An email blast from Everytown for Gun Safety, the deceptively-named gun prohibition lobbying group supported by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, is trying to raise public fear about the proposed Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act by attacking an idea that has, in the past, been supported by gun control groups.
Specifically, anti-gunners used to demand licensing of gun owners. Now that there are more than 16.3 million armed citizens who are legally licensed to carry concealed sidearms for personal protection, the gun ban crowd has decided this is a dangerous idea.
Second Amendment activists will suggest that hypocrisy has many faces, but they’re all ugly.
As is typical, this blast singles out the National Rifle Association as the bogeyman, although several gun rights groups contend that it is time for national reciprocity. After all, if gun owners are expected to submit to “universal background checks,” they should enjoy “universal carry.”
Thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation’s landmark 2010 Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment. That means the right to keep and bear arms protected in the federal constitution now applies to all of the states and their local jurisdictions, although many anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats stubbornly believe otherwise.
This week’s SAF victory in the case of Wrenn v. District of Columbia on a challenge to the city’s concealed carry “good reason” requirement adds fuel to the fire. A separate case, Grace v. District of Columbia, is also affected by the 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that vacated the requirement.
For many years, the gun prohibition crowd argued publicly that “we license drivers, why not gun owners?” Forget for the moment that driving is a privilege and owning guns is a right delineated in the constitution.
Think of this as gun owners meeting the gun control crowd halfway, only to find that anti-gunners now want to move the line. Those fundamentally opposed to the exercise of a fundamental civil right will find any reason, offer any argument to curtail, if not outright ban the right to keep and bear arms.
