DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Winning?

screen-shot-2016-09-17-at-12-15-34-pm

Missouri is now a Constitutional Carry state, although Show Me State gun owners still can’t open carry in cities that ban it. Anyway, it’s a solid win for gun rights. Looking at the updated map, it looks like the pro-gun side of the two America’s has a geographic advantage; America’s most populous state (California) remains the place where gun rights go to die. Are dying.

desantis blue logo no back 4 small The pro-gun rights community got a major boost when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump asked Hillary Clinton to disarm her bodyguards — making the [redundant but important] point that she’s a gun control hypocrite. So, in the run-up to the presidential election, once agains we ask our Armed Intelligentsia: are gun rights winning, losing or holding steady?

comments

  1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Who is winning or losing is dependent on where you go. There are many battlefields with many flanks currently. The amount of billionaire money is deeply concerning however.

    I would actually like to see someone do a graphic comparison about where the $$$ comes from on both sides and actual memberships. While there will definitely be some big money on the pro gun side, I think it will be in stark contrast to the anti side and who’s really funding them/how many people/$ they really have on average.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      This is very true.

      We are winning in the ability to bear arms but losing in what we can bear and how to acquire them. Courts still routinely uphold “assault weapons” bans even citing Heller claiming they are “dangerous and unusual”. Massachusetts AG banned whole classes of semi-auto rifles on a whim as another example. We are only a hair away from having people on the terrorist watch list banned from ownership which, slippery slope and all, will extend to the no fly list too. Universal Background Checks are already a thing in several states that might include more this upcoming election season with it on the ballot in many states that will eventually lead to possibly a national one that will ultimately lead to registration then confiscation.

      Then we have numerous import bans as well as an import “assault weapon ban” in place thanks to a Republican George H.W. Bush still in place that many gun owners don’t know or care about because it doesn’t affect Muh ‘Murican guns. Also we have numerous ammo bans too like the LEO Protection Act banning whole classes of ammunition because it can penetrate their extremely soft armor they use, nevermind that your standard “safe” hunting rounds can easily pierce that armor easily. Nevermind the NFA and Hughes Amendment to FOPA banning new machineguns, the true guns the 2nd Amendment would refer to in these modern times about overthrowing tyranny with.

      So yea, we are winning on the carry front but maintaining and/or losing the flanks on the other fronts which can crumble any day now.

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    Winning or losing? Ask us again on November 9th.

  3. avatar Stan says:

    In Kommiefornia, we are LOSING.

    1. avatar Nick Marrero says:

      Don’t forget the People’s Republic of New Jersey.

  4. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Missourians CAN open carry in cities that ban it if they have a license to carry.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Then it is NOT “constitutional” carry. Calling it that just confuses people.

  5. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Ok, I admit to being the dull knife in the drawer, but…

    Let me get this straight: Missouri has a state law (state constitutional law) that establishes the right of state residents to carry firearms, but….cities and towns can override the state constitution. This is “winning”?

    (Actually, having subdivisions of the state establish their own firearms rules is precisely how the US Constitution was supposed to work. The US Constitution constrained only the federal government. States were allowed to determine their own form of “democratic republicanism”.)

    1. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

      Oregon has something very similar. State-wide open carry, but local ordinances can override that UNLESS you have an Oregon CCL (since they have no reciprocity). And since there is no master list of what towns don’t allow open carry, you basically HAVE to get a CCL in order to not run afoul of the law at some point, short of just never traveling anywhere.

  6. avatar Bob says:

    I’ve seen this animated GIF before… it is quite telling.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      As in national elections, the red states do not determine outcomes. All the important blue states are in very liberal federal appeal court jurisdictions (and all of those are panting for the final tilt of the Supreme Court). True “winning” will be when no one even dares think they can curtail the Second Amendment.

  7. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    We are winning in the big picture, suffering localized setbacks. The polling on attitudes towards guns indicates a big reversal since the early 1990’s. I’ve said this before, I’ll say this again: You newcomers to this issue don’t have any memory of what things were like in the late 80’s and early 90’s. It was grim, and there was no Internet, much less a site like TTAG (or any other gun website) to get news and facts out so more gun owners could win RKBA debates locally.

    The Internet has become the biggest equalizing force out there against a mendacious press that has an anti-gun agenda.

    The big issue on the table is who gets to appoint SCOTUS justices in the next presidential term.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      DG, lost in all the discussion about SCOTUS is that the next President will appoint about 400 District and Circuit judges. SCOTUS takes about 80 cases a year. The District and Circuit Courts will have over 450,000 cases filed every year.

      If we are to win the war, we must win it on the ground. And the main battleground is not SCOTUS.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The main battle ground IS SCOTUS. Given the lower courts are already ignoring Heller and McDonald, only an SC favorable to gun rights can possibly rein-in the lower courts. With an anti-gun SC, the lower courts will become even more brazen, knowing they literally cannot be overturned.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘The big issue on the table is who gets to appoint SCOTUS justices in the next presidential term.’

      Then we’re losers either way. Last I heard Thedonald wants to appoint the Pay Pal guy and Pay Pal is NOT a friend of the Second Amendment. Our best hope for SCOTUS is for the Republicans in the senate to get a spine and let the court stay at 8 for another 4 years. If we’re really luck RB-G will step down and we’ll have the same balance as before Scalia’s death.

    3. avatar Nanshi says:

      “It was grim, and there was no Internet, much less a site like TTAG (or any other gun website) to get news and facts out so more gun owners could win RKBA debates locally.”

      “[…] free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. “

  8. If a person ever thought of commiting armed robbery, holding up a bank, or doing a drive by shooting, Missouri will be THE place to do it. All he needs is a gun. He can carry that gun to the place he intends to use it legally. If stopped and the officer sees the gun, all the cop can say is “Be careful and have a nice day!”. Say a rival gang member shoots at him first. He can shoot them dead and he was only “standing his ground”. Give it a year or so and things will be even better. Competent police, who all opposed the law, will quit to work in safer, saner states, and their ranks will be filled by a new breed of duck and run cops, who want to live to see another day . And working in a state with among the lowest wage levels for public servants, who could blame them? Over time, word will get around. Criminals from Illinois and other places will want to relocate to Missouri. The state will be good place for drug distribution. It will even become a terrorist (excuse, please) Mecca,. They could arm up an army in MO while being your good freedom-defending neighbors. Right-wing militia groups will base themselves here by the hundreds, of course. Gotta stand their ground too and keep the peace! (and get to hunt humans maybe!). Gun deaths in cities will rise.

    But the one winner will be the NRA.

    One wonders how much the NRA paid those lawmakers for their votes.

    Guns “rights” supporters always claim that they are not against reasonable gun laws. What is so unreasonable about being sure the person carrying a concealed weapon is legally in possession of a gun, and has the training to use it safely? What about the rights of citizens on the street to request that gun owners have to view their weapons as more than just toys to carry around!

    Where are these criminals getting their illegal weapons from? How about you law abiding citizen be responsible for the weapons you buy. So now we have an open market for criminals to get more weapons from “law abiding citizens”. Gun waving fools. There are more guns today than yesterday and the day before and still you “need more protection” so where is your safety with more guns to law abiding citizens because it has not happened.

    We are still producing guns and more people are still buying them but we are not safer so your logic does not fit reality.

    1. avatar Crowbar says:

      Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet murders are still being committed at record pace. Maryland same thing. The cries of “the streets will run red with innocent blood” don’t seem to come to fruition in the parts of the country enacting constitutional carry, more in the urban, crime ridden neighborhoods that are run by, and have been run by liberals, for years. Something for you to consider.

    2. avatar ACP_arms says:

      If a criminal is going to commit a crime it will be some place where they will not be in danger of losing there life. I other words, NOT Missouri… FLAME DELETED.

      1. avatar ACP_arms says:

        I wondered if or when I’d get a Flame Deleted.

        concernedamerican,
        If what you wrote were true Montana would have a murder rate higher then what it is.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Guess you found the no-no word.

        2. avatar ACP_arms says:

          Well Gov. Will, it’s a seven letter word that start’s with J.
          After reading “that” I had to go to the range and shoot my new AR-556, I’m doing better now. (smiles)

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Being a hard core Rugerfanboy I totally understand.

    3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      So, by your logic, the terrorists and criminals should have long ago settled in…Vermont?

      Crooks go where the money is. They seek population density. Big cities, basically. Just like it has been throughout human history. The new law in Mo will have exactly no effect in that regard.

      But you have made a specific prediction that can be tested against the eventual outcome. Well, the same prediction that has been for every state that has gone to more liberal carry laws. I don’t suppose you will be around to admit you were wrong, any more than any of the other doomsayers have.

      And by what measure are we “not safer?” Until the BLM fueled hands-off policing recently, murder rates were going down steadily. Even now, the murder rates are climbing selectively in…big cities, which tend to have stricter gun control.

    4. avatar Ing says:

      Oy… Here we go again. Constitutional open-carry already isn’t a problem in the 11 other states where it’s in place. Not to mention, open carry (with permit or without) has been legal by default in a whole raft of western states since before they were states, and everyone is still fine.

      As for your “criminals will flock there to commit crimes” canard, tell me why it is that all the states surrounding Illinois (and indeed most of Illinois itself) have liberal firearm laws and tons of gun owners, yet it’s Chicago, with its progressive restrictions, that has the crime problem? If gun ownership itself was the problem, everyone in America would be dead already.

      Right-wing militias? Yes, please. I remember back in the 80s and early 90s when everybody was afraid of the militias, and I was too…but tell me, how many people did they hunt down and kill? (I can’t remember any.) Meanwhile gangbangers in anti-gun Chicago (and in anti-gun Baltimore and in anti-gun LA, and…etc…) hunt down and shoot people on a daily basis, even though the law already says they can’t have guns, being as they’re known criminals.

      I’m not a “gun ‘rights’ supporter” (as you put it), I’m a civil rights supporter. I support ALL of our civil rights, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Guns don’t have rights, people do. Guns are the best self-defense tools ever invented, and self-defense is a human right, indivisible from the right to life itself. If you don’t agree with that, then you’re on the wrong side of history, amigo.

      You speak of “the rights of citizens on the street to request that gun owners have to view their weapons as more than just toys to carry around.” It’s true, you have the right to request anything. You don’t have the right to force other people to give up their own individual rights for your illusory peace of mind.

      Next, you ask “where are these criminals getting their illegal weapons from?” They steal them from legal gun owners, right? Right. Well, we don’t want to have our stuff stolen any more than women want to provide sex to rapists. You’re blaming all the wrong people.

      Finally, safety. Complete safety is a foolish illusion. However, if you were interested in the facts, you could look up the FBI’s national crime statistics — available at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s — which show that we are much safer now than we were 25 years ago. And that’s WITH all these extra millions of guns.

    5. avatar John E> says:

      I open carried to my bank the other day, my gun didn’t jump out and rob the place. The evil intent is in the hearts of the men, not in the tool they used.

      I think your focus should be in pressure cookers,

    6. avatar Sian says:

      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

      Maybe Missouri going unrestricted will turn it into another hellhole like New Vermont.

      1. avatar Dve Ki says:

        Since when was Vermont a “hell hole”?What makes you so sure that MO.well turn into a “hell hole”. Because you are anti-gun?And bought into the whole “guns are bad” thing?

        1. avatar Sian says:

          Try to keep up, I’m referencing a comment Concerned made months ago about states with loose gun laws where he mentioned a curious place known as ‘New Vermont’.

    7. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      I can’t decide whether this is trolling, a horrible attempt at argument by talking point, or parody.

      Maybe all three.

      Really, the other stuff in the news right now refutes literally everything trolly McTalkingPoints said.

      – Bad people do plenty of bad things without using guns. Like with bombs and cleavers.

      – The guy on scene is the first responder. With a gun, he can stop the killing.

      – Guns are better for stopping mass attacks because you can shoot the bad guy, without, for example, blowing up more innocent people. What if the guy who stopped it had only a bomb? Or only his hands?

      Really, what’s behind the obsession with allowing peaceful, responsible people having a selective, precise means to protect themselves, when they’re being massacred, when nobody is around to do it for them?

      If that was a parody, you got me. I’m sure that says something about Mothers Against Only Violence Done With Particular Tools, and their positions.

    8. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Specifically, how is a person illegally carrying a concealed gun superior (less dangerous) than a person legally carrying a concealed gun?

      Seems to me that without probably cause, the police could not previously stop and frisk at random, which would be the only assurance to police that a given person was not carrying a concealed gun (legally or otherwise). What is the logic that a criminas may carrying a concealed gun (in order to perpetuate crime) provides relative safety, but non-criminals are more dangerous to people if they carry a concealed weapon?

  9. avatar Keystone says:

    Won’t matter if Hillary wins in November. Otherwise I think the general momentum is shifting towards Pro-2A.

  10. avatar John_inTX says:

    Mississippi is green in map, not Missouri.

  11. avatar TruthTellers says:

    Winning in pro 2A states because a lot of those blue states will turn green, have taken suppressors off ban lists for ownership or for hunting, and other things.

    Those in the anti states like the Northeast, West Coast, Colorado, etc. are going to have a tough time in the coming years. CT, NY, NJ, CA aren’t going to be changing the laws anytime soon unless we have more rulings from the Supreme Court that are pro 2A.

    And that’s why you must vote Trump if you want to keep, bear, carry, and use your guns. Anyone else is a vote for disarmament.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      CA is screwed for the foreseeable future. It would take some kind of economic catastrophe. Having selected cites go bankrupt doesn’t seem to be doing it.

      1. avatar TruthTellers says:

        My solution for fixing California is writing a nice letter to Mr. Kim of N. Korea and asking him to wipe it off the face of the Earth.

        Rebuilding California will be an economic boom for decades thereafter with none of the progressive hooey.

    2. avatar Dve Ki says:

      We here in OR. are already having a bad time with some stupid ass gun laws. We the people here don’t get to vote on it. Then you got Bloomberg and his ilk pouring money into the state to try and get us to go to the dark side. Unfortunately it’s working.

  12. avatar PavePusher says:

    In the New York Times on Sunday, the Editorial Board (and the commenters) lose their moon-bat minds.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/opinion/missouri-the-shoot-me-state.html

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Ah, the progressive left…their tears are like ambrosia.

      You could replace this Times editorial with any of several dozen they’ve written since about 1988, when the liberalization of gun laws started with Florida’s shall-issue CCW, and there would be no difference. They say the exact same thing (blood in the streets! shootouts everywhere! aaagghhh!) every time one of their precious restrictions bites the dust.

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    My take: gun rights are winning in conservative states, holding steady in states where Conservatives and Progressives are about evenly split, and losing in Progressive utopias.

    Having said all that, I am deeply troubled that Progressives will fool the masses into supporting/voting for universal background checks — and the universal registration that will be necessary to verify/enforce universal background checks — in almost every state in the Union.

    Why? The notion of a violent felon purchasing a firearm “at a gun show” or “from a private seller” is deeply emotionally disturbing and we have no emotional counter. The fact that such a violent felon should have never been released from prison is immaterial since our criminal justice system will continue to release violent people from prison. The fact that a violent criminal can easily acquire firearms outside the law doesn’t matter either because “doing something” (no matter how ineffective) feels so good. Finally, the fact that our government could abuse their position as gatekeeper of all firearm sales is not a concern for the masses either.

  14. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

    Are these maps ever accurate? Either change New Jersey to ‘no-issue’ or put a big a$$ asterisk next to it, reading something like ‘may-issue, BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT, JUDGE OR POLITICIAN.’

    And speaking of New Jersey, a big thanks to all the libtards who made sure that the NYC and NJ residents are sitting ducks and can’t defend themselves against Jihadi Joes (or any other criminals for that matter). Effin commie pieces of crap.

  15. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Winning, in some areas. Losing are having to put up a big fight to hold on to what we have. Just look at Gov. Brownshirt in OR and Attorney General Turd Ferguson in WA. Two states with virtually no gun laws a few years ago to no having the leftist much beloved and ineffective UBAs, and also both pushing for an assault weapons ban.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Sixpack70,

      See my comment above about the emotional dimension to universal background checks.

      I failed to consider proposed bans on military-style semi-automatic rifles. I think that topic could go either way. On the one hand, you have the deeply emotionally disturbing notion of spree killers using military-style semi-automatic rifles — and the emotionally NON-disturbing notion of banning them since “you don’t need an ‘assault weapon’ to hunt or defend yourself in your home”. We have no emotional counter for that. On the other hand, military-style semi-automatic rifles are the most popular rifle platform in the U.S. and violent criminals used their hands and feet more often than rifles and shotguns combined to murder people. Gun grabbers have no emotional counter for those facts.

      I think we will see “assault weapon” bans sweep the Progressive utopias and a few states that have Progressive cities which dominate politics (like Washington because of Seattle and Illinois because of Chicago). I don’t think we will see a federal ban.

    2. avatar Dave Ki says:

      Will I have no “assault weapons” but some that look real “scary” and live in OR (not bragging by a long shot and no pun intended) and know EXACTLY what you mean.

  16. avatar BJ says:

    Missouri is not highlighted on that map 🙂

  17. avatar Mad Max says:

    We will be wining when the entire map is green with Constitutional Carry.

    We will have won when there isn’t any gun laws left on the books anywhere on the map.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Winning? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/09/robert-farago/desantis-gunhide-question-day-winning-2/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email