The United States Senate narrowly declined to respect the law of the land in rejecting another affirmation of freedom in this country. Senator John Thune [R -S.D.] put up a bill which would have made reciprocity for concealed carry permits cool among all those states who have some sort of CCW permit. That would be forty-eight states. It’s not the first time the will of the people is denied in the name of the will of the people.

Now, the editorials come out. In its op-ed section July 23, 2009, The Los Angeles Times ignores civics, sovereign authority, and present Brady Law in favor of emotionalism and leftist, and State party line politics over safety. The Times writes how the Thune – Vitter Bill would mean that “..today would be Christmas in July for gang members, organized crime syndicates and drug trafficking.” The Times alleges that the Bill would have ignored background checks around America, and would have seen guns travel from state to state under the radar due to reciprocity, all as if the Brady requirements already in place don’t work!!!

Do they work? Does the Thune – Vitter Bill call for the eradication of background checks, or does it affirm greater freedom for those who have already passed background checks and would pass them in other states as well?

The focus on safety needs to address aggressors in crime and not honest taxpayers who fund officials and law enforcement. It doesn’t serve safety to tie the hands of the electorate who is an ally of law enforcement, another fact the Times consistently overlooks in its rush to take guns. I am speaking of prohibited persons who do not spend the waiting time, the fees, and the intrusion when they have the appetite to acquire a handgun. Prohibited persons are not likely to have a CCW permit, in case The Los Angeles Times overlooked that! Most of the paper’s circulation would have noticed that.

The Times bashes legitimate gun owners by stating that more guns equals more risk. This is not true, since we already have more than 300 million guns in the hands of some 80 million adult citizens. There are millions of legally carrying adults, only you don’t see them. The only people you do see are the criminals who were not stopped by gun control, or any other control for that matter!!

Another paragraph has this: “Consider the price Texas has paid. In 2000, a Los Angeles Times investigation found that more than 400 people with prior criminal convictions, including rapists and armed robbers, had been issued concealed-weapons permits, and thousands of permit holders had been arrested for criminal behavior or found to be mentally unstable. Also, a Violence Policy Center study found that concealed-weapons license holders in Texas were arrested for weapons-related crimes at a rate 81% higher than the state’s general population.”

Thousands?? Those permit-holders the article cites in bashing the concept of concealed carry I leave to investigative analyst and Examiner colleague Howard Nemerov.

Meanwhile, police shootings prove repeatedly that thugs can get their hands on guns within hours of the urge, and liberty purists have been championing against prohibited persons as part of the liberty movement. It’s called enforcing laws already in place, but until one can find a way for gun control to stop persons who are already prohibited from possessing guns, you have a major void in the entire concept of gun control. Let me emphasize this: until you can stop the already prohibited persons from getting guns, the entire theory of gun control is entirely discredited. Since you cannot do it today and never will, the concept of gun control fails. So, why insist on it for those who do not commit crimes?

You might call it the Gun Control Loophole. [Note: The Times featured an editorial called the Gun Control Loophole on April 23, 2007, but compounded the felony, essentially admitting that gun control simply does not work for mental persons. The fact is that gun control doesn’t work at all, unless disarming citizens has something else it expects as results. This is the fear of millions as the State grows and grows and begins to ignore the electorate on all sorts of issues.]

Finally, The Times punctuates its error in hoping that “Wednesday’s victory stiffens the resolve of legislators who have feared to go toe-to-toe with the National Rifle Assn.” How ignorant of our civics. Legislators do not stand up to constituents, constituents stand up to belligerent legislators who oppose the original law with their own foibles and peccadilloes. Gun control is not courage, it is gutless abuse of process. The public servants do not stand up to us, we have to stand up to them when we supervise them and watch them like a hawk, instruct them, prod them and even unseat them. Their own fiat in everything now is what is eating away at the country at this very hour. The Times acts like we do not have to watch our servants, and credits servants with standing up to constituents. Brilliant perspective.

The editorial goes on to spite millions of gun owners within the electorate further by saying that the gun lobby’s ‘fanatical disregard for public safety’ is not going to stop and that it will take courage, etc. etc., and then the last sentence that gun owners think the answer is to arm everyone.

America does not need to arm everyone, but everyone needs the freedom to be armed. It is in the public interest for many reasons, while gun control is against the public interest, whatever the reason.

Gun control has consistently proven to be everything but what it has promised.

John Longenecker is author of Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns, now available today as an e-book online. Go to www.NationwideConcealedCarry.com

John Longenecker is an Examiner from Los Angeles.

Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.