That Ain't Right

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the people to obtain a permit to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That can be the only explanation for the title of this bill:

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (h/t SayUncle).



" 'This operates more or less like a driver’s license,' Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the second-ranking Republican in the upper chamber, told The Hill. 'So, for example, if you have a driver’s license in Texas, you can drive in New York, in Utah and other places, subject to the laws of those states'."

Ah yes, so the privilege Right to carry would be respected just like the Right to drive, which I believe is found in the 28th amendment. 

Of course, the NRA supports this bill:

"The National Rifle Association endorsed the bill Thursday, calling it a 'much-needed solution to a real problem for gun owners.'
'The current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home,' said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
'Our fundamental right to self-defense does not stop at a state's borders. Law abiding citizens should be able to exercise this right while traveling across state lines,' Cox added." (emphasis added)

The notion that the laws are confusing and treacherous for a traveler is correct. Also correct is the reasoning that a person has a Right to self defense, and to be able to own and carry the tools thereof. Beyond that it looks as if A: they don't know what the hell they're talking about, B: they do know what they're talking about but don't think their audience does, or C: Squealer has been at it again.

If the patchwork of laws is too confusing (which I'd argue it is) then the solution is to add yet another layer of law on top of it? That's like opening an electrical panel, observing there are too many wires, and then proposing to solve the problem by adding another conduit full of wires.

"Law abiding citizens" he says? Well we can't let "the wrong people" have Rights - why, what if one of them was crazy? 

The solution is simple (which is distinguishable from easy I'll grant): enforce the damned Constitution. The laws various states have that make it illegal to own or possess weapons are unconstitutional.

A Right is something that no one should justly interfere with. Having a permit or a license is a privilege, or an entitlement, not a Right. If the state "allows" you to do it, they don't treat it as a Right. And let us not forget, sisters and brethren, what man giveth man can taketh away.

Rousseau led to Marx and Keynes and Stalin and Mao and Hitler and Pol Pot and just about any serious democidal actor in the last few hundred years. That's because Rousseau felt that Rights were a product of the social contract. When 51% could make or unmake a Right then everythign was fair game. Property Rights were jettisoned along with any pretense of morality and voila! 170+ million dead in 100 years.

Locke reasoned that Rights were a product of Natural Law. Nature, Creator, whatever the source of the law of gravity, according to your beliefs, was the same source of Property Rights, which are the same as natural Rights or Human Rights. Locke's work leads to the conclusion that Rights were the reason for a social contract, not a result of it. Governments were formed to protect those Natural Rights, not to dole them out or withhold them as they saw fit. 

Thus it's particularly damaging to confuse terms. A Right is not being able to get a permit. A Right is being able to do something with no one being able to justly interfere with you doing so. Constitutional Carry would be the enforcement of the Right, not the extension of a privilege. The Right to Carry has nothing whatso-freakin'-ever to do with getting a permission slip from any government; it's being able to carry without having to have a permission slip to avoid being persecuted by government.

Where gun owners have always gotten their ass kicked was in language. The other side distorted terms, giving a false impression and used that deception to confuse folks into supporting their agenda. It's just as damaging when gun owners are the ones mucking up terms and giving the anti's the leeway they want to push us further to the back of the bus.

I don't agree with the idea that we must take small steps in the general direction in order to regain recognition of our Rights. But fine - if you think that national reciprocity is the thing to do at least stop mis-using the words "Right" and "Constitutional". If not in a generation or two a real life Squealer, or enough to form a quorum and majority, may re-write the 2nd amendment just as it appears at the beginning of this post.

(As an aside, but an important one, I don't trust government. Nor do I trust Boehner, McConnell or either party for that matter. I'd watch this closely to make sure no amendments were tacked on, like say a Federal Universal Background Check law that would make it "harder for Obama to veto".)