Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
When Missouri lawmakers last night overrode Democrat Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of legislation that will prohibit local governments from banning open carry, it was a victory for Show Me State gun owners, no matter how they choose to carry, but another override has Seattle liberals fuming, and reveals a moral double standard of monumental proportions.
According to St. Louis Public Radio, "The bill prevents municipalities from barring people from openly carrying firearms, lowers the minimum age to 19 for concealed carry permits in the state, and allows school districts to arm teachers. Police officers also will be barred from disarming people unless they are under arrest." That's quite a package, and it sends a signal to gun prohibitionists that many lawmakers remember that keeping and bearing arms is a constitutionally-protected civil right, rather than a government-regulated privilege.
But it is another veto override that is raising hackles among many Seattle Times readers. Lawmakers also revived a bill that requires a 72-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions. This column takes no position on the abortion issue, but it takes issue with the reactions of liberal Times readers who consider this waiting period an outrage. Many of those same readers undoubtedly support a gun control measure on the Washington ballot that would, among other things, extend the waiting period on a handgun purchase from five to ten days.
It's a matter of whose political and philosophical ox is being gored. One Times reader best represents the prevailing liberal sentiment, calling it a "HUGE government intrusion into private medical affairs…There is nothing about this law that doesn't smack of big brother and massive overreach..."
By remarkable coincidence, that is essentially the position of gun rights activists regarding tenets of Initiative 594. As the Rev. Martin Luther King is frequently quoted to have said, "A right delayed is a right denied."
Regarding the gun legislation, one Times reader called it "insane" to legally allow a 19-year-old to carry a concealed handgun. Another reader fired right back, "Then why are you letting them vote? Why are you holding them responsible enough to enter legal contracts? Why are you putting them in issued uniforms, to represent and to protect the interests of the state and nation, when you won't allow them to afford themselves their own protection?"
Is this a serious case of inflamed double standards? Presumably, self-appointed "progressives" are fine with waiting periods, so long as they affect someone else's rights. When a waiting period is imposed on something in which they believe, then it is an affront.
There is a moral here, of course. When people push for government intrusion into private matters, all hell can break loose. Once that leash is removed, government will eventually come around and bite everyone.