BREAKING: I will be talking about this article on Armed American Radio with Mark Walters tonight, Sunday, August 14th at 9:30 PM. You can catch the show, which is on from 8 PM to 11 PM on http://armedamericanradio.org/listen-live-2/ ]
Last week I was interviewed by Mark Bowes, a reporter with the Richmond Times-Dispatch. He was investigating what affect the repeal of the ban on carrying concealed handguns into restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages has had in its first year.
Basically the result was as predicted by VCDL and other pro-liberty organizations for years now - there were no shootouts over undercooked tuna with other patrons diving for cover AND some violent crimes committed in restaurants, in fact, declined.
All that whining and fear mongering by the other side was proven to be nothing but their usual paranoid fantasies. Every time VCDL tries to expand the rights of gun owners in any direction, it is always the same "end-of-the-world" prophecies from liberty-haters. And they are methodically proven wrong each and every time.
That's the only play they have in their playbook, so we'll see it again next year as VCDL keeps moving the ball forward.
Unfortunately things weren't perfect. There were two incidents in the first year involving permit holders. One was where a permit holder who, in trying to pay for a beer, proceeded to shoot himself in the leg as he pulled money from a pocket that was shared with his concealed gun. He won't find any sympathy from me on a variety of fronts, including breaking the law and putting a handgun that probably was not holstered into a pocket full of other items. At least the only person who was hurt was the permit holder.
The other incident was an intoxicated permit holder who intentionally drew attention to the outline of a concealed handgun in his pocket, leaving the waitress feeling threatened. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior, so, again, I have no sympathy.
While these two events were frustrating, one has to look at them in perspective - there are almost 1/4 MILLION permit holders in Virginia! Neither event was a violent crime, but more along the lines of foolishness with some stupidity thrown in for good measure. No innocents were hurt and the law worked, as both permit holders were punished.
Here is the article, WITH A POLL. I have inserted a few comments in the story:
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch: http://tinyurl.com/3svxsns
Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants
By Mark Bowes
Virginia's bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses, a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis found.
The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.
And overall, the crimes that occurred during the law's first year were relatively minor, and few of the incidents appeared to involve gun owners with concealed-carry permits, the analysis found.
A total of 145 reported crimes with guns occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants in fiscal 2010-11, or eight fewer than the 153 incidents in fiscal 2009-10. State police track all murders, non-negligent manslaughters, aggravated assaults, forcible sex crimes and robberies in more than two dozen categories, including "bars/nightclubs" and "restaurants."
"The numbers basically just confirm what we've said would happen if the General Assembly changed the law," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League, which strongly lobbied for the law's change that made Virginia one of 43 states to allow concealed guns in restaurants that serve alcohol. "It's sort of a big yawn. So from my point of view, none of this is surprising."
"Keep in mind," Van Cleave added, "what the other side was saying — that this was going to be a blood bath, that restaurants will be dangerous and people will stop going. But there was nothing to base the fear-mongering on."
State Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, who was a strong opponent of the law, said it's not clear what conclusions can be drawn from just a year's worth of data.
"Most folks obey the law, and that's a good thing," said McEachin, who remains staunchly opposed. "But I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that just like drinking and driving doesn't mix, guns and drinking don't mix." [PVC: People drink and drive legally all the time. Being intoxicated is the issue. Hopefully the good Senator has actually read the law he is speaking about and understands that it prohibits drinking while carrying concealed with a CHP, making his sweeping generalization nonsensical.]
David Rittgers, an attorney and decorated former Army special forces officer who is now a legal policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the growing number of states that are adopting concealed-carry measures like Virginia's have seen no appreciable rise — and in some cases a decline — in violent crime.
Rittgers said.
Rittgers said states that have enacted such concealed-carry legislation — "even when they've done some relatively restrictive provisions upfront" — have relaxed those over time "because of the lack of violent incidents that might be connected with persons carrying concealed (weapons) with a permit."
* * * * *
At The Times-Dispatch's request, state police pulled from their computerized database all major crimes at bars and restaurants reported by local law-enforcement agencies across Virginia for two successive fiscal years. The Times-Dispatch then contacted more than a dozen police departments in Virginia for more detailed information on all aggravated assaults, homicides and sexual assaults involving firearms at those businesses.
Reported robberies were not analyzed because they tend to involve premeditated crimes by perpetrators openly displaying guns, and many of the affected businesses are chain restaurants that don't serve alcohol.
Only two fatal shootings occurred during the last fiscal year — one outside a Petersburg nightclub and the other at a Radford restaurant — but neither involved concealed-gun permit holders. And only two of the 18 aggravated assaults reported could be linked definitively to concealed-carry holders.
Several other cases appear to have involved hidden guns, but the suspects either didn't have a concealed permit, or they fled the scene before they could be identified and arrested.
One of the few unambiguous cases of a concealed-gun permit holder breaking the law occurred on July 28, 2010 — 27 days after the law became active — at a deli in York County. In that case, a patron who had been drinking heavily with a gun concealed in his pocket allegedly sexually harassed a female waitress and, at one point, placed his hand over his hidden gun so the waitress could see its outline.
After making a comment the waitress construed as a threat, the man left but was stopped a short time later by police. They recovered a .380-caliber pistol from his pants pocket and charged him with driving under the influence, brandishing a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon.
He was charged with the latter offense — even though he had a permit to carry the gun — because he had been drinking in the deli while in possession of a concealed firearm. The law forbids concealed-gun permit holders to drink alcohol while they are inside bars and restaurants with guns hidden from view. Patrons who legally carry firearms openly into bars and restaurants can drink freely.
Authorities confiscated the man's concealed-gun permit, but the brandishing and concealed weapon charges were eventually withdrawn by prosecutors. He was convicted of driving while drunk.
In another case closer to home, a Hopewell man with a concealed-carry permit was arrested in June after police said he brandished a gun in the parking lot of a chain restaurant after a verbal dispute escalated into a fight among several patrons. No shots were fired, but punches were thrown.
Although the man pulled a concealed weapon during the fight, the new law didn't really apply because the restaurant where the incident occurred doesn't serve alcohol. The man was convicted last month of brandishing the gun — which he appealed — and a malicious-wounding charge was certified to a Hopewell grand jury.
Aside from the two homicides, the only assault that resulted in a person being shot occurred in February outside a Virginia Beach restaurant and bar. The shooting followed an altercation inside the restaurant. Several unknown men were asked to leave, and the victim was shot and wounded as he walked toward a male in an adjacent parking lot, police said.
But because the suspect was never identified and arrested, police don't know whether the shooter was carrying a concealed gun or whether he had a permit to carry it.
* * * * *
Tom Lisk, a lobbyist who represents the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association, still believes it's a bad idea to mix alcohol and firearms, and he says the crime numbers essentially affirm his initial position on the issue.
"We acknowledged during the legislative debate that the vast majority of individuals that hold concealed-weapons permits are indeed law-abiding citizens, and most would not cause any problem," Lisk said. "But at the same time, we also advocated that they in fact were human beings, and some small number would probably be the source of some problem because you're mixing alcohol and firearms. [PVC: Yet, hypocritically, the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association has no problem with mixing alcohol with drivers. I've never seem them lobby to keep drivers with concealed car keys from being able to drink in restaurants.]
"And I think that's pretty much borne out by what we've seen," added Lisk, citing the York case as an example. "This was a law-abiding citizen that got a permit, but yet he went in and broke the law by drinking while carrying a concealed firearm." [PVC: And the legal system punished him for doing so. That's how the law is supposed to work in America.]
Lisk also cited another incident publicized last year that involved a concealed-permit holder who accidentally shot himself in the thigh at a Lynchburg restaurant. The gun discharged after the man apparently reached into his pocket to pay the bartender for a beer. He was convicted of recklessly handing a firearm, ordered to pay a $500 fine and lost his concealed-carry permit for a year. His gun was confiscated.
While the new law has not led to rampant crime or "random bloodshed in restaurants," Lisk said, "certainly we've seen a few incidences of permit holders using bad judgment — drinking and then, in unfortunate circumstances … shooting themselves or accosting a waitress. So I think in that respect our concerns have been validated." [PVC: So let's punish 250,000 people who did nothing wrong last year then, Tom?]
McEachin echoed that view.
"I promise you that the waitress that had the gun brandished at her by someone who was drunk and sexually aggressive — to her that was a serious offense," he said. "And when someone gives themselves a self-inflicted wound, that just underscores the fact that guns and drinking don't mix. I don't know if there's anything disproven by those numbers." [PVC: Someday McEachin will actually read the law and be shocked to find out that it prohibits drinking while carrying concealed. I'm not holding my breath, however.]
Rittgers said once concealed-carry laws come into effect, the fears associated with such measures generally are not realized and fade. "None of those predictions, frankly, have come to pass," he said.
A certain amount of unreasonable fear is associated with guns generally because they are used by criminals in committing crimes, Rittgers said. But concealed-carry holders, who Rittgers said tend be more law-abiding that the general citizenry, "are willing to go through the background checks and the training that is often required" for the permit.
Van Cleave believes he and other supporters of the law deserve an apology — especially those who "screamed the end of the world was coming with this."
"At some point," Van Cleave said, "it would be nice to have some of them admit that they were wrong, that they didn't see any of the horrible things that they thought were going to happen." [PVC: I know, I know - the other side lives to shamelessly fear monger to get their way. But that doesn't mean we should let them get away with it unscathed.]
First, I want to thank both Mark Bowes, and the Richmond Times Dispatch for running a fair article on the subject. Too often we see articles where we gun owners know that factual evidence in favor of guns has either been grossly distorted, or the article includes out and out lies to make gun owners look bad, and that could have been easily countered had the writer bothered to check.
Part of being fair is telling both sides in context. In this case, the article tells there were only two incidents, out of 250,000 concealed permit holders in Virginia. That amounts to 0.00080%. Not exactly a crime spree. In the case of the guy who got sloppy drunk and threatened a waitress, do you really think a law might have stopped him? In any case, the man was punished, which is how the law should work.
Second, there is the case of North Carolina. All of the States bordering on North Carolina now have some form of carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, except South Carolina. But they are working on it down there. Even Ohio now has restaurant carry. In every case, of course, you may not carry while drinking, which is a more restrictive than for drivers. In every State, a person can have a blood alcohol level of up to 0.07 and not be legally drunk driving. But for gun carriers, the standard is that you can't drink, period. There is no "reason" why the legislature has not allowed carry in restaurants the serve alcohol in North Carolina, but there has been plenty of "emotion." Most of the hysteria has been generated by a series of editorials making claims of shootouts over undercooked tuna, and of blood running between the tables. As in Virginia, this is all they've got. There is no evidence, nothing to point to. But the editorials did manage to cow the North Carolina Senate. While we saw the same editorials in Virginia newspapers before the votes in Virginia, their legislature is apparently made of sterner stuff.
There are already laws on the books making both murder and assault crimes. Yet these crimes happen with dreadful regularity. While guns may be excellent tools to use in the commission of such crimes, a look at Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that absent a gun, other weapons will be used. Indeed, in South Africa, which has a tremendously high homicide rate, and very strict gun control, homicides are not committed with guns by and large. Yet they are still committed in numbers that make the United States look like a childrens' picnic. The instrumentalities that people find to kill each other are baffling in their ingeniousness, from knives to machetes, to hammers, to screwdrivers, to pantie hose to bare hands. The list is hardly all inclusive. Would you ban all these things from restaurants that serve alcohol? If not, why not? What about automobiles? Should waitresses take the keys of those they serve alcohol to so as not to allow them to drink and drive? If not, why not, in the interests of being consistent. Note too that all of these potential instruments of death are safe in the hands of someone who has no intent to use them for murder and assault.
All of the above has so far dealt with statistics, looking at the pragmatic effects of banning the mere possession of an instrument in certain circumstances. Now we come to the principled argument. The idea here is that there is some level of lawlessness committed by others that justifies restricting the rights of the law abiding. Within our system of law, there is no basis for the practice. The idea of punishing the whole class for the acts of one or two miscreants comes from our youth. When little Johnny throws a spit ball at the teacher while her back is turned, she naturally asks who did it. When nobody volunteers, she sentences the entire class to extra homework. It didn't seem fair then, and among adults it is a loathsome notion. Every one of us has been granted the right to defend him or herself by virtue of our birth, and for most of history, we had only ourselves to do it. It is an ancient right that goes back to beginning our our species, and was recognized in law by the Bible, by the Romans, and reaffirmed by the English Common law and by the U. S. Constitution. By making laws which infringe on that right, Governments take on the moral responsibility for defending us from criminals, even as they evade that responsibility by declaring themselves sovereign. In essence, the Government that makes such laws has the blood of innocent victims on its hands. Let us hope the NC Senate can find the fortitude to buck the newspapers and pass restaurant carry in North Carolina.
No comments:
Post a Comment