Below is an editorial from an Indiana newspaper, which I take exception to. My comments are in red, and where there is highlighting, that was done by me. I am not taking or stating a stance on the larger issues at play, but want to point out that editorials like this are not good sources of information in my opinion. By the way, apparently "meet in the middle" means unilateral concession of gun rights.
Meet in middle on gun legislation
Editorial in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, 12/18/12
As the nation again examines how it regulates gun ownership in the wake of last week’s tragedy in Newtown, Conn., there seems to be some hope that reasonable, moderate Americans may be able to take the debate away from the extremists on either end of the issue.
In Indiana, that should mean repealing some of the nonsensical laws passed in recent years, borrowing from Texas standards for having a permit to carry a gun and looking at the need to keep guns secure.
Anti-gun zealots must realize that the Second Amendment gives qualified Americans the right to have arms to defend themselves. The pro-gun advocates must understand that none of the rights in the Constitution are absolute.
The First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press lists no exceptions, but lawmakers and the courts have rightly determined that the freedom does not extend to libel or child pornography. The Fourth Amendment requires police to have a warrant to search your house, but if they know a crime is in progress and a life is in danger, they can legally force their way into a home.
The Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to own a machine gun. It is not absolute.
So states and courts have shaped limitations. The government can prohibit people with mental illnesses or criminal convictions from owning a gun. States can give their residents permission to carry a gun in public – but they can attach requirements with that permission. In Texas, for example, residents must take 10 hours of classes in gun use and safety, qualify on a firing range and pass a 50-question test to receive a carry permit. And every five years, they must recertify their license, which requires more classes. Ohio also requires training to receive a carry permit.
Indiana, however, requires no training or proof of skills – and allows Hoosiers to obtain a lifetime carry permit, ending a renewal process that could identify people who no longer qualify. The only disqualifications in Indiana, a “shall issue” state, are; conviction for specific crimes or levels of crimes, medical or legal determinations of mental incapacitation, court orders to the contrary, or a record of substance abuse. What is needed is a flag to be sent for any disqualifying conviction, order, or diagnosis to reach the ISP firearms section for revocation. This strikes me as a computer database solution that would be relatively easily completed, if the input were proper. There may already be a system in place for periodic review or flagging, but I do not know.
Three years ago, the Indianapolis Star – using the database of Indiana handgun permits – found that state police wrongly approved gun permits in Lake and Marion counties for Hoosiers with criminal histories. State lawmakers responded in their 2010 session – by making secret the previously open records of people who received state permits. In my recollection, the reason for the change was NOT the finding and reporting of errors, but the publishing, in poor discretion, of the names and possible even addresses of permit holders by the newspaper.
Also in that session, lawmakers passed a rare bill against the interests of businesses, creating a law allowing workers to keep guns in their cars parked at businesses. Previously, businesses had wide ability to regulate what employees can and cannot bring to their workplace property. Again, no horrific repercussions to report? Another example that does not support your argument.
In 2011, lawmakers took away the ability of local officials to ban guns in government-owned buildings. But while the legislature insisted that citizens would be safer if they were allowed to take guns to city council meetings, members continued the no-gun restriction for their own sessions at the Indiana Statehouse. So there is a double standard. What is the nexus of that anecdote and your editorial? Has there been an outbreak of violence at city council meetings throughout the state? That would help prove your point, if it had happened, but it has not. This statement does not advance your position.
There is no evidence that these laws have made Hoosiers safer. Nor is there a rash of violence upon innocents as a result of these laws. The way freedom works is that you are allowed to do something unless there is a compelling reason NOT to allow you to, not the converse. The premise is that freedom is good unless there is some harm to outweigh its value. Apparently the editors do not have that view. Again, the Constitution is a limit on governmental power, not a grant to the people of power. In fact, an Indianapolis gun dealer perennially shows up as one of the biggest sources of guns later used in crimes, caused at least in part by Indiana’s loose requirements. I am straight calling BS on that. They follow every procedure required by the BATFE or that same agency would not allow them to continue in business, same as any federally licensed gun dealer in the country. None of the laws that you are talking about has ANY bearing on the sale of guns. There is no demonstrated causal connection between the lawful sale of guns from a particular business and their subsequent illegal use.
None of these laws enabled a disturbed man to kill 20 innocent children and six adults at their Connecticut school. But Indiana and the nation should strive for sensible laws that allow responsible, law-abiding adults to own and carry some types of guns while emphasizing gun safety and setting at least some reasonable standards for gun ownership. If the status of the law is not a problem, why must more government intrusion onto our lives be required? To make you feel like you did something about that tragedy? To help you feel like you can control the world you live in? Your feelings are not a rational basis for encumbering a constitutional right.
Indiana can start with repealing some of the more noxious pro-gun laws the legislature adopted in recent years and requiring training to receive a handgun permit. Noxious to whom? Who gets to decide what laws are noxious? The editors? How about the citizens of Indiana and our elected officials? Oh, wait, that is how we got these allegedly “noxious pro-gun laws.” What the editors really want, then, is to circumvent the legislative process and control the citizens of Indiana by imposing their judgment upon all of us. They believe they know better than we and our elected officials what is good for us. I do not consent to being governed by the editors of a newspaper.
