What Is The Latest NRA Plot?

There  is just no way to underscore how wrong the latest move by the NRA is for the people of this nation.

The N.R.A. is pushing a bill, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, that would eliminate the gun-toting traveler’s woes. Should it become law, any state that grants concealed-carry permits, no matter how strict the conditions, would be forced to honor a visitor’s concealed-carry permit from another state, no matter how lax that state’s standards.       

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, recently wrote that the current situation “presents a nightmare for interstate travel, as many Americans are forced to check their Second Amendment rights, and their fundamental right to self-defense, at the state line.”       

Nightmare? I think that term better applies to the N.R.A., though it’s not the first word that springs to mind when I mull its current effort.       

Contradiction, hypocrisy: those words rush in ahead. The bill thus far has more than 200 Republican co-sponsors in the House, many of them conservatives who otherwise complain about attempts by an overbearing federal government to trample on states’ rights in the realms of health care, tort reform, education — you name it. But to promote concealed guns, they’re encouraging big, bad Washington to trample to its heart’s content.       

Imagine how apoplectic they’d be if, on certain other matters, Washington forced their states to yield to others’ values the way this bill, H.R. 822, would compel New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut to honor more permissive gun-control regulations from the South and West. As it happens these three Northeastern states all perform same-sex marriages, which more conservative states do not have to recognize.       

It’s not fair to talk only about Republicans. H.R. 822 has dozens of Democratic co-sponsors as well, and when Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, they made no major progress on gun control. Reluctant to cross the N.R.A., they let it slide.    

3 thoughts on “What Is The Latest NRA Plot?

  1. Steve Adams

    It’s about damn time !!! Finally Democrats and Republicans working together to do something productive !!!!!!! The Second Amendment Lives !!!!!!!

  2. Cau

    Respectfully, dekerivers’ logic seems bass-ackwards.

    The new law–if it would ever be possible to get past the gunophobic left–would merely (somewhat) neutralize the plethora of earlier laws that have abridged, neutered and castrated the right of a law-abiding, trained, and accountable US citizen or legal resident to carry an unobtrusive (concealed) weapon to protect self and family from the new flock of crazies that are flunking out of our corroded public school systems, can’t find work, and soon feel that “social justice” empowers them to take others goods and currency by force.

    Sorry if that sentence has too many words.

  3. JR

    Cau hit the bullseye! Perfectly articulated!

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” –United States Constitution, Second Amendment (Bill of Rights)

    Infringe: “Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.” –Oxford American Dictionary

    Note that it was granted UNconditionally.

    Do you see any such preface in the Second that says, “Under certain conditions, and if the existing authorities deem it safe and give their approval, etc….?” No — no such preface. That tells us that any laws that fit under the definition of “infringe” are in violation — because each is an arbitrary. Example: The reciprocity issue! The way it is set up now — you can concealed carry in one state, but if you travel across into another state you are now breaking the law! Pure idiocy for the simple reason that the Second is being interpreted two different ways (i.e., arbitraries have entered the picture on the subject).

    It raises the question then of “How is the restriction on concealed carry in one state, but not another, NOT an inconsistent interpretation of the HIGHEST LAW of the land?”

    And then of course we are led inevitably to ask the next logical question — “Since there are no conditions attached to the Second, how is the restriction on concealed carry in any state NOT an ‘infringement’ of the Second Amendment (i.e. not a denial of one’s Constitutional right in that state, as granted by the Second)?”

    Therefore on that basis, given that it was granted unconditionally, under the definition of “infringe” as given above — (assuming a law-abiding citizen) ANY of the laws limiting, restricting or undermining the ability to own or possess guns of ANY type (including such laws already on the books), are forbidden under the Second Amendment, and are technically and factually therefore in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., are unConstitutional). End of story.

    The question to ask is: “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s