Posted on 04/10/2005 6:26:54 AM PDT by SLB
With more than four out of five states allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, that argument is finished. Now, the nation's long-running argument over guns turns on how much to loosen the rules — should guns be allowed in judge's chambers? Bars? In workplace parking lots?
The work in state legislatures following the latest spate of fatal shootings shows how much the debate has changed. The 1999 Columbine school shootings sent moms marching into the streets for tougher gun laws, but this year, many state legislators are looking at ways to broaden access to weapons and ease training and other requirements.
"Where do you stand on self-defense?" said New Mexico state Rep. Thomas Anderson, a Republican who said local judges asked him to change the law to let judges carry weapons into their court chambers. "I believe in it."
His bill died in committee, but it will be back next year. New Mexico this year already broadened its concealed-weapons law, passed just two years ago, to drop the age requirement to 21 and allow the state to reach agreements with other states so gun-carriers can cross borders without worry.
The push for concealed weapons began in the late 1980s, when all but 10 states refused to allow residents to do so, or only allowed it in special circumstances. But starting in 1989, those barriers fell. Now it's up to 46, with 35 states allowing just about anyone who is not a felon to get a permit.
The late 1990s saw a rise in gun control legislation. In 1999, after 15 were killed, including the gunmen, at the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, gun control gained a sharp edge and legislators' attention.
Violence hasn't subsided this year, from courthouse shootings in Atlanta and Tyler, Texas, to the school killings at Red Lake, Minn., the most deadly since Columbine. But the reaction has spurred something far different, drawing on the idea that if the victims had weapons they might not be victims.
"At the scene of these crimes, despite all the good intentions of the police, the prosecutors, the courts, the judges — they're all coming in later," said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. "The country as a whole is taking another look, across the board, at the idea that maybe it makes good sense to allow people to protect themselves in as many situations as possible."
Current legislation in some cases is a direct response to the recent shootings, though often predates it. In recent weeks:
_Florida legislators passed a measure allowing people to "meet force with force" to defend themselves without fear of prosecution, extending the right from their homes to anywhere they're legally allowed to be. Gov. Jeb Bush said he intends to sign it.
_Arizona's Senate approved letting people carry guns into bars and restaurants, as long as they're not drinking. The House has yet to act.
_North Dakota legislators approved removing the shooting test needed for a concealed-weapon permit, though the bill awaits final approval from the governor.
Even schools and workplaces, the scene of some of the most horrific violence, saw restrictions fall. A new Virginia law lets people with concealed handguns onto school grounds, as long as they and the gun remain in their car. A 2004 Oklahoma law lets employees with permits keep guns in cars in job parking lots.
"Employers have a responsibility to make their workplace a safe place. For them to let workers with guns onto the premises is insane," said Brian Seibel, senior counsel at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. And bars? "Hello? Do you want to mix alcohol and guns?"
The shift in opinion and legislation comes directly from the election outcomes of 2000 and 2004, and the national focus on security after Sept. 11, both sides agree.
"There's an ebb and flow," Seibel said. "There's no question that the NRA is on the offensive trying to roll back the gun laws on the books. ... Their vision of society is everyone ought to have a gun. That's not our view of a safe society. I don't think it's Americans' view of a safe society."
Still, the struggle hasn't all been one-sided.
Missouri, where legislators approved a concealed-weapon law even though a statewide referendum rejected it in 1999, gave cities the right to restrict weapons on city-owned property. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor John Street, both Democrats, are studying sweeping changes.
Illinois, one of the significant battlegrounds, saw legislation that seeks to ban .50-caliber ammunition, close a loophole that allows sales at gun shows without background checks, and require guns to be sold with "trigger lock" safety devices. Gun-rights interests scored a victory last week by killing a bill that would allow lawsuits against gun dealers.
Anderson, in New Mexico, said restrictions are outlawing the way he grew up, when he learned about guns before he was a teenager. In his view, restrictions make crime more likely, and his view seems on the rise.
"There should be the possibility that any house on the street should have a weapon," he said. "Do I think every house should have one? No. But the bad guy should think so."
FYI
The recent focus on child abductions, pregnant mothers being assaulted, police failures (Atlanta court shooting) and the knowledge that terrorism could strike anywhere have given life to the self-defense movement.
The passengers on Flight 93 showed that citizens can make a difference.
Exactly....
They might as well not have one. Once a shooting begins, they will never have a chance to get to their car to retrieve it.
It's better than nothing. They may not be covered at work, but at least they can protect themselves on the drive there and back. Where I work, keeping it in the car is not even an option. I'd be much happier with having one locked in my car than having it back at the house.
I don't believe in begging the state for a permit to excercise my fundamental (and Constitutional) right to defend myself with a firearm. IMO the permit process is nothing less than gun registration. My state (Maine) requires a person to 1): Pay and application fee; 2):Pay a background fee, and; 3): Pay for a government approved firearms safety course. On top of that the permit holder is in the state's data base and his "status" will be reported to the police if they stop him for a traffic infraction.
I don't need a license to excercise my First Amendment right to use a pencil, and I won't get one to excercise my Second Amendment right to carry a firearm.
Welcome to Free Republic. Registered just today, huh? Look in spirit I agree with your premises, but in fact as a LAW ABIDING citizen (which I think most freepers here will agree with) I try to obey the law when it comes to the carry of a concealed weapon. Are you trying to say that we should all break the law? Or that we DO break laws as a matter of course? Are you trying to paint the fourm in general as being a BUNCH of law breakers?
Hmmmmm ..... most New Mexico judges DO carry in the court room....when I was a deputy there I saw such many a time.
A Judge and DA is considered a Law Enforcement officer in NM I believe under the who can officially "rules"......unless a change was made in past 12 years.
Confusing read.....
As to Alaska and Vermont style carry what ya want I have to agree with the newoob. The RKBA's shouldn't be rented bact to us as a source of revenue. But agree with ExSoldier as my fight is not with the cop on the street it's with the polidiot that passes the BS laws.....VOTE !
If for now I have to have a permit...then OK. Time is working for the restoration of the 2nd IMHO.....I'd rather do my time, if possible, on the streets vs in a jail cooling my heels for impatience. RKBA's is here to stay ....can only get better IMO.
These days it may be a question of which "laws" are we going to break? The ones passed by legislatures and Congress, which they had no power granted by the Constitution to pass, or the Constitution itself, which is the highest law of the nation and/or the state? Are you going to uphold your oath, or go along with Congress.
These are no flippant questions. Nor I do think breaking the codified law in order to uphold the higher law is a trivial matter, nor one that should be done as long as other avenues are open.
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, not just firearms, but knives, axes, hatchets/Tomahawks, swords and "every other terrible implement of the soldier" (to quote Tench Coxe, one of the "second tier" founding fathers, prominent Federalist and friend of James Madison. Although Tench wasn't speaking directly of the second amendment, but rather stating that Congress had no power to disarm the militia or the people, although to him they were pretty much the same.)
Probably, but not necessarily. The "law school" shootings were stopped by students who ran to their vehicles and retrieved their firearms. A student who shot up a junior high was stopped from further mayhem by an administrator who retrieved his pistol from his vehcile.
Never is such an absolute term.
Going farther back in time, the Texas Tower "sniper", Charles Whitman, was at least slowed up and somewhat pinned down by students who ran to their pickup trucks and retrieved their long guns. I heard, live and in person, one "participant" in that action state that he retrieved an M-1 Carbine, set up a spot on a balcony of the library, and started shooting. He was spotted by a cop looking for his own perch, who told to him keep up the good work and moved on to locate a spot for himself higher up. The only real problem he had was getting the librarian to open the locked door to the balcony. :) I don't think the fact that he was carrying "the War Baby" bothered her a bit. (She was a Texas librarian after all :) ) Today the cop would stop worrying about the "sniper" and arrest the guy forcing him to keep his head down. At least in Austin, San Antonio, Dallas and Houston, the Carbine guy would be arrested for "brandishing" and "discharging a firearm within the city limits", not to mention violation of various "Gun Free" zone laws.
I guess you're probably right. I carry mine in my car all the time. It's just frustrating that teachers are not allowed to keep them locked in their drawer. That alone would be a deterrent to anyone wanting to have a mass shooting in the school.
I was engaged to the DA in my county and he told me that the DA is the chief law enforcement officer for his country. One of his deputy DA's carried his in a holster on his hip, right out in the open for all to see. It scared some people who complained to the DA, but he took the asst. DA's side, and let him keep carrying. I don't know if any of the judges carry but I know that LEO'S do.
My argument against such rules takes the form of a three-question true-false quiz:
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.