I wanted to alert my readers to a media release Dave Kopel sent out to Second Amendment friends this past Wednesday. And as a friend of conceal carry and gun rights myself, I have to give a big thanks to Dave for all his hard work. (yet again)

U.S. House passes law to allow Coloradoans to carry handguns in other
states. Independence Institute’s David Kopel testified to Congress in
favor of the bill

On November 16th, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 272 to 154 to
pass H.R. 822, a bill which creates national reciprocity for concealed
handgun carry licenses. Colorado’s four Republican Representatives are
all co-sponsors.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where a similar bill in 2009 won a
majority, but was defeated by the filibuster. Senators Udall and
Bennet voted in favor of that bill.

If the bill becomes law, Colorado residents who have a concealed
handgun carry permit could carry a handgun in all other jurisdictions
which issue concealed handgun permits. This would be everywhere except
Illinois and the District of Columbia. When carrying in another state,
Coloradoans would have to comply with the all the rules of the other
state, just as Coloradoans who drive in other states have to obey the
traffic laws there.

Independence Institute Research Director David Kopel testified in
support of the bill at a Sept. 13 hearing of the House Judiciary
Committee’s subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Kopel’s testimony explained why the bill is a proper exercise of
Congress’s authority to enact legislation to protect national
constitutional rights, such as the right to interstate travel, and the
right to bear arms. The 14th Amendment was added to Constitution in
1868 for the intended purpose of granting Congress the power to take
action when states infringe “the Privileges or Immunities of citizens
of the United States.” The history of the 14th Amendment shows that
Congress was particularly concerned about state infringements of the
Second Amendment and of the right to travel.

Kopel’s testimony also presented data showing that concealed handgun
permittees are much more law-abiding than the general population, and
there is no reason for legislators to fear that permitees–who have
been proven to be law-abiding in their home states–will turn into
criminals when they cross a state border. The legislation was
necessary, Kopel said, because of a handful of states, including New York
and New Jersey, refuse to allow non-residents to apply for carry
permits, and also refuse to honor permits from other states.

Kopel’s written testimony is available at
http://davekopel.org/Testimony/HR822-Kopel.pdf

Because of Dave Kopel’s dedication and hard work over the last couple decades, there are hundreds, if not thousands of people in the Washington DC and Chicago areas who would have been shot and killed, but instead will live full and fruitful lives. These people can thank folks like Dave Kopel who helped shape the decisions in McDonald v. Chicago and DC v. Heller – where handguns and the self-defense they bring, became legal once again. New evidence has surfaced that shows the crime rate has plummeted in both cities since the monumental Supreme Court decisions came down. Therefore, many people owe their lives to the work Second Amendment scholars like Dave Kopel did to help turn the tide in favor of gun (self-defense) rights.

Thanks Dave! Our cities are much safer places thanks to you.

Concealed carry is a hot topic in Congress now with a bill coming out of the House called the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (H.R. 822). This bill would extend conceal carry rights across state lines, allowing a legal gun owner who lives in Colorado to freely move about the country with his or her legal firearm and enter, say Illinois. The bill does not change the law in regards to obtaining a permit in your home state, it only prevents the other 49 states from infringing on your Second Amendment rights upon entering their state. As with all issues Second Amendment, our Dave Kopel weighed in on the issue. On Monday he was featured in the Cato Daily Podcast to discuss H.R. 822 and its implications on gun rights and interstate travel rights.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the podcast occurs when Dave recalls a question he received from Rep. Mike Quigley while giving testimony on 822 in the House subcommittee. Rep. Quigley points out that conservatives in Congress like to talk about states’ rights, but when it comes down to it, states’ rights are merely a convenience issue for them. For example, doesn’t H.R. 822 challenge states’ rights?

You’ll have to listen to the Cato podcast to get Dave’s answer. It’s truly fascinating and extremely insightful.

UPDATE: Here is a link to Dave Kopel on the Amy Oliver radio show this morning talking about this issue. Thanks to 1310 KFKA for the audio!

My recent article for America’s 1st Freedom traces the rise and fall of the theory that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, but instead is a “collective right,” which, like “collective property” in a communist country, supposedly belongs to everyone collectively, but in fact belongs to no-one. The theory was created by a federal district judge in 1935, formally named by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1968, and became popular among lower federal courts during the next quarter-century.

Historical and textual analysis made it increasingly clear that the theory was completely implausible, and it was unanimously rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, all nine justices agreed that the Second Amendment right was individual, while they disagreed about its scope.

What happens when an avowed anti-gunny named Thom Hartmann tries to take on Dave Kopel? Well, find out yourself.

Oooooohhhhhh, that must sting a little.

So rules a state judge in Bay City, Michigan. According to the ruling, the regulation of stun guns would be constitutional, but not their prohibition. Other than Michigan, the only states that prohibit stun guns are New Jersey and Rhode Island.

