Special

My notes on Day 2 of the NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits are going to have to wait a day or so. There is a “special” situation that I want to address. (Warning: prepare for copious use of sarcastic air quotes.)

There is a new bill which has been introduced in Congress called, “The Special Operations Concealed Carry Act.” Introduced by North Carolina Representative Pat Harrigan (full text here). The bill was announced on Thursday, April 16, and would amend LEOSA to include “qualified special operators,” granting them the privilege to carry concealed firearms nationwide. Additionally, these individuals would be issued a permanent ID card by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, and would be exempted from the annual LEOSA firearms qualification requirement.

There are plenty of issues with this bill and how it might be implemented. For example, not all “special operators” are created equal, especially under the terms of this bill. If this legislation were enacted and you were once a Sergeant (E-5) assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment as a 42A Human Resources Specialist…congratulations! You are counted as a “qualified special operator” under this bill and may now enjoy permanent nationwide concealed carry privileges. Never mind that this bill doesn’t even include current “operators,” and it doesn’t cover them when on base and actually on duty. So the “special operator” veteran HR specialist from the Ranger Regiment can carry nationwide, but the one who is currently serving can’t carry on base during the duty day…much less nationwide when off-duty. How does that make sense?

“Qualified special operator”

I could go on shooting holes in this bill and its various assumptions and provisions, but we won’t get into that right now. The real problem is much, much more significant. From the congressman’s press release:

"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," said Congressman Harrigan."This bill fixes that. It does not create new rights or weaken any safeguard. It simply extends an existing, proven framework to the warriors who have earned it more than anyone."

Really? “Earned it”? You have to earn the right to carry a firearm? Somebody get the congressman a dictionary, with the word “infringe” bookmarked and highlighted. You might want to note that the Congressman himself is a former US Army Special Forces officer, so he’d be granting himself this “special” privilege. Isn’t that convenient?

And that’s the crux of the problem: any law which creates special categories among citizens, restricting who may exercise a Constitutionally protected right, and when and where they may exercise it. (Yes, I believe that includes the idea that concealed carry permits are required in the first place.) You may have noticed my repeated use of the word “privilege” in this article, and that is by design. The reduction of the 2nd Amendment to a special privilege granted to special people ought to be abhorrent to anyone who understands what rights really are. Representative Harrington ought to be ashamed of himself for even proposing something like this.

Notice that it doesn’t say that the right of the special operator to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? If you are a free citizen of this great Republic, that makes you special enough.