Gunleaders Blog

Red Dawn was one of my favorite movies. It’s essentially a “David vs. Goliath” story but it is one that emphatically shows the possible results of citizen disarmament. The bottom line – gun control supporters and those who weren’t prepared to defend themselves and their loved ones end up in re-education prison camps, armed citizens have a chance to fight back. Spoiler: The armed citizens fare much better. The story begins with an audacious invasion by pro-communist forces who score rapid initial victories and seize territory within the continental United States. Then the American armed forces strike back and eventually a stalemate ensues dividing the country into “Free America” and “Occupied America”. As with any adversarial dealings with the US Armed Forces, it doesn’t turn out well for the invaders in the end…

Ironically gun owners now face a very similar division of the country to the Red Dawn “Free America” vs. “Occupied America”. Though we are not able to trace the current political division to an invasion, our rights have most certainly been attacked by an enemy far more evil and insidious than communists. Power hungry politicians bent on controlling every aspect of our lives. They have successfully driven a wedge into the country’s psyche and polarized the citizen’s rights debate. It has left gun owners with a seemingly insurmountable stack of firearm prohibitions and ‘regulation to obscurity’ laws rendering it practically impossible to protect yourself out of your home state. All 50 states have different laws & regulations for firearms, many of them very difficult to decipher. Some states outlaw open carry, some states selectively outlaw open carry, most states outlaw concealed carry without a permit, reciprocity and recognition agreements are all over the map (figuratively) so that you might be perfectly legal in one state, but a felon in the next state having a loaded firearm. Some of the “Occupied America” states won’t even recognize your ability to transport a firearm despite federal law enabling this.

This divided America concept has found some strange allies recently. Some in the so called ‘pro-RKBA’ grassroots community have been attacking the NRA-ILA supported bill cosponsored by US Representatives Stearns & Shuler to mandate states recognize (concealed) carry permits from other states. As previously discussed they offer numerous excuses why the bill shouldn’t be supported and lay claim to the Utopian idea that magically all 50 states will adopt permitless carry instead. An interesting “suggestion” by some of these “Occupied America” champions has been that the bill would “give the Federal government too much power” and that it’s a trojan horse. Followed no doubt by the battle cry “REPEAL GCA ’68!” Ok – what specifically are these people doing to accomplish a repeal of ‘GCA ’68′ ?

Does the bill “give the feds more power” or does it prevent states from infringing the right to self defense? Here’s the text of the bill and a link to the source on Thomas (LOC):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822:

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and 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, may 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, other than the State of residence of the person, that–
`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
`(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
`(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
`(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.
(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) above (the one that begins “nothing in this section) is particularly important for the “States rights” crowd. So where is ‘new’ federal authority here? Interstate Commerce? How new is that? It’s part of the Constitution, and has been solidified since Wickard v. Filburn. Sure the commerce clause has been abused by the Congress and courts, most recently against us were the ’95 & subsequent gun free school zone act, Raich & the subsequent US vs. Stewart cases. Now we have a situation in which the US House is trying to enforce the right to self defense with a firearm via the Commerce Clause to help prevent the “accidental felon” in “Occupied America, and enforce the McDonald US Supreme Court ruling upon the states.

This bill leverages existing authority of the Congress and compels the states which have permit systems or don’t criminalize concealed carry at all to recognize similar permits. It would prevent the states who represent “Occupied America” from criminalizing persons who are carrying firearms for personal protection.

How about this – once all 50 states adopt a permit-less carry option, the “Occupied America” supporters can work to repeal this law?

In the mean time…

Since 50 state permit-less carry is not dealing with political reality, gun rights supporters need to get off their respective duffs and support HR822 and work to get an identical bill in the US Senate. True grassroots pro-right to keep and bear arms supporters didn’t get shall issue in the majority of the US by sitting around waiting for someone else to act, they changed the law by getting out there and letting their actions speak. HR822 will expand the political “Free America”, will weaken the “Occupied America” forces and better allow citizens to protect themselves while traveling.

US Representatives Stearns & Shuler have co-sponsored a bill that would require states to honor concealed carry permits from other states. NRA-ILA has expressed support for this and asked its members to do the same but quizzically there are members of the grassroots community who insist that they support your right to defend yourself, yet don’t want you to support the national reciprocity/recognition bill. Ironically, many of these people & groups also profess to “not get involved in federal issues”.

