National Right to Carry And Its' Opponents From Within

"Much of the self-righteous nonsense that abounds on so many subjects cannot stand up to three questions: (1) Compared to what? (2) At what cost? and (3) What are the hard facts?" —Thomas Sowell

 The Union Leader's Mark Hayward features a front page story today entitled, "Activists: Feds’ bill would lead to gun control". The thesis of Hayward's article is that two activist are against the bill because it gives the federal government a toe-hold into states' rights and is a pretext to arbitrary national gun control.

 The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, HB 822, passed in the U.S. House yesterday and enjoyed strong support. The intent of this legislation is to allow law-abiding citizens with a concealed-carry permit in one state to carry concealed in states with similar systems. Obviously, the bill must have some strong support because Charlie "the RINO" Bass is a co-sponsor.

 Yet my good friend and esteemed fellow gun advocate Representative J.R. Hoell opposes the bill.  J.R. asserts, "The federal government will then want a photo ID for concealed- carry. Then a microchip Real ID card."  J.R, the feds already want that, irrespective of "how" or "who" regulates guns. And numerous attempts at nationalizing gun registration, gun control, microstamping of ammunition, suing gunmakers, the assault weapons ban and any other novel, unique or creative trick, dreamed up by the pablum-puking, ant-gun liberals has already dawned within the halls of our congress...irrespective of this legislation.

 But I do not discount or dismiss J.R's reasoning...To be sure, one (or many) of those anti-gun liberals may (or will) seize this legislation as an opportunity to try and do the very things J.R. warns of here. For that very reason we cannot underscore the principle enough that electing responsible people to do the right thing is paramount to our liberties.

 I respect J.R.'s assertions here, but to simply do nothing is not an proactive alternative. One cannot simply do nothing based on a bunch of suppositions. Moreover, name one aspect of our lives that the Federal government has not attempted to monkey around with?  Violation of our 10^th Amendment protections is not only a way of life for the federal government, but a factor in proposing legislation. It is for that reason we must undertake the arduous task of pushing back, piece by piece, aspect by aspect.

As for the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police and their leader chief  Robert Wharem, feel free to dismiss them out of hand because that organization reflects only a handful of flatlander chiefs who come here from other places like New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts by virtue of their employment and do not reflect the community cultures they serve.  The majority of New Hampshire Police Chiefs focus on law enforcement and the needs of their communities, not leftist liberal activism we see today.

 I whole-heartedly support this bill. There are times when I need to slip down across the border to the People's Republic of Massachusetts, but cannot do so because I have a loaded handgun. If a New Hampshire citizen who exercises his or her right to carry goes to the Pheasant Lane Mall, there is a section of the parking lot there that one cannot legally drive upon because it lies in Tyngsborough, MA.

 As a general rule, going to Massachusetts is problematic, not withstanding a firearm. Before crossing state lines I am also given to surveying the interior of my vehicle top to bottom for the wayward brass shell casing under the seat or on the floor so that I am not committing the crime of having reloadable components in my vehicle. But that is another topic for another day.

 I travel to Pennsylvania frequently to visit my daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren. I do bring a handgun with me. But because I have to travel through the People's Republic of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York State, I am resigned to having the handgun unloaded, locked in a case, and stowed away in my luggage. In Pennsylvania, I can carry just like I do here in the Granite State as PA gun laws are nearly identical. The only variable that has changed on my trip is the fact that three states between NH and PA have uber-restrictive gun laws. My intent and use have not.

 National Right to Carry is good law. But like any other good law, it has its opponents. First there is the anti-gun left who will oppose it for obvious reasons. Second, there is the so-called "pro-gun" advocates who will oppose it based on some perceived arbitrary faux expansion of federal authority. The "do-nothings" who have virtually the same net effect as the anti-gun left.  Third, the  "Fiscal Pedantics" who oppose the legislation because it has nothing to do with taxes or fiscal policy, and, finally, the "Congressional Patricians" who will vote based on how much love they get from liberals.  But groups that can always be counted on are the opponents within.

CROSS-POSTED

Comments

[Harold]

Rick;

The enclosed was forwarded to me. It is authored by Dudley Brown, Executive Director of ‘ The National Association of Gun Rights’. This indicates The NRA’s Bladder is leaking, again. Rick, you and I are in lock step regarding arms, I emphasis arms not firearms. On this post we drift apart slightly. Either you or I don’t fully understand HR 822. I’ll reiterate all laws that restrict arms are illegal. Very possible I can’t read and understand, but I haven’t read anything pertaining to licensing or permitting in Article 2a or 2nd. Amendment. You and every other citizen have the right to travel (God given Right). That means with any type of arms for protection of self or state. Any LEO that advocates infringement of arms is in an Oath violation. You would expect Bass and Guinta to favor this bill, they also voted for the Un Patriot Act, which calls for confiscation of arms and suspension of Habeas Corpus. Haven’t read HR 822, basing my position on The National Association of Gun Rights’ newsletter.
Apologized, for the copy and paste

Harold

I was right to be concerned.

Not only was H.R. 822 -- the Trojan horse gun control bill -- passed out of the House of Representatives this evening, it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.

Only 7 Republican Members of Congress stood against federal overreach in the concealed carry process by opposing this bill (you can see how your Representative voted here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml).

The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly “pro-gun” Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits.

You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to “verify” out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress “must” create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders.

One of my biggest concerns about this bill -- the lists of gun owners a permit process creates -- should send shivers down your spine: Imagine Eric Holder and the BATFE with a national database of concealed carry permit holders.
It’s bad enough to have those lists exist at a state level. Once Eric Holder and his cronies find a way to request that list from a state, they’ll do it -- all the in the name of “implementing H.R. 822.”

The legislation now moves to the Harry Reid-run Senate, where companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the coming days. I have no doubt that the anti-gunners in the Senate will use this as an opportunity to make H.R. 822 even worse.

What troubles me most about this battle is the institutional gun lobby has been leading the charge for this legislation. In fact, they’ve been brow-beating Members of Congress who dare to question the consequences of passing such a broad, overreaching piece of legislation.

Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI-03) fought back against the institutional gun lobby for its support of H.R. 822:

"It's remarkably bold of the National Rifle Association to send out false and misleading messages regarding H R 822, an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing. I would support legislation that gets the federal government out of the way of states that want to recognize other states' concealed carry permits. In contrast, H R 822 will hurt gun rights by conceding broad new authority to the federal government to override state sovereignty.

Gun rights advocates have fought hard to prevent liberal abuse of the Commerce Clause that would restrict gun rights... I am disappointed that the NRA has decided to put its own interests ahead of the interests of gun owners. Fortunately, many other gun rights groups rightly oppose H R 822."

Please call your Senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you want to keep the
government’s hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.

Thank you for taking action to keep the federal government out of the concealed firearms permit system.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director

The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens' organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights' mailing address is P.O. 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is www.NationalGunRights.org/

[Rick Olson]

Harold,

While I agree with the spirit and intent of your assertions, I am also one of many not willing to sit in the slammer based on a personal principle. Like rolling out of bed and cleaning up cat throw-up, I do nt like it, but I do it...Likewise, I agree with you that the Second amendment speaks nothing to licensing, but how far is one willing to go to press that point. The framework of my support for HB 822 rests in the fact that, like it or not, we have these laws. And despite these laws, national right to carry bill furthers the liberty of citizens.

[Kurt Martin]

I'm cautious about letting the Federal camel's nose into our State tents, but that's not as bad as the status quo. I have a Georgia carry permit (had one for 20 years except the few years I lived in NY, and I had an unrestricted carry permit in NY, too!). But Georgia doesn't have reciprocity with enough states. I suppose I could get a Utah or Florida permit and add a few more, but the bottom line is that if the Second Amendment includes a right to carry, it has been DESTROYED by many states under their laws. I'd rather Congress get involved and remove this huge infringement now, and take a chance that later this legislation will be used to add more restrictions and conditions on carry. But right now I simply cannot carry in so many states, the current situation is intolerable.

[dave]

If they can regulate the right to carry in the states, they can regulate the right to not carry. It's like the 14th amendment that was used to outlaw slavery. It was one of first times the Feds, through the Supremes decided that the Federal government could tell states what to do on an issue. Since then the 14th has been used to justify multiple other interferences with the states on the precedent that it was done once for slavery so it can be done again and again for other things. Let's work harder to convince states to accept reciprocity.

[Harold]

Dec. 2, 2011

Greeting;

Update from National Association of Gun Rights. I included the web address, for this article had a picture of Sheriff Sullivan with Bob Dole together. Just have to love it when corrupt people get caught in their own web. Sheriff Sullivan’s web is being held in a jail named in his honor. Some how, somewhere we have to take our rights back, it will be a slow process. I do find using Barry Goldwater’s quote appropriate while we debate HR 822 and Rick is very proud of the quote.

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” ~Barry Goldwater

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/brady-bunch-sheriff-a-meth-dealer/


Brady Bunch Sheriff a Meth Dealer
Posted on December 2, 2011 by NAGR Staff
You know what they say about absolute power corrupting absolutely…
One of the reasons I am so opposed to the government being involved in your Second Amendment rights is that it takes the power away from you and puts it in their hands.
In the hands of people like the former Republican Sheriff of Arapahoe County, Colorado, Patrick Sullivan.
Sullivan made a habit of helping out groups like the Brady Campaign when it came to preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
He even testified before Congress for Handgun Control in favor of the Brady bill.
During his 18-year tenure as Arapahoe County Sheriff, Sullivan was a poster boy for big government and was bestowed the title of national “Sheriff of the Year” in 2001 for his efforts at infringing your rights — even at a national level.

Whenever she needed him, Sarah Brady trotted out Sheriff Pat Sullivan as a token Republican who wanted to impose gun control on America — and it worked.
Our nation still lives under the insidious scheme of the Brady Act (which, incidentally, violates the Constitutional prohibition of infringing on the right to keep and bear arms). It is the cornerstone of most gun controls.
Sheriff Sullivan was also famous for trying to buy off local Colorado gun rights activists with a “buddy” concealed carry permit (when permits were almost impossible to acquire).
In 1995 Sullivan offered me a permit, attempting to buy my inactivity in the battle for concealed carry in Colorado.
It didn’t work. I literally told Sheriff Sullivan where to stick his permit, and continued to force a change in Colorado’s law.
On Tuesday Sullivan was arrested for dealing meth to a man for… Well, let’s just say it was for things I would rather not repeat.
That’s right; a power-hungry sheriff intent on taking your freedoms turned out to be a drug-dealing, male prostitute-seeker.
Former Sheriff Sullivan is now sitting in the Patrick J. Sullivan Jr. Detention Facility. That’s right. He’s sitting in the jail named for his honor.
And this is the kind of person the Brady Campaign champions and uses to testify as an “expert”?
I would like to tell you that I’m shocked, but you’re smart enough to know better.
This is why I am always skeptical of any politician who seeks more control, not less.
They are out for personal gain and they will get it at your expense.
In the case of Sheriff Sullivan, I can personally say I’ve witnessed him trampling on your rights for years.
Sheriff Sullivan was one of the main obstacles to passing concealed carry in Colorado.
Yet apparently the anti-gun crowd thinks men like this should set a standard for who can own a gun and who can’t.
While this may be dismissed by some as just another corrupt cop, the fact is that he has been personally involved in the fight against your Second Amendment rights.
And he was successful at it.
It’s a pure travesty of justice that a man like Sullivan could be given such authority to prevent you from your own rights, but without standing up to power, it’s like I said at the beginning — it corrupts.
I make it my pledge to you, the gun owner, to stand up against jack-booted thugs like Patrick Sullivan at every turn, regardless of position or party affiliation.
Are you with me?
For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director

P.S. The gun-grabbers are everywhere, and somebody has to keep their eyes on them. The National Association for Gun Rights is working day and night to keep gun owners like you up-to-date on the latest threats to your Second Amendment rights