Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

MO 2nd Amnd Preservation Act decried by man who wants Constitution 'superseded'

In a five-to-one vote on January 28, the Missouri Senate General Laws Committee approved Missouri Senate Bill 613, the "Second Amendment Preservation Act." Like HB 1439, the House version covered here in January, SB 613's most prominent provision invalidates federal laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms (which would presumably be every federal gun law), and subjects those enforcing such laws in Missouri to fines and up to a year imprisonment.

Dr. Flood is trying to make kids' need for guns greater, while making their acquisition more difficult
Photo © Oleg Volk. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Both versions of the bill also provide for school teachers and/or administrators to be designated "school protection officers," authorized to carry firearms to protect the school from attack; lower the age of eligibility for concealed carry permits from 21 to 19; preempt local restrictions on openly carried firearms; protect medical personnel from any law requiring them to inquire about a patient's firearm ownership; and ban firearm possession by illegal aliens.

There are, of course, some who are unhappy with the idea of such legislation. One of those is a St. Louis area pediatrician. From the Associated Press:

But Robert Flood, a pediatric doctor at St. Louis University and Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, said the bill is written under the mistaken concept that more guns lead to greater safety.

“Children are more likely to die by firearms in states with lax gun laws,” he said. “Rather than being used for self-protection will be used on other people [um, actually, Doctor, when guns are used for self-protection, they're generally used 'on other people'] .”

Flood also objected to the proposed lowering of the age of eligibility for concealed carry permits, because "adolescents are not as mentally developed as adults." No word on whether or not Flood believes 19-year-olds are insufficiently "mentally developed" to vote, or to face our nation's enemies on the battlefield, with the most powerful weapons in the world.

As it happens, this column has discussed Dr. Flood before. At an anti-gun rally in St. Louis late last March, Flood advocated a Constitutional amendment, the "Children's Rights Amendment," to "counterbalance" the Second and Fourteenth Amendments (see accompanying video):

If meaningful legislation doesn't result from all these efforts, then I ask everyone to consider a Constitutional amendment supporting the rights of children in this country. The Children's Rights Amendment, or the CRA, would allow a more solid legal foundation to so-called [sic] counterbalance the interpretation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As we discussed then, the impetus behind this amendment appears to have come from another St. Louis area pediatrician, Dr. Jeremy Garrett, who writes that the Second Amendment "will continue to impede the drafting of reasonable laws addressing this national crisis [violence against children]," until the U.S. Constitution is adapted according to his vision, explains that "the key to this concept" is within Section 3 of the amendment:

Section 3. The best interest of the child will take primary consideration and will supersede all existing laws and amendments that otherwise could endanger the safety and welfare of children.

By "could endanger the safety and welfare of children," he clearly means laws and amendments that protect the fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. In other words, his amendment would "supersede" those, in order to mandate a "government monopoly on force" (reminiscent of every genocidal tyranny in history), and just for good measure, wipe out the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all under the Constitution--all "for the children."

He sounds like a pediatrician who truly hates children, and who wants public officials to have as little respect for their oaths to uphold the Constitution as he clearly does for his own Hippocratic Oath.

See also:

Report this ad