|
LA Times Op-Ed: Arizona gun laws in L.A.? It could happen
Californians have a lot on the line in the next congressional debate about America’s gun laws. Two bills stacked with legislative sponsors — HB 38 in the House, SB 446 in the Senate — would override our state’s longstanding rules governing who is allowed to carry a concealed, loaded firearm in public. These bills, both called the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, would dictate that if a person can carry a concealed weapon in any state, that person could carry it everywhere in America. This should be a call to action for all Californians concerned about keeping their families safe.
[OCS: The absolute truth is that your local government is unwilling and unable to protect you. There is no legal duty of the police department to protect you, your family, or your property. And, any assistance they render is ancillary to their primary mission of keeping the general peace and order, and secondary to protecting the politicians who run government institutions. When trouble happens, especially in rural areas, you are on your own and the survival of yourself, your family, and your neighbors may rely on you owning and using a force-multiplier, aka a “gun.” Simply put, you cannot sue the government for failing to protect you – especially if you are dead.
The politicians have their own protective force as do the wealthy They are immune from the laws as they apply to ordinary law-abiding individuals. But most people do not live in gated communities patrolled by armed private police, nor do they have armed bodyguards accompanying them when they venture out of protected enclaves. Which again, leaves you to protect yourself and others if necessary.
Another fundamental truth is that a certain amount of tolerable crime is welcomed by the government, especially the heavily-unionized police and those associated with the judiciary. In essence, crimes pays off big for those who deal with criminals. Less crime equals less political power, perks, privileges, and profits.
And the final fundamental truth that all citizens should understand: criminals, crazies, and terrorists do not obey the laws which are binding on law-abiding citizens. The criminal does not purchase that weapon at a local store, go through a background check, and then wait to pick-up their firearm in 10-days or so. Crazies just use the means at hand, and if there is no gun, there is always a knife, a baseball bat, an automobile, a rock – well you get the idea. To intimidate and threaten, you only need more force than your soon-to-be victim.]
Twelve states do not require any permit to carry hidden, loaded guns within their borders. Some states’ rules have been so ineffective as to allow felons to carry concealed weapons. Not so in California. Our laws require good cause for the issuance of a concealed weapon permit. Applicants must undergo a comprehensive background check. No one with a serious criminal conviction may receive a permit, nor may subjects of temporary or permanent domestic violence restraining orders.
[OCS: Good cause? You mean like local police chiefs and sheriffs who have traditionally signed-off on gun permits for celebrities and major campaign contributors?
No one with a serious criminal conviction would use traditional means to purchase a weapon, they would buy it on the street, use a straw purchaser, or simply steal one. Presenting false identification or lying under the penalty of perjury is also not a deterrent for evildoers.
As for domestic violence, many women have been killed or inured while waiting to pick-up a legal weapon and, as we have seen in the past, restraining orders mean absolutely nothing to criminals and crazies. And, you are betting your life on the probability that a police officer will be in the vicinity to restrain a crazed assailant.
Why those who claim to be enlightened feminists, mostly progressives, do not advocate for arming women in precarious domestic situation is almost beyond comprehension. Groveling and begging for mercy does not appear to be an effective self-defense strategy when confronted by a stronger person, an armed rapist, or a crazed suitor.]
But if concealed carry reciprocity were the law of the land, all this would change. Unbelievably, the House version would allow an individual denied a permit in California to cross the border to a more permissive state, obtain a permit there, then return to California — with a new right to carry here.
[OCS: This is a straw-man argument as local and state requirements would be required to meet minimum federal firearms regulations. If anything, the permissively of an individual state is a political issue and politicians should be held to account for their actions.]
More concealed weapons on California streets would make police work here much more hazardous.
[OCS: This is an interesting position as both authors of this op-ed support policies, procedures, and practices that allow criminal illegal aliens to walk our streets unmolested by law-enforcement. Even if a police officer recognizes a gang-member, they are forbidden to inquire as to their immigration status.
Likewise, the progressive socialist democrats that control California’s state legislature see no problem releasing violent felons back into the community as long as their last few criminal acts were not classified as “violent.” Most criminals are allowed to plead away serious criminal acts such as being a felon in possession of a gun during a felony in return for a guaranteed conviction that makes the prosecutor’s numbers look good for their upcoming elections, promotions, and raises.
If there is an uproar, it is because the progressive snowflakes will be calling the police every time they even see a gun. As if everyone who possesses a firearm is a crazed killer or an evildoer bent on doing no good. The truth is that most criminals support the Democrat party and are unlikely to be a member of the family-oriented National Rifle Association which promotes gun safety as well as the First Amendment.]
