Reply to the New York Times Editorial Board regarding gun laws

I will say up front that I have a concealed carry permit lawfully issued under the laws of the State of Missouri. I’m also up for renewal later this year. Contrary to what many may think, permits are not open-ended. In Missouri they are valid for three years from date of certification by the county sheriff — which is different from date of issue — and there is a statutory 45-day turnaround time while waiting for an extensive background check. If the 45-day time frame expires, the county sheriff must issue a temporary permit that can be revoked if necessary when the background check does come back.

Carrying a firearm concealed without a valid permit is a Class D felony in Missouri.

As I wrote in an earlier article, getting a concealed carry permit is no small endeavor. It’s expensive and time consuming — for Missouri the government side of the coin is $225 to start with a $50 renewal every three years.

So when the idea that a person who wishes to carry concealed must show “good cause” is offered by gun control proponents, in this case by the New York Times, it is about the same as needing to show “good cause” to exercise any of your other rights. Imagine needing to demonstrate “good cause” before the Court appoints an attorney to assist in your defense. Imagine needing to demonstrate “good cause” in saying No to a police search. It’s nonsensical at best, and tyrannical.

Yet I know the gun control proponents want it so that a person must show “good cause” to purchase a firearm. The New York Times stops short of actually saying that in this instance, focusing only on the current case at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but I have little reason to doubt they’ve advocated such in the past.

And once again I find myself having to say this: stop using the words “gun safety” to describe gun control laws. “Gun safety” refers to the rules and guidelines regarding the proper way to handle a firearm. The regulations on firearms manufacture that require various mechanisms in the design to prevent the firearm from discharging until the trigger is actually pulled, on the other hand, are gun safety laws and regulations. Laws restricting the size of a magazine or the kind of firearms you can own are not about safety, but control.

And as I’ve pointed out several times on this blog (here and here), gun control laws are racist in their implementation, and gun control proponents are racists, because they will disproportionately impact minorities, since they are more likely to be impoverished, by placing greater cost on exercising their rights.

And having to show “good cause” to exercise a right is a violation of the rights of due process (here and here).

So when the New York Times says that municipalities have a “right and duty…to determine what is necessary for their citizens’ safety”, you know your due process rights are about to be forcefully shoved off a cliff into the La Brea tar pits. You see, due process requires that the government show cause for why I should not be permitted to carry a firearm concealed, instead of the citizen showing cause for why they should be permitted to carry.

Share