So What Are They Really Trying to Do Here?

Over in our neighboring state of California, often derisively referred to as "the People's Republic of California", legislation of a kind that I've never heard of before is being introduced.  Senate Bill 464, as introduced by state senator Jerry Hill, will mandate increased security at gun stores throughout the state.  If you read the article linked below, what we have here is legislation inspired by the brainchild of Anthony Lazarus of Redwood City as a result of a gun theft which the article implies occurred not too far from where he lives.

Of course, Senator Hill and Mr. Lazarus want to make it harder for criminals to get access to guns.  Having once been the victim of a gun crime myself many years ago, I don't want criminals to have access to guns either.  I'm going to go on record as supporting that one part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which says that a felon cannot have a gun.  I don't personally think that provision is going to make Joe Criminal go down to the police station to turn his gun in, but I want it there.......and I want it enforced.  Hold that thought on enforcement because we'll get to that later.  Let's get back to SB 464 for a moment.

Now no sane person wants a gun store to totally lack security.  But do we really want to make this a law?  Let's look at this in another light.

Do you think it might be in the interests of the owner(s) of the gun store to have theft deterrent measures in place as a matter of business practice?  Do jewelry store owners, pawn shop owners, auto stereo store owners, and computer store owners practice what you would call lax security?  Do these other business owners really need a law to tell them to lock their stuff up at night and secure the premises?

OK, some of you are saying that "gun stores are different!"  Fair enough.  They are.  It would seem to me that they are alarmed with all sorts of high tech sensors to protect their inventory.  Securing the inventory when they're closing up shop makes for good business sense.  What I'm raising here, is the question of whether or not we actually need a law to tell them to do this, and to tell them how to do this.  The how specified in this law isn't exactly timeless.  Security technology advances over time, as that where there are measures there are also countermeasures, and the how of securing this inventory is going to have to be revisited eventually in order to counter the countermeasures.  What I'm saying here, is that if you pass this law and it contains micromanagement of the how, then you're going to have to come back and amend it at some future point.

I have a suggestion as to addressing the concerns brought forth by Mr. Lazarus, but first let's get back to that thought on enforcement.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 is a federal law that among many other things, says that a felon can not legally possess a firearm.  California has a law saying the same thing, as does Arizona, Nevada, and every other state.  This might seem like a needless duplication of those state laws, and I can entertain that argument, but as I've stated I favor that provision at this point in time........with one proviso........that we enforce it.

Are there inmates in federal lockup right now serving time for violation of this part of the law?  I wouldn't doubt that there are, but I'm unclear as to whether any of them are serving time for that kind of violation and no other violation of federal law.  That's something that I should research some time.

I am aware of criminals being charged by local police for violating state laws prohibiting felons from having firearms.  I look at the mugshot photos from time to time of those caught in southern Arizona, out of a curiosity as to what they were busted for.  Some of them have multiple charges, and one of them that I see from time to time is having a firearm while being a "prohibited possessor".  As to whether or not these are dropped in plea bargaining is also a good question, and the way I see it is that it might be.

Now for my suggestion as an alternative to what SB464 is setting out to do here.

Instead of placing the burden of mandating security at a gun store, what would be wrong with a mandatory additional five year sentence of stealing a firearm that is not subject to parole or any other kind of early release?   Or how about an additional five years for driving a car through a storefront in order to steal any kind of merchandise?  We already have sentencing enhancements for what they call "hate" crimes.  Why not have them for stealing guns and smashing cars through storefronts?   And why not have these sentencing enhancements mandatory, so that these criminals are kept off the streets?

There is no doubt in my mind of the sincerity in Mr. Lazarus wanting Redwood City to be safer.  I'm with him on that.  I have occasion to visit Redwood City once or twice a year to visit a good friend of mine, and as far as I know I'll be there again later this year.

The sincerity of the state senator is another matter.  I don't think that keeping felons off the streets is one of his top priorities.

I think what he's really trying to do here, is to make it harder on the gun stores to remain in business, and this is one incremental step to drive them all out since he can't overturn the Supreme Court's Heller decision.


LINK

The Events in San Bernardino

News of the shootings in San Bernardino broke about noon yesterday.  As with all events of this nature, there weren't very many known details at first.  One report said one gunman and another said three.  One headline that briefly appeared on Drudge said the shooters were white while another one that briefly appeared said that they were of Middle Eastern origin, both of which conflicted with more reliable reports that the shooters were masked and were possibly wearing body armor.  About all that was known with certainty was that they were on a mission.  They went in, shot several people, and then left.

This of course, triggered all sorts of speculation, and yes, I was partaking in that as well.  At work I was suggesting that a fourth person was involved, and they could be heading right here to Vegas.  I figured that if three shooters could go in and get out quickly, that a fourth drove the getaway SUV that we were hearing about.

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Highway Patrol sent fifteen units between to set up at where I-15 crosses the state line, suggesting that they had either had intelligence that they were on their way over here, or were taking a precaution.  They were waiting at Primm just in case, and a few hours later it was breaking that the suspect SUV was located and gunfire was being exchanged. 

As can be expected, some politicians were quick to jump on the gun control bandwagon, before we even knew who was involved and where/how the weapons were obtained.  From what I've been able to determine, all guns were legally purchased, with two of them having been picked up in Corona.  At this point in time, the news reports I've read about this is suggesting that these were "straw" purchases, already illegal under federal law, and there likely is a California law against these types of purchases as well.  The gun control proposals being suggested would of course, never prevented this tragedy, and if straw purchases were indeed the case here then the appropriate thing to do is to make an example of those involved and send them off to Federal lockup until they are carried out in a body bag (though I'd be OK with them facing a firing squad for this).

One other reaction I'll note is the headline of the New York Daily News, suggesting that God isn't fixing this.  That's pretty rich, coming from people who don't want God involved in any way, shape or form in the first place.  Seems as if some in Organized Media have as much of a problem with the First Amendment as they do with the Second.  However, I think I'd like to see them beat this drum more loudly tomorrow, so that those who haven't made up their mind will take note of this foolish grandstanding and be alienated from the media.

As for "jihad" finally coming to our shores..........the junior varsity team, you know, the one that's been "contained", is celebrating this, but they're not taking responsibility.  But that doesn't mean that they won't try.  I'd bet money on them planning terrorist attacks as I write this.

Meanwhile, the left in this country is in hysterics.  There's no Confederate flag involved here, and the Tea Party isn't responsible either.  And although I have lost count of the number of online comments from them blaming the NRA, the reality is that California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, all of which failed the victims yesterday. 

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families this evening. 

Not Quite What I Expected..........

In my previous post, I was wondering if some fatass politician was going to blame the NRA for the recent terrorist attack in France. 

We didn't quite get that.  Yet.

What we got instead was the actor Liam Neeson blaming this on "too many (expletive deleted) guns in America".  That's right.  "Too many guns".

It wasn't the magazine printing cartoon images of the prophet Mohammed that caused this.  Nope.  That couldn't possibly have anything to do with this.

And it certainly wasn't the terrorists.  Nope.  That could never have caused the attack either. 

Instead it's "too many guns" in America that caused this.

It doesn't matter that this terrorist attack happened in France.  It also doesn't matter that the French gun control laws placed the first police officers responding to this into a state of being disarmed when trying to take control of the situation.  That has nothing to do with this, according to Liam Neeson.  It can't possibly have anything to do with this  at all.  Nope.  Instead, it's all because of the "too many guns" in America.

This is rather rich coming from someone who's earned quite a pile of money starring in movies that glorify gun violence.  He takes money from a motion picture studio that glorifies the violent use of guns, and then blames a terrorist attack on one country on guns that are in another country.

I'm very glad that Liam Neeson came forward to blame the "too many guns" in America for this.

One........it makes all of the gun control proponents look stupid.  Not a single one of them is disavowing his remarks.  Not one. 

Two.  It shows us the level of hypocrisy that a Hollywood actor can suffer from.

Three.  It also shows us just how disconnected from reality that a Hollywood actor can be. 

