The Antis Flailing at a Good Law

I have a driver’s license, and I can drive across country, and into foreign nations legally. Yet I have THREE carry permits, and can only carry in 40 states. Yep, I’m “safe” and vetted to carry in most of the country, but not ALL of the country. Doesn’t make a lot of sense. Makes even less sense that I can carry in Massachusetts, which is no small feat in itself, and of course I can carry in neighboring Vermont…but given that they have no laws spesific to concealed carry, so can you! But I carry in New Hampshire under a separate permit, and I cannot legally carry in Connecticut and Rhode Island! This is 5 states that cover a VERY small area. My family frequently travels to neighboring states just to do simple things like shopping or grabbing a bite to eat, and last weekend my Mother-In-Law was talking about taking a vacation in Newport Rhode Island, and rather than getting a hotel room, simply staying with us, and commuting, which is totally reasonable, yet I need two permits in this small area, and two of those states, I’m not covered.

Enter a law fixing that!

Gun owners would be allowed to carry concealed weapons around the country under new legislation introduced in the Senate.

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would allow gun owners who have a concealed carry permit in their home state to bring their firearms in any other state with concealed-carry laws.

Note that now we have 50-states of Concealed Carry, as well as legal carry in the District of Columbia, so yeah, if you can legally carry in your home state, you can travel EVERYWHERE in this fine nation, and all you need to worry about is what are the laws in each of the states you travel through. Great law! What’s not to like?

Of course the antis hate it!

“This bill is evil and dangerous. It is basically a proposal promoted by the gun lobby and its lap dog politicians to force every state to allow just about anyone to carry a loaded, hidden gun in public. Under this proposal, law enforcement in states with stronger gun laws would be handcuffed and helpless to take their own reasonable precautions to prevent dangerous people from carrying guns. States that use reasonable discretion in awarding concealed carry permits would be forced to accept the standards of states with reprehensibly low standards, like Florida. A recent study showed Florida has handed out gun permits to 1,400 felons. Under this bill, every one of those felons would have a permit to carry their guns in public across the country, from Times Square to Venice Beach. Florida happily handed George Zimmerman, a man who had an arrest record and history of violence, a permit to carry the gun he used to kill Trayvon Martin. Florida’s shamefully dangerous gun laws are one thing that need to be addressed, and we can start by not forcing the rest of the country to live with the same danger.”

OK let’s tear apart this pile of stupidity. First off by “Just about anyone” is just people who can pass a background check and all the application process to get a concealed weapons permit. I really don’t think Mr. Gross’ implication matches reality.

As for law enforcement taking their own “reasonable precautions”, what he’s talking about is “May Issue” laws, where police deny people’s permits with NO due process. If they had convictions or other disqualifications the denial would be reasonable by today’s standards (tho frankly I disagree with many of the crap that denies people their rights), to “because I say so” type denials. The end result is a major issue of equal protection under the law, where at worst is average citizens being denied their rights while people with political connections get special privileges, or people in one town or county get their rights, while the next town or county are denied.

This is not only not reasonable, but straight up not how we do legal business in America!

As for states with “reasonable discretion” vs. States with “reprehensibly low standards”, where is the problem? Are people in Florida getting in old-west style gun fights at high noon, or killing each other over petty arguments or parking spaces, like groups like the Brady Campaign have predicted when concealed carry first started its rebirth in the 1990s? Are the people of Massachusetts who have lots of difficult steps to carrying a gun any better at that task than say the people of neighboring New Hampshire that simply need to pass a background check, fill out a one-page application and pay $10?

Seems the picture being painted by reality is that heavy restrictions on carry is the unreasonable action. Also I’ll note the growing number of states that no longer (or never did) require a permit to carry aren’t seeing any problems either. Seems the reasonable solution is LESS laws, not more!

Last Mr. Gross totally goes off the rails. First up Florida’s “1,400 Felons” issue isn’t as simple as they make it out to be:

The Sun-Sentinel found that 1,400 individuals held valid licenses to carry guns in the first half of 2006 even though they had pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, including assault, burglary, drug possession, child molestation and homicide.

They were eligible because they entered into plea deals that let them avoid formal convictions if they successfully completed their sentences, usually probation. The practice is referred to as the “withholding of adjudication.”

Under Florida gun law, people who are given such breaks are eligible to carry guns three years after completing their sentences.

I don’t know a lot about this law, but it sounds like the pleas were done so that they could quickly show society that they weren’t a danger or an issue, so long as the records would be withheld after a period of good behavior. Again, I don’t fully understand it, but how it’s presented here, it doesn’t sound like a bad idea.

