If we learned anything after the attempted shooting in White Settlement, Texas, it’s that armed citizens can and do stop potential mass murderers. Hero Jack Wilson put down the would-be killer as quickly as possible, thus eliminating the threat and saving an untold number of lives.

It became clear at that moment that guns in churches save lives.

I suspect that played in at least some Louisiana lawmakers’ minds as they pondered a bill that would allow people to carry in churches without having to beg for permission first. After all, narrow-minded clergy may well say no, thus relegating their congregations to a pool of potential victims rather than just worshippers.

The bill, however, is getting opposition from anti-gun media in the state.

In the name of gun rights, a ridiculous measure was launched in the Legislature, overriding the pastor and congregation of any church and forcing it to allow firearms in places of worship.

Another bill would, without regard to local views or conditions, overrule decisions by cities or parishes on sensible gun control regulations. Yet another bill would not allow authorities to regulate firearms during a state of emergency.

Extremism is on the march, in a Legislature that has vastly more important things to do.

What are these bills doing even being heard in committee in a session during which the state is struggling with a pandemic of a deadly disease? Great question.

I don’t know, but I do wonder if you’re asking Sen. Richard Blumenthal the same question.

However, to call such a measure “extremism” is beyond uncalled for.

Look, if you think the Louisiana legislature should remain focused on COVID-19, that’s fair. I don’t know that I necessarily agree–I mean, there’s only so much they can do at a state level–but I can at least get the argument there.

Yet calling it extreme to push for a law that argues gun owners shouldn’t have to grovel before a pastor before carrying a firearm is hardly extremism. The fact that it’s being argued as such is telling.

You see, it’s only “extremism” because it’s pro-gun. If the law sought to require pastors to conduct gay weddings, for example, it would be stunning and brave. Yet, in that case, it would not only try to dictate what happens inside the church but go against what many faiths believe regarding same-sex marriages.

The editorial board would likely have no issue with that, and we all know it. They’d be just fine with that, arguing that not requiring them to do such infringes on people’s rights. Yet people’s Second Amendment rights are still rights, which means those would need to be respected as well.

Editorial boards consider measures like this “extremist” because they remove a layer of control over who can carry guns and where.

It should be noted, however, that the bill doesn’t seem to impact criminal trespass laws. That’s important because it means a church can still ask someone to leave if they find out he or she is carrying a firearm. That option still remains.

The church would just have to know someone is, and there’s the rub. The opposition over this mild expansion of gun rights–people can already carry if they do get their pastor’s permission–makes it clear that it’s about control rather than safety.