NAGR Coming out Against HR822

The National Association for Gun Rights are worried about federal intervention into the issue of concealed carry, going so far as to adopt the utterly ridiculous moniker for this bill, “National CCW Registration Act.” Understand that I don’t belittle anyone who has concerns about the feds getting involved in traditionally state issue of concealed carry. Those concerns are completely legitimate, and prior to McDonald and Heller I shared them. Nonetheless, many of NAGR’s points are ridiculous, and I’ll take on some them to explain my opinion on the matter.

While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.

Once the Federal Government is in the business of setting the standards for concealed carry permits, it’s only a matter of time before they start using that power to restrict our rights.

This won’t use a federal bureaucracy. There won’t be any Department of Reciprocity Enforcement. It’s just that the federal law offers a defense in court if a state chooses to arrest someone with a firearm, who is licensed by any state to carry it in a state other than their state of residence. NAGR’s concern seems to be that Congress will come along later and set federal standards.

But the devil is truly in the details… and the details are where H.R. 822 gets sticky.

This bill isn’t just about the right to carry for self defense — it’s a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.

There are no details. The bill is remarkably simple. If you have a license from any state, you can carry in any other state that issues concealed carry licenses under the same standard for an unrestricted license in that state. The only exception is your state of residence, or states that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. For people who live in Vermont, they can go next door to NH and get a non-resident permit, which would allow them to carry in every state except Illinois (which prohibits concealed weapons entirely).

Even worse, once this bill starts moving, anyone can amend the bill with anything … and no legislation can bind a future Congress in any way. And that doesn’t count what Obamacrats in the Department of Justice might dream up as the “regulations” to carry out the legislative “intent.”

That’s an excuse for never passing any pro-gun law. Congress can always turn around and screw us. There’s never any time when that’s not the case. The “Obamacrats” in the Department of Justice don’t have any power to draw up “regulations” that Congress doesn’t give them. HR822 does not grant bureaucrats any rule making authority.

I believe I should be able to carry concealed — without a permit — in all 50 states. That’s what “bear arms” means. Believe me, that’s a long-term policy goal for the National Association for Gun Rights.

That’s wonderful. I agree. But the world we live in is one in which only four states allow carry without a permit. All but one still have a permit option. We might be able to grow that by a few states in a few years, but it’s not going away any time soon. In addition, I view that the courts are highly unlikely to invalidate the requirement of a concealed carry license, provided the licenses aren’t issued in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because it doesn’t measure up to your ideal is not an excuse for not improving our current reality.

Once gun owners let the Obamacrats start mandating whether states recognize permit reciprocity, they will want to mandate what it takes to get and keep those permits.

No one is allowing “Obamacrats” to mandate anything. The only thing this bill mandates is reciprocity. It establishes no federal standard. Understand that the main source of Congressional power to pass this bill is the 14th Amendment. Court precedent does not allow Congress to take the legislation farther than the courts have been willing to go. The Courts were pretty clear there’s a right to carry, but have been vague about how the bounds of that right are defined. That’s the reason this bill does very little. Establishing federal standards for reciprocity would be a considerably more dubious exercise of the 14th Amendment power. So would creating federal standards by which states issue permits, which it seems NAGR is more concerned about. That would be gun control. Congress can always pass gun control. This bill is not anywhere close to gun control. It would also be a highly dubious exercise of federal power to impose licensing standards on states even under the commerce clause.

Not to mention this legislation would shred the Constitutional Carry provisions that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

That is absolute nonsense. It’s just not true at all. This bill only covers reciprocity. Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming still issue permits for reciprocity purposes, even if they do not require it to carry in that state. Vermont does not issue permits, but New Hampshire will issue to residents of Vermont on a shall-issue basis. A Vermonter with a NH permit can carry in every state someone with a Texas permit can under HR822.

It doesn’t stop with just concealed carry. They’ll co-opt the bill to expand the national Brady Registration Check system to block military veterans with PTSD or individuals with misdemeanor convictions from even OWNING firearms — much less use them for self defense.

They can always do this. This is like arguing that we shouldn’t build a missile defense system because the Russians might decide to nuke New York. Congress can always pass gun control. The reason they haven’t is because they fear us.

They will use this bill as the foundation to create a federal database of CCW permit holders. And then they can link it everywhere the Feds have database connections — state police, doctors and insurance companies under Obamacare, and Medicaid/Medicare.

The worst that could happen down the line is that an anti-gun Congress tinkers with the requirements for reciprocity to be enforced. You can bet that every gun rights group will oppose that. At worst, you fall back on state reciprocity, since the feds wouldn’t mandate reciprocal licensing for all but the most strict states. Everything else going through Dudley Brown’s active imagination would amount to a new gun control bill that does not involve the subject of reciprocity. Congress could pass a bill forbidding states from allowing concealed carry any time it wanted. That’s not an excuse for doing nothing.

That’s why you and I have to make noise, now!

Please call your Congressman at 202-224-3121 (send an email, too; you can get that link here) and relay the message that gun owners oppose H.R. 822, the Trojan Horse gun control bill. Make clear that you want to keep the Federal Government’s hands off the state-run CCW permit system.

<sarcasm>I think I can speak for gun owners everywhere in sincerely thanking Dudley Brown for giving some of our weak kneed critters the “pro-gun” cover they need to vote against a bill many of them would rather not vote for in the first place.</sarcasm> We are truly our own worst enemies. Who needs the Brady Campaign, VPC, and CSGV when you have NAGR?

CeaseFire PA Endorses Campus Carry

From another article in the Temple University student paper. First a statement from CeaseFire PA:

“I hope students donʼt start making the [assumption] that they can just take a gun they might have at home and carry it around in their backpack without going through the proper permit and training process,” CeaseFirePA Executive Director Max Nacheman said. “If you are going to accept the responsibility of carrying a firearm like that for defense, you have to make sure you use that responsibility wisely and responsibly.”

I couldn’t agree more. Funny that sounds pretty similar to PAFOA’s statement in this article:

[PAFOA] advocates gun ownership as an option for students, but emphasizes the necessity of pursuing firearm ownership through proper legal avenues. “Folks need to be educated, whether they are using their hands or they are considering a license to carry,” [PAFOA Spokesperson] Caywood said. “They need to know about the laws in place and they need to know concepts about force. I think people just need to generally think about self-defense and whatever level they are choosing, they need to be in line with the law.”

We’re very glad to have Mr. Nachman and CeaseFire PA on board with campus carry being OK, as long as you follow the law, and do the smart things like know the law, and know how to use your weapon in self-defense. It’s really the same things we argue, you know.

A Holistic Approach to Safety

The Temple University student paper believes the best approach for students is cowering in their homes:

But gun violence is only worsened by the number of people carrying firearms–legally or illegally.

The Temple News encourages students to consider a holistic approach to safety, rather than equipping themselves with weapons that could lead to more bloodshed. This includes choosing where to live and recognizing times when sitting outside isn’t necessarily the safest bet.

Armed robbers getting their asses shot is the kind of “gun violence” I don’t have any problem with, and I consider it no tragedy that a Temple student was able to successfully defend himself rather than become another murder statistic in the City of Brotherly Love. To think otherwise is entirely to have a warped sense of morals.

What Other Rights Work Like This?

Let me paraphrase a bit from a Washington Post editorial:

Many states already have agreements to recognize newspaper licenses from other jurisdictions. Virginia, for example, honors licenses from 27 other states that have similarly robust standards; Maryland, which strictly regulates what newspapers may be sold, and the District, which essentially prohibits it, do not recognize out-of-state licenses. These are legitimate choices that would be overridden by a federal legislature that too easily bends to the will of the news lobby. Nevada, a strong press-rights state, rescinded its agreement with Utah because Utah does not require training in acceptable viewpoints. Why should Congress to overrule that judgment?

Just saying, WaPo. Careful how you treat the Bill of Rights. It’s not a buffet, from which you can load up your plate with parts you enjoy, and spit in the parts that you don’t. After Heller and McDonald declares then fundamental constitutional rights, no different than other rights in that family, that’s going to necessarily have consequences, and this is one of them.

Quite a Refutation

Dave Hardy notes the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics on murder rates. It’s interesting that the states with the strictest gun laws are the ones experiences the sharpest spikes in the murder rates. Kind of puts a crimp in our opponents hysterics theories.

