Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Why Is the Second Amendment Weaker in New York Than It Is in Texas?
Rudy Giuliani's recent statement about the Second Amendment in New Hampshire, video of which Dave Weigel posted earlier today, is the clearest summary of his position I've heard so far. But I still have a few questions:
Giuliani says the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but that does not mean all forms of gun control are unconstitutional. Just as some restrictions on speech (a ban on fraudulent advertising, say, or time, place, and manner rules for political rallies) are consistent with the First Amendment, some restrictions on gun possession and/or use are consistent with the Second Amendment. So far, so good. But then Giuliani says that what counts as "reasonable limitations" on Second Amendment rights varies from place to place, depending on local conditions. Presumably he means that a city with a serious homicide problem can more easily justify stringent gun controls than a city with hardly any crime. But the main example he cites is Texas vs. New York state, a comparison where the relevant difference appears to be cultural rather than criminological, since big cities in both states have comparable problems with violent crime. I don't see why the fact that Texans are more inclined to support gun rights than New Yorkers are should make a difference in the constitutional analysis.
And if variations in crime problems are the main justification for variations in gun control across jurisdictions, it's puzzling that Giuliani says he agrees with the U.S. Court of Apeals for the D.C. Circuit that Washington's gun ban violates the Second Amendment. D.C. consistently ranks near the top among cities with the highest homicide rates, and its gun law is only somewhat stricter than New York City's, which Giuliani supports.
Giuliani also seems confused about which aspects of the law the D.C. Circuit ruled unconstitutional. He refers twice to restrictions on "concealed weapons" (i.e., guns carried in public) that were found to be excessive, when the decision actually dealt with the rules that make it legally impossible for the vast majority of residents to keep guns in their homes for self-defense.
|6.12.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Let me see if I can clear it up a bit. What Rudy is saying. Is that Texans care more about gun rights than New Yorkers. Furthermore, a lot of New Yorkers not only don't want guns of their own, they'd also like their neighbors not to have guns. Therefore it's appropriate to have restrictions on gun ownership in New York that are inappropriate in Texas. In other words, "Abortions for some. Little American flags for others." And the Constitution? Well that just supports what I've been saying all along.
|6.12.07 @ 8:13PM|#
Sort of a "community standards" doctrine.
The fact that such a doctrine exists for the First Amendment's
protections in certain circumstances seems relevant, although it
should be noted that it applies only to certain rare, marginal
circumstances.
marym|6.12.07 @ 9:19PM|#
The Second Amendment makes reference to standing armies having the right to bear arms, not individuals in the community. It appears the Second Amendment has been misread and very misunderstood. I don't think our Forefathers envisioned the right to bear arms for anyone besides the military.
|6.12.07 @ 9:30PM|#
Let me ask others on the thread: what rights does the 2nd Amendment guarantee? I mean, I think of myself as pretty much an extreme 1st Amendment fellow. It says "make no law" and like Hugo Black I think it means it. But I don't think you have the right to stand at the edge of my yard and shout an anti-Bush diatribe at 1 am. Surely the gov can restrict that. Now as to the 2nd, I grew up with and still possess guns. I think they are part of our culture and that the vast majority of folks who have them do no harm with them and get some peace of mind from having them. And I think the 2nd gives individuals rights. But where can we draw the line? Do I have the right to have a machine gun in my home? To carry a handgun to the hospital? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, I really would like to hear other ideas. I think there is an individual right, but I don't want my neighbor bringing a bazooka to the school picnic. So how can I fit that together?
GILMORE|6.12.07 @ 9:53PM|#
I agree, rudy was evading to some degree. But evading *well* :)
An accomplished statesman.
i think boiling his point down, it's "there will be variations on
what states/localities can do can that will fall within limits of
the constitution, and we need to live with that"
it saved him the trouble of saying where he really feels the right
balance lies
|6.12.07 @ 9:57PM|#
Do I have the right to have a machine gun in my
home?
Actually, yes, in most places you do. It's called a Class III
firearm.
To carry a handgun to the hospital?
Why not? I don't see a problem with that.
But I don't think you have the right to stand at the edge of my
yard and shout an anti-Bush diatribe at 1 am. Surely the gov can
restrict that.
Let me explain it this way. Since you can't disturb the peace, I
don't think that unreasonable btw, let's restrict your ability to
purchase and own a megaphone. Make sense? I would hope not. Just
because you own a megaphone doesn't mean you're inclined to make
impassioned political speeches at 1am. If so, then we judge and
deal with the behavior, not the potential.
So, with that in mind, how much for "potential abuse" would you
infringe upon in the 2nd, and how much for "potential abuse" would
you infringe upon for the 1st amendment? Finally, if both are
clearly enumerated in the constitution, why would your answers be
different?
If you can honestly say that you'd infringe upon the first simply
due to the potential for abuse, then I'd say we're done and we
might as well use the Bill of Rights as elaborate toilet paper.
|6.12.07 @ 9:59PM|#
it saved him the trouble of saying where he really feels the
right balance lies
Thus allowing for him to use it as a "tool" to "fix" us at a later
date. Much as I'd like a prez with a really screwed up personal
life just to eliminate that crap, I don't like his prosecutorial
audacity one bit.
Gahan|6.12.07 @ 10:03PM|#
"I think there is an individual right, but I don't want my
neighbor bringing a bazooka to the school picnic."
Sounds like more fun than playing with a damn frisbee.
|6.12.07 @ 10:05PM|#
Is an "arm" anything I can carry? Hand grendade? Or just firearm of some sort (that makes sense)? Anybody know of any good legal treatment on this very subject?
|6.12.07 @ 10:22PM|#
In my experience, Ken, the libertarian response to the bazooka question (other than "bazookas are cool", I mean, the response among people who acknowledge that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to possess HE artillery) is to invoke reasonableness, and accuse you of creating a straw man.
|6.12.07 @ 10:24PM|#
Unfortunately Jacob, Rudy has the law right as it stands today.
The 2nd Amdt has not been incorporated under the 14th and therefore
is only a constraint on federal gun laws (ha!).
Also, the Sullivan Law (main NYC gun control) is, facially, not as
prohibitive as the DC law is/was. In practice it may be
indistinguishable due to police indiscretion in it's
application.
|6.12.07 @ 10:36PM|#
Warren,
Let me take a stab at clearing it up. Rudy said:
No gun-grabber has fared well in national elections in recent
history, but I'm sure as hell not gonna deny my statist impulses on
this front. So I'll weasel out of answering the question with this
notion of community standards for gun rights.
Anonymo the Anonymous|6.12.07 @ 10:59PM|#
Jack:
Dunno if it's the same person, but a well-known troll on The New
Republic's comment pages goes by "MaryM".
thoreau|6.12.07 @ 11:28PM|#
In my experience, Ken, the libertarian response to the
bazooka question (other than "bazookas are cool", I mean, the
response among people who acknowledge that ordinary citizens should
not be allowed to possess HE artillery) is to invoke
reasonableness, and accuse you of creating a straw man.
Actually, joe, many people on this forum have offered a somewhat
more detailed response than that. I've argued, and I've seen other
people argue, for a reasonableness standard based on law
enforcement: If the cops are allowed to own and use it, if they
deem it necessary for dealing with criminals, then you should also
be allowed to own one.
Given some of the stuff Radley Balko has reported, that amounts to
letting civilians own a hell of a lot of cool stuff!
:)
|6.12.07 @ 11:47PM|#
Other Matt,
We tried a president with a very screwed-up personal life already.
Close, but...well...close and a cigar.
I think Rudy's just trying to be vague, covering his ass from his
past NYC Mayor policies as he swings rightward in preparation for
appealing to a national constituency. In other words, he's
flip-flopping.
|6.12.07 @ 11:53PM|#
"The Second Amendment makes reference to standing armies having
the right to bear arms, not individuals in the community. It
appears the Second Amendment has been misread and very
misunderstood. I don't think our Forefathers envisioned the right
to bear arms for anyone besides the military."
by marym
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.
You see, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to keep the
military EQUIPPED, it is to keep the military REGULATED.
For example, when you think of corporate regulation, do you think
of making sure the corporation has the necessary equipment or do
you think of putting constraints on a corporation to control its
activites? Exactly.
Its not politically correct these days to speak of this, but the
second amendment is not about hunting, its not about sporting, it
is about keeping a check on a potentially tyrannical
government.
Lastly, its a familiar refrain to most here, but why does "the
people" mean one thing in the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and
tenth, but mean something else in the second?
The Wine Commonsewer|6.13.07 @ 12:25AM|#
Why Is the Second Amendment Weaker in New York Than It Is in
Texas?
Everyone knows that everything is bigger in Texas.
|6.13.07 @ 12:26AM|#
About the bazooka at the picnic (and the personal ownership of
fighter jets, men-o-war, artillery, and nuclear weapons) The right
to bear does not equal the right to brandish, so it depends on your
picnic. If the picnic is at a private gunnery range, for a
gathering of bazooka enthusiasts, I don't really see the problem.
If it's in central park, I don't see how setting up a bazooka in an
urban park could be considered anything other than brandishing. For
nuclear weapons, practically any ownership is brandishing,
considering the potential damage. I don't think there's a strech of
private land big enough in the country that you could touch off a
nuke without hurting someone else or their property. Of course, I
think we should bring back letters of marque, too.
Now, when we apply it to things like handguns and personal weapons,
it's quite a bit simpler, because as long as you're not waving them
around or pointing them at people (or making creepy threats),
you're good. The same rules should apply in New York as do in
Alaska.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.13.07 @ 12:26AM|#
Gilmore, it was the 1973 Yom Kippur War, not the 67 six day war. Sorry I didn't get back to that other thread.
|6.13.07 @ 2:25AM|#
Whoever made that marym sockpuppet has some real talent. To be
able to hit all of the stupid talking points of the gun
prohibitionists and not come off as obvious takes some
effort.
