Columnist Sally Kalson [above] of Pittsburgh’s post-gazette.com has a bone to pick with supporters of H.R. 822, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.” Ms. K’s galled by the federal legislation’s goal: directing all states to recognize the legitimacy of any other state’s concealed carry license. You know, like they do for a driver’s license. Kalson reckons the strategy—enshrining and enforcing a constitutional right to bear arms with a federal law—ain’t playin’ fair!

In many cases, [the state’s rights argument is] used by conservatives to defend the right of states to limit access to the ballot box, on the unspoken theory that entirely too many poor and minority citizens are voting.

Unspoken because it’s not true? Or, in this case, spoken because it’s a lie? I don’t want to get bogged down in politics (notice the small “c” in conservative?). Not when there are firearms fallacies that need exposing  . . .

H.R. 822, or the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, would force every state to honor every other state’s permit to carry a concealed gun — no matter how lax the other state’s standards. That would mean a convicted felon who can’t pass muster in, say, Pennsylvania, could get a permit elsewhere, and local law enforcement would have no choice but to let him walk around with a loaded weapon.

I love it when the legacy media feels free to interpret legislation as they see fit, carefully avoiding providing a link to the actual legislation so that their readers might, I dunno, make up their own minds. Why think when you can be led around by the nose. Or, I should, say, misled.

Where do I start? There isn’t a state in these here United that issues a conceal carry weapon license to convicted felons. Not to mention the fact that there’s a federal law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms. Would Ms. Kalson like to see that removed? After all, it doesn’t respect state’s rights—or seem to stop convicted criminals from using guns in her state.

According to the Philadelphia Daily News, Marqus Hill lost his Philadelphia carry permit in 2005 after an arrest for attempted murder and other offenses. The charges were dropped, but when his 2008 appeal to get his permit back was denied, he assaulted a police officer and was convicted. Yet he was able to get a carry permit from Florida.

In 2010, Mr. Hill went outside to find three teens breaking into his car and fired 13 shots into Irving Santana, 18, killing him. He was held for trial on counts of murder and possession of an instrument of crime. His lawyer said he will plead self-defense.

The same newspaper found that more than 2,500 Pennsylvanians have obtained Florida permits, although many would have been denied in their home state. Now city officials are advocating canceling the reciprocity agreement with Florida.

As many of our Armed Intelligentsia have pointed out, A) Hill was not convicted of a felony when he applied for his Florida permit; B) this story isn’t statistically relevant to the debate and C) who’s to say it wasn’t self-defense?

How about a jury? In Ms. Kalson’s fevered mind, both Hill and the idea of reciprocity are guilty until proven innocent. As are the 2500 PA residents who were denied their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by their home state.

Ms. Kalson would have us believe—without substantiation of any kind—that the 2500 PA residents who turned to the Sunshine State to obtain a license to carry a gun to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones legally are criminals looking to get a permit before they commit a crime on home turf.

Nonsense.

Clearly, this proposed law is designed as a race to the bottom. The least responsible states would sell the most permits to the least qualified people, and states across the country would have to mop up the blood

What blood? Where’s the evidence that Americans who hold a concealed carry permit from any state are more likely to commit a violent crime than the general population? Florida has issued more carry permits than any other U.S. state: 1.36 million. The State revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.

That’s without even considering the oft-mooted theory that more guns = less crime. A theory that the gun grabbing Mayors Against Illegal Guns rejects with typical bravado (i.e. without a statistical basis).

Gun advocates say that armed citizens stop more crime than they cause. [Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns] and his coalition don’t buy it.

“The extensive data on that has pointed to what any cop on the beat will tell you. More guns in public places do not make the streets safer.”

As always, those who support gun control rely on “high concept” arguments. Kalson’s tired-ade can be best summed up, as it is, by the article’s headline and subhead: Guns, guns for everyone; Now the NRA wants to force all states to let just about anybody carry firearms. That’s closer to the truth than Kalson will ever know.

Recommended For You

14 Responses to H.R. 822 = “Guns, Guns for Everyone” If Only.

  1. More ‘blood in the streets’? *yawn* The gun grabbers are really starting to sound like a particularly unimaginative broken record these days.

  2. I used to believe that everyone was innocent until proven guilty, but in real life you’re guilty unless you can hire a good lawyer to get a jury to find you not guilty. No one is ever found innocent of anything, you’re either guilty or not guilty and the so called good guys win over 90+ percent of their cases. If you don’t plead out and go to trial you better have an air tight case because chances are that you will lose. I’ve heard several people discuss H.R. 822 at the range lately, and none of them believe it has a chance of passing. Hopefully it will pass someday, but we need to get gun grabbers out of office before we have a fair shot at some reasonable carry laws.

  3. Pennsylvania, a once great state where the Founding Fathers met, is not a place that I would ever live based simply on their “progressive values” with its associated politically-correct favoritism and bias increasing dominating their legal system.

  4. Sally Kalson is not a “gun-grabber.” She’s just an ignorant tool, like the rest of the sob sisters rending their garments over the exercise of a Constitutional right.

    • Right on Ralph…

      That’s the thing with these ignorant folks – they have themselves convinced they are the intellectual, liberal elite and they can’t craft any stance that isn’t a lie either intentionally or because they only parrot what the Brady Bunch spoon feeds them

  5. Why has HR 822 not passed already, there are enough republicans and blue dog democrats to pass it, what’s the hold up? I thought the GOP was our friend, that’s why we elected them, you know to do the right thing! Or just maybe, they used us again, “Damn” when are we going to learn!

    • Why hasn’t it passed? They just held a subcommittee hearing 2 weeks ago. They have to hold a vote, move it to the full committee, hold another vote, move it to the full House floor, vote, and then send it to the Senate, where they get to study it, vote, vote, and vote. It does take a minute to pass a law. Theoretically, they could pass it in one day, but this is not something that is “urgent” under congressional rules. I suspect it won’t come to a vote for the full house or senate until december at the earliest.

  6. Silly Sally, an American conservative is just a liberal 15 years behind the times. Ever notice how conservatives make their arguments by appealing to liberalism? It shows who really dictates the political narrative. As long as the fale right exists then we are fucked.

  7. If HR822 passed in it’s current format! But it won’t, the sad state of our political system will ensure a poison pill will be inserted before it makes the Pres desk.

  8. Below is my letter to Ms. Kalson;

    Subject; Thank you for your editorial on H.R.822

    Dear Ms. Kalson,

    In your recent editorial, you stated the following; “H.R. 822, or the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, would force every state to honor every other state’s permit to carry a concealed gun — no matter how lax the other state’s standards. That would mean a convicted felon who can’t pass muster in, say, Pennsylvania, could get a permit elsewhere, and local law enforcement would have no choice but to let him walk around with a loaded weapon.”

    The highlighted statement is a bold faced lie. First of all, there is a Federal law which prohibits felons and domestic abusers from ever owning a gun, that includes even holding someone else’s gun. That law is The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified in 18 U.S.C. § 921. Secondly, each and every one of the states, territories, and possessions of the United States have similar laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms.

    You, and your colleagues, need to write a retraction of this lie. But I don’t expect that you will because speaking the truth doesn’t seem to fit your agenda.

    The remainder of your editorial is filled with other factual errors, half-truths and misleading statements, too numerous for me to want to take the time here. Most, if not all, of the statements you made could have been easily fact checked, yet you chose to allow your emotions, misconceptions and ignorance to lead you publish such utter drivel as fact. And you call yourself a journalist? Shameful.

    You didn’t even have the courtesy to provide your readers with a link to the actual legislation for H.R. 822, lest they be allowed to read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

    Blood will not run in the streets if this legislation is passed as you and your fellow travelers would have the rubes and proles believe. We’ve been hearing that nonsense for decades, yet there has been no blood running in the streets. Forty-nine states now have provisions for law-abiding citizens to concealed carry. None of the hysterics that the gun control lobby touts have come to bear their much desired bloody fruit. You are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the law.

    A law-abiding citizen’s right to self defense does not end when they leave their house. That right to self defense is a fundamental, essential and universal civil and human right. H.R. 822 will go a long way towards recognizing that fact and make our communities safer from the predators who live among us.

    End.

    Please note that the highlighted statement, referred to above, is the last sentence of the first paragraph. The highlighting didn’t translate into the cut and paste here.

    I did give her my name, address and phone should she desire to discuss this further with me. I won’t be holding my breath. I sent this out at 9:29 this morning and have yet to receive a reply. I’m not expecting one, but if a miracle happens, I will post the reply here.

    As Ralph said, “She’s just an ignorant tool, like the rest of the sob sisters rending their garments over the exercise of a Constitutional right.”

  9. @Greg in Allston,

    Thank you for writing this reply to this nitwit. The truth is often brutal, so I suspect this “journalist” will ignore it.

    In response to the drivel produced by these gun control advocates, my tone has shifted to approximate your direct approach, since I do not like to suffer fools. I’ve stopped pulling punches in my comments and call them the ignorant, petty tyrants that they are. Remember, their starting point is to attack our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (and that includes for self-defense). I wonder if we told her that her right to speak freely was a threat to public safety (which it might just be) and said we were working for laws to shut her up. That’s a roughly equivalent abuse of the First Amendment. I doubt she would appreciate that either.

    I find her complete ignorance and the overall moral bankruptcy of gun control proponents disgusting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *