The Detroit Free Press, one of the loudest voices against Michigan's concealed carry reform in 2000 continues its opposition to any reform that might improve the bill for the carrying public.
Editorial: Leave gun carrying limits where they are
Even in the best of times, efforts to allow concealed weapons in places where they are now banned in Michigan, such as schools, churches, arenas and bars, would be misguided, and the reason for doing so flawed. Government can -- and in some cases should -- restrict certain legal rights.
[Senator Mike] Green suggests, wrongly, that carrying concealed weapons is a constitutional right that shouldn't be infringed. His bill would make it legal for the holder of a concealed handgun license to carry the weapon in practically any public place except federal buildings and courts.
At least the Freep editorials are intellectually honest to admit the CCW reform hasn't been the "Wild West" violent disaster they predicted:
It's fair to note that proponents of strict gun control predicted a surge of gun violence when the Michigan law broadening the use of concealed weapons was passed a decade ago. That didn't happen.Its mighty nice of them to admit to the facts, but too bad they didn't admit they were one of the more strenuous "proponents of strict gun control" making that prediction.
As with that wrong-headed prediction, they are similarly wrong in opposing this common-sense reform.
And the First Amendment doesn't permit people to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or shout on other people's lawns at 3 a.m. Carrying a concealed weapon in Michigan is a right that legislators have every reason to restrict when it threatens to impinge on others' rights.Bad analogy on the Freep's part. You are allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, especially when there is a fire. Further the Freep doesn't in anyway address how letting people carry concealed firearms "threatens to impinge on others' rights", it states this as a given when there is not a shred of fact to support the proposition.
Enabling people to carry guns into a bar, where alcohol impairs judgment and heightens emotions -- or into arenas, schools or churches -- just isn't smart. This is not the wild west.Again with the "wild west", the false canard that refuses to fly away. Not to mention any reason for the Freep's dubious assertion that carrying into arenas, schools or churches isn't smart. Indeed, recent history begs to differ on the utility of concealed carry holders having their firearms available in such places.
Once again the Freep editors allow emotions to get in the way of facts while they push their anti-gun agenda.
Support Senator Green and SB 58 and help continue the reform of Michigan's CCW laws.
2 comments:
Two things that are continually overlooked in the concealed carry permit arguement. First: You do not have a right (to arms) if you have to petition the government to exercise that right! We either have the right to carry arms (either openly or concealled) or we do not. Second:the government now has a list of whom are armed, (or at least in verified possession of arms). When you have a premit, if you are stopped by the Police they will know if you are a permit holder or not,(their dispatch will inform them of the fact). The fact that this is forbiden by Federal Law (the keeping of gun registrations) seems to matter not. Think carefully whether you want to allow the govt. to have such knowledge. The only reason for gun registration is eventual gun confiscation. This has always been so and will continue to be so for as long as there are those who think they know better than you how to run your life, aspiring for power.
While what Mr. Anonymous says is true, this is not the point that The Shekel is making. CPL's are already a fact of life here in Michigan - your argument would have been better given in 1999 when they were debating the "shall issue" bill.
What The Shekel is talking about is getting rid of "Criminal Empowerment Zones" where personal firearms cannot be carried legally. Since we have to live with CPL's for the moment, this bill is a great step.
We now have ten years of data showing that CPL holders are not the drooling, bloodthirsty, lowbrow, hyper-adrenal bullies we are consistently portrayed as in the antique media (like the freep). It's time to recognize that fact and loosen things up.
Post a Comment