Diplomatic Carry

by Rob Leahy , Prescott, Arizona, Sunday, January 15, 2012, 22:04 (4644 days ago)

After a hard fought battle to get shall issue here in AZ, many of us in a pro gun civil rights think tank were pretty happy with what we had accomplished. Alan Korwin was not! He stated then, that he would not rest until we had constitutional carry in Arizona.We have it. Now, he steps further and it's time has come: Diplomatic Carry.
The Second Second Amendment
by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Officials travel armed. When a contingent of our officials visits any other country, they bring armed personnel in classic right-to-bear-arms manner. Life is dangerous and the ability to protect yourself is a reasonable and prudent thing, a fundamental human right of existence, a moral imperative. So they go armed. It's only rational. Hillary and similar bring along enough firepower that if some of their group go one way while some head off in another, they're both covered.

The same is true in reverse. When an ambassador from Trashcanistan comes to the United States, discreetly armed bodyguards accompany the party at all times, "laws to the contrary notwithstanding." That's lawyer-speak for "their right to carry supersedes any other rules," or in plainer English, "We're above those laws." The ambassador might decide to personally carry too. I'm guessing Hillary does not.

There's this whole "second system" of gun possession and carry here domestically, another layer of rules on top of the common ones you must follow, operating quietly with people in the know cooperating.

Where are the laws for this exception to every gun law on the U.S. books? How does this special class of people exempt themselves from laws controlling the rest of us?

No one is harmed by their exemption. In fact, community safety increases, because assaults on those armed people are naturally deterred, even defensible if needed. Should we the people maybe have Diplomatic Carry too? Is a diplomat's life truly at more risk -- or worth more -- than any "commoner"? How does this comply with equal protection under the law?

Local authorities understand implicitly that these armed folks aren't going to randomly shoot people, or settle arguments with gunfire, the same as you and me when we're armed. They enjoy proper respect (even if they come from regimes that don't deserve it). We on the other hand have rights denied haphazardly, even with Constitutional Carry. As good as it is, Constitutional Carry is not enough.

Americans need and deserve the next step, Diplomatic Carry.

Copyright 2012 Alan Korwin
http://www.gunlaws.com
Permission to circulate granted

--
Of the Troops & For the Troops