If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today.
Well, since our domestic and racial enemies are so very fond of reidentifying things – e.g., racism, sexism, violence, terrorism, men, women, and children – I’ve decided to reidentify firearms as cordless hole punchers. 😉
Somewhat overshadowed by certain sorts’ screaming, hysterical outrage of the SCOTUS’ decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is the rage and hatred inspired, especially by NY politicians, about the highest mortal Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which declared NY’s second-step, means-end scrutiny, for issuing a concealed carry permit to be unconstitutional and, hence, illegal.
What this means and what this only means is that nobody who can and does legally own a firearm in NY and who wishes to carry it with them in a concealed – aka nonthreatening – manner has to prove to the police department’s satisfaction that: a) carrying a concealed weapon is in my interests; a) carrying a concealed weapon would be effective in furthering my interests; and c) that there is no lesser method than my carrying a concealed weapon that would sufficiently further my interests.
Personally, I believe that this ruling is century overdue. I also believe that certain criteria in the NY laws covering legal firearm ownership need strict review, but that can come and be discussed later.
Consider This If You’re Raging
Before Bruen, if anybody desired to carry a firearm on their person outside of their home – that includes in public spaces of their building, e.g., laundry rooms, if it’s multi-tenanted – they would have to prove to assigned members of the police department that they needed to do so, carrying a weapon would fulfill that need, and that there was no better way of fulfilling that need. And, each person would have to individually prove to the specific officer(s) appointed to that licensing review that all of the above were true. And, if they are denied, they have to practical recourse, as Bruen having to go all the way to the US Supreme Court proves since very few private individuals have the wealth needed to sustain such a legal battle.
Each request is fielded by appoint officers of the local law enforcement body and each is decided upon based up individual, subjective value judgements. That opens up the doors – more like knocks down the whole wall – for bias-based denials. That or those specific licensing officers are Racist for any value thereof? Individuals of the detested race can and likely will be denied. If they’re sexist? individuals of the denigrated gender will be denied? Homo- or Heterophobic? Again, denied. And, in all those cases, that’s it. It’s over. The petitioner had no authority that they could reasonably go to in order to overturn the decision.
So, what those who are raging about this decision are really saying, though the vast majority of them don’t in any way consciously realize, is that they want the police – an organization that they regularly vilify as being violently and lethally racist, sexist, and homophobic, to be the sole authority to issue concealed carry permits based upon criteria that they are the sole arbiters of the meeting thereof.
Better, Objective, Prerequisites
Firstly, allow me to completely, utterly, and irrevocably alienate a large swath of my fellow Americans. I don’t care what you believe, I believe that carrying a weapon on your person, concealed or openly, in public is a privilege and not a right as enumerated by our Second Amendment. As such, it is acceptable to me that there are preconditions for any of us to be allowed to do so.
What I firmly believe is that means-ends testing and other personal, subjective standards to being acknowledged to have that privilege mus be struck down and abolished to the midden pit of history.
But, please do add in objective requirements, especially requirements for basic firearm usage competency and the requirement for training on real world best practices for defensive use of one’s carry piece(s). Just ensure that, whether or not government agencies will offer the training and testing or not, that private entities’ competency/completion avowals are accepted so as avoid returning to the same biased standards through a back channel.
Again, again, and FUCKING again, please fucking do that! I was a certified Range Safety Officer (RSO) and at one time a large part of my job was providing the firearms safety and use training required in my state for getting a concealed permit. I’ve seen what is likely most of the whole range of people with firearms and I don’t want to ever see a number of them walking around “strapped” in public.
You’ve probably never had a fool respond to being corrected on the range by unthinkingly panning his locked and loaded shotgun across his wife and pointing at you as he responds, “What?” I have.
So, technically, I do want “ends testing” insofar as does the applicant have the basic competency so that carrying a firearm could serve his or her perceived needs or desires and wouldn’t exacerbate other people’s need to do so as well. I just want a fixed, objective criteria for proving that.
