On Mother’s Day this year, Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action managed to turn out “hundreds” (in their estimates) of anti-gun activists for a march across the Brooklyn Bridge. With actress and activist Julianne Moore leading the way, the marchers descended on that noted hotbed of Second Amendment support—New York City Hall. Once there, Moore declared that the protest was not even about the right to keep and bear arms, telling those assembled that “This is not a Second Amendment issue! It does not deserve to be hotly contested as such! It is a safety issue!”
In the audience, however, there were signs that not all of the anti-gun activists agreed with Moore’s messaging. According to Newsday, one sign at the protest read, “Nobody carrying loaded guns in public is a ‘Good Guy.’” So, it’s not a Second Amendment issue, but if you’re a law-abiding mom with your concealed-carry license, you are part of the problem—at least according to Moms Demand Action and its supporters.
Do Moms Demand organizers even see the conflict in Moore’s statement and the sign carried by one of her fellow activists? It seems like it would be hard to ignore the glaringly inconsistent argument. On the one hand, Moms Demand Action desperately wants to be seen as the arbiters of “common sense” and “reasonableness,” but as soon as the group’s supporters veer away from the talking points tested on focus groups, their very unreasonable agenda comes through loud and clear.
There are more than 13 million concealed-carry permit holders around the country now, and states from coast to coast are reporting record high numbers of concealed-carry applications. Not one state has ever gone back and repealed a concealed-carry law, but many of them have expanded the right to carry. There are millions of women who are legally carrying firearms for defense of self and their family, and the message pushed by Bloomberg is that those moms are bad people. Even worse, the actions taken by Moms Demand Action and other anti-gun groups make it harder—impossible in some cases—for moms to be able to exercise their right of self defense.
In Bloomberg’s New York, for instance, a mom hoping to exercise her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is going to have to pay hundreds of dollars in governmental fees, make multiple trips to NYPD headquarters and be prepared to wait for months—all to simply own a firearm. Obtaining a concealed-carry license simply for the purposes of self-defense is out of the question there, at least without paying thousands of dollars in bribes (right now several members of the NYPD Licensing Bureau are accused of accepting bribes to expedite the process of issuing pistol licenses). And the activists who are supposedly all on board with the Second Amendment are perfectly happy with the system New York has in place. (They’re also fine with Washington, D.C.; Chicago; San Francisco; and Los Angeles. Texas, Virginia and Vermont, not so much).
Ironically, the same activists who claim to be all about gun safety oppose ranges and gun stores that offer safety training! That’s because for them, “gun safety” means not owning a gun. And through legislation, regulation, judicial fiat, and cultural pressures, the anti-gun activists are bound and determined to punish and shame any woman who knows differently.
There are good moms in bad neighborhoods right now who deserve to be able exercise their right to keep and bear arms. But Moms Demand Action, Bloomberg, Moore and all the rest will keep pushing laws aimed at those moms, while violent crime soars in many of the cities with already restrictive laws in place. A new Kaiser Family Foundation/New York Times survey of Chicago residents found that only about one in four believe the city’s strict gun-control regime has any effect on criminal access to firearms. Only 7 percent said the laws have been “very effective.” Moms Demand Action only offers more of the same. Ironically, the same activists who claim to be all about gun safety oppose ranges and gun stores that offer safety training!
It doesn’t have to be this way. Chicago could actually focus on increased enforcement efforts against the most violent criminals in the city, for example. For most of Obama’s presidential term, Chicago has ranked dead last in the nation in terms of federal prosecution of weapons offenses. Chicago’s police department has lost the trust of a lot of the community, but by focusing on the worst of the worst offenders, the police can actually work with the community, not against it.
Combine that push for putting the most violent offenders behind bars (no plea deals, no revolving door of justice) with recognition by city leaders, including embattled mayor Rahm Emanuel, that city residents have the same Second Amendment rights as every other American, and the good people in bad neighborhoods would be a lot better off than they are right now. Imagine the establishment of public ranges with classroom space to teach gun safety and offer training to interested individuals. Imagine the re-establishment of programs in schools like the 4H Shooting Sports and JROTC to inculcate responsible gun handling among adolescents, and instituting the Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program in elementary schools across the city to teach younger children what to do if they see a firearm (Stop. Don’t touch. Run away. Tell a grown-up.).
Instead, all the anti-gun moms have to offer are empty promises of “common sense” and tired objections to the bearing of arms—both of which are cold comfort to the single mom who would at least like to try to keep her home safe from criminals since the city can’t keep her safe from them.