The NRA turns states’ rights on its head?
hiram alejandro rodriguez briceño | Wikimedia Commons
Not sure how this one will play with the 10th Amendment crowd: the NRA is pushing a federal law that would largely supersede state laws regarding state-issued concealed carry permits.
From Sally Kalson in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
H.R. 822, or the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, would force every state to honor every other state’s permit to carry a concealed gun — no matter how lax the other state’s standards. That would mean a convicted felon who can’t pass muster in, say, Pennsylvania, could get a permit elsewhere, and local law enforcement would have no choice but to let him walk around with a loaded weapon.
It’s already happened on the other end of the state, where officials want to see it stopped, not increased.
According to the Philadelphia Daily News, Marqus Hill lost his Philadelphia carry permit in 2005 after an arrest for attempted murder and other offenses. The charges were dropped, but when his 2008 appeal to get his permit back was denied, he assaulted a police officer and was convicted. Yet he was able to get a carry permit from Florida.
In 2010, Mr. Hill went outside to find three teens breaking into his car and fired 13 shots into Irving Santana, 18, killing him. He was held for trial on counts of murder and possession of an instrument of crime. His lawyer said he will plead self-defense.
The same newspaper found that more than 2,500 Pennsylvanians have obtained Florida permits, although many would have been denied in their home state. Now city officials are advocating canceling the reciprocity agreement with Florida.
It’s a good read. I’m interested to hear how Tenthers view this one!
September 26, 2011 - 2:35 PM
“H.R. 822, or the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, would force every state to honor every other state’s permit to carry a concealed gun”
Dislike.
I want to see some of our right wing folks charge in here and fuss about the federal government dictating stuff to the states instead of letting the states take care of themselves.
Couldn’t this be an issue that we all agree about even if our reasons may be different?
FWIIW #1
That newspaper story misinterprets the the bill. It is not every State. There are some exceptions in “H.R. 822.
FWIIW #2
I’m not too keen on this “H.R. 822 for a couple of reasons:
a) it is based on the “commerce clause” not on 2A.
b) it is based on the “commerce clause” not on the “Full Faith and Credit” — as is one’s driver’s license.
**
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
SNIP
**
FWIIW #3
What the Feds give the Feds can take away and restrict, far too easilly.
Let’s get our rights restored by SCIOTUS, IMHO.
@#3 DaveH
Agreed. I do not support H.R. 822, not this time, not ever.
Why not take it to the next, logical step? A federal right to carry law applied across the land.
Typo alert:
I ms-typed the acronym for the “Supreme Court of the United States” as SCIOTUS.
I should have used SCOTUS.
I found this statement curious:
“That would mean a convicted felon who can’t pass muster in, say, Pennsylvania, could get a permit elsewhere, and local law enforcement would have no choice but to let him walk around with a loaded weapon.”
A convicted felon?? Really??
Last time I checked federal law already prohibits felons from owning or possessing firearms, regardless of state.
The NRA doesn’t exactly have the market cornered on fear mongering.
Or outright lying for that matter.
This proposed legislation in one form or another has been kicking around congress for many years. Typically, it dies a quiet death in committee because it’s obviously got a billion issues and would be in effect for about three seconds before someone got an injunction against it. It is the pro gun control equivalent of the UN treaty that the NRA is crying about; it’s a boogeyman, it has no chance of being passed.
Next, Dan obviously did not the slightest checking into the background of the story he quoted. Ms. Kalson is by implication either incompetent or lying. From her piece: “According to the Philadelphia Daily News, Marqus Hill lost his Philadelphia carry permit in 2005 after an arrest for attempted murder and other offenses. The charges were dropped, but when his 2008 appeal to get his permit back was denied, he assaulted a police officer and was convicted. Yet he was able to get a carry permit from Florida.”
First off, since the initial charges were dropped, he should have had his permit reinstated. Now we get to the “assault” on a police officer. Sounds pretty cut and dry, right? Except he was only convicted of disorderly conduct, which is usually not a felony. The reason Hill got a Florida permit was that the Philadelphia Police have for years flaunted the state’s shall issue policy and held up or suspended permits, often for ridiculous or no reasons (including parking tickets). Here’s an article about them confiscating legally owned and carried weapons from licensed security guards: http://articles.philly.com/2010-08-31/news/24974423_1_city-cops-philadelphia-cops-security-guards
All of this is beside the point though. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be against this bill, which is why it has no chance of ever passing. It does trample states’ rights, it does force states to accept differing standards, and perhaps worst of all, it gets the federal government more involved in concealed carry and that is something I and many other gun rights people do not want to deal with.
Re: #9
Jason,
The anti-RKBA press seldom let the facts get in the way of their…
[Now what did Scott Whitaker call it in the other thread? Oh yeah!]
…their mantra of fear mongering, emotional pandering and repeated innuendos.”
.
.
Yes Dan. Enlighten us please. Which state currently issues concealed carry permits to convicted felons?
‘That would mean a convicted felon who can’t pass muster in, say, Pennsylvania, could get a permit elsewhere, and local law enforcement would have no choice but to let him walk around with a loaded weapon’.
Dan pushes so hard to discredit those that believe in the 10th that a little fib on his part should be overlooked, right Dan.
I’m frankly dismayed that Dan would label this piece a “good read”. Good lord, even Dan knows that convicted felons are banned from possessing firearms.
Apparently fact-checking isn’t a high priority at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. How can you praise a column whose premise is based on such a blatant factual inaccuracy?
dan backs up what he deems as fact…lol..learn how to use a weapon and your fear will subside
http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm
“Under federal law, those convicted of a felony are forbidden from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives. Yet as the result of a 1965 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons were allowed to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for “relief” from the “disability” of not being able to buy and possess guns. The “relief from disability” program was established as a favor to firearms manufacturer Winchester, then a division of Olin Mathieson Corporation.1 In 1962 Olin Mathieson pleaded guilty to felony counts stemming from a kickback scheme involving Vietnamese and Cambodian pharmaceutical importers. Under the law as it existed at the time, Winchester could no longer be licensed as a firearm manufacturer. The “relief from disability” program allowed Winchester to stay in business.”
Apparently the NRA is working hard to get guns back in the hands of felons. And it seems some are allowed to own guns.
And from reading a bunch of stuff after Googling, there are states where your civil rights can be “restored” after conviction of a felony, making it possibly to once again own a gun legally.
#15 I have a friend who was convicted of a felony (selling marijuana) back in the 1970s in Virginia and had his right to own a gun restored.
I have a Florida concealed weapons permit and coninue to renew when it comes due every five years. I lived in Florida for 20 years while in the service and chose to get a permit there because so many states (over 30 last time I checked) recognize it (it’s called reciprocity). States do not have to do this, but so many do because Florida’s requirements for a concealed weapons permit are as strict or more as their own requirements. They all check for felony convicions and criminal records thru the same system. So, NO! if you are a conviced felon in one state you should not be able to get a ccw in another state. Just another example of the anti-gun nuts lies. I have not read this HR-822, I need to and will, but it sounds like the NRA is trying to get some kind of standard nation wide, especially in the states that want to forbid people from exercising their GOD given right of self defense. When I travel I have to research the states I will be traveling thru to make sure I follow their laws, sometimes stupid laws. Our rigths are being threatened daily by this administration, and on this issue they are trying to take our rights away thru the United Nations, so more people need to stand up and vote the bums out!!!!!!!
@#15 “And from reading a bunch of stuff after Googling, there are states where your civil rights can be “restored” after conviction of a felony, making it possibly to once again own a gun legally.”
Not all felons are what you would consider dangerous people. Heck, you could write a bad check to Walmart and be convicted of a felony (if the amount is high enough)….that doesn’t mean you’re a danger to society.
I lose no sleep worrying that someone who committed a non-violent crime might get their rights restored.
And cases of non-violent felons getting their rights restored are not what Ms. Kalson was talking about. She was trying to imply that the proposed bill would somehow allow convicted rapists and murderers to walk around with guns (her chosen example of how had “already happened” was someone who had been charged with attempted murder). That’s a blatant lie, and should never have made it to print in any respectable newspaper. Even in an opinion column.
@#16
I hope he also had his right to vote restored. I’ve never really seen the logic in taking away someone’s right to vote….not voting while in prison is one thing, but once you’ve served your time, what purpose does losing that right serve?
@#14
pammala, with all due respect, please shut it.
VTHokie, I think felons should have their right to vote restored once their time is up. I actually think they should have all their rights restored, otherwise what’s the point in putting an end to the punishment?And how can they be called “inalienable rights”?
A right is a right is a right.
#19 I agree with you, VT. And, yes, he also got his voting rights restored. Virginia should most definitely loosen up on that one.
#20 We’ve been trying to get her/him to shut it for ages, VT. No use. Shel/he is here to show his/her rear end and nobody will take that away from him/her.
@#21 I think the right to vote should be restored without question. Gun ownership….eh, I don’t know. It is a constitutional right, but at the same time, if you were in prison because you committed a violent crime against another person, I don’t think we should be right off the bat be selling guns to you, especially since sometimes they walk out of prison and immediately seek out a person to exact revenge on, be it the judge or prosecutor in their case, or the woman who had them charged them with rape and attempted murder, or whatever. I don’t lose sleep over the guy who had a drug possession charge, or the guy who bounced a $1000 check, but if you have attacked another human being, I think that it is sufficient to say you have demonstrated that you deserve to have the right to legally possess a firearm revoked.
On the other hand, I think rape and murder should carry life sentences, no exceptions, so that would take care of that problem right there. Kinda hard to visit the gun store from behind bars.
Felons with hidden guns getting drunk in bars and shooting the place up are scary. Thanks slot NHRA.
“Thanks slot NHRA.”
Shirley Muldowney is packing heat?
NHRA? National Hot Rod Association? Shows what some of these anti-gunners know. And usually they don”t know the difference in semi-automatic and fully-automatic eiher.
“And usually they don”t know the difference in semi-automatic and fully-automatic eiher.”
Kevin W, I’ve found that’s typically by design. Certain people and organizations go out of their way to blur the distinction. And rather try to dispel any misconceptions that the public may have about different types of guns, or how they work, or the laws regarding such, they perpetuate these misconceptions to their advantage.
BTW, someone needs to call Dick and Dave at Q99 and gently let them know that a gun underneath a car seat cannot spontaneously just go off. I heard one of them suggest that on the radio around 6pm this morning.
Upon re-reading my previous post, I should clarify I am talking about the front seat of the car, not like a child’s car seat. Yikes.
Given the talk about felonies being different from one another, did you know that in Texas there is now a situation where it is a felony to steal an aluminum can — or a penny?
http://tinyurl.com/3n7v887