Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

I was debating whether to make a blog post about this at all, but it seems after tragedy strikes, we’re always a bit eager to find out whether the shooting happened in a gun free zone.   I recognize the political value of pointing things like this out, but I do have to question the practical value when it comes to gun free zones that are not enforced by the law, and are enforced by fine print.

It seems sure that college campuses throughout the country are, for all practical purposes, actual gun free zones.  Either you have force of law backing that up, in cases of states like Texas and Tennessee.  Or you have the threat of expulsion of firing backing it up, in the case of Virginia or Pennsylvania.  But the recent mall incident in Kansas City doesn’t really persuade me.

How many of us honestly follow weapons prohibitions posted in fine print?   Do we read the fine print on doors as we enter an establishment?   I don’t.   I’m sure the malls I carry in on a regular basis have a policy of some sort that prohibits weapons on their property.  I don’t go out of my way to check.  If they want me to notice, they can post conspicuously.

I think it’s more honest just to admit that, just like police can’t be everywhere, people who lawfully carry guns can’t be either.  Sometimes incidents, like the one in Kansas City, are going to happen, and sometimes, there won’t be anyone nearby who is legally armed.

It’s worth it pointing out the uselessness of these prohibitions, but I doubt anyone is actually paying attention to them, including permit holders.  I think for some of these tragedies, it comes down to the odds not working out.   That will happen sometimes.

Reader Nathaniel points to conflicting reports from both CenterDaily and The Collegian, about a man arrested on campus for weapons possession. First CenterDaily:

A Penn State student remained in jail Sunday night after arriving at an on-campus concert with three weapons, including a gun, and fighting with police as they tried to investigate.

Just before midnight Saturday, university police said they were advised a man in the crowd at the Movin’ On concert on the HUB lawn was carrying a firearm.

As officers approached the man — later identified by police as Isaiah R. Houston, age unavailable, of 137 Creekside Drive, College Township — a struggle immediately ensued, said university police Lt. Bill Moerschbacher.

Houston, who police said was drunk at the time, was carrying an expandable baton and a knife, Moerschbacher said. But the weapons were brandished, he said.

“As it turns out, the firearm was lawfully owned,” he said. “He had a carry permit.”

The charge is carrying prohibited offensive weapons, not carrying of a concealed firearm. The relevant statute is here. Basically the list of prohibited weapons is as follows:

Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

My guess is, depending on the knife, they are charging him with the expandable baton. It is an exception to this part of the statute that the actor was in compliance with the National Firearms Act, so your NFA stamp makes you legal for some of them. It’s important for Pennsylvanians to note that the LTC covers only firearms. It’s legal to carry certain types of knives, but others are illegal. Must bludgeons are also illegal.

From the collegian:

Moerschbacher said Houston did not take out the firearm before or during the struggle.

“He didn’t threaten anyone with the firearm or anything,” he said. “The struggle is really what precipitated that arrest and discovering the other items.”

Jameela Truman, director of Movin’ On, said she witnessed the arrest.

She said she felt threatened by the event, but the police “fully handled the situation.”

Possessing a firearm is illegal on campus, Moerschbacher said. However, he said if the handgun is legally registered, police will ask the owner to leave or surrender the gun to the police. If the handgun is illegal, police will arrest the possessor, he said.

Either the Penn State paper got it wrong, or Moerschbacher is misrepresenting the law here. It is not against the law to possess a firearm on the campus of a University if you’re in possession of a License to Carry Firearms. But they do state the charges here:

Isaiah R. Houston, 137 Creekside Drive, was charged with public drunkenness, resisting arrest and possessing prohibited offensive weapons.

They don’t mention here that he’s being charged with unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm, which tells me that he probably does indeed have an LTC, which he will now lose. His carrying the firearm on university property was not illegal. That said, Houston is clearly a bozo, and is someone who ought not have a license. He’ll lose his, and I’m not going to shed a tear for him, because:

1. He was carrying his firearm while he was intoxicated
2. He fought with police when they asked him to leave school property.
3. He was carrying other weapons which are not covered under the LTC, and were illegal.
4. He allowed someone to spot his weapon. In my five years of carrying a firearm, I’ve never had anyone notice I was carrying one.

