Gay Patriot Header Image

House Judiciary Committee Passes Gay Rights’ Measure

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:12 pm - October 27, 2011.
Filed under: 112th Congress,Freedom,Second Amendment

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee approved a measure which would give gay Americans a tool to help us defend ourselves against gay bashers:

The legislation, which would allow for conceal-and-carry weapon reciprocity across states lines, cleared the panel on a 19-11 vote.

All but one committee Republican, Rep. Dan Lungren (Calif.), supported the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which is sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.); Democrats united in opposition to the bill. Lungren and other Republicans have raised concerns about the legislation’s effect on the rights of states.

It’s unfortunate that Democrats, to paraphrase Joe Biden, have no notion what it’s like for a gay man or lesbian to be on the other side of a thug intent on beating him up — with no means to defend himself.  Let’s hope that organizations concerned with the welfare of gay Americans, like the Human Rights Campaign, will denounce House Democrats for their insensitivity to gay bashing.

To be sure, this measure would allow all Americans to better defend themselves.

(Via David Hardy via Glenn Reynolds.)

Share

22 Comments

  1. Democrats united in opposition to the bill. Lungren and other Republicans have raised concerns about the legislation’s effect on the rights of states.

    I’m siding with the opposition here. From the article:

    “The bill allows law-abiding gun owners with valid state-issued concealed-firearms permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that also allows concealed carry…”

    Shouldn’t that be up to each state to decide?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 27, 2011 @ 12:23 pm - October 27, 2011

  2. I also think it is a large stretch to frame this as “a tool to help us defend ourselves against gay bashers”. How many gays are assaulted / bashed while out of their home state vs going to their local neighborhood clubs? And of those, how many own a gun at home, but didn’t bring it when traveling out of state because of conceal and carry issues? I think this is an interesting issue, but I wouldn’t have posted with the gay angle. It just doesn’t fit.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 27, 2011 @ 12:32 pm - October 27, 2011

  3. While a step forwards, it still affords no protection to those of us in states that refuse to allow civilian CCW in the first-place like NJ, or severely restrict it to the point of non-issuance like NY State.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 27, 2011 @ 1:31 pm - October 27, 2011

  4. I’m also troubled by this legislation. States rights being one reason. Also, if you live here in NYC it does you very little good if your gay or hetero. I gave up my pistol permit a decade ago due to all the hoops they make you jump through in this town in order to maintain legal ownership.

    Comment by Richard Bell — October 27, 2011 @ 1:34 pm - October 27, 2011

  5. Shouldn’t that be up to each state to decide?

    Let’s see, the gay and lesbian community insists that, even though the word marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, there is a Federal “right” to marriage that no state can abrogate at any time or for any reason — and that the “full faith and credit” requirement applies to this magical marriage “right”, requiring all states and the Federal government to recognize the gay-sex marriage contracted in one state.

    Yet it simultaneously insists that the plainly-written and extant Second Amendment in the Constitution can be ignored at will by the states, that “full faith and credit” does not apply in any circumstance to this established constitutional right, and that neither the Federal government or any other state can be compelled to recognize the concealed-carry permit granted in one state.

    If one state can force gay-sex marriage on the Federal government and the other states, there is zero reason that concealed-carry, which at least has Constitutional grounding, cannot be.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 27, 2011 @ 3:07 pm - October 27, 2011

  6. NDT – or driver licenses. I don’t think those are specifically agreed to as state to state. Otherwise, Californians won’t be driving here in Texas. :-)

    Comment by Kevin — October 27, 2011 @ 5:35 pm - October 27, 2011

  7. Kevin, as an expatriate Texan to California, I can assure you that the Golden State does not recognize your Texas driver’s license as entitling you to a California one. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 27, 2011 @ 6:27 pm - October 27, 2011

  8. Well, that’s a headline of false advertising if I ever saw one. I wonder how many sponsors/supporters of this bill in congress would respond if someone presented this headline to them.

    And, yes, I wonder exactly why Republicans keep blathering on about less government and states’ rights, but they’re perfectly happy to attempt legislation like this. hmmmmm

    Comment by Kevin — October 27, 2011 @ 10:59 pm - October 27, 2011

  9. I wonder how many sponsors/supporters of this bill in congress would respond if someone presented this headline to them.

    Projection. Kevin assumes that, since the Obama Party is going around gay-baiting, that Republicans would do the same.

    Meanwhile, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to own firearms and expressly limits the power of the state and Federal government to block it. This law does nothing more than reiterate that fact.

    Isn’t that funny, Kevin? You scream that there’s an amendment that guarantees you the “right” to marry your sex partners, which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, but insist that people have no right to own firearms, which is not only explicitly stated, but called out in its own amendment.

    Gay-sex liberals like you really don’t know the Constitution, do you? Or do you, like your heroes Jesse Jackson Jr. and Charles Rangel, just think it’s an inconvenient document that should be ignored?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 28, 2011 @ 11:20 am - October 28, 2011

  10. While such a law might mean a gay person has a gun when a basher shows up, its just as likely (if not more so) to mean a basher has a gun when a gay person appears. There’s no net positive to the gay community for this law and in fact its a net negative because the more you arm too opposing sides the more bloodshed there will be on both sides. Escalating violence is not a good idea.

    Comment by Priya Lynn — October 28, 2011 @ 11:42 am - October 28, 2011

  11. And yet Priya Lynn’s precious Barack Obama authorized, supported, and pushed an operation to suspend EXISTING US gun laws and require dealers to sell firearms to gunrunners for Mexican drug cartels.

    And yet Priya Lynn’s precious “progressive” OWS Obama Party, fully endorsed and supported by LGBT “progressives” like Priya, is calling for violence against law enforcement.

    So what we see here is Priya Lynn, as is typical for “progressives”, demanding that law-abiding citizens be deprived of their constitutional rights because allowing them to be exercised would “encourage violence” — while encouraging and enabling violence by criminals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 28, 2011 @ 1:24 pm - October 28, 2011

  12. Sonicfrog, the states have already decided. As a member of the NRA and NGRA, I have a a Traveler´s Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States. They vary from state to state. and there is no reciprocity. What is lawful in one is unlawful in another. To me this legislation merely amplifies the Second Amendment.

    Priya Lynn,

    ¨When you arm too (two, I, too, make typos)) opposing sides the more bloodshed ther will be. .¨ Not true! FBI statistics show in cities and states where the citizenry is armed you have LESS violente crime. LESS GUNS = MORE CRIME, MORE GUNS=LESS CRIME.

    Comment by Roberto — October 28, 2011 @ 3:33 pm - October 28, 2011

  13. What is lawful in one is unlawful in another.

    Isn’t that the whole idea behind states right, that state have the option to decide for themselves how to regulate things. I’m pro conceal and carry, but I just don’t see this as something the Fed needs to get involved in. It’s not a pressing matter.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 28, 2011 @ 5:14 pm - October 28, 2011

  14. I´m for states rights but on this issue I don´t believe it pertains to the states. I think you are seeing this through the prism of the Tenth Amendment and not the Second which I believe Congress is amplifying with this legislation.

    Comment by Roberto — October 28, 2011 @ 7:44 pm - October 28, 2011

  15. Except it’s long been precedent that states have the final authority on these types of details. If a state want to extend it c & c rules to outsiders visiting the state, it should have the option of doing so, or not, if that is the preference for the state .

    In my view the tenth and second are standing side by side, one not over-riding the other.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 28, 2011 @ 7:56 pm - October 28, 2011

  16. Priya Lynn wrote,

    While such a law might mean a gay person has a gun when a basher shows up, its just as likely (if not more so) to mean a basher has a gun when a gay person appears. There’s no net positive to the gay community for this law and in fact its a net negative because the more you arm too opposing sides the more bloodshed there will be on both sides. Escalating violence is not a good idea.

    Priya, I have to disagree with you on this one.

    The whole “guns for self-defense mean escalated violence” idea is a truism among gun control supporters but it isn’t true from what I know. I recall that one or more studies have found that when one resists criminal attack with a firearm, the potential victim is less likely to suffer any injury than if she or he resists via any other method, or chooses non-resistance. So no, there won’t be more bloodshed on both sides. And I’m sorry, but I’m not concerned about the harm done to attempted perpetrators when defended against with justifiable amounts of force given the situation. Here in California, one is justified in using deadly force, including firearms, to defend oneself or others against murder, grievous bodily injury or rape. Probably the law in most other states is similar.

    I don’t think that federally mandated concealed carry reciprocity would mean that bashers would be just as likely to have a firearm as their potential victims. Most concealed carry laws require concealed carry permit holders to be more law abiding than the average person is, as measured by criminal record. Concealed carry laws require people who want CC permits to jump through a number of legal hoops that I don’t see most bashers bothering with. And liberalizing concealed carry in U.S. states has not made firearm crime more common, and if I am reading things right, it’s quite unusual among permit holders, and rare among permit holders who are at the time carrying a handgun concealed.

    From what I’ve read, studies show that when faced with a firearm in the hands of a potential victim, potential violent criminals almost always decide not to try anything against the potential victim. The idea held among some gun control supporters that displaying a firearm defensively will cause potential perpetrators to become even more violent or to go get a firearm and then come back to try to attack the potential victim is not born out the vast majority of the time. Attackers may usually be stupid and violent, and can be irrational, but they are mostly not that stupid or that irrational.

    By the way, this argument doesn’t necessarily constitute endorsement of any other poster’s argument, nor of the way they chose to make that argument.

    The states’ rights argument in relationship to federally mandated concealed carry reciprocity is one that I’m not addressing in this post. I haven’t thought that one through yet.

    Comment by Donny D. — October 29, 2011 @ 9:41 am - October 29, 2011

  17. Possession of a firearm is not a states right it is a Constitutional guarantee. If you see CC as a states rights issue than just about everything is a states rights matter, gay marriage, DOMA, and anything else. War, protecting our borders, and collecting tariffs on international goods is all that should pertain to the Federal Government.

    Comment by Roberto — October 29, 2011 @ 1:18 pm - October 29, 2011

  18. “FBI statistics show in cities and states where the citizenry is armed you have LESS violente crime. LESS GUNS = MORE CRIME, MORE GUNS=LESS CRIME”

    Really? Are you kidding me?
    The most violent states are Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and Louisiana: states with high gun ownership rate and lax gun laws.
    It also seems to me that lax gun laws aren’t working very well in New Orleans, America most violent city… please, come back the real world…

    Comment by Renzo — October 29, 2011 @ 4:16 pm - October 29, 2011

  19. Cites Renzo?

    And I’ll mention that NOLA they went around rounding up guns post Katrina.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 29, 2011 @ 8:38 pm - October 29, 2011

  20. With pleasure, Renzo: here’s the real world.

    You Obama brats never mention that for some reason. Probably because it’s the best example of how gun control laws are only invoked against the law abiding; Obama voters, especially non-whites, are never charged with illegal possession, and certainly are not required to obey the law.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 29, 2011 @ 9:24 pm - October 29, 2011

  21. Renzo;

    My source is the FBI.

    Comment by Roberto — October 30, 2011 @ 3:13 pm - October 30, 2011

  22. Renzo:

    What is you source?

    Comment by Roberto — October 30, 2011 @ 3:14 pm - October 30, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.