There are a myriad of excuses proffered but one has to ask do they really want to advance the right to keep and bear arms, or are they just trying to further line their pockets?

Let’s look at some of the excuses.

- we should change the state laws to “constitutional carry” or permit-less carry in all 50 states instead.  [How does it benefit so called pro-RKBA supporters if you believe this?]

That’s a pipe dream, and is completely unrealistic in the lifetime of anyone reading this, and probably several generations after. If anyone reading this who supports the right to keep and bear arms really thinks that Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Maryland & California are going to ever adopt shall issue, and or so called ‘constitutional carry’ they’re just not dealing with reality. Should they adopt shall issue / permit-less carry? Absolutely, but these governments are run by “one percenter” gun haters, not normal gun haters.  They have continued to trend in the opposite directly even while pro-RKBA advances are happening all across the country.  If the grassroots community is serious about turning around these states it begs the question what are the real motivations for not supporting the same self defense rights for citizens that so many of these groups lobbied to get for police officers?

These permit-less carry laws aren’t going to pass in all 50 states, look how long shall issue has taken to be the law of the land in the majority of the states, and then the super-majority. How many ‘pro-gun’ states have passed so called ‘constitutional carry’? Don’t forget that several states have “permit systems” in name only rendering the right to keep and bear arms a privilege of the wealthy and politically connected.

Unequivocally, permitless carry should be advanced legislatively everywhere possible. That is no excuse to not advocate for national reciprocity/recognition. While the permit system certainly has flaws, it has advanced the position of the RKBA.

- it gives the federal government too much power. [How does it benefit the so called pro-RKBA supporters if you believe this?]
That’s rich. These same people were jumping up and down like yapping pomeranians about states preempting local & city governments on firearms. Now the NRA-ILA has stepped forward and backed a bill that most gun owners and permit holders want to be the law of the land and now suddenly the idea of preemption is bad? What are they trying to do, go back to the Articles of Confederation?

Is the ’86 Firearms Owners Protection Act that these same people use to legally transport firearms across state lines also ‘too great an extension of federal power’? Or how about the Coburn Amendment which ended the ban on firearms in National Parks & Wildlife Refuges, was that also the federal government overstepping their bounds? We all know that gun control laws are a forced social policy with the aim of keeping guns out of the hands of certain demographics of people. Most of them are bad natured and against what the Founders of this country intended.

Guess what – The Constitution is set up to allow for a strong central government with limited and checked powers. The states by joining the Union agreed to the terms of the Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms when they joined and Congress has the authority to compel them to obey. The courts have incorporated the 2nd Amendment as a restriction upon state governments now but that fight is ongoing, not over. In the aftermath of the civil war numerous bad people in power in the south made life a living hell for black people in the United States. Embittered that they could no longer enslave an entire race of people some of these bad people decided to take it out on them for generations after the Civil War. Much of this fight spawned the 14th Amendment and restricted states from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens. Congress can and should step in to right the wrong gun laws in states that are stuck in the past like New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland & California and a few more who are abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens now, not to mention their right to keep and bear arms and to protect themselves.

- It is a trojan horse, will open ‘pandora’s box’ etc. [How does it benefit the so called pro-RKBA supporters if you believe this?]
These are masterful fear mongering because we all learned about Pandora’s box as children and the trojan horse story in school. These stories are etched on the human psyche and carry great weight of foreboding.

This is pure fear mongering.

Let’s take a look at a very close and directly analogous law passed a few years ago, maybe you’ve heard of it, the “law enforcement officer’s safety act”. Has it opened a Pandora’s Box for police officers or anyone else for that matter? Was it a trojan horse for gun control?
How about it?

Why would a grassroots, pro-RKBA supporter or group lobby AGAINST pro-gun legislation? Especially a grassroots group which advertises its support for the right to keep and bear arms, self defense and that “doesn’t get involved in federal issues” or only limited federal issues. Are they trying to apply some idealogical purity logic? Or, is it that if the national reciprocity bill were to pass that it would pose a financial threat to these so called right to keep and bear arms supporters? Maybe these altruistic gun rights supporters have a problem sharing the spotlight? Or maybe they just don’t want to win the fight for everyone to have access to the right to keep and bear arms. We can only speculate because so far the reasons for opposing national reciprocity/recognition are just excuses.

The grassroots community is rife with tales of some NRA affiliated state group working legislatively to compromise away good legislation, or tanking bills. A recent example from Oklahoma typifies this. And another example from NRA-ILA warning of the so called pitfalls of the Coburn Amendment which ended the ban on firearms in National Parks & Wildlife refuges. Now it appears that in some cases the shoe is on the other foot.

ALL gun owners have a stake in whether or not national reciprocity / recognition passes and these examples of persons or groups who purport to support the right to keep and bear arms but oppose national reciprocity / recognition is Gun Rights Theater, plain and simple.

There is still time to comment on the BATF scheme to ban imports of “certain” shotguns.

ATF is soliciting comments on their  study to restrict importation of shotguns with certain features.  Comments will be accepted from 01/31/2011 – 05/01/2011 and may be emailed to: shotgunstudy@atf.gov, or faxed to (202) 648-9601.  All comments must include a name and mailing address.  We encourage all firearms owners to comment on this study.  We suggest the following to use as a starting point.  More on the ATF shotgun importability study.  We need only look to ATF history to get an idea what their intentions are with this current study.

Please TAKE ACTION NOW and feel free to copy & paste, expand upon & socialize these suggested comments to all concerned gun owners:

The conclusion of the ATF study on the “importability of certain shotguns” is based on a flawed interpretation of ‘sporting purposes’ using outdated information, incomplete data and stands in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution as upheld in the 1939 US v. Miller Supreme Court decision, and 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision.

The study identifies 10 features which through a “working group” they recommend any shotgun with any of the identified features be barred from importation. Many of the features identified:  integrated rails, light enhancing devices, forward pistol grips, collapsing/folding or telescoping stocks are in ‘common use’ on various firearms, rifles & shotguns today.  ’In common use’ was first mentioned in Miller, then reiterated in both Heller & the subsequent McDonald Supreme Court decisions protecting the individual right to keep and bear firearms for self defense. These features being in common use not just for military, law enforcement and personal protection have also found a niche in the sporting community and are practically ubiquitous in some applications. Briefly:

• Folding, telescoping & collapsible stocks provide an adjustability to the “length of pull”.  This permits the user to obtain a more ergonomic fit and further allows sportsmen to share the use of the firearm with family members of different stature and age.  This feature allows fathers, mothers, sons & daughters to all be able to use a single firearm, as well as allows users to tailor the gun to their specific needs.  Better ergonomics and fit offered by these stocks provide for better control of the firearm and enhanced safety.
• Magazine capacity over 5 rounds is and arbitrary and low number based on the industry today.
• Flash suppressors allow for faster follow up shots when hunting in fading light of hours near dawn or dusk.
• Integrated rails, forward pistol grips, & light enhancing devices all permit a more ergonomic and usable sporting shotgun and again are features in common use today.  These features permit better ergonomics and control over the shotgun as well as the ability to easily mount accessories on the gun to enhance usability.

Additionally, many of these features facilitate the shooting sports participation of disabled Americans across the country. Depriving the market of shotguns with features which enables a person with a visual or muscular/skeletal impairment to participate in the shooting sports, is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and more importantly is a despicable attempt at preventing a protected minority in our society from enjoying the shooting sports.  Included in this group is the Wounded Warrior 3 gun shooting team.

The study in many places indicated a need to evaluate ‘sporting purposes’ and declines to address what exactly qualifies as sporting.  The study concludes that though USPSA has comparable membership to many organizations it does not ‘qualify as sporting’ under the current interpretation. Indeed, at 19,000 cited members USPSA dwarfs the membership of the USA Curling society which despite only having 13,000 members is an Olympic sport.  This shows that ATF needs to re-investigate the definition of ‘sporting purposes’ for the use in determining importability of firearms.  Because ATF uses not just questionable, but flawed logic in their study, ATF needs to reconstitute the “working group” to examine ‘sporting purposes’ in the post-Heller, post-McDonald light as well as with the understanding that practical & action competition shooting sports need also be considered.

In summary, this study should be shelved until ‘sporting purposes’ is redefined to include a more modern and truthful definition inclusive of action / competition shooting disciplines and the study needs to recognize that any one or even several of the features identified in the study do not disqualify a shotgun or other firearm for importation, that certain features which may be more common in military / militia context do enhance the ability of disabled citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and prohibiting them from importation would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and that some of these same features are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and reiterated via the Supreme Court rulings in Miller, Heller & McDonald.

Your name

Your mailing address