Carrying a defensive firearm should not require surrendering one's privacy

In response, I would first point out that lack of a carry permit can hardly be thought of as compelling evidence that the person in question is not carrying a firearm. Secondly, what I think "seems like a legitimate question to ask," is "What if you're an abuser, and you want to know if the person whom you are abusing is carrying a concealed weapon?"

In conclusion, while protection of the privacy of carry permit holders is a welcome development, I cannot help but think about how this entire debate could have been avoided, by simply not requiring a permit in the first place for exercise of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Atlanta: Restaurant with anti-gun policy saved by a gun


• Austin: Swine flu and gun control


• Boston: Massachusetts SJC rules on dangerousness of gun possession


• Charlotte: 'Patriot' games: FBI detains North Carolina teen


• Cleveland: Futile gestures solve no violence


• DC: NATO doctrine in effect: open carry rights in Wisconsin under attack!


• Denver: Why liberals should get a gun permit


• Los Angeles: Gun Control: CCW denied in CA, litigation ensues.


• Milwaukee: Milwaukee Police Chief Flynn bullies gun owners


• Minneapolis: Are gun owners facing a ‘perfect storm’?


• National: Media not reporting upholding of Olofson machine gun conviction


• Seattle: Public safety ‘crossroads’ in King County may reflect statewide, national problem on magnum scale


• Wisconsin: Sheboygan County district attorney backs VanHollen