I like this question from South Florida Daily Blog:
Florida law requires concealed carry weapon permit holders to be U.S. citizens. Just like voting laws.
So I’m wondering what the reaction would be from the NRA and the Republican Party if the Democrat Party led a purge of CCW permit holders much like Governor Scott has led a purge of voting rolls. You know, review the information contained in State databases and send letters to those CCW holders whose citizenship status could not be verified.
Why do you “like” the question?
First of all, the premise is flawed because under Florida law, permanent resident aliens are eligible for concealed carry permits, as well as certain foreign consular agents, as set forth in 790.06(2)(a). Last time I checked, permanent resident aliens and consular officials are not allowed to vote. SFDB is simply wrong.
Second, take a look at the CWP application. A proper application is sworn before a notary (a person under Florida law authorized to receive a statement under oath). The same is not true for voter registration. A social security # is also required on the application, as well as a set of finger prints. Again, these requirements are absent from voter registration. Also, I don’t know what the state of Florida does with the applications, but perhaps they are indeed checking citizenship and criminal backgrounds?
I’m not sure I agree with the voter list purge, but I would absolutely oppose a CWP purge not because of political reasons or principle, but simply because under the facts and circumstances it would not serve any public purpose, because there is no evidence that permits are being wrongfully or mistakenly issued by the state. It would be a ridiculous waste of time and money. Further, the crime rate is so low among CWP holders which suggests that those inclined to go through the application process are, inherently, somewhat law abiding. But that said, I don’t think that the NRA would protest much if some proof of citizenship was required as part of a *renewal* of a permit (7 years under 790.06(1)), although there is no reason to believe the current system is broken. (Note that perm. resident aliens do need to provide documentation, as does anyone born outside the US who is now a US citizen).
The purging of illegals from the voter rolls, in theory, is an important safeguard for the reliability of our process, and also to discourage unsavory electioneers from registering illegals with promises of money or favors in return for illegal votes. Whether or not this is going on with any statistical significance, I don’t know and that is why I have not formed an opinion yet on what Scott is doing.
Lastly, I find SFDB’s comments annoying because of the implied stereotypes about the gun owning public, particularly in Florida. Although it is probably fair to say a majority of CWP holders are right leaning, the number of left leaning holders is not insignificant. It also seems to imply that just because one has a CWP, or is a member of the NRA, one must be anti-immigrant. The NRA has no stated policies on immigration whatsoever.
So again, why do you “like” the question?
I won’t claim to have given this any deep thought, but the line of thinking was: 1) don’t like the voter purges going on as the harm-benefit ratio is all wrong even if it were a neutral policy and anyway I don’t think it’s even trying to be neutral; 2) don’t have time to blog about this right now; 3) Oh, here’s a cute way of making the point that the voter purges are ugly.
I agree that #1 is certainly possible, but I have yet to see a neutral source on how widespread the problem is.
Also, it is not clear to me what the outcome is if someone is purged and then tries to vote…are the provided a provisional ballot? How many bites at the apple do they get to prove citizenship, and what are the methods of proof?
And the same questions would govern a CWP list audit, a) why are we doing this, b) is it worth it, c) how do we avoid the very drastic outcome that a person without notice that their permit was cancelled is discovered to be carrying concealed, and therefore committing a crime, i.e. what due process is afforded.
And sure, I’ll concede Scott is politically motivated to purge democrat voters, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done if indeed there is a significant problem of illegals registered. In other words, I’m not convinced his motivations would matter if it were otherwise sound policy. If it were otherwise sound policy, then one could say a democrat governor would be derelict in his duties if he ignored the problem to preserve democrat votes.
Okay, Jewish Marksman, the analogy isn’t exact and, yeah, permanent resident aliens can also be issued CCW permits as the link I provided details but you get the point and, like I predicted, you don’t like it.
Point made. Class over.
And tell me again how any of this crap is worth a 91-year-old WWII vet getting a letter saying that he’s not a U.S. citizen and that’s he’s not eligible. Collateral damage to election year strategizing by your effing Tea Party Governor, I suppose?
1) Your error of omission was not trivial. The “good ‘ol NRA white boys” who got the statute passed making Florida a a “shall issue” state commanded the government (again, “shall issue”) to issue CWP to non-white Hispanics, the largest population of permanent resident aliens in the state. Essentially, you omitted the fact that the group responsible for Florida’s gun laws made a point to include non-white non-citizens. Why did you leave that out, Rick? Why did you fail to inform your readers that the NRA sought to protect the rights of all of Florida’s residents, not just its citizens? Are you pushing the truth, or simply a partisan narrative?
2) If you read my comment and followup to Michael, you would see that I could be persuaded that Scott is acting inappropriately, and suspect that he is. My point was that you were comparing apples to oranges, and being a political extremist in the process. Michael thought you were “cute,” which I disagree with, but I think we had civil discussion.
3) There is a reason I chose not to comment directly on your blog. Apparently you don’t take subtle hints.
2) And? I think a Federal judge has already beaten you to it, so yippee for persuasion.
3) Oh, you comment, JM. We both know you comment. You just don’t use your pseudonym.
Why do you imagine that one viewpoint must preclude the other? They are entirely consistent.
Lawful gun owners and CW permit holders (I include myself) are all for the LEGAL exercise of rights, whether to own a gun or to vote. The key is: There are rules in place to be followed.
I am all for the collection of illegally owned weapons from people barred by law from owning them, just as I am for the purging from the voter roles people who have no right to be on them. In BOTH cases, the “purge” might affect a small number of innocents, who should be provided their Constitutional opportunity for redress.
I seriously doubt you’ll be able to find any official NRA document stating the organization is FOR the illegal possession and ownership of guns. They want guns taken away from criminals, etc. just like YOU do.
I don’t see what the big “gotcha” is here?
Can I simply say what a relief to search out somebody who really knows what theyre speaking about on the internet. You positively know methods to convey a difficulty to mild and make it important. Extra individuals must read this and understand this aspect of the story. I cant believe youre not more well-liked because you definitely have the gift.