Wednesday, December 07, 2016

The LA Times: National Reciprocity is Bad...




In an opinion piece at the Los Angeles Times, the Times writes that national reciprocity for concealed carry permits would be bad. 

The editorial is from the editorial board, so it reflects the Times official policy desires. 

The problem is that the Times cannot come up with any good reason for their opinion, other than the big bad federal government should not force poor little California to do something the California government (largely controlled by the LA Times and other "progressive" media") does not want them to do.

In this case, that something is to respect the Second Amendment even in a partial, half hearted way.  From  the editorial a latimes.com:
The reciprocity movement is nothing more than an effort to drive states’ concealed-carry laws to the lowest common denominator. Consider Utah, for instance. To qualify for a Utah permit, which is available to nonresidents and is already accepted by 36 other states, one need only be 21 years old, not be deemed ineligible under federal laws (no felony conviction or history of drug and alcohol abuse, for instance) and complete a Utah-certified Weapons Familiarity course, which can be taken outside the state. In fact, Utah has certified 169 instructors in California alone. Utah’s limited restrictions have made the issuance of concealed-carry permits something of a cottage industry for the state. Two-thirds of Utah’s 632,276 permits as of the end of last year were in the hands of nonresidents.

By comparison, California — with 33 times Utah’s population — has only 79,834 active concealed-carry permits, according to the state attorney general’s office. Among other things, California has a more stringent training regimen and requires a person seeking a permit to show good-cause for needing to carry a concealed weapon. 
The editorial board is careful not to mention that Utah has a murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000 people, one of the lowest of any state.  California has a murder rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people.  They also fail to mention that people who may legally carry firearms are less likely to commit crimes than police officers are.  They are far less likely to commit crimes than the general population.

The LA Times editorial board is bragging about how much they infringe on the Second Amendment rights of California citizens.  They imply how much they enjoy doing it. They are pleading with President Donald Trump and those nasty Republicans not to take away their progressive power trip pleasure.

Sorry, LA Times editorial board. You have shown yourselves to be a far greater abuser of rights than the Second Amendment community. Your abuse of the First Amendment as a way to destroy the rest of the Constitution is coming to an end. People do not find you to be credible any more.

Enjoy your long slide into irrelevancy.  You have earned it many times over.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I partnered closely with newspaper reporters (for other than 2A issues) thru the years. Daily readership has been falling steadily for a variety causes over the last 10+ years:

- more and more news today is pursued on the internet;
- many seek news from alternative, non-traditional, less-biased sources;
- desire for latest information, with updates more frequently than 1x/day;
- changing reader demographics ("this is not your father's newspaper anymore");
- desire for greater revenue from on-line vs brick-and-mortar paper versions;
- environmentalism ("let's save a tree").

Anti-2A bias is just one reason for the impending collapse of daily newspapers.

Dean Weingarten said...

Yes, the reasons are numerous. But an increasing awareness of bias and the dishonest pushing of a "progressive" agenda is part of it.

I am sure there are synergistic effects among all the causes that you have listed.

A Mongoose said...

If all other rights found by the courts must be honored by all states why should one specifically mentioned in the Constitution be exempt?

Anonymous said...

There is no constitutional basis for state to state reciprocity. what we need is better qualified elected law makers. I really get upset with people that think states rights are above citizen rights. If you are too dammed ignorant to recognize federal rights are above states rights you deserve to do without. government has delegated authority, where does that delegated authority come from? it comes from we the people it is our authority on loan. Our authority existed be fore state or federal constitutions and laws existed. the constitution never gave us any rights it was written to protect the rights we had before the constitution was written. rights go both ways. I can not force you to carry a weapon and you can not deny me that right to do as I please in carrying a weapon and if that upsets you well there is one very good thing about this country You have the right to leave it and not let the door hit you in the six on the way out. take your complaints with you and see how well they float in another country. You will wind up living on a boat. You know that actually happened to a guy. he stated in court he hated very thing about this country so for his crimes the judge sentenced him to live out his life aboard a ship at sea. true story.