It’s now law. In Missouri, you no longer need a license to carry a firearm in public. They’re the 12th state to adopt such a law known as constitutional carry; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) represents a state with such a law. To those who love freedom and the Second Amendment, it’s a great day for the expansion of constitutional rights. For anti-gun liberals, it’s a day for hysterics, which was perfectly captured by the editorial board of The New York Times:
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. Democrats opposed to the Missouri bill called it a “perfect storm” of lowered standards for the use of deadly force and an invitation for people to be armed without responsible controls. The measure was enacted by the Republicans, despite strong public opposition and warnings about the threat to public safety from the state Police Chiefs Association. Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the groups fighting the gun lobby, noted that stand your ground laws result in disproportionate harm to communities of color.
In the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has called for extensive gun safety measures, including a ban on the assault weapons favored by mass shooters, closing background-check loopholes, ending the gun industry’s outrageous protection from civil damage suits and denying guns to risky suspects on the government’s no-fly lists. Donald Trump, endorsed by the National Rifle Association, favors more armed civilians ready to engage in what he calls a defensive “shootout.” This is one of the most pathetic measures yet of his pandering, when he should be leading, on an issue of vital importance to the public.
First, if there’s any measure endorsed by Everytown, it’s bad—and pro-gun rights advocates should pour everything they got into defeating whatever policy proposal that Everytown leeches itself onto in the future. Second, it’s the same old story with these people. An expansion of gun rights would lead to more gun deaths. Nope. That’s just not the case. Gun homicides have gone down precipitously since 1993. In fact, they’ve been cut in half. Violent crime is still down, safe for a few pockets in urban areas that are run by Democrats.
Support for gun rights has reached a 25-year high, more than 100 million have been sold since Obama took the oath of office, there are a record number of Americans carrying concealed carry permits. Yet, America is not a shooting gallery. Anti-gun liberals certainly want that since dead people increase media attention, email lists, and fill their war chests, but somehow we on the Right always beat them—and beat them badly. Moreover, the Times’ notion that gun owners are somehow more inclined to shoot people is baseless, irresponsible, and totally in keeping with smug left wing attitudes of urban-based elites. That’s fine. Again, just take comfort that our side is winning, whereas their side can’t get anything passed because all of their ideas are terrible. At the same time, at the local level, we need to make sure their anti-gun proposals don’t spread to other parts of the country. Looking at you, Hawaii.
Oh, and Vermont is a deep-blue state, with constitutional carry and a population where 70-75 percent of its residents own guns. I don't hear any tales of mass bloodshed from there.