Taking The Easterner To Task On Concealed Carry
March 8th, 2008 by joe
Loudoun Easterner editor Martin Casey is a well-meaning fellow but he does not always get it right.
Regarding this week’s front page story (and dig that crazy graphic) on Gov. Tim Kaine’s veto of the bill which would have allowed concealed carry of firearms in establishments that serve alcohol, the editorial “Back to the Wild West?” asks
In today’s society, why does anyone other than a law enforcement officer need to take a gun, concealed or otherwise, into a restaurant or bar?
Having weapons, concealed or not, in public places — restaurants, bars or otherwise — is a scary thought that conjures up movie scenes from “Shane” and “Gunfight at the OK Coral.”
We want our law enforcement officers to carry weapons for our defense if necessary. Permits to carry concealed weapons should be issued rarely through a process rigorous enough to assure that permit holders have sound reasons for carrying a hidden weapon and also are responsible and sane persons.
Mr. Casey’s editorial displays two of the key assumptions that separate gun control proponents from 2nd Amendment supporters: Outright fear of guns, and a thoroughgoing faith that law enforcement personnel will always be there to protect us.
From the perspective of those who are not subconsciously afraid of firearms, this attitude is like flinching at the sight of a hammer or baseball bat. But cultural conditioning being what it is, many otherwise reasonable people fall into the fallacy of seeing the tool, rather than the carrier, as the problem.
The real issue is whether it is sensible for law-abiding citizens to leave their safety and security completely in the hands of law enforcement officials.
Even the gun-fearers don’t really believe this. They lock their doors at night because they know the police can’t be everywhere at a moment’s notice. Most of them probably do not have a problem with people who take self-defense courses. Kung fu kick to break a jaw - ok. Learn to stick a key in the attacker’s eye - ok. But when it comes to having a gun to defend yourself - well, that is a step too far. As though any situation in which a law abiding citizen might feel the need to protect herself with a gun is magically transformed into a situation where the cops are right nearby, every time.
It’s totally illogical, a position that simply has not been fully thought through by the gun control advocates.
I think the root of the disagreement comes down to an irrational fear of firearms and fervent hope of never having to come close to a firearm. If you read it, you will see that Mr. Casey’s editorial definitely seems to reveal such a personal aversion.
Rather than a carefully considered public policy position, gun control advocacy is more akin to fear of spiders.
A further note: The bill in question was aimed at allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring their guns into restaurants without having to display them openly, as long as they are not consuming alcohol. That’s right: Under current Virginia law it’s perfectly fine to go into Applebees wearing a firearm on your hip as long as everyone can see it.
For those who are less ostentatious and confrontational, which means nearly all concealed carry holders, they have to leave their guns in the car when they go out to eat. Leaving your gun in the car is generally not considered a good thing, the key reason being the possibility of theft. The bill simply would have allowed people who have been certified to carry a firearm all day long to keep it with them when they go out to eat.
Below the fold is visitor Loudoun Conservative’s response to the editorial.
To the Editor:
I agree with one thing you said: concealed weapons permits should only be issued to sane, responsible, law-abiding people who know how to use them. But there are a lot of human
beings in that category and it isn’t the government’s job to determine whether my reason for wanting to carry a weapon fits their definition of legitimate, as long as I obey the law.Parenthetically, for those who don’t know, Governor Kaine has already vetoed the bill concerned. He obviously shares your bias towards an unarmed and under-informed citizenry.
But, an article this generally wrongheaded bespeaks a bias against law-abiding firearm owners. Can someone explain precisely what is is about today’s vaunted society that makes the Second Amendment null and void in your opinion? Are we smarter than people of the last generation? Less prone to crime? Find me the statistics to back that up, will you? Maybe we are dumber or more prone to crime and shouldn’t be trusted with weapons? Try backing that one up based on some real data?
Before using your keyboard to cast concealed carry permit holders as a bunch of irresponsible shoot-’um-up teenagers from some highly dramatic black-and-white, you could have looked at the facts. There are some 155,000 concealed carry permit holders in Virginia. They must be over the age of twenty-one and pass a safety and usage test before receiving their permit. Studies show that concealed carry permit holders are seven times LESS likely than the average citizen to commit a crime.
You ask why this bill is necessary and suggest a few reasons it might have advanced this year. Clearly, the bill is not about arming more people - it does nothing toward that end. The bottom line reason for this bill is that it makes sense. Just like it makes sense to prohibit the drinking of alcohol while carrying a gun or driving, it makes sense that someone who is not drinking alcohol and is obeying the law should be allowed to carry their firearm into a family restaurant and pretty much anywhere else, for that matter. It is frankly ridiculous that someone who is open carrying (for which there is no permitting process or safety test) can carry in such a location legally, but not a trained permit holder.
Your inflammatory opinion piece seems designed to incite fear among citizens who don’t own or understand owning a weapon. But consider this, if we were going to see a repeat of “OK Coral,” why hasn’t it happened already? This bill doesn’t loosen the restrictions on obtaining a concealed weapons permit, it simply applies some common sense to where you can legally carry it. Murder and mayhem are not the product of law abiding gun ownership, but of criminals who have no problem breaking the law anyway.
The only person who should be allowed to ban a weapon in a privately owned public facility is the owner of that facility. And the government should rarely prohibit the carrying of weapons by law-abiding gun owners in publicly owned places. There are good reasons why law enforcement should be the only people with guns in jails, police stations, courts and other secure facilities. But parks, libraries, government offices and the like are all places where law-abiding folk should be free to protect themselves.
And yes, criminals are attracted to “gun-free” zones. They are considered “crime-safe” zones. Cho may have still tried shooting up Virginia Tech even if guns had been allowed on campus but one armed professor could have stopped the carnage. That’s what happened at Appalachian State when a disgruntled student turned shooter — he did kill three people — but three students, one of whom retrieved a gun from his car, subdued and handcuffed the killer, holding him until police could arrive; thus preventing a far more massive tragedy.
Let’s have some freedom of choice on this issue. You don’t think law-abiding citizens in “today’s society” should carry guns for self-defense? Well, you have the right not to do so, but don’t infringe on my constitutional right to protect myself, those I love, and maybe, just maybe, even you.
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 8th, 2008 at 12:39 am and is filed under 2nd Amendment, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Mr. Casey article not only indicates much fear and irrationality, but ignorance as well. I have a great respect for our law enforcement community, but the reality is they are armed for their defense, not ours.
Amazing how much about gun control is in the media lately. Makes one wonder what will happen should the Dems get the White House, and maintain control of the House and Senate.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:31 am
We’re definitely not getting our message out.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Mr Casey gives the term knee JERK a whole new meaning.
This fellow must have been asleep or in a coma during the mid 1990’s. Prior to and during the Debate as to whether Virginia was to become a ‘Shall Issue ‘ state the anti-gunners computers and pens could not go one week without penning the phrase ” The Wild West ” every editorialists theme was as follows, Virginia will become the Wild West or Dodge City if legislators allow citizens to carry firearms concealed for the purposes of self defense. Well, we all know what happened. Nothing. They passed the law, life went unchanged except for the fact that criminials now had to wonder if their next potential victims reponse was going to be a double tap from a Glock 21 in lieu of tossing over their wallet. Those of you like me who dig the .45 ACP knows that a double tap from that cartridge may be redundent. But,what the hell why not be safe.
Again we are back to the same old issue with Anti Gunners. This is all about FEAR. This is all about their emotional reactions to guns. Guns scare them, so therefore all of the logic, reason and rational though in the world will not sway them.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
essentially, I want to be able to go to a bar without worrying about whether some hothead is going to start waving a pistol around after a few too many pints. Call me a commie, but something about that just strikes me as dangerous.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
…and yes, I would be struck with a greater amount of fear if someone was shaking a pistol in my face vs a baseball bat. If you really think that guns are interchangeable with bats or hammers, then why not carry a concealed hammer instead? You’d be making a lot of people more comfortable.
