New York Times op-ed on HR 822

[mikeb302000]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/opinion/bruni-have-glock-will-travel.html?_r=1&emc=eta1">Frank Bruni penned a very nice op-ed for the New York Times in which he provided a little background to HR 822.

Contradiction, hypocrisy: those words rush in ahead. The bill thus far has more than 200 Republican co-sponsors in the House, many of them conservatives who otherwise complain about attempts by an overbearing federal government to trample on states’ rights in the realms of health care, tort reform, education — you name it. But to promote concealed guns, they’re encouraging big, bad Washington to trample to its heart’s content.

That's pretty much how I see it, and in all fairness, I've read a number of pro-gun guys who agree with us. But not the hard core. The NRA and their followers have an overriding guideline which demands they oppose any gun-control law no matter how sensible and that they support any pro-gun bill regardless of how ridiculous.

The last time we talked about this one the post generated 68 comments and led me to a bit of an epiphany. Never have I read a comparison in the gun debate that I could get behind. But in this discussion the comparison was made between CCW reciprosity and the possibility of bringing your own home speed limit with you when you drive in another state.

When a guy from Arizona goes to NJ with his permit, he should not receive reciprocal rights because the requirements to get his permit were less than the NJ CCW guys.

So, just like the Arizona driver who can't drive over the NJ speed limit like he could back home, the Arizona CCW permit holder is not entitled to carry a concealed gun in NJ because he hasn't met the requirements according to NJ standards.

Frank Bruni summed up HR 822 beautifully. "That’s not liberty. More like lunacy."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[ileus]

1. Call your congressman and tell him/her to oppose it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. He can't, he doesn't have one.

[ileus]

6. According to this everyone should have one....Go Here Mike and pick out your rep.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

[krispos42]

3. *snort*

*giggle*

[krispos42]

4. What a terrible analogy.

I just checked my driver's license. There's no speed limit on it.

I also just checked my very first driver's license, and the three I have from Minnesota. Same situation.

So that analogy seems to fail pretty hard.


I live in Connecticut. Connecticut recognizes no other CCW permits.




Does Connecticut have CCW standards that are the strictest in the nation? No, I don't think so.

So then why does Connecticut not at least recognize permits issued by other, stricter states?


Fucking politics and anti-gun paranoia, that's why!



The reason that mandated nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity is being considered is because states like Connecticut pull this shit.


Either we get nationwide reciprocal concealed-carry, or the states go shall-issue AND recognize other states CCW permits if the standards to get one are similar.

[ileus]

7. The last time I went to CT I left my baby behind.

I also took a shortcut to Stamford thru Manhattan....that didn't work out so well for me.

[krispos42]

9. Driving through Manhattan?

Hit yourself in the head with a mallet instead. Just as much pain, but it's over a lot sooner.

[ileus]

15. Yeah...it was an hour or so worth of fun.

[krispos42]

19. Only an hour?

God must have smiled upon you.

[ileus]

23. It was 10 or 11 at night....

LOL

[PavePusher]

50. I once got stuck into having to cross the George Washington Bridge 5 fucking times in a row....

due to traffic congestion and construction zones and my ignorance of local traffic and driving habits.

Probably a very good thing I didn't have a gun that day, or the entire bridge would have been closed for hours...

Joking about the gun thing,of course, but I was getting pretty frustrated by the time I got sorted out. When I finally got to my uncles' place on 3rd St, I walked directly to the liquor cabinet and drank single-malt straight from the bottle for several minutes.

[krispos42]

53. Yikes.

That's a scene out of The Inferno.

:scared:

[PavePusher]

55. If there is a circle in Hell with my name on it...

that's one of the fun-rides for certain.

[krispos42]

8. Let me compare further.... Connecticut vs. Minnesota.

See what I mean? Connecticut only recognizes Connecticut permits, regardless of standards of permits issued by other states. That makes Connecticut an asshole state, and because of these actions by states like Connecticut we have nationwide reciprocal concealed-carry.


States like Connecticut, if they wish to retain some control, had better loosen up their laws before the choices are taken out of their hands.

[mikeb302000]

29. Let me put it this way.

The average CCW permit holder in NY and NJ is better screened and more responsible than the average CCW guy in AZ. In spite of your continual whining about how the NY and NJ systems are discriminatory against the poor because of the fees and the "may issue" policy prejudices minorities, you must admit the system in AZ where there are no requirements at all, to speak of, allows some irresponsible and unfit characters to obtain the permit.These guys are not welcome in NY and NJ.

And please tell me what the hell does that have to do with rights? You're already stretching it beyond reason to say the 2A means you can own a gun, I don't buy it, but now what are you saying that the 2A also protects the AZ guy's right to carry concealed in Manhattan?

[Glassunion]

34. Uh?

"The average CCW permit holder in NY and NJ is better screened and more responsible than the average CCW guy in AZ."
No they are not. The CCW permit holder in NY and NJ just simply has money and connections. Does money and power magically bestow responsibility?

"In spite of your continual whining about how the NY and NJ systems are discriminatory against the poor because of the fees and the "may issue" policy prejudices minorities, you must admit the system in AZ where there are no requirements at all, to speak of, allows some irresponsible and unfit characters to obtain the permit.These guys are not welcome in NY and NJ."
This is my favorite. Are you saying that the poor and minorities are not welcome in NJ or NY?

Hate to break it to you, but the 2A does indeed mean that an individual has a right to own a firearm. It may kill you on the inside, but the 2A is a civil right, the same as speech, freedom from self incrimination, etc...

[Iktomiwicasa]

43. Well...

Does money and power magically bestow responsibility?

Many elitist types feel that way, regardless if they are liberal or conservative.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. good gawd but, that is an insulting post. more responsible ???

:wtf:

[krispos42]

47. I don't argue that the people that have permits to carry in NY or NJ are better screened than AZ

I'm arguing that, even though those in NY are as equally well-screened as those in NJ, a New Yorker can't carry concealed in Jersey, and a Jerseyite can't carry concealed in New York. That's done purely to be a pain in the ass.

I have no problem with permits and the permitting process per se, but I do have a problem with may-issue, excessive wait times, and excessive fees. If other states can do the exact same check as NY in, say, a week, for $100, why is it months and hundreds of dollars in New York... assuming you can convince a judge that you're worthy of the permit in the first place.

I used to have a permit to carry in South Dakota and, frankly, I thought the permitting process was pretty week. I would not have minded taking a class on concealed carry law and self-defense law, nor shown competency with a handgun, to get my permit. I would have minded paying $500 and waiting a month for it, though, on top of the classroom cost.

In fact, my permit had no photo of me on it, nor my signature, two things which I think SHOULD be on a concealed carry permit.

Incidentally, it cost me $10 and 24 hours to get my CCW permit there.


* * * * *

The State of New York raises good issues when it compares their permitting process to, say Arizona or South Dakota. And these issues need to be addressed. However, the State of New York also partially negates their good faith on these issues by a) being may-carry, and b) not recognizing other state's permits even when the permitting process in that state is equivalent or better than the standard New York sets. So they want it both ways... they complain when a state's standards is lower than theirs, then still say "no" when the other standard meets or exceeds theirs.

:shrug:

Probably the easiest way to do this is to create a national system with, say, two or three standards, and each state can pick the standard they want to use in their state. Then, if a state wants to use the strictest standard for issuing concealed-carry permits (call it Level 3) they can, BUT they have to recognize CCW permits issued by other states who issue under Level 3.

[krispos42]

48. *sigh* week=weak

:dunce:

[PavePusher]

51. Got stats?

Otherwise take your bigotry and stuff it back where you got it from.

[JTWJRJ]

57. get a clue

"you must admit the system in AZ where there are no requirements at all, to speak of, allows some irresponsible and unfit characters to obtain the permit.These guys are not welcome in NY and NJ."

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I currently have a Arizona CCW permit and have for about 6 years. I have also had permits in Connecticut and Mass. Currently in Arizona nobody needs a permit to carry concealed ONLY within the states boundaries. The same as in Alaska and Vermont. Arizona used to issue and still does issue permits for the reason of reciprocity and also for gun owners it negates the background check when buying firearms in the state of Arizona. However and this is where you have no idea what you are talking about is to get that permit I had to do 8 hours of classroom study on all topics and I had to go through shooting drills and a written test and a firing test. I also had to have a background check run with two fingerprint cards and the whole check took 2 months. HR822 would only allow PERMIT holders from the states that do not require permit to have reciprocity. Trust me the only reason I would want to go to NY or NJ is because there is no way to drive around those two cesspools going to NH.

[Glassunion]

5. The treacherous are ever distrustful

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. And ever ready to make make accusations with no basis in fact:

The NRA and their followers have an overriding guideline which demands they oppose any gun-control law no matter how sensible and that they support any pro-gun bill regardless of how ridiculous.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQ/?s=21

What is NRA doing to address the problem of violent crime in America?

For more than a century, NRA has aggressively supported the strict enforcement of laws against violent criminals who misuse firearms and has worked to improve the criminal justice system. As just one example, NRA actively worked to insure that the Career Armed Criminal Act became federal law in 1984. During the 1990s, NRA worked with state legislatures and governors to increase prison sentences, reduce probation and parole for the most violent criminals and to impose mandatory sentencing guidelines for repeat offenders. Today, NRA continues to lead the call for expansion of “Project Exile,” a federal program that throws the book at felons who illegally possess firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQ/?s=22

Does NRA feel that anybody should be allowed to own a firearm?

NRA believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms and that the government should not interfere with any law-abiding citizen’s private decision to own, or not to own, a firearm. Felons, particularly those convicted of violent offenses should, as a result of their own actions, have their right to own a firearm abridged.

Mind you, I can see why they object- The NRA opposes punishing the law-abiding majority for the actions of the criminal minority...

[safeinOhio]

25. Here is NRA

board member and spokesperson promoting gun safety and anti gun violence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy8RIiTyhMI

Looks like the NRA loves gun violence and intimidation with "scary looking" assault weapons.

The NRA is a right wing front organization that promotes violence. If they weren't they would kick Nugent out and apologize to Obama and Pelosi.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. You're wrong....

The NRA is neither a right-wing front organization, nor does it promote violence. You just don't like the fact that there is a group out there opposing your fantasies with facts.

[safeinOhio]

41. What I don't like is

the likes of Grover Norquist, the most destructive right winger to every live here, and as the video proves, Ted the Draft Dodger Nugent, promotes violence against Democrats and liberals. Watch the video again and then watch it again. Both guys were ELECTED to the board by the members. I'm not wrong.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. And once again, "TPoTEoTNRA" make an appearance.

The Protocols of The Elders of The National Rifle Association. In your own words, how does the NRA promote violence and intimidation?

Ted Nugent is one dipshit. There's a video of some guy at the OWS Oakland encampment calling for violent revolution.
Does he speak for all of the OWS movement?

[safeinOhio]

39. Was the person you speak of at the OWS

elected to the board of directors by the members? If that video is not promoting violence against liberals, like the majority of this web site, you didn't watch it. If elected by the members of the NRA to the Board of Director, you become what they stand for. That includes Grover Norquist. Another of your heros on the right.

[gejohnston]

40. you missed the point

it is guilt by association thing.

[safeinOhio]

42. It's quilt by an organization

that they elected that asshat and didn't kick him out for what he said or for breaking game laws in 2 states? If any liberal had said anything one tenth as vile you'd be throwing a hissy fit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. The OP has admitted to breaking firearms laws, has posted a demonstrable untruth on this thread....

...and only changed his public stance calling for the elimination of all civilian firearms ownership when called on it.

Would you say he represents the other gun control advocates here?

[safeinOhio]

49. No, I'd say like most people that post here

he represents himself. Do Ted Nugent and Grover Norquist represent you? Most posters on this forum tend to lump people into 2 groups. Just because you don't agree with everything or even some, those people have the right to post with out all of the personal attacks. I've supported some of the so called pro side of gun rights and the other side and many in between. Don't lump people together unless you want to be lumped with the crazy people that agree with you on some issues. I think you might make an effort to debate that persons ideas and leave the personal stuff out.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. so then

you are reneging on your stance about the NRA, right.

this reads like an about face post to me.

[PavePusher]

56. Some of our goals overlap. Most of our methods... do not.

The world is not strictly binary/polar opposites. At least, not on the macro level.

[gejohnston]

54. I don't belong the the NRA

and I sure as hell would not vote for either of these clowns if I were. If the traditionalist/environmentalist faction were to take back the power they lost in 1977 would be a good thing as far as I am concerned.

