Not for nothing did the National Rifle Association pump $38 million into electing Donald Trump President and another $24 million to secure the grip of Republicans in the Senate. Within grasp now looms a trophy long sought: federal legislation that would, if passed by Congress, extend the right to carry a concealed firearm in any one state, no matter how minimal the licensing standards, to all 50.
Here's the original article. It's a rare screed which takes too much space to display the ignorance of the author:
But I'll do it anyway: one of my favorite things (besides kittens and mittens) is disemboweling New York Editorials. It's a cheap shot but I don't feel guilty about pointing out the logical fallacies of East Coast Liberals.
Let us proceed with the evisceration:
The statements of the author of the NYDN article are identified by color;
My statements are embedded in indented paragraphs and black bold.
The point is, the NRA calls for identical concealed-carry laws in all states, so that a person who can legally carry a concealed firearm in his/her home state is not subject to arrest or harassment in a neighboring (or any other) state. The author objects on the grounds that state laws are, and should be, more stringent than federal laws.
Here is the screed, with my embedded arguments.
The NRA’s dead aim - NY Daily News:
No matter how readily another state arms individuals already known to law enforcement as prone to violence, New York would have to allow its permit holders to carry a hidden pistol in public, overriding state law allowing gun permits only to those with the temperament and need for a firearm.
The Second Amendment applies to all peoples, all states, and carries the same weight as the right to have an abortion: whether you agree with it or not, it is the National Creed and it trumps (excuse the pun) State Laws. If you're an adult, not a felon, and you are in control of your emotions (not a lunatic), your constitutional right to possess and carry a firearm is guaranteed.
How the NRA's grades for pols shape U.S. gun policy So it would go for New Jersey, and Connecticut, and other states with stringent safety-focused prerequisites for carrying guns. Trump promised “national right to carry” as part of an absolutist Second Amendment agenda that would leave in place gargantuan loopholes in existing background checks for gun buyers, which allow anyone — convicted felons and the mentally ill among them — to purchase firearms on the internet or at gun shows without interference.
This is a lie.
There are no "loopholes" in the Second Amendment.
Convicted felons MAY have their 2nd Amendment rights reinstated after release, if they have not been convicted of violent felonies ... "Forgers" are not considered violent felons, for example. Their 2nd Amendment rights MAY be reinstated upon application and case-by-case approval, but this is a federal issue and not affected by any National Rifle Association influence.
Even someone on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can stroll into a gun store without impediment if his or her criminal and mental health records are clean. That’s a rare, perhaps the only, loophole Trump has hinted at a willingness to close.
You may have overlooked that constitutional thingie called "Due Process".
That means that nobody is subject to arbitrary evisceration of their Constitutional Rights.
So you may not agree with my politics, but you can't deprive me of my liberties without taking me to court and proving (to the satisfaction of a judge or jury, and while I'm protected by legal counsel) that I have forfeited my rights by my illegal actions.
People get on the FBI's Terrorist Watch List because of suspicion. They are there because a governmental agency has deemed them worth of special attention. If they were found to be guilty of a crime, they would be arrested. And Prosecuted.
Short of that level of confidence, nobody loses their Constitutional Rights.
Suspicion is an heinious thing, and if you use that as your guide to abbrogating the rights of others ... I think you are a stinker and should not be allowed to exercise your First Amendment Right to Free Speech.
How do you like them apples?
Atop that tinderbox the President-elect girds to pile what amounts to carte blanche for gun owners registered in states with barely-there licensing hurdles to traipse armed through states with much stricter conditions for carrying firearms in public. Every now and then, a poor, well-meaning tourist gets arrested at an airport for violating the law; pleas for leniency follow. The possibility of armed tourists and other visitors roaming streets where open- and concealed-carry is now heavily restricted is problematic enough, making cops’ jobs that much harder
Now you're just ranting ... and doing a darned poor job of it, too!
You talk about 'barely-there licensing hurdles', which I assume refers to the criteria to qualify for Concealed Handgun License (CHL) in the individual states.
I agree that we need to define reasonable criteria, but the national trend is that if you're not a convicted felon you haven't lost your Constitutional "Right To Keep And Bear Arms", so most states would issue a permit to a non-felon. The local laws vary: as an example, some states restrict CHL owners from bearing arms in an environment where liquors are served as their primary income (bars, rather than restaurants) But other states do not have this restriction, assuming that anyone who is sufficiently responsible to carry a handgun is sufficiently responsible to remain sober while doing so.
But your comments about a " .., a poor, well-meaning tourist gets arrested at an airport for violating the law ..." is very much to the point!
Why should that passerby (someone who has a ticket on a plane from Maine to Texas, but the plane is rerouted through New Jersey and the cops arrest the flier because he has a firearm in his checked luggage) be persecuted because his firearms are legal in Maine and Texas, but not in New Jersey
But that’s not even the main threat national right-to-carry reciprocity, as it’s called, would unleash. Because many states with especially lenient laws, such as Florida and Utah, invite outsiders to obtain their firearms permits, the federal law would as much as demolish New York’s common-sense limits. Live in New York, get a Florida permit — and, via the internet, a gun.
And now, besides being ill-informed, you're just wrong.
Buying a gun over the internet is illegal. just as having a handgun in certain areas is illegal. You can make contact with someone who owns a gun and wants to sell it over the internet, but the actual transaction must be made through a licensed dealer, who is required to perform a background check through the National Instant Check System before completing the transfer. I know, because I sold a pistol to an internet contact last year and it was a legal transfer; like all responsible gun owners, I was aware of the legal requirements and abided by them.
And oh .. by the way? New York's "Common-sense limits" are neither common nor sensible. They are anti-constitutional, onerous, disruptive, and contrary to the interests of your average citizen. You don't agree? How many OTHER states impose those illegal infringements on their citizens? How's that "No Guns" thingie working for your citizens who have no defense against the thugs who don't obey the laws? And don't get me started talking about Chicago, and Maryland, with some of the most restrictive laws and the most unrestricted thugs!
Needless, heartless, pointless: Blood would spill, because the gun manufacturers bought friends in Congress and now in the White House, because no one had the spine to take a stand.
The Senate must.
You know, they said the same thing when Florida opened their doors to legal, responsible gun owners to carry a concealed weapon.
What really happened was ... nothing. Except crime went down, because muggers were aware that their victims might be prepared to defend themselves.
Blood will run?
Hasn't happened yet. Well, except for the blood of bandits who run unchecked when robbing businesses, and the mild-mannered customer in the corner blows their brains out before they can kill the clerk. That happens.
It's the new Cost of Doing Business for Bad Guys.
I call that a good thing.