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.

Baltimore Mayoral Candidate Proposes Bullet Tax: Stupid is As Stupid Does

As reported in this story, Baltimore, MD mayoral candidate Otis Rolley proposed a $1 per round "bullet tax", that he claims would have the following effects:

"While the courts have consistently ruled against significant gun control legislation, there is still a way to decrease crime: substantially increase the cost of its commission," Rolley's plan states."

As if there is not already a criminal black market trafficking in highly dangerous and illegal commodity already in Baltimore.  Fortunately for lawful gun owners in Baltimore, the Democratic incumbent won the primary election.

Testimony of David Kopel - H.R. 822

David Kopel, contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy, testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security in favor of H.R. 822.  His written statement can be read here, and has been added to my Get the Fact section.

Chicago Tribune Delivers a Slap to President Obama

When your hometown newspaper urges you to not run for re-election, it is a pretty hard slap in the face.  Is President Obama even losing "favorite son" status in Chicago?  Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman calls for the President to step aside in favor of of Hillary Clinton:

Besides avoiding this indignity, Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can't be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president's.

It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama's reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover.

It won't happen, of course.  Obama is too much of a narcissist to do something selfless for his Party or the nation.  

Testimony of Joyce Lee Malcom in Favor of H.R.822

This document contains the testimony of Joye Lee Malcolm, Professor at George Mason University school of law comparing the approaches to self defense of the United States and the United Kingdom.

This brief testimony compares two approaches to crime prevention and public safety, the American approach of permitting armed citizens to carry weapons for protection and the British approach of disarming subjects of guns and all other means of defense with the promise the state will protect them.

I have never read a better short summation of the reasons justifying laws allowing citizens to be armed in public than this.

This is a must read document.

600 bills, $12,000,000 and a part-time Legislature

In this article, which I was reading because it mentioned AB 144, the Open Carry ban, one finds this little factoid:

“Many aren't worth the paper their glowing news releases were printed on — and certainly not worth the $20,000 legislative cost, on average, that each bill ate up in processing. “

So, let's do the math, shall we? 600 bills means that our frivolous legislature has wasted most of the $12,000,000 that has been spent on the pile of steaming BS that it sent to the Governor's desk.

This seems to be a pretty powerful justification for switching to a part-time legislature.  It seems to work for a lot of other states.

When will we, the citizens, learn that we get the government we deserve?

Urge Governor Brown to Veto AB 144, AB 809, and SB 427

AB 144, AB 809, and SB 427 have all been passed by the state legislature and have gone to Governor Brown's office for his signature or veto.  Please contact Governor Brown to urge that he veto these bills.  Governor Brown's office may be contacted by:

Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160

Here is the text of my fax:

Governor Brown,

As a citizen of this great state, and a lawful firearm owner, I am asking you to veto the following bills that will come before you for signature:

AB 144 - This is a piece of legislation in search of a problem. Carrying of unloaded firearms in public cannot possible be a threat to the public at large because the firearms are, by law, required to be unloaded, and subject to inspection by police officers. Banning a poor substitute for a real defensive carry mode is simply bad law. A good law to adopt would be a shall-issue style CCW program similar to those adopted by other states in recent decades. Requiring citizens who wish to carry in public to do so concealed would allow citizens to protect themselves and prevent alarming the general public.

AB 809 - Long gun registration will be an expensive program to adopt at a time when the state is in fiscal crisis. In addition, experiences in Canada and New York state, and other places that have registration laws, have shown that firearms registration systems do not help police solve crimes. Laws should be effective in accomplishing the goals used to justify them. AB 809 would not be effective.

SB 427 - This is another attempt to regulate handgun ammunition, an attempt that was mooted by the courts when AB 962 was overturned at a very low level in Federal Court. SB 427 is similarly bad law, certainly to attract a lawsuit, almost certainly to be overturned or stayed by a permanent injunction. Once again, laws should be effective in their stated purposes, and SB 427 is not, and thus worthy of a veto.

For the forgoing reasons, I urge you to veto AB 144, AB 809, and SB 427.