National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, The Answer To Islamic Terrorism In USA

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D'Andrilli

Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, comes out against National Concealed Carry Reciprocity.
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)-  On January 3, 2017, Richard Hudson, (R-NC), introduced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (115 H.R. 38) in the House of Representatives.

This Bill, if enacted would allow an individual “who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.”

What is the status of this bill? It languishes in Committee. Nothing is being done on it, but momentum is building across the Country to compel Congress to take action.

Antigun politicians are angered and frightened that national concealed handgun carry will become a reality. In response, they create unsound, bogus arguments directed to containing the very possibility of it. Case in point: Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, according to an article by Mark Moore, appearing in the June 25, 2017 edition of the New York Post, titled, “DA: I am sure ISIS supports concealed carry reciprocity bill, asserts, ludicrously, that national concealed handgun carry will play into the hands of Islamic terrorists. This is merely a new twist on the favorite tired line of antigun groups—that this Nation has a gun problem—as if to suggest that guns, inanimate objects, are responsible for criminal violence. That idea is not only false, it is imbecilic. Sentient beings are responsible for violence, and it is those beings who engineer violence who are to be constrained, not the implements the perpetrators use to promote and do violence.

Of course, as we have seen, most notably, in Europe, but also here at home, Islamic terrorists don’t demonstrate a preference toward any one implement when destroying lives: bombs, knives, axes, gasoline, even trucks and automobiles as well as firearms are used–and often several of these implements in one horrific act of violence have been used–by Islamic terrorists, and with devastating effect against innocent civilians–and against soldiers and against police officers as well.

Why are guns singled out as the cause célèbre of violent deeds? The emphasis on guns plays into the tiresome raison d’etre of antigun groups: “get rid of guns,” so they say, “and all will be right with the world.” That is utter nonsense, of course, but the theme plays out in the remonstrations of politicians and as echoed in the choruses of pundits and journalists of the mainstream media through endless, insufferable iterations—an incessant cacophony of meaningless sound bites.

Violent crime is a sad fact of life, but its impact can be minimized. In fact, the impact of violent crime can be and has been minimized by arming, not by disarming the American public, and the impact of violent crime can be further minimized through strict enforcement of criminal penalties against those who inflict pain and suffering on innocent Americans. The latest incarnation of violent crime, international Islamic terrorism, is a special species of violent crime, to be sure, a species of crime that must, of course, be dealt with, and must be dealt with at the highest Government levels.

In the U.S., the threat posed by international Islamic terrorism is being dealt with sensibly, rationally, and directly, by the U.S. President, Donald Trump. An armed American citizenry can certainly aid the U.S. President in his efforts.

Courts in the Ninth Circuit though disagree. Not content merely to disarm the American public—inhibiting Americans from exercising their natural right of self-defense with the best means available—a firearm—the Courts of the Ninth Circuit have attempted to throw a wrench into the President’s efforts as well—opining, wrongly, that individuals, non-citizens, who reside outside of this Country, have rights secured under the Bill of Rights and that, in effect, the rights of these non-citizens apparently transcend the security of this Nation and the security of its people. Non-citizens residing outside our Country, though, have no rights or liberties under our Bill of Rights and the concerns of non-citizens residing outside our Country do not transcend—will never transcend—the needs and security of the citizens of our own Nation.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26, 2017 decision is consistent with that principle. The high Court essentially stayed the preliminary injunctions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, opining that the preliminary injunctions were valid only to the extent that a refugee could establish a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4266. Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, concurred in part and dissented in part in the unanimous decision of the high Court. In his dissent Justice Thomas stated that he, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, would have granted a full stay of the preliminary injunctions. Justice Thomas stated in pertinent part:

“The Government has satisfied the standard for issuing a stay pending certiorari. We have, of course, decided to grant certiorari. . . . And I agree with the Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—that is, that the judgments below will be reversed. The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its “compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.” Finally, weighing the Government’s interest in preserving national security against the hardships caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry into the country, the balance of the equities favors the Government. I would thus grant the Government’s applications for a stay in their entirety.”

Clearly, the best defense against international Islamic terrorism and the first-line of defense for our Nation is found in an armed citizenry. To paraphrase a statement of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, the best deterrent against a “bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” That may seem like a trite slogan, but, time and time again, it has been proved true.

The natural right of self-defense should never be restricted and must never be trivialized. Unfortunately, those who hold an irrational hostility toward gun ownership and toward gun possession by the law-abiding citizenry will continue their efforts to constrain the natural right of self-defense. But, they are losing. They are left flailing about, trying to drum up support for their doomed cause: namely, destruction of our Nation’s sacred Second Amendment. The bizarre, irrational statements of antigun proponents, like those of the Manhattan DA, Cy Vance, aptly illustrate the extent of their desperation.

The Arbalest Quarrel is a strong supporter of National Concealed Handgun Carry legislation. We provide a strong case for it in our continuing series: “A ROAD TRIP WITH A GUN.” You will find those articles and much more right here, on this website.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

10
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
BillDrSiqueVanns40BudGunwrites Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Bill
Guest
Bill

I am sure the reason cy vance says what he says is that he and the other attorney generals k ow just how many isis members are already here, legally, legal citizens. That have been let in.

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

The problem with this Bill, and it is a continuing problem, albeit a small one, is that D.C. Residents are pretty much screwed. Also, a huge problem that is not addressed in this Bill is the vindictive legislation that New Jersey and a couple of other States have promised, should this Bill become law, limiting magazine capacity to one round. Don’t let the happy wording “we’re gaining sponsors..” blah blah blah give you any consolation. These Bills are stalled in both Houses. I called the NRA yesterday, spoke with an ILA PR guy and was basically blown off and told… Read more »

DrSique
Guest
DrSique

Next time that you call the NRA, perhaps you should remind them of the resources they gave McConnell in his last primary campaign against a guy who was far more conservative, Matt Bevin. Presumably, this was because they felt that McConnell would work harder for gun owners. I will continue to send my meager donations to less self-serving organizations.

Bud
Guest
Bud

As usual I would bet these anti gun guys have protective details that are armed. When they demand that their protective details be issued slingshots I will believe their stance on guns.

Gunwrites
Guest
Gunwrites

What disgusts me further than this Socialist as*hole’s comments is the fact he is on our public payroll. The biggest threats to our Republic are for the most part pais with our tax dollars, using our tax dollars to destroy our nation, and blatantly disregarding the oath they have sworn. These treasons have to stop!

Roverray
Guest
Roverray

Did someone say something? Or did someone fart?

Gil
Guest
Gil

As well as need a variant of “stand your ground” laws where someone who shoots dead a Muslim with have the law erring on his or her because he probably wasted a terrorist.

hippybiker
Guest
hippybiker

Hey VPC, brain dead troll. There is a big difference between shooting an unarmed man, woman or child, or a wild man waving a deadly weapon. Your post makes little sense but, what else is new.
By the way. Did your boyfriend and your mom come out from under the porch yet?

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

The “law erring” he says. Law is like a measuring stick, only, but the law errs. This is the most anthropomorphic statement that I have ever read. People may misapply law or misunderstand law, but the law can not think. GFYG can not … Well, I will refrain. But GFYG sure can propagandize.

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

Gil = VPC TROLL

Do not feed the trolls