OMG! Guns! In Churches! OMG!

 

The American gun rights movement has passed the tipping point. I’m not saying the battle is over. The struggle to defend and extend the right to keep and bear arms won’t be won until legal residents across the country enjoy constitutional carry (no “extra” paperwork needed for concealed carry). And not even then; all our constitutional rights will always be under threat. But it’s clear that the old gun control stimulus – response pattern—tragedy > tighter firearms restrictions—is broken. Despite the President’s [alleged] promise to The Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence to launch “under the radar” gun control after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, he hasn’t. And any clamor for gun control after the Trayvon Martin episode has fallen on deaf ears. Much to the chagrin of left-leaning media mavens. To wit, this from Oregon’s bendbulletin.com . . .

Despite the scrutiny of state gun laws following the February shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., state legislators across the country continue to work on scaling back gun restrictions this session.

The Kansas House passed a bill last month to allow concealed-carry permit holders to carry their weapons into any public building that doesn’t have “adequate security,” like metal detectors or security guards, and Oregon pro-gun legislators narrowly defeated a bill that would have banned guns on schools grounds, which included K-12 schools, community colleges and universities.

Virginia repealed its statute that blocked residents from buying more than one gun a month unless they got dispensation from the police, and Oklahoma legislators are likely to allow gun owners to visibly carry their now concealed weapons.

South Dakota lawmakers ventured the furthest in removing gun restrictions this session by voting to get rid of concealed-carry permit requirements and allow any state resident over age 18 with a valid driver’s license to carry a concealed weapon without undergoing the background check now needed for a permit. Under the legislation, law enforcement officers in the field would have had to assess whether the gun owner had a criminal background or mental illness history that would preclude them from carrying the gun.

You caught that last bit, no doubt, where scribe Maggie Clark [above] implies that constitutional carry would endanger cops “in the field” because they’d have to find out if a citizen carrying a gun had a lawful right to do so. ‘Cause they don’t have to do that now, right?

Besides, we all know onto which side of the gun control “debate” the boys in blue fall. Well, in which direction they’re going . . .

Law enforcement officers across the country are becoming some of the loudest critics of eroding gun restrictions.

As the gun debate becomes more polarized among state and federal policymakers, advocates on both sides are also ratcheting up their efforts. Groups supporting gun control are calling for more local ordinances restricting gun ownership, while others are fighting to allow guns in schools, workplaces, courts and even churches.

Here on the front lines of the gunblogosphere I see no increasing polarization. Like Ray Bans, it is what it is. Nor do I perceive ratcheting-up from gun control advocates. In fact, they seem to be playing defense these days. To the point where we’re hearing strangely realistic noises from the aforementioned Brady  Campaign (full quote tomorrow).

And yes, legal gun owners want to carry their legal firearms into their places of worship. And so they do, in many states. And so they will, in many more. In fact, I have four words for Ms. Clark about the momentum towards the roll back of unconstitutional restrictions on Americans’ Second Amendment gun rights: get used to it.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

29 Responses to OMG! Guns! In Churches! OMG!

  1. avatarMichael says:

    Um… So, I’m still trying to figure out what’s so awful about cops taking guns away from felons, wife beaters, and the mentally ill.

    Despite the President’s [alleged] promise to The Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence to launch “under the radar” gun control after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, he hasn’t.

    Does this mean the NRA and the rest of the far right are going to stop claiming that Obama’s gonna take our guns away every six months or so? Somehow, I doubt it.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Does this mean the NRA and the rest of the far right are going to stop claiming that Obama’s gonna take our guns away every six months or so? Somehow, I doubt it.

      Does this mean that if Obama gets re-elected and goes after guns with a veangence that you’ll pay each of us a tidy sum in pennace? Somehow, I doubt it.

      It’s better to be overly cautious than to be arrogantly reckless.

      • avatarDirk Diggler says:

        I carry every Sunday. My pastor got a death threat last year so we take security seriously. I have taken a number of people from church to the range, and they all want their CCW now. Moreover, no one, not a person, has flipped out when they learn (usually when they give me a hug) that I have a weapon. In fact, most are GLAD to know that at least someone is ready to step up to the plate if the SHTF.

      • avatarAharon says:

        “and the rest of the far right”

        Dude, I’m so far above the political fray that I can look down and see that the far-right and far-left are holding hands with each other. Both sides have metamorphosed into totalitarian morally corrupt political movements that are the most dangerous and destructive criminal gangs in America. You may know them by their primary street names: The Republican and Democrat Parties.

        • avatarTom says:

          I sort of came to that realization a long time ago.

        • avatarMichael says:

          the far-right and far-left are holding hands with each other.

          I kinda figure that the NRA and the Brady folks work together taking turns to stir the pot and keep the $$$ rolling in from their faithful minions so they don’t have to go out and get real jobs.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      You’re misconstruing the statement. No gun owner I know wants to stop cops taking guns away from criminals and crazies. They just don’t want the government to force them to prove that they aren’t criminals or crazies before “allowing” them to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If for no other reason than the fact that the pre-carry tests have no inhibiting effect on concealed carry by criminals and crazies.

      • avatarMichael says:

        You’re misconstruing the statement.

        Misconstruing, no. At least not on purpose. Miss understanding, yes. Thanks for clearing that up.

        It seems to me that it’s not the right to bare arms that’s at issue, wifebeaters, felons and the insane have had that right stripped from them, but the right to be innocent until proven guilty. People shouldn’t have to prove them selves innocent. That seems like a legitimate concern.

      • Background checks still occur at the time of purchasing a firearm, so it’s not like people with constitutional carry in AZ are completely avoiding the check.

        The one thing I would like to see added to the reciprocity act is to add some requirements to the couple states that do not currently report mental health information to make them report that info. This allows for a possible loop hole in the background check system since the federal check system does not have complete information.

    • avatargen4n9 says:

      Michael, before you go spouting the wife beater crap, you should do some reading on Domestic Violence laws. I doubt that so much as one in a thousand, that are convicted of misdemeanor DV , have ever laid a hand on anyone and the ones that did were more than likely defending themselves from an attack by some psycho woman. Which of course is absolutely unacceptable for a man to do, in the eyes of the law. The fact is, more people wrongfully lose there right to bear arms, because of the Lautenberg amendment than any other gun control law on the books and I believe it should be repealed immediately.

      For all of you that don’t know any better. You can be charged with Domestic Violence for having an altercation that involves, a person that you share a home with, are related to, or anyone you have ever had sexual relations with. And men are routinely charged with DV for simply slamming a door or speeding out of a driveway. And that is a fact. Anyone interested in researching the abuses going on in our courts, when it comes to Domestic Violence, can start with these websites http://www.avoiceformen.com http://www.the-spearhead.com http://www.mediaradar.org You can also join the facebook page http://www.facebook.com/groups/repeallautenberg

      • avatarMichael says:

        Gen4, Getting charged with DV in Washington State (where I’m at) nullifies your right to have a firearm. You might be charged unjustly, but it still nullifies that right.

        Tom got the joke!

      • avatarMadDawg J says:

        ” a person that you share a home with”

        That does include roommates, including same sex, by the way. I have seen the courts uphold DV charges in a roommate dispute before.

        DV laws are some great examples of good intentions horrible corrupted by the courts and politicians.

  2. avatarLoren says:

    I carry my gun in the pulpit every Sunday! and I know of at least 1 other person (a retired pastor) who is carrying as well! And two others who have their CCW permit in the congregation – we usually have 20-30 ppl on any given Sunday in attendance so at least 10% of us are carrying!

  3. avatarMatt in FL says:

    “Does this mean the NRA and the rest of the far right are going to stop claiming that Obama’s gonna take our guns away every six months or so? Somehow, I doubt it.”

    I have commented several times in the past about vendors at gun shows I’ve attended over the last year using the “when Obama gets reelected, he’s going to outlaw these” line to try to move product. Interestingly (to me anyway, heh), at the gun show I attended last weekend, I didn’t hear a single instance of that specific line.

    I did however hear several vendors referencing the Ruger and S&W order suspensions (and other product holdups) with the comment that “these are getting hard to get because people are worried and demand is up” without directly referencing Obama and his supposed upcoming efforts to “outlaw” this or that. It’s still an effort to get you to “buy today,” I know. It’s a subtle shift, but it’s a shift nonetheless. Like even they can’t tout “the evil gun-banning Obama” with a straight face anymore. It’s not that he has stopped wanting to move the pendulum in his favor, but that he would find it difficult to fight the rising tide, and more and more people are becoming aware of it.

    This is the time to ensure continued vigilance. As people begin to sense the tide turning, the interest of the less cause-devoted will wane or be distracted because “we’ve won, I don’t have to be concerned anymore.” If too many slack off in their watchfulness, the advances we’ve seen could easily backslide. Don’t count your chickens and all that.

  4. avatargej88 says:

    What happened to the seperation of church and state? Making rules for religious buildings different than other non government property, IMHO, volates that principle. What applies to Applebees should also apply to the Golden Calf Cathedral.

  5. avatargej88 says:

    What happened to the separation of church and state? Making rules for
    religious buildings different than other non government property, IMHO, violates that principle. What applies to Applebees should also apply to
    the Golden Calf Cathedral. I have not seen any gun rights advocate wanting guns in courtrooms.

  6. avatarAharon says:

    “we’re hearing strangely realistic noises from the aforementioned Brady Campaign (full quote tomorrow)”

    When I lived in Cali, we called such treatment Tease and Denial.

  7. avatarST says:

    It must be disheartening as rank and file lawmen to see one’s profession used as a scapegoat for civil disarmament.The cops who are cited as ‘opposed’ to South Dakota CC are the same folks who treated this armed citizen with nothing but respect and courtesy on the side of the road and in the gunstores of SD.Those same officers’ have restored my confidence in Law Enforcement,and that’s no small achievement.

  8. avatarSilver says:

    “Law enforcement officers across the country are becoming some of the loudest critics of eroding gun restrictions.”

    Wow, ya don’t say. What other surprises you got, like Stalin was the loudest critic of free speech?

    Though, hey, Stalin couldn’t hold a candle to some of the leftists in the US today.

    • avatarRydak says:

      The part about law enforcement is not true. I have been a cop for 24 years, met hundreds of other officers. This simply is not true at all.

      Big city police chiefs, who are completely bound to say what the mayor tells them to say or they will be replaced by lunch time….you may see a few of them supporting gun control….because they were told to, not asked.

      Police know that gun control does not work and we also know that the NRA and 2A foundation…etc does not want violent criminals or the mentally ill to have guns. We know that, the left wing gun control nuts would have you believe otherwise. Thousands of police officers are NRA members. We see the problem every day.

      • avatarTom says:

        Gee. you sound like a great LEO. Please run for Sheriff in my County!

      • avatarMadDawg J says:

        Also it is the Chiefs and Captains who need high crime rates to justify larger budgets and their large salaries.

        I have found most patrol officers and detectives to either be indifferent to civilian carry or to support it. I cannot think of any that have opposed it.

  9. avatarJohn says:

    I have been a pastor for 9 years, and here in the wild west of AZ I legally and competently carry every Sunday. Heck, before Good Friday services yesterday 3 other parishioners and I compared carry rigs and setups. So at least 4 honest and thoughtful worshipers were armed that day.

    • avatarPaul says:

      Where in AZ. are you located? Would you consider coming to Las Vegas to open a church here? I am a non-practicing Catholic, and I miss going to mass, but I will not tolerate a priest or any other cleric, preaching gun control.
      If you know of a minister that carries here, would please direct me to that person? I would like to return to hear the word, but I can’t stomach the pablum puking messages of todays “…man of God…”.

  10. avatarjkp says:

    I’m not saying that the pro-gun press is filled with mental giants or anything, but it’s stunning how many columnists and so-called reporters on the left simply substitute their own emotion for analysis, their prejudices for facts on the issue.

    Perhaps it shouldn’t be ‘stunning’.

    Anyway, I met with a police officer from my local municipality yesterday, and the topic of conversation turned to concealed carry. “Good for you,” he said. “You SHOULD carry the way things are in this country.” Anecdotal evidence is what it is, but given the dearth of hard facts in Ms. Clark’s article cited above, (e.g., “Law enforcement officers across the country,” she writes, without citing anything specific,) I suspect I did as much investigatory research before writing this post as she did before writing her article.

  11. avatarTarrou says:

    Great post Robert. I’ve been fortunate enough to see this sea change in my lifetime. With the usual caveats of eternal vigilance and continuing the struggle, I couldn’t be happier with the national trend regarding gun laws. There are still holdouts, but we’ll pick those points up eventually, I think.

    In the meantime, I’ve made it my gun rights mission to convert women, liberals and any other people who may not have first hand experience. Hoplophobia rarely survives the first range session.

  12. avatarLevi B says:

    Cops are supposed to protect the public, not the other way around.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.