“City Hall is sometimes a place where tempers flare and people get emotional and that’s not a good time or place to have a weapon on hand”

Unless of course the person whose emotions are flaring is a psychopath like, say, the Florida School Board shooter. At that point it’s probably a very good time and place to have a gun at hand. You know; just in case. But don’t tell that to the town fathers in Bellevue, Iowa. They have a vastly different take on concealed carry weapons in public places. “It is now illegal to carry firearms or other weapons into any city-owned building or park, since the council unanimously voted Jan. 19 to ban them at those locations,” thonline.com reports. Unanimously? That’s a lot of anti-gun animus. Or not . . .

“We’re not anti-gun,” Bellevue City Administrator Loras Herrig assured the locals, “but we think there’s a time and place for weapons, and our city buildings are not the place.”

As indicated in our headline, Mayor Virgil Murray (and five City Council members) reckon discussions of controversial issues could get out of hand; the new resolution offers the public some protection from violent reactions. Allegedly.

In other words, the pols believe their electorate is comprised of fundamentally mentally unstable and untrustworthy individuals, any of whom could snap like a pretzel at the slightest little thing, reach for a gun and shoot innocent people (assuming politicians aren’t in the room at the time).

Well, they ought to know; at the last census, the Mississippi riverfront town was home to 629 families doing their part to keep the population at or around 2350 souls.

They also ought to know something about the recent Supreme Court McDonald decision, which incorporated the Second Amendment. It’s yet to apply to government gun bans, but it’s only a matter of time before someone tries. And rightly so.


  1. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    Well that’s just great, now only criminals will have guns in city buildings or parks.

    1. avatar Magoo says:

      Well, you can see what happened there. City Council looked over all its options and decided to take its chances with the criminals. Smart call, all things considered.

      It’s not like you folks with civilian carry permits have anything but the barest minimum in qualifications. You have no defined rules of engagement and some of you even think it’s a good idea to destroy evidence and leave the scene of a shooting without cooperating with authorities. Why on earth do we the people want you “protecting” courthouses and city halls? What are we, crazy?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “you folks with civilian carry permits”

        I thought you had a civilian carry permit.

        1. avatar Magoo says:

          I enjoy firearms a great deal, but I have no need or desire to carry one for protection. Years ago I had one but didn’t use it. It was mainly to please an employer.

          Some people do need to carry for protection. Many don’t. Their desire to carry is propelled mainly by their fascination with firearms. Which is probably not the best motivation.

        2. avatar Magoo says:

          Sorry for the confusing pronoun. By “one” I mean a carry permit. This was years before shall-issue and it was a genuine PITA. Didn’t want it and never really used it.

  2. avatar maxxrep says:

    It was already a crime to shoot people, why would a derranged gunman care about any crime with a punishment less than murder. They don’t sentence people to 40 hours community service and then straight away to the electric chair…

  3. avatar Ralph says:

    Maybe the mayor just wants to disarm the city council to protect the citizens.

  4. avatar Wes says:

    People can’t be trusted with guns, so we need to pass anti-gun laws that the people will abide by because they can be trusted.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email