Need clarification of position on SB51/HB2014, SB398/HB201

[fl0at]

John, all:

Why is TFA's official stance to oppose measures such as SB51/HB2014, SB398 / HB2015, SB399 / HB2016, et al?

I understand the class argument, but isn't the handgun carry permit in and of itself a class? HCP itself creates a class of citizens who: have the time to take the course, have the money to take the course, have the money for the background check and application, and take the time and spend the money to renew.

Yet, we don't oppose creating a class of individuals who can carry in a restaurant, or keep their weapon in a vehicle, even when everyone else cannot.

I also understand that TFA advocates Constitutional carry, but we don't also oppose any and all 2A legislation, arguably creating a "special class of citizens" [permit holders], until we first get Constitutional carry.

I see a bit of a contradiction. I'm sure that isn't the purpose, so a little explanation or clarification could be of great benefit. At least to me.

Thanks much.

[johnharris]

The principal approach to the class issue is that we work to keep, as much as possible, all civilians on the same level.

Now, the best solution is constitutional carry - period but even then we will be fighting the "retired", "off duty", "judge", "retired judge", etc., bills to create location specific exceptions/classes.

Dealing with the fact at the present that we do not have constitutional carry and may not get it until we can some more liberals and RINO's, like Harwell, we still want to work to fight the creation of classes of citizens who can carry.

Whenever these "class" bills come up, I always take this position. Sometimes, as with "off duty judges" what the legislature proposes is that these "off duty" classes would have "law enforcement" type privileges if those civilians (i.e., judges) take the law enforcement firearms training classes. Whenever that issue comes up, always insist with respect to the civilian - why just the judges? Why not let any citizen take the "law enforcement firearms training class and then they too would no longer have carry location restrictions. Legislators cannot give a good answer to why some civilians - based on their jobs or former jobs - should be able to take law enforcement classes and have restrictions removes but that same opportunity would not be extended to all civilians.

Obviously, the answer is that legislators, intentionally or ignorantly, are pandering to classes of civilians and operating on the foolish beliefs that someone's job makes them more safe or their concern over lives more genuine.

[fl0at]

Thanks John, well explained.

Hopefully we can keep all citizens on the same level, but it seems that each year, more and more class specific legislation comes on the floor, and general legislation goes out the door.

It is becoming a continued internal battle, for me, between benefit of visibility of "select" individuals in no-carry locations, such as post-secondary campuses, and harm of creating such "select" individuals.

On one side, I see benefit in allowing faculty of such institutions to carry, because it increases visibility of firearms in such locations, and helps to show that, yea, people are responsible enough to carry, and that innate objects should not be feared.

But, while it may be "gate-way" legislation, it isn't the solution to the problem, and in fact creates further problems, ie: these people are more responsible and we trust them, but not you.

No progress being better than some progress is a tough pill to swallow, even if I do see the intent, history and logic behind such a position.

[johnharris]

Keep in mind Ben Franklin's observation that, to paraphrase, those who would sacrifice essential rights for perceived security deserve neither.

If citizens concede the the creation of classes of citizens based on jobs or former jobs, then that is done only on the belief that some security in those areas, by those in the special classes (assuming there is a duty to defend), is better than no security at all.

[fl0at]

[phlp24]

Granted, passing “class” bills may put weapons into the hands of a few, select law-abiding citizens and thus make primarily those few individuals safer, but it also furthers the notion that weapons carry should be restricted to select individuals. Additionally, passing such bills tends to provide lawmakers the sense that they have sufficiently bolstered the 2nd Amendment and thus diverts them from addressing/passing bills which would expand the rights of the general citizenry instead. I support the TFA’s decision to withhold support from “class” bills.

Russ

[johnharris]

[fl0at]

[C. Richard Archie]

And yet other States move to Constitutional Carry.

Perhaps we need to continue to winnow and weed, and finally arrive at a Legislature that will advance initiatives that provide for a return to what the Founders meant when they wrote that "Living Constitution". The Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness espoused as Inalienable Rights began with Life, and the protection of it with whatever means and tools necessary seem as important today as when it was first penned.

[fl0at]