Kentucky Columnist Pens Hysterical Take on Bill Expanding Right to Carry

And I don’t mean hysterically funny, though Joseph Gerth’s column in the Louisville Courier Journal will probably give Second Amendment advocates a chuckle or two. No, Gerth’s take on a bill that would give adults between the ages of 18 and 20 the ability to lawfully carry a concealed firearm is hysterical in the sense that he is in the grip of hysteria; so consumed by fear and anger that he’s not thinking rationally. 

The bill in question sets up a provisional concealed carry license for young adults, but does not allow them to carry without a permit as lawful gun owners 21 and older can do under the state’s permitless carry law. Importantly, Kentucky law already allows 18-to-20-year-olds to openly carry and without a permit. HB 312 is a fairly modest expansion of the right to carry, but Gerth believes it’s a gift to “those who worship shooting irons more than they respect life.”

The argument for the legislation goes something like this — Kentucky allows people to carry concealed deadly weapons, and we shouldn’t stop anyone who is legally allowed to possess a firearm from doing it.

And even though Kentucky’s constitution allows people to walk around with a six-shooter on their hip in plain sight, we as a state have no business telling people they can’t keep their gun hidden so they can surprise their next victim.

See what I mean about not thinking rationally? According to Gerth, the young adults committing crimes in Kentucky must be openly carrying before they engage in a robbery, carjacking, or home invasion, since they clearly wouldn’t dare carry a concealed firearm without a permit. 

Of course that’s nonsense. A violent criminal isn’t going to concern themselves with whether they’re legally carrying a gun. HB 312 is about those young adults who want to carry a firearm for self-defense without having to expose their pistol for the world to see. 

They argue that women — no matter their age — shouldn’t be forced to open carry because they say that makes them the TARGET of attacks. And they say that this bill is good because it requires teenagers wishing to carry a gun to get training first.

Pardon me, but that is rot, and government should not be encouraging people to carry guns with them 24-7 so they can whip them out at a moment’s notice to solve problems that only become deadly because of the number of people out there who are afraid of everything that moves.

“That is rot” is not an argument. It’s deflection. And the legislature isn’t encouraging anyone to carry a firearm with HB 312, no matter what Gerth claims. I would argue, though, that government should not be impeding the exercise of a fundamental civil right, and restricting the ability of young adults from lawfully carrying a firearm in the same fashion that most adults over the age of 21 choose is an impediment. HB 312 simply removes that barrier. 

Then there’s Gerth’s casual smear of anyone who chooses to carry in self-defense. According to the columnist, their concerns can’t be legitimate. Instead, they’re just cowards who are “afraid of anything that moves.” 

Sounds like a classic case of projection to me. It’s Gerth who’s terrified of his fellow citizens, not the other way around. 

We should be telling our children they don’t need to solve problems with guns rather than passing laws that tell them, “If you want to be a real man, you’ll shove a Glock in your waistband so you can blow away anyone who crosses you.”

And that’s what this bill does.

Can you believe this guy actually gets paid to pen opinions like this? 

Again, we’re not talking about children here. HB 312 applies to young adults, and it doesn’t suggest to anyone that “real men” carry guns so they can shoot anyone who crosses them. Gerth should actually take the training class that will be required of young adults if HB 312 becomes law through a veto override. I bet he’d be shocked to learn that training typically includes the advice that the best form of self-defense is to avoid those situations where you run the risk of death or bodily harm, and that pulling the trigger in self-defense is an act of last resort. 

Studies show that kids’ brains keep developing until they’re in the mid to late 20s, and among the last parts of the brain to fully mature is the prefrontal cortex, which according to the Cleveland Clinic, is the part of the brain that allows you to control your emotions and not act impulsively.

It’s the part of the brain that tells you, as you’re reaching for your Smith & Wesson, “Maybe you ought not shoot this guy just because he asked your girlfriend out on a date.”

Is that scenario playing out among adults in their 20s who are already carrying in Kentucky? Of course not. 

And even if our brains don’t fully mature until the age of 25 or so, we’re considered legal adults starting at 18. An 18-year-old can get married, serve on a jury, sign contracts, join the military, become a parent, and vote. They’re fully vested with every other enumerated right, so why should the right to keep and bear arms be any different? 

While HB 312 doesn’t make it any easier for teenagers to obtain handguns, it creates a more indulgent permission structure that encourages people who aren’t qualified and not ready for handgun ownership to hide guns on their bodies and — by extension — to use those guns when things go awry.

The eight-hour gun training course the legislation requires for 18-, 19- and 20-year-old concealed carriers is hardly enough to offset the scientific fact that kids this age just aren’t ready to make life and death decisions like this.

What about the life or death decision to join the military, then? Or the life and death decisions they may be forced to make while serving on a jury? If Gerth wants to advocate for raising the age of adulthood to 24 or 25, so be it. But at the moment the age of majority is 18, and that means 18-year-olds should be able to exercise every right that other adults can. 

Does Gerth believe than a 20-year-old who’s arrested for illegally carrying a gun should be prosecuted in juvenile court? What about a 19-year-old who used a gun to commit a robbery or carjacking? Why should they be treated like an adult if they use a gun in the commission of a crime, but treated as a child if they want to lawfully carry a gun for personal protection? 

Gerth finds it “hard to believe that too many people beyond gun-industry lobbyists and a small band of ‘liberty’ Republicans are really itching for this legislation.” If that’s the case then he should have nothing to worry about, because few 18-to-20-year-olds will avail themselves of their newfound ability to get a concealed carry license. 

As it is, nearly half the country allows 18-year-olds and older to exercise their right to bear arms, and the sky hasn’t fallen in any of those states. Gerth is convinced that won’t be the case in Kentucky, though. I’m not sure if he thinks young adults in the Bluegrass State are just more immature than their counterparts in other states, but I’m not concerned about the same group of young adults who can already openly carry without a permit becoming more dangerous if they can carry concealed once they’ve had some training and have received the state’s permission to bear arms without their guns being visible for the world to see. 

Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.