Brickbats

Brickbat: Outdoor Education

|

The St, Louis City Council voted 19-2 to designate city parks as childcare facilities. The move is aimed at thwarting a state law allowing people to carry concealed weapons. That state law includes childcare facilities, but not parks, as places where concealed carry may be banned. Council member Joe Vaccaro voted for the bill "because it seems like the thing to do" but said law-abiding people will obey the gun ban while people who commit crimes won't.

NEXT: America's Forgotten Debt

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Council member Joe Vaccaro voted for the bill “because it seems like the thing to do” but said law-abiding people will obey the gun ban while people who commit crimes won’t.

    At least he’s honest in his willingness to sacrifice family protection to be spared cancellation.

  2. Why not designate the entire city a childcare facility?
    Now that parks are childcare facilities, there is no problem dropping kids off for the day so the parents can work or run errands, right? The city is complying with all childcare regulations.

    1. That’s… actually a clever idea. I’ve posted the link to Missouri’s laws & regs for Childcare Facilities below, but I bet if you could find someone actually willing to go to court over this, this could be an easy win.
      https://health.mo.gov/safety/childcare/lawsregs.php

  3. I don’t know what is going on with city councils these days. Our new group was in office about 5 minutes before passing a plastic straw ban. A whole group of newly elected councils across the area did the same. As far as I know, not a single one of them ran on a platform of implementing a plastic straw ban.

    Now they are making an end run using wordplay so they can ban guns? Is there really a groundswell of public support for banning guns in parks “by any means necessary”?

    Moms are scared by nature, and the DNC has been pushing gun scares for a few years now, so I suppose it is possible that this is a winner in those areas. But it seems odd to keep picking this sort of fight at the city council level…. they cost a lot of money to litigate, and really don’t accomplish anything.

    1. 95% of people have no clue who is on the city council and what their role is (or should be). In my city there were 8 candidates 7 of whom were essential socialists, for 4 spots.

  4. So… a bunch of huge new “Gun Free Zones”. Sweet.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    CB

  5. Council member Joe Vaccaro … said law-abiding people will obey the gun ban while people who commit crimes won’t.

    This is why Joe gets paid the big bucks.

  6. So, you can’t defend yourself if you want to take a stroll through the park, to try and forget the meth ravished hellscape that surrounds you in Missoura, and some toothless tweeked out homicidal freak tries to kill you in the park? Sad.

    1. Those aren’t toothless tweeked out homicidal freaks! By the terms of this new ordinance, those are now Childcare Workers!

      I’m thinking with all the federal regulations over childcare facilities, the FBI should be called into to investigate the total lack of compliance with federal laws regarding childcare facilities. Are those tweeked out homicidal freaks even licensed to work at a childcare facility? I think not!

  7. Someone should now sue the city because the public parks do not have the facilities, staffing, and safety protocols required by law for childcare facilities – including background checks for everyone who brings a child there to verify they’re not pedophiles.

    1. THAT is brilliant!

    2. “Someone should now sue the city…”

      Won’t work. The government regularly excuses itself from the rules it insists that ordinary people follow.

      1. Then take it to the state level, I doubt they will be very forgiving as this is clearly an end-run around a state law

      2. re: “The government regularly excuses itself…”

        Yes, if the exception is at the same level as the regulation. The city can not grant itself an exception to state (or federal) laws.

        The only exception I see in the relevant Missouri statutes is based on capacity – “six or fewer children, including a maximum of three children under the age of two”. So unless they’re going to post and enforce that limit within each park, I think they’re in trouble.

        No, I correct myself. There’s another exception for “programs operated under the exclusive control of a religious organization”. So they could maybe get away with it by selling all their parks to churches. But that exception only excuses them from the licensing requirement and not the other regulations – so probably not.

        1. But if they try to claim the religious organization exemption without selling all the parks, they’d be guilty of violating the establishment clause of the first amendment to the US Constitution, which is a felony.

          https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights

    3. Sue? Child neglect in a child care facility to that extent is a criminal offense in Missouri, IIRC. And the aldermen are the people in charge of those facilities now — which makes them criminally liable if neglecting children in their care causes a child to be harmed!

  8. Next, they will legislate that dogs are actually children. That might save a few canines from being shot by kid-loving cops.

    1. And dumb the rest of the childcare facilities down to dog levels.

  9. “because it seems like the thing to do”

    He forgot to include “for my reelection chances”.

  10. Why are they doing this? It can’t be to protect the public safety, because if there has been a rash of shootings in parks by concealed carry permit holders it would have been in the national news (trumpeted as “proof” that concealed carry is a public menace). So I’m inclined to ascribe it to simply trying to fuck with gun owners.

    1. Doubtful. The objective is to win votes from stupid people.

  11. The objective, as always, is to chip away at constitutionally guaranteed natural rights until no individual rights remain, and the fascist ideals have been achieved.

  12. George Orwell wrote about socialists abusing the language and redefining words to get their way. People laughed at him. Yet here are some politicians doing exactly that. Declaring parks to be childcare facilities.

    Do these parks meet the regulations and standards this same city put in place for childcare facilities? I think not! What if some parent dropped their kid off at a park for the day? would the city be okay with that? They ought to be! They’re the ones who designated it a park!

    I see a major lawsuit coming over this, and unfortunately for there to be standing it’s going to involve harm to a child to kick it off. Bastard politicians.

  13. Joe is actually one of our more sensible aldermen.

    He probably didn’t see how he could defend not voting for this measure in the next election. I can see the yard signs now – Joe voted to allow guns in all city parks – etc.

    He also probably believes that this will get struck down in short order, because the state is the legislative body that wrote the exception for child care facilities, and they are also the legislative body that wrote the rules for what constitutes a child care facility. City parks meet almost none of the requirements.

    They have to be licensed, for one . . .

  14. The St, Louis City Council voted 19-2 to designate city parks as childcare facilities.

    It’s good to see there was some pushback on this idea.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.