CCW Reciprocity - Four Points to Ponder

This article appeared on the Reasoned Politics blog today, and it gave me some points to ponder.  I give my take on them in order:

1) "Shall Issue" concealed carry permits are here to stay. 

This is certainly true, with more than 8 million permits active.  Anti-gun rights people are nervous about people carrying in public, but the fact is, a lot of people are already doing it in most of the country, with the exception of blue coastal states.  This is not going to change, and I do not think a Federal Statute prohibiting concealed carry would have a prayer of passing in Congress. And we're close to getting carry in some form included as part of the 2nd Amendment.

2) A reciprocity bill could be used to increase training requirements. 

There is precedent for Federal law to set minimal standards for state issued licenses. See the Real ID law that is driving drivers license requirements.  In general, I think that this could be a good thing overall.  While keep and bear is a right, guns are deadly weapons and real safety laws (as opposed to fake "gun safety" laws pushed by the anti-gun rights groups) could be a net plus if done correctly.  We would have to resist attempts to make training requirements so onerous as to eliminate the right.

3) A reciprocity bill would encourage more people to get permits - even if their state does not require them.

I think that this is definitely true. Look at all the people getting non-resident Florida and Utah permits to increase the states where they may carry.

4) Gun control advocates might be able to get some things they want - such as expanded background checks - in return for agreeing to national carry permit reciprocity. 

Yes, indeed they could.  I would be willing to exchange universal background checks for national reciprocity, depending on the details of the background checks bill. Attempting to require full background checks for loans of guns to family members, friends, or at shooting ranges, or any of the other shenanigans attempted by the anti-gun rights people would sink the deal. So would increasing the scope of prohibited persons, and the national introduction of "gun violence restraining orders".  Universal background checks would be for permanent transfers ONLY!

This won't happen, of course.  The gun-grabbers idea of compromise consists of limiting existing rights in some manner, and compromising by not limiting even further. After all, they have to leave something on the table to pass more feel-good legislation during a later election cycle.

Even more problematical would be the blue coastal states that severely restrict concealed carry today: New York, California, Maryland, and New Jersey.  These states HATE the idea of people from other states carrying concealed weapons.  In spite of 25 years of evidence, authorities in these states think that more guns on the street are dangerous. If a national reciprocity bill is passed by Congress, there will be intense pressure from these states for the President to veto the bill.

Anti-gun people have not ever really compromised on gun issues.  It is not in their nature to negotiate in good faith on this issue, so we should not, unless there is no other way to advance the right. We must compel them to accept expanded gun rights, through Congress and the courts.  We have done well in these venues so far, and the future looks promising.

Reply to AN Anti-Gun Gun Owner

An editorial appeared in the Willits News calling for the renewal of the Federal AWB.  The author attempted to burnish her 2nd Amendment street cred by appearing in photograph with the shotgun. You can read the editorial and see the author here.

I posted the following in reply:


Ms. Futcher,

You write,

“I despise that damn shotgun, but I'm glad I have it.”

I'm glad you have it too, and despite your distaste for the shotgun, your statement seems to indicate that you acknowledge that firearms have social utility. Many of our fellow citizens would agree, including the 8 million people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons in the U.S. In fact, many people use guns for self defense every year. Here are 43 examples of citizens who successfully defended themselves outside their homes with legally carried handguns:

http://leftcoastconservative.blogspot.com/p/armed-citizen-self-defense.html

And lest you think these are rare events, this survey reports that defensive gun use is more common that reported in the news:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

While you decry the availability of so-called “assault weapons”, and want to jump on the bandwagon to renew the Federal Assault Weapon ban, these rifles are also excellent self defense weapons, as this man found out recently:

http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=239947

Lastly, before going too far down the road of banning a class of firearms, we should perhaps take stock on the effectiveness of the previous AWB. This report

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

written for the National Criminal Justice Service draws the following conclusion about reinstating the AWB:

“Should it be renewed, the ban might reduce gunshot victimizations. This effect is likely to be small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement. A 5% reduction in gunshot victimizations is perhaps a reasonable upper bound estimate of the ban’s potential impact (based on the only available estimate of gunshot victimizations resulting from attacks in which more than 10 shots were fired), but the actual impact is likely to be smaller and may not be fully realized for many years into the future, particularly if pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. from abroad. Just as the restrictions imposed by the ban are modest – they are essentially limits on weapon accessories like LCMs, flash hiders, threaded barrels, and the like – so too are the potential benefits.118 In time, the ban may be seen as an effective prevention measure that stopped further spread of weaponry considered to be particularly dangerous (in a manner similar to federal restrictions on fully automatic weapons). But that conclusion will be contingent on further research validating the dangers of AWs and LCMs.”

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

California already has an assault weapon ban, but that did not prevent Lovelle Mixon, a convicted criminal who should not have had any access to firearms, from getting a rifle and a pistol with which he killed four Oakland PD officers. Many mass shootings do not involve so-called “assault weapons” at all, but are perpetrated with handguns, as the Sikh Temple shooter, Virginia Tech shooter, and the Tuscon AZ shooter all demonstrated. Where are the calls to ban handguns? Oh, that's right, these guns are now constitutionally protected as a result of the 2008 Heller decision from the Supreme Court of The United States, so handgun bans are off the table. I suggest to you Ms Futcher that your so-called “assault weapons” are equally protected arms, and that the Supreme Court will rule that to be so within the next few years. The push to renew the Federal AWB are no more than a PR stunt, an attempt by certain politicians to be seen to be “doing something” about “gun crime” instead of a serious attempt to reduce the level of violence in society. You're misguided if you think the AWB effort is anything more than political Kabuki Theater.

