This is a good video on some of the things to consider while carrying concealed and using a public restroom. It is full of good tips. I really like the suggestions to use the “family” bathroom in a restaurant or store as you will the only one in there and the door can be locked. The video is 18 minutes long but worth it. You can always fast forward if you want or need to.
H/T Cowboy Blob
The Texas Tribune just published an article examining concealed carry permits rates in various Texas cities. The major finding was that people living in the wealthier neighborhoods were more likely to have a CCW permit than those living in poorer neighborhoods.
Jonathon Hartsfield and Adam Kelly live on opposite sides of San Antonio. They both own guns, they’ve never been in serious trouble with the law and they’d both like to have a concealed handgun license — just to be safe.
But like many of his neighbors on the city’s low-income South Side, Hartsfield hasn’t applied for a gun permit, which costs $140 for the license fee and roughly $100 or more for the 10-hour instruction class. “I’d like one,” says Hartsfield, 22, who works at a shooting range on Pleasanton Road called A Place to Shoot. “It’s the cost and time to get it.”
Kelly, 36, lives on the city’s North Side — one of the most popular areas for concealed handgun licenses. Two weeks ago, he attended the mandatory class to obtain his permit. “It’s the right thing to do if you’re going to have a gun,” Kelly says.
This correlates very strongly with the research of Professor John Lott. At the recent Gun Rights Policy Conference, Lott noted that there was a 40% difference in CCW permits between states that require 9 hours of training and those that require only 8 hours of training. A 9 hour requirement suggests that the class must be taken over two days instead of just one.
As the article notes, the state of Texas requires 10 hours of training and a $140 application fee. Costs for taking the class average around $100. That requirement was set in 1995 when the law was first passed.
NJ State Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May) has proposed a bill “to make it easier for New Jersey residents to carry handguns, and he thinks the state can make some money in the process.” Currently, you must show “justifiable need” to get a concealed carry permit in New Jersey.
According to the details of his bill, an applicant would have to pass a criminal background check including fingerprinting, take a NJ Police Training Commission approved course in the safe use, storage, and maintenance of a firearm, take a marksmanship qualification test, take another State Police Superintendent approved class on the lawful use of force and justifiable use of a firearm, and then pay an annual fee of $500 for the privilege of carrying concealed.
For this deviation from the party line, Van Drew has been accused by Bryan Miller, the Executive Director of NJ Ceasefire of “kowtowing to the pro-gun forces of darkness who want to turn this country into an armed society”. I love that phrase – pro-gun forces of darkness. I can just see the T-shirts now.
According to the article at NJ.com, this bill has only a long-shot for passage.
I’m not sure what galls me more – the $500 annual fee so a bankrupt state can meet its pension obligations or that the proponent of a concealed carry bill with incredibly onerous requirements and fees can be thought to be “kowtowing to the pro-gun forces of darkness.”
 |
| A proper Kowtow |
The coroner’s inquest into the shooting of Erik Scott outside the Summerlin Costco by Las Vegas Metro Police is today. I don’t know how it will turn out and that isn’t the subject of this blog post. There has been a lot of speculation about the case and a Google News search will turn up hundreds of stories.
Michael Bane has just devoted a full episode of his Downrange Radio podcast to this shooting and how one can take steps to avoid something like this happening to you if you are carrying concealed.
As Michael says in the podcast, if you are accosted by staff in a Big Box store about carrying concealed, you have just entered Condition Red. Your goal is to do what is needed to get out of the situation unhurt and in one piece. You need to de-escalate the situation and get out of the store. The podcast gives some good advice on how to do this.
The next major bit of advice that he gives is to be the first one to call the police. Do it if you have been accosted by store employees or store security, do it if you suspect that they have called the police, and especially do it if they are trying to prevent you from exiting the store. All 9-1-1 calls are recorded. Use this to your advantage to get your story on tape – leave the cell phone on to establish a record of your behavior.
Finally, if you leave the store and police are waiting for you outside, do what they say. You can work out the legalities, the rightness of it, etc. later. Your goal is to survive. Put your hands in the air and announce you are going to your knees. Tell them you are a CCW holder and where the gun is located on your body. But for God’s sake, do not reach to show them the gun – let them take it off of you.
We may never know the full story out of Las Vegas as videos have disappeared and there are conflicting stories. What we can do is make sure it doesn’t happen to us.
The podcast is available on iTunes as well as on the Downrange Radio website. It is well worth listening to however you do it.
PS: As Sailorcurt on Captain of a Crew of One has noted, Costco Wholesale Clubs have a restrictive policy that only allows law enforcement to carry in their stores. I posted on it here. Whether I am carrying or not, I do not plan to give them my business.
As a native North Carolinian, it galls me to have to say that the folks in Tennessee are more enlightened about anything. However, when it comes to where you can carry concealed legally, Tennessee has it all over North Carolina. They approved a bill in the last year or so allowing concealed carry in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Of course, if you are carrying concealed you can’t drink – nor should you – but you can still eat in the restaurant or socialize with your friends.
This change in the law has the gun puritans in a tizzy. They have formed a group called GunFree Dining Tennessee. This group seeks to “educate” restaurant owners about concealed carry in restaurants and bars. They send out “street teams” to meet with owners and encourage them to post their premises against concealed carry. Now if a private property owner wishes to ban concealed carry on his or her property, that is their right and I have no objection to it.
Part of the requirements to prohibit concealed carry in your restaurant includes posting a visiable and recognized sign on all entrances. WizardPC of Walls of the City blog did some legwork around Nashville to see if they were following this requirement. As you may have guessed, it was sporadic at best. My guess is that a lot of owners just wanted to placate the “street teams” from Gun Free Dining Tennessee and told them what they wanted to hear. Read the whole story on Walls of the City to get a better feel for the law and posting requirements. The bottom line is that if it isn’t correctly posted, then you aren’t breaking any laws.
H/T Sebastian
A few weeks ago the Complementary Spouse came home from work and announced that a friend’s church was sponsoring a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit class for women. The work friend was going to take the class and wondered if the Complementary Spouse was interested in the class because the friend knew that I did a gun blog.
She asked what I thought and I said it was up to her. I did say it would be a good way to get a proper introduction to handgun shooting and safety. I also thought it would be much better if I wasn’t the one doing it. I had heard too many horror stories of boyfriends teaching girlfriends to shoot and really botching it.
The Complementary Spouse decided she wanted to do it mostly because it was her constitutional right as an American and because she thought it would be smart to know more about my guns in case of an emergency. Moreover, since the class was going to held on her birthday, it would make it very memorable.
We spent a good deal of Friday night going over some of the information that is presented in the North Carolina course. She found a few websites that detailed the information and she studied them closely. I showed her the differences between a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol. We went over how each were loaded, reviewed safety rules, and how to properly grip a pistol. We also found out she was cross dominant – left eyed, right handed. She really didn’t want to go into the class unprepared and she didn’t.
Saturday morning came early as she was meeting her friend at 7:15 for breakfast. I sent her off with a cup of coffee and a kiss.
When she got home at around 6pm, she was just bubbling. She had a great time, learned a lot, and shot straight. In her shooting test, she had 29 center of mass with only one flyer which hit in the belly button region. She plans to go ahead and apply for her Concealed Handgun Permit. She isn’t sure if she will carry but she believes it is important to go on record so as to secure her rights to do it. I am really, really proud of her.
She said she wants to continue shooting as she had a great time. Isn’t that the way it should be? As Tom Gresham always says on GunTalk, take someone shooting this week. When a new person is introduced to shooting, they quickly realize that what the media and the Bradys say about gun owners is an outright lie.
PS: I always refer to the wonderful woman in my life on the blog as the Complementary Spouse. She wants to preserve her anonymity and I respect that. The term Complementary Spouse is a joke with us. Years ago when I was renewing my membership at Sam’s Club I was asked if I wanted a Complementary Spouse card.
Yesterday, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the CalGuns Foundation, the NRA, the Folsom Gun Club, and two individuals brought the third suit in California over the state’s new handgun ammunition law. Today, Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation filed their third lawsuit after their win in McDonald v. Chicago.
The newest case involves a Baltimore County, Maryland man who’s renewal of his handgun carry permit was turned down by the Maryland State Police because he couldn’t demonstrate “a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” The case, Woollard et al v. Sheridan et al, was filed in U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In addition to Raymond Woollard, the Second Amendment Foundation is also a plaintiff.
The Second Amendment Foundation said in their release,
The lawsuit alleges that “Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is ‘necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger’ as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights.” Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to “demonstrate cause” for the issuance of a carry permit.
On Christmas Eve, 2002, Mr. Woollard and his family were attacked in a home invasion by a burglar. He and his family finally subdued the intruder and had to wait 2 1/2 hours for the police to arrive. The police were confused as to whether he was in Baltimore County or not. The home invader was convicted of 1st Degree Burglary and given a sentence of three years probation.
Mr. Woollard was granted a handgun carry permit after this incident. His permit was renewed in 2005 after the home invader (who lives a mere three miles from him) was released from prison on probation violation charges. When Mr. Woollard went to renew his permit in 2009, he was denied a renewal because he didn’t provide proof that he was in danger. He appealed this denial to the Handgun Permit Review Board. They affirmed his denial saying “has not submitted any documentation to verify threats occurring beyond his residence, where he can already legally carry a handgun.”
The lawsuit is suing the Maryland State Police and the Handgun Permit Review Board on Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The suit contends,
28. Individuals cannot be required to prove their “good and substantial reason” for the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
29. Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is
“necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger,” or that they face a greater than average level of danger, as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights.30. Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii)’s requirement that handgun carry
permit applicants demonstrate “good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such . . . that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger,” violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, damaging Plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The suit seeks to permanently enjoin the Maryland State Police and Handgun Permit Review Board from requiring a showing of “apprehended danger as well as “from denying a permit to carry firearms on grounds that the applicant does not face a level of danger higher than that which an average person would reasonably expect to encounter.” The suit is also asking for Mr. Woollard’s permit to renewed, cost of the suit, and attorney’s fees.
I see this lawsuit as well as the Westchester County, NY case as a direct frontal assault on “may issue” states. A win in either or both of those cases would mean that one doesn’t have to be rich, famous, or well-connected in order to secure a carry permit.
The whole complaint can be found here.
UPDATE: Dave Hardy at the Of Arms and the Law blog has a very perceptive observation.
And to think — it was only a few years ago that Brady and others were suing gun manufacturers right and left, as part of a campaign to bankrupt the industry, a campaign that had a good chance of succeeding. Today, they’re on the defensive (to the extent they act at all) and the progun side is on the offense. Since almost all of it has occurred over the last month or so, it’s more than an offense, it’s a legal blitzkrieg.
UPDATE II: Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell makes a very good point about Maryland. It is in the 4th Circuit but is the outlier in terms of concealed carry. The other states in the 4th Circuit – Virginia, West Virginia, and the Carolinas are all “shall issue” states.
UPDATE III: The Baltimore Sun didn’t even cover this in today’s paper. The Washington Post did have a story but it was buried on page B6. I’m sure they be screaming bloody murder if and when Woollard wins.
Clayton Cramer has an interesting article up on Pajamas Media looking at mandatory training for concealed carry permits.He discusses both the utility in preventing accidents and the constitutionality of it.
It is well worth a read.
U. S. District Court Judge Mark Bennett ordered Osceola County, Iowa Sheriff Douglas Weber to issue a concealed carry permit to Paul Dorr because the court found that Sheriff Weber had infringed Mr. Dorr’s First Amendment rights. Judge Bennett did not stop there. He ordered Sheriff Weber to take a college-level course involving the First Amendment.
Judge Bennett was quite colorful in concluding the Sheriff Weber had violated Mr. Dorr’s rights:
The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber’s own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of at least Paul Dorr.
Paul Dorr is a political activist who has been active in both the pro-life movement and the movement to lower government expenses. He had previously had an Iowa “nonprofessional permit to carry a weapon” (the equivalent of a concealed carry permit in Iowa) from the late 1990s until 2006. Thought he thought Mr. Dorr “weird”, Sheriff Weber had approved his permit in 2005 and 2006.
In 2007, however, Sheriff Weber denied Mr. Dorr’s permit writing on the application “Concern from Public. Don’t trust him.” The sheriff thought Mr. Dorr was “weird” and had heard many comments from the general public saying essentially the same thing. He also told Mr. Dorr that he wouldn’t approve any further permits for him.
What had changed in 2007 was that Mr. Dorr was engaged by the Osceola County Taxpayers Association (OCTA) to provide consulting services which included investigating government expenditures, writing and distributing leaflets, and writing letters to the editor. In particular, the OCTA was concerned with the expenditures of the public safety commission and the county attorney’s office. They felt the size of the expenditures were out of line for a county of the size of Osceola and one of the agencies they were concerned about was the Sheriff’s Office.
Judge Bennett said, in his opinion, that:
Giving Sheriff Weber more deference than is due his elected status, the court finds that Sheriff Weber denied Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit not because of the content of his First Amendment activity but because it was effective and agitated many members of the local community. Had Paul passed out flyers at 2:00 a.m. in a public park where no one was there to receive them, used a bullhorn deep in the woods where no one could hear him advocate his sometimes unorthodox views, or written letters to the editor in the Washington Post where few, if any, residents of Osceola County would read them, then Sheriff Weber would have granted Paul the permit. Paul was denied a permit precisely because Sheriff Weber believed that his free speech rights offended the majority of voters in Osceola County.
Because of this, the court “having found Paul (Dorr) proved a claim of First Amendment retaliation, will order Sheriff Weber to reconsider, and approve, Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit.” Mr. Dorr’s son Alexander was also a party to the suit but is only 20 years old. Given Alexander’s age, the court found Sheriff Weber was within his discretion to deny him a permit.
In my opinion, here is where it gets really interesting. Districts Courts have substantial leeway to order remedial training to ensure that such violations don’t take place again.
Sheriff Weber’s dramatic and stunning failure to appreciate, and to protect and defend, Paul’s basic First Amendment rights, compels remedial relief.
The court provides Sheriff Weber with the following guidelines concerning the class
that he must complete. First, the class must provide college level instruction on the United States Constitution, including—at least in part—a discussion of the First Amendment. The class may be taken online. Second, Sheriff Weber must obtain approval from the court before participating in the class. Approval must be obtained by filing, with the Clerk of Court, a motion for approval of the proposed class, which must contain a description of the class and contact information for the court to further inquire, if necessary, into the substance of the class. Third, upon completion of the class, Sheriff Weber must file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court stating that he has successfully completed the class. Sheriff Weber shall attach his transcript or other proof of completion to the affidavit—Sheriff Weber must obtain a passing grade or obtain an otherwise satisfactory assessment of his participation in the class.
According to the Sioux City Journal,
Dorr said Wednesday that he was pleased “justice is served. I get my permit back and the sheriff is being sent back to school. The harm done by Sheriff Weber against the 6th and 9th commandments has been made right.”
I have posted the entire opinion in Scribd and it makes for interesting reading.
The Belleville News Democrat ran a good story today about the movement towards concealed carry in the state of Illinois.
With 15 killings in six months, East St. Louis is on track to once again earn the label of one of the deadliest cities in the country.
But residents there, like all Illinois citizens, cannot legally walk around with a concealed pistol for protection.
Steve King, who operates the Belleville Indoor Shooting Range, says law-abiding residents of East St. Louis and throughout Illinois should be able to legally carry concealed handguns to defend their lives.
“Much of the crime in our area is in East St. Louis,” said King, “This is not meant to be derogatory toward East St. Louis. There are many law-abiding people there who have their backs against the wall who must risk breaking the law to protect themselves. They should be allowed to protect themselves.”
And some top metro-east lawmen agree. They urge that a law be adopted in Illinois to make it legal for qualified persons to pack a handgun. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states to entirely ban concealed firearms.
St. Clair County Sheriff Mearl Justus, Madison County Sheriff Robert Hertz and Belleville Police Chief Bill Clay all said they would support a concealed-carry law for trained persons who could pass an extensive background check.
This issue is of particular interest to me as the Complementary Mother-in-Law lives in St. Clair County. Having driven around East St. Louis, I always pray that I never have car trouble as the place reminds me of a Third World country. If you’ve read John Ross’s Unintended Consequences, you know what I mean.
UPDATE: Here is a link to IllinoisCarry
by