Grover Norquist? His whole thing is bringing back the guilded age. He would head over to Brady if it meant getting closer to his goal. His being there has more to do with playing the 3G game.

[Atypical Liberal]

10. We have universal drivers' licenses, why not CCW permits?

Not all states have uniform requirements for drivers' licenses, yet all states allow reciprocity for those, and automobiles kill far more people than firearms do.

The simple fact is, this is a tempest in a teapot. CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in crime. Any kind of crime. Worrying about a CCW permit holder traveling across state lines with a concealed firearm is pretty damn low on the list of things to worry about.

The NRA and their followers have an overriding guideline which demands they oppose any gun-control law no matter how sensible and that they support any pro-gun bill regardless of how ridiculous.

The guideline is that we won't tolerate gun control aimed at criminals that mostly effects the law-abiding. Just as it is not reasonable for the 99% of Americans to bear the cost of taxes for the 1%, it is not reasonable to expect 99% of gun owners to bear the cost of crime from the other 1%.

[petronius]

17. Why do we have universally recognized drivers licenses?

Maybe I'm being slow, but I can't figure out if states are required to recognize each others DLs (full faith and credit), or whether it's a consensual arrangement which all 50 states have signed on to... :shrug:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

18. IIRC, it is a full faith and credit thing...

The consensual arrangement they all signed on to has to do with violations, and in fact, not all states report to all other states. There are 3 states in which if you receive a ticket in State A while you live in State B, State B will never know about it.

I could be wrong on the DL thing, but I dont think so.

There is no legitimate reason for State A to not recognize State B's CCW permit. Sure, the requirements may be slightly different, but so what? The person carrying is responsible to follow all state and local laws so the requirements to obtain the license really don't matter much once it is given - kinda like with a driver's license. Think about it - in some states, you've actually got to drive a car, parallel park, etc. In others? Make 3 rights and a left, remember to signal and don't break the speed limit, and you've got a license. Hardly what I'd call "driving".

[petronius]

21. That's what I was assuming, but in my (somewhat casual) googling I can't

find an authoritative source that actually says that - no legislation or court decisions that explicitly state that DLs are subject to the FF&C clause. It's as if everyone just assumed and agreed they should be, and left it at that. But then I wonder about other things, like fishing licenses, as well as CCW and same-sex marriages. It seems as though there's a certain choosiness in what FF&C is being applied to, and I can't see the justifications...

[Atypical Liberal]

22. Because it would be hugely limiting otherwise.

From the beginning of the country people have freely moved around from state to state about their business or pleasure without paperwork. Imagine the uproar and hassle if suddenly you had to procure paperwork every time you crossed a state border. It would be a barrier to freedom and to commerce.

[petronius]

28. It certainly would be a nightmare, but I'm just puzzled by the legal underpinning

No sane state would really choose to stop recognizing other states' DLs, but could they if they wanted to? IOW, is that recognition required (By FF&C? commerce clause? highway funding?) or do states do it voluntarily because the alternative would be ludicrous... :shrug:

[rl6214]

11. My opinion?

This is just an opinion piece, just like the crap you post. Everyone has opinions but unless you call your congressman and do something about it, your opinion dosen't mean squat. And yours really dosen't mean squat since you don't have a congressman.

Good job not including any blind links to your blog.

[SteveM]

13. There's a couple of congressmen around here he can write. Heh-heh. nt

[mikeb302000]

30. I intended to put one link in there but I couldn't get the

edit function to work.

[SteveM]

12. A less ideologically-bound NYT reporter wrote this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05guns.html?pagewanted=all

The report describes how the Texas State Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas worked together to "even out" the laws about transporting guns from one county to another in Texas, to prevent the abuse some prosecutors heaped upon ordinary citizens who were carrying guns for self-protection and hunting. You might be particularly interested in this quote:

"Will Harrell, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said that even before the current dispute, his group and the N.R.A. had been collaborating on racial profiling issues, particularly on what he called a “Bubba profile” that made certain white men the focus of gun checks by the police."

Guess what? Most of the problems about local interpretations of the law were cleaned up. Problem solved.

