I'd love to be able to carry in all 50 states. This law doesn't give us that, so that is a poor argument in its favor. The best it gives us is the ability to carry in states like CA, NJ, NY that have licensing provisions but the citizens of the state can't seem to get approved for licenses. How does that affirm the privileges and immunities of those citizens? How does an Alabamian carrying where a Californian can't make the Californian more equal?
Re: Mr. Kopel's testimony:
If he agrees that the commerce clause is being abused, why does he support the further abuse thereof? If he feels that the law furthers the privileges and immunities of the citizens of various states, why not use that authority instead of the questionable commerce clause? How does extending the government granted privilege of carrying concealed protect the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State"? Specifically how does it do so in states where carry of any type is disallowed or frowned upon? I'm still an 'unfriendly alien' if I travel to Illinois with my otherwise lawful sidearm, right?
And I loved his straw man. Imagine! Passing HR 822 would be so much easier than deploying thousands of specially tasked federal law enforcement agents to monitor and protect interstate commerce. Wow! You know what would be even easier? "No state shall pass or enforce any law, policy, or rule, which shall have the effect of limiting or denying the citizen's right to bear arms for defense." But even with HR 822, resources will have to be diverted to enforce this new law for it to have any teeth. Maybe not thousands of dedicated federal agents, but still resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
He goes on to say "The denial of constitutional rights is in itself a tremendous harm. There is no more important purpose for congressional action than the protection of the national rights of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America." He's absolutely right! But how does that apply to this bill? This legislation will give Federal blessing to the patchwork of infringements that now exist across the several states. Furthermore it opens up the interstate traveler to increased liability. One may not have been allowed to carry to defend oneself the current way, but it is much easier to remember a list of states you are not allowed to carry in than it is to remember all of the various differences between one states weapons laws and the next. How can such a law be said to protect the rights of an interstate traveler?
He cites, "Legislation which deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall within the sweep of Congress’ enforcement power even if in the process it prohibits conduct which is not itself unconstitutional and intrudes into ‘legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States'." But he fails to explain how legitimizing a patchwork of weapons restrictions could possible remedy any constitutional violations. How dare Congress prohibit a state from infringing on the permission slip of another state, when they can't be bothered to step in a protect the second amendment rights of the citizens in those same states. I hope the liberal nutcases in California and New York band together and get this law thrown out for imposing carry in their states. There are better ways to protect the RKBA than this heavy handed power grab. We shouldn't celebrate this law as "better than what we have now". We should take the time to do it right. Haste makes Waste.
The biggest departure from sanity comes when he brings up the concept of Open Carry. He correctly points out that in almost every state one or the other is legal. He correctly points out that states like New Jersey are just as intolerant of one as the other. He correctly points out that more states require and issue licenses for concealed carry than for open carry. Somehow, though, he makes the leap that the best way to handle this is for Congress to step in and make every state honor the license for concealed carry, and not honor unlicensed open carry. It hearkens back to the earlier 'commerce' argument. Supposedly Congress can force the other states to honor a state specific permission slip, but can't force them to honor the second amendment, which has already been ruled to apply to the states. Makes perfect sense, right?
I couldn't read past the part where he points out how stupid the interstate commerce abuse is, before going into detail about how it makes this proposed legislation valid. I can only imagine the amount of rationalization he had to to do resolve that little bit of cognitive dissonance.
tl;dr Kopel is a sell-out and a tool, who probably means well but is making some good arguments for the wrong bill.
