The house looks likely to approve the concealed carry reciprocity act, which makes a concealed carry permit act like a driver’s license. The federal government will force anti-gun states to recognize the carry permits approved by other more rational states.
As you can imagine, I’m strongly in favor of this law on a personal level, and if approved by the Senate, will very likely change my legal residence to Florida. The data makes it indisputable that this will mean greater safety and reduced crime for Americans, as it provides a strong disincentive to criminals.
Taking those signals one step further, the cowboy hat might even come back in style since it will be a signal to criminals in Chicago, NY, Boston, and other anti-gun cities that they would be better off finding another victim. (I'd recommend the aging hippie in the "Hope and Change" T-shirt.)
But in terms of it's constitutionality, Robert VerBruggen makes an excellent point that it is at a minimum, anti-conservative. It’s a direct usurpation of states rights, and it’s hard to cheer for that sort of thing under any circumstances.
I do however think that this might be an important teaching moment. Conservatives are all very well aware of the threat to individual liberty posed by a muscular federal government which is why we look at even a law like this one that is obviously in our interests, with deep suspicion at the very least. But liberals continue to champion the Federal government's greater interference in our lives as a solution to “society’s” problems. Maybe passing a bill like this one will teach some of them that there is a down side to that.
I say “some of them” because obviously there are some liberals who can’t be taught anything. Some liberals have been cheering for Marxism since the 60’s and simply ignore all the copious evidence of failure that the collective has left at every turn. Those people don’t even realize that "society" itself doesn’t actually have any problems, that only people have problems. So for them, passing this bill would only mean adding another item in their narrative of the world - a narrative that's based entirely on fantasy. They’ll probably blame George Bush or Dick Cheney, or the Koch brothers or someone. We’ll see.
But for the rest - those kids at OWS for example who are only there because no one ever taught them anything about reality – maybe they can learn that consolidation and centralization of power doesn’t always work out the way they want. Or maybe they’ll learn that under the idiotic ‘pure democracy’ they’re always touting, 49% of the people can end up very unhappy, while under federalism, everyone can have pretty much whatever they want. Either of those lessons would be very helpful, both for them and for the country.
And in the meantime, I’ll be able to both carry my gun on the subway (legally), and break my 20X Resistol wide brim (pictured above) out of storage. Nothing but upside if you ask me.
7 comments:
I wonder how that would work if I changed my residency back to Vermont? They don't even require permits. Even the far left hippies backed off from trying to regulate firearms out of existence there.
I think the States Rights issue is a serious concern. I would rather see a continuation of reciprocity agreements between the states. Also, I am not sure how well CCW would help you in NJ/NY since both states are virulently anti-self defense. Protecting your life and property pretty much means you are going to go to prison... if they don't send you to prison first for violating by accident, some minor part of the gun laws (i.e. Not having your gun case locked or having ammo in the trunk with the locked gun case).
Well that's just it - change your residence to Vermont and your driver's license becomes a permit to carry.
And in greater NY think it would help greatly. The question was never whether you go to jail for your shooting, but whether you will be prosecuted for something else. If you shoot someone in self defense while he's trying a jack your car, I don't think the jury is going to convict you. and the prosecutors don't think so either. So when the issue comes up, they've focused on the bureaucratic gun charges to get convictions instead of trying to turn self defense into a murder.
Bernie Goetz (as a loony, but well known example) wasn't convicted of a shooting offense, he was convicted of illegal carry and possession.
So make carrying legal and you're more or less safe from unjust prosecution.
It would be great if it passed, but while it may pass the house, it will have a much harder time in the Senate and will almost surely be vetoed if it passes there, and I don't think there are votes in either house to override the veto. So I'm not quite sure why this is being pushed now. The NRA and sponsors should've waited until after the 2012 election and the greatly hoped for defeat of Obama.
I think the politics is a much bigger hurdle than states rights issues. Since the SCOTUS has accepted that the 14th amendment due process clause applies all of the bill of rights protections to the states as well, then the 2nd amendment restrictions on the right to own and carry (bear) arms should nullify most state restrictions to begin with. I think the better route to ending idiotic gun laws like those in NJ and my home state of NY will be through cases going to the SCOTUS extending Heller and McDonald until the states finally 'get it'. A SCOTUS opinion will come out, probably written by Thomas, saying essentially "We really meant it, really, really. People have a right to bear arms and all these restrictions you state govts try to throw in their way are unconstitutional so stop it."
To Hell_is_like_Newark, I disagree that NY is anti-self-defense. NY is a castle doctrine state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#New_York, and except for notable exceptions like Bernie Goetz, who as Tom said, was prosecuted on a weapons charge, deadly self-defense cases almost never get prosecuted in NY. I don't think this necessarily reflects prosecutors opinions, but instead reflects their politic sense of self-protection, as prosecuting people who defended themselves or property is not popular even in blue NY.
(btw as someone who commutes daily from Westchester to Newark to work, I heartily agree with your tag)
I agree on this bill's likely future, but I think the politics of it makes perfect sense to get it out there in an election year. If nothing else it can be a reminder to people that self defense rights aren't a settled issue.
Also, Heller isn't going to do anything to NJ's concealed carry ban because there isn't a carry ban. It's perfectly legal in NJ, but I can count every permit they've issued (to non law enforcement personnel) in the last 25 years on one hand. It's a 'procedural' ban where you can have one if you can prove 'need', but unless you're a cop, you can't prove 'need'. It was a brilliantly fiendish way to disarm the populace – put it all in the hands of the judges and then make ‘anti-gun’ a litmus test for being a judge. There’s nothing quite like it anywhere else in the country.
Now maybe that won't stand the test of time either, but in practical terms it means that it will be a decade at a minimum before anything changes in NJ, unless the federal government 'makes it change'.
If the Senate goes (R) in 2012 (which I'm hearing is a strong possibility) and we have a new president, there is nothing saying they can't bring it back again.
No need to wait on this.
The back-and-forth between The Fed and The States is interesting to watch... When the Fed drops the ball you get actions like the recent AZ and AL laws where the states are like, "Hey, we've got an illegal immigration problem here, step it up," and the Fed is like, "Whoa there little racsist state, remember the Supremacy Clause?.. we do immigration, not you!" End result: Federally-induced mess
"Medicinal" marijuana was, I think, a veiled attempt by CA at pushing realty on the Fed and its DEA which is living in the 1950's as far as its attitudes re pot. Dope is fully ensconced in the culture of CA and the sooner the Fed gets over it the sooner we can get some sane policies to deal with that issue, the better. End result: Federally induced mess
Pushing the states to adopt CCW is a necessary evil, perhaps but like Brown vs. Board of Education, this is, I think, the classic role of the Fed and its courts, to keep wayward states like those in the NE, in line.
In my opinion the 2nd amendment is THE ISSUE, it is THE intrinsic civil right. It is the most solemn duty of the federal gov't to preserve these rights, against all enemies, be they foreign, domestic or even our own state governments.
Certainly a valid view, but I was actually thinking how with the next constitution, (don't kid yourself - all government fail eventually) it might be a useful thing to impart a right of any organized body to secede. then the federalist solution becomes the only solution. and the best thing about a deeply federalist system is that you can vote with your feet and have a little slice of heaven. (increasingly little probably, but heaven all the same.)
Post a Comment