In addition to jeopardizing public safety, concealed carry reciprocity would endanger the lives of law enforcement. The mere presence of more concealed weapons on California streets would make police work here much more hazardous. What’s more, if LAPD officers stopped someone with a loaded, concealed handgun, that person could claim to live in a state where permits weren’t necessary, and the officers would be unable to confirm whether it was true. Indeed, law enforcement leaders have warned that concealed carry reciprocity could turn otherwise routine encounters with non-residents into dangerous ones. Given our intensifying focus on the potential for homegrown terrorism, the last thing we need is to make it easier to carry concealed, loaded firearms across state lines.
[OCS: Perhaps, being progressive socialist democrats, the authors lack the commonsense that would demand that people with permits from other states have verifiable picture identification as proof of residency in those states. Therefore, since you cannot legally possess two drivers’ licenses in California, it is unlikely that you would be a California resident with a permit issued in Ohio. But, then again, criminals and crazies, and terrorists do not obey the law wherever they might be.
This is the very situation that the progressives want – something that requires a national gun registry. However, remember that we are speaking only of those who carry their weapons in a concealed manner, require training, and passing a test. It is unlikely that the general public – except for criminals – would be carrying concealed weapons.]
Because concealed carry reciprocity poses grave risks, the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, including the Major Cities Chiefs Assn. and the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, along with the Assn. of Prosecuting Attorneys, the leaders of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence and many other partners in law enforcement, have strongly opposed it.
[OCS: These are all political organizations who support the progressive socialist democrats who want to make things safer for politicians and the promoters of tyranny. Most of these organizations support illegal aliens who have clearly violated our laws, not only crossing the border, but identity theft, perjury, forgery, tax fraud, etc.]
While the practical implications of this proposal are deeply troubling, the politics surrounding the debate are surreal. Members of Congress who have invoked states’ rights for years have supported these bills, even though concealed carry reciprocity destroys the notion that states should decide for themselves which rules best keep their residents safe.
[OCS: This is a nonsensical argument. Under the Second Amendment, there are no restrictions on firearms. And, the federal government has destroyed the states’ rights argument by increasing the federalization of everything from crime to education.]
Why lawmakers in D.C. are acting this way would be something of a mystery but for the fact that concealed carry reciprocity has been a top priority of gun rights organizations such as the National Rifle Assn. Invigorated by the recent election, gun rights advocates deride what they see as an inconsistent “patchwork” of concealed carry laws across the nation.
[OCS: I suggest that the National Rifle Association is better for America than the Democrat Party which openly suppresses individualism, promotes the destruction of the United States Constitution, and worst of all, welcomes our enemies to destroy our nation from within.]
If that were the real concern, though, Congress could take entirely different steps. Robust, national concealed carry standards similar to California’s would address the patchwork issue while protecting law enforcement officers and the public. Instead, concealed carry reciprocity defaults to the least stringent standards, with states like Arizona — where there are no universal background checks and residents can carry concealed weapons with no permit at all — dictating policy nationwide.
[OCS: California is a dysfunctional decaying state under the progressive socialist democrats who would disarm everyone and become an authoritarian state that would control every aspect of your “unexceptional life.” Thank heavens that every state does not self-destruct like California.]
Finally, concealed carry reciprocity could damage our business community. Were great numbers of out-of-state visitors authorized to carry concealed guns in California, all sorts of venues — sports arenas, theme parks, commercial buildings — could be choked with metal detectors or other barriers installed by business owners legitimately concerned about their patrons’ safety.
[OCS: One might suggest that having armed law-abiding citizens in public venues reduces potential criminality and terrorism and may prevent a larger number of people from being killed or injured in any attack. If there are restrictions on concealed carry holders with regard to intoxicating substances or drugs, so be it. Carrying a concealed weapon while drunk should cost you your permit, your car, and a hefty fine.
Have you ever wondered why people in third-world countries where even children carry weapons do not simply go crazy and turn into criminals? When your fellow citizens are armed – especially if you do not know if they are armed, crime appears to drop dramatically.
And, it appears that Texas does not suffer from the outrageous crime levels found in progressive democrat governed inner city areas such as Washington, D.C., Chicago, Oakland, etc. where gun controls are strict and few have concealed carry permits.]
Forcing concealed carry reciprocity is dangerous and undermines California’s gun laws. Lawmakers should find the courage to say no.
[OCS: There is absolutely no proof that reciprocity is dangerous and if it undermines California’s draconian and nonsensical gun laws to promote individual responsibility and self-defense, so be it.]
Mike Feuer is the city attorney of Los Angeles. Charlie Beck is the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. <Source: Arizona gun laws in L.A.? It could happen - LA Times>
|