Concealed Carry: the Permitting Patchwork

Given the current debate over gun control, I have done a significant amount of research concerning guns, permitting, and the like. I'm not going to beat you over the head with the same talking points you've probably heard a thousand times already. Instead, I'm going to delve into something that's been a problem for quite some time now and propose an actual solution.

Now, if you think the idea of a citizen being allowed to carry a handgun as they go on about their daily lives is abhorrent, you'd probably best stop reading now. I'm pretty much writing to those people who support the right to carry.

As I was poking about on the Internet, I stumbled upon USAcarry.com. I don't know much about this organization and am not making an endorsement here but their website provides a very interesting service.

Courtesy of  USAcarry.com

You can see, via an interactive map, what states accept other states' concealed carry permits. After only a few minutes, I was shocked at how patchy states' reciprocity is.

As you can see here to the left, if I had a permit from my old home state of Texas, I would be good to carry in thirty five states (slightly fewer if I had a non-resident permit). The blue states are those where I could carry, red means I couldn't, Texas is green because it's selected and Illinois is black because they've never heard of the Second Amendment.

Courtesy of  USAcarry.com

However, if I were to obtain a permit from my current home state of Minnesota, the map to the right paints a completely different picture. A Minnesota permit allows for carry in only twenty four states.

Even if you disagree with me on the right to carry, surely we can agree on this: such a patchwork is silly.

Now, the easiest solution would be to hand all permitting to the Federal Government.

And that would be really, really stupid.

Indeed, when we have a problem that affects all the states, our default setting is to turn to the Feds. However, we have a federalist system. In our system of governance, the states have rights (many more rights than are actually afforded to them).

Since we have apparently agreed as a society that the carry of concealed weapons must be regulated and the Constitution does not provide for such regulation to be undertaken by the Federal Government, that authority must then fall to the states.

Unfortunately, this then creates the nightmare of one state trying to create reciprocity with forty nine other states and five U.S. possessions too. And, judging by those maps...it just doesn't happen.

So now on to my proposed solution.

I believe that those states who wish to secure this freedom for their citizenry should look to form a coalition through which all member states will seek to create a universal standard for training and licensing. Provided that each member state implements these standards, each member state will provide full reciprocity to every other member state.

Each member state could withdraw at anytime, upholding the appropriate sovereignty for each state.

It seems to me, that such a coalition would increase training standards for citizens and universalize appropriate background check methods.

I would, however, like some input on this. Is such a group destined to fail because of differences?

Liberty: Where it Ends

America is founded on the basic beliefs in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These rights, “endowed by our creator,” are vast. However, so many of the debates roiling in this country today can ultimately be traced to one question: where do our rights end?

I won’t make you wait to the end of this post for an answer to the question.

Your rights end where someone else’s begin.

It is on this basis that conservatives oppose something such as abortion. The fact of the matter is, it’s the right-wing that defends freedom will but we oppose abortion because we believe that abortion robs the right of life from another human; abortion infringes on that person’s rights.

To use an example we can all agree on, you do not have the right to rob someone’s house because you are infringing on their right to own private property. You cannot murder someone based on the same logic.

Yet, the liberal would have you believe that it is up to the government to create arbitrary limits on your rights and liberties based on what is “fair.” Who gets to define “fair?” They do. This is because the liberal rejects the idea of God-given rights and instead submits that you have only the rights granted to you by your government. You see, they know what’s best. (Mostly based on the current public opinion polls.)

The fact is that with God-given rights (or “natural law,” for those not inclined toward faith) have natural, logical boundaries. And if you think about it, why wouldn’t they? The universe has rules that govern seemingly every aspect of its existence: physics, logic, etc. The Civil Society simply seeks to codify these natural boundaries in an effort to universalize their enforcement across the Society, not to create (or eliminate) boundaries based on popular opinion or political expediency.

The liberal, however makes every choice with political expediency in mind so as to further his or her personal viewpoint. They way they trample the Constitution, the very basis by which we codify Natural Law, is clearly indicative of a desire to shape our country and society in their image: an artificial, unnatural image. Yet, given what we are taught in school, how is the average student to know that not all opinions are equally valid? The liberal, and all those to the left of them, ignore completely the nature of humankind.

They ignore nature (except, of course, to use it as a propaganda tool), and logic and above all, they ignore nature’s God.

If your rights do not end where the next person’s begin, there can only be two things: overlap, which can only cause conflict, and space.

Overlap occurs when two “rights” interfere with each other. For example, we all know that we have the right to private property. However, the government has created a “right” to welfare.  Uh oh! You have money and these other people don’t! Yoink! Thank goodness the government was there to fix that problem (that it itself created). (I’ll write at a later time about welfare. I’m not against it but it’s in desperate need of reform.)

Ok, that seems clear enough but what about this “space?”

When there’s space between where one person’s rights end and another’s begin, do you really think that the government will be satisfied to leave it be? Of course not! Where there is space, the government will find a way to occupy it.

The first example that springs to my mind is government regulation of speech. The leftist often argues that speech that he labels as “hate speech” should be banned (of course the speech that he argues as hateful is always speech from the right and never the poison spewed from the likes of Jeremiah Wright).

The Conservative, on the other hand, argues that all speech is protected up to the point where an individual’s speech creates both an “imminent” and “probable” threat to the rule of law. A true conservative would fight to the death to protect all speech: even speech he or she disagrees with.

But the leftist would seek to inject government into that contrived space between individuals. Using the false imagery of itself as a shield between the speaker and someone who might have their feelings hurt by his speech, the government stretches its tentacles into still more of our daily lives. Then how do we know where our liberty ends?

You’d better be a legal scholar or something to know what you can or can’t do because common sense just doesn’t cut it anymore.

Please Leave.

I was reading Laura Ingraham’s book The Obama Diaries today over lunch. I read the following quote and wanted to expound upon it.

“[Textbooks and teachers] also teach young people that it’s perfectly acceptable to loathe America while taking full advantage of all the benefits of living here.”

This reminded me of a belief that I’ve never fully thought through and has always sat on the “back burner” of my mind, so to speak. But I’ve thought it through now and say, with confidence, that if you don’t like America, LEAVE.

Seriously.

If you don’t like it, go find some place else that will allow you all the freedoms and opportunities you have here while somehow also fitting into whatever world view you’ve concocted. And good luck.

The reason, I think, that I’ve subconsciously rejected the idea of actually speaking this out loud is that it’s really harsh. And, believe it or not, I’m not a mean person. Plus, isn’t America supposed to be a “melting pot” of people and culture and ideas?

Yes! My idea doesn’t run counter to that, even if it seems to on the surface. But look deeper.

Wanting America to advance, wanting to fix problems and improve even more on this great society is not only okay but laudable. It’s those who seek to transform our country, to make it something that it’s not, to subvert the very intuitions that made our country exceptional: it’s those people with whom I have a problem.

I’ve stayed in quite a few hotels. If I have a problem with the hotel I’m staying in, what do I do (well, first I talk to the manager…my metaphor isn’t perfect. Stick with me.)? Do I demand that the hotel fix its backwards, unprogressive ways? Do I lead the staff in a complimentary-toiletry-armed workers’ revolution? Do I eat as much food as I could possibly stomach at the continental breakfast to try to “hit them where it hurts?” No. I leave.

I go to the hotel across the street. Besides, they have a pool.

But the fact of the matter is, there is no place as good as America. You could go to Canada or Western Europe for your free healthcare but you’d better be ready to get taxed to death.

You could go to China for your wealth redistribution but you’d better get ready to give up any opinion that isn’t endorsed by the state…if you want to live, that is.

Perhaps you’d like to move to Cuba: the socialist “paradise” that people are risking their very lives to flee every day. The good news is, you wouldn’t have to worry about any other boat traffic in that direction. You might see a lot of people with empty oil barrels strapped to their ’58 Chevy heading back the other way.

There’s always the option of moving to Latin America. I know a good bulletproof vest manufacturer I’d be happy to recommend.

Finally, there’s the most difficult option of all: perhaps you could take a look around you and consider the idea the America isn’t such a bad place after all and that attempting to impose your will on your neighbors isn’t fair.

After all, Constitutional governance isn’t about the imposition of anyone’s will on anyone else. Rather, it is a system by which we maintain the Civil Society for our posterity.

Join with us to help build a stronger America for ourselves and our children.

Or don’t. And find some other place to screw up.