Well, at least to some degree.
West Virginia lawmakers have managed to override a veto by Governor Earl Ray Tomblin of a bill that would allow adults to carry concealed handguns without a permit.
The Democratic Tomblin used his veto to override peoples’ second amendment constitutional right to bear arms but the West Virginia legislature didn’t let him get away with it. The state’s house of delegates and the Senate completed the override of Tomblin’s veto with a vote of 23-11. The vote was bi-partisan in both chambers, therefore a number of WV Democrats deserve credit in this particular case.
Tomblin vetoed the bill on Thursday at a ceremony surrounded by dozens of police officers, telling legislators that the law enforcement community was concerned about it.
“When you’re a police officer and you walk into a dangerous situation, you almost have to expect that everyone’s carrying a gun,” Tomblin said.
Yes, instead of merely the state employees. Cops should be expecting that everyone’s carrying a gun. Of course heavy criminals are likely to be carrying guns anyway but now innocent civilians may too. It begs the question what cops would need to be afraid of if they would treat innocent civilians with respect, or wouldn’t use overly excessive force on small time crooks or suspects of crimes. We know what can happen when cops believe they can act with virtual impunity.
Tomblin criticized the override vote with a prepared statement, saying he found it “disheartening” that legislators chose put the safety of police officers “and the safety of West Virginians” at risk.
Because the safety of West Virginians is not at risk when they have no means to defend themselves against criminals; the very type of people who flout the law and do harm and are likely to be armed. How did, and do, gun free zones in schools (such as Columbine, Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook) keep people safe from psychopathic madmen? We can read in the news repeatedly what the answer to that is. Police officers of course cannot be in such situations in time.
Police action = First Shot fired + Response Time
Victims are therefore apparently expected to simply accept their fate for at least that period of time where the only person(s) armed are the psychopaths. So when will officers of the law arrive to act, and will they act effectively? God only knows, and victims should just say a prayer.
Laughable also is the lame reasoning that innocent civilians themselves, when finding themselves in some mad man’s cross hairs, could end up shooting innocents by mistake. I wonder what those innocents would prefer: to run the substantial risk of being shot and murdered deliberately during a killing spree, or by accident in a case where a victim is armed and at least tries to stop a psychopath. Give them a choice before hand, and it seems pretty obvious to me which they would prefer. Not to mention that an accidental bullet is not aimed deliberately and likely to be solitary, whereas the bullets of a murderer are aimed and shot to kill, and could come in bursts.
No; all of this is sophistry from the gun control lobby. What they truly want is not civilian safety, but civilian disarmorment. What they want is a citizenry pacified and without means to resist, if and when government departments decide to use excessive, immoral and unconstitutional force against civilians. It is sophistry from government supremacists, who believe the only proper response to government is total submission, regardless of what the constitution has to say about governments becoming tyrannical, about the right to bear arms and what the American revolution was about.
As far as police officers go; they know their safety is at risk the moment they choose to become officers of the law. Nobody claimed it was a safe line of work, seeing as the whole point is to deal with the criminal element. When it comes to aggressive behavior toward mere suspects or innocent civilians, they should be properly cautious.
“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,” — Thomas Jefferson
An armed citizenry keeps powerhungry government officials in check. That is precisely the whole point of the second amendment.
In either case, the worries of police officers or even a number of civilians is no valid argument for the negation or suspension of constitutional rights.
It’s about time that this is being said loud and clear.