By Jay Chambers | Special to TGM
Why should your gun rights be more geographically limited than your permission to operate a motor vehicle (which causes more deaths than guns, including suicide by firearm, according to the CDC)? The Second Amendment is foundational to the United States, so why are some rights confined to the shape of an oven mitt (Michigan), or a boot (Louisiana), or any arbitrary rectangle (the Midwest)?
And how in the name of the 14th Amendment and Supremacy Clause is it okay for a law-abiding Californian to have their constitutional rights ransacked while the gangs of Oklahoma City have an easier time than ever purchasing weapons? And why don’t people realize it isn’t working?
The legislative rush orders for gun control, induced by panic, fear, and grief after events like the Parkland Massacre, continue to engulf the nation at alarming rates. The results are PR-friendly “gun violence solutions” that have no hope at effectiveness. What’s more, they shrink-wrap the natural rights of upstanding gun owners into unrecognizable, useless nothings.
The one little flash of hope currently in play is the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which grants holders of concealed carry permits (or those from constitutional carry states) the right to carry concealed weapons in other states that allow concealed carry. However, the piecemeal gun laws of the states are difficult to transfer, and the system has insane cracks, ripe for the slipping. In many cases, concealed permit holders would probably still get arrested for honest mistakes.
Besides the enforcement issues, the fact remains that the Act barely restores any Second Amendment rights. It fails to strike down “May Issue” state codes, and applies mainly to residential permits, leaving citizens in the most draconian states still at a loss for how to exercise their natural right to self-defense. Furthermore, states like New York have already claimed they will not recognize other permits, regardless of federal law.
Reciprocity is a big win for the Second Amendment, but it isn’t a victory in the war against anti-gunners. One idea for further legislation is elevating concealed carry permits to the federal level, meaning every eligible person in all 50 states (and Washington, DC) stands the same chance of successfully applying for a license. Law enforcement officials already have similar rules in play via LEOSA. Ideally, we’d all get to carry with similar levels of respect and trust from the government.
Should gun wearers push to standardize concealed carry rights at a national level?
First off, the arguments in favor of this paradoxical push are pretty sound. The Second Amendment is not a right granted by the states, so it defies logic that state governments are allowed to modify that right as they please. The standardized characteristics of federal licensure would also pave the way for actual “common sense gun control” authored by somebody besides David Hogg. For example, unity could include new rules for a more effective, less invasive background checks or possibly even federally funded gun safety classes.
Federal permits would also bring accountability to states that fail to enforce the gun laws they already have in place (for example, domestic abusers fail to surrender firearms after conviction more often than they turn them in). Many claim that federal licenses would be a flagrant knock to states’ rights, but widening the scope of practice for human rights is the best possible use of Federal Primacy (see also: the 13th Amendment). Finally, the national gun news could finally be asterisk-free, as citizens are finally treated equally for a change.
Unfortunately for the massive possible benefits of such legislation, bureaucracy presents an equally pressing case against moving concealed carry permitting out of states’ hands. For example, the Federal Government would have a comprehensive list of every concealed carrier, the results of their background checks, and more at their fingertips. These permits would inevitably create a de facto federal registry of handguns and their owners, another breach of privacy. Also, the permits would be much easier to strip under an anti-gun majority.
Outside of corruption potential, Federal Concealed Carry isn’t enough. On a practical level, permits would take much more effort and time to process and keep current. Federal concealed carry is also concerning because it fails to promote the heart of the Second Amendment and its supporters- the right to self-defense, and the idea that the government at any level should have to make a case for revoking rights rather than citizens pleading their case for keeping them.
New question: Should pro-gunners support legislation if it ever makes the main stage?
Though Federal Concealed Carry is not a fix-all for the Second Amendment, it is a step in the right direction, towards the root of the right to self-defense and liberty itself. Frankly, it would be idiotic not to support it, despite the probable privacy issues and bipartisan volatility.
Responsible and pragmatic gun owners should want to carry their concealed weapons across state lines, and they certainly should support a law that would lead to fewer arrests for confusions about technicalities. The Left feeds off of the legal Byzantium of gun rights to fuel their disinformation campaigns, and streamlined legislation is always welcome. Most importantly, a federal permit that bypasses state authority might just have enough firepower to end the blockading of constitutional rights in states like California and New York.
Are there better ways forward? Absolutely!
To be honest, concealed carry is hogging the spotlight from a much more critical issue—fundamental gun rights. If there is a better weapon for self-defense than a state currently allows, then they are in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and should be held accountable per that fact. Every law-abiding citizen deserves to defend themselves equally, regardless of their state of residence, and it’s time for some SCOTUS action to strike down anti-gunners’ atrocious, illegal, and ineffective policies. May we suggest “May Issue” and “No Issue” as the first course of justice?
The best avenue for gun wearers (of the concealed and open carry type alike) is to demand a demonstrable increase in liberty at every step, accountability for gun laws already in place, and equal protection of Second Amendment rights for citizens of every state. Then, and only then, can we progress towards the utopian, LEOSA-like Federal Concealed Carry.
Jay Chambers describes himself as a “free market Libertarian” and runs a website called Minute Man Review.