Calguns Call to Action!

Yesterday the Calguns.net forum issued a call to action for all Calgunners and California gun owners generally to resist efforts to pass SB 249 in the state legislature.

Why is this bill so important? Because it affects all owners of rifles equipped with bullet buttons, the device used to covert a CA illegal assault weapon into a CA legal semi-automatic rifle. The number of owners affected by this law number into the hundreds of thousands.

As stated in this press release by State Senator Leland Yee, the intent of SB 249 is to make the bullet button illegal:

Specifically, Yee’s bill will prohibit featured assault weapons with ammunition feeding devices that include but are not limited to magazines “that may be detached from the firearm by depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or bullet.” The bill will also direct the Attorney General’s office to develop new regulations regarding the definition of assault weapons.

The intent is clear: bullet buttons will be made illegal because Yee thinks that this is a loophole in the California Assault Weapon law, a position that the hypocritical Attorney General Kamala Harris now supports, despite her office going on the record in court filings deeming bullet button-eqquiped rifles to be legal:

“In recent years, the gun industry has developed a loophole that undermines California's assault weapons law,” said Harris. “I applaud the Legislature's interest in addressing this problem, and support efforts to pass legislation needed to restore the law's original intent. The Bureau of Firearms stands ready to prepare and implement regulations that will follow this clarifying legislation.”

To stop this bill we need all California gun owners to act. Using the information and guidelines in the above linked Calguns.net article, contact your representative today to voice your opposition to SB 249.

Outstanding Article on Pro-Gun Rights Views

Vince Warde, on his blog Reasoned Politics has written an outstanding article about the current state of gun control in the United States with the wake of the Aurora, CO, shootings: An Open Letter to A Gun Control Advocate in the Wake of the Colorado Shootings.  IT is as good as anything I have read about gun control, the state of the laws and court cases, and the likelihood of new laws passing in the aftermath of the recent mass shootings.  My favorite quote:

Both sides in the gun debate must stop thinking that they are going to get everything they want without giving up anything.  Frankly, the gun rights movement is holding ALL the cards at this point - both politically and legally. No new laws are going to be passed unless they agree.  Gun control advocates need to recognize this reality. 

Spot on!  He goes on to describe some of the ways that gun control and gun rights sides might compromise.  I am skeptical that the gun control side will compromise because most of them are True Believers who, while they might deny it, would prefer to eliminate all guns and think of tightening gun control laws as incremental steps to that end. 


I encourage everyone to visit the blog and read the entire article. 

How Many People Have a License To Carry?

How many licenses to carry (LTC) a concealed weapon exist in the United States? I have often wondered what this number might be because I have believed for a long time that LTC holders have become the largest constituency for change in gun laws across the nation, a constituency that is overlooked by most in the media in favor of the more visible NRA, and a constituency that is studiously ignored by the anti-gun organizations because the number of LTC holders dwarfs the embarrassingly small numbers of members and direct supporters that anti-gun organizations can claim.


Calculating the number of LTC holders is more difficult than it seems. While presumably every issuing authority knows how many LTCs it has issued and how many are active, not all are required by law to report LTC statistics to the public. This is particularly true in those states that issue LTCs through county sheriffs offices, but it is also true in several other states as well. In addition the number of active LTCs is constantly changing as more people apply for LTCs and are approved, as more states become shall-issue, and as LTCs are revoked. Many people hold more than one LTC because the lack of nationwide reciprocity prevents one LTC being used in every states. Arizona, Florida, and Utah non-resident LTCs are very popular for this purpose. No estimate of LTCs will include the number of people legally carrying concealed weapons in those states that do not require a permit to do so, which include Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming. Any attempt to calculate the number of active LTCs in existence will result only in an estimate.


The best source for an estimate of the number of LTCs that I have seen is the CCW Statistics page of the Legally Armed website. All fifty states are covered, and sources are cited. The authors of this site have gone to great lengths to contact issuing agencies that do not publish statistics publicly to obtain LTC statistics from an official source. When that is not possible, a news media article is cited instead. The site is also updated regularly when new information becomes available. Adding all the numbers for the states listed on this page one arrives at a figure of 7,412,049.


It is the nature of anti-gun rights organizations to dispute all claims about the popularity of firearms and legal carry. Their view is that these activities are engaged in by an increasingly smaller group of citizens and that guns will someday be so rare as to be unusual in society. They certainly do not want to admit or encourage guns to become normalized in modern American society. In order to come up with a number of LTCs that could be defended by citing authoritative sources, I attempted to repeat the exercise of the Legally Armed CCW Statistics page, but to use only publicly available sources from issuing authorities. Naturally this number would be smaller than the Legally Armed figure, but it may be more authoritative because it can be checked by anyone. Using the Legally Armed CCW Statistics page as a starting point, I attempted to find more up to date numbers from issuing authorities and arrived at the number 4,410,564 active LTCs nationwide.


What can we conclude from this? First, the legally armed populace in the United States is a large group. It is at least 7,400,000, and not smaller than 4,400,00 perhaps as high as 8.5 million. This compares to an reported NRA membership of 4.3 million, AARP membership of 40 million, and labor union membership of 14.8 million. While not the largest political demographic, numbers this large can and do have an effect on elections, and it while is may not be publicly acknowledged, I think politicians are paying attention to these numbers. Why is it that President Obama has stayed away from covert anti-gun efforts? These numbers are one good reason, besides the NRA, politicians avoid controversy on this issue.

44,000 and Counting

The Anti-gun people must be looking at the news from Wisconsin and pulling out their hair in large clumps in frustration.  According to this story,  44,443 applications for concealed weapon permits have been received, 13,085 approved, and 12, 708 licenses issued to Wisconsin residents.


When was the last time that the Brady Campaign got even 1000 people interested in anything that they are doing?


If most of the 44,443 applications are approved, then the population of license holders is approaching 0.8% of the population.  Given the demand in other states, we can reasonably expect about 2%, or 113,000 people to hold CCW licenses in Wisconsin.


Does one need any better proof that pro-gun views are predominate in the United States?

HR 822 - Bill Passes House 272 to 154

HR 822, a bill that would mandate nation wide reciprocity of concealed carry permits, passed the House today in a bi-partisan vote.  It now advances to the Senate, where odds of passage are much less certain.  Also note that the margin of passage today in the House is not large enough to override a veto in the event this bill gets to the Presidents desk.

There is still a long way to go, and an uncertain chance of a good outcome.

HR 822 - Passed Committee

As reported by The Hill, and elsewhere, HR 822 successfully passed out of the House Judiciary committee and is clear to proceed to the House floor.  The sole Republican member voting against the bill was Rep. Dan Lundgren.  He voted against the bill because of states rights issues, and he had wished to amend the bill:

“I wanted to offer an amendment that the person be a resident of the state in order for the reciprocity imposed by federal law — in other words, a resident of the state that granted the permit,” Lungren said, noting that his concerns were not adequately addressed in committee.

 So, Rep. Lundgren favors a policy that would disarm people holding non-resident permits, as well as the vast majority of California citizens who are unable to obtain a license to carry given the restrictive issue policies of most sheriffs offices in this state.

Or perhaps he is just worried about a lot of "fly-over" states residents carrying in California?  Either way, Dan Lundgren is not a friend of gun rights in this state.  Perhaps the citizens of House District 3 need to remind him for whom he works.

As Read on Common Gunsense

Blogger gregorycamp had this to say in response to this post on Common Gunsense: 

This is your website, so you have the right to do with it as you choose. That being said, I'd like to see you be honest about your actual purpose here. What you want is to make pronouncements and have your audience sing along in a chorus of agreement. So be it. Just don't expect those of us on the other side to be fooled.

Or to continue to waste our time "debating" Joan Peterson.  I have stopped commenting on her posts because I know she and I will never agree.  The differences in world views and values are too profound for total agreement.

About the only things that Joan Peterson and I agree on, after some reflection on my part, is that all firearms transfers should involve a background check, and that a better job must be done to include mental health records in background checks.  I also think that training should be required for a license to carry a concealed weapon, and that training must include a qualification course of fire. Drug or alcohol use while armed should be prohibited, just as it is when operating automobiles.

As is the case now, one is always responsible for the use of the weapon in public, so everyone who carries a weapon must know when, and when not to use it.  However, a person who uses a weapon in an act of lawful self defense should be immune from civil lawsuits.

Other then that, if you are not a prohibited person, you're good to go.  No waiting periods to pick up a gun.  No purchase limits: 1 handgun per month. No weapon-type bans: police officers and citizens get to carry the same weapons.  No registration of weapons, no ammo restrictions, no micro-stamping, no rosters of supposedly safe weapons, unless the police are subject to the very same limits.

I would also limit the definition of sensitive places, and I would not allow private property owners to prohibit weapon carry if they offer sales of services or products to the public.   If schools are deemed to be sensitive, then that should apply to the school property itself, not to zones surrounding the property.

Long Gun Open Carry Event

Well, this did not take long. 

The Responsible Citizens of California are planning an event that will be irresponsible from a political point of view, that is an open carry event in Pacific Beach where participants will be carrying unloaded rifles and shotguns.

I predict a sequel to AB 144 in the next legislative session, restricting the open carry of long guns as well.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it is a right, and all that, but come on!  You're not accomplishing anything constructive by holding these events, except scaring the Hell out of people, and handing our adversaries political capitol.

Calguns Publishes List of Active LTC by County

In a feat of stupendous effort, Calguns Foundation has published a report detailing the number and type of active licenses to carry by county in the state of California.  The report, in PDF format, is available for download here.  I will also add the download URL to my Get The Facts section on this blog.

Salient Statistics:

Total Active Civilian LTC: 32666
Total Possible Civilian LTC: 37465
Total Possible LTC Santa Clara Co.:92

That is correct, 92 LTC in Santa Clara Co., an issue rate of 0.068 LTC per 1000 eligible persons.

What do the OWS People Believe?

I have long thought that the best way to find out what people in a group believe is to read comments on their blogs.  I was curious about the Occupy Wall Street people, and checked out their web site.

The discussions were wide ranging, and so far as I read, thoughtful debates on issues.  One comment:

"What happened to the Green Revolution? I have been waiting for Iran to take it back up."

inspired me to reply:

"The Green Revolution got stamped out because the protesters were unarmed.  In the face of ruthless men, citizens must secure their rights with guns.  Thankfully we live in a nation of laws so that people can "peaceably assemble" to petition "for redress of grievances". The Iranian people, unfortunately do not, and so they were brutally suppressed because  they had no arms."

I can't wait to see what the reply might be.

Long Gun Open Carry - Comming to A Starbucks Near You!

