in the entire state, to a county prosecutor.  Most permits in California have been issued to the rich and famous friends of the powerful--Jim March pretty well proved that the way to get a carry permit in Cali was to make a healthy donation to the county sheriff's re-election fund.  (Note that this has changed, in some counties.)

Eventually, however, I believe that we will have some form of nation-wide reciprocity2.

Another point, sort of related, and which I believe Sebastien brought up, is that, with the technology behind the (so-called) Instant Background Check, there is really no need for the current restrictions on purchasing a firearm in another state.  Why shouldn't I be able to go to Reno, say, for Gun Blogger Rendezvous, and bring home the pistol I win in the raffle there, instead of having to have one FFL transfer it to another FFL?3

And what about silly rules, like the hyper-control on suppressors, or the short barreled rifle/shotgun/Any Other Weapon/Destructive Device rules?  Why does a certain combination of cosmetic features render a perfectly respectable home defense firearm--say a shotgun, standard butt stock, 18" barrel--but shorten the barrel by HALF AN INCH and/or replace the stock with a pistol grip, and it becomes a restricted item, good for a trip to Club Fed if you haven't filled out a slew of paperwork.4

All in good time.  Again, as Tamara pointed out in Sea Change, ten years ago none of us dreamed we'd be where we are today.  If you had offered a bet, I would have gone for a House vote in 2011 passing a bill allowing us to keep cap and ball revolvers locked up at the club, not HR822.
1.  NOT the Commerce Clause.  Which is a good thing; like a lot of Libertarians, I am unhappy with the way Congress and the Executive Branch, enabled by the Supreme Court, have used and abused the Commerce Clause to poke the government's nose into and and every facet of society.
2. Note that it is incumbent upon the individual traveling to keep track of local laws; for instance, in Oregon, you can carry in a bar, but in Washington, you cannot; you can, however, carry in a restaurant, and even have a drink with dinner.  Meanwhile, in some states, you cannot drink alcoholic beverages at all while carrying, and in others, just being in a restaurant will cause your pistol to jump out of the holster and start shooting...  I foresee a booming trade in the "Gun laws for travelers" field, which so far as I know, currently only has a couple of titles.
3.  Aside from the fact that I never win these things...
4. Or, you know, having the FBI besiege you and murder your wife and baby.

No comments: