NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS THE ANSWER TO INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.
On January 3, 2017, Richard Hudson, (R-NC), introduced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (115 H.R. 38) in the House of Representatives. This Bill, if enacted would allow an individual “who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.” What is the status of this bill? It languishes in Committee. Nothing is being done on it, but momentum is building across the Country to compel Congress to take action.
Antigun politicians are angered and frightened that national concealed handgun carry will become a reality. In response, they create unsound, bogus arguments directed to containing the very possibility of it. Case in point: Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, according to an article by Mark Moore, appearing in the June 25, 2017 edition of the New York Post, titled, “DA: I am sure ISIS supports concealed carry reciprocity bill, asserts, ludicrously, that national concealed handgun carry will play into the hands of Islamic terrorists. This is merely a new twist on the favorite tired line of antigun groups—that this Nation has a gun problem—as if to suggest that guns, inanimate objects, are responsible for criminal violence. That idea is not only false, it is imbecilic. Sentient beings are responsible for violence, and it is those beings who engineer violence who are to be constrained, not the implements the perpetrators use to promote and do violence.
Of course, as we have seen, most notably, in Europe, but also here at home, Islamic terrorists don’t demonstrate a preference toward any one implement when destroying lives: bombs, knives, axes, gasoline, even trucks and automobiles as well as firearms are used–and often several of these implements in one horrific act of violence have been used–by Islamic terrorists, and with devastating effect against innocent civilians–and against soldiers and against police officers as well.
Why are guns singled out as the cause célèbre of violent deeds? The emphasis on guns plays into the tiresome raison d’etre of antigun groups: “get rid of guns,” so they say, “and all will be right with the world.” That is utter nonsense, of course, but the theme plays out in the remonstrations of politicians and as echoed in the choruses of pundits and journalists of the mainstream media through endless, insufferable iterations—an incessant cacophony of meaningless sound bites.
Violent crime is a sad fact of life, but its impact can be minimized. In fact, the impact of violent crime can be and has been minimized by arming, not by disarming the American public, and the impact of violent crime can be further minimized through strict enforcement of criminal penalties against those who inflict pain and suffering on innocent Americans. The latest incarnation of violent crime, international Islamic terrorism, is a special species of violent crime, to be sure, a species of crime that must, of course, be dealt with, and must be dealt with at the highest Government levels.
In the U.S., the threat posed by international Islamic terrorism is being dealt with sensibly, rationally, and directly, by the U.S. President, Donald Trump. An armed American citizenry can certainly aid the U.S. President in his efforts.
Courts in the Ninth Circuit though disagree. Not content merely to disarm the American public—inhibiting Americans from exercising their natural right of self-defense with the best means available—a firearm—the Courts of the Ninth Circuit have attempted to throw a wrench into the President’s efforts as well—opining, wrongly, that individuals, non-citizens, who reside outside of this Country, have rights secured under the Bill of Rights and that, in effect, the rights of these non-citizens apparently transcend the security of this Nation and the security of its people. Non-citizens residing outside our Country, though, have no rights or liberties under our Bill of Rights and the concerns of non-citizens residing outside our Country do not transcend—will never transcend—the needs and security of the citizens of our own Nation.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26, 2017 decision is consistent with that principle. The high Court essentially stayed the preliminary injunctions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, opining that the preliminary injunctions were valid only to the extent that a refugee could establish a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4266. Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, concurred in part and dissented in part in the unanimous decision of the high Court. In his dissent Justice Thomas stated that he, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, would have granted a full stay of the preliminary injunctions. Justice Thomas stated in pertinent part:
“The Government has satisfied the standard for issuing a stay pending certiorari. We have, of course, decided to grant certiorari. . . . And I agree with the Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—that is, that the judgments below will be reversed. The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its “compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.” Finally, weighing the Government’s interest in preserving national security against the hardships caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry into the country, the balance of the equities favors the Government. I would thus grant the Government’s applications for a stay in their entirety.”
Clearly, the best defense against international Islamic terrorism and the first-line of defense for our Nation is found in an armed citizenry. To paraphrase a statement of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, the best deterrent against a “bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” That may seem like a trite slogan, but, time and time again, it has been proved true.
The natural right of self-defense should never be restricted and must never be trivialized. Unfortunately, those who hold an irrational hostility toward gun ownership and toward gun possession by the law-abiding citizenry will continue their efforts to constrain the natural right of self-defense. But, they are losing. They are left flailing about, trying to drum up support for their doomed cause: namely, destruction of our Nation’s sacred Second Amendment. The bizarre, irrational statements of antigun proponents, like those of the Manhattan DA, Cy Vance, aptly illustrate the extent of their desperation.
The Arbalest Quarrel is a strong supporter of National Concealed Handgun Carry legislation. We provide a strong case for it in our continuing series: “A ROAD TRIP WITH A GUN.” You will find those articles and much more right here, on this website.
Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me point out the following: Regardless of the politically acceptable rationale that may be given at the time, the ultimate objective of ALL anti-gun legislation, at any level, is simply to make it more difficult for the ordinary citizens (since they are the only ones who obey such laws) to be armed. Why would any government want to do that? Well, ANY government might not, but Socialist governments invariably do, because the ultimate objective of socialist governments is to make the citizens as dependent as possible upon the government for everything, in this particular case, for their personal safety and defense. To do this it is necessary to effectively disarm the public, hence anything that moves in that general direction is considered a reasonable law. Logical arguers may say that it doesn’t address any specific problem, but in fact, it does. It’s just not a problem that is normally admitted openly. It addresses the “problem” (for Socialists) of retaining the idea of an armed public, or self-reliant citizens, as socially acceptable concepts. Any law that attacks or degrades those concepts, no matter how minor, is “a step in the right direction” for them.
We can already see the result of this kind of thing in the UK, where the citizens (actually subjects) are told to “run, hide, tell someone,” in case of violent attack. Not, as here in the USA, to “run, hide, FIGHT.” Ordinary folks in places like the UK are not “equal” in the physical sense that they are inevitably at the mercy of anyone physically bigger, stronger, younger, more aggressive, etc. than they themselves. Obviously, the government will not/cannot be there when they get attacked, but the government has still made them reliant upon it for their safety. Hence they are told not to resist; indeed, resistance is virtually always illegal there – just “tell someone” (meaning someone in the government). Ordinary folks go along with this, and it even seems reasonable, only AFTER they have been disarmed and made vulnerable. After all, if you can’t defend yourself, you can always tell the government after you’ve been victimized, and that feels like you are “doing something about the problem.” This is also why, “victims” must be lauded, and “heroes” denigrated. In the UK today, it is actually illegal to behave heroically in the face of a physical assault!
The presence of guns in the hands of the public changes this dynamic dramatically. In that case, as is the case in the USA (at least in those states with relatively “loose” gun regulations), a human predator must always consider whether or not his intended victim may be armed, and therefore able to defend him/herself effectively. If I am a strong, aggressive, thug, targeting a smaller, elderly person for mugging, and I live in TX or FL, for example, then I must consider that I may not be the “stronger” one in the encounter, because my intended victim may be armed. That makes the older, physically weaker, person equal to me. That’s what the old adage meant when it said, “God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal.” WITH guns readily available to the public, everyone is potentially equal (at their own option); WITHOUT guns everyone is potentially at the mercy of anyone bigger and stronger. So it is the availability of guns to the general public that makes its members physically equal. And it is from that sense of physical equality, that we develop the temerity to think that we know what is best for ourselves, and can actually govern ourselves. And, beneath all the rhetoric and arguments, that is ultimately why we Americans so cherish our guns – they are what make us equal.
This feeling/attitude of physical equality, and the sense of self-reliance and confidence it engenders, inevitably changes a person’s worldview. This different worldview is inevitably carried over into other walks of life as well, including into one’s political beliefs, and THAT is something socialism cannot survive, and therefore cannot tolerate.