by Joe B. Lyman
The debate over gun rights and gun crime rages on. Proponents of strict gun control never answer two questions for me, which are:
1- What makes you think a criminal will obey new gun laws? and
2- How do you explain that the cities with the most gun control also have the most gun crime?
The answers are simple. First, criminals don’t obey the law, that’s a no brainer.
Second, when law abiding citizens are disarmed, the thugs have free reign with no fear of resistance except from other thugs and police and the police are not omnipresent.
I don’t oppose a background check on someone purchasing guns. A background check at least ensures the thugs acquire their guns illegally and may slow them a bit.
However, I do not support a registry of gun owners in any way. A registry of gun owners does nothing to prevent crime but provides for an assault on the average law-abiding gun owner.
By the time this column runs, we may know the outcome of legislation in Utah to make it legal for any person over the age of 21 who may legally own a firearm to also carry that firearm concealed.
Now to people who don’t like guns, that sounds scary, until you point out that those same people may already carry openly. The rebuttal from the anti gun people may be that we should then restrict the right to carry openly.
The answer to that proposal is the second point above, disarming law abiding citizens does not reduce crime, rather it increases it. Also, the Second Amendment speaks very clearly to this issue with the words ‘shall not be infringed’ with regards to the right to keep “and bear” arms.
As I understand it currently, if someone who carries a concealed firearm in Utah inadvertently reveals their gun, they are breaking the law. Also if someone carries openly and throws on a jacket or coat which conceals their gun, they are breaking the law. Both of these scenarios are solved with the legislation being considered
The registration of concealed carry permits has a potential for discrimination against gun owners by legislators and others.
Recently a couple was disqualified as adoptive parents because they were concealed carry permit holders. This is clearly discrimination.
Apparently it must be OK to own and even openly carry a gun but as soon as you get a concealed carry permit you are an unfit parent. OR, and this is the real case, this is discrimination against all gun owners and the permit was the trigger that made it possible.
This problem would be alleviated by the current legislation by eliminating the permit as a means to identify gun owners and then to discriminate against them.
On another gun rights topic at the federal level, the The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would require all states to honor the concealed carry permit of any other state.
Until we can respect the Second Amendment as the only concealed carry permit that is required, this is a step in the right direction to solve the myriad of complex state laws regarding firearms.
I read one article that contended this is federal overreach and that the states should each have their own rules with regards to firearms. Normally I would support the cause of State’s Rights over the Fed but in this case I see the federal law supporting the individual rights of the people, which trumps the rights of the states.