This story has South Texas a little stirred up: several days ago, two armed guys robbed a jewelry store in a San Antonio mall. One unarmed customer tried to intervene somehow when they were confronting another customer, and was shot and killed for his trouble. Another customer, who was armed and licensed for concealed-carry, shot one of the robbers and chased the other out of the store with gunfire; the second robber later was arrested. The first robber is in the hospital in serious condition.
Now it develops that the mall had previously posted signs prohibiting the carrying of weapons. The police don't seem unduly upset; their statements focus on the reasonable response of the armed citizen and the need for others to exercise good judgment in these dangerous situations. The mall manager is busy making statements about how his first priority is the safety of his customers, which may mean trusting and waiting for the police, who knows. I suppose he's trying to figure out whether he's likely to lose more customers by emphasizing his gun-free policy or by congratulating the citizen who ignored it.
Personally I like the effect of knowing that, even in a purportedly gun-free mall, the chances of an armed customer in the store you're trying to rob are pretty decent.
The Texas legislature, by the way, is again considering measures to permit open carry without a license, treating the 2d Amendment as our license. It's just the Wild West out here, ain't it? Y'all come on down. We have our own electrical grid, too.
10 comments:
The 'no need for a permit' movement is going to run into an issue with the 'National reciprocity for carry permits' movement, but I suppose there's some decent common ground to be found.
Does Austin count as part of Texas?
The blueberry in the tomato soup, but we're tolerant. We aspire to membership in the tolerati!
It's not clear to me whether the mall was marked for no carry or for no concealed carry.
As to the 2d Amendment Permit, I'm satisfied with States going their separate ways. Reciprocity would be nice, but it's not a critical item for me.
We are the tolerati. The others need to come our way; they've already denied the 1st Amendment Permit.
Eric Hines
Perhaps y'all can explain something for me. I've always been confused about the PURPOSE of the concealed carry permitting requirement. What I've read about it suggests that permitting is based on a premise that criminals may? will? likely conceal a weapon.
But how does the licensing of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed counter that? A criminal is a criminal whether carrying or not, or whether he displays or uses a weapon during commission of a crime, or not. What am I not seeing here? What obvious justification have I missed?
It seems a social benefit that state permitting usually requires a minimum level of knowledge and proficiency (to protect the innocent public?), but that's a totally separate issue. A state could still require that training, with no differentiation between carrying concealed or open, could it not?
I hope I've written clearly enough to convey my question, but if not, I'll be happy to expand.... Thanks.
Finally, and a separate thought. I think it's very funny that gun control proponents are so concerned about concealed carriers, when (if it's done correctly) they have no idea how often they are ignorantly in the company of those folks, and NOTHING BAD HAPPENS. Walking down a busy urban sidewalk. Driving on the interstate. Shopping at the grocery store. Filling the tank at a gas station. (And I daresay, notwithstanding posted prohibition, frequently in "gun free" zones such as picking kids up at school.)
In Georgia, the law has always been about carrying weapons at all. In cases where someone is openly carrying a weapon -- or in which a concealed weapon becomes inadvertently discovered -- it provides a quick means to determine that this person has been found to be a law-abiding citizen of good character, etc.
It would make sense for the state government to take its militia function seriously, though, and require regular training in firearms of all law-abiding citizens. My guess is that people really prefer not to have the hassle.
Does Austin count as part of Texas?
The blueberry in the tomato soup, but we're tolerant. We aspire to membership in the tolerati!
The proprietor of the now-inactive Tigerhawk blog has a new blog:Blueberry Town.
E Hines has been known to comment there.
My parents shop at that mall. I am glad there was somebody carrying, because although they own guns and know how to use them, they do not carry.
The whole idea of the concealed carry permits is to avoid frightening people and also avoid letting criminals know when they are around only unarmed people. The law worked as intend in this instance, dumbass signs at the mall notwithstanding.
Valerie
The 'no need for a permit' movement is going to run into an issue with the 'National reciprocity for carry permits' movement, but I suppose there's some decent common ground to be found.
An obvious compromise would be open carry, no ammo, would not require a permit, whereas concealed carry with ammo would.
But then again, lawyers would need to find some way to make bank off of that first before signing off on it.
One unarmed customer tried to intervene somehow when they were confronting another customer, and was shot and killed for his trouble.
Try to pretend like you are a Vietcong guerilla that needs to beat off the Americans. What do you do, charge them at Firebase XYZ? No, you wait until they turn their backs on you, then stick them with your pig sticker that has poison on it, or use booby traps and enfilading fire when they are retreating with the sick, wounded, civilians, doesn't matter. Hit them where it hurts and when their mobility is compromised.
Try not to charge lions and bears thinking it's going to be an even contest, because it shouldn't be. If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying in war.
Post a Comment