In the mind of the folks at Time magazine, a new gun law that allows church leaders and business owners to decide for themselves if concealed-carry permitees can carry their weapons on premises is "radical."
Here's how the magazine's Sam Frizell wrote up his brief story this morning on Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal's plans to sign the Safe Carry Protection Act into law in the Peach State (emphasis mine):
Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law Wednesday radical new gun legislation that will allow licensed owners to carry firearms into more public places than at any time in the past century, including government buildings, bars, and a wide variety of public places.The law, called the “Safe Carry Protection Act,” allows churches to “opt-in” to permit weapons, school districts to appoint staff carrying firearms, and requires bars to opt out if they wish to ban firearms, NBC reports. Gun owners caught at airport security checkpoints can pick up their weapons and leave with no criminal penalty.Critics have called the new legislation the “Guns Everywhere Bill,” and gun control groups including Americans for Responsible Solutions and Mayors Against Illegal Guns have strongly criticized the bill, as has the executive director of the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, Frank Rotondo. “Police officers do not want more people carrying guns on the street,” said Rotondo, “particularly police officers in inner city areas.”Proponents of the law say, however, that it strengthens the Second Amendment and will make people safer. “When we limit a Georgian’s ability to carry a weapon — to defend themselves — we’re empowering the bad guys,” said Georgia state Rep. Rick Jasperse, who introduced the bill.Eight states have loosened gun regulations since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. in December 2012, while 10 states have strengthened regulations, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Of course, it's perfectly understandable that anti-gun rights lobbyist would call the bill "radical," but those sort of editorial comments are inappropriate for an ostensibly objective reporter. What's more, given that the law enshrines the liberties of church leaders and bar owners to permit or refuse concealed-carrying worshipers or patrons, respectively, it hardly seems "radical" at all, balancing the rights of those who carry with the property rights of businesses and institutions.
Don't like packing heat in church? You don't have to attend one which allows it. Don't like the idea of a fellow at the bar having a concealed weapon? You don't have to patronize that establishment.
The liberal media are near uniformly "pro-choice" when it comes to a woman's right to choose an elective abortion, but laws which expand an individual's enjoyment of his or her gun rights are slammed as "radical" by the same journalists.
