Shooting Fallout? Michigan Gov. Snyder Vetoes Concealed Gun Bill?

Gary McCoy, Cagle Cartoons

More fallout from the Sandy Hook shootings? Is this the beginning of a trend — or something that will (as in the other cases of mass gun murders) vanish?

The bill would have let concealed gun owners with additional permits carry their weapons in places where it was previously illegal to carry them such as places of worship, bars, schools, and stadiums.

In his veto letter to the state legislature Snyder said the legislation included a key loophole. The buildings in question, Snyder wrote, should be allowed to opt out of allowing concealed weapons.

I believe that it is important that these public institutions have clear legal authority to ban weapons from their premises,” Snyder wrote according to The Detroit Free Press. “Each is entrusted with the care of a vulnerable population and should have the authority to determine whether its mission would be enhanced by the addition of concealed weapons.”

On Monday, Snyder said he would give additional thought to signing the bill in response to a shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Twenty young children and six adults were killed during the massacre.

Prediction: The NRA will soon be back in form, resuming a public profile — and you’ll quickly see Fox News, conservative talk show hosts and some conservative bloggers pick up the NRA’s talking points that will be made in days to come. Second prediction: there won’t be any massive reform on this issue.

         

4 Comments

  1. Your prediction will no doubt come true, Joe, but there’s more to it than just that.

    Once the funerals are over and sufficient time has passed, the NRA will come back with a vengeance, portraying every single bit of proposed legislation – no matter how mild, serious, or sensible – as an attempt to confiscate all guns all the time, overturn the 2nd Amendment, and plunge America into (fill in your dictatorship of choice here).

    NRA members will dutifully stock up on even more assault rifles and more ammo, girding themselves for the eventual showdown with the government that must be coming…before the end of Obama’s 2nd term, no doubt.

    No such showdown will happen, of course. It never does. No mass confiscation of firearms will come. It never does. Whatever legislation is proposed by the lame-duck Congress or their successors will be watered down, voted down on the floor, or shot down (pun intended) before it even gets out of committee.

    On the local and state level, the gun lobby will get restrictions loosened, laws relaxed, and will do so by warning sternly that the feds are a-comin’ fer your guns…even as the legislation dies quietly at the federal level.

    Then there will be another massacre.

    And we’ll go ’round once again.

    We always do, because after these incidents, the public argument basically boils down to how many and what type of guns people should be able to own, and whether certain people should be prevented from owning them. What we really need to discuss in public is why we as a society view guns as a solution to problems, rather than a problem themselves.

    At some level, the shooter last Friday understood that his mother’s stockpile of guns was to be used to solve a problem. Survival in a post-apocalyptic world, apparently. The shooter in Tucson last year saw his guns as a solution to his problem with Gabby Giffords. The Columbine shooters saw their guns as a solution to the problem of how they were treated in school. Virginia Tech, Aurora, Ft. Hood…at every one the murderers saw no other solution to their problems than to arm themselves and start shooting.

    It goes beyond legislating against certain types of guns or where you can carry them. We need to start talking about why our nation seems to think the best way to solve a problem is to shoot it multiple times.

  2. What are the odds that Gov. Snyder would have happily signed that legislation had Sandy Hook not happened before he had a chance – like at 4:35 AM.

    How can the buildings have clear legal authority to ban weapons when it’s a 2nd amendment right to carry a (concealed in some cases) weapon wherever you go? If a building can ban them, can a stadium ban concealed weapons? A municipality? A state? A nation? Where does it end. What will SCOTUS rule?

    What is the deterrent to an attack on a person carrying a concealed weapon, anyway? If the bad guy doesn’t see a weapon, isn’t he more likely to attack? What church would welcome concealed weapons on their parishoners? What bar owner would appreciate weapons, concealed or otherwise, in their establishment? Their old preferred weapon of a ball bat or cue stick wouldn’t stand a chance.

    Seems to me the bars, stadiums, and churches would lose customers. No one willingly moves to South Chicago anymore. Even New York was losing money until they enacted strict gun controls. Seems that if nothing else makes an impression, losing cold hard cash might register.

  3. Is his veto just throwing a bone to the Democrats after the “right to work” bill? Maybe he thought it would just go to far and permanently alienate the leftward side of Michigan politics.

  4. Barky, I don’t think he was throwing a bone to the dems. His approval rating has plunged since the RTW bill was signed. He and his republican legislature have also passed another emergency manager law similar to the one we just voted down in November, in addition to an anti-abortion bill, all done during the lame duck session before they lose the votes.

    My prediction is that Snyder will wait until this all blows over and then a similar gun bill will be put forward and signed.

Submit a Comment