For anyone who was seriously reading it and wanted answers to the
points raised, here goes:
Amendment II declares the same protection for the individual right
to keep and bear arms that Amendment I does for the individual
rights of religious freedom, speech, press, peaceable assembly, and
to petition for redress of grievances. Amendment I uses the phrase
"shall make no law", Amendment II uses the phrase "shall not be
infringed."
Amendment II makes reference to the militia, and definitely not to
a standing army which was anathema to the Founders. Who are the
militia? I'll let Tenche Coxe field that one, "Who are the
militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall
turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power
to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible
implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the
federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will
ever remain, in the hands of the people."-Tenche
Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Amendment II also assumes individual inalienable rights, like the
entire Constitution does. Jefferson says it well in the Virginia
Constitution: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of
arms"
There honestly isn't a case to be made for an alternative view of
the founders that could be construed to support the prohibitionists
case.
|6.13.07 @ 4:30AM|#
You see, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to keep the
military EQUIPPED, it is to keep the military REGULATED.
Actually, "well regulated" as used in the day is more akin to "well
behaved" or "well disciplined". So, it really reads "a well behaved
group of gentlemen", as women were not part of the militia unless
they really wanted to be as later codified. By the way, the comma
was absent also in the original drafts, which eliminates the
prepratory phrase crap.
Its not politically correct these days to speak of this, but
the second amendment is not about hunting, its not about sporting,
it is about keeping a check on a potentially tyrannical
government.
Actually, that's the current standard of legal thinking.
Is an "arm" anything I can carry? Hand grendade? Or just
firearm of some sort (that makes sense)? Anybody know of any good
legal treatment on this very subject?
The standard used by the Miller case (which is quite misquoted, but
I digress) was a "militia weapon". They came up with a sawed off
short barrelled shotgun not being a "milita weapon". Actually, what
they came up with is "we don't have any data to let us say it is",
because the plantiff booked and wasn't there.
Anyway, along this line of thinking, artillery men were required to
have certain articles, but not the cannon. Everyone was required to
have a rifle (musket, at the time).
There are those that argue that a militia would require any weapon
that a modern army would. This is perhaps true, but at the time of
writing, people weren't expected to have and maintain their own
cannon, which were the "nukes" of the day. So, there was some level
where individuals weren't expected to keep the weapons, only to be
ready to act if called upon.
Personally with what I've read, anything up to and including fully
automatic arms are within that definition. I can't justify it
constitutionally as I don't take Rudy's liberties with the written
text, but I really don't have a problem with an instant check. I do
have a major problem with waiting periods, firearm owner licenses,
and other convolutions designed to harass firearm ownership. I have
the same objections to such restrictions involving prior restraint
in regards to the first amendment.
|6.13.07 @ 4:41AM|#
(still haven't gotten morning coffee yet..sorry if
disjointed)
If it's in central park, I don't see how setting up a bazooka
in an urban park could be considered anything other than
brandishing.
Obviously we don't share the same opinion of NYC. However, given
that I swore to never go back to that place some 26 years ago
simply because it appeared that just about everyone was a flaming
asshole, I probably don't have much of a basis for comparison. I'm
told it's better now. I'll believe it from afar.
For nuclear weapons, practically any ownership is brandishing,
considering the potential damage. I don't think there's a strech of
private land big enough in the country that you could touch off a
nuke without hurting someone else or their property.
Interesting idea. Not sure what that has to do with
constitutionality of ownership, but an interesting idea.
Of course, I think we should bring back letters of marque,
too.
But the reprisal part is so much more fun and profitable. The only
problem is the decided lack of colors which start with M. "Black
Bart" sounds cool. "Mauve Matt" leaves much to be desired to a guy
that does not lean towards the gay eye for the straight guy stuff.
"Magenta Matt" isn't much better. Yes, we would definitely require
some form of color definition that started with M and sounded
relatively cool prior to reinstituting such letters.
Paul|6.13.07 @ 5:01AM|#
The Second Amendment makes reference to standing armies
having the right to bear arms, not individuals in the community. It
appears the Second Amendment has been misread and very
Wrong.
|6.13.07 @ 6:46AM|#
impossible for the vast majority of residents to keep guns
in their homes for self-defense.
As it should be, when you need self defense you should call the
police.
|6.13.07 @ 8:06AM|#
>I don't think our Forefathers envisioned the right to bear
arms for anyone besides the military.<
Wrong, I don't think they envisioned the possibility that anyone
would question the right of the INDIVIDUAL to be armed or that it
would occur to anyone to prevent that individual right. The western
boundaries of the states were still frontiers.
Right, the 2nd Amendment refers that state can have a militia, or
army.
|6.13.07 @ 8:07AM|#
"I think there is an individual right, but I don't want my
neighbor bringing a bazooka to the school picnic."
You say now, but when Godzilla shows up to get your watermelon
you'll be glad he did. ;)
|6.13.07 @ 8:44AM|#
"I don't want my neighbor bringing a bazooka to the school
picnic."
I don't care what my neighbor BRINGS to the picnic... I care what
my neighbor USES at the picnic.
Guns don't kill people; people kil.... oh, nevermind.
CB
|6.13.07 @ 9:48AM|#
Although the court has issued contradictory statements on guns
in the past, the legal scholarship (e.g., crazed, right-wing
fanatic Larry Tribe) tends to acknowledge that the Second Amendment
does recognize an individual right to bear arms.
It's also fairly obvious that the right has limits. For instance,
it doesn't mean that you can use guns at will. Or, for
that matter, build your own nuclear weapon. Fair enough. But if
it's an individual right, then banning the exercise of that right
in an entire city is clearly unconstitutional, just like banning
speech in the same area would be (I'm talking to you, Rudy). That's
not to say that banning guns in, say, a courtroom might not pass
muster, of course.
|6.13.07 @ 9:56AM|#
But if it's an individual right, then banning the exercise
of that right in an entire city is clearly unconstitutional, just
like banning speech in the same area would be (I'm talking to you,
Rudy). That's not to say that banning guns in, say, a courtroom
might not pass muster, of course.
Couldn't a community who really wanted a ban get around that by
banning guns within a 1000ft zone of key buildings (schools, day
care facilities, etc.)?
|6.13.07 @ 10:03AM|#
David,
It's questions like that that make Constitutional law so much fun.
Generally speaking, government actions that limit fundamental
rights receive strict scrutiny by the courts. The government action
(law or otherwise) must serve a compelling public interest, be
narrowly tailored (i.e., not overbroad), and use the least
restrictive means to achieve the purpose. Of course, that sort of
test is highly subjective, but it does mean that banning say,
speech, within 10 miles of the Empire State Building would be
difficult.
|6.13.07 @ 10:11AM|#
That's why I chose schools. The compelling interest would be "protecting children from gun violence", and if you define what a school is broadly enough, you'll have a series of overlapping zones to cover the whole town, or least enough of it to make it difficult to drive through with a gun in the car, much like the increased penalty drug free school zones that most commmunities have now.
|6.13.07 @ 10:20AM|#
"The fact that such a doctrine exists for the First
Amendment's protections in certain circumstances seems relevant,
although it should be noted that it applies only to certain rare,
marginal circumstances."
I wouldn't have a problem with applying the same level of strict
scrutiny to restrictions on the 2nd Amendment as are already
applied to the 1st.
Also, the talk of bazookas and nukes, while interesting, goes far
beyond the scope of the debate as it exists today.
|6.13.07 @ 10:20AM|#
It's defining things broad enough to result in a practical ban that blows the law. I say that, of course, in the full knowledge that strict gun control laws have been passed and are in force all over the country. Which begs the question of whether guns are a fundamental right for all Americans or just those in the suburbs and rural areas.
|6.13.07 @ 10:30AM|#
"Couldn't a community who really wanted a ban get around
that by banning guns within a 1000ft zone of key buildings
(schools, day care facilities, etc.)?"
The answer, I suspect, is "it depends."
Real life example:
In 1934, they passed the National Firearms Act, which regulated
rifles and shotguns with short barrels, sound suppressors
(silencers) and machine guns.
Instead of enacting an outright ban on these items, they instead
instituted a requirement to file your information with the feds and
pay a $200 transfer tax.
Now, a quick Google search for an inflation calculator tells me
that $200 in 1934 is the equivalent of $3,084.87 today.
In essence, the feds didn't ban these guns outright, they simply
made the costs to own so prohibitive that no one could buy
them.
It's a historical irony that the rate of inflation has ultimately
made some NFA items much more affordable.
(And yes, I realize I'm leaving out the bit about the 1986 FOPA MG
thing.)
|6.13.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Why does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to CONCEAL a
weapon? I don't believe it does. You have the right to carry a
weapon, you don't have the right to sneak up on me with it.
I have no problem with anyone carrying a weapon but I don't think
that then forces me to have to associate with them or to let them
in my home or business and allowing concealed weapons does exactly
that.
We should do away with Concealed Weapons since it's only purpose is
to surprise and ambush. Non-criminals have nothing to hide and
seeing a weapon is more of a deterrent. Requiring weapons to be
carried in plain sight allows me to avoid those people and
situations that are threatening. And if I run a business that is a
potential target, like a jeweler, don't I have the right to refuse
entry to someone I see carrying a weapon? I might lose some
business but that's my choice. Maybe not allowing entry to people
carrying weapons will save me money on my insurance. Isn't that a
basic free choice right that Concealed Weapon laws take away from
me?
|6.13.07 @ 10:42AM|#
No one is stopping you from posting signs at your place of
business telling concealed carry permit holders that they aren't
welcome.
Of course, you'd simply be doing yourself a disservice by turning
away a group of people who are statistically less likely to get in
trouble with the law than even the average citizen.