Well, Governor Brown did it.  Starting January 1, 2012, it will be illegal to carry an unloaded handgun in public in California.  But as noted here, and many other places, this bill says nothing about log guns.  I think we will see more protest activities in the future, but this time people will be carrying their long guns, especially so-called assault weapons.

This may not be a wise policy.

When confronted with firearms in public, our legislature reacts by outlawing the practice of carrying guns, even unloaded guns, where the easily frightened sheeple of California can see them.  Given that most people in California think that AK-47 and AR-15 rifles are illegal to possess because of the assault weapon ban, the sight of bullet button-equipped rifle might be just a little alarming, I would expect the legislature to act to prohibit public carry of unloaded rifles as well.

They may also re-visit the CA assault weapon law in order to outlaw Off-List Lowers and the use of bullet buttons.  It would be interesting to see if such efforts would survive the inevitable court challenges.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update 10/11/2011:

Here is one reaction from an UOC advocate, Yih-Chau Chang, press secretary of Responsible Citizens of California:

Chang added that many such advocates, including himself, carry exposed, unloaded handguns on a daily basis and will likely choose to openly carry unloaded long guns in lieu of handguns once the law takes effect in January.

I wonder what the reaction of the Legislature will be once people start carrying rifles in public.

California Gun Bills - Results Are In

Governor Brown has signed or vetoed the various firearms bills sent to him by the Legislature.  This post on Calguns has the scorecard:

• AB809 Long Gun Registration: Signed.  Starting January 1, 2014, all long gun transfers will have to be performed using a FFL and DROS.   In effect, California now requires long gun registration.
• SB819 Redirection of DROS Fees: Signed. Starting immediately, DROS fees are to be redirected into the DOJ budget for regulatory and enforcement activities.
• AB144 Unloaded Open Carry Ban: Signed.  As of January 1, 2012, open carry of an unloaded handgun will be a misdemeanor.
• SB610 LTC Reform: Signed. Starting immediately, all agencies processing applications for a License To Carry a concealed weapon must follow uniform procedures as outlined in this bill.  This is a VERY GOOD result.
• AB427 Handgun Ammunition: Vetoed. Thank God! At least we don't have to fight the AB 962 fight again this year!

These results are not as good as I hoped, but not as bad as I feared.  The worst of the bills that have passed is long gun registration, of course, and I am sorry about AB 144.  SB819 is not really a surprise since the state is broke, and Brown will be trying to sweep any amount to money he can into operating budgets.  But two very big pieces of legislation are now law: LTC application process must be uniform, and we don't have to re-fight the ammunition fight from last year.

Violence Policy Center Admits Most Gun Control Laws Don't Work

I came across this page on the Violence Policy Center web site and was surpised to read the following:

"Whether at the local, state or federal level, the principal flaw that has plagued legislative efforts has been an almost exclusive focus on over-the-counter sales standards and a mistaken belief that it's possible to separate "good" handguns (those in our hands for self-defense) from "bad" handguns (those in the hands of criminals). Yet as noted earlier, most gun deaths are not crime related. And as the NRA correctly notes, criminals will be the last to obey any gun-control law.

The limitations of such an approach are illustrated by the recently enacted Brady bill. Waiting periods create a cooling-off period between the time a customer buys a gun and the time it may be possessed. In theory, this delay helps stop crimes of passion, and although anecdotal evidence suggests this happens occasionally, most suicides and shootings between friends and family occur with weapons already available.

In theory, background checks increase the chance of identifying those in proscribed categories who attempt to purchase firearms through legal channels. Such laws define the proscribed group as those with a prior felony conviction or deemed mentally unfit, yet such individuals rarely even attempt to buy guns personally from retail outlets.

A second conceptual flaw is the implicit assumption that anyone without a felony record is by definition "law-abiding." Under such systems individuals with arrest records and convictions for serious crimes are able to acquire guns legally because they have never been convicted of a felony. Patrick Purdy, the Stockton schoolyard killer, had a nine-year criminal history replete with weapons violations but could legally purchase a handgun under California law.

Recently, in the wake of the Brady bill's passage, attention has focused on the licensing of handgun owners. Licensing does offer some benefits: The information is useful in tracing weapons; identification of those in proscribed categories attempting to purchase firearms through legal channels is increased; and the application process itself may discourage sales to casual buyers. The limitations of licensing are that such systems are expensive to administer; it would have little effect on most gun violence, such as suicide or shootings between people who know each other; and anyone in a proscribed category desiring a gun could easily find one in the alternative, nonretail marketplace.

And although the most common argument heard in favor of licensing is "We license cars, why not license handguns?" public-health experts note that the licensing of cars had little effect on the death rate associated with autos. It was not until changes were made to the product itself--such as seat belts, air bags and improved structural design--that the number of deaths began to decline."

 Wow.  Let me summarize this:

1. No such thing as a "good" or a "bad" handgun.  Assigning moral values to objects is a mistake.
2. Waiting periods do not perform their intended task.
3. Prohibited persons rarely make gun purchases from retail dealers, so background checks are useless.
4. People with arrest records and violent misdemeanors should be prohibited from purchasing.
5. Licensing schemes will not have a large effect on firearms violence.
6. Only changes to the dangerous product itself can have an effect on the resultant violence.

Points 1, 2, 3, and 5 seem to show that VPC as of 1998, the copyright date of this document, have given up on the staples of gun control: licensing, and other purchase limitations.  Points 4, and 6 seem to telegraph what has happened since that time: more and more misdemeanor violent convictions result in prohibited status of individuals, and we have seen increasing ploys to dictate changes in gun manufacture, such as owner authorized handgun technology, micro-stamping, and ammunition serialization.

