Bill vetoed by Republican Mark Gordon, who expressed concerns about separation of powers, also covers government meetings

Bill vetoed by Republican Mark Gordon, who expressed concerns about separation of powers, also covers government meetings

Archived version: https://archive.ph/Sjath

  • tyler
    173·
    8 months ago

    Gordon signed four other bills concerning gun rights. One prohibits credit card processors from using firearms or firearm-related merchant category codes and prevents the government or private entities from keeping any registry of firearms through use of a firearms code.

    The other bills prohibit red flag gun laws from being enforced or implemented in Wyoming, amend regulations to have those who have had firearms rights restored eligible for a concealed carry permit, and create an account to reimburse school districts for costs related to possession of firearms on school properties by school employees.

    Gordon also ordered state officials to consider allowing concealed carry in the Wyoming Capitol and other state buildings.

    So he’s made the problem worse still. No tracking of terrorists, allowing terrorists to get their guns back, and allowing those terrorists to be in the Capitol legally with a weapon.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
      326·
      8 months ago

      Nope, he did the right thing to protect the rights of his state’s citizens, and I applaud those decisions. Freedom and privacy are fundamentally related and should always be protected.

      • Bibliotectress@lemmy.world
        141·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, why have red flag laws? Ensuring psycho neighbors can still have guns regardless of what they’ve done and who they are is a great idea. Lol

        • hypnotoad@lemmy.mlEnglish
          61·
          8 months ago

          Freedom to go fucking nuts with a gun! This is America!

          Wild. I was just conversing with my gun-nut uncle who literally owns 50 guns in Southern Virginia. Even he actively wants a federal regulation around gun safety, background checks, etc. How people are fine regulating speed limits, alcohol consumption, prescription drugs, etc but NOT literal death machines is just bizzarro to me.

          • tygerprints@kbin.social
            22·
            8 months ago

            There HAS to be regulation of guns. People keep saying to me, “but cars kill more people, people use inanimate objects to kill others all the time.” Yes they do. And you want people like that to have unregulated access to GUNS on top of that??

            Guns only have one purpose, to kill. That’s what they are designed for. I’d sooner have a rabid hyena with acid for saliva running freely about my house than ever own a gun for any reason.

      • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
        81·
        8 months ago

        Clearly as a society we are willing to restrict freedoms in many ways for the sake of safety. We lock you away for certain crimes, we prevent you from driving a vehicle unless you pass certain tests and that can be taken away if you misuse it. The real question is what makes guns so special that we should short circuit all this reasoning and just say ‘no restrictions ever because freedoms’ regardless of the cost of that stance.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          8 months ago

          That’s just a plain old strawman argument, because no one has said “no restrictions ever because freedoms” as you stated. We also clearly have a multitude of complex gun laws on the books in the USA that restrict those freedoms already. You should learn about those and how they work, and and how poorly they are enforced by the law enforcement staff of the USA.