March 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Marshmallow,
“I want to be able to go to a bar without worrying about whether some hothead is going to start waving a pistol around after a few too many pints.”
You are making the ‘its a wild wild west’ argument using different vocabulary. When it comes to gun violence you are far and away more likely to have an issue in the parking lot than in the bar.
As for a gun toting patron (spelled honest-citizen) giving you trouble, hogwash, you are speaking from fear and bigotry alone. There is no statistics to support your supposition.
Today the vast majority of people who do go to a place and have a beer, have two or four and call it quits. The DUI laws have seen to that. Your scenario while certainly not impossible, is also highly improbable.
I am tired of seeing the honest citizen, who is armed, portrayed as a problem. It is bogus. The overwhelming percentage of violent crimes are committed by those who would already be barred from obtaining a concealed carry permit.
March 9th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Marshmallow,
as for
“I would be struck with a greater amount of fear if someone was shaking a pistol in my face vs a baseball bat.”
Congratulations, you are not an idiot. You have correctly deduced that while both are lethal, guns are more dangerous than bats. So what? This is not germain. We, as a people, have inherent rights. Since an armed citizenry is the outcome of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” your fear is your problem. Try not to make your phobia our issue.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Jacob: whoa whoa whoa there Tex. a few posts up someone said that being afraid of guns makes as much sense as being afraid of bats or hammers. I was pointing out that that’s kind of ridiculous.
fear and bigotry? So you of all people are going to launch right in with the bigotry card? Forgive me for not taking your comment seriously. Fear? It’s fear that makes you think you need to be armed at every moment. “What if someone robs me while I’m getting groceries?” “What if someone robs me while I’m getting my mail?” don’t talk to me about fear, mr.
Have you ever been in a bar fight? an after hours tussle? Picture it in your head. Some guy is too drunk and someone says the wrong thing, or he sees some guy talking to his lady, and then there’s pushing and shoving, etc. OK? Now imaging everyone is holding a gun. Yes, your extreme take on gun rights is a recipe for wild west-style chaos.
DUI-schmee-U-I. Maybe that works in your neck of the woods. I live within walking distance of about 50 bars.
“an armed citizenry” no, the 2nd amendment is about the need for “a well-regulated militia” not simply an armed citizenry. Learn to read!
March 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“From the perspective of those who are not subconsciously afraid of firearms, this attitude is like flinching at the sight of a hammer or baseball bat. But cultural conditioning being what it is, many otherwise reasonable people fall into the fallacy of seeing the tool, rather than the carrier, as the problem.”
-Joe
March 9th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Marshmallow,
“a few posts up someone said that being afraid of guns makes as much sense as being afraid of bats or hammers. I was pointing out that that’s kind of ridiculous.”
Point taken.
“fear and bigotry? So you of all people are going to launch right in with the bigotry card?”
Fear is what your whole argument is based upon. You are afraid of another patron pulling a gun on you. Is this not the essence of your position?
Bigotry: (defn) the act constantly and stubbornly holds a particular point of view.
Your position appears to be, “Guns are bad, I am afraid, so the rights of others are to be abridged.” Yes, I am using the word outside its current common tense with respect to race. What I see is a blind intolerance, and besmirching of the armed citizen being OK by you. You yourself are doing this, so am I totally wrong, or are you getting carried away in the course of the argument? BTW the term originally was used to define religious intolerance.
“Have you ever been in a bar fight? an after hours tussle? ”
Yup. Years ago. More than once. Hated it.
“Picture it in your head. Some guy is too drunk and someone says the wrong thing, or he sees some guy talking to his lady, and then there’s pushing and shoving, etc. OK? Now imaging everyone is holding a gun. Yes, your extreme take on gun rights is a recipe for wild west-style chaos.”
You are actually making _my_ point here do you realize that? In VA the same argument has been used in a slightly different but far more stressful scenario, the rush hour ride to work or home. I have some news for you, the gun fire on the road is oddly absent. Why is that or fearful one?
“DUI-schmee-U-I. Maybe that works in your neck of the woods. I live within walking distance of about 50 bars.”
Sounds like Oneonta upstate NY. I am ever so jealous. Stumbling home is not an option here.
–A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.–
The armed citizenry is the prerequisite for the militia dude. Apply some rules of grammar to the ammendment. You’ll see what I mean.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Um, mind you, it is already illegal to drink while carrying and we think that it should be. Nobody is arguing for being able to consume alcohol while carrying but to say that you can’t carry and EAT — now that’s silly.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Marshmallow,
LC is absolutely correct. You drink in public while packing you are toast. Your entire scenario is bogus.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
oh, what a wonderful world.
but still, if you’d lay off the “oh fearful one” nonsense. It’s unbecoming, if not outright hypocritical considering that your argument for concealed-carry isn’t based on maintaining a well-regulated militia, but on your perception that a violent attack on your person is imminent!
March 9th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
It’s an argument from the greater to the lesser, Stay Puft. If the Constitution protects the bearing of arms for the protection of the realm against tyrants, then it protects the carrying of arms for the protection of the person against harm. Besides, it is the bearing of arms by the person that allows for the raising of an armed force from within the realm, and whatever the reason given, the Constitutional language is that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.” There is no clause for “unless they reach the 21st century and become really sophisticated.”
March 9th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
hahaha. here I thought you guys were originalists! We all know what the intent of the 2nd amendment was: to insure that people could have their muskets in case they had to defend their land against an invading army. …not for jittery types who are afraid to go grocery shopping without Sam Colt holding their hand
March 9th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Begging your pardon, but you should really meet some concealed carry permit holders. They aren’t “jittery types” generally. Hate to bring the facts in here, but there really are people who are targets of crime by other people, people who have received death threats, people who have changed their identity to get away from an abusive spouse, etc…
March 9th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Marshmallow,
“but still, if you’d lay off the “oh fearful one” nonsense.”
OK. I prefer to beat you like a drum with logic. Ticking you off is not my goal (well maybe …)
“It’s unbecoming, if not outright hypocritical considering that your argument for concealed-carry isn’t based on maintaining a well-regulated militia, but on your perception that a violent attack on your person is imminent!”
Oh, I am? I am arguing this primarily from a rights stand point. You are stuffing words into my mouth. Please read my comments.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Just because we are allegedly more sophisticated not it does not mean this right is no longer valid.
March 9th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Marshmallow,
‘jittery’ hey. As opposed to fearful you poor dear? Hypocritical indeed. Heal boy! Heal!! May the love of Jesus shine into your life and may you heal.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
by, “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed” do you mean, “…the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”?
ok, we aren’t concerned with the original intent, but why not an originalist interpretation of the term “arms”
and, in the same strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment you use, how is a ban on drinking while packing not a violation?
when the framers said “right to free speech” they didn’t envision ABC getting fined for Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, but the fact of the matter is that the airwaves are regulated. Is that a violation of the 1st amendment? When I unveil my machine that projects pornos onto clouds, I fully expect the feds to pull the plug despite my invocation of the 1st amendment. Can I count on you to stand with me in support of our god-given rights?
March 9th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
CBS
March 9th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
General,
“From the perspective of those who are not subconsciously afraid of firearms, this attitude is like flinching at the sight of a hammer or baseball bat.”
I put that first clause in there for a reason. Consequently, the full sentence means not that hammers and guns are the same, but from the perspective of those of us who are not afraid of guns, the fear of guns seems akin to fear of hammers.
I certainly hope this episode of careless reading comprehension is not something that carries over into your day job, because I would hate to think of such bad habits being passed on to the next generation of readers.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
“We all know what the intent of the 2nd amendment was: to insure that people could have their muskets in case they had to defend their land against an invading army.”
Uh, no.
The intent was to keep the government from getting out of hand. Which is why the Miller decision ruled against sawed-off shotguns — not because Miller was not part of an organized militia, but because the court erroneously thought that such weapons were not used by the regular military.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
“…in the same strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment you use, how is a ban on drinking while packing not a violation?”
Because drinking is not a right.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:21 am
“but from the perspective of those of us who are not afraid of guns, the fear of guns seems akin to fear of hammers.”
I understood your point, which is crazy, and that’s what I was trying to point out. If you were to find yourself in some public place and someone started waiving an object around, would you be more concerned if it were a hammer or a knife? Apparently you would be equally concerned because the guy is acting like a nut, but you wouldn’t factor in whether the object was a hammer or a gun.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:23 am
I think if I had said “…the fear of guns is exactly the same as fear of hammers” you would be right about my craziness.
By using the words “seems akin to” I buy myself a bit of rhetorical wiggle room, or so I was taught in English class. It’s just the barest bit of exaggeration, employed to make a point. But I’m sure you social science guys are way beyond mere vocabulary.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:43 am
I think maybe if we took up a small collection to buy the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man a few sessions, or even a 6-month membership to this place
http://www.firinglineguns.com/membership.php
…we could move past some of these problems related to lack of familiarity.
They rent pistols and revolvers for $10 an hour. I’d pony up for 3 hours right now.
Once mid-terms are finished, which should be in the next two weeks, I’m sure he can catch some free afternoons to take a ride over.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:13 am
Marshmallow,
First, the law proposed would have barred (pun intended) a concealed carry holder from drinking in a restaurant, and he would have to inform the personnel at the restaurant that he was carrying. (If you object “suppose they don’t inform” and drink anyway — that is criminal and the same action could be happening now. This law would not have stopped that.) Your “drunk” waving a pistol is not a law abiding citizen, and I’d be much more concerned about an individual waving a knife in those circumstances than a gun in any case (as deadly, much more difficult to disarm — unless you have a gun).
As for me, I want to be able to go into a restaurant without being defenseless. You fear someone with a gun with them drinking (would be against the law). I would more fear someone entering the restaurant with the intent of armed robbery and killing off all the patrons (witnesses) and making off with a lot of money. (Even at $20/tip, a restaurant could easily have a large quantity of cash.) If a restaurant had two or three concealed carry patrons, and someone busts in and announces “this is a stick-up” there would be a good possibility of the robber not succeeding.
As to the police being there to protect — in an armed robbery situation (or many like it) there may be only seconds before someone is killed. The police are only minutes away.
One other thing, if I am unarmed, I’d be much more afraid of someone with a 10″ kitchen knife than a gun. If you ever attend a course on self-defense against a weapon, close range with a firearm is *much* easier to defend than close range with an edge weapon. Grab a gun properly, it will only fire once. Grab a knife, and you just wounded yourself, the knife is *never* “discharged” and needing to be recycled prior to “shooting” again. Someone able and armed with a knife is much more dangerous than someone with a gun.
And to the article, why should the police be armed? If they need guns to defend themselves (and us) what about the 45 minutes between when something happens and when the police arrive? What about the fact that the police are under no obligation to enforce the law? (Don’t believe that? Look at what the SCOTUS has ruled:
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs on page 14 of the decision.)
The police have guns for self protection. They do not need to protect citizens — the courts *continually* rule they need not defend individual citizens. While they may protect us, they have no obligation to protect us.
You and I might not like that, but it is the truth. The only one you can count on to defend you is you.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I want one of these. A relative of mine did patrols in one of these in Iraq. Look at the one starting at 1:43. The fencing traps RPGs, which have impact detonators in their noses. The RPGs get trapped in the fence without detonating.