The Corner

Missouri Becomes the Eleventh Constitutional Carry State

Per KY3, another pointless permitting regime bites the dust:

Missouri lawmakers have overridden a veto of a wide-ranging guns bill that will let more people carry concealed weapons and give them greater legal rights to defend themselves.

The Republican-led Legislature enacted the law Wednesday by a 24-6 Senate vote and a 112-41 vote in the House. Both exceeded the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

Good.

The usual suspects will, of course, cry bloody murder. They’ll say that the move is “insane” and that’s it “irresponsible”; they’ll argue — as usual – that it will lead to “blood in the streets”; and they’ll do their best to pretend that this is all part of a “new experiment.” But none of those things is actually true. Constitutional carry is not rare: As of today, constitutional carry states outnumber “may issue” states (if “constitutional carry” is outré, what does that make California?). It is not “new”: Vermont has had it for its entire history, Alaska since 2003, Arizona since 2010, and so forth. And, as Robert VerBruggen has noted, it is not dangerous: “What we have learned” from the data, VerBruggen writes:

is this: A bunch of states started letting almost any random person walk around with a gun, and if anything good or bad resulted, it doesn’t reliably show up in the data. That’s something in itself.

(Those states, for those who are interested, are Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia and Wyoming — plus, to a lesser or qualified extent, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Montana, and Oklahoma.)

When VerBruggen suggests that permitting systems don’t do anything at all, he means, of course, that they don’t do anything at all to the crime rate. Naturally, they do a number of things to the people who have to obtain them. Depending on the state, a permit can cost up to $450, it can involve time-consuming prerequisite steps, and it can delay for months the exercise of a constitutional right. If there were evidence that these impositions did something worthwhile, they might — might — be defensible. But there’s not. So they’re not. Good on Missouri’s legislature for acknowledging that. Let’s hope that others follow suit before long.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith Resigns

Fox News Channel's chief anchor, Shepard Smith, announced on air Friday that he would be resigning from his post after 23 years with the network. “This is my last newscast here,” said Smith. “Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News. After requesting that I stay, they obliged.” He ... Read More
NR Webathon

Don’t Let Michael Mann Succeed

I  enjoyed the running joke of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the great Dickens novel Bleak House, back when I first read it. Little did I know that one day I and the magazine that I love would effectively be caught up in a version of that interminable case, courtesy of a litigious climate scientist with zero regard ... Read More
White House

What Is Impeachment For?

W hat is impeachment for? Seems like a simple question. Constitutionally speaking, it also appears to have a simple answer: to cite and remove from power a president guilty of wrongdoing. Aye, there’s the rub. What sort of wrongdoing warrants removal from power? I’d wager that the flames of ... Read More
Elections

Beto Proposes to Oppress Church with State

Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is within the margin of error of non-existence, but in his failure he has found a purpose: expressing the Democratic id. His latest bid for left-wing love came at a CNN forum on gay rights, where he said that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should have to pay ... Read More