Listen to law enforcement: Missouri 2nd Amendment gun law endangers police, public | Opinion
I read with great interest the story about Blue Springs Police Chief Robert Muenz and his experience testifying on firearms legislation in Jefferson City. Lawmakers there are seeking to revive the Second Amendment Preservation Act to nullify federal gun laws, after federal courts ruled it originally violated the supremacy clause of the Constitution. Many law enforcement officials, Muenz included, believe in the Second Amendment yet oppose the real-world effects of this Missouri law, which they believe threaten public safety.
It reminded me of my own experience at the Kansas Legislature in the late 1990s on behalf of the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, as well as press accounts of several Kansas law enforcement executives, including the Sedgwick County Sheriff, in last year’s legislative session.
Regardless of the exact legislation being considered, the issue always boils down to less regulation — loosening any and every legal control over firearms. As the Second Amendment is quoted, everyone ignores the words “well regulated” when invoking its language. The fight is always centered on less regulation. Please remember that no right guaranteed by the Constitution is limitless.
As outlined in my testimony, the issue was allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons in public. In this case, the Missouri legislature has apparently taken it upon itself to declare the Second Amendment to be null and void, and therefore police officers and agencies may not assist any federal law enforcement attempts. As if that wasn’t enough, it would outlaw Missouri jurisdictions from hiring any person who had ever worked as a federal agent enforcing firearms law. What a childish — and likely illegal — attack on law enforcement officers and their careers.
Thirty years ago, the National Rifle Association promised us that “an armed society is a polite society.” Does anyone feel that our society in 2025 is more polite than it was in the 1990s? How many more people carrying more guns do we need to achieve the promised politeness? That catch phrase has disappeared.
The slogan still trotted out is, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” If only it were that simple. The fallacy in this thinking will become evident with a visit to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial or the equivalent in your own state. There is never any guarantee that the genuine good guys with guns always win.
One more common thread going back to the 1990s: Police executives are accused of being “politicians” (by politicians themselves) , claiming they don’t have support of rank-and-file officers. I don’t see police labor and fraternal associations lining up to testify in favor of this type legislation, which only complicates their work and potentially endangers them.
I am an old-school cop who grew up on the philosophy that if you have a gun and I do not know you, you are not my friend. Perhaps the question that really needs to be asked is this: How will this law make us safer?