We also see the same old trend in the gun control side: the idea that controlling an object will have an effect on the actions of people: gun violence.  They do not seem to understand that if guns disappeared, gun violence would simply be converted into "knife violence", or "fist violence" or "bludgeon violence".

We have more guns, handgun and long guns, in this country than ever, but violent crime has been dropping every year. If VPC's logic was correct, we should be seeing an epidemic of gun violence, but despite the preaching of Joan Peterson, this is not happening.  

What is VPC trying to eliminate now?  Public carry of firearms by law abiding citizens.  They have clumsily telegraphed their intentions, but we need to stay vigilant. I think that the gun-rights community is on the offensive, and the sheer numbers of us will be telling in any election.  If I take the VPC claim that the 160 persons are actually valid carry permit holders convicted of gun crimes, then that means 6,140,646 carry permit holders have not committed any crimes.

That kind of makes the Violence Policy Center look pretty pathetic, doesn't it?

Joan Peterson Gets One Right

I have to admit, that when she's right, she's right:

"It's simple, or maybe not so simple. Things are not always as simple as the NRA and its minions would have us believe. What the gun guys really want is to quash the intent of May Issue states and open up the possibility of residents in those states suing for equal protection by saying “If they get to, why not us?” See the Indiana case mentioned in my previous post. This bill is part of a legal strategy to overturn all permitting processes in the states. The fact that some states have no permitting requirements at all provides them with an excuse to sue under the "equal protection" clause in the constitution - a favorite strategy of the NRA. That way, they get what they really want through the courts. Unfortunately for them, they don't win many of these challenges. So May Issue states would be California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland and Hawaii. The permit holders in other states would just love to carry their guns into these states but they can't now. Thus we have H.R. 822. H.R. 822 will also allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in any state with a licensing system.  In other words, all states except Illinois."

Yes, that is pretty much the strategy,  but she does go on to mislead things a bit:

"So one could assume that all the dangerous people in Florida who can get permits there can carry wherever they want. "

"all those dangerous people" are still required to go through a background check, submit fingerprints, and a photograph, attend a training course, and the Florida permit is accepted in 30 states, so it must be a pretty good system, at least as good as in the 30 states that extend reciprocity.

The real problem with may-issue states is that issuing authorities, at least in urban California, interpret this to mean "no-issue", except to privileged people. In this way Illinois is actually more fair than California: they are at least when they deny a right they deny it to everyone.  H.R. 822 is indeed a political tactic, because the goal of the gun-rights movement is to ensure that law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms in public for self-defense have the ability to do so.

H.R. 822 is perhaps premature, since the courts have not yet confirmed carry as a right covered by the 2nd Amendment, but once that right is affirmed, H.R. 822 will be ripe for implementation.  H.R. 822 really scares Joan and people like her.  They are losing, and they know it.  Their ability to limit gun-rights is slipping away day by day, and passage of H.R. 822 would be a significant defeat for them.  And once it is demonstrated that carry license holders do not cause problems in the states they visit, the Joan Peterson's will lose that much more or their dwindling credibility.

Joan Peterson's Positions

I have been reading Joan Peterson's blog Common Gunsense for a few months, and like many pro-rights people I have wondered where she stands on particular issues.  Others have tried to explain what Joan believes, as well. This is sometimes hard to discern from her rather preachy articles, but her replies to comments are often very illuminating.  I have to mention that she is quite articulate in her beliefs, and despite the comments of people on her blog, has been consistent and uncompromising. In the following paragraphs I paraphrase her positions as I have come to understand them from reading her blog, and then include my comments. Let us begin:

1. Joan Peterson supports a ban on standard capacity magazines, and wants to limit magazine capacity.
2. Joan Peterson supports restriction of firearms ownership rights of felons and mentally ill.
3. Joan Peterson supports a ban on certain types of assault weapon, particularly the AK-47, the weapon in question in this URL.
4. She seems to support a ban on new purchases, with non-transferable ownership right for owners of newly banned weapons upon a new law going into effect.
   

These positions are supported by this post:

"More importantly here is that we should be restricing high capacity magazines and we should also restrict access to guns for people like this in any and all ways we can. We should also reconsider a ban on certain types of assault weapons. It would take a while to get them off the streets, but eventually, we may be able to have some sanity in our country regarding guns."

I fully support point number 2, and it is the law today that felons and mentally ill individuals cannot buy firearms.  But with so many firearms in circulation, and private party sales not requiring background checks, prohibited people can still legitimately purchase firearms. 

1. Joan Peterson believes that more guns necessarily result in more guns deaths.
2. Joan Peterson believes that guns should be properly and safely secured against theft and accidental use.
3. Joan Peterson does not believe that a gun ban is legally possible.
4. Joan Peterson believes that gun confiscation was never an option.
   

These positions are supported by this post, emphasis added:

"I believe that more guns = more gun deaths. That is my personal belief and that of a lot of folks who work to prevent gun violence. We want guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. We want those of you who have them to make sure they are safe and strored so they are not stolen which is where most of the crime guns come from. Our belief does not translate into what is a possible or probable action. Banning guns is off the table after the 2 Supreme Court rulings. Confiscating guns was never on the table. Life is what it is. There are a lot of guns out there- too many in my estimation. I know I can't do much about that except to raise awareness and get you guys to admit that there a few simple and common sense things we can do together to stem the tide of gun violence. You guys know perfectly well what I propose and you keep asking as if I have never answered the question. I call that harassment. It won't work. Ask me something you don't know the answer to and maybe you will get an answer. But please do not keep asking what I propose and please do not keep saying I want your guns. That is folly on your part. It is a useless line of argument and discussion."

