The post-Umpqua Community College anti-gun agitprop surge indicates that the civilian disarmament industrial complex is getting increasingly desperate. While Bloomberg bucks will continue to feed the anti-firearms freedom flames, I reckon the pro-gun side has taken the field. Note: I was wrong about Obama’s campaign promise not to pursue gun control. I’ve since learned that the fight for gun rights is eternal. So anyway, here are three ways to seal the deal, putting gun rights out of reach of those who would degrade and destroy them . . .
1. National reciprocity
Bloomberg and his ilk argue that national reciprocity – every state recognizing every other state’s concealed carry permit/license, like driving licenses – would be a “race to the bottom.” States with “tough” concealed carry laws would react to lowered standards from out-of-staters carrying in their state by lowering their standards for permitted concealed carry.
And that’s the downside? What concealed carry “standards” does the Second Amendment not prohibit, pray tell? Anyway, the antis are praying that national reciprocity never comes to be. And for good reason.
States like New Jersey and Hawaii use regulations to create a de facto ban on residents’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Citizens in these restrictive states simply wouldn’t put up with out-of-staters enjoying gun rights denied to them by their own government. At the same time, firearms freedom fence-straddlers in gun control-heavy states would see that concealed carry doesn’t lead to blood in the streets.
And if that’s not enough to pull the rug from under anti-gun regimes, residents of states in gun control heavy states could [at least in theory] get an out-of-state permit to end-run their own state’s obstructionist concealed carry bureaucracy.
The potential pro-gun downside for national reciprocity: a federal bill creating a national concealed carry license, which would lead to federal gun owner registration, restrictions on carry and what would no doubt be dubious qualification standards – all of which would infringe upon gun owners’ rights in all 50 states. Rest assured that bill would never see the light of day. (See: Obama prediction above.)
2. National open carry
I believe widespread open carry reduces crime. Why wouldn’t it? Regardless, if non-gun owners see firearms on the hips of friends, neighbors and benign strangers, and the aforementioned blood in the street doesn’t flow, they will stop thinking of guns in and of themselves as a threat to innocent life. They will intuitively understand that it’s the gun owner that determines whether a firearm is to be welcomed or feared.
National open carry would move the gun control “debate” from a discussion of ideas to a discussion about something tangible. Something that everyone can see. While I don’t expect national open carry to be a political possibility for many years to come, the conversion of various highly populous states to permitted open carry (e.g., Texas and, one hopes, Florida), and hence to Constitutional carry (again, one hopes) paves the way for a sea change in the public’s understanding of gun rights.
Never forget: culture eats strategy for lunch.
The ultimate prize: national Constitutional carry. The end of all restrictions on Americans’ right to bear arms. National reciprocity is a stepping stone toward that goal. National open carry – which would no doubt start as permitted national open carry – would move us even closer to that “absolutist” achievement. Once law-abiding Americans’ guns are in the open, the gun culture war will be won.
3. Arming minorities
Good news! The National Shooting Sports Foundation report, A Hispanic Market Study: Firearms and the Shooting Sports, reveals that minorities are arming themselves. Of the 1,264 Hispanics surveyed, 30 percent would like to own a firearm. Some 40 percent would like to go to a gun store. Of those who’d been to the range or gun store, a staggering 91 percent said they came away with a positive impression. If not a gun.
Yes, well, there is that. Gun ownership rates among minorities are significantly lower that gun ownership rates amongst white Americans. The main reasons are A) culture, and B) geography. The majority of American minorities live in urban areas. Specifically, cities with “tough” gun control laws (e.g., LA, Chicago, San Francisco, New York City).
The cultural question would be partially addressed by the two developments above. But the NSSF survey highlights a fact that gun rights advocates know in their gut (and we’ve been saying for years): simple hands-on exposure to firearms overcomes culturally inculcated anti-gun prejudice. If the pro-gun side can put a gun in the hand of anti-gun minorities, a large, perhaps huge percentage will change their views on gun rights.
If a larger percentage of minority of Americans own guns, well, that smells like victory doesn’t it? Lest we forget, the modern anti-gun Democrat Party depends on minority Americans’ support for its power on the local, state and national level. Remove that and the party would have to change. Add to the calculus the fact that a significant percentage of gun owners are single-issue voters – they vote their guns.
The trick: do it! The NRA, SAF, GOA; the firearms industry and average Americans need to create minority outreach programs. They need to accelerate the current trend. I suggest a GoFundMe campaign to create a pool of money to subsidize this endeavor. Free guns to qualified candidates? Why not? If gun rights advocates are to win the battle for gun rights once and for all, generally speaking, we need to take direct, substantive action.
Other suggestions?