Flying Oskar: Looking Down The Barrel of Shane Martin’s Gun Bill
Shane Martin's new bill would put concealed guns on school grounds and in bars.
Plainly put, the state has more problems facing it right now than at any point in recent memory. So with all that on our collective plate, why does newly elected State Senator Shane Martin (R-Spartanburg) feel the most important thing he can do in a perilous time like this, is to introduce a bill that would allow concealed weapon permit holders to bring guns on school property and carry them into bars?
As the law reads right now, concealed-carry permit holders can’t carry their guns onto school property or into any establishment that serves alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. The bill that Martin introduced to the State Senate last week would reverse that by allowing concealed weapon permit holders to bring their guns onto school property as long as they are left in the car, and would allow them to be carried into a bar as long as the person is seated at a table instead of the bar.
Leaving aside the timing of the bill, the most obvious question for me is: Why would anyone need to bring a gun on school grounds or into a bar?
It may be surprising to many people, but I’m rather moderate on the issue of gun rights. I agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the ban on handguns in Washington D.C., and generally I believe a person without a criminal record should be able to purchase a handgun for home defense. Many of my family members are also hunters.
I have never really fully bought the argument that guns cause violent crime rates to go up, because many other countries that have open gun laws also have much lower violent crime rates than the U.S. Violent crime problems are often socio-economic problems, and restrictive handgun bans, like the one in D.C., are ineffective because they treat the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause.
With all that said though, I’m still not convinced that there is some pressing need to bring a gun into a bar or on school grounds. In a story in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal last week Martin said; “You don’t need to carry it inside the school. But I’ve had teachers tell me they can’t exercise their (Second Amendment) rights traveling to and from school. They ought to be able to travel to school without having to leave their weapon.”
How awful it must be for those poor teachers to not be able to carry their guns in their cars when going to school. I know how antsy I get if I’m not packing 24/7.
Seriously though, where’s the pressing need? Where’s the miscarriage of justice? There’s certainly a right in this country to own a gun, but I don’t see how that right extends to bringing a gun onto school property and apparently, the Superintendent of Shane Martin’s old school district agrees with me on this point.
In the SH-J story, Spartanburg School District 6 Superintendent Daryl Owings said “You could have a carpool situation where you have four or five kids in the car. … Even though the driver would have a concealed-carry permit, any time kids are around a loaded gun, it’s a cause for concern.”
For me, and Superintendent Owings, the issue of child safety outweighs the inconvenience of having to leave your precious pistol at home.
Owings also mentioned athletic events and meetings, and I think anyone who’s been to a local high-school football game can tell you how situations can often get pretty out of hand there. Imagine that same fandom-gone-mad situation, but now the fans have guns in their cars.
As bad as the school portion of Senator Martin’s bill is, the bar portion may be even worse. I’ve always worked under the assumption that alcohol and guns do not go well together, and that the law should do whatever possible to discourage any mixing of the two. Evidently, I have been mistaken. The greater issue it seems is that people can’t go have dinner with their family at a place that serves alcohol without leaving the ever-important firearm at home.
Again I have to ask, where is the miscarriage of justice that demands this law? The bill attempts to make the distinction between being in an establishment to eat versus being in that establishment to drink alcohol by only allowing concealed weapon permit holders to sit at a table and not at the bar while carrying a gun. Has Senator Martin never heard of getting drunk at a bar while sitting at a table?
Perhaps he’d like to accompany me to the Nu-Way on a Friday night, and we can ask patrons sitting at the tables there whether they’re there for food or drink. Maybe later, we could pass out a questionnaire to everyone entering a bar to find out whether they’re there to drink or not, and then we can take the guns from the people there to drink. I’m sure the local police departments would be more than willing to station officers at every bar in the state to help administer the test, right?
What’s also glaringly obvious about the bar provision in this bill, is that it’s absolutely unenforceable. How are you going to stop someone from sitting at the bar once they’ve entered the establishment? More importantly, what difference does it make whether a person is seated at the bar or a table in a bar? Add to that, the fact there’s no legitimate (i.e. non-paranoid) reason for a person to carry a gun into a bar, and I’m left totally at a loss as for what possible justifiable reason this law is needed.
I suspect what’s really going on is that Senator Martin, being new on the job, is looking to make a name for himself. And what better way to do that in a conservative state than to make some grand gesture to the “gun rights†crowd. Is there some real need for this law? No, of course not, but it certainly will look good on future campaign literature.
For a freshman senator who campaigned as an outsider, Shane Martin certainly has proven himself quite adept at the time-honored political art of pandering.
(Before I start my comments, I will say this..”I love it when you are satirical Steve.” Now its my turn.
I do have to wonder just who benefits out of such legislation? Of course I wonder about the whole reasoning about carrying a concealed weapon to begin with. If you are on your way to school, and the only place you can keep your “peacemaker” once you get there is in the car, then what good is it? Does this same rule apply to people who have the racks in their pick-up trucks with their hunting rifles attached?
I remember getting into trouble when I walked into my son’s school several years back. Apparently I was carrying a weapon. When I realized that they were concerned about an inch long swiss army knife that was attached to my key ring, I had to laugh. The “knife” was barely 3/4 of an inch long and wouldn’t cut jello. It was so ridiculous, and right then I began to realize the paranoia that could be found in the whole “gun control” mindset.
So my next set of questions are as follows.
Does “concealed” mean knives, brass knuckles, num chucks, or other such tools of mayhem? Can you use such items while IN the car, and can the car be in motion at the time?
Does this law apply to only staff or can students partake as long as they are licensed?
If weapons are found to be in need of use while in the school parking lot, does the owner need to stay in the car to use them?
Do you have to announce upon entering an eating establishment “oh by the way, I have my Smith and Wesson on my hip. I’ll be at table ten.”? If there is no table available and there is only bar seating left, will the waiter refuse to serve the patron who is toting said Smith and Wesson?
I could go on with a whole list of utterly silly questions on this topic, but I think you get the gist. This is a ridiculous piece of a waste of our time, and that of the state legislature. Maybe I need to be sending my list of silly questions about silly legislation to the freshman senator.
Oops, I just read who actually wrote the article. Still, Sarcasm in such a vein makes my day, Sorry Chris it is YOU that gets the credit.
Thanks for the comment Sylvie. As I understand it, the “concealed” part of the bill only refers to guns that people who have concealed weapon permits carry. Knives and other things like that aren’t mentioned as far as I know.
The list of ridiculous and unenforceable situations that this bill would create is so long, I could have written a whole piece filled with nothing but funny hypotheticals. To me, that’s almost always the mark of pointless pandering legislation.
This fellow lost all credibility when he sent a letter to the editor (printed Sunday) and called the Herald-Journal “a liberal newspaper.” This is a paper that endorses Republicans about 95 percent of the time.
I can see both sides of this ongoing debate, as teachers get to work very early, even sometimes before daylight, I’m sure they feel vulnerable sometimes from some potential would-be attacker, and the presumed safety of a firearm probably is one of the selling points for that argument.
Also, I believe this carry permit requires the taking of some gun safety class, or so I heard, and hopefully would weed out some of the less responsible persons that may abuse such a privilege in which this bill grants.
Although, if someone is irresponsible enough to do unjust harm to someone with a firearm, what’s to compel them to be responsible enough to obtain a permit to begin with? That point alone tempts me to see the logic in this bill.
As freedom is synonymous with responsibility, I understand the concerns of those against this bill due to the fact that there are so many irresponsible people out there, yet I honestly think that we should not be stripped of our rights, or privileges rather in this case, under the assumption that because there are those that aren’t responsible, that all should be treated as such. I just think it’s a logical fallacy, but I’m all ears to hear otherwise.
I do agree that there are much more pressing issues to be dealt with, and the timing of this bill is suspect to Martin making a name for himself.
Betsy: I just went back and looked at that. I Wish I’d have known about it sooner. I’ve often found it odd that the standard Republican yarn about the “liberal media” actually gets applied to local media, and even more odd that the conservatives applying the label can do it with a straight face.
Also, it looks like the letter writer bellow Sen. Martin stole a little bit of my thunder about the gun bill. oh well.
I’m a retired Air Force officer and a Texas and Florida CHL holder.
What Mr George misses, and Senator Martin understands, is that crime and the risk criminal attack are never deterred by setting up so-called “gun free” zones. And that is why we provide 24/7 protection to VIPs everywhere they go.
Guns in a bar? You can bet that when Senator Hillary Clinton was campaigning last year, every time she did a meet-and-greet in a local restaurant that served alcohol, she was accompanied by pistol-packing Secret Service that you and I paid for.
And when Vice President Biden stops in a grade school to talk to the kids, you can bet that he is backed up with pistol power, courtesy of the taxpayers.
What is happening now is that ordinary folks are just following the lead of their “betters” in demanding the same right to defend themselves, should that ever be necessary.
Texas Governor Rick Perry travels with bodyguards himself, but he “gets it”:
“It’s time for us to have that debate in Texas from the standpoint of whether or not a law-abiding citizen in the state of Texas can take their appropriately licensed and permitted weapon anywhere in this state, whether it’s on a college campus or wherever,” Mr. Perry said.
