Anthony Breznican: Concealed carry: the debate continues

By Signal Contributor

Last update: Friday, December 22nd, 2017

A fellow reader was flatly wrong about the proposed concealed carry reciprocity bill and the dangers it poses, and he used wordplay to dismiss a serious concern of both police and victims of abuse.

Brian Baker responded in print to my earlier letter, which cited LAPD Chief Charlie Beck’s withering criticism of the bill Congressman Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, has co-sponsored.

The bill allows those with concealed carry permits to cross state lines regardless of whether they would qualify for such a permit in that area.

The proposal has also been denounced by the NYPD commissioner, the Fraternal Order of Police and dozens of the largest police and sheriff’s departments in America.

And for good reason.

I used the example of a spousal abuser, who might be restricted from carrying a hidden weapon in one state, but under this new bill would be allowed to carry one wherever he likes as long as he’s from a state with lax laws.

Mr. Baker correctly notes there is a federal law against spousal abusers getting concealed carry permits. But the fact remains: the federal law is extremely limited and does not cover dating partners, those who abuse family members besides a spouse or child, or even those convicted of stalking.

That’s why many states have passed more stringent restrictions covering these red-flag individuals, but other states have not. The concealed carry reciprocity law Knight supports reduces the national standard to the state with the weakest laws.

For instance, only 35 states specifically ban dating partners who have been convicted of abuse from carrying hidden handguns in public. Only 28 states prohibit convicted stalkers from carrying concealed guns.

There are 12 other states that have absolutely zero restrictions on who carries a hidden gun. There is no concealed carry permit required in those states. No safety training.

No restrictions whatsoever.

The bill Knight co-sponsored would force all states to allow these kinds of permit-free carriers to carry hidden guns across their borders, even to states that have the more stringent rules.

This undermines the individual state laws and the safety of those states’ citizens. It also forces our police to face a tangle of excuses and conflicting laws as they try to enforce California’s permit rules.

Mr. Baker’s exploitation of semantics is a perfect example of this chaos. He zeroed in on the shorthand use of “spousal” to try to dismiss the very real concerns expressed by law enforcement leaders.

That just shows how America’s hodgepodge of lax laws, loopholes, and ultra-narrow restrictions are manipulated by technicalities to empower criminals and exacerbate dangers.

These are facts. These aren’t just opinions. These are the concerns of the police. But they are of no concern to our own congressman, Steve Knight.

Anthony Breznican is a Santa Clarita resident.

Click here to post a comment

Anthony Breznican: Concealed carry: the debate continues

A fellow reader was flatly wrong about the proposed concealed carry reciprocity bill and the dangers it poses, and he used wordplay to dismiss a serious concern of both police and victims of abuse.

Brian Baker responded in print to my earlier letter, which cited LAPD Chief Charlie Beck’s withering criticism of the bill Congressman Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, has co-sponsored.

The bill allows those with concealed carry permits to cross state lines regardless of whether they would qualify for such a permit in that area.

The proposal has also been denounced by the NYPD commissioner, the Fraternal Order of Police and dozens of the largest police and sheriff’s departments in America.

And for good reason.

I used the example of a spousal abuser, who might be restricted from carrying a hidden weapon in one state, but under this new bill would be allowed to carry one wherever he likes as long as he’s from a state with lax laws.

Mr. Baker correctly notes there is a federal law against spousal abusers getting concealed carry permits. But the fact remains: the federal law is extremely limited and does not cover dating partners, those who abuse family members besides a spouse or child, or even those convicted of stalking.

That’s why many states have passed more stringent restrictions covering these red-flag individuals, but other states have not. The concealed carry reciprocity law Knight supports reduces the national standard to the state with the weakest laws.

For instance, only 35 states specifically ban dating partners who have been convicted of abuse from carrying hidden handguns in public. Only 28 states prohibit convicted stalkers from carrying concealed guns.

There are 12 other states that have absolutely zero restrictions on who carries a hidden gun. There is no concealed carry permit required in those states. No safety training.

No restrictions whatsoever.

The bill Knight co-sponsored would force all states to allow these kinds of permit-free carriers to carry hidden guns across their borders, even to states that have the more stringent rules.

This undermines the individual state laws and the safety of those states’ citizens. It also forces our police to face a tangle of excuses and conflicting laws as they try to enforce California’s permit rules.

Mr. Baker’s exploitation of semantics is a perfect example of this chaos. He zeroed in on the shorthand use of “spousal” to try to dismiss the very real concerns expressed by law enforcement leaders.

That just shows how America’s hodgepodge of lax laws, loopholes, and ultra-narrow restrictions are manipulated by technicalities to empower criminals and exacerbate dangers.

These are facts. These aren’t just opinions. These are the concerns of the police. But they are of no concern to our own congressman, Steve Knight.

Anthony Breznican is a Santa Clarita resident.

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

  • Gary Bierend

    Participation Award: “I used the example of a spousal abuser, who might be restricted from carrying a hidden weapon in one state, but under this new bill would be allowed to carry one wherever he likes as long as he’s from a state with lax laws.”

    You keep saying this, yet you don’t name one of those states. That’s because they don’t exist. Here’s why:

    “The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called “the Lautenberg Amendment” (“Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence”, Pub.L. 104–208,[1] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[2]), is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as “the Lautenberg Amendment” after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D – NJ).”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

    Post Nonsense, Get Owned …

    • Brian Richards

      He didn’t claim victory yet! Now you ruined it Gary. 🙂

      • Gary Bierend

        That was why I left it blank! I’m sure it’ll happen, it’s hard wired in zealots.

  • Anthony Breznican

    Thank you to the Signal for continuing this discussion.

    There’s also a powerful new op-de about this issue from the mayor and the police chief of Boston.

    Concealed Carry Reciprocity is a step backward in the fight against gun violence

    I wish Steve Knight would listen to the experts instead of forcing this reckless law on states that have strict permit laws about hidden firearms in public.

    • Gary Hromada

      It’s a major step forward!

    • Brian Richards

      Remind me again why I should care what the police chief of Boston and the mayor thinks? You may need that PA, but reasonable people can make up their own mind.

      • Paul Dale

        Brian, he has to use the old “the sheriff/chief/mayor says” line because if fair, accurate poll of the rank and file cops on the street were taken he would find out that they (the cops ON THE STREET) don’t agree with the political-types or so I have learned from talking to several of my neighbors who are police officers/deputy sheriffs.

  • Brian Baker

    LOL!

    Wow, kid, not only do you lie about the law, you lie about what I wrote, too. You do realize I’m right here and can see everything you’ve written, right?

    You wrote: “He zeroed in on the shorthand use of ‘spousal’ to try to dismiss the very real concerns expressed by law enforcement leaders.”

    That’s a lie. Actually, I quoted you thusly: “Breznican absurdly claims, ‘Those from other states who might be blocked from carrying a concealed gun in a state like California, which has restrictions on such a license for those with a record of spousal abuse or other criminal behavior, will now be able to enter carrying a loaded weapon with impunity.’”

    YOU’RE the one who talked about “spousal abuse”, kid. That’s YOUR argument, not mine. Everything I wrote was true and correct.

    And just as I wrote, the “opinions” of politician-cops notwithstanding, this is no different from universal reciprocity of drivers’ licenses. Different states also have different licensing requirements for those, too, but every state recognizes every other state’s drivers licenses when those residents visit regardless.

    I’ve gotta say, your Chicken Littling and chutzpah are both pretty amazing.

    • Gary Bierend

      It appears Participation Award has adopted a new tactic of ignoring cogent responses. He soldiers on, parroting his talking point (propaganda) as if the facts are just chatter that distracts from his all important opinion. In other words, he is trying to ignore the “Get Owned” part of his triumvirate of failure.

      Good luck with that.

    • Bill Reynolds

      I don’t think there’s anyone more dishonest in SCV than Anthony…. he’s a manipulator…

      • Ron Bischof

        “By any means necessary” is the methodology of the Left, Bill.

        They delude themselves by considering it a Platonic “Noble Lie”.

  • Gary Hromada

    Anthony, your article is a perfect example of poor thinking! I’m a Nor Ca resident! Could this bill use some minor changes down the road? Maybe! But as it is smartly written it’s a world of improvement if you wish to protect with you hold dear. God Bless the police; but, they can only take a report later! And that’s a fact!

    I hope National Concealed Carry Reciprocity becomes the law of the land! And further hope that anyone that does not vote for this bill is noted & then reminded of their vote down the road. Of Ca 58 counties 45 do issue permits often; but, the remaining 13 largely urban liberal counties of SF & LA don’t. Guess who has the highest crime/ murder rate?

    Pass this bill!

  • Gary Bierend

    The funniest line of the entire “piece”:

    “These are facts. These aren’t just opinions. These are the concerns of the police.”

    How on earth did this get published?

    • Ron Bischof

      All my columns and LTE submissions contain objective 3rd party references in footnotes to make it easy for The Signal Editors to fact check content.

      Mr. Breznican’s opinions are… less rigorous.

  • Dil Schmertz

    “Concealed carry is by the people, for the people, with liberty and justice for all” Ronald Reagan