Representative Adam Smith on reciprocity

Almost a year ago I wrote my U.S. representative in Congress encouraging him to support concealed carry reciprocity. Here is his response:



A couple of things stand out. The first is that he says:

The responsibility of carrying a concealed handgun is massive, and ensuring the safety of the public at large by requiring background checks and training should be an absolute minimum.

People who have a Washington State concealed pistol license, CPL as it is called in Washington, should see something jump out at them over this.

Washington State doesn’t have a training requirement. Hence, if this were a problem, Smith should be able to show that Washington State CPL holders have more firearm accidents or engage in more illegal shootings than people from other states with a training requirement. No such data exists. Probably because it is so rare that such a thing happens.

I have to conclude that Smith was just rationalizing the decision he had already made.

Next, a twofer:

I will continue to advocate for putting policies in place that protect our children and communities while maintaining the rights granted by the Second Amendment.

His opposition to reciprocity is for “the children”! How many children in this country are shot each year by people with concealed carry licenses? My guess it is very close to zero. I’ve never heard of it happening. And I’m pretty sure the anti-gun people would make sure the mainstream media know about it. The same goes for someone with a concealed carry license shooting up a community. It has to be very rare. The data shows that, in Texas, compared to the police they are 10 times less likely to commit a misdemeanor or felon and over seven times less likely to commit a firearms violation of some sort. Other states show similar low rates.

Again, this has to be rationalization for his decision rather than rational thought to arrive at a decision.

“Granted by the Second Amendment”? This is a common “misunderstanding” but I expect my representatives in Congress to be informed. My guess is that there is a good chance this was deliberate rather than ignorance. It should be clear if you actually read the Second Amendment that it references a preexisting right rather than granting a right. This was made all the more clear in U S v Cruikshank:

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…

It is long past time for me to start educating my representative.

Update: I sent him an email:

In a letter you sent me on March 17th of last year you made claims which are not supported by, and/or are contrary to, the available evidence regarding people with licenses to carry concealed firearms and the Second Amendment. The full details are in my blog post here: The short version is that since Washington State does not require training for a concealed pistol license those opposed to reciprocity between states regarding licenses and claiming training “should be an absolute minimum” should also be able to point to evidence showing Washington State concealed pistol license holders are more prone to misuse of their firearms. To my knowledge no such evidence exists.

Furthermore using this criteria to oppose the law adversely affects the civil rights of residents of Washington State when they travel to states that will not issue licenses to Washington residents. Blocking reciprocity has a lesser impact on the rights of people of other states who can easily obtain Washington licenses for their travels to Washington State. You are acting against the interest of your own constituents by taking this stand.

Please read my blog post and reconsider your stance on this important civil rights issue.

Thank you.


Joe Huffman


7 thoughts on “Representative Adam Smith on reciprocity

  1. It seems to me that the CONgress remains dysfunctional, uneducated and dangerously malevolent.
    I recommend that their First Amendment “Rights” be restricted until they are able to prove both knowledge of, and adherence to, The Constitution they have sworn to uphold.
    This is the worst example of the employees telling the owner how to run the business.
    As a Representative Republic we deserve competent and obedient representation.

  2. Your representative does not want to be “educated”. Like the vast majority of congresscritters your rep knows EXACLTY what the Second Amendment says and EXACTLY what it means. The problem is that upholding the Second Amendment makes the exercise of blunt naked raw power difficult at best. And
    the ONLY thing that matters to politicians is power. That is why they seek office and why 99+% of them seek reelection. While many of the sycophants and followers on the left are abject morons it is not wise to assume that the leadership these brain donors worship is also mentally deficient ( although there are some exceptions like Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Hank Johnson etc who do have trouble walking and chewing gum simultaneously). Most of the liberal communist left in power are of at least average intelligence and most have an innate lust for power that cultivates a feral cleverness that should never be discounted.

  3. No true right is “granted” by any Earthly authority. A true right, as it says right there in the Declaration, is “endowed by [the] Creator”.

    If you need a license for it, or to pay a fee, or if you are presumed to need permission, it’s certainly not being treated as a right, and thereby (by the mere presumption) that right is under attack. That manner of attack is similar to the imposition of poll taxes and “literacy tests” of a few generations ago (and by the same movement that most strenuously opposes liberty today, I seem to recall). No doubt those imposing these infringements today are as convinced of their own righteousness as were those who enacted the poll taxes and segregation laws, and just as wrong, which is why we have a Bill of Rights– Weak as it may be, it’s a barrier against that kind of personality.

    The tactical fear mongering regarding the mere possession of guns is so far out of place it would be laughable but for the fact that this is a serious issue of human rights. We travel on two-lane highways at closing speeds of up to 130 MPH for but one example (65 each way for those unfamiliar with numbers), mere feet apart, with no barrier in between, and we do this every day, trusting thousands of strangers to avoid killing us, and rarely even think of the “deadly menace” just outside our car windows. Suddenly when it’s a gun, we’re supposed to get all scared, like little bitches, fidgety, angry and hateful, and lash out at gun owners as though they’re all criminals or have no regard for the safety of others.

    There’s a specific name for all of that, and that name is “bigotry”.

    By the way; “criteria” is plural for “criterion”. You use “that criterion” or “those criteria”. That misuse, the use of “media” in singular form, and the “double is” (e.g. “what he’s doing is is he’s playing politics rather than upholding his Oath to The People” [often contracted to “is’s”]) are to be at all times avoided. I now think of such usages, or tics, as “litmus tests” of a sort, evidence that someone may be engaging in “group think” (regurgitating implanted ideas out of a desire for allegiance) rather than truly thinking. The latter two (“media” as singular and the double “is”) have become rampant in our lifetimes, propagating with especial virulence throughout the political/media classes who, if they were half as educated and half as wise as they seem to believe, would be more careful with the language. My apologies for being unable to avoid noticing.

    • Thanks for the corrections on “criterion”, etc. I’m going to leave it since that is what I sent.

  4. I have a Nevada CCW permit (training sort of required) and a non-resident Washington one. Apparently, I am more dangerous in WA than I am in NV. And when I am in WY which recognizes both permits, I must be schizophrenic.

    • I wonder what he’d say about me, in NH, where the Constitution is honored as all the permit I need.

      • A heretic, ignoring “authority” (his “authority” to tell you right from wrong).

Comments are closed.