Also, if someone's carrying a concealed weapon, how do you know?
After all, concealed is concealed.
|6.13.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Assuming the the differences between NYC and Texas are purely "cultural," isn't that the type of thing that state's rights assesses? Within the confines of the 2nd Amendment (now that's a whole different debate), isn't it up to the individual states to define "reasonable" restrictions?
|6.13.07 @ 11:05AM|#
mediageek-
And that's exactly the problem, I don't know who's carrying a
concealed weapon and that's what bothers me. Carry it in plain
sight and I can assess if you are a threat. If I'm a cab driver and
I see someone stagger out of a bar carrying a gun, doesn't my right
to life allow me to choose not to have an armed person sitting
behind me? Or for that matter, if I'm the bar owner, not allow
armed people to drink in my business?
Why should you have the right to take away my right to make
decisions about my own safety by concealing that you are carrying a
weapon?
What does the right to bear arms have to do with the right to
ambush me?
|6.13.07 @ 11:05AM|#
We should do away with Concealed Weapons since it's only
purpose is to surprise and ambush.
Absolutely, and that is supported by the incredible multitude of
examples where conceal-carry permit holders have committed crimes
by ambushing people. Last time I check there were a whole...uh,
zero examples to choose from.
|6.13.07 @ 11:29AM|#
NtS-
If the weapon is being carrying concealed by a citizen with no ill
intent, how is it conceivably a threat to you?
|6.13.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Rimfax,
Every fight, argument, road rage, domestic dispute where guns are
used are an ambush where the person shot didn't have full
information about the threat facing them.
Many of these are by legal gun owners. Just looking at your
co-workers, during the 13-year period from 1992 to 2004, an average
of 807 workplace homicides occurred annually in the United States,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
So do you really think that average of 807 annual workplace
homicides were committed all by people openly carrying their weapon
or primarily by people who concealed that they were carrying it
into work?
|6.13.07 @ 11:38AM|#
No doubt someone who comes into the office with the intention to
murder other people would abide by a law stating that concealed
carry is completely illegal.
Of those 807 workplace homicides, how many were committed by people
who possessed concealed weapons permits?
|6.13.07 @ 11:39AM|#
How the hell do I know your intent? In fact by concealing the
weapon, aren't you implying a nefarious motive? If not, why aren't
you content to openly wear a holster?
The only advantage concealing a weapon allows is that you can
approach someone without their being aware that you are a threat to
them. I don't believe you have a Constitutional right to do
that.
|6.13.07 @ 12:01PM|#
I have no idea, but since we're talking about crimes committed
by fellow workers, not robberies by criminals, I'd say a fair
percentage are by licensed gun owners, wouldn't you?
Care to answer why you feel it's necessary to conceal from the
people around you that you are carrying a weapon? Why is it
important that you hide a potential threat to them? And don't you
think they have the right to know about potential threats?
dhex|6.13.07 @ 12:03PM|#
"In fact by concealing the weapon, aren't you implying a
nefarious motive?"
not at all, actually.
consider it this way, beyond a question of pique or whimsy (which
is how many people choose to frame this issue of deciding to bear
arms in public in some manner, for reasons obscure to my eyes) is
not the carrying of a weapon a form of self-defense? of course. but
we don't live in islands, but rather in communities, some of which
are highly mobile. so in any given state and at any given time only
a small percentage of people are going to be legally armed.
concealed weapons laws make the question of who is and who isn't
armed far less obvious, thus increasing the worry for someone of
genuine nefarious intent that any given person is going to be
armed.
the incredibly low levels of crimes committed by licensed concealed
carriers is pretty obvious chalked up to two things - they're on
record as having a weapon and already in the system AND they're
citizens who have chosen to take on an additional legal and social
burden as aboveground as possible.
dhex|6.13.07 @ 12:03PM|#
"And don't you think they have the right to know about potential
threats?"
are you in favor of scarlet lettering? let's say of convicted
violent felons or the mentally ill.
don't you think we have the right to know about potential
threats?
|6.13.07 @ 12:18PM|#
"I have no idea, but since we're talking about crimes
committed by fellow workers, not robberies by criminals, I'd say a
fair percentage are by licensed gun owners, wouldn't
you?"
No, I wouldn't, because if I did, it would be nothing more than
idle speculation.
"Care to answer why you feel it's necessary to conceal from the
people around you that you are carrying a weapon?"
Because it's none of your business, and if someone has ill
intentions, they would carry concealed in violation of law
anyway.
"Why is it important that you hide a potential threat to
them?"
How does carrying a concealed weapon represent a potential threat
to you? The question is fallacious.
"And don't you think they have the right to know about
potential threats?"
Again, the question is fallacious. A person going about their daily
business, armed, is not a threat to anyone who's doing the
same.
Question:
Let's pretend for a moment you get your wish. Concealed carry is
completely outlawed, and open carry rules the land.
What sort of punishment should the justice system hand down to
someone who carries concealed, but is otherwise law-abiding?
What about in winter months? Would the wearing of a heavy coat over
a weapon during a snowstorm constitute a violation of this law?
b-psycho|6.13.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Personally my response to the inevitable
bazooka/grenade/flamethrower question would be to point out how
it's much more likely with those weapons to hurt or kill someone
you didn't intend to, no matter your skill at using it.
Sure, in some future all-out rebellion it'd be anything-goes, but
that's nowhere near a picnic.
|6.13.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Would anyone care to offer a reasoned response to the suggestion that if the cops can have it, so can anyone else?
|6.13.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Yeah:
Most cops are so incompetent at handling a firearm safely that they
really shouldn't be trusted with anything more deadly than a straw
and some spitballs.
|6.13.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Fallacious? Gimme a break. Half of all murders are done by
people related or acquainted with the victim, not career criminals.
Since I can't control criminal behavior, these people I know are a
risk factor to my family and myself that I can have some control
over.
And people going about their daily business armed are more of a
threat. What, gun owners don't get into arguments, fights or get
drunk and when they do, cause more damage than unarmed people?
C'mon, let's live in the real world here.
I live in a major city and have had a drunk legally licensed gun
owner pull a weapon and threaten me over a parking space. Believe
me, gun owners can be just as likely to be wackos as anyone else
and much more deadly. Why shouldn't I give them a wider
berth?
dhex - How is it a Scarlet Letter? Are you ashamed that you are
carrying a weapon? I do think there are people who would choose not
to associate with you but shouldn't that be their right?
People convicted of carrying a concealed weapon should be subject
to a stringent penalty. Enough to make the law enforcible. Maybe a
mandatory year.
Convicted violent felons or the mentally ill are subject to
imprisonment and supervision or should be, that's another
discussion.
|6.13.07 @ 1:24PM|#
"Since I can't control criminal behavior, these people I
know are a risk factor to my family and myself that I can have some
control over."
So, given that those with concealed carry permits are LESS likely
to commit crime than even the general populace, can you explain to
me how harassing them via the law makes you safer?
"C'mon, let's live in the real world here. "
Statistically speaking, I am the one living in the real world, not
you. You have yet to produce one shred of statistical evidence that
legal gun owners are any more likely to commit a crime.
|6.13.07 @ 1:34PM|#
"People convicted of carrying a concealed weapon should be
subject to a stringent penalty. Enough to make the law enforcible.
Maybe a mandatory year."
Wow. So if a person puts a winter coat on over their pistol because
it's a cold day out, they should go to jail for a whole year. Man,
you're tough on crime.
|6.13.07 @ 1:39PM|#
"Convicted violent felons or the mentally ill are subject to
imprisonment and supervision or should be, that's another
discussion."
It strikes me as completely relevant. Should it be legal for a
newspaper to publish the name and address of anyone with a felony
conviction who lives in that community?
|6.13.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Wow. So if a person puts a winter coat on over their pistol
because it's a cold day out, they should go to jail for a whole
year. Man, you're tough on crime.
MG-I think you're being trolled. Nobody could be that
ignorant.
Just catching up after this morning, had a long meeting in between.
It does make one shake their head when someone comes up with the
idea that if you're a permit holder, you're carrying a firearm to
aggressively assault someone, and they don't think it
through.
Personally what I think you're hearing with that is that they would
be a threat if they were carrying a firearm, that they would go out
and attack someone just for getting upset, that they would blow
someone away in a fit of anger, so everyone else must be of the
same bent.
|6.13.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Indeed. Psychological projection. I've really only ever seen NtS's arguments coming from people who have a propensity to provoke and/or escalate a situation that they should just walk away from.
|6.13.07 @ 2:25PM|#
I didn't know that wearing a holster was such a burden. Or that
you had to keep your gun warm. Are we projecting here a little
also?
I never said that people with Concealed Carry permits were more
likely to commit crimes. I'll even concede that they might be
slightly less likely to commit crimes though you'll have to prove
to me anything more than a small advantage. And you seem to be
implying that for some reason, gun owners are not like other
people. They don't get into arguments? Like the 5,000 gun homicides
annually that are caused by an argument?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/circumsttab.htm
What I have said is that when gun owners, like anyone else, have an
argument, they are more likely to be deadly to those around them.
Which is why I want to know if you are carrying.
And it already is legal for newspapers and websites to publish the
names and addresses of Felons. They're public records, somebody
just has to gather them from the courthouse.
|6.13.07 @ 2:41PM|#
I'll even concede that they might be slightly less likely to
commit crimes though you'll have to prove to me anything more than
a small advantage.
Easily done. You would be hard-pressed to find a more law-abiding
group of adult Americans than CCW permit holders.
In Texas "concealed carry licensees had arrest rates far lower than
the general population for every category of crime. For
instance:
"Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent
offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population
versus 730 per 100,000.
"Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent
offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population
versus 5,212 per 100,000.
"Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be
arrested for murder than licensees, and no licensee had been
arrested for negligent manslaughter."
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html
|6.13.07 @ 2:44PM|#
What I have said is that when gun owners, like anyone else,
have an argument, they are more likely to be deadly to those around
them.
"Gun owners" as a class includes both the hardened criminals and
your law-abiding types, so this sentence carries very little
meaning. What you can't find any evidence for is that law-abiding
gun owners are likely to turn homicidal during an argument, just
because they have a gun. Indeed, the data on CCW holders shows just
the opposite.
|6.13.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Half of all murders are done by people related or acquainted
with the victim, not career criminals.
This is a non sequitur. Most of the crimes committed by career
criminals are dfone to people who are related to or acquainted with
the perp.
|6.13.07 @ 3:14PM|#
"I didn't know that wearing a holster was such a burden. Or
that you had to keep your gun warm. Are we projecting here a little
also?"
Nope, simply outlining the fact that you are obviously unfamiliar
with proper methods for carrying a handgun, and that you have given
zero thought to the unintended consequences of your proposal to
lock up anyone who carries concealed.
"I never said that people with Concealed Carry permits were
more likely to commit crimes. I'll even concede that they might be
slightly less likely to commit crimes though you'll have to prove
to me anything more than a small advantage."
If a CCW holder, who is by definition a law-abiding citizen is less
likely to commit a crime then you obviously have nothing to
fear.
Criminality of
TX CCW holders vs. the Public at Large
Similar statistics are available for Florida, as well, and nowhere
have I seen stats that would contradict these trends in other
states.
dhex standing in for Dan T.|6.13.07 @ 3:22PM|#
"How is it a Scarlet Letter?"
well, you said you wanted to know about people who are dangers,
right? how else would you mark the mentally ill and people
convicted of violent felonies in the same way you'd want to know if
someone was carrying a handgun? you need some kind of public,
obvious sign, right, since the issue here is social engagement (or
lack thereof) and social sanctioning (from your perspective).
LarryA|6.13.07 @ 3:29PM|#
From Giuliani's video, the first statement. "New York City
might be a state where you wouldn't allow the Second Amendment to
be enforced."
So if New York City or State wants to shut down newspapers, set up
a state church, and suspend trial by jury that's just reasonably
restricting individual rights?
Note to Giuliani: Keep your "but" off of my Bill of Rights.
Besides the fact that if any other licensing system produced the
same blatantly discriminatory results as the NYC gun license system
every civil rights organization available would be filing
lawsuits.
As it should be, when you need self defense you should call the
police.
Absolutely. Right after you get out your handgun. That way when
they arrive they can chalk outline the criminal's body instead of
yours. The Virginia Tech. students waited for police, who responded
in really good time, 8-9 minutes. Thirty one people died.
Why does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to CONCEAL a
weapon? I don't believe it does. You have the right to carry a
weapon, you don't have the right to sneak up on me with
it.
1. It isn't our choice. States are requiring concealed carry
primarily so anti-gun types won't wet their pants every time they
see a licensee.
2. I personally would rather carry concealed because then I won't
be the first one taken out when the bad guy shows up. Concealed
carry provides more deterrence because the person planning the
crime doesn't know if or who is carrying.
And if I run a business that is a potential target, like a
jeweler, don't I have the right to refuse entry to someone I see
carrying a weapon?
Sure. In most states simply post a sign. But you're making your
business less safe, not more.
Carry it in plain sight and I can assess if you are a
threat.
The people who are threats aren't going to carry in plain sight
regardless of the law. You are only restricting those who carry
legally, and historically are less of a threat than those who don't
carry. See the chart at http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm.
So do you really think that average of 807 annual workplace
homicides were committed all by people openly carrying their weapon
or primarily by people who concealed that they were carrying it
into work?
Actually, virtually all of the workplaces where there were such
events prohibit employees bringing firearms onto company property.
The person causing the problem was in violation for bringing the
gun. Why would it make any difference if he was breaking the law
against concealing it? See the recent shooting in Virginia Tech's
"gun free zone."
Besides, a good portion of these incidents involved someone with a
shotgun or rifle, which obviously wasn't concealed.
The only advantage concealing a weapon allows is that you can
approach someone without their being aware that you are a threat to
them.
The other advantage concealing a weapon allows is that a criminal
can approach someone without being aware that they are a threat to
him. Until it's too late.
|6.13.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Now c'mon, think you can come up with a little less biased
source than a right-wing lobbying group. And even there, the
particular stats you cite came from "... an unpublished report,
engineering statistician William Sturdevant found that concealed
carry licensees had arrest rates far lower than the general
population for every category of crime."
In fact, Googling that report led to a Dallas Morning News article
debunking those stats:
http://www.kc3.com/news/more_lies_hci.htm
(on a anti-handgun site but I checked and it is in the newspaper
archive if you want to pay for it)
Got any thing from the DOJ? Or maybe even a University?
|6.13.07 @ 3:59PM|#
"And even there, the particular stats you cite came from
"... an unpublished report, engineering statistician William
Sturdevant found that concealed carry licensees had arrest rates
far lower than the general population for every category of
crime.""
Uh, dude, he provided a link that went directly to the
"unpublished" report.
Also, two things:
The study you cite is from the notoriously inaccurate Violence
Policy Center.
The VPC's "study" lists only arrest numbers, not convictions. I
guess in the eyes of the VPC, innocent until proven guilty in a
court of law doesn't apply to gun owners.
|6.13.07 @ 4:04PM|#
"The other advantage concealing a weapon allows is that a
criminal can approach someone without being aware that they are a
threat to him. Until it's too late."
There has been more than one incident in which a person who was
legally exercising their right to carry openly had the cops called
on them by someone who was ignorant of the law.
Allowing concealed carry avoids such incidents.
LarryA|6.13.07 @ 4:32PM|#
In fact, Googling that report led to a Dallas Morning News
article debunking those stats:
http://www.kc3.com/news/more_lies_hci.htm (on a anti-handgun site
but I checked and it is in the newspaper archive if you want to pay
for it)
Did you read the article you linked?
Actually kc3.com is Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed, a
pro gun site. The article debunks the VPC figures
against concealed carry.
About the third time the VPC cited Texas Department of Public
Safety statistics incorrectly the 77th Texas Legislature (2001)
passed HB 2784 to change the reporting law to prevent such, citing
VPC misuse of the former statistics. The DPS officers who run our
instructor classes don't like the VPC one little bit.
(I keep track of Texas gun legislation at http://www.txchia.org/legistex07.htm.)
|6.13.07 @ 4:32PM|#
I'd like to know what's the difference in carrying a gun and on
my body is as opposed to my car.
Does that mean I have to get a gun rack or will a "Keep honking I'm
reloading" bumber sticker be sufficient warning for you?
Of course why stop there? How about a detailed list of all my
firearms posted outside my home? I won't object, although my
neighbors without guns might. Since there's now any easy way for a
criminal to more easily assess the threat to himself.
robc|6.13.07 @ 4:34PM|#
mediageek,
Exactly. In KY, cops in Louisville, Lexington and Covington are
know to harrass open carriers. In the rest of the state, open carry
is generally okay. Since I live in 1 of those 3 cities, I
conceal.
|6.13.07 @ 5:15PM|#
Of course why stop there? How about a detailed list of all
my firearms posted outside my home? I won't object, although my
neighbors without guns might. Since there's now any easy way for a
criminal to more easily assess the threat to himself.
Nah, have to be posted on the internet for maxium exposure.
This whole premise of a firearm making someone more dangerous is
rather strange to me. If someone is predisposed to kill you, they
will try when they get mad regardless. Knives are pretty efficient
killing mechanisms, and have been used in mass assults/murders.
Swords work, bats work. Construction tools are great.
|6.13.07 @ 6:41PM|#
I think dhex hit something clear here. Wear a red sticker if you
have ever been in for psychiatric treatment. I want to know when
I'm in the presence of danger.
You just don't have the right to know what is in my pocket. You
don't have the right to search my belt line to make yourself feel
better. I'm sorry.
|6.13.07 @ 7:18PM|#
Not the senator: The only advantage concealing a weapon allows
is that you can approach someone without their being aware that you
are a threat to them.
A gun worn on the outside ruins the look of your suit. That's why
some cowboys wore two guns for the symmetry.
Consider everyone is a threat. Treat everyone as if they had a
concealed weapon. That is what the police do.
dhex|6.13.07 @ 10:55PM|#
also, this might be interesting:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm
h+r gets some really lame trolls. either we get jerkoffs who don't
do their homework, or we get T. Nads, who pulls the "i'm so
misunderstood" like some fucking goth topic-laden nu metal
fan.
truly this is market failure.
|6.13.07 @ 10:56PM|#
The article debunks the VPC figures against concealed
carry.
The VPC is notoriously innaccurate in almost all their
statements.
Back in the 80s one of the groups that amalgamated to form the VPC
ran a glossy full-page back-cover ad in a national mag listing
Switzerland as a country whose low homicide rate
demonstrated the effectiveness of gun-control laws.
They apparently were totally unaware that at that time most cantons
in Switzerland had laws that were far less restrictive than those
in many American states.
dhex|6.13.07 @ 10:59PM|#
vpc and the brady people do seem to live on the scummy side of public advocacy normally inhabited by the "we can de-gay your kids for you" type groups.
|6.14.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Isaac-
I would pay decent money to have a scan of that magazine ad.
FWIW, Switzerland, to this day, still has an extremely active and
passionate gun culture. As does Norway.
|6.14.07 @ 8:57PM|#
I have no idea, but since we're talking about crimes
committed by fellow workers, not robberies by criminals, I'd say a
fair percentage are by licensed gun owners, wouldn't
you?
Bullshit - this IS a senator cleverly pretending to not [be] a
senator. Only a real senator would admit he has "no idea" and then
proceed to talk out his ass as though he had a clue.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245