[spin]

27. Interesting article. Thanks. (n/t)

[Straw Man]

16. Perhaps Bruni can try to convince us that NJ shouldn't recognize AZ drivers' licenses.

Y'know, because the licensing procedures are different... Then he might have a point. As it stands, he's got nothing.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. I don't see the contradictoin/hypocrisy when viewed from the correct context

Republicans believe that people who have the freedom to carry in one state should be allowed to excercise that freedom in all states. Ultimately, the people have more personal freedom.

Republicans rally against the healthcare mandate because it takes away the freedom of people to choose NOT to participate in a health coverage plan. Ultimately, people have more choice.

If you frame the political debate from a libertarian/freedom perspective... they are being consistent. If you frame the political debate from a federal power or public policy perspective... their action are contradicting. It all depends on what frame of reference you look at to determine if they are acting hypocritically.

[krispos42]

24. And Republicans forget other relevent points in that context

One is that the states have more uniform driving requirements for adults than they do for concealed carry, so it's much less one-size-fits-all. To counterpoint, liberals have to remember that many states won't recognize CCW permits from out of state, even if that state's requirements meet or exceed their own.

The second is that Republicans forget that health insurance does not equal health care. They want choice to choose who pays for their doctor's visit, which is not the same as being able to choose your own doctor or medical treatment. Also, that EVERYBODY will need health care in their lifetime, either as a minor, as victim of injury or chronic disease, or as an elderly person, so trying to pay only when you need it means you get massive bills that are virtually impossible to save up for. And when you don't/can't save up, either you die (which robs the country of your productivity and leaves your family destitute while potentially spreading disease) or the people as a social organization have to spring for your care, which is SOCIALISM and evil evil evil.

[Callisto32]

26. Whatever.

History does not bear out any rational concern that could be had about this.


You lost, reality won, deal with it.

[mikeb302000]

31. It ain't over till the fat lady sings

and the Supreme Court shifts in balance.

How can all you "Democratic" guys posting here be aligned so perfectly with the Conservative movement in American politics, at least about gun rights?

[Callisto32]

32. That's just it, she is on her 3rd encore.

CCW has come to the U.S. and blood has not run in the streets. Quite the opposite actually.

You can ignore reality, if you choose. But...man, that's just sad.

[Atypical Liberal]

33. Serious answer. I hope you read this.

How can all you "Democratic" guys posting here be aligned so perfectly with the Conservative movement in American politics, at least about gun rights?

In the United States, being "liberal", or "progressive" is about the underdog standing up to power. It's about helping the little guy. It's about standing up to the abuses of powerful interests. We see this kind of liberal or progressive thinking when we stand up for the rights of workers against powerful corporate interests. We see it when we stand up to protect the environment against the predations of those only interested in profit. We see it when we stand up for the rights of minorities in the face of powerful majorities.

Almost always the way success is gained in such endeavors is through collective action. Individually, we are weak and voiceless. But when we come together in a common cause, we are strong.

Because of the strength found in collective action, and the weakness found in individual action, there is a tendency among liberals and/or progressives to discount or even distrust the actions of the individual. Many believe that even the safety of the individual should be the responsibility of the collective. The individual is not believed capable of defending himself, and not to be trusted trying to do so anyway.

But the majority of Americans understand that you can't always count on someone else to be there to protect you. Moreover, most people believe that everyone has the right, as an individual, to defend themselves and their families without waiting for the permission or protection of the collective.

It is absolutely true that conservatives are far more individualistic and self-centered, with an "every man for himself" attitude, and so self-defense and firearm ownership dovetails naturally with that attitude.

But there are lots and lots of people who believe in collective social progress who still believe that individuals should be empowered also. One need not exclude the other.

[Glassunion]

35. Exactly

Self-Reliance is not anti-society or anti-community. Self-reliance should be viewed as a starting point, not as a goal.

Emerson wrote a great essay on the topic.

[beevul]

46. Thats certainly true.

"It ain't over till the fat lady sings"

Be careful what you wish for mike. And be aware that when she does sing, you may not like the tune.

"How can all you "Democratic" guys posting here be aligned so perfectly with the Conservative movement in American politics, at least about gun rights?"

As another poster said in different words Its not we who are aligned with them, its them who are aligned with us, on the gun issue.


You might think long and hard about that.


But somehow, I doubt it.

[Atypical Liberal]

38. Would registration have prevented your 15 years of illegal gun ownership? n/t