- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Guns
23 State Attorneys General Would Rather Please NRA than Enforce Law
By Dennis Henigan
Lining up public officials in support of legislation is standard fare for interest groups advancing their agenda on Capitol Hill.
But the letter signed by 23 state Attorneys General in support of the National Rifle Association’s bill to nationalize concealed carry of handguns suggests that, for those public officials, pandering to the gun lobby is far more important than doing the job they were sworn to perform.
Call me naïve, but I had always thought that a State Attorney General had a solemn duty to enforce the laws of his/her state. Apparently some Attorneys General recognize a “gun law” exception to that obligation.
The legislation supported by the “Gang of 23,” the so-called “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act” (H.R. 822), would force states to recognize the concealed carry permits of visitors from other states, even if the permit holder could not have qualified for a permit from the state he/she is visiting. Under this bill, Congress would be barring states from enforcing their restrictions on concealed carry against out-of-state visitors. In other words, the considered judgment of a state legislature that certain restrictions on concealed carry are required for the protection of the public would be nullified by H.R. 822. I would have thought these Attorneys General, as the chief law enforcement officers in their states, would want the authority to enforce these laws.
To give an example, Montana law provides that persons are not eligible to carry concealed weapons if they have been convicted of certain violent misdemeanors, such as unlawful restraint or sexual assault. Under H.R. 822, Montana could not enforce this eligibility requirement against permit holders from other states who have been convicted of those crimes. One would think that Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock would be interested in preventing sexual predators from bringing their concealed weapons into his State, but his signature appears on the letter supporting H.R. 822, asking Congress to prevent him from enforcing his state’s own laws.
It is true, as the “Gang of 23” letter points out, that many of the 23 states already have inter-state agreements recognizing the validity of certain out-of-state permits. But these are agreements the states themselves have chosen to enter into with other states. Under H.R. 822, Congress would force the states to honor the permits issued by every other state. “Reciprocity” would be a matter of federal mandate, not state choice. In effect, by supporting H.R. 822, these Attorneys General are telling the Congress: “Our elected officials cannot be trusted to make the right decisions about who should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in our state. Please make those decisions for us.“
Who are some of the people allowed to legally carry concealed weapons under the permissive laws of various states? Florida gave a concealed carry permit to George Zimmerman, even though he had been subject to a restraining order and had been involved in an altercation with the police. Had Florida’s concealed carry laws not been so weak, there is every reason to believe that Zimmerman would not have had a gun when he encountered Trayvon Martin that fateful February night and that the teenager would be alive today. A better name for H.R. 822 would be the “George Zimmerman Act,” in recognition of the mayhem it will cause to allow people like George Zimmerman to carry their hidden guns across state lines.
Now we have disclosures from Florida law enforcement that violent drug gangs in Miami are making sure some of their members obtain concealed carry permits to allow them to be legally strapped in public. The Zimmerman Act will be a godsend to the Hell’s Angels and other violent gangs with well-developed interstate operations.
The Zimmerman Act has passed the NRA-controlled House of Representatives. Similar bills, one sponsored by Senators Vitter (R-La.) and Thune (R-S.D.) and one sponsored by Sen. Begich (D-Alaska), are pending in the Senate. Nationalizing concealed carry remains the gun lobby’s top legislative priority, though the Trayvon Martin shooting finds the NRA laying low for the time being. There is no better time than the present for the “Gang of 23” to rediscover their obligations as the law enforcement leaders of their states and put their duty to enforce their states’ laws above their obeisance to the leaders of the NRA.
As for now, they should be ashamed of themselves.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan’s Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter













Comments
I've asked this question on
I've asked this question on many sites but have never gotten an answer:
Only the truly delusional believe that by denying all law-abiding citizens their US Constitutional “right to keep and bear arms”, all weapons can be eliminated, thus creating a safe Utopian society. If they are not delusional, then what is the real purpose of these anti-gun, anti-concealed carry, anti-2nd Ammendment organizations and the Democratic Party?
Criminals don't give a crap
Criminals don't give a crap about laws, hence the meaning "criminal" correct me if i'm wrong. also aren't drugs like meth and cocaine illegal and yet people still get them? Would people like this advocate illegalizing pharmacy drugs? cause god knows we have to illegalize everything that's dangerous, this is pretty much the same, your trying to illegalize something that people enjoy shooting, collecting, buying for self defense when it's the illegal crap your conviently turning your heads from, not the people who go through all the nessary steps to get what they want, if i was a criminal, and i had to buy weapons, i sure woulden't wait no waiting period and for a background check.
But go ahead, keep advocating Brady Campaign, criminals already get more then they deserve in the justice system, why not open our doors and give em everything we own also? not like we need money, the tvs we worked hard to buy, the gaming systems we enjoy with our family and friends that took a few paychecks to buy, not including any damage like broken doors, broken windows, but hey, feel better! guns are illegal :)
It is my opinion that States
It is my opinion that States that do not recognize every other State's Concealed Weapons Permits are in violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution and in so doing are also violating the right of the people under Amendment II of the US Constitution to “keep and bear arms”. The Federal Government has an obligation under Article IV, Section 1, and Amendment XIV, Section 5, of the US Constitution to enforce the interstate recognition of Concealed Weapons Permits. H.R. 822 is intended to correct those States non-compliance with the US Constitution. Failure to enforce that interstate recognition of Concealed Weapons Permits is a failure of our elected representatives to fulfill their obligations under their Oath (or Affirmation) of Office taken in accordance with Article VI of the US Constitution.
I have written my Senators on my support of H.R. 822, which passed the House of Representative on November 16, 2011 by a vote of 272 - 154. On November 17, 2011, H.R. 822 was then referred to the Senate, where it was received, read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. As of this date, there are no hearings or actions scheduled for H.R. 822, even though it passed the House with a significant bi-partisan majority and deals with an issue regarding the failure of States to adhere to the US Constitution and as a result, deny US Citizens their Constitutional Rights. Since that time 2 more Bills, S. 2188 and S. 2213, have been introduced in the Senate and also referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where they also sit with no hearings or actions scheduled. It appears to me, given the membership of this Committee and the past history of the majority of members of the Democratic party, that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary is sitting on these Bills with the intention of never allowing a vote on any of them. This is not what we elected our Senators to do!
I, for one, will no longer tolerate the practice of burying legislation so that our elected representatives do not have to cast votes which then becomes a matter of public record. Given that this practice has continued far too long and has now become the normal, I will now consider every instance of a non-vote as a NO vote in my consideration of both individual and party voting history for future elections. We, the people, deserve to have all issues voted upon so that we can see if our elected representatives are, in fact, representing their constituents and the US Constitution rather than some party position that, in this case, is indefensible and contrary to both law and fact. I expect the Senate Democratic caucus to do everything to have H.R. 822, S. 2188 and S. 2213 moved from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and brought to the Senate floor, without amendment, for a vote. Failing that, any one Senator may circumvent any Senate committee through the Senate's Amendment procedures whereby the entire text of a Bill can be added as an amendment to another Senate Bill. Given these options available to each and every Senator, I will further consider a non-vote as a NO vote by both the individual Senators (whether they are a member of the offending Committee or not) and by the majority party of the offending Committee, even if a Bill never comes to the floor for a vote. I will no longer allow my elected representatives and their political party to hide behind procedural gimmicks in order to obscure their performance and their true intentions.
Since the Brady Bunch have so
Since the Brady Bunch have so much trouble in understanding the 2nd amendment, it stands to reason that they couldn't understand the 10th as well. Full faith and credit you idiots. It's hypocisy at it's most visible for a group to claim support for state rights while they try to pass numerous federal laws that require all states to follow them.
"It's hypocisy at it's most
"It's hypocisy at it's most visible for a group to claim support for state rights while they try to pass numerous federal laws that require all states to follow them."
I couldn't have said it better. It's interesting that gun nuts and other conservatives are always screaming about state rights and how the federal government should move aside to give more power to the states except when they want the federal government to overturn states rights to self regulate. If South Carolina wants to allow assault rifles gun nuts insist that the federal government has no right to interfere with the state laws. If New York wants to try to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals gun nuts insist that the federal government overturn their state laws.
So, do you believe that regulation is best handled by the state or the federal government? If you believe that the federal government should handle regulations then this bill they're pushing would make sense. If you think that states and localities should be allowed to handle their own regulations because government should be closer to, and more accountable to the people then you should be against this bill.
The logic here is getting a
The logic here is getting a bit twisted and not by the states rights people. First, I doubt that you can be rational when you start by labeling people who disagree with you as "gun nuts and conservatives" and treating that as a bad thing. I will refrain from responding to your point of view as being owned by "bed-wetting communists".
Second, if the federal government has a purpose beyond defending us from our enemies, foreign and domestic; it is to stop usurpers from perverting the rights of the people.
The special relationship between the people and firearms is that the Federal Constitution, that each state agreed to support, contains this matter of a Second Amendment that affirms and insures the right of individuals (taking the same meaning of people as provided in the First Amendment) to "Keep and Bear" arms. Firearms are included in that definition. As referee, the Federal Government has an obligation to the people to insure that they may keep and bear their arms as they choose. In no way does this infringe on the rights of states, it just limits the tantrums of petty dictators like a certain Mayor in New York City.
Not a valid arguement. You
Not a valid arguement. You see 2nd amendment rights apply to the states and it is a federal responsiblity to ensure that the states don't infringe on constitutional rights. In fact, this bill doesn't go far enough becuase it doesn't require Illinois to honor valid out of state permits. This allows the state to continue to deny constitutional rights to US citizens. Not just citizens of it's own state.
There is a confusion between
There is a confusion between rights and authorities here. The whole state's rights concept flows from the 10th amendment, which reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The meaning is: the federal government has no authority over anything not specifically granted to it by the constitution. Examples would be education, wages, medical care and many other topics.
The second amendment recognizes a fundamental right possessed by the people rather an authority vested in either the states or the federal government. Neither New York nor South Carolina, much less the federal government, has regulatory authority over fundamental rights.
As was made clear in the 16th amendment, fundamental rights of the people recognized in the bill of rights must be respected by the states as well as the federal government.
As a consequence, neither the state nor federal governments may infringe on the rights of the people enumerated in the bill of rights - no government can lawfully regulate arms, the practice of religion, the exercise of free speech or any of the other rights free people possess.
Comment deleted.
Comment deleted.
Although your argument and
Although your argument and your facts are completely correct, the Ammendment number is incorrect.
It was the 14th Amendment, section 1, (not the 16th) that made it clear that the fundamental rights of the people recognized in the bill of rights must be respected by the states.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Then section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave the US Congress the power to enforce the all the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
See more info on the 14th amendment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/
Thanks for the correction.
Thanks for the correction. Sorry for my faulty memory.
Take away the protection of
Take away the protection of the victims to provide the criminals a definitive upper hand. Oh yeah…that makes sense. Isn’t this what the British did? They took away our weapons to prevent an uprising against their tyranny. Isn’t the government disarming its population just another form of tyranny and suppression? We are allowed to be armed citizens. It is our constitutional right. It is our right to decide that a government has become too large and suppressive. It is not a government for the politician’s, by the politician’s. It is not a government for the lobbyist’s, by the lobbyist’s. It is a government for the people, by the people. When that government starts making up its own rules and manipulating our constitutional rights, it is our right to say as armed citizens, no more, we will not stand for it. The current licensing laws in many states are ludicrous rendering them unconstitutional. Yet we abide by them. All we ask is that we need not jump through hoops to practice our constitutional rights over borders within our great country.
"violent drug gangs in Miami
"violent drug gangs in Miami are making sure some of their members obtain concealed carry permits"
And your solution to this is to disarm the people who would be victims of violent gangs?
Don't you realize if you disarm the victims, the gangs will still be violent criminals?
Besides, the first time these
Besides, the first time these drug gang members get convicted of a crime related to their gang membership, there goes their permit.
And I'm sure that will be a
And I'm sure that will be a great consolation to the victim they shot.
There is already a provision
There is already a provision allowing current and retired local and state law enforcement officers to carry concealed on a national basis.
This bill would merely extend that ability to licensed civilians. States that have enacted concealed carry licensing have all experienced the same phenomena:
1. Prior to passage of such laws, the Brady Campaign and others of that ilk sound the alarm, claiming blood will run in the streets and gunfights will break out over parking spaces if civilians are licensed to carry concealed weapons.
2. After passage of the laws, no such carnage ensues.
It will be no different on a national level when, inevitably, this bill or another much like it becomes law. No carnage will ensue.
The Brady Campaign becomes increasingly irrelevant year by year.