Missouri Dem Wants to Reverse Constitutional Carry After Kansas City Shooting

gmsjs90 / Pixabay

There has never been an anti-gunner who didn't want to repeal constitutional carry if their home state has it. Not a one.

There's always some song and dance why it's terrible, but the truth is that constitutional carry isn't remotely related to an increase in crime and, in fact, may well reduce it.


Yet it's not like anti-gunners care about that sort of thing, and then we have Missouri. Kansas City, to be specific.

They have constitutional carry and they just had a horrific shooting. Guess what at least one lawmaker wants to do. Go on. Guess?

If you said "repeal constitutional carry," then give yourself a cookie!

Following the tragic shooting during the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl celebration last week, Representative Ashley Aune, a Democrat from Kansas City, Missouri, has called for the introduction of “commonsense” gun control measures. Aune is advocating for the state of Missouri to implement a requirement that individuals must obtain a permit to carry handguns in public spaces.

Aune, a gun owner who supports the Second Amendment, expressed concern over the current approach to firearm regulation in the state. “I think it’s a dangerous, dangerous way to approach firearms,” Aune remarked. She emphasized the importance of acknowledging the safety and responsibility aspects of firearm ownership.

Aune acknowledges that her proposal faces an uphill battle, but that's putting it mildly. Sisyphus has an easier task ahead of him than Aune does, which is a good thing.


"But she's a gun owner!"

So? It's clear she's also an anti-gunner. She can claim to support the Second Amendment all she wants, but the only rating I can find for her on her support of gun rights is a 0% rating from the NRA. By contrast, Kentucky's Thomas Massie has a 92%, which is as high as anyone seems to have. Just for some perspective.

So no, she's not pro-gun just because she claims to own firearms herself.

Now, with that out of the way, let's remember a few basic facts here. For one thing, it seems at least one of the firearms used in the Kansas City shooting was stolen. That alone suggests that at least one of those involved wasn't all that interested in gun laws in the first place.

If one wasn't, why should we assume everyone else would have otherwise been disarmed?

Shooting into a crowd over a disagreement, which is what officials say happened, is already as illegal as it gets. No one with any sense is going to fire into a crowd simply because you don't like some dude or because he got up into someone's face, even if that face is yours.


That fact alone makes it clear that new laws won't stop what happened.

But those laws will make things more difficult for law-abiding citizens. Now, suddenly, they have to jump through hoops to do something they could do without a permit for years, all because of the actions of a few knuckleheads who would have still done what they did regardless.

The thing to remember is that this isn't a response to Kansas City, no matter what Aune tries to say. No, Kansas City was just a handy pretext to go after gun rights in Missouri and to, hopefully, start pealing away the gains made there over the years.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member