Platform

Giving up on trying to figure out where the NRA stands on carry, a few updates from the states, and an op-ed on firearms “insurance” (a nice word for “registry”). It should come as no surprise that, after last week’s amazing action in Texas, there is not much to discuss now. Keeping it short this week.

Let’s get this out of the way, campus carry passed in Texas and will also be signed into law by the governor. Great couple of weeks for CJ Grisham, OCT, and Texans in general.

1.) NRA. I give up. If you asked me, I wouldn’t be able to tell you if the NRA was for or against concealed, open, OR constitutional carry. Based on their actions in Texas, I at least have a vague notion that they support CAMPUS carry, but beyond that I’m lost.

There is a long article on the NRA-ILA website asking “why can’t we just carry,” which at least gives the idea that the organization fully backs the constitutional carry angle. The article tackles the almost regular calls of anarchy from anti-gun groups (who basically see any lack of faith in a particular law as being an anarchist), as well as providing updates on where the constitutional carry debate stands in terms of state legislatures…..

2.) Maine. One such state is Maine. Both chambers of the legislature have passed a bill allowing permitless carry. Interestingly, the article almost immediately brings up “public safety concerns” that have been disproven for coming on 30 years now. (Put bluntly, nobody is waiting to be “legally” allowed to carry a gun to commit murder. Nobody is waiting to be “half-legal” before doing something patently illegal.)

It should be noted that the bill enjoys wide bipartisan support, including leadership in both parties.

3.) North Carolina. Meanwhile, North Carolina has a bill that narrowly passed a House committee which would repeal the state’s permit system altogether. It would also repeal the ban from getting permits on those convicted of misdemeanors.

4.) Gun insurance. The newest cute idea from anti-gun groups has been to demand people get insurance on their guns just like they do on cars. The tone-deafness here is amazing, as the Schumer/Manchin/Toomey bill that failed so spectacularly after Newtown had both supporters and its authors desperate to say the bill was not a registry. The rationale is, of course, that “we insure cars” so we should insure guns. (Keeping in mind that cars need to be insured individually

As Guns.com points out, the actual law stands only to make carrying more expensive and will be ignored by most criminals, anyway.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s