And by this post, emphasis added:

"Keep observing as I know you will. You will not see me suggesting a national plan to disarm citizens. Again- take it easy out there. Your life will be a lot less stressful. "

I do not believe that point 1 is true, but I would be hard pressed to find definitive statistics to prove it.  No responsible gun owner could possible disagree with point 2, in my opinion, if for no other reason than guns are valuable property.  Point 3 assures us that Joan Peterson understands the legal reality in the post-Heller United States, no matter what her personal feelings on the matter are, but I'd bet she thinks that a renewed Assault Weapon Ban would be constitutional.  I think there is a solid argument to the contrary, but that issue will only be taken up if such a law is passed. On point 4, however, that might have been true for the people Joan Peterson knows in the anti-rights community, but it is not true of all:

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[22]

So Joan Peterson is incorrect claiming that gun confiscation was never an objective of the anti-gun political community.  They simply lost that argument years ago.

1. Joan Peterson wants to limit guns that allowed to be used in self defense,  and believes that she and her allied organizations are best suited to determine those limits.
2. Joan Peterson does not understand "gun culture", and is frightened by people who live within the gun culture.
   

These points are supported by this post, emphasis added:

"I was, and still am, in favor of banning certain types of assault weapons similar to those banned in the previous AWB. When you guys talk about banning guns, you appear to be saying that we would ban ALL guns. I'm sure you know that is not true. My desire to have zero gun deaths is an aspirational goal. One must have goals. My goal is not to ban all of your guns. Some guns, to me and those with whom I work, are guns that should not be available to the average citizen. They were not meant to be used for hunting or self defense. Those are the ones we think should not be in the market place. But given that that is unlikely to happen, if you MUST have those guns because you perceive them to be necessary for whatever reason that would be, having fewer rounds to shoot from them is only sensible. You just plain do not need to shoot off a lot of rounds for self defense. On the face of it, it makes no sense to most people. Many who are gun owners are hunters who only own hunting guns and they are not interested in the least in the type of military style weapons some of you collect or claim to need. These folks would never consider large capacity magazines. It is a minority of you who feel this way. Gun owners are a diverse group. Many of them happen to agree with me and that has been shown in most polling over many years so it is not a one time response. So, I do want to ban magazines of greater than 10 or 11 rounds. That is true. I support the McCarthy bill. You knew that, though. I have never said I would try to ban guns other than those that I have mentioned above. It will never happen plain and simply. Even if I did believe that, it would just never happen, so why try? I don't like all of the guns out there and don't find them to be necessary personally except for hunting and some for self defense. I'm just not into guns like you guys are. We live in 2 distinct cultures. We are trying to understand this but it sure is difficult, right? I see the enthusiasm at gun shows. I see all the people who like to look at and buy guns there. That is just a culture so foreign to me that it makes me uncomfortable. Truly, I do not know anyone who feels as you guys do and I know a lot of people from many walks of life. I know a lot of gun owners, by the way, and I have written their views. They represent the views of the majority of gun owners."

 I  think Joan Peterson's desire to limit the defensive capabilities of firearms allowed to citizens stems from her fear of the "gun guys".  It is natural to fear what one does not understand, as it is to mistrust those whom you fear.  But excuse me, I will not acquiesce to limits on my self defense weapon choices based on Joan Peterson's fears, and the actions of felons who can't be trusted outside of prison, let alone in possession of firearms.

I will agree that in society that some kind of compromise must be made.  Here is my suggestion: Non-law enforcement citizens should be allowed to possess and carry in public any weapon a law enforcement officer is allowed to carry, and law enforcement officers should be limited to weapons that citizens are allowed to possess.

Police are not the military, and I am disturbed by the apparent militarization of police agencies and the increasing use of tactical squads to serve no-knock warrants in circumstances that do not seem to justify such force.  Police are not a special class of individuals in society: they are citizens with special duties and responsibilities, but the citizen is, or should be, sovereign.

1. Joan Peterson thinks that public schools should have no role in teaching about firearm safety.
   

This  point is supported by this post, emphasis added:

"You guys have talked about this before. It's just not going to happen. As you know, our schools are having lots of budget cuts and teachers have a heck of time getting in the required subject matter as it is. To think a teacher would now teach gun safety is a non starter. I think you all should abandon that idea since it just isn't going to happen. Not to mention that people like me would show up at School Board meetings and lobby heavily against it. And I would get a lot of people to that meeting. Since I used to be on the School Board, I know how those things work."

But schools are used to teach about safety all the time, especially driving safety, but I guess automobiles are non-threatening enough to not scare folks.  Granted, her point about teacher work loads and budget cuts are spot-on, but I think it is telling that she could muster a LOT of opposition from parents opposing firearms safety training because most parents are ignorant, and therefore fearful, about guns.

However, this is an issue that is being discussed in some school districts in the U.S.  Virginia has passed legislation that requires the state board of education to design course materials to teach firearm safety in elementary schools.  Arizona has designed a high school course that actually requires students to fire one shot safely at a target.  This law was signed by then-Governor Janet Napolitano, currently the the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the Obama Administration.  Ironic.

