Skip to comments.Close the Personal Self-Defense Loophole, says Gun Law Expert
Posted on 02/07/2011 3:57:17 AM PST by marktwain
"It's time to close the national personal self-defense loophole," gun rights expert John M. Snyder said here today.
"Congress should enact national reciprocity for citizens issued permits to carry concealed firearms by individual states," he added.
A former National Rifle Association, Snyder is Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
"An individual who has a state-issued permit to carry a concealed firearm ought to be able to carry in any state in the same way an individual with a driver's license can drive anywhere in the United States," Snyder said.
"Such a law would be of societal as well as personal benefit," he said. "As John R. Lott, Jr. has pointed out in his study More Guns Less Crime, rates of violent crime drop precipitously in jurisdictions adopting ccw laws.
"The states recognize this. Eighty percent of them have such laws on the books. Members of Congress know this. Just recently, several have indicated the personal possibility of utilizing the benefits of ccw laws. These include Reps. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Morgan Griffith of Virginia, Allen West of Florida, and Renee Ellmers and Heath Shuler of North Carolina."
Snyder said "we continually witness the phenomenon of gun-grabbing politicians and media extremists trying to manipulate the criminal use of firearms by a few into a fulcrum from which to generate public support for limits on the gun rights of all law-abiding citizens. They appear practically to salivate when an individual misuses a gun in a particularly heinous manner. They're bent on undermining the individual Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms.
"The people aren't buying their junk. Polls show declining support for gun control laws and increasing support for the gun rights of all Americans. Legal purchases of guns and ammunition are at record levels. About 100 million Americans own about 200 million rifles, shotguns and handguns."
Snyder said "what's missing is a law enabling citizens with state-issued ccw permits to carry guns throughout the United States. It's time to close this loophole in the right to self-defense."
John M. Snyder Manager Telum Associates, LLC Arlington, VA 202-239-8005
I would also love to see a national Castle Law that gives citizens (not illegal aliens) the right to use deadly force to defend themselves in their home and any place they have a legal right to be without having a duty to retreat and that would protect them from civil litigation arising from defending themselves.
Except in NY, MA, NJ, MD, CA and IL where anti-gun rights politicians keep getting relected - in some cases (Carolyn McCarthy D. NY) solely on their extreme anti-gun stance. To me this says that the majority of voters in those states is of a like mind in regarding our right to keep and bear arms as something that they'd like to get rid of.
It sickens me that we as US citizens have to have to seek government permission to engage in any of our God-given rights.
I still think the one and only firearms law needed at the national level is the Second Amendment. More than that and it invites attacks from Commies all over the place, looking for nuances and tiny little holes they can stick their laws.
Anything the federal government "gives" they can take away.
Would you trust 0bama with this power?
It does me as well. No Permits should be required for law abiding citizens. Nor should any records of purchase be kept by government.
men and amen Great points.
Why should the federal government get involved in this at all? Most states have reciprocity with other CCW states. If you get the feds involved now, in five years, an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Act will contain conditions on reciprocity and the next thing you know, the feds will be dictating the content of state CCW laws.
I am opposed to the feds sticking their noses in regarding CCW. Once they do, the next step will be to have "uniform" federal regs on requirements to get a CCW. No thanks.
We're much better off just continuing with the trend and pushing our locals state legislatures to expand reciprocation coverage with the other states.
The “Castle Law” has already been addressed:
2 If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
Absolutely... To invite or allow the Feds to invite themselves into the "regulation" of any right, is to forever kiss that "right" goodbye!
Any that want this type of law, must get off their butts and make it happen in their states.
Constitutional Carry legislation is the way to go, once all or most states are on board, then the "transportation" between states is almost a given. If not, the states can mandate on their own with "reciprocity" agreements, as they do now... keeping the Feds out of it.
>In an ideal world, there would be no “states’ rights” when it came to firearms just as there are no “states’ rights” when it comes to freedom of speech, press or religion.
Funny you should mention that.
Incorporation, as it’s been practiced, is a *REALLY* odd duck — if you were to take the text of the first amendment and apply it against the States it would have no effect BECAUSE it specifically names Congress as prohibited from passing those laws and [most] States do not *have* a Congress, but a legislature. So, in order to ‘incorporate’ the first amendment against the States you have to first alter the meaning/wording of the Amendment.
That is, in my opinion, a VERY dangerous thing to do.
Most other Amendments in the Bill of Rights (Second to Eighth, inclusive) prohibit or guarantee an action. I.E. the Fourth is applicable to searches and seizures in general, the acting party is not named. Some argument may be made that these are applicable to the Federal Government only because restrictions against the States tend to be specifically spelled out; I reject these because wording like “In all criminal prosecutions” are inclusive — that is, a State bringing Criminal charges against someone is still bringing Criminal charges.
The Second Amendment is particularly interesting because it is written in the passive voice; this means that the action is the subject and the actor is irrelevant. The subject being the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is not to be infringed... and the enactor of that infringement is irrelevant.
We’ll need another election.
I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog. And I don't have a dog.