Guns and Marriage

A Redondo Beach, California, gun rights activist pens a satirical letter to San Francisco law enforcement officials, analogizing his marginal social role as a gun-owner with that of homosexuals, and wondering if their willingness to ignore the law in regards to gay marriages in their city would be extended to him as well. An excerpt:

You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.

Yes, I know, it will be a violation of California laws, but you've shown that you're willing to disregard those when it serves your goals. And because I am a peaceable citizen, I should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this.

So what do you think, if I visit your city and proudly display my lifestyle choices, can I count on your support? As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials? Isn't that what equality is supposed to be all about, where no class of citizen enjoys privileges and immunities not extended to all?

Hilarity ensues, including calls from the San Francisco police and two Redondo Beach police cars showing up at his house.

Comments

[Equality 7-2521]

Perhaps the response is more understandable given that SF has had a supervisor shot and killed in City Hall. And gay rights was at issue then as well.

[a gun nut]

Oh, hell, no. The guy is right: if a local government can ignore the law, why not a private citizen?

[AST]

Fred Barnes said something similar on yesterday's Brit Hume show, and related it to the reason Senators Feinstein and Boxer aren't out there cheering for the mayor.

Does a cop from San Francisco have statewide jurisdiction on something like this?

[bennett]

The man has a point, but his way of expressing it is stupid. His analogy is quite flawed. And if he is trying to make a point with his ideological opponents, comparing gay couples getting marrige liscenses to carrying automatic weapons into city hall is not going to do it. I don't fault his message, I think he is right on, but his way of delivering it is ridiculous.

[Dope]

There are times when private civil
disobedience is the wisest choice.

Time to smoke my joint.

[Eric]

I'm with bennett. He was right, but never should have mentioned going to city hall with guns. What were the cops supposed to do, ignore it and hope he's not a nut?

[Lonewacko]

The Lonewacko Blog's position on this matter is similar to Eric's.

Also, IIRC, I've seen things about SF's special investigations unit or special investigations dep't on Indymedia relating to "peace" protests. Apparently they keep files, take pictures, etc. of protesters...

[7.62]

Bennet, Eric, Lonewacko

Keep in mind that the only reason that we are aware of this is due to the response by the police. If the tone of the letter had been watered down, there would be no news story and we wouldn't be talking about this today. Keep and Bear arms is responsible for raising awareness of these issues. Without inciting a response, it's not a newsworthy event.

7.62

[Jean Bart]

Actually, he did a courageous thing. Hoorah for this fellow!

Eric, Bennett, etc.,

If everyone were like you, we would still be living in the sorts of intellectual, political, etc. bondage that have plagued humanity's ancestors, and still plague us today.

[rubbing my eyes]

Jean Bart, is that you? Damn, I gotta lay off the sauce.

[Francophobe]

JB,

You're taking a hit in the other topics.

[Fred]

Humanity's ancestors? You mean apes?

[7.62]

Bennet-

I don't think the analogy is as flawed as you would believe.

As a gun owner, colleagues constantly put me under the magnifying glass. People don't understand and regularly take an antagonistic position with me on this issue. I find it interesting that in working with both gays and fundies that these two groups never discuss the politics of the issues with each other. However both groups are very open with their views on my owning an arsenal. For the record, I'm very "live and let live' in my views; do what you need to do to be happy. I have to ask however, how quickly I'd be sent to sensitivity training if I were to utter some condemnation of their lifestyles and choices.

7.62

[Will]

His analogy is flawed and borderline hypocritical? Shouldn?t true gun-rights supporters also support gay-marriage/civil unions as an exercise in keeping the government out of private life? And couldn?t the reverse of this argument be made by a gay couple in the hypothetical event a pro-gun mayor usurps state?s laws and allows concealed weapons, or banned arms, etc?

This guy is just using his love of firearms as an avenue to express his opposition of civil-unions/gay marriage. In doing so he indirectly hurts his own cause for greater personal freedom and choice and comes off looking like big dummy.

On preview: what Bennett said.

[a gun nut]

Absolutely right, 7.62.

