Armed and courteous foes of fewer gun permits

[Gladiator]

Armed and courteous foes of fewer gun permits - Los Angeles Times

Armed and courteous foes of fewer gun permits

Dana Parsons
February 13, 2009

When I opened my big, fat mouth a couple weeks ago in support of Sheriff Sandra Hutchens' more restrictive concealed weapons permit policy, I knew there'd be hell to pay.

You know how it is. You say or write anything remotely suggesting we don't all have a right to pack a sidearm on Main Street, and the gun nuts will eat you alive.

You write and, to quote Capt. Sully Sullenberger, brace for impact.

So, I wrote and braced and . . . .

Talk about a smooth landing.

Make no mistake, they came out in force. Dozens of e-mails came in, basically arguing that law-abiding citizens who pass mandatory training courses ought to be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Gun nuts?

Hardly. At least not the overwhelming majority of e-mailers I heard from. They zeroed in on the nub of the issue, which is to ask why well-intentioned citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, just in case it might someday be needed.

In arguing that people should, the letter-writers weren't vitriolic, insulting or patronizing.

I almost wish they had been. It's easier arguing with people if you dismiss them as wackos. I'm always willing to match wits with people who call me names. I sit at home at night thinking of comebacks.

But when the right-to-carry people argue their case on the merits, it disarms me.

As one e-mailer wrote: "I have carried a firearm the majority of my adult life, legally and/or otherwise when the need to protect myself arose. I neither require, nor desire, the need to obtain 'permission' from my employees (otherwise known as 'public servants'). As a retired member of the U. S. Armed Forces, a former law enforcement officer, and firearms instructor, you have no reason to fear one such as myself carrying firearms."

Then, to emphasize his point, he wrote in capital letters: "WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS."

He had me at hello.

As I suggested in the last column, I get the argument. I really do.

How can anyone dispute that if confronted on the street by a criminal intent on mayhem, it's much preferable to have a way to defend yourself?

But I and other pointy-headed people just can't extend that argument as far as the other side does. Bottom line: I wouldn't feel safer knowing that untold numbers of private citizens that I pass on the street -- yes, even salt-of-the-earth types who have been trained -- are packing guns.

I know criminals don't care about permits. I know the 2nd Amendment gives gun-owning and gun-bearing rights. But not even a leading conservative lion of the U.S. Supreme Court argues that the rights under the 2nd Amendment extend automatically to concealed weapons.

In defending the right to armed self-defense in one's home, Justice Antonin Scalia also wrote: "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."

For another thing, California law leaves discretion on who gets permits with the county sheriffs, and Hutchens interprets the code to limit permits to people who can make a compelling case for needing protection.

She got blasted again this week for that position, because it's more restrictive than what had been in place. Sheriff only since last summer and a former high-ranking member of the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, Hutchens has been told that she's out of step with the Orange County "culture." Given that only about 1,000 people have permits and the county has 3 million residents, I'm not sure how pervasive that "culture" is.

Hutchens should stand her ground. The Board of Supervisors ought to be supporting her, but isn't.

I accept that most of the people who want the right to carry a gun don't have sinister intentions.

But if their numbers were to exponentially grow, my comfort level would exponentially drop. I don't trust all cops, and I certainly wouldn't trust the teeming masses with thwarting street crime.

You right-to-carry folks insist you're not the crazy ones.

I so stipulate.

But you need to realize that we're not the crazy ones, either.

dana.parsons@latimes.com

[IAmASensFan]

It's a very good start.

His point of view of us changed, his point of view of the situation didn't.

Thats how my conversion started.

Cultivate this...he publicly announced he was wrong about one thing on the issue, it won't be too hard to convince him he was wrong on other points.

It would be choice if the anti's sent in a bunch of blathering emails roasting him.

[coq]

Originally Posted by IAmASensFan

It's a very good start.

His point of view of us changed, his point of view of the situation didn't.

Thats how my conversion started.

Cultivate this...he publicly announced he was wrong about one thing on the issue, it won't be too hard to convince him he was wrong on other points.

It would be choice if the anti's sent in a bunch of blathering emails roasting him.

Will somebody down there please take Dana to the range?

[YankeeDog]

I'm not enthused about his view of the BOS.
YD

[akulahawk]

He hasn't "discovered" the other part of the whole mess that Sheriff Hutchens is in and why the Board isn't supporting her. Once he discovers that, he'll possibly be hopping mad about it. IOW: it isn't about the guns... it's about the trampling of our other rights protected by the Constitution that are being trampled in the process of following her agenda. If Sheriff Hutchens revoked the licenses for "cause" that's one thing. Denying renewal based on new department criteria, that's irritating, but OK. Revoking because she wants to or forcing someone to agree to expire early or trying to intimidate people, that's plainly wrong. If we could redirect Dana's view to something more personal to him and bring it around to the CCW issue, he might complete the conversion. But we'd have to be gentle about it, lest we lose him.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by YankeeDog

I'm not enthused about his view of the BOS.
YD

I could care less, frankly. Hutches WAS their choice, they screwed up, and WE have to live with it. The BOS, Hutchens...they are all politicians. The BOS #1 concern right now is saving their political hides...if that means working with us, fine, thank you, but their allegiances are not to us. Don't kid yourself thinking that they really care.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by akulahawk

He hasn't "discovered" the other part of the whole mess that Sheriff Hutchens is in and why the Board isn't supporting her. Once he discovers that, he'll possibly be hopping mad about it. IOW: it isn't about the guns... it's about the trampling of our other rights protected by the Constitution that are being trampled in the process of following her agenda. If Sheriff Hutchens revoked the licenses for "cause" that's one thing. Denying renewal based on new department criteria, that's irritating, but OK. Revoking because she wants to or forcing someone to agree to expire early or trying to intimidate people, that's plainly wrong. If we could redirect Dana's view to something more personal to him and bring it around to the CCW issue, he might complete the conversion. But we'd have to be gentle about it, lest we lose him.

I should email him my speech.

[Dan M.]

Originally Posted by IAmASensFan

I should email him my speech.

You should. So should NikNak.

[SierraNevadaCCW]

For some reason, this reporter thinks his "comfort level" has some relevance to the issue. He wouldn't feel safer or comfortable. Well, I don't care and I don't think the criminals out there feel very comfortable or safe with me armed in society either. The sheep who fear the sheepdog...

[libertarian]

Again, he's reacting from fear. He says he doesn't trust the police with weapons either.

Well it would be sweet if we could go back to 1870's London and have bobbys armed with sticks and everyone too polite to break any laws.

But we have to live in reality, instead.

He also seems to think we're trying to "Thwart street crime." That's a common misconception. We don't have to stop crime in progress - it's the deterrent factor of knowing 1 in 20 sheep is actually a sheepdog in disguise.

[Nightingale]

The only way to counter fear is with education. We need to invite him to the range.

[akulahawk]

Originally Posted by libertarian

Again, he's reacting from fear. He says he doesn't trust the police with weapons either.

Well it would be sweet if we could go back to 1870's London and have bobbys armed with sticks and everyone too polite to break any laws.

But we have to live in reality, instead.

He also seems to think we're trying to "Thwart street crime." That's a common misconception. We don't have to stop crime in progress - it's the deterrent factor of knowing 1 in 20 sheep is actually a sheepdog in disguise.

Unfortunately, even the "Bobbys" are getting armed... Not all, but at least some are. Some have subguns close at hand... if not on their person.

Besides, stopping crime in the community, the world, or even on my block... that's not my job. Keeping ME or my FAMILY safe... that IS my job. Nothing more. Now if only my Sheriff would be more like other Sheriffs in the State and issue for "Personal Protection"...

[sealbeach]

Originally Posted by IAmASensFan

I should email him my speech.

You should! IIRC, you even invoked the Code of Hammurabi! Strong medicine there!

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by libertarian

He also seems to think we're trying to "Thwart street crime." That's a common misconception. We don't have to stop crime in progress - it's the deterrent factor of knowing 1 in 20 sheep is actually a sheepdog in disguise.

I think this is the next key point to hit with him. We're not substitutes for LEOs or LEO wannabes. We may only use our firearms when we our lives are immediately threatened.

[peanutlover]

Originally Posted by sealbeach

You should! IIRC, you even invoked the Code of Hammurabi! Strong medicine there!

The code of Hammurabi?! Jeez, now I really must find the link and watch the video of the BOS meeting.