Posted on 07/28/2004 12:37:49 AM PDT by neverdem
EVER SINCE July 1 -- when yet another gun-lovers' law loosened up Virginia's already lax governance of weapons -- it's been one big macho-fest for heat-packers who get their courage from strapping on pistols. Not every diner may relish the sight of six armed men at the next table, but unless the General Assembly comes to its senses next year, families out for a gathering will have to get used to pistols and ammo belts with their burgers and fries.
As reported by The Post's Tom Jackman, residents have been spotted around Fairfax County several times in the past six weeks exercising their new right to wear arms. Police commanders have had to issue reminders to officers that "open carry" is legal. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, an organization of thousands of gun owners, insists that there has been no coordinated effort to strut with guns, but he notes that this "is a good opportunity to educate people."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
BANG
hoping you'll see, what your love means to me... open arms.... wanting to hold you, wanting you near, how much I wanted a new home.... but now that you've come back, tonight and today..ay... I want you to stayyyyyyyyyyyyy... so now I come to you, with open arms... with nothing to hide, believe what I say, so now I come to you, with open arms, hoping you'll see, what your love means to me, open arms...
I think the WaPo is typical of most liberal fishwrappers, it can't get a thing right. I believe open carry has been lawful all along, but only recently has some folks done so in areas near DC where the ignorants of the Post might be lurking, and searching for that next manufactured tail of horror.
What happened was that some poorly trained law enforcement officers arrested a man for open carry(GUN RETURNED, charges dropped next day), and out of that episode the department is having to train its officers on the law.
This editorialist is way overheated. I doubt that Richmond is going to turn into Dodge City anytime soon and I don't think "the chiren" will be permanently traumatized by seeing someone wearing a gun. (Traumatized adults should just pop another Klonopin and move on.)
They hate people who can defend themselves. They want government to run your life 24-7
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a privately-owned diner ban guns from the premises? It's the diner owner's right as a private property owner to require that his patrons "Leave your guns at the door".
It's the government that cannot ban owners from packing heat in the parks, and streets.
The Washington Compost should exercise its right to a free press by voluntarily not printing its crap.
Typical lame ad-hominem attack.
I extend an open invitation to the liberal pu$$y who wrote this drivel to a simple match of hand-to-hand, any place, any time, with gloves, or preferably without.
I'll be happy to demonstrate my lack of courage by drawing it on their face.
I saw some open carry in Silver City NM between '98 and 2000. On one occasion I walked in to Wal-Mart behind a guy with a 1911 on his hip. He may have been a sherrifs deputy but by his dress he could have been a ranch hand or a plumber or any kind of working man. No one batted an eye. I was rather glad he was in the store while I was.
There's been some effort in Arizona and elsewhere to enact "Defenseless Victim Zone Liability" - if you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for the harm it causes.
Sure, the business owner can ask its patrons to disarm, but they have to shoulder the financial consequences if someone is injured or killed as a result.
"get their courage from strapping on pistols"
Whereas, these fine folks get their courage by strapping on an elitist pose.
SECTION 1. That all men are by nature equallyfree and independentsubject to government regulation, and have certain inherentrightspriveleges, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment oflife and libertytelevision shows, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happinessand safety.SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the
peoplegovernment; that magistrates are theirtrustees and servantsmasters and overlords,andat all timesamenable to them.SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of
the body of the peopleprofessionals, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of afreeState; that standing armies, in time of peace, should beavoided, as dangerous to libertyencouraged; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by,the civil powerthe government.
They apparently get their courage from calling armed agents of The State to fight their battles for them. For example, by arresting macho he-men that strut around with pistols strapped on (Does that have enough invective there?) which apparently offends their liberal sensibilities and deserves armed response. Hypocrites.
Your statement sounds like its straight from the mouths of the gun-grabbing marxists. I've lived (and OPEN CARRIED) in Arizona since 1993. Every time I walk out the door to go ANYWHERE, I'm carrying my Hi-Power. Never had a run in with law enforcement (or another "gun wearing citizen"). In fact, most officers that I know appreciate that law abiding people are carrying. Even with my CCW I carry open, it's just ever so much easier.
±
"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty." 
Toward FREEDOM
The "flash" at the end of your post is jejune, Niel. This is the kind of thing that learning disabled or emotionally disturbed kids put on their school themes. It's possible that you use over affiliation to cover up deep seated insecurities. Maybe your constant companion, the Hi-Power, fulfills a similar symbolic need with the girls and boys around the trailer park.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's been kinda boring in the Old Dominion since this law passed, hasn't it? "Polite", one might even say.
Around Kayenta, Arizona, where I worked in a trading post during the early '70's, we all wore guns around the store and didn't think twice about it. Tourists would sometimes act a little shocked and sometimes it would take us a while to catch on to what was bothering them. We would reassure them that we weren't expecting immediate gunplay but that the nearest bank was 167 miles away and we had to keep a considerable amount of cash and jewelry in our vaults. Guns, for me, have always been tools. You carry and use them for a purpose.
It is possible to get one's self killed even if packing heat, and therefore possible to kill someone better armed than you. So it's a stretch to say the lack of a gun caused someone to be killed, or that if he had had a gun he would not have gotten killed (or injured).
It would be much more effective if we strictly enact and enforce heavy-duty capital punishment laws, and make very clear the distinction between killing in self-defense and murder. Make examples of those criminals shot by law-abiding citizens.
There may be many legitimate reasons to not want firearms in your business - children, drunks, or even personal religious convictions, which have to be respected.
Put the blame on the criminals, not the business owner, who is many respects a victim himself.
Typical leftie.
Hmmmm.... Don't know. Hey, what say you sail that boat of yours over to the Gulf Coast here, we'll sail on up there with a couple of ARs and find out. $;-)
Irrelevant -- causing a hazardous condition creates a presumption of liability even if the cause-effect relationship is not 100% airtight. For example, if I don't clean the ice off my sidewalk and somebody falls on it, I can't evade liability by arguing that people sometimes trip and fall on perfectly clean sidewalks and that it's therefore a "stretch" to say that the ice caused the accident.
There may be many legitimate reasons to not want firearms in your business - children, drunks, or even personal religious convictions, which have to be respected.
Those are factors to be considered on a case-by-case basis when such liability claims occur.
Or, something made of rubber...
...There may be many legitimate reasons to not want firearms in your business - children, drunks, or even personal religious convictions, which have to be respected.
Here's the details of the law as proposed by Alan Korwin.
It uses the "reasonable person" standard, and leaves it to a jury to determine whether a reasonable person would conclude that having a gun in such a gun-free zone could have helped a person defend against a specific criminal conduct:
AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding new section 13-3117:A.R.S. §13-3117. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.
A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.
B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12 (Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14 (Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Trespass and Burglary), Chapter 17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related Offenses) and Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order).
C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to keep arms or to bear arms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.
This statute does not mind if you create a gun-free zone, it just holds you responsible for doing so in the event that someone is injured as a result.
As for the "legitimate reasons" you cite - children? Who said anything about children packing heat? Drunks? It's already illegal in Arizona for a drunk person to carry a firearm. Personal religious convictions? When does someone's personal religious conviction extend to stripping people of their right and ability to defend themselves and their family from criminal acts, and refusing to accept responsibility for any harm that might result from doing so?
Most states in the US already have the death penalty for murder, including Texas where Susanna Gratia-Hupp's parents were murdered in front of her when her carry gun was locked in her car in the parking lot of Luby's Cafeteria, a posted Defenseless Victim Zone.
Blaming the criminal doesn't mean that you can't also blame the business owner for deliberately and purposefully creating a situation where the criminal could not be stopped.
Nope - an AR-15 is a "firearm" under the Virginia ban on open carry, while a pistol is not.
An icy sidewalk is hazardous object in and of itself, and is therefore the focus of liability. Since you cannot punish a sidewalk for being icy, you punish the owner for not clearing it.
An unarmed person (assuming two people in an establishment banning firearms are both unarmed) is not in and of himself a hazard. A criminal, however, armed or unarmed is a hazardous object and should be the focus of litigation. I suppose you could punish the owner for allowing a criminal in his establishment, but that creates other problems; it's not like they walk around with a big red "C" tattooed on their foreheads (although, not such a bad idea...). No, let's punish the criminals.
Understand, I'm all in favor of people arming themselves, I just have a visceral reaction to assigning civil liabilities; would rather the criminal courts and marketplace take care of things. I'm trying to keep lawyers (the John Edwards of the world) from getting involved, and we all know they would. I look forward to the day when we can hunt lawyers.
Sometimes it is just inappropriate to prominately display a weapon. It's a question of manners, not rights. I feel more secure knowing that, should the need arise, there are likely to be half a dozen weapons within shouting distance, even if someone has to fish it out of an oiled sock in the toolbox and grab a box of shells from under the front seat.
The last guy I saw was pumping gas in Payson. He was obviously up from Phoenix for the weekend. He obviously saved himself from being et by a bar or attacted by wild Injuns because he could still drive his shiny SUV but my advice would have been to leave it in the car. He just looked stupid. He was more likely to be scalped at the casino than on the trail.
It is impossible to know in advance when one may become the victim of a criminal attack, therefore it is simply common sense to carry everywhere it is legally permitted - your snotty, condescending attitude and "advice" notwithstanding.
You make a meaningless distinction between a "hazardous object" and a "hazardous situation."
To extend the icy sidewalk analogy, let's say the government plowed and salted your street (enacted concealed carry laws), but then you proceed to sit out there and make anyone who wants to talk to you (do business with you) walk on the icy sidewalk instead (no guns alllowed). Shouldn't you be held responsible if someone slips?
Yes, an unarmed person is not a hazard, but that's entirely beside the point.
It's true that the hazard is created by the criminal as you say, and the criminal should be prosecuted. But the hazard of one's inability to defend against a criminal's hazard is created by the business owner when he or she posts a "No Guns Allowed" sign.
To hold a business owner responsible for choosing to put a "No Guns Allowed" sign is not the same as holding him responsible for not clearing his sidewalk.
The one is an owner exercising his right to private property based on a right: the right to bear arms is NOT a requirement, it simply states that the Goverment cannot keep you from doing so. Doesn't say you cannot request that I keep my gun in my truck when I come to your home or your business, and it doesn't say you cannot refuse me service if I deny your request.
Just like the right to free speech is not a requirement: the Government cannot keep you from speaking, but they also cannot keep me from denying you the ability to say what you want in my home, business, web site, whatever.
The other - the icy sidewalk - is a violation of a law or at least of civil precedence.
Anyhow, people have choices; they can decide not to walk on an icy sidewalk, and they can decide not to frequent a business that requires them to leave their weapons at the door. It's something the market should decide. If I get more business because I let people pack, and the fellow next door goes out of business because he does not, so be it. The fellow that moves into his now vacated business will hopefully have learned his lesson.
Sounds like the fish wrapper here that not only can't get subscribers, it can't get people to take it for free on street corners.
Open carry is a good thing. That doesn't mean everyone should do it.
One of several good reasons for open carry that I can think of.
Encouragement to others of like mind.
Encouragement to those of common sense who recognize their enhanced security.
Discouragement to criminals who won't be guessing that a citizen may be armed. He'll know a citizen is armed.
Dispels erroneous thoughts about carrying guns planted by libs.
Provides an opportunity for conversation about firearms and their use to arise.
Creates a safer situation regarding yourself and police. If you are carrying openly chances are that a policeman has seen you and sized you up already. If a bad situation does arise it will be easier for him to determine what your intent is when he has a split second under pressure to do so unlike he would if you were carrying concealed and suddenly appeared, gun in hand, in the middle of a firefight.
Along the same lines, carrying openly means that police and citizens will know where to find reinforcement amongst them.
I'll be waiting with baited breath for your assessment of me when you see me hop out of my '59 Chevy truck with unruly beard, pony tail to my waist and my Colt SAA in a floral patterned western rig on my hip. See ya at the Auto Zone down on Central Ave, bro. : )
Anyone who drives a '59 Chevy is definately a flake and should be watched carefully.:)
Perhaps the icy sidewalk is a poor analogy - how about someone running a a roller coaster who prohibits his customers from using safety belts, for example?
Sure, it's not likely that the roller coaster will derail, and a safety belt might not save the customer from injury if it did derail, and customers are free to refuse to patronize the roller coaster if they don't like the seat belt prohibition, etc. But that doesn't mean that the act of prohibiting seat belt use should be exempt from liability.
Of course, someone could still sue even in the absence of a statutory cause of action, but enacting one would bolster their case and put stores like Ohio Krogers and the like on notice.
I recall that case - I seem to recall, also, that the jury is still out as to whether the shooter reasonably felt himself to be in danger of great bodily harm or death.
Was the dog-walker charging towards the shooter yelling and screaming about his dogs? Was he closer than 21 feet? All this will undoubtedly come out in the trial, and calling him a "Quickdraw McGraw" and the altercation a "snit" at this point is decidedly premature.
What particularly irritates me about this whole open carry issue is the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude of the anti-gun crowd.
They piss their pants and call the cops if we carry openly, but vigorously fight - both in the statehouse and in the courts - any effort towards concealed carry laws.
No doubt I am watched closely up heah in Vuhmont. Whether it's surveillance or curiosity is hard to tell. ;^)
It's that ponytail. Howard Dean thinks you're cute.;o
Spelling's OK. Grammer and syntax are fine. But there is something terribly wrong with your sentence construction.
I am a young man in a bad situation in Arizona. I am active duty Air Force out of Luke, and there has been some serious beef between a pheonix "gang" and the airman on base. It has thus far resulted in one airman beet to crap and the death of a "gang member" by an airman that was packing after the first airman got his ass kicked. Because of mandatory appointments, I have to ride my motorcycle, my only form of transportation, into downtown phoenix three times a week, the "turf" of so-called "gang-members", once in at 6pm and out at 9pm. Moral of story? I want to open carry a 45 on the trips into the city, but Im only 19. Is this legal? Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.