Every single time the legacy media writes about guns, gun rights or any Second Amendment topic they screw it up – every single time

I have holsters older than must of today’s reporters, so my expectations are already pretty low. For example, I don’t expect to see a column touting the pros and cons of gas impingement versus gas pistons in my daily newspaper. But when there’s a major national issue – such as constitutional carry – I hope they could get the definitions right at the very least.

Turns out that is too much to hope for.

The latest massive error comes in an un-bylined story from the “Gannett/USA Today Network-Florida Staff.”

“Gov. Ron DeSantis reaffirmed his support for an open carry law for firearms, which supporters call “constitutional carry,” and predicted the Florida Legislature “will get it done,” the story states.

This, friends, is chock-full of errors.

First, there’s a big difference between open carry and constitutional carry.

Open carry is defined as carrying a firearm, most often a handgun, so it is visible (i.e. not concealed). It’s usually a pistol in a holster affixed to someone’s belt, which is not concealed by clothing. It is carried openly, for anyone to see. It’s not hidden.

Constitutional carry is when a state does not require law-abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. It has also been called permitless carry. Twenty-five states have passed constitutional carry. I sincerely hope Florida becomes the 26th.

Now, depending upon how a constitutional carry bill is drafted, it often allows both open and concealed carry. I am guessing that’s the part that blew the journalists’ minds.

As far as I know, and contrary to the USA Today story, Gov. DeSantis has never affirmed or reaffirmed his support for open carry. He has, however, reaffirmed his support for constitutional carry several times.

Also, there are quite a few more people than just constitutional-carry supporters who call it what it is – constitutional carry. Check the legislation in the 25 states that passed it. The USA Today authors clearly attempted to pigeonhole us, once again, into the minority.

In a perfect world this story would be quickly corrected. However, as I’ve said dozens of times, when a story involves firearms or gun rights, the legacy media doesn’t care about errors of fact even if they’re serious. Because of their anti-gun bias, they have a double standard when it comes to guns.