Gun controversy hits Starbucks and Supreme Court
Love ‘em or hate ‘em, firearms are always news. And guns are very much in the news this month. At the US Supreme Court last week, the nine justices heard oral arguments in a landmark lawsuit that will determine if Chicago’s draconian anti-gun ordinance passes muster, measured against the individual-right standard laid down by the Court in a Washington, DC case just two years ago.
On a more local level, in Starbucks Coffee houses across the country, Second Amendment passions are being fanned, as firearms-carry advocates and opponents battle over whether the java giant should retreat from its current policy of allowing patrons to openly carry handguns if permitted by state and local laws.
The Chicago gun case that the Supreme Court now will decide, follows the seminal case of District of Columbia v. Heller decided in June 2008. In that case, a DC ordinance identical to the one prohibiting Chicagoans from possessing handguns, was struck down as a violation of the Second Amendment’s guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Court in Heller established definitively for the first time since the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791, that the Second Amendment’s language in fact guaranteed an individual right to possess firearms. Previous court decisions had not made clear the distinction between the rights of an individual citizen in this regard, and rights enjoyed only by a collective body such as a “militia,” as gun control advocates had urged.
Left unresolved in the 2008 decision, however, were a number of important questions about just how far the individual right to own a firearm extended. For example, would the fact that the jurisdiction prohibiting possession of any handgun was a city or a state – as opposed to the federal enclave that is the District of Colombia – make a difference?
While Supreme Court observers appear uniformly to consider that Chicago’s handgun ban will be invalidated, constitutional lawyers were more interested in the grounds on which the High Court might base its expected decision. Would the High Court frame its decision narrowly, as urged by the National Rifle Association, for example? Or might the Court take the more unusual step of using the Chicago case to establish that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental “privilege or immunity” (in the words of the Fourteenth Amendment)? The latter would make it more difficult for states and even the federal government to impose significant restrictions on future exercise of the Second Amendment’s guarantees.
The smart money is that the Court will throw out Chicago’s gun ban, but on narrower rather than broader grounds. I would prefer the broader, more constitutionally-honest approach, but I don’t anticipate being pleasantly surprised when the Court’s opinion is released later this spring.
All this constitutional wrangling is little solace to Starbucks Coffee, which is being drawn into the public debate over who should be allowed to carry a holstered handgun openly, and where. Starbucks thus far has dealt with the controversy by stating that in those jurisdictions permitting the open carry of a handgun in restaurants, it will abide by those laws and ordinances. Anti-gun organizations, however, are pressuring the coffee giant to renounce that policy and no longer allow open carry in any of its restaurants, even if permitted by law.
Whether Starbucks will succumb to the mounting pressure by anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and alter its tolerant policy, remains to be seen. For their part, however, firearms advocates might be better advised not to press the issue publicly by pointedly visiting Starbucks establishments with firearms openly displayed. Sometimes quiet advocacy speaks louder than waving a red flag in someone’s face.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
125 comments Add your comment
arnold
March 8th, 2010
6:29 am
Of course some wing nut will carry a firearm into a Starbucks just because he/she can. Wingnuts are not rational thinkers.
Ace
March 8th, 2010
7:26 am
Anyone who wil pay for that crap they call coffee at Starbuck is dumb/scared enough to walk around with a handgun. Real men drink Maxwell House and use a 12 GA pump shotgun when needed.
Joel Edge
March 8th, 2010
7:42 am
Where to start?
You would think that the wording of the Constitution would be fairly plain and accepted. Over the years we’ve seen this is not the case. The effort to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens is an ongoing fight. In that light, I can see the point of carrying a gun into Starbucks. One day, I might just feel that I need to. At this point, I don’t feel the need.
But if we give in to the anti-gun groups pressure to allow companies to outlaw weapons on property owned by that company, then that will be the next avenue for banning our rights.
Because we have seen that the push to remove gun ownership will never, ever end.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
7:49 am
I am one of the few coffee addicts who has never ventured into a Starbucks. Suppose I am bothered by the idea of paying $3 for a cup of coffee when I can get an excellent cup at QT for $1.19. Nevertheless, I may have to start offering them my patronage if they stand up to the weenies who would dictate behavior. The cut and run types will abandon Starbucks and I think the company deserves a new clientèle as reward for principle.
Besides, one is safer in a place with an open guns rule. What idiot would come into an establishment to shoot innocents when he knows that have the people there have deadly force available themselves? No, if you want to get killed, go to a “gun free” store; the killers take the easy marks.
Joel Edge
March 8th, 2010
7:52 am
Ragnar Danneskjöld
Agreed. Duncan Donuts coffee fan myself. But I like Army coffee.
And it’s safer to be where the cops are. Just saying.
Jethro
March 8th, 2010
8:03 am
I am homeowner. I have a party at my house, but I tell my guests that I don’t allow guns in my house. One guest decides to bring one; O meet him at the door, and I say, “Sorry, but you are not allowed to bring a gun into my house.”
Who has the greater right? I as the homeowner, or my guest a a “rights” owner? This is a question that I would like to see the Supreme Court decide.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
March 8th, 2010
8:06 am
Well, I’m with Raghead. I don’t see a good reason to pay 3 bucks for a cup of coffee when I can get it for a buck. But it’s for danged sure I won’t be buying it anyplace where I can’t carry the two machine guns and the anti-tank weapon I use for hunting and self-defense. Funny thing is, when people see them, they almost never come over and talk to me. I don’t understand why.
Scout
March 8th, 2010
8:10 am
That’s a simple one. You don’t have to allow “anyone” in your house (without a warrant). You can even be a “racist” and not allow people of color.
But with the gun thing you have to know he/she has it on and there are some pretty good concealment techniques out there …………………
H&K .
March 8th, 2010
8:14 am
Enter your comments here
H&K .40
March 8th, 2010
8:19 am
Jethro,
In Georgia, you have the right as a property owner to exclude anyone from your property for any reason. Starbucks has the same rights. If Starbucks (or you) decided that gun carriers were not welcome, they can make that clear. If a gun carrier refuses to leave, he is guilty of trespassing. No law can make you accept anyone on your private property that you don’t want there. Starbucks is doing the right thing. They are saying all that follow the law are welcome. If you don’t like that, don’t go to Starbucks.
neo-Carlinist
March 8th, 2010
8:21 am
“…whether the java giant should retreat from its current policy of allowing patrons to openly carry handguns if permitted by state and local laws.” is it me, or do the last 12 words mean nothing (if permitted by state and local laws”? if people are uncomfortable purchasing over-priced coffee in an environment where non-concealed firearms are permitted, they have other choices. what’s next; TSA-type searches and metal detectors at Starbucks? do the “anti-gun” types think there are not concealed firearms at Starbucks at any given time? what about police officers/law enforcement? is the firearm of a police officer or deputy (not concealed) any more/less dangerous? I noted this on CT’s blog last week; more people have been murdered in the Fulton County Courthouse than any Starbucks in Atlanta. personally, I get “scared” every time I see an armed police officer at a H.S. football game or in any elementary/middle school setting. if you don’t like guns, or you fear for your safety, stay away from businesses (and cities/towns) where the carrying of firearms is permitted by law (or write your Congressman).
david wayne osedach
March 8th, 2010
8:37 am
Is it only Starbucks that is concerned about the gun issue? Or is it all restaurants and fast food franchises?
Patina
March 8th, 2010
8:57 am
Jethro,
Uh, never mind…
Bored
March 8th, 2010
8:59 am
I didn’t realize people carrying guns into Starbucks was a rampant problem. I get it, the issue is a litmus test for much wider implications regarding the 2nd amendment…
Yawn.
William
March 8th, 2010
9:23 am
arnold
March 8th, 2010
6:29 am
Just like you or maybe it was “you” you were thinking about. Give up your 1st ammendment right and I will give up my 2nd….mabe
William
March 8th, 2010
9:24 am
Redneck Convert (R–and proud of it)
March 8th, 2010
8:06 am
It is the women you hang out with Redneck!
Barack
March 8th, 2010
9:34 am
I think that all it takes is a few bad apples to spoil the bunch. I happen to enjoy Starbucks because it really puts lead in my pencil. Why isn’t this an issue at Dunkin Donuts? I think it is time for each American to join in a group hug and talk about healthcare for all.
Scott
March 8th, 2010
9:48 am
I don’t buy coffee at the retail level but I do carry a gun. The anti-gun forces have run out of legal option on marginalizing those who carry guns, so they’re using a popular private business to do it for them. However, Starbucks has chosen not to enter this debate and would prefer it die down. This plan from the antis has backfired and Starbucks is probably getting a little more business.
Anyone who buys their overpriced coffee is nut to begin with… and coffee is dangerous, since the cups have warnings printed on them. I wonder how many people burn themselves daily with hot coffee compared to an injury caused by a legally carried firearm?
Simple But Honest...
March 8th, 2010
9:59 am
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
7:49 am
i read your comments everyday, and although I sometimes disagree with you, I have to say that this is perhaps the dumbest thing I have heard from what appears to be an intelligent person. You know as well as I do that just because one has a gun and is willing to carry it does not mean that they are able and prepard to shoot in a life or death situation. In fact I would argue that most of the Permit carring zealots would piss their pants before they would be able shoot another person. I have been in law enforcement for 22 years and can say with some certainty that having a gun available does not make one safer…In fact in alot of cases, It does just the opposite. I respect your views, but I would ask that you not insult the rest of us with talking points and NRA Bull—-????????
Bill L
March 8th, 2010
10:02 am
I carried openly in Virginia for years. At first patrons and employees of establishments I frequented took notice but over time since there were *no* incidents of open carry infractions the issue went away. The ‘Brady Bunch’ tried whipping up a controversy in the press but cooler heads prevaled. When a group of us carried openly at dinner (no alcohol at our tables) and later at the local frozen custard stand we used it as an opportunity to demonstrate what responsible gun ownership was all about and the ‘notice’ became less and less. The restaurants and frozen custard shop looked forward to us coming by later in the evening the way they looked forward to the police patronization – for the anecdotal security we provided. Small (minded) town police responded to a ‘men with guns’ call and rousted a group of friends of mine. The police were subsequently sued and ‘retrained’ when they lost in court.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
10:06 am
Dear Simple @ 9:59, thanks for your honorable service as gendarme, but I think you a poor chess player. Would-be murderers are not deterred by the actuality or proven efficacy of the coffee-shop Wyatt Earp, rather they are deterred by the potentiality of a coffee-house Wyatt Earp. Rather than shoot up the local Starbucks, that may have a former Navy-Seal swilling a bitter brew, they will go to the local McDonalds, where gun-wielders are provably absent.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
10:07 am
And also, dear Simple, I have posted many dumber arguments than my 7:49 missive, but thanks for the general, if undeserved, compliment.
Very Balanced Article on Open Carry | Snowflakes in Hell
March 8th, 2010
10:26 am
[...] Bob Barr is also advising we exercise caution: Whether Starbucks will succumb to the mounting pressure by anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and alter its tolerant policy, remains to be seen. For their part, however, firearms advocates might be better advised not to press the issue publicly by pointedly visiting Starbucks establishments with firearms openly displayed. Sometimes quiet advocacy speaks louder than waving a red flag in someone’s face. [...]
Simple But Honest...
March 8th, 2010
10:29 am
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
10:06 am
Sir….Again I say, You are operating from the assumption that 1st. those that carry legally are capable users, and 2nd that those that would commit crimes are afraid of others that have guns…..As I said, most ” regular” gun owners don’t have the sack will or nerve to shoot and perhaps kill another person, regardless of what they say when the pressure is not on. And to your point that the thought of a “Joe the Plumber” sitting in the coffee shop having a handgun does not scare the common everyday criminal. Everyday I am faced with people commitimg crimes on the street that are not afraid US and wen come with Guns sirens, and backup!!!!The thought that these people would think twice because the guy having coffee might have a pistol is laughable!!!The Coffee shop Rambo is more likely to get a bystander killed than he is to save them. I fully embrace and respect the 2nd amendment, but I ask that you at least be honest…and right now, you are not being so….
neo-Carlinist
March 8th, 2010
10:36 am
Ragnar, it’s an acronym, not a marine mammal (SEAL, not Seal), and I doubt you’ll find a SEAL hanging out at Starbucks. they eat snakes, not bran muffins. I agree with you, the idea that a crimal/murderer thinks rationally, or has some sort of a “game plan” is without merit. AND, if crimals do “case” a place, they are less likely to attempt to hold up a business occupied with armed customers. I repeat my comment on CT’s blog last week (same topic). this “issue” is political, not Constitutional. it is nothing more than “I know you are, but what am I?” tripe, and nothing more. 24 hours ago eight teenagers were shot a a concert in Indiana. does anything think they were shot by legally permitted firearms owners, or that the state/local laws of Indiana and/or the concert venue (a skating rink, I beleive) had any bearing on the decisions of the shooters to bring and discharge firearms at a public place?
StJ
March 8th, 2010
10:39 am
“But if we give in to the anti-gun groups pressure to allow companies to outlaw weapons on property owned by that company, then that will be the next avenue for banning our rights.”
Looks like they made it to Brandsmart already, as there is a big sign at the entrance banning firearms on the premises.
I personally don’t buy anything at any establishment that bans firearms. If they don’t choose to respect my rights, I choose not to give them my money.
Registering your displeasure with the public relations department or [better yet] the CEO is effective if enough people do it.
Richard
March 8th, 2010
10:41 am
I’m confused. I thought that the 2nd Amendment meant that the GOVERNMENT can’t infringe on your right to bear arms. If you try and walk into my house with a gun, I’m not letting you in. If Starbucks doesn’t want to allow customers to walk in armed, they are a private company and should be allowed to.
It’s the same thing as the First Amendment. The government cant restrist your freedom of speech, but if you are an anchor for CNN, CNN has every right to restrict what you say.
With the Starbucks thing, I just don’t understand the issue. I don’t see how the 2nd Amendment factors into a company setting rules for their property.
Rational Person
March 8th, 2010
10:42 am
Starbucks gets not a nickel from me while this is going on. That money will go to the Brady Campaign.
Some of us still want to live in a civilized society. Fortunately, my little town has an abundance of nice, civilized coffee shops.
BTW, quite a few people in this country have been shot by people who were carrying guns legally.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
10:47 am
Dear Simple, I concede point one, which I deem irrelevant to my argument, and disagree with you on point two, which I deem the salient one. You offer neither factual nor logical support for your second argument. I offered no factual support, but I did offer logical support for my disagreement with you. As a typical leftist, you call such intellectual disagreement “dishonest.” I await some support for your position.
Dear Neo @ 10:36, I yield to the superior argument, although I’m not certain how you square your affirmation about the animal kingdom class of those noble warriors with the observations on their dining habits.
No More Progressives!
March 8th, 2010
10:50 am
Simple But Honest…
March 8th, 2010
9:59 am
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
7:49 am
i read your comments everyday, and although I sometimes disagree with you, I have to say that this is perhaps the dumbest thing I have heard from what appears to be an intelligent person. You know as well as I do that just because one has a gun and is willing to carry it does not mean that they are able and prepard to shoot in a life or death situation. In fact I would argue that most of the Permit carring zealots would piss their pants before they would be able shoot another person. I have been in law enforcement for 22 years and can say with some certainty that having a gun available does not make one safer…In fact in alot of cases, It does just the opposite. I respect your views, but I would ask that you not insult the rest of us with talking points and NRA Bull—-????????
NRA bull? Try the Second Amendment bull, if you prefer.
It’s the deterent effect, Car 54. If a thug/rapist suspects or knows you’re armed, what does that do to the chances he’ll assualt you?
You sound more like a meter maid to me.
Disgusted
March 8th, 2010
10:51 am
A team at the University of Pennsylvania “analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity.” You are going to be totally stunned by what they found: “[P]eople who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.” One small caveat: There is no indication of how many of the shooting victims “had it coming.”
http://www.theawl.com/2009/10/guns-dont-kill-people-people-who-carry-guns-kill-people-who-carry-guns
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
10:51 am
Dear Richard @ 10:41, we do not disagree on property rights. StJ reasonably observes that we all – at least for now – have freedom of choice in selecting the beneficiary of our consumer disbursements, and for some of us a politically-correct election by the merchant may alienate our purchases.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
10:56 am
Dear Disgusted @ 10:51, I perceive flawed research. If you analyze only victims for the efficacy of gun possession, you exclude the entire class of innocent gun carriers who effectively protected themselves. Sorta the whole point, don’t you think?
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
10:57 am
Also, dear Disgusted, does your research not also prove that innocent gun carriers were effective in eliminating those bad guys who were carrying guns?
WPZ
March 8th, 2010
10:58 am
There seems to be a bit of confusion in the later comments. The law as in the Second Amendment is not being applied to Starbucks by any outside actor, including a government. Nor is anyone suggesting that such a thing is called for.
Starbucks is choosing to simply let the law apply, specifically in a state-by-state manner, and to align individual stores’ policy with that existing law.
As to the suggestion that citizens carrying lawfully are likely to unlawfully shoot another person, that is almost completely not the case in real life. In fact, permitted, licensed, or otherwise lawfully armed citizens commit violent crimes less often than the general population of adults.
In fact, when this topic breaks out among our left-liberal-leaning friends, it is always they who posit unrestrained and unjustified shooting of other persons, as some sort of spontaneous aberrant behavior that they appear to fear will come over them given the possession of a firearm.
What it really is, is the result of a society in which far too many people receive their education about how the real world works from a cathode-ray tube.
Being a gunowner in modern American urban society means developing a strong ability not to break into laughter when urbanites ask questions about firearms and firearms law.
jerad
March 8th, 2010
11:01 am
I live in the state of oklahoma and here we are a concealed carry state. And lets say if i walk in to starbucks and I am seen then they will ask you to leave and it is a misdemanor tresspassing charge. And for all those who are anti gun on this forum. Do you remember the massacre in Killene Texas about 15 years ago. Where the guy bust into the little resurant and killed like 15 people. That crime is what got the ball rolling in Texas and other states that concaled carry,and even open carry was a good idea. I know that if i were setting at starbucks drinking my coffee and some mad man burst in and started shooting, I would want to defend my self. Responsible and Sensible and Rational gun owners dont just start shooting people. They prevent people form shooting people.every one needs to get over this old west type mentality, look at history since we all are intellegent people, you will find that shoot outs and the old lets go to the street and draw, did not happen that often. It was rare when it did, and when it did the towns people who usually carried openly in most towns usually mowed them down. You are the only one that can protect your self, the police try and do a good job but they cant be every where at once. Those people that believe that they are of that they will be live in a fairy tale world and need to come back to relaity.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
11:02 am
Apologies, Disgusted, you specifically disclaimed my suggestion @ 10:57; I withdraw my argument.
Aquagirl
March 8th, 2010
11:02 am
Simple, I’d also like to hear some evidence for your assertion. As a member of the inherently sackless class, I’m used to the attitude I should wait for someone who deems himself an authority to handle a situation.
neo-Carlinist
March 8th, 2010
11:06 am
Rational Person, you ever hear the expression about what people in Hell want? I would venture to guess that most people who legally own and carry firearms want to live in a civilized society. as the other expression goes, “how’s that working out for you?” ergo, there are some who believe the 2nd Amendment is intended to enhance civilization as opposed to threatening it? there are others (I believe they are referred to as anarchists) who believe mayhem is itself akin to “civilization”. you can like guns or fear guns or like Dunkin Donuts coffee or fear Starbucks Latte Grande, but none of these feelings have ANY bearing on whether or not our world is “civilized”. I return to the Indian concert (or Virginia Tech, 2007, or Columbine, or LA after the Rodney King verdict, etc.). You can pine for Utopia or you can deal with reality as you see fit.
Scout
March 8th, 2010
11:06 am
Ragnar:
People like Disgusted (and Jay Bookman) always used “scewed” statistics. The compare killings to killings, etc.. What they always leave out is:
1) How many times the good guy only “wounded” the bad guy.
2) How many times the good guy scared the bad guy off by just shooting “at” him.
3) How many times the good guy scared the bad guy off by just “pointing” the weapon at him.
4) How many times the good guy scared the bad guy off by just putting his hand “on” a weapon.
5) How many times the good guy scared the bad guy off because the bad guy “saw” a weapon.
6) How many times the good guy scared the bad guy off because the bad guy “thought” the good guy might have a weapon.
I could go on and on but you get the point.
You can’t answer those questions because you can’t collect the statistics. It’s like how many times has the Secret Servce saved the President’s life? WE DON’T KNOW? But take them away and see wha the statistics will say.
Simple But Honest...
March 8th, 2010
11:08 am
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
10:06 am
Sir….My arguments are predicated on facts that I my fellow officers live with daily.. If it would further this debate, I could provide data to support my position as “Disgusted” has said in their 10:59am post. You don’t understand what I know as fact….The crook don’t care if you have a gun. They operate from an irrational position and have no regard for others who may be affected by their actions. In fact, The focus of alot of theses crimes is to terrorize and install fear in all that they come in contact with, but don’t take my word, pick up any paper and see how often the criminals get into shootouts with the Police. They have little regard for anything and If they don’t care that officers are protected with armoured Vest, sidearms and in some case Semi-Automatic rifles, and extensive Backup, Why then would you they be afraid of one guy that most likely has never fired a weapon at another person in their life???? You are working from a theory, I am working from 22 yrs of experience. And for you to dismiss the value of that experience is in fact dis-honest.
Scout
March 8th, 2010
11:10 am
P.S.
For any of you out there who live in a state that allows “concealed carry” (with or without a permit) and you find an establishment with a sign that says “No Guns Allowed” ……….. just go in anyway. You “didn’t see the sign did you?”
If they “spot” the gun later they have to ask you to leave or you can then be tresspassed. So you leave.
Simple But Honest...
March 8th, 2010
11:18 am
Aquagirl
March 8th, 2010
11:02 am
I have no issue with concept of self defense, But while I accept that there are things that happen, say in an emergency room that fly in the face of what i suspect….My point is i deal with real crimes and real criminals..The notion that these people are afraid of the guy across
the room having a .45 in his belt is just not correct. The crooks are not afraid and are prepared to do whatever….Stop being brave, and ask yourself, are you???? Would you be OK if you took that shot and hit an innocent 80 yearold grandma mistake?? The crooks don’t care. would you????
Scout
March 8th, 2010
11:25 am
Simple But Honest… :
Let me put it this way. If I was in a Mall Food Court eating and some maniac starting killing people at random and I killed/wounded/scared him into hiding/caused him to commit suicide or whatever until the police arrived and in the process I saved maybe 20 lives but accidentally killed one innocent person …………. I would have done the right thing.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
11:28 am
Dear Simple, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I offered a logical argument. You offer heartfelt personal prejudice in response. I think neither of us can persuade the other.
Simple But Honest...
March 8th, 2010
11:36 am
Scout
March 8th, 2010
11:25 am
2 things….First, In a crowded mall food court, are you so good a shot that you can miss all those running, screaming panicing people and hit the one person that’s shhoting to hit anyone??? 2nd, Your shot hit and killed a pregnant mom…Again, I ask, Not would it be right, but can you live with that???? I don’t know you call you a liar, but If you are OK with killing that Mom and her unborn baby, Them maybe YOU should not be allowed to carry a weapon.
Simple But Honest...
March 8th, 2010
11:38 am
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
11:28 am
I respect your position, But you must admit, these type of situations are anything but logical….
Disgusted
March 8th, 2010
11:38 am
Dear Simple, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I offered a logical argument. You offer heartfelt personal prejudice in response. I think neither of us can persuade the other.
I don’t find “heartfelt personal prejudice” at all. All you have to do is to read today’s news about the man killed in front of a WalMart in a shootout with police. He knew the police were armed, and that fact did not deter him. Or take the recent Pentagon shooting incident. The intruder knew that the police guards there were armed, but he proceeded to shoot at them anyway.
Am I supposed to feel comforted that some civilian I don’t know is carrying a pistol tucked in his jacket in a restaurant? For all I know, he could be a madman. And it’s highly doubtful that he’s trained and screened the use of weapons in the way that police officers are trained and screened. I fear, dear Ragnar, you have lost your bearings in developing your tortured libertarian logic.
Richard
March 8th, 2010
11:47 am
Personally, if I felt that I needed a gun to walk into a local store, I wouldn’t walk in.
Plaxico Burress could ahve used that logic. Oh well.
Aquagirl
March 8th, 2010
11:49 am
@ simple, I’m not sure what you’re referring to about emergency rooms. However, unless you are constantly shooting crooks, your argument seems pretty weak. I don’t base my reality on the media, where one shooting makes the papers. If typical criminals didn’t care, you’d be shooting them every day, yes? Apparently the idea you have a gun has some persuasive power.
I’m sure there are criminals out there who don’t give a (bleep) if you have a howitzer. If you’re going to say that’s more the rule than the exception, I’ll have to go with Rag’s response and say we’re going to have to agree to disagree. And if criminals aren’t scared of me with a gun, well, they’re probably much less afraid of me without one. If they aren’t scared, then at least I have the choice to defend myself. I toted and waved a gun about when I was in the military. I’m not 100% confident I would shoot (which is never a certainty, unless you’ve been there.) I’ll take my chances. Unless the cop responding has shot someone before, they don’t know 100% either.
And Scout, if you accidentally shoot me, I’ll thank you in advance for at least trying. Better that, than cowering under a table while a nutcase deliberately tries to put a round in my head.
