The Purity Test

It has been a heck of a week, hasn’t it?  As I write this, HR 38…the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017…just passed the House of Representatives.  But apparently that is not good news, since the bill does not reset American gun control law back to 1791 in one fell swoop. I am also apparently not pure in my support of the 2nd Amendment, unless I reject all gun legislation which does not do precisely that.


Unfortunately, these 2nd Amendment purists are all dead.


At least that’s what it sounds like, if you listen to the furball of commentary on the internet surrounding the passage of HR 38, which was combined with a “fix NICS” bill designed to enforce compliance from Federal and state agencies who are required to submit certain records to the NICS system.  The aforementioned commentary from self-proclaimed 2nd Amendment purists has informed me that because requiring permits to carry is unconstitutional, and because background checks are unconstitutional…that an otherwise positive piece of legislation must be run through the shredder, and the bits lit on fire.

While a law ensuring that citizens who can carry a gun in one jurisdiction will be able to carry in all of them might seem like a good thing, purists insist that in fact it is not.  And although ensuring that currently prohibited persons are reported as required by law might sound reasonable, purists are quite clear that in fact it is not.

Give me a break.

Ideologically, I am about as pure on the 2nd Amendment as you can get. I have positions on gun freedom that will make many “gun people” cringe, if not try to throw a net over me.  As such, I submit to you some of those positions, as the 2nd Amendment Purity Test:

  • I believe that no one should be required to have any sort of permit to own or to carry a gun. Period.
  • I believe that there should be no background checks whatsoever.
  • I do not believe there should be such a thing as a “prohibited person.” If you cannot be trusted to have a gun because of criminal tendencies or mental illness, you should be confined.
  • I do not believe that there should be any restrictions on the type of firearm a free person may own.
  • I do not believe there should be any such thing as a Federal Firearms License to sell guns, even as a business.
  • I do not believe that there should be any “gun free zones,” anywhere. Period.



But this is an admittedly Utopian ideal, and I am not going to oppose legislation which does not achieve it.  Not because I don’t want it, but because I live in the real world.  And because I live in the real world, I can accept measures which, while imperfect, increase gun freedom.  This is not 1791, and it is unrealistic to expect that it ever will be again.  We have the world we have, and we must work within the confines of reality if we expect to regain even a little of the liberty we enjoyed in the past.  Rejecting national reciprocity because we’d prefer national Constitutional carry is dumb.  Rejecting the enforcement of NICS because we disagree with it is just as dumb.  And if we continue to reject progress simply because it does not return us to the days of the founding, we will continue to lose.


Get the podcast delivered directly to your phone on the Black Man With A Gun App. It’s free and you can follow Kenn Blanchard on social media with it.

Please Share This Post...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

10 thoughts on “The Purity Test”

  1. The current NICS budget is 9.4 billion dollars. The “Fix NICS” bill promises better gun control. What we are getting is more bureaucrats. The system fails and they come back clamoring for more money. This is the same cycle of failure that wrecked education and healthcare. A better bill would be to end NICS and use this money to find and prosecute the people committing the violence, community violence reduction programs and mental health programs. NICS is a dead end.

  2. The problem is with the other, newly added, part of the bill. That makes law what Obama tried to do by executive order. Read bottom two-thirds of the bill, the part not in the summary.
    search hr38
    click 1.hr38
    click text

    1. I read it all. It adds no new restrictions or prohibited categories. It only adds compliance and enforcement to existing law.

      1. So David, if I drive thru New York City with my gun who’s magazine holds 16 rounds and I get pulled over for speeding I’m going go be ok. After I inform him that I’m licensed in Ohio to conceal carry?

        1. It is my understanding that you must obey the gun laws of that state, just as you have to obey the speed limits in New York when driving there on your Ohio drivers license. (If you had done that, you wouldn’t be getting pulled over for speeding.)

          This has nothing to do with NICS restrictions, which is what I was referring to in the previous comment.

          1. I stand corrected. I did some more reading and research on your question, and it appears that yes, you could carry a gun with a 16 round magazine.

            The bill included language which states, “The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.”

            Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. It’s your responsibility to know and comply with the law.

  3. I keep asking Anti’s if they’d be O.K. with treating the Thirteenth Amendment like the Second currently is.

    I have not yet gotten a coherent response.

  4. Thank you so much for writing this. Very well said. We got TO these restrictions one step at a time, so the only way to get away from them is the same way…increasing freedom one step at a time.

    Honestly, I’m just glad to see it going this way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Kenn Blanchard Consulting, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Created by Blog Copyright.

%d bloggers like this: