Image 01 Image 03

Ex-Rep. Giffords Purchases Ads Against 8 GOP House Members Before Concealed Carry Vote

Ex-Rep. Giffords Purchases Ads Against 8 GOP House Members Before Concealed Carry Vote

The law will allow concealed carry across state lines.

Former Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords’ gun control group has purchased ads to target eight GOP House members before the chamber votes on a bill that allows concealed carry across state lines. From Politico:

Digital ads will also go out against Reps. Steve Knight (R-Calif.), Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Mimi Walters (R-Calif.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) and Barbara Comstock (R-Va.). All of these are at the top of Democrats’ 2018 pick-up hopes. There will be a radio ad focused on the three Southern California members.

“The ads call on voters to speak up about this dangerous bill and call on their leaders put the safety of communities before the interests of the gun industry,” said Peter Ambler, executive director of Giffords, the name of the political group founded by the former Arizona congresswoman and her husband, Captain Mark Kelly.

Politico reported the narration in one video:

“In the wake of our country’s worst mass shooting, Congress came up with its most dangerous idea yet: nearly anyone with a hidden loaded gun would be allowed into your community. No background check? No training? No questions asked,” a female narrator says, over images of police officers, gun shells dropping to the ground and guns stuck into the back of pants. “Will Jason Lewis side with law enforcement, or the gun lobby?”

No background check? Well, in order for someone to legally purchase a gun they have to go through a background check.

No training? I guess the group doesn’t realize that you have to go through extensive training in order to receive that concealed carry license.

Let’s take a look at those states the group is targeting:


The attorney general’s website provides information about those who can purchase guns in the state:

Generally, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a California licensed dealer under the Dealer’s Record of Sale (DROS) process. California law imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a purchaser or transferee. A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To purchase a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years of age. As part of the DROS process, the purchaser must present “clear evidence of identity and age” which is defined as a valid, non-expired California Driver’s License or Identification Card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). A military identification accompanied by permanent duty station orders indicating a posting in California is also acceptable.

If the purchaser is not a U.S. Citizen, then he or she is required to demonstrate that he or she is legally within the United States by providing the firearms dealer with documentation containing his/her Alien Registration Number or I-94 Number.

Purchasers of handguns must provide proof of California residency, such as a utility bill, residential lease, property deed, or government-issued identification (other than a drivers license or other DMV-issued identification), and either (1) possess a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) plus successfully complete a safety demonstration with their recently purchased handgun or (2) qualify for an HSC exemption.

In order to get a concealed carry license in California, you HAVE to go through the county sheriff’s office. A person CANNOT conceal carry unless they have this license issued “by a California county sheriff to residents of the county, or the chief of police to residents of the city.”


In Colorado, the state uses InStaCheck (emphasis mine):

The InstaCheck Unit is responsible for ensuring that proper procedures, along with state and federal guidelines are adhered to and followed by all citizens wishing to purchase a firearm. The InstaCheck Unit performs comprehensive background investigations into each and every firearm purchase, as well as reviews all concealed weapon permit applications, helping to promote gun safety within the State of Colorado. For additional information about the services provided by InstaCheck please visit our “Available Services” page. Thank you for visiting CBI InstaCheck.

Just like in California, you have to go through the local sheriff’s department in order to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Also, in Colorado, you have to go through a background check EVERY TIME you purchase a new firearm.


In Minnesota, like the other two states, a background check is required for a gun purchase. There is also a waiting period (emphasis mine):

Option 1
Fill out a Minnesota Uniform Firearm Application/Receipt Permit to Purchase/Transfer. Submit the application to your local police chief, or if your municipality does not have a police department, to your county’s sheriff. The law enforcement agency will conduct a series of background-related checks to assure you meet eligibility requirements established in state law.

Once those checks are complete, a one-year permit to purchase a handgun in Minnesota will be issued. If you are applying for a permit to transfer the law enforcement agency must notify you of its status within seven days of receipt.

Option 2
If you want to make a one-time purchase of a handgun from a dealer and you do not have a permit to purchase, you may apply directly at the gun shop where you will purchase the handgun. The gun shop will require you to complete a consent form that allows them to conduct a name and date-of-birth background check to determine your eligibility to purchase a gun. However, some businesses may choose to follow other business practices. The gun shops are entitled to charge a fee for this service.

Minnesota requires a person to go through the sheriff’s office to get a concealed carry permit. In order to receive this permit, you have to provide proof you received training from a certified instructor.

New Jersey

In New Jersey, you need a permit to even purchase a firearm:

You must apply at your local police department. If you do not have a local police department or you are an out of state resident, you must apply at the nearest New Jersey State Police station (excluding toll roads, stations on the New Jersey Turnpike, Garden State Parkway, and Atlantic City Expressway).

It can take 30 days to 6 months before this even comes in, but yes it includes a background check.

The sheriff’s office must also approve your request for a concealed carry.

New York

New York has the most strict handgun laws in the entire nation. The entire state requires a permit to purchase a gun, register a a handgun, owner must have a license, and a license to carry. For shotguns and rifles, these are invalid EXCEPT in New York city.


To further elaborate the state’s rigorous handgun laws ,one must have an understanding of how meticulous the procedures are. The application for a handgun license begins at the local police department where a background check and fingerprinting will be administered. Once approved, the application will then get passed to the New York State Police Department where personal references are mandatory for consideration. These references will include family members and close friends who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character. New York handgun laws are filled with legislative red tape to delay such procedures; a license will be awarded within 4-6 months of the application’s filing date.

According to New York’s handgun laws, a license is also necessary to possess a handgun in one’s home or place of business. Applications are made to the licensing officer of the city or county where the applicant resides or works. Unlike most licenses, the right to possess is completely up to the discretion of the licensing officer. Aliens who are not of proper citizenship can receive a license to possess if such basic requirements are met: Applicant must be of good moral character, at least 21 years of age, clean criminal record, and no history or evidence of mental illness or addiction to drugs/alcohol.

After the information is gathered, it is sent to the FBI for a full background check. The licensing officer can request further documentation, but the entire process will take 6 months in total. It is considered unlawful for any individual to carry, possess, or transport a handgun without a valid New York driver’s license.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I give her the same compassionate regard I would with any totalitarian.

Giffords could be nominated for an Honorary Maxine (Waters) Citation. They get news coverage and nobody gives a flying damn what they think or do.

The theory they’re pushing is that all the elaborate singing and dancing which gun owners have to go through in California, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York can be bypassed if a person has a license from some state which does not subject them to such rituals.

In other words, the licensing requirements of every state, even the most anal and restrictive, will, for practical purposes, be reduced to those of the least restrictive state if the US has reciprocal carry.

All of which is just fine with me, but the gun-grabbers can’t be expected to accept it without their usual blitz of propaganda, scare tactics and lies. However, they are correct to the extent that many states, such as New Hampshire and Idaho, have almost no state restrictions on licensing. The more restrictive states would obviously see this as a threat.

    It would be good to see a chart which describes the various requirements. It may be that only a few states are iffy on their requirements. My state will allow a sale of a gun if you pass the check – no holding period. For the concealed carry, yes,there will always be a waiting period to get the permit. But permission to own a gun is not equal to permission to conceal carry.

    But, as we have recently learned, there is a problem with states and federal agencies reporting their holds to the gun ownership database. It would be interesting how well these states report their holds to that database.

    alaskabob in reply to tom_swift. | December 4, 2017 at 7:57 pm

    Alaska is a “constitutional carry” state but for reciprocity in the Lower-48 one had to get the CCW with fingerprints/etc. Nice in that it is NIC-exempt.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to tom_swift. | December 4, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    The states that issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens are the states that are complaining about reciprocal concealed carry the loudest.

Rights and responsibilities does not extend to left-wing supplied drug cartels, contemplative cuckoos, drug-addled minds, and feminists who practice rites and avoid responsibility.

The states were supposed to be the “laboratories” of the country. Concealed (discrete) carry being an example which has proven to either being neutral or positive influence while those opposed feared “blood in the streets”. This is a small area that can erodes the monopoly of power by those that bent on controlling the populace. They don’t give up their power (and fear of its loss) easily.

    tom_swift in reply to alaskabob. | December 4, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    This is a small area that can erodes the monopoly of power by those that bent on controlling the populace.

    Actually they wouldn’t give up much. They’d still be able to make their own state’s inhabitants suffer under whatever restrictions they care to impose. But visitors and people just “passing through” wouldn’t be so restricted.

    If our gun-control regimens are actually about public safety, one might think that reciprocity could possibly be a problem. But if they’re really all about the desire to control the populace, then they’d be irrelevant. The resident population would still be thoroughly controlled; reciprocity would have no effect on that.

    The states were supposed to be the “laboratories” of the country…”

    And look at the Frankensteins they created. As the Founding Fathers would imagine, let those Frankensteins feed themselves.

    Hence, Trump’s tax cut, eliminating the state tax deduction.

Even if this passes, it will be held up in the courts for years. There’s no way the AG of my strict state (MA) would sit by passively and allow riffraff from free states to carry here on their cards.

    CZ75Compact in reply to Obie1. | December 5, 2017 at 6:45 am

    Then MA taxpayers will be shelling out considerable coin to those unlawfully arrested and denied their civil right to carry.

      randian in reply to CZ75Compact. | December 5, 2017 at 12:18 pm

      Why should the progressives who run MA care how much taxpayer money is spent on litigation payouts? It’s not their money. The process is the punishment, so anybody who dares oppose the anti gun establishment will pay in time, inconvenience, and stress. A few bucks after the fact is not really compensation.

She’s an idiot. Truly. The bullet to her head probably had no impact at all on her brain.

The obama/swamp Navy named a warship after this bozo. (A littoral combat ship.) You believe this?

It’s probably an embarrassment to serve on.

    I actually feel sorry for the way she’s being used by her husband and those who claim to act in her name. Sadly, she is now just a potted plant who gets wheeled from room to room to face the light. it’s those around her who have turned her name into a huge fundraising scheme they can use to ride the gravy train for the rest of their lives.

    The reason for taking out these ads, obviously, is that you’ve got to have some concrete actions you can show to your rich liberal benefactors, in order to keep the money flowing in.

I support this bill, of course, but your detailed description of the hoops one must jump through to get carry permits in those states is precisely the point of these ads. The bill will get rid of these hoops for anyone with a permit from a state that doesn’t have them. That’s a good thing from our point of view, but a very bad thing from theirs, and they’re 100% right to make their supporters aware of it, so they can lobby against it. Pointing to the current hoops as if they were a reason for these people not to fear the bill is dishonest.

    It would be informative to see a chart that lists all of the requirements and highlighting the “weakest” criteria. Looking at these specific requirements, the only difference that I see is that my state does not require a waiting period. You pass the background check, you get the gun. But, I have to take a class, show shooting ability and pass the background tests.

      Milhouse in reply to Liz. | December 4, 2017 at 5:27 pm

      You’re confusing what you need to do to buy a gun and what you need to do to get a carry permit. Some states don’t require any training. Some don’t even require a permit, so their citizens would be free to carry anywhere

        mekender in reply to Milhouse. | December 4, 2017 at 8:41 pm

        It boils down below the national level. My state of NC for example, state law says that the Sheriff has 45 days to issue or deny a carry permit from the date of the application. If you go one county in any direction from me that permit is issued in about 14 days and you can simply walk into the office and apply without calling ahead. But in Charlotte, the sheriff makes you make an appointment to apply and currently those appointments are running 60+ business days out from the day you call or go online, turn around time from the setting of the appointment is over 6 months for most people.

        Handgun purchase also requires a permit, one you can get in a 3 day or less time frame in surrounding counties, but here it takes every bit of the 14 day legal limit and then some…

        “Some don’t even require a permit, so their citizens would be free to carry anywhere”

        Simply incorrect.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Sian. | December 4, 2017 at 10:15 pm

          “Some don’t even require a permit, so their citizens would be free to carry anywhere”

          Milhouse is correct. Some states don’t require a permit to carry. Their citizens will be free to carry anywhere. He means they will be free to carry anywhere without any additional qualifications. They will need state-issued licenses, but those licenses will be theirs for the asking for the same qualifications that allow them to carry in their states without licenses – i.e. being a non-felon, not adjudicated mentally incompetent, being a citizen, not being a drug addict, etc.

        CZ75Compact in reply to Milhouse. | December 5, 2017 at 6:52 am

        WA was the first state to implement a shall-issue procedure for a Concealed Pistol License, in the 1960s as I recall. No training is needed to get your CPL. John Lott Jr claims data show no significant benefit to training for a concealed carry permit. Rather, the expense of such training merely serves to keep permits out of the hands of the poor, who are among the people who most need them.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Milhouse. | December 4, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    Yes, the hoops & obstacle courses will be removed and the constitution will begin regarding concealed carry to be applied throughout the nation in spite of the effort of some states to repress the rights of their own citizens 2nd amendment rights.

The Packetman | December 4, 2017 at 4:57 pm

Giffords is purposely implying that anyone who *has* a firearm will be authorized to carry it anywhere they desire.

That is not what this bill would do.

All it would do is to require every state that issues a carry permit to recognize every other states’ permits. If a particular state does NOT issue carry permits, they do not have to recognize any other states’ permits.

As to the discrepancy about training requirements, I live in GA … right against the TN line and I’m in TN every day. My GA permit required a fee and background check … no training requirement. TN, however, requires some 8 hours of classroom instruction and some range time, and yet they still recognize my GA permit (as GA recognizes theirs). I have to follow TN law regarding the carriage of a firearm while I’m armed in the state, just as TN carriers must abide by GA laws and regulations while in GA.

4th armored div | December 4, 2017 at 5:14 pm

the sanctuary states restrict gun ownership.
but that didn’t exactly stop the Steinle killing did it.
and the jury nullification means that illegals whoopsie, UNDOCUMENTEDs (sounds like they misplaced their paperwork, doesn’t it ?) can do just about whatever they please.

if these states were tough on these criminals then i might give the bleeding farts the benefit of the doubt – BUT I DO NOT.

Well, she’s a hero for staying in public life after being targeted by that creep. She’s also quite wrong on this issue.

But I do think we need to respect what she’s been through and her survival against incredible odds. Taking a 9 mm straight through your brain has a rather low chance of any outcome other than pushing up mushrooms.

    Anchovy in reply to beagleEar. | December 4, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    I don’t think she is really making many decisions on her own. Her abusive husband Mark Kelly is using her to push his own agenda. Capt. Kelly is a real puke and dishonors the Navy.

    She’s no more a hero for staying in public life than hillary klinton is.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to beagleEar. | December 5, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    As stated up thread, as well as here: she has little if any knowledge of what is being done in her name, or even if anything is being done in her name. Her actually making decisions or participating in the discussions leading to them is beyond belief.

    The anti-gun people are exploiting her, just as they did (do?) with Jim Brady. They have no shame.

Don’t worry about it. HR 38 is not going to pass, even with the bump-stock and “Fix the NICS Act language.

The biggest problem is that, unlike the case driver’s license, states have wildly different standards for the issuance of a concealed carry permit or license. So, in order for there to be universal reciprocity of concealed weapon licenses, basic standards for issuance have to be established. and, that is not going to happen this year.

Even if such standards are established, you still have the problem of variations in the law regarding place restrictions, ammo restrictions, magazine restrictions and use of force restrictions. These all vary from state to state and this bill allows all those various laws to stand.

The current reciprocity system works just fine. Now if the courts would like to honor the wording of the @nd Amendment to the US Constitution, then no political jurisdiction would be able to restrict the ownership or carry of firearms and other weapons in any way. But, that is not likely to happen either.

    Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | December 4, 2017 at 6:42 pm

    That should the 2nd Amendment, not the @nd Amendment.

    Sian in reply to Mac45. | December 4, 2017 at 9:43 pm

    Many states already have reciprocity with many others, without any significant bureaucratic or safety issues as a result.

    Am I to believe that certain blue states are somehow unable to cope with the influx of visiting travelers who carry concealed and statistically commit violent crimes at a rate ten times lower than the general public?

    tom_swift in reply to Mac45. | December 4, 2017 at 10:28 pm

    The current reciprocity system works just fine.

    A strange statement.

    For a significant portion of the US population, it doesn’t work at all.

Ok so, just how does the gun industry benefit from people being able to concealed carry the guns they already own across state lines?

Are they really this dumb?

    tom_swift in reply to Sian. | December 4, 2017 at 10:29 pm

    The Bill of Rights doesn’t mention the “gun industry”.

      DaveGinOly in reply to tom_swift. | December 4, 2017 at 10:59 pm

      Tom, I think you’ve twice missed Sian’s points. In this comment, Sian is questioning the claim that universal carry benefits the gun industry, as the opposition claims it will. Anyone who poses the claim should be challenged explain how national reciprocity will benefit the gun industry. Will people buy more guns just so they can carry them across state lines? (The claim also is meant to imply that something good for the gun industry is bad for the people – a proposition that hasn’t been proved.)

      In the previous instance Sian was complaining that those states that have reciprocity have not had problems associated with the policy. We know reciprocity isn’t universal so many citizens don’t realize the benefits, but Sian’s point is made – reciprocity, where it is in place (and it in place for many) has not evidenced a downside.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | December 5, 2017 at 1:41 am

        Will people buy more guns just so they can carry them across state lines?

        Yes, I think they will. And that would be a good thing.

      Nor does the Bill of Rights mention “news industry.”

    Milhouse in reply to Sian. | December 5, 2017 at 1:40 am

    Ok so, just how does the gun industry benefit from people being able to concealed carry the guns they already own across state lines?

    That’s easy. When it becomes easier for people to use some item, more people buy it. Some significant number of people have not bought guns, or have not bought as many as they might otherwise want, because they can’t carry on their daily routine, which passes through a state with restrictive laws.

    For instance Pennsylvanians whose daily routine takes them into New Jersey, where they risk arrest and prison if they have a weapon with them. If they are freed from this risk some significant portion of them are likely to buy a gun, or another gun.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Sian. | December 5, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    Are they really this dumb?

    No, but they’re desperately hoping their constituents and supporters are.

Unknown3rdParty | December 4, 2017 at 10:41 pm

I have been having some concerns about this “national reciprocity”. As per, it is suggested–historically demonstrated?–that these efforts today could backfire tomorrow and leave us more constrained and limited than we currently are.

There are a lot of legal eagles here, so I’m wondering if anyone can answer some simple questions.

Upon what principle, agreement, or statute do states recognize each other’s driver licenses?

If intra-state recognition of driver licenses is accomplished via principle (rather than agreement or statute), why isn’t the principle applicable to concealed carry licenses?

And a bonus question applicable to interstate travel of citizens in general, and firearms owners in particular:

How is it that a citizen’s rights can be adversely affected or expanded, simply be displacing himself geographically from one state (not necessarily his own) to another, when those states are all members of a union founded upon, and nominally dedicated to, the same principles of freedom, justice, human rights, individual sovereignty, and due (judicial) process of law?

The following is rhetorical, and meant to elucidate upon the question immediately above:
For instance, a woman from Pennsylvania drove into NJ and lost her right to property in the hollow-point bullets she was carrying, simply by traveling from one place to another. Where was the judicial process by which she was stripped of her right to this property? Where was her representation in the process that passed the law making the property illegal to possess? How does the legislative process exclusive to one state and its citizens reach into another state to affect the rights of citizens in those other states? (In this instance, to abide by NJ law, the woman would have had to make a choice between exercising her right to travel or to her property – she couldn’t exercise both at the same time. SCOTUS has already determined that government cannot make the exercise of a right conditional upon the surrender of another. In this situation the lady lost property rights because she elected to exercise her right to travel. Does it make sense that our rights can be adversely affected by exercising them?)

    Actually, the fact that all states recognize the driver’s liocense of all other states is imply because each individual state has decided that it will do this.

    The move for interstate recognition began in 1933 when the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)began lobbying the individual state legislatures to recognize the driver’s licenses issued in other states. In 1958, the Beamer Resolution, passed by the US Congress, encouraged, but did not force, the individual states to enter into compacts in the area of traffic safety, including Uniform Traffic Laws and standards for the issuance of driving licenses. This has been done, without federal legislation.

    The woman’s right to travel did not extend to anything other than her person. Any article which she had in her possession could be independently regulated by the individual state. In the case of firearms and ammunition, this can apply to the type of firearm, magazine capacity and ammo type. Incendiary, flechette and other specialized ammo is restricted in some states but not in others. This also applies to things such as marijuana.

    Now, you make the classic modern mistake of thinking that this country was founded as a homogeneous union. It was not. It was a federated republic of independent states who agreed to establish a central governmental system for very limited purposes. Different states had different point of view on specific subjects as well as different needs. They were free to address these issues as they saw fit. This was the principle of states rights. That changed after the American Civil War when the federal government became ascendant through force of arms.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Mac45. | December 7, 2017 at 12:55 am

      Thank you Mr. Fine, but I am aware of those clauses and you didn’t say why they apply to driver licenses and not to CCPs. (Although the commerce clause probably has nothing to do with the ability to exercise one’s rights even while crossing state lines.) Nor did you say, if they don’t apply, why they don’t.

      Now for Mac:
      “Now, you make the classic modern mistake of thinking that this country was founded as a homogeneous union.”

      No, I do not make the mistake at all. The states have much independent authority to order their own affairs, including the establishment different forms or organizations of government, creating their own laws concerning evidence and testimony, laws concerning the qualifications of electors and voting, to define crimes (not manufacture them) and affix punishments to them, and to make various regulations concerning corporations, and so on. This is how they are empowered by the concept of “states’ rights.” They do not have the authority to seize rights (from their own citizens or the citizens of other states) by legislative fiat.

      If the woman had a right to travel to another state, then she had the right to bring her property with her. Dred Scott settled that a long time ago (a just decision, in spite of its taint).

      A state has no more authority to prevent (or attempt to prevent) you from carrying lawfully-possessed property into its territory than it does to stop you from carrying your religious beliefs across the state line. You can bring your form of worship from you from one state to another, why can a state stop you from bringing lawfully-owned property with you when you travel? This has nothing to do with the fact that the states are nominally sovereign entities under the US Constitution. The idea that you can be more free or less fee to exercise your rights by merely traveling from one Union-member state to another is preposterous on its face.

      I say again, SCOTUS says citizens cannot be forced to surrender one right in order to exercise another. The “states’ rights” theory does not comport with this opinion on the law.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to DaveGinOly. | December 5, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    If states are required to honor same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state, why are CCW permits not treated the same way?

“All it would do is to require every state that issues a carry permit to recognize every other states’ permits. If a particular state does NOT issue carry permits, they do not have to recognize any other states’ permits”

I’ve long said that the reaction of California, Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey to universal concealed carry would be to eliminate carry permits entirely except for police, judges, DAs, and the legislature. Sure, you can carry in these states on the same terms a resident can, which is to say not at all.

I’d also expect overly aggressive prosecutions of any out of state carriers they find. Spending a few years in state prison waiting for the Federal courts to slap down these bogus prosecutions (and with SCOTUS-granted absolute immunity, not one DA will pay any price for it), not to mention the financial devastation of legal defense and years of lost wages, means being exonerated will be of little consolation to those so treated.

    DaveGinOly in reply to randian. | December 7, 2017 at 1:01 am

    “All it would do is to require every state that issues a carry permit to recognize every other states’ permits. If a particular state does NOT issue carry permits, they do not have to recognize any other states’ permits.”

    This would only be true in situations of actual “reciprocity.” Because even today’s situation is not actual “reciprocity”, it is not true. Under today’s system, there is nothing preventing a state from recognizing the permit issued by states that do not reciprocate.

    With respect to the proposed law, it’s not “reciprocation” at all. It’s a directive that requires every state to recognize the permits issued by every other state. It doesn’t matter if any particular state doesn’t issue permits, it would still be required to recognize other states’ permits.

The biggest fear that the gun grabbers (Grabby Giffords?) have is not that something bad will happen if this is passed, but that nothing bad will happen.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to VaGentleman. | December 5, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    Or, out-of-state CCW’ers would find themselves being prosecuted for First-Degree Mopery or Broken Tail Lights at a rate much higher than the state’s native population.

This seems like a loser proposition to me. To be productive, the ads have to convince more Republicans and Libertarians to vote for increased gun control than they will inspire the number of rural democrats (and all the newly registered felons) to vote against their own ability to move about more freely with their guns.

Given that gun ownership has been on the rise, and gun control has always been a loser issue for democrats, you have to wonder if the republicans aren’t paying for these ads.

Slightly off-topic, but how impaired is Giffords? I’ve read a few comments regarding her as a plant or a piece of furniture.

I don’t much care for the characterization, but is it accurate?