Dec 062017
 

House OKs GOP bill expanding gun owners’ rights

Marriage licenses and drivers licenses are issued by individual states, but recognized by all. Marriages and driving are *not* explicitly called out as rights in the Constitution… but bearing arms is. And perversely, up until now states have often *not* recognized the concealed carry licenses issued by other states. This may be about to change, at long friggen’ last.

But some politicians never let an opportunity to slander millions of law abiding citizens pass by unremarked. Example: Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., called the bill an attempt to “allow dangerous criminals to walk around with hidden guns anywhere and at any time.” I wonder if it might be possible to sue her for slandering law abiding concealed carry license holders, who she has just said are “dangerous criminals.”

 Posted by at 10:41 pm
  • sferrin

    That’s a democrat for you. Just how many criminals does she think go through the trouble to get a concealed carry permit so they can go rob the local 7-11 legally? Idiot.

    • Polaris1

      Nice racist traitor flag you’ve got going on there

      • FelixA9

        It’s for triggering dumbasses. Mission accomplished.

    • Peter Hanely

      And how many criminals would pass the background check routinely required for a concealed carry permit, when a criminal record is a disqualifying factor for possessing a gun?

      • Paul451

        Except that some states don’t, such as Missouri. No permits required at all. And it’s a growing trend, one celebrated by Scott. You can’t say “You’re ignoring X!” when your side is specifically and deliberately undermining X at the same time.

        • sferrin

          Not seeing the problem. You’re essentially saying that it’s bad for law-abiding citizens to not have to get a permit. Why? They’re law-abiding citizens.

          • Paul451

            No, I’m saying the argument was bullshit. Because it was.

          • FelixA9

            So you think criminals CAN pass a background check? I guess his argument wasn’t so “bullshit” after all eh?

          • Paul451

            Read what I said again, not all states require background checks, the trend is increasing. So saying “What about background checks” when you know your own side is trying to undermine that is intentionally dishonest.

          • sferrin

            And? So what? Criminals aren’t going to be carrying a CC permit even if one was required. Basically you’re whining about permits not being required and that those who do get them (you know, the law abiding citizens) shouldn’t be allowed to carry in all states. Because, you know, guns bad.

          • Paul451

            “Read what I said again, not all states require background checks, the trend is increasing. So saying “What about background checks” when you know your own side is trying to undermine that is intentionally dishonest.”

          • sferrin

            A few facts for you. ALL states that require CC permits to carry concealed require background checks in order to acquire said permits. ALL states require businesses selling firearms to run NICS checks on ALL gun sales. PRIVATE sales, i.e. if I want to sell one to my friend, do not require me to run a background check. Lastly, criminals aren’t going to either get a CC permit to carry concealed or worry about little things like NICS checks. So again, what is your problem with LAW ABIDING CC permit carrying individuals carrying in your state?

          • Paul451

            {sigh} Let’s try again.

            We’re talking about the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act”: HR38.

            If enacted into law, the act, HR38, overrides individual state laws on concealed carry to allow a “qualified person” to carry a concealed weapon into that state even when they are not permitted to do so under that state’s laws.

            The law defines a “qualified person” as one who either has a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or is eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.

            In several states, no CC permit is required to be eligible to carry a concealed firearm. People who can claim residency in those states that don’t require CC permits will be able to carry concealed firearms into states where it is not permitted.

            In those states, background checks are therefore not performed in order to CC. And as you note, no such checks are required for private sales. The number of such non-permit states is increasing, at the urging and well-funded lobbying efforts of the same people responsible for HR38.

            And the act itself does not require background checks, it very specifically includes a loophole to ensure that.

            Therefore someone claiming that an argument is somehow refuted by “background checks” is either being intentionally dishonest or didn’t understand the law, and if they didn’t understand the law, they wouldn’t understand why someone who did understand the law might be concerned about it. Hence my comment.

            what is your problem with LAW ABIDING CC permit carrying individuals carrying in your state?

            The part where they aren’t abiding by that state’s laws.