If I were to suggest a correlation between, say, homosexuals and pederasts, I would be decried (rightfully so or no) as a homophobe seeking insidious examples to damage gay rights and who knows what else. But gun owners are almost regularly mentioned in the same breath as Columbine or right-wing militias. TANJ.

[Hil.]

I daresay Mayor Newsom's actions are in accordance with a majority of his constituents' wishes. That's why they're trying to bring a test case. If the citizens of Redondo decides they want to do the same for firearms I say go ahead. Come on people, I thought we were libertarians here! Think local.

[Overlord]

Maybe if he tried to marry his gun, that would be OK.

[7.62]

Will-

The Keep and bear arms inclusion policy. "this guy' is a writer for the organization.

We support the right of all peaceable people to keep and bear arms.

Your age, race, gender, religion, political party, sexual orientation, or national origin are of no concern to us.

Nuff said Will? Or do you want to keep slinging mud?

7.62

[Jean Bart]

Francophobe,

Really? Where? I have as yet to be bested by the likes of Andrew.

Will,

Actually, he makes clear that he is indeed not a bigot.

[an innocent bystander]

Jean Bart, I think he means the 1st Amendement discussion.

[Eric]

7.62,
I understand what you're saying. But if this writer wrote that just to get a reaction from the police so he can later write about it, he shouldn't complain when he gets exactly what he wants. And the cops shouldn't be blamed for doing their jobs.

[hunting snakes]

Where has joe slithered off to? Surely he has something liberal to say about all this.

[Andrew]

Somehow the guy's example seems off-point. There would be more of a parallel if he were asking the mayor to do something, comparable to issuing a marriage license...and there would likely be a prohibition on bringing guns to the court-house, even if automatic weapons were otherwise legal

[thoreau]

I have to admit not having much sympathy for the guy.

Think about it: If somebody sends you a note that's sarcastic about a decision you just made, and says "Maybe you'd be OK with me bringing guns into your building? I have a lot of guns I could bring", that walks a very fine line between normal speech and issuing a threat. I don't think his name should be put on a list or anything, but I don't see anything wrong with cops checking it out. Once they investigate and conclude that he's not a threat, he should of course be left alone. And throughout the investigation (however brief it may be) the cops should of course act within all applicable constitutional limits (be they state or federal constitutional limits).

Remember, this guy isn't just "suspicious", he actually said something that sure sounds like a threat.

I say this as somebody who on at least one occasion had to leave the house in the middle of the night after my father started talking violently to his relatives. This was right after my parents divorced, and my mother fled the house with me and my brother. I realize that there is a difference between speech and threats of violence, even while I think that in gray areas the law should err on the side of speech. City officials who just made a very controversial decision (and perhaps even a wrong decision, we'll leave that for another thread) have good reason to regard with suspicion any letter that says "Maybe I'll come into your office building with a bunch of guns."

[a gun nut]

No, Andrew, the idea is correct. He's asking the mayor to piss on those laws concerning gun onwership in the same way he has pissed on those concerning marriage. Don't get me wrong - I think anyone should be able to get married to whomever they want, but by the same token, that same person should also be able to carry the weapon of his or her choice.

[c]

Is it me, or does someone who says "Allowing gays to marry is just as sensible as allowing me to wander around City Hall armed to the teeth" sound more anti-gay than pro-gun?

[bigbigslacker]

An AR-15 isn't an automatic weapon or an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle that is functionally no different than most other non-banned semi-automatic rifles, except that the round it fires is less powerful than most other centerfire cartridges. (the .223 or 5.56mm is generally considered "underpowered" for hunting deer - doesn't mean you can't hunt deer with it, just need to be a better shot)

[c]

what, then, does "AR" stand for?

[a gun nut]

c,

It's just you. Either our Constitutional rights apply to all or they don't. Which do you prefer? Besides, just one gun will do. For me, anyway.

[7.62]

Eric-

Agreed. The police acted exactly as I would expect and I'm sure the writer expected.
I'm quite frankly surprised they didn't show up with a search warrant.

Thoreau-

Just because a writer mentions guns doesn't make it a threat. I have guns; Lots of them. It's a statement of fact not a threat. That the reaction to the statement by people like you is one of fear and is perceived to be a threat is something that needs to change. Nowhere was the author threatening. In fact he went out of his way to emphasize that he is a "peaceable citizen"

How different would this be if a government official started issuing concealed carry permits in violation of a county sheriffs wishes?

7.62

[7.62]

C-

Its just you

and AR stands for Armalite Rifle. Armalite is the manufacturer. Some are semi some are full. But I can tell your part of the "oh my god it's a machine gun" crowd. It's not that big of a deal. Full auto is cool in movies, that's about it.

Set up multiple human silhouette targets at 20 yards and go at it on full auto. You will find out that a Glock and target acquisition practice is just as effective.

7.62

[c]

I'm not so sure it's me . . . clearly the "maybe I'll just show up with guns" statement was meant to be intimidation. I mean, he can say all he likes that he's being "peaceable" and that he's not going to USE the guns or anything, but brandishing a rifle at city hall (fully-automatic or otherwise) is pretty hostile.

The most important (gigantic, gaping) hole in his analogy is "As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials?" Well, no. One of the checks the executive branch has on the others is its discretion on how to enforce laws and judgements passed. Working in an official capacity, an elected official can issue marriage licenses (or gun permits) according to his or her best interpretation of the law. Us private citizens (not elected) do not have the same right.

[Dan]

That the reaction to the statement by people like you is one of fear and is perceived to be a threat is something that needs to change.

No, not really. Being afraid of people who walk into City Hall with an assault rifle and a scad of concealed pistols is entirely rational.

Sure, they *might* just be another embarassment-to-the-second-amendment asshole with a "my gun = my dick" complex, but statistically speaking they're probably there to murder a bunch of people.

When someone announces his intention to do something which, if it happened, would scare the pants off you, viewing that announcement as a "threat" is perfectly legitimate.

[a gun nut]

So, if the executive decides that individual rights accrue at the moment of conception, you're going to say,"Hey, that's your prerogative. Go ahead; I'm only a private citizen." Your concept of government and what it is there for is sadly skewed.

[alma hadayn]

In 1978 an anti-gay ex-supervisor shot to death the Mayor and the first openly gay city supervisor in San Francisco city hall.

So it is certainly understandable that the police showed concern, regardless of what you think of the guy's point. To ignore it would have been irresponsible. And as far as I know, it has not been alleged that the police trampled on any of his rights in the course of checking it out.

[a gun nut]

Tell me please if you would react just as calmly if the local police were to call and go by a gay couple's house and say "We've heard you want to marry. You know that's against the law, so what's up with that?"

[Ignorant Law Student]

I think the tone is overboard, and the reasoning is too subtle.

I believe, taking the letter in the most positive of ways, what the writer was trying to say is, "despite what a lot of people say, you don't think gay marriage hurts anyone, so it's okay to defy state law there. I don't believe that walking around heavily armed hurts anyone, despite what a lot of people say, and so I want to know whether San Fransisco will let me engage in that form of civil disobedience too."

The obvious difference is that I cannot steal a recently-married gay spouse from his/her counterpart and kill someone. Some might say that the risk of stolen guns is equal to the risk of whatever sinister results gay marriage is supposd to bring, but I'd like to see at least some pretension to actual data on that before I change my mind.

[Will]

I'm pretty sure that to date no one has been killed by Gay Marriage.

[Mark S.]

"His analogy is flawed and borderline hypocritical? Shouldn?t true gun-rights supporters also support gay-marriage/civil unions as an exercise in keeping the government out of private life?"

You would think that would be case, Will. Sadly neither the largely anti-gay right, or the largely anti-gun left can't think that far.

Despite being BOTH pro-gay and pro gun, I think this dope's argument is very poorly structured. He would have made a better case arguing that if the state is willing to freely give a license for something he thinks is wrong (i.e. gay marriage) they should give him allow for his desire to own something they think is wrong (i.e. firearms).

However, one of the prerequisites of being a homophobe--or, in all fairness, a gun control proponent--is the inability to use their brain and leave people alone.

[Kevin Carson]

"Assault weapon," as used by journalists and gun-control advocates, has no objective meaning. An "assault weapon" is simply a semi-automatic weapon with cosmetic features, like a pistol grip on a rifle, that makes it look "military."

Come to think of it, that's pretty much how "drug paraphernalia" is identified in the war on people who voluntarily ingest certain substances: a bunch of subjectively determined cosmetic features.

[Mark S.]

"I'm pretty sure that to date no one has been killed by Gay Marriage."

[Paranoid Bible Belter] Maybe not now, but jus' you wait! Them pre-vert faggots are in league witha' Devil, the Inernational Communist Corn-spiracy, Al Qaeda, tha Catholic Church, and tha Tirlateral Commission!

Today they wanna marry, tomorra they're going to be putting AIDS in the water supply!"

[c]

gun nut -

Of course we would not "react as calmly" to police dropping by a gay couple's house as we are to them investigating a threatening letter. Would you react calmly to the police calling on gay couples to ask them "what's up?" with their relationship?

[Brendan Perez]

Perhaps he could have suggested that the mayor allow (or require) the police to issue concealed weapons permits to anyone who passed a background check (shall issue style), to sign off on any NFA forms that should come their way and exempt anyone who requested from the state's assault weapons ban.

[wondering]

I'm so not sure gun nut is anti-gay, just very, very, very pro-gun. The gay marriage/bearing of arms relationship was given in the original post. In any case, if I read the original letter correctly, there was nothing threatening there, just the question if the mayor would be willing to scoff at other laws.

[Dan]

"Assault weapon," as used by journalists and gun-control advocates, has no objective meaning.

The AR-15 is an assault rifle. The manufacturers call it an assault rifle. Gun dealers market it as an assault rifle. The military calls it an assault rifle. It's the prototype for most of the assault rifles used by the US military in the last forty years. It was developed specifically because the United States Army Continental Army Command wanted a 5.56mm rifle for military use.

An "assault weapon" is simply a semi-automatic weapon with cosmetic features, like a pistol grip on a rifle, that makes it look "military."

Do you know why the AR-15 "looks military"? Because it was made for the military.

Sheesh, look here.

Come to think of it, that's pretty much how "drug paraphernalia" is identified in the war on people who voluntarily ingest certain substances: a bunch of subjectively determined cosmetic features

If the AR-15 were drug paraphenalia, it would be a bong designed by Tommy Chong, under contract from a coalition of pot dealers, named the "Illegal Drug-Smoking Device Mark 7". 🙂

"Assault rifle" bans are, as you say, largely arbitrary. But that doesn't mean that all the guns they ban are unfairly called assault rifles. Some of them, such as the AK-47, M-16, and AR-15, actually ARE assault rifles.

[wondering]

I thought "AR" stood for "automatic rifle", which it originally was, but is no longer.

[Dan]

Tell me please if you would react just as calmly if the local police were to call and go by a gay couple's house and say "We've heard you want to marry. You know that's against the law, so what's up with that?"

I'd react pretty negatively, because in your hypothetical situation the police are lying. It's not illegal for gay people to get married. Gay people get married all the time; the marriage just isn't recognized by the government.

It's also not illegal for two gay people to seek a marriage license, nor is it illegal for them to accept a marriage license if one is issued.

The person who broke the law here is Newsom. The police are welcome to ask him all the questions they want.

[joe]

Bullshit. San Francisco City Hall starts handing out gay marriage licenses, and somebody writes a letter saying his response is to come to City Hall with an couple of guns? Damn straight the cops make sure this guy isn't EXACTLY WHAT HE SOUNDS LIKE in the letter. Cry me a river, 7.62, most gun owners don't introduce an armed march on City Hall into the political debate.

Threatening to march into City Hall with weaponry to demonstrate a political point. With violence by people offended by gay people a frequent occurance, and the catalyst for a very recent assassination in that building. No, I don't think the San Francisco police should have taken for granted this guy's harmlessness.

[Doing!]

Holy Smoking Barrels! joe is back!

[joe]

BTW, the meaning of the letter doesn't change at all if you replace "AR-15" with ".38" or "Pappy's coon gun."

[wondering]

Recent assassination? Wasn't the Harvey Milk/George Moscone shooting back in the late 70s?

[joe]

wodering, that counts a recent. Police officials, City Clerk's employees, and poltical figures working now were there when in happened. Diane Feinstein, now US Senator, became mayor and a statewide figure because of that event.

[wondering]

I'm not sure that most of the same civil servants of that time are still there, but I see what you mean: the memory of assasinations lives a bit longer than other crimes. Fair enough.

[joe]

More importantly, the political factors that were part of the murders are still active, and especially dynamic right now, surrounding the issue the outraged gun owner wrote in about.

[Jean Bart]

Eric, Bennett, etc.,

Say "mooo."

[joe]

I also think it's relevant for the police to consider the fact tht the writer's political philosophy revolves around the right of private citizens to use firearms against government officials when those officials impose on rights and otherwise misbehave.

That's what the Second Amendment's all about to gun rights people, isn't it? So when the leader of a gun rights organization suggests bringing guns to a government building, it's not unreasonable to consider the possibility that he intends to do exactly what he's been saying private citizens have a right and duty to do.

[guess who]

The AR-15 is (almost always) a semiautomatic rifle. Many semi-autos have full auto versions, but that is not the norm. For example, in the past I have owned a Calico M-950, Chinese and Russian SKS rifles, TEC-9, TEC-22 (and a few boring firearms). Most of these can be found in full-auto (even legally!), but when someone says they own one of these, there is a 99% chance they are not speaking of the full-auto version. All mine were legally purchased "preban" semi-auto weapons. Same goes for lots of other less-known semi-autos. In the United States, if your neighbor owns an AK-47 it is most likely legal and semi-auto. Its also most likely a Chinese, Bulgarian, etc version and not a "genuine" Russian AK. The AR-15 is known as the civilian version of the M-16. Its what you buy when you get out of the army and want to hang on to the past a bit. Looks just as intimidating as the real thing. After the "assault weapon" ban, the AR-15, which was banned specifically by name, was remarketed as the Colt Match Target Rifle. Don't know if its still produced today.

Similar sinister-looking, but semi-auto rifles would be (get your google engines ready for pretty pics): Armalite M15A2, Calico Liberty 50, Century FAL sporter, Century International M-14, Daewoo DR200, Eagle Arms M4C Carbine, Hi-point 9mm Carbine, Ibus Bullpup, Mitchel Arms LW9, Olympic Arms PCR-1 through 6,Springfield SAR-8 Sporter, Stoner SR-25 (Yes, STONER). All of these are Semi-auto, and like the AR-15 not particularly powerful (.308 being an exception). I could post a picture of any one of these and somebody would say, "now THATS an assault weapon". Doesn't make it so. Neither does labeling house bill XXXXXXX the "assault weapons ban".

[wondering]

Sorry, Joe, but where do you read that this guy's "political philosophy revolves around the right of private citizens to use firearms against government officials when those officials impose on rights and otherwise misbehave"? He's only speculating as to whether SF police would be as tolerant of this particular violation of the law as they are of others. Had he actually threatened or even implied violence, I would go along, but he didn't.

[Dan]

the right of private citizens to use firearms against government officials when those officials impose on rights and otherwise misbehave.

That's what the Second Amendment's all about to gun rights people, isn't it?

That's like saying free speech advocates just want to promote Nazi ideology and refer to black men as "niggers"; after all, that's what the First Amendment's all about, right?

We have as much of a right to own, carry, and use firearms as we have to speak freely, or to be free from police searches, or to be tried by a jury instead of a secret tribunal. THAT is what the Second Amendment is "all about".

[dj of raleigh]

>It seems obvious that the guy is only asking a rhetorical question, would SF law enforcement also be willing to disregard the law for gun-toting others. He's just trying to make a point (and apparently all too well). I cannot see the "threat" you see.

[joe]

OK, Dan & wondering, are you saying that the 2nd Amendment ISN'T about protecting the ability of the citizenry to use force against the government when it becomes abusive? I've seen that position defended vigorously on the site by about a dozen regulars on multiple threads.

[wondering]

Joe, I don't think I've ever posted that. I also don't think that it matters much to a citizenry ready to abolish or replace its government by violent means whether or not there is a special right applying to the case.

[Brendan Perez]

"I wonder if it would not be a good idea to institute gun licences similar to drivers' licences, with some sort of gun school on the side. We don't allow people to guide a couple tons of metal down the street without first proving that they understand the responsibility involved. Why act any differently toward guns?"

Let's see:
-Low age limit on license-from 14 in some states to 17 in others
-Honored in all states
-No license needed for use on private property
-Buy as many cars as you want as often as you want
-No limits on "assault weapons", the way there are no limits one "sports" cars.
-You can sell to ANYONE who has the money. People with 10 DUIs can still buy a car should they desire. No more denial of purchase because you had a joint in your pocket 10 years ago.
-No license needed to sell your car to a private party
-No restrictions on automatic weapons, anymore then there are restrictions on automatic tranmissions and transfer cases.

I'm starting to be interested in this license thing...

[wondering]

Touch?, Brendan. Although I think the idea does have some merit and should be given careful thought, it doesn't mean I've worked all the bugs out. It doesn't even mean I've reached the decision that it should be carried out.

[dj of raleigh]

> gun rights activist pens a satirical letter to ... law enforcement officials,

[rick]

Please, phone or e-mail city hall and give away some pot to perscription card holding citizens; in broad daylight! Then we have to call in the Feds.

[wondering]

thoreau,

After rereading the letter again, I see less here than you. It seems obvious that the guy is only asking a rhetorical question, would SF law enforcement also be willing to disregard the law for gun-toting others. He's just trying to make a point (and apparently all too well). I cannot see the "threat" you see.

Having also grown up with firearms, I agree that many people conveniently forget that with rights, come responsibilities. Although I expect to be the target of furious response for suggesting MORE government involvement, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to institute gun licences similar to drivers' licences, with some sort of gun school on the side. We don't allow people to guide a couple tons of metal down the street without first proving that they understand the responsibility involved. Why act any differently toward guns?

[thoreau]

I don't own guns, but I have shot guns. Many years ago my uncle invited me to his farm to learn to shoot. The first thing he taught me is that the right to use a gun carries with it HUGE responsibilities. If I had said anything about guns that sounded even VAGUELY like I was threatening another person, and he had heard about it, that would have been the end of my gun use on his farm.

Now, I'm not saying that every aspect of my uncle's common sense should be codified into law. But that letter has some threatening implications. A police inquiry is not out of line. Of course, they should abide by all applicable constitutional limits when doing the inquiry (be those limits from the state or federal constitution) and they should back off from the guy once they ascertain that he's simply an idiot.

But the fact remains that when you speak about your deadly weapons in an irresponsible manner, people charged with upholding the peace have an obligation to say "Yo, what's up with this?" The right to speak freely and keep and bear arms does not mean that one can make threats (or statements that sound like possible threats) without being investigated.

And I know that some will say that letter didn't sound threatening. Maybe not to you on a first read. But the writer didn't sound happy about the decisions of the SF gov't, and he talked about bringing guns into city hall. When an apparently angry man tells the object of his apparent anger that he might pay a visit with his guns in tow, a reasonable person can take it as a threat.

Gun ownership is a responsibility. Those who think otherwise shouldn't own guns.

[bennett]

Jean Bart,

???

[Dan]

OK, Dan & wondering, are you saying that the 2nd Amendment ISN'T about protecting the ability of the citizenry to use force against the government when it becomes abusive?

You said "the right of private citizens to use firearms against government officials when those officials impose on rights and otherwise misbehave". Which is a bit like describing the fourth amendment as "the right to commit heinous criminal acts without suffering any consequences for it" -- it's a *really* stupid way of describing the purpose of the amendment.

The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution largely to insure that the population would be heavily armed. There's only so much bullshit a government can get away with when the people are heavily armed; if they go too far, the government gets overthrown. So if by "the Second Amendment is about X" you mean "X was the major reason the amendment was written", you were right the second time around; the founders wanted an armed citizenry.

They did not, however, want, or endorse, lone vigilantes assassinating "abusive" government officials. They just wanted the capacity for armed *rebellion*, something that requires quite a bit more than one guy with an AR-15. 🙂

[Dan]

We don't allow people to guide a couple tons of metal down the street without first proving that they understand the responsibility involved. Why act any differently toward guns?

Because you can't subject a Constitutional right to a licensing requirement. That's why it's a "right", you know; because you don't need the government's permission to do it.

[Larry]

The Analogy
The California marriage law provides that couples can enter into a government-sponsored and regulated contract granting them preferential treatment, but only if they are heterosexual. Officials in San Francisco believe that this discriminates against people who are homosexual, and are doing same-sex marriages in protest.

The California concealed handgun license law is "discretionary" in that even if an applicant for a license meets or exceeds all legal requirements for being issued the license the county bureaucrats can refuse to issue the license on any basis, including that they don't think the applicant "needs" the license. As a result many counties routinely turn down all applicants who are not celebrities or politically connected. In particular San Francisco seldom issues licenses, unless the applicant is someone like Dianne Feinstein, their virulently anti-gun U.S. Senator. The blatantly discriminatory results of this policy are not limited to California, but are endemic through most of the nine discretionary issue states. If any other licensing system produced the same results as are commonly found in gun registration and licensing schemes every civil liberties organization in the U.S. would be <smirk alert> up in arms.

The "Threat"
The reaction to Mr. Codrea's "threat" is simply an expression of California anti-gun paranoia. I happen to live in Texas. If I wrote my representative in the Legislature and told him I was going to bring an "assault rifle" to Austin for a pro-gun demonstration he would call and ask me to bring it to the rotunda of the state capitol building so he could have a photo op. (It's an election year.)

Of course I wouldn't mention that I would also be carrying a concealed handgun. After all, Texas is a "shall-issue" state, and my representative and I are both licensed. As a CHL instructor, I'm fairly high profile, having trained about half of the more than a thousand licensees in my rural county of 40,000 population. He would be as surprised if I showed up unarmed as if I was barefoot.

Result
The security detail at the entrance to the capitol would probably want to make sure the rifle was empty. (Third Safe Gun Handling Rule: Keep the action open and the firearm empty until you are ready to use it.) But once I showed them my CHL they would have no further interest in my loaded Glock.

Well, actually I can't guarantee the last. The officer might be a fellow gun nut. The worst problem I ever had interacting with a Texas law enforcement officer was one night after my car hit a deer. A sheriff's deputy stopped to help, and I almost never got rid of him. During the forty-five minutes it took for the tow truck to arrive we talked about all the guns he owned and all the guns I owned, compared what I was carrying with what he had on, and groused about how the local crime rate was so low we couldn't get our respective spouses to take personal security seriously.

Which is why I live on the bottom coast instead of the left one.

[wondering]

True, Dan; there's the rub. As a gun owner, I am concerned that trigger-happy idiots could ruin it all for us and lead an intrusive government to far sharper measures than a "shooter's licence". That is one reason why I could support the "shooter's licence" idea. On the other hand, should one engage in government or majority appeasement on the issue of individual rights? What I really want is for all gun owners to treat their weapons with the same burden of responsibility that I feel. But that sort of responsibility probably cannot be legislated.

[c]

Brendan, there are a few more things you'd probably want to add to your list ...
* While anyone is welcome to own whatever kind of auto they can buy, there are some basic rules to make one "street legal." Feel free to buy a formula 1 car and drive it on your private racetrack, but don't try to drive it on public roads. Likewise, certain basic rules could apply to the kind of weapons you'd be allowed to carry in public.
* Considering the damage a person can do with a car, it's reasonable to require them to display unique license plates, the numbers on which the police can look up and find your name and address. For guns, the analogue to this might be a ballistics database.
* Getting a driver's license doesn't allow you to drive just anything. For particularly large (and potentially more dangerous) vehicles you need to carry a Commercial Driver's License. Maybe a certain class of weapons would be off limits until you've proved you're capable and responsible enough to handle them.
I don't think this kind of licensing plan would be a bad idea at all.

[7.62]

Go home for the weekend and miss all of the fun. I'm glad to see that you showed up Joe. Let me be clear. I agree that the police responded exactly as expected and as they should. A much better way of doing this, from the perspective of being absolutely non-threatening would have been to ask for a concealed carry permit. "Hey I hear you guys are giving away licenses, I'm already married but I could use a concealed permit". This gentleman knew what kind of response he was going to get. He wanted it. We wouldn't have the story if the response were a letter from the mayor saying "no you can't have a permit".

I think this guy deserves credit for knowingly subjecting himself to all of this in support of a cause.

The letter was clearly rhetorical but clearly could not be ignored.

7.62

[Don]

"what, then, does "AR" stand for?"

Armalite.

[kevrob]

Some do make the argument that, both by the Constitution and international convention, a prima facie case can be made for asserting a "right to drive."

http://www.uslawbooks.com/travel/

They may not win, but I like the idea. As libertarians, we should make the statists defend the "it is a privilege" argument at every turn.

Kevin

[Don]

To amplify:

google "armalite", or go to:

http://www.armalite.com/

The original firm that designed the AR-15 was Armalite. The also made the AR-7 (a .22 survival rifle that floats), the AR-10 (the AR-15s big brother), the AR-18, and an AR shotgun (not sure of the number). Obviously, AR doesn't stand for Armalite Rifle, since the shotgun also went by "AR".

The firm was an offshoot of the aerospace industry, and employed their expertise in aircraft grade aluminum towards making lightweight firearms, hence the name. The AR-18, however, employed more traditional stamped steel construction, as it was intended to be produced in undeveloped nations.

[Xrlq]

The person who broke the law here is Newsom. The police are welcome to ask him all the questions they want.

Newsom, probably. The individuals who performed the ceremonies themselves, definitely. Section 359 of the California Penal Code provides prison and/or a fine for anyone who "willfully and knowingly solemnizes any ... marriage forbidden by law." Too bad we don't have an Attorney General to enforce that law.

[Larry]

"What I found to be quite interesting, baffling, and encouraging in all this is that California places no real restrictions on where you can carry your concealed, assuming I read the law correctly."

1. The problem in many California counties isn't where you can carry, it's getting the license in the first place.

2. You may be sitting next to a man or woman legally carrying a concealed handgun. Does it matter where you are? If you trust them on the street, why can't you trust them in church, etc?

3. BTW, a study from Texas at http://www.txchia.org/Sturdevant2000.htm shows that the average person without a license is far more likely to cause a problem leading to arrest than a concealed handgun licensee. Why restrict the peaceful folks?

4. Think like a suicidal person who wants to go out large by shooting as many people as possible. Would a list of locations where no one could carry be handy? According to John Lott virtually all crimes of this type take place where concealed carry is restricted or prohibited.

[Dan]

I understand your argument, Dan, but it doesn't make the possibility that this guy was issuing violent threats go away. What if he decided that he and his buddies were a legitimate militia defending the rights of the people?

I completely agree, as several of my posts in this thread indicate, that saying that you're thinking of coming to City Hall with an shitload of illegal weaponry can be construed as a threat.

What I disagreed with was your assertion that the Second Amendment supporters widely favor shooting wayward government officials.

[Brendan Perez]

What I found to be quite interesting, baffling, and encouraging in all this is that California places no real restrictions on where you can carry your concealed, assuming I read the law correctly.

[joe]

I understand your argument, Dan, but it doesn't make the possibility that this guy was issuing violent threats go away. What if he decided that he and his buddies were a legitimate militia defending the rights of the people?

[joe]

I can agree with that. However, it was suggested earlier that his position as head of a gun owners rights group should have alleviated the government's concern that he would use violence. Given the roots of the philosophical root of the gun rights movement, I disagree.

This is not about the actions of gun owners. I actually agree with you that ordinary people who own guns are often slandered. But if you say you believe in private citizens using armed force against the government, people are going to take you at your word.