Between now and this spring when the Senate is supposed to be bringing HR 38 to a vote, there is a lot of room for debate. Alexander Hamilton, founding father and constitutional lawyer, stated, “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
On December 6, 2017, the House voted to approve H.R. 38: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. This act essentially mandates the recognition of conceal carry permits across state lines. Since the passage (and evening leading up to it), people have been losing their minds in anger. It is almost like watching Trump’s election night all over again. I, for one, am completely blown away by the total and complete hypocrisy of their anger. These are the same people who scream about freedom of (liberal) speech, equality for (pro-choice) women, and freedom from (Christian) religion. Well, I guess I am in fact really not that surprised after all.
We either are or are not a constitutional republic. While I understand this may be tough to understand after the previous administration made a great display of picking and choosing which laws they wanted to enforce, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There it is, quite simple and clear. The only thing that I would add is I am of the belief that a reciprocity law is overkill because the 2nd Amendment is in fact the reciprocity law.
I do completely understand that when it comes to guns and gun violence there is a wide breadth of beliefs and views. I actually welcome a well-thought-out and impassioned debate on the issue of violence in America. My problem is that although the debates do tend to be impassioned, they typically are lacking in the well-thought-out arena.
Reciprocity simply states that a state must honor the CCL but that the carrier must still abide with the laws of the state they are currently in.
For example, slate.com has an article entitled, “States’ Rights No More: The GOP’s new concealed carry bill is as unconstitutional as it is unprecedented.” The premise of their article is that the 10th Amendment is being violated. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This would make sense if not for the fact that gun ownership and the right to carry is already a protected freedom. Under their argument, the states can constrict any right it wants to. This must mean that they are now supporters of states being allowed to post the Ten Commandments outside of the local courthouse or authorize school prayer.
I was even more impressed by the lack of logical thought from Steven Strauss in an article posted in USA Today called, “Concealed carry reciprocity isn’t enough. What about drugs, driving, and sex?” In this article, he tries to make the satirical point that because reciprocity forces States to accept concealed carry licenses (CCL), then we should be able to follow any law from our home state.
Of course, it is hard to ascertain this point, since he spends most of the article in sophomoric and overly simplistic insults upon the state of Alabama and Republicans in general. Of course, the real problem is that his arguments are…lame.
Reciprocity simply states that a state must honor the CCL but that the carrier must still abide with the laws of the state they are currently in. A better example is comparing a CCL to a driver’s license (DL). I am allowed to drive in all fifty states, but in each state, I still need to follow their speed limit. He ends his article doubling down by stating, “The great advantage to the approach I’m suggesting is that with everyone driving at different speeds, obeying different drug use laws, and on and on, reciprocal concealed carry of guns will seem like no big deal.”
Actually, following the Constitution seems like no big deal.
Even thehill.com took their shots at trying to show how the American populace is actually against this law across the board. In the article “Gun owners and Republicans don’t really want concealed carry reciprocity bill,” Daniel Webster states, “In a national survey conducted earlier this year by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, we asked whether people agreed or disagreed that ‘a person who can legally carry a concealed gun should be required to pass a test demonstrating they can safely and lawfully handle a gun in common situations they might encounter.’ A remarkable 83 percent of gun owners backed such a requirement, as did 83 percent of Republicans, 87 percent of Democrats and 84 percent of Independents.”
The thing is, this doesn’t state that over 80% of people are against a reciprocity law, they are simply answering the question on whether states should require a CCL test like they do a DL. This is a perfect example of how you can make statistics say whatever you want them to.
However, at least in thehill.com article, they bring up those salient and thoughtful questions that are part of a fair and worthy debate. Should in fact the national reciprocity law allow states to mandate some sort of training? This is a question that I find very valid. In an active shooter situation, one needs to have the capacity to react quickly and accurately. They also need to be able to access if the target can be safely engaged from their current vantage (e.g., is there someone standing behind them who could be struck?).
I can empathize with this argument and even concede to the logic of it. I would have no real argument against some sort of training requirement as long as it did not cause undue hardship upon those attempting to get the training. The only problem is that states like California, New York, and Illinois would likely come up with training requirements that were intentionally restrictive.
One of the big problems when discussing the human capacity for violence is that a large number of people can simply not fathom the evil that exists in some. No matter what, these individuals will always look at guns as being the problem, not the people who use them. If gun laws actually worked, then in countries like England and France there would be no terrorism. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. In fact, when bad guys can’t get guns, they will use knives, bombs, or even vehicles to enact their sociopathic rage against others.
Worse yet are the attacks against legal gun carriers and the attempt to categorize them with those who are malevolent. Crimeresearch.org published a study entitled “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States.” The following four points I felt were exceptionally telling and contrary to what the media tries to shove down our throats.
- Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
- Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 178%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
- Regression estimates show that even after accounting for the per capita number of police and people admitted to prison and demographics, the adult population with permits is significantly associated with a drop-in murder and violent crime rates.
- Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.
Despite what we might be told by the media, carrying a gun for the protection of yourself and others is not simply reserved for white racist skin heads. Not only that—when people legally carry, murder rates seem to fall. Most importantly, and contrary to what detractors would lead you to believe, those who legally obtain their CCL tend to be some of the most law-abiding individuals in the country.
Between now and this spring when the Senate is supposed to be bringing HR 38 to a vote, there is a lot of room for debate. Alexander Hamilton, founding father and constitutional lawyer, stated, “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Let us start our debate from this premise.
