In St. Louis, a lot of local officials seemingly want local gun control. After all, Missouri isn’t currently known for an anti-gun attitude, which means there aren’t a lot of state regulations on the books. I mean, this is a state that passed a law basically nullifying federal gun control statutes. The odds of the state embracing anti-gun regulations isn’t exactly plausible.

So, they want gun control laws of their own.

What’s more, the media tends to focus on those anti-gun lawmakers. Yet we need to remember that not every council member there sees some kind of need for new rules.

Mark Harder, a St. Louis County Council Vice Chair who represents the county’s seventh district, announced Tuesday he opposes the push for legislation. He claims it would infringe on the Second Amendment rights of St. Louis County residents.

…

Meanwhile, Harder offered this statement to FOX 2 on Tuesday in objection to such legislation:

“Any attempt to curtail the gun rights of law-abiding citizens in Missouri is a direct assault on our Second Amendment. As a steadfast defender of our constitutional rights, I remain unwavering in my commitment to our right to self-defense. I will always stand firm against any attempts that seek to undermine the ability of Missourians to protect themselves and their loved ones as efforts to prevent constitutional carry would.”

“Our focus must lie in the enforcement of existing laws and the removal of dangerous, criminal
elements from our streets. That is why I will continue to champion our dedicated police officers
and work tirelessly to secure the resources they require to ensure the safety of our community.”

Harder’s effort is bolstered by the fact that Missouri is a preemption state, which means even if other council members offer up anti-gun measures and those measures are passed, they can’t lawfully be enforced.

Any attempt to do so will land them in court and for the local ordinance to be overturned.

Of course, a lot of local officials even outside of Missouri look to overturn preemption and hope that by passing their own laws, the courts will overturn the state law rather than their own.

Which is idiotic.

It’s either that or they’re simply trying to bolster their image with the state Democratic Party in hopes of moving up to a higher office.

Frankly, both are equally plausible and these two options aren’t mutually exclusive, so “both” is a perfectly valid option.

Regardless, Harder’s stance is the correct one. My hope is that his position is the majority one on the council, though I’m not interested in holding my breath. Larger cities like St. Louis are notoriously in favor of gun control, after all, so I suspect he’s the minority.

The truth is, though, there are a lot of things that can be done in St. Louis that don’t infringe on people’s right to keep and bear arms. Those efforts don’t make headlines quite the same way as anti-gun positions do, and that’s really what this is all about.