We've just learned that the vote in the U.S. House of Representatives for the "Packing Heat on Your Street" bill (H.R. 822) is happening today.
H.R. 822 is so extreme it would allow dangerous, violent people from outside your state to carry loaded guns in your state, and your state would be powerless to stop them.
This drastic proposed law, called the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011” (H.R.822), would override state laws and put our communities and police officers at unnecessary risk.
States should have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms inside their borders. State, local, and tribal governments must maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their communities.
IGNORING STATES’ NEEDS
State legislatures have decided their own standards for who can carry a loaded, concealed gun in their communities. For example:
- 38 states do not issue permits to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, like assault or sex crimes.
- 36 states do not issue permits to people under the age of 21.
- 35 states require gun safety training to prove competency with a firearm.
Today, each state has the right to make its own decision about whether to accept other states’ concealed weapon permits. Some states have decided to not allow concealed weapon permits from other states whose laws were deemed too lax to protect public safety.
- Nevada does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by Utah and Florida.
- New Mexico does not recognize carry permits issued by Utah.
This legislation would eliminate all of these standards, reducing concealed carry permitting to the weakest state law imposed by Congress as a federal mandate.
PUTTING POLICE AT RISK
Every sheriff and police officer in the country would have to honor concealed carry permits from all 50 states – if they could verify the validity of each state’s different type of permit.
More than 600 mayors, major national and local police organizations, and domestic violence prevention organizations oppose national concealed carry reciprocity. Congress rejected similar legislation in 2009.
THESE ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSE H.R. 822:
-- Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
If H.R. 822 were to become law, our state would no longer be able to make its own decisions about who can carry a hidden, loaded gun in public. Domestic abusers, drug addicts, stalkers, criminals with violent arrest records, and people with absolutely no training could be granted a concealed gun permit in another state, and our state would have to honor it.
The American Bar Association opposes federal legislation that would force states to recognize permits or licenses to carry concealed weapons issued in other states.
-- International Association of Chiefs of Police
“H.R. 822 would severely undermine state concealed carry licensing systems by allowing out of state visitors to carry concealed firearms even if those visitors have not met the standards for carrying a concealed weapon in the state they are visiting. For example, some states require a person to show that they know how to use a firearm or meet minimum training standards before obtaining a concealed carry license. These states would be forced to allow out of state visitors to carry concealed weapons even if they do not meet that state’s concealed licensing standards.”
-- Mayors Against Illegal Guns
This bill would override the laws of almost every state by forcing states to accept concealed handgun carry permits from every other state, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to carry or even possess a handgun in the state where he or she is traveling. That policy would undercut states’ rights and create serious problems for law enforcement.
-- National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)
-- National Latino Peace Officers Association
-- Police Foundation
A RELATED ARTICLE from today's Register-Guard Newspaper: "Stearns’ bill would significantly increase the number of people carrying weapons, increasing the risk to ordinary citizens and police officers."
http://www.registerguard.com/
A RELATED ARTICLE from today's Register-Guard Newspaper: "Stearns’ bill would significantly increase the number of people carrying weapons, increasing the risk to ordinary citizens and police officers."
http://www.registerguard.com/
A RELATED BLOG POST from Mediamatters.org: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111160021
The debate is happening right now on CSPAN- interesting and typical NRA points. We will not be safer if this bill passes.
ReplyDeleteCeasefire Oregon opposes anything that doesn't restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
ReplyDeleteJapete is right, our country will not be safer if this bill passes. Neither will we be more in danger. Because gun control laws (whether tightening or loosening them) has NO significant effect on violent crime rates involving firearms.
Just like the predictions of "blood in the streets" when states pass laws allowing concealed carry never happened, if this bill passes, the results will be incredibly boring.
...Orygunner...
If guns are so evil why do police and public officials carry them?
ReplyDeleteIt passed. Now it's on to the Senate. Sometimes, Congress actually does its job.
ReplyDelete@ objectiv1: Who said guns are evil?
ReplyDeletePolice are required to be trained for conflict and proficient with their firearms, and are accountable to someone for their actions. These are not true for the typical conceal carry permit holder in Oregon, and less so for many states.
@ Greg: And sometimes the decisions our public officials make do not reflect public opinion, or what is best for the public, as in this case. I can only hope that the senate is more in line with the will of the people they represent, and pay attention to common sense.
