Today's Journal Gazette editorial is one of their typical hysterical anti-gun editorials in which lawmkers are chastised for giving in to those evil "paid gun lobbyists" from the National Rifle Association instead of serving the interests of the public:
How else to explain their vote to prohibit local government from banning guns in many government properties, including libraries and parks? Or to explain their decision to set up new and costly roadblocks to banning guns in city halls and city council chambers?
Lawmakers heard plenty of concerns from local officials worried about the prospect of permitting gun-toting citizens who may be upset with local decisions into council meetings and mayor's offices. What they didn't hear was a groundswell of public demand for Hoosiers to be able to carry their TEC 9 semi-automatic weapons with a 32-round magazine or their .44 Magnum revolvers into libraries, zoning board meetings and parks.
Oh, boy. Now we're going to have hordes of crazies bringing their semi-automatics with 32-round magazines into the library. Same old argument -- what outlaws do is justification for the limits we place on the law-abiding. Let's just ban driving to get the drunken drivers off the road.
But the editorial does make a valid point about the lawmakers' "do as we say, not as we do" hypocrisy:
But state representatives and senators did not show similar concern about Hoosiers' Second Amendment rights when it comes to protecting themselves. They did not give licensed Hoosiers the same ability to carry weapons into the Statehouse, where the lawmakers and governor work. Legislators can carry weapons into the building but not other citizens.
If the argument is that citizens sometimes get so mad at government officials that they might give in to sudden murderous impulses if they're armed, why is that valid at the state level but not the local level? If, as one bill supporter says, the issue is that "we all have a right to self-preservation wherever we go in the state," why is that valid at the local level but not the state level?
Comments
Kind of like how local lawyers and judges can carry cameras and electronics into court buildings, but lowly citizens cannot.
I don't know if he has renewed it, but at one point the JG's Tracy Warner obtained a concealed carry license in reaction to a threat from a criminal suspect about whom Warner wrote.
Funny how people who want to control gun ownership always want to exempt themselves from the rules.
I'm sure you've seen those various articles listing the prominent anti-gun activists who either have carry licenses themselves or travel with bodyguards who are, of course, armed.
I'm a strong proponent of individual gun rights, but I think any person who openly carries in public is a bit nuts.