Will the Republicans be friendly to gun owners?
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:34 pmAlready, with the anticipation that the Republicans are so loyal to the 2nd Amendment and gun owners that Tennessee's gun owners wanted them in control of the General Assembly, we are seeing the introduction of pro-gun bills just as we have in the past.
What concerns me, however, is that the unity of gun owners will see intentional division at the hands of the Republicans to some of the same measure that we have seen in the past. What?
In the past we have seen legislation voted on by Republicans and Democrats which had the effect of making some civilians' rights under the laws different than based other "less deserving" civilians upon what their chosen vocation might be. Thus, there are laws (and I have seen at least one bill draft) where some civilians do not need civilian permits because they are off-duty law enforcement, judges or other state or federal employees.
Certainly, these individuals do not need civilian permits to carry firearms in their jobs and while on the job if that is what they need to do under the law. However, should these individuals have special rights relative to firearms possession and self-defense when they are off duty?
TFA and in the past the NRA (who knows with the current NRA state lobbyist?) have generally opposed giving some civilians special rights or privileges relative to the ability to provide for their own self-defense or the defense of their families simply because they might hold a job as a law enforcement officer rather than as a student, mechanic, a dentist, a doctor, a Wal-Mart employee, a construction worker, etc., etc. And what about these individuals who hold such special jobs, what happens when a law enforcement officer retires? Is he or she somehow suddenly different than they were the day before?
TFA takes the position that outside of work - all civilians are the same. Legislators who buy into law enforcement and FOP arguments that their "off-duty" officers or even retired officers have special needs that require special privileges when they are off duty demonstrate that they really do not trust gun owners, that they do not really understand the 2nd Amendment and that they believe that some restrictions must be applied to most gun owners. Sadly, this misplaced buy-in by legislators is not limited to state legislators since the federalists have already passed laws granting special privileges to law enforcement that trump state laws entirely.
Think about this and be prepared to call your legislators because I fully anticipate legislation to give special rights to off-duty law enforcement, judges and other public employees.
What concerns me, however, is that the unity of gun owners will see intentional division at the hands of the Republicans to some of the same measure that we have seen in the past. What?
In the past we have seen legislation voted on by Republicans and Democrats which had the effect of making some civilians' rights under the laws different than based other "less deserving" civilians upon what their chosen vocation might be. Thus, there are laws (and I have seen at least one bill draft) where some civilians do not need civilian permits because they are off-duty law enforcement, judges or other state or federal employees.
Certainly, these individuals do not need civilian permits to carry firearms in their jobs and while on the job if that is what they need to do under the law. However, should these individuals have special rights relative to firearms possession and self-defense when they are off duty?
TFA and in the past the NRA (who knows with the current NRA state lobbyist?) have generally opposed giving some civilians special rights or privileges relative to the ability to provide for their own self-defense or the defense of their families simply because they might hold a job as a law enforcement officer rather than as a student, mechanic, a dentist, a doctor, a Wal-Mart employee, a construction worker, etc., etc. And what about these individuals who hold such special jobs, what happens when a law enforcement officer retires? Is he or she somehow suddenly different than they were the day before?
TFA takes the position that outside of work - all civilians are the same. Legislators who buy into law enforcement and FOP arguments that their "off-duty" officers or even retired officers have special needs that require special privileges when they are off duty demonstrate that they really do not trust gun owners, that they do not really understand the 2nd Amendment and that they believe that some restrictions must be applied to most gun owners. Sadly, this misplaced buy-in by legislators is not limited to state legislators since the federalists have already passed laws granting special privileges to law enforcement that trump state laws entirely.
Think about this and be prepared to call your legislators because I fully anticipate legislation to give special rights to off-duty law enforcement, judges and other public employees.