A group to which I belong was recently written up on the front page of the Washington Post concerning an incident in which we were openly carrying holstered firearms in a resaurant. I raise the issue here because it involves a confrontation between what I think is an outmoded and failed doctrine of irresponsibility and a new doctrine taking partial responsibility for one's own defense. The two doctrines were sharply contrasted by the way different sets of airplane passengers handled a gang of hijackers on September 11, 2001. The only plane that was not used as a guided missile was the one in which citizens decided not to sit meekly in their seats waiting for the "authorities" to fix things. Marc Danziger (Armed Liberal) has written extensively about this issue on his own blog and on Winds of Change. I have written about it previously, here.
I'm in a group that practices firing arms at a local range, and after the session we often go out to a restaurant. It's a social outing growing from common interests and conversation. Most of us in the group, which includes a number of women, have permits to carry a concealed weapon. Virgina law, however, restricts concealed carry in any establishment with a liquor license, which includes most restaurants. The accepted and lawful response to the restriction is to simply expose the holstered weapon in order to conform to the law, a practice called "open carry." While the law restricts concealed carry in restaurants, open carry in the state of Virginia has always been legal, except in certain localities with special ordinances. A recent statute did away with these local ordinances, making open carry of a legally owned firearm legitimate almost everywhere. (The lone exception is in the Dulles corridor, so far.)
A number of us in the "Friday Night Group" were approached by a small cadre of policemen in a local Champps restaurant after a citizen (possibly the restaurant manager) called 911. The article in WaPo describes the incident in a fairly biased manner, reflecting, I think, a certain preference for that doctrine that failed us so badly on a recent September morning. Nonetheless the article is informative. The most glaring bias, apart from the use of presumptive idioms such as "packing heat," concerns the fact that the author, Tom Jackman, never mentions that open carry is the accepted law-abiding response to statute restrictions on concealed carry. He also never mentions that the weapons in question were holstered, and even sews a rather erroneous impression of Virginia statute by recounting the law as meaning that "no permit is required to simply wield a gun in the open."
It may be a small point, but openly wielding an unholstered firearm could, and almost certainly does (depending on the circumstances), constitute a violation called "brandishing," for which there are severe penalties, including fines and possible imprisonment. We're not talking about Dodge City here.
The article fairly drips with the kind of doctrinal prejudices that would prefer that passengers sit passively in their seats no matter what sort of outrage might transpire. Ed Koch, interviewed recently on Fox News, stated the postition clearly when he said that he felt the appropriate response to the threat of terrorism is to 'go about your business normally, and allow the proper authorities to deal with any problems." Apparently he's forgotten how that worked out.
And note the subtitle of the article: "'Exercising Right' Called 'Unreasonable' by Some." I won't recount the long history of the Second Amendment, or the fact that the exercise of rights almost always offends someone, but consider the words of two people who have problems with my rights and sense of obligation:
Openly carrying weapons is "not a good idea," said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center in Washington. "This is the gun lobby's vision of how America should be. Everybody's packing heat and ready to engage in a shootout at the slightest provocation."Ricker said the gun owners "are probably doing their cause more harm than good by raising this issue. It raises an awareness and gives people who are more rational thinkers the opportunity to go to their legislators and make their views known."
Well, given that the average legal costs associated with an incident involving the use of a firearm in self defense is around $10,000 most of the people I know aren't itching for "a shootout at the slightest provocation." They have, instead, simply decided that it's moral to be prepared "for the gravest extreme." More significantly, I think we ought to be somewhat alarmed at the idea that the exercise of a right (a requirement for those carrying concealed weapons) jeapardizes that right? Does not the doctrine that underlies this attitude have certain inevitable implications for all rights?
As 911 recedes from public memory so too does the awareness of the failed doctrine that aided the hijackers in three of the four planes. And if openly carrying a firearm in a restaurant once in awhile helps, even at the margin, to remind people of that failure it's worth the hassle.
Update: Here's a somewhat less biased article about the incident in the same paper.
Update 2: I've talked with Tom Jackman, and it's probably the case that I've leapt to an inaccurate conclusion regarding his objectivity. Either that, or his position is changing. At any rate it was an encouraging discussion and I feel certain that some misapprehensions about the Virginia carry laws will be cleared up in his next piece.
Posted by Demosophist at July 15, 2004 06:35 AM | TrackBackJust another demonstration of the basic ignorance about firearms. These are generally the same people who will defend the right of an individual to make any comment, no matter how odious, as a First Amendment right, but they consider the Second Amendment to be outdated and not worthy of consideration. They think that a firearm has some sort of malevolent ability to inflict harm other than willful intent of it's possessor. These people are incapable of seeing that an armed citizen is a deterrent upon cowardly punks who might otherwise wish to visit harm on the citizenry.
Posted by: J.R. at July 15, 2004 11:28 PMI live in No. VA and agree completely with the bias in the article. It is subtle at times but it is there. (one pro-gun source vs. a few anti-gun sources) And I would argue that it extends to the location of the article. It was put on p. 1 to freak people out. Although the followup article was more balanced, it was buried in the bottom corner of the front page of the Metro section.
Additionally, the cartoon by Tom Toles in today's Wash Post today also attempts to cover the issue (there is no link as of yet). He is usually pretty witty, but not in this case.
Posted by: DCJ at July 16, 2004 01:03 PMFound the Toles comic . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/tolestom/
Thanks for the link. Yeah, it's not very clever is it? The implied meaning, which is also common sense, is that the argument of the pro-2nd people is right. It's sort of a strange point to make if your position is "anti," as his undoubtedly is. I suppose he figures the visual image will get his anti message across, before readers notice the logic deficiency.
Er yeah, if you're worried about the guy you have permission to worry about the gun. That's the point. But just why would you be worried more about a citizen who has passed an extensive background check than a predator who hasn't, and who probably isn't carrying openly anyway even though it's the law?
Posted by: Scott (to DCJ) at July 16, 2004 04:30 PM--gives people who are more rational thinkers the opportunity to go to their legislators and make their views known."--
Gun owners are "irrational" now, are they?
Posted by: Sandy P at July 16, 2004 05:13 PMAlso, I noticed this gem in the "less biased" article:
"Some, such as Cindy Jones, worry that openly toting guns could make them too accessible to the wrong fingers. "The image that comes to mind is a child could grab it," said Jones, 50, a psychologist. "It's frightening to think that that's the mind-set. It makes me think of a gunslinger with a holster.""
Well, gosh, Cindy, I guess it would be too much to ask of parents that they teach their children not to grab guns from complete strangers, wouldn't it? I mean, wouldn't this same argument apply towards the police? Is the assumption here that people who carry openly wouldn't use caution around an unsupervised three-year-old? That people who carry openly must be "gunslingers" who would gladly let little kids play with their weapons?
I just think it's ludicrous that this boneheaded "think of the children!" argument got dropped into the article, as though this type of argument carries any weight at all. I mean, we're not talking about guns being left around in day-care centers. We're talking about adults keeping guns holstered and secured to their bodies. How would a properly-supervised child ever get close enough to "grab" it?
At least Cindy admitted she was afraid of "gunslingers," but if the reporter had been honest, this would have read, "Some, such as Cindy Jones, worry needlessly that openly toting guns could make them too accessible to the wrong fingers, although such worrywarts are rarely, if ever, able to point to such an event happening in real life."
Posted by: Kimberly at July 16, 2004 05:32 PMThe officer who arrested the students and seized their weapons, and his agency, should be sued. Not necesarily for monetary damages, but to ensure that their training (initial and recurring) reminds them that open carry is legal. And to ensure that the arrest is not just expunged, but triple-deleted. There is a specific question in the application for a security clearance that asks about charges involving firearms. I would not want somethin like this to show up in my next update.
Posted by: fox2! at July 17, 2004 08:33 AM"...I think we ought to be somewhat alarmed at the idea that the exercise of a right (a requirement for those carrying concealed weapons) jeapardizes that right?"
It is very unlikely that Ms. Rand believes you have an individual right to own or carry a firearm (despite mere state laws to the contrary). Therefore, she sees your action as more of a protest rather than an excerise of a right.
Also, you are confronting two biases. The bias against guns, and, to the point of your post, the bias in favor of government action and personal inaction.
It would never ocurr to some of these people that given the legal nature of your actions, the proper response ought to have been a) leave you alone, b) leave, or c) politely explain their discomfort and ask if you would put the guns in your car, or some other resolution. Of course the default reaction was to get the government involved rather than take an individual action.
And of course the reaction of the press wil always be to reinforce the collective course.
Posted by: Daniel at July 17, 2004 08:53 AMAnd of course the reaction of the press wil always be to reinforce the collective course.
It isn't that I oppose collective action. Clearly we need institutions that are tasked with various security functions and who perform according to professional standards. All I'm saying is that citizens themselves must provide the critical "last line of defense." Moreover, according to the founders one of the chief reasons for the "right to bear" has to do with the effect on the cadre of people who move from being merely an "armed citizen" to a "professional security position" such as a police officer or member of the military. And their sense, which I think is obviously correct, is that responsible arms-bearing citizens make the best recruits. That alone is enough to justify the 2nd Amendment.
I have a friend from Arizona who tells me that on the rare occasion when he's asked by a policeman for his ID the first ID he shows is his concealed carry permit. The police are very receptive to seeing these, because it means that the invidual who carries such a permit not only plays a role in quelling crime, but has also passed a number of background checks so is far less likely to, himeself, present a law enforcement problem.
As for the woman who was worried about children snatching a weapon... she is, herself, the child I'm most worried about when it comes to gun-snatching. Has there, in fact, even been one case of an incident where a child or toddler snatched a gun out of a proper holster in an open carry state?
Finally, I really have to fault the Bush administration for, in a sense, encouraging a continuation of this flawed doctrine of passivity. I don't think Bush is a classical liberal/whig concerned about "negative rights." I think he's primarily an elitist... or what passes for a "traditional conservative" who, in slightly different times, would have been a Royalist or a Tory. I'm not sure what we do to ultimately wrest the initiative away from that perspective of passivity and automatich deference for authority, because it seems to have cast a spell over the country. But I do know that it's fundamentally un-American. And I have to believe that, somewhere in their guts, most Americans know this.
Put simply, "bearing arms" is part of the "watchfulness" that really ought to define public attitude since 911, for everyone's sake.
Posted by: Scott at July 17, 2004 12:29 PMIt can't be repeated too often: "An armed society is a polite society" - Heinlein
Posted by: Ken Summers at July 18, 2004 12:24 PMI probably shoot in the same local range as the "Friday Night Group" (BRA). I also have a CHP and carry in the NoVA area. After reading the first article in the WaPo I remarked to my wife that of course if these were the only folks seen carrying open in Reston, it was only because people pay no attention since I do it all the time. As the original post points out, that is the modis operandi for VA CHP holders when going into a restaurant. They fail to explain this of course.
As usual for an anti-gun view, the article attempts to make the activity seem rare and dangerous; just an isolated incident that highlights the weird behaviour one can expect from a "gun nut". They make a point to say several times that there is no apparent reason to do this.
I also agree that they fail to point out the position of the restaurant owner who basically declares "I don't want open carry", "I don't want concealed carry" without just summing his position as "I am against guns altogether".
The most annoying aspect of the series of articles (besides the fact that the follow on articles just rehash the info in the first) is that when they quote people in the article they don't bother to correct errors on the law. Since the VA code is searcheable online, there is little excuse except biased intent or laziness in not pointing out to the reader what the law actually says. The bias can be seen in that even though the article points out that open carry has been legal for some time, it clearly leaves the impression that this changed on July 1.
My wife holds anti-gun views and I've had to explain the law to her, including the changes that went into effect on July 1. This was easier since she had already come to recognize that the law is not uniform. I made this clear to her on a cross country trip where I kept changing that status of my gun do to the state (law) we were in. The WaPo missed another opportunity to do what the press is supposed to do: inform the people. I remember this whenever I hear some blowhard media mouthpiece proclaiming the great service it does and obligation the press has to publish whatever (usually done as an explanation of some embarassing thing the press wants to do or has done).
Posted by: robin at July 20, 2004 03:33 PMNice website. You should visit my
grants for women
website sometime.