Holy Crap
American Manifesto notes that Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Ownership said:
Right to carry states are 48 of the 50 states right now…If there are clear restrictions on people [felons and the mentally ill] and to make sure that they know what they’re doing with the gun, that they pass the background checks, that the local police have signed off on it, that’s something that doesn’t cause that many problems
Note, even when he quotes our statistics, he gets them wrong. But still. How’d I miss that?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I think Helmke has been back peddling for the last several months to stake out some position that will be relative in the Post-Heller U.S. I also think he can’t have much longer to work at the Brady campaign before they fire him for trying to take a more moderate position.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Just shows that an equilibrium has begun to be reached on the issue of firearms.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I’d love to see the day we have 48 “shall issue” states for CCW…I’d love to see all 50 go “shall issue” in my lifetime.
From the snippet you quote (I’ll go read the whole thing later), he sounds like he’s OK with CCW as it exists in most locales…?
Maybe he can go get a job over at IANSA and make life miserable for the rest of the world instead. Or move to Brussels and work for the EU.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I saw him say that yesterday. I have the recording, too.
In a land hip-deep in abject grease, that creep is a past-master. He comes on the tube, and things start sliding around the room all on their own.
I have to say this, though: he was still givin’ that ghastly TEEVEE grin all he had left, which wasn’t much. Right to the end, these people never give up the drip.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
All of you missed the poison pill in Helmke’s remarks: “and to make sure that they know what they’re doing with the gun,”
Remember the bit about arming the airline pilots? How many of them are armed today? Those few that are have to use a killer-holster designed to blow open their legs. Well over 90% of them couldn’t get by the “proficiency training”, which essentially called for them to be able to make snapshooting one-shot head-shot kills the length of the cabin. Hell, most of us couldn’t do that.
If we let this proficiency thing in, the dot-gov will tighten it up so far that it becomes almost impossible for the average bear to be licensed.
First, there will be a very long and expensive training course to pass, and it will be as difficult as it can be made to be. Then there will be a long and expensive application process to complete, with many chances to not dot “I” and cross “T” and so invalidate the application. Then once licensed, there will be frequent re-quals, some set at distant locations it will be difficult for most to get to.
Current shall-issue states vary all over the place in their proficiency requirements, from zero demonstration of proficiency (Oregon) to an actual staged qualification course of fire (Texas). Look for Federal law to try to intrude and impose a complex course on ALL states. If you’re talking a National CCW license, that WILL be done.
Prepare to pony up some serious gelt for the license, and some serious time as well. Of course, any time you go anywhere, some Federal dolt will see your name flagged as a CCW in the computer, and will have more regulations to hassle you with.
It ain’t over, folks. We haven’t won yet.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:56 am
A simple solution — make the cops, federal agents, and the like pass the same test, or they can’t carry on the job.
If Barney Fife can’t pass the test, he shouldn’t be packing when he’s more likely to draw his weapon than Joe (or Jane) Q. Public.
I have to pass a driver’s test that measures my knowledge, proficiency, and eye sight. Because LEOs must be more capable than the average driver, many departments and agencies mandate some sort of Emergency Vehicle Operators Course, and Barney gets to weave around the pylons. If the government wants to test my knowledge, skill, and eye sight before allowing me to carry a weapon, should Barney’s requirement be more stringent?
June 28th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
When the local police get to sign off on “it” with “it” being an idividual’s constitutional right, the issue will have to go back to court. I did not read anything in Scalia’s decision which indicated a “may issue” state of affairs remained viable.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Please note, on the proficiency-testing issue, that Washington State has been shall-issue forever, and has absolutely no training requirement whatsoever (you can be issued a CPL without ever having seen a firearm, much less demonstrated actual proficiency with a handgun similar to the one(s) you might propose to carry.) And still we have accidental-shooting and crimes-by-permit-holders rates that are as good as anyone else’s.
Shouldn’t the onus be on those who want to regulate and restrict this constitutionally-protected right, to demonstrate actual need of such regulation first?