Category: Gun control

An interesting article form Fox News detailing the Texas push for permit-less concealed carry in Texas:

Texas House moves forward with no-permit carry bill

An except from the article:

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who heads the Senate, in 2017 was hesitant of the legislation. He said in a radio interview at the time that “with all the police violence today we have in our state … law enforcement does not like the idea of anyone being able to walk down the street with a gun and they don’t know if they have a permit or not,” according to the Texas Tribune.

I wonder; how would the police know whether an individual is carrying a firearm, with or without a permit, without this new law? Stop every citizen and check?

My point is that the police don’t know if a person is carrying a concealed firearm now, so little is changed from their perspective by this new law. The same people who currently cannot get a permit would still be prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon; criminals will carry anyway, just as they always have. And the only time a peace officer would every know that a citizen was carrying a firearm – before or after this proposed law – would be during a police encounter. At that time the police could easily confirm that the individual was legally able to carry a firearm. Again, nothing has changed.

For the record: I support universal background checks (where the federal government does not maintain a database of gun owners, but instead relies on the records of individually-licensed gun dealers) and the requirement to obtain a permit before carrying a concealed firearm in public.

I support universal background checks because these can be used to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, and allows us to jail those who provide criminals with guns in violation of the law. I support concealed carry requirements because not every gun owner in America has been through a background check (many have purchased their firearms via private sales), and the permit requirement insures such a background check is performed to confirm ones legal right to bear arms before they carry a firearm in public.

I do not support the idea of open carry in public without a concealed carry permit, and even with a permit I would discourage open carry except at private events or on private property and with the consent of the property owner. I feel that the intimidation factor of open carry outweighs the potential benefits.

According to the federals charges, this guy lied on the ATF form 4473 he completed to purchase firearms (he is allegedly a user of illegal drugs, whihc makes him ineligible to purchase firearms). He was arrested and charged, and will (hopefully) not be allowed to own guns in the future.

Feds arrest armed Colorado man after remark about Boulder massacre

But what I’d like to see is the government using the same tenacity to trace the source of every crime gun, arresting anyone who illegally supplied firearm(s) to a criminal. That would do a lot more for preventing gun crime than making more rules that only law-abiding citizens will be forced to follow.

First, make rules that only apply to the ruled. Then force rightspeak onto the public, silencing any dissent. Finally, disarm any who dissent anyway. Now you’ve got control.

Farfetched? Hardly. All three steps are already in the works, and the last one is a doozy:

H.R.127 – Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

This proposed law requires a psychological evaluation before you are licensed to own a gun, the standards of which are left to the Attorney General; it could be that just wanting a gun makes one “psychologically unfit”.  The evaluation can even require interviews of current and former spouses, as well as at least 2 family members. I wonder what will happen when a spiteful ex-wife wants revenge over a bitter divorce or custody battle, or is simply anti-gun?

The law also requires a licensed gun owner to maintain an insurance policy, “…that insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person…”. It doesn’t say what limits of liability are required; I wonder what a private unlimited liability policy that will cost? The AG will issue a policy for $800/year, but with so few Americans able to handle an emergency $500 expenditure how many do you think will be able to afford to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms? On top of all this, the penalties for violating the license requirements of this statute is a fine of up to $150,000 and a prison sentence of up to 25 years – even for unintentional technical violations.

The clear intent of this law, at least to me, is to make firearm ownership so onerous and risky as to effectively gut the 2nd Amendment – all the while having exactly zero impact on criminals.

Thanks, Rep. Lee [D-TX-18]; I feel safer already.

There is plenty of evidence in state constitutions that the states wanted to maintain control over the carrying of concealed weapons in public. But does that mean they can use arbitrary standards to determine who can and cannot conceal carry (if they allow it at all), and to block open carry entirely?

Gun Groups Take Concealed Carry to the Supreme Court

I would hope that the Supreme Court would do away with the arbitrary approval process associated with “may-issue” concealed carry permit policies (permit issuance is left to the subjective review of bureaucrats), insisting that if concealed carry is allowed that a uniform and well-define set of approval criteria applies to everyone. This would effectively turn a “may-issue” policy into one of “will-issue”. However, with so much evidence existing that states sought control (via their own constitutions) over concealed carry it is unlikely to be shown that this was a right already controlled by the federal government. Coupled with the current pressure on the Supreme Court to act “balanced” (i.e.: liberal) and Robert’s unwillingness to tackle recent 2nd amendment cases, I just don’t think that the court will mandate concealed carry as a constitutional right.

 Unfortunately, this leaves the possibility of open carry as a constitutional right. This might sooth the fears of many gun rights activists, but I think it is the wrong policy to advance. Open carry is kind of stupid, in many ways:

1) It let’s the criminals know who to take out first, and could result in a shooting that would have been avoided had the perpetrators not known who was armed.
2) Many will feel very intimidated to see or speak with a person who is known to be armed, which will not help the gun rights cause.
3) I believe that keeping firearms in the public eye will make gun opponents more vocal. It will also likely sway some who are oblivious to concealed carry into the anti-gun camp simply because they are constantly reminded of the firearms in their presence.

I think the best that gun proponents can hope for is a constitutional right to open carry. That being said, I think a much better (but very unlikely) solution is a requirement that will-issue policies by used if concealed carry is allowed at all (in other words, everyone who meets the well-defined concealed carry criteria will be issued a permit with no “proof of need” or other subjective requirements).