ReplyDeleteThese objections are trivial. The number of people who are just barely bad enough that they pass federal and their home state requirements but not Oregon's, and who will apply for a license is statistically insignificant. There's no evidence that mandatory training results in better outcomes--rather it merely reduces the number of people with licenses, especially among minorities and the poor. You keep saying "Police are trained". If the goal of training is better outcomes rather than just whatever hurdles you can think of, it is the police who need to improve their proficiency until their record is as good as license holders.
ReplyDeleteIt is peculiar that organized anti-second amendment activists spend a huge proportion of their time trying to restrict license holders when by even your own numbers we are such a small part of the problem. I guess it's safer than harassing gang members...
Police are required to be trained for conflict and proficient with their firearms, and are accountable to someone for their actions.
ReplyDeleteYou'd be shocked at just how "trained" most police AREN'T. Being proficient in handling a firearm isn't magic, and police aren't special.
If you'd get past your viewing a firearm as a magic totem, you'd understand that.
Moreover, the idea that citizens who carry are not "accountable" runs contrary to the law and to the collective experience of every single state which has passed CC. Indeed, LEOs who get involved in a bad shoot often have the protection of the thin blue line; citizens are crucified by prosecutors seeking to make a name for themselves.
Nice try, but no.
Moreover, it's clear that the House DID reflect the public interest, and the will of the voters (not necessarily the same as that amorphous mass of the "people"). Given the experience of CC in each and every state which has passed it, just how is reciprocity NOT in the "public interest?"
States don't have rights. States have POWERS. People have rights.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait for this to become law. It makes sense. Your Oregon driver's license is valid in other states thanks to Federal law, and driving isn't even a protected right like firearm possession is. Cars also kill several orders of magnitude more people than guns each year.
How does a police officer know your out of state driver's license is real or valid? Little thing known as a database. Guess what? There's a CHL database.
@ Dave: To obtain a driver’s license, people have to pass a test, prove their competency behind the wheel, and get a photo ID card. They must also register and insure their car. H.R. 822 would impose no comparable safeguards.
ReplyDeleteYes, states have databases on CHL holders. However, unlike driver's license databases, CHL databases are currently not easily accessible between states, and in some states you have to actually phone someone locally (whom a police officer from another state wouldn't easily know the number for) in order to get the information. Even for some states where the information is in a state database, some states take 24 hours to get the information back. All of this means that the police officer in one state will not be able to make a determination quickly enough for a traffic stop or confrontation.
So, no, you're wrong on both counts, and it doesn't make sense.
If it will be a problem for an officer to recognize an out-of-state license, how is it that forty states now recognize my Arkansas license? Will it really be so hard for the remaining ten to figure this out?
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, Greg, officer organizations resoundly oppose this bill, so they apparently agree with me.
ReplyDeleteDon't dodge the question. You said that police officers won't be able to recognize out-of-state permits, but forty states are able to figure out mine. Whether police unions support the bill is beside the point. I'm saying that they'll figure out how to identify a valid permit, since many states already do so. How is that wrong?
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, Greg, officer organizations resoundly oppose this bill, so they apparently agree with me.
ReplyDeleteOf course they do. The thought of citizens understanding their actual rights scares the bejesus out of them. They've got citizens cowed into believing that citizens have no rights.
Free legal advice, from a defense lawyer: If you are remotely a suspect in a crime, NEVER talk to police. And NEVER, under ANY circumstances, consent to any search. Ever.
Let's think this through. Until such time as a citizen does something that an officer has at least reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, an officer has no authority to ask any person whether they are carrying, or if they are properly permitted. Assuming that the state authorizes carry, the fact that an individual is carrying a weapon in and of itself gives law enforcement no authority whatsoever to demand of anyone to see their "papers." Moreover, we are speaking of concealed weapons here, so there is no way for an officer, in the ordinary case, to know whether one is carrying or not. Would you have officers stopping people randomly to check?
However, once an officer has cause to detain someone because reasonable suspicion (or probable cause, as the case may be) exists, that becomes relevant. However, at that point it doesn't matter; the individual is already detained for the reasonable suspicion, and presumably (and generally legally) disarmed, at least for the duration of the stop. Moreover, any officer worth his salt routinely assumes everyone he meets is carrying; assuming otherwise gets one killed.
BTW: I have yet to meet an actual officer (as differientated from a big city police chief) who opposes legal CC. They understand the real world.
In short, Baldr, the "concern" of police chiefs is political, not practical. In real legal world, nothing really changes. And given that the IACP is bought and paid for by the Joyce Foundation, that's no surprise (just as MediaMatters is bought and paid for by Soros).