Meet in middle on gun legislation
Editorial in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, 12/18/12
As the nation again examines how it regulates gun ownership in the wake of last week’s tragedy in Newtown, Conn., there seems to be some hope that reasonable, moderate Americans may be able to take the debate away from the extremists on either end of the issue.
In Indiana, that should mean repealing some of the nonsensical laws passed in recent years, borrowing from Texas standards for having a permit to carry a gun and looking at the need to keep guns secure.
Anti-gun zealots must realize that the Second Amendment gives qualified Americans the right to have arms to defend themselves. The pro-gun advocates must understand that none of the rights in the Constitution are absolute.
The First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press lists no exceptions, but lawmakers and the courts have rightly determined that the freedom does not extend to libel or child pornography. The Fourth Amendment requires police to have a warrant to search your house, but if they know a crime is in progress and a life is in danger, they can legally force their way into a home.
The Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to own a machine gun. It is not absolute.
So states and courts have shaped limitations. The government can prohibit people with mental illnesses or criminal convictions from owning a gun. States can give their residents permission to carry a gun in public – but they can attach requirements with that permission. In Texas, for example, residents must take 10 hours of classes in gun use and safety, qualify on a firing range and pass a 50-question test to receive a carry permit. And every five years, they must recertify their license, which requires more classes. Ohio also requires training to receive a carry permit.
Indiana, however, requires no training or proof of skills – and allows Hoosiers to obtain a lifetime carry permit, ending a renewal process that could identify people who no longer qualify. The only disqualifications in Indiana, a “shall issue” state, are; conviction for specific crimes or levels of crimes, medical or legal determinations of mental incapacitation, court orders to the contrary, or a record of substance abuse. What is needed is a flag to be sent for any disqualifying conviction, order, or diagnosis to reach the ISP firearms section for revocation. This strikes me as a computer database solution that would be relatively easily completed, if the input were proper. There may already be a system in place for periodic review or flagging, but I do not know.
Three years ago, the Indianapolis Star – using the database of Indiana handgun permits – found that state police wrongly approved gun permits in Lake and Marion counties for Hoosiers with criminal histories. State lawmakers responded in their 2010 session – by making secret the previously open records of people who received state permits. In my recollection, the reason for the change was NOT the finding and reporting of errors, but the publishing, in poor discretion, of the names and possible even addresses of permit holders by the newspaper.
Also in that session, lawmakers passed a rare bill against the interests of businesses, creating a law allowing workers to keep guns in their cars parked at businesses. Previously, businesses had wide ability to regulate what employees can and cannot bring to their workplace property. Again, no horrific repercussions to report? Another example that does not support your argument.
In 2011, lawmakers took away the ability of local officials to ban guns in government-owned buildings. But while the legislature insisted that citizens would be safer if they were allowed to take guns to city council meetings, members continued the no-gun restriction for their own sessions at the Indiana Statehouse. So there is a double standard. What is the nexus of that anecdote and your editorial? Has there been an outbreak of violence at city council meetings throughout the state? That would help prove your point, if it had happened, but it has not. This statement does not advance your position.
There is no evidence that these laws have made Hoosiers safer. Nor is there a rash of violence upon innocents as a result of these laws. The way freedom works is that you are allowed to do something unless there is a compelling reason NOT to allow you to, not the converse. The premise is that freedom is good unless there is some harm to outweigh its value. Apparently the editors do not have that view. Again, the Constitution is a limit on governmental power, not a grant to the people of power. In fact, an Indianapolis gun dealer perennially shows up as one of the biggest sources of guns later used in crimes, caused at least in part by Indiana’s loose requirements. I am straight calling BS on that. They follow every procedure required by the BATFE or that same agency would not allow them to continue in business, same as any federally licensed gun dealer in the country. None of the laws that you are talking about has ANY bearing on the sale of guns. There is no demonstrated causal connection between the lawful sale of guns from a particular business and their subsequent illegal use.
None of these laws enabled a disturbed man to kill 20 innocent children and six adults at their Connecticut school. But Indiana and the nation should strive for sensible laws that allow responsible, law-abiding adults to own and carry some types of guns while emphasizing gun safety and setting at least some reasonable standards for gun ownership. If the status of the law is not a problem, why must more government intrusion onto our lives be required? To make you feel like you did something about that tragedy? To help you feel like you can control the world you live in? Your feelings are not a rational basis for encumbering a constitutional right.
Indiana can start with repealing some of the more noxious pro-gun laws the legislature adopted in recent years and requiring training to receive a handgun permit. Noxious to whom? Who gets to decide what laws are noxious? The editors? How about the citizens of Indiana and our elected officials? Oh, wait, that is how we got these allegedly “noxious pro-gun laws.” What the editors really want, then, is to circumvent the legislative process and control the citizens of Indiana by imposing their judgment upon all of us. They believe they know better than we and our elected officials what is good for us. I do not consent to being governed by the editors of a newspaper.
