More on the April 28th armed protests coming to the University of Alaska Anchorage:
The Anchorage 2nd Amendment Task Force has sent this out:
Anchorage 2nd Amendment Task Force NewsletterThe UAA Campus Carry Protest
The UA protest will be held at the Cuddy Center on the green.
11:00 AM Wednesday April 28 (See the map go to the X)
There are 3 categories of attendees for this event.
1. Those that choose to attend armed.
2. Those that will video the event.
3. Those in the witness category.
All should read the information in this email. We ask that those with video cameras stay near those that are armed and record everything possible for the court case. Witnesses please be vigilant and take note of everything said by law enforcement personnel.
Responses by armed attendees to law enforcement are listed below:
1. I am informing you that I am in possession of a firearm as required by law.
2. I have a legitimate reason for being on campus.
3. I will not leave, since I am well within my rights to bear a firearm in this manner on campus.
4. What law is it that I am being accused of violating and where do you get the authority to ask me to leave the campus.
5. Campus police are not authorized to enforce university administrative rules.
6. I will not comply with an illegal order to leave campus.
7. If you choose to continue with this illegal action, I want to inform you, that you will be personally named in the lawsuit that I will bring forth, along with the university who hired you.
Thank you for planning to attend our group’s effort at UAA at the time anointed. This event is meant as a wave of individual protests against the banning of effective self-defense while on campus, a State facility. To many of us, this is a plain violation of one of the natural rights of Alaskans.
No one is being asked to come on campus carrying a firearm though many of us fully plan to. You may bring a sign or clothing article supportive of the Second Amendment or of the Alaska Constitution. You may bring Second Amendment related literature. Try to avoid gawking for the news cameras. You may not like what you see later on the evening news.
We ask that you casually walk around campus talking to those passersby who seem receptive telling people that students and faculty would be far safer if law-abiding citizens were allowed the freedom to carry a firearm. Please do not enter any building armed unless the ATF2 chief at the event approves it. Please do not congregate with more than three people who are open-carrying. There will be a gathering of about 20-minutes on campus at the Cuddy Green. There may be a short speech or two. Large American and Alaskan flags are encouraged. They could be planted at that spot while the protests are going on, at some risk of loss though a guard will be kept.
There are 3 categories of attendees for this event.1. Those that choose to attend armed.
2. Those that will video the event.
3. Those in the witness category.
All should read the information in this email. We ask that those with video cameras stay near those that are armed and record everything possible for the court case. Witnesses please be vigilant and take note of everything said by law enforcement personnel.
Responses by armed attendees to law enforcement are listed below:
1. I am informing you that I am in possession of a firearm as required by law.
2. I have a legitimate reason for being on campus.
3. I will not leave, since I am well within my rights to bear a firearm in this manner on campus.
4. What law is it that I am being accused of violating and where do you get the authority to ask me to leave the campus.
5. Campus police are not authorized to enforce university administrative rules.
6. I will not comply with an illegal order to leave campus.
7. If you choose to continue with this illegal action, I want to inform you, that you will be personally named in the lawsuit that I will bring forth, along with the university who hired you.
Thank you for planning to attend our group’s effort at UAA at the time anointed. This event is meant as a wave of individual protests against the banning of effective self-defense while on campus, a State facility. To many of us, this is a plain violation of one of the natural rights of Alaskans.
No one is being asked to come on campus carrying a firearm though many of us fully plan to. You may bring a sign or clothing article supportive of the Second Amendment or of the Alaska Constitution. You may bring Second Amendment related literature. Try to avoid gawking for the news cameras. You may not like what you see later on the evening news.
We ask that you casually walk around campus talking to those passersby who seem receptive telling people that students and faculty would be far safer if law-abiding citizens were allowed the freedom to carry a firearm. Please do not enter any building armed unless the ATF2 chief at the event approves it. Please do not congregate with more than three people who are open-carrying. There will be a gathering of about 20-minutes on campus at the Cuddy Green. There may be a short speech or two. Large American and Alaskan flags are encouraged. They could be planted at that spot while the protests are going on, at some risk of loss though a guard will be kept.
If you plan to carry a firearm with you, you need to know this is in direct violation of the UAA code of regulations. Even though you are in a public place, you may be asked by campus personnel, possibly campus police, to leave the campus and not to return to the campus again with the firearm. At that point one might ask the person to cite the law that is being violated and cite where he or she gets the authority to ask you to leave the campus based on this rule. If it is the police, one might ask the officer if campus police are authorized to get involved with university administrative rules like this one.
Should you decide to persevere, one might say you will not leave voluntarily since it is your freedom under the Second Amendment and the Alaska Constitution to bear a firearm in this manner and public place. Then you will be told that if you do not leave campus voluntarily you will be charged with trespass and ultimately physically compelled to leave the campus. One might say nothing or simply say "Do what your job requires you to do".
Do not expect much of a reply to any questions you ask. Do not demand answers to questions ignored. Do not argue with anyone, including each other: no loudness, no name-calling, no lewd remarks. The event’s goals will be damaged if anyone gives rise to a claim of disorderly conduct. The television cameras could be anywhere.
You may choose to leave once you are threatened with arrest. If you press on you may be charged with civil trespass and given a paper summons to appear in campus court (something less in importance than a speeding ticket). There is also every chance though you will be charged with criminal trespass and possibly taken to jail for processing and bail.
No one is suggesting the individual protest go beyond receiving a summons, whether civil or criminal. A person who still refuses to leave campus will be physically removed by police in short order. Such an event often leads to charges of assault on an officer by the protester.
The Alaska State Code provides:
"Sec. 11.46.320. Criminal trespass in the first degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully
(1) on land with intent to commit a crime on the land; or
(2) in a dwelling.
(b) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Sec. 11.46.330. Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully
(1) in or upon premises; or
(2) in a propelled vehicle.
(b) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor."
The maximum sentence for a Class B Misdemeanor is ninety-days in jail and a $2,000 fine though that sentence would be for the most extreme kind of violation. Our legal counsel says this effort is treading on uncharted territory. Anyone charged with trespass could quite possibly be convicted of the charge despite the most zealous defense through every court available.
I will be there, polling people attending the rally, and people passing through the area, as I did the April 15th Tea Party rallies in Anchorage and Wasilla. Here are questions I hope to ask:
• Would you feel safer with nobody armed on campus or everyone armed on campus?
• Do you feel confident that campus security could deal professionally with a serious armed incident at UAA?
• Overall, on a scale of 0 to 10, how would you rate UAA campus security?
• Did you get a copy of Chancellor Ulmer's letter to students about this event?
• Did the chancellor's letter inspire confidence in UAA's handling of this matter?
If you have other questions you'd like me to include in the poll, please comment on that.
There is a guest post up at The Mudflats by Keli Booher, a UAA student. I discussed the upcoming rally this morning to my large UAA class (over 110 people). A few had heard about it. Some of my polling questions came from the class discussion.
39 comments:
Ask if they are aware that in Alaska, no license,or permit, or registration is required to carry a handgun - either openly or concealed.
Here's another couple of questions:
1. Are you a UAA student, faculty, or staff member?
2. If "no" to #2 have you ever come to the UAA campus before today?
3. If "yes" to #3, how often do you come on campus?
I ran into another UAA staff member on the bus on the way home today -- she says University Police have put up signs around the daycare center to inform the gun-toters that to bring their guns in proximity to the daycare is a felony. And many's the time when I've seen the kids & daycare workers in other parts of campus.
let's link exchange and comment tyoo.thanks
Does anyone remember the shooting at UAA (maybe ACC) quite a number of years ago. Guy shot but didn't kill his girlfriend. I believe he was shot dead by campus police. That is why there are the rules there are, here and at campuses all over the country. Leave your toys at home boys.
Here's a suggestion Phil,
Why don't they ask Pfizer to be a Sponsor of their gun carry. They can meet them at the entrance of the Campus... give them their Free samples of Viagra and send them on their way.
Because after all... isn't THAT what is is all about..? They want to do some ' bragging '..?
~
The nut cases who are promoting this proclaim their 'God' gave them the right to their guns.
~
Tee Hee
Virginia gun lobby pushes for right to drink alcohol while carrying a gun in public.
Enjoy!
MS
I had to make a run to my favorite grocery store nearby and I couldn't resist dropping by and seeing the demonstration. Not many people there especially considering there were cops, news media, and administrators. Apparently there were few if any students. There were a few demonstrators holding various flags and banners. A small handful of them paraded across the lawn at one point for the cameras, and it appeared silly-- kind of like something you'd see in a Monty Python movie.
I was too chicken to immerse myself so I walked past and shot a few videos with a HD camera from a distance. There were a couple small clusters of other people viewing from a distance near various buildings around the plaza. Virtually all, or entirely all the students seemed to care less about what was going on and went about their business. Most attendants seemed beyond college-student age.
There were people viewing from balconies on Rasmusen Bldg so I tried to get out on a balcony but the doors were locked-- apparently there was limited access from offices. That's too bad. It would have made a great shot.
I didn't see Phil but he could have well been there-- I kept a distance from the group.
I talked with a couple other observers and one person commented that the cops told 2 or 3 guys to get off campus because they had guns. As a consequence, many or most of the demonstrators moved over by 36th. I shot video of that group too. I was careful to not conceal my camera so cops wouldn't mistake it for a gun and hog tie me!
I imagine you have this well documented but if not I can send you a couple video shots.
It was good to drop by.
Observations: First, not many people were sufficiently dedicated to this cause to show up. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 10 or less. I would be surprised if it was more than 20. My guess is around 10- 15. Second, it seems the purpose of the demonstration wasn't to influence UAA or its community; instead it was a way for a handful of people to get a lot of free attention from the news media and broadcast their position to a much larger community.
Thanks for the report, Jim. The guy behind this, George Hines, is a 40-something UAA student -- ADN story about a protest last year -- but I'd guess other 2nd Amendment activists who are not UAA faculty/staff/students came along too. My impression from their emails calling for this protest were that they were hoping for arrests in order to push a lawsuit against the UA Regents on the grounds that UA Regents' Policy against firearms on campus violates Alaska Statutes. (And from what I can tell, there is a grey area here.) George Hines posted on his Facebook today asking his supporters to bring him cookies in jail. (His FB wall is not private -- though now that I've said so, maybe he'll make it so.)
As far as campus security is concerned; I went to grad school at a university located in one of the worst crime neighborhoods in America. But this university has great campus security and their relevant personnel have peace officer status. This university has a very low crime rate. There are common sense, organized ways to protect a campus community. I know nothing about UAA's security, but I do know that universities can and do make their campuses secure places. We don't need freelance guys with guns to make campuses safe or protect students.
Mel:
I got there around 11:10 and I don't know if there were any arrests. He may have just been escorted off campus.
We'll need to watch the news or hear from Phil. It all seemed very quiet and sedate but there may have been much more happening than what I saw. Perhaps Hines is in one of the videos.
I agree -- & I think that the concealed carry advocates argument that it will somehow increase safety for them to carry their guns on campus is a smokescreen for their ideological "my right to carry a gun wherever I wanna" viewpoint. But still looks to me like there's a grey area in what statutes say. (I'll be posting on my own blog about that later.)
As for UAA's security -- yeah. University Police Department is train, sworn officers -- fully professional. As a UAA staff member, I've been pretty happy about how they & UAA administration have handled this whole thing to minimize disruption during an already stressful time of year for most faculty & students & some staff (final exam week). They've been very proactive & messages they've sent out to the campus community have done well to alert everyone so they'd know what to expect while not alarming them.
Well, their plan also was to wander around campus after they first gathered at the green by Cuddy. But maybe UPD headed them off. I went by there this morning on my way to work because another UAA staffer who works over there told me last night that UPD had posted new signs, especially about the daycare center located in the Student Union near the bookstore. I took a pic of a sign there that warns that there was a licensed daycare facility in that building, & by Alaska Statutes to carry a firearm in there or in the adjacent parking law is a Class 5 misdemeanor.
I would imagine UPD advised them of that rather than actually waiting around for one of them to cross the line in order to arrest them. I have the impression UPD was acting to prevent problems, rather than join in any sort of confrontationalism that might have been contemplated. (Which from the language of the instructions the organizers gave, which Phil quoted in full, seems to have been what they wanted.. basically daring UPD to arrest them.) But elsewhere on campus the signs posted were just reiterations of the Regents' Policies against carrying firearms on campus.
anchorage2atf Facebook page reports that those who carried wre issued a citation.
Exact words:"The UA Open Carry Event was a HUGE Success!!! Members carrying were issued a citation by campus police. Many local news cameras as well as non-carrying members and students caught the action. Many interviews followed on the sidewalk. Watch for local news coverage this evening, twisted more than likley."
I forgot to take a picture of the sign at the student union door. There didn't seem to be any security concerns-- the kids at the daycare near the sign were playing outdoors. If there had been any concern about security they would have put the kids inside and locked the place down.
I headed home around 11:45 after I saw a guy with a big yellow flag returning to his car-- he seemed content-- I figured they were breaking up although other people continued loitering at 36th.
I'm not sure what these folks are really trying to accomplish. It appears UAA handled the situation very well and it was all low-keyed and civil, (arrests or not)- I'm anxious to hear from the news or better yet from Phil.
Mel:
Waiting to hear from Phil, but even in my documentation, I doubt you'd see anything resembling "many."
Just didn't happen. It was anemic. If it had been any less, no one would have been present.
If there were "many" members, there were even more UAA administrators and peace officers (although there weren't many).
Their aim was to get arrested or to get what they got -- citations issued by UPD. This gives them something solid that they can file a lawsuit over. Their hope is that a court case will lead to a judgment that Regents' Policies against carrying firearms on campus is illegal by state law.
Here's the grey area I see: Alaska Statutes grant UA Regents the authority to set reasonable rules & policies at UA campuses/facilities. Statutes also empower UA to establish police forces like UPD to enforce state & local laws.
But statutes reserve the power to regulate firearms to the state -- local authorities like municipalities can make gun control laws that go as far as state law but can't go any further. And state law is that except for a few places (licensed DV shelters, licensed daycare facilities, courthouses, K-12 schools unless the authority there gives permission, businesses which serve alcohol for consumption on premises, your private residence without your permission), anyone who is otherwise legal to carry a firearm (21 or over, not a felon, etc.) can concealed carry without permit.
So the grey area is: are the reasonable policies set by UA Regents tantamount to state law, to the extent that a judge will uphold them? Or will a judge say that for firearms to be prohibited on campus, that the statutes have to say so in so many words, directly, as they already do for courthouses, K-12 schools, etc.?
Does the state constitution tell us anything?
I'm working on your video stills.
Alaska Constitution, Article 1, Section 19: "Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- 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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."
Alaska’s Constitution: A Citizen's Guide 4th edition (Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency) explains:
The second sentence of this section was added by amendment in 1994. It makes explicit that the first sentence, which comes directly from the Article II of the U.S. Bill of Rights, should not be interpreted to deny individuals the right to have arms. Although most states have a “right to bear arms” provision, it often differs substantially from the language here. Various state constitutions, for example, protect the right of a citizen to bear arms “in defense of state,” “for the common defense,” “in defense of himself,” “in defense of his home,” and “in defense of his property.”
Federal and state courts have ruled consistently that these constitutional provisions do not prevent states from regulating firearms by such means as requiring registration of handguns and prohibiting automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns and concealed weapons. Nor have they prevented states from prohibiting paramilitary organizations. The Alaska Court of Appeals has ruled that the state law prohibiting a felon from living in a house where there is a firearm, and the state law prohibiting an intoxicated person from possessing a firearm, do not violate this section (Morgan v. State, 943 P.2d 1208, Alaska Ct. App., 1997; and Gibson v. State, 930 P.2d 1300, Alaska Ct. App., 1997).
Mel:
I'd figure both sides, but especially UAA's, got legal advice before they engaged today. If this goes to court, it will be interesting to see who got the best advice.
Alaska Dispatch has an article out about the protest. 4 people cited by UPD for carrying firearms on campus. The article includes links to PFDs of George Hines' Dec. 2009 letter to the Regents & UA Pres. Hamilton's reply in February 2010 -- which is an absolutely terrific justification for the UA firearms policy.
I wrote a comment there but it hasn't yet been posted. The guy who commented there so far made a misstatement of fact about 18+ (part of what I responded to) -- I recognize his name from discussion on the year-ago ADN story about campus carry.
Well you guys really do great investigative reporting. If you want to know something by all means ask me I am not shy. My facebook is open so you would have something to do with your time. I left campus after I got what I wanted standing in a court case. You are right about grey area. Only it is grey for university. I know you would like to make me look like I am insane and it will fit your needs to throw red meat to the emotionaly driven left. Please don't speculate it makes you look silly. You know my facebook is open be a man and ask I will tell you the truth.
Difficult for me to "be a man," George, since I'm a woman. Seems to me I did a pretty good job of "speculating," too, since I hit the nail on the head that you wanted something like the citation to give you standing in court.
You wrote, "I know you would like to make me look like I am insane and it will fit your needs to throw red meat to the emotionaly driven left." -- if you're talking about me, I suggest you not attempt to attribute motivations to me when you don't even know enough about me to know I'm not a man. My blog's at Henkimaa.com. I'll be posting something about all this in the next coupla days, which will inform you of my motivations. Right now I've got a prior engagement.
George:
I don't think you're insane. I'm an artist so I'm probably 'crazier' than you. I just didn't witness much public interest in your advocacy today. Lousy turnout. Not many people showed up. I'm often a minority of one myself so I'm a good evaluator and gauge of flops-- your demonstration was nearly as dead as some first Friday art openings. It was that bad.
I observed (to one of the UAA staff) that the demonstration was small. She replied that most Alaska demonstrations are small.
I suspect I've got other stuff in common with you, albeit not regarding guns on campus. I think campus security is the best security resource for a University. I don't trust every fire-armed, unknown, anonymous, autonomous Tom, Dick, and Mary to provide "security" to my daughter after I've sent her off to school. To hell with that. I want trained professionals looking out for my daughter's safety, not unknown freelance gun-toting amateurs.
Mel Wrote: "So the grey area is: are the reasonable policies set by UA Regents tantamount to state law, to the extent that a judge will uphold them? Or will a judge say that for firearms to be prohibited on campus, that the statutes have to say so in so many words, directly, as they already do for courthouses, K-12 schools, etc.?"
Could the UAA board of regents make prostitution legal on campus, even though it is prohibited by state law? Could they say that they were NOT going to treat homosexual partners equally and extend benefits, as the state does? Do the regents have the authority to directly contradict any state law they see fit on campus? Because right now their policy is in direct contradiction of the state pre-emption statute.
Mr. Hines got what he wanted -- standing to sue. UAA got what they wanted -- no big scene.
I am a student at UAA (just finished my finals) who had a class with George Hines. He was a bully, and said things like "Democrats are all radical nutcases," and "I hope people go to that rally and beat the sh*t out of them like they deserve," when referring to those that supported the anti-discrimination ordinance in Anchorage. He made the environment in the classroom extremely uncomfortable and hostile, and would often tell the class about how he told people "where their place is". This man is violent, and the fact that UAA had prior knowledge of him planning to bring a weapon to school further upsets me. If I had sent out e-mails and flyers warning that I was going to bring a gun to school, the university would have had me arrested before I reached the campus. Yet they allowed this man and his followers to bring weapons to a school--the place of learning--so that he could prove some kind of point.
