From the Arkansas Statehouse...

Open-carry bill flops.

In Annals of Bad Ideas, Firearms on 24 March 2009 at 4:11 pm

Yet another weapons bill hit committee this afternoon as the House Judiciary Committee considered Rep. Mark Martin’s legislation to allow people to carry firearms in plain sight. The bill’s lack of provisions for training and its apparent permissiveness toward the open-carry of machine guns was too much for the committee. Though Rep. Martin did not agree with these criticisms, he pulled the bill down for amendment to ensure that it would not be legal for children to wield a gun.

Several legislators suggested they might vote for the bill if it required some sort of permit or training for open carry, but Rep. Martin firmly resisted making a change. He argued that such a requirement would place a financial burden on impoverished people. The poor who couldn’t pay would be unable to exercise what Rep. Martin considers a constitutional right to bear arms in the open. In response to the comment that anyone who owns a gun can also afford a training course, Rep. Martin responded that a gun might be inherited or earned from some sort of program.

“[A fee] would have a chilling effect on people who were discriminated against before,” Rep. Martin said in reference to the 19th century slave laws he cited to justify the necessity of open-carry legislation.

“At what point do what stop expecting a training program to teach people and start trusting them to act responsibly?” Rep. Martin inquired.

There was some questioning about the relationship of the proposed law to current concealed-carry requirements. It was discussed whether the bill would grant greater lenience toward concealed-carriers who violate certain provisions of their permits. For example, there would no longer be ramifications for a concealed-carry holder who commits “inadvertent revealing of the weapon,” as Rep. Martin phrased it, since the open-carry law would override concealed-carry.

Rep. Steve Harrelson said the bill appears to allow people to carry machine guns in public. Rep. Martin responded that current law is ridiculous and needs to be corrected; as it is now, kids could be prosecuted for carrying baseball bats, he said, or hunters could be arrested for carrying a gun to a duck camp.

Among the flaws committee members pointed out, Rep. Martin would only concede that the bill does not explicitly prevent children from availing themselves of open-carry privileges. He will likely offer the measure again after amendment.

  1. How do machineguns relate to this? Openly carry machineguns? Seriously?

    Automatic weapons have been severely restricted in the US since 1934. They have not been available for import since 1968, nor for purchase new since 1986. Since 1934, exactly one crime has been committed with a legally owned machinegun – by a Chicago police officer.

    This is nothing more than hyperbole.

    “…what Rep. Martin considers a constitutional right to bear arms in the open” – Let us compare, for a moment, the federal constitution, as amended: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Clearly, requiring those same arms to be concealed, then licensing and requiring payment to conceal arms, is infringement. As a citizen of the state of Arkansas, and of these United States, I have every right to own, possess, and carry arms as I deem necessary. Its about time our government realized that their authority comes from the people, and not the other way around.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: