“The NRA proposal, which will now go before the Senate, would allow people to carry hidden guns in every state with no permit, no training, and no background checks whatsoever,” Everytown for Gun Safety Senior Counsel Adam Skaggs (above) declares. “It would undermine local public safety decisions and put police officers at severe risk. As a matter of public policy, it’s a terrible idea.” How’s that for mischaracterization? Par for the course at slate.com. Mr. Skaggs’ main argument: national concealed carry reciprocity is unconstitutional . . .
As more than a dozen state attorneys general have explained, the NRA’s federally mandated concealed carry plan conflicts with basic “constitutional principles of federalism.”
The Constitution—and common sense—recognizes that different states have different cultures, traditions, and needs when it comes to guns. That’s why states make their own rules when it comes to public safety, policing, and concealed weapons. The NRA plan would turn that tradition on its head.
And so on — ignoring the fact that the same progressives who’ve got their knickers in a twist about national concealed carry reciprocity fully support the Supreme Court decision forcing all 50 states to recognize gay marriage.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m fine with gay marriage. But I can’t find the bit of the Constitution that protects the “right” to marry. Not to put to fine a point on it, only a progressive could find the right to marry in the 14th Amendment but not the unfettered right to keep and bear arms in the Second.
Not to mention ignoring the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision “incorporating” the Second Amendment (ruling that the protection trumps local and state law). Anyway, here comes the 10th Amendment!
The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reserves powers to the states that are not delegated to the federal government, and the states’ “police power”—the basic responsibility to promote the welfare, safety, and health of the public—is sacrosanct.
Throughout American history, states have had the primary responsibility for public safety, and regulating who carries guns in public, and under which conditions, is among the most important ways they do so. The race-to-the-bottom concealed carry plan would eviscerate states’ police power.
God forbid we should reduce the power of the police! In fact, the same progressives who can’t stomach national concealed carry reciprocity are the same folks who want the feds to come in and sort out local police departments accused of lethal racism. Anyway . . .
The right to keep and bear arms isn’t a 10th Amendment issue any more than the right to free speech is a 10th Amendment issue. Which is such an obvious fact that you have to wonder who’s stupid/craven enough to A) write that it is, B) publish an article saying that it is, and C) believe an article saying that it is.
Willful ignorance is a terrible thing, especially when it leaves good people defenceless against bad people. And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.
It’s sad we live in a society where a woman feels the need to be armed
“states have had the primary responsibility for public safety, and regulating who carries guns in public, and under which conditions, is among the most important ways they do so.”
That’s why Vermont, which never regulated who can carry a concealed gun, has perennially been listed among the safest states for violent crime?
Hmmmm……
Didn’t a bunch of states secede somewhere around 1860? THEY felt state’s rights were paramount, and that the NORTH was forcing the SOUTH to do things they didn’t believe in. ……
THEY LOST.
So, then what’s your point again????
[snark, … snark….]
Carrying concealed or open, carrying permitted or constitutionally, or even carrying at all, isn’t the issue and never was. It’s always been a cultural matter, not a firearms matter.
Vermont proves it, but nobody dares talk about it. To broach the Vermont experience is to suggest that being a largely rural, older, and whiter population results in less violent crime. That sounds racist.
Worse than sounding racist, though, is the that the suggestion is really just an obvious observation. Since it simply is what is, then it isn’t racist at all. It’s just reality that urban areas dominated by young blacks are hotbeds of violence. That’s life in the big city, with or without guns.
Nobody wants to talk about that. Really, if you remove the black on black crime from the U.S. stats, we have comparable or even lower rates those of Europe. The major problem is the thug life culture, not firearms per se.
Facts that don’t fit the narative must be thrown out. Evidence or observations that don’t support the narrative: the same.
VT isn’t brought up because it doesn’t provide the evidence that supports disarmament… errm… the “gun safety” they speak of in public.
The 10th doesn’t supersede the 1st or 2nd. If someone honestly thinks that then they really don’t understand what a right is. In fact they just plain don’t understand the bill of rights.
Reciprocity just means the fed is forcing states to respect (some)of the 2nd ammendment. Stfu Bloomberg swine!
How does a silencer hook up with a muzzle brake, there both mandatory.
