In his article, which can be viewed here, Henigan makes several ignorant statements about the law's imagined effects. Some of them are examined below.
Henigan: "The House Judiciary Committee next week likely will report out a bill, H.R. 822, that will make it possible for dangerous people like the Tucson shooter to legally carry concealed weapons in virtually every state in the nation."People like Loughner, who did not have a concealed carry permit and therefore would not be affected by this law, don't care about this kind of bill. People who are intent on committing mass shootings are not going to be dissuaded from doing so due to the lack of laws supporting their endeavors. Mass shooters break numerous laws to commit their crimes at both the state and federal levels. Would the absence of this bill stop a single shooting? It would probably stop just as many as "no guns allowed" signs have stopped - zero.
Henigan: "Arizona’s gun laws are so weak that Jared Loughner did not even have to get a permit to legally carry his hidden Glock, with its high-capacity assault clip, to the sidewalk in front of that Safeway. But he was certainly eligible for an Arizona concealed carry permit, and if he had obtained one, H.R. 822 would have enabled him to carry his Glock into Times Square."Yes, Arizona has the unenviable distinction of being a state that does not restrict the rights of a person who has not been convicted of a crime. They really have some nerve. And to add insult to injury he had a "high-capacity assault clip," whatever the heck that is. I mean an assault clip? Tha sounds dastardly does it not? And of course the absence of H.R. 822 would prevent Loughner from leaving the state with his evil assault clip, just like the presence of laws criminalizing homicide stopped him from...oh wait.
Henigan: "[T]he version adopted by the House Judiciary majority last week would allow non-resident concealed carriers to pack heat in states where they were previously ineligible even to possess a gun."This basically is saying that you would now be able to carry in states like Illinois, which have chosen to reduce the Bill of Rights to 9 non-scary amendments rather than the 10 that that most other states recognize. It does nothing to change the requirements for a background check when purchasing a new gun and doesn't change the requirements for obtaining a permit in any state that currently issues them.
Henigan: "In an ironic twist, during the same week the Judiciary Committee was considering this bill, Rep. Curry Todd, a Tennessee State legislator who championed a bill to allow concealed carry permit holders to take their guns into bars in his State, was arrested for possessing a handgun while intoxicated. (Perhaps we now know why he felt so strongly about the issue.)"As a Tennessean I can't overstate how disappointed our state's gun owners are in the actions of Rep. Todd. But the fact is the law he advocated did not enable this to happen as it is still illegal to drink and carry. If the law allowing permit holders to carry in restaurants hadn't been passed, he would have been arrested and charged with the exact same crimes. This is just another example of a typical straw man by Brady and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is just another weak attempt by Brady to smear all gun owners and those who support us.
Henigan: "Apart from the irony, the legislator’s arrest demonstrates the folly of making it easier for individuals to carry loaded and concealed weapons in public. It is simply too difficult to ensure that those who get these licenses are, in fact, responsible, law-abiding citizens."This may have some truth, but prior restraint laws have been shown to unconstitutional. And history supports granting carry permits. Permit holders are far less likely to be convicted of a crime than virtually any other segment of the population, including politicians. Surprisingly, even including police officers. So if Brady wants to disarm the most dangerous segments of society they a lot of work to do before disarming permit holders makes sense.
Henigan: "A recent Brady Center report documents thirteen cases of murder by persons who were legal concealed carriers until they pulled the trigger, including Jared Loughner."And the report completely ignores the nearly 18,000 firearm homicides that weren't committed by legal concealed carriers during the same two year period and instead attempts to demonize a community consisting of approximately 40 million people because of the actions of about 0.00001625%, or almost 2/100,000ths of that population [(13/2)/40 million]. Once again, the general population could only dream of being this trustworthy. 99.93% of these firearms homicides were not committed by legal gun owners, but Henigan wants you to focus on the other 0.07%. Is that really their best idea for reducing gun crime?
Henigan: "Under this legislation, if someone with a Virginia concealed carry permit were caught armed and intoxicated in Tennessee, the State would be powerless to arrest him for gun possession while under the influence, even though it could enforce the same law against Tennessee residents. Does this make any sense at all?"The part that doesn't make sense is the fact that Henigan thinks he can pass this off as truth. The law does not make it legal in Tennessee to drink while carrying. As a matter of fact the proposed bill explicitly states that you must follow the laws of that state in the following section:
`(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
Henigan: "Even now, dangerous individuals are bypassing their own states’ concealed weapon restrictions by obtaining permits from more lenient states. Take the case of Marqus Hill, who obtained a Florida permit after his Pennsylvania permit was revoked. At the permit revocation hearing, Hill had assaulted a police officer. With his Florida permit making him, once again, a legal concealed carrier in Pennsylvania, last year Hill shot 18-year-old Irving Santana 13 times and was charged with homicide."Once again Henigan goes on a rant about an issue that has nothing to do with H.R. 822. Hill allegedly killed Santana in Pennsylvania. He didn't have to cross state lines so national reciprocity in no way helped him to commit the homicide. Not that it has been shown that the lack of national reciprocity has ever stopped a homicide. I have never heard of a case where a criminal admitted, "I was gonna kill that guy but it was illegal for me to carry concealed in his state so I just let it slide...this time."
As with all things gun related Brady bats a big fat zero with their analysis of H.R. 822. For the sake of fairness, the problem I have isn't that the folks at Brady don't like guns - they surely have every right not to like them - but with how they play loosely with facts, so-called studies, and statistics. As with debate on any topic, if you have to lie or even distort the truth to convince people you are right, your position is probably incredibly weak to begin with. Henigan's work here definitely is no exception to that rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment