WARNING! What I&8217;m about to say is going to make some of you think I&8217;m a pinko communist, college-educated liberal. In fact, only the college part is true (and the grades were not &8220;summa cum laude&8221; material.

The Mississippi Legislature has passed two firearms-related bills that are awaiting Gov. Haley Barbour&8217;s signature. Neither is particularly good, but one is scary.

Before you discount my opinion as someone in favor of more restrictive gun control, think again. I&8217;d be on the opposite end of the spectrum. Most gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens.

Most firearms enthusiasts are not going to knowingly break the laws regarding gun control, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Joe Criminal doesn&8217;t pay a bit of attention to gun control laws.

Personally, I&8217;ve owned some sort of a firearm since I was &8220;knee-high to a grasshopper,&8221; as the old folks say. My grandfather gave me a Remington .22-caliber, single shot, bolt-action rifle when I was probably 6 or 7 years old. He and my father taught me to have great respect for both the right to bear arms and the responsibility of doing so safely and with respect for others. Pinko liberal? Hardly.

One of the new measures headed to the governor&8217;s desk is known affectionately as the &8220;stand your ground&8221; law.

Essentially, the new law would extend the provisions under which a person can claim self-defense as a justification for using deadly force.

Current Mississippi law allows a person to claim self-defense against intruders into that person&8217;s house. The new law extends that to the person&8217;s car, the person&8217;s place of business or vicinity of the business.

On the surface, that all sounds perfectly OK. The law has just enough common sense to make all of the folks like you and me &8212; people who feel it&8217;s certainly your right to defend yourself &8212; throw our support behind the bill.

Unfortunately, the bill goes a step further by presuming that a person who uses deadly force does so prudently. That presumption means the person is immune from civil liability. That seems a bit scary to me.

Even with all of its many flaws, our judicial system is as fair as possible. This new law seems to try and &8220;fix&8221; a problem that doesn&8217;t exist.

I&8217;m not familiar with any case in which a person was prosecuted (criminally or civilly) for using deadly force to defend him when that person&8217;s life was threatened &8212; regardless of location.

Writing such blanket immunity into a law is troubling.

It isn&8217;t troubling in regard to law-abiding citizens and firearms owners who may genuinely find they need to defend their lives; it&8217;s troubling for the potential for abuse at the hands of criminals. If passed, the new law opens up the ability for criminals to claim self-defense when in fact they are the aggressor. Barbour should veto Senate Bill 2426. Doing so will not harm or limit the rights of law-abiding citizens who wish to defend themselves.

Also awaiting Barbour&8217;s signature is House Bill 1141. It aims to give civil immunity to companies and government buildings at which workplace shootings occur and allow employees to keep firearms inside their cars in unsecured company parking lots. Allowing people to keep firearms in their vehicles is fine; our automobiles are literally extensions of our homes. But granting blanket immunity without regard to details of the situation isn&8217;t wise.

I&8217;d much rather deal with a judge and jury (with a good lawyer on my side) than have my ability to sue someone flat out denied. Call me a pinko communist if you&8217;d like, but I&8217;d prefer to never have the government tell me that I cannot legally carry a gun (on my person or in my vehicle) or tell me I cannot sue if I feel wronged.

Kevin Cooper

is associate publisher of The Natchez Democrat. He can be reached at 601-445-3539 or

kevin.cooper@natchezdemocrat.com

.