Category: How Not to Win

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?

When I clicked through to read the bizarre AP report on the shocking(!) revelation that PACs raise money to donate to politicians friendly to their cause, I couldn’t help but notice some very bizarre statements by the head of the Tennessee gun group profiled.  Apparently the AP got hold of his pitch for raising PAC money:

Harris wrote that his goal is to raise $240,000, or $1 for every person with a handgun carry permit in Tennessee. But he acknowledged that that goal is likely unrealistic.

“Sometimes you make aspirational statements when you ask for money,” Harris said. “Although I would be tickled to death if we did, I have no expectations of raising a quarter-million dollars for the PAC.”

First, I love the pitch idea. It’s very tangible for people to understand and embraces those who don’t feel like they have enough money to participate in politics. If you have $1 to give, you’ve made a worthwhile investment. In a recession, that stands a chance at encouraging participation. Second, I appreciate that he is realistic in his goals. One thing sorely lacking among some on our side is any sense of political reality when it comes to participation by their gun owning peers. For practical planning purposes it is wise to realize that you may not meet that goal, and for this particular group, there are more than fair concerns with it.*

However, why the hell would you tell the Associated Press that you have no intention of meeting your goals? It’s one thing to predict a likely outcome, but it’s another to announce your failure for the world – donors and politicians included – to read. If I lived in Tennessee and received the donation request, I would have told Sebastian we should give because it’s a good cause and a good pitch. But if I read this article before the check went out the door, the check would never go out the door. With Harris already announcing to politicians that their PAC won’t be hugely successful, I’d suggest our check instead go to PVF where NRA will flex its muscle and tell politicians that gun owners are ready to give in order to protect our rights. If the state group is publicly conceding defeat in the press, then that tells me they aren’t interested in really flexing their muscle to make this happen.

Lesson: Be realistic, but don’t tell the world you plan to fail. Steer the conversation toward how motivated gun owners have been lately, especially in regards to politics. If the reporter really wants to talk money, talk about other ways gun owners have demonstrated they are ready to open their wallets with the run on guns and ammo. We’re already voting with our wallets, and now we’re ready to make that happen in the political world.

Another weird little element that caught my eye may or may not be a big deal. It’s possible that the reporter is making hay about it and Harris just commented on it, but I would be curious to know how they are handling this from a practical standpoint:

In the recent newsletter, Harris warned supporters that if they give more than $100 per quarter, their names and other identifying information will be included in campaign finance disclosures. Telling potential donors about that threshold in advance can help avoid uncomfortable situations later, he said.

“I want to make sure that if I call and say ‘who is your employer because I’ve got to put it on the form,’ that they don’t all of a sudden say ‘give me my money back,’ ” he said.

I can understand that the reason he probably did that is because gun owners are pretty sensitive about these things. With the reports published online, there is fair concern for people who aren’t “out of the closet” as gun owners in their professional lives. But to be honest, I would have been much more subtle about it. Rather than making a big deal, just make the donation check off amount $99 instead of $100. If you list higher amounts, then just put an asterisk with a notation at the bottom that more information is required for those giving $100 or more in a quarter. It’s subtle, but it gets the point across.

Hopefully, this is a case where the AP is creating a minor controversy where there is none. Given the overall nature of the article, it could easily be seen as such. However, if that’s the case, there was really no reason for Harris to talk about it at all. And even if he felt the need to elaborate, don’t say it’s because you’ll lose donations. That reinforces to serious donors that you plan to fail. Even if a donor does send in $100, don’t call him and make the only options give up the information or don’t give at all. The suggestion should be that they give $99 so as to support the cause and still have their privacy respected.

Lesson: Keep your trap shut when it doesn’t need to be open, especially when the person on the other line is clearly writing a piece that blows things out of proportion. There’s no need to create added paranoia with gun owners. Believe me, there are a few that are paranoid enough to cover us all. If that paranoia keeps regular Joe Gun Owner out of the political donation process, then you’ve lost when you really didn’t need to given a reasonable alternative.

*Using the state’s search report function, I cannot turn up any results from 2008 or 2009 with contributor information. According to filing records for donations made to candidates, they have not been any reported donations since 2000. At that time, they donated $125 to 19 candidates for a grand total of $2,375. Because I could not find contribution or PAC records from that year, I don’t know if they only had $2,375 to give away or have been sitting on much more since that time.