Concealed Carry of Weapons Superior To Taking Weapons
By John Longenecker (01/29/07)
It's good to see the right kind of bill moving through Congress for a change.
U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) has introduced S. 388 – the equivalent of H.R. 226 – which is a national Right-To-Carry bill for reciprocity for state carry licensees for concealed weapons. In short, any person with a valid concealed carry permit issued by a state would be recognized to legally carry in any other state. The bill would require states to officially recognize each other’s carry permits just like nationwide recognition of your driver’s license.
Imagine: carrying your concealed weapon wherever you travel.
Because law enforcement derives its authority from the people, and for other compelling reasons, I’d like to suggest that citizens be recognized to carry wherever police can be summoned, including churches, schools, public buildings, airports and civil aircraft. Any exclusion of this is..well, exclusionary and unreasonable. There can be no such thing as restrictions on places where citizens may carry when police operate on the authority given them by those very citizens.
The Houston Chronicle, January 27, 2007, reports that nearly 260,000 persons in Texas alone legally carry concealed weapons. Large numbers are not unusual. Alaska and Vermont don’t even require a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and hundreds of thousands more nationwide carry their weapons legally. Some of your neighbors may have a CCW permit you aren’t aware of.
Why not?
Because these individuals are not troublemakers, and they don’t usually shoot their mouths off about it. The strategic strength of concealed carry is, after all, that the criminals don’t know who’s carrying, and therefore who to strike. Good Heavens: someone might fight back! [In Texas, as the Chronicle reports, many of the individuals licensed to carry are over sixty years old.]
And it’s perfectly reasonable and legal that people should not be restricted as to where they carry.
This rationale is significant in that crime is reduced non-violently by someone in authority – namely, the average reasonable person – and if the weapon must be drawn, it’s drawn by someone trained, someone who believes they are facing immediate grave danger, someone who may be able to keep the aggression from escalating.
That’s what we all want, isn’t it? Less criminal violence?
Incidentally, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that even though there are about 47,000 shooting deaths annually – mostly crime-on-crime – there are more than 2.5 million incidents of average Joe and Josephine Citizen using their gun to stop a crime, based on reports handed in to the FBI by law enforcement nationwide.
Which do you prefer?
And remember that when President Bush signed into law the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, which made nationwide concealed carry possible for retired police officers – emphasis on retired – he didn’t put more cops on the street, he put more private, armed citizens on the street. Tons of them. Former police – qualified retired law enforcement officer, according to the Act, yes - but now armed private citizens.
What makes you think that only police have the authority to stop grave danger? Gun control steps on citizen authority without any legal authority to do so.
Don’t forget that anti-gun legislation doesn’t prevent anything, but an armed citizen can prevent aggression from escalating, and one has a right and authority to do that. Gun control prevents nothing, but an armed citizen can de-escalate nearly every grave danger faced. Think it through.
Nationwide concealed carry is right. In S. 388, the individual citizen is respected as an average reasonable person, not to mention it’s the law of the land. To confiscate weapons for any reason whatsoever or to demand that individuals show cause to carry one or to be restricted in what or where they can carry is an example of interference with legitimate authority, and the contention itself is suspicious.
Because violence is the theoretical basis for so many counter-intuitive social programs, the recognition of the authority of the average citizen could be very, very good for the country.
The very best to Senator Thune with his national recognition bill, S. 388. Thank you very much for your service, Senator.
It is time for nationwide concealed carry, because in a nation of laws, it’s always time for personal liberty and personal authority.
---
Examine the Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry more closely at http://www.TransferOfWealth.net/
(Printer friendly version) Email: John Longenecker
