Perhaps if students were allowed to carry concealed weapons, Cho would’ve been dead, long before he took the blood he did.

amerpundit on April 19, 2007 at 12:02 PM

I think it should worry a few people that responsible citizens carrying in public might succumb to a rash response and fire a weapon in a public place… not necessarily hitting the intended target. Personally, as much as I defend a person’s right to own firearms, I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Personally, as much as I defend a person’s right to own firearms, I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.
Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Uh…I hate to tell you this, but there are private citizens out there with much more firearms training than many police officers.

Catseye on April 19, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Personally, as much as I defend a person’s right to own firearms, I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

I’d venture to say that the vast majority of gun owners in this country are as proficient with firearms (safety and use) as those who carry them on a daily basis.

There are more Barney Fyffes out there than you think.

natesnake on April 19, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Just wait for the backlash from the nuts calling them all sorts of derogatory euphemisms for Southerners.

bbz123 on April 19, 2007 at 12:03 PM

I, personally, had written off the government of TN is irreversibly socialist. My perspective may be skewed by spending too much time in Memphis on business, and not getting out to the rest of the state. So, hats off to Rep. Frank Niceley and his colleagues. Now can you guys kill TennCare before it bankrupts the state?

The sophisticated, open-minded, tolerant, cosmopolitan left would never stoop to stereotyping Southerners, would they?

Anton on April 19, 2007 at 12:12 PM

I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 12:04 PM

You must not know very many cops then. You’ll be lucky if that cop has practiced & trained ONCE in the entire year.

Kai on April 19, 2007 at 12:16 PM

I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Only one problem.

When is the last time one of those “PD trained to use them” were ever around at the right moment to protect law abiding citizens?

Gregor on April 19, 2007 at 12:19 PM

You beat me to it.
natesnake on April 19, 2007 at 12:12 PM

just quick on the draw, I guess.

During the time I was there, the only down range homicide investigation the office I worked for investigated (that involved a known legally owned weapon )was a case where a sworn officer discharged the fatal shot.

Catseye on April 19, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Uh…I hate to tell you this, but there are private citizens out there with much more firearms training than many police officers.

Yes, and many more who do not have any training. They are the few that concern me. There are no requirements to train or practice as a citizen. If you’re going to permit people to carry firearms in public, they should be required to prove they can carry and fire (if needed) responsibly.

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Personally, as much as I defend a person’s right to own firearms, I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

This means you’d rather wait until the shooting’s over, everyone’s dead, and the PD has arrived. This is defeatist thinking. I’d rather defend myself before it’s too late. And as far as preferences go, I’d rather take my chances on a “Barney Fife” missing his target than a nutcase deliberately shooting everyone in the room!

stonemeister on April 19, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Bryan, something similar is happening in North Carolina as judges in NC are on their way to being able to pack heat in the courtroom:

RALEIGH, N.C. — Trial court judges could bring their guns to work if they have concealed weapons permits in a bill that tentatively passed the House on Wednesday after a lively debate that touched on this week’s Virginia Tech massacre.

The measure was sought by some judges who want protection from vengeful defendants, their family members or others in their courtrooms or as they enter or leave courthouses. A judge can be vulnerable if an armed bailiff leaves the room, supporters said.

[…]

A final House vote could come as early as Thursday. Then it would go to the Senate, which approved a similar bill in 2005. A spokesman for the state court system said at the time that state law was unclear on whether judges with concealed weapon permits can carry a gun into a courthouse, as law enforcement officers are allowed.

I think this idea was introduced because some rural judges were complaining that their towns either couldn’t spare a policeman to protect the courthouse or their town budgets didn’t allow for in-house security. Something like that. In any event, I’m glad to see it looks like this is going to be made into law. Occasionally, the Democrat-controlled legislature here actually gets something right.

SisterToldjah on April 19, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Hi, Hootie

I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

That’s a Warm Fuzzy Thought. The problem is that the PD always arrives after the fact.

Jack.

Jack Deth on April 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM

>I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

That would be really neato…if they were always standing next to you instead of far enough away for a bunch of people to be shot and killed before they showed up. (That’s not a slam on the police. It’s just a fact that they aren’t standing next to us all the time, and that it always takes time to get to the scene.)

Doghouse on April 19, 2007 at 12:28 PM

>but no one carries a rifle around on their person unless they are going hunting anyway.

Especially not concealed in an inside-the-pants holster. That makes it a bit hard to walk.

Doghouse on April 19, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Are you kidding? Do you know that little about CCW?

Yes. I plead ignorance and offer an apology here folks, a quick browse of wikipedia helped me out. I will note, however, that training is not listed as a requirement in all states, just “some”. Does anyone believe that CCW should not require training?

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 12:35 PM

I live in Vermont, THE lieral state. I chose to live here because we have no carry laws. NONE. I can live here as an arch conservtive comfortable in the knowledge that my right to bear will not be infringed. All conservatives should move here and take the place over LOL.

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/VTSL.pdf

k2comp on April 19, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Hootie-
Google “Gary Kleck” if you want to understand how much impact this actually has. Look at his credentials and his political leanings and then the results of his research. You’ll see things that you will never see on the MSM.

Catseye on April 19, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Does anybody have statistics detailing the inneffectiveness/effectiveness of gun control laws? Where is a good place to look for that info?

Zetterson on April 19, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 12:27

I see. I guess I misread the constitution. I did not know you have to qualify to be covered by the 2nd amendment. Does this kind of thinking apply to the 1st amendment also, or is it a pick and choose?

Wade on April 19, 2007 at 12:58 PM

I think it should worry a few people that responsible citizens carrying in public might succumb to a rash response and fire a weapon in a public place… not necessarily hitting the intended target. Personally, as much as I defend a person’s right to own firearms, I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 12:04 PM

I know Cops, lots of them, Ill put my money on the private citizen.

Viper1 on April 19, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Good Job Tennessee.

I see Davy Crockette lives yet in the hearts and minds of the people of Tennessee.

Rick Donaldson on April 19, 2007 at 1:17 PM

I think it should worry a few people that responsible citizens carrying in public might succumb to a rash response and fire a weapon in a public place… not necessarily hitting the intended target. Personally, as much as I defend a person’s right to own firearms, I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

And when the Police aren’t present? Lets say a deserted parking garage and some freak tries to pull a carjacking? Or a snow storm, late night, inner city, ducking into a convenience store for diapers? (happened to me in Pawtucket RI) Junkies and losers are everywhere, the Police can’t be. You want to wait for a police response? Me I’ll trust my Ruger SP101 and take care of business.

k2comp on April 19, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Wow, I cynically never thought I’d see the day where a state would make such a common sense move.

jdpaz on April 19, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Al Gore was born in Washington, D.C.

gmaninatl on April 19, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 12:27

I see. I guess I misread the constitution. I did not know you have to qualify to be covered by the 2nd amendment. Does this kind of thinking apply to the 1st amendment also, or is it a pick and choose?

Wade on April 19, 2007 at 12:58 PM

I could not agree more about having to “qualify” to own a firearm. As much as I like the idea that private citizens should be allowed to conceal carry, the idea that you have to register bothers me.

Just like gun registration, CCW permit holders will be the first to have their guns seized if the Government decides to ban guns.

We need to repeal all of the laws that our Politicians have passed that have infringed on the 2nd amendment. More lawsuits need to be filed against the Government. Just like in the Washington DC case, they will be found to be un constitutional infringement on the second amendment.

I think the American public has been silent on this for too long. We have allowed the gun grabbers to have their way without demanding they follow the constitution.

ScottyDog on April 19, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Yeah, I think Gore’s early influences were all from growing up in D.C.

INC on April 19, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Zetterson on April 19, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Try gunfacts.info (or is it gunfacts.com)?

He put citeable info in a handy Myth/Truth format.

Kai on April 19, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Gunfacts here in pdf format

Kai on April 19, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Much like driving a car, just show me some level of competency, not expert marksmanship.

Oh man, if only I had that link with anecdotes about cops and weapons proficiency. If someone compiled a list of incidents, you’d probably not want cops to carry, EVER.

As for practice and training, how many times do you think cops (not SWAT or anything specialized) ever “qualify” or train with their weapons?

Kai on April 19, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Kai, awesome. Thank you.

Zetterson on April 19, 2007 at 2:44 PM

I think it should worry a few people that responsible citizens carrying in public might succumb to a rash response and fire a weapon in a public place… not necessarily hitting the intended target. Personally, as much as I defend a person’s right to own firearms, I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

I’ve been a range officer for several years…ran literally thousands and thousands of person runs on action shooting scenarios that very much exceed what the average local police officer would need to experience in order to stay qualified with a firearm. Without any disrespect to the profession, there are shooters who happen to be LE’s that are quite good. Sadly, there are way too many LE’s that simply don’t have the department funding for regular firearms proficiency training, or the motivation to work at it as do the average CCW holder who participates at our club. Given the choice of randomly selecting a Police Officer or a CCW holder in the moment of truth, I’d rather have a fellow CCW holder watching my back.

Yes Wade, your bad. You misread the Constitution. Notice the word “regulated”. Note also that your right to own, carry and fire does not come with an unconditional right to do so anywhere, at any time, for whatever reason. You may not do so on my property. You may not do so where a private entity (such as a school) says you may not. You may not do so in a courtroom, in an airport, etc.

This is clearly language abuse without sufficient research into the writings of the founders, and associated legislation that came out soon after the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The “Well Regulated Milita” comments (which have been so viciously abused by the anti-gun crowd) are MOTIVATIONAL, not CONDITIONAL. The Militia Act of 1792 defined “the Militia”, and within it’s construct ABSOLUTELY ASSUMES PRIVATE FIREARM OWNERSHIP. The defined militia demographic was to provide their own firearm, initial supply of ammo’, and the “tactical gear” of the day.

When will our population wake up and realize that RESTRICTING CARRY STACKS THE ODDS IN FAVOR OF CRIMINALS. Cho was well assured that he would be the only one with a gun which made his job easier. Nutjobs like Cho WILL NOT OBEY GUN-FREE ZONE SIGNS!!!!

Our founders believed that the right to personal defense was God-Given. Removing the means to defend oneself INFRINGES on that RIGHT. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! That’s the prescriptive language of the 2nd Amendment.

Some intellectual honesty and common sense would be most welcome.

CZ52GUY on April 19, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Good on Tennessee for making a tough stand. They’ll be savaged by the media for it, but they did a good thing.

Bad Candy on April 19, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Does anyone believe that CCW should not require training?

Raises hand in the affirmative. When society can definitively GUARANTEE the certification of Rapists, Muggers, and other Violent Criminals, then society can with a clear conscience dictate legislatively that the right to defend oneself with a firearm comes with a training prerequisite (and accept the responsibility when non-certified criminals attack).

Until then, training should be STRONGLY ENCOURAGED as a way to shorten the learning curve and make the lawful CCW holder more effective, as well as more responsible and aware of collateral consequences to their actions.

Put simply, YES!!! I believe that training should not be a requirement to carry, Vermont is the model…non-felons are assumed to have the right without the need for any licensing whatsoever.

CZ52GUY on April 19, 2007 at 4:01 PM

First off, to those still attacking my original quote, you might want to pay attention to the conversation. I rescinded that note on the PD, after several members here pointed out the CCW requirements in some states. Now, the catch-all-be-all:

This is clearly language abuse without sufficient research into the writings of the founders, and associated legislation that came out soon after the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The original meaning of the term “regulated” was meant to mean “equipped” or “trained”, as CZ pointed out, not regulated as in “government controlled”. It is important to point to the original intent, which was that firearms should be owned by individuals to protect against an unjust government (as the amendment states). It is also worthwhile to point out that militias generally trained their own members. In essence, that’s all I (IMHO) would be asking, is that a CCW permit come with training. Because the government is charged with maintaining the peace and indisputably has certain interests in protecting the general populace, ensuring that people toting firearms are proficient to a minimum degree is not unreasonable nor unconstitutional. It also does not prevent you from keeping nor bearing arms, just not under certain conditions. Which leads to our next conundrum…

My question to you is why you think banning guns from schools makes them safer when the evidence shows the opposite.

I don’t, actually. I know the statistics. A criminal who knows he has a better chance of being gunned down himself is not likely to commit the crime. Again, worth pointing out that this doesn’t help defend against the mentally insane (the “Psy-Chos”) who don’t rationalize criminal actions. More importantly is the issue of who makes the decision to or not to carry on certain property. On my plot of land, you have no right to bear arms because I say so (or rather, my wife does). If the owner of an office building, a private university, a McDonald’s, or otherwise sets a rule preventing you from carrying on their property, your 2nd amendment rights have not been infringed. The 2nd amendment prohibts the government from denying arms, not fellow private individuals.

So your question would better be posed as, why should we defend a school’s (or business’s) rules that prohibit guns on campus? And the answer would be, because it’s their individual right as the owners of said property.

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Are we absolutely sure Al Gore is from this state? How the hell did that happen?

Blacklake on April 19, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Yeah, I think Gore’s early influences were all from growing up in D.C.

INC on April 19, 2007 at 2:04 PM

True, but we can’t take away where a man wants to be from, and whom he represented for years, before he was VP.

There is irony in being born in D.C., living all your childhood and teenage life in a fancy hotel in D.C. and then claiming to be from Tennessee. But, heh, this is big Al Gore and he can claim anything he wants.

He still lost his own state, and, if he wouldn’t have, he’d possibly still be our President…

Entelechy on April 19, 2007 at 5:04 PM

On my plot of land, you have no right to bear arms because I say so (or rather, my wife does). If the owner of an office building, a private university, a McDonald’s, or otherwise sets a rule preventing you from carrying on their property, your 2nd amendment rights have not been infringed. The 2nd amendment prohibts the government from denying arms, not fellow private individuals.

So your question would better be posed as, why should we defend a school’s (or business’s) rules that prohibit guns on campus? And the answer would be, because it’s their individual right as the owners of said property.

Hottie

You keep making the argument that the constitution does not apply on private or state property.

I disagree. The second amendment has no such language as you imply. You cannot just suspend a god given right as laid out in the constitution because you disagree with firearms on said property. And the courts, when asked have agreed with my argument.

Why do you think TN has repealed the Gun Ban?

They knew it would be challenged in a court of law and having gun free zones results in only criminals being armed in said gun free zone.

In San Francisco, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren overturned voter-approved Measure H, a city ordinance that banned the private possession of handguns and the sale of all firearms in the city.

The recent decision in the District of Columbia Gun Ban Case, has the gun grabbers underwear in a wad because in case after case the right to own and bear arms is being affirmed. All the prior registration and licensing laws are now fair game for challenge on the grounds that they also violate — “infringe,” to use the Second Amendment word — the individual right to keep and bear arms

Isn’t it interesting that Utah concealed carry permit holders have the right to carry guns on college campuses. And isn’t it interesting that you haven’t read about any school shootings in Utah?

ScottyDog on April 19, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Hottie

ScottyDog on April 19, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Freudian slip?

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 8:54 PM

Spot on Catseye. It’s one of those “you do your thing and I’ll do mine” scenarios. I would disagree that you have a right to sue me in civil court for injury incurred because I prohibited you from carrying on my property. That still boils down to saying I had no right in the first place to tell you what to do with my property… which is incorrect. But the rest of your post hits my point.

As far as your SAB, you can’t cure stupid. Sorry to hear.

Hootie on April 20, 2007 at 8:19 AM

So plead your case to Universities and local governments. Encourage them to lighten up the bans on law-abiding citizens.

Just do so with the realization that if they don’t accept your argument, it’s NOT a violation of the 2nd amendment because this isn’t the government forcing the gun from your hands, it’s a private party.

Neither is a state university nor a local government a ‘private party’.

You have the absolute right to make a rule against having guns at Hootie University, and I have the absolute right to send my daughter elsewhere. But my tax money goes to the state universities in Kansas, whether my daughter does or not. That means that the Board of Regents doesn’t have the same right that you do. As a taxpayer, I’m part owner of the university my daughter is attending next fall, and I say she should keep her right to defend herself.

The Monster on April 20, 2007 at 11:26 PM