Following a summer that saw far-right-wing activists bringing guns to political events across the country, two more recent incidents suggest that it wasn’t just the heat driving the “open carry” craze.
On December 20, 2009, Leonard Embody walked into Radnor Lake State Park in Tennessee with a loaded AK-47 pistol, reportedly with the intention of testing a new state law allowing those with concealed carry permits to bring their handguns into state parks. One woman who encountered Embody in the park reported, “He was wearing military boots and a black skull cap. He didn’t look like the friendliest of guys. It was scary.” Soon, park rangers appeared on the scene and questioned Embody at gunpoint.The rangers were apparently confused about whether his AK-47 was a rifle, which would have been illegal in the park. On OpenCarry.org, Embody wrote that one of the rangers said he “had never heard of a 7.62x39 handgun” (the 7.62x39mm cartridge was originally designed during World War II and is common in military-style rifles). The practice of shortening assault-style rifles into pistol-sized handguns to make them more easily concealable began in the late 1990s. According to the Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, Dr. Garen Wintemute, (who has photographed these weapons at gun shows across the country), “Less than 24 inches long, [these guns] use the same ammunition and high-capacity magazines that the rifles do. With the magazine detached they are easily concealed.”
After Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents arrived at the scene and confirmed that the firearm was indeed a pistol, rangers released Embody in accordance with the law without pressing charges. On OpenCarry.org, Embody has stated that he plans to openly carry the same handgun again at Bicentennial Mall, a Nashville State Park.
This issue has been a controversial one in The Volunteer State. Counties and municipalities have been permitted to opt out of a law allowing handguns in parks that they manage, and approximately 70 of them—fearing threats to public safety—have done so.
Another disturbing example of “open carry” occurred on January 2, when a crowd of over 300 people gathered at a busy intersection to protest the Obama Administration in Alamogordo, New Mexico. The rally, organized by the local Otero Tea Party Patriots and the Second Amendment Task Force, was a response to recent health care reform efforts, as well as a demonstration of Second Amendment “rights.”
Many of the attendees at the rally openly carried handguns and/or rifles (one woman even strapped a .32 caliber handgun to her dog’s back). New Mexico law allows residents to openly carry a firearm in most public places, as well as concealed weapons with a state-issued permit.Several individuals who carried guns at the rally indicated they were doing so to exhibit “responsible gun ownership.” Others, however, admitted a darker purpose. One man stated that his handgun was a “very open threat” to the “socialist communists” in the Obama Administration. “The government fears the people, and a disarmed people are slaves,” he said. “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun ... They’re pushing us to our limits.” Jim Kizer, a veteran of the Korean War who carried at the rally, echoed this sentiment: “I’ve fought Communists all my life, and now our government is being taken over by them. That’s why I’m here.”
The rally kept law enforcement well occupied. Although the protest was not as large as anticipated, Alamogordo Department of Public Safety officers and the New Mexico State Police drove through “the intersection at no less than five-minute intervals during the two-hour event.” The constant patrolling of the protest distracted law enforcement from their regular duties, depriving the surrounding community of valuable resources.
Dan Woodruff, the founder of Alamogordo’s Second Amendment Task Force chapter, opined that the rally “put a positive light on gun ownership.” Others were not so convinced. Walt Rubel of the Las Cruses Sun-News questioned the benefit of “inviting every yahoo with a weapon in southern New Mexico to gather at the busiest intersection in Alamogordo and wave their firearms at the passing traffic.” Denise Lang, a counter-protester on the scene that day, offered, “I'm very much a pro-gun rights person. I come from a military family. My late husband was a gunsmith, [and] I think gun use is OK in an appropriate time and place. Wearing guns to a protest, to me, is extremely juvenile."
Beyond scaring their fellow citizens (“It’s a shock value thing,” admitted one handgun-toter), distracting law enforcement, and presenting potential threats to public safety (at political events that typically involve heated discussion), armed protesters present a more fundamental challenge to the integrity of our democracy. Their belief that the Second Amendment allows them to use force to bypass non-coercive, peaceful avenues of change undermines the First Amendment rights of all those who disagree with them. Perhaps “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” (as Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung stated in 1938) in a totalitarian state, but not in a functioning democracy.
Ron Browne of Alamogordo, a bystander at the January 2 rally, grasped that armed protest leads to something far different than “freedom.” “I see this as the seeds of terrorism being born,” he said. “You have the guns. Eventually, you'll have the hate, then someone will actually take it one step further and try to hurt the president. Hate has to start somewhere and grow. This is it, right here. You're looking at it. If this keeps expanding, we're going to have a civil war.”
Blog Description
Blog Archive
-
►
2010
(23)
- December (1)
- November (3)
- October (1)
- September (2)
- August (1)
- July (2)
- June (2)
- May (3)
- April (1)
- March (2)
- February (3)
- January (2)
-
►
2009
(35)
- December (2)
- November (3)
- October (3)
- September (4)
- August (2)
- July (3)
- June (3)
- May (3)
- April (3)
- March (3)
- February (3)
- January (3)
Bullet Counter Points: What's Going On (at Gun Shows) Series
Gun Violence Prevention Blogs
- Josh Horwitz at Huffington Post
- Ladd Everitt at Waging Nonviolence
- Things Pro-Gun Activists Say
- Ordinary People
- Mondays With Mike
- Brady Campaign Blogs
- Common Gunsense
- New Trajectory
- Josh Sugarmann at Huffington Post
- Kid Shootings
- A Law Abiding Citizen?
- Ohh Shoot
- Armed Road Rage
- Abusing the Privilege
- New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence Blog
- CeaseFire New Jersey Blog
- Considering Harm
January 11, 2010
These Second Amendment "Rights" Need to Be Exorcised
September 14, 2009
Few Volunteers for NRA Agenda
In recent months, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been pushing state legislatures across the country to legalize the carrying of concealed handguns in sensitive public places—an agenda that hasn’t sat well with the public itself. One key battleground concerning such legislation has been the state of Tennessee.
A new law in Tennessee that went into effect on September 1, SB 1518, allows concealed carry permit holders to take their handguns into parks, natural areas, campgrounds and “similar public places.” Cities and counties are allowed to opt out of the law by passing local legislation, however, and maintain their concealed handgun bans in parks. Approximately 70 municipalities have already exercised this option; ranging from major cities Memphis and Nashville to rural towns with populations under 2,000. Vice Mayor Steve Brown said of his city: "Hendersonville is a fairly conservative community, and I'm a fairly conservative alderman. Four of our aldermen have carry permits—I'm one of them—and all four of us opted out of that law." When told that the sponsor of SB 1518, Sen. Mae Beavers (R-Mt. Juliet), was considering offering new legislation to take away the opt-out provision for local governments, Brown said, "If you make a law that 70 percent of your people don't like, you'd be pretty foolish to bring it up again in an election year. I wouldn't touch that law with a 10-foot pole."
Recently, some Knoxville officials who expressed support for the ban have received threatening emails from concealed carry permit holders. Knoxville City Councilwoman Barbara Pelot received approximately 400 such emails, and said, "It made me think strongly about what kind of training do these permit holders have? ... These people don't have psychological testing. They don't go through what Knoxville Police Department officers and the Sheriff's Office do. The passion and the intensity of these e-mails made me think some very bad choices could be made by these people who have permits."
Another law that went into effect in Tennessee this year, SB 0575, allows “[any] person who has [a] handgun carry permit and is not consuming alcohol to possess [a] handgun in any restaurant that derives more than 60 percent of its revenue from the sale of food .” Tennessee does not differentiate between restaurants and night clubs for liquor licensing purposes, making the Volunteer State the first in the country to allow concealed handguns in bars (Arizona recently became the second). No mechanism has been specified to enforce the law—presumably restaurant owners would have to search everyone they serve alcohol to to see if they are carrying a firearm.
In July, a group of 10 Tennessee restaurant owners and workers filed a lawsuit which alleges that SB 0575 “creates unsafe workplaces, [and] violates federal occupational safety and health laws.” Adam Dread, attorney for the plaintiffs and an NRA member, stated, “How hard is it to have a common-sense awareness that guns and alcohol don’t mix? It’s a deadly mix. Two guys with fists, you have a fistfight. But if one has a gun, you have a tragedy.” The Tennessee Hospitality Association, Nashville Chamber of Commerce, and Nashville Visitors and Convention Bureau are supporting the lawsuit.
Proponents of the law, such as SB 0575 sponsor Sen. Doug Jackson (D-Centerville), claim that concealed carry permit holders are well-vetted and among the most responsible gun owners in America. Several recent developments, however, call these claims into question.
In late 2008, the Tennessee Department of Safety discovered that approximately 200 individuals who held concealed carry permits in the state had active restraining orders against them for domestic abuse. Although this was a clear violation of the law (subjects of restraining orders are prohibited under federal law from possessing or purchasing firearms), the Department of Safety did not notice this oversight until informed by a Nashville television station.
Then, in August of this year, the Tennessean discovered “a persistent group of Tennesseans with violent pasts who carry gun permits through loopholes, administrative mistakes, and the realities of a court system where charges based on violent incidents can be reduced or eliminated in plea bargains.” This group included convicted felons who illegally held permits and others who obtained their permits in accordance with the law despite long criminal histories. As a “shall-issue” state, Tennessee does not give local law enforcement any discretion over whether to issue a permit. If an applicant passes a basic computer background check, police must issue the permit, even if the individual is an obvious threat to public safety. "The circumstances of the cases…brought to our attention can certainly lead one to reasonably question the judgment and character of these individuals, and whether they should have permits to carry guns in public, including bars and restaurants," Nashville Metro Police Chief Ronal Serpas said in a statement. "But again, the law is the law."
In an even more recent incident that occurred in Knoxville on September 3, Luann Keller, 55, was charged with aggravated assault after she allegedly pulled her gun on an off-duty police lieutenant. Authorities say the incident may have been the result of road rage. “She started blowing her horn and then pulled up beside him and pulled a firearm,” says Knoxville Police Department Lt. Kenny Miller. Keller had a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun.
The NRA insists that allowing concealed handguns to be carried everywhere will make us safer. Opposition to their legislation in a “Red State” like Tennessee—hardly a liberal bastion—is convincing evidence that few Americans agree with them.
May 26, 2009
“One should ask, what do guns have to do with credit cards?”
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives gave final approval to a dangerous, non-germane amendment that was attached to the "Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009" by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). The amendment, drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA), would allow individuals to carry loaded semiautomatic handguns, assault rifles and shotguns into America’s National Parks as long as the firearm is in compliance with state law. The House approved the amendment by a vote of 279-147 (with 105 Democrats voting for it). The amendment had previously passed in the Senate by a vote of 67-29 (with 27 Democrats voting for it).
The Coburn Amendment would override a regulation that was enacted by the Reagan Administration that requires visitors to keep guns stored and unloaded when traveling through National Park lands. It has been opposed by every living and former director of the National Park Service, ranger organizations, retired superintendents, and environmental groups. In a joint statement issued by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, NPCA Executive Vice President Theresa Pierno said of Congress and President Barack Obama: “By not taking a stand to prevent this change, they have sacrificed public safety and national park resources in favor of the political agenda of the National Rifle Association.” The amendment would create an enforcement nightmare for park rangers attempting to enforce gun laws in National Parks that straddle several different states.Senator Coburn’s amendment is even more extreme than a last-minute rule issued by the Bush Administration that would have allowed individuals to carry concealed handguns in National Parks. The Bush administration moved forward with the rule despite the fact that 73% of the 140,000 people who voiced their opinions during a public comment period opposed it. In March of this year, the United States District Court issued an injunction against the implementation of the Bush rule. Judge Colleen Kollar-Ketally found that the Bush administration’s rulemaking process was “astoundingly flawed” because they “abdicated their [National Environmental Policy Act] obligations” and “ignored substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts.” Senator Coburn has also purposely avoided the environmental review process set up to protect the Parks.
Senator Coburn says his amendment “is about protecting every American’s Second Amendment rights” and he claims, “Whether it is meth labs hidden amid lush forests or car prowls at trailheads, park rangers and forest officers are seeing an increasing amount of criminal behavior.”
The senator is apparently not familiar with the Supreme Court’s June 2008 decision in the controversial Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Writing for the five conservative justices in the majority in the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:
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 or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Senator Coburn also wildly exaggerated the threat of violence in our National Parks. The truth is—like other gun free zones—they are some of the safest places in the United States. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 National Park visitors in 2006. That can be contrasted with an overall national violent crime rate of 469.2 victims per 100,000 citizens in 2005.
The legislation has now moved to President Barack Obama’s desk. Concerned citizens can contact the White House at (202) 456-1111 to urge President Obama to veto H.R. 627 and demand a clean bill from Congress minus the Coburn Amendment. It was just last year that the president publicly stated, "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." Americans should hold him to his word and indicate that the safety of their families is not a political commodity to be sacrificed.
For additional information, read this statement from CSGV Executive Director Josh Horwitz and see NPCA’s “Keep Parks Safe” webpage.
February 4, 2008
Gunning for our National Treasures
Our National Parks could become dangerous places if a group of 47 pro-gun senators have their way. In a December 2007 letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID), Max Baucus (D-MT) and their colleagues requested the repeal of a Reagan-era regulation that prohibits guns from being transported through National Park lands unless they are unloaded and safety stored. Their proposed changes would allow concealed carry permit holders to carry their handguns on most National Park lands. Long guns, including assault weapons, could in many cases be openly carried.
Not content to wait for a response from the administration, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) will soon seek to attach an amendment to a related bill, S. 2483, to codify these changes in law and override the need for any executive action on the matter.
A broad coalition of conservation and environmental groups have stepped forward to oppose the Coburn amendment, including the National Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal order of Police, the National Parks Conservation Association, the National Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, and The Wilderness Society.
As stewards of our parks, these organizations understand that gun proliferation can only exacerbate the already pervasive effects of poaching and park destruction that threaten to permanently alter our national heritage. Without sensible gun regulations, individuals who would do harm to visitors, wildlife and park property will be able to more easily evade prosecution. Add to this the post-9/11 threat of terrorism, and it becomes even more difficult to understand how Senator Coburn and his colleagues believe that loosening gun regulations will make our national parks safer.
This reminds us of a terrible story that appeared in the national news last year when an Illinois family was terrorized in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (land maintained by the National Forest Service) by a group of handgun and assault-rifle toting young men. In one night of alcohol-soaked and motorboat-aided revelry, these men harassed upwards of 80 people throughout the park, eventually forcing a man, his daughter, and his grandson to hide in the woods for fear of death. The men now face 79 criminal charges for their actions.
The last thing the people who maintain and protect our national parks need is politically-motivated legislative tinkering to make their jobs more difficult and complex. Badlands National Park Superintendent Paige Baker expresses this sentiment succinctly: “The system is working as it is. When people come out here, it's to look at the wildlife and the natural beauty, not to shoot."