NRA Full Disclosure - I don't always agree

**CitizenBBN** · 02-19-2013, 10:54 PM

Don't really want to start another gun thread, but there have been so many where I was in agreement with the NRA while pointing out I wasn't just taking the party line or "swallowing the hype kool-aid" re Obama's intentions, I thought I might show a case where I only agree in part but don't agree with their over the top characterizations.

Kentucky's Senate is considering a bill that will make some changes to the concealed carry law, focusing on residency requirements.

I agree with the part that eliminates the residency requirement for active duty military serving on a base in Kentucky. Currently they have to be assigned there for 6 months before being eligible. Active duty military should pretty much be eligible IMO, 6 months is a long time for some people being moved a lot, when you then add in finding and taking a class, the 2 weeks for that part, the months for the 2nd approval, and the various mailings and such. Could be 9+ months pretty easily.

I'm "OK" with a 2nd part, to reduce the time the KSP has to issue licenses from 90 days to 30 days. this is a cure without a disease IMO. It does take a while in Kentucky, but they aren't dragging their feet to not issue them, they are just understaffed and really backed up at times. The processing of ALL the class certificates in the state is done by one very nice lady down in Richmond at the KSP training center. No doubt the folks in Frankfort doing the actual licenses are also short staffed. I don't know of many that had to wait nearly the 90 days but the answer here is to staff it better along with reducing the time, and 30 days is a pretty tight timeframe to do it right without more people.

It would be nice, but not a priority.

They also eliminate the overall residency requirement. Currently you have to be a Kentucky resident for at least 6 months to qualify. This I guess would let anyone get one without any residency. Here I disagree with them. there is a reason to have exceptions, college students are a good example of a possible needed exception since they live here a majority of the time but are not "residents" legally, but to give it to anyone driving through? Not sure I'm supportive of that approach at all.

Here's where the NRA ends up undermining themselves, when they use the more "sky is falling" language for such mundane changes:

This bill is critical to your inherent right to self-defense as it eliminates several discriminatory and arbitrary provisions in Kentucky’s current concealed carry laws that may prevent you or your loved ones from obtaining a Concealed Deadly Weapons License (CDWL)....As a law-abiding citizen, you should not be victimized by Kentucky’s antiquated concealed carry law!

Antiquated? "Discriminatory and arbitrary"? "Victimized"? Oh please. The only part of this that is a good idea to change expeditiously is for military personnel. The 90 days isn't a huge issue but a "would be nice" thing for the vast majority of people. If there were a pressing threat I imagine the local sheriff could act to expedite it and of course in Kentucky you can always open carry. Hardly rises to the level of "victimized".

As for the residency requirement overall, afaik the residency requirement is pretty common and it's perfectly normal custom for licenses of all kinds to be granted based on residency. You can't get a kentucky driver's license without being a resident. OK maybe it helps college students and I think they should have an exception written as a "living within the borders" statement but having to be a resident of a state to be given a license is "discriminatory and arbitrary"? Nonsense.

I'm not going to lose sleep about any of the changes, and I support one of them, but here's a case where the NRA should send out a statement of support, saying they agree with these changes and explaining why (they really don't in the email I got), and not attempt to put any rabble rousing into it at all. If they'd save that for the true crises, like Obama and Feinstein and the real anti-gun threats, they would have more credibility on them.

**Darrell KSR** · 02-20-2013, 09:58 AM

Although Alabama is a "may issue" state, it takes as much time to get a CCW permit as it does to order a grilled cheese sandwich. It is while you wait (at least in my County).

Story from B'ham News: http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/12/...shelby_co.html

**KeithKSR** · 02-20-2013, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Don't really want to start another gun thread, but there have been so many where I was in agreement with the NRA while pointing out I wasn't just taking the party line or "swallowing the hype kool-aid" re Obama's intentions, I thought I might show a case where I only agree in part but don't agree with their over the top characterizations.

Kentucky's Senate is considering a bill that will make some changes to the concealed carry law, focusing on residency requirements.

I agree with the part that eliminates the residency requirement for active duty military serving on a base in Kentucky. Currently they have to be assigned there for 6 months before being eligible. Active duty military should pretty much be eligible IMO, 6 months is a long time for some people being moved a lot, when you then add in finding and taking a class, the 2 weeks for that part, the months for the 2nd approval, and the various mailings and such. Could be 9+ months pretty easily.

