they are at it again:
Friends for Jeff Spiegelman (Firearms List)
I hope things are going well for you.
I wanted to make you aware of a bill that is about to be circulated for cosponsors. In design, it is supposed to allow municipalities to prevent the open carrying of firearms in municipal buildings.
The bill is designed for places where people are encouraged to express opinions about their government and its leaders and where often contentious issues are debated and decided. The municipality can say that they do not want to discourage people from practicing their First Amendment Rights to free speech because they were intimidated by someone practicing their Second Amendment Rights to own and bare firearms. A tricky situation.
I would also like to point out that the bill creates an exception for legal concealed carry.
However, I do have some issues with the bill I would like to share with you. I encourage you to contact me and share your own concerns.
-The bill mandates all municipalities must adhere to the no open-carry provision unless they pass an ordinance to the contrary (essentially an opt-out). I would contend, that if this is really such an issue, why not say they can opt-in instead of having to opt-out? I am not sure I would support the bill if this was the case, but I would feel much less uncomfortable about the bill if this was changed.
-A strong case can be made for the slippery-slope argument. First is open carry, next would be concealed carry, and next we would have Detroit style gun laws with predictable Detroit style results in the municipalities. I make this concern because of how many elected officials from the municipalities that want this bill have been public with their desire for, what many would consider, very unacceptable levels of gun control. Further evidence for this is the fact that the name of the computer file of the bill is "Municipal Gun Bil Take 4- Concealed Ok". This to me makes the case that the previous few "takes" did not carve out an exception for legal concealed carry. So whomever was writing/designing the bill had to get to that point eventually and the original plan was considerably more restrictive.
-Preemption creates a strange patchwork of inconsistent gun laws.
Friends for Jeff Spiegelman (Firearms List)
I hope things are going well for you.
I wanted to make you aware of a bill that is about to be circulated for cosponsors. In design, it is supposed to allow municipalities to prevent the open carrying of firearms in municipal buildings.
The bill is designed for places where people are encouraged to express opinions about their government and its leaders and where often contentious issues are debated and decided. The municipality can say that they do not want to discourage people from practicing their First Amendment Rights to free speech because they were intimidated by someone practicing their Second Amendment Rights to own and bare firearms. A tricky situation.
I would also like to point out that the bill creates an exception for legal concealed carry.
However, I do have some issues with the bill I would like to share with you. I encourage you to contact me and share your own concerns.
-The bill mandates all municipalities must adhere to the no open-carry provision unless they pass an ordinance to the contrary (essentially an opt-out). I would contend, that if this is really such an issue, why not say they can opt-in instead of having to opt-out? I am not sure I would support the bill if this was the case, but I would feel much less uncomfortable about the bill if this was changed.
-A strong case can be made for the slippery-slope argument. First is open carry, next would be concealed carry, and next we would have Detroit style gun laws with predictable Detroit style results in the municipalities. I make this concern because of how many elected officials from the municipalities that want this bill have been public with their desire for, what many would consider, very unacceptable levels of gun control. Further evidence for this is the fact that the name of the computer file of the bill is "Municipal Gun Bil Take 4- Concealed Ok". This to me makes the case that the previous few "takes" did not carve out an exception for legal concealed carry. So whomever was writing/designing the bill had to get to that point eventually and the original plan was considerably more restrictive.
-Preemption creates a strange patchwork of inconsistent gun laws.