Guns at government meetings/buildings/whatever tends to be fairly contentious. It seems the elected elites prefer to have laws surrounding them that disarm the rank and file, even if they know on some level those laws don’t actually keep them safe. For some, it’s really nothing more than a power play.
That’s often especially true at the local level. After all, there’s often very little power–at least as most people think of it–for city councilmen and women, so it becomes all the more important to flex what power there is.
However, one city council in Ohio may be heading in a very different direction.
Lebanon City Council is leaning towards allowing holders of concealed carry permits to bring their guns to council meetings, says councilwoman Wendy Monroe.
It’s a change few local governments have made in the state of Ohio.
According to records on the city’s website, the topic has only gotten as far as council work sessions.
“If there is a potential victim in this situation, the number-one way for that potential victim to end the situation in their favor is for them to introduce a firearm into the equation, and suddenly they’re okay, generally, never having to pull the trigger, which is really what we want,” Monroe said.
Unfortunately, it’s not unanimous. While five of the seven council members expressed support for the plan, the mayor was quite while another council member vocally opposed the measure.
Her reasons? Oh, the usual.
Krista Wyatt is the only council member to express opposition.
She expressed concern this would enable irresponsible gun owners who think themselves “lone rangers.” Instead, she suggested Police Chief Jeff Mitchell or an officer be assigned, as is done in communities around the state.
Ah, yes, the mythical “lone ranger” private citizen who has pretty much never existed except in the minds of people like Councilwoman Wyatt.
For me, the problem here isn’t so much about what happens inside the council chamber. After all, Wyatt is correct that an officer could be stationed in the room to mitigate many of those threats.
Where the problem pops up, though, is the points between people’s homes and the council meeting and back again. They’re essentially disarmed–either that or they have to leave their guns in their car, something many of us are uncomfortable with–for the entire trip. All because one point on their day bans people from exercising their constitutionally-protected right.
No police officer assigned to attend meetings is going to mitigate that threat.
Wyatt and people like her, though, continue to hold up these near-mythical “irresponsible gun owner” looking to go Rambo at any moment as if they’re a clear and present danger to society. Yet numerous states allow guns in so many places that if this were a real danger, we’d have mountains of evidence proving it.
No such thing exists because it just. Doesn’t. Happen.
Not that I’d expect someone like Wyatt to understand that. People who prattle on about “lone rangers” and other such tripe rarely understand that what they fear is statistically unlikely to such an extreme as to make their point moot.
But moot points don’t allow the fear-mongering to end an infringement on civil liberties, so there ya go.