Scout
March 8th, 2010
11:55 am
Simple But Honest…
After two years in the military (USMC sniper) and 34 years in Federal law enforcement it would depend on the distance of course but I probably still could. The idea is to “close the distance” as best you can. Once he even sees you he may “cower out” and take his own life. Many do. If I was able to save many more lives than he was going to keep taking (he may have killed that pregnant woman anyway) I could live with it. Absolutely.
To stand there with a weapon and do nothing while he keeps shooting innocent people is something I couldn’t live with.
You need to get in the real world. Bad people of that type must be stopped by whatever means necessary. If you saw him doing it in a crowded parkiing lot and were driving by you should pancake him with your car.
Evil is strong ………….. but it can be beaten.
neo-Carlinist
March 8th, 2010
11:56 am
Disgusted, we’re drifting off message here. Where in the Constitution (or the book of Life) does it say people are entitled to “feel comforted” anywhere, anytime? Where does it say we are entitled to know when a “madman” is in our midst? I don’t know that Ragnar’s logic is “libertarian” so much as yours is utopian. I’m not some gloom and doom survivalist, but the idea that as a rule, life is fair or that good choices are rewarded and poor choices are punished should have evaporated or been disproved sometime around first or second grade.
Haywood Jablome
March 8th, 2010
12:03 pm
Sometimes quiet advocacy speaks louder than waving a red flag in someone’s face.
Yeah. That’s always the 1st thing the “they’s gonna take our guns” thinks.
retiredds
March 8th, 2010
12:04 pm
I’ve never thought this issue was about guns. It’s always been about the money gun and ammo makers and dealers make off a scared public. I was a member of the NRA 25 years ago and their literature then went like this,”beware the government is going to take away your guns”. Send us $$$$ and we will make sure that doesn’t happen. I got tired of the dunning messages for money so I quit. Most recently the mantra was that as soon as Obama took office he was going to (single-handedly, mind you) pass laws that would lead to taking away your guns. So folks, it’s about the money. Anytime the gun folks see a dip in sales they will bring out the fear mantras. Like the man at Mens Wearhouse says, “I can guarantee it”.
Johnny Dodds
March 8th, 2010
12:15 pm
Sadly, here is what will happen in the America we know today. Someone who’s skated the law will get a gun (even though they shouldn’t have it), carry it openly into a Starbucks because they legally can and because it’s been spoke of in the national dialogue (like this), and then finally, that person will start picking people off. They’ll do this because they’re mentally unstable and thought they’d make a point, just like every other crazed killer who’s ever done anything similar. He or she in shooting people will take out a few employees, a customer or two, and then either take his or her own life or get picked off by a customer. Maybe he or she will hold out to police arrive, but if that happens, the incident could be as bad as Virgina Tech or Columbine. The story will make national news, the president will speak about it on TV and try to console us. And following the incident, nuts on both the left and right will appear on Fox News with Sean Hannity, Larry King or what have you and duke it out over the second amendment, which I happen to believe in strongly even though I don’t own a gun myself. So when this happens, shouldn’t Starbucks be liable for their dumb policy?
Why can’t they just use common sense? Look, the Chicago and DC laws were draconian, but why can’t we just have common sense laws? Probably because that would be too easy.
Simple But Honest...
March 8th, 2010
12:22 pm
Aquagirl
March 8th, 2010
11:49 am
FYI….A round in the head is a raound in the head regardless of which gun it came from!
Simple But Honest...
March 8th, 2010
12:30 pm
Scout
March 8th, 2010
11:55 am
Your exposer to law enforcement and weapons, makes it likely that you would take that shot, but you can’t believe that most civillians are willing and able to take that shot. I am in law enforcement and have committed my life to protecting and serving. I deal with the forces of evil each and everyday. But to assume that everyone in the public has your training and your resolve does a dis-service to you and those who have seen and done what you have…..
Aquagirl
March 8th, 2010
12:30 pm
Simple, I’ll take the 1% odds of a round from Scout, as opposed to the much greater odds of a round from a criminal. A criminal is *trying* to frakin’ shoot me. For that matter, cops accidentally shoot innocents too, so if you’re disarmed, I won’t have to worry about one of your errant rounds ending up in my body. Why don’t you turn in your gun today? I’d feel safer.
If you really are a cop, I hope you don’t show this level of logic on the job.
Rick
March 8th, 2010
12:30 pm
I notice a similarity about comments from many who are against Starbucks allowing open carry in their coffee houses. They would deny other of the Bill of Rights also. They would deny the First Amendment allowing some open carry persons to ‘make a statement’ by open carry in public. They would also force businesses to go along with their anti-gun beliefs. and it is obvious they would prevent others from carrying out their belief in the Second Amendment. It’s no wonder the government is trampling all over the constitution these days with the help of these naive citizens.
Scout
March 8th, 2010
12:38 pm
Simple But Honest…
I hear you but since you are in law enforcement you of all people know how many can be killed while the polcie are still minutes away. If someone is armed they MUST do something to stop a mad man even if it’s just shooting over his head into the ceiling if there are people nearby. Do anything! He may cower out or commit suicide! To allow him to wander around shooting at will is absurd.
That’s why most police departments have changed their “active shooter” policy for schools, churches, malls, etc. If you are the first officer on the scene now you DON’T wait for backup anymore !! You go in one on one (or maybe more than one bad guy) and do your job to the best of your ability and try to stop the carnage. It’s what you get paid for!
If an armed civilian is there (many of whom do a lot of range practice) it’s their duty also.
One man’s opinion but I stand by it.
Have to go now ……. will check in later.
Jefferson
March 8th, 2010
12:42 pm
Buy insurance, advice to those who fear death.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 8th, 2010
12:44 pm
Dear Disgusted @ 11:38, the case you cite is one of “assisted suicide,” not a case of a madman shooting innocents.
Rick
March 8th, 2010
12:57 pm
Scout,
I’m in total agreement here. I own two handguns, and even though I was no. 1 on the range from my boot camp company, I do a lot of practice.
Borat
March 8th, 2010
1:08 pm
Meeestur Bob. Once and again you say theese things that cause so many troubles. In my beloved Kazakhstan we have a tasty Latte that is so good and keeps us warm weeth the guns in our pockets weeth no problems. Pleeese pleeese be careful weeeth the gun Meeestur Bob cause I think you don’t know how to shoot it too well.
No More Progressives!
March 8th, 2010
1:09 pm
Simple But Honest…
March 8th, 2010
11:36 am
Scout
March 8th, 2010
11:25 am
2 things….First, In a crowded mall food court, are you so good a shot that you can miss all those running, screaming panicing people and hit the one person that’s shhoting to hit anyone??? 2nd, Your shot hit and killed a pregnant mom…Again, I ask, Not would it be right, but can you live with that???? I don’t know you call you a liar, but If you are OK with killing that Mom and her unborn baby, Them maybe YOU should not be allowed to carry a weapon.
So then, you sit there & watch & do nothing. Like at Virginia Tech. Right?
Maybe Michael Moore will include you in his next documentary/propaganda film.
Borat
March 8th, 2010
1:50 pm
Meeestur Bob was in my movie and he loved to cheeses that my wife made for him. I bet Meeestur Moore’s wife would not give Meeestur Bob her cheeses.
neo-Carlinist
March 8th, 2010
1:59 pm
Johnny Dodd, to answer your question; because “common sense” does not exist. there is no way to predict how people will behave. if a person gets a gun legally, he/she has not “skated the law”. gun violence is not a “gun” issue it is a “violence” and there is no legal way to separate violent Americans from the rest; nor is there any way to predict the behavior of others. we can’t even predict the weather with any degree of certainty (outside of 24 hours, which is like the old Boy Scout “weather rock” -if the rock is wet, it’s raining, if it is warm it is sunny). again, it would be nice if we could all just get along, but this scenario is a utopian dream. as a previous post suggests, this about politics/money. it’s no different than climate change, terrorism or abortion, there are those who profit from fear mongering and those who are quick to channel the spirit of Patrick Henry (give me liberty or give me death), but in the end, it’s about money and control.
retiredds
March 8th, 2010
2:06 pm
Rick @ 12:30, you are making an assumption that the government would or will trample on other Amendment rights which may or may not be true. If you look at the record other than rights being curtailed under the Patriot Act (by the very Republicans who are the most ardent supporters of the NRA for mostly financial reasons), many rights are being expanded, as is the case with guns.
I have never owned a gun and don’t plan to. I respect your right to own, carry, whatever. I also hope you would respect my right to ban someone from bringing a gun into my home or my privately held and run business. As I can choose not to frequent places that allow people to carry guns, legal or otherwise, you can choose to turn down an invitation to my home or the products I sell if you disagree with me. It’s called the right to choose, and I don’t think the government has taken that away from you and me, yet.
jconservative
March 8th, 2010
2:22 pm
You can expect the McDonald v Chicago decision to be similar to the Heller decision. The 2nd Am will be applied to the states & locals. But there will be some caveat on the right as expressed by Scalia in his majority opinion in Heller:
“…Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. If you do not like that, tough.
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 8th, 2010
2:33 pm
The percentage of people who have carry permits that commit a crime is miniscule. It’s the one’s who don’t obey the laws you have to worry about.
I’ve never set foot in a Starbucks and most likely, never will.
retiredds
March 8th, 2010
2:35 pm
Thank you jconservative for your citing Scalia. I just hope that far right does not condemn him as an “activist” judge (they usually use that label if they disagree with a judges opinion). I don’t always side with Scalia, et.al, but in my biased view I think he is properly interpreting the Constitution.
LJ
March 8th, 2010
2:35 pm
Rational:
“Starbucks gets not a nickel from me while this is going on. That money will go to the Brady Campaign.
BTW, quite a few people in this country have been shot by people who were carrying guns legally.”
You are correct. All of the British soldiers were legally carrying their muskets during the revolution.
5thofNov
March 8th, 2010
3:16 pm
“firearms advocates might be better advised not to press the issue publicly by pointedly visiting Starbucks establishments with firearms openly displayed.”
That’s right BOB! NOBODY should carry a gun in the OPEN….those dam fools. Listen to BOB, don’t exerise your rights, because other people don’t like it.
Oh my, should I have even wrote this….Bob…does this offend you?
Dam Loser, is what you are.
Scout
March 8th, 2010
3:56 pm
Rick: Ooo Rah!
Some of you have heard this before but here goes anyway:
“Once Upon a Time”
The world is composed of sheep, wolves and sheepdogs ………..
1) Sheep: Nothing wrong with being a sheep and if you are, you are about 90% of the world’s population. You just want to live your life and go about your business. You mean no harm to anyone and are very surprised when others try to harm you.
2) Wolves: This group constitutes about 8% of the world’s population. They prey on the sheep. We never know for sure exactly why but they do. They are very sneaky and vicious. The sheep are useless against these wolves as they just “blaah” and scatter when attacked which makes them easier prey.
3) Sheepdogs: This last group comprises about 2% of the world’s population. No one knows for sure why but they have an inate desire to protect not only themselves but the sheep. They are the world’s police officers, soldiers and yes ……….. when allowed ………. its armed citizens. They are even willing to fight for sheep from outside their fold. The problem is, most sheep malign them because they look similar to wolves. Sometimes have to be even more vicious than the wolves they are protecting the sheep from. In other words, the sheep are bascially very ungrateful.
The End.
neo-Carlinist
March 8th, 2010
5:02 pm
Scout, your story neglects to include ranchers (politicians). Sheep have been domesticated. Ergo, the species now exists for the benefit of others. While it is true the rancher assumes responsibility for protecting the sheep/herd (usually employs the sheepdogs of which you speak), he does so because it servers HIS interests and not the sheeps’ interests. Because at the end of the line, the sheep at best will be sheared so that the rancher will have wool, and at worst, will be slaughtered for consumption, which ironically, is the only interest wolves have as far as sheep go. It might also be argued the rancher has bred a surplus population of sheep to account for the occassionl lost at the hands of wolves, and thus ensuring maximum profit for himself. And finally, the rancher will stop at nothing to convince the sheep they cannot possibly expect to survive without him. This, despite the fact sheep had survived for generations without the benefit of a caring rancher. As with most wild species, some fell victim to predators, while the strong survived and passed their DNA on to the next generation of sheep. same with the wolves, those who learned to hunt effeciciently, lived, while the wolves who could not hunt perished. While homosapiens are social creatures, we are not sheep, although MANY have allowed themselves to be “domesticated” by others. There is life beyond the herd, and I would imagine the greatest benefit of the 2nd Amendment is it allows me to hire my own sheepdog.
No More Progressives!
March 8th, 2010
5:03 pm
Scout:
You mentioned that you were a USMC Sniper. Did you, by any chance, know Carlos H?
Rational Person
March 8th, 2010
5:19 pm
A lot of people here have commented that they like the idea of a person being on the premises carrying a legally concealed handgun.
I assume that most of the AJC readers live in Georgia. Do you know the requirements for getting a carry permit in Georgia? The requirements are that you fill out a form and pay a fee. You could be blind and get a permit in Georgia. You don’t have to do anything to demonstrate that you’re competent to handle a firearm.
Sleep well.
(I’m ignoring the completely irrelevant comment about the British soldiers.)
Jay
March 8th, 2010
7:08 pm
Why is it always assumed that a citizen carrying a pistol has had no training. I carry myself (both open and concealed). I have 8 years in the Army, another 2 years as a correctional officer, and would put my abilities against the police’s any day. Now I’m sure there are lots of people carrying who do not have the background I have, but why do you assume they have no experience? I don’t know anyone who spends a few hundred dollars at a minimum and then just loads it up and carries it everywhere. Those of us with guns practice, not only to be proficient, but because we enjoy target shooting also. You would be surprised at how accurate the civillians can be.
NR
March 8th, 2010
7:21 pm
Rational:
“A lot of people here have commented that they like the idea of a person being on the premises carrying a legally concealed handgun.
I assume that most of the AJC readers live in Georgia. Do you know the requirements for getting a carry permit in Georgia? The requirements are that you fill out a form and pay a fee. You could be blind and get a permit in Georgia. You don’t have to do anything to demonstrate that you’re competent to handle a firearm.
Sleep well.”
I do sleep well. In GA we do a background check to ensure that we don’t hand out carry permits convicted felons, people with a violent history, unstable mentally, persons with a restraining order against them, illegal immigrants, drug user, etc.
I also sleep well knowing that GA has a lower violent crime rate than states that don’t allow some form of concealed carry.
Did you also know that states which allow concealed carry have seen their violent crime rates drop faster than those which do not?
Scout
March 8th, 2010
8:36 pm
neo-Carlinist:
Good points ………………
No More Progressives! :
Unfortunately not. He was in the First Marine Division down around Da Nang (where the best pure sniping was with the Viet Cong) and I was with the Third Marine Divsion up near/in the DMZ (dealing with the more elusive NVA).
However, I do have his signed print (#311 of 800 – “White Feather”) on my study wall along with some of my other memorablilia.
range rat
March 8th, 2010
9:46 pm
nice chatt page you have going.. First off, This one is for Arnold [ is this the same arnold from GREEN ARCES??? ] I’m one of your so called wing nuts from WI, an I open carry… I’ve been around more weapon, thanks too the us army, [ 1972to1975] then you’ve been with your barbies!!!!!!
This next one is for ACE,, You said Real MEN drink Maxwell House an something about a12ga Pump Shotgun… Well tinty tim, if you must know, Real Men drink there coffee AFTER they have used it too clean there Weapon!! You can ask scout about this, or any nam vet…
I’ve save the best for last, Mr simple but Honest.. You say your a cop? Which State an City?? Or how about a Last name, an I’ll just run it thur the F.O.P. [ thats the Fraternal Order of Police ]..
Did you know? Mr Simple that in just 1992 the Police accidentally kill as many as 330 innocent individuals Annually…this is fact. AS for your Statement about Permit carring Zealots would Piss their Pants befor they would be able to Shoot, Think again Simple Simen..Alot of these so called Zealots as you call them are VETS, who Kiss the Ground more time then you your Dog!!! Who walk into vills full of people an have to beable to spot an shoot cause his Life an Lifes of his Buddys depended on him..So if a man pisses on himself Before or After he Shoots, Idon’t give a Damm as long as gets the job done…Pants can be Change, Innocent Lifes can’t be brought Back..
Range Rat
P.S. About Two Years ago in NY, Three Cops rip off 50 rounds between them, hit the guy only Five times, He didn’t even have a Gun..
No More Progressives!
March 8th, 2010
10:21 pm
Scout:
I have a friend in TN who was Advanced Recon Team in VN; he’d met Carlos. I’m a jack-leg historian & hope you don’t mind my being nosy.
Trang was something……………..God Bless You for your service.
What Me Worry
March 8th, 2010
10:29 pm
I think I’ll start buying overpriced burnt coffee now that I know they respect my rights. I doubt that I’ll be any safer or less safe there then anywhere eles i frequent. Unless all the patrons were visibly armed. Criminals may not be rational, but they aren’t completely stupid either. You don’t see them trying to rob the evidence room at police stations although they contain weapons and drugs worth alot of money. They also don’t try and hit gun shows although there are known to be lots of people carrying hundreds of dollars apiece. And as far as being more likely to be shot while carrying how many were gang members shot by members of other gangs?
Scout
March 8th, 2010
11:24 pm
No More Progressives!:
Yes he was. I believe he used a Winchester model 70 with a Unertl scope. By the time I got there we were using Remington 700’s with Redfields. He may have used a Remington on his second tour when he was so badly injured. He was a great Marine and hero to us all.
jimmy62
March 9th, 2010
12:21 am
This has happened, and there haven’t been any wild west style shootouts. All you people who favor restricting our constitutional rights and freedoms need to get a clue. Most large scale rampages with guns happen in gun free zones. Starbucks has not turned in to a dangerous place. Please, use your eyes, use your brains, see that your predictions of doom haven’t happened. And think about all the people that you are sentencing to death by taking away their ability to defend themselves.
Criminals laugh at your gun bans. Why would they care about risking a weapons charge when they are planning on breaking the law in far greater ways?
If you want to live in a place that doesn’t allow guns, move to North Korea. I’ll stick where I’m free to defend myself.
James
March 9th, 2010
1:24 am
Disgusted – the study you refer to is pure junk. There is an entire body of such studies which make headlines and then are picked apart by people who actually understand statistics. I’ve carried a gun for twenty years. Never been shot, never shot anyone. But several people have decided that my having a gun meant that committing a crime against me or in my presence was not a good idea.
JD
March 9th, 2010
1:25 am
Raghead I respect who you are & what you do but your thoughts beliefs & opinions about civilians incompetancy when carrying and using a gun is your right but it is my right to carry as long as I can meet the requirments of the issuing state’s CCW regulations. I am well aware of the large muscle dominance when the firing of a handgun at another human is required but I prefer my chances with it as to waiting on your arrival to the scene. Incidentally I fire twenty rounds every day off my deck unless I am competing in a match some where.
James
March 9th, 2010
1:32 am
Johnny Dodds – we have a common sense gun law. It was passed by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate and then ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the existing states (and some states insisted upon such an Amendment before joining the Union). If a person is convicted by a court of law of a felony or is determined to be a threat to themselves or others due to mental illness, as determined in court, they can be barred the lawful possession of arms. Any other restrictions placed by any level of government within the United States are a violation of civil rights and should be treated as same.
James
March 9th, 2010
1:38 am
Rational Person – Requiring training or licensing to exercise a Constitutional right is an infringement upon that right. I highly encourage people learn to safely and competently handle firearms, but once there is a government requirement that you do so before exercising a right, there’s a problem. The class gets scheduled at inconvenient times, limited seating, and magically all of the slots go to people with political connections.
JD
March 9th, 2010
1:58 am
Raghead I apoligise to you I was referring my comments to “Simple”.
I must add one other point in agreement with “James”. On two occasions
the odds were quickly turned in my favor just by the presence of a gun in hand. A friend of mine saved both our bacon from four perps in a city parking lot that were bent on messing us up & relieving us of our wallets & my car. I have been a firm believer of concealed carry ever since.
LEE DIMIN
March 9th, 2010
4:58 am
Starbucks at Dodge City? Can you finish your coffee before someone with a gun decides you’ve had too much to drink? No government, nor its highest Court can rule that someone can come into my home carrying a weapon should I forbid it, nor can they endanger the general public by allowing the free carrying of weapons in places attrracting pubic business. This is like putting storm troopers at every business and telling the owers what they can and cannot do. Will these idiots who sit in our legislatures and on our courts never learn the meaning of the English language as it is plainly written in the Constitution.
why is it impossible for the United States Supreme Court to read the entire Second Amendment as the one sentence that it is, making one part thereof dependent on other prts thereof. Why has the Supreme Court repeatedly ignored the first 13 words of the Second Amendment, “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” . A militia is not an individual, and individual ownership of arms is not well regulated, and self defense is not “the securoity of a free State.”
Justice Scalia claims to be an “originalist”. An “originalist” wojld never approve of individual right toown semi-automatics weaponsa of this sday – they weren’t available when the Second Amendment was adopted.
We have to get better justices on our Courts, not political appointees who are so steeped in political and religious ideologies that they cannot separate them from the law. That goes for our legislators as well.
To Starbuck: Don;t let these politicians tell you how to run your business, they’llruin you, as they are doing to this country.
RAH
March 9th, 2010
8:37 am
Enter your comments here
Lee, Read the Heller decision the first 13 words is a purpose not the only purpose. Heller decided that individuals not the collective have the right to own and carry a firearm. That means a handgun. Currently state laws in 38 states have open carry allowed. Most do not require permit.
The federal government can not infringe. So the federal government can not stop people from freely carrying guns in public.
The reason this controversy was California has very restricted conceal carry permit process, yet the law allows open carry unloaded. OC activists have been using that to carry openly. Starbucks made an announcement that they will follow state law and not prohibit carry where it is allowed.
The Brady groups are trying to put pressure to make Starbucks change its policy. Notice that OC activists do not protest in front of places that have prohibited carry. They just go to places that allow it.
The open carry folks are not protesting at stores they are just exercising their right to carry. They are exercising a civil right and unless the state changes the law it is legal. McDonald will be decided in June and it is expected that the 2A as defined in Heller will apply to all the states.
Chicago bans will fall as well as NYC. There will be flurry of lawsuits challenging laws in localities that prohibit the right to own and carry.
So the government will allow the public to carry guns. Wheher that endangers someone is not a given.
Scout
March 9th, 2010
9:23 am
LEE DIMIN:
1) Sorry, sir but the SCOTUS did read all the Amendment and they disagree with you.
2) If the 2nd Amendment meant only flintlocks, then the 1st Amendment meant only ink and quills (i.e., not computers).
iRun
March 9th, 2010
9:29 am
I’m a liberal, as many know, but I don’t really have a problem with open or conceal carry. I’m the daughter of a gun collector and I’m a pretty sharp shot with a revolver (specifically a .38, but not so good with a rifle…don’t like having it against my face).
However, I STRONGLY believe that along with a permit/license to carry you should be required to take Gun Safety and perhaps even other Firearm Training to make you less likely to make a bad decision, a dumb decision, or to even make the decision (rather than freezing on the spot like I suspect 99% of anyone not trained would actually do).
iRun
March 9th, 2010
9:33 am
As for obnoxious people going to Starbucks with a gun displayed…I would probably pass on the establishment. Why? Because AT THE MOMENT, going into Starbucks with a gun displayed is a hostile action. In a year, not so much.
Anyone going into Starbucks today with a gun displayed is obviously a hot-head. Cool headed people don’t need to make such a hostile point.
iRun
March 9th, 2010
9:36 am
I’m a MUCH bigger fan of a hollow metal baseball bat. Got one under my bed. And for a chick I can hit HARD. But that’s because I’m in really good shape with all that running I do. Got 5 miles to lay out today. Will run the 5 miles to work (and back) on Thursday, even if it rains. And Saturday I’m trekking 22. I get to see parts of town I wouldn’t otherwise see. Parts you could argue earn me the decision to carry. But, it’s easier and more effective just to run.
No More Progressives!
March 9th, 2010
10:04 am
iRun
March 9th, 2010
9:29 am
I’m a liberal, as many know, but I don’t really have a problem with open or conceal carry. I’m the daughter of a gun collector and I’m a pretty sharp shot with a revolver (specifically a .38, but not so good with a rifle…don’t like having it against my face).
That may be your problem. You don’t hold a rifle “against your face.” Hard to aim that way.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 9th, 2010
10:53 am
Dear JD @ 1:58 AM, thanks, you had me questioning what on earth I posted, and what external substance must have adversely affected my cognitive skills.
DJ
March 9th, 2010
11:02 am
I live in Fl which is a conceal state (by permit). If you wanted to start a fight, eliminating the big threat first would be the smart thing too do. I don’t think I would want to carry openly even if I could (other than hunting) If Starbucks doesn’t want me in their store because I carry, fine by me. I will go somewhere else. I have seen and heard the stories about being a civilian and whether you could actually shoot another person or not. If you have doubt’s whether or not you could, then don’t carry. My #1 reason to carry is for personal protection. If I was ever in a situation to prevent harm to any other human being, I would do any and everything I could to stop it. Yes, even squashing someone with my car in a parking lot. I like that by the way! I am 100% confident if I have to draw, I am prepared to fire. You can bank on it!
DJ
March 9th, 2010
11:22 am
BTW, In Fl we are required to complete a training course and have backround checks. However it is nowhere near enough training 4 hr course, mostly rules and regulations. I do shoot quite frequently and believe that anyone who carries should. Disregard my comment about attacking the biggest guy first, that was my bar fighting days coming out. ;P