Be a Good Victim - Under current law, the Second Amendment ends at your front door.

National Review Online ^ | October 22, 2009 | David Rittgers

[neverdem]

---

October 22, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

Be a Good Victim
Under current law, the Second Amendment ends at your front door.

By David Rittgers

In August, a man shot two people to death on a bridge near San Francisco. At the moment of the killings, two on-duty Marin County sheriff’s deputies were within 100 yards of the shooter. One was close enough to see the muzzle blast of the shotgun. The police officers, however, did not move against the culprit. One, stuck in traffic, called in a description of the killer’s vehicle as he fled. The other positioned her car to prevent traffic from entering the crime scene.

These two law-enforcement officers did what police officers tell the public to do: Don’t intervene. Get a description of the offender. Call the police. Be a good witness.

Much debate ensued about whether the officers’ behavior was appropriate, but the real tragedy is that the victims of this rampage did not have the legal opportunity to arm themselves. To them, the message was clear: Be a good victim.

In Marin County, the jurisdiction where those two officers work, Sheriff Robert Doyle requires residents to demonstrate “extreme need” before they can get concealed-handgun permits. Among the few who have met this burden are private investigators, jewelry dealers, and a former district attorney.

Ten states still use a system that subjects lawful self-defense to the whim of a functionary such as Sheriff Doyle, a practice known as a “may issue” policy. (Two more refuse to grant concealed-carry permits to anyone.) The decision rests with the local chief law-enforcement officer, who may employ whatever criteria he deems valid — or deny permits for no reason at all. The result is that only those who are wealthy or politically connected are able to secure permits. Sean Penn got one after he claimed that a former employee was stalking him and that he had received a number of crank calls and letters.

This is not the case in most of the nation. Thirty-eight states have “shall issue” permit systems, which essentially require the chief law-enforcement officer to issue permits to everyone who passes background checks and training requirements. Many of these states have established reciprocity agreements, making the permits they issue valid in much of the nation. Years of experience have shown that permit holders are far more law-abiding than the general populace.

The propriety of “may issue” permitting is now being challenged in court on the opposite coast. The District of Columbia maintains a “shall issue” or, more appropriately, a “no issue” policy. After the Supreme Court struck down the District’s ban on handgun possession within the home last year, the District repealed the police chief’s power to issue permits to let gun owners carry their weapons outside the home. Several plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit challenging this refusal to issue handgun-carry permits.

In the Heller decision last year, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep arms in their home and have them in a condition useful for self-defense. The Court stressed that the individual right to arms was not an unlimited one, leaving undisturbed bans on carrying guns into “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings. The D.C. suit does not challenge this power, but asks the court to recognize that the whole of the District of Columbia cannot be a “sensitive place.”

The District will almost certainly mention that the Heller decision also did not call into question 19th-century bans on concealed carry. This ignores the fact that while concealed carry was considered the mark of a brigand, open carry was accepted and legal. Modern feelings are the reverse; concealed carry is now practiced far more often than open carry. The plaintiffs do not specify the method of carry — open or concealed — merely that the Second Amendment does not stop at your front door.

The lawsuit intends to make the District face reality. Criminals have guns. They brandish them when the police are not on the scene and victims are outside of their homes. The D.C. government should not handicap the honest, law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms in order to defend themselves.

One of the plaintiffs, Tom Palmer (disclosure: Tom is my colleague at the Cato Institute), once used a handgun to deter a mob of violent aggressors who were yelling death threats at him. Tom’s right, and the right of any other citizen, to arm himself should not be subject to approval by a civil servant who will not be present to protect them. Even if the police are present when someone is being assaulted or killed, they don’t necessarily have a duty to intervene — as evidenced by the praise given to the two Marin County officers by their sheriff after the aforementioned incident.

Just as the Supreme Court affirmed a right to be armed in the home for self-defense, the courts of the District of Columbia should affirm the right of law-abiding citizens to be armed and defend their own lives outside of their homes. Ending “may issue” policies that work to ensure the victimization of average people will make the District, and eventually the nation, a safer and more just place to live.

— David Rittgers is an attorney and decorated former Army Special Forces officer who served three tours in Afghanistan and is now a legal-policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

[TYVets]

Years ago I read that police were present to stop 2% crimes from being committed.

I don't remember the source.

If that information is correct, you are on your own 98% of the time.

[rellimpank]

—bflr—

[AreaMan]

The lawsuit intends to make the District face reality. Criminals have guns. They brandish them when the police are not on the scene and victims are outside of their homes. The D.C. government should not handicap the honest, law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms in order to defend themselves.

This is a Sisyphean task.

[neverdem]

Years ago I read that police were present to stop 2% crimes from being committed.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect individual citizens

There have been more recent cases than those cited at the link, IIRC.

[Aroostook25]

Anybody still living in such anti-gun counties have opted to walkabout defenseless and a target in an open season. They could move to another State.

[itsahoot]

Great word. Sisyphean |ˌsisəˈfēən| adjective (of a task) such that it can never be completed.

[mad_as_he$$]

Cops are just there to do the paperwork and control traffic. If you expect a cop to stop a crime in progress against you - you will be let down.

[AreaMan]

Anybody still living in such anti-gun counties have opted to walkabout defenseless and a target in an open season. They could move to another State.

While what you say is true, it is not the American way.

This country didn't come into existence by "moving away" from the oppression but by moving against it. In the 1700's that move began with well reasoned arguments designed to persuade and avoid violence, yet preserve freedom. When all the fancy writing and philosophy was ignored and met with force, the people resorted to violent resistance.

This is a country of laws and when the arrogant and ignorant are in power it is our duty as Americans to fight them. The permanent political class use the law to bludgeon the law abiding public into submission because they are too lazy or corrupt to punish the criminals.

But, in practical terms you are still right. People have families to raise and lives to live while this is worked out in the courts. This country is big enough and free enough so that you can move at will to a place that respects your God given rights.

[Muzzle_em]

The choice is clear.
Carry without a permit.
Shoot or get shot and possibly killed.

This is LIFE not a dress rehearsal.
We have but ONE life.
Don’t put yourself in a position to be unable to defend your life or the lives of loved ones if it ever comes to that.

Better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission because the fedgov is positioned to say NO every time.

[Secret Agent Man]

Cops are there to take statements and do mop-up. It is extremely rare they ever stop a crime or are there when it’s being committed. You will, once in awhile, hear of the idiot burglar trying to rob the bar where all the cops go, or rob the restaurant where acop or two are eating right there. But otherwise, you are on your own.

Bottom line is, who would you rather have talking to the police when they come to figure out what happened at your house - the rapist/murderer/thief, or you? If you won’t do it for you, do it for your family that need you to defend them.

[Muzzle_em]

I do believe that if I were in a situation where there were no witnesses and someone tried to rob/hurt me, I would shoot with my non-registered weapon and get the hell out, leaving the perp to sort out the mess either at the hospital or in Hell.

I think as the years and the ridiculousness progress, you are going to see the above situation playing out more and more - dead thugs shot by would-be victims who fled the scene.

I KNOW that if I WITNESSED Joe Shmoe shooting a would-be robber, heck, I’d help him flee the scene and IF I provided any details to the police, it would be entirely inaccurate.

[jagusafr]

“When seconds count...”

Colonel, USAFR

[jagusafr]

Grossman says, “If you are authorized to carry a weapon and you walk outside without it, you have chosen to make yourself a sheep, not a sheepdog.” Amen.

Colonel, USAFR

[BuffaloJack]

Police do not stop crimes from happening. They document the crime after the fact.
It is your responsibility to protect yourself.

[BuffaloJack]

Police do not stop crimes from happening. They document the crime after the fact.
It is your responsibility to protect yourself.

[lentulusgracchus]

Cops are just there to do the paperwork and control traffic.

You have a right to a chalk outline and a ride to the morgue.

[OldPossum]

“Be that as it may, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect individual citizens.”

True. There’s an interesting book that goes state-by-state and outlines state laws on this very matter. The title is “Dial 911 and Die.” Don’t remember the author but I never forgot that title.

[Squantos]

Justice Janitors !