Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the November 8th edition of my Weekly Review of the media covering firearms and 2nd Amendment issues. A casual scroll through the posts I put up all week long will show many examples and I'll try not to repeat myself within this one too much.

For those of us who follow firearms and gun control legislation, probably the most interesting news today is that voters in San Francisco will decide -- perhaps only symbolically -- whether to ban citizen ownership of handguns within city limits. While some misguided liberals think that this is the way (banning guns) to go to reduce violent crime, let's see what the professionals -- those in law enforcement -- think. From the website of the San Francisco Police Officers Association:

...Conclusion:

Police officers and members of the military would also be exempt while “carrying out the functions of his or her government employment.” But does this mean that San Francisco police officers or F.B.I. agents living in San Francisco would be forced to leave their weapons at the office upon the completion of their shift? The danger associated with that scenario is unfathomable. And it should be noted that no exemption for retired members of our association or other law enforcement is stated in the proposal.

Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote in 1764: “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. …Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”[17] Doesn’t this ring true today?

When we disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, we contribute to empowering criminals and endangering society-at-large. The San Francisco Police Officers Association supports the right of our members (active and retired), neighbors, and law-abiding citizens in this city to choose reasonable means of self-defense while in their homes or businesses. We oppose Proposition H, the S.F. Gun Ban Initiative.

In a New York Times article this past weekend, the President of the SFPOA was quite blunt:

"This is putting a Band-Aid on heart surgery," said Gary P. Delagnes, president of the San Francisco Police Officer's Association. He called it another "silly idea" from elected officials whose progressive ideas are not grounded in the realities of fighting crime.

[...]

Mr. Delagnes attributed the surge to drug- and gang-related violence in pockets of San Francisco. Overall, he said police have confiscated some 1,400 guns this year. And he said that if the city were serious about fighting gun violence, it would better enforce existing laws, such as urging judges to give jail time to people caught with unlicensed firearms.

So how does law enforcement generally view the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to own or carry firearms? As I detailed in September, the overwhelming majority of Police Chiefs around the nation support it!. To quote myself:

The 17th annual survey questioned over 22 thousand Police Chiefs and Sheriffs. It showed that a staggering 93.6% of them support the right of citizens to buy and own firearms for sport OR PERSONAL DEFENSE. On top of that, over 63% support concealed-carry and think it would help reduce crime. They apparently aren't too concerned over how many guns someone buys, either, since they oppose limiting law-abiding citizens to one gun per month by a whopping 72.8%. Further, 96% of the respondents believe that criminals obtain most of their guns from illegal sources, directly contradicting Brady Bunch claims that more gun control and firearm registration, etc., would reduce armed crime.

I thought it might be interesting to see what many law enforcement personnel think about the issue in private, so to speak. Here are some quotes from a cop's forum, in this case mostly concerned with open and concealed carry by the law-abiding, from Officer.com. I'll put up the original forum question, first, then seperate the various member's comments with a line:

Currently, NC law requires any weapon on a person or in a vehicle passenger area must be visible. Exceptions being for concealed carry permits. A certain local police chief, in his infinite wisdom, has decided that he thinks that anyone carrying a weapon should not have it visible, and is trying to get the local laws changed. Maybe since he doesn't actually go out and work the roads, he might not understand that for a regular officer, we don't like suprises and guessing games when it comes to weapons. If there is a gun in the car, I want to be told by the driver as I approach, and I want to see it when I get there.

What are your opinions on this? I personally think this chief is an idiot, but this just reinforces my belief.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I think concealed firearms are the way to go for civilians IMHO (concealed carry).

You take a firearm and introduce a firearm on scene at every call out too, and should always expect one to be on the other person.

I'm all for it for one, law-abiding citizens do not concern me, it's the criminal element that will carry anyway. Just a different mindset for you, and easier to be mentally prepared that "everyone is armed".

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I agree. This is how I normally look at it. But not everyone wants a CCW, and there is nothing wrong with carrying legally, which this chief seems to have a problem with.

This same department tried to prosecute a shop owner who shot and killed a armed robber. I'm assuming that got shot down after it hit the news and the enraged public outcry, I haven't heard anymore about it. Their response was "just cooperate with the robber". This same shop keepers uncle "cooperated" with a robber in February and was killed anyway.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[From a cop in South Africa --ed]
...Armed civilians stop a hell of a lot of crimes out here, the media refrains from reporting it of course...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I know this is a very heated argument from both sides, but I’m old school. When did we get rid of the 2nd Amendment? …the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The only permit a person should need to arm them self (in the USA) is proof of citizenship. Obviously, if you are a criminal, you forfeit your constitutional rights and should be allowed no weapons.

There’s two ways to handle this whole “keep the pubic safe” issue. We can use the British model by taking away many liberties, install cameras everywhere, disarm the law abiding citizen and leave it all up to the police. Or we can do it the Israeli way, and give everyone a gun, expect them to behave in a lawful matter, punish severely those who don’t and create a mindset of “my castle/family/commnity, my job to defend it”. Florida is moving towards the latter and I applaud them for doing so.

It shouldn’t change much for those of us in LE. I always assume that everyone is armed anyway.

Do we need some type of educational course like a driver’s test? Perhaps. But if we require it, it should be readily available and free to citizens.

Ah, this is all Utopia talk for now anyway. Until common citizens start getting slaughtered by thugs and terrorists things won’t change. The US is still for the most part a “nice” place to live. The false sense of security that most Americans live under will remain until 9/11 looks like a cake walk. Until then, we’ll slowly let our liberties slip away, and then when we’re the most vulnerable, some wacko group will do what they did to that school in Russia, slaughtering men, women and children alike. Just keep saying to yourself, “It’ll never happen here, It’ll never happen here….”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

When TX innaugerated the CWP program, my Dept got all bent out of shape and instituted training programs on handling citizen with permits on traffic stops and calls, etc. I thought it was ridiculous since the dept seemed to forget about all the yahoos carrying illegally. Citizens with concealed weapon permits are less likely to come into contact with LEO's than the public in general, as they're generally good folks who stay out of trouble and mind their own buisness. Unfortunately, as people climb the ranks, they tend to become politicians and forget where they came from. There are exceptions, of course, but just compare the opinions of hard working patrol officers with the "official" positions of the IACP, and you get the idea.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[From a cop in Ireland --ed]
Personally and this is only my view, I think citizens being permitted to carry weapons only introduces more weapons...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[reply to above comment --ed]
introduces more citizens who are capable of protecting themselves. Maybe in Ireland, the bad guys schedule an appointment to commit crimes, here they do it on their own schedule. Most calls here are for crimes that have already happened. Unfortunately, we are not there ahead of time to prevent the crime. So it is up to the citizen to protect themselves.

In the last ten years, more and more states have allowed law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. We are currently at a ten year low in the national crime rate. There is a correlation there.

There's a lot more so check it out. The general feeling though (and remember, these are mostly cops talking to each other) is that citizens should be allowed to own and carry, concealed or otherwise.

About ten years ago, I took a "Civilian Academy" given by the Vermont State Police to local citizens. Every cop there supported the right of the law-abiding to possess and carry firearms. All of them. As one told us, there are too few of them and many of them are tied-up providing coverage for the many towns that don't have cops of their own. Further, coverage during the night time, when most crime occurs, is only sparsely attended to at the state level.

As I said the other day, I expect the SF "gun ban" will pass and if it is upheld in the courts, then only the criminals will have guns. It's for that reason that the SF Chronicle recommends a "NO" vote:

Handgun ban. NO

This measure would prohibit city residents from owning handguns. The need to curtail the proliferation of handguns on the streets is a debate worth having, but at the state level. State law is pretty clear that such regulation is the Legislature's domain. Passage of H is unlikely to produce anything more than litigation. But even if it were to prevail in court, this one-city ban would be so impractical and widely defied that it would be meaningless.

Incidentally, the SF Chronicle also urges voters to reject the ban on military recruitment at public schools, albeit not necessarily for the right reasons:

Military recruiting ban. NO

We share the authors' disdain for the military's discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- as well as their disagreement with the war in Iraq. This policy statement is nonbinding, but if its call for restrictions on military recruiting in public schools were carried out, it could cost city schools $40 million in federal funds, a sacrifice that no one who cares about education would advocate. In our view, if you're going to make a "policy statement" on principle -- you must be willing to accept the consequences of the stand ... or it's not really a statement of principle at all.

In a round-about way, this brings us to, firstly a photo published in the Boston University student newspaper, The Daily Free Press last Friday:

The caption read: Members of the BU chapter of the Army ROTC hold a field training session by the Charles River Thursday afternoon.

That photo drew the following response from a BU assistant professor yesterday:

Running along the Charles River in the past, I have found myself in the middle the Boston University ROTC pointing their guns at people, just like the photo on the front page of Friday's Daily Free Press. To be honest, it gave me a fright, and made we [sic] want to vomit. I think it is appropriate to have very mixed feelings about turning our public parks into simulated war zones, and before our ROTC does so, there should be a university-wide discussion about whether it something [sic] we, as a community, want.

[...]

My fear, on seeing the ROTC exercises along the Charles River, is that we are creating a society where having guns around, indeed a society where guns are sometimes pointed at us, begins to seem normal. The fact that these guns are not loaded, perhaps even fake, might register at a rational level, but does not change the emotional desensitization to the sight of a rifle pointed in our direction.