Most importantly, the experience of 40+ states who do this now, without the world coming to an end and no blood running in the streets, tells us that this "concern" is simply more fearmongering, and fearmongering without basis.
If 822 ultimately passes, aside from making the life of legal concealed carriers easier and reducing their risk of being hassled by overzealous officers, the rest of the world won't even notice. That has been exactly the experience in state after state.
Any reason to believe a nationwide carry reciprocity would be any different? Nope.
"H.R. 822 is so extreme it would allow dangerous, violent people from outside your state to carry loaded guns in your state, and your state would be powerless to stop them."
ReplyDeleteHere in NH we have open carry for all and CC for over twenty other states - no problems. Next door in Vermont they have open carry and concealed carry for everyone - no problems. If out of state people carrying guns is a problem...shouldn't we have some evidence of it?
"States should have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms inside their borders. State, local, and tribal governments must maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their communities."
ReplyDelete1. States have no rights.
2. Governments legislate for their benefit and needs - not the needs of their communities. Ask all of the women who've been raped in NJ or DC if their needs were served by the legislation that made them be a victim. Really, ask a rape victim how wonderfully helpful their legislators were when the beast was upon them.
"@ Dave: To obtain a driver’s license, people have to pass a test, prove their competency behind the wheel, and get a photo ID card. They must also register and insure their car. H.R. 822 would impose no comparable safeguards. "
If one has the powers of critical thinking and applies them to these safeguards, one realizes that they are not safeguards.
People can and frequently do drive without licenses. Those with licenses frequently drive unsafely, those without frequently drive safely (that's how they don't get caught for years or decades). Driver's licenses don't make people competent nor keep the incompetent and unlicensed from driving. Insurance is supposed to serve as proof of financial responsibility, however insurance companies are notorious for not being responsible and for fighting their customers tooth and nail (with money and lawyers) to keep from fulfilling their legally contracted obligations. And registration is merely a means of extracting an additional fee from the owner of a vehicle, it serves no purpose other than that.
Now, to someone who can only think in superficial feelings, to one who is blind to the complex workings of reality, to one who is easily led down the slaughter chute, these busywork requirements are a convincing facade of protection against nefarious characters, but to those of us who can still think and function at the level of a human being, they are nothing but the insulting chains of servitude.
@ Hank: Your argument is a variation on the "Why pass laws when the bad guys are going to ignore them" argument.
ReplyDeleteLaws protect us by dissuading some bad guys and by helping to prosecute those they don't dissuade. Duh. You would have us in a world with no laws. Sorry, I'm not into anarchy.
"Your argument is a variation on the "
ReplyDeleteOther laws are effective. Before the police state we used to have a 90% solve rate on murders (it's now 50% many places).
"Laws protect us by dissuading some bad guys and by helping to prosecute those they don't dissuade."
They are supposed to do those functions with regards to crimes. Crimes are actions in which non-consenting parties are injured (i.e. loss of life, liberty, and or property). Laws are not supposed to treat people as criminals for not jumping through hoops. Speaking of which, I notice you don't have your Blogger's Permit posted. I'm sure this oversight will be corrected shortly so no one will feel compelled to report you to the authorities.
"You would have us in a world with no laws."
No positive laws. I'm all in favor of negative laws, laws that negate crimes.
Thanks for responding.
@Baldr
ReplyDelete"Police are required to be trained for conflict and proficient with their firearms, and are accountable to someone for their actions.
That is wholly untrue. They aren't trained for conflict except for those situations in which they dominate others (and even there they show cowardice and incompetence on a routine basis), they are dangerously incompetent with firearms (most shootings by cop involve more than a dozen rounds, most defensive shootings by civilians involve one or two rounds), and they are usually immune from civil and criminal charges.
The official story isn't true and is not a valid means for comprehending the world.
@ Hank: Crimes are not just "actions in which non-consenting parties are injured", but also actions which *may* lead to injuries, such as driving while under the influence, or failing to buckle your child in a car's child seat. The government is tasked with protecting the welfare of its citizens, not just cleaning up after the mess. Regulation of guns is the same concept.
ReplyDeleteAs for the police, I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of them. Try a society without them and see how fast it falls into chaos. I've known many cops. And, yes, they ARE trained for dangerous situations in a way that citizens are not typically trained, including nearly all gun owners, such as improving reaction time or negotiating a peaceful settlement to a standoff. You and many gunnies seem to think you're better than the police in these ways, but you have no idea. I've been in a shootout and know firsthand how the brain doesn't work the same in those moments. They are trained to deal with this. Can you say the same?