Gun Control - Now Discussing Tucson Shooting

Yeah but they would know soon enough if there was a scuffle, rolling around on the ground. My experience of physical violence is that it is not this stand and punch concept, rather it's more like an affray, somebody grabbing you and punching you at extremely close quarters. Similarly if somebody hits you from behind then you tend to be on the ground before you know it. Sometimes these things can happen quickly and without warning. I was once decked whilst in a pub taking a leak at the trough. I was king hit from behind and left unconscious on the floor. I can think of one experience where a small group of us were attacked by a bunch of nazi skin heads. Just completely out of the blue, we were walking home from a gig in Seven Hills in Sydney. They came out of nowhere and before we knew it we were all getting the **** kicked out of us. In those kinds of circumstances I would have been worried about carrying a concealed firearm as it would have been discovered and potentially taken from me and potentially used against me.

edit: these incidents happened many, many years ago when I was a long haired, tight jeaned heavy metal fan with a nose ring. Since cutting my hair short and entering the boring world of law, I seem to have stayed clear of trouble.

 

This is exactly why I am against gun bans.

Although Jabbadabbadoo may be right about it being a Smith and Wesson type strategy. No matter the reason...it is as it is.

 

I have to leave in a couple of minutes to catch a bus, but I will post a longer post tomorrow about how people who shouldn't own guns get them with a scary example from my own personal knowledge.

 

People that shouldn't have many things obtain many other things. For example, according to this, from 1993 to 1999 8,000 people were killed each year that were driving without a license. That's very close to the rate of gun crime of any fashion. Lots of people that shouldn't be driving end up driving.

The best we can do, in either situation, is to have strict punishments when anyone is found in violation. Those that have guns and are prohibited from owning them or those that use guns in crimes should face harsh penalties, as should those driving a car without a license.

 

Perhaps you missed the two examples I gave earlier. I've had specific threats of violence made against me by a mentally unstable person who (at the time) worked three blocks down the street from me. I've had bounty hunters show up at my door in the middle of the night looking for a previous occupant of my home.

I honestly used to think that such things couldn't happen to me, because I lived in a decent neighborhood and kept myself out of trouble. I was wrong. It could happen to me, and it did. Yes, it turned out fine in the end, but that was only because I was lucky.

If bounty hunters could come to my house looking for Mr. Victor Hugo Salinas Escalera, then who else might show up looking for him? (It wasn't until about two months ago that I learned why he was originally arrested and what the charges were he jumped bail on. For all I knew he was involved in gang activities, which wasn't outside the realm of possibilities because MS-13 has a growing presence in the areas I mentioned on the other side of US 50.)

I already owned firearms. In fact, I've only bought one additional gun since the bounty hunters showed up (and that was because it was a beautiful piece that I got for half its value). I even had my CHP already (I got it about a year ago so I could bypass Virginia's one handgun a month limit if I wanted to add to my collection). Pretty much all I needed was the carry holster and the automotive safe, which cost me less than $100. (I also needed to lose a little weight so I could wear the holster inside my waistband, but I needed to lose that weight anyways. This merely provided me with some additional motivation.)

So, for a marginal cost, I was able to address very real situations that had already presented themselves in my own life. It is not something that I did lightly, nor that I made some impulsive decision to do. I weighed my options extremely carefully, and made a decision about how to proceed based on the most effective means available.

Kimball Kinnison

 

This is what happens when you post like it's the JCC and then don't return for eight hours... []

Take it easy, fellas.

I posted Cho's pic because I agreed with Kimball. My point was that--the nation's hindsight naturally being 20/20 and all signs looking totally obvious now--a nutbar like Cho was able to obtain his perfectly legal models of weapons thru perfectly legal means. Even though he obtained them legally, there was nothing to stop him from committing a criminal act (though it's admittedly ridiculously academic and trite to describe mass murder as just a criminal act). Had some of his victims been armed & properly trained to use them, they may or may not have been able to stop the massacre before it ended when it did. But I'd imagine that many, if not all, of Mr. Nutbar's victims would have taken the chance on using a firearm to defend themselves had the opportunity been there.

 

And of course, the reason the gun stores couldn't check his mental health record was because of patient confidentiality laws, which have a very strong basis in society. If we start denying rights to people because they thought they were depressed once and saw a counselor, or because they have the same name as someone else and got put on the Terror Watch List, or whatever, then we're going down a slippery slope.

Of course, that doesn't mean mental health information should never be considered, and they actually changed the laws in Virginia to address that. But there's definitely a balance to be struck.

 

The takeaway from this line of discussion I think is that Heller and McDonald haven't really addressed carry and conceal laws and how that relates to the newly minted right to individual self defense. Eventually, I can see the S.Ct more or less forcing Wisconsin and Illinois legislators to adopt some kind of carry/conceal regulatory regime for their states. McDonald is going to provide momentum to the Illinois Family and Personal Protection Act.

 

Actually, only Illinois completely prohibits the carrying of a handgun about the person. Wisconsin prohibits concealed carry, but allows open carry (although not in cars). In fact, part of the legal justification in Wisconsin for denying concealed carry is that open carry is still available, and so the right to bear arms is still intact.

All other states offer at least some form of concealed and/or open carry. Open carry is even legal in California (although you cannot open carry a loaded gun). In some states and cities (such as Hawaii or NYC), permits are restricted to only those who can show "need" (to the satisfaction of local law enforcement). In parts of New York and Maryland, this results in only the affluent or politically connected being allowed permits. In Hawaii, permits are only available to people who require them professionally (such as armored car personnel).

Some of the upcoming cases to watch are Palmer v. DC and Sykes v. McGinness. Both are challenging "may issue" permitting systems (the latter in California) as a violation of equal protection, because of how they result in arbitrary issuing of permits. My gut instinct is that they will most likely succeed, striking down most (if not all) such permit systems and mandating "shall issue" for any carry permits that states choose to issue. ("May issue" states leave the final issuance of a permit up to local or state officials. "Shall issue" states require the state to issue a permit as long as the applicant meets the legal criteria.)

Both Heller and McDonald address the right to "keep" arms (primarily at home). Palmer and Sykes are among the first cases that will address the right to "bear" arms. Based on the rulings in Heller and McDonald, I would say that it is likely that states will be prohibited from enacting total bans on the carry of arms, mandating either open carry or concealed carry (or both) be available for individuals. They would likely still allow restrictions on carry based on such factors as time or place (much as with speech).

The most interesting case, however, will be the first one that attempts to address the question of whether it is legal to arm bears. When that happens, you will know that the end is nigh.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Okay, here's my scary stories. They are true.

Story one involves my (now deceased) brother and his paranoia. Since he is deceased, I am not violating any patient confidentiality laws as those laws cease to have authority once the patient is dead.

He was diagnosed with a very severe mental illness, which he suffered from his entire life. He took medication for several years and then stopped taking it because he thought he was cured.

He owned several firearms, a shotgun a friend gave him as a birthday present, because he couldn't buy one legally himself.

A rifle and a 9 mm Sig Sauer his wife bought him.

He also kept close to his person a hunting knife with a 9-inch blade, a couple of metal baseball bats and the afore-mentioned 9 mm.

He got divorced, was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and I ended up taking care of him, to make a long story a little shorter.

I had to call the police one day because he was getting very belligerant towards me.

The police asked if he had any weapons in the house and of course, he told them about the guns. He said the 9mm was in his desk drawer, unloaded. The police officers found it under his pillow, loaded, with a bullet in the chamber and the safety OFF.

The police officer asked him why he needed the guns and my brother said, "To protect myself from burglars." The officer said, okay, hold my billy club.

My brother, whose hands shook so bad from the Parkinson's, held the billy club.

The officer then grabbed it away from him. My brother said, "You didn't wait till I was ready." The officer said, "Do you think a burglar will wait till you are ready before snatching your gun away from you and shooting you with it?"

Anyhow, the officer made him get trigger locks for the guns and I hid the keys to the trigger locks.

We had to hire a private nurse, who quit when she saw the guns in the closet, even tho I explained to her about the trigger locks.

I also hid all the ammunition.

Next story involves my ex. He was your proverbial gun nut. He owned a Colt 45 automag, a 357 Smith & Wesson, a 22 caliber pistol and a 22 caliber rifle and a 247 rifle, if I remember correctly.

He was discharged from the US Army as being mentally unfit for military duty, but when he applied for a federal firearms license, so he could run a gun shop, the feds approved it.

My point is that if those two people can and did get guns, anybody can.

Now, don't get me wrong, I grew up around guns. My dad hunted deer and duck (we lived in the Midwest), so the idea of guns in the house doesn't scare me.

What does scare me is the thought of those guns in the wrong hands, which is where they seem to end up.

Yes, I am a fairly good shot myself, but I still am in favor of some type of gun control.

