Open Carry in California got a big boost when San Diego agreed to a settlement of $35,000 for improperly arresting a guy for (California) legal unloaded open carry. California has a weird law that requires the gun to be unloaded. You can still carry a separate magazine, ready to load, but the gun itself must be unloaded.
Did you know that Wisconsin, along with Illinois, there is no legal provision for citizens to carry concealed weapons? In the old days, it was socially acceptable to carry a firearm openly, but it was considered “sneaky” to carry concealed. Times and social mores have changed. Now, many people are frightened of the sight of an openly carried weapon, unless carried by an authorized agent of the State. Since they never see the concealed weapon, most people are more comfortable with concealed carry. Wisconsin outlaws concealed carry, and permits open carry. A few days back, 5 guys were eating at a local establishment while openly carrying their pistols. Naturally, this pissed off the local constabulary. A lady saw the guns, called 911 and was told that open carry is legal, but the cops would be there directly to check it out. The normal thing with cops happened. Cops demanded ID, OC’ers refused. Cops threatened arrest, 2 still refused and were arrested, charged with obstructing, searched, traced, and released. In all actuality, they were charged with “Contempt of Cop.” They had audio recording during the arrest.
Here’s my comment on her blog. Let’s see if she posts it.
Would you like to listen to the 911 call?
In addition to being a 2nd Amendment fan, I am also a huge fan of the 4th Amendment. You know the one that says
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You may not be aware of this, but a police officer is not empowered to demand your “papers, please.” He has to have a reasonable articulable suspicion of wrongdoing to justify even detaining these men. Since exercising a fundamental constitutional right can never be grounds for police harassment, I predict a large check will be issued to each of the 5 Madisonians who were unlawfully stopped, searched, and cited for a crime that not only did they not commit, but they could not have committed.
It is no secret that I think that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Ownership Violence is only exceeded in its lies, distortions, and mendacity by the Violence Policy Center. Mayors Against Illegal Guns is still small, but they are going to be big time as well. The proprietress over at CommonGunsense is Joan Peterson, a board member at Brady. I’ve been commenting heavily at her site, but she moderates her comments in order to prevent difficult arguments from being heard. I see that a lot in the Anti-gun blogs. There’s even a term for what the antis do, it’s called Reasoned Discourse ™. Rather than try to argue through a blender, I’d rather scream here.
Let’s start with today’s silly.
With gun laws that would stop some of the trafficking, we can save lives if we have the will and courage to do so.
Read the whole thing and savor the fail. Japete, as Ms Peterson styles herself on her blog, seems to think that there is some magic law or series of laws that would prevent an idiot from buying a gun on the street for cash and using it to murder someone. Never mind that murder is illegal already. Here’s what I think based on the info given at the newspaper reporting, the Star-Tribune
1. Dollars to donuts the shooter is a gang member/drug dealer/criminal lowlife.
2. There’s a good possibility that the victim in this case is as well
As I stated in the few comments that have been posted, no normal human being will murder another. You have to be pretty messed up in the first place to kill without a reasonable justification. Shooting over a cell phone, or more likely the “disrespect” of the victims towards him, is so far beyond the pale that you have to wonder what this guy was already up to so that he felt that murder was ok. Criminal activity, by definition, selects for people who have a fluid attitude toward the law. When you get involved in the drug trade (and when we talk about gangs, we’re talking about drugs) means that you have to settle business disputes with violence. If AT&T has a problem with Sprint, they don’t send commandos; they send lawyers because no matter how powerful you think you are, the government is bigger. When you can’t send the government to use force on your behalf, you have to use that force yourself. In an environment of violence as solutions, the more violent you are, the higher you will rise. It’s kind of like a communist government that way. Violent sociopaths rise, and are given work, non-violent types die.
Japete would like to convince us all that “Most gun homicides are domestic and/or among people who know each other.” That isn’t true the way she means it. Drug dealers kill each other, and they also know each other. It wouldn’t make much sense to kill someone you don’t know. Even violent sociopaths need to have reasons for killing. Here’s an FBI table that shows the relationships of murders to victims in 2004. You see that there is no know relationship between killers and victims in 6,234 cases out of 14,121. Adding up, there are 1,694 out of a total of 14,121 that qualify as “family members.” That’s 11% of all murders.
Here’s what I don’t get. Why is she so invested in the concept of “Anyone can snap and become a murderer in an instant!!!!111eleventy” If I was a woman and I met a guy who told me “all men cheat,” I’d know something about him immediately. I’d know that he will cheat. He’s already told me. Now if a person says,
(background, her brother-in-law murdered her sister) it sounds to me a whole lot like “anyone can snap and become a murder. What does that tell you about japete’s moral compass?
I’ve been trying to go back and forth with a gun banner at http://www.commongunsense.com/ and I’ve been very frustrated. Rather than try to argue through her comment moderation I decided to start my own blog. Mostly I’m going to be a linker rather than a thinker because I’m not under the illusion that I’m going to add much in the way of thought to the blogosphere. Most of what needs to be said has been said and just needs to be repeated.