Gun-rights laws are gaining steam in the states

posted at 5:21 pm on April 4, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

President Obama has been back at the gun-control push this week, the Senate is still mulling over their gun-control package that would include expanded background checks, and on Thursday morning, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed a set of state laws banning high-capacity magazines. As the WSJ points out, however, since the Newtown massacre, there’s been a lot of action on the state level for expanding gun-rights as well:

Arkansas eliminated prohibitions on carrying firearms in churches and on college campuses. South Dakota authorized school boards to arm teachers. Tennessee passed a law allowing workers to bring guns to work and store them in their vehicles, even if their employer objects. Kentucky shortened the process for obtaining licenses to carry a concealed gun.

Those laws, along with the long odds for major federal gun-control legislation, show how the march toward expanded gun rights in recent years has hardly slowed since Mr. Obama pledged to use the “full force” of his office to tighten limits after 20 children and six adult staffers were killed at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

This year, five states have passed seven laws that strengthen gun restrictions, while 10 states have passed 17 laws that weaken them, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks and promotes gun-control laws. …

Among the bills awaiting governors’ signatures are a North Dakota measure that would eliminate prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons in churches and a Montana bill that would allow residents to carry a concealed gun without a permit. …

Obama and the Democrats are fond of insisting that the vast majority of voters are behind them and only the power of the NRA is stopping them from passing their desired measures, but the number of bills going through state legislatures that expand gun rights would seem to suggest otherwise. As Krauthammer pointed out last night:

The president is out there; it’s rather puzzling. He’s tilting at windmills and he will lose. The windmill is going to win on this one. He is not going to get anything of importance. He might eke out a weak compromise on background checks. But you have to ask yourself why is he doing this? You hear Pfeiffer implying that we’re going to blame the Republicans if this doesn’t pass, as if that will be political success for them. Yes, the national polls show a shift, at least a temporary shift, after Newtown.

But that’s not where elections are won or lost. They are won in the states and the districts. And the fact that there are so many senate democrats that are scared to vote on this, that don’t want to see it come on the floor.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Marxism abhors an armed populace.

To the Marxists – prove me wrong.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 4, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Bitter clingers gotta cling.

It’s just how we roll.

Lily on April 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Not in NY they aren’t.

Dad’s Pistol License Suspended For Possibly 8 Years for Son’s Words

njrob on April 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM

njrob on April 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Or MD.

You know, DC’s bumhole.

Gatsu on April 4, 2013 at 5:35 PM

We – the people

jake-the-goose on April 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Virginia
VA S 1335
Would make confidential records of concealed-weapon permits.
weaken
enacted

I like this one.

fourdeucer on April 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Someone seems to gets it, anyway. Our instinct is to crouch and turn defensive when the Left attacks. We’ve even developed an anticipatory defensiveness. We work up all sorts of sophisticated and conscientious responses, as if we have to prove our worth and very right of existence to the Masters of the Culture. No. Attack back. Don’t even assume defensiveness. Attack.

rrpjr on April 4, 2013 at 5:38 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324883604578398843653264474.html#project%3DGUNSTATES20130404%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

Roundup of states that have pending or enacted new gun laws.

fourdeucer on April 4, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Oklahoma recently made open-carry lawful.

It’s not something that I’d do, but I suppose it would constitute an expansion of gun rights.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 4, 2013 at 5:40 PM

I may have to move to one of the free states from Colorado soon.

Although, the new public shooting range we just opened in El Paso County is a great place to go shoot (County and Army Ft Carson collaboration). Just went for the first time on Easter Sunday, and we’ll be back again this weekend.

dentarthurdent on April 4, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Not in NY they aren’t.

Dad’s Pistol License Suspended For Possibly 8 Years for Son’s Words

njrob on April 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM

So a teacher overhears kids, goes berserk, and the Nazis swoop in and grab guns. I know Jim Carrey is not gonna like this……..

SailorMark on April 4, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Funny. They always bash the NRA. Most of the gun owners I know believe the NRA isn’t strong enough. Hence why many of them are members of other organizations.

jawkneemusic on April 4, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Funny. They always bash the NRA. Most of the gun owners I know believe the NRA isn’t strong enough. Hence why many of them are members of other organizations.

jawkneemusic on April 4, 2013 at 5:42 PM

I joined the NRA last year – not overly impressed.
From what I’ve seen of them so far, including the non-stop emails and phone calls for additional fund-raising, I may just let that one expire and join GOA or some other group.

dentarthurdent on April 4, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Oklahoma recently made open-carry lawful.
It’s not something that I’d do, but I suppose it would constitute an expansion of gun rights.
OhEssYouCowboys on April 4, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Shouldn’t any kind of Carry be lawful anywhere? Otherwise was does Bear mean if not carry outside of the home for lawful defense of self and others?

jawkneemusic on April 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM

I have no problem with open carry, if you want to advertise then go for it.

Minnesota is going the opposite direction, trying to ban all mags over 7 rounds, even those currently in private hands, as well as make legacy-gifting of guns illegal.

Bishop on April 4, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I joined the NRA last year – not overly impressed.
From what I’ve seen of them so far, including the non-stop emails and phone calls for additional fund-raising, I may just let that one expire and join GOA or some other group.
dentarthurdent on April 4, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Been pondering joining them as well.

jawkneemusic on April 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM

jawkneemusic on April 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM

It’s my understanding that Oklahoma was behind the times on allowing open-carry. And that most states had already allowed it.

I only mentioned it as a progress re: gun rights.

Again, it’s not something that I’d do – but Oklahoma would allow it.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Make it come to the floor. Force the Democrats to defend and vote for it and then bludgeon each and every one of them with it. Make sure that every time the whole rotten mess is mentioned there is a picture of a Democrat senator published right in the middle of it.

It’s theirs, they’re going to eat it and it’s going to choke them to death.

Mr. Grump on April 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM

What this is a symptom of is the divide between the “taker” and “maker” states. Fortunately for the GOP, we should be able to take over the Senate with the number of red state senate seats available (assuming no more Akin’s).

Tater Salad on April 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

I urge one and all to join the GOA, the setup fee is nothing and you get all sorts of interesting and valuable representation from them.

I’m an NRA lifer from way back so I’m on their list whether I want to be or not. Still, it’s a way to have your voice and presence matter if for no other reason then you grow the numbers of an organization that scares leftists right out of their frilly skivvies.

Bishop on April 4, 2013 at 5:53 PM

It’s my understanding that Oklahoma was behind the times on allowing open-carry. And that most states had already allowed it.

I only mentioned it as a progress re: gun rights.

Again, it’s not something that I’d do – but Oklahoma would allow it.

Who was it that said:

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life”.

Including the government.

Totalitarians are far from polite. Which is why we need to remain armed, for those so inclined.

hawkeye54 on April 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM

“And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.

Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as “gun nuts.” They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.

And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.

Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.

So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect ALL rights.

And this is why: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

If you’ve read the Bill of Rights — and who among us hasn’t? — you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them:

“THE PEOPLE.”

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 6:02 PM

I urge one and all to join the GOA, the setup fee is nothing and you get all sorts of interesting and valuable representation from them.

I did. Life membership and was glad for doing it.

hawkeye54 on April 4, 2013 at 6:02 PM

First Amendment:

“…the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”

Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…”

Ninth Amendment:

“…shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people…”

Tenth Amendment:

“…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about “separation of church and state,” although there is no mention of “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment.

But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.

We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.

If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the “Fvck Bush” bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment’s use of “the people” has the same meaning?”

A Daily Kooks Writer Argues: Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Liberal politicians create the environment for catastrophe and then capitalize on the resulting angst to remove another chunk of our liberty with the promise of you can trust government.

That’s what Britain did with their gun registry and the politicians made no bones about breaking their promise and taking arms away from law abiding citizens.

Trust no government to protect you or your civil rights, it only takes one tragedy and all bets are off.

Speakup on April 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM

hawkeye54 on April 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM

I wouldn’t open-carry, because it’d be too easy for Shizzy-Z to whack OhEssYouCowboys upside he haid, wif a wrench, an’ tooks dat shoots frum hims …

Aight?

OhEssYouCowboys on April 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM

I wouldn’t open-carry, because it’d be too easy for Shizzy-Z to whack OhEssYouCowboys upside he haid, wif a wrench, an’ tooks dat shoots frum hims …

Aight?

In some areas, especially urban ones, it might be quite unwise to open carry for some people, where conceal and carry would be a better alternative.

hawkeye54 on April 4, 2013 at 6:18 PM

An armed society is a polite society.
hawkeye54 on April 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Well – my wife has a t-shirt that says that…..

dentarthurdent on April 4, 2013 at 6:20 PM

The 2014 election will be telling in Colorado. It’s clear that the Legislature and Gov LickenPooper ran roughshod over the citizens with the backing of Bloomberg and the White House. There are a LOT of pissed people here. Several recalls are already underway. If the momentum continues until 2014 and we can unseat some of the worst offenders, then maybe we can turn the state around. At the same time, all of these measures are heading for court, so they may be overturned regardless of the election outcome.

If none of those things happen, it will be Wyoming or Bust.

Common Sense on April 4, 2013 at 6:23 PM

You know the ATF has several specific attributes it uses to define whether a firearm is full auto capable and has no compunction about explaining them to anyone who has a foreign firearm modifying it to be legal in this country. They pertain to the actual way the functioning parts are made such as the face of the bolt, the disconnector and so on.

Perhaps a video showing the very different ways a military arm is made would be good.

Speakup on April 4, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Recently my dad has gotten really freaked out about all these laws for control that are passing. We live in CA so we do have a healthy fear of our rights being infringed. Half of our family guns were on DiFei’s ban list. Thank goodness THAT didn’t get legs! This article makes me feel a little better but I’m still a little wary. Right now our family is concentrating on being proficient with all our guns not just the pistols. You know, in case that UN thing gets too many teeth here.
Am I a girl who is a bit paranoid too? Maybe just a little. =)

RadioAngel on April 4, 2013 at 6:38 PM

We should ban Ferraris. People die every year because of Ferraris. These things are race cars! Do we really need racecars on our streets? Think of how much safer our streets would be without these racecars driving around at high speeds. It is just common sense. For the children. The ban should include any vehicle with one or more exotic, racecar properties such as sharply angled windshields, aggressive styling, pop up headlights, racy colors, or turbo/superchargers. These features make cars inherently dangerous, and none of them serve any practical purpose. I am not proposing taking away anybody’s rights. These are just common sense, to make things safer, for the children. While we are at it, we should ban engines with high piston capacities. Really, an engine with more than 4 pistons serves no real purpose other than an overt display of testosterone. High piston capacity engines make cars faster, and thus more dangerous. Hunting vehicles only have 1 or 2 cylinders, and you don’t hear hunters complaining about a lack of power. Common sense tells us that 4 pistons is enough. For the children. It is also common knowledge that criminals speed away from crime scenes and kill innocent bystanders. Cars should be limited to no more than 30mph. Telecommuting and home delivery services make leaving your house unnecessary anyway, so a 30mph speed limit won’t really affect anybody but criminals. Finally, some criminals travel great distances after committing crimes. We should eliminate high capacity gas tanks. 2 gallons of fuel is enough to run errands or commute to work. A 2 gallon limit will prevent criminals from robbing banks and making high speed long distance escapes, where they could endanger children on their way to school. None of these take away rights. You can still have your cars. These are just common sense measures to keep the dangerous racecars off the streets, and prevent criminals from endangering the children. We can all agree we need to keep the children safe, right?

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM

If the momentum continues until 2014 and we can unseat some of the worst offenders, then maybe we can turn the state around.