If they weren’t willfully ignorant they’d have NOTHING. Like black folks content to live on the plantation and suicidal anti-gun Jews. Pissing and moaning about a tax plan that has to better than the crap we have NOW…
The right to keep and bear arms may not be a 10th amendment question, but it is definitely a 2nd and 14th amendment matter. The 2nd amendment recognizes the right and the 14th makes it a state’s obligation to make no law, or to enforce no law, that violates that right.. That’s in plain understandable American English. Now, what’s the damn problem?
[W3]
ENGLISH? I thought we “talked “Amurikunn.”
Progressives just can’t manage not to lie, can they. But their lies and willful ignorance make perfect sense when you consider that their one goal is to use government power to force everyone to behave the way they want them to.
Police at severe risk ??
Um, yeah. Legal carriers are definitely the people that would concern regular patrol cops.
Or not.
Tell the head greaseball in Albany to go phuque himself
The people of the State they reside in and the people they elect make changes. Commentary debates from nonresident’s have no relevance.
So, this means I’d have to get a drivers license for every state I wanted to drive in.
Yup. Mr. Skagg is that kind of special stoopid.
It’s tells me Geoffy chooses a Glock.
So help me out. How does resprosity work for states that have no licensing process like Vermont. So if I’m from Vermont and go to CA, does my drivers liscense serve as my CHL? Not that I object, just don’t know how the law addresses the issue so that I can separate truth from BS.
My understanding is that you would need to get a CWP from another state or Vermont would have to create a permit for those who want the national reciprocity. Unless something has drastically changed there is no provision in the bill for reciprosity without a permit.
If it’s a law it must be adhered too. Otherwise your breaking that law.
Lies. Damn Lies. And Progressive Bloviations.
I hope he is right. If federal law is not above state law than the 1968 gun control law and the Hughes amendment is toilet paper. Thanks.
This time, that menace named Dennis went too far. Now he is going to pay!
Great blog you’ve got here.. It’s hard to find high-quality writing like yours nowadays.
I truly appreciate people like you! Take care!!
Thank you for this post. By far the most objective and thorough treatment of the topic I’ve found in the relatively limited time I have to look.
I’ve really enjoyed your articles and reviews, but never commented. This article went so far above and beyond I feel like I needed to say thanks.
Why do we need special instructions for women to buy a weapon? Other than typically having smaller hands nothing is different from a man selecting a gun. I don’t think that treating women like special snowflakes who need special advice to buy a gun is helpful and might even be intimidating to some newbies.
you are spot on. my first handgun was a ruger super blackhawk with pachymar grips and 4 5/8″ barrel. they guys at the gunshop tried to say oh you will break your wrists with that thing. first shot both hands holding it firmly. after that i often used it single handed as it was easy to shoot. no need to treat women any different to men. it is about how it fits their hands, trigger finger reach and are they scared of the recoil. personally i prefer the recoil of a heavier caliber handgun then i do that of a .22 which tends to be sharper where a heavier caliber tends to be more a hard push. that however depends again on the caliber with .357 sig or .38 super also being somewhat sharper than a .38 special or 9mm
I understand brakes for certain applications. 5.56 and .308 really don’t fall into that category.
“Muh 5.56 dunt shoot flat nuff”
Buy a silencer or, maybe, just maybe swap calibers to something more suited to your application!?
Excellent web site. A lot of helpful info here. I’m sending it
to several friends ans additionally sharing in delicious.
And naturally, thanks to your effort!
Liberals will say that the states have the right to make their own laws and pass their own restrictions on the 2nd. Ask them if that applies to the other amendments as well. So, a state can say that your 5th amendment rights are restricted? So, a state can say that you can’t refuse a search of your person absent probable cause, or they can say that probable cause is null and void? A state can tell you that you can’t say anything negative about its leaders?
Let the fun begin!
“The Constitution—and common sense—recognizes that different states have different cultures, traditions, and needs when it comes to guns. ”
Uh, no. In fact it’s pretty clear the right to bear arms is not subject to any of that horseshit.
Funny how the left discovers new powers of the 10th amendment when it suits them. They trampled on it enough over the years.
I guess when it comes to abortion the feds tell states with different culture, traditions and needs what the rules are. Guns, not really.
“The NRA proposal, which will now go before the Senate, would allow people to carry hidden guns in every state with no permit, no training, and no background checks whatsoever,” Everytown for Gun Safety Senior Counsel Adam Skaggs (above) declares. “It would undermine local public safety decisions and put police officers at severe risk. As a matter of public policy, it’s a terrible idea.”
Don’t you just love how whenever a piece of pro gun legislation comes up for a vote all the antis become freaking illiterate?
It’s hard to slam so many groups in one paragraph but journalism grads learn how to do it.
OK, so “States’ Rights” is one excuse. Another is “race-to-the-bottom”; e.g., no training, testing or qualification. So, we have to chant harder:
– What do we WANT? CON-CARRY!
– WHEN do we want it? We’ll wait till politicians fly!!!
(repeat with increasing enthusiasm)
Is there a better idea? A really compelling approach? One that could be a next-step toward further steps? One which – IF it FAILED – STRENGTHENS the argument for Congressionally-mandated National Reciprocity?
I propose we sue the Won’t-Issue States – based on the Wrenn precedent – for Shall-Issue to Non-Residents. (Work-out the arguments for yourself; they would be really compelling to SCOTUS.) Tell the Won’t-Issue States that they MUST have SHALL-Issue – yet, on terms they dictate themselves. Set your own fees, training, testing, qualification.
(Wrenn vs. DC was resolved in favor of Shall-Issue for residents and non-residents alike by a 3-judge panel in the DC Circuit. DC appealed for an en banc hearing; were unanimously denied. DC decided not to appeal to SCOTUS. The decision stated that the “average” citizen has a right to carry; i.e., it ruled-out “special need”.)
This GUTS the “States’ Rights” and “Race-to-the-bottom” arguments. What other arguments are there – i.e., that would favorably impress SCOTUS?
A counter-argument will be that the Won’t-Issue States will impose onerous requirements. Good; the more onerous the better! Fees too high? Like a poll tax. (Unconstitutional!). Training too long? Test too hard? Like a literacy test. (Unconstitutional). Qualification too hard? Harder than that imposed on the States’ own cops? Go ahead: Make my day! These States will have to impose these requirements on their judges, prosecutors, political contributors, celebrities and BRINKS! There is a limit to which the States will try this stunt. They will try; and, they will be beaten-back in the courts. It will take a long time; but it’s better than Won’t-Issue.
Years pile-up with Virginians carrying in DC, Pencil-tuckians carrying in NJ. Few, if any incidents. Gradually, the hoplophobia of carrying will dilute. (Bear in mind that it won’t require millions of Pencil-tuckians carrying in NJ; one will be enough, just a few. Ask Shaneen Allen if she would pay the fees and meet the qualifications for a NJ carry permit. Ask all of us on the NJ border if we will meet those requirements. There will be quite a few, and that’s enough to send the message that carry-is-safe.)
Too good to be true? Perhaps; in fact, I HOPE so!! I hope that the Won’t-Issue States will fight like dogs to impede the progress of lawsuits. All the publicity will be in favor of OUR position: there IS a Right-to-Carry – even if you have to pay a fee, be trained, tested and qualified. But these States REFUSE Right-to-Carry on their OWN TERMS!
Likely, SCOTUS will either:
– Take the case and rule in our favor; or,
– NOT take the case because they don’t want to rule in our favor.
Then, we resume the fight in Congress. There is a Right which the States will not honor, the courts will not enforce. What recourse is there, but to appeal to Congress to enforce the Constitution?
I’m having trouble figuring out if Rodricks is trying to be provocative, or whether he’s just irredeemably freakin’ stupid.
Statements like this are why I look at anti civil rights people as stupid, dumb, fools, idiots, people who want to be uneducated when it comes to guns.
CBS – SAY BS
F em all, it’s all fake news.
Completely agree with you Dave! Open carry just invites trouble, loss of the element of surprise, possible grab for your gun, and mostly the chance of a person seeing your exposed gun freaking out and calling the police!
I stay concealed!
Little Danny has a great recipe for his word salad. Equal parts bigotry and intolerance with a generous layer of propaganda, sprinkle with lies and top it off with hate-speech. This child has a promising future. If and when he reaches his full potential, he may be qualified to sort clothing donations at Goodwill.
I liked it. Never played a COD in my life until that one came out. The story mode was very short, I was able to complete it within a day, but there’s an online zombie game too. Just rent it from redbox, it’ll only set you back a few dollars.
LCP……the always gun.
The George Soros of the gun community.
Gun owners who are dumb enough to answer a news poll are a dying breed.
And this guy used to be married to Kimberly Guilfoyle?
And we thought he was gay.
Each question is worded in such a way that it has multiple interpretations, making them meaningless.
Scot Kelley’s has to be fake news, police officers, being the highly trained and professional people they are, do not get drunk, pull out their guns and shoot statues, especially their child’s art project. This has to be a lie. Support your local Law Enforcement
Answer : ” Left-coast Socialist Police State…Also known as Authoritarianism! “
You’d think a journalist could read. Shame it’s not the case. I also wonder if he used the numbers from 2014 when TN accidentally added 100 accidental deaths to their numbers. It would be convenient.
Why are these things still over a grand?
I don’t want to be that guy, but PSA makes AR’s in .45ACP. No idea how good they are, but they’re much less than $1600.
When’s that twit coming for the NYPD’s guns?
I know many in law enforcement are cowards and will f**k over the law abiding citizen who simply want to protect themselves. You guys and girls need to say you are not going to follow these laws and you are not going to arrest these people.
First, while the Supreme Court has ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago that the right to keep and bear arms extends to individuals unconnected with service in a militia and is incorporated against the states (neither notion is uncontroversial, but let’s assume that both are solid constitutional principles), it did not say that states have no authority at all to regulate firearm possession (including by having strict standards for issuing concealed carry permits); Justice Scalia clearly writes in the former ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is, like most other rights, not unlimited, and may be regulated by the states to an extent. In fact, he specifically singles out bans on concealed weapons as a regulation the Second Amendment does not invalidate – and since that ruling, no state has such a ban in place, only restrictions that differ from state to state. Hence, even under conservative jurisprudence, concealed carry is not a right but a privilege that a state may or may not grant. The Tenth Amendment explicitly grants all the power not reserved to the Federal Government to the states, and it’d be very hard to argue that Congress may require states to recognise other states’ licenses (to anything, not just concealed guns) under the Commerce Clause or any other section of the Constitution dealing with federal authority.
Now to the article’s author’s perception of liberal views on same-sex marriage and criminal justice reform, that he claims show inconsistency or hypocrisy in their interpretation of the Constitution:
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, but there is, in the Fourteenth Amendment, a phrase known as the Equal Protection Clause, which says that “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. There are clear, practical legal benefits to marriage, mostly regarding property and inheritance matters, and thus a state may not deny those benefits to same-sex couples without also revoking them from heterosexual marriages. This was the argument of the Court in 1967’s Loving v. Virginia (which required states to recognise interracial marriages), and the same argument was used in Obergefell v. Hodges. Under the author’s reasoning, a state may deny marriage licenses to interracial couples, because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to marry.
As to criminal justice reform, the author created a nice strawman that claims “progressives…want the feds to come in and sort out local police departments accused of lethal racism.” In practice, virtually all reform efforts have been directed to state and local governments, and the only initiatives suggested to the Federal Government have to do with prohibiting federal agencies from selling weapons of war (e.g. grenade launchers, armoured vehicles, etc.) to local law enforcement agencies and making changes to federal drug statutes that make drug possession a felony. Nobody (nobody relevant, at the very least) says that Congress, the Justice Department or any other federal agency should “sort out” local police departments. That’s a mischaracterisation and is blatantly false.
Scalia was clear that states could limit concealed carry because a citizen had the right to OPEN carry. But in states like NY, where open carry is banned and concealed carry is restricted, that is unconstitutional. Banning concealed carry only infringes on the right to keep and bear arms IF no other options exist. Very important point.
Scalia, was not, in fact, “clear that states could limit concealed carry because a citizen had the right to OPEN carry”. He does not talk about open carry at all, to the best of my recollection. With regards to the District of Columbia’s firearm regulations, the majority holding in Heller took specific issue with the provision that all privateley-owned handguns must be disassembled, thus rendering them useless for all purposes except for being used as home decorations or something.
Is New York’s policy unconstitutional? Maybe. We’ll know the answer if and when a New Yorker challenges it in court (maybe someone already did, I don’t follow gun matters too much). Till then, the policy remains in place, and Congress may not unconstitutionally circumvent it by requiring New York to recognise concealed carry licenes issued by Utah (a particularly egregious example of a state that allows non-residents, without setting foot there, to pass an online course and get a license, which under the reciprocity bill would be valid in all 50 states). Even if New York’s policy is struck down as unconstitutional, Congress *still* has no authority to require it to accept licenses issued by other states. Two wrongs don’t make a right.