I'm "OK" with a 2nd part, to reduce the time the KSP has to issue licenses from 90 days to 30 days. this is a cure without a disease IMO. It does take a while in Kentucky, but they aren't dragging their feet to not issue them, they are just understaffed and really backed up at times. The processing of ALL the class certificates in the state is done by one very nice lady down in Richmond at the KSP training center. No doubt the folks in Frankfort doing the actual licenses are also short staffed. I don't know of many that had to wait nearly the 90 days but the answer here is to staff it better along with reducing the time, and 30 days is a pretty tight timeframe to do it right without more people.

It would be nice, but not a priority.

They also eliminate the overall residency requirement. Currently you have to be a Kentucky resident for at least 6 months to qualify. This I guess would let anyone get one without any residency. Here I disagree with them. there is a reason to have exceptions, college students are a good example of a possible needed exception since they live here a majority of the time but are not "residents" legally, but to give it to anyone driving through? Not sure I'm supportive of that approach at all.

Here's where the NRA ends up undermining themselves, when they use the more "sky is falling" language for such mundane changes:

This bill is critical to your inherent right to self-defense as it eliminates several discriminatory and arbitrary provisions in Kentucky’s current concealed carry laws that may prevent you or your loved ones from obtaining a Concealed Deadly Weapons License (CDWL)....As a law-abiding citizen, you should not be victimized by Kentucky’s antiquated concealed carry law!

Antiquated? "Discriminatory and arbitrary"? "Victimized"? Oh please. The only part of this that is a good idea to change expeditiously is for military personnel. The 90 days isn't a huge issue but a "would be nice" thing for the vast majority of people. If there were a pressing threat I imagine the local sheriff could act to expedite it and of course in Kentucky you can always open carry. Hardly rises to the level of "victimized".

As for the residency requirement overall, afaik the residency requirement is pretty common and it's perfectly normal custom for licenses of all kinds to be granted based on residency. You can't get a kentucky driver's license without being a resident. OK maybe it helps college students and I think they should have an exception written as a "living within the borders" statement but having to be a resident of a state to be given a license is "discriminatory and arbitrary"? Nonsense.

I'm not going to lose sleep about any of the changes, and I support one of them, but here's a case where the NRA should send out a statement of support, saying they agree with these changes and explaining why (they really don't in the email I got), and not attempt to put any rabble rousing into it at all. If they'd save that for the true crises, like Obama and Feinstein and the real anti-gun threats, they would have more credibility on them.

Personally I think 90 days for a background check it WAY too long. Why? When school employees are hired the KSP does a background check in 10 days. It should not take 9 times as long to do the same background check that is performed in 10 days for schools. Also, I imagine the background check is not all that different than the NICS check, which takes very few minutes.

**CitizenBBN** · 02-20-2013, 05:34 PM

AFAIK Keith it is the NICS check. I dont' know if they do anything different initially but thereafter I know the NICS check is at least part of it. They run one on every CCDW holder every 30 days.

I think 30 is not unreasonable, I just don't think it fits with the language they use to describe its urgency. I do know the program is woefully understaffed so the > 30 day situation is when they get backlogged. I'm guessing the original 90 days was put in to provide for extra research time for someone but using NICS makes that less necessary.

Part of my lack of urgency is I don't know if anyone has really had to wait that long. If they're doing them in 30-45 days already then it's just a minor statutory revision to catch up with reality, not an attack on our gun rights.

My only real concerns are the elimination of any residency requirement, where I'd need to know more to make a final opinion, and the language they use to puff it up when it only undermines them elsewhere. It's the boy who cried wolf. There's no wolf here. Maybe an annoying squirrel, but no wolf.

**KeithKSR** · 02-20-2013, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

AFAIK Keith it is the NICS check. I dont' know if they do anything different initially but thereafter I know the NICS check is at least part of it. They run one on every CCDW holder every 30 days.

I think 30 is not unreasonable, I just don't think it fits with the language they use to describe its urgency. I do know the program is woefully understaffed so the > 30 day situation is when they get backlogged. I'm guessing the original 90 days was put in to provide for extra research time for someone but using NICS makes that less necessary.

Part of my lack of urgency is I don't know if anyone has really had to wait that long. If they're doing them in 30-45 days already then it's just a minor statutory revision to catch up with reality, not an attack on our gun rights.

My only real concerns are the elimination of any residency requirement, where I'd need to know more to make a final opinion, and the language they use to puff it up when it only undermines them elsewhere. It's the boy who cried wolf. There's no wolf here. Maybe an annoying squirrel, but no wolf.

I think the residency requirement should mirror the residency requirement for voter eligibility. I consider voter eligibility to be the official granting of state residency.