Still at it’s worse, if somebody WAS a convicted Felon AND for some oversight had a valid concealed carry permit…they couldn’t legally own the gun they’re carrying…which makes it about the same as carrying a gun without the permit in the first place. As much as the authoritarians like to tote laws as “stopping behavior”, anybody without a carry permit can carry if they also own a gun. Legal or not, it’s physically possible, and the laws don’t change physics, as much as “Progressives” like to think so.

As for the anti-gun whipping boy, George Zimmerman, they make him sound like some rabid monster…except he’s never been convicted of a serious crime. He’s hardly the greatest man who ever lived, but as I say, they are anti-freedom, not anti-gun. See Zimmerman was never convicted of any of the crimes the antis like to paste on him…but since they don’t like him because he shot a nasty little black thug, he should have his rights removed. If there’s a reason to pass this law, that’s a REALLY good one.

Not only is our current carry system onerous to people who travel outside their home state, it’s also EXPENSIVE! I have 3 carry permits, and each costs me about $100 every few years…that’s not trivial money. If I’m not some horrific murderer in my home state, why do I become a monster because I drove up the road a bit?

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Antis Flailing at a Good Law

  1. The_Jack says:

    And here we see the key word with how they think: “reasonable discretion in **awarding** concealed carry permits”

    The antis see CCW as a prize that the state bestows on grandees it deems worthy.

    Heck the “Just about anyone” part also gives away that they *loath* the idea of common proles being armed.

    Also note they see having an “arrest record” as being an automatic disqualification there. Because only bad people ever get arrested. I mean why bother with trials?

    Course by ” forcing the rest of the country to live with” Florida’s laws means… Forcing the 9 or so may issue states (which are what 1/3 of the US population) to act like the rest of the country (more of less).

    Heck, evil twisted Florida still requires training and a background check to legally carry a gun. I thought background checks was what the antis were all about!

  2. Jack/OH says:

    Duh, yeah! Seems to me if the Second Amendment in its most robust construction is to make any sense at all, it ought to apply to Joe Sixpack who carries a cover-my-ass defensive revolver when he crosses the Ohio-Pennsylvania border to buy cement.

    I’ve commented on Weer’d’s good blog off and on for a while. I’ve not heard a single gun shot in that time. For Chrissake, where is the “gun apocalypse”? Hats off to the commenters here.

  3. Thirdpower says:

    I had a BC spokesmouth on record saying they would support CCW if it had ‘Strict Standards’ w/ a list. But when IL was pushing CCW, that same spokesmouth testified against it even though it fit all the requirements he had previously said were needed.

  4. divemedic says:

    The “withhold adjudication” law (948.01) here in Florida is used for all sorts of things. If you get a speeding ticket, they will withhold adjudication if you pay court costs. After a year, the incident is forgotten. It’s a good deal compared to a full-on ticket, because the ticket doesn’t appear on your record, even though the court costs are the same as the ticket would have cost. At least your car insurance doesn’t go up.
    Apply this to other crimes: you plead guilty and ask for a “withhold.” You are put on probation for a year or so, and if you keep out of trouble for a year, the charges are dropped.
    What this means is that you have NOT been convicted of a felony and are NOT barred from having a CWP. The reason is that 790.06(k) states that a person is not eligible for a CWP if they have had adjudication withheld on any felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence unless 3 years have elapsed since probation or any other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled.

    As far as Zimmerman, he has never been convicted of any crime that I am aware of. Under our laws, he is innocent.

  5. Erik says:

    “Florida happily handed George Zimmerman, a man who had an arrest record and history of violence, a permit to carry the gun he used to kill Trayvon Martin.”

    So, they support taking peoples’ rights away for merely being arrested for a crime without ever being convicted? They want police to have the ability to arbitrarily deny someone a concealed carry license even though they couldn’t prove that they did anything wrong? So much for due process.

    • Jack/OH says:

      Erik, divemedic–FWIW–I used to be a hang-’em-high type. Politically motivated police misconduct directed at innocent people has pretty much persuaded me we don’t want police to have more powers than absolutely needed.

    • The_Jack says:

      Heck, In places like Mass the police can take away your carry permit without you being arrested, let alone being charged.

      So *yes* the Antis support that.

      Heck the entire *point* of May issue is to empower the police to deny rights to otherwise qualified citizens.

  6. Jack/OH says:

    I’m in my sixties now. The last few years I’ve met a cop who I know is a serial “testi-liar”. There’s also the cop who gave me a minor rough-up for publishing opinion that upset a local Mr. Big.

    There are plenty of good cops. We need cops. But I can’t get the stink of police corruption out of my nostrils.

    You bet. More stringent gun laws mean more opportunity for police corruption.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *