Can the media get the facts right on constitutional carry?

More often than not, they can’t. They get fundamental facts so horribly wrong it’s almost laughable, often relying on the most biased activists to provide journalistic cover from their own pathetic attempts to skew perception on the subject.

However, a recent report looking at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his vow to bring constitutional carry to the Sunshine State managed to get some key facts right for a change.

What does constitutional carry mean?

Under constitutional carry legislation, a person who legally owns a firearm may carry it in public, visibly or concealed, at almost any time or place, without training, registration or government licensing. Simple as that.

Under constitutional carry laws, can anyone carry a gun wherever they want to?

Not quite. And the laws vary from state to state.

First and foremost, you must be legally allowed to carry a firearm under state law. Age, criminal history, location, residency and other restrictions may still apply.

Some states may keep restrictions on carrying firearms or other weapons other than handguns and may ban firearms at locations such as polling places while voting is taking place, government meetings open to the public, county courthouses, etc. Private property owners still may choose to ban firearms on their property.

Now, there are some issues with the report, such as the claim that support for gun control remains high, but they actually provide their sources, so it really boils down to which sources we choose to trust.

That’s not something I’m interested in hammering them on.

Yet I find it interesting that they acknowledged that constitutional carry doesn’t actually allow anyone to carry a gun everywhere. That’s a lesson a certain Georgia politician should learn:

You cannot claim to care about public safety and then support a bill that makes it easier for criminals to carry a loaded, concealed weapon without a permit.

— Stacey Abrams (@staceyabrams) May 1, 2022

Not that criminals are being deterred by their lack of permits now, mind you.

Regardless, this isn’t about Abrams. It’s about a report that actually took the time to try and get the facts correct. Something like that needs to be applauded, to be celebrated. It’s rare as hell and we need to give props for the factual nature of a news report.

Of course, it’s a sad state when a factual news report on a firearm-related subject like constitutional carry warrants celebration rather than just accepted as what a responsible news agency should do, but this is where we are today.

Yes, it’s a shame.

Unfortunately, we can’t do much about it except to applaud them when they get it right and hope that’s sufficient for them to do it again and again.

I don’t expect the news to be slanted toward the right. I want a sober, neutral approach to the issues so people can make up their own minds. If I can’t get that, I’d prefer they wear their bias on their sleeves so you know where they stand.

In this case, they presented it neutrally and I can only pray we start to see much more of this. Trust in the media is low, and part of that is because of the blatantly biased reporting. I don’t know if this is an indicator that reporting like that is going away, but I sure hope so.