Concealed Carry

Literally only Chicago voted against it, but the state governor appears opposed.  If it passes, it's a step forward.

UPDATE: The Senate is trying to alter the deal.

You may remember earlier posts about Missouri illegally providing a list of its concealed-carry licensees to the Department of Homeland Security.  The governor of that state claimed he didn't know about the request.  Turns out he was lying and even received an official thank-you letter from Janet Napolitano.

Democrats enjoy a supermajority in the Illinois House of Representatives, holding 71 seats to the GOP's 47. On Wednesday, the same day the US Senate voted down gun control legislation, powerful Democrat Speaker Michael Madigan tried to push a restrictive gun control measure through his chamber. The result was an open revolt by downstate Democrats, with almost half the Democrat caucus joining the GOP to kill the measure. The bill went down 31-76, a rare defeat for the legendary Madigan. 

"Worst CHL in America" goes down to defeat in Illinois. 

The shall-issue preemption version of concealed-carry got a significant majority vote (64-45) but needed a supermajority of 71 to pass.

The Illinois legislature is under pressure to pass some sort of concealed carry bill since a court has struck down their current law as unconstitutional. 

Hat tip to John Lott.

They requested it twice: once in November 2011, and once in January (presumably January 2013).  The request was not made in writing, but is reportedly related to a search for individuals with a mental diagnosis or disability who also had a concealed carry license.  That doesn't seem like a proper, legal purpose to me.  It sounds like a fishing expedition for politically damaging material and a violation of the 4th Amendment.

I wonder how many other states they have asked for (and received!) information from?

I've mentioned this before.  More details are becoming available as State Senator Schaefer investigates.

The case is Woollard v Gallagher.  Volokh has some analysis.

Losing this case is not a disaster; there are still appeals and we have been winning the shall-issue fight in the legislature.  Maryland is one of the few holdouts.

John Lott has the details, and the details are where the devil lives.  There are so many restrictions being piled on, many of them including "within a thousand feet of" or parking lots for, that by the time they are finished, you won't be able to carry anywhere, at least not within a city.

This isn't the Supreme Court, but it's one step closer.

In the 1950s, Democratic politicians in Virginia, led by Sen. Harry Byrd Sr., undertook an effort called "massive resistance." Through various legislative and administrative means, they sought to circumvent the mandate for school integration that the Supreme Court had issued in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education.

Similar stirrings can be heard today in Illinois--specifically, from the Cook County State's Attorney's office, which prosecutes crimes in Chicago. At issue is not the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection before the law, but the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

See, a federal court has ruled that Illinois must have some provision for legal carry of arms within their state.  Other states have carry laws that basically boil down to "every honest citizen without a license" (constitutional carry),  "any honest citizen who asks for a license" (shall-issue), and "you have to beg for permission, but sometimes we'll grant it."  Illinois was the only state that didn't even let you beg for permission, and the court decided that didn't pass muster under the 2nd Amendment, so it struck down the law and gave the state 180 days to come up with something else.

The legislature is still trying to figure out what to do, but some of the people testifying are saying that they don't have to do anything -- that they can just ignore the federal court ruling and continue to enforce their existing law, at least until the Illinois Supreme Court makes a ruling one way or another.

This calls for a toast.

Ladies and gentlemen... confusion to our enemies!

Guns, Cars, and Tech has some concerning news, but it's tiny compared to all the other gun control stuff going on.  If you're going to get a concealed carry permit in Tennessee, though, make sure you're practicing with the right target.

The state of Illinois has been the last holdout state on the concealed carry issue, allowing neither open nor concealed carry of handguns by its residents for self-defense purposes.  Recent federal court decisions have ordered the legislature to respect their citizen's right to bear arms, though the exact nature of a new law on the subject is an open question.  The issue did bring up yet another prediction of blood in the streets from Chicago's police chief:

"I don't care if they're licensed legal firearms, people who are not highly trained? putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I'll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and we're going to have tragedies as a result of that. I?m telling you right up front."

Now, it's important to understand that Illinois is the ONLY state remaining that does not allow some form of bearing arms.  None of the other 49 states which allow their law-abiding citizens to bear arms have had problems with this.  Crime did not skyrocket.  Blood did not run in the streets.  Police did not have to shoot down anyone they saw with a gun.

That police chief is dangerously close to saying his officers will shoot first if they see a gun, even if that gun is carried by a law-abiding citizen with a legal concealed-carry license.  I sure wouldn't want to be a Chicago resident with one of the first Illinois concealed-carry permits.  It will probably take lawsuits to get the police attitude corrected, which is rather hard on the people who get abused in the process.

If that sounds discouraging, that's probably the intended effect.

"I don't care if he has a permit or not" says the officer on the scene.  7 minutes of video at the link. 

Looking at it from a technical perspective, the officer might be correct; some states require notifying the officer yourself if you are stopped while carrying, others do not.  Similarly, some states treat accidental exposure of a concealed firearm as an offense even with a license, others don't. 

There's an interesting dynamic in the video, too, as things start off as a normal traffic stop, rapidly escalate to panic and threats of violence from the officer when he sees the concealed firearm, and then slowly calm back down as the officer realizes he's dealing with a law abiding citizen whose only mistake was not mentioning his lawfully-carried firearm and license immediately.

Note that the person stopped here still got arrested and may face charges, despite his permit and the fact that he wasn't doing anything wrong, just because the officer noticed his firearm before he informed the officer that he had a firearm. 

This is not justice.  Law-abiding citizens should not be subject to arrest because a police officer had a panic attack.  I could understand a few tense moments, or the officer temporarily disarming the citizen for the duration of the stop.  Arresting someone over this situation, as clearly shown on the video, is wrong and is nothing more than the officer getting revenge on a law-abiding person who scared him.

I'm sure the officer was openly carrying his own firearm, and the citizen was probably a little nervous too.  That doesn't justify abuse of authority or taking any kind of revenge.

UPDATE: The comments on this post indicate that Florida did not have a notification requirement at the time of the incident.  That makes it absolutely clear that the officer was out of line.  The prosecutor, to his credit, refused to bring charges.

See the FIRE post for more details.  Here's the gist:

CCAC also told Brashier that the college must pre-approve any distribution of literature to fellow students, and that pamphlets like hers would not be approved, even insisting that Brashier destroy all copies of her pamphlet.

Brashier reports that she was also interrogated about why she was distributing the pamphlets, whether she owned a licensed firearm and had ever brought it to campus (she has not), whether she carries a concealed firearm off campus, and whether she disagrees with the existing college policy banning concealed weapons on campus.

When Brashier stated that she wanted to be able to discuss this policy freely on campus, she was told to stop doing so without the permission of the CCAC administration. Dean Burns reportedly said, "You may want to discuss this topic but the college does not, and you cannot make us." Brashier was then told to cease all activities related to her involvement with SCCC at CCAC and that such "academic misconduct" would not be tolerated.

Is it even possible to make more mistakes than this school did?  The First Amendment prohibits content-based speech restrictions and prior restraint on speech.  The 2nd protects the right to own a firearm, the 5th protects the student from answering questions that might incriminate her (since concealed carry on campus is presumably not allowed by law in PA), the 4th protects the student from having her property destroyed, and as an educational institution that presumably accepts state and federal money, the school is bound by those limitations. 

The threat of using political speech activity as "academic misconduct" is just icing on the cake. 

I ran across this press release purporting to be a news article.  It claims that the Texas "concealed carry on campus" legislation will "force" concealed guns on campus.  It also quotes a student at Virginia Tech who knew one of the victims (now a graduate student at University of Texas):

The fact that the state senate refused to accept an amendment keeping guns out of campus bars and hospitals shows that this bill is ideologically motivated and has little to do with student safety and campus security."

For your information, Mr. Woods, the concealed carry law in Texas already forbids carry in bars.  And if a hospital wishes to prevent individuals from carrying a firearm on their premises, they are certainly capable of posting the standard 30.06 sign like everyone else.

I'm prepared to forgive a little ignorance on the part of the general public, but journalists should know what they are talking about... as should those who hold advocacy positions in special interest groups like the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus and the  Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.  But then, the anti-gun bigots have long used ignorance and prejudice as their tools in advancing an agenda that condemns women and minorities to suffer victimization at the hands of those who are stronger or more numerous.

Over at A Keyboard and a .45, there's information on the status of two pieces of legislation of interest to pro-gun Texans.  If you want the ability to keep a gun in your car without risking sanction from your employer, or want to carry (with a concealed carry license) on campus, you need to make your calls ASAP.

It's rare to see an article in the mainstream media that's positive about gun rights.  But when I look at the author, it's not so surprising: the article was written by Declan McCullagh, whose work I have followed for some time through his PoliTech mailing list and blog.

He's covering one of the gun-rights cases in California, this one focused on obtaining shall-issue concealed carry.  This is an issue where California is particularly vulnerable, as there have already been cases where the country sheriffs have used the concealed carry licensing system as their personal privilege to extend or deny to political supporters and opponents.

... whether allowing concealed carry on college campuses could make a difference, consider the example described in this article.  10 lives saved, one criminal dead and the other fled.  My own state of Texas may be about to pass a law allowing concealed carry on campus, and while it's probably not a response to this specific incident, it's certainly the hypothetical possibility of lives saved by an immediate armed response that has been driving the legislation.

... for openly and legally carrying a firearm at her child's soccer game has now gotten it back.  And thus justice is served, even when law enforcement is determined to prevent it.

... and The Mad Rocket Scientist explains just how large that responsibility is.

By way of SaysUncle comes information on H.R. 4547, a bill creating national concealed-carry reciprocity.   This is the right way to do national concealed carry.  Just like the states are required to recognize a driver's license issued in another state, they should be required to recognize a concealed-carry license issued by another state.  Unlike a federal licensing system, this is Constitutional, and it allows each state to set its own criteria.  My only gripe would be the fact that it would probably require an official act to kick in -- that is, Alaska and Vermont residents would need to get a permit in order to get the benefits of reciprocity.  Neither state currently requires a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

The legislature of Wisconsin has voted to allow concealed-carry.  The governor has vetoed the bill.  On Tuesday, January 31st, a veto override vote is scheduled.  More information is available from Packing.org -- and if you live in Wisconsin, you might want to call your critters.

Recently, a friend was looking for crime statistics on concealed-carry.  She was debating someone whose idea of a citation was "Hey, I read it years ago in an article of Scientific American.  I trust those peer-reviewed articles more than anything you can show me."

The way to deal with these people is not to become frustrated; it's to realize that they aren't listening and aren't ready to listen. They are arguing with you in order to hear themselves talk, and reinforcing their own beliefs by "refuting" (ie, ignoring) your arguments. 

There's no point in arguing directly with people who don't want to see the evidence.  But you can point out for the audience, if any, that the person on the other side is ignoring the evidence, and to do that, it helps to have some evidence at hand.

Here's some for next time, with a hat tip to Zendo Deb.

... apparantly can't be trusted to know the law.  This is a problem, and it's one of the things that makes a national concealed-carry system attractive.

According to The Beagle Express, one of the victims of the Tacoma mall shooting was carrying a concealed firearm, and was shot after drawing his weapon and confronting the attacker.

This is what shall-issue concealed carry means.  Not that mall shootings happen and can't be stopped; they'll happen regardless of the concealed-carry laws.  What I'm referring to is what almost happened; the murdered was almost stopped four hours before the police could "negotiate" with him.

You may remember a somewhat recent (in the last year, I think) shooting in Texas.  A concealed-carry permit holder was on the scene, armed, and exchanged gunfire with the criminal, saving several lives at the cost of his own.

You don't hear about this aspect of these events in the media much, but it is happening with increasing frequency.  Do the math: there are 21 million people in Texas, and 223584 permits, so about 1% of the population is licensed to carry.  That means, if you are in a place with at least 100 people nearby, and you are in Texas, and you're not in a location where concealed firearms are forbidden, then someone around you is probably carrying.

To be honest, probably more than one -- not everyone carries legally, and there are legal ways to carry a firearm with you in your car without obtaining a license.

These people have indicated their willingness to do violence in order to protect themselves, and quite possibly to protect those around them.  They don't smell funny and they don't look any different.  But every single one represents the opportunity to stop a murderer in his tracks, cutting their rampage short.

But they'll smile and say hello and play with your kids safely.  They aren't dangerous, because they are guardians, not predators.  They are safe because their firearms handling skills are meticulous, due to experience, practice, and training.  After all, it's something they do for fun.  The real thing isn't fun, but similar skills apply.

The more people who take up the responsibility of bearing arms, the better off everyone will be, because there will always be more murderous psychotics... but the supply of guardians is all too limited.

UPDATE: Mr. Completely notes that there is a medical fund for Dan McKown, to which you can donate at any Bank of America branch.

A while back I reported on an interesting case: David Bach, an experienced military officer and alleged "badass", was suing New York to obtain a concealed-carry permit valid in that state.  Bach lives in Virginia, but regularly travels to visit family in New York, and would like to be able to protect himself on those journeys by carrying his personal firearm.  New York, of course, would rather he did not. 

Although Bach lost his case, there's a law review article out suggesting that he should have won.  It should come as no surprise that I agree.  He should have won.  Even leaving aside the combination of the 2nd + 14th amendments that should protect the right to bear arms universally, if a marriage license in Virginia is valid in New York under the Privileges and Immunities and full-faith-and-credit clause, so should a concealed-carry license be.

It's an interesting exploration of a little-visited section of the Constitution, and worth the read if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry today announced that it is calling upon the Ohio General Assembly to remove the flawed media access loophole from the new concealed handgun license law.

The move is being made following the announcement by Shelby County Prosecutor Jim Stevenson that, in response to his request, Court of Common Pleas Judge John D. Schmitt has appointed a special prosecutor (Miami County Prosecutor Gary Nasal) to look into possible criminal violations by Shelby Co. Sheriff Kevin O'Leary and Sidney Daily News editor Jeffrey Billiel, a Brown Publishing Co. employee.

At least ten Ohio Concealed Handgun License-holders have contacted OFCC's Office of General Counsel for advice on seeking legal recourse for damages related to the release of their private, protected information. These people were referred to Attorney Ken Hanson with the firm of Firestone and Brehm, Ltd., for legal help.

Seems that some Ohio sherriffs released their list of concealed-carry-permit holders to the media, and the media decided to print the list, as many had threatened to do. While printing a list of names and addresses for people known to carry firearms is a royally stupid thing to do, no doubt, there are free-speech implications here, especially as the penalties available under the law for this act appear to be felonies. This will likely ruin the sheriff and his pet newspaper if the charges stand, along with all of the innocent people whose personal information has now been publically disclosed. It would have been much more proper for forbid the release of the information at all; as it is, the permit holders have already been harmed, and that harm cannot be undone. All we can do is punish those who harmed them.