Category Archives: Gun Rights

National concealed carry reciprocity

Posted on by

I’m a little surprised by the stiff resistence put up by the bigots on the Thune Amendment. Here and here are just two of many, many examples of PSH.

I’m also a little surprised our side hasn’t been defending a little stronger or that the bigots don’t realize what they are setting themselves up for.

How is this any different than states having different criteria for marriage and divorce. Some states allow people to marry as young as 14. Others don’t. Some states require blood tests or waiting periods. Others don’t. Yet each state must recognized the marriage licenses of all the other states.

How is this any different than states having different criteria for drivers license?

And don’t both sides realize that nearly the same arguements can be used by the other side if the discussion was about homosexual marriage?

If the anti-gun Democrats were smart they would agree to vote for it if homosexual marriage licenses were recognized nationwide as well. Sort of a poison pill for the more conservative types.

I think that would make the fights far more interesting. Popcorn anyone? I think Roberta has some.

Constitutional law advice for Sotomayor

Posted on by

Bitter and Sebastian has been pointing out just how bad nominee Sotomayor is on the right to keep and bear arms. This is probably the most damning.

She does not want to admit that people have a right to self-defense. She is smart enough to know it is a slippery slope to the acknowledgment of the right to keep and bear arms if she were to admit that. The British have learned that lesson sliding down the slope in the other direction–if there is no right to keep and bear arms then there is no right to self-defense.

Alan Korwin gives Sotomayor some pointers on what the U.S. Supreme Court has said about self-defense. It’s not a question mark at all. The conclusion:

The Supreme Court has recognized, addressed and answered all the most fundamental questions about self defense. The idea that they have never addressed this core American issue is completely false, as the numerous cases clearly demonstrate.

SKS assault type rifles

Posted on by

After reading the press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office one might be inclined to agree the guy was a risk to society. The prosecuting attorney was able to convince a jury the guy had been previously convinced of one or more felonies and was found in possession of one or more firearms. I don’t necessarily agree with that law (for example: certain consensual sexual acts have been, and may still be, considered felonies) but it is the law. What really bugs me about the press release is what they say the guns were:

According to testimony at trial and records in the case, on August 23, 2007, the Skagit County Sheriff’s Office High Risk Team executed a search warrant at THOMPSON’s house in rural Skagit County. They seized eight firearms, including one that was in a holster in THOMPSON’s wheelchair. The eight guns were two SKS assault type rifles, a Winchester .243 caliber semiautomatic rifle, a Colt Woodsman .22 caliber semiautomatic pistol, a Davis Industries .380 caliber semiautomatic pistol, a Ruger Blackhawk .357 caliber revolver, a Browning .32 caliber semiautomatic pistol and a Reck .22 caliber revolver.

The emphasis is mine.

Only in a few states has the SKS been considered an “assault weapon” and never, to the best of my knowledge, has the law ever declared an SKS to be an “assault rifle”. And since this was a Federal prosecution Federal law should control the definition. The SKS wasn’t even considered an “assault weapon” let alone an “assault rifle” under the now obsolete “assault weapon ban” of 1994.

The U.S. Attorney’s office appears to be attempting to demonize an ordinary semi-automatic, constitutionally protected, firearm.

I sent them the following email:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:22 AM
To: ‘Emily.Langlie@USDOJ.Gov’
Subject: Skagit county felon sentenced to prison for illegal gun possession.

 

I am a blogger focusing on guns and gun rights. My blog can be found at https://blog.joehuffman.org/.

 

I just read the press release I found here. I was rather annoyed at something I saw in the press release. The SKS rifles found in Thompson’s possession are described as “SKS assault type rifles”. The Attorney’s office almost certainly knows the 1994 Federal law defining “assault weapons” and banning certain firearms never included SKS rifles and even if it had that law is no longer in effect. Furthermore “assault rifle”, as opposed to “assault weapon”, has a very specific meaning to the U.S. military and the SKS rifle does not qualify as an “assault rifle”.

 

I can only think of three possible explanations for the U.S. Attorney’s office to use incorrect terminology. This terminology is always used in a derogatory fashion.

 

1)      The U.S. Attorney’s office has an agenda above and beyond the enforcement of Federal law—demonization of a constitutionally protected activity.

2)      The U.S. Attorney’s office is ignorant of U.S. firearms law.

3)      The U.S. Attorney’s office is careless with the facts.

 

All of these potential explanations are very discomforting to me as a gun owner. Could you please provide a correction and/or explain why an SKS rifle was described as an “assault type rifle”?

 

Thank you.

 

Joe Huffman

Update: I received a response from the public affairs person:

From: Langlie, Emily (USAWAW) [mailto:Emily.Langlie@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:38 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: Skagit county felon sentenced to prison for illegal gun possession.

 

Mr. Huffman –

I have attached the trial brief that I used to draft the press release.  You will note on page 2 a list of weapons found at the home.  The first two read as follows:

A. One SKS assault type rifle with wood stock;

B. One SKS assault type rifle with synthetic stop and a pistol grip;

 

I am not a lawyer, nor am I a gun expert.  I summarize the court proceedings for the general public who do not, in general, have the narrow focus that you have reading our press releases.  The defendant was prohibited from possessing ANY of the firearms because he is a convicted felon.    I simply described them as they are described in court papers. 

 

None of your three explanations are correct.  I will forward your email to the attorney who tried the case and wrote the trial brief so that he is aware of the distinction that you are drawing regarding these firearms.

 

 

Emily Langlie

Public Affairs Officer

United States Attorney’s Office

Western District of Washington

(206) 553-4110

My response (trial brief is here):

From: Joe Huffman 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:32 AM
To: ‘Langlie, Emily (USAWAW)’
Subject: RE: Skagit county felon sentenced to prison for illegal gun possession.

 

Thank you for responding and forwarding it to the attorney who wrote the brief.

 

Reading the trial brief actually makes the situation worse. I thought perhaps there was some carelessness in the translation from the court papers to the news release. But that is clearly not the case. It also provides further evidence that the attorney and/or his experts are either ignorant of firearms or careless.

 

Item B.  One SKS assault type rifle with synthetic stop and a pistol grip.

 

The correct word is “stock”, not “stop”.

 

From reading the brief it sounds as if the attorney may have merely replicated data from the Sheriff’s office. In which case the primary error would have been made by them and only propagated by the U.S. attorney.

 

I understand that any firearm possessed by Thompson would constitute a criminal act and I’m not saying the type of firearm or how it is described would, or should have, changed the outcome of the trial in any way. I am concerned by the language the attorney is using. Using the term “assault” in regards to an ordinary firearm in common usage is similar to calling someone a “nigger” when the color of their skin is irrelevant to alleged crime. It shows a disrespect or ignorance for existing law or a prejudiced mindset.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my concerns.

 

Regards,

 

 

Joe Huffman

Quote of the day–Kevin Baker

Posted on by

You, Mr. Rubin, are fertilizing that weed with the manure you published in your “irrefutable” column.

Kevin Baker
July 20, 2009
Refuting the “Irrefutable”
[Kevin also uses the word “bigot” three times in his post which made me smile a great deal because Kevin listened to my little speech about that a few years ago.

Closely related is that for todays QOTD I was quite tempted by Robb Allen who said, “The other side has emotional appeals, a complete lack of facts to back up their assertions, and an appalling lack of apostrophes. We have Kevin Baker.”–Joe]

The rest of the story

Posted on by

As we in the gun-rights community have often noted the anti-gun people have to cheat to win. Here is another attempt to cheat:

In Walt Whitman’s political tract, “The Eighteenth Presidency,” an attack on the dreadful state of American governance in 1856, he trained his sights on the “nominating dictators” of American political life. “Who are they?” he asked. The answer:

“Office-holders, office-seekers, robbers, pimps, exclusives, malignants, conspirators, murderers, fancy-men, post-masters, custom-house clerks, contractors, kept-editors, spaniels well-trained to carry and fetch, jobbers, infidels, disunionists, terrorists, mail-riflers, slave-catchers, pushers of slavery, creatures of the President, creatures of would-be Presidents, spies, blowers, electioneerers, body-snatchers, bawlers, bribers, compromisers, runaways, lobbyers, sponges, ruined sports, expelled gamblers, policy backers, monte-dealers, duelists, carriers of concealed weapons, blind men, deaf men, pimpled men, scarred inside with the vile disorder, gaudy outside with gold chains made from the people’s money and harlot’s money twisted together; crawling, serpentine men, the lousy combings and born freedom sellers of the earth.”

Emphasis in the original.

What the bigot didn’t mention is that the open carry of weapons was perfectly normal and acceptable at that time.

Update: After reading a comment to this post I realized I was easily misunderstood. When I said “Here is another attempt to cheat” I was referring to Mike Beard who wrote the post I linked to. Not Walt Whitman. Beard is saying people that want to carry concealed weapons have long been regarded as low-life. Beard failed to tell the rest of the story which does not match his agenda. I don’t have a problem with Whitman saying what he did because the culture was such that open carry and weapon possession in general was just fine. It was the concealment that was considered a problem. Beard wants to create a culture, and has largely succeeded, where weapons possession in general is a mark of a low-life and attempts to obtain support from history for his position.

Too sarcastic?

Posted on by

As I noted this morning James Higham in the U.K. is challenging the utility of gun bans. I chimed in with a somewhat sarcastic comment on his blog:

CherryPie said, I don’t agree with arms in our own homes that is the thin end of the wedge and would lead to complete lawlessness.

That is an interesting hypothesis. Can you demonstrate where this has actually happened?

My experience has been that when a gun has been put in the hands of an individual they are no more or less law abiding than they were before the gun was in their hands. I’ve even put a gun in the hands of a guy from England to test the hypothesis that Brits can’t be trusted with guns. I didn’t really believe that hypothesis but I thought I should test it because apparently the British government believes it to be true.

He took a few shots then then told me, “It’s just a piece of metal! I thought I would be nearly overcome by a sense of power. But it’s just a piece of metal.”

Yup. Just a piece of metal. And he was no more inclined to shoot someone than he would have been inclined to hit someone if the piece of metal had been the shape of a hammer or to cut someone if the metal was in the shape of a knife. A similar experiment with another Brit yielded similarly benign results.

I admit it’s a very small sample size but at this time I’m disinclined to believe the presence of firearms in British homes represents a greater risk of lawlessness than does the presence of knives and/or hammers.

Perhaps you have access to some data which I do not and can share it with me.

Was I too sarcastic? Not enough? Or was it just about right?

And I thought I was rebellious

Posted on by

I pay cash for nearly everything I can. Rent and utilities for the underground bunker in the Seattle area, and most of my gasoline, ammo, guns, and range fees are all paid for with cash.

I don’t hesitate to call people advocating gun control bigots or say they have mental problems.

I encouraged Barb to keep her own name when we got married (which she did). And that was nearly 33 years ago when it was far less common than it is now.

I advocate pushing the limits of what is acceptable and pushing buttons in people. I challenge people to make them think and to slow down the encroachment upon our freedoms.

I’ve started open carrying in certain places.

But a fellow Idaho resident makes me look a bit pathetic in my timid attempts at rebellion. See how she handled the marriage license and the SSN. I’m proud she lives in the same town as I (sometimes) do.

Quote of the day–James Higham

Posted on by

There was a time when it was not necessary to defend oneself in this country of ours. There was a time when an Englishman’s home was his castle. There was a time when a Briton wouldn’t dream of being armed.

That time has passed.

James Higham
July 20, 2009
[defending ourselves] the time has come
[James lives in the U.K. and is saying the gun and self-defense bans aren’t working and it’s time to change things. It is a little more timid than I would (and do) approach the subject but perhaps that is more appropriate when dealing with these people.

James uses several of the references I provided via email (and blog post). He also quotes Just One Question and my Jews in the Attic Test. Thanks for the links James.

So far the comments are essentially neutral. Perhaps people are thinking about it rather than just lashing out. If so, then perhaps there is hope for them yet.–Joe]

Quote of the day–George Rengert & John Wasilchick

Posted on by

Only 13% of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Household Burglary, BJS BULL. at 4 (1985). Criminologists attribute the prevalence of daytime burglary to burglars’ fear of confronting an armed occupant; burglars report that they avoid late-night home invasions because, “That’s the way you get yourself shot.”

George Rengert & John Wasilchick
Suburban Burglary: A Tale of Two Suburbs page 33.
(2nd ed. 2000)(study of Delaware County, Penn., and Greenwich, Conn.)
[This disincentive goes away if the victims have been disarmed. In fact it then becomes beneficial to “visit” when the victims are present so they can obtain wallets with cash, credit cards, and the combination to the safe.–Joe]

For our fellow freedom fighters in the UK

Posted on by

I received a request for help from James in the UK. Here was my response (actually sent in two pieces, but combined here):

I would like to suggest you follow the links in the post Just One Question. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed a number of studies and was unable to conclude gun control made people safer. That review, and the studies they looked at, are probably the most reliable data points.

The following links are not to statistics. The CDC study would be the best reference I have for that.

I don’t have it but I think this book would be very useful:

http://www.joyceleemalcolm.com/books/guns_and_violence

I’ve read a few excerpts and it seemed quite good.

This might also be worthwhile:

http://www.joyceleemalcolm.com/books/keep_and_bear_arms

For more background and potential ways to approach the problem take a look at these:

https://blog.joehuffman.org/?s=%22James%20Kelly%22&submit=Search
https://blog.joehuffman.org/category/places-without-guns/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/britain-is-capital-of-crime-says-us-tv-channel-715251.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Good luck!

Update:

Gun control also violates my Jews in the Attic Test.

Quote of the day–Howard Nemerov

Posted on by

Don’t like Jews or Catholics? Hitler disarmed them and then murdered millions in concentration camps, along with Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.

Hate Christians? After Uganda banned guns, 300,000 were rounded up and murdered.

Don’t like “smart” people? After banning guns, Cambodia rounded up and murdered over one million of them.

Hate people who disagree with you? After the Soviet Union established gun control, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

By comparison, the Second Amendment has actually saved millions of lives. It also protects your right to religious freedom, your pursuit of happiness, and your opportunity for upward mobility. It raises the cost for thugs who want you rounded up and murdered.

It also shows that anybody who is against the civil right of self-defense is a person who hates your life, liberty, and happiness.

Why would you want to be disarmed before such a person?

Howard Nemerov
July 16, 2009
Does civilian gun ownership cause bloodshed?
[Just a friendly reminder of the costs of weapon restrictions. And can you tell me again–just what are the benefits?

I have to conclude the people advocating weapons restrictions are either ignorant or consider the costs listed above are actually benefits. Since information is so readily available the ignorance is willful hence no matter how you look at it such people are contemptable no matter how they arrive at their position of restricting the private ownership of weapons.–Joe]

He’s really on our side, right?

Posted on by

Sometimes “The Gun Guy” is so far out that it’s like a caricature. But he’s further out than I could portray even if I tried. Case in point:

If the gun lobby gets its way in Congress, the following scenarios might become all too real:

  • You’re visiting an elderly family member at the hospital when you see a gruff man in the parking lot adjusting his loaded and deadly handgun in his belt. You inform the nurse that there is a dangerous and armed man outside and the nurse informs you that it is “legal” for the gun owner to carry a concealed weapon only steps away from the hospital entrance.
  • You’re walking through the park with your kids on a sunny day eating ice cream when you see two men pull up in a dark SUV. As you walk by, you see them take two handguns out of the glove box and stick them in their jackets. You immediately call 9-1-1 to inform the police that there are armed men in a park with families and children, but the police tell you that unless their is cause, the armed men are perfectly legal carrying deadly weapons in family-friendly locations.
  • You’re at a coffee shop sipping your latte when you see a woman with a handgun casually tucked inside her purse chatting away on her cell phone and says she’s from out of state. You’re terrified at the sight of the weapon knowing that children are present. You ask an employee why loaded handguns are allowed at a coffee shop and the barista says that the owner still hasn’t posted a sign explicitly prohibiting carrying concealed weapons and therefore it’s permitted.

A gruff man with a handgun is known to be dangerous? “A gruff man with a handgun” describes a fair number of police officers.

He puts quotes around the word legal? It’s currently legal in nearly all states. So what is his point? The proposed law wouldn’t make the described scenarios any more or less legal.

Armed men in the park? I’ve done this more times than I could count and I know lots of people that do it. It’s currently legal in nearly all states. So what is his point?

Women at a coffee shop with a gun in her purse–and his point is? Oh, yeah. He’s terrified.

If he were talking about blacks or homosexuals that way it would be virtually impossible for him to get or keep a job. But since it is gun owners he is talking about he gets paid by the Joyce Foundation to spew hate at such a ridiculous level it’s difficult to not believe it is a deliberate farce.

Either Scott Vogel is conning the Joyce Foundation or he is really wacko. I’m really not sure which.

Managing Us Verses Protecting Our Rights – mutually exclusive concepts

Posted on by

This is for J H.  He and Joe were discussing statistics related to gun restriction in comments here.

This line of argument, taken by itself, is to say nothing of human rights, the right to live being most fundamental and the right to self defense going hand in hand with the right to live.

If we are to leave out any discussion of rights, and focus purely on how people get injured or how they die in accidents and crimes as a means of determining and justifying laws, then we’d start by banning the wheel.  Swimming pools, access to rivers and lakes, etc., and stairs would be ahead of guns in private hands as a focus of legislative restriction.  Somewhere in between would be legal restrictions on unprotected sex and leaving the home while ill.  But that would be government thinking of the people in the same way that a farmer thinks of his cattle.

It is when we look at guns in the hands of governments that we find mass death, numbering in the tens of millions, and there you find the primary purpose of our second amendment– defense or deterrence against tyranny, or more to the point it should be seen as defense of human rights by those who hold those rights (we the people).  Who then should look at whom as property?  Keeping our servants in government (our cattle) properly de-horned is, historically, the more important concern if we are to have any sort of owner/property relationships with one another.

Once we’ve accepted the Nanny State as the ideal form of government, all bets are off anyway, and arguing figures and statistics alone is to fight the battle on your enemy’s chosen ground.  Even being wrong in their figures, your enemy has won by deciding the terms of battle.  People are in fact injured and killed through the use of or involvement with guns in private hands.  That is a fact.  Hence the Nanny State will find an excuse to restrict them if that’s what they want and if they feel safe in doing it.

The true winning argument is that the state has no legitimate jurisdiction over any behavior or possession that in itself does not violate the rights of other people.  If I have a gun in my pocket I haven’t violated any other person’s rights by that fact alone.  If I haul off and smack someone at random in the head with a baseball bat, it is not the fault of the state for allowing free, un-restricted access to baseball bats.  It is I who would have committed a crime by violating the rights of another person, for which I would rightly be held accountable.  In attempting to restrict generally the access to baseball bats as a result of my crime, the state would be perpetrating tyranny by way of making victims out of innocent persons.  We call that sort of behavior “prior restraint”– restraining someone in some way prior to them having threatened or done anything wrong to anyone.

It is well and good to point out the stupidity of arms restrictions, and how their effects are virtually always counter to the stated goal of making people safer, but those issues are a distant secondary to the issues of human rights.  Otherwise we’d be confiscating automobiles, banning certain sports, et al.  Without human rights as the fundamental principle guiding our policies, the totalitarian state is an inevitability.

Quote of the day–Phil

Posted on by

Oh, sure, they say they’re doing it for folks with paralysis, but you know and I know that just as soon as they are able, GE is going to build a primate powered MechWarrior.

I wonder if SCOTUS will see the logic in rocket launchers as self-defense weaponry then?

Phil
July 15, 2009
Forget Zombies
[Don’t forget destructive devices. I’m thinking about 2000 pounds of Boomerite would be about the minimum acceptable charge.–Joe]

What do facts have to do with belief?

Posted on by

Kevin asks, How Can People Still Believe This?

It’s easy, just because something is irrational doesn’t mean you don’t have to believe in it. Or so says one high school teacher.

Ayn Rand says it’s because philosophy isn’t taught. Or at least the philosophy that is taught, mostly indirectly, has been total crap. Philosophy, she said, is vital to humans. When we have crap for philosophy we make crappy decisions and this person is just one example of many with crap for brains.

Quote of the day–Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Posted on by

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. Furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just wait for next year’s model.

Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Computer Networks, second edition, page 254
[While at the gym this morning I watched Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing for a few minutes. When she started talking about court precedents in regard to the 2nd Amendment I was reminded of Tanenbaum’s quote.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Dale L. Gillis

Posted on by

It is distressing to see that the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Program will be part of the Highlands County Library’s Youth Summer Program. This was mentioned in Highlands Today on July 2.

The NRA is a lobbying organization dedicated to putting more guns in the hands of criminals. As a lobby group, the NRA twists the facts when it uses them at all. The NRA often sues cities and states to advance its radical program. How did the NRA get to be considered a harmless organization that should have access to our libraries and our children?

Dale L. Gillis
July 13, 2009
Gun safety among children
[“Dedicated to putting more guns in the hands of criminals?” I guess that is why they have they have the support of four million members, right? And that is why two thirds of the states Attorney Generals support the NRA lawsuit against Chicago.

“Twists the facts when it uses them at all?” See projection.

Gillis is just another bigot.–Joe]

What’s the real reason?

Posted on by

Sometime in the mid ’90s Alan Gottlieb spoke to the Microsoft Gun Club (now called the Gun Club @ Microsoft) and I asked him, “From the evasive words they use it’s clear the anti-gun politicians know gun control doesn’t make people safer. So what is the real reason they advocate more gun control?” He answered, “It depends on the politician. Some want to change the culture to one of dependence on government. Others just hate guns. And we have sometimes joked that because of the high number of criminals in his district Chuck Schumer was just voting to protect his constituents.”

Perhaps it wasn’t really that much of a joke. Apparently the intent of the Sullivan Act was to protect the criminals:

New York state Sen. Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, represented New York’s Red Hook district. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. In order to protect themselves and their property, travelers armed themselves. This raised the risk of, and reduced the profit from, robbery. Sullivan’s outlaw constituents demanded that Sullivan introduce a law that would prohibit concealed carry of pistols, blackjacks and daggers, thus reducing the risk to robbers from armed victims.

The criminals, of course, were already breaking the law and had no intention of being deterred by the Sullivan Act from their business activity of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended. It made their life of crime easier.

As the first successful gun-control advocates were criminals, I have often wondered what agenda lies behind the well-organized and propagandistic gun-control organizations and their donors and sponsors in the United States today. The propaganda issued by these organizations consists of transparent lies.

By advocating more gun control Chuck Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy are just continuing the fine tradition of New York politics.

Mexican gun runners

Posted on by

If people can’t be trusted to not sell guns to the drug dealers in Mexico then the government should take all the guns away from those type of people. A case in point:

An F.B.I. agent in El Paso has been arrested and charged with dealing guns, some of which ended up being used in gunfights between the authorities and drug dealers in Mexico, law enforcement officials said. The agent, John T. Shipley, was indicted Wednesday on charges he dealt firearms without a license for more than two years, buying the weapons from dealers on the Internet and then reselling them to unidentified buyers. Mr. Shipley sold more than 50 weapons, the indictment said. Some were recovered after shootouts between the Mexican Army and drug dealers in Chihuahua on March 8 last year that left seven dead, officials said. Mr. Shipley, who was released on bond this week, has been suspended without pay since March 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said.

What could possibly go wrong?

Posted on by

I was talking with a pro-gun lobbyist recently and he suggested a possible solution to a weakness the bigots are trying to exploit:

Under the proposed legislation, to carry concealed weapons people need only meet the minimum requirements of federal law to possess a gun, be permitted in their home state to carry a concealed weapon, and abide by a state’s concealed carry location restrictions. For example, Alaska allows adult residents to carry a concealed weapon without a license, background check, or training as long as they are allowed to possess a gun under weak Alaska gun laws – even if they have committed repeated violent misdemeanors or have committed misdemeanor sex offenses against minors.  This legislation would force the other 47 states that allow concealed carrying to allow many Alaskan violent misdemeanants to carry concealed guns in their state, even if a state completely bans gun possession by such persons.

This same sort of thing is why Nevada stopped recognizing Utah carry permits.

His proposed solution would be for states to create a two tier concealed carry license system. Tier 1 would be whatever the State thought was appropriate for their need. If that was a lifetime permit, no training requirement, and you had a detectable pulse, then fine. Tier 2 would have a set of requirements which was the union of the most stringent requirements of all the other states. Hence if Nevada required four hours of training, and Texas required eight hours (pulling numbers out of the air) then the training requirement for a tier 2 CWP from State X would be eight hours. Similar things for other requirements on license duration, age restrictions, etc.

This could be a win for both people that want to carry and the state that issues the tier 2 permit. You would have to get just one permit to carry in all the states that recognize out of state permits. And the state would be in a position to have a decent revenue stream because they were “selling a valuable product”.

Is there a downside to this scheme? Sure, the 2nd Amendment should be my carry permit. But we aren’t there yet. But this would be one step closer to being able to carry nationwide with far less effort. When you can and do carry in all states we can then more easily demonstrate the bigots are just blowing smoke and we can work on reducing the most onerous restrictions in the unfriendly states and making “tier 1” in the friendly states be “Vermont Carry”.

Is there some unintended consequence that might come out of this and come back to bite us?