National Concealed Carry

There has been buzz about the possibility of President Trump initiating legislation or an executive order to mandate a national concealed carry permit or reciprocity. I have mixed feelings on this subject as I know many others do as well.

Let me begin by saying that I know a perfect libertarian society requires personal responsibility, the kind that has pretty much gone by the wayside. It is often said that common sense is so rare these days that it should be considered a super power. I dream of a world where everyone takes responsibility for their own actions and combines that responsibility with common sense, but it is highly unlikely that our society will change anytime soon.

So here is my dilemma. As a second amendment advocate, I believe that anyone should be able to own any firearm or other weapon that they choose for self defense. The government should have no say as to what an individual can or cannot own. Likewise, the government should have no say as to how you carry your firearm, concealed or otherwise. Obviously, organizations such as the NRA are great advocates for education and proper handling of firearms. Organizations such as the NRA are a wealth of knowledge for safety and advocacy. Here lies the rub.

Some states have a concealed carry law requiring a class of some sort and an application for a permit. Other states don't allow concealed carry, and some have no laws at all restricting concealed carry. Hooray for states rights, but there is confusion. As an NRA pistol instructor, I am qualified to teach concealed carry classes for the state of Ohio. Ohio in turn has reciprocity with many states, meaning that the Ohio permit is accepted in most other states. Likewise, the states with reciprocity means that Ohio law enforcement will accept those permit holders as well.

My concern is two fold. As I mentioned in my post, Annie Get Your Gun, I believe that if you can afford it, you can own it. As a libertarian, I also believe that it is none of the government's business as to how you carry your gun, either concealed or open. It is the responsibility of the individual to implement best practices with proper care and handling. Obviously we know that not all gun owners utilize best practices. This is why we hear of children gaining access to guns and shooting them, sometimes causing significant harm or even death. Tragic and unnecessary. These cases give politicians the fodder they are looking for to control guns in the name of safety.

The problem is not the gun, it is the owner. Guns are simply a machine just as a car or a see-saw. These machines do nothing without a person to operate them. This is why the Social Security Administration was slated to get involved with gun ownership under the Obama administration. They wanted to remove the rights of gun ownership from anyone receiving Social Security income for a "mental health" reason. Even the Obama administration knows that it is the person, not the gun which is the concern. However under Obama, the SSA could revoke payments or confiscate guns without due process and other unconstitutional violations. Anyway, back to my point.

One of the good things that concealed carry laws have is the ability to verify at least some basic level of knowledge and training for the individual to be permitted to carry concealed in a public area. While I am fully against this regulation. In a world with very little responsibility and common sense, it is somewhat comforting to know at a permit holder should know what they are doing when it come to proper care, retention and use.

The big issue is that we have to determine if the individual states have authority or if the second amendment supersedes the states rights. If the second amendment is the final say, then the concealed carry option for the states is mute. If the states have the rights, then it should require an act of congress to mandate a national concealed carry standard. As a responsible gun owner, I believe that I have the right to carry anyway I want, anywhere I want for the purpose of security and protection of self and family. I don't believe that I need a permit because of the second amendment. However, I have genuine concern about other people who have the same right, but don't use any common sense to properly store, maintain, or handle their own firearms.

I want nothing more than to have every American own and carry a gun, but without education and training, it can be dangerous. We wouldn't allow a person to drive a car without education and training first, we don't even let electricians install lights without some level of education and training. How can we possibly allow people to own and carry a deadly weapon without it? The answer is because of the second amendment. It doesn't stipulate any training requirements. It assumes that the individual is competent and capable of making sound decisions. Even the anti-gun crowd knows that there are idiots out there. The honest anti-gun lobby realizes it is a public safety issue and not a gun issue.

An honest solution to this problem with gun ownership and concealed carry is education. I would propose that the NRA teach a course that is required by all public schools (another institution I think should be eliminated, but that is for another day). In order to graduate, there should be required learning and successful completion for public school students to fully understand the constitution and its application today. For the section on the second amendment, the NRA would teach a semester long class that involves proper storage, maintenance, and use of the three most common firearms, hand guns, rifles, and shotguns. This class would be required for graduation, but not to own a gun, because gun ownership is protected under the constitution, whereas graduation is not. Upon graduation, individuals can choose whether or not they want to own a gun. At least this way we can rest assured that any student graduating from public school has an understanding of the constitution and proper care and use of firearms. Its not perfect, but it is a start.

Just as we cannot legislate morality, we cannot legislate intelligence or common sense, but we can make sure that our tax dollars are being spent on real education. Who knows, maybe some of our more disinterested students might even want to go to school and graduate. What a crazy idea.

Peace and Freedom,

Geoff

What's the Point?

Can anyone tell me the last time a government agency accomplished its named purpose and then disbanded? There are so many unnecessary agencies that no one really knows what the mission and purpose is of most of them. The worst part is that many of these agencies have the ability to create new, debilitating regulations without any input from our representatives and senators.

Unlike new laws, regulations are typically mandatory and can be instituted pretty much at will. Where I am going with this is that regulations are frequently added at alarming rates, especially in the last several years. We need to get away from regulations and if new regulations are required, two things need to happen.

First, it needs to be presented from the respective agency to congress for their full deliberation and consideration. Only if congress supports the regulation should it become law, and in effect, be added as a formal regulation. Second, in all situations, just as Jefferson sought, the laws should favor the individual, over the government. We need to take a posture of being skeptical of the government and more trusting of the individual. It is far better for the government to be wronged than a private citizen.

Much like our laws are set up to say that all people are innocent until proven guilty, we need to assume that all people are in compliance until such time that the government can prove otherwise. Even in situations where the government can prove that a violation has happened, it is better to favor freedom of the individual over the authority of the government.

Having said all that, there are so many agencies that don't have a real purpose or need any more that it is time to revert to only those areas where the constitution explicitly states the role of the federal government and eliminate all agencies (including ones that are nice) that don't clearly have purpose under the constitution. Let the states and the free markets figure it out. People will be just fine without being told how to educate our children.

Get Our Land Back

I recently ranted about how it is impossible to actually own property in the USA due to the taxes. In the news this week we learned that BLM thinks that the federal government owns private property along the Red River between Oklahoma and Texas. Here we see literally hundreds of thousands of acres of private property which has been taxed again and again (see my rant on this outdated tax approach here), being taken from private owners without any regard for illegal search and seizure.

People's homes are being taken away from them after decades of ownership and taxation with BLM ignoring the landowners fourth amendment rights. There are talks of letting the landowners buy back their land. Really, buy it back? It does not belong to the feds. How can they even think about selling something they don't own?

Here is where this is going for me, is to the ownership of property by the federal government. Where are the national parks located? Denali, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Everglades, Haleakala, etc. They are all located in..... States. Why does this matter? Because the states should have sovereignty. If a state wants to maintain the parks, then the ownership, the revenue and the method for maintaining the park should reside in the power of the states.

I love the parks and I visit often. But the economic impact that they can produce should go to the respective states, not the federal government. When considering natural resources, permits should not be issued or denied by the federal government, but the states. More power should reside in the states and less with the feds. Honestly, there is no need for the federal government to own any property beyond what is necessary for the administrative buildings.

I have no problem with the feds owning the Capitol. I have no problem with the White House or the Pentagon being federal property. We clearly need federal land for military, but beyond the administrative and security needs, there is no reason for the federal government to own property. Dept of the Interior, just as most other agencies, has far overstepped its bounds. It is time to leave property to the people. If any state government wants to maintain parks, they are free to do so. Arizona should be free to benefit from the Grand Canyon. No more feds.

God Bless,

Geoff

Media Malpractice

Who is up for some fake news? Who gets to determine "fake" news? What makes news fake? As an avid consumer of politics, I hear half truths, falsities, lies and other questionable statements presented as unbiased fact on a daily basis. What I do know is that regardless of the source, journalism is pretty much dead. There is almost no objective reporting anymore. In fact, I cannot tell you where I can even find objective reporting. Every reporter has some agenda or talking points they want to emphasize. Some are more overt than others, but they all have it.

For those of you reading this, you know my biases as well, but at least I acknowledge them and mention when I am trying to be objective. I don't pretend to be a journalist and then spin the information to meet my narrative. The media is so intellectually dishonest these days that I don't think there is such a thing as honest reporting anymore.

Regardless of where you get your news, I don't think there is a single source you can find adequate reporting of simple facts. I used to believe that Fox News was "Fair and Balanced," but now I see that it is neither. I come to this conclusion from two lenses. First, There is always an odd number of panelists. From an equal share perspective, there is never equal time allotted for opposite opinions. Additionally, the amount of time that liberals have on Fox is seldom as long as that of the more conservative commentators. On the "Five" which is one of my favorite shows, Juan is always outnumbered and they are always cutting him off. In many cases he is completely off base, but he should be able to speak his mind as well and be given the time to express his point to the fullest.

All I am getting at is that it is no wonder that Trump uses tweets to get his message out. While a healthy dose of skepticism is good for the media, their clear agenda and attempt to politicize every action has all but verified that they cannot produce honest news. I'm sure the Trump propaganda machine is alive and well, but so is the media, so turnabout is fair play as far as I am concerned. It just means that the average American won't have any idea what is really going on for the foreseeable future.

Thanks and God Bless,

Geoff