This "protest" and how it was allowed to happen on campus, and how no one was arrested, tells me that if I brought a gun to school because I didn't like my grades, it would be perfectly fine. In fact, with this example, I should start carrying weapons in case something doesn't go my way. What kind of mentality is this? It's a school, not a military warzone.
I warned UAA about my discontent, and e-mailed both the former Dean of Students and Chancellor that I felt uncomfortable and threatened by George Hines. The Dean of Students met with me, but no action was taken. In my opinion, UAA has absolutely no regards for student safety and I will never let my siblings attend UAA.
So, if I have this right (and thanks for the first-person, Tina), Mr. Hines, a conservative activist seeks "standing" at the bar of justice to right a wrong, i.e. being issued a ticket for carrying a firearm in a place he really has no need to be carrying it and wasn't allowed to in the first place. Isn't the point of suit to render a wrong right or to cure an injury? I cannot see for the life of me how Mr. Hines' rights have been infringed upon by receiving a ticket. My guess? Tossed at first hearing.
Whats the difference between an activist defendant and an activist judge?
Just... wondering.
MS
Tina,
You should press criminal charges for assault if you feel that George's conduct was threatening. We have laws in place to protect victims like you who feel threatened by others.
AS 11.41.230. Assault in the Fourth Degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if
(1) that person recklessly causes physical injury to another person;
(2) with criminal negligence that person causes physical injury to another person by means of a dangerous instrument; or
(3) by words or other conduct that person recklessly places another person in fear of imminent physical injury.
I think you'd end up paying a bunch of court costs, but go for it.
Mark,
"...a place he really has no need to be carrying it..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#United_States
Clearly, a student or teacher with a concealed weapon would have just gone crazy and joined Cho's rampage at VA Tech. People do not have a right to self defense.
Join the NRA's elite group, aka 'The Second Amendment Task Fools' and get your decoder ring, your 'insignia decal' window sticker, a shooter beanie, (with propellor), your secret 'insignia pin', (so the othr fools will know you're a fool too ), and your 'certificate of appreciation' from the NRA for joining their elite group of especially gullible fools.
So much for these fools telling everyone they are independent thinkers only interested in their personal freedoms and liberty. They're nothing but drones, indoctrinated by the NRA noise machine and then sent out blindly to do the work of their NRA masters.
Sheep, deluded, pliable sheep. Puppets who jump where and when they are told to jump. They are given their scripts to read, told what they're supposed to think, and they run right out to do the bidding of the NRA.
http://www.nrahq.org/GIVEJOINHELP/satf/index.asp
http://www.nrahq.org/givejoinhelp/satf/satf_benefits.asp
They've been fed an alternative reality by the NRA, and now that alternative reality is all they see. They think that alternative reality has replaced any other reality, that's what they've been told, and now they willingly believe only what they've been told by the NRA.
They'll even insist that the NRA alternative reality is all that 'seems apparent' to them........
The NRA claims their latest brainwashing project is a success, and I have to say it's been successful in producing delusions in any number of fools.
..
"I suspect I've got other stuff in common with you, albeit not regarding guns on campus. I think campus security is the best security resource for a University. I don't trust every fire-armed, unknown, anonymous, autonomous Tom, Dick, and Mary to provide "security" to my daughter after I've sent her off to school. To hell with that. I want trained professionals looking out for my daughter's safety, not unknown freelance gun-toting amateurs."
Do you let your daughter go anywhere in Anchorage? Is she allowed to go to Walmart? What about restaurants or fast food joints? Hiking trails at the Eagle River Nature Center or state parks? If you weren't aware, in AK concealed carry with no permit is legal. That means there are likely a whole bunch of law abiding, armed citizens wandering around in those public places where you let your daughter go. If this bothers you so much, how do you justify letting her go to those dangerous places? Really, the only solution is to keep her locked in the house; she can also visit private residences of friends who have similar opinions, battered women's shelters, federal buildings, the military bases, K-12 schools, daycares, and bars where alcohol is served but anywhere else in the state of Alaska will expose her to unacceptable risk.
8:39:
I keep her away from Wallmart but not because of security concerns.
I notice you didn't mention Mountainview as one of the wonderful places where we could go for a walk. Or for a late night drive. We go to Dimond Center when necessary although I do worry about gun violence as someone was recently shot to death there. Folks shooting guns (that they had concealed) can also give parking lots a "wild west" atmosphere.
I was on a jury one time where we convicted a guy who was involved in an armed robbery of UAA students at a party. Conspicuously this robbery was off campus. He used a concealed weapon that he pulled out after being at the party for a while. I doubt they would have let him into the party if they had been aware he was carrying a weapon. No one was hurt, but it could have been a different story if someone else had pulled out a concealed gun and started shooting.
I was interviewed for another jury on a murder trial where it was alleged that a hand gun had used. The attorneys asked me if I had anything to say. I did-- I expressed my bias against hand guns since people often conceal them in order to commit crimes. I indicated I thought handguns had limited advantages beyond concealment-- concealment was often for treacherous purposes. Why should a weapon be concealed? I indicated that if I woke up at 3am and Godzilla was in my living room, rather than having a little concealed hand gun that goes pop pop, I'd want a semi-automatic 12-gauge under my pillow that goes KABOOM KABOOM KABOOM KABOOM KABOOM! (they thanked and excused me).
The entire argument for concealed weapons is highly questionable. I figure why conceal? Disclose and let it all hang out. That way we can see you coming, try to determine if you're weird or not, and if we think you are weird we can try to get out of the way.
Concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least nine law enforcement officers in addition to 152 private citizens in 95 incidents occurring in 25 states since 2007.
Of these incidents, 15 were murder-suicides involving firearms and 15 were mass shootings (three or more victims) that claimed as many as 11 lives at a time.
When the National Rifle Association launched its state-by-state campaign for lax concealed handgun laws, it made this promise: ‘People who get permits in states which have fair right-to-carry laws are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense.'
To the contrary, concealed handgun permit holders are killing people over parking spaces, football games, and family arguments.
From 1996 to 2000, and just in Texas, concealed handgun permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the general population of
Texas, aged 21 and older.
These weapon-related offenses included: 279 arrests for assault or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; 671 arrests for unlawfully carrying a weapon;
and, 172 arrests for deadly conduct/discharge firearm.
In a December 2009 direct-mail letter echoing the language of both the Tea Party movement and other extremist groups, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre warned of “massive armies of anti-gun, anti-freedom radicals marshaling against us for an attack that could make every other battle we’ve ever fought look like a walk in the park...an attack aimed at completely rewriting our nation’s values and the future of our country in ways that you and I won’t even recognize.”
Fifteen years ago this same rhetoric motivated Timothy McVeigh, a former NRA member, to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
The NRA and other radical members of the gun lobby are again embracing and validating these views.
The truth is that the rule of law guarantees our freedoms, not carrying AK-47s down main street. Gun extremists have exploited basic common sense and are risking people's lives with their irresponsible actions, not to mention fanning the flames of an already toxic political environment.
The gun lobby's argument boils down to, “well no one said we can't carry guns in public, therefore it's our right.”
Nonsense. If we witnessed a group of angry men walking down the street in some South American country carrying loaded handguns, assault rifles and signs that encouraged violence, it is doubtful we would look at such an event as a shining example of democracy.
A nation of laws and public order must be capable of guaranteeing its citizens the right not to be intimidated by armed individuals at a local Starbucks, at a political rally, or on a university campus. In other words, true freedom demands that we have some common sense regulations over carrying guns in public.
I live in Bethel. No need to lecture me about school shootings, thank you.
Alaska did away with the requirement that armed citizens take a class on the laws surrounding deadly force prior to being authorized to carry a weapon concealed from plain view.
As far as the NRA goes, if they still object to placing tracer taggants in commercial explosives, then I'm with 'em. Anything short of that is a complete sellout to the Federal Government and makes a mockery of their financially lucrative "defense" of the second amendment.
MS
Bethel
Also, 8:39:
Any thoughts on why Canada has much less violent crime than USA? (It is against the law for private citizens to conceal weapons in Canada).
simple answer to simple question.
Canada has rejected the lunacy of the NRA.
..
I doubt it is so "simple."
I think it has more to do with laws and their enforcement.
Anonymous at 9:33
If the "study " you are referring to is the VPC google search report, http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf you might want to link to it so people can read it themselves. Those with any experience in the social sciences would then be able to recognize it as an absolute methodological disaster.
You might also link to a critique of the study, pointing out the flaws so folks can make up their own mind, rather than operating as a VPC mouthpiece.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Lies-damn-lies-and-VPC-statistics
As an example...
"The VPC concludes their report by stating that these examples illustrate clearly that concealed carry laws are not good public policy because permit holders are dangerous. Furthermore, there is a clear implication that they are more dangerous than the general public.
Let’s take a closer look at the statistics to refute this wild inaccuracy. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, across the general public in the United States, there are an average of 0.042802 murders per 1,000 citizens per year.
Now… even if we concede all 51 deaths detailed in the VPC report as wrongful deaths, averaging them across the over 6 MILLION permit holders in the United States and taking into account the two year timeframe, we get an average of 0.00425 per 1,000 per year.
In other words, even if they are 100% correct in their wildly flawed report, they have simply proven that permit holders commit murders at a rate that is 1/10th of the general public."
A little context is a wonderful thing.
As for your Texas information, it also fails to provide meaningful context.
Note that arrest data isn't particularly useful to judge risk as an arrest can occur even after a lawful use of force until the truth is determined at trial.
Here's the actual conviction data from the DPS for 2007 (other years are available at the same site).
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf
The total number of convictions that year was 61,260. CHL holders were 160 of those, 0.2612%.
While any crime committed by any citizen is unfortunate and violent crimes are reprehensible, to claim that CHL holders are some sort of significant threat when they account for less than 1% of all convictions is a bit of a stretch.
Note that the numbers of convictions and permit revocations (which need not involve a crime being committed) from other states are similar.
Regardless of what the VPC would have you believe with their cherry picked data and laughably flawed "studies", there is no evidence to support their claims of the danger of concealed carry permit holders.
I recommend anyone truly interested in an honest examination of teh facts about gun laws in this country visit http://www.gunfacts.info/ .
While it is a pro-gun site you will note they provide footnotes to the actual primary data or study cited so you can judge it for yourself, something the VPC is pathologically averse to doing.
All,
I appreciate the variety of comments posted here on this subject.
I'm sorry I was unable to attend Thursday's "rally" on campus.
Matthew, you've already been spouting the propaganda crafted by the NRA, echoing it word for word,
...now you've dipped into Guy Smith, expecting anyone to take you seriously after you citing him as an authority ?
This is the guy who was caught writing his own autobiographical descriptions for different uses that had him describing his past as two different fantasies happening at the same time.
Read one of his biographical sketches and he claims he was a cowboy. Read the other and he claims he was a surfer.
Which of his fanatasy persona appeals to you ?
Check out his website and all the publicity stills where he 'poses' and you can order 8 x 10 glossy prints of himself.
Holy Gawds, can you pick em....
..
Oh and by the way, that group you say is pathologically averse to citing it's studies ?
I wasn't aware of who this group was, so I looked at your link.
The pdf link you provided for vpc is a study and it starts off citing 35 sources, and each section is fully sourced, with notations listing the sources in each section.
You say they are pathologically averse to doing just what they do, all you have to do is look at your own link to see they do what you say they don't .
What to make of that dishonesty on your part matthew ?
Do you not have the slightest clue what it is you spout off about ?
Or were you just thinking you could tell a little fib and no one would notice ?
You want credibility ? You're going about it all wrong.
..
Post a Comment