NYT on National Concealed Carry Reciprocity: OMG! A Gun On Every Corner!

cr_05136_05_v6

As you’d imagine, New York Times columnist Gail Collins supports national concealed carry reciprocity like ISIS supports clothing optional beaches. Collins’ editorial A Gun on Every Corner is cookie-cutter anti-gun alarmism, based on bog-standard East Coast liberal elitism. How can we allow gun owners from Mississippi – Mississippi! – to carry in cultured, urbane New York? Why, “a permit to carry a concealed weapon from Mississippi is [merely] concrete proof of the owner’s ability to fill out an application.” (Props for conceding basic literacy skills.) Untrained, bible-clinging, gun-toting southern racist rednecks on the Upper East Side? The latte-fueled mind boggles! Here’s the most interesting bit of Collins’ dietribe [sic] . . .

In many crowded cities, gun safety means there’s almost nobody carrying but the cops. But it’s impossible to keep that kind of order when people are roaming the streets waving out-of-town gun permits, which local police frequently have no way to verify.

Anti-gunners living in liberal enclaves can’t abide the idea of citizens packing heat in their “gun free zones.” Out-of-towners? To quote Scatman Crothers, that’s crazy! It’s outrageous! Or, to put Collins’ desire to live in a world where nobody but the cops carry a gun into some sort of historical perspective, VE MUST HAF ORDER! 

Note: Collins didn’t sing the praises of crowded cites where “nobody [is] carrying but the cops.” She said, “almost nobody.”

Perhaps the New York Times writer’s carving out rhetorical space for her boss, one of the handful of New York City residents with a concealed carry license. Or maybe she’s conceding the existence of armed criminals in crowded cities. I wonder if there’s something law-abiding citizens could use to protect themselves against these criminals. Oh right. They have to rely on armed police keeping order.

Also notice the hyperbole. “People . . . roaming the streets waving out-of-town gun permits.” Why would out-of-town visitors roam the streets – unless they’re looking for a Big City curmudgeon who respects Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. (Good luck with that.)

By the same token, why would out-of-towners (shudder) “wave” their gun permits during this search? Ms. Collins is obviously unfamiliar with expression “concealed means concealed.” As for the idea that cops “frequently” have no way to verify an out-of-state concealed carry permit, someone should tell Ms. Collins that stop-‘n-frisk is no longer standard policy in The City That Never Sleeps.

One other part of Collins’ editorial merits mention: Senator Charles Schumer’s contribution.

“You say: ‘Look, maybe this works in the rural parts of your state but it doesn’t work in Times Square,’ ” said Schumer. “They’re not even open to the argument.”

Huh. So Schumer doesn’t think concealed carry works in rural parts of his state. Perhaps The Empire State Senator’s forgotten that rural New York exists. Never mind acknowledging the fact that rural New Yorkers would like nothing better than to see a national reciprocity law, so as to ding downstate’s anti-gun extremism. Let’s start the “argument” with that.

Collins’ editorial ends on a morose note; she painfully predicts that a National Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill will eventually hit the President’s desk. “Maybe our best hope is that Congress will do what it does best and fail to pass any legislation whatsoever for the rest of the year.” I hate to say it, but that’s a really tempting compromise . . .

comments

  1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Get this woman a fainting couch, stat!

  2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    National reciprocity of state-issued resident firearms permits will end the civilian disarmament movement, once and for all. All that will be left will be the clean-up.

    Why? Two major reasons:

    1) Law-abiding citizens will no longer need to fear being deemed a felon merely for crossing an invisible line

    2) Residents of may-issue states will quickly resent their own state’s laws, as they see more non-residents with more freedom to exercise natural, second amendment-protected rights than they themselves have as residents. The end result (and likely, a fairly quick) result, either through legislatures or through the courts, will be the elimination of all “may issue” laws in favor of “shall issue” laws.

    Once that happens, the carrying of firearms will become normalized, and blood will not run in the streets. The next logical step will be constitutional, permit-less carry.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Chipper – But let’s say, for the sake of compromise and ignoring the whole rights argument, that the bill required states adopt a basic minimum standard of training and proficiency. I mean, generally driving rules are pretty uniform among the several states. Could we not live with that? And those requirements could be tied to the drivers license (or state id) programs. Whereas in Virginia, endorsements are shown by a letter (M = Motorcycle, etc) we simply add CWP.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        But let’s say, for the sake of compromise and ignoring the whole rights argument, that the bill required states adopt a basic minimum standard of training and proficiency.

        Federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident firearms permits is one thing. Establishing federal standards/requirements for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is something else entirely. I would absolutely oppose the latter. The Fed.Gov has no business (and, in fact, is constitutionally prohibited from) setting such requirements.

        I mean, generally driving rules are pretty uniform among the several states. Could we not live with that?

        No, I could not live with that. Driving is a privilege. Keeping and bearing arms is a right.

        And those requirements could be tied to the drivers license (or state id) programs.

        Also no thank you to this idea. The driver’s license is used as a person’s de facto ID for all purposes. Disclosing my firearm permit status in all and sundry interactions is not in my best interest, and violates my privacy.

        1. avatar Gman says:

          Chipper – OK, so we can’t ignore the rights argument; got it. And I do enjoy bantering opines with you. So how exactly would national reciprocity actually work? I mean, they are right in that without national standards it will be a defacto ruleus minimus. For this whole thing to work, there must be a common framework. How do you see that working?

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          So how exactly would national reciprocity actually work?

          Quite simple, really: If Person A is a resident of State A, and State A has issued Person A a carry permit, when Person A visits State B, State B must honor the carry permit issued to Person A by State A. While in State B, Person A must follow the carry laws of State B.

          Ultimately, State A dictates the permitting requirements for residents of State A, and State B dictates the carry requirements for State B. State B honors the permit issued by State A to residents of State A, and residents of State A visiting State B honor the carry laws of State B while in State B.

        3. avatar Jordan says:

          Driving is not a privilege granted to us by the government. I see where you are coming from, but no. No. No.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Driving is not a privilege granted to us by the government. I see where you are coming from, but no. No. No.

          While the ability to travel freely is certainly a right, the use of automobiles on public roads is very much a privilege, and an activity that the State is within its purview and proper authority to regulate.

        5. avatar Dustin says:

          “A Right.”

          Yet, permit… If you’ve compromised so far that you’re letting the guvthugs permit the concept… No, it’s not a Right anymore. It’s every bit a privilege as is driving at this point…

          You’ve already slid down the slope and you’re pretending you didn’t…

          If it requires a permit, a photo ID, special registration, begging for permission, paying a fee, being on a list, essentially being treated worse than a convicted child rapist for the rest of your life… That’s quite the opposite of a Right. If you’ve already compromised 99%, why not the last 1%? Pretending you’re defending a Right at this depth of compromise is a sad joke.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          If it requires a permit, a photo ID, special registration, begging for permission, paying a fee, being on a list, essentially being treated worse than a convicted child rapist for the rest of your life… That’s quite the opposite of a Right.

          We agree 100% here.

          If you’ve already compromised 99%, why not the last 1%? Pretending you’re defending a Right at this depth of compromise is a sad joke.

          How can I have compromised on something that was in place before I was even born? There’s a difference between compromising on the end goal, and recognizing the current landscape and basing the path to that end goal accordingly.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Gman, that is the beauty of the whole idea (which I think is going nowhere). Someplace like NYC, where only the connected have the slightest chance of ever having a CCL, there is still such a thing, and therefore the city would have to recognize every CCL from every state, only alternative is to repeal all of their own licenses, which would probably happen. The connected would still carry, of course, by virtue of being connected!

        8. avatar LongPurple says:

          Chip, I think we share both the same goal and strategy to achieve that goal; the same incremental “half a loaf, or even a slice at a time” strategy used by the enemies of the 2nd Amendment.

          I would prefer “Constitutional carry” to be in effect in the entire country. But if a state wishes to require a permit process, then it should not only be a “shall issue” form, but should also not be any expense to the citizen who applies for the permit.
          I did not pay for the administrative costs to register to vote. I was not subjected to a NICS background check, and my fingerprints weren’t taken and checked to see if I was a convicted felon, a mental incompetent, or otherwise disqualified from voting (if there are any real disqualifications). Any expense for such investigation of my fitness to vote would have to be absorbed from general revenue. The Supreme Court has ruled poll taxes or denial of voting rights for non-payment of any tax, or any “fees” to be unconstitutional interference with the voting rights of a citizen —

          “The power to tax is the power to destroy”.

          The same principle applies to the RKBA. If the people of a state wish a permit system, let them absorb the total expense of administering it out of general taxpayer revenue. That would include any mandatory firearms training required by the law. If the law requires anything for the exercise of any right, the law must also provide for public funding of that requirement.
          If the voters and taxpayers of the state consider such regulations as useful in providing for “public safety”, then let them pay the cost of it, for as long as they wish to have a needless expense.

        9. avatar MarkPA says:

          “. . . the same incremental “half a loaf, or even a slice at a time” strategy . . . ” But, you aren’t eating your own cooking.
          We demand that NYC, DC, NJ, MD etc. become Shall-Issue. You insist that the only acceptable Shall-Issue is on the basis of NO-fee for issuing the card. (Someone else may insist on some other criterion, e.g., NO-mandated training requirement, etc.) This isn’t an “incremental” strategy; it’s a personal decision on the basis of “I want it MY way or not-at-all”.
          Consider that we would be better off if these jurisdictions went Shall-Issue with fees and training comparable to the highest fee and the highest training requirement of any of the existing Shall-Issue States. We could incrementally negotiate down from there. This strategy would be somewhat more appealing to the fence-sitters in Congress (and their constituents) than any “MY way or not-at-all” argument.
          That said, (I know that the tar is being heated and the feathers are being plucked), let’s turn the argument I’ve just made on it’s head. It is obvious that these Won’t-Issue jurisdictions have been intransigent. They would NOT meet us 1/2-way on availing us of our Constitutional and fundamental right. They Won’t-Issue to anyone no matter what fee they charge nor what training standard they dictate.
          Let them deprive their own residents; but not US NON-resident visitors! We can’t vote out their legislators; we have no recourse in their legislative process. The Won’t-Issue States leave US no viable alternative but to petition Congress to restore our rights in these States under the full-faith-and-credit mandate. OUR (non-residents’) rights are being deprived in these Won’t-Issue States.
          I live in PA ($21, no training) just 2 miles from the NJ boarder. I must travel to NJ to visit relatives and work. If our representatives and senators restore our rights in NJ then NJ has brought this situation upon itself. It has no one to blame but the NJ legislature. Likewise the other Won’t-Issue jurisdictions.
          I would have paid NJ’s fee no matter how outrageous. I would have met NJ’s training requirement, no matter how onerous. NJ refuses me a permit on THEIR terms; now, they ought to honor the License to Carry Firearms granted on PA’s terms.
          Moreover, some States will neither grant reciprocity to any other State’s permit holders nor issue their own permits to non-residents. CA fits in this category. OR will only issue non-resident permits to contagious bordering States. SC only to non-resident land-owners. These States likewise deprive most non-residents their Constitutional and fundamental right. National Reciprocity is needed to bring order to the Byzantine scheme of bilateral reciprocity that has grown organically.

          I suggest we all write our Congressmen and Senators urging them to support National Reciprocity based on this argument that the Won’t-Issue States have made their bed and must live with the consequences of a national recognition of 2A liberty under the full-faith-and-credit mandate.

          Let’s not be hasty in criticizing the Shall-Issue States for their widely varying fees and training requirements. They have given us a quarter-century laboratory experiment proving that reciprocity works. It works notwithstanding its irregularity. Congress has a strong empirical basis upon which to act to make reciprocity more uniform and co-extensive.

      2. avatar fishydude says:

        Take it a step further. A visiting permit holder many also carry any concealed fiream that is legal in their home state so they don’t have to be concerned about asinine mag limits and load limits in places like NY (7 rounds) MA and MD (10 rounds).
        I should be able to travel to or through NY to MA with my fully loaded FNS9 with 17+1 and a couple extra 17 round mags on the belt without fear of being arrested.
        Even my FSN9C with “only” 12+1 is illegal in NY and MA.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Take it a step further.

          No, please. We don’t benefit by taking a simple, national reciprocity law and “taking it a step further”, regardless of the step.

          Let national reciprocity happen on its own, without other amendments or riders. Almost anything else will only serve to poison the well.

        2. avatar Chrispy says:

          As a resident of NY I should be able to carry my Ruger SR9c with 17 round magazines, but I can’t do that… I wish I could, but I am bound to the 10 round option. This is why people should have paid more attention to New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc etc. We have strict laws shoved down our throats, you tell us to move out. Now you want nationwide, sweeping gun law reform. When we have people like Cuomo, and Schumer, and Feinstein, all I have to say is this: “Enjoy the fight we’ve been fighting all along.”

        3. avatar Scott P says:

          Maryland only bans buying, selling, and transferring to individuals mags above 10 rounds. The law says nothing about possession. Your 15+ capacity mags are fine.

      3. avatar JD says:

        No I can’t live with that. The 2nd amendment says nothing about competence. Nothing about experience. It does however explicitly say “Shall NOT Be Infringed” Driving is not a protected right. Nobody has a right to drive a motor vehicle on any state owned property. Government is free to grant a privilege to do so and regulate how its done. Letting the camel of government get its nose under the tent by saying the 2nd amendment is not absolute in that government has the ability to regulate how and what arms are carried has done nothing but cause problems.

        1. avatar Jeremy S says:

          The freedom for any citizen to travel freely within the United States is a right. A protected right. I’m sure people could argue for weeks about what that means for driving a car on public roads, but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss vehicular travel as something that isn’t a Right.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Sorry, Jeremy, case law quite clearly establishes that driving is a privilege. The debate is concluded. While travel is a right, the means by which you travel may be regulated int eh public interest.

        3. avatar Jeremy S says:

          The “slippery slope” is what’s bothersome, as the same argument can be made against firearms or certain types of firearms. And has been, which is why there are rosters of approved firearms for sale in certain states, magazine capacity restrictions, bans on NFA items in many states, the NFA in the first place, and all of other gun control. It’s ALL “for the public interest”!!! Next we’ll hear “the 2A just protects your right to arms, not firearms and certainly not any firearms. We aren’t taking away your right to keep and bear arms, let alone your right to self defense, we’re only taking away firearms. You’re still welcome to use other arms like spears and knives and tasers and such.” …free travel is a right but using vehicles to do it isn’t… I take issue with that. Vehicles are THE private means of travel.

          Last paragraph in “Implications” section is relevant and backs up what you say, but also points out that it’s a problem. Basically, a right that we have simply given up willingly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law …and for the pro-2A crowd to point this out hurts our cause, I believe, rather than helps it. It’s proof positive that we could simply concede our firearms rights and it would be generally accepted as perfectly fine one generation later, because here we are as staunch guardians of our 2A rights just accepting and being honky dory with restrictions on free travel. Oh it’s “part of case law” and a “settled matter.” Not only should we not fight to reestablish this right, but let’s use the loss of it as some sort of argument FOR firearms rights? We’ve lost the right to travel freely without permit “for the public interest?” GIVE ME A BREAK. That sounds 100% completely and totally like every single gun grabber out there. Rights are rights. “Driving is a privilege” is a totally sketchy argument for supporting the cause of firearms rights. It’s a privilege because we allowed it to become one!

        4. avatar MarkPA says:

          This is a delicate political problem to be managed with aforethought. Pounding the “shall not be infringed” drum is not going to win any hearts, minds or votes. These (hearts, minds and votes) are the things we need in the present era of gun rights.
          We ought to work up a response that presents our case in a good light. Several of the rights in the Bill-of-Rights were somewhat controversial at the time they were written; e.g., just how much freedom of speech, press, assembly or religion could be tolerated. How much protection from searches and seizures. How much right to a jury trial. How much right to vote. We’ve struggled with these decisions, more so with the vote than any other. We decided that race, color or prior condition of servitude was off-the-table. So were literacy tests. Where the People concluded that government abused its power, government was reined-in.
          The People have largely accepted that liberty to travel is incompatible with onerous restrictions on the license to drive. Just about anyone who is 17 or older who can see can pass a driver’s test. Almost everyone can retain his driver’s license; suspensions typically don’t extend beyond a year or two.
          Unfortunately, we are still short of a consensus on the the right to arms. One felony or one breach of domestic tranquility is sufficient to strip you of your 2A rights for life. Much harsher than a suspended driver’s license.
          Studies have shown that States with no training requirement have no worse record than those with a training requirement. Just as anyone who wanted to drive a car would get some training, so too, anyone who wants to use a gun will also get some training.
          The NRA has been working on training for 140 years, developing training standards and certifying trainers. Most gunners graciously offer guidance to new owners.
          States with training requirements sometimes seem to be more interested in raising the cost-of-entry beyond the means of the poor; we object to this. If we had any degree of trust in our State governments we might be much more open to training or testing requirements.
          Our main issue is that – for 10 States and DC – absolutely no amount of training suffices to obtain a carry permit. It is disingenuous for NYC, DC, and 10 States to give carry permits only to politically powerful men of means with little or nothing in the way of training but refuses permits to an ordinary citizen irrespective how much training she has.
          We will talk about training or testing just as soon as carry is allowed nation-wide to any ordinary citizen who is not disqualified by applicable prohibited-person criteria.
          The foregoing is my first draft.
          If we could get Shall-Issue in the Won’t-Issue jurisdictions at the price of an onerous training requirement we would move the ball toward the our goal-post. CONVERSELY, if the last jurisdiction (be that DC or NYC) insists on staying Won’t-Issue regardless of how much training a citizen has, then we will demand our nation-wide rights under the “full-faith-and-credit” clause of the Constitution. The Won’t-Issue States will have brought this result on themselves by refusing to respect the rights of ordinary citizens.
          This is an argument that is understandable. The Anti’s don’t need to accept it. We just need to sell it to the uncommitted voter; and, his Congressman and Senators. Those legislators who feel they can stand on such an argument can vote for National Reciprocity with less fear of losing their next election. That’s all we need.

      4. avatar LongPurple says:

        MarkPA —–

        “We demand that NYC, DC, NJ, MD etc. become Shall-Issue. You insist that the only acceptable Shall-Issue is on the basis of NO-fee for issuing the card.”

        I am content to apply the “half a loaf, or even a slice at a time” strategy to the shall-issue question. “Shall-issue” first, fee or no-fee, $21 or $2,100, training requirements of whatever the anti-gun bureaucrats choose to impose, perhaps even a two week resident program at a state police training center with a charge for room and board. Remember, “The power to tax is the power to destroy”.
        Then — go to court and apply the same principle as SCOTUS has ruled in voting rights, no poll tax, no fees or expense charged the citizen to exercise his right to vote. How long do you think those burdens and expenses forced on the CCW applicant would remain requirements?
        Don’t be too confident about the WE in “We demand that NYC, DC, NJ, MD etc. become Shall-Issue.” I’ve found some whose view is “Constitutional carry in every state NOW!!” They do not have the patience for any evolution, they are for revolution.
        I certainly hope you don’t wind up in the same situation as Shaneen Allen. There was a story about a Maryland cop stopping a Florida driver and “catching” him with with a gun, when the cop “just happened to notice” his FL CCW in his wallet. I wonder if the same targeting of cars with PA plates ever happens near the NJ and NY borders.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          LongPurple: I think we are on the same page.

          “I am content to apply the “half a loaf, or even a slice at a time” strategy to the shall-issue question. “Shall-issue” first, fee or no-fee, $21 or $2,100, training requirements of whatever the anti-gun bureaucrats choose to impose, . . . ”
          Yes; not that we will get it in all of the final hold-outs. This is mainly a rhetorical position. First, we need to get our own heads around the choice between “half a loaf” vs. “MY way or I’ll wait forever – I’ll never try nibbling away”. I trust you read through my remarks on how we could turn this into a powerful argument to our fence-sitting Congressmen and Senators.

          “The power to tax is the power to destroy”. Yes, and, interestingly, SCOTUS seems to have used this argument against the States when a State first presumed to tax a Federally-chartered bank’s branch in their jurisdiction. Conversely, when the Feds want to tax something, e.g., NFA weapons, SCOTUS has upheld a Congressional power to tax to the brink of destruction.

          “Then — go to court and apply the same principle as SCOTUS has ruled in voting rights, no poll tax, no fees or expense charged the citizen to exercise his right to vote. How long do you think those burdens and expenses forced on the CCW applicant would remain requirements?”

          This president probably works against us legally just as it works in our favor rhetorically. The $200 excise tax on NFA weapons was carefully evaluated constitutionally and used precisely because it would pass-muster when an outright ban would not have been constitutional. Legally, the Constitutional Amendment banning the poll tax probably works against us. It sets a precedent that Congress’ power to tax can’t be checked without a Constitutional limit.
          Rhetorically, we should still make the argument. A tax on a fundamental or constitutionally protected right is as offensive to all such rights if it is offensive to one such right. Suppose a tax on printing presses or prayer. Even so, TV and radio stations pay a fee. Our best argument is that if a tax is imposed on a constitutionally-protected right it must be modest. It must not be used to raise a barrier against the exercise of the right by citizens lacking the means to pay. This argument should play well politically; it need not appeal to judges.

          “Don’t be too confident about the WE in ‘We demand that NYC, DC, NJ, MD etc. become Shall-Issue.’ I’ve found some whose view is ‘Constitutional carry in every state NOW!!’ They do not have the patience for any evolution, they are for revolution.” Your point is well-put. I agree. But I mean to “demand” as a rhetorical proposition. As in: “I demand a writ of habeas corpus!”. The warden will keep me locked up notwithstanding; at least until a lawyer can get into court and get a judge to sign the writ. In our case, I propose that we announce our position as a “demand”; having waited a reasonable time, we petition Congress for a redress of our grievance of a denial of Constitutional rights. Politically, Congress-critters should announce that they are sympathetic to our plea. They should agree that the States have agregiously withheld a Constitutionally protected right the remedy for which is obviously within their Constitutional power to grant (under full-faith-and-credit as well as other arguments).
          “I certainly hope you don’t wind up in the same situation as Shaneen Allen. There was a story about a Maryland cop stopping a Florida driver and “catching” him with with a gun, when the cop “just happened to notice” his FL CCW in his wallet. I wonder if the same targeting of cars with PA plates ever happens near the NJ and NY borders.”
          I thank you for your good wishes. Unfortunately, I am vulnerable. A key element in the relief for Shaneen cases is that one must be ignorant of the fact that NJ does not give reciprocity to PA; I can’t sustain such a plea of ignorance. I am also of the opinion that there is no practical legal remedy to false arrest. (I didn’t read that the MD cop noticed the FL CCW in the driver’s wallet.) Unless-and-until the courts are prepared to put some teeth in the false-arrest laws, every one of us is vulnerable to arbitrary and capricious false arrest. A small percentage of cops abuse their power in this way. (If most of them did so there would be an effective political uproar.) We the People just don’t care that a few percent of arrests are followed by a release with no charges filed. The likelihood of an adequate pay-off from a false-arrest lawsuit being successful compared to it’s cost (and losing) isn’t good enough to check the practice.
          What we ought to do is calmly submit to such arrests. Call a lawyer. Make the best we can of our cases (often nothing). If-and-to-the-extent that we can win some cases (before a judge or the court of public opinion) we take them. it’s probably going to be a long time before a majority of departments want to avoid such litigation and order their officers to behave themselves.

        2. avatar LongPurple says:

          MarkPA —

          You raise an interesting point re the “Power to tax” question.

          “The $200 excise tax on NFA weapons was carefully evaluated constitutionally and used precisely because it would pass-muster when an outright ban would not have been constitutional.”

          The MILLER Court found that a short-barreled shotgun was not protected, or rather they “could not say” that it WAS the type of military useful weapon which the people may “keep and bear”, protected by the 2nd Amendment. That had the effect of leaving such a firearm unprotected by the 2nd A., and fair game for the taxing power of the Federal Government, or any level of government. Had it been established as a proper “militia firearm”, in my view, it would not then be subject to any taxation.
          It would have been a very different decision, in my estimation, if Miller had been prosecuted for illegal possession of a BAR or Thompson sub-machine gun under the NFA.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          An interesting thought. The problem with Miller is that it is such a mess from so many perspectives that it is almost useless. That said, it is still a SCOTUS decision and it probably isn’t going to be entirely overturned any time soon (as Dredd Scott was overturned by the Reconstruction Amendments.)

          Is your theory correct? I’m going to presume that all NFA weapons were subjected to the Constitutional analysis including the tax loophole. (I’m probably mistaken on one or two, but not all). By your reasoning, then the proposition that an excise tax would be UN-Constitutional on any one of the NFAs – SBSs – would mean that an excise tax would be likewise UN-Constitutional if any one of the weapons classes were deemed clearly a military weapon. No doubt, the MG classification was the first item in the NFA list. No doubt, it would have been regarded as military. They did it anyway.
          Moreover, SBS was also in the the original NFA list; probably the 2nd item. Did the Congress and DoJ consider the SBS a military or non-military weapon? There may be no record of any discussion on the point. The analysis preceded Miller. So, we are in the dark.
          The AOW category was also in the list; probably the last item. This was a mixed bag including “gadget guns” and – initially – ordinary handguns. Because it included ordinary handguns the tax was low; only $5. Handguns were removed from the list by popular demand. Before that occurred, I suspect that any “military” discussion – if there were one – would have been a fence-sitter. If any such discussion occurred, I can’t imagine that “gadget guns” would have been construed to be military.
          Where does this lead us? I suspect that there was either no consideration of the military / non-military distinction; or, had it been considered, the conclusion would have been that both military and non-military guns were a Constitutional object of excise taxes.
          Moreover, there is a separate excise tax on regular guns and ammunition. We PotG are probably responsible for promoting it in Congress because these revenues are earmarked for conservation. If the constitutionality of an excise tax on guns came up again in this context, it must have led to a conclusion (however well or poorly founded) that any gun – military or not – and its ammunition was taxable. No one bothered to sort-out military vs. non-military guns at the time when the market was flooded with cheap surplus guns.
          I don’t see the military vs. non-military distinction having a bearing on the taxability of anything closely related to the taxation of the RKBA.

        4. avatar LongPurple says:

          As you said, MILLER is a mess from many perspectives. The central question in the case, as the Court viewed it, was the nature of the SBS — “militia weapon” or “gangster gun”. That question was left unresolved by the lack of “judicial notice” of SCOTUS and bounced back for argument in the lower court, but Miller was murdered (an occupational hazard for criminals), and the further study of the question ended.
          So the Court’s assumption of the “gangster gun” nature of the SBS (in the absence of evidence to the contrary), and therefore not protected as a “militia weapon” under the 2nd A., was never subjected to further challenge. The taxation of such “gangster guns”, even to a degree resulting in the “destruction” of their possession by any but a few of the richer people, was not an infringement on the people’s RKBA, in light of that opinion of the Court.
          As I said, Miller was charged with illegal possession and transport of an SBS. That was the focus of the MILLER Court, a “short-barreled shotgun” as a “gangster gun”. I don’t see how the Court could have chosen the same tactic of ignoring all other 2nd A. questions surrounding the case, and concentrate solely on “Is the gun Miller had a ‘militia weapon’ or a ‘gangster gun’?”, if Miller was charged with possession of e.g. a BAR. As a “gangster gun”, the SBS was not considered protected under 2nd A., and taxable at whim. The right or wrong of taxing a constitutional right of the people is therefore moot in light of MILLER, since it was restricted to the question of the nature of the SBS only, If Miller had, e.g. a BAR, that certainly would be considered a “useful” military weapon in militia service (they were standard military issue), and the tactic I see the Court using to avoid a direct ruling on the 2nd Amendment would not have been possible.
          MILLER is the kind of result you can expect when only one side, that of the Federal Government, is represented by counsel. I am amazed that SCOTUS would hear such a case.
          Justice Scalia made some reference in the HELLER opinion to MILLER possibly being used to justify the right of private ownership of full-auto, “military useful” firearms.

    2. avatar Brian says:

      I fear that if national carry comes to be that states like NY will purposefully look for minor infractions and then nail honest citizens to the wall for it.
      Tail light out: $150
      Tail light out while carrying a deadly weapon: $15,000

      or,

      Concealed only, if one tiny spec pokes out from under your shirt… 10 years-$100,000 fine, min.

      We need to change the laws, but we need to change the law makers more.

      1. avatar Sc says:

        From a New Yorker… This will definitely happen. Actually, what they will probably do is further restrict gun rights for New Yorkers with the excuse that they had to create ultra restrictive rules for the residents because of all the out of towers.
        They’ll massively increase the number of “gun free zones”. They’ll drop the capacity down from 10 to 5, and not allow you to carry an extra mag or additional ammo. You’ll only be able to carry one gun. I could go on, but I don’t want to give them any more ideas.
        What NY will also try is to just simply push through a massive amount of over restrictive laws that will be in direct opposition to Heller, and then just litigate as long as possible. This is what they are doing with the SAFE act. Similiar to DC, they will lose some if not all of the litigation, and then, when forced, pass a few laws that they claim are in accordance with the judge’s ruling. the new laws will be slightly less restrictive, but almost unworkable, and basically ignoring the judge’s order. This will spark another 10 years of litigation.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          We need to remember all of those moves, to use ourselves if the tables ever turn.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Which raises an interesting question in and of itself. The law as proposed, generically speaking, requires an out of state CCW holder to comply with the laws of the jurisdiction in which he finds himself. Will these cities (NY and DC) which both have laws prohibiting the possession of firearms not registered in those jurisdictions, charge out of state CCW holders with illegal possession of firearms not registered there, CCW or not? As it is, these cities gleefully ignore the safe harbor provisions of FOPA, why would we anticipate that national reciprocity would change that?

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Will these cities (NY and DC) which both have laws prohibiting the possession of firearms not registered in those jurisdictions, charge out of state CCW holders with illegal possession of firearms not registered there, CCW or not?

          This is exactly the type of legislative pressure needed to undo the unconstitutional laws in places like NYC and DC. Someone from out of state would have no reason or responsibility to register a firearm in NYC or DC; therefore, such a statutory requirement could not possibly apply.

          I can imagine there is more than one person willing to be the “Heller” of national reciprocity.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          What’s stopping New York from doing all of those things already?

    3. avatar Justin says:

      National Reciprocity will lead to the .gov wanting a database of all permitted peoples so that when they visit the state they show up in said database. The next step will be to require ANYONE who purchases a gun to be entered into that database.

      Final step will be using said database as a road map to disarm everyone. And no, they won’t need to come to every single person’s door. They’ll just do what the UK and Australia did. They’ll put a deadline on there and if you don’t comply then they’ll just fine you or threaten jail time. If one or two people do decide to duke it out and get into a gun fight, well, that’ll just fuel the .gov’s reason for the disarmament in the first place.

      This is a BAD move all the way around. The real answer is that it’s a right and there should be no permits. Period, end of discussion. No .gov whether local, state or federal (man, that’s way too many .govs) should have any say in it.

      1. avatar Stupid Should Hurt says:

        Justin, paranoid and stupid is no way to live your life.

        1. avatar Justin says:

          I could say the same of you.

          Sure call me paranoid – fine – that’s your right.

          But gee, as I look around at the state of the US and of most of the countries on this planet, along with history back to time immemorial what do I find as evidence?

          That governments will do any and everything in the name of power and control.

          Sure a national database might not hit the radar right away. It may not happen for years. But all it will take is a national tragedy to exploit and the proper cultural and political climate to have someone stump for the idea and idiots to pass it.

          I’m sure all the citizens of the US surely thought in 1770s that the government wouldn’t dare take the right of the people to bear arms and effectively dash it to pieces within a short time frame of less than two hundred years, no? Those people would’ve been just outright paranoid to think it…I just don’t understand why they would’ve even wanted the 2nd amendment to be enumerated to begin with. They must’ve all been paranoid loony tunes, surely.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          Justin, those of us who know the government is out to get us are not paranoid.

          “Sure a national database might not hit the radar right away. It may not happen for years. But all it will take is a national tragedy to exploit and the proper cultural and political climate to have someone stump for the idea and idiots to pass it.”

          I have a different take on this. There is a distinction to be made between registration of PotG vs. the owners of particular make+model+serial-numbers. The latter is off-the-table; the former is out-of-the-bag already.

          The Federal government is well positioned already to identify just about every gun owner in the country and pretty much able to tell those of us who are serious vs. the Fudds. They can build this database without any FOIDs or CCPs.

          It will be quite a bit of work for them to do it; and it wouldn’t be as complete and accurate as it would be if they could simply compile 51 jurisdictions’ computer files. Still, if they want to, they can do it.

          The States already have a voluntary centralized database of drivers license suspensions/revocations. I’ve heard that there is such a database for CCPs. There isn’t anything we could do to stop the States from voluntarily sharing data. Moreover, I’m not so sure we should want to stop this practice.

          If a cop pulls me over for speeding I would much prefer that his computer trace of my license plate reveal that I have a CCP (I have 4). That gives him as much time as it takes for him to calm down and deal with the fact that I’m presumptively armed. When he greets me with his familiar: “License, registration and insurance!” he won’t be surprised that I also hand him my CCP.

          Now, ball is in his court. If he is interested (he might not be) he can ask if I am – in fact – armed. I’ll tell him “Yes” and we go from there.

          If I didn’t happen to have my permit with me I – personally – would have no trouble because my name is unique. If he were to run a NICS-like check he would get an instant “OK”. However, many people have identical or similar names. Without the database of CCPs available to the cop, he could run a trace on the name associated with the license plate and get a hit on a felon for fugitive. This is apt to put him in a bad mood.

          Suppose a motorist in such a situation has a CCP but isn’t carrying. Such a motorist might make a furtive move and get himself shot. Or, he might just not strike the cop as the honest law-abiding type. The cop is apt to respond by dragging him out of his car, cuffing him and then spending the next several hours trying to determine whether he is the felon/fugitive who came up on his database.

          The Federal database underlying NICS isn’t going away. (This database isn’t going to disappear even if the FFL background check were abolished). Detentions and arrests of suspected felons-in-posession or fugitives aren’t going to go down with the advancement of databases, they are going to rise.

          We are better off with our CCP cards which quickly identify us as “good-guys” without the ambiguity of a name-check.

          I will grant you that the formal FOID / CCP strikes one as very much like the Nazi registration of guns and yellow Star-of-David sewn on coats. However, for the foreseeable future, this isn’t a likely scenario. Forty-some percent of households have guns. That figure is not likely to slip below thirty-percent. It would have to slip far lower before the US government could be tempted to round-up gun-owners.

          Long before any such round-up, the manufacturer of GhostGunner will have produced thousands of additional units. The number of outstanding finished receivers will be impossible to estimate.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        National Reciprocity will lead to the .gov wanting a database of all permitted peoples so that when they visit the state they show up in said database. The next step will be to require ANYONE who purchases a gun to be entered into that database.

        Why would national reciprocity require any such thing?

        Practically speaking, all it would require would be for the States to provide a means for LEO in other States to look up/verify resident permits.

        1. avatar BDub says:

          One small point – Driving is not and ENUMERATED Right. I would say that in this day and age however, one would be within their Rights to assert/retain driving as a right under the 9th Amendment. The Right to travel is enumerated and guaranteed by the Constitution, but I cannot imagine that any founder would argue that a man may go where he pleases but the State may deny him access to his horse – in much the same way that the 2nd Amendment is not restricted to protecting access to muskets.

        2. avatar Justin says:

          Chip – we’re talking about the .gov here. Practicality has nothing to do with the argument.

          If you honestly believe that then you are incredibly naive.

          Another thing that is dangerous about this is that we play this little game where when the Fed .gov rules on something that we don’t like then we bitch and moan about it and claim that the State .govs have rights and laws too and that those should trump the Fed .gov.

          Then something like CC comes along – something which should fall under the purview of ANY .gov – and we let that go down the toilet so that State .govs ARE allowed to make laws around it and then what? We all bitch and moan and complain that it makes life so hard because if we go from one state to another we never no what sort of Tyranny is to be foisted upon us.

          Well which is it? Are we to be ruled by the Federal Leviathan or the smaller State Creatures?

          In the end it doesn’t really matter. We have the government we, the people, deserve.

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    To Schumer and the like Staten Island is rural NY. Full of hicks and grandpas.
    All the land north and west is just part of Vermont. Or is it Pennsylvania? Either way it’s not NY.

    1. avatar Robert says:

      If you don’t think its part of NY please go try to carry a gun there.

      1. avatar Larry says:

        Hum NYS has more permitted carriers then many ” gun friendly states” and we do just fine. NYC once again forgets or did they even know about the rest of the state?

  4. avatar ThomasR says:

    Democrats, once the defenders od slavery; are still the defenders of slavery.

  5. avatar Another Robert says:

    Gail Collins–the lady who attributed budget shortfalls that occurred in 2010 if not before to a governor who didn’t take office until 2011. And has failed to acknowledge her flagrant error/lie to this day, as far as I know. Just another damn lying liberal pundit.

  6. avatar L,John says:

    More from the Gunsmith and Mr Taylor please.

  7. avatar LarryinTX says:

    “which local police frequently have no way to verify.”

    Why would local police need to verify them? Why would local police need to SEE them? I have carried in downtown NYC, and no cop asked to see my license! If she’s claiming that I can get away with shooting someone, or robbing a store or two because I have a TX CHL, she’s just stupid, but what else is she claiming? If I have not done anything wrong, what I may be carrying (or not) is none of the local police’s business.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      “I have carried in downtown NYC”

      While I agree that you have done nothing morally wrong, and have broken no legitimate laws, I have to admire your guts. I am in NYC now and again, but I would never dream of packing behind the iron curtain. The way I figure it, I would be much more likely to have my life ruined by a NY/NJ cop than by a common criminal.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Ben, I was driving, and didn’t feel much like stopping and mailing my gun to an FFL somewhere to pick up later, and didn’t know what the law allowed or prohibited, and there were no signs at the border or city limits to inform me. What follows from that is “screw you!” I know all about “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and try to use that idea when you’re given a ticket for speeding where no speed limit is posted. There is no reason for NYC laws to even exist, claiming that a TX resident should automagically know them through “common sense” or whatever is just stupid, I’m retired, come and get me. BTW, I left NYC by driving on into NJ. Laws don’t stop you from doing anything.

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      +1

      Sorry I missed your post while composing my comment below.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Great minds think alike, sometimes, looks near a carbon copy!

    3. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Those out of towners like me who live a whole 40 miles from NYC’s city limits, and work and pay taxes in NYC.

      Yet that 40 mile distance means that even in my UnConstitution State, I can get a carry permit relatively easily (Ok, it’s not like a free state, but our local CLEO takes a pretty much “shall issue” approach), and my little slice of suburbia has a LOT of military vets and POTG.

  8. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    ” But it’s impossible to keep that kind of order when people are roaming the streets waving out-of-town gun permits, which local police frequently have no way to verify.

    I reject your premise, Ms. Collins, that the police have any REASON to verify someone’s out-of-town gun permit.

    This is the perfect example of a “Crime Against Bureaucracy.” The failure of having a verifiable permit is a crime in her mind, and thus a rightful expenditure of police resources to address.

    How about this, Ms. Collins? How about if said visitor to your polluted, overcrowded cesspool is minding his own business and not committing any actual crimes, you know, ones that involve actual victims, your police just leave them the hell alone?

    Again..I reject your premise that the mere question of “does he have a piece of paper” is probable cause justifies the police looking into my life at all.

    This crap is the very reason the 4th Amendment exists. Her piece is every bit anti-4A as it is anti-2A.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Based on your comment, I am officially declaring a new term for the modern political lexicon: “Contempt of Bureaucracy”. We have all heard of the “crime” called Contempt of Cop. Now we can add “Contempt of Bureaucracy” to the debate as well.

      1. avatar LongPurple says:

        I am guilty as charged, and unrepentant as well.

  9. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    If Ms. Collins thinks the police will or should protect her, she needs to read Linda Riss vs The City Of New York- a relevant line from the dissenting opinion. In accordance with existing precedent, the court determined that Ms. Riss couldn’t sue the city for failing to protect her because the police do not have a duty to protect any individual.

    “What makes the City’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.”

    1. avatar Scott P says:

      That quote is the sick joke of the whole carry debate and self defense in general. Police have no duty or obligation to protect me but in the vast majority of jurisdictions including so called “free” one’s I need a permit that says I can carry. Lacking said permit makes it against the law to carry therefore having to be reliant on a police force under no obligation to protect me!!!!

  10. avatar Robert says:

    This is the same bull thy use everytime anyone goes against the safe act more like the disarmament act the other thing the cops don’t know if your trafficking firearms through or into the state. My question is do you know who is doing these things now? They never have an answer just a stupid look on thier dumb ass faces.

  11. avatar Newshawk says:

    Hmm… Let’s try the old “substitute one word and see if the argument holds up” test:

    “In many crowded cities, auto safety means there’s almost nobody driving but the cops. But it’s impossible to keep that kind of order when people are roaming the streets waving out-of-town driving permits, which local police frequently have no way to verify.”

    So, to use her logic, all big cities must ban out-of-town drivers, since they can’t verify their driver’s licenses.

    What a moron.

  12. avatar The Other Luke says:

    What about states that don’t require a CCW of any sort? What about states that don’t require a permit for Open Carry? What then?

    I’m going to use a very fictional car example(because cars are like guns). A driver’s license in North Carolina is good in South Carolina and vice-versa(the time/training/financial/age/etc. requirements are different in both states but once you get the license it is recognized in both states). But, what if you live in Vermont and in Vermont a driver’s license isn’t required, anyone can drive. How do you take your family on a car trip from Vermont to Florida so you can enjoy the sun?

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      I believe Constitutional carry states will issue a permit for that very purpose. So by your analogy Vermont could issue a license on request so its residents could drive in other states.

      1. avatar Craig says:

        VT doesn’t, AZ does. A person from VT would have to get a NH or Mass or NY non-res and then go from there.

        1. avatar Chrispy says:

          New York non-resident pistol permit… hahaha! That’s funny.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Chrispy, that’s called an FOAD card.

          Or maybe I am thinking of Illinois.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Time out. Why wouldn’t a VT driver’s license suffice as a carry permit? Or AZ, for that? Has anybody taken that to court? Should be written into this proposed Fed law!

        4. avatar Chrispy says:

          New York State doesn’t honor any other state’s carry permit, at all. Which also means that VERY few states honor ours, and legally speaking I can’t get to them due to Pennsylvania not being one… So to legally carry in another state I have to carry illegally through PA or get a non-resident carry permit in PA, (which isn’t really a big deal I’ve been told).

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        A permit issued (by a constitutional carry state, where the permit is not needed) for the sole purpose of letting you exercise your rights in another state.

        Some might say that’s an infringement, but it’s really your home rights-respecting government keeping a different, non-respecting government, off your neck. Given that a government’s proper role is to respect/protect your rights, this actually qualifies; it’s protecting your rights from some other state’s asshat-ocratic government.

  13. avatar Paul says:

    Sounds like the perfect reason to have a minimum federal standard for concealed carry, the local police will know what it is and be able to check if there is a need.
    It will also remove the need to be a lawyer and knowing each states laws, truck drivers and sales reps spring to mind.
    If politicians could actually do anything this could be nicely phrased to address the concerns of the anti-gun lobby and leave them explaining why people who have to cross state lines are left defenseless when they are in remote areas of the country and why they don’t want to help the police do their job more efficiently

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Sounds like the perfect reason to have a minimum federal standard for concealed carry, the local police will know what it is and be able to check if there is a need.

      Um, no. The minimum federal standard is shall not be infringed.

      I would vehemently oppose any effort by the Fed.Gov to implement national standards/requirements for exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar Paul says:

        A federal license would not replace a state license. All it says is that if you hold this license you may freely carry anywhere in the US. It would not replace the existing system or make a State with no requirements impose one.

        Put another way, the maximum infringement a state can impose is X but they are free not to impose these conditions if the choose. Florida can let you fire in the air to mark the passing of each hour but New York must let people carry concealed after 8 hours of training and proving they can hit a barn door at one yard.

        1. avatar Chrispy says:

          If it was set up that way I believe the federal carry permit would be a worthless scrap of paper, since the state laws will always carry more weight if they are more strict than the federal ones… Which I believe they all are in one way or another. I don’t see any circumstance at all, ever, in which a state would chose not to hold someone accountable for breaking a law they simply didn’t know exists.

          I think the idea behind national reciprocity is to keep people from breaking laws they don’t know they’re breaking. There are only two ways to do that, educate yourself, or widespread national gun law reform.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          A federal license would not replace a state license. All it says is that if you hold this license you may freely carry anywhere in the US. It would not replace the existing system or make a State with no requirements impose one.

          A thousand times: no. Not only does the Fed.Gov lack any enumerated authority to grant carry licenses; but also, it would be a colossally bad move strategically. It would open the door to complete Federal control of licensing requirements.

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          The federally based reciprocity proposals I’ve seen would simply require states to treat your permit like they treat their own. Whatever rules and restrictions (unconstitutionally) apply to that state’s denizens would apply to you as well. That means you’d have to deal with NY’s mag limits, prohibited areas, etc., (unless permit holders are exempt) while in New York, but it would be as if NY had issued you a permit.

          Ironically some of the won’t-issue states have very few restrictions on what their permit holders can do. CA permit holders can carry almost anywhere. It doesn’t matter to the hoplohobes because no one has a permit anyway. (It has the same effect as passing a law saying unicorns don’t have to follow speed limits.) Expect that to change if they have to recognize out of state permits or they are forced to be shall-issue by the courts.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Guys, there is an easy way to differentiate what we’re talking about, and why. A Fed law forcing universal recognition of a CC license is an increase in our firearms freedoms. Allowing the Feds to impose any sort of restriction on our carry abilities (licensed or not) would be a decrease in our firearms freedoms. See? Easy!

        5. avatar Scott P says:

          You are missing the forest for the trees.

          When the government sets a minimum standard it won’t be for the benefits of the states but for the benefit of itself as in the government minimum is THE minimum that states cannot go below. Like for instance Constitution carry states MUST adopt a permit system for their citizens to use even while in their own state when they voted to do away with it. Do you see where I am going with this?

          I can guarantee you it will open up the tent for national gun-free-zone’s, classroom time, range time, etc. that can be more draconian introduced by anti-politicians that do have chance of passing screwing us in every state. Yea it could be struck down if such thing passes but you ignore the years and money spent fighting the litigation.

          Remember the law of unintended consequences for people cheering for this legislation that has the potential to screw us later on down the road. The law of incrementalism is alive and well.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Remember the law of unintended consequences for people cheering for this legislation that has the potential to screw us later on down the road. The law of incrementalism is alive and well.

          National reciprocity != federal carry permit.

          In fact, the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

        7. avatar SteveInCO says:

          The bill also does not authorize the federal government to set “minimum standards.” I don’t know where that line of bravo sierra keeps coming from,

  14. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    This woman’s bleatings are a good example of how the cultural isolation of America’s coastal cosmopolites is almost complete. This woman lives in an apartment and rides the subway to work. She doesn’t drive. None of her friends drive and most have never even owned a car. Hell, she lives in a place where 30 year old grown men don’t even have driver’s licenses! Life in the megalopolis creates people with such limited skills-sets that they can’t exist outside their urban bubbles. When this woman goes home and finds that a lamp doesn’t work, she calls someone to screw in a new bulb-thingie. She lives in a world where learned helplessness is the default position actively imposed by both her surroundings and her government. The poor thing doesn’t know that she doesn’t know.

    1. avatar dh34 says:

      As they say in Texas…Bless her little heart.

      Krugman, Collins and Dowd…Father, daughter and holier than thou ghost…the trinity of all that is wrong with the NYT

    2. avatar Gman says:

      GH – I think the term you are looking for is BLISSFUL IGNORANCE.

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        Yep, that’s also a good description. I was thinking of an actual psychological concept called “secondary ignorance”. Primary ignorance is when you know you don’t know. When that happens, improvement is possible. With secondary ignorance, not knowing that you don’t know means that it’s impossible to change or improve. Essentially, it means people like that are doomed.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Hey, I had an example of that a few years back. The bride and I got into a conversation with a NYC couple on vacation. The gentleman had gotten a drivers’ license a decade or so earlier, for use renting cars while on vacation, which he’d done once or twice before this trip, which was 4 years since the last time he drove anything. They both seemed to think this was a wise and daring way to do things. Otherwise, neither had ever driven a car. Good lord, these people are driving around on our roads? What about the CHILDREN??!!

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        An old friend moved to Berlin a few years ago. He bragged that he never drives, rides his bike, or takes public transit everywhere he goes now. Last year he came back for a visit and commented how terrified he was of Houston traffic. Houston traffic is usually congested, but terrifying? Hardly. I sent him home with a happy wave. He’s managed to turn himself into a sheeple. Of course, he did spend a lot of time in DC so I guess that got him ready for that final step. Poor schmuck.

        1. avatar Scott P says:

          I think the correct term is useful idiot or tool to describe your friend since that is what the government all wants us to be, useless, scared cannon fodder/puppets for them to do to us what they wish. People like your friend make it that much easier for them to control the masses!

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “When this woman goes home and finds that a lamp doesn’t work, she calls someone to screw in a new bulb-thingie.”

      I wouldn’t give her that much credit: she would call it the bright-light-thingie.

  15. avatar JackieO says:

    The comment section is really what takes the cake as well. I commented 3 times but you could spend a lifetime trying to stem that elitist idiocy. As far as they are concerned, it’s the blood in the streets meme again and they revel in their superiority over those inbred, redneck, bible clinging, goat f***….. You get the picture.

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      Compared to women like this, goats ARE rather tempting…

  16. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

    I love how New York columnists always assume that New York is the only city in the world… Show me how it is fundamentally different to have CHL holders “roaming” the streets of downtown Phoenix, Houston, or Miami than NYC. Is there some special chemical in the air that turns someone who would never draw their weapon in Dallas into a gun waver in Times Square? Oy vey…

    1. avatar Chrispy says:

      If you’ve never been to NYC you wouldn’t understand… Everybody there is, to put it politely, a prick. Even the nicest person you will meet there is a prick. I have no use as a resident of New York state for NYC.

  17. avatar tdiinva says:

    I always get a kick out argument like

    “In many crowded cities, gun safety means there’s almost nobody carrying but the cops. But it’s impossible to keep that kind of order when people are roaming the streets waving out-of-town gun permits, which local police frequently have no way to verify.”

    Ms. Collins, like so many NYC residents don’t get around much. Arlington, Alexandria and Falls Church are solidly build up urban areas and you know, there are people running around all the time with guns. Miami is pretty dense, lots of guns there too. So perhaps Ms. Collins ought visit other densely populated areas to get a little more comfortable with the concept.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      td – There’s the heart of the matter right there. The elitist attitude. Not in my backyard. Could never happen here. My head is in the sand, therefore it doesn’t exist. Liberalism is a mental disorder and they know it. They don’t trust themselves with dangerous objects so to feel “normal” they project that everyone else has the same problem. Then they rationalize that the government must protect them from you (themselves). Oh such a tangled web we weave…

  18. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I’ve never, and I have never seen anyone else go around waving their permit.

  19. avatar JJ48 says:

    “You say: ‘Look, maybe this works in the rural parts of your state but it doesn’t work in Times Square,'” said Schumer, “and they have the AUDACITY to try to explain THEIR point of view! I mean, come on! I SAID something to them! Aren’t they supposed to just give in and accept that whatever I say is correct at that point?”

    I believe this is what he was intending to say.

  20. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

    She says cops would have no way of verifying gun carry permits. Really? So cops can’t verify an out of state driver’s license either, huh? Didn’t know that. I’m guessing that if national reciprocity became law (it won’t), there would be a national standard implemented, or there could be an endorsement added to the current driver’s license, to make things easier.

    But if I was the NYT paranoid staff, I wouldn’t worry just yet. This bill won’t pass, but even if it does, it will be immediately tested in court and based on past SCOTUS rulings, I’m guessing they’ll say that states can impose “reasonable” restrictions on the 2A and that means no national gun law. Sorry. I hope I’m wrong though.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Good point. If New York City police cannot verify out-of-state drivers licenses or concealed carry licenses, why not use fake licenses in New York City?

  21. avatar Noishkel says:

    People not connected to reality…

  22. avatar Model66 says:

    She, and others like her, deserve a promotion. A person this smart needs to be able to tackle violence on a larger scale. Something like……an ambassador to Libya.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I believe a better position would be ambassador to Yemen or Syria.

  23. avatar JackieO says:

    I think I would like to travel state to state.
    Can you do that?
    Yes.
    No papers?
    No papers.
    Only in the movies!

    1. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

      Montana…

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        To raise rabbits…

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          I thought Montana was for raising crops of dental floss.

          Raise it up, wax it down…

    2. avatar Chrispy says:

      Some things in here don’t react well to bullets

  24. avatar Gman says:

    I can’t seem to find the actual text of the Senate bill, but the NRA-ILA implies that state laws as to where, when, how, and what to carry would not be affected. That brings up a host of issues. NY state does have concealed permits, even though they are rarely issued. But NYC does not. Would that then allow carry of a firearm in the city if following the state laws? But there are so many ridiculous laws up east. Like hollow point restrictions and round restrictions. One would almost need a lawyer in their pocket to navigate them all. It seems, even if this passes, that most of us would still be defacto prohibited in those states if only by choice to avoid the obvious speed traps.

  25. avatar Dustin says:

    Puhleez, like me or my pregnant sister-cousin would ever set foot in NYC? Can’t find a decent chaw to save your life…

  26. avatar Dustin says:

    There’s already a gun on every corner int hat sh!t town. It’s just that none of the good guys have them… Which is exactly how this psychopath likes it.

  27. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Rolling back gun restrictions is dirty business, but watching the anti folks whine and squirm makes it a real pleasure, especially NYCers

  28. avatar the ruester says:

    Just for kicks, I would like to see the crime rates of New Yorkers who visit other states. Should be much lower than vice versa, if this is for real, shouldn’t it?

  29. avatar TT says:

    Be careful with asking for federally-legislated concealed carry reciprocity. Congress’s legislative power is supposed to be limited, with limits imposed by the Constitution. Under what constitutional authorization would Congress legislate to require states to recognize other states’ concealed carry permits?

    Remember: Whatever Congress can do by passage of law it can undo. Once gun owners decide the U.S. Congress has enough authority to tell the states how to handle all their gun laws, watch out the next time the majority shifts. Allowing Congress to exceed the constitutionally-imposed limits on its authority is wrong even if you happen to like the end result.

    Concealed carry reciprocity is the epitome of be careful what you ask for.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “Whatever Congress can do by passage of law it can undo.”

      So what?

      1. avatar TT says:

        If Congress has the authority to pass a law that makes one state recognize another state’s concealed carry permits, then it has the authority to pass a law that prohibits states from recognizing each other permits.

        Ralph, you’re a lawyer. Under what legitimate constitutional authority could Congress act to require one state to recognize another’s concealed carry permits? (Before we do down the drivers’ license road, states are not required by federal law to recognize another state’s drivers licenses.)

        Gun owners are far better off with keeping Congress as weak as possible when it comes to regulating firearms. If you think you want Congress getting into this field — even if you like the regulations of the moment — you are shortsighted indeed. When has Congress ever acted to increase firearms freedoms? To quote Hanz and Franz: “Hear me now, and believe me later.”

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Under what constitutional authorization would Congress legislate to require states to recognize other states’ concealed carry permits?”

      OOo! OOo! I know that one, it’s called THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

      1. avatar TT says:

        The Second Amendment restricts legislative power. It doesn’t grant any. Congress’s legislative authority is found in Article I and the 13th-16th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, and 26th amendments (I think that’s everywhere).

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Second Amendment is a legislative restriction. So…how about all those states, many of which include 2A like legislation in their own State Constitutions, that have enacted laws outside beyond the scope of that restriction?

          National reciprocity would be the US Congress telling the state legislatures that they can’t arbitrarily restrict rights and certainly not in ways that only effect parts of the population.

    3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Congress, as a part of the government, has a true and important purpose: to protect the rights of the citizenry.

      National reciprocity, that is a law worded so as to limit a states’ ability to infringe on the Second Amendment rather than in a way that “grants” or “allows” us to do something, would absolutely fit that proper role of government.

      Said another way…I’d say you are thinking about this backwards. You seem to be thinking about it terms of Congress granting us permission to carry in other states versus the more proper way to think about it: Congress telling State governments to stop the unconstitutional infringement of the Right to Bear Arms.

      1. avatar TT says:

        “the more proper way to think about it: Congress telling State governments to stop the unconstitutional infringement of the Right to Bear Arms.”

        Congress has passed a number of laws since the Civil War aimed at stopping state (and private) violations of constitutional rights. However, these are passed under provisions of the 13th-15th amendments that specifically authorize Congress to pass laws to enforce these specific amendments. The 2nd Amendment has no such provision. The U.S. Congress is not supposed to have a general legislative power. It’s supposed to be specifically authorized in the Constitution.

        Candy looks good and tastes good but over time it rots your teeth.

    4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Under what constitutional authorization would Congress legislate to require states to recognize other states’ concealed carry permits?

      Congress could authorize the legislation under the Full Faith and Credit clause.

      1. avatar TT says:

        That’s probably the best argument that would also keep the leash somewhat short. However, the full faith and credit clause has never been extended anywhere near that far. It’s mostly limited to judgments, divorces, marriages, and some liens.

