Not everyone believes in God, but they know that the term "God-given" means something that you have by virtue of simply existing. The right to live being chief among those. Another such God-given right is the right to keep and bear arms.

A lot of people don't agree with that, but I honestly don't care all that much about what those people think.

It is what it is and their opinions aren't going to change that.

In Kansas, they like the right to keep and bear arms. It's a state that isn't really threatening those rights for people who live there. Now, they want to go a step further.

Members of the House Federal and State Affairs Committee are considering House Concurrent Resolution 5006, which would present to voters a constitutional amendment that recognizes the God-given right to own a firearm, ammunition and accessories. The proposal would apply a “strict scrutiny” to the right, invoking a legal term with the goal of blocking any future restrictions on gun rights. That means even armor-piercing bullets could be protected, according to testimony from proponents.

Springer, who said the constitutional amendment would put guns in the hands of felons and abusers, was one of two opponents to speak at a Feb. 5 hearing on the resolution, although opponents who submitted testimony outnumber proponents 32-13. The other opponent who spoke, Nick Reinecker, said the resolution doesn’t provide enough freedom for gun owners.

The resolution has the support of 67 sponsors in the House, as well as Attorney General Kris Kobach.

The proposed constitutional amendment refers to “a natural and fundamental right” to carry guns, which Kobach defined for committee members as “a God-given right, or if one doesn’t believe in God, then a right that is of the very essence of human logic and human nature.”

“It’s a right that government doesn’t create,” Kobach said.

Of course, first, we should note that this piece starts with someone named Grace Springer talking about a school shooting in 2022. She doesn't seem to have any additional experience in gun policy other than seeing something scary.

So when she claims this amendment would put guns in the hands of felons and abusers, that's just an opinion that isn't predicated on any actual expertise.

And while opponents outnumbered proponents in submitted testimony, I can't help but wonder how many of those were like Reinecker, who think it doesn't go far enough.

And he has a point.

The strict scrutiny standard is actually an easier standard to clear than the Bruen test, which means it'll be easier to defend gun control under such a standard. Not easy, mind you--a lot of us wanted a strict scrutiny standard out of the Bruen decision. What we got was far better than that--so the case could be made that it doesn't go far enough.

But that said, it's a difference without practical distinction in the grand scheme of things. It'll still be a far better to have a constitution with protections than without them.

Plus, I love that it includes firearm accessories. Especially in light of the recent court decision that suppressors aren't covered under the Second Amendment.

So we'll see where this goes, if anyway. It should be interesting to watch.