It Is A Shame When Sad Pandas Have To Lie

As might be expected, the Brady Campaign released a statement yesterday condemning the passage by the House of HR 822 – the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. The statement is replete with plays to emotion, the parsing of language to create the wrong impression, and at least one outright lie.

Let’s look at the first part of the statement.

Washington, D.C. – Just hours after Gabby Giffords spoke publicly for the first time and shared her painful but remarkable story of recovery from being shot in the head, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would force states to allow dangerous, violent and untrained gun owners from out-of-state to carry loaded, hidden guns in virtually every state.

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, H.R. 822, is the first major gun bill taken up and passed by the House since the January 8 Tucson shootings and is an affront to victims of gun violence everywhere, especially those who have lost their lives and been wounded since the Tucson tragedy. The bill the Brady Campaign has named the “Packing Heat on Your Street Act,” passed despite concerns about overriding states’ rights from moderate Democrats and some Republicans.

The battle over the legislation now moves to the U.S. Senate.

“This legislation is so dangerous that it would trample a state’s ability to set its own rules and training requirements concerning who carries loaded, hidden guns in public and override basic state possession laws setting minimum age limits to possess handguns,” said Dennis Henigan, Acting President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “It’s deplorable that the first major gun legislation passed by a house of Congress since the Tucson shootings is one that would make it easier for the Jared Loughners of the world to pack heat on our streets and in our communities. It’s deplorable that they did this so soon after Gabby Giffords shared her remarkable and moving comeback story. She and all gun violence victims deserve better from Congress.”

As we see, the Brady Campaign goes straight for the emotional heartstrings. It brings up the image of a recovering Gabby Giffords – who by the way supports gun rights – to denigrate this bill. They call it an affront to “victims of gun violence”. They call forth the image of the deranged Jared Loughner as the image of the concealed carry permit holders nationwide. The same person who, if both school officials and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dubnik had done their duty properly, would not have been eligible to purchase a firearm.

They then move into parsing their language.

Under H.R. 822, people with violent arrest records and gun owners with no training could be granted a concealed gun permit in one state and carry in almost any other state. Local law enforcement officials would be powerless to stop it.

National and state law enforcement organizations, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police and Major Cities Chiefs Association, strongly oppose the measure because more loaded, hidden guns in more communities will undermine public safety. So do 34 national faith-based organizations that make up the Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence coalition.

An arrest for any crime is not the same as a conviction for a crime. However, the Brady Campaign tries to make it seem that an arrest is the same as a conviction.

They then speak of law enforcement groups such as the IACP and the Major Cities Chiefs Association opposing this bill without ever saying these groups have well-known anti-gun agendas. It gets even worse when they bring up Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence without saying that they themselves helped found this organization!

Finally, they resort to outright lies and distortions about HR 822.

The Brady Campaign and other gun violence prevention groups have warned that H.R. 822 is an even more dangerous bill than when it was originally proposed, thanks to an amendment sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) that passed the House Judiciary Committee in October. The amendment overrides a state’s authority to enforce its basic limitations on gun possession on concealed carriers from other states even if they are ineligible to possess a handgun in the state where the carrying occurs.

For example, under Tennessee law, Tennessee residents with concealed weapons permits may be prosecuted for violating the state’s law forbidding handgun possession by people “while under the influence of alcohol.”

Under the version of H.R. 822 that has now passed the House, this same prohibition would be unenforceable against someone with a concealed carry permit from another state who is caught with a gun in Tennessee while intoxicated. The prospect of a concealed weapon permit holder being arrested while armed and intoxicated is hardly fanciful, since the state legislator who championed Tennessee’s law allowing guns in bars was arrested recently for possessing a handgun while under the influence.

“We’re now calling on the Senate to consider the serious implications of supporting such a law.” Henigan said. “The American people are counting on you to keep their families and communities safe from gun violence.” The Brady Campaign has identified three key reasons that the “Packing Heat on Your Street Act” would undermine the safety of American women, children, men, and our communities.

The legislation would override state laws, forcing states that have tight restrictions on who can get concealed weapon permits, such as New York and California, to allow gun-toting people from states, such as Florida, which repeatedly have given dangerous people licenses to carry.

The legislation forces states to allow untrained, out-of-state visitors to carry loaded, hidden guns, even though studies repeatedly have shown that laws making it easy to carry concealed guns do not reduce crime, and, if anything, increase violent crime.

The legislation forces states to allow out-of-state permits, even though state concealed weapon licensing systems operate under different rules, apply widely varying standards, ultimately endangering law enforcement officers and the general public.

Section 2 of HR 822 explicitly says the possession or carrying of a concealed weapon – with the exception of the eligibility to carry or possess – is subject to the same limitations that a resident of that state would be under.

`(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

Thus, a resident of North Carolina visiting New Jersey would be subject to the same rules and regulations as a resident of New Jersey. The only difference is that the North Carolinian wouldn’t have had to been kidnapped like New Jersey resident Jeffrey Muller in order to have been granted a permit to carry.

There have been no reputable studies done that show any increase in violent crime as a result of shall-issue concealed carry. Any study done by gun control advocates such as the Violence Policy Center doesn’t count as a reputable study. Indeed, if anything, there is a negative correlation between murder and other violent crimes and the level of gun ownership nationwide. Linoge has done two very rigorous studies on this.

The Brady Campaign needs to just give it up. They can’t even lie convincingly anymore. Moreover, as Bitter pointed out on Twitter yesterday, none of the Representatives voting no on HR 822 said it was because of the Brady Campaign. They have become sad pandas indeed.

Four NC Democrats – It Is Good Enough For Them But Not For You

Section 22 of North Carolina Session Law 2011-268 – House Bill 650 provides universal reciprocity to any out-of-state concealed carry permit by the State of North Carolina. This was passed by the General Assembly on June 17th and signed by Gov. Bev Perdue on June 23rd. It goes into effect on December 1st.

Just as the Mecklenburg Declaration predated the Declaration of Independence so, too, does HB 650 predate HR 822 – the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. By approving universal reciprocity, the North Carolina General Assembly has granted the law-abiding citizens of other states who have gone through their state’s concealed carry permit process the right to carry in the Tar Heel State.

So why do four Congressmen from North Carolina want to deny North Carolinians the same rights and privileges that we have granted visitors from other states?

That is essentially what Rep. David Price (D-NC-4), Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC-1), Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC-12), and Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC-13) are saying with their votes against HR 822. They think it is OK if someone from New York or Massachusetts or California comes to North Carolina and carries concealed with their state’s permit but we North Carolinians, rude country bumpkins that we are, should not be allowed to carry there because it might upset the anti-gun regimes in those states.

Sean pointed the hypocrisy of the Mayor of Carrboro objecting to HR 822 while North Carolina had granted universal reciprocity a few weeks ago. It is obvious that these four are of the same sort. 

Oh, they will disagree with this characterization but it is what it is – a kowtow to gun prohibitionists like Mayor Bloomberg. Fortunately, three other NC Democrats – Shuler, Kissell, and McIntyre – not only voted for HR 822 but were co-sponsors. So too were all the Republicans in the North Carolina delegation. I plan on sending each one of those nine a nice thank you note.

HR 822 Passes First Hurdle

HR 822, the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, passed a hurdle today when the House approved H. Res. 463 by a vote of 271 to 153. House Resolution 463 provides the rule under which the debate will be conducted, any amendments that can be considered, and other procedural issues. All bills have a rule before they are considered for final passage.

Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 822 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. The resolution waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, now printed in the bill. The resolution waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report.

There were a number of Democrats who voted for H.Res. 463 along with all the Republicans that were present. There were no Republicans who opposed this resolution.

In the Rules Committee, they voted 8-3 along party lines not to allow an “open rule” for HR 822. An open rule would have allowed amendments to be offered from the floor of the House. By not approving an open rule, the Rules Committee made sure that opponents could not keep proposing an endless number of amendments in order to delay the bill. Moreover, it also means that the bill will be clean without the proposed amendment from some Illinois reps which would have allowed concealed carry in both D.C. and Illinois which do not currently have concealed carry.

The 10 amendments that will be considered during debate on HR 822 all come from those opposed to it. Given the number of Representatives who voted for H.Res. 463 and who co-sponsored the bill, they have virtually no chance of passing. A summary is below.

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS MADE IN ORDER

1. Woodall (GA): Would protect the rights of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place for the concealed carry of firearms to continue enforcing those preexisting agreements. (10 minutes)

2. McCarthy, Carolyn (NY): Would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill. (10 minutes)

3. Hastings, Alcee (FL): Would exempt states from issuing a carry permit on the basis of state reciprocity which do not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application at their local law enforcement station. (10 minutes)

4. Jackson Lee (TX): Would require a state to create a comprehensive database that would contain all permits and licenses issued by the State for carrying a concealed weapon and would make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day. (10 minutes)

5. Conyers (MI): Would preserve state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry. (10 minutes)

6. Johnson, Hank (GA): Would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to that state’s law regarding concealed carry in regards to firearm safety training that includes live-fire exercise. (10 minutes)

7. Cohen (TN): Would exempt from the bill any State law requiring a person to be at least 21 years of age to possess or carry a concealed handgun. (10 minutes)

8. Jackson Lee (TX): Would require a person provide at least 24 hours notice to a law enforcement officer of the State of the intention to possess or carry a concealed handgun in the State (10 minutes)

9. Cicilline (RI): Would limit the bill from taking effect in a state until the State Attorney General, head of the State police, and the Secretary of State have jointly certified that the other state’s carry laws are substantially similar to its own licensing or permitting requirements. (10 minutes)

10. Reichert (WA): Would require a GAO study on the ability of state and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms permits. (10 minutes)

The House reconvenes tomorrow at 10am. However, the schedule for floor votes is not yet posted on the House’s website. Sebastian does report it should be voted on tomorrow.

Correction: As Sebastian points out, Rob Woodall (R-GA) is not anti-gun. Moreover, Dave Reichert (R-WA) is not either. I think his concerns about the bill stem from his service in law enforcement. He was the Sheriff of King County before going to Congress. Both Woodall and Reichert voted for H.Res. 463 which is considered a vote in favor of the eventual passage of HR 822.

Spartanburg Sheriff Chuck Wright Continues To Urge Women To Arm Themselves

Living in western North Carolina, only one of the local TV stations is in North Carolina. The others are in the Upstate of South Carolina so we get to see a lot of news stories out of Greenville and Spartanburg.

Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright attracted a large crowd on Monday night to discuss self-protection, safety in the home, and concealed carry. It was so well attended that people had to listen from the hallway!

H/T SAF

“Let’s You Take Your Safety Into Your Own Hands”

Sheriff Chuck Wright of Spartanburg County, SC made national news with his call for women to get their concealed carry permits. And it sounds like the women of South Carolina listened.

According to the report from WSPA in Spartanburg, Jennifer Reeves was home alone with her kids when a shooting happened in her neighborhood. While she had a gun, she didn’t know how to use. In response to the shooting and to Sheriff Wright’s call for women to get concealed carry permits, she organized a class for women in her neighborhood.

What is perhaps surprising about this report was the pro-gun tone throughout. Christine Scarpelli of WSPA concludes her report by saying it “let’s you take your safety into your own hands.” She is absolutely correct and is to be applauded for stating the truth on the air. And from the comments on her Facebook page, it sounds like she may have participated as well.

On CCW Rules For Wisconsin

Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) reluctantly approved the emergency rule promulgated by the Wisconsin Department of Justice concerning training for the state’s concealed carry permit. With concealed carry going into effect on November 1st, his feeling that not approving it would delay the right of Wisconsinites to carry concealed.

Cam Edwards has an interview with Brent Gardner, the NRA-ILA State Liaison for Wisconsin, about the emergency rule and concealed carry in the state.

The NRA-ILA released a statement about the emergency rule on Saturday which took exception to it and vowed to work to change it in the permanent rule process.

Governor Scott Walker reluctantly approved the Emergency Concealed Carry Rules promulgated by the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ). While the Governor has many of the same concerns that were expressed by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox in his letter to Attorney General Van Hollen, he understandably did not want to further delay the ability of citizens of Wisconsin to carry concealed handguns for self-defense. His rejection of the Emergency Rules would have resulted in a significant delay on implementation of the new law that takes effect on November 1.

Governor Walker stated, “We’re hopeful that the Department of Justice improves the permanent rules substantially before sending them to the Administration and the legislature for approval.” The NRA will continue to work with the state legislature to ensure that this happens.

Unfortunately, DOJ has chosen to overstep its authority by imposing conditions on prospective concealed weapons license applicants that the legislature never adopted or intended. As part of the Executive Branch of state government, DOJ’s role is to faithfully implement the laws adopted by the legislature, not dramatically change them. If the Emergency Rules are allowed to become permanent, they will set a dangerous precedent that perverts our system of government and its principles associated with the separation of powers.

When the Legislature adopted Act 35, the concealed weapons law, two provisions were very clear. There was to be no minimum number of hours of firearms training required in order to satisfy the training mandate and any qualifying firearms training or safety class that a prospective applicant has taken at any time in the past would be accepted.

Through its Emergency Rules, the DOJ has effectively negated both of these provisions. First, the Rules require a minimum of four hours of training. Both houses of the legislature contemplated amendments that would have required a minimum number of hours of training and specific curriculum. These amendments were rejected.

Secondly, DOJ had deviated from the examples set by other states with virtually identical statutory language by micromanaging the information that must be provided on training certificates submitted by applicants. No training certificates anywhere in the country contain the information that the Wisconsin DOJ demands. This renders all existing certificates insufficient for submission with a citizen’s license application. DOJ could have easily established a system that would have allowed existing training certificates to be submitted while ensuring that the requirements of the concealed weapons law are met.

It is now time for you to act! The Emergency Rules will now be sent to the legislature for approval or rejection. Please contact your state representative and senator and ask that they reject the Emergency Rules and work to ensure that that the permanent rules ultimately reflect the clear letter of the law and the legislature’s intent. In the meantime, the Emergency Rules will remain in effect so as to ensure that there is no delay in the November 1 implementation of this essential new law.

Wildlife Resources Public Hearings In North Carolina

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is holding public hearings across the state beginning this week and ending September 28th. They will be considering changes in fishing, hunting, and trapping regulations. Some of the changes are very minor but some are not. The full list of proposed regulation changes can be found here.

For example, under current NCWRC regulations you are virtually prohibited from being on Game Lands with a pistol over .22 LR outside of certain hunting seasons. Given that all National Forests in North Carolina are part of the Game Lands program, this means you could well be in violation of wildlife regulations if you went hiking in Pisgah National Forest and carried concealed. Proposed regulations change H8 would change this.

H8. Allow individuals who possess a valid concealed handgun permit to carry that handgun on wildlife conservation areas, boating access areas, fishing access areas and game lands, except for these game lands (and any boating or fishing access areas on them) which are exempted at the request of the landowner: Buckhorn, Harris, Sutton Lake, Mayo, Hyco, Lee, Chatham, Pee Dee River north of U.S. 74, Butner-Falls, Jordan, Vance, Kerr Scott, Dupont, Bladen Lakes and that portion of R. Wayne Bailey-Caswell that is north of U.S. 158 and east of N.C. 119. Also, allow hunters who possess a valid concealed handgun permit to carry that handgun while dog training and during the deer archery and muzzleloader seasons on both public and private lands.

Thus, even if you don’t hunt, fish, or trap but are a concealed carry holder, you have a definite interest in these public hearings. The National Forests in North Carolina comprise over 1.2 million acres of land including over a half million acres each for western NC’s Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. That’s a lot of area to have excluded from where you can legally carry concealed.

If you can’t make the hearings, you can still submit comments by mail or online. The mail address is N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission at 1701 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1701.

Gov. Susana Martinez On Concealed Carry

Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM) recently requalified for her New Mexico concealed carry license. I covered that including video of her qualification test here.

In an interview with Cam Edwards of NRA News, she discusses her background with firearms. Her parents owned a security guard business in El Paso, TX and she began carrying (openly) as a security guard at the age of 18.  Eventually, she ended up in New Mexico and became a prosecutor. She says getting her concealed carry license was just the next step in her evolution as a gun owner.

A Governor Who Takes Concealed Carry Seriously

Unlike Governor Bev Perdue (D-NC) who, despite her protestations, takes concealed carry lightly, Governor Susanna Martinez (R-NM) takes it very seriously. The state of New Mexico requires a refresher course to renew your concealed carry license. This course must include range time.

Gov. Martinez is shown below doing her refresher training. It looks to me that she went over and beyond the shooting requirements. She’s not a bad shot either!

UPDATE: Gov. Martinez passing her refresher course has gotten a lot of press in New Mexico. She qualified with both a .38 Special revolver and a .45 ACP pistol and got perfect scores according to the reports.

How Is This Possible?

On Saturday, both during and after the traditional pre-season exhibition game between the San Francisco Forty-Niners and the Oakland Raiders, violence broke out. In addition to a brawl in the stands shown in the video below, two people were shot in the parking lot. One of the victims was shot multiple times in the stomach and is in the hospital in serious condition. It is reported by police that he was wearing a T-shirt that said “F*** the Niners”.

Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

There is some dispute over the police report about the man’s T-shirt. According to story today in the San Francisco Chronicle:

The father of the victim shot in the abdomen said his son had described an out-of-control scene at the stadium.

“It was crazy out there,” said the father, who was not at the game. He declined to be named and asked that his son not be identified.

He said his son is a 49ers fan, denying police reports over the weekend that the man had been wearing a “F- the 49ers” T-shirt. The son was driving in a pickup truck after the game, following a friend to make sure he got to his car safely, his father said.

People wearing Raiders garb attacked the friend before he got to the car and kicked him on the ground, the father said. When his son got out of the pickup to help, he said, someone shot him four times in the abdomen.

“My son got out, took two steps and heard boom, boom, boom,” the father said. “He said he didn’t realize it until it hurt. He stumbled back to his truck and drove to the front gate. He opened the door and told them, ‘I think I’m dying.’ “

He said his son, born and raised in San Francisco, is married and has a 10-month-old son.

If one listens to the drivel from the Violence Policy Center, concealed carry permit holders are prone to acts of violence.

In addition, the gun lobby has been successful at hiding the truth about crimes committed by concealed handgun permit holders by forcing most states to keep secret the identities of permit holders. As a result, until recently, the false claims made by pro-gun advocates regarding these “upstanding community leaders” have been left unchallenged.

In 2009, the Violence Policy Center began an ongoing research project to identify killings from May 2007 to the present involving citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns. Because detailed information on such killings is not readily available, the VPC is forced to rely primarily on news accounts for reports of such killings and subsequent legal proceedings.

If one makes the assumption that the shooters in the incidents are from the counties surrounding San Francisco Bay so as to take in fans of both the Niners and Raiders, just how many permit holders are we talking about?

Thanks to Brandon Combs of the CalGuns Foundation I have those numbers for 2010. If we look to the south of Candlestick, you have 101 permit holders in San Mateo County and 53 in Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley). If you look to the East Bay area, you have 11 permit holders in Contra Costa County and 75 in Alameda County (Oakland). Immediately to the north of San Francisco is Marin County with its 35 permit holders. Finally, in San Francisco itself you have one permit holder. That is correct – in a city and county of approximately 800,000 people you have one permit holder.

According to the gun prohibitionists, controlling permits and controlling firearms will reduce this sort of violence. So how is it possible to have two shootings at a stadium in a region with only 276 combined concealed carry permit? Using their logic, it is unpossible! Try telling that to the young father who is lying in San Francisco General with multiple gunshot wounds to the abdomen.