Only in Massachusetts, folks, could the sight of students training for future service in protecting and defending our nation cause physical illness in a citizen dependent on their bravery and sense of service.

Turning to the recently enacted law to protect gun makers and sellers from frivolous lawsuits, yesterday in SLATE, David Kairys wrote this:

If a manufacturer or dealer in another industry—or if you or I—create, for example, a public nuisance that interferes with public health or safety, we're subject to a lawsuit by local authorities to stop that nuisance and recover the costs of cleaning it up. The law recognizes the obvious when it imposes liability for spreading a dangerous substance or device in a way that knowingly places it in the hands of people who will use it to harm others. You, I, and manufacturers and dealers in other industries cannot do that without subjecting ourselves to civil lawsuits. But from now on, gun manufacturers and dealers may do it with impunity. Even if, as alleged in pending lawsuits targeted for retroactive dismissal by the immunity act, they knowingly facilitate the notoriously easy access criminals and youths have to new, inexpensive handguns.

Long-standing law in most every state, for instance, holds a bar liable for harm caused by a drunk patron in some circumstances, depending on the knowledge and conduct of the bar. The harm can include the drunk patron criminally causing a car crash, or urinating on the lawn of a neighbor. The liability turns on the conduct of the bar's owner or agents, even though the ultimate vehicle of the harm is the drunk patron.

The entire screed contains many mistatements but I'll just concentrate on the paragraphs above. Guns of and by themselves are not a public nuisance any more than knives or chainsaws are. It is their misuse that causes the nuisance. Therefore, to claim the simple existence or presence of them is the same as a nuisance by "you or I" where we plant a shrub at the edge of the property that blocks the view of auto drivers is wrong. Kairys claims that gun makers "knowingly" spread firearms, meaning sells to gun dealers, that wind-up in the hands of criminals. In another part of his diatribe he says that "industry insiders" claim just that but he provides no names or proofs.

One fact that most gun dealers will testify to is that all of the large gun manufacturers (the ones always the target of these suits, even when the maker of the firearm used in a crime is unkown and indeed the gun might not have been recovered) use distributors for their products. They rarely sell direct to the gun dealer. So, they are already two transfers of that gun away from the purchaser.

He then uses the example [Thank you!!! -- ed] of a bar serving alcohol to someone who later causes an accident. I do not recall that cities are filing suits against Budweiser because a bar in their municipality overserved someone or served a minor. So his argument there is specious at best. In regards to the bar itself, yes indeed it can be held liable if it knowingly violated state laws regarding alcohol.

The fact is that a gun shop can also be held liable if they knowingly sell a firearm to someone who shouldn't own one or is purchasing it for someone else (a "straw buyer"). I quote exceptions (that is, what is STILL actionable) from the legislation:

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

[...]

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

[..]

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term 'negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

As usual, Kairys is, in my opinion, wrong. I've just shot his whole bar vis-a-vis "nuisance" argument to pieces. There's much more but I've gone on ad nauseam about this so many times that I'm not going to waste more time on it. Besides, as we learn at the bottom of the Slate article:

David Kairys is James E. Beasley Professor of Law at Temple University. He has helped some cities and individuals in their litigation against gun manufacturers and dealers.

So actually, he's just another stooge for the Brady Bunch. As they say, "Consider the source...".

Good advice from Dad... A nationally syndicated advice column called "Mr. Dad" concerned guns and young kids. While the questioner and the column writer are no fans of guns, at least some of the advice is good. From The News-Sentinel:

Dear Mr. Dad: Should I tell my preschoolers about guns? We don't watch violent programming or own any toy guns and no one I know even owns one, But you can't turn on the TV or open a newspaper these days without a story about someone getting shot. What should I do?

A: To start with, continue to keep your children far away from violent media, including children's programs that involve guns and gun-like lasers. Don't allow them to play with toy guns, especially realistic-looking ones. But be realistic - you can't shield your children forever. One of these days, they're going to come across a gun and it's critical that they know what it is and that it's dangerous.

[...]

I don't agree with the National Rifle Association on very much, but I do agree with their suggestions for how to talk to children about guns.

Here's what you should say:

1. If you see a gun, do not touch it.

2. Leave the room where the gun is located.

3. Tell a grown up right away where you saw the gun.

Notice that the rules focus on action, not talking, and just on your child's behavior, not anyone else's. Young children usually can remember these rules, especially if you have them repeat them back to you. But go through the exercise with them often.

He is, of course, referring to the NRA's Eddie Eagle program, which as I've noted before, city officials in Racine, Wisconsin oppose.

Well, that brings this edition to an end. Naturally I'll be on Cam Edwards this afternoon and as always, thanks for stopping by.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at November 8, 2005 09:51 AM