It was the first time members of the Public Safety Committee got to hear and give comment on Spencer’s recent ordinance proposal, board bill 29. The bill aims to tackle the proliferation of guns in the city by requiring anyone who openly carries a gun in the city to have a permit or endorsement.
[…]
Spencer says in speaking with the city attorney, she feels confident this bill does not go against state laws so long as it is not infringing upon the rights of people to still own a gun without a permit. However, she plans to take out an existing part of the ordinance dealing with the confiscation of weapons if someone is found in violation of carrying openly without a permit. Instead, officers would temporarily remove the gun and safeguard it and have the opportunity to get it at a later time.
[…]
Other concerns raised by city leaders include whether this ordinance will disproportionally target communities of color, and if it would put officers in even more danger approaching those who are openly carrying a weapon.
I’m a liberal gun owner, and I really don’t know what my stance is on this. Gun violence is rampant, enough is enough, and we do have to do something.
As the article addresses though, many times gun laws are used to target communities of color. It does look like they’re trying to avoid that, but what would it look like in practice?
What does everyone think? “Pointless gun laws” or “necessary measures”? Or, as with most things, does gun control come with some level of nuance?