Sitting Duck Policy

Utah: Firearm Possession Protection Bill Now Goes to House Floor

In California, a bill that will ban the (currently legal practice of) carrying an unloaded firearm, unconcealed, and in the open, awaits the Governor’s signature.

Assembly Bill 144 (AB 144) had previously been defeated.

“Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon,” says Anthony Portantino (the California Assemblyman behind the bill), “doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren’t comfortable.”

Daryl Dempsey of USA Carry responded eloquently to Mr. Portantino:

“Just because one person is not comfortable with weapons, doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who are comfortable, and who are legally eligible, to carry weapons openly or concealed – loaded or not.”

We do not restrict people carrying protest signs by requiring they be permitted AND concealed. We do not restrict people carrying the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, or Upanishads; or wearing a Yarmulke, Turban, or Burke to only those who have a permit AND keep them out of public view.

So if we do not restrict open and unrestricted First Amendment Rights, what gives Mr. Portantino or ANYONE the right to infringe upon Second Amendment Rights.

A point to ponder: More people have been killed in the name of religion than with modern handguns. Why aren’t we restricting the free practice of religion?

In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.

And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.

At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue. While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.

But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Globe quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”

Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire. In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.

Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps. But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.