 

The takeaway from this line of discussion I think is that Heller and McDonald haven't really addressed carry and conceal laws and how that relates to the newly minted right to individual self defense. Eventually, I can see the S.Ct more or less forcing Wisconsin and Illinois legislators to adopt some kind of carry/conceal regulatory regime for their states. McDonald is going to provide momentum to the Illinois Family and Personal Protection Act.

The two decisions certainly haven't, and at least in IL, I don't know if it will. Any such law will certainly have an opt-out for Cook County/Chicago, so realistically any proposal will likely only apply downstate, where it's not going to be much of an issue anyway. I can't see the SC forcing any state to adopt concealed carry laws, as I'd bet this area falls within reasonable restriction. Remember, the key point to both Heller and McDonald is that the state prohibited a behavior inside of one own's home.

I'd also like to add that "open carry" is probably the stupidest idea to ever be implimented, perhaps only second in stupidity to casting Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz in a super-spy movie.

 

You mean gun control like the laws in place that are intended to prevent someone with mental illness get and own a gun, yet no one apparently did anything about that?

If several people will protect someone that owns guns but legally isn't supposed to because they pose a danger if they have a gun due to a medical condition, why is it I should just accept that I'm going to be put at risk by that when other people aren't taking the responsibility to do something about a crime that puts others at risk?

 

I don't see the Supreme Court mandating concealed carry laws, but I do see them requiring them to treat everyone the same. A carry law that essentially requires you to be either wealthy or politically connected is a rather clear violation of equal protection.

For example, in Sykes v. McGinness, the entire point of the case is to define terms used in the California carry law that are being applied arbitrarily. The California law requires that a person show "good cause" and "good moral character" in order to get a permit, but there is no consistent standard for what constitutes either of those. In San Francisco, you cannot get a permit (unless your name is Nancy Pelosi - yes, she has a permit last I checked), because the police will always say you don't have "good cause". The case is seeking to define "self defense" as good cause (in large part because people who have taken out restraining orders have been denied for lacking "good cause"), and "good moral character" as "not otherwise prohibited from buying or possessing firearms".

I would say that there are advantages and disadvantages to each method of carry.

However, it is still the right to keep and bear arms. That right is not limited to just in your home. Bearing arms implicitly includes the ability to carry them with you in most circumstances. As that is a right (and not a privilege), I don't see a legal basis to restrict the ability to carry only to those who receive permission from the government to do so. I don't have a problem with requiring a permit to keep it concealed, but I do have a problem with requiring a permit to be able to carry it at all, just as much as I have a problem with requiring a permit to buy a gun in the first place.

If you can legally possess a gun, you should be legally able to carry a gun. If you misuse the gun, you should face the harshest penalties.

Stop right there. If he couldn't legally buy a gun, and a friend gave it to him, then that is a violation of the law. The answer there is to enforce the law, not crack down on the law abiding population.

I don't see what the nurse quitting has to do with anything. That's a product of her own f

 

I'm not sure I'm following you here. You don't think there should be any restrictions on who can buy a gun? Isn't that why you have permits in the first place to at least establish a basic threshold which must be passed before you can engage in some legal activity? For example, age, criminal history etc etc? I think the system you have now seems to work quite well, there are always weaknesses and loopeholes, but such a system at least mitigates the risk of firearms being purchased by those who shouldn't have them.

 

I think KK's point wasn't that there should be no restrictions, but that instead of having to APPLY to get a gun by obtaining a permit, which is in essence asking the gov't for permission to have a gun, there should just be a background check that sees if there's any reason you CAN'T have a gun where your right to a gun has been forfeited. The idea being that a right shouldn't, generally, be dependent on the government saying its ok.

 

I would say that there are advantages and disadvantages to each method of carry.

Seriously though, the only advantage I see for open carry is to scream to the world "Look- I think guns are cool, and I'm going to show it in the most direct way possible, hopefully so you're focused on it and not my small wing-wang!!"

It's not tactical and it ensures that you give up any benefit you might have. It's like playing a game of poker, but flipping your cards around to show the other players. I'd simply get a group of people together, push the open carry fellow down, and then take his gun and run. Simple battery is not a deadly force situation, so he would be hard pressed to even justify drawing it. Or just walk by and unsnap his holster while saying "oops excuse me." Again, he's the fellow with an exposed gun on his hip, and it would fall to him to prove that such contact wasn't accidental.

Or if I was going to rob a gas station/bank/conveinence store, I'd just look for the idiot with the gun on his hip before I started, and either hit him over the head or just shoot him outright to make an example out of. Because if you're "open carrying" then all eyes are on you before you're prepared to even do anything.

There are about 99 things that can go wrong with "open carry," vs the 1 possible benefit.

Concealed carry, while a personal choice, is more controlled. Also, as you mentioned, most concealed carry states also have some sort of licensing and/or training requirement. Because there's a mindset that comes with such a decision which shouldn't be taken lightly.

However, it is still the right to keep and bear arms. That right is not limited to just in your home. Bearing arms implicitly includes the ability to carry them with you in most circumstances. As that is a right (and not a privilege), I don't see a legal basis to restrict the ability to carry only to those who receive permission from the government to do so.

I'm not sure I agree. "Bearing arms" in the loosest sense does mean just that. However, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. You can say whatever you like in your home, but you can't walk into a coffee shop at yell at other people. Everyone has a right to assemble, even if a permit is required in some cities. You should be able to keep a weapon in your home, but I'd say its less certain if the government needs to allow you to walk around with it with no questions asked.

 

Careful, 44, you're making a lot of sense.

 

Agreed, and Mr44 has had two great zings, first one about Cruise/Diaz, second was the opening line of his 4:27 post.

Who knew he had a sense of humor?

 

I suspect the real Mr44 has in fact been abducted and what we are dealing with here is some kind of imposter. Lucky you guys are astute enough to pick the differences. I mean, the words "perception" and "focus" haven't been used once! Mods, please take the appropriate action.

 

That's a very one-sided description of the two options. There are several potential advantages to open carry.

First of all, you have quicker access to your gun in a tactical setting. By the very nature of concealing a firearm, you also make it more difficult to access. That might be only a second, but seconds can make a big difference in an emergency.

Second, it can be more convenient. When you conceal a handgun, you often have to plan your wardrobe around your method of concealment. An IWB holster that you might wear with a suit might not be as comfortable when you are wearing a different pair of shorts. Ankle holsters don't conceal very well when you're wearing shorts period. Pocket carry only really works if you have a pocket to put it in.

Third, it can be more comfortable. The most common form of open carry is with an OWB holster. OWB holsters tend to fit better and be more comfortable because you have the gun outside of your belt, rather than inside. But in order to conceal with an OWB holster, you need to wear an untucked shirt, or a jacket. That's not always the best option if you are looking for comfort.

Fourth, it can provide a deterrent effect. You brought up the possibility that an open carrier would become the first target of a criminal, but it is also extremely likely that the criminal will hold off committing the crime because they see someone who is openly armed.

Finally, there are some people who open carry as a political statement and as a way to normalize people's perceptions of firearms. I know that the times that I've open carried (often because I was on my way to/from the range), I've gotten into some interesting discussions with people, and helped correct many false impressions about guns.

Yes, there are some people who open carry to compensate for their physiological shortcomings, but a lot of the open carriers that I know don't do that. When they carry, it's in a very matter-of-fact manner where it's simply there. They don't go out of their way to draw attention to it (and most people don't really notice it). One guy I know likes to tell of a restaurant that he went to with another friend after a meeting of the VCDL (a pro-gun organization here in Virginia). Both of them were open carrying (because the law required it in that restaurant), and wearing buttons saying "Guns Save Lives". The waitress saw the buttons and asked them some questions. About halfway through the conversation, she asked if th

 

First of all, you have quicker access to your gun in a tactical setting. By the very nature of concealing a firearm, you also make it more difficult to access. That might be only a second, but seconds can make a big difference in an emergency.

And I think this is born out of a fundamental misunderstanding of why someone would carry a gun. It's to protect your life (and by extension someone else's life-so let's say it's to protect life) in a last resort situation. It's deadly force we're talking about here.

If someone is simply stealing your wallet and all they're taking is money, or acting like a big mouth and trying to start a bar fight-> Stop. observe. be a good witness. No one should be concerned about whiping out a gun and instantly entering into John Wayne mode. Smooth and rational is better than quick and reactionary. Besides, by the very nature that someone is walking around with an exposed pistol for everyone to see, they aren't tactical. SWAT teams are tactical. Green Berets are tactical. But they are so because of training, not equipment. Do you think Joe Schmoe standing in line at the local burger hut is thinking tactically? His large Coke in one hand and big .44 magnum on his hip is just silly.

The day zombies overrun the Earth and a quick head shot might be the only way to prevent one's brains from being eaten, great. Someone should wear pistols on both hips and walk around with a shotgun. Until then, I'd say it's best to assess what is going on first.

Second, it can be more convenient. When you conceal a handgun, you often have to plan your wardrobe around your method of concealment. An IWB holster that you might wear with a suit might not be as comfortable when you are wearing a different pair of shorts. Ankle holsters don't conceal very well when you're wearing shorts period. Pocket carry only really works if you have a pocket to put it in. Third, it can be more comfortable. The most common form of open carry is with an OWB holster. OWB holsters tend to fit better and be more comfortable because you have the gun outside of your belt, rather than inside. But in order to conceal with an OWB holster, you need to wear an untucked shirt, or a jacket. That's not always the best option if you are looking for comfort.

The 2nd and 3rd reasons really go together. I'd simply say that someone's comfort should probably take a back seat to the possibly of making a life altering decision. I'd agree that choosing to carry a gun isn't comfortable. But maybe it shouldn't be, for no other reason than it is a reminder of the responsibility.

Your last reason is really a different matter all together. If you're wearing a pistol on the way to a range, then it isn't for self defense reasons. However, I'd think twice if someone was continually stopping at the local JC Penny "on the way to the range." The idea of "Normalizing relations" is dependent on the situation.

 

Open Carry was made illegal in Florida, allegedly, because the Snow-birds would call the Police in hysteria about some guy with a gun...seems like a way to draw attention to yourself.

Personally, I can't imagine open-carry, unless I was in a large group (doing adopt-a-highway or something like that).

 

I honestly can't see the difference between issuing a permit as a condition of sale or passing a background check as a condition of sale. If you have to undergo a 'background' check and satisy certain criteria before being able to purchase a gun, such as for example demonstrate a clear criminal record and/or lack of current 'on parole' or 'out on bail' status etc, then you purchasing the gun is still dependant upon the government saying it is OK. Presumably the information being sought is kept by the government. Unless you are saying that the decision to sell the firearm should rest exclusively with the firearms dealer at point of sale at the dealer's sole discretion without interference by the government in any way. It just makes perfect sense to me to regulate these kinds of activities in the interests of public safety, unless you are suggesting that a citizen with a long history of violent crime should be able to exercise his/her fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

 

LostOnHoth, well, I'd put it this way.... I think it would be ridiculous to have people have to get a permit to, say, publish a newsletter. I think a right is something that most people should be able to do without the government being a part of the process, and that the government only acts when it needs to to stop those that have forfeited that right from exercising it without having a regulatory means on those that still have that right.

It comes from the idea of rights being not what the government gives the people, but from what the people themselves innately have that government can not, by in large, take away. To use a different example, I very firmly believe that someone has the right to be with any consenting adult that they wish to be with. I don't think that relationships should have permits (rather under the pursuit of happiness). I also very firmly DON'T believe that civil marriage, of any fashion, is a right, because that is something that the government grants to people. The interpretation of the founding documents of the U.S. is not that it is GRANTING those rights to the people, but that it is the government acknowledging what rights the people have already that the government can not, except for key exceptions, take away.

To then look at something like background checks, that is a process that simply requires that at the time of purchase, the seller makes sure that the person buying the gun has not forfeited the right to bear arms by committing a crime, or has otherwise lost that right. Someone who has that right intact gets checked, but they don't have to apply to have their rights.

 

Mr44, your really have no idea what you are talking about here, when it comes to the open carry community. That may be in large part to your experience being in a place that prohibits all carry.

Most of the people I know who open carry are very big advocates of practicing "situational awareness" - being aware and alert in regards to your surroundings. They maintain a very tactical mindset. However, they are thinking in terms of a different set of tactics than you are. Last I checked, tactical meant "of or relating to combat tactics".

Except that the comfort that I'm talking about is physical comfort. If the gun is uncomfortable to wear (because you need to keep a jacket on to conceal it in the summer, for example) it can draw even more attention to the wearer. Like I said before, in general people just don't notice openly carried firearms. When they do notice, as long as the wearer acts professionally they tend to just assume that they are a cop or some similar profession.

Going to the range was just one example I gave of a time when I have open carried. Let me give another to illustrate my point.

One of my responsibilities at church is as a member of the "building maintenance and security team". 2-3 evenings a week, I am responsible to stop by the building and make sure that everything is locked up and shut down. It usually takes me about 15 minutes or so, and I'm usually the only person in the building. Because there is a history of attempted break-ins and vandalism, I have made it a point that I am always armed when I go there. About half of the time, I open carry for convenience. (Note: I don't carry as a security guard to protect the building, but for self defense. If I came across someone in the middle of a break-in, I would retreat if possible and call police. The gun is only in case the intruder(s) won't allow that.)

Another time when it can be a better choice to open carry is when out camping or hiking. About a month ago, for example, a hiker in Denali National Park shot and killed a chargi