      2. avatar NJ2AZ says:

        heck, it probably wouldn’t even been in the top ten of “perverse clause uses” if they rationalize it under the interstate commerce clause 😉

  30. avatar Paul says:

    A few thoughts. First, I really hope that national reciprocity does go through. I plan to ask my Senators and Congressman to vote for it — given who they are it is a foregone conclusion that they will be in favor. People like Collins don’t seem to understand that ultimately, wherever one gets the CWP, we all send our fingerprints to the same FBI database. Second, there was a famous cover cartoon on the New Yorker Magazine many years ago. It showed a New Yorker’s concept of the US. You may have seen it. A huge NYC, a fairly large Southern California, Florida but only the beaches, a couple dots for WDC and Chi, and wasteland everywhere else. A truer cartoon could not have been drawn. Lastly, I hope that a few years from now, after reciprocity has been passed, a headline will tell of a former NY’er who moved elsewhere (maybe even just across the state line to VT or PA) and returned to NYC for a visit (or maybe even a rube from Mississippi), thwarted a Jihadist terrorist with a “real” AK-47 by a couple well-placed shots from his or her now-legal handgun. (Your piece showing that the Charlie Hebdo shootings could not have been prevented with handguns was good — but the follow-up shooting at the grocery store is another matter. I can well imagine in the US, a customer with a concealed (or open) handgun, or a store employee coming out of the back room with the proverbial shotgun, having been able to take the Jihadist out, full-auto AK notwithstanding.)

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Charlie Hebdo. Probably wouldn’t have been stopped, but I think it wouldn’t have been as much fun. As I understand it (recall, there WERE survivors, who know what happened), they walked in and proceeded to torture and humiliate the people there, shouting their lunacy, before committing executions at their leisure. If 20 people (50%) had been armed, they could have killed some folks, maybe all of them, but they would not have been prancing around like fairys, they would have faced death themselves the entire time. Personally, I would have preferred dying while fighting them, than hiding in a closet and living.

  31. avatar Bunny says:

    “It doesn’t work in big cities”

    Except for

    Portland
    Seattle
    Las Vegas
    Phoenix
    Atlanta
    New Orleans
    Philadelphia
    Denver
    Chicago
    + 50 more large metropolitan areas

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      New Orleans is not a big city, but yes, it works there too, as well as Detroit. Texas honors permits from all but 8 states, so we can add Houston, Austin and Dallas. maybe we should develop a list of all the big cities that seem to have no issue according reciprocity to visitors and send it to this woman and to Schumer and Feinstein (who we haven’t heard from yet, but we will).
      California does not recognize out of state CCWs, but Sacramento is a “shall issue” city for residents, and those permits are good state-wide. Which means that the LA and SF bans on CCW issuance are no guarantee that there are not hundreds, even thousands, of people legally carrying there every day. In fact, there are nearly 60,000 state issued permits “infesting” the state and our big cities.

  32. avatar Justin says:

    National Reciprocity will lead to the .gov wanting a database of all permitted peoples so that when they visit the state they show up in said database. The next step will be to require ANYONE who purchases a gun to be entered into that database.

    Final step will be using said database as a road map to disarm everyone. And no, they won’t need to come to every single person’s door. They’ll just do what the UK and Australia did. They’ll put a deadline on there and if you don’t comply then they’ll just fine you or threaten jail time. If one or two people do decide to duke it out and get into a gun fight, well, that’ll just fuel the .gov’s reason for the disarmament in the first place.

    This is a BAD move all the way around. The real answer is that it’s a right and there should be no permits. Period, end of discussion. No .gov whether local, state or federal (man, that’s way too many .govs) should have any say in it.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “National Reciprocity will lead to the .gov wanting a database of all permitted peoples so that when they visit the state they show up in said database. “

      That’s a leap from national “reciprocity” to “national permits.”

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The law as described gives zero excuse for any database, and a fed database is illegal under FOPA unless I’m mistaken.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Justin,

      Big Brother already knows who has firearms. If you purchased your firearm from an FFL, Big Brother has a record of your background check and your form 4473 and Little Brother in many states have their versions of forms and “criminal checks”. If you researched anything about a firearm or ammunition on a search engine, Big Brother knows that as well. (Don’t think for a moment that the search engine companies are not in bed with Big Brother.) If you ever mentioned your firearms in an e-mail or on a blog, Big Brother scooped that up too. Ever purchase ammunition and have it shipped to your home? Yeah, Big Brother got a record of that as well.

      Little Brother recently created “turn them in” deadlines in Connecticut and New York. The overwhelming majority of people who own newly “prohibited” firearms did NOT comply with the deadlines. As for Little Brother or Big Brother trying to enforce their confiscation protocol by force, they haven’t tried yet. When they do, they will be in for a rude awakening.

      The situation isn’t quite as bleak as you may think. Government agents using deadly force to confiscate firearms from people with no criminal record who acquired them lawfully — that is a definite line in the sand that said government politicians, bureaucrats, and enforcement agents will regret crossing. Look at how much chaos ensued after one rogue person started a concerted guerrilla war on the local police. Do you remember the Christopher Dorner manhunt in the greater Los Angeles area? Do you remember the Eric Frein manhunt in Pennsylvania? And those two guys were a few cards short of a full deck. Now imagine a few hundred people (playing with a full deck) who are seriously pi$$ed off, have a righteous grievance, and no set time table to retaliate.

      If I can imagine that, so can Little Brother and Big Brother. And now you know the value of the Second Amendment in practice.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Generally, you are correct. I would quibble only with the suspicion that the Feds are presumably collecting the daily files of FFL inquiries. I can imagine that such a thing happened for a while in the past; and that it will happen for a while some time in the future. It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
        I doubt that for a very long period of time (decades) the DoJ could keep a secret of daily retrieving and archiving the inquiry file. I’ll grant that anyone is free to consider this risk to be far more serious than I do. I refer you all to Google the BIDSystem idea. To adopt it would put an end to this risk.
        The 20 year retention period for the 4473 forms together with the ATF archival of the archives of FFLs going out-of-business are far greater threat. Confiscators may be able to knock on your door or mine but without a list of makes-models-serial-numbers its hard to make any progress. State reporting archives are an immediate threat (see NY and CT). The 20 years and ATF archive are an eventual threat. It’s far more important to roll-back these Federal provisions and then try to chip-away at some State registries.

  33. avatar MarkPA says:

    NYT just closed comments on this article. Before they did so I entered one comment and a dozen or so replies. The sharp-penciled editors didn’t see fit to publish my comment or a single reply.
    Looks like all the comments and replies are supportive of the article; or “I am a gun owner but . . . ; with a very few mildly-expressed opposing views.
    From the Paper-of-Record, All the News Fit for You to Read.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Freedom of the press does not mean free expression for the peons who want to comment on its editorial choices. I guess they have to start their own newspaper.

  34. avatar Stu Chisholm says:

    Wow, they sure closed their comments section fast! Cowards.

  35. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I think I will go to NYC and wave around my out of town gun permit.
    P.S.
    How come these photos of gun grabbers always look like they had a lobotomy?

  36. avatar Pete says:

    Being a former New Yorker I just don’t see any way this will happen. They will find some way to kaboom the whole thing. Even if it somehow manages to get passed. And can someone tell me why the anti’s take the fact that only cops have guns as the best possible thing for them? Another thing is how I just don’t understand the belief that people who carry concealed are just itching to shoot people? Where does that come from?

  37. avatar PistolPete says:

    I don’t subscribe to or read the NYT – I already have more than enough toilet paper!!

  38. avatar J- says:

    The New Yorkers can pick on Texas or Mississippi all they want, but the proof is in Chicago. Chicago fought CCW tooth and nail but it was beat by the 7th Circuit. Chicago is arguably every bit as urban, diverse, cultured, and liberal as NYC. Somehow allowing all those corn farming rednecks from downstate to carry in Chicago didn’t result in a bloodbath. In fact, the notoriously high murder rate in Chicago WENT DOWN with CCW. Chicago proof tested CCW for NYC and that needs to be hammered home.

  39. avatar Ryan says:

    “Untrained, bible-clinging, gun-toting southern racist rednecks on the Upper East Side?”

    To be fair, the Upper East Side is arguably the only part of Manhattan that ISN’T ultra left wing. Now if you had said Upper WEST Side you would have hit the nail on the head.

  40. avatar Tim says:

    Well as a “Gun toting Bible toting Southerner” and retired military veteran, I’m a bit MIFFED with this B/S. Mississippi has an enhanced carry permit which firearm trained former military members and people that have attended a certified training course can get in our “backward” state. I too believe it’s a shame that we live now at a time when I think I need to carry a gun. I didn’t even consider this until recently and primarily because of the actions of the “GREAT DIVIDER” (aka: Former President Obama). I’ll continue to do so because I’d rather have a weapon and not need it than need it and not have it. Just a shame I couldn’t do so if I considered going to UP STATE N.Y. (Would never go to the city because I’d have to wear shoes)

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email