View: Congress Wants a Race to Bottom on Guns

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/congress-wants-a-national-race-to-the-bottom-on-concealed-handguns-view.html

Congress is moving ahead on legislation designed to increase the number of handguns on American streets and lower the standards imposed on those who wish to conceal and carry those weapons.

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity bill would require all states to allow out-of-state visitors to conceal and carry firearms as long as the visitors are permitted to do so in their home states. The relatively stringent conceal-and-carry laws of California, Illinois and New York, for example, would be rendered obsolete. So- called shall-issue states, where authorities have little discretion over permits (and thus “shall issue” them to anyone who meets the criteria), would become the new norm. The state with the most lax laws would establish a lowest common denominator for the nation.

The Police Foundation says the bill, if enacted, will endanger the lives of police officers, who would have no way of distinguishing legitimate out-of-state gun permits from fraudulent ones. The Major Cities Chiefs Association, another police group, calls the legislation “dangerous and unconstitutional.” Yet even those familiar with the state of gun politics in the U.S. might be surprised to learn that, despite such opposition, the bill is already co- sponsored by the majority of the House of Representatives. South Dakota Republican John Thune says he will introduce similar legislation in the Senate in coming weeks.

So the National Rifle Association appears poised for another victory. The gun lobby ingeniously marries the desires of a manufacturing sector to the diverse interests of hunters, sportsmen, gun enthusiasts and citizens fearful for their safety -- while criminals, including Mexican drug gangs, hitch a ride on the organization’s maximalist positions.

The US manufactures some of the best guns on the planet.

The Police Foundation says the bill, if enacted, will endanger the lives of police officers,...

That's what they always say--they are the political arm of law enforcement, not the law enforcement arm. And like most politicians, they have always been wrong.

Or indeed the number of firearms possessed by CCW permit holders?

This bill is about reciprocity. What it would do, if enacted, is permit private citizens who possess a CCW permit issued by any state to carry in any other state that issues (or, in the case of New Jersey, theoretically has statutory provisions to issue) CCW permits. It would no more put "more guns into the hands of more morons" than the requirement that states recognize each others' driving licenses puts "more morons behind the steering wheels of more cars."

Note, moreover, that the bill does not create a situation of extraterritoriality: an individual holding a permit from state A, but carrying in state B, would still have to abide by state B's laws concerning what and how he could carry. Thus, an Oregon or Arizona CCW permit holder would not be able to carry a non-California compliant handgun (no loaded chamber indicator, magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds, et al.) in California, to cite one obvious example.

Admittedly, there's a possibility that residents of "may issue" states will acquire a non-resident permit from another, "shall issue," state, thereby allowing them the privilege of carrying in their home state previously denied them thanks to the "discretionary" power granted to--and abused by--the executive and/or judicial branch of government, but such individuals would still have to comply with the laws of their state of residence to possess the firearm in the first place. Thus, any "morons" among them would already have the guns "in their hands," they just wouldn't have been legally permitted to carry them in public. It deserves note in this context that holding an unholstered handgun in your hand in public is generally considered "brandishing" (or language to the same effect) in just about every state, as far as I'm aware.

What I'm trying to say, in so many words, is: get back to us when you're ready to discuss actual provisions, instead of parroting some Brady Campaign-approved soundbite.

The Police Foundation says the bill, if enacted, will endanger the lives of police officers, who would have no way of distinguishing legitimate out-of-state gun permits from fraudulent ones.


Glad to see they are aggressively on the ball, can't wait to see the latest results of their efforts to cut down on LEO-impersonators doing traffic stops and fake no-knock home invaders.

It is a stretch to call whatever is between "Glad" and the period a "sentence".

procedure to carry a concealed weapon. I have to #1. Have enough money in my bank account to buy a gun. #2. Buy a gun.

Do I miss California? Not really.

To wit: be legally eligible, under state and federal law, to possess a handgun in the first place. If you're a "prohibited person" per the Gun Control Act of 1968 (including subsequent amendments), but still manage to (#2) buy a gun (e.g. from a Federal Firearms Licensee because you managed to pass a NICS check you shouldn't have, like Seung-Hui Cho, or you got an associate to straw purchase it for you, or you put on your best "hard-done-by good ol' boy" act to a private seller), you still don't get to legally carry the thing in Arizona, because you don't legally possess it.

I assume it's a step you don't stop to consider because you're not a prohibited person yourself, so you pass it by default, but let's not give the antis quotes they can rip out of context.

How about marriage licenses? Ooh scary.. if you're a fundie or a racist worried about same sex marriage or interracial couples.

Forgive me if I think this comes down to..

and can only argue that commonsense says they do.



It also mentions that concealed carry laws have offered manufacturers the opportunity to develop new compact firearms that appeal to those who have concealed carry permits. I can't disagree with that. One great little pistol that recently hit the market and is designed for concealed carry is the .380 Ruger LCP.

I bought one for my son in law and he finds it far more convenient to carry than his compact .40 Glock 27. The little Ruger weighs only 12 oz loaded while the Glock 27 weighs 19.75 oz loaded. The biggest drawback with the Ruger is that it is far less powerful and effective than the Glock. Many experts consider the .380 as the absolute minimum for self defense.



Those who worry about high capacity magazines should find some solace in the fact that the little Ruger has only a six round magazine.

I'm a wheel gunner so I plan to stick with my .38+P S&W Model 642 Airweight snub nosed revolver for concealed carry. It's an excellent pocket gun and weighs 17 oz loaded.

My occasional carry "bicycle gun" .380 is a Sig Sauer P232. I didn't like the factory grips, so I put a rubbery Hogue aftermarket one on, much like this: