It’s the right of the people, not the right of special operators. iStock-2263919737
“Today, Congressman Pat Harrigan (NC-10) introduced the Special Operations Forces Concealed Carry Act, legislation that extends federal concealed carry authority to both serving and veteran special operations forces whose firearms training and marksmanship standards match or exceed those of retired law enforcement officers,” a Thursday press release from the North Carolina congressman announced.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Federal law already trusts retired police officers to carry concealed nationwide. That makes sense. But it makes no sense that an active or retired SEAL or Green Beret, someone who spent a career mastering firearms under the most demanding conditions in the world, has no equivalent recognition under federal law.”
“The bill covers honorably discharged servicemembers from paygrade E5-E9, W1-W5 or O1-O10 with verified service in Army Special Forces, the 75th Ranger Regiment, Delta Force, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps Scout Snipers, Reconnaissance Marines, MARSOC operators, and Air Force Combat Control, Pararescue, Special Reconnaissance, TACP, and Special Operations Weather,” the press release elaborates.
That sounds like it makes a lot of sense. Who but a gun prohibitionist could be against that?
Perhaps uncompromising Second Amendment advocates who believe that such personnel certainly have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms but argue so do the rest of us, and the Framers never couched their revolutionary proclamation to specify “the right of the people qualified for proficiency by the federal government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
If Rep. Harrigan can show his bill fulfills the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard of text, history, and tradition, and further document that the anti-federalists would have accepted such qualifiers and supported ratification, he needs to do so.
What we find instead is that their intent was for a militia of the whole people, and that a standing army was considered a threat to liberty. That makes it fair to focus dialog on that, and to what extent permanent alliances and foreign entanglements decried by George Washington in his farewell address necessitate a military industrial complex (that no less of a warrior and leader than Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against).
ADVERTISEMENT
There’s another question for Rep. Harrigan, who agrees that “Only Ones”***** exemptions for police “makes sense”: LEOSA the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, does not limit eligibility to Tier 1 operators. Cops who worked the desk and passed minimal firearm qualification tests also reap the benefits, and what we’ve seen from that is exactly what those of us who objected at the time warned “law and order über alles” gun rights groups against: They’ve got their seat at the table. Now, rather than clear a place to welcome the rest of us in, many, through their leadership, follow citizen disarmament orders and support politicians who promise a bigger share of tax plunder.
And while there are admittedly street cops who know better and vote better, there’s no evidence that more than a small percentage would refuse to obey orders to enforce infringements and risk their careers and pensions (nor is it realistic for most minimally activist gun owners to expect them to). But while Democrats are (overtly or covertly) in bed with “Defund the Police” extremists, gun owners they enforce edicts against are expected to wave the flag and “Back the Blue.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Then again, for all the hubbub being raised on this bill, passing it appears to be much ado about nothing. Per GovTrack, the federal legislation and voting records tracking website, “H.R. 8332: To provide concealed carry privileges to qualified special ” has a “1% chance of being enacted.”
So, what’s all the commotion about?
Midterms are coming up. Republicans need to look like they’re “doing something,” and this is a chance to paint unsupportive Democrat opponents as being anti-America’s “war heroes” (except for latter-day Benedict Arnolds lending their names to citizen disarmament propaganda campaigns like Giffords Veterans Coalition).
Harrigan, by all accounts that matter, is someone we should thank for his service and political support. He’s a Green Beret combat veteran, and A+ rated and endorsed by the NRA, so it doesn’t feel good to publicly second-guess his legislation. That said, history, particularly with another Patriots Day upon us, has shown us the dangers of elite actors enjoying privileges, immunities, and power government withholds from We the People. For Second Amendment supporters, that’s what needs to matter.
*** About “The Only Ones”**
So named from a comment by DEA agent Lee Paige, who told a classroom full of kids he was “the only one” qualified to be armed and then promptly shot himself in the foot, the purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The reason I track such stories is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it’s also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank, or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they’re involved in gun-related incidents.
Should people be referred to as citizens? or 
warrenlawfirm.net
krilaw.com
Freedom Forum
Middle Tennessee State University