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.
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.