1 hour ago
The United States Supreme Court has declined to affirm the constitutional, Second Amendment rights which are guaranteed to citizens. They did so by rejecting an appeal from a lower court. That court had ruled that the state of California can impose severe restrictions on issuing permits to carry firearms. In refusing to hear the appeal, the lower court ruling remains in effect.The case, to which Mr. Arvay refers is of course Peruta v. California. A Washington Examiner article goes into more detail. For the Examiner, Ryan Lovelace writes:
The question the Supreme Court refused to hear is whether the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.David Kopel explains in the Washington Post article entitled Peruta v. San Diego Analysed that:
The four Peruta dissenters did not disagree with the specific doctrinal point about concealed carry. Indeed, Judge Smith’s dissent pointed out that the majority’s compilation of precedents on concealed carry was unnecessary. “If the issue before us is truly whether California can, in isolation, prohibit concealed carry, a simple memorandum disposition citing to Heller would be sufficient. A formal opinion, much less the gathering of our en banc panel, would not be necessary to answer the issue framed by the majority.”...snip...
According to the dissenters, the Second Amendment expressly guarantees the right to bear arms; legislatures may regulate but not prohibit the right. So in the 19th-century cases, the legislature could choose to ban concealed carry while not even requiring a permit for open carry. The dissenters wrote that today, legislatures ought to allowed to reverse that preference: to restrict open carry, while allowing concealed carry under a fair and reasonable licensing system. (Citing Eugene Volokh, “Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and A Research Agenda,” 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009).)As Justice Thomas said, and I am paraphrasing, most people in government in high office are protected by police, who are armed. But for the average man on the street, having a team of armed guards at their disposal is clearly beyond their means. The Second Amendment means that government must allow the carrying of arms. But in the case of California, one can not carry openly, even unloaded, and one can not carry concealed if the Sheriff of your county refuses to give anyone a concealed carry permit. Effectively, you have been "legally" stymied from bearing arms, and the Second Amendment has been effectively rendered null. Before the concealed carry revolution of the mid 1980s, the Second Amendment had been rendered null and void in most of the country. In most cases, a concealed carry license was not granted, and while open carry was techically allowed, you could count on it that you would be arrested and charged with something if you did. Here in North Carolina it was cited as Going Armed to the Terror of the People. While the statute had well defined elements, these would be discounted such that simply arming oneself would be enough for a conviction.
That said, it remains amazing that basic Constitutional rights could possibly be so easy to suppress. While some rights that are not even in the Constitution are enforced, there seems to be significant antipathy regarding the right to keep and bear arms -- a right that “shall not be infringed.”I note again that everyone, with few exceptions, who is in power is loathe to advocate for the carrying of arms by the average guy. After all, who wants to be killed over doing what he percieves as his job. Besides, and this is the important point, while gun rights groups do get out a lot of votes, they don't contribute much to a candidates campaign finances. Indeed, here in North Carolina, almost everyone working for Grass Roots North Carolina is a volunteer. Unlike the Demanding Moms and Everytown efforts of Mr. Bloomberg, we have no paid lobbists working for GRNC. Because there are no big bucks coming from GRNC or from NRA, we constantly have to remind them that we are watching, and we will remember in November.
Echoing a sickeningly common sentiment among the Left's most hateful vile online trolls, a Democratic Party official in Nebraska has been caught on tape applauding last week's shooting spree carried out by a liberal activist who targeted Republican members of Congress as they practiced for a baseball game. Not to be confused with a separate Nebraska Democrat who expressed amusement at the shooting -- tying her glee to a disagreement over gun rights, and later doubling down -- this cretin expressed bitter disappointment that James Hodgkinson didn't finish the job in assassinating House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.This is not the attitude of people who merely disagree. People can have a robust debate on an issue, and shake hands afterward having come to understand where each on is stands on an issue. Such disagreements have been the norm in society for a long time. The use of words, logic, rhetoric, and thus persuasion has long been the approved method of dealing with colleagues, But the Democrats do not, evidently, view the rest of us a colleagues. They view is as enemies to be killed if we disagree. This is more the modus operandi of a criminal organization.
After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.
This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.
Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.
That’s why compromise has become impossible.When compromise, real give and take, not just we give they take, becomes impossible, when arguments no longer persuade, when even moderates on their side are ignored or worse, you don't leave much room for anything else.
The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.
The question is what comes next.Europe is on the verge of a civil war over ostensibly religion, but really it is over who will rule. America has imported this foreign philosophy, this cancer, and has allowed it to grow inside its body politic until we find ourselves facing the same thing. We can be of no use to anybody else if we are fighting ourselves. Frankly, I pray, and I weep, not for myself, for my days are nearly over, but for my grand children.
But not even a ruling joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor can persuade determined, far-left censors, and just as sure as night follows day, Laura Beth Nielsen, a research professor for the American Bar Foundation, took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to make the case for viewpoint discrimination. I’ve seen enough pieces like this to recognize the type. They always begin with misleading statements of the law, declarations that free-speech protections aren’t absolute, and then move to the core pitch — in this case, that the state should regulate hate speech because it’s emotionally and physically harmful:
"In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Exposure to racial slurs also diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of “self-objectification,” which is associated with eating disorders."Really? One wonders what data she is citing, and how they managed to link "racist hate speech" to these syndromes which have other causes and therefore need to have the confounding causes neutralized in the analysis. Could not all of these issues be related to lifestyle choices that are in fact the actual cause?
To paraphrase Alan Charles Kors, co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, no class of Americans is too weak to live with freedom. Rather than indulging weakness and fear, activists left and right would do well to cultivate emotional strength and moral courage. The marketplace of ideas demands no less.The radicals don't want people to grow up. Instead, they want to infantilize everyone so that their juvenile arguments actually make sense. In a world of blind people, the one eyed man is king. In truth, as adults we learn that we can not control others. Calling someone the a name does not make them so. Contrary to the ancient belief, words are not some form a magic. You can call me a frog all day long, and I will still not croak, hop, or be able to send out my tongue to catch flies. We learn as adults that what others think of us is not critical; rather it is what we think of ourselves that matters. We cannot, remember, control others. We can only control our own reactions.
First, the “If it’s wrong for them to do it to us, then it’s wrong if we do it to them” formulation is less a principle than a tired cliché. This minor disruption was a tactic; shouting was a tool. It is moral for the good guys – and we are the good guys – to use tactics and tools against an enemy that are immoral when they do it. It was immoral for the Nazis to bomb London; it was moral for us to bomb Nazis. Of course every tactic and tool is not acceptable, but the guys who stormed Omaha Beach did not “become what they were fighting” because they used the same tools and tactics as the enemy.
Second, this sort of performance art is so harmless that the cost/benefit calculus weighs in favor of tolerating such occasional inconveniences. That’s not to say we should not impose higher costs on them – we disapprove of the firing of people for what they say, but Kathy Griffin’s defenestration was a sacrifice worth making to demonstrate the costs of liberal misbehavior. This is crucial. They must pay a cost for establishing their new rules....snip...
Finally, if our principles are worth having, they are worth fighting for in a way that might conceivably lead to success. One of the folks telling me how wrong and unconservative I am for finding it amusing – a patriot, though wrong – also mentioned that he had been fighting for free speech on campus and in the culture for 20 years. Hmmm. I’ve been fighting for them for 30 years, ever since my dean at UCSD called me in to yell at me because I wrote that the student government was composed of leftist dweebs. Shouldn’t the fact that we have spent decades using the same tactics and losing indicate that maybe we ought to try something new?Make no mistake that Trump was not my first choice, nor my second or third, for that matter. However, Trump was far superior to the woman Schlichter calls "Felonia von Pantsuit." He has done several things so far that are in line with movement conservatives' agenda. If conservatives felt the need to let Obama have his way, they why don't they also support letting Trump have his? Where is the full throated cheer for Trump?
Now, whether it is the media clamoring for Trump's assassination, or the leftists judges ruling unconstitutionally to deny Trump the power of the presidency, or the collectivists of both parties trying to challenge every action of the president and pursuing impeachment options, it is all designed simply to deny a legally elected president the power of the presidency. They don't mind if he holds the office, or lives in the White House, what they will not allow is for him to fulfill executive duties.
This is treason, but it is much more than that, it is the initial stages of a civil war, because if they think they are going to be able to run Trump out of town on a rail with no consequences they are sadly and destructively mistaken. These are actions being taken against the system, not just Trump. They have a narrow focus on a single man, but they forget that Trump has millions and millions of followers and even more that recognize this violation of civil society as treasonous and who will join with the Trumpsters, whether they ever agreed with him or not, because it is a very dangerous precedent that cannot be allowed to succeed.
Those whom we elect must be allowed to fulfill their duties, or there is no use in voting.Of course that is the outcome Leftist elites most desire: that conservatives realize that there is no use in voting, stay home, and the Left can continue with it transformation of the country. The Left thinks that all the actual street fighting will be done by rent-a-mobs and union thugs. But they may be sadly mistaken, for if it comes to that, they may find themselves to be targets as well. Such is the effect of targeting Republican Congressmen, and then justifying that act. Having sowed the wind, they may well reap the whirlwind. Or, as T. L. Davis writes:
Take all of the legitimate means of change off the table and there remains only one possible solution: war.
As I sat in the airport on Grand Cayman awaiting my flight back to Dallas, I began checking my news feeds and getting back up to speed. Sadly, I read of the dangerous justifications of the attempted assassination of Republican Members of Congress. The absurd and troubling assertion of one Joy Reid Sunday morning on her show on MSNBC should be cause for concern of all Americans. Ms. Reid offered her weak, boilerplate, insincere hopes for Rep. Scalise then went on to condemn the Republican Representative due to his “voting record”…and insinuate that there is some “moral responsibility” to take action against him for such.
Is this what we want in our Country? Do we want partisan commentators dangerously justifying the shooting of an elected representative because his policies are in opposition to theirs?Our Constitution was designed, among other things, to deliver a system of politics which did NOT devolve into open warfare. For the most part, it has delivered on that objective. We have been able, for the most part, to resolve our conflicts without killing each other. The stability this has given us has been used to achieve immense prosperity not only to ourselves, but to the world as a whole. But now certain people believe that their causes justify any means necessary, including political murder.
Ms. Reid also advanced her thoughts that supporting the Second Amendment, an individual right in the Constitution, provides a dangerous justification to take violent action. Does Ms. Reid not believe, or even understand, that law abiding, legal gun owners have this constitutional right? I find it rather perplexing that Ms. Reid would say that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, but the Second Amendment is not. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause was used by five unelected Supreme Court judicial activists to construct a right, and since when does the SCOTUS have this as an enumerated power under our Constitution? The Second Amendment is an actual constitutional right, yet law abiding citizens appear to not have the same equal protection under the law. Therefore, in the world of Ms. Reid, my being a Board Member of the National Rifle Association, the Nation’s oldest civil rights organization, gives a dangerous justification for violence against me.If Ms. Reid believes that political violence is justified, is she truly prepared for what will follow? Should she perhaps read some of Mike Vanderbough's blog posts? Journalists who incite violence will be properly the targets if violence follows. There is a thin line between inciting violence, and arguing for you preferred policies. Ms. Reid has, it seems, crossed that line. she, and others who wish to claim that Mr. Hodgkinson's actions were somehow justified need to do a lot of soul searching. Murder is never acceptable. The acceptable way is to vote him out of office. West again:
We are indeed diving into dangerous waters. When constitutional conservatives disagreed with President Barack Obama on policy they were disparagingly called racist. When black Attorney General Eric Holder had contempt charges voted against him in the House of Representatives it was called racist, regardless of the Operation Fast and Furious fiasco. When Hillary Clinton fails to win support, and the presidency, we are told it is because of sexism. When there are Americans who wish to not have an antithetical system of governance in our Country called Sharia law, leftists condemn them as Islamophobes.
What we are witnessing is the attempt to demean, denigrate, disparage, demonize, and now dehumanize any opposing viewpoints to progressive socialist ideology. This establishes a dangerous precedent and justification, of actions such as what was undertaken by Mr. Hodgkinson last week at the Republican baseball team practice. If the new mantra for the liberal progressive left, and their media accomplices, is to use the tools of coercion, intimidation, and violence in order to advance their ideals, and secure power, this is truly a dangerous avenue.Indeed.
Now, that’s assuming Trump doesn’t fire Mueller, something he has every right to do under the Constitution - and should do based on this hack’s obvious corruption. The furor the media has threatened would follow in order to keep Trump from doing so will turn out to be yet another nothingburger. But if Trump doesn’t can him, Mueller and his team of committed Never Trumpers will claim the President obstructed “justice” for not hanging his head in shame over the Democrat lies. And that will go nowhere. Trump will never be impeached. And Trump will pardon any of his associates Mueller and his pack of cynical leakers tries to indict on whatever puffed-up, bogus charges they invent in order to justify this exercise in investigatory onanism.
And we should hope that’s how it ends.
Because what happens if the voice of half of America is effectively silenced by the DC swamp and its media guardians? The Tea Party was the first manifestation of the anger out there at the establishment. It was polite – it even cleaned up its own messes after its peaceful protests. The media, and the same alleged conservatives who saw the Tea Party as a threat to their own position because it caused donors to start asking for results instead of simply writing checks, attacked the Tea Party. Well, then we got Trump, who was not nearly as polite, and who took the White House fair and square from the designated establishment candidate. And now they want to use non-ballot means to make sure the normals’ choice is again ignored.
What do they think comes after Trump? Someone nice?The Left may be stocking up on guns now, but the right has a head start in that department. In The Crisis of the Left J. A. Frascion, MD presents the psychological problem facing the Left. Since their basic theory can not be wrong, the Left is forced into ever more radical means to make us be what the Left wants us to be.
Rhetorical extremism increasingly reigns. All not worshiping at the altar of left-wing victimization are cast as irrelevant, hateful, unenlightened bigots. Free speech is routinely censored. The antifa fascists employ vandalism to silence "hate speech". Republican town hall meetings are shouted down. Trump's severed head is held up in effigy. He is stabbed to death in theatre. Republican Congressmen are marked for assassination. Radical left-wing activists and their disciples in media, academia, and entertainment have opened Pandora's box. Only they can shut it, but they do not seem so inclined. Like the moderate Muslims who remain silent in the face of Islamic terrorism, the moderate left seems to be okay with the radical left's violent streak. It's all the fault of the right, anyway. After all, the victimized are justified in resorting to any means necessary to vanquish the villains in attaining social justice, just as ISIS is justified in lashing out at American and Western imperialism, the source of all their problems. Ex-president Obama, in a farewell address in Chicago in January, expressed admiration for restraint shown by outgoing presidents in retreating from the political arena, but indicated that he would not stay silent if he perceived a threat to core American values (under the new administration). Apparently, he feels that censoring of free speech, violence, and attempted murder remain within the realm of core American values. No red line has yet been crossed. If and when it is, what then? History provides us the answer.Indeed.
The distribution of violent injunctions in these books helps explain something else. A German study involving 45,000 teens found that while increasing religiosity made Christian youth less violent, increasing religiosity made Muslim youth more violent.Well, that's interesting. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the Bible teaches consistently a message of peace toward all mankind? Could it be that Jesus teaching, that the central point of the law is to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself is actually true? Could it be that people who tell you that jihad is really an internal struggle are practicing Taqiyya, the Muslim practice of lying for the faith? Because if they told you the truth you might raise a defense?
One of the facets of sharia (Islamic Law) that turns the light bulb on in people’s minds more than anything else seems to be the moment they grasp the Koranic concept of abrogation and progressive revelation.
Islam teaches that Allah (the god of Islam) revealed Islam to mankind throughout history progressively. Allah revealed the Law to Moses which predicted the coming of Mohammad. Those who did not accept the Law of Moses were lost. When Allah revealed the Evangel to Jesus, which also foretold of the coming of Mohammad, it abrogated the Law of Moses, and those who did not accept it were lost (hellbound). When the final seal of the prophets – Mohammad – came and revealed the Koran to all of mankind, it abrogated all that came before it, and those who did not accept it were lost.Or, as Smith writes:
Muslims’ role model, their “Perfect Man,” is very different from Jesus in type of influence but not in degree of influence. As Warner points out, “The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed's is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran.” Thus is “Mohammed” (and its spelling variants) the world’s most common male name, belonging to approximately 150 million men and boys. And there’s a reason why pious Muslims write “PBUH” (“Peace be unto him”) after his name and why they’ll riot if he’s portrayed in a cartoon. He is, in a sense, the human face of Allah.
Islaamnet.com makes this clear, writing that “when Allaah says: ‘Whosoever obeys the Messenger [Mohammed], has indeed obeyed Allaah’ (Surah An-Nisa 4:80), it should be clear that one has obeyed Allaah by obeying the Messenger.”
Islaamnet also informs that Allah commanded, “‘It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decreed by Allah and His Messenger to have any choice in the matter. If anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger he is clearly astray’ (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:36).”
This Messenger is, again, that warlord, bandit, mass murderer, employer of torture, polygamist and slaver trader and master. Worse still, it’s not that Muslims always rationalize away or attempt to whitewash this history. The truly devout ones may consider these actions — when directed toward non-Muslims — to be “good” because the actions have been sanctioned by their perceived author of right and wrong, Allah, and his messenger.Do you not yet see the difference? One loves, one hates. I will pray that you do.
While it may interesting to study and practice maneuver warfare and small unit combat tactics, techniques and procedures, MOUT and CQB techniques, the most likely first employment of a weapon you will ever face will be with your handgun and/or tactical knife. Remember Herschel’s Dictum. Always carry, always be prepared, keep your head on a swivel, and know with certainty that this is headed our way.
We’ve all had adequate warning.
There is no sound science behind the transgender agenda. No “expert” can point to any physiological markers, in any given case, proving that at issue is a biological phenomenon and not a purely psychological one.That, of course, should be the end of the story. But of course it is not, and so the rest of the Ten Truths must be added. Go read the whole article, and arm yourself with the facts. It is not about making confused people feel better, but rather about, yet again, social engineering. These people just can;t leave anyone alone.
One argument for them is that a self-driving car means less wear and tear on drivers, especially emotional wear and tear. Will there be less road rage, anxiety attacks and exhaustion in a car that drives itself? The answer (to a degree) is a qualified "yes" if you, the driver, trust Emil, the self-driving software that is running your car trip. Is Emil up to snuff? Does Emil understand the threats popping up "out there" in the real world? Is Emil reliable? (I decided to call my future self-driving software Emil. You can substitute your favorite name for Emil.) Anyway, opinion polls show that people are afraid of self-driving cars.The question being asked, of course is, "Why do we need self driving cars?" The answer appears to be that some people want them, but in order to have them, we have to ALL have them. If only some have them, the supposed advantages disappear. In my job, I meet a lot of people who are "car guys." People for whom a car is not just a vehicle to get you from point A to point B, but rather something almost magical. Many of these guys will pay extra for standard transmission. I realize these guys represent a minority, but does being in the minority mean you just have to shut up and take it? In any case, go read the article, and make up your mind for yourself.
Nevertheless, what most disturbs me is his second argument -- articulated in various ways by most of those who disagreed with me -- that there is simply no civil war. And many repeated the universal belief among Never-Trumpers that a Hillary Clinton victory would not have been a catastrophe.
My response is that "culture war" is much too tepid a term for what is going on now. Maybe anti-Trump conservatives are fighting a "culture war," but the left is not. The left is working to undo the American Revolution. It's very close to doing so.
Of all people, one would think Jonah Goldberg would understand this. He is the author of what I consider to be a modern classic, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Change.Despite what Goldberg seems to think, we are not in a debating society. While civil relations remain to us, the truth is that few on the left are our "friends." The days of going out and having a beer with members of he left and hailing our excellent opponents is over. They have been showing their true faces, and those faces look tyrannical to me. We are in a cold war, a struggle to the death. As Prager says:
So, shouldn't the primary role of a conservative be to vanquish leftism? To me, that means strongly supporting the Republican president of the United States, who has staffed his Cabinet with conservatives and already won substantial conservative victories. As I suggested in my previous column, conservatives would have been thrilled if any Republican president had achieved what Trump has at this point in his administration.Yes, it should. and as David Codrea says, "any chair in a bar fight." Trump may be flawed, but his instincts seem right.
He was unlike our current president in many respects: He was extraordinarily indecisive, timid and distracted. He seemed not to know his own country at all, isolated as he was from the public. But his position was very like that of President Trump in that he had a mob calling for his beheading.
That the mob succeeded in their efforts changed European history, effectively bleeding the continent’s aristocracy to death until royalty was dealt the final coup de grace during WWI and its aftermath.Quite frankly, I don't hold with a hereditary aristocracy, nor with the notion of royalty. Typically, within a generation of two of the strong men who established the dynasty, no matter how well intentioned. the progeny are weaker and less deserving of being in that position. I also do not believe in anyone having that much power. The Constitution's breaking up of that power into 3 competing power centers each having distinct roles and limitations is a good system. But the Constitutional system can only work with people who follow the Constitution in good faith. But the left doesn't do anything in good faith:
Even so, though the Left has been nearly decapitated, it still natters on as if it has life; as if it has something significant to say. It still does its zombie imitation, hoping to instill dread and fear into the opposition by impersonating real life and vitality.
Ms. Griffin’s excess is an indicator not only of the deathly fatuity and grossness leftist radicals have been resorted to, but she is also representative of the high tide of an essentially nihilist deluge that has threatened America for decades....snip...
For those who believe the wrong person is in office and that a great pretender is living in the White House, it is high time to remember we do not live under an aristocracy but under the rule of the Constitution of the United States. We do not believe in aristocratic succession to the presidency.
It is high time everyone who desires the exit of any president remembers the great remedy our constitutional republic has firmly in place; a remedy that has been effectively utilized for hundreds of years: Voting to elect the person the American public wishes to be in high office.
32And…stop suggesting the guillotining of Donald Trump, the president of the United States of America.
“The [sound suppressors] were a victim of the success of his marketing,” said Knox Williams, president of the American Suppressor Association, which is working with the NRA on this issue. Williams referenced Hiram Percy Maxim, who first used the term in the early 1900s when he invented what he referred to as the Maxim Silencer. The term later caught on with legislators and regulators.
“He labeled it as a silent firearm, and people took it for gospel,” Williams said of Maxim.Now, I have to admit that the suppressor debate is none to interesting to me. I will not use one, perhaps because I have grown used to putting on ear protection. But I am generally in favor of any loosening of restrictions and this seems like a no brainer to me.
I took a number of steps before I started carrying a gun. I got training, I read books and articles by self-defense experts, I learned the laws of my state, I started going to the range regularly, and I did “dry fire” exercises at home to keep my shooting skills up.
I also got a concealed-carry permit, which in Virginia required almost none of the above preparation. All I had to do was get a form notarized and send it in — along with $50 and a copy of the hunter’s-safety card I earned in Wisconsin when I was 13 years old, which allegedly proved my “competency with a handgun.” Nothing would have stopped me from getting a permit and carrying a gun legally if I hadn’t touched a firearm since 1997 and had received no training at all that pertained specifically to concealed carry or self-defense, as opposed to shooting deer in the freezing cold.I have attended concealed carry training in Virginia as well, and had a carry permit there for a number of years. Personally, I thought Virginia's approach to concealed carry training struck the right balance between training on the law and recognizing that those seeking a permit are adults who can decide for themselves if, and what kind of training they may need. It is clear then, that Mr. Verbruggen's unwritten attitude is that only those who have gone to the training classes he has, and have the proper accreditation should be allowed to carry a handgun. All others are just too immature, too uneducated, too...unwashed. At the same time, he seems to recognize that even states with more lax requirements such as Constitutional Carry do not have blood running in the streets as predicted.
It’s perfectly fine, of course, for the state of Virginia to have lax permitting standards and trust that its residents will get the training they need of their own volition and good sense. In fact, a growing number of states don’t require a permit to carry at all — some call it “constitutional carry” — and their streets are not running red with blood.So, Mr. Verbruggen's sense is, like a lot of anti-gunners, a simple distrust of his fellow men and women, but at least he sees the truth, unlike the hoplophobes who just don't get it. Verbruggen then goes on to claim that the Constitutional claims for interstate reciprocity do not rest on the Second Amendment (but they do partially) or the Commerce Clause (they don't). But then he finds the Full Faith and Credit clause. And he is correct here that the Full Faith and Credit clause does indeed compel states to recognize each other's gun permits just as each state must recognize each other's marriages and each other's drivers licenses. The existence of more stringent requirements in one state does not therefore make the drivers licenses of another state with more lax requirements somehow not recognized. The same reasoning applies. After all, an automobile is capable of delivering even greater loss of life than a handgun.
There is, however, a constitutional defense of concealed-carry reciprocity that works, one recently advanced by a trio of highly respected constitutional scholars. It’s rooted in the much-neglected and much-misunderstood Full Faith and Credit Clause:...snip...
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
So, it’s constitutional for Congress to prescribe the effects that one state’s concealed-carry policies and permits will have in another. But not everything that’s constitutional is wise, and conservatives in particular should be wary of forcing their legislative preferences on unwilling states via federal decree.So Mr. Verbruggen is squeamish about actually forcing states to do their duty under the Constitution for fear of making them mad. But the Left is already mad, and getting madder. And I don't mean this in the sense colloquial sense, but in its original meaning of being crazy loons. They already accuse us of trying to legislate morality. So let's get on with actually doing some of it. They will, of course, immediately appeal and the Supreme Court will have to get involved. And that will tell us something as well. so yes, let's have a reciprocity bill, and then we'll see where everybody stands.