Some Disclosures And Rant-Like Stuff
I live in NYC, epicenter of this conflict. For over 18 years I’ve been subject to the City and State’s draconian firearms laws. And it hasn’t effected me one whit. I’m writing about this whole thing solely because of my love of the Constitution, not because I have any “skin in the game” at all.
I lived many years when I almost always had at least one firearm on my person or within my easy reach 24 hours per day 200+ days a year, with that number rising to over 300 if one discounts the beach days when my weapon stayed with the rest of my gear, especially my smokes, while I was in the water. But, I haven’t lived that way for almost as many years since then and I don’t miss it at all. I love that I changed my life so that I don’t have yet another piece of gear that have to be constantly concerned about “going adrift.
I have all warranted respect for police officers, but very little respect for the actual level of training in proper combat use of firearms that police officers receive or are de facto allowed to relieve. Hence, their being the authority which determines who can carry a firearm really strikes me as equal parts stupid and hypocritical. Statistically speaking, none of them quite obviously not even many of their SWAT teams – have undergone the training I did, which I actually consider pretty close to the minimum needed vs. something “bad ass,” in Close Fire situations with friendlies and/or collaterals present.
Sadly, due to what it would cost, how many police academy enrollees would fail, and the Liberals’ insane fears of “militarized police,” the police are unlikely to ever receive this training.
This last bit I can figure out no way of saying without sounding like a total arrogant ass who’s most likely just lying to make myself look “tough.” But, here goes anyway, since showing my own bias and “privilege” is important to me in this post:
I am a weapon in a sadly too true sense. I’ve approximately 50 years of training in hand-to-hand and melee weapons combat, a great deal of it being what aficionados would call “street tactical.” A firearm to me is just a force multiplier, and my life doesn’t require me to have one of those anymore. And, if that changes, it’s unlikely that I’m going to care what the laws on the books are, that those laws are still enforceable, or that I would choose to carry a concealable weapon.
So yeah, I’ve earned the privilege of being someone who is unlikely to ever feel that I need a concealed carry permit. That does need to be taken into account as an admission of my bias in this issue.
It’s extremely ironic – hypocritical too, if Biden is even aware of his own dementia – that Creepy Uncle Joe is blathering and ranting about keeping firearms out of the hands of the “Mentally Unstable.” 🙄 In theory, this dangerously senile dodderer has the nuclear arsenal of the US at his palsied, liver-spotted fingertips.
Remember, this is the same mush-brained remains of a man who went totally off script and essentially called for a Christian holy war against Russia.
On the bright-ish side, I’m fairly sure that the “Deep State” has taken measures to remove First Strike Capacity from Biden, much like they probably did to President Trump and Obama.
So Easy, So Commonsensical, So Proven To Be Prone To Evil
Give Mr. Bad Hands and his handlers some credit. Arguing to take firearms away from and keep them away from the mentally unstable is seriously easy to say, easy to believe in, and a normative pillar of “common sense gun control.” Who in their right mind would argue against it?
Who in their right mind would argue against it? Anyone with a knowledge and understanding of history.
Across a large swaths of the world, including to our shame America, psychiatry and the declaring of individuals as mentally unstable and unfit has a long and pernicious history of being weaponized and used as a means of tyranny. There is no reason, if the opportunity is presented, for that not to happen here again.
Indeed, it has happened here in the US as recently as 2009, when many veterans returning from Iraq and/or Afghanistan were forced to preemptively and prophylactically present evidence to the Obama Regime’s satisfaction that they were mentally stable enough to resist “right-wing extremism” or have their right to keep arms stripped from them.
They Can’t Build It And They Can’t Make It Better
But – or also, depending on how you want to approach this – there is neither the capacity nor the will to make anything close to unified registry or repository of mental health Diagnoses across the Several-States. Hence, even if someone was declared mentally unfit, they’d only have to change the state in which they purchased a firearm and/or resided to avoid that prohibition.
So, Biden’s statement is easy to say, but his doing so just another example of his mental incompetence and the mental instability of those who agree with it.