NYT Apoplectic Over Missouri’s Constitutional Carry


NYT Apoplectic Over Missouri’s Constitutional Carry

The New York Times wasted no time showing their ignorance on firearm laws with their emotionally unhinged response to Missouri becoming the 11th state to implement constitutional carry. In an editorial board op/ed, the paper writes:

The law will let citizens carry concealed weapons in public without a state gun permit, criminal background check or firearms training. It strips local law enforcement of its current authority to deny firearms to those guilty of domestic violence and to other high-risk individuals.

The NYT desperately needs to do research. Domestic violence convictions render subjects prohibited possessors. They're not allowed to carry and yes, law enforcement absolutely has the right to deny firearms to those convicted of domestic violence charges -- furthermore, sheriffs are still allowed discretion. Let me Google the ATF's list of prohibited possessors for you, NYT, since you seem incapable of doing it yourself prior to the publishing of this uneducated piece -- bold my emphasis:

  • convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • who is a fugitive from justice;
  • who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
  • who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
  • who is an illegal alien;
  • who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  • who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
  • who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
  • who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The NYT surges ahead in their quest to get the most things wrong in a column about firearms:

And it establishes a dangerous “stand your ground” standard that will allow gun owners to shoot and claim self-defense based on their own sense of feeling threatened.

Stand Your Ground was essentially already codified in Missouri law. The hazard of invading someone's home with the intent to harm them means that an intruder may be shot and killed or injured.Any instance where a potential rapist, robber, home invader, attacker may be killed in self defense by an innocent is always denigrated by Democrats who barely tolerate self defense. A homeowner doesn't have to run away from her home or any place where she has a legal right to be if her life is threatened and she has to defend herself. Opposition to this is opposition to basic self defense.

They claim:

The measure has drawn no great national attention, but it certainly provides further evidence that gun safety cannot be left to state lawmakers beholden to the gun lobby.

The "gun lobby" consists of thousands of law-abiding, gun-owning Missourians like my family who the media and their friend Michael Bloomberg love to demonize.

Mr. Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed the measure in June, saying it would allow individuals with a criminal record to legally carry a concealed firearm even though they had been, or would have been, denied a permit under the old law’s background check.

This is pure fairytale. If you are a prohibited possessor it is a felony to carry. This law does not restore any such right to anyone who willfully commits a criminal act that forfeits such right. This is Nixon fear-mongering.

Mayors Sly James of Kansas City and Francis Slay of St. Louis warned against restricting the power of the local police to deny guns to those who commit domestic violence. They cited sharp spikes in domestic violence homicides in their cities, and they noted that the police would be left at greater risk by this bill.

I have explained at length why there are spikes in these Democrat-controlled cities run by anti-gun mayors (Mayor Francis Slay of my hometown is a supporter of Michael Bloomberg's various gun control groups).

Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a lawmaker from Ferguson, which erupted in protests after the 2014 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed African-American teenager, warned that enacting the stand-your-ground standard would mean another “bad Samaritan like Zimmerman.” She was referring to the shooting death in Florida four years ago of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, by George Zimmerman, who used a stand-your-ground defense allowed under Florida law.

Except that Stand Your Ground had absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman's defense. At all. Nothing.

Federal gun controls still require background checks on buyers, but only at federally licensed dealers. Unfortunately, there is a separate and busy uncontrolled market where buyers at gun shows and on the internet [sic] do not have to undergo background checks.

Except you can't buy a gun on the Internet, Amazon-style. You can't sell a firearm to a prohibited possessor and you can't purchase a firearm in another state if you're prohibited from legal ownership in your state of residence. This is why "Under The Gun's" producers should face felony charges.

The editorial ends with a push for Hillary Clinton, who, during her tenure as Secretary of State, approved arms deals to countries that donated to her foundation. 

I hope that the next time the NYT chooses to write about gun laws they do so after first researching the topic. The ignorance displayed in their editorial is embarrassing.

 


Related articles ALL POSTS
comment(s)
l.//