Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

The Arizona Rifleman talks about problems with stun guns.  I agree, they don’t even beat a well placed fist, knee or elbow in a lot of situations.  A friend of mine who reads, and can perhaps comment, had a similar experience where he volunteered to get zapped by one of these devices.  He felt it was only mildly painful, and would be easy for a determined attacker to fight through.  Even the taser type guns, which are far more useful, are only effective while they are actively zapping the person, and that’s only if the electrodes find their mark.

Speakertweaker is a Texan, the land where printing can get you in trouble.  He agrees with me that open carry should be legal, but warns “Don’t overdrive your headlights,” using a Drivers’ Ed metaphor.  Every time something like this comes up, folks seem to think I’m advocating never pushing beyond people’s comfort level.  That’s not what I’m saying.  But you do have to be cognizant not to push so far beyond most people’s understanding that they dismiss you, rather than thinking.

Most people don’t feel a need to carry a gun in public.  We don’t live in a society that’s so absolutely plagued by violence that most people are thinking about carrying a firearm for self-protection everywhere they go.  That’s why people have a difficult time wrapping their heads around carrying openly to a kids’ soccer game.  The disconnect for people is that they assume that carrying a firearm is a large burden, when it is not.  It’s less burdensome than carrying a cell phone.  When people see that it is burdensome, even if it’s only socially burdensome, they aren’t going to conclude that people who carry firearms for self-protection are normal, they are going to conclude they are unusually fearful.  That’s not really the image we want people to have of public carry.

Breda illustrates the difference between weapons and jewelry, just in case there was any confusion.

Looks like they made a fatal mistake in the vicitim selection process.

We’re getting some comments in the post directly below that touch on a few issues I want to address in a separate post.  I don’t deny that the gun rights movement is a civil rights movement.  The ability to defend oneself is one of the most basic natural rights that one can imagine to exist.  I can’t imagine what comes ahead of self-preservation.

With the fact that our struggle is a civil rights struggle, there will be parallels between ours and other civil rights struggles.  In terms of strategy, tactics, and even sometimes rhetoric.  But I think we have to resist thinking of ourselves as an oppressed minority in the same vein as those who experienced systematic, government sponsored racial discrimination at the hands of Jim Crow.  As much as many of us might want to wear that badge, the public won’t buy in.  Race is something people are born into, and they can’t escape or hide from it.

We’re probably more like the gay rights movement than we were are the civil rights movement, in that while I believe many people can’t help being gay, they can certainly help their behavior.  The reason the gay rights movement has been successful is because by coming out of the closet, people suddenly realized that they knew a lot of gay people, and more importantly, they were normal.  They were your family members, your neighbors, and coworkers.  Would the gay rights movement have been as successful as it has been if this guy had been their public face?

Whether we like it or not, we do live in a world where some people are afraid of guns, just like some people were once afraid of gays.  Those people do need to be educated, and relieved of their ignorance.  But I question whether appearing openly armed at a kids’ soccer game, when other people have expressed discomfort with the idea, and politely requested you stop, is really accomplishing that goal?  Or is that more likely to convince other people that gun owners are odd and belligerent?  Whether we like it or not, I think we need to be reasonably accomodating to the people around us, and keep in mind that when carrying openly, you’re representing all gun owners, so that gives the rest of us a right to bitch.  Sometimes, that’s going to mean having to go concealed in certain situations.  I would argue that a kid soccer game, when other parents have objected to the presence of your side arm, is one of those situations.  I’m not saying people who open carry, or do open carry activism need to give it up.  I am suggesting that common sense be exercised, and people be mindful about how they are making other gun owners look.

We’ve talked about context on this blog before, though it was a while ago.  I am a supporter of open carry of a firearm being legal and acceptable, and I don’t agree with the unlawful behavior of many government officials when it comes to enforcing laws that don’t exist.  That is why I have supported open carry folks when they get into trouble.  The practice is legal in Pennsylvania, and even though some officials don’t like it, tough.  It’s a lawful activity.

But I’m increasingly finding myself on the other side of open carry advocates when it comes to social pressure, which I think is not a matter for government.  I point to this article involving the soccer mom losing her License to Carry.

Parents were upset by the presence of the weapon at the game being played by 4- and 5-year-olds, said Charlie Jones, who coaches one of three under-age-6 teams, known as U6, in the Lebanon Recreation Youth Soccer program.

“More than one parent was upset,” he said. “I did not see it, but it was brought to my attention.”

I agree that Ms. Hain has a legal right to carry her pistol openly unmolested, but I also agree that just because you have a right doesn’t mean you get to be immune from social decorum and social pressure.  Looking at the comments, I see:

She must love the attention. If you have a concealed permit, carry it concealed! She wanted the attention by doing this at a little kids soccer game. I hope she’s happy with the attention she is getting. I’m a gun owner with a permit as well.

—

This lady makes all proud gun owners such as myself look like morons. Little kids dont need to be around that nonsense legal or not. OUT OF SITE- OUT OF MIND. Carried Concealed!
HAVE SOME BRAINS, I dont think many people get Mugged at a kids soccer game!

—

I have a carry permit and carry when I can. but to openly carry at a kids game wasnt very smart. in this paranoid world, she was asking for trouble by doing so openly instead of concealing it. Nothing wrong with going to the game with a sidearm.

On a lighter note, I bet it kept the ref’s honest!

I have to wonder about the wisdom of this when even most people who have carry licenses think this is really going too far overboard.  I know the goal of open carry advocates is to get the public used to seeing law abiding citizens with guns, but I’m coming to increasingly question whether or not this goal is actually being accomplished, as the situations open carry people are finding themselves in become increasingly bizarre and outside the realm of where I think even the general gun owning public can sympathize.

I’ve sort of hinted about this issue before in the Dickson City incident a few months ago.  I will continue to support open carry being legal, and highlight abuse by state officials when they attempt to stifle this lawful activity.  But I really think open carry activists need to rethink what the public perception is going to be if they get create a stir in some situations, and perhaps be a bit more mindful of public perceptions of what they are doing.  Yes, you have a right, but we also have to get along in a society with other people who might have different experiences and beliefs about armed self-defense.   There’s a lot to be said for changing public perceptions, and getting the public used to the idea of people carrying firearms for self-defense, but perhaps a kids soccer game is not the best venue to begin that education.

Everyone and their brother has been e-mailing me this story.  I would have covered it yesterday, but things have been extraordinarily busy:

Officials in Pennsylvania have revoked a woman’s concealed-weapons permit because other parents complained that she was carrying her loaded handgun at her daughter’s soccer games.

Meleanie Hain says she’s fighting the revocation by the Lebanon County sheriff.

Hain lost the permit and got a warning from local soccer officials after a game on Sept. 11.

Sheriff Michael DeLeo says openly carrying a weapon to a youth soccer match shows a lack of judgment.

Well, that’s all well and good, except for the fact that openly carrying a firearm is legal in Pennsylvania, and a sheriff’s perception of judgement isn’t a reason to yank an LTC.  We’ve been through this before in Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania is technically listed as a shall-issue state, but in reality we are may-issue.  The sheriffs exercise an extraordinary amount of discretion in issuing and revoking licenses, and that’s a discretion that’s going to be taken away if they keep insist on abusing it.

Everyone in Pennsylvania who carries regularly should get themselves a Florida license.  It’s good in Ohio and Delaware, and Florida is truly shall-issue, and they won’t revoke unless you commit a crime or violate one of the enumerated conditions for having the license.

UPDATE: Dustin beat me to this one.

SayUncle, Robb and Dave Hardy report that Florida’s licensing rate is up to 1 in 35 residents.  Pikers!  All of them.  Pennsylvania issues about 550,000 – 600,000 licenses to carry in total, which comes out to about 1 in 20 Pennsylvania residents with an LTC.  And you can’t even open carry in Florida!  Of course, even in states where open carry is legal, you still have some places that aren’t getting the message.

It would be a great story if the person who defended himself were a newly minted Heller DC gun owner, but it’s still pretty good.

Via SayUncle, South Carolina finally has reciprocity with a state I actually have a license from.