1. Joan Peterson is most definitely against carrying guns in public for self defense. 
   
2. Joan Peterson opposes shall-issue carry permit laws.
   

This post supports the previous point, emphasis added:

“This is the problem with many of our state's permit to carry laws. There was a reason that permits used to be "may issue". Sheriffs and local Police Chiefs understood that there were some people in their communities who would put themselves or others at risks if they were allowed to get a permit to carry or purchase. They screened applicants more carefully and had the good judgement to deny some folks permits. Now most states have "shall issue" permit laws making it more difficult to deny permits. ”

And this post:

"Yes, indeed, to err is human. We try as a society to make sure those errors don't result in death. We can't stop them all but we sure should try. But when more deadly weapons are owned and carried by gun owners, making an error can result in tragedy. That is why there shouldn't be so many guns in so many public places where errors can happen. "

This is practically the theme of Joan's blog, every article, and every comment she writes.  She knows that she cannot do anything about guns in private homes, but she does not believe that guns in public have any social utility.

I will grant  her one point, however.  She posts many examples of people acting stupidly with firearms, with deadly results.  To me, this is a good argument for training, perhaps government mandated training, but that is a thorny constitutional issue still to be worked out. And I can cite just as many cases of firearms used successfully in self defense as Joan can cite of firearms stupidly mishandled.

But that is not really her argument.  She is adamant that her goal is to reduce gun deaths, and obviously eliminating guns from some aspect of society, guns deaths would be eliminated.  No guns, no gun deaths.  So any citation of the many studies that have been published enumerating the social utility of firearms falls of deaf ears.

And she overlooks, or agrees with, the abuse “may-issue” permit laws perpetrated by law enforcement agencies that deny all people carry permits, except those that are somehow “special”, like well connected celebrities, businessmen, and “friends of the sheriff” who have recently made large campaign contributions. These practices, rampant in urban California, make a mockery of “screened applicants” and “good judgement”. Hence the nationwide wave of shall-issue carry permit laws, taking the power of discretion away from the authorities who abused the trust or the citizens.

1. Joan Peterson makes no distinction between acts of violence and the object used to commit the act.
   
2. Joan Peterson is not really interested in thoughtful discussion of 2^nd Amendment rights.
   

This point is supported this post, emphasis added:

"Good for you, Paul. Knives and guns do actually kill people- the wounds from a knife and the injuries from the bullets coming from the gun kill. I know because 3 bullets killed my sister. It's a matter of semantics but it makes absolutely no difference to the outcome whether or not a gun or the person with the gun killed someone. To me it didn't matter. I just knew that a gun took my sister's life."

This is Joan's ultimate motivation. All of her positions stem from the murder of her sister, and this also explains her absolutely uncompromising stand on her beliefs. It should be no surprise that she ultimately wrote this:

“After careful thought and reflection about the direction my blog has taken since I asked questions and got answers from the "gun guys", I have changed the purpose of my blog. As stated in my last post, I have found that most of the comments were just not getting the two sides of this volatile issue to a place where a thoughtful discussion could take place. Though the title of my blog indicates that I would like to have a discussion, I am not sure that is possible “

which displays her fundamental ignorance and intolerance. Joan Peterson is not really interested in “thoughtful discussion” when that discussion does not agree with her views. She cannot get over her sisters death, will not compromise her view that the availability of guns in public should be curtailed, and can be no more swayed by the counter arguments of those who post on her blog then we can be by her articles. The disagreement is one of fundamental world views, and cannot be bridged.

1. Joan Peterson sometimes writes really stupid stuff.
   

This point is supported by this post, emphasis added:

"The "bust" pictures? Hand grenades and RPGs are sold at gun shows all over the country. They could be sold by private sellers who may or may not require background checks. "

which sounds as if she is claiming that military grade weapons are routinely sold a gun shows, but then she adds this:

"It looks like some hand grenades are for sale on-line: http://www.shopping.com/hand%20grenades/products~NS-1~linkin_id-8013490~cid-59079801511"

Her readers jump all over that, of course, causing her to backpedal a bit:

"Thanks for all of your comments about grenades, most of which are not published here. I am aware that the grenades sold on-line or sometimes at gun shows, which they have been, are the casings without the explosives needed to make them a dangerous weapon. "he grenade casings or shells when they are configured into an inert format are not illegal to possess or to be sold. They become an illegal dangerous weapon when they are reconfigured to make them active or when a suspect purports as a form of intimidation that the device will explode or purports for sell that the device can explode or fragment." from: http://www.azdps.gov/Media/News/View/?p=135. So the problem with having these type of "grenades" available is that they could be made into devices that can explode and cause serious damage. One wonders why the casings are even for sale anywhere. "

So, they are not real grenades after all, but that really does not matter. Joan does not like them, they make her scared, so they should be banned.  Gosh, maybe she will go after lengths of pipe next?

While I continue to read Common Gunsense, I do so less often, and I have stopped posting comments to her articles. I feel that I thoroughly understand her positions and I believe that she is not really interested in what the pro-rights community has to say. She is only interested in preaching to us, while those that still post comments are trying to convince her that she is utterly wrong. A pointless exercise for the reasons I list above. The “debate” on Common Gunsense is at an impasse, and has been for a long time, so reading the site has become quite tiresome.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updated: 9/26/2011

Comment from this post:

"I believe there is a difference between someone carrying a loaded gun on their hip in a public place and a group of unarmed people rallying."

In other words Joan Peterson does not believe that the 2nd Amendment protects a civil right to be armed in public.  As a strict matter of constitutional law, she is right at this time, but I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will find in favor or carry some time on the next couple of years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updates: 9/27/2011

Comment from this post:

"You guys don't care about anything except your selfish desire to carry your toys with you wherever you go. It's the law. The public doesn't even know what's in that law and would find it disconcerting to see you walking around with your holstered gun as you love to do. Just like the public at the zoo in Indiana. And when the legislators who voted in favor of the bill realized what it meant, they started to change their minds. But keep carrying your guns, Bryan. I'm sure everyone will think it's just wonderful to see a guy with a loaded holstered gun strutting around in their communities. It's a great sight- so friendly and peaceful."

This post says it all: the desire to be armed for self defense is "selfish", and we are demeaned as childish for wanting our "toys" where ever we go.  And of course the public must have been somehow hoodwinked into voting in favor of permissive carry laws because there is just no common sense in the idea of carrying firearms in public.  And what Joan is really objecting to about the Indiana incident is the new state law preempting local gun ordinances.  The individual in question was not breaking any law, but just making zoo patrons, and Joan, uncomfortable. To Joan, we are not citizens exercising rights, we are "strutting" around, purposely creating a disturbance.

Media Still Wrong About Fast & Furious

This Newsday story still gets it wrong about Operation Fast & Furious:

Fast and Furious was designed to track guns that "straw buyers" purchased in Phoenix area shops in 2009. The goal was to trace the guns and make cases against traffickers supplying firepower to deadly drug cartels in Mexico. But agents quickly lost track of the weapons and many turned up at crime scenes, including the December shootout in Arizona where border agent Terry died.

 Wrong. Fast & Furious was designed to boost the number of weapons confiscated in Mexico that were traceable to U.S. retail firearms dealers, which would then be used as a pretext to adopt stricter gun control laws, especially the reintroduction of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Fast & Furious was not a "bungled investigation", but rather a covert political operation designed to subvert the 2nd Amendment.

Brady Campaign Quote on AB 144

The following quote appeared in this article that ran in the Los Angeles Times:

Gun control advocates hope that California will now pave the way for the rest of the country to outlaw the practice.

"Openly carrying a gun with [an ammunition] magazine in your back pocket into Starbucks and other establishments creates a culture of fear and intimidation,'' said Brian Malte, director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It is irresponsible and dangerous.''

"People in other states look to see what California does,'' he said. If Brown signs the bill, "other states will follow suit.''

People in other states look at what California does, and them they laugh their asses off.

The Brady Campaign comment is really a combination of disinformation and hopeful speculation.  Open carry of loaded weapons is legal in all but 9 states, and is unlikely to change soon, as many states allow concealed carry with a license.  California, in effect, has already banned open carry because carry of loaded weapons has been illegal in incorporated areas for about thirty years.

But AB 144 is not trivial legislation.  It is in fact very important that this bill be defeated.  The goal of the gun-rights community is to normalize the carry of weapons in public by law-abiding citizens, a goal that I completely support.  AB 144 is an attempt to further marginalize that practice, so defeating it is important.

The Brady Campaign, LCAV, GVPC, and other anti-rights groups realize this, and they realize that carry is the current battleground.  They also realize that carry is the last line: if they loose this, then gun control as a political issue will be dead.  That is why AB 144 is so important to Anthony Portantino and other anit-gun activists.  This is their last stand.

H.R. 822 - Where Do I Stand?

H.R. 822 was recently debated in a House subcommittee, and this begs the question of where do I stand on this issue?

While nobody who regularly reads Left Coast Conservative will be surprised to learn that I support this bill and hope for it to become law, I want to express why it is good law.

The entire issue of carrying weapons in public is ripe for the next level of regulation.  Regulation?  I can hear you all cry "How can my rights be regulated?". Many may not like it, but the fact is that the courts have long held that the exercise of rights are subject to time, place, and, manner restrictions.  Hence, carry licenses are not unconstitutional, not are the objective requirements to obtain one, as long as the issuance is fairly administered.

49 states have some form of carry licensing, or allow carry without a license.  With more and more citizens licensed to carry weapons, carry in states other than the state of residence becomes an issue.  Many states have reciprocity agreements with other states, allowing licensed citizens to carry in other states, subject to the laws of that state. Unfortunately, state laws concerning carry are not uniform, so there is a burden on the citizen to be aware of the differences in the laws between the state of residence, and state where they are carrying at any time.

H.R. 822 provides the first step to uniformity in national carry laws, requiring reciprocity between all states that issue licenses.  If adopted, and shown to be without problems, future enhancements might address uniform objective minimum requirements for carry licenses, or places where carry is prohibited, or procedures for businesses to prohibit carry on their premises.  I firmly believe, that uniformity of the law can only benefit the law abiding citizen, and for this reason I support this bill.

Citizens and politicians in carry-hostile states like California may react in horror at the thought of visitors carrying weapons on our streets.  I would suggest to these people that they are behind the times.  Carry is the front-line issue in the gun right community, and there are many smart people working through the court system to make carry in public a recognized fundamental right.  And there is a good chance that they will succeed.  If successful, then the California system of may-issue licensing will be abolished, forcing our state legislature to confront the issue.  Why not use the passage of H.R 822 to get in front of the issue, and provide California citizens the same privileges enjoyed by citizens of other states?

I am sure that such optimism about our dysfunctional legislature is completely misplaced as we wait for Governor Brown to either sign of veto AB 144, a bill that would ban public carry of unloaded firearms.

Nationwide carry is going to be a reality one day. We need to start a national debate about uniform laws dealing with carry in public, allowing all citizens to understand the legal requirements that they must abide.  The sooner we start, the better off all citizens will be.