An Open Letter To Senators Peters, Stabenow….

 And any other legislator that needs to hear this.

Senators,

Here’s a novel idea: instead of splitting hairs about what constitutes a boyfriend or intimate partner, why don’t we simplify things? 

If you have ever been the subject of a restraining order due to violence, regardless of your relationship to the individual who filed for it, you are prohibited from purchasing a firearm until  your record has been expunged and you can provide documentation of the successful completion of required treatment.  Failing that, you are a prohibited individual. Is that simple enough? 

And while we’re at it, eliminate the three business day provision (this is NOT A LOOPHOLE, it is an explicit provision) in the Brady Act.  Again, make it simple.  Until the NICS system gives a Proceed, a firearm may not be transferred.  Is THAT simple enough?

I am sick and tired of the hair splitting that goes on.  These two suggested provisions are as simple as they come.

Now get it done.

Permitless (AKA: Constitutional) Firearms Carry….

Permitless firearms carry.  That term sends shivers through many, who assume that every criminal and gangbanger who wants to carry a firearm will be able to do so without any checks of any kind.

Nothing is further from the truth.

First, those people are ALREADY obtaining and carrying firearms without any checks.  It may come as a surprise to many that criminals/gangbangers don’t obey ANY of the laws we have in place.  They DON’T get background checks.  They DON’T observe waiting periods in those states that have them.  For some inexplicable reason, they just don’t care about any of the restrictions that are already in place.  So these laws have ZERO EFFECT on them.  As a practical consideration, firearms charges are prosecuted in fewer than 5% of cases nationally, anyway, in exchange for pleas to lesser charges.

Permitless carry of firearms doesn’t make it easier for the lawless to obtain/carry firearms.  There are a number of states that have already implemented permitless (Constitutional) carry.  People STILL need to be able to pass a background check in order to obtain their firearms.  The question is, why should the law abiding be required to pass MULTIPLE background checks in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights?  With few exceptions, they passed a background check in order to purchase their firearm (especially if it was a handgun) in the first place; with only a few exceptions in which a concealed pistol license is accepted in lieu of a federal background check, they are background checked for EVERY FIREARM they purchase.  Then, under existing permit schemes, they passed ANOTHER background check in order to get their carry permit.  In some jurisdictions, they are further background checked in order to buy firearm magazines or ammo.

Exactly how many background checks do we have to endure in order to exercise our rights under the Second Amendment?  This is the ONLY Constitutional right that is so encumbered.

Permitless carry isn’t the unregulated exercise so many represent it to be.