Carrying / Self-Defense – Page 44 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Bold Criminals in Wisconsin

I tend to agree with Uncle and Tam on the story about a Wisconsin open carrier who had his gun robbed from him. He lives in Wisconsin. It’s open carry or no carry there. This incident is part of the reason we need a concealed carry law in the Badger State.

At first I thought it was pretty ballsy to try to pull something like this, but if you think about it, it’s not really. All you have to do is get the drop on him. Feel confident enough to draw on a guy pointing a gun at your head? I don’t either. The great trick is not getting into a situation you get a gun pointed at your head. Everyone will make mistakes though, and if you’re targeted for robbery, and the robber is talented, you’re probably going to be screwed.

I wouldn’t be surprised, honestly, if the robber saw it as a challenge. Now he’s the criminals in the neighborhood who robbed the guy with the gun, of his gun. I’m sure that has to get you some street creds.

How They Do It in Texas

Anywhere else they would have hung this guy out to dry. The money quote in this is “Criado said the concerned citizen did not have a concealed handgun license but ‘we donâ€™t see any reason to charge the citizen who fired at the suspects believing they had killed the officer.'”

I often joke with Texans that in PA, for the most part, you can open carry without a license (which you can’t do in Texas with a license except on private property), and for concealed carry only have to worry about court houses (Texas has a number of off limits places, including some establishments that serve primarily alcohol). You can legally have a few beers at a bar and not run afoul of the law in Pennsylvania. But if you actually have to use your gun there’s no better jurisdiction than Texas. I think it’s the only jurisdiction left in the country that actually comes close to “because he needed a shootin'” being an affirmative defense.

Good News

Looks like the restaurant carry issues in Tennessee have been fixed over the Governor’s objections. Obviously not everyone is happy, but they don’t seem to grasp the new law doesn’t allow for consumption of alcohol while armed.

Open Carry Ban in California Passes Assembly

By a narrow margin, apparently. It still has to pass the Senate. It’s hard to tell, because California’s gun laws areÂ complexÂ and convoluted, but I’m pretty sure this outright prohibits open carry, even in unincorporated areas, which was previously legal.

How to Arm Lobbyists and Reporters

Offer to let CHL holders bypass the security line at the Capitol, which is happening in Texas:

Both veteran lobbyists are among dozens, perhaps hundreds, of the nearly 1,500 registered lobbyists who are scrambling to get state licenses to allow them to carry concealed handguns. Most don’t want to pack a pistol, though they legally could, but want the license to get into the State Capitol quickly during the legislative session that starts in January.

Even if they aren’t planning on carrying, just having them go through the course is a large benefit for our cause. It at leastÂ dispelsÂ the notion that carrying a firearm legally has anything to do with being a cowboy, or shooting it out over a parking space. This works in Texas because CHL holders are allowed to carry at the Capitol. This is not the case in Pennsylvania, where the Capitol is is off limits because of the presence of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Carrying a pistol will cost you time here, as there is a check-in process with the Capitol Police.

When Grizzlies Attack

A backpacker in Denali shot and killed a grizzly, as Arma Borealis reports, and goes into more detail about grizzlies and stupid commenters. This wouldn’t have been possible before the change in the law, as Denali was not one of the Alaska parks that allowed carry under the old regime.

What Not to Do

Shooting at fleeing suspects is generally going to get you into a lot of trouble, as this guy in Oregon just discovered. Oregon does permit one to use deadly force to stop a felony, but only while it’s attempting to be committed. Once the felony is already carried out and the perps are fleeing the scene, you can’t shoot to prevent flight unless you’re a police officer.

Who’s Packing in Philly?

Philadelphia Weekly has a pretty good article on who’s packing in Philly, featuring Dan, who went down with us to Charlotte:

Dan Pehrson rolls up to 1 Shot Coffee, a cafe in Northern Liberties, on two wheels, much like many of his environmentally conscious urban peers. Heâ€™s just the type of patron this establishment is accustomed to serving. The 28-year-old computer programmer is cool, calm and collected. And his lookâ€”blazer, jeans, sneakers, black-rimmed eyeglasses, hair tussled and neat at the same timeâ€”say hipster all the way. Pehrson, who lives in the Art Museum area, appears and acts much like everyone else at the coffeehouse. The fact that thereâ€™s a deadly weapon under his shirt seems to have no bearing on the way he carries himself. Truth be told, he wears his gun about as well as he rocks his navy blue blazer.

It’s a very good, fair and balanced article, though I’m amused by the hipster description. I’ll have to buy Dan a PBR next time I see him. I would note that they use stock footage. None of those people I think are the people in the pictures.

GRE Boycott of Marriott is Premature

I’m not going to join in the Gun Rights Examiner boycott of Marriott, because I think Marriott’s interpretation of North Carolina law is plausible, and I think the Examiners are missing the important issues. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on North Carolina law, and hold out the possibility that there might be case law that validates the Examiners’ position. But people need to understand case law before jumping to conclusions, and calling for boycotts, because it’s not individuals or corporation who determine the law, it’s judges. It is not my purpose here to assert that the Examiners are definitely wrong, but to take folks through the process of understanding how law works. I will leave it to the readers to comment as to who’s right or wrong.

The Examiners are taking one interpretation of North Carolina law, Marriott is taking another. I am not a lawyer, but I know something about Firearms Law, and if I were advising a friend on this matter I would say a Hotel with a license to serve alcohol is a prohibited place under North Carolina law. That’s not the only interpretation, but it’s the safe interpretation. Why it’s safe has to do with how law is made. First, let’s begin with the statute:

Â§ 14â€‘269.3.Â Carrying weapons into assemblies and establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any gun, rifle, or pistol into any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto, or into any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.Â Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(b) This section shall not apply to the following:

(1) A person exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14â€‘269;

(2) The owner or lessee of the premises or business establishment;

(3) A person participating in the event, if he is carrying a gun, rifle, or pistol with the permission of the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event; and

(4) A person registered or hired as a security guard by the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event.Â

What does “sold and consumed” mean? What areas does that encompass? You can say that’s common sense, but common sense won’t save you from a prosecutor and a judge who hate defensive carry looking to make an example and set some anti-gun case law.

I’ve tried to look for what case law there exists on the meaning of this, but I’ve been unable to find any. There have been prosecutions under Â§ 14â€‘269.3, but none of them involve anythingÂ ambiguous. The fact of the matter is that you can purchase alcohol at the hotel bar, and probably from room service, and consume it anywhere in the hotel. If I were advising a friend on this, I’d be very uncomfortable telling him that the only place off limits from carry is the bar area. The law says “sold and consumed” without specifying a scope for that. Mr. Valone relayed a story about asking the hotel desk whether he could buy a drink from them. It’s a novel argument. Maybe it would hold up in court. But would you be comfortable making that argument in court before a judge and jury? Because that’s the only way you can settle things like scope and meaning.

Marriott may not have been entirely correct in how they are framing the issue, because I doubt their PR flack is familiar with firearms law. And the Examiners are quite correct that North Carolina law does not require posting on theÂ premises, but Marriott’s assertion that it is unlawful to carry anywhere in their hotel is not an unreasonableÂ interpretationÂ of North Carolina law. If they don’t wish to have their customers arrested and prosecuted, then posting the legal requirement is not an unreasonable action on their part. If the Examiners can show me some case law that shows that the scope of the prohibition is as narrow as what they say, then I’ll relent. But until then I’m going to suggest that a boycott is premature, and their energies would be best sent in the direction of Raleigh, where pressure could be put on the people who actually have the power to change this bad law.

UPDATE: I should probably also address the issues created by Â§ 14â€‘415.11. I do not believe anyone who was carrying a firearm in the building, unaware that they had posted signs, is going to be liable for a crime. The statute itself requires “conspicuous notice” and when conventioneers entered the hotel, no notice was present. Their adding notice after folks were already in the building doesn’t amount to notice per this law. Generally speaking, you need to be aware you’re committing a crime in order to be charged under it (with some exceptions). You’re on much much firmer ground here than you would be if charged under Â§ 14â€‘269.3. If GRNC had wanted to, could it have bought alcohol from the Hotel for their GRNC event and had it delivered to that room? Drank it there? I’ll bet the answer is yes.

UPDATE: Howard Nemerov notes that his local Marriott hotels seem to follow state law. The question is what corporate policy is. If they banned concealed carry, I would jump on board with not doing business with them, but following local law is reasonable, and after doing a bit more research on North Carolina’s ABC statutes, it’s illegal to carry in a hotel in North Carolina that has a liquor license for on-premises consumption, which is most halfway decent hotels. Interestingly, if it was a hotel with an attached restaurant, you’d probably be fine, because you can’t legally take alcohol out of the restaurant and drink it (except at home or in your hotel room). But if the hotel has a bar, you can’t really carry.

UPDATE: They may be required to post, if you look at this section of North Carolina’s liquor laws.

It shall be unlawful for a permittee or his agent or employee to knowingly allow any of the following kinds of conduct to occur on his licensed premises: […]

(3) Any violation of the controlled substances, gambling, or prostitution statutes, or any other unlawful acts.

This is not an explicit demand to post signage about concealed weapons being prohibited, but I could see a lawyer believing that posting was the safe route. If they allow unlawful activity to occur in their hotel, they couldÂ jeopardizeÂ their liquor license. I’m going to admit this is a stretch, but corporate lawyers are notoriously cautious about exposing their employers or clients to risk.

Open Carry Activist Charged

Looks like he was involved in a shooting. I think that’s about all you can say until the facts come out. The coverage, obviously, is not a good thing for us.

UPDATE: More here and here.

UPDATE: Reading the situation over, it does not look good. He was shot while inside the car. Under some circumstances a car can be a deadly weapon, but it’s very difficult for me to see how this could be the case in a parking lot. On the surface, this does not look like a clean shoot.

UPDATE: Found the Criminal Complaint. Also it seems the alleged victim here had a history himself. The other victim did too. From the complaint, I wouldn’t say the victims were choir boys, but this isn’t a clear cut case of self-defense. Facts are in dispute, and when that is the case, it’s a jury of your peers who will sort out the facts and stand in judgement of the evidence.