Posted on 12/10/2007 4:51:43 PM PST by Bob Leibowitz
I provided the relevant quotes from Pastor Boyd, above. There's no debate.
From a legal perspective, I don't see her as being different from anyone else with a CCW who might attend that church. Unlike Illinois which only allows carry by police or people who are actively employed as licensed security guards, private detectives, etc. the Florida CCW has no such requirement. Ms. Assam's duties as a volunteer security guard in no way affected her authority to arm herself.
“She was quite official. Unpaid, yes. Licensed to carry, yes. But she is an official security guard.”
The problem with your statements is the “official” carries with it the connotation the she was sanctioned by the *state* as a security guard. She was not.
By labeling her “official” you confuse people with the idea that she was a licensed security guard.
You’re dancing. I gave you the quotes by the pastor, you choose to redefine them. The problem is yours.
Her status is very specific. It was not a case of random person in the pew with a gun. She's part of the security team.
Does it matter whether the church considered her official or not?
While I believe that the description “official” would describe a person licensed by the state, acting under the authority of the statutes governing the profession of security guards, employed by a security company or under his or her own business license, carrying a bond and insurance, and meeting the recurring training requirements imposed by the state, you see it differently.
OK, so what. The facts of the matter are that a highly-probably massacre was halted by the actions of a single civilian carrying concealed in accordance with her CCW.
This goes into the ranks along with the Appalachian Law School and the others where civilians were the solution.
Is there a problem with that?
No, and yes. You want to make this an argument in favor of CCW, but it won't work as one. The other side can make it into a better argument for "letting the official guards do the protecting."
As I said before, I'm all for CCW, but you can't use this incident as an effective argument for it.
She was quite official.
Unpaid.
Volunteer.
Un-uniformed.
Own gun.
No training or supervision provided by church.
Carrying as individual licensed under civilian CCW.
If that makes her “official”, then flipping pancakes at the church breakfast makes me a chef.
Screened, trained, and approved by the church = official.
Screened, trained, and approved by the church = official.
And what is the evidence that she was trained by the church? (I thought the government-worshipers were crediting her Minneapolis police training?)
Not even breaking a sweat. There's no debate here, no matter how badly you want to make one up.
And what is the evidence that she was trained by the church? (I thought the government-worshipers were crediting her Minneapolis police training?)
Sigh. The training she received by New Life had to do with security arrangements, evacuation procedures, shelter-in-place procedures, and so on. She actually recommended the beefed-up security for that day, to Pastor Boyd.
She was an official member of the staff, albeit unpaid -- screened and approved by the church officials.
Given all your arguments, if she had not had a CCW, what then?
I agree with the pancake flipping chef from above. The lady had a gun. She carried it legally ONLY because of her CCW. She is a civilian, otherwise unlicensed.
The CCW is central to her story.
The rest is either semantics, differences without meaning, obfuscation, or just argument for the sake of it.
Aside from all the arguments about her status, she STOPPED further bloodshed. She killed the prick and should be commended for it.
She is part of the security team, and she is allowed to be an armed New Life security person because she's got a CCW permit and passed their screening.
Which is to say, CCW makes it convenient for New Life to have an armed security contingent -- they don't have to go through any formalities themselves.
And in so saying, it's clear that the real question is more generic than the one you posed. We already know that New Life had made the decision to have armed security on the premises. The question really has to do with what would have happened if El Paso County's CCW rules weren't as favorable as they actually are.
In the absence of the favorable CCW rules, they'd have two options: 1) They could forego armed security; or 2) they could have hired or chosen people who were licensed to carry under whatever more-restrictive regulations were in place. My guess is that they'd have chosen option 2 -- probably using off-duty cops.
No argument there.
She was fired for telling fibs. Her license is the CO CCW permit.
Her church ministry was to be armed
and protect her brothers and sisters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.