Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Sep 6, 2006.
September 6, 2006.
Maybe the guys family should sue the State....
Cabbies and Guns
First of all, I'll bet that most cabbies DO have a gun in their vehicle for their protection, legal or not. And I'll bet most cops would look the other way if it were learned that a cab driver took his vehicle (and thus his weapon) onto MARTA property, or to the airport, or to the Greyhound bus station, or any "public gathering."
If this guy had a gun and was murdered anyway, how is is family going to sue? How can they say that BECAUSE OF THE LAW, he was disarmed when he would have otherwise been armed and been able to successfully defend himself? Nevermind the more obvious problem that MARTA disarmament is mandated by the legislature, not some internal rule that MARTA itself created (and thus has the power to change).
The real answer to this problem is to repeal the public gatherings clause, the mass transit weapons ban, the school and school zone ban, and allow anybody with a carry permit to carry ANYWHERE other than the sterile, controlled-access areas of airports, courthouses, prisons, etc.
And I'd be willing to make GFL permits tougher to get (i.e. mandatory training, both in the classroom and on the range) in exchange for being able to carry on a daily basis in ordinary places that common citizens normally go.
Re: Cabbies and Guns
Is somebody offering that? I must have missed it.
Let me tell you how that would really work if offered up by our side prior to any real action by the legislature.
We would get mandatory training. We might get restaurant carry.
Then what will you have left to trade for the rest of your liberty?
I am not aware of any anti politician arguing that he would support removal of any particular restriction if he could just get gun owners to agree to a training requirement . . .
I am also not aware of any particular problem in Georgia that training would address. Non-police appear to be more competent than police as it is. Link: http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/vie ... =9831#9831
why tighten standards
although some of Georgia's gun control laws appear to apply to off-duty cops as well, most of them don't. Therefore what we (civilian packers) want is basically to be able to carry the same way off-duty cops do. Not because we have to, as part of our job description, but simply because we're safer that way and we don't present much of a risk to the public. We, like cops, are much more likely to use our guns lawfully and in a way that benefits society than we are to commit crimes involving our guns. That's our position in a nutshell, right?
Well if you talk to ordinary civilians about this (and some legislators), I think you will find a very common response: "We can't let regular people carry the same way cops do, because cops are SPECIAL. Cops are trained! Regular people with gun permits are just that-- regular people. They aren't trained in the law, and they aren't trained in gun marksmanship or gun safety."
As long as that attitude is what's getting in the way of allowing CCW civilians to pack at restaurants and in public buildings and other gathering places, I think we can overcome that obstacle by offering to GIVE TRAINING to armed civilians. The same kind of training cops have, but perhaps less of it (since civilians are so much less likely to EVER have to use deadly force).
As to the argument that armed civilians with pistol permits are ALREADY just as qualified as LEO's to use deadly force, and thus no additional training is necessary and would have no measurable benefit, all I can say is that this is not the public's perception. They THINK that cops are safe with guns, categorically, while civilians with guns ... well... some of them are, but some aren't, and it really depends on the individual and the circumstances...
So then it doesn't really matter if extra training for GFL holders actually does make civilians better and safer gun-packers, so long as the public (most importantly, the legislators) BELIEVE that such training will have that effect.
From O.C.G.A. 16-12-123:
. . . law enforcement officer, peace officer retired from a state or federal law enforcement agency, person in the military service of the state or of the United States, or commercial security personnel employed by the transportation company who is in possession of weapons used within the course and scope of their employment . . .
I dunno, can off duty officers carry in the Marta parking lot?
This is a very unclear statute.
Something struck me in your post, GS1, "...but simply because we're safer that way and we don't present much of a risk to the public".
As Malum referenced, the risk FROM law enforcment is greater than the risk from us, my point being that I'm not sure that we want to frame our argument that way, that is that our right is somehow dependent on what someone else sees as our "risk".
I mean, there's a risk that someone will yell "fire" in a movie theater, isn't there (when there isn't a fire)? No cops taping mouths shut... yet.
I realize that this is mostly between us, but, well, guess I want to begin framing our point of view in our terms.
Didn't know whether this is salient, and/or appropriate for posting here, but...
We're doing some work for a startup airline, and the backers are fairly heavy hitters, at least financially. While our focus is on building a business plan, we've retained an expert on FAA regs to help integrate various compliance issues into the plan, because of the substantial costs associated with achieving compliance (stuff like operating certs, maintenance certs, seating certs, etc.). The new airline will have a focus on international travel, and will try to differentiate itself by being "kid and family friendly." So much for background.
One of the big issues is security, especially as there might be some folks who find an airliner full of parents and kids a particularly attractive target.
Our FAA guy has emphasized the FACT that all the cops, the body cavity searches, the lip-gloss and water confiscations, DO NOTHING to promote security of the aircraft, i.e. that all of it is (wicked expensive) window dressing. The perspective is, essentially, once the plane leaves the gate, security begins, and so we're working (with others) to find the balance of obvious and not-so-obvious security measures to not only keep the plane and occupants safe, but to communicate and be able to communicate the same to the public. Translated, what weâ€™re saying over and over is that the responsibility is â€œours.â€ The part I find interesting is that our FAA guy says, although he can't point to any studies or anything, that the public responds positively to obvious (and real) security, that is, planes (and airlines) that have things like something more than cardboard doors separating the cockpit, but that the public can't/doesn't articulate it. Its almost as though the message of safety on board is subliminal. I know, not real scientific, but it surprised me that a govy employee would have that perspective.
So, I guess the issue is the sense of security that the facade creates. As my wife says, if you put lipstick on a pig, you still have a pig... just wearing lipstick.
Despite the laws, I don't think I've ever spoken with anyone who said s/he felt "safe" on MARTA.
All of Georgia's places off limits are the same way.
People feel safer when guns are banned even though the ban makes absolutly no difference to a criminal.
Some people would rather delude themselves and feel safer. Then their are the few that have woke up to the delusions and actually do things to protect themselves. It still boils down to whether you accept that you are the best protection for yourself. That basically you view the government not as your protector, but more like your backup.
You can hope the government will protect you, and when they fail you get mad and call for more laws that you think will keep you safe, but it wont... not from everything, it is impossible. The only thing it will do is make you feel like you are safe. As long as a person wants to feel safe and not actually be safe, bad things will continue to happen to them.
Re: Cabbies and Guns
You are under the impression that this is a negotiation!
They are not negotiating.
The only people you would hope to convince with this tactic (gun control legislators in the General Assembly) won't be convinced. They don't even like you carrying on Peachtree Street or at the mall. While they would be quite willing to put more onerous restrictions on the license (restrictions that we would fight), they would not be willing to give up much "in exchange."
Do you remember the speeches over the "Stand Your Ground" law? A law that changed nothing substantive about when you may or may not exercise self defense was described as if it was going to start civil war. That is what those legislators think about you, me, and the public in general.
I reassert the practical result of your tactic. The bill gets introduced making expensive and time consuming training a requirement for a license, and then the "off limits places" list gets pared away through amendments until the bill that comes out of committee decriminalizes only carry in restaurants but imposes a training requirement.
Now what are you going to trade "in exchange" for lifting the rest of the restrictions? What will be left to trade?
A real trade benefits both parties. Trading away the easy exercise of your liberty probably is not going to get you a good bargain.
Maybe the reason so many people, including many legislators, are anti-CCW is because they know how easy it is to get one. No training of any kind. They know cops have various types of training (jusified use of deadly force, gun safety, marksmanship) and we (civilians) have none (mandated, anyway. Obviously some of us have studies these subjects on our own).
Tell you what: Why don't we do a survey of some halfway-intelligent busy people who are generally politically aware and well-read about what's going on in Georgia, and ask them what they think of these issues?
Their response can be a gauge as to how the legislators would react, excluding the effects of biased media coverage and pressure from special interest groups.
GS, just want to understand where you're "coming from".
You're talking about "ease" of obtention being connected to the right to carry, and "ease of obtention" leads to need for restrictoins in the minds of legislators?
Sorry, just trying to unnderstand what you meant here.
Legislators who are "anti - CCW" are in no way going to be mollified by a training requirement and suddenly vote to remove from the list all the places off limits - like Marta and the airport and the courthouse.
I do not even believe that you believe that argument.
That is why I ended up with the practical results of this argument, which is a training restriction but little or nothing to show for it (maybe restaurant carry, which I think we can get without adding any onerous requirements to obtaining the license).
Malum has a good point. I am an advocate of basic training only because there are so many morons out there who don't know how to handle a weapon. But, I'm not sure I'm willing to throw training on the table as a negotiation point. The anti-gun crowd isn't going to change. They don't like guns and don't think anyone should own them. My brother knew a guy in New York that thought only the Police should have guns. We've all read news stories where the defensive use of a firearm is conveniently left out but have some nut shoot a bunch of people and it makes the front page with the details of what type of gun, how many rounds fired, where he bought it, well you get my point. Remember your signature Gunsmoker, that IS the reality.
Maybe we need to require people to take a test to be able to vote. Voting is such a critical part of our society and we need to take it seriously. We cant just let anyone wield such a powerful right without making them prove they deserve that right.
OK, you got me with that one. I thought you were suggesting it. You are pointing out that it is as silly as requiring training to carry . . . because arms are a birthright.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Mr. Coxe probably meant just, you know, a state militia . . .
Unfortunately, unless there is a huge change with some federal court decision, it really is a privilege, not a right. The state case law definitely indicates it is a privilege, although the case law still uses the term right, but it is to be regulated with any regulation the General Assembly deems "reasonable." To see how Georgia's law has evolved from a birthright to a right subject to any "regulation . . . [that] is legitimate and reasonably within the police power . . ." look here http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=279
Yep. Ironic, ain't it....