A friend recently sent me a link to an article at bloomberg.com: Concealed Carry For All, Like It Or Not. Give the source, I was expecting Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun rights media lackeys to complain about the forthcoming push for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity. I was not disappointed. But without intending to, Bloomberg actually makes the case for national reciprocity:
The bill does indeed strengthen the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves using a firearm. Unfortunately, it also strengthens the right of many others who are not law-abiding, and who are more prone to aggression than protection.
For example, stalkers, drunk drivers and abusive partners can carry a concealed weapon in some states. Other states prohibit them from doing so. Under [Texas Senator John] Cornyn’s bill, those people would be able to take their concealed, loaded weapons anywhere.
The Bloomberg Editorial Board’s admission that national reciprocity strengthens the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens is a uuuge surprise. By making this admission, their argument against nati0nal reciprocity is reduced to “it’s a net loss.” How compelling is that?
At the same time, the article leaves– or at least should leave — readers wondering why states that allow “stalkers, drunk drivers and abusive partners” to carry a concealed weapon aren’t plagued by “gun violence.”
In fact, the Everytown for Gun Safety chart linked in the Bloomberg piece (State-by-State Danger of Overriding Concealed Carry Laws) reveals that states with cities with prominent “gun violence” issues (e.g. Chicago Illinois and Baltimore, Maryland) have all or almost all the “tough gun laws” boxes ticked. Which is probably why the editorial includes this snarky, intentionally misleading bit:
There is nowhere near sufficient evidence to conclude that concealed-carry policies make anyone safer, although there is intriguing evidence that it may have the opposite effect.
American gun rights are not based on arguments about social utility, anymore than arguments about freedom of speech.
Anyway, the Bloomberg editorial is not wrong: national concealed carry reciprocity is a threat to state-based gun control laws. Regardless of whether or not national reciprocity allows residents to carry in their home state with an out-of-state permit (unlikely), it will highlight the disparities between states that allow some states to deny ALL their residents’ gun rights. And, hopefully, lead to their repeal.
The Bloomberg editorial was a half-assed attempt at an argument against guns. If anything, this epic failure of an op-ed underlines the fact that those who are “good guys (and gals) with guns,” should be allowed to protect themselves against the “stalkers, drunk drivers, and abusive partners” who are already illegally carrying.