On Concealed Carry and the NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.

xd9fan

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
1,858
Location
Under tyranny in Midwest
On Concealed Carry and the NRA

by L. Neil Smith

Many individuals have asked me where I stand on the issue of concealed carry permits -- and whether the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus which I founded several years ago is likely to join in political coalitions with other organizations that concern themselves with Second Amendment issues.
I've put off writing about these matters before now, because it isn't easy, knowing that you're likely to alienate good friends and allies by insisting that they face hard truths. But the press of current events -- the increasingly obvious reluctance of the new Republican majority in Congress to make good on their promises to the gun owners who elected them, along with an insane eagerness on the part of nominally pro-gun organizations like the National Rifle Association to accept utter defeat on the eve of total victory -- make it impossible to put it off any longer.
As Robert A. Heinlein once observed, "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." To take it a step further, there are natural-born Tories in life, who only feel comfortable when they're groveling to some kind of authority, and there are individuals who won't grovel, no matter what it costs them.
This nation, America, was created by the latter sort, while the former ran away to Canada where, for the next eleven generations or so, they could comfortably grovel to kings, queens, and socialist bureaucrats. And just as some Canadians have since learned better than their Tory predecessors -- we'll be hearing more and more from them in the near future -- many descendants of those first Americans have become the very thing their ancestors fought so hard against.
Those who beg permission from the government to exercise a right they already possess are not free men and women. They're Tories; they're grovelers. They'd beg permission from the government to breathe, if they were told it was required of them. If they were told it was required of them, they'd beg permission from the government, even to grovel.
A license -- government permission -- to carry a concealed weapon is nothing but the latest kind of gun control, the latest kind of groveling. There's no way to euphemize it; there's no way to excuse it. It isn't necessary: nobody needs the government's permission to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise. And it's illegal under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for government, at any level, to require it. That's right, it's illegal; and it's a primary goal of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus to jail those in government, elected or otherwise, who obstruct the Bill of Rights in any way.
It's also dangerous: it converts a fundamental human right into a privilege which the government may see fit to deny to anyone, for any reason, at any time is wishes. How anyone could be aware of history for the last hundred years -- especially the last fifty -- and not acknowledge this basic truth is beyond understanding.
From their public words and actions, it's clear that those who presently control the National Rifle Association -- I don't mean the duly-elected Board of Directors -- are Tories and grovelers, no matter what they claim to the contrary. Just listen to what they say if you doubt it, or read their literature. Half of it is devoted to demonstrating to their masters in the government just what excellent Tories and grovelers they are. Notice, too, the way that some of them claim lately to be "tough" -- but how they invariably reserve their toughness for individuals ostensibly on their own side who happen to disagree with them, rather than for real enemies of individual liberty and the Second Amendment.
Now those who presently control the National Rifle Association want uniform laws from state to state regulating the way Americans will be allowed to carry weapons. To get them, once again they're "wheeling and dealing" in Congress -- with my rights as the stake -- a fool's game they always lose because they're such embarrassingly clumsy amateurs, playing against the pros. Instead, they should simply demand the immediate fulfillment of Republican promises to repeal unconstitutional gun laws which could never have been passed without the cheerful assistance of the likes of "Brady Bill-Bob" Dole and Newt "Suspend the Bill of Rights" Gingrich.
As one who's fought the battle of the Second Amendment for more than 30 years -- all the while watching in unbelieving disgust as the National Rifle Association bargained away my rights through bad tactics, worse strategy, an utter lack of moral principle, and an overpowering urge to grovel to authority -- I challenge those who presently control the National Rifle Association to deny or affirm a principle put forward by the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus as the Atlanta Declaration:

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

If those who presently control the National Rifle Association cannot affirm this principle, then they are enemies of individual liberty who should resign immediately and leave the field forever to those Americans who can manage to remember what their country and its Constitution are all about.
If, on the other hand, they affirm it -- and publicly abandon their advocacy of anything less than stringent and uncompromising enforcement of the Bill of Rights (along with their disgraceful eagerness to accept excuses and "clever" strategies from Republicans instead of decisive and effective action) -- I'll be happy to advise the many friends of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus to join with the National Rifle Association in a coalition to advance the cause of individual liberty.

L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of 19 books including The Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando Calrissian Adventures, Pallas, and (forthcoming) Bretta Martyn and Lever Action. An NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus, he has been active in the Libertarian movement for 34 years and is its most prolific and widely-published living novelist.
 
I feel exactly the same as L. Neil Smith and he is correct to note that:

"...A license -- government permission -- to carry a concealed weapon is nothing but the latest kind of gun control..."

CCW permits are unnecessary if the 2nd Amendment is valid; the fact that many gun owners have given these permits credence is a sad fact of life.
 
Hit the nail squarely on the head.

There's a reason it written the way it is. It's to keep exactly what is happening from happening. Infringement.
 
Wow, well said!
It is a shame that we have to compromise on a RIGHT with the .gov because they want to limit the power of it's citizens, the very thing the 2A was set up to prevent.
 
I am inclined to agree that in an ideal world no license to carry would be required.

In an ideal world we would not need police or military either.

We do not live in an ideal world, and making baby steps in the direction of the ideal is better than getting nothing.

In the long run we may well get the ideal. It may even come in big chunks, but it probably is not going to come in one big chunk.

What is the ideal (gun wise anyway)?

My view.

No permit required to own, manufacturer, carry (open or concealed), transport, or use any firearm that is one man portable. Taxes such as hunting licenses would still be acceptable. Non-discriminatory sales taxes acceptable.

Persons convicted of violent misdemenors could have their gun rights suspended for some period of time. Persons convicted of violent felonies could have them revoked. Persons who demonstrate mental incompetence can have their gun rights suspended. All such suspensions or revokations would require judicial action, and some means of recovery of the rights would be available.

No long list of public places off limits except where necessary to the immediate security of the institution. I can only think of one place that would apply and that would be inside correctional facilities and loony bins.

Private property owners (such as home owners) could restrict others from carrying firearms onto their property that is not accessable to the public (such as a home).

No special exemptions for government employees of any type.
 
DoubleTapDrew said:
It is a shame that we have to compromise on a RIGHT with the .gov because they want to limit the power of it's citizens, the very thing the 2A was set up to prevent.

+1!

The question you have to ask yourself is this, "If you don't need a permit to exercise the 1st Amendment rights, why do some accept the fact that you need one to exercise the 2nd?"
 
Private property owners (such as home owners) could restrict others from carrying firearms onto their property that is not accessable to the public (such as a home).

No special exemptions for government employees of any type.

+1 !!!!

I think this all boils down to weather or not we believe/trust ourselves that the Bills of Rights are abosolute.

Look at the Castle Doctrine........shouldn't my Rights follow me where ever I go?

Or do we need to sink to the level of having a clear Amendment stating that "self-protection is a basic Human Right"?
 
Any published case law?

I agree. Does anyone have any published case law where a citizen was cited/arrested for carrying without a permit and defended himself under plain language of the 2A?
 
I was just thinking of composing a similar post... as I am planning a trip fom PA to the Outer Banks of North Carolina... I did the usual check of the regs posted on Packing.org.... and as I read the endless list of off limit places that I could not carry... my head started to swim... then frustration started to set in and I am now wondering if it is even worth the possible trouble to travel there.

There are States with very few restrictions on where one can carry... then there are those that make me not want to even travel there for fear of ending up in jail... This is just wrong. Are all gun owners in those more restrictive States just that much less responsible... I find that hard to believe... but then there are those restrictive laws.

The 2nd is very clear.... and CCW laws are an infringement... Gun control is an infringement.... I really don't understand how anyone can justify the laws that are already in place, let alone making more laws. And the tired old NRA line "enforce the Laws already on the books" is just bogus because they are already unconstitutional.
 
This discussion exemplifies the difference between pragmatism and idealism.

The author is wrong to identify the NRA as a "nominally" pro-gun organization.

The NRA is correctly labelled a "pragmatically" pro-gun organization. That means they are looking for practical achievable ways to improve the RKBA climate in ways that are likely to be successful. For a pragmatist, getting a CCW permit law in Illinos - even a fairly restrictive one - would be a victory because currently in Illinois you have to get a permit anyway and then still can't carry. For a pragmatist, the recipe for states that already have CCW is to reduce the restrictions. For states that already have low-restrictions CCW, move to Vermont/Alaska style no-permit carry. It is a pragmatic approach of incremental improvements and it is usually the most successful strategy to create political change. In fact, the current state of RKBA is an excellent example of incrementalism, because that's the strategy the anti-gun people have been following for years.

BTW, I always get a kick out of people who say "Alaska-style carry laws are the standard: Don't settle for a CCW license law!" Obviously they have forgotten how Alaska got to where it is right now - they started with a CCW license law and worked forward from there.

Opposite the pragmatists are the idealists. These are the people who want everything they want in its ideal perfect form right now and they are totally unwilling to strategize, incrementalize, or work toward any intermediate goal.

Idealism sounds good. It gets people excited. It allows the people who adopt it to feel smugly superior to those dull, plodding, blue-collar, chip-away-one-day-at-a-time pragmatists.

But idealism very rarely accomplishes anything substantive. It hardens the attitudes of the opposition. It scares away the "lukewarm" supporters. It divides people who actually share the same long-term goals, by claiming a "holier-than-thou" status. It gives people an excuse not to work, because after all, nobody should ever work for anything unless it's perfect.

I've also noticed, in general, that pragmatists are more likely to put in the actual hard work to make things happen. A lot of idealists - not all of them, but many of them - are the type to sit around and watch others doing the hard work and amuse themselves by whining about how the job isn't being done right according to their exacting standards.

This writer's stance of "I'm not willing to work with them unless they agree with me 100%" is a formula for political failure. Political successes are made by building coalitions - by finding common grounds of agreement among different groups. The different groups don't have to all have exactly the same agenda, but if they can agree on the next two or three tasks to be done and work together to get them done, then they've accomplished a lot more than they would have if they'd all sat at home writing eloquent diatribes about how they're unwilling to work with anyone who doesn't 100% agree with everything they say.

When they function correctly, idealists are kind of like quality control inspectors. They keep pestering the people who do the actual work to do it a little bit better, and to work a little closer to the ideal. However, when idealists inflate themselves full of self-righteous self-importance like this author has, and threaten to run home and pout unless everybody does everything their way, they're really not contributing much.
 
--------quote---------
I did the usual check of the regs posted on Packing.org.... and as I read the endless list of off limit places that I could not carry... my head started to swim...
-----------------------

Too bad that nasty old compromising pragmatical NRA had to get involved.

Before they went around lobbying for CCW laws, your trip planning would have been so much easier. "Where can I legally carry along the way? Hmmnnn, let's see... nowhere! Great! I'm so glad life is so simple for me!"
 
antsi, GREAT POST

Perhaps you can C&P it over to the voter revolution thread, too.

Thank you!

My beliefs are damn close to what the author of the original piece here said. But I am a pragmatist.

Two scenarios:

1. Concealed carry is, in all but a few low-population states, a long-past memory. Even legal open carry doesn't exist in a real way in many places. All of a sudden, everyone thinks it's okay to allow unrestricted legal concealed carry.

2. Shall-issue is the law in more and more states. It's working out fine, and in fact several people have stopped crimes and saved lives with their firearms. More states change their laws to "shall issue." Restrictions on carry in the more reluctant "shall issue" states are being removed thanks to the work of CCW activists, as expected problems simply fail to arise.

#1 DIDN'T HAPPEN. #2 IS HAPPENING.

What's better? #1 never happening, or #2 hitting critical mass, as it has?

Believe me, CCW reform even gets some play here in California, though we're a long way from it right now. It got NO play, even among radical talk show hosts, a few years ago. If it ever happens here, it will be because of the incremental changes for the better in the rest of the country. Without all those little victories, there would be NO CHANCE of any positive movement.

Morally, I think we should get all our rights, yesterday. Pragmatically, I'd rather be moving in the right direction than the wrong one.

And for God's sake, if you, personally, must be an idealist, at least don't sabotage the pragmatists who are on your side!
 
While I will agree that the pragmatists work to create CCW law has some positives... and probably the only truly realistic way to fix the Unconstitutional state of gun laws... short of revolution....

I would argue that this approach is creating a nightmarish web of laws that are far to easy to fall victim to.... creating criminals of honest citizens... general fear of the policing force... uncertainty when trying to protect self and loved ones... and general frustration and possibly anger at the unjustness.

I am not a lawyer... I have a college degree and have at least average intelligence. Knowing all of the ins and outs of the current laws is just dizzying and when even law enforcement is many times uninformed how are we citizens supposed to keep track?

I guess I fall into the idealist category... and am challenging you pragmatists to clean up your mess...
 
Josh Sugarman is an idealist; he wants the total disarmament of the American people.

Sarah Brady and her crew are pragmatists; they'll take every little victory and build on it.

Who's had more success?

We get what we want by the same means we lost it: piece by piece, and with, as antsi said, a lot of work.
 
We get what we want by the same means we lost it: piece by piece, and with, as antsi said, a lot of work.

It's either that or total upheaval. And you know, even discounting the death and destruction, revolutions and civil wars usually don't come out as well as ours in 1776. Revolutions in the name of freedom often beget even more horrible tyranny than what they fought to overthrow.

France got Napoleon, Russia got Lenin, China got Mao, Cuba got Castro, Hungary got pounded back into submission for another 30 years, Iran got the Ayatollahs...

Hell, even our own Civil War resulted in the growth of statism, a powerful central government, steadily rising taxes, etc. The Lincoln Administrations had a lot of motivations that were not at all about ending slavery, and were all about Federal power. Some even suggest that the Abolitionist Movement was simply a good way for them to get large-scale support for what they wanted and claim the moral high ground. Remember, the Federal Government, not some outraged slaveowners, hanged John Brown, and quite quickly, too.

So, if we can work to change the system without chaos and bloodshed, we'll probably end up far better off than if we cast our fate before the dogs of war.
 
And I might as well wish for the government to go back to its constitutional roots, abolish income tax, end the war on drugs, do away with most federal offices, reassert states rights, and I'm sure it will be done by a leprachaun riding on a magic unicorn, tomorrow.

That initial post is why the Libertarians won't get anybody elected to any position of any sort of importance, ever.

In the meantime, here in the real world, millions of us now carry guns. CCW is starting to be seen as a normal, rational, and fundamental thing to do by the voting public.
 
Persons convicted of violent misdemenors could have their gun rights suspended for some period of time. Persons convicted of violent felonies could have them revoked. Persons who demonstrate mental incompetence can have their gun rights suspended. All such suspensions or revokations would require judicial action, and some means of recovery of the rights would be available.
How, exactly, do you suspend or revoke a right? In order to suspend something, the State must have a right to grant that thing; only privileges may be granted. Rights are inherent... a fundamental aspect of humanity.
 
Jac, criminal offenses do involve the loss of rights. Being imprisoned for murder is a loss of your rights, but I doubt many would object to imprisoning real criminals.

The problem comes with the definition of "crime" more than with the definition of "rights."
 
L. Neil Smith wrote in the article:

To take it a step further, there are natural-born Tories in life, who only feel comfortable when they're groveling to some kind of authority, and there are individuals who won't grovel, no matter what it costs them.
This nation, America, was created by the latter sort, while the former ran away to Canada where, for the next eleven generations

Yet, within approximately five or six generations, certainly by 1900 at the latest, most of the USA had become a nation of permissions, rather than rights, as regards the carrying of firearms.

I think that ArmedBear nails the reason why:

Hell, even our own Civil War resulted in the growth of statism, a powerful central government, steadily rising taxes, etc. The Lincoln Administrations had a lot of motivations that were not at all about ending slavery, and were all about Federal power. Some even suggest that the Abolitionist Movement was simply a good way for them to get large-scale support for what they wanted and claim the moral high ground.

I appreciate those pointing out the necessity of the pragmatic approach but it is refreshing to read an expository of clearly drawn ideals that need to be integrated to our pragmatism to keep a focus on the ultimate goal.
 
BTW, to clarify, I did not mean that as some sort of manifesto of Confederate sympathy, though I think that the South may have had a lot more legitimate grievances, and the North fewer good reasons to fight, than are generally acknowledged in 5th Grade History.

My point is that, when you think you're fighting for something right and good, you might be getting SCREWED if you don't take time for pragamatic consideration of what's really going on.
 
Being imprisoned for murder is a loss of your rights, but I doubt many would object to imprisoning real criminals.
Yes, but what about when they get out; after, ostensibly anyway, they have paid their debt?

The problem comes with the definition of "crime" more than with the definition of "rights."
I will agree that that's a bigger problem. There are way too many "criminals" in this country.
 
The author seems to have confused being right with winning.

The pragmatic approaches outlined in the later posts seem much more reasonable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top