Apparently Politico does not like the new concealed-carry reciprocity law recently passed in the House. They must not like it. After all, aside from covering it in a negative light, the newser so badly misstated the law that it could easily turn its readers against the whole idea. But perhaps that’s the idea?

The law, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, would allow gun owners that have a concealed-carry license in their home state to carry their firearm in another state if that state also has a carry law in place. The law, however does not allow someone to carry a firearm in a state that does not currently allow its own citizens to enjoy concealed-carry rights.

All this law does is standardize the lawful status of interstate gun carriers so that law-abiding citizens are not confused by and in fear of violating the many different state statutes concerning their firearms when traveling.

But that isn’t what Politco said on Nov. 15 in its overwrought and badly fact-checked piece. Not only is Politico spectacularly wrong, but it leads with a false reading of what the bill does. [My bold for emphasis]

If congressional gun-rights stalwarts get their way, a firearms owner with a concealed-weapons permit issued in Utah could be allowed to carry that gun in New York — regardless of the gun laws in the Empire State.

Politico is simply wrong that the bill would allow concealed-carry regardless of the gun laws in any state.

Politico goes on to report how critics of the bill are trying to use states’ rights claims against the bill to prevent its passage. One would think that this is not a very reliable tactic in this case. After all, the Second Amendment is a Constitutional issue so it’s a bit harder to claim that all gun laws are local issues. If it’s a right guaranteed right in the Constitution, that makes it a bit hard to claim that it shouldn’t at all be a federal issue!

Another false claim of those that oppose this law is that state laws are nullified and replaced by some national concealed-carry law. This is also bunk.

Politico gives space to a New York State Attorney who claims that his state’s stricter laws on who can and cannot carry would be nullified by forcing New York to accept the concealed-carry rights of other states. But this is not a true statement.

(more…)

Yesterday evening I was on AC360 to discuss the Arizona Tragedy with David Gergen and Roland Martin. While I personally like Gergen, his knowledge of Arizona’s gun laws and invalid premises on conceal carry were a disservice to our discussion. He presupposes that Jared Lee Loughner was a CCW permit holder, and thus, right to carry failed, which, to all knowledge Loughner did not possess a permit, a violation of AZ law.

More on the role of conceal carry in a bit. I’ve seen many are making the case that just “anyone” with mental illness can buy a gun and that Arizona’s “relaxed” gun laws contributed to the Arizona tragedy because a mentally ill individual was allowed to legally purchase a firearm and we can’t just have mentally ill people buying guns. No, we can’t, which is why Arizona has a law about this. AZ law expressly states that due to their prohibited possessor stipulation, anyone proving a danger to themselves or others pursuant to court order is not allowed to purchase a firearm.

Under Arizona law, prohibited possessor are defined in ARS 13-3101 which states:

7. “Prohibited possessor” means any person:

(a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored pursuant to section 13-925.

Had campus security and his parents followed up with proper treatment and reported his actions, he, from what it sounds, would have been an easy PP and unable to buy a weapon. Had the Sheriff’s office acted upon what is suggested as their advanced knowledge of Loughner’s troubled history, they may have obtained a warrant and confiscated his firearm – or apprehended him before he bought it. Of course, this simply assumes that Loughner was only motivated to cause harm because he was in possession of a firearm and presupposes that the firearm was an accessory motivator and rules out for certain that Loughner would never have attacked anyone with, say, a knife, bat, or any other weapon.

The problem isn’t the fallacy that Arizona’s law failed – Arizona’s law, like every law, can only work if followed. Prohibited possession can only work if if troubled individuals are reported to authorities so that the existing laws can be applied to them and, in this case, prevent them from purchasing firearms.

Many are also targeting Arizona as a right to carry state, saying that concealed carry is a “loosening” of the laws and that it contributed to the AZ tragedy. I’m not sure if concealed carry records are public in Arizona, but considering that Loughner broke the law by killing people, I’m going to make a logical deduction here again and say that he likely didn’t obtain a CCW permit, either. Open carry is legal in Arizona and he could have openly carried his weapon just as easily as illegally concealing it.

As far as arguing against conceal carry, something else as well: statistically, states which adopt CCW laws see a dramatic crime reduction.

(more…)

The Ohio Free Press, an independent online news source run by liberty-minded citizens, has its sights fixed on setting the record straight and is taking aim squarely at one newspaper’s editor.

Two and a half years ago, when readers of the Sandusky Register in Ohio opened the paper on June 25, 2007, many were shocked to find their name, age and county of residence published alongside those of nearly 2,700 other law-abiding private citizens.  At the top of the page read only the title, “Sandusky County Concealed Carry List“, accompanied by a menacing graphic with the words “Conceal Carry: Who Needs to Know?” cunningly framed around a gun’s scope.  While the page offered no other content or context whatsoever, the lack of such more than set the tone.  It may as well have been headlined, “Hey – Fear These Scary Gun-Toting People.” (more…)