So if he didn’t have a CWP AND was on school grounds, why wasn’t he charged with having a concealed weapon? It’s illegal to do that, even under the new law.

What’s the mostly likely scenario? Maybe that Martin’s law specifically allows people with CWPs to bring their guns onto school property, and that this guy had a CWP and therefore couldn’t be charged?

“I think if he had a CWP, that would have been the first thing the news would have reported.”

Nope. The media generally doesn’t report this unless the police tell them it’s a formal charge. One reason is that the news doesn’t have access to CWP lists, generally speaking. And in some states, they could be sued for publishing it if there’s not a formal charge.

The police rarely — if ever — volunteer that information if it’s not related to a charge. The main reason is liability, as the police could be sued for sharing non-relevant (legally speaking) private and protected information with the media. That’s the primary reason you don’t hear more about CWP gun crimes, even though they’re fairly common.

Incidentally, the police will mention it of someone DOESN’T have a permit, because it’s generally an additional charge. These unfair protections allow crimes committed by CWP holders to go unreported as such unless the news outfit decides to take that extra step and demand the information, something that rarely happens for time, legal and budget reasons. Also, they generally don’t want to cross swords with the ready-for-a-fight NRA.

If you’re really interested in learning more, you could check out the controversy that happened over the Commercial Appeal paper in Memphis decided to publish a public database of CWP holders earlier this year. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/us/02appeal.html

I think if he had a CWP, that would have been the first thing the news would have reported.

And if Lon Norville Annis wasn’t charged with having an illegally concealed weapon here, odds are that the reason for this is that he has a permit allowing him to concealed carry it legally. For legal and privacy reasons that I’ve already explained, there are special protections for CWP holders in many state laws citing privacy issues. When the police don’t address it at all — a rather glaring omission, when you think about it — it’s usually because the person DOES have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and they can’t address it without opening themselves up to liability.

Use your ability to reason here, and provide us with even one good reason why this wasn’t addressed by the story (and presumably the police report that the story came from). Where did he pull the gun from, and why aren’t we told about that? The story surely would have mentioned it if he was openly carrying it, or went back to his car to get it. Is it more likely that the police or the newspaper just didn’t mention it because they’re both negligent, or because to address it at all with a person who is properly permitted to carry a concealed weapon could, in fact, provoke an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit?

If you think about it, it’s FAR more likely that they didn’t charge him with having a concealed weapon ONLY because he had a permit for it in the first place. Unless you seriously think he was open carrying it on school grounds, that is.

Here’s the thing: As long as the special-interest privacy protections are in place for people with concealed weapon permits, it’s very difficult (even impossible) to say how many gun crimes that population are responsible for. The reason you don’t read about these crimes is that a lobby has fought for years to make it very difficult for anyone to know who has a CWP, and to make it not in the best interest of the police to share such information with the public in general.

But all of this is getting off track. Let’s look at this version of the story: http://www2.wjbf.com/jbf/news/state_regional/south_carolina/article/parents_charged_after_gun_drawn_in_dispute_on_school_property/45792/

“Sgt. Dave Myers, Aiken County Sheriff’s Office: “One party was a little upset with the other one, he came up and put his finger on him, and the person that was sitting in the car took offense to that, turned, and pointed a weapon at him.“

Deputies say outside the school in the parking lot, Steve Moore exchanged words with Lon Annis, and Annis, in turn, pulled out a gun.”

Guess what? This EXACT SITUATION is what the law in the story we’re all commenting on SPECIFICALLY ENCOURAGES! The LAW WORKS! More concealed weapons on school grounds equals more gun crimes on school grounds.

The law allows people with concealed weapons to bring their guns onto school property. The article also says he “pulled out” a gun, which means he didn’t have it out in public at the start of the argument. To clarify: It was concealed, either on his person in in the car. Surely, the police would have charged the man with having an illegally concealed weapon if that was the case, right?

So he MUST have had a permit for it. Annis wasn’t charged with having a concealed weapon on school grounds because SHANE MARTIN’S BILL MADE IT LEGAL TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY! He CAN’T be charged with it now. Feel safer now? You can thank Shane Martin for that.

And that took about five seconds in Google. Are you going to argue that you feel safer knowing that people like this are actively encouraged to bring guns onto school property in South Carolina now?

Are you suggesting that teachers be allowed to bring guns into the classroom to defend themselves from their students?

ANY person with a concealed carry permit can carry ANY number of guns onto ANY school campus ANYWHERE in the state for ANY reason whatsoever, and with NO additional accountability to the school, to the state or to the CWP program. That’s sloppy, sloppy lawmaking. And it only serves the interests of a small, vocal, well-funded minority who basically can’t be bothered to leave their guns at home when they pick up their kids from school, or fill out a form explaining why they should get an additional endorsement allowing them to bring it to whatever school their kid currently attends. Such a law would also be used to notify the administration of said school which parents (and maybe even teachers) are in possession of firearms, which is relevant information I think.

What I’ve NEVER said is that people who have a good reason to have guns on school property shouldn’t be allowed to have them on specific school grounds. Just having a CWP doesn’t meet that standard of need for me. Like I said, there’s plenty of reason to think that CWP holders constitute a risk group, and that information is being intentionally suppressed by the gun lobby who has consistently argued for special privileges for CWP holders to be exempt from public information rules and public license databases. Look it up.

This kind of stuff happens ALL THE TIME. It’s not rare, it’s just rarely reported because of laws and policies protecting the status of CWP holders.

My greater point is that there’s a really good set of reasons to discourage guns on school property, and this includes concealed weapons by people with permits. If someone has a legitimate reason for having a gun on school grounds, there should definitely be a mechanism to allow them to have it legally. I’m not against such a thing at all.

But allowing — and certainly not discouraging — random people to bring concealed weapons onto school grounds in general for no reason whatsoever is sloppy lawmaking. There was no demand for it apart from a small minority of gun lovers and the gun lobby itself.

Again, what’s the argument against an additional endorsement to accomplish the exact same thing in a reasonable, sane manner? I have yet to hear such an argument.