Gun Rights Policy Conference Review

This article was originally published at A Conservative's Voice

I had the privilege today to attend the 27^th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The major focus of the conference was the current legislative and litigation environments that gun rights activists are currently working in.

As a staunch supporter of the United States Constitution I am very much in favor of Second Amendment rights and oppose efforts to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns.

As you can probably imagine, the people who run the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee are not big fans of Barack Obama or other liberal gun-grabbers.

Alan Gottlieb and Joseph Tartaro, founder and President of the Second Amendment Foundation respectively, opened the conference by discussing major topics that should concern gun owners.

One that stood out to me in particular was the topic of guns as a health issue.  With ObamaCare set to take full effect in 2014, a question has been raised by gun lobbyists as to how gun-owning households will be treated by health insurers.

Those who oppose the Second Amendment argue that households that own guns are at a higher risk for injury. 

My counter-argument to that is that gun ownership should fall under the protection of a pre-existing condition if I owned a gun prior to getting insurance.  Any constitutional lawyers, who are reading, feel free to use that.

Another issue that was raised by Jeff Knox, managing director of the Firearms Coalition is the issue of national reciprocity.

For those who don’t know, reciprocity refers to an agreement between states to accept concealed weapons permits for other states.

Reciprocity can be a confusing subject for those who don’t actively use the information.  Alabama, for instance, accepts permits from Colorado but Colorado does not accept permits from Alabama.

The goal of a national reciprocity act would be to simplify the agreements and create a national standard for concealed weapons permits.

As a gun rights activist I am for this.  Yet, as a states’ rights activist, I am against this.

I believe people have the right to personal protection both inside and outside of the home and therefore support the right to carry. 

I also believe in the right of states to manage things such as concealed weapons permits at the state level and not be constrained by a federal law.

So, my official position on this issued is to be determined.

Knox and Dr. John Lott, who is a commentator on FoxNews.com and for the Wall Street Journal, touched on the issue of gun-free zones.  Lott’s entire presentation focused on the effect gun-free zones has on violent crime rates.

Mass shootings, or as Lott so scholarly called them multiple-victim public shootings, most often happen in places where people with concealed carry permits are not allowed to carry weapons.

Recent examples include the shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, CO and at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, WI.  Both of these establishments were gun-free zones.

It has been statistically proven that criminals target places where they know it is against the law for people to carry concealed weapons.

The Virginia Tech shooting is another good example.  Knowing that it was illegal in Virginia to carry weapons on a college campus, the shooter in that case planned to have no resistance and for the ability to kill many people before police could respond.

Lott also noted that in 75% of the cases he studied, the shooter kills himself.  So, the idea that a concealed carry permit holder who stopped a gunman would also be guilty of a crime is quashed. 

In short, gun free zones do nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens as criminals would ignore the law anyway.

Other issues discussed included the UN arms treaty, school textbook language concerning the Second Amendment, and emergency room questionnaires that ask about gun ownership.

Whether you own a gun or not, the fact of the matter is that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right just like the right to free speech, trial by jury, and due process and it must be granted the same protection as every other right.