I doubt anybody is surprised about this but everybody’s favorite hater of individual liberty has blocked the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012, oh and she’s citing the Trayvon Martin case because she likes to take entirely unrelated events and use them as justification for preventing individuals from having rights:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Tuesday placed a hold on two controversial pieces of legislation that would force states that allow the concealed carrying of guns to recognize each other’s permits.
Feinstein informed party leadership that she would oppose the quick passage of two concealed carry reciprocity bills that critics argue would cause a “race to the bottom” in terms of concealed weapon law in the United States. The senator cited the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager killed in Florida, as one of the reasons she was applying the legislative brakes.
“Besides putting domestic violence victims in danger, the concealed carry reciprocity bills would also create potentially life threatening situations for law enforcement officers,” Feinstein wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).
“In recent weeks, our nation has witnessed tragic gun violence in Sanford, Florida and in Oakland, California, which is only a short drive from my home. Notably, George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, had been issued a concealed carry permit under Florida law, even though he had previously been subject to a court order for domestic abuse of his ex-fiancée. Congress should heed the warnings of law enforcement and not force states to recognize the permits issued to individuals by other states.”
I’m a logical human being which is probably why I’m unable to understand Feinstein’s justification. How would the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act put domestic violence victims in danger or create life threatening situations for law enforcement officers? I’ll also hand her some exploitations of the tragedies bonus points for weaseling the Martin case into her statement.
Nowhere in the bill’s text is there any loosening of restrictions on those involved in domestic violence cases. Obviously this is par for the course when Feinstein is playing but she could at least try to give a sensible justification for hating individual rights. I’m also not sure how the bill would create a life threatening situation for police officers. How many permit holders have murdered police officers? I’m guessing the number hovers somewhere around zero. If somebody has so much disregard for life that they’re willing to murder another human being they certainly aren’t going to give two shits about laws prohibiting them from carrying firearms.
Furthermore Feinstein seems to believe that the lives of police officers are more valuable that you or mine. She doesn’t believe the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act could create life threatening situations for regular individuals, no, only for police officers.
As a voluntaryist I’ve explained my support for the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. It really boils down to the fact that the state can legitimately own property so any restriction they put on our right as self-owners is unjust, immoral, and unacceptable. No state has the right to prohibit me from carrying a gun, only rightful property owners can do that and only while I’m on their property. Carrying a firearm isn’t a violent act yet the state often reactions to people peacefully carrying firearms with violence. Feinstein would prefer the state continue to insert violence into an otherwise non-violence situation. It’s actually rather sickening when you realize how much politician love violence.