All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Thursday, December 07, 2017

Anti-gun hysteria is the best hysteria

Reaction to the House passing a national concealed carry permit bill was as you would expect it. The loonies on the left managed to show their ignorance of guns, the law, and current events.

First the facts.

From the National Rifle Association:
The bill, H.R. 38, ensures that those Americans who can legally carry a concealed firearm in one state will legally be able to do so in every other state. It eliminates the confusing patchwork of state laws that have ensnared otherwise law-abiding gun owners, and have forced law enforcement to waste their precious time and resources enforcing laws that don’t do anything to reduce violent crime. 
The bill also makes improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS. All Americans, including law-abiding gun owners, agree that violent criminals should not have legal access to firearms. However, the system is only as good as its records, and recent events have shown that sometimes the correct information is not entered into the system. This bill incentivizes states and government agencies to update the NICS with legitimate records of prohibited persons.
Additionally, the bill creates an expedited process for removing records that are erroneously put in the system. Currently, when a person discovers they have been wrongly added to the NICS, it can take up to a year to get their name removed. This bill requires a response to an appeal within 60 days.
So like a driver's license or a marriage license, a concealed weapons permit granted by one state would apply in other states.

And that means that local laws concerning concealed weapons permits would apply to out of staters as well. If New York City bans concealed weapons from Times Square, then no one can carry no matter where they are from.

Now for the hysteria.

From a Los Angeles Times editorial:
Under the proposed reciprocity law, anyone with a valid permit from another state would be able to carry a concealed firearm in California, even if they do not meet California’s more stringent standards. This is a highly objectionable infringement on the responsibilities of state and local law enforcement to maintain public safety, and is clearly aimed at undermining gun control efforts nationally. What’s more, it will put guns into the hands of more people who shouldn’t have them.
Wrong. The bill does not allow felons, the mentally ill or children to purchase guns. Those are the people we determined who should not have guns.

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence flat out lied:
Concealed carry reciprocity is a complicated name for a law that would make it simple for abusers to threaten and harass — and kill — their intimate partners with firearms. Survivors often relocate to other states to escape their abusers, but H.R. 38 would force every state to accept other states' concealed carry permits, even if the out-of-state permit was issued to a domestic abusers who would be prohibited from obtaining such a permit in the travel state.
People convicted of domestic violence cannot purchase guns. Period. No state gives them a concealed gun permit.

Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, also lied to Newsweek: "States that do today a better job of keeping especially high-risk people away from a concealed carry permit would have their law undermined by the law of weaker states."

That's not true. If you can legally buy a gun, you should legally be permitted to carry it concealed.

From the same Newsweek story:
Seventeen state attorneys general sent a letter to congressional leadership on Tuesday, urging them to oppose the bill. Should the bill pass the Senate and receive a presidential stamp of approval, a possible next step could be attorneys general taking the bill to federal court.
“With the worst shooting in American history fresh in our memory, we urge you and your colleagues to reject these ill-conceived bills that would override local public safety decisions and endanger our communities and law enforcement officers,” they wrote in their letter, referring to the Las Vegas massacre.
The shooter in Las Vegas was a Nevada resident. He did not cross state lines to commit his act of terrorism.

Also, he did not use concealed handguns. He used rifles. This proposal has nothing to do with any mass murder spree.

But what are facts when you want to strip away a fundamental right?

@@@

Please enjoy my two books about the press and how it missed the rise of Donald Trump.

The first was "Trump the Press," which covered his nomination.

The second was "Trump the Establishment," which covered his election.

To order autographed copies, please write to DonSurber@GMail.com.

Friend me on Facebook.

Follow me on Twitter.

As always, Make America Great Again.

16 comments:

  1. What you are implying is that local ordinances should trump (no pun intended) federal ordinances, so why the fuss about sanctuary cities? If an out of towner wants to conceal carry a gun in Times Square, his permit and the federal law should enable the person to do so. Driving a car is not a civil right, bearing arms is. I think there needs to be a "don't ask dont tell" approach to concealed carry. I think that towns can prohibit open carry because people are intimidated by the sight of openly carried guns, an out of sight, out of mind approach might work well in a place like Times Square.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get it, I don't have a problem with sanctuary cities. if those folks want illegals running around they can reap the good and bad consequences of those illegals' behavior, I always say they're getting a bellyful of what they've asked for. Kate steinle is unavailable for comment.

      Delete
  2. For once, it sounds like a common sense unlarded bill to me. And much needed.

    Facts never matter to a liberal. It’s all emotion all of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I assume this whole thing will get killed in the senate, but it's been fun. And personally, I like a nice mix of anti gun and Trump is Hitler hysteria...it has a certain je ne sais quoi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As to the Senate, wait and see.

      There's an election coming and a lot of Democrats will be on the block.

      Delete
  4. Dems and anti-gunners: Another hive of scum and villainy!

    ReplyDelete
  5. If it passes, might selling insurance across state lines be far behind?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, you mean like driver licenses? We have reciprocity in this area, why not concealed carry licenses?

    When I drove to California, this summer, I had to obey their traffic laws. Even though I'm licensed in Texas.

    See how easy that is......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would the California State Police have arrested you for having an out-of-state license?
      Were you at risk of having your car confiscated for being registered in a different state?
      Could you have been prosecuted (and convicted) for having the wrong color car, or for having 5-lug wheels instead of four-lug wheels?
      Is there an arbitrary list of cars the California Justice Department will ALLOW you to own, and you can't own buy or sell ANY other car in California under threat of law?

      No?

      Delete
    2. "Were you at risk of having your car confiscated for being registered in a different state? "

      Never driven thru a speed trap with out of state plates, have you.

      Delete
  7. CA MD NJ CT HI NY MA DE All liberal and all to be arguing for states rights. LMFAO!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike43, so someone from another state shouldn't drive their car in a state with stricter emission controls, like California, because their own state is not as strict? Rule should apply to concealed carry.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've actually argued against this concept of Congress and the President codifying CC reciprocity for many years. I don't believe it should be necessary. I believe a case should be brought by someone found to have been carrying outside their own state (preferably a Constitutional Carry state) and have the court find that no permit is needed under the constitution.
    My concern with making a federal law is that what they can grant they can take away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point,and it shouldn't be necessary. But we are HERE and the Supreme option is still over there. Feels like a now or never thing.

      Delete
    2. There shouldn't be any other question but "are you a US citizen." This is our RIGHT as free men in a free country.

      The guarantee of this God-given right is in the 2nd Amendment, which goes on to state that it "shall not be infringed."

      We have somewhere around 40,000 laws regarding firearms. Each and every one is an unlawful INFRINGEMENT of our RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

      I'm still waiting for someone to show how ANY of these unConstitutional infringements have done any actual good. Every time something bad happens with a firearm involved, we find out that all those laws did NOTHING to prevent the tragedy, and that we need yet more laws.

      Vermont has the right idea: they practice Constutional Carry, and have very few gun control laws. (They would do even better if they had none at all.)

      Now why doesn't someone tell me how Vermont is more murderous than Chicago because they don't control guns; I'm all ears!

      Delete