I hope that from this day forward, Liam Neeson refuses to star in any movie where a gun is used, be it for portraying a criminal activity or for a "good guy" using it to defend himself.

I also hope that if he has a concealed weapon permit, that he reports to the nearest police station to surrender it, along with the gun that he carries for self-protection.

Some Random Thoughts; 1/11/15

In the wake of the tragic shooting at Charlie Hebdo, Organized Media and the liberal left have been in a panic over two things.  One of them is that the mainstream of society will associate this terrorist action with Muslims, and another is that the right wing might gain control of France.

France for years has been a socialist paradise.  Free health care (if you can get it), 35 hour work weeks (if you can find a job), six weeks of vacation a year (if you have a job), and gun control that's so strict that even a percentage of the police aren't allowed to carry guns.

Could it be that the real fear is that they know a socialist paradise does not protect the individual citizen, since the needs of the State come first?

 

* * * * * * *

I'm waiting to see if one of our own politicians will be blaming the NRA for what happened in France.  The NRA is a formidable opponent to the proposed UN treaty that's targeting "small arms".  Watch for one of them to come forward to say, "if only this treaty had been in force this would never have happened!"

* * * * * * *

Organized Media and those who let Organized Media do their thinking for them are telling us that we shouldn't be offending the Muslims.

Yet these are the same people who have no problem with Christians being offended.  Example, federal money being used to fund "art" depicting a crucifix in urine.

They will deny that they have an anti-Christian bias, but try asking them about having federal money fund an art project that has the Koran submerged in urine, or an image of the Prophet Mohammed defaced. 

Watch them change the subject if you suggest that.  That is, if they don't turn and walk away from you.

* * * * * * *

Living in a state that has legalized gambling will present you with images that you are not likely to forget.

I keep thinking about that 40 something woman that I saw in a casino last month.  She was trying to withdraw funds from an ATM, and saw the message on her screen that informed her that her daily withdrawal limit had been reached.

That look of despair and panic on her face is something I will never forget.

* * * * * * *

Proponents of legalized gambling will tell you that it will bring money and jobs into your state.

That's very true.  Billions of dollars come to Nevada each year.  The roads here are in good shape, and I pay no state income tax. 

However, the entrepreneur who founded my new employer didn't make his money from gambling.  He made it from another business, having recognized a niche need for that industry that he filled.

I can't say that my job depends on legalized gambling, and I think that might be a good thing.

As for those billions of dollars that are coming here, I haven't gotten a single dime.  I do indirectly benefit from the good roads and lower tax burden.  But I'm not convinced that gambling should be legal. 

* * * * * * *

How has legalized gambling helped Atlantic City? 

Last I heard, the slums are still there.

* * * * * * *

Yet...........I'll have to admit that playing the nickel slots are a lot of fun, as well as shooting craps.   I haven't done very much of either since I started living here.  I don't like the $5 minimum bet that most casinos here have on the craps table.  I did visit a casino in Henderson that my boss told me about that had a $1 limit, and thirty minutes later I was up $4 when I quit. 

I guess craps isn't as much fun if it's legal where you live.  It seemed like it was much more fun when I was a resident of California/Arizona. 

* * * * * * *

I am becoming convinced that federal legislation is needed to prohibit Microsoft engineers from being near any hardware or software that is used to fly spacecraft or aircraft. 

How many planes would suddenly crash if Microsoft were to write code for aerodynamic control?  How many rockets would blow up?  How many manned spacecraft would find themselves stranded in orbit?

Microsoft engineers definitely need to be kept away from flight articles.

* * * * * * *

That's all, folks!

"Elected Officials are Fundamentally Dishonest"

What you are about to read is a letter to the Editor of the Newtown Bee.  I became aware of this by an email forwarded to me from a friend of mine in Florida who didn't know if it was real or not.  I googled it, and it's real.

You will never, in one hundred thousand million lifetimes, ever read or hear about this from Organized Media.

That's one reason why there's a blogosphere, and you're now going to read this here.

It can also be found at this link:  LINK

To the Editor:

This letter was forwarded to Barack Obama, John Boehner, Chris Murphy, Dick Blumenthal, Elizabeth Esty, and Harry Reid

I live in Sandy Hook, CT. My family and close friends weren't harmed on December 14. That day impacted 26 families with an indescribable, staggering pain and anguish. For most of Sandy Hook, it merely affected us with an inescapable intensity of sadness and grief.

Gun control has long been a focus of many in this country. Though I'm not knowledgeable of all the nuances of the Second Amendment, based on the Founding Fathers' circumstances, it had far more to do with enabling the citizenry to protect themselves against tyrannical government than against local psychopaths. It is about providing a balanced firepower so when King George's successor came knocking on your door, you could fight back. Government today is no less inclined to abuse its authority than it was then. Based on the absurd and ongoing power grab that is present day Washington, it's as threatening as ever.

That so many of you view the NRA with its resistance to further restrictions on firearms as intransigent lunatics has far more to do with how you conduct yourselves in office than it does with the NRA's actions.

You in public office are fundamentally dishonest people. You lead lives of deception at every turn, structuring your lives as comfortably as you can while governing with an indifference and arrogance that is absolutely maddening. When the country is reeling from financial disaster, you waste a trillion dollars on a health care bill we can't afford and you've never read. You claim it's critical because health care costs are killing this country... no they're not, you are! You are killing this country. You endorse the ongoing slaughter of millions of unborn children and whine when terrorists are water boarded. You can't lecture us right in Newtown High School about not doing enough to keep our children safe, while simultaneously slaughtering the unborn. You fabricate the intense, media laden drama of the fiscal cliff and lack the courage to do anything about truly reforming the obscene gluttony of government. You know you'll be out of office before the bill comes due… you don't care and have no integrity nor honor.

You lie whenever and wherever you need to to move forth your agenda. Were you able, you would purge the US of guns… every last gun in the country, if you could. So please forgive Wayne LaPierre and those of us who don't trust you as far as we can spit. You're a dishonest lot, motivated by a distorted worldview. If mass murder prevention were truly your goal, you would welcome armed security wherever needed. It is outrageous that we protect our money with far more firepower than we protect our children.

I have never owned a gun, nor wanted to as intensely as right now. You'll stop restricting guns when only you have them.

Brendan Duffy

4 Chestnut Knoll Drive, Sandy Hook January 8, 2013

Some catching up to do.........

I know, it's been several weeks since I last posted.  I've gotten an email or two about people asking me how I'm doing.  There are lots of things going on in life right now that I've been busy doing, and as a result I don't seem to have a whole lot of free time lately.  It's all good, or most of it anyway, and I remain alive and well.

Sheila and I have been seeing a lot of each other over the past several weeks.  Most weekends we spend the whole day doing something together (today she's at her house getting caught up on some things too).  Last weekend we did a lot of walking.  Weekends before it was barbecuing, visiting, or going out to eat.  Last night we went to a baseball game.  Next weekend is the county fair.  When she comes over later on, I'm firing up the grill and slow-cooking a flat brisket.

We've been doing a lot of things together, and having lots of fun. 

However, I feel the need to catch up here, and to post some random thoughts and observations.

 

* * * * * * *

Dennis Rodman was over in North Korea not so long ago.  A lot of people, most notably on the talk radio circuit and a few here and there on Fox News have a problem with him.

Me, I don't have a problem with Dennis Rodman going over there.  I really don't.

My problem with Dennis Rodman is that he came back.

* * * * * * *

There seems to be a push in some (if not all) in the "blue" states to tighten gun control laws in the wake of some tragedies.  There are even some efforts on the federal level.

I can't point to a single law, passed or proposed, that would have prevented these tragedies.  Connecticut will require the registration of high capacity magazines while outlawing the possession of newer high capacity magazines.

First of all, the criminals aren't going to register their magazines.  They simply won't.  Those in favor of this law must know this, yet they insist on magazine registration.

That tells me that the purpose of this law (and other laws requiring registration of firearms) have only one purpose.  That purpose is to let the government know where the legally held firearms are.  They don't seem interested in knowing where the criminally held firearms are.  Why is that?

A conspiracy theorist will tell you that the purpose of these laws are to set the stage for a future confiscation.

I find that kind of viewpoint difficult to disagree with. 

As I've said before, criminals don't register their guns.

* * * * * * *

While driving around Tuesday night, I tuned in to one of the talk radio shows, and it was Andy Dean interviewing a professor.  I unfortunately did not catch this professor's name or which institution of higher learning he was with.  The professor criticized Andy Dean for not wanting to "invest" in infrastructure such as roads and bridges.

I don't know about the professor, or about you, but me, when I think of the term "invest" and the act of investing, I'm doing so because I want to get some sort of monetary return on this. 

How do I invest in the widening of some interstate highway somewhere?  There's no toll being collected on that highway (at least not here in the West) and no dividend that the highway is going to pay me.  There might be a publicly owned construction firm that I could buy stock in, but I wouldn't be "investing" in it since I'm not allowed to designate a portion of my tax dollars to purchase stock in that company. 

Likewise, there are extremely wealthy owners of sports franchises in Major League baseball or the NFL who demand that the city buy them a new stadium using public funds.  The politicians then beg the voters for another tax increase in order to "invest" in that new stadium or arena in order to keep the team.

If the word "investment" is accurate in these instances, then how come the major Wall Street corporations don't form consortia to "invest" in new ballparks and basketball/hockey arenas? 

Two reasons.  One, they don't have to if they know that gullible voters can be suckerered into increasing the sales tax, and two, the projects won't return money anyway.

Seattle blew up the Kingdome a few years back, and they're still making payments on it.

* * * * * * *

This brings up another topic.  Sheila and Iwere talking about baseball strikes that seem to occur every so often.  I remember that one back in 1972, the one in 1981, and especially the one in 1994.  There always is some debate over what the cause of the strike is.  Some say the baseball players are being greedy, and others say the owners are being greedy.  I'll go so far as to say that both sides are greedy, and that one consequence of a bunch of money gathering in one place is that everybody who is near that money will get into a bitter fight over who that pile of money belongs to.

I have another theory as to why there are baseball strikes, hockey lockouts, and other labor disputes in professional sports.

The cause of these strikes are the fans.

When the strike is over, the fans always come back (there were a lot of fans who did not come back after the 1994 baseball strike; and who never will).  The fans are willing to pay $10 for parking, $60 for a ticket, $8 for a beer, $4 for a hot dog.......it's the fans who keep coming back, no matter what the price is, that is causing these labor disputes.

If the fans were to form a union and demand lower ticket and concession prices and to go on strike until their demands were met, they might stand a chance of actually winning such a strike.

 

* * * * * * *

Yes, we went to a baseball game last night.  Parking was free, the great seats were $10, and we got a good honest game out of it.  It was the Triple A Tucson Padres, who are in their last year in Tucson, hosting the Fresno Grizzlies.  Next year they play in El Paso, and unless the local Golden Baseball League franchise is re-activated we will be without baseball here in the Old Pueblo next year.

Tucson isn't exactly a baseball town.  The Sidewinders did not get fan support, and now they're in Reno playing as the Aces.  The Tucson Padres came here with their owners expecting Escondido to build them a new ballpark, but that fell through.  El Paso then agreed to build a new ballpark for them and it will be ready next year.

I like minor league ball, in that you get an honest game.  The players are all itching to move up to the majors, so they're not yet crybabies. 

As for major league ball:  I won't go. 

When the players came back after the 1994 strike, I went on strike as a fan and I'm still on strike.  I can't so much tell you the teams who have been in the World Series since then.

 

* * * * * * *

Don't forget to pet a dog or a cat.

The Events in Tucson

Unless you've been vacationing on Mars for the past few weeks or something like that, you have no doubt heard of the tragedy that we had in Tucson eight days ago, which is, as I write this, still reverberating around the news channels and especially in the local and state media.  When the story first broke last Saturday, there were lots of unknowns.  We would get one piece of information, only to learn a few hours later that it was incorrect because it was overcome by another piece of information.  There's still going to be plenty of Monday morning quarterbacking and analysis by self-appointed experts in the media, many of whom have never even so much as set foot in Tucson, yet feel qualified to lecture those of us here on how we ought to be doing things.

I guess in something like this, it's human nature to fix "blame" on something.  What do you "blame"?  Who do you "blame"?  I've seen and read all sorts of divergent viewpoints on this.  Some say that we need to repeal the Second Amendment.  Others want more restrictions on guns, but not an overturning of the Second Amendment. Some say that Congresswoman Giffords should have asked for some sheriff's deputies to accompany her (that was apparently not her style) and others say the sheriff's deputies should have known better in the first place to not provide security.  One person whose opinion I respect highly portends that the root cause of this is the breakdown of the family structure that we've had in the past forty years and a lack of moral baseline being instilled in our children, and I'm going to confess that I largely agree with that sentiment.

However, a situation like this is complex enough to defy any simple solution that we wish to apply to it.  Think of it as a symphony.  You go to a symphony, hear Beethoven's Fifth or Fanfare for the Common Man performed.  You enjoy the performance, but no single instrument executed the performance in and of itself to make it happen.  All things and circumstances worked together to bring it about, and from what I know of the shooter, he was mentally deranged and there were a collection of factors which contributed to it in some degree or another.

That said, I'm going to buck the trend here as far as assigning blame.  Well, if you know me well, you knew I would end up doing this, but if you don't, then sit down for a minute.

The single and sole person responsible for this is Jared Loughner.

It wasn't the Tea Party.

It wasn't Sarah Palin.

It wasn't the Second Amendment.

It was Jared Loughner.

From what we now know, he had had it in for the Congresswoman for three years running at least.  He had attended a previous meet, asked a question, didn't like the answer, and thus took the first step towards a series of steps that led to this.  Sure, we can look back right now and say that we should have seen this coming.  The Pima County Sheriff's Department had previous contacts with him.  They knew about him, they knew he was unstable, but did not act on that.  That likely is no fault of their own; state laws about what should be done to unstable people vary from state to state, and I can tell you that in ours that threatening suicide is not going to get you locked up for 72 hours like it would in California.  So blaming the sheriff isn't exactly accurate, even if you happen to think like I do that we have a cretinous ass for a Sheriff.

The Second Amendment?  The Supreme Court recently ruled that it's an individual right.  In so noting, they did not overturn existing restrictions on the mentally ill from possessing guns.  I am in no way ever going to opine that someone who is presently mentally ill should have a handgun, but the devil is in the details as they say, and again with fifty states we have fifty different legal definitions on mental illness.  I'm not going to suggest that we federalize a standard uniform definition, mainly because the higher up the chain you go for an answer, the further removed from reality that the person you're seeking the answer from is.

I will grant that the state of Arizona should re-evaluate what constitutes mental illness.  Arizona Revised Statutes make it clear that the menstally unstable are prohibited from possessing firearms (and rightly so) but there's a suggestion here that the threshold of what constitutes mental instability should be re-examined.

What about Sarah Palin?  There is nothing in Jared Loughner's profiles on the various websites that he frequented to suggest that he had read her books or watched her interviews on TV.  I personally think it's absurd for those who comment on the online forums here in Tucson to blame Sarah Palin for it.  I've also seen it suggested that Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh might have been a factor, but again, we have one of his high school friends state that Jared Loughner did not really follow politics or watch the news.  He was simply deranged, had a fixation for Gabrielle Giffords, and guess what?  He's a registered independent.  So am I.  So are a lot of us.

I will want to, at some point in the future, maybe the near future, come back and re-visit the Second Amendment, not in the context of this tragedy, but instead with a companion re-visiting of the First Amendment.  I could do that right now but I'm getting ready to slap a ribeye on the barbecue grill, and plus, there are other things I like to do too.

However, suffice it to say that from this resident of Tucson, there's only one person to blame for all of this.

His name is Jared Loughner.

Concealed Weapons in Arizona

Two days ago Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed into legislation, a bill that would make carrying a concealed weapon in Arizona without a permit, in most cases, legal. This legislation has catapulted Arizona into the headlines on the Drudge Report and in the national media. As a resident, I would like to tell you what this means from a resident's point of view, but first, some background.

When the nation was founded, it was understood that you not only had the right to possess a weapon, but you also had the right to carry it. This right, as far as I know, was not questioned or regulated for the first century of our nation's existence. You can say that it was universally understood to be a right to possess and carry, and that you had the right to self-defense. It wasn't really questioned when Arizona was a territory, as that even the so-called "cowboys", whom can be viewed as a criminal element (especially in Tombstone in 1881) had the right to possess and carry.

It was around that time though that legislation restricting the concealed carry of a firearm was coming into vogue among several states. The southern states, wishing to keep the newly-freed slave population in their place, were among the first to enact laws restricting the carrying of a concealed weapon. Texas outlawed the practice in 1871. Other states enacted similar bans over a period of time. California outlawed the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit in 1923, and Minnesota finally got around to it in 1975. At that time the carrying of a concealed weapon tended to be favored by the criminal element, thus the rationale for passing these kinds of laws. When California passed their law in 1923, they required a permit, and you could not get one unless the chief of police or the sheriff issued you a permit, and you had to show "good cause" for carrying a concealed weapon. Interestingly enough, some of the states that restricted concealed carry did not outlaw "open carry": that is, carrying a firearm in plain view while in a belt holster. Arizona was one of these states......open carry of a firearm remained legal without a permit, and it is still legal here to this day.

By the mid 1980s, only ten states were what we can define as "shall issue". That is, if you had no criminal record and you applied for a concealed weapon permit, or CCW, the permitting authority was required to grant you such a permit. Some states required applicants to complete a firearms safety course while others, such as Washington, did not.

Things began to change in 1987. The state of Florida that year changed their law. The legislature passed a law that made Florida "shall issue". If you had no criminal record and took the class, you would then be issued a permit. This was of some controversy in Florida as that the nay-sayers predicted an escalation of violence. What happened though was that it was the law-abiding who applied for the permit, and revocations of these permits (such as for misconduct involving a firearm) were relatively rare.

Florida going "shall issue" had the effect of catalyzing similar movements in other states. Other states followed suit, with Texas going "shall issue" in 1994 as well as Arizona. Those who were living here at that time have told me that similar predictions of escalation of violence were raised by the nay-sayers. Never mind that "open carry" was legal in Arizona and usually seen in the smaller towns. Increased bloodshed was predicted to take place here. And again, revocations of concealed weapon permits in Arizona were relatively rare.

When the Arizona legislature legalized concealed carry with a permit, they tweaked the "car carry" law as well. We have always had the ability to drive around with a loaded firearm on the front seat of car as long as the weapon was in plain sight. I have had out of staters ask me if this bothers the cops, and the cops that I have talked to really haven't had a problem with that as long as the weapon was plainly visible. The 1994 law added that driving around with a weapon in your glovebox was legal. Your weapon could also be under the front seat if the weapon was in a holster. This was an interesting quirk, as that if your firearm was in a holster and under the front seat, it was legal without a permit. Yet, if the weapon was not in a holster and under the front seat, it was considered 'concealed", and illegal if you did not have a permit. Go figure. (New Mexico got around this by declaring that your motor vehicle was an extension of your home, and the weapon could be anywhere within the vehicle, and Louisiana has that interpretation as well).

Now things are going to change in Arizona as far as the law is concerned. We are going to become the third state that allows the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit. Vermont does not regulate the transport of firearms; concealed or open carry is legal there, and Vermont does not issue permits. Alaska became the second state to not require a permit, although Alaska will issue you a permit if you want one, but will not require the permit. And here in Arizona, the Department of Public Safety will issue you the permit if you qualify, as that some 30 states will honor the Arizona permit and you will have to have that if you wish to carry a concealed weapon in those states.

Also, you will need a permit if you wish to carry a concealed weapon in any place that serves alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, but you must conceal the weapon and you must not consume alcoholic beverages, and the owner of the establishment permits firearms on the premises. Some restaurants and bars have posted "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" signs while others have not. The media is not pointing this out, as that they instead want people outside of Arizona to think that we've somehow gone back to the Wild West.

What the media isn't telling you, that in the grand scheme of things, is that the impact is neglible. It's already legal to carry a loaded firearm in a belt holster. I've seen that occasionally here in Tucson, and I've done it myself when I've gone on my ghost town expiditions. On two occasions a law enforcement officer has observed me in the open carry mode, and I was not approached or questioned in any way. If you want to open carry here, it is your right.

As for concealed carry, the reality of the situation is that the criminals are doing it anyway without a permit. Do you really think that a criminal is going to apply for a concealed carry permit? If you do, or if you think that a criminal is cares about compliance to carry laws, I am going to have to tell you that you are sadly mistaken. I know about this from experience, as that I am the survivor of an armed robbery that took place when I was living in San Jose.

My place of employment was robbed at gunpoint. The robber was caught at the scene. The robber was not charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. He was not charged with possessing a loaded firearm in public within the limits of an incorporated city, which is not legal in California. I'm going to guess that his gun was not registered either, which is again, a violation of California law. He took possession, at gunpoint, money that was not his, and he was not charged with armed robbery either. He instead was charged with "attempted" armed robbery and subsequently dealt with in the courts. That should be telling you that California's laws with respect to concealed weapons are not applied to practicing criminals. Instead, California prefers to charge the nurse who is caught with a handgun in her purse since her co-workers have been raped in the parking lot over the past few months.

So, am I in favor of Arizona making it legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit?

I am, but I'm not done with this yet.

One, I have had a state-issued concealed weapons permit since early 1999 when I moved here. I have taken the class, I have renewed the permit, and when it comes up again for renewal in 2013 I'm going to keep the permit.

Two, I think people here should take the class anyway and apply for the permit. If it were up to me, a "mandatory" firearms safety would be taught in high school, as that I think that our youth must have drilled into them that guns are not toys and that they must be respected. Part of that high school course should include a visit to the morgue where they can see for themselves what happens when guns are misused. (I do think that parents should have the right to exempt their children from this class, which is why I put mandatory in quotes....there are pacifists out there who have the right to their beliefs and I will not force my beliefs onto pacifists).

Three, taking the class does reinforce the notion that there are legal issues and responsibilities when it comes to carrying firearms. Again, I would rather that these things be taught in high schools, but the public education system seems more intent on making our kids think that Christopher Columbus was a genocidal racist than they are in teaching real life issues such as legal matters or how the lending industry works.

I personally would not have a problem if concealed carry without a permit was legal in all fifty states. However, that isn't the case. There are some holdout states that suffer from the mentality that defense of self or home is somehow morally wrong.......Joe and Jane Citizen must instead submit to the criminal rather than draw a gun on that criminal. That isn't right.

The criminal isn't going to go to a police station to ask for an application for a concealed weapons permit. The criminal isn't going to register his gun at the police station if his state's law says that they have to. They just won't do it. They won't. They're criminals, after all.

Arizona is in the process of levelling the playing field.

I hope that other states follow suit.

* * * * * * *

The new website for Bachman & Turner will go online in a few hours! Check them out, http://www.bachmanandturner.com/.

* * * * * * *

Summer will soon be here. As I write this, I have chicken in the fridge that will find its way to my barbecue grill in the very near future. I'm hoping that Lynette can get off work early so that she can join me.

If she doesn't make it, then I guess I'll have leftover BBQ chicken for tomorrow night's supper.

* * * * * * *

Future projects for this blog: I want to start posting some interesting photos that have either found their way to me, and/or those that I have taken. I've been exercising my Canon AE-1 again after a long hiatus.

I also want to devote few posts for some book reviews, as my cousin Jeanette is doing.

I wanted to do that with this post, but with our new law I felt the need to comment on that while that iron was still hot.

* * * * * * *

Don't forget to pet a dog or a cat. Dogs and cats have a sense of loyalty to people, and we could learn from them.

Also, taking the time to pet a dog or a cat will reduce your blood pressure. It will make the dog or cat feel good too, and they'll appreciate it.