The governor said deranged individuals don’t pay any attention to signs that bar guns on certain premises and that citizens ought “to be able to protect themselves from that standpoint.”
Asked whether such a wide- open weapons policy would include bars and courthouses, Mr. Perry said: “A person ought to be able to carry their weapon with them anywhere in the state if they are licensed and they have gone through the training.
“The idea that you’re going to exempt them from a particular place is nonsense.”
(Dallas Morning News, 1 May 2007)
Isn’t it refreshing to see a politician who wants ordinary folks to have the same right to protect themselves that he himself gets?
It’s important to remember, when issues such as this are discussed, the fundamental purpose of government: “…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”.
Governments exist to preserve our rights, not to ration them out in dribs and drabs as they see fit.
Whenever government departs from its fundamental purpose, there should be a very high bar requiring irrefutable proof that such departure is necessary. The emotional appeals typically issuing from victim-disarmament advocates (such as Chris) needs to be replaced by logic. Until that happens, you’re on the wrong side of the American ideal.
The issue to me isn’t the guns, but rather the concealment. The Constitution protects our rights to keep and bear arms, but there’s a huge difference between having a pistol in a holster on your hip, like a police officer does, or a rifle rack in the back of your truck and sneaking a 9mm into a concert or a shotgun into a Dairy Queen.
When you go out on public property, you lose all legal expectations of privacy. You can be photographed by anyone, and anything you say or do is considered public. Carrying a gun in that context should also be viewed as public, just as much as carrying a spear would be.
If I own a bar, I want to know if you are packing heat before I serve you anything. As a business owner, it’s MY right to decide who brings what into my place of business, and if you are armed and I don’t like it, it’s MY right to kick you out. It’s also my responsibility to protect my customers, and I can’t do that if someone is sneaking a Colt in — possibly getting plastered and belligerent — concealed carry permit or no.
As a patron, it’s MY call whether or not I want to be seated next to a one-person ammo depot. Just like it’s MY decision to whether or not send my kids to a public school where the teachers aren’t secretly packing heat.
If you want to have guns, fine. That’s your right. It is NOT your right to hide that gun. Read the Constitution. You can keep them, and bear them — that’s it. You have absolutely no right to carry them in secret, nor should you. That Amendment was put in place to allow for defense of the home and the empowerment of militias, not so you could feel a little more secure in case the terrorists attack you in the bread isle at Wal-Mart.
“Leaving aside the timing of the bill, the most obvious question for me is: Why would anyone need to bring a gun on school grounds or into a bar?”
Perhaps because murderers prefer victim disarmament zones and won’t obey the “no guns” rule when they decide to slaughter a large number of innocent victims who are unable to defend themselves. Carrying a gun is like having insurance – you hope you don’t have to use it, but you are glad to have it when the need arises. Further, Mr. Martin understands better than the author of this piece that these are, indeed, perilous times. The world is filled with wolves. Therefore, it is wise for the sheep to be armed.
“How awful it must be for those poor teachers to not be able to carry their guns in their cars when going to school. I know how antsy I get if I’m not packing 24/7.”
The author reveals a small mindset when he resorts to ridicule. Those who carry concealed weapons should not have to be inconvenienced by having to leave them at home if they need to stop by the school to attend to business with their kids, nor should they need to face prosecution. People who patronize businesses that serve alcohol should not face these issues, either. Law-abiding citizens who carry firearms are not the problem here. The problem with gun violence is criminals who care nothing about the laws and won’t obey gun laws no matter what the state says.
“For me, and Superintendent Owings, the issue of child safety outweighs the inconvenience of having to leave your precious pistol at home.”
If you really are concerned about child safety, then teach children gun safety, not gun fear, and allow them to be defended by those who are able to do more than cower under a desk.
“Owings also mentioned athletic events and meetings, and I think anyone who’s been to a local high-school football game can tell you how situations can often get pretty out of hand there. Imagine that same fandom-gone-mad situation, but now the fans have guns in their cars.”
This is the same sky-is-falling Chicken Little stuff that gets dragged out every time the issue of concealed carry comes up, and it never turns out the way the spineless hoplophobes predict. CCW holders are the most law-abiding people around, not the wild west types they are portrayed to be by the fearful.
“It may be surprising to many people, but I’m rather moderate on the issue of gun rights.”
No, I’m not surprised. But one thing I learned a long time ago is that people who claim to be “moderates” are just middle-of-the-roaders. And the middle of the road is where you find the road kill. While moderates are busy trading away our liberties piece by piece (which are truly secured only by the Second Amendment), the enemies of gun ownership will use them to advance their creeping totalitarian agenda. One day the author of this piece may wake up to find that he has given away the store.
I’d say the opposite is true. It’s none of your business if I’m carrying around you.
The exception I’ll agree to is for businesses that wish to ban weapons, unless the weapon is in my car. My car is an extension of my property and therefore not subject to any rules you have about your store or bar.
I’ve seen this very proposal work just fine. Colorado has no issues and I can carry into bars, so long as I do not imbibe the alcohol. Schools, I simply have to secure the weapon in my vehicle. Not ideal from my perspective, but it keeps me from having to leave my self-defense choice at home.
CCW enables me to be discreet in the fact that I arm myself. It minimizes the chance of someone targeting me, whether that individual is government or private, and quite honestly, nobody is the wiser. The gun is last resort, not first, and as such, should not be the focus of the panicky types who wet themselves at the sight of a weapon.
While your satire isn’t bad, your arguments can be turned against you. For example, you assume just because someone is packing that the individual in question is a danger to the children in the car. I’d argue that their presence is an increase in safety for those children. Another example was armed folks in the bar. Why do you assume those folks are there to imbibe alcohol? I’m usually the designated driver, and many bars serve real food here in Colorado, along with sports nights, etc. I don’t need to drink alcohol to be there. Silly assumption.
Second thought to add…
The 18th Century term, “to bear arms” does not preclude concealed carry. Clear up until the Victorian Era, when the US fell under a spell of Europhile nonsense, many folks did indeed carry pocket pistols (concealed). City guys, especially carried them that way, while the cowpokes carried them openly, when they actually carried them at all.
If NO ONE needs to carry in a bar or in a school, then KEEP THE ARMED COPS OUT, for God’s sake. Disarm them well prior to entry on the premises! Hypocritical chauvanist pig!
Interesting that in what the author describes as a conservative state that only 1 person responded to this twaddle negatively.
I can only assume Chris has either forgotten about the Mississipi situation where the Vice-Principal ran and got his gun from his truck and stopped a person shooting and killing in his school, or never heard of it. Of course, the potential he doesn’t perceive it as relevant exists too.
The banning of guns in autos on schoolgrounds, if followed, has the dubious distinction of prohibiting lawfully licensed school staff and visitors from exercising their right to self-defense on their journeys to and from schools. Do the phrases “car-jacking” or “road rage” mean anything to Chris?
I think that bars are a completely different topic, and perhaps the proposed legislation should tackle the issues singly, not together. Still, it is hard to not pay some attention to psychos using restaurants as killing fields. I can’t recall the name of the Texas Rep. who watched both her parents be murdered in, I believe, a Luby’s restaurant, then became politically active and did something to provide constitutionally protected rights for that state’s citizens. I also don’t know whether or not that restaurant had a bar. If so, one armed citizen could likely have saved a lot of lives.
I seem to remember a line in the Declaration of Independence about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (Something like that.) Certainly the Founding Fathers saw protecting one’s self as the highest of the inalienable rights provided by God. Despite all their posturing about “the children,” presumably saving them, the Brady Bunch and their ilk obviouls don’t give a damn about the sanctity of life. Especially if it hinders their lust for power.
I guess what bothers me most about this article is that it probably would be fairly easy to check out the numbers of armed robberies and felonious assaults in bars and restaurants that serve liquor over the past few years. It could have provided some facts to use as a basis for examination of this legislation and this article.
Well here is your answer. “No guns zones” are a killers dream. Thats why there are mass shooting and schools,churchs, and post offices. Therefore thats is exactly why there should never be a no guns zone anywhere. Its a criminals dream. Only law abiding citizen’s obey the stupid rules and become defenless victims. These zones are created by paty wetting irrational politicians.
Oh goody, the gun guys came out to comment.
Andrew: I didn’t think I had to point this out to anyone but as it turns out, you are not the President, Vice-President, or a major Presidential Candidate. The Secret Service protects our highest officials because at any given time, there are a number of people who’d like to kill them, and we often don’t know who or where these people are.
You on the other hand, are nobody. I don’t mean that as a slam but chances are, you don’t have to worry about potential assassins everywhere you go. If you feel you do, and for whatever reason feel like everyone may be out to get you, I believe there’s a pill you can take for that.
Preparing for some non-specific criminal attack by packing inside an Applebee’s and munching on some cheese fries is paranoia. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but if I don’t “get it”, maybe it’s because I don’t see every person I meet as a potential threat.
Frank: You show me where in the constitution it says that you have a right to conceal a weapon on you at all times, and I’ll agree with you. Until then, I think Steve summed it up pretty well in his comment.
Excuse me. Did Mr. Cho ask anyone’s permission to bring a firearm onto school grounds?
So, Chris, as a “nobody” I don’t deserve the right to protect myself from someone hoping to bank on my “nobody-ness?” A mugger, carjacker, etc, won’t wait for you to reach a secure place in your car, or drive home to obtain a weapon, he’s going to attack you there and then. If you’re not prepared, you’re likely dead.
It’s not paranoia to be prepared. It’s foolish to not be prepared. Don’t misunderstand, a weapon is not a magical talisman. It won’t magically save your life. It’s merely one additional tool you can use to equal up the odds when you aren’t a large, athletic, martial arts expert.
Sylivie, Betsy, Chris, and others: apparently you are not aware of the SEVERAL U. S. Supreme Court (and many lower court) rulings wherein it was decided that law enforcement (you know, the guys and gals, and I love ‘em, that have “To Protect and to Serve” on their cruisers) HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION OR DUTY TO PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN FROM HARM. PERIOD. So, the reason I carry pretty much 24/7 is along the same lines that I have a spare tire, a cell phone, a first aid kit, survival rations, accident and life insurance, etc. Unless one has the ability to accurate predict or schedule the unthinkable, it is best to be prepared, and have the RIGHT TOOL(S) FOR THE JOB. Couple this with the FACT that virtually everything the anti-firearms rights types have stated or predicted has been undenialably false, and I hope a sane person will see the logic. “Gun laws” (with the sole exceptions of “shall issue” concealed carry and “Castle Doctrine”) have been, are, and forever will be USELESS as “crime-fighting” tools, because the CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAW(S). How hard is that to figure out? The greatest majority of mass shootings have occured in so-called “gun free safety zones”. Really works, doesn’t it? Who would you rather have at your child’s school when a maniac goes on a rampage – a trained person with a firearm, or some idiot that will yell at him/her (before being killed) that “you can’t bring that gun in here!”, quickly followed by BANG! BANG! BANG! (pause for reloading) BANG! BANG!? If you are not willing to defend innocent life by whatever means necessary, I really pity you, and you should seek professional help.
“It’s none of your business if I’m carrying around you. … The 18th Century term, “to bear arms†does not preclude concealed carry. Clear up until the Victorian Era, when the US fell under a spell of Europhile nonsense, many folks did indeed carry pocket pistols (concealed). City guys, especially carried them that way, while the cowpokes carried them openly, when they actually carried them at all.”
There is no expectation of privacy whatsoever in the 2nd Amendment. Let’s take a look: “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.”
I says you can have them, but it says nothing about hiding them. You DO NOT have a right to do that. It’s a special privilege to carry a concealed weapon — just like it’s a special privilege to drive a car — and while states make provisions for this, it’s ABSOLUTELY NOT protected under the Constitution. In some cases, it makes sense — Security professionals, undercover police and so forth — but beyond that it really doesn’t.
And if you want to get historical, let’s consider that the guns the Founders were talking about were talking about the arms of their day — flintlock musket and rifles are hardly something to conceal easily — and it’s doubtful at best that they were specifically making a provision for you to secretly carry a Glock into a Hot Spot.
Again, I’m not anti-gun. An armed populace was part of the design of the country — specifically to prevent the government from becoming a tyranny — and that’s fine by me. But if you’re going to carry a gun around, at least be a good citizen and do it openly. That way, it’s my call whether or not I allow you and your hand-cannon to casually endanger my safety.
It really has nothing to do with guns. I’d want the same thing if you were carrying around a ninja sword or a can of gasoline and a book of matches. If you are a threat to me, I want to know.
To Steve Shanafelt – Firstly, why would you assume that I, or another lawful citizen, justly exercising a Constitutionally AFFIRMED (not granted; there is a HUGE difference) RIGHT, is a threat to you? Talk about paranoia! Bearing (carrying) arms is most definitely a fundamental Right, and in no way a privilege. Secondly, are you aware that there are several million CCW licensees/permittees in these United States? Are you also aware that as a group, we are more law-abiding than politicians (no surprise there!), law enforcement, and even the CLERGY? The thing that really twists my knickers is the idea that I must obtain “state permission” (license or permit) to exercise a Right that is not to be INFRINGED (see the 2nd and 14th Amendments). Third, show me somewhere in the U. S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, or the substantial writings of the Founding Fathers that prohibits, or even suggests prohibition, of concealed carry. The whole idea of bearing arms is for defense, including defense of yourself, your neighbor, neighborhood, village, city, state, and nation, and this has been common, natural, and codified law for thousands of years. Do you have a RIGHT to life? Certainly. You also have an absolute obligation to defend that most precious gift. If you choose not to, that is YOUR choice. Do not force it upon me. I refer you to my earlier comments about being prepared. Do I want to shoot someone? Of course NOT! But I will not be forced to surrender my life, or the life of an innocent person, at the hands of a homicidal maniac (be that a person, or a “government”). Self defense is morally, ethically, and legally correct. If that is too politically incorrect or judgemental for you, you have my pity. As for me, I choose life, and the means to defend it. All the criminal element must do to avoid harm is to not force me to defend myself or others. No one may, and I will not permit, denial of my Right to exist.
“Firstly, why would you assume that I, or another lawful citizen, justly exercising a Constitutionally AFFIRMED (not granted; there is a HUGE difference) RIGHT, is a threat to you? Talk about paranoia! Bearing (carrying) arms is most definitely a fundamental Right, and in no way a privilege. ”
Keeping a gun and being allowed to use a gun is a right, hiding a concealed gun in a public context isn’t. If it was a right, you wouldn’t need a special permit to do so.
If you insist on having a gun outside of the context of your Constitutional right, there are conditions. Just like free speech is a right, but it’s not a right when you use that speech to slander or libel someone, or to give false testimony in a court.
One of us is wanting to pack a pea-shooter in a leg-holster in case their Denny’s waitress turns out to be a Crip, the other just wants his Grand Slam. Which one do you think is more paranoid?
I’m fine with guns, I’m just not fine with people carrying hidden weapons in a public context. Get a hip-holster and let everyone around you know how ready to defend your life you are at any given moment. I’m sure you’ll get better service. And I’ll be able to use my inherent right to protect my life by not sitting anywhere near you.
Andrew, you are not a Secret Service agent.
FrankInFL, the term “victim-disarmament†is an interesting term, because it subjectively labels one as a victim, and suggests there is a perpetrator somewhere. This is an extremely paranoid outlook, and with said paranoia there can’t really be any of that logic you’re talking about. Perhaps you should seek a change in perspective when it comes to victim/perpetrator outlook and you’ll stop seeing yourself and others as victims. I don’t believe that an individual needs a gun in order to not feel like a victim.
Bob, “perilous times†afoot, hm? “Wolves†lurking around the corner? You also use this imagery of murderers slaughtering masses of innocent people. Can you sleep at night? I’m just glad I don’t suffer from this kind of paranoia. I also wonder why you suggest that Shane Martin understands these are “perilous timesâ€â€”wait a minute, in South Carolina? REALLY? I don’t see any boogeymen terrorists wreaking havoc anywhere.
Vidarr, you say, “My car is an extension of my property and therefore not subject to any rules you have about your store or bar.â€
Sure, your car is your property, but is subject to rules wherever it is parked. For example, it can be towed away if you are in violation. You may be thinking, well what’s inside the car is my property and no-one’s business but mine. However, as another example, it doesn’t mean you could go on to have sex inside your car outside that business and not expect any rules to apply. Your property is still in a public place, whether you like it or not.
Stare, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness†can be interpreted a billion different ways by anyone. More specifically this issue about guns deals with where one individual’s rights end and another individual’s rights begin. You mention exercising self-defense. You do realize there are many means of self-defense that do not require guns?
Wendy, your comment is kind of confusing, and worries me. Are you… all there?
How about all these remarks about being “spineless,†or “wetting pants†when it comes to guns—is there something emasculating about not wanting to be around weapons? Those in favor of this legislation have some macho/hero-complexes.
Richard, I can only assume you meant “panty-wettingâ€â€¦ which is yet another example of a testosterone-charged expression—with which these comments are littered—
confirming the need for machismo-mechanisms to ensure your masculinity. Please limit ejaculating bullets to the shooting range.
Any of you ever think about maybe taking one of those Kubotan self-defense classes? You don’t even need a permit for those things. Might do you some good.
TSgtB
While you are quite within your rights in carrying a weapon, I don’t share your mentality on personal choice when it comes to weapons. To me defense is just that, and there are plenty of non-violent, non aggressive ways to ensure one’s safety and the safety of those around you. For that I don’t need or want a gun.
The chances of my encountering a gun wielding attacker are probably about the same as my winning the lottery. Even if the odds are against me and I find myself the victim of an attack the chances of my being successful in using a gun to stop the attack are even greater. Why do I want to play such lousy odds?
I just can’t bring myself to be that paranoid about the what-ifs when it come to the dangers around me and my family. I prefer to allow those who are trained to handle volatile situations to do their jobs and not add my untrained self into the mix.
I have owned a gun, a 22 rifle, I bought it for my husband who thought he’d take up hunting. He didn’t, I wasn’t comfortable with a gun in the house with children if it wasn’t going to be used for hunting, so we sold it.
But this is all getting off track. The issue here is not the right or privilege to own a gun, it is about allowing people to carry around a potential danger, Mostly to themselves, in venues where such an item really has no use or need. Yeah we’ve had attacks in schools and churches and an occasional mall, they are tragic, tragic events,,BUT they are very very isolated incidents, and they make the news because they are so rare.
Does the legislation give a bit more freedom to gun owners? Sure it does. But is it necessary? No. It addresses the wishes of a very small sector of the state citizens, and has the potential to add some real problems to public safety. I think Mr. Martin can sure find better things to be concentrating on when it comes to the needs of the state then this.
Chris -
You wrote:
“Andrew: I didn’t think I had to point this out to anyone but as it turns out, you are not the President, Vice-President, or a major Presidential Candidate. The Secret Service protects our highest officials because at any given time, there are a number of people who’d like to kill them, and we often don’t know who or where these people are.
You on the other hand, are nobody. I don’t mean that as a slam but chances are, you don’t have to worry about potential assassins everywhere you go. If you feel you do, and for whatever reason feel like everyone may be out to get you, I believe there’s a pill you can take for that.
Preparing for some non-specific criminal attack by packing inside an Applebee’s and munching on some cheese fries is paranoia. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but if I don’t “get itâ€, maybe it’s because I don’t see every person I meet as a potential threat.”
Well, my goodness, Chris, can you find the part in the your copy of the Constitution where it’s determined that different peoples lives are more valuable than others? Can’t seem to find it in mine.
To put this in perspective: carrying a concealed handgun is sort of like wearing a seat belt….you can go for years without being in an accident where you really need to have your seat belt on….but when and if you need it, you really need it. I always buckle up, and I hope you do too. Does that mean we’re both paranoid about our chances of being in an auto accident?
And as far as me being “nobody”? Well, take it from a veteran: no one in the United States is a “nobody”. It’s what makes our citizens different from the serfs of feudal Europe, the comrades of the old USSR, the master race of the Third Reich, and the subjects of the Emperor of Japan. Better men than you or I have died so that this may be true.
When we realize that the life of a bartender, of a teacher going to her school, or of a retired GI dining at Applebee’s is just as valuable as the life of a Clinton, a Biden, or an Obama, the promise of the Founders will be kept… a promise made against the age-old tyranny of the system of kings and princes.
“Further, Mr. Martin understands better than the author of this piece that these are, indeed, perilous times. The world is filled with wolves. Therefore, it is wise for the sheep to be armed.” – Bob
It seems to me that the best way to protect “the sheep” is to get “a shepherd”. But what do i know, im not a brand new, flashy politician who has a huger for votes and doesn’t really care about important issues.
Special circumstances aside (insert whatever vain attempt at a excuse you can come up with here) , this bill is going to be mixing things that should never be together (Guns, alcohol and school children).
The very idea that people try to justify there right to go to a bar locked and loaded and drink is beyond me, and yes ive heard the “i dont drink at bars” crap and all i can say is you dont go to a baseball game to practice knitting.
When will people realize, that in certain situations, that they put them selfs in, that there “rights” can and should be constrained in some ways when they conflict the right of other people.
P.S. What does this mean? Is she serious? “If NO ONE needs to carry in a bar or in a school, then KEEP THE ARMED COPS OUT, for God’s sake. Disarm them well prior to entry on the premises! Hypocritical chauvanist pig! – Wendy Weinbaum
It is my understanding of the legal/lawful situation that as US citizens we don’t have any inalienable rights, but only privileges. By creating the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, and the part of the 14th amendment which created the new status of “US Citizen” they created a bankrupt corporation entitled” UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” and changed the constitution from a document which was titled, “The Constitution for the united states of America” into “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”. It created a bankrupt corporation by that latter name with the creation of the District of Columbia, and the “UNITED STATES CODE”. The capitalization is significant in legalese, the language of law. It signifies that it is a corporate document.
This is where we switched from common law, which is dealing with rights and property, where there is always a victim in the crime.. where we’ve now switched to statutory law, which is preventative law with codes and regulations rather then having to amend the constitution itself. Common law is the law of the land as statutory law is the law of the sea, which deals with contracts, trade, and commerce. When we act on a document where our name is in all capitol letters we are acting as a living trust, or like a place-marker of our “person” in the world of commerce.
.. The first gun registration laws were right after the civil war when the slaves were “freed”.. I use quotations there representing sarcasm because the people with citizens of the majority of the varying states which enjoyed inalienable rights, which are “god given”, decided they didn’t want the former slaves to have god given rights so they created the status of “US Citizen” where they would only have privileges, aka civil rights.
So in effect, if you are a US citizen you don’t have inalienable rights, only what the supreme court dictates are your civil rights or privileges. As unfortunate as it is to realize we aren’t the free people they’d have us assume we are, there is a sovereignty movement out there that is all about undoing your US citizenship and either being simply a state citizen or a nonresident legal alien, but it seems to be a huge battle to attain such a thing. People that do enjoy a sovereign status would appear in contrast to the US citizen to have some kind of diplomatic immunity of sorts, but that just illustrates how far we’ve diverted from the founding fathers vision of a free society, as idealistic as it may seem.
Actually, as stated before, there were smaller muzzleloader pistols that could be concealed in the coats of the day. So yes, they were aware of the possibility.
Notice how they didn’t get granular. That was by design. The Founding Fathers did not see how anybody could whittle away at the rights protected in the BoR. It was unfathomable to them that any American would do so after the battles they’d won.
Now, what is on my person, whether it’s my wallet, keys, etc, IS considered private, even in public. A policeman cannot simply stop and search me without probable cause. So yes, I DO have the right to carry concealed and not to be harassed by someone because he thinks I should put up with invasions of my person.
If you’re trying to base your arguments off of the court rulings regarding men taking photos up women’s skirts in public, you’re being sloppy. Those rulings have been inconsistent and do not blanketly cover what is concealed on my person (such as keys, wallet, etc). If a cop has to have probable cause to search my person, you don’t have the right to know what is on my person.
“To put this in perspective: carrying a concealed handgun is sort of like wearing a seat belt….you can go for years without being in an accident where you really need to have your seat belt on….but when and if you need it, you really need it. I always buckle up, and I hope you do too. Does that mean we’re both paranoid about our chances of being in an auto accident?”
That’s a false analogy. A bullet-proof vest is like a seat belt. In your scenario, a gun is like a portable car crash. If you want to wear a bullet-proof vest all day, concealed or not, you have my complete blessing.
“Now, what is on my person, whether it’s my wallet, keys, etc, IS considered private, even in public. A policeman cannot simply stop and search me without probable cause. So yes, I DO have the right to carry concealed and not to be harassed by someone because he thinks I should put up with invasions of my person.”
No, you don’t, or at least not in the Constitutional sense. It’s another false analogy. Your wallet isn’t like a gun, because you don’t need a permit for a concealed wallet and having a wallet doesn’t constitute a danger to the public. When you get your concealed carry permit, you are receiving a privilege — just like a driver’s license — and it comes with conditions. You having a gun in a bar is roughly the same as you having an open whiskey bottle in your cup holder.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the State to exclude people who are armed from being in a drinking establishment or entering in school property. You DON’T have the universal right to conceal and carry a weapon anywhere you want to. You can’t carry a gun on a plane, for instance, or in dozens of other similar situations.
The wonky nature of probable cause law is a completely different argument than the one we’re having, and you know it. We’re talking about whether or not you have the right to conceal a deadly weapon in a public place, not whether or not The Man is going to shake you down and take away your boomstick.
I actually agree with your argument about probable cause and police searches, although you’d be breaking the law by entering into a bar or school grounds with a gun. That puts you roughly in the same situation as a dope dealer with a hidden bag of schwag — breaking the law by definition, but not provoking a search simply by carrying.
Of course, we’re not talking about who has the right to search you, we’re talking about what you have the right to conceal and carry in public.
Kirc wrote:
“Andrew, you are not a Secret Service agent.”
To which I respond, no, I have to pay myself for all the hundreds of rounds I fire while practicing combat handgunnery, while you and I both pay for their ammo through our taxes.
Steve doesn’t like my analogy of a seat belt and a concealed handgun, claiming I should wear a bulletproof vest. He says that carrying a handgun is like a “portable car crash”, whatever that means.
I’d only point out that a bulletproof vest would protect me but not the people around me, so I’ll continue to wear a SiG instead and be more comfortable. (I’m reminded of the story about about two French dukes of the late Middle Ages: Being expert swordsmen, and not liking the weight nor wanting the advantage of real armor, they had imitation curaisses made of reinforced silk…cooler and lighter than steel. As I recall, T H White wrote, “They were determined to be ordinary, and brave.”