Scott Adams on Creativity

He suggests that you can’t generate creativity, that creativity is something that people just innately have or don’t have.

“There’s no way to stop creativity unless you kill the people who have it. Creators will change jobs, defy the government, move to other countries, and do whatever they need to let the creativity out.”

This blog started during a particularly low part during my career, when our company was floundering badly, and I wasn’t being listened to or respected. In fact, I was being downright abused, and sometimes wish instead of continuing with blogging, I would have just gone to look for another job, back before the financial crisis. But I don’t deny that a particular appeal to the medium was as a creative outlet. I think this point is particularly salient:

I’ve noticed that creativity so often springs from hardship or pain that I wonder if it’s a precondition. That would make sense from an evolution perspective. Humans don’t need to come up with new ideas when everything is running smoothly. We need creativity when we’re threatened and all of the usual defenses are deemed inadequate. In other words, the best way to generate creativity is to induce hardship on humans, which would be unethical. Conversely, the best way to reduce creativity is to – wait for it – make things nice and comfortable for creative people. In other words, any ethical attempt to encourage creativity will have the unintended effect of killing it. Happy creators are not productive.

I think he’s onto something here. When I think back, I’ve come up with some of my best ideas during times of extreme hardship. Interestingly, unemployment seems to stoke my game development itch. The last time I didn’t have a job or a prospect I wrote a pretty large chunk of an online text adventure game (which were still popular back then). Once I got a job, and felt “safe” it just kind of died. This bout of joblessness, I have all kinds of crazy game ideas popping into my head. My best work at my previous employer was when new leadership who listened to us took over, and it we all went from apathy into “save the company” mode. Things were very crazy and uncertain, and I was constantly worried about my job, but I did some of my best work for that company in those couple of years.

At least from my experience, Scott Adams was right. Adversity definitely seems to be what gets me thinking.

Licking my Wounds

My apologies for the lack of posting. Just got another rejection, this time from the academic institution I had applied to and gone to an on-site interview with. It was one of those jobs in a different field than I’ve worked in previously, but in a somewhat similar kind of role. I was attracted to the academic environment for its stability, and for the fact that I’d continue to work with researchers (who have very different IT needs, and bring you more interesting problems). The downside is the pay isn’t that great, but I’d trade pay for stability and a research environment.

I think I was the top candidate when I went in for the interview, but there was one other candidate who came along and had the exact experience and background they were looking for, so then it would seem my lack of direct experience in this field became a problem for them. My guess is at that point I became the number two candidate, but they didn’t want to get back to me until the other guy accepted or rejected.

So now I’ve pretty much exhausted all the jobs that looked interesting. Now I need to move forward looking for work. I am doing some part time contracting for my former employer now, but its not nearly enough to pay the bills. Not even enough to affect unemployment. But it does look better on the resume to say I’m doing some part time contract work for the previous employer. I’m trying to get the message across that I wasn’t let go in a round of cutting, but that the company actually close, and I was one of the last remaining people when it did.

I’m still in good financial shape. I’m not really concerned about that. But needless to say I don’t like being out of work, and not knowing when I may finally land a position.

Pissing off the Right People

The New York Times is in fits over the HR822:

This trashing of state and local prerogatives is not only unwise but unnecessary. In its wrongheaded 2008 decision recognizing an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep guns in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court still left room for reasonable gun limits, including restrictions on toting concealed weapons.

What New York City has are not restrictions on concealed weapons. What New York City has amounts to a prohibition for carrying a firearm at all, except for the rich and well connected. This should not pass any constitutional standard for a fundamental right. Since New York does not choose to prohibit concealed carry, but rather to restrict it in an arbitrary and capricious manner, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be forced to recognize other licenses from other states.

I’d also note that the Court, in Heller, did not endorse prohibitions on concealed carry. It offered that as an example of restrictions that have been upheld, as an example of ways the right has been regulated. That’s a far cry from the Courts endorsing New York City, Chicago’s, or D.C.’s draconian prohibitions.

Netflix Needs to Fire its CEO

Bucks right has pretty good coverage over the latest outrage. Seems they are spinning off their DVD business like it was an infected appendix. I was willing to live with the price hike, but destroying the value of the service is enough to make me think about dropping it.