          • FelixA9

            Still not seeing what the problem is. Do criminals all have permits in your state or do they wear their firearms on holsters?

          • Paul451

            Example: Someone in Cali or Colorado is on bail awaiting trial or subject to a restraining order after a domestic violence incident, they are not permitted to have weapons (and never had a licence or CC permit anyway.) They get pulled over for something and searched, they have a gun or several. They are in breach of their bail and they go to jail, with extra charges to boot.

            Under HR38, if it becomes law, they would just need to show an out-of-state ID (driver’s licence or similar) from a non-permit/non-registration state and they can ignore the laws in the state they are in. Because the Act is so badly written; and appears to be deliberately so.

            Example 2: Gangs smuggling weapons from unregulated states into regulated ones. Private “sale”, no paper trail, no background check. The police in the destination state monitor a particular gang and have an idea of the route they use, informant says they’re expecting a shipment today, patrol cops get the tip off, pull over the gang’s driver, quick search and find the unregistered, unlicensed weapons. Easy win. But the driver pulls out an out-of-state ID from a non-permit/non-registration state and under HR38 there’s nothing that state can do.

  • Polaris1

    I’m curious. If you want the bad guy to know you’re carrying a gun, then why conceal it. How does law enforcement conduct themselves when they enter a dangerous situation if everyone is armed? What “free militia” are these people a part of ? The Second Amendment was written when most cities didn’t have street lights. Can we not just agree that its a stupid amendment way past its time.

    • FelixA9

      Just like the First because they didn’t have radio, TV, and the internet back then.

    • Invictus_Maneo

      1st: it is not my preference to conceal my weapon;
      however it is the law of the land and has been since the Sullivan act of 1911, a
      democrat mandate from New York to prevent the common people from carrying fire arms due to the number of attempted muggings leading to shootouts.

      2nd: as someone who trained with, and to be a law enforcement officer the assumption is that everyone is armed regardless of the legality of carrying a weapon. This paranoia is why so many officers are so jumpy and is the direct cause of many deaths. However in the United States, if you are legally carrying a fire arm, you have a duty to inform any officer who makes contact with you that you are in fact armed. In spite of this, many states have changed this law due to questionable actions by the police, leading to a great deal of ambiguity on if you do or don’t have a duty to inform. There are many useful maps to tell for your stat e online, however criminals do not inform officers regardless and are the reason the police are jumpy in the first place.

      If you don’t understand what I just said, that’s the common sense
      gun reform you’ve been asking for

      3rd: at the age of 18 all male citizens of the United
      States are required by law to enlist in the United States Select Service (the draft).
      This was loosely based on, and justified by, the provisions in the constitution
      for militia service of citizens, thus fulfilling such a requirement. The falling
      of the Select Service to meet the feels of liberals is neither my concern nor
      is it the concern of the nation at large.

      4th: you think that they had electricity in 1770’s?
      or, giving you the benefit of the doubt on your knowledge of technology, do you
      think that the presence, or lack thereof, of gas lights somehow correlates to
      the validity of any laws to any nation?

      5th: can we not just agree that the 1st amendment
      is stupid and way past its time?

      Also, as to your comment to Mr. “sferrin”, it may have
      racist connotations due to actions of a few and an agendaed media, however it
      is not, has not been, nor can it every be called a traitors flag. Leading up to
      what would have been The People Vs. Davis, the trial of Jefferson Davis in the supreme court for treason and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, it was decided that the United States had no constitutional right to invade a sovereign nation, that not in an act of defense, or without just cause. This is an important distinction, because under Lincoln, the Confederacy was never recognized as a sovereign nation and
      therefore the entire civil war was legally nothing more than a policing action.
      After the war and Lincoln’s death, the Confederacy was recognized as such
      leading to much doubt if any Confederate could be tried and convicted of
      treason. All of this leading to Davis and all confederates ultimately being
      given amnesty rather than let the trials potently lead to a legalized and resurgent
      south. To fix this little embarrassment, in 1869, any further successions would
      be categorized as unconstitutional after Texas vs White.

      TL;DR: Supreme Court said the Confederacy was legal after they
      killed every one and passed a law to fix the problem. Meaning that Confederates
      were not traitors.

    • Scottlowther

      > If you want the bad guy to know you’re carrying a gun

      Why would you want that? You want society to have a larger fraction of people trained and licensed and packing, but you don’t want the bad guys to know who in a crowd is armed. You just ant the bad guys to know that statistically *someone* is packing, and quite possibly many someones.

      > How does law enforcement conduct themselves when they enter a dangerous situation if everyone is armed?

      The Texas and Utah police seem to get by just fine.

      > What “free militia” are these people a part of ?

      According to US federal code, the militia is every male between 18 and 45. I’m sure that if it came down to it, the USSC would conclude that that includes women and that 45 is not longer the cutoff.

      > The Second Amendment was written when most cities didn’t have street lights.

      Nor was there an internet. So the 1st Amendment shouldn’t apply anymore?

  • Paul451

    This seems pretty shitty. A Federal law to undermine state rights in a way that selectively allows people from neighbouring states to ignore a state’s otherwise Constitutional laws.

    Why is the “law abiding” part of “law abiding gun owner” so difficult?

    • sferrin

      The Constitution applies to ALL states. I’m pretty sure you’d be flipping out if say, discussing homosexuality in public was against the law in Montana, or talk about Socialism was against the law in Texas.

      • Paul451

        Then get the unconstitutional state laws against CCW permits overturned.

        If you can’t, then I can only assume that the state laws are, as I said, constitutional. Which is why Congress is trying to undermine state rights. Which is shitty.

        You didn’t answer the question, why is obeying the law so burdensome? You know, if you’re so “law abiding” and all.

        • FelixA9

          Which laws aren’t being obeyed? You know, since gun owners are breaking the law and all.

          • Paul451

            The laws of the states you are trying to sideline.

          • sferrin

            Show me evidence where CC owners are breaking the laws in relevant states.

          • Paul451

            Clearly they don’t want to abide by the constitutionally valid laws of their neighbouring states. Why not just abide by the law, if you’re law abiding? Why resort to such shitty tactics to undermine state rights?

          • sferrin

            So they’re not breaking the law then. So what’s your problem again? You’re scared of law-abiding gun owners coming to your state? Why?

          • Paul451

            They’re specifically not “law-abiding”. They want to come into a state but not obey the laws of that state.

          • sferrin

            Since when did *wanting* to do something become a crime?

        • Scottlowther

          > why is obeying the law so burdensome?

          And if one state had a law that said if you wanted to get a drivers license, you needed to be male and Baptist? And if anyone was passing through, they had to obey those same laws?

          • Paul451

            It would be struck down as unconstitutional.

            These CC laws haven’t. (Indeed, the current conservative-dominated USSC specifically refused to hear an anti-CC case against California.) Therefore the states should have the right to enforce their own freakin’ laws. As I asked, why, when you insist that you are “law abiding” gun owners, is it so difficult for you to comprehend the idea of abiding by the laws of the state you are travelling through?

          • Scottlowther

            > It would be struck down as unconstitutional.

            Why are you opposed to states rights?

            > These CC laws haven’t.

            Nor do they need to be.

            > why, when you insist that you are “law abiding” gun owners, is it so
            difficult for you to comprehend the idea of abiding by the laws of the
            state you are travelling through?

            Do you have to pass each states driving tests before you’re allowed to drive through it? No? Good. Same principle.

    • Scottlowther

      States have different rules for what’s required to get a drivers license, yet every state recognizes every other states drivers licenses.

      Also: the second Amendment is now “incorporated,” which means that it over-rules state laws and applies everywhere. Notice how the 1st Amendment says that *Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. And yet, if a state or city government tries to establish a religion, the feds will come in and smack them down. Because the 1st, like the 2nd, is “incorporated.”

      The constitutional rights of an American citizen over-rule all state, county, local laws that try to infringe upon them.