Gun Control, Carolina-Style

I live in western North Carolina, an area of the country in which there never has been, and never will be, a shooting like the one this week at Virginia Tech. There are plenty of guns in western Carolina. There are two universities and a college, where potential victims like those at Tech, can be found by the thousands.

But, we have a different culture, here. To my experience, more than half of all households in Carolina own multiple guns. More than a quarter of all the local trucks and vans on our highways are carrying guns, mostly handguns. And the people in Carolina who own those guns know exactly how to use them.

Only a small fraction of the gun owners here have taken any formal training in handling guns. Most of them have, however, grown up all their lives using guns. They all know the basic rule: do not aim a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot them.

Some of the gun owners in Carolina are military veterans, where they received the most thorough training in using weapons, that anyone can get. The New York Times has mentioned, disparagingly, that rural men and women are more likely to join the military than those from suburbs or cities. The Times suggested falsely that rural youths have “nothing better to do,” and that’s why they sign up in greater proportion. No, it’s patriotism and pride; but those concepts are a tad foreign to the Times.

The bottom line is this: if any gunman started shooting students anywhere in western Carolina, he would never get to shoot more than 50 people, 32 of them fatally. The gunman himself would be dead before then, probably shot with a tight grouping by an armed civilian, even before any police could arrive on the scene. And, I suggest that our police would not hold back, fail to communicate, wait for orders.

The civilian shooter who would end the carnage in our part of the country could as well be a student as a teacher or other adult at any of our institutions. And if it turned out that the civilian shooter who dropped the murderer like a sack of feed, didn’t have a permit for his weapon? Well, the Sheriff of the appropriate county out this way would issue him a permit, and apologize for the delay. Any District Attorney who sought to prosecute the shooter who saved lives would be out of a job, as soon as the next election rolled around.

Let me explain the dynamics of “gun control.” I’ll do this in terms so clear that even Senator Barbara Boxer has a chance of understanding it. People who decide to shoot other people don’t give a cr*p about laws against murder. Obviously, they don’t give a cr*p about any laws on something as trivial as possessing a gun.

Therefore, ‘gun control” laws which makes it harder to buy, carry or use a gun, will have zero influence on those intending to murder their fellow citizens. If Senator Boxer wanted to find out how easy it is to get guns illegally, she should talk to police who are experienced in the weaponry available for cash on the barrel head, near any California high school, especially but not solely in the rough sections of town.

“Gun control” the way it is conceived and practiced by the likes of Senator Boxer means taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, and guaranteeing the criminals that they can ply their trade in a free-fire zone. Gun control, properly practiced, means take a wide stance, use both hands, “aim small to miss small,” and squeeze, don’t pull, the trigger.

Because a majority of the citizens in western Carolina practice that kind of gun control, that is why there never has been, and never will be, a shooting disaster here like there just was at Virginia Tech. A small story in a small newspaper, which the national press totally failed to notice, proves the point.

The Union Leader in Concord, New Hampshire, reported on 17 April a shooting the night before at the Uptown Tavern, Fifty people were present when one customer pulled a gun and started shooting. Nine shots were fired, the last two going into the shooter, from another customer who was carrying a weapon. No one was killed.

About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.

If I'm not dead, that's a "happy ending". Especially if I'm working in a convenience store. THAT's not a job worth dying for. In fact, I can't think of any job worth dying for.

Many of our convenience stores here locally are mom 'n' pop, and of course there are no negative job consequences to terminating the armed robber with extreme prejudice there. There was a little grocery up in NW GA somewhere where the old man who owned it and his wife bagged THREE armed robbers at one time - 2 dead, 1 wounded and arrested. No charges (it was a small rural community) and I think the sheriff wanted to give them a medal for removing three real troublemakers from the county.

The consequences to "carry anyway" are rough if it gets you thrown out of school or arrested. (Seems to me they could only arrest you if carrying on campus was a violation of law, not just school policy as at VT.) But if you lose a job at the Kangaroo or 7-11, it seems to me the risk/reward ratio is acceptable, particularly considering how much more likely it is that you're going to encounter some thug with a gun.

Sorry, but your premises are off the mark. Gun laws are even MORE oppressive in N. Carolina than they are in Virgina with respect to carry on university grounds. In Virginia there are no laws which prohibit carry by licensed individuals, only university regulations. In N. Carolina, it is a felony for an individual with a license to carry on university grounds. Furthermore there is a huge laundry list of other places which are off-limits in N. Carolina, such as restaurants which serve alcohol, any place which charges an admission fee, government offices. In addition the state's week pre-emption statute allows municipalities to ban open carry, and all types of carry in parks.

GRNC Calls For Student Self-Protection Law

GRNC President F. Paul Valone issued the following press release this afternoon:

Contact: F. Paul Valone, President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Telephone: (704) 907-9206
E-mail: pres@grnc.org
Release date: April 17, 2007

GRNC Calls For Student Self-Protection Law

On behalf of its thousands of members and supporters, Grass Roots North Carolina expresses its profound sorrow and condolences to the victims and families of the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.

Virginia Endangers Students

Ironically, in 2006 the Virginia General Assembly defeated legislation which could have prevented Cho Seung-Hui from murdering 32 students. HB 1572 would have enabled lawful Virginians with concealed handgun permits to protect themselves and others on college campuses within the state.

Said Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker in 2006: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and
visitors feel safe on our campus." (1)

Whether or not Virginia Tech administrators responded adequately in failing to lock down the campus following the first round of killings, school shootings over recent decades have demonstrated one indisputable reality: Police have neither the ability nor the responsibility to protect individuals from violent offenders.

Concealed Handgun Laws Deter Multiple Victim Homicides

Not coincidentally, the majority of multiple victim public killings occur in campuses and other locations where lawful citizens are prevented from keeping firearms for self-protection. Researcher John R. Lott, doing a sophisticated multiple regression analysis of such homicides, concluded: "The results...support the hypothesis that concealed handgun or shall issue laws reduce the number of multiple victim public shootings. Attackers are deterred and the number of people injured or killed per attack is also reduced..." (2)

North Carolina Must Act Now

GRNC calls upon members of the North Carolina General Assembly to act promptly to pass legislation similar to HB 1572, enabling faculty members, students and other concealed handgun permit-holders, who have proven themselves sane, sober and law-abiding, to protect themselves and others on college campuses throughout the state.

1. "Gun bill gets shot down by panel: HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee," Greg Esposito, The Roanoke Times, January 31, 2006, available at:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

"Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement," February 27, 1999. John R. Lott, Jr. and William M.
Landes, The Law School The University Of Chicago.

-----------------------------

You may find your representative by going here: http://www.grnc.org/contact_reps.htm

You may write your federal congressman by going here: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

You said — “The consequences to “carry anyway” are rough if it gets you thrown out of school or arrested. (Seems to me they could only arrest you if carrying on campus was a violation of law, not just school policy as at VT.)”

The prosecuting attorney in the case where the Colorado university student had guns in his dorm (in violtion of school policy) — said that he considers it a *violation of the law*, as he puts school policy as “law”. That’s why the university student was arrested.

So, I’m not so sure about it simply being “policy” in some of these cases.

The fact of the matter is — that “law-abiding” gun owners are going to *shy away from* anything that looks like they’re going to run afoul of the law. These *particular kinds* of gun owners (i.e. the “law abiding ones”) are not going to be the ones who decide to see if they can set themselves up for being prosecuted.

Regards,
Star Traveler

When girls take up shooting, they usually DO shoot better than most of the boys . . . not having all that "I know it all already" and macho factor to contend with.

Try putting the thin (not the fat) Pachmayer grips on any revolver you like and see if that doesn't help. The checkered wood grips are awkward to hold (and cut your hands up if you shoot a lot).

The thing about the PPK is that it's REALLY small and of course with the German engineering it is a thing of beauty.

This is what our old one looks like, it was made in the 60s.

This is what they're making now, on license to an American firm and produced in Gadsden, AL. The PPK/S is just a PPK with a slightly taller frame to get around the import restrictions of the 1968 GCA.

But pretty is as pretty does. Test drive a couple of the smaller 9mm semi-autos, and try out maybe a .40 S&W (an underrated cartridge) or even a .45, just to see. But if you can get a Bulldog in .44 that feels comfortable in your hand, that's pretty much foolproof protection. No worries about jamming, stovepiping or failure to feed - about the only thing that will jam a revolver short of actual mechanical failure is if you're shooting really hot loads and the primer backs out enough to keep the cylinder from rotating. . . . it has happened to me, but I was shooting absolutely top borderline handloads in a S&W .41 Mag for metallic silhouette. You're not going to be worried about that.

That prosecutor is exceeding his authority. "School policy" does not equal "law". A couple of people tried that in personal injury cases here in GA, claiming that violations of company policy or internal rule manuals constituted a violation of law and negligence per se for liability purposes. That was rejected outright by the courts -- and in the criminal law, it would be even more so, because a defendant has a constitutional right to have a reasonably understandable violation of the law charged against him. Any attempt to charge somebody in GA that way would result in a demurrer being granted to the indictment (i.e. the indictment would be dismissed).

Sounds like a Nifong, Jr. is loose in Colorado.

You said — “That prosecutor is exceeding his authority. “School policy” does not equal “law”.

Well, between you and me, that might be right. But, we’re not the ones doing the prosecuting. And, if you’re counseling others about avoid trouble and staying within the “boundaries” set up by the government for “law-abiding” gun usage (which gun owners say “they are”) — you have to point out that there are going to be over-zealous prosecutors who will go after you, even if they don’t succeed in the end — basically — to *send a message* to the public that “You are going to have *trouble* if you attempt to do this!”

And then you said — “A couple of people tried that in personal injury cases here in GA, claiming that violations of company policy or internal rule manuals constituted a violation of law and negligence per se for liability purposes. That was rejected outright by the courts — and in the criminal law, it would be even more so, because a defendant has a constitutional right to have a reasonably understandable violation of the law charged against him. Any attempt to charge somebody in GA that way would result in a demurrer being granted to the indictment (i.e. the indictment would be dismissed).”

And all that wold involve *trouble* and a *real hardship* for a lot of people. And so, it’s *that very thing* which is going to make people shy away from it.

Finally — “Sounds like a Nifong, Jr. is loose in Colorado.”

Yes, very much so. And with the Nifong case, didn’t those families *suffer* a great deal — something that should have never happened? And, will they *ever* recover from that? How about all the lost time, in regards to those students? How about the students who have been forced to go elsewhere and will probably never come back again? How about that story *always* following them around, everywhere they go?

And so, how many people are going to want to find *their Nifong* in court — because of some “policy” that they thought they could easily circumvent? Not very many — and that’s what is happening...

Regards,
Star Traveler

It is sad, but true, that the "law" in any jurisdiction is what the local Sheriff and States Attorney choose to prosecute. There are 15 counties in Western Carolina, and in 14 of those the Sheriff and SA would not prosecute someone who used a gun to stop a murder but did not have a permit, or a "legal right" to possess that gun when and where it was used.

I make that point in my article, since I know more than a little about the Sheriffs and SA's in the 11th Congressional District. The only exception to that statement is Buncombe County, which is dominated by very Democratic and left-wing voters and politicians. In that jurisdiction only, someone who saved lives by quick action with an (illegal) gun would be prosecuted. However, even there, I think that jury nullification, a refusal to convict, would protect the person who protected others.

It is hard for some other lawyers to admit and understand that the "law" is not what is printed in the law books, it is what is, and is not, enforced in the real world. That is one of the points in my article.

John / Billybob

Of course it would be a lot of trouble -- but it's a lot less trouble than being DEAD.

It's a question of degree here. If it's a choice between virtually a guarantee of having a gun pointed at you eventually (i.e. working for a pizza company or a convenience store) and getting fired, that's one thing. If it's a choice between really a fairly distant likelihood of a VT event and getting the whole machinery of the law coming down on you, that's quite another.

But the answer to rogue prosecutors and oppressive laws is not to curl up in a little ball and weep, "Oh! I can't do anything because they have all the power and it might cost me attorney fees!"

A pre-emptive challenge to the law brought by a sportsman's group is one answer. I know that works because I was one of the attorneys who challenged the Atlanta assault weapons ban on behalf of several local shooting clubs and gun shops. We won the case and the law was thrown out. Nobody had to get arrested.

Another way is to put up a good challenger and throw the bum prosecutor out at the next election.

You said — “A pre-emptive challenge to the law brought by a sportsman’s group is one answer. I know that works because I was one of the attorneys who challenged the Atlanta assault weapons ban on behalf of several local shooting clubs and gun shops. We won the case and the law was thrown out. Nobody had to get arrested.”

A pre-emptive challenge would certainly be a good way to go, presuming that you don’t end up making case law go the other way, and against you. But, I guess that’s what you do in determining which case would be a good pre-emptive challenge in the first place.

Those sorts of things are only going to be for certain people, in certain personal situations, who can afford to do that (along with some help from a lot of other people). It’s simply *not* for everyone. And thus, everyone else is going to stay away from “it” (whatever the “it” issue is) — until it is more fully settled in law.

You’re talking about a “select few” here and not the general public.

But, sure..., go for that pre-emptive challenge.

Regards,
Star Traveler

You said — “It is hard for some other lawyers to admit and understand that the “law” is not what is printed in the law books, it is what is, and is not, enforced in the real world. That is one of the points in my article.”

Yeah, and I think the prosecutors know that and they make “de facto” law by “bluffing” (if you want to call it that) in public. They do “send a message” to the public.

Well, heck..., they actually *say* they are “sending a message”. How many times have you heard a prosecutor say that?

Regards,
Star Traveler

Well, again, without delving into specifics which could be brought up again later, I used the ankle holster when I probably should not have. I also used one which held it in the small of the back, and so long as you have some manner of loose covering on (sports coat, sweater, etc.) and are not moving about too vigorously the weapon hides quite well. It being a .45 made a spot of difficulty now and again, but there were numerous times when I was ever so grateful to have a backup piece there.

Speaking of which -have I stressed enough that it was a hideout piece? The Colt was for more obvious work, but the Star was **ALWAYS** hidden away for when the main piece was not available to assist, and it came in handy more times than I care to mention!

You mention waist carry; perhaps looking up a custom fitter to make up a less-bulky holster would help. Again, and I must be specific here so as to not fall afoul of the law, I admit candidly that I carried when I probably should not have -not that I am advising you to do the same, mind, and of course *winces* I do not do that now. Rather more fond of breathing, even in a jail cell for protecting Myself and those I love, than becoming nothing more than a memory, I believed. Not that I am advising you to break the law *cough* but everyone needs to evaluate their priorities at times.

I mean, at one time it was the law to swear allegiance to the english king, and look where we are now.

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.