Premium

Republicans Rolling Back Permit Requirements for Firearms

AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane

Now that the debate over gun rights seems to have shifted in favor of those who support the Second Amendment, it appears Republican state officials are making moves that will make it easier for responsible citizens to own firearms. This is a welcome move for all Americans but could be even more beneficial for black and brown Americans disproportionately impacted by cost-prohibitive gun laws favored by white progressives who are more than willing to keep minorities from legally possessing handguns.

The Hill reported:

Legislators in half a dozen states are considering measures to roll back requirements that gun owners obtain permits and training before carrying concealed weapons, as Republican politicians race to show their support for gun rights ahead of primary and midterm elections this year.

But as the bills progress through state House and Senate chambers, they are running into new and increasingly vocal opposition from an unexpected source: Law enforcement organizations who say allowing more people to carry weapons would add to an already-troubling spike in gun crimes.

Over the past two decades, 20 states have passed legislation eliminating permit requirements for allowing concealed weapons. “This year, legislators in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Nebraska are considering their own versions,” according to The Hill.

Nebraska state Sen. Tom Brewer, who sponsored a bill to get rid of permit requirements told The Hill that the Second Amendment is “an issue that really hits home.” He stressed that people still “have an obligation to have safe operation training,” and that “people with any degree of responsibility or intelligence are going to understand that.”

Ohio’s legislature has already passed a similar measure. However, Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has not indicated whether he will sign it into law. Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey expressed displeasure with the proposed legislation. “It is going to promote lawlessness. I think that there will be people who carry weapons concealed for the purpose of being vigilantes. I think that it is not very well thought out for very high populated counties such as Hamilton County,” she argued, insisting that not requiring a license “makes it exponentially harder for law enforcement to prevent gun crimes.”

The Hill noted:

The sheriff of Lincoln, Neb., testified against his state’s proposed version. In Alabama, the state Sheriffs Association held a press conference outside the statehouse to detail their opposition. Mobile, Ala., Sheriff Sam Cochran, a Republican, last year fired one of his deputies, state Rep Shane Stringer (R), who introduced the bill in the legislature.

Stringer told the Alabama Political Reporter that he stood by his bill. He said:

“After dedicating my life and career to law enforcement, losing a job because I stand in support of Alabama gun owners is certainly surprising, but nothing will discourage me from defending the constitutional guarantees promised to all of us as American citizens.”

Laws doing away with permit requirements are typically called “constitutional carry.” Texas’ new constitutional carry law went into effect last year.

“Constitutional carry codifies into law the fundamental right to defend yourself when outside of the home,” said Amy Hunter, a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. “Law-abiding Americans should not have to pay additional fees to exercise their fundamental right to defend themselves and their families.”

Of course, critics of constitutional carry claim it would result in more gun violence. This would be especially critical at a time when gun violence has been on the rise over the past two years. “There are communities across the country that are already really struggling with the crisis of gun violence,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, a gun safety organization.

However, many have pointed out that skyrocketing crime rates is one reason why gun ownership is also on the rise. To put it simply, more people are legally obtaining firearms because there is more gun violence.

Those opposing these measures also cite studies indicating that states that make it easier for people to obtain and carry firearms experience increases in violent crime. “Poor decision making happens, and unfortunately, if you’re carrying a weapon and you make a poor decision in a very elevated and high stress situation, the repercussions and ramifications of that are tremendous,” Sheriff McGuffey noted. “People in the general public don’t understand generally how poorly most people shoot.”

But what she, along with many others in the gun-control camp, leave out is the fact that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally, meaning that stricter laws did not save the victims of these acts. Even further, a plethora of studies has shown defensive gun uses (DGUs) occur far more frequently than gun crimes. This means that civilians use guns to defend themselves or others more often than criminals use guns to carry out violent acts.

Overall, making it easier for civilians to carry will save more lives than ensuring that only criminals can possess guns. Unfortunately, the left seems to believe relying on government officers is more effective, which is why the battle will continue to rage. But hey, at least we’re winning, right?

Recommended

Trending on RedState Videos