Concealed Carry Laws

My former state, Illinois, became the last state to enact legislation allowing people to carry weapons in public with concealed carry permits.  One would think that it would be reason for gunowners to be joyful.  One would be mistaken.

Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit struck a California concealed carry law requiring an applicant to show good cause to receive a permit.  The court ruled that the Second Amendment required no such showing and the law was therefore unconstitutional.

Gun control advocates are being pushed and prodded by courts to recognize Second Amendment rights yet are not acting in good faith when it comes to enacting legislation that complies with the constitutionally guaranteed right.  In Illinois, for example, the new concealed carry laws are described as Byzantine.  An excellent article explaining the labyrinthian regulations can be found at:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-27/news/ct-guns-concealed-carry-law-20131227_1_gun-violence-cook-county-forest-preserves-law-enforcement

The examples given include:  Being able to keep a gun in the glove compartment at a museum, zoo or stadium, but not in the post office parking lot.  One could park on the street outside the post office, however, so long as it's not controlled by the post office.

Another oddity is that a person can carry a weapon while walking through a large crowd on the way to a destination, but that person may not carry a weapon while attending a gathering.  The example cited in the article says that a person could carry a gun through the crowd at the St. Patrick's Day parade while walking through the crowd, but the same person could not stand with a concealed weapon and watch the parade.

Needless to say, enforcement of such a law is open to caprice and whim.

The example given of a person trying to ride public transportation with a concealed weapon is almost ludicrous, however believable and realistic the scenario.  The law is unnecessarily burdensome and raises the specter of unconstitutionality.

In California, meanwhile, the requirement of good cause was clearly unconstitutional.  It gives the authorizing body too much discretion to determine what is and what isn't good cause.  Good cause is a legal determination that only a competent judicial body can make; arrogating that decision to elected officials who may or may not have political bias opens the door to questionable decisions on individual rights.

It's high time the gun control zealots fashioned reasonable concealed carry laws that didn't seek to punish law-abiding gunowners.  A trade-off could be strengthening punishments for those who use guns in the commission of crimes.  There are hate crime statutes wherein punishments are heightened when convictions are obtained.  The problem is that do-gooders believe that putting people behind bars for longer periods of time serves no purpose.  What results is that those who commit crimes get the benefit of the doubt in the form of rehabilitation, while gunowners are penalized with the thought that owning a gun leads to more crime, and they should therefore bear a greater burden simply to own the gun.  There is no question that a gunowner should be great responsibility for his ownership.  The trouble for gun control advocates is that gunowners already do that and then some.  It's the criminals who break the gun laws that cause such panic.

As a new gunowner, I'm mindful of the awesome responsibility I have and the great privilege I possess in owning a gun.  I take neither lightly.  Most gunowners are the same.  Law-abiding citizens should not bear the burden of the crimes of others and be penalized as if they'd done something wrong.

In a civilized society, there's always a balancing of relative rights.  It's time for more balance and less political correctness.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles