Posted on 01/18/2020 3:12:35 AM PST by Kaslin
So much of the gun control debate is about things that might go wrong. Democrats, who just took control of the Virginia state legislature, are about to pass a law that will dramatically limit the ability of people with concealed handgun permits from other states to carry in Virginia. There haven’t been any problems with these permit holders, but that doesn’t matter for gun control advocates.
Currently, Virginia recognizes concealed handgun permits issued by all other states. Out-of-state permit holders can carry in Virginia as long as they follow local laws and carry photo identification.
The current rules came about in 2016 because Virginia’s Attorney General Mark Herring, a staunch gun control advocate, announced that he was going only to recognize the permits issued from five other states. Republicans who then controlled the state legislature fought back and took away Herring’s authority. The new proposed law will again give Herring control over whether permit holders from other states can carry.
It’s not easy for a truck driver to avoid troublesome state and city gun laws as he drives across the country with valuable merchandise. He can quickly run into trouble in “may issue” states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, or California, which give out few permits and require applicants to demonstrate sufficient “need.” Or imagine a single woman driving across state lines at night, hoping that her car won’t break down along the highway.
If state Democrats and Henning get their way, criminals will only need to look for an out of state license plates to know who to attack.
For most of the country, reciprocity is already a fact of life. The average state allows people with concealed handgun permits from 32 other states to travel freely. But the seven “may issue” states and D.C. pull down that average; only one of those seven states, Delaware, recognizes permits from any other state. These “may issue” states only give out permits to people who provide local public officials with a good reason for being able to defend themselves.
There’s no good reason not to issue permits much more generously. Permit holders are extremely law-abiding, losing their licenses for firearm-related violations at rates of thousandths or tens of thousandths of one percentage point.
Police rarely commit crimes, and they are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at about one-twentieth as frequently as the general population. But permit holders are even more law-abiding, facing a conviction rate that is just one-tenth as often.
Some say that we should just rely on the police to protect us. But, unlike Michael Bloomberg, whose huge campaign donations made a big difference in Democrats taking control of Virginia, very few of us have trained security details. What happens when no one is there to help?
Police are extremely important in reducing crime, and my research has consistently shown me that they are the single most important factor. Still, police also know that they virtually always arrive on the crime scene after the crime occurs. There is no way for the 686,000 police officers in the United States, most of whom aren’t on duty at any point in time, to be everywhere and protect 320 million people at once.
Very fast average police response times maybe six minutes, but who wants to face an attacker without protection for one minute, let alone six?
Despite all the fears of gun control advocates, there is a reason that over 86% of police chiefs and sheriffs support national reciprocity. And over 90 percent of street officers support concealed handgun laws. These are the people who see first-hand how reciprocity and concealed carry works. Overwhelmingly academic research finds that letting people carry concealed handguns reduces crime.
If gun control advocates could point to hundreds or even dozens of cases where people with out of state permits caused problems, their concerns would be something to consider. But they can’t point to a single such case in Virginia. Virginians don’t need to guess if gun control advocates concerns are justified.
BOOGALOO them
I purpose making shooting targets out of the legislators who vote for this bill. The ones at the range are so androgynous.
Can I take my gun?
and
Do I have to wear a helmet?
States that limit my rights don't get any of my money.
If the Constitution requires every state to allow abortions then why isnt the right to carry a firearm required of every state? Thats reciprocity! And why hasnt this injustice been challenged in court?
It has. Repeatedly.
The Supreme Court, from 1934 to 2008, refused to hear any Second Amendment cases.
The appellate courts heard a few cases, but lied and claimed the Supreme Court had ruled the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals in the Miller case.
Then we had Heller, in 2008, which upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right. Then McDonald in 2010, which held the Second Amendment applied to the states, as well as the federal government.
Since 2010, the Supreme Court has again been refusing to hear Second Amendment cases.
A case is coming up before the court, New York State Rifle & Pistol.
Something may come of that case.
Why, you may ask, has the court been so adamantly opposed to upholding the rule of law and the Bill of Rights?
In my opinion, it is because the Progressives overwhelmingly dominated the media and academia.
It would have been completely different if the New York Times and the Washington Post excoriated Supreme Court justices for failing to uphold the Second Amendment.
Instead, they praised them, wrote articles about the absolute need for more infringements, and about how the Constitution is a "living document" meaning whatever 5 Supreme Court justices wanted it to mean.
—and , of course, same sex marriage MUST be recognized by all states—but not not concealed weapons permits in spite of Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution-—
Consider....when the carry movement started to take off dems said it would be the ‘wild west’, rivers of blood in the streets. That never happened. In fact it had the opposite effect exc in those locations where guns were highly restricted. There’s a history now for anyone who will see it.
Exactly correct.
But it contradicts the core beliefs of Progressives, so it must be ignored and/or discredited.
John Lott doesn’t recognize one simple fact: Leftists are not interested in facts or the truth, they are interested in power. Their supporters are also not interested in facts or the truth, they are interested in feeling good and virtue-signaling.
“Gun Control Advocates” could care less about your arguments otherwise Those arguments only get in the way
A federal Constitutional Carry law is the solution!
Actually, we already have the Second Amendment, but a law that guarantees the right of citizens to carry anywhere in the USA would be a beneficial “addendum!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.