It has started! Diane Feinstein of California has moved to block two important Senate bills, S 2188 and S 2213. Senate bill 2188 is the same as House Bill 822 (HR 822) and S2213 is a slightly different variant of S 2188. Both bills would grant universal reciprocity for concealed weapons permits across all states that issue concealed weapon permits. Currently there is a patchwork of reciprocity provisions that results in different reciprocity for different states as the reciprocity is worked out between each state. Neither bill would alter the concealed carry requirements within a particular state.
She is attempting to use the uproar over the case of George Zimmerman in Florida to distort the logic of the two bills. In fact she is against any extension of gun rights and is using the current uproar to stop a reasonable bill from being passed. Neither bill would alter the laws in New Mexico!
For example, New Mexico does not allow concealed carry in establishments whose primary business is to sell liquor by the glass (bars) while Arizona does allow that as long as the person carrying the concealed weapon does not consume alcohol. The Senate bills would grant Arizona concealed carry licensees the same rights in New Mexico as permit holders from New Mexico. The fact that their law is less restrictive than New Mexico's would not allow them to violate New Mexico's law. All the Senate bills would do would be to force states to recognize concealed permits from other states if, and only if, the state granted concealed carry permits.
Some states, California for example, issue concealed carry permits to select individuals rather than all legal, law-abiding, citizens. In California, Senator Feinstein would easily qualify for a concealed permit while "Joe Gardener" would not. A majority of states, including New Mexico, are now "shall-issue" with respect to concealed carry permits. This means that any person who meets the statuary requirements in the state and satisfies certain state-specified training requirements, will be issued a permit. This generally precludes felons, persons with DUI convictions, persons with mental defects, etc. The only real difference is training. Arizona , for example, requires just 8 hours of training while New Mexico requires 15 hours of training. If you think that is a big deal, consider that New mexico already recognizes Arizona permit holders. The Senate bills would only codify what is already New Mexico policy. The Senate bills would also make New Mexico permits valid in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Currently our permits are not recognized in those states although Arizona's, with fewer hours of training required, are. Out permits would also be recognized in California since they do issue concealed carry permits.
California, in LA and San Francisco, tends to be more left-oriented. That is, those two population centers tend to vote more left than right. The left, in general, has bought into the idea that more restrictions on gun ownership and deployment makes a safer city. I actually published a post (see link) that clearly refutes that position. That post shows that places are generally no more safe with restrictive gun laws than with reasonable laws, such as New Mexico's, that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. There is no evidence, no reasonable evidence anyway, to support the far-left's position on gun control! If you look at the post, you might even conclude that states with less restrictive gun laws are safer although I am not saying that.
Concealed carry permit holders have some training in the laws of their own state. George Zimmerman, for example, would not have been legally allowed to accost Trayvon Martin in New Mexico or Arizona. I don't know how this will play out in Florida. None of us know the evidence in that case. George Zimmerman may be convicted, acquitted, or the jury might be hung. He might be shown to have acted in violation of the law or to have properly discharged his firearm. The stand-your-ground portions of the Florida self-defense statute may or may not be an issue. In any event, the George Zimmerman case does not reflect on S2188 and S2213.
Senator Tom Udall has promised to fairly weigh this legislation. What that means is anyone's guess until he actually votes. If the vote is strictly based on gun rights, I estimate that it is 60/40 that he will vote for the bills. If the bills become mired in partisan politics, Udall cannot be counted on to vote for the bills. Our other Senator, Senator Bingaman, can likely not be swayed as he is not running for re-election.
Please raise your voice to support S2188 and S2213 and to not allow Senator Feinstein, from California, to affect our rights to bear arms in New Mexico and the other states in our great country. Senator Udall can be reached at tomudall.Senate.gov.
No comments:
Post a Comment