It is for certain that the Penn State Campus Police can’t arrest someone from carrying a concealed firearm unlawfully if the carry on campus while in possession of a valid LTC. But Penn State Campus Police policy has always been to remove anyone from campus found in possession of a firearm. The state’s preemption statute prevents political subdivisions of the state from making rules more strict than the laws of the state, but I don’t know whether Penn State is allowed to exercise its powers as a property holder. I suspect this is a legal gray area.

Unless the legislature wants to clarify this, or the courts make a decision on it, if you’re carrying on campus at a university in Pennsylvania, it’s best to be discrete, and if the police ask you to leave campus, to do so.

UPDATE: Follow the links in the comments. It seems Houston claims he was not, in fact, drunk, and that the Penn State Police basically used physical force to detain him. He is indeed charged with carrying the baton. I don’t know case law to know whether or not this is against the law. The law names several bludgeons by name, but has the catch all at the end. It’s advisable that people be careful about carrying non-firearm weapons.  Yes, it’s ridiculous, but that’s because there’s a better gun lobby than a bludgeon lobby.

Clayton Cramer reminds us:

If You Have a Concealed Carry Permit For Your State

You should feel obligated to be carrying at all times right now. The media attention to the Virginia Tech massacre–and now this tragedy in Kansas City–is going to put ideas into people who may have been thinking homicidal/suicidal thoughts. Protect yourself, your loved ones, and the general public.

He’s right.

Ahab reminds gun owners of something pretty important:

I carry a gun. I would guess that a pretty big chunk of my readers also have carry permits in the states of their residence. What I find extremely disturbing about the story itself is the media’s reaction. Despite the fact that the DA and the police have decided that the CCW holder was within his legal rights, there is all sorts of outcry from the dead criminal’s family. The news story linked tries to portray the dead criminal as some sort of choirboy, gunned down in the prime of life or some nonsense.

When did we start having sympathy for perpetrators of violent crime? Why is it okay to demonize someone who acted in defense of his own life in the face of violent aggression? To me, this story and the way it’s playing in the media serves as a warning to those that choose to go about armed: even if the law says that you did no wrong you can expect to be crucified in the press. Doubly so if your attacker was a youth, or if he’s a minority and you’re not, or if you shoot your attacker “several” times.

It is unfortunate to me that in this day and age, we would rather have sympathy for a young man that died reaping precisely what he had sown than express our concern for the man who has to bear that death on hisconscience for the rest of his life.

It bothers me too.  I saw this a few days ago on The Volokh Conspiracy.  There is a sentiment among some, perhaps many, in the population, that because robbers don’t usually kill their victims, that this man who was carrying a firearm to defend himself was not justified in using deadly force to stop his attacker.

I don’t subscribe to this warped sense of morality, needless to say.  When someone comes up to me and points a gun at me, what he’s telling me is:

“I value that money or object I want from you more than I value your life; your life is worth no more than whatever you might have in your wallet.”

When someone crosses the line into lowering the value of another human life to that degree, I see no reason why other people should feel any particular reason to value that person’s life at any higher level.   Whether the robber intends to shoot his victim or not, pointing a loaded deadly weapon at another human being in an inherently dangerous act.  When you decide to engage in that kind of behavior, you devalue your own life by devaluing the lives of others.  It matters little to me that this youth was fifteen.  He was old enough to pick up a gun and go try to rob people.  If he’s old enough to make that choice, he’s old enough to pay the price with his life for having made it.

I would not feel very good if I were in a position where I had to shoot a teenager in self-defense.  I suspect that Mr. Wells will also have a tough time dealing with it.  Most decent people can’t kill another human being without suffering significant psychological consequences.   I feel bad for the family of the robber, but their child suffered the consequences of his choices in life.  It’s not fair or proper to put the blame on Mr. Wells, who was merely defending himself.

I’m trying to join a private shooting club.  The Pennsylvania Game Commission has closed the public outdoor range in my county, and although I maintain a membership at at Classic Pistol, a local shooting range, it’s limited to indoors, 25 yards.  The cool thing about it, though, is you can shoot full auto, rifle, pistol; pretty much whatever you want, except for black powder and API rounds.  Their facilities, for an indoor range, are second to none in the area.

But this place I want to join is very local, and the facilities are nice.  They have a top notch trap and skeet setup, an indoor pistol range, a plinking range, and a 200 yard outdoor rifle range.  It’s available for shooting all hours.  There is a downside though.  They don’t allow magazines to be loaded with more than five rounds, even on the plinking range.

I got a letter today stating that I have to qualify, and be voted in.  Now, I totally understand qualification; they have an interest in making sure I am not a dummy, and can safely handle and shoot a firearm.   But what worries me is this part of the letter:

PLEASE NOTE. ALL GUNS MUST BE CASED WHEN ENTERING THE CLUB.  HOLSTERS ARE NOT A PROPER CARRYING CASE.

It’s a private club, and they can make their own rules.  But that significantly annoys me, enough to make me reconsider whether or not I want to join.  On the one hand, they have really nice facilities, and it’s close to where I live.  On the other hand, it’s shooting club, an NRA affiliated shooting club, in a state where 6% of the population is licensed to carry a loaded concealed handgun, and these guys are uncomfortable with the idea of concealed carry?

I can walk into my other indoor shooting range carrying a concealed weapon with no problem.  Their only rule is that, in the showroom, the firearm must either be cased or in a holster.  That’s reasonable.  Being a gun club, and not being comfortable with carry is kind of stupid.

I’ve been told they’ve had problems with bozos at the clubs doing things that are unsafe.  I am sympathetic to this, and understand making new potential members jump through some hoops, by requiring sponsorship from current members, having to pass a safe shooting test, getting voted in at a meeting, etc.  I think these are all reasonable things for a private club.  But I have no desire to join a club that treats its members as potential bozos, or accidents waiting to happen, and institutes rules that treat them as such.  That’s what anti-gunners do, and I have little tolerance for it.

So the question is, do I want to tolerate the rules, join, and work to try to change the club from within?  Or do I tell them to get lost, and  continue to drive an hour and a half to Lehigh County every time I want to do some clay or outdoor shooting?  I’m not sure.  I’m always a fan of trying to work within the system, but I don’t take kindly to being treated as anything other than an adult who knows how to competently handle, and yes, carry a firearm.

This editorial in the Roanoke Times:

Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech’s student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.

First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.

Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.

Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech’s campus.

Read the whole thing.  We all have to weigh the cost of dealing with rules written in ignorance by others.   My advise to folks is to pay no attention to them, when they have no force of law.  If your attire, attitude and holster is proper, you should never have a problem.  I will not advocate that anyone break the law, but there’s also the notion out there that it’s better judged by 12 than carried by six.  I’ll leave it at that.

HatTip to Dave Hardy, for the original article.

One resolution that was introduced at the member’s meeting was to allow carry, either concealed or open, at the convention. The person who proposed this resolution got turned back by security after they somehow detected that he was carrying.

I don’t know how they detected him, and have to wonder if he wanted to get caught in order to make a point. I sympathize with the notion. It’s crazy that you can’t carry at the convention, but there are two basic reasons why that’s going to be the case:

• Most convention center venues are off limits to carry, as was St. Louis’
• The NRA would be unable to insure the event if they allowed carry, as no insurer would allow for it, given that firearms on the floor are supposed to be deactivated for insurance reasons.

So for that reason, we’re not allowed, officially, to carry. Now, Missouri law is pretty clear on the fact that it’s not a crime to carry in any “off limits” places. Their statute basically reiterates the trespassing laws; if you’re caught, they can ask you to leave.

A motion was made to table the resolution by none other than Sheriff Jay Printz of Ravalli County, MT, who you might remember from Printz vs. US, that got a portion of the Brady Act overturned. Sheriff Printz sympathized with the motion, and said he too likes to carry concealed, but thought it was best to table it, rather than to have a vote. Despite my sympathies to the resolution as well, I voted to table it, because I understand why things are just going to be that way.

For the record, I was packing at all times during the convention, except for the very last day because I had packed the Glock up for flying back as checked luggage. If you keep concealed and keep your mouth shut, you shouldn’t have any problems. Sometimes the rules aren’t going to be on your side, which is why discretion is called for. While I normally will not flout the law, I generally pay no attention to signage. I appreciate what the open carry crowd is trying to accomplish, but I don’t think we’re ever going to go back that world. Keep it concealed, and keep quiet, is my philosophy on the subject.

I’m still debating whether to take the Glock along to St. Louis.   I’ve never checked a firearm before, since I don’t travel much by plane.  I’ve always been kind of worried about getting a clueless ticket agent or TSA drone, and having complications and missing the flight.   Or, even worse, have them lose my luggage.