Thursday, January 12, 2017

Not that law, THIS one

What gun laws to change? 

I am as against the over-criminalization of law as the next guy.  The proliferation of new felonies created out of thin air, and the expansion of misdemeanors and punishment for misdemeanors.  The Weaponization of the law targetting ordinary people.  For why?  To control.

Catching an selling a lobster a quarter inch shorter in length compare to this OTHER lobster?  Felony.  Picking up a feather you saw on the ground on a nature hike because it looked neat?  Eagle.  Felony.  Growing an orchid?  Where did you get THIS particular one?  Felony

And it is wrong for the feather picker upper and lobster catcher and flower grower to lose their civil right to arms forever because of a law from 1968.

I'm as small 'l' libertarian as the rest of you readers.  I agree.

But to prioritize that for change in the gun laws?  There are bigger fish to fry

We may only get a brief bite of this apple.  In 2020 Majority Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, and President Cory Booker may have run on other things, but after the inauguration of 2021 they could easily do their true priority and ram through gun bans.  We need to pick and choose now the best way to firewall against attack then.  Proper judge picks.  And legislatively we need to pass something.

Plus we may only get one or two thing before the GOP loses interest and moves on. 

Later, I don't want to say  "Well, at least people that were in jail for a year can buy a gun again.  Well, not in restrictive states, but in others!" 

Removing suppressor from the NFA so you 'only' need to NICS check to get one?  That's also small ball.  I'd trade that away to get federal pre-emption over the states, but that too can bite us in the ass.  What the Feds give the Feds can take away.  But imagine the outcry!  Some Marylander get promoted to Senate and wants to make his state type gun regs apply to the whole county?  Wyoming and Indiana and Alabama would scream!  But it could also get Constitutional Carry nationwide, too.  Eventually.  Pass a NICS check, you can carry concealed coast to coast.  And Alaska nd Hawaii.  But that's far in the future, and just skylarking at this point

The most impactful legislation is the CCW portability one.  Especially when the wording has 'permit issued by a State' in the language.  If you have to choose one law to prioritize passage, and that CAN be passed now, a hurdle to clear before concentrating on the next issue, this is the law to pass. 

What does that law give to someone living in Tennessee?  Especially a person that doesn't travel much?  The law gives them almost nothing.  The potential for greater freedom.  Because the law give that poor bastard in Hawaii a chance to get a Utah CCW, allowing him to fly to LaGuardia, and then tote about Times Square, maybe take in a Broadway show.  He can carry in Honalulu and Manhattan.  Where before he could not.  The guy in Tennessee can carry there, too, where before he could carry in Tennessee and few more enlightened state, but not all.  Now he gains all.  And less worry when he has to take a trip to visit relatives in New Hampshire, passing through Jersey, New York Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. 

Selfishly, it helps ME most, of course.  It forces Maryland's hand.  And we are surrounded by Shall Issue states.

And it moves the civil rights ball quite a bit down field.  More so than delisted suppressors.  More so than shoplifters and rattle-can-vandals getting guns.  Because it normalizes the gun culture in areas that are hostile to the culture.  Normalizing the gun culture makes it easier to pass the NEXT law.  Or repealing the next outrage.    

Anyway.  Nothing against Smallest Minority or you and whatever you want to pass first.  I just think you get more bang for your buck with the reciprocation, imperfect and federal overreachy as it is.


Drifter said...

I agree with you that we need to get our priorities straight. However, concealed carry reciprocity is, IMO, best fought in court using the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. There's no need to spend judicial capital for something already covered.

I'd rather focus on delisting supressors. That takes away a powerful arrow from the quiver of anti-gun forces who like to close down shooting ranges. That, in turn, leads to more opportunities for folks to shoot.

B said...

So,for *your* convenience, you'll trash the tenth amendment? And open that can of worms?

Are you that short sighted? That single issue?

I thought better of you.

Many places to fix in the Gun Control area that are ore important than national CCW...and more future and far reaching.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

No, the 10th Amendment is already trashed, and doesn't matter. Settled long ago. That's a whole nother fight. Outside of the scope of this one. Secure the 2nd then secure the 10th.

YOU know what the right thing is, and I know what the right thing is, but it's gonna take a long long haul to bring the Feds along on that.

Mike V. said...

National Reciprocity should be the main goal. Removing NFA restrictions on suppressors, SBRs and SBSs would be good but less important. The President and Senate's work on Supreme Court Justices can guarantee gun rights for years to come, especially if they wind up filling 3 seats.

Liston Matthews said...

You are spot-on. The 2nd was co-created with the 10th, and is equally valid, although the authour of HR 38 djid not use it, but the much abused Commerce Clause.

Here's my take:

ctdonath said...

National CCW reciprocity is a proper use of the "full faith and credit" clause. Maybe a minority cares, but that's part of the point of this country: overcoming "tyranny of the majority". It will have a lot of support, in turn facilitating a normalization of CCW on the national stage.

Suppressor legalization is a no-brainer. No reason why auditory safety should be compromised because of hysterical fears born of movie tropes. It facilitates elimination of NFA to boot. The "car muffler" analogy should work.

Eviscerating NFA would be an excellent move, but sociopolitically difficult. 922(o) with it.

The big change, which nobody considers, should be the right to KEEP arms. I own an SBR; if I move to NY (as any US citizen has the right to do), I clearly have an enumerated right to _keep_ those weapons which I lawfully obtained & own. This will require a massive Supreme Court fight, which our side should have no problem winning IF we have good lawyers do their job right. This would have the consequence of eviscerating state prohibitions on particular weapons.

So which laws? Legislate "full faith and credit" to CCW permits, and litigate "keep arms" while leveraging NFA to its own destruction. Result is normalizing both ownership & carry nationally. The remaining NICS etc can be peeled back later, having been subject to a severe blow.

David said...

You are correct. And I personally cannot believe the "gun people" who are speaking out against national reciprocity.

LarryArnold said...

There's another advantage to national reciprocity. While it's true that What the Feds give the Feds can take away, Congress will deliver national reciprocity to 15,000,000 existing licensees, and lots more people who carry in the dozen constitutional carry states, and perhaps several million more former serfs who will be able to get licenses in the eight discretionary states.
That's a whole lot of voters to think about taking something away from.