“The root of the dispute is a [Mississippi] law passed in 2011 that’s supposed to let people carry guns almost anywhere on public property after taking a training course and getting an enhanced concealed carry license,” fresnobee.com reports. “Universities have interpreted the law to say they can define public spaces, and have mostly excluded sports venues, dormitories, classrooms. Judges and counties have also reacted negatively to allowing people to carry guns everywhere except an active courtroom, with many still enforcing blanket bans on guns anywhere in a courthouse.” My dispute is with . . .
the idea of an “enhanced carry permit.”
First, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. The idea of requiring a government permission slip to exercise that right is fundamentally antithetical to the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Think of it this way: if you have to ask the government permission to do something it isn’t a right.
Second, establishing two classes of people “allowed” to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is profoundly discriminatory. Who can afford to take the time and spend the money to get a Mississippi “enhanced license”? The additional requirement closes the door for average citizens and opens it even wider for government tyranny.
Third, where’s the evidence that “enhanced” training eliminates dangerous people or increases license holder’s abilities? Not that it matters; the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t rest on arguments of social utility.
On the other hand, an enhanced carry license begins the process of ending “gun free zones.” Or so the theory goes.
I’m not buying it. As you might have guessed, I see enhanced carry licenses as a constitutional abomination that serves no useful purpose, save giving anti-gunners a shield to hide behind, to delay full gun rights restoration.