The Edge

C.E. "Bud" Brann

Staff Writer

It has now been just over a year since the state of Kansas passed a law enabling qualified citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Additionally the U.S. Supreme Court is even now considering the thorny issue of gun control.. I thought now would be a good time to look at and evaluate the issue. The carrying of guns is one of the most emotional issues in contention in our nation today.

Rest assured that as is my usual wont, people on both sides of the issue who read this article in its entirety will find something about which to be angry with me.

Let me first say that I am pro concealed carry. Let me follow that up by also saying that I have not always been so. Like most Kansas youth of my generation I was raised around guns. My father was an avid hunter and some of the fondest memories of my youth involved pheasant and rabbit hunting with him. Later, after his passing I did the same with my stepfather. My father had briefly been a policemen, and I think I was about 10 or 12 years old the first time I fired a handgun, his service revolver.

Although I long ago gave up hunting, I have owned handguns most of my life. Having said that, I must add that I was never serious about it and about the only time I ever fired one was perhaps once or twice a year when I returned to my parent’s farm from the big city and my stepfather and I would go plinking. Further, I actually leaned more towards the anti-gun view at the time and had handguns been outlawed it would not have upset me at all. Although I did not study the issue, I had a general opinion that the anti-gun people were probably correct and the pro gun people were a bit hysterical on the subject.

When the debate in Kansas over concealed carry of weapons (CCW) arose, I decided to study the issue. In the two years since, I have totally changed my mind on the issue and now feel it is the anti-gun people who are hysterical as well as irrational and quite prone to telling flat out lies. There are numerous such groups; the best know is referred to as “The Brady Bunch” formally known as The Brady Campaign Against Guns.

The Brady Campaign claims that police are uniformly against civilian possession of hand guns. They lie. Some police officers are of against civilian possession of hand guns. Others aren’t. In my own brief survey, I have talked with four Kansas police chiefs. None opposed concealed carry. I talked with four Kansas Highway Patrolmen; none opposed it. Of the rank and file law enforcement officers I have talked with, only two opposed it and many more don’t. I have been told that some cities in Kansas have sheriffs departments or police departments which oppose it. I haven’t talked with them.

There are 48 states which now have CCW and Kansas is one of the more recent states to pass such a law. Each state has gone through essentially the same process with which Kansas has wrestled these past few years. First, the anti-gun people claim it will bring back the Wild West. Simple traffic accidents will escalate, and blood will flow in the streets. Simple arguments will result in shootouts at high noon. Every anti gun group in every state which was considering passage of such a law made the same argument and every state found their arguments were bogus. It just hasn’t happened.

Florida was the first of the more recent states to pass the concealed carry law. Opponents predicted the blood in the streets scenario, with would be Rambo’s killing innocent people while trying to “get” the bad guys. Two years after Florida passed the billb what has been the result? Out of 150,000 citizens authorized to carry a concealed handgun, an average of 7 per year have been found guilty of a crime, an average far superior to the population as a whole and one which if national would make our country as safe as Switzerland. One who was apprehensive at the time was Charlie Wells, then president of the Florida Sheriffs Association. He had been one who feared the “return of the wild west.” Two years later, he said, “It’s an absolute non factor... There is no reason to be concerned.” Not one of the predictions of the “Brady Bunch” has come true.

Essentially, the same thing happened in Texas, except there it was a District attorney who lead the fight against CCW and who later admitted he was wrong and became in favor of concealed carry. An Illinois congressman opposed concealed carry, until his was robbed near his home. He has also become a stanch supporter.

This same scenario had played out now in 48 states with the “Brady Bunch” making the same old tired claims in state after state, and each time they are proven wrong. What’s the old saying, “Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?”

After passage of the concealed carry law, Kansas, like every other state went through another standard process. Anti-gun signs went up everywhere; stores, malls, you name it. And with the passage of time the same thing is happening in Kansas as in every other state; one by one the signs come down, leaving only a few diehards.

Recently, a legislator in an eastern state was pushing a law against allowing guns in the State House. Her argument was about as irrational as a person can be. She was given a “what if” scenario, “What if a killer came into the state house and started shooting people. Wouldn’t it be a good thing if honest citizens had a weapon to fight back?” She said, “I would worry about someone accidentally killing an innocent person while shooting at the killer." WHAT? Some one is standing there deliberately killing helpless people and she is worried that someone will “accidentally” kill an innocent person,

Every one is well aware of the horrible tragedies in school after school after school and even in Churches. All these locations of mass murder had one thing in common They were gun free zones . <Begin Sarcasm> The immediate assumption is that all mass killers are illiterate; they didn’t know guns were illegal at schools. Or perhaps they just didn’t see the signs. That might be the case since the anti-gun people's response is usually to just put up more “No Guns” signs. Surely the mass murderers would not have done their evil deeds if they knew it was against the law to carry a weapon with them. Or such seems to be the logic of the “Brady Bunch.” <End Sarcasm>

Another argument of anti gun people is that it’s the job of the police to stop such crimes.

No, it isn’t! It’s the job of the police to put your body on a gurney and hopefully catch the killer. If you think differently, call your local police chief. Tell him you are worried about being the victim of crime and ask for 24-hour-a-day protection.

The pro gun group has some interesting mottos regarding such beliefs. My favorite is; “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!” They also refer to posted establishments as “Victim-rich Zones”; a place where criminals will have free rein since they know there will be no honest people with weapons present. I have tremendous respect for the police but they can not be everywhere at once. Ask any woman who has been the victim of stalking. They call the police and are told they can’t do anything unless the stalker actually hurts them. Oh sure, they can get a injunction telling the creep to stay away, but to the best of my knowledge waving an injunction in a killers face has never deterred one yet. Perhaps this is another example where the bad guys can’t read. Incidentally 25 percent of people who have CCW licenses are women. Further, even here in Kansas there were women who carried handguns before it was legal. I can not guess how many since most people are hesitant to admit they are “criminals,” but at least two came forward after the law was passed to state that after being brutalized and raped and in one case left for dead, they started carrying a handgun illegally.

Now back to the school and church killings. All these places were gun free zones. There are only two examples of places where killers struck, one school and one church, which were not gun free zones. One was the Appalachian School of Law, not too far from the tragedy at Virginia Tech where a mass murderer killed over 30 helpless people. They had a shooting at the Appalachian School of Law also. But there two students got guns they had in their cars and stopped the killer after he had shot only two people. The mass media is so strongly in the camp of the anti-gunners that none reported the incident as it happened. They simply stated that 3 students “overpowered” the killer. Sure, after two of them got the guy in their sights he dropped his gun and a third unarmed student then tackled him.

Then there was the more recent example in a church in Colorado where a heroic young woman with a CCW license shot a very well armed killer as he entered the church after killing two young girls outside. He was clearly determined to kill as many people as possible.

I said I would say something to anger pro 2nd Amendment people, so let me get too it. I favor required training for everyone before they can obtain a CCW license. Some states have such training, but some require no training. The avid 2nd Amendment people say the Amendment does not require training so it should not be required. I say horse pucky. It’s common sense. I would also like to see some tighter restrictions on people with mental problems, but privacy laws interfere with this. Something needs to be done.

Incidentally, for those who think anyone can get a handgun legally and that blood will run in the streets, in 2007, the Kansas Attorney Generals report stated that over 10,000 Kansans had received such permits; 68 people have been refused a permit because of criminal records. Only five have been revoked and five suspended. Some of the suspensions were temporary until some minor legal matter was settled.

Let’s talk about the 2nd Amendment. The anti’s have a specious argument on this as well. The amendment states; “A well-regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The anti’s claim that “militia” means the National Guard. This is total nonsense on several points. First, The National Guard wasn’t even formed until over 100 years after the bill of rights. Second, the militia at the time the Bill of rights was passed consisted of every able bodied man in the country between age 18 and 45. And third, every other right in the bill of rights clearly refers to an individual right not a collective right and there is no reason to think the Congress believed any different about the 2nd Amendment. Obviously, the first Amendment gives the right of free speech to individuals. You don’t have to join a debate club in order to exercise it. You don’t have to be a church member to exercise your freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court is said to base their decision upon interpretation of the law and the meaning of the founders and not on the individual belief of each justice. If the court bases its decision on the meaning of those who wrote the laws there would be absolutely no doubt about their decision. Every one of the founding fathers wrote strongly and voluminously on the individual’s right to bear arms. None opposed it. None!

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself."

-George Washington

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Patrick Henry

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed … "

Thomas Jefferson

The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Alexander Hamilton

"The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Samuel Adams

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Richard Henry Lee:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

-George Mason,

I could give dozens of more quotes from our founding fathers, but I think you get the picture. There is absolutely no doubt that those who favored the second amendment meant what they said;

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed!

Finally, I confess to not understanding why stores and business places post signs forbidding firearms. What do they possibly stand to gain? What do they stand to lose?

Well first they become a target of robbers and murderers who know when they enter that there will be no opposition. Words never yet stopped a person bent on robbery or mayhem, whether it is a no guns sign or an injunction to stay away. Second, in doing my research I found a lot of pro 2nd amendment forums and among the supporters there are thousands who simply refuse to patronize businesses which display such signs. I assume those people or companies which post believe the nonsense and lies put out by the anti-gun “Brady Bunch” types, and are afraid to have a citizen who has qualified to carry a concealed weapon in their stores, but not afraid to have robbers and murderers in their stores.

I can’t imagine that anyone makes a point of patronizing those businesses because they ARE posted. After all, they weren’t posted for a hundred years or so and no one made a special effort to avoid them because of that. There are several convenience stores in my home town. One chain is Caseys which does not have a sign forbidding firearms. One is Kwik Mart which does. If I was a robber, I know which one I would pick to rob.

Menu

Commentary

Debunking myths against concealed carry laws