Unlicensed Activity

 

Right now, In the state of New York, thousands of people are driving cars and trucks without prior vetting from Albany. Given the diversity of licensing standards around the country, it’s likely that some of these drivers have had less training than the Empire State requires of its own residents. Some of these drivers—sitting at the controls of massive hunks of self-propelling metal—may be dangerous. A few of them will take the lives of New Yorkers.

New York Senator Charles Schumer is presumably fine with this. As in the rest of the country, New York honors driving licenses from other states, though visiting drivers are required to abide by New York law. But substitute “handguns” for “cars”—despite the fact that the former kills about a third as many Americans as the latter—and Schumer changes his tune. Responding to Senator John Cornyn’s bill to institute a similar reciprocity system for concealed carry licenses as for driving licenses, Schumer invoked The Darkest Timeline:

“This bill is a menace to New York and would allow potentially dangerous people from other states to carry concealed weapons in our grocery stores, movie theaters and stadiums, without even notifying the police,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told the Daily News.

It’s difficult to unpack just how much poor thinking is contained in that single sentence. And lest one think that this is a single instance of a bad statement, consider Schumer’s comments on a similar bill last year. But allow me to try:

First—as explicitly stated in the bill—out-of-state CCW holders in New York would be subject to precisely the same restrictions as New Yorkers with the equivalent license. If it’s illegal for a New Yorker with a CCW to carry a handgun into a stadium in New York, it’ll be illegal for someone from Connecticut, Texas, Oregon, or Arizona to do so as well.

Second, Schumer falls wholly into the gun-grabber fallacy that there are only negative effects to respecting citizens’ Second Amendment Rights. It’s not simply that Schumer sees the costs as outweighing the benefits (a reasonable, if incorrect position); he sees no possible benefits at all.

Third, Schumer’s statement implies—as only the worst kind of statism can—that passing laws has magic properties. There are, undoubtedly, hundreds of people currently carrying handguns illegally in New York and there is very little one can do to stop them short of stopping, questioning, and frisking 20 million people a day. Though all of these people are technically criminals, many of them are otherwise peaceable citizens who are either ignorant of the law or have decided to ignore it (for the record, neither behavior should exempt them from legal consequences). Why not allow those already licensed and vetted by neighboring states do so lawfully, freeing up police to concentrate their efforts on the genuinely dangerous and criminal, as you do with motor vehicles?

Every so often, I find myself thinking that gun-grabbers are just well-meaning people with regrettable ideas. Then one of them says something and I remember the truth.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 28 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Every so often, I find myself thinking that gun-grabbers are just well-meaning people with regrettable ideas. Then one of them says something and I remember the truth.

    This is one area in which I eschew my normal habit of not assigning malevolent motives to those I disagree with. The only effect they fear from widespread ownership of weapons is our ability to resist their tyranny.

    • #1
  2. Mario the Gator Inactive
    Mario the Gator
    @Pelayo

    I have friend who lives in New Jersey but owns a cabin in upstate New York.  He says that he is not allowed to bring his rifle (purchased in NJ) to the cabin in NY because the state law only allows possession of a firearm purchased in NY.  At the same time, he cannot purchase a new rifle in NY because he is a resident of NJ.  I struggle to understand how that can be true, but given the insanity of NY gun control laws I tend to believe my friend’s story.

    Great post.

    • #2
  3. captainpower Inactive
    captainpower
    @captainpower

    The King Prawn:

    This is one area in which I eschew my normal habit of not assigning malevolent motives to those I disagree with. The only effect they fear from widespread ownership of weapons is our ability to resist their tyranny.

    Maybe.

    I think it’s more plausible to assume they are just defaulting to the nanny-state reflexive distrust that people can make good choices on their own, and the followup assumption that people cannot be left to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.

    It extends to car seat belts and bicycle/motorcycle helmets as well.

    It goes back to the fatal conceit that the elite can make decisions on behalf of others and things will work out.

    Pair that with their assumption that they know better than our forebears and that the 2nd Amendment need not be honored broadly, and here we are.

    Unless you consider mandated seatbelt wearing tyranny, then I think it goes too far to jump straight to a desire for tyranny as justification for their desire to limit guns.

    • #3
  4. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    9mm is clearly superior to 45 acp.

    Sorry, wrong gun thread.

    • #4
  5. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Do you think Sen. Schumer knows the revocation rates of CC permits for violating the law? In most states it’s .0004%. But I would hate to confuse him with the facts.

    • #5
  6. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    If gun laws could change in Chicago, then there is hope for New York, still.   All it takes is one lawsuit by a determined person willing to spend a lot of time challenging the morons who think they are the king of France.

    • #6
  7. The Party of Hell No! Inactive
    The Party of Hell No!
    @ThePartyofHellNo

    No! EJHill, because he does not even understand the Constitution and the power and authority of the Legislative branch of the US Government. A branch of the government he was elected to and a document he held up his right hand and took a solemn oath to defend and protect from foreign and domestic enemies. In this case the domestic is the former great state of New York which is categorically violating the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens of other states to freely cross New York state borders with legally obtained goods for their own consumption, use, and fancy. Mr. Schumer does not even know the Constitution gives one branch of The U.S. Government the authority to regulate interstate commerce – which buying a gun in one state and moving it to another state clearly is, or owning a gun and living in one state and deciding to move to another state. And what? Selling the gun? Destroying the gun? Giving the gun to someone? Turning in the gun when you move into New York state? Are there boarder crossings to enter New York state where prohibited items are confiscated now? If this is Banana Republic sounding; because it is!

    But wait!  Is this actually the last gasp of the anti-gun, the police will protect you, all guns are evil 60’s crowd who know the gun grab is up. As they stand thundering, “How dangerous all these guns are; All these gun tooters are crazy and irrational; They are going to kill all the rational people” etc. they know their run is actually over. The Federal Court system has refused to yield those words …”the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” And the people yawned and said, ” Right, sure I’m going to give up my gun to the state which one day was legal, but the next was not, because Albany no-nothings said so, nah, not happening – verb followed by a personal pronoun!”

    New York’s law of only guns purchased in New York (Similar to California.) is going to fall. As Barkah Herman suggests, “All it takes is one lawsuit by a determined person (A person called Heller.) willing to spend a lot of time challenging the morons who think they are the king of France.” The wave of pro gun, anti-government intrusion; I need my gun to protect myself from the power of the state, is well under way as it sweeps the Chucky Schumers of the United States 60’s crowd into the oblivion of being on the wrong side of history and at the wrong time in history.

    • #7
  8. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    captainpower:

    The King Prawn:

    This is one area in which I eschew my normal habit of not assigning malevolent motives to those I disagree with. The only effect they fear from widespread ownership of weapons is our ability to resist their tyranny.

    Maybe.

    I think it’s more plausible to assume they are just defaulting to the nanny-state reflexive distrust that people can make good choices on their own, and the followup assumption that people cannot be left to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.

    It extends to car seat belts and bicycle/motorcycle helmets as well.

    It goes back to the fatal conceit that the elite can make decisions on behalf of others and things will work out.

    Pair that with their assumption that they know better than our forebears and that the 2nd Amendment need not be honored broadly, and here we are.

    Unless you consider mandated seatbelt wearing tyranny, then I think it goes too far to jump straight to a desire for tyranny as justification for their desire to limit guns.

    The nanny state is one thing, and you rightly list some of its foibles. The tyranny is that they would, if allowed, foist it on us in full against our wills. The statists are completely convinced they know better than we do how to live our own lives, but they also know they cannot make such a thing happen because we bitterly cling to our boomsticks and to our sky gods.

    • #8
  9. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    On a more “action oriented” note – the only way to combat this kind of thought is to get more people involved in gun ownership.  Start with women and minorities.  The more common it becomes for citizens to be armed, the more “normal” gun ownership becomes. Start a NY based organization that allows easy gun purchase, start a legal fund to protect citizens; free training programs to introduce gun sports to women, children, minorities.

    Start at a younger age,   Make guns the norm.

    • #9
  10. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    EJHill:Do you think Sen. Schumer knows the revocation rates of CC permits for violating the law? In most states it’s .0004%. But I would hate to confuse him with the facts.

    Facts are very confusing for our senior senator. He is also confused by math.

    • #10
  11. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    I agree that Schumer’s stated objections to the bill are asinine, but I am dismayed that so many conservatives support federal legislation which is so clearly beyond the proper scope of federal authority. While I strongly support voluntary reciprocity for licensing between the states, this is simply an illegitimate usurpation by the federal government of power constitutionally vested in the states. Conservatives should not be so willing to abandon constitutional principle on the altar of policy preference.

    • #11
  12. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    Salvatore Padula:I agree that Schumer’s stated objections to the bill are asinine, but I am dismayed that so many conservatives support federal legislation which is so clearly beyond the proper scope of federal authority. While I strongly support voluntary reciprocity for licensing between the states, this is simply an illegitimate usurpation by the federal government of power constitutionally vested in the states. Conservatives should not be so willing to abandon constitutional principle on the altar of policy preference.

    The only authority on guns is 2A.  Period, end of story.

    All other fluff can be challenged based on 2A.  And 2A is not a grant, but the recognition of a right.

    • #12
  13. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    TPOHN- “No! EJHill, because he does not even understand the Constitution and the power and authority of the Legislative branch of the US Government. A branch of the government he was elected to and a document he held up his right hand and took a solemn oath to defend and protect from foreign and domestic enemies. In this case the domestic is the former great state of New York which is categorically violating the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens of other states to freely cross New York state borders with legally obtained goods for their own consumption, use, and fancy. Mr. Schumer does not even know the Constitution gives one branch of The U.S. Government the authority to regulate interstate commerce – which buying a gun in one state and moving it to another state clearly is, or owning a gun and living in one state and deciding to move to another state. And what? Selling the gun? Destroying the gun? Giving the gun to someone? Turning in the gun when you move into New York state? Are there boarder crossings to enter New York state where prohibited items are confiscated now? If this is Banana Republic sounding; because it is!”

    This is not the most accurate constitutional analysis. The Second Amendment does not require a state to recognize other states’ carry licenses. It simply prevents a state from placing unreasonable requirements on its own licensing process. The Commerce Clause (Dormant Commerce Clause included) doesn’t prohibit New York denying reciprocity either. Contrary to your claim, merely moving something between states does not constitute commerce unless they are being moved for sale. In any case, not recognizing out of state licenses does not prevent people from moving guns between states, it prevents them from carrying the guns in certain ways.

    • #13
  14. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Barkha- The Second Amendment does not require firearms licensing reciprocity, no matter how much we may like it to. Even if it did, federal legislation would not be the appropriate way to bring it about, as the federal government has no power to legislate absent an enumerated power to do so. Congress does not have plenary power to enforce the 2nd Amendment. The proper remedy if NY’s policy did violate the Second Amendment would be to bring suit challenging the policy’s constitutionality.

    • #14
  15. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    Salvatore Padula: The proper remedy if NY’s policy did violate the Second Amendment would be to bring suit challenging the policy’s constitutionality.

    Agreed (and mentioned above).

    As for licensing, that’s more law suites waiting to happen; hopefully further down in my lifetime.

    • #15
  16. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Barkha- I seem to have misinterpreted your previous comment (which I took to be an assertion that the 2nd Amendment provided authority for the federal legislation). I apologize.

    • #16
  17. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Sal,

    What are your thoughts on a state both not accepting an outside carry license, and refusing to issue one of their own to a non-resident who works in their state?

    Is it acceptable that they are simply unable to to utilize their second amendment rights within the state they work in?

    • #17
  18. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Frank- My view is that a state cannot consider a person’s residency when determining whether to grant a carry permit and should be required to grant a permit to any non-resident who would qualify if he were a resident. This is basically the result of applying the general standard of equal protection analysis under established caselaw. I would expect this to be as a result when the matter eventually is decided by the Supreme Court (though you can’t always count on the Court always following its own precedent). The fact that it has yet to be resolved by litigation is largely a factor of the fact that the 2nd Amendment has only been held incorporated against the states relatively recently and the right to bear distinguish from the right to keep even more recently.

    • #18
  19. Son of Spengler Member
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    Sal, would the Full Faith and Credit clause be more relevant than the Commerce Clause?

    • #19
  20. Son of Spengler Member
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    KP, most of the people I live and work with regrettably fear guns. They also fear (unreasonably so) that everyday conflicts on the road, at the game, or in the supermarket could escalate — with more people carrying, it would be statistically more likely in their view — and lead to more injuries and more severe ones too. They have no interest in imposing a tyranny in their neighbors. You may consider them naive and misguided, but they are not malevolent.

    • #20
  21. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    SoS- That’s a good question. The Full Faith and Credit Clause would not be a compelling source of authority for the federal law in question. The Clause requires states to recognize the laws and judgments of other states. However, in the case of laws, the requirement the Clause places on the state’s is to recognize the existence of the other states’ laws; not treat them as though they apply everywhere. In the context of carry permits, the FF&C Clause requires, for example, New York to recognize the fact that someone may have a Wyoming carry permit, but because Wyoming only has the power to grant a permit for carrying within Wyoming, New York is not in required to treat the holder of a Wyoming permit as though he holds a New York permit.

    • #21
  22. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Salvatore Padula:

    This is not the most accurate constitutional analysis. The Second Amendment does not require a state to recognize other states’ carry licenses. It simply prevents a state from placing unreasonable requirements on its own licensing process. The Commerce Clause (Dormant Commerce Clause included) doesn’t prohibit New York denying reciprocity either. Contrary to your claim, merely moving something between states does not constitute commerce unless they are being moved for sale. In any case, not recognizing out of state licenses does not prevent people from moving guns between states, it prevents them from carrying the guns in certain ways.

    Both the 2A and the dormant commerce clause should prevent NYS from refusing to grant nonresident licenses on equal terms to resident licenses. The 2A also prevents the absurd thresholds/burdens/etc. that NYS applies. The dormant commerce clause should also prevent bans on interstate purchases/transport.

    There are tax cases (NYC commuter tax) that suggest dormant commerce clause does not apply to NYC because NYC regs. also burden intrastate NY commerce. However, those should not apply here because a class of actual interstate travel is being fully barred.

    In any event, a core power of the commerce clause is to overturn state regulations that burden interstate commerce. Even w/o the 2A, mandating reciprocity would be a legitimate act of federal power.

    • #22
  23. user_158368 Inactive
    user_158368
    @PaulErickson

    Pelayo:I have friend who lives in New Jersey but owns a cabin in upstate New York. He says that he is not allowed to bring his rifle (purchased in NJ) to the cabin in NY because the state law only allows possession of a firearm purchased in NY. At the same time, he cannot purchase a new rifle in NY because he is a resident of NJ. I struggle to understand how that can be true, but given the insanity of NY gun control laws I tend to believe my friend’s story.

    Great post.

    Simple, really.  It’s a progressive’s form of border security.  It’s harder for us Jerseyans to invade and take over New York, because we have to drop our weapons before crossing the state line.

    • #23
  24. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    ctlaw- “Both the 2A and the dormant commerce clause should prevent NYS from refusing to grant nonresident licenses on equal terms to resident licenses. The 2A also prevents the absurd thresholds/burdens/etc. that NYS applies. The dormant commerce clause should also prevent bans on interstate purchases/transport.”

    I agree with you both that the 2nd Amendment prohibits many of NY’s requirements and that the dormant commerce clause blocks the unreasonable restriction on the transport of firearms interstate (though I think it debatable whether NY’s policy is such a restriction). I strongly disagree that the Commerce Clause is the reason that NY cannot deny licenses to nonresidents on equal terms to residents (though I agree it can’t). The denial of licenses to nonresidents is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

    • #24
  25. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Salvatore Padula:I strongly disagree they the Commerce Clause is the reason that NY cannot deny licenses to nonresidents on equal terms to residents (though I agree it can’t). The denial of licenses to nonresidents is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

    Here’s where there ends up being a break between our reading of the Constitution in a vacuum and the ways courts have interpreted it.

    I agree that equal protection should also apply. However, courts have tended to restrict equal protection to race and things they equate to race.

    In contrast, courts have not stayed with your limited interpretation of commerce as limited to direct “commercial” transactions.

    • #25
  26. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    ctlaw- Courts have held the Equal Protection Clause requires strict scrutiny be applied to differing treatment when either a suspect classification (like race) or a fundamental right. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. You’re right that the Court has yet to establish that it is a fundamental right, but as I discussed above, that seems to be due to the fact that the 2nd Amendment has only been held to confer a personal right and been incorporated against the states relatively recently. I would be willing to wager that strict scrutiny will be applied.

    • #26
  27. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Salvatore Padula: I would be willing to wager that strict scrutiny will be applied.

    Let us pray…

    • #27
  28. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Amen

    • #28
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.