Eugene Volokh’s Stanford Law Review article, Nonlethal Self-Defense examines the Second Amendment issues involving stun guns, chemical sprays, and the like, concluding that they are protected by the Second Amendment.

What do public-sector unions, highway traffic jams and gun rights all have in common? These are all recent topics of Independence Institute writers in the news.

First, in Friday’s Denver Daily News, Independence Institute education policy analyst Ben DeGrow points out, among other things, that while private-sector unions organize against management, public-sector unions actually organize against their fellow citizens. Something that even as pro-labor a president as FDR warned against.

Then in the Sunday Denver Post, transportation research associate John Aldridge makes the case for the use of “hard shoulders” to address congestion problems on both C-470 and the I-70 Mountain Corridor.

Finally, get a double-dose of Independence Institute research director Dave Kopel in the March edition of America’s 1st Freedom magazine. First, Dave explains the “Dark secret of Jim Crow and the racist roots of gun control,” then Dave points out Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s recent misrepresentation of James Madison as part of Breyer’s anti-gun zealotry.

The New York Times, that bastion of fair and balanced reporting, has an entertaining opinion section called “Room for Debate.” In it, knowledgeable outsiders contribute little opinion pieces concerning the current events of the day. For example, the Tuscon, AZ shooting prompted the Times to solicit arguments for and against the notion that “more guns means less crime.” Our own Research Director Dave Kopel wrote a piece affirming the statement titled, “A Chance to Fight Back.” In it, he shares a fantastic anecdote about Teddy Roosevelt’s family packing heat to ward off would-be attackers. Politicians were so much cooler back then.

On a related note, in light of the backlash against language that references war or violence to get a point across, I’m curious what the left might or might not say about this headline today, “State employees benefits in the cross hairs.” Cross hairs?! Don’t they realize what kind of violence they could be inciting with language like that? And don’t even get me started on the New England Patriots’ “aerial attack” or Tom Brady chucking “bombs” down field. No longer do violent video games, music, and movies breed violence like in the good ol’ days, violent euphemisms invoke violent behavior as well. What is the world coming to?

Independence Institute research director Dave Kopel has a piece in the New York Times‘ Room for Debate series on the Arizona shootings, and calls by some for more guns, rather than more gun control.  Money quote from Dave:

There’s no guarantee that evil-doers will always be stopped, but the record is clear that oftentimes lives are saved when victims can fight back.

Read the whole thing here.

You know that one childhood friend you’ve got in your close group of friends who can’t ever seem to get anything right? He’s the guy who can’t drive anywhere without getting lost or getting a ticket. He always seems to have forgotten his wallet after you all go out for a beer and some wings. He can’t even remember to bring the wings to your house to watch the big game. He can’t hold a job, but of course it is “never his fault.” You’ve longed since learned not to let him borrow anything because you won’t ever get it back. And if you do, it won’t be in one piece anymore. (Speaking of, he still has my Frampton Comes Alive record).

Regardless, he’s still a good friend and a part of your crew. “The guys” as your wife calls it. You can’t cut him loose, that would be cruel. And besides, you guys have a ton of history together. As the years go on, you and your buddies have learned how to deal with him in a way that limits the damage he can do. For example, no one was willing to let him hold the rings at your wedding. Or plan the bachelor party for that matter. Or stand at the alter near anything breakable. This is what you have to do when you have that friend.

The moral of this story is that in large part, government is that “friend.” It’s the bumbling, forgetful, wasteful, mean, and awkward friend with sticky fingers you can’t take anywhere but have to anyway. The Constitution is the document that attempts to limit the damage this overbearing friend can have on our lives. (Even the Founders had that friend in their circle. Alexander Hamilton perhaps?) In other words, the Constitution prevents your overbearing friend from making a pass at your wife during her baby shower because it prevents him from showing up in the first place. Without it, your friend is set loose, fully able to wreak havoc anywhere and everywhere.

Take for example the Colorado gun-permit database. Why on earth we would want the bumbling, wasteful, perpetual screw-up government to keep such a database is beyond me. Isn’t it obvious that if tasked with doing something outside its useful (enumerated) activities, it would mess the entire thing up? Take a look at the list of errors on top of errors on top of mistakes this database has. The government can’t even keep a simple list of names going for cryin’ out loud! How could we expect it to manage the entire health care system? Or keep an anonymous and accurate All-Payer Health Care Cost Database?

Like not giving the car keys to your friend that can’t get anything right, how about we quit giving government the keys to our private lives? Not only can we not trust them with the information, we can’t even trust that they will get the information right to begin with. It’s time we learn the lesson we have all learned from our childhood friend: limit the damage by limiting the responsibility. Don’t give him your wedding rings. Don’t give him your car keys or your favorite records. And for Pete’s sake, don’t give him information you want kept secret!