A bill making libraries gun-free zones is a superfluous exercise

So, what is the point of this bill?

Now that the video has been posted from Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, we learn that Senate Bill 115 — which purportedly would add public libraries to the legislatively mandated gun-free zones — can be whisked away by a simple vote of any library district board.

The Legislative Counsel Bureau’s digest of the bill states: “This bill additionally prohibits a person from carrying or possessing certain weapons while on the property of a public library unless the person has written permission from the governing board of the public library to carry or possess the weapon.”

The bill amends current law which creates gun-free zones on the parking lots and in the buildings of universities, public and private schools and child care facilities by adding public libraries.

According to the LCB attorney present at the meeting, “written permission” need not be for every individual seeking to bring their weapons onto library grounds and into library buildings, but can be a sweeping policy to allow any any patron to openly or concealed carry.

As is pointed out in this week’s newspaper column, the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District already prohibits weapons in library buildings, and presumably any library district could do so as well, making SB115 a superfluous exercise in hoplophobia by nanny state lawmakers. One person joked that Eureka could allow patrons to bring their shotguns.

We still think someone should a amend the bill to add language from Assemblyman John Hambrick’s unsuccessful 2015 legislation that  would have allowed guns in vehicles at the aforementioned locales so long as the vehicle was locked or occupied.

 

Advertisements

14 comments on “A bill making libraries gun-free zones is a superfluous exercise

  1. Did I miss the rash of public library shootings in Nevada?

  2. Bruce Feher says:

    Maybe one day our “lawmakers” will focus on reality instead for this feel good garbage that will NOT prevent the bad guys from doing what bad guys do.

  3. Bill says:

    Not just “feel good” Bruce, but probably part of the overall assault on the 2nd Amendment. Added to this of course, is the traditional way that lawmakers get publicity. Introduce a bill that appeals to the cause de jure and thereby appeal impress everyone in your base.

    Redundancy has never been a thing that the majority of lawmakers avoid. Quite the opposite. Create another bureau, add another law, pile on regulations for every scenario, real or imagined.

    Look how well restrictive laws on gun possession have worked so far. How has curtailing gun violence by restrictive laws worked in Chicago, Washington D. C. and for that matter, France? Focusing on guns instead of those who use guns will never solve the problem. Kind of like the crusade against fast food. It is not the food that is offered that is the problem but the fact that people choose to take in too many calories. Remember, you can lose weight eating Twinkies if you limit the number of calories.

    One thing that all of these laws about guns and schools and libraries will do, is make sure that kids in Elko and Eureka that used to take their guns to school in their vehicles will have to go home first before they can try to get an hour of chukar or deer hunting in before it gets dark.

  4. Rincon says:

    Making gun free zones is a political statement and nothing more. Totally ineffective.

  5. Anonymous says:

    It’s definitely silly season; an assault on the 2nd Amendment? The most absurd statement of all (and there were plenty to choose from). If politicians even talking about how to stop people from shooting other people constitutes an assault then the word has no meaning at all.

    We’ve come from a country, early on in our history, through the 18th 19th and 20th centuries when government imposed restrictions on guns and fun ownership and the use of guns was THE NORM. No one gave it too much thought when guns were ordered by sheriffs in towns to be handed over to those sheriffs before even entering the town.

    Today we’ve gone from reason to the absurdity of people on the right claiming that even disccussing the subject constitutes an “assault” heck we’re now to the point where “leaders” on the right are suggesting that mentally absolutely crazy people ought not be stopped in their pursuit to own assault weapons. It’s nutzo crazy gum day on the right.

    And I’d be happy for anyone to offer any evidence that laws restricting guns or the possession if guns haven’t prevented the use if guns; this is how dumb the right has become. Forget about just their usual hypocrisy where out of one side of their mouth they will say how horrible laws are because by regulating something you’re sure to get less of it, but now say that this applies to most everything they hate, but definitely not that which they seem to love like guns.

    This insanity and the extreme to which the far right has gone on this issue is why they can’t be taken seriously.

  6. Steve says:

    Sheriffs holding guns is a far cry from federally imposed, one size fits all, gun restrictions, Patrick.

    Though, since you seem to like it the way it used to be then I say by all means let us go back to those days when all military capable weaponry was to be made fully available to the public at large.

    My first choice, a flamethrower tank!

  7. Bill says:

    Switzerland has one of the highest per capita gun ownership’s in the world and yet their gun deaths are a mere 6.4 pr 100,000. Less than Chicago has on most weeks. Yet Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the U. S. as does Washington D. C..