That line never works because:

“All of the representatives are scumbags…except my guy. I met him once and he got us the money for the rec center, so he’s a pretty good guy. I’ll vote for him again.”
-55% of the population in every election

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Beat ya to that link by an hour. Glad to know I’m not the only one though.

njrob on April 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

I think it would be ballsy if Republicans/Conservatives got some and started taking the battle to the Libs by proposing bills that would rescind the automatic weapons laws, short barrel rifle/shotgun laws, silencer laws, magazine restrictions, restrictions on state laws and foreign importation restrictions. The left always comes to the table with extreme bargaining proposals and then “compromise” back to the increment they want. Republicans always start with basically what the Left wants then give away a little more. They start without their own extreme demands and lose more ground and our freedoms every time. Who knows it might poison pill the Lib proposals at best. At worst they might be able to back up the bus and bargain for something like legal silencers or 100 round magazines. Somebody has to get out of their safe, assured cocktail party invite, comfort zone and offend the Left.

ironked on April 4, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Who was it that said:

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life”.

hawkeye54 on April 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM

It was Robert Heinlein.

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 7:19 PM

I just got back from the range. Broke in a brand spanking new 1911 .45.

A couple of lanes over, someone was blasting away with a machine gun. (Yes, a fully automatic weapon)

In the lane next to me was a nice couple trying out a SCAR 5.56 rifle. The woman was a first time shooter and was having a ball. (Also did quite well once she got used to the rifle and how to aim it)

Gun control is all about people control. The people I saw today are not about to be controlled.

evilned on April 4, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Not in Oregon. There are bills to require background checks when friends transfer firearms, to restrict CHL folks from schools or the state Capitol, and to require CHL applicants to pass a shooting range test.

Brought to us by State Senator “Pink Floyd” Prozanski.

foxymike on April 4, 2013 at 7:58 PM

All politics are local – always have been, always will be.

So the NRA was paranoid when they started setting up state organizations in key areas- now they are prophets. It is not too late to get on board and help the cause.

InTheBellyoftheBeast on April 4, 2013 at 8:08 PM

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED !

TX-96 on April 4, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Once again, the mantra of the Democrats takes hold, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” There are states, New York, Colorado and Connectcut come to mind, that are pushing through legislation that does nothing to solve the problem, yet in the spirit of not letting a crisis go to waste, they’re passing legislation they have always wanted to pass anyway.

This is just one more reason I’ll never vote for a Democrat, they never want to solve a problem, they just want to push their agenda. I’m sorry, but their agenda is wrong because of the Constitution and wrong for the country and doesn’t solve the problem. Until they address the mental health issues, the problem will never be solved.

bflat879 on April 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life”.

Lt.Col. Jeff Cooper

Solaratov on April 4, 2013 at 10:22 PM

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life”.

Lt.Col. Jeff Cooper

Solaratov on April 4, 2013 at 10:22 PM

From Wiki:

Beyond This Horizon is a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein. It was originally published as a two-part serial in Astounding Science Fiction (April, May 1942, as by Anson MacDonald) and then eventually as a single volume by Fantasy Press in 1948.

A defining quote from the book which is repeated throughout Heinlein’s work is, “An armed society is a polite society”, is very popular with those who support the personal right to keep and bear arms.

Yoop on April 5, 2013 at 5:50 AM

Actually, an unarmed society is quite polite, too. As Robert Sheckley observed in his book Futuropolis; Impossible Cities of Science Fiction and Fantasy (New York; A&W Visual Library, 1978);

A police state is one in which other people tell you what to do and when to do it. If they are wrong about something, they apologize. If you are wrong about something, they kill you. Somehow it is not quite unbearable, which must explain why it lasts so long. a police state can be ruled by a king, a feudal council, an intellectual elite, or anyone else. The only qualification for ruling a police state is whether or not the police obey you. What counts is the will to disenfranchise the citizens for their own good; to legislate morality; to make all decisions in terms of the good of your state, or the glory of God, or the splendor of the king, or anything except the present and immediate welfare of the people.

Of course, Sheckley was slightly incorrect. In such a state, if you make a mistake, the authorities do indeed kill you. However, if they make a mistake- they still kill you, to avoid admitting it. Because such a state must maintain an illusion of perfection and infallibility to prevent the opinions of its critics from being taken seriously.

By this meterstick, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, drones, and indeed everything this President does make it clear that he believes this is, or should be, a police state.

/just needed to be said

clear ether

eon

eon on April 5, 2013 at 8:07 AM

One of the first things [the Soviets] did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much [to worry about] for soldiers. Stanislav Mishin – Pravda

Irenaeus on April 5, 2013 at 11:35 AM