"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 10th 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.