    How many shooting deaths are attributed to NRA members or concealed weapon permit holders?

    Enacting no carry zones does nothing more than disarm citizens and render them helpless against those who pay no heed to the laws concerning gun ownership and gun restricted areas.

    We can’t bring back Wyatt Earp or Randolph Scott to protect us from the gun happy cowboys. Even if it were possible, the ACLU would not permit it.

    Look at what happened to Joe Arpaio.

    .

  8. deleted says:

    Discussions = assault
    War= Peace
    Truth=lies

    Eh Winston?

  9. Rincon says:

    Out of over 200 countries, Switzerland is an odd exception, which does not a rule make. Almost all other OECD countries have lower murder rates than ours (many have rates that are just a small fraction of ours) and almost all of them have stricter gun control laws than us. Coincidence? Maybe, but while liberals use that information to claim that gun control will reduce murders, Conservatives, while denying the liberal claim, offer essentially no alternative explanation of any kind. Why should I believe them?

  10. Bill says:

    OECD? Another acronym. What does it stand for? Who and what are the OECD countries? It’s too late at night to look it all up. You ask why you should believe liberals or conservatives? You appear to be a reasonable and thoughtful person. You are an adult. I would suggest that you question them both. There is no doubt in my mind that there are innumerable persons that should not be permitted to own or even touch a gun. But, in a nation that is not (yet) a police state, it is pretty hard to make rules that will control that portion of the population that the rest of society needs protection from. Guns? Hell, we can’t even control the idiots who drive automobiles. Want to stop gun violence? It will require much more than just restricting the 2nd Amendment.

  11. Rincon says:

    Acronyms and technical terms are sometimes bothersome, but I believe the OECD term is an unambiguous way of including most advanced countries, so I feel it is worth using. Here is a list of them: http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/list-oecd-member-countries.htm

    We may not disagree as much as it might appear. I believe that, while convicted felons and some of the mentally ill should not be allowed to purchase firearms, citizens of reasonably good behavior should be allowed to do so. I believe some limit of type and quantity is necessary as well. Missile launchers and the like should not be readily available on any street corner. Likewise, individuals buying dozens of firearms in a year should be required to qualify in a way similar to dealers. I also acknowledge the practical impossibility of eliminating the millions of existing firearms in private hands.

    What I would like to see though, is a more reasoned discussion of how to reduce the extreme level of violent crime in this country, with or without guns. We spend so much effort arguing about guns that we ignore the people shooting them.

  12. Bill says:

    Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking up OECD. We do probably agree a good deal on weapons. I see no rational reason for someone to own a an arsenal of offensive weapons either but the problem is always the slippery slope of good intentions gone awry. An uninformed public and media consistently describe anything other than a single shot BB gun as an assault or automatic weapon.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I am a life-time NRA member.

    We do need to place more effort and resources and pay more attention to mental health. We seemingly are rearing a generation of sociopaths. Witness the gang violence and random acts of violence in our inner cities. Mental health has never been a popular subject for politicians. No political appeal. Better to use one’s efforts on providing a project or building something so you can have your name put on it.

    Pro-active mental health services and screening are hard to implement. Even if you had the resources to provide it, there are legal restrictions that have been placed on medical privacy and it is relatively impossible for a third person to require involuntary examination. Troubled individuals and families are loathe to seek mental health help because of cost but primarily because of the stigma.

    There is no simple solution. Perhaps we need to examine what is left of our common culture.

  13. Rincon says:

    I certainly agree. This is one area where a little government research money might be well spent – unless we already have good answers that just aren’t being implemented. Anyone know of any?

    I do have a small sticking point about the “slippery slope”. I cannot accept that argument for most things because almost anything taken to an extreme can become undesirable. The whole goal is to find the optimum. If the Founding Fathers had worried about a slippery slope, we might well have become a monarchy. After all, I’m sure it was argued by some at the time that capitalism and democracy are slippery slopes leading to anarchy. Have some faith in our ability to say when.

  14. Rincon says:

    “The (British) Metropolitan Police carried out some 3,300 deployments involving firearms in 2016. They didn’t fire a single shot at a suspect.

    It’s a world away from the United States, where cops killed 1,092 people in 2016, according to figures compiled by The Guardian.

    Of course it’s easier for police to remain unarmed if civilians do the same. Out of every 100 people in Britain, fewer than four of them owns a firearm, according to GunPolicy.org, a project run by Australia’s University of Sydney. In the U.S. there is more than one gun per person.”
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/london-parliament-attack/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s