Interesting Choice of Words

"Gun-control law overcomes amendments to pass legislature" read the headline on wsoctv.com after the NC Senate passed a gutted version of H562, which actually loosens some gun laws in North Carolina. They're just spinning it, I thought. If so, they may have inadvertently swerved into something here: any legislation that targets law-abiding citizens, such as pistol permit requirements, restrictions on places to carry, and special privileges for politicians is gun control, even if it is intended to "grant" more rights.

The very fact that politicians think that they're doing citizens a favor by "allowing" them to exercise a God-given right indicates that they are in office for the wrong reasons.

Protected by the Law?

I’m no lawyer, but I do know that laws don’t protect people from what may happen to them; rather, laws describe the consequences for transgressors of the law if they get caught breaking that law. Therefore, one should never trust The Law to keep them safe. For example, the fact that pedestrians are to be given the right-of-way at intersections should give no one the confidence to walk out in front of a moving vehicle, especially in areas frequented by drivers who do not recognize pedestrians (or bicycles, dogs, etc.) to be legitimate occupants of the roadway. Yes, if the vehicle hits you, you can make the case that the driver was in the wrong (or your family can, if you are killed;) but the law will not keep you from being injured. You should take preemptive action to protect yourself by not walking in traffic.

Since laws do not protect us from harm, we should, and indeed should be required, to take preemptive action to keep ourselves and our families safe. This means, among other things, the carrying of a means of defense of ourselves and of others, if need be. This means carrying it everywhere. Yes, I’m talking about a handgun. A concealed handgun “permit” holder should be allowed to carry anywhere, especially public places like schools and businesses. (The holder should not need a permit, but that’s the subject of another discussion.) If denied that right to defend himself, the CHP holder should stay away from those places and businesses. If a government facility or business denies your right to carry on its property, then the operator of that facility assumes responsibility for your safety. But just like the pedestrian, don’t assume that promise will keep you safe. Sadly, the truth is that those government officials and business owners don’t trust law abiding citizens to do the right thing.

This flies in the face of the US Constitution, not to mention the North Carolina Constitution Bill of Rights of 1776, which states: “[T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence (sic) of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” - North Carolina Ratifying Convention, Declaration of Rights and Other Amendments, § XVII (1776) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss10.html.

“Oh, it’s not the lawful ones we’re worried about! It’s the criminals!” Is your mind so clouded by your belief in the basic goodness of people that you really think a sticker on a door is going to be obeyed by someone up to no good, who knows that there is no one standing between him and his criminal intent? You’re placing a huge bet on that chance. I’d sooner buy a lottery ticket.

What Part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" Do You Not Understand?

I recently received my North Carolina concealed handgun permit. Ready and authorized to carry a concealed handgun, I am nevertheless flummoxed by those who would seek to deny me a right I am already guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

There seem to be more places in North Carolina that one cannot carry than where it is permitted. Schools, banks, Federal and State buildings and offices, plus “public gatherings” are all off-limits. In other words, the places criminals would logically seek out, since there is no one to stop them.

“But, we can’t have people packing guns everywhere! There would be anarchy!” Actually, studies show more crimes are prevented by responsible gun owners than are committed by criminals.

Besides the fact that one should be allowed to arm themselves (again, a right already granted, or, more correctly, not to be infringed upon,) one must be armed to provide a measure of self-defense.

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do not have a constitutional right to protection by law enforcement, even in the presence of a restraining order. This decision ignited a firestorm of controversy, but the facts in question miss the point.

The point is that if law enforcement (i.e. the government) has no legal obligation to protect you, then you should be allowed to protect yourself.

Please don’t misunderstand. My problem is not with law enforcement, since to require protection of the citizenry would open public safety agencies up to so much litigation as to severely restrict (or outright prevent) them from doing what they are sworn to do. They do an excellent job with the resources they have. Nevertheless, the job of the criminal justice system is justice, not defense. That is the job of the citizens.

My problem is with a government that doesn’t trust me to do the right thing (or to spend my own money either, but I digress;) yet at the same time thinks that criminals care whether a business or public building has a little sticker that tells them they can’t have a weapon on the premises. The very places that prohibit possession of firearms would benefit the most from a responsible, armed citizenry.

For the business owner who prohibits weapons, the concern is liability. My question is, in which lies the greater liability: the discharge of a firearm by a responsible, law-abiding citizen; or a firearm injury inflicted during the commission of a crime by the perpetrator?

Responsible gun owners should boycott businesses that (rightfully) refuse firearm possession. We should also remind our elected officials that, by denying us the right to defend ourselves on public property, that government agency assumes responsibility for our safety. Yes, we usually have a choice whether to enter the building or property, but no one can dispute the fact that such a policy denies the citizen his or her right to self-defense.

The position that criminals should be denied access to guns, while noble on its face, is nevertheless only half the argument. It ignores the need of potential victims to protect themselves and their families. Why are guns always the problem and not part of the solution? The need of the individual is sacrificed for some lofty social goal.

Trust is a two-way street. A government and society that doesn’t trust me to do the right thing does not earn my trust.