New York Times: Concealed Carry on School Grounds Causes Rift Among Gun Owners in Michigan

The New York Times has a story this morning about legislation in Michigan that, according to the Times, has split gun owners.

When Kenneth Herman visits his daughter’s school, the handgun holstered to his right hip is visible to anyone. And that has caused him problems.

School officials have denied Mr. Herman access to school buildings, asked him to wait in the principal’s office and called the Sheriff’s Department on him. So Mr. Herman, a paramedic who grew up in this semirural community 85 miles northwest of Detroit, sued Clio Area Schools for the right to carry his weapon openly on school grounds, and in August he won the case. The district has appealed.

 

Now his dispute with the school district has become part of a statewide debate over guns in schools that has exposed a rare split among firearm owners. It pits proponents of widespread open carry like Mr. Herman against other gun owners who believe concealed weapons are more appropriate in some settings.

 

The two sides are divided over legislation introduced by Republicans in the State Senate that would allow people with the proper permits to carry concealed weapons at schools, but would ban open carry there. The measure could come up for a vote before the end of the year. 

The Times notes that Mr. Herman and other open-carry proponents oppose the legislation, and that they have formed an alliance with gun ban activists who oppose the legislation because they do not want any weapons carried on school grounds, openly or concealed.

State-level gun owners’ groups have come down on both sides of the issue. Michigan Open Carry, which publishes a guide on how to legally carry a gun in schools, is campaigning against the legislation. The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners — another prominent pro-gun group, whose board of directors includes Mr. Meekhof and another Republican sponsor of the legislation — supports the legislation. 

On political battles over gun laws, concealed-carry and open-carry groups are in agreement “99 times out of 100,” Mr. Meekhof said. But the debate over his bills reveals how the two camps sometimes embrace conflicting views on displaying firearms in public. 

Michigan Open Carry advocates the visible carrying of holstered handguns, similar to what an on-duty police officer might wear. Its members cite a variety of reasons — practical, legal and symbolic — for choosing to display their guns in public.

Regarding that reference to "symbolic" I go back to what Master Firearms Trainer Massad Ayoob wrote on the topic of open carry.

A few years ago, Mark Walters hosted a three-way debate on the topic on his show “Armed American Radio.” The “pro” speaker came, IIRC, from Georgia Carry.  The “anti-open carry” speaker was a cop from the Midwest who, though generally pro-armed citizen, thought open carry was counterproductive to both the public peace and the Second Amendment cause. I took the middle ground, which I still hold. One the one hand, I would like for every state to allow any citizen who has a clean record and hasn’t been adjudicated mentally incompetent to be allowed to open carry a holstered, loaded handgun. First, because there are some jurisdictions where if the wind blows your coat open and reveals the gun you are legally carrying concealed, a genuinely frightened citizen or vindictive anti-gunner can combine with an anti-gun prosecutor to create a perfect storm of criminal charges for illegal open carry. Second, because if a good person suddenly becomes a stalking victim or the target of death threats, I don’t want them to have to wait up to 90 days (gun-friendly Florida) or six months (the time it takes before a new resident can even apply for a concealed carry permit in California, which for the most part is decidedly non-gun-friendly).  But on the other hand, I don’t think we win any friends for gun owners’ civil rights by flaunting deadly weapons in the face of a general public conditioned to fear guns and their owners by generations of anti-gun media and political prejudice.

He followed up that piece with this:

Gun-banners will never convert most who read this blog, and we who support a responsibly armed citizenry will never win over the Pelosis and Bloombergs of the world. The battleground lies with the vast majority of people who are in the middle on this polarized issue.  I am old enough to remember when Massachusetts and California each held a referendum on whether possession of handguns should be banned in their states.  Neither state had a majority of gun owners in the voting pool, but in each case our side won the referendum, because “the people on the fence” didn’t want to go that far.

Doing things that alarm those people in the middle will do nothing to help the pro-gun side.  Fear is the key ingredient that creates hatred.  Doing things that put the general public in fear will cause more people to hate us, and anyone who seriously thinks flaunