Here’s something I hope Governor Nixon takes into consideration before he signs SB 656 which would allow Missourians to carry concealed guns without a permit everywhere open carry is legal:
A federal appeals court decided Thursday that people do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.
Overturning a three-judge panel’s decision, a larger group of judges from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said California counties may require people who want permits for concealed guns to show a specific reason why they need the weapons.
“The 2nd Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” the court ruled, 7-4.
There’s lots more that will be said on this topic in potential court cases I am sure, but I, for one, am overjoyed by this reminder of the constitutional limitations of “constitutional carry,” which is what the 2nd Amendment brigade calls the situation that would be created by the provisions of SB 656. Even the gun-loving Supreme Court Justice Scalia, darling of the NRA, was clear in his opinion defining gun ownership as a constitutional right that “regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment.”
SB 656 loosens up lots of other restraints on guns that are just plain scary:
… .The bill will put more guns in more places and at the same time dismantle permit and training requirements for people who want to carry hidden, loaded guns in public. It also includes a so-called “stand your ground” provision — a provision that upends traditional self-defense law and emboldens individuals to settle conflicts by reaching for their firearms, even when they can clearly and safely walk away from any danger.
The appeals court decision underlines the fact that the Governor doesn’t have to expose us to this craziness. He doesn’t have to sanction turning Missouri into an armed war zone unless he really wants to. We’ll see if he gets the message.
More to the point, though, does the Democratic candidate for governor, Chris Koster, get the message? Or will he join the covey of GOP gubernatorial primary candidates for whom guns are an essential campaign tool – along with the promise of unrestricted access which those ads imply?
More of the same liberal democratic crap. War zone? Blood bath? Once again more rhetoric but really short on facts. Study after study shows that with more weapon violence is less. For the past decade or more, violent crime has been going down even as gun ownership and ccw rises.
Now if you would want to look at those traditionally democratic run cities where gun have been severly regulated or even outright banned, then yes, gun associated violence has skyrocketed. The only places who hagenseen a rise is democratically controled arwas where social engineering is taking place. The only people who have guns are law enforcement and gangs! New York, Chicago, San Fransisco, Los Angeles, etc.
As for mass shootings they are being done in gun free zones (think free fire zones) by democrats (usually registered too. Hmm, wonder if theyre trying to save themselves from themselves?) Many whom are mentally deficient or delusional. Hmmm, is there any correlation? Or is it just my imagination?
LikeLike
There are studies that purport to show that guns lower violence. But they are controversial, their methodologies and results are usually questionable.
Crime has been going down, as you suggest, but few responsible scholars believe it is owing to do more guns, but rather with numerous other factors, whose relationships are not well understood (some theories are outlined here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-caused-the-crime-decline/477408).
Actually, the same decline has been observed in other countries that have much stricter gun laws than in the U.S. – which would suggest that guns have little to do with the decline (see https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/31/tough-case-mystery-britains-falling-crime-rate). The question of crime rates are complex and simplistic answers such as that proposed by the NRA and promulgated implicitly by you are pretty useless and, much more likely, harmful.
As for mass shootings, they differ also, but the perpetrators are usually psychologically disturbed people or people who have anger issues. They are from both the right and the left of the political spectrum and trying to tribalize the issue (right vs. left) is not only not smart, but morally reprehensible.
Nor is it clear that “all” mass shootings occur in gun free zones. Try telling that to Gabby Giffords. A man carrying a gun at the scene of that shooting did not, in fact, use it because he could not guarantee that he wouldn’t cause more harm. I hate to think of the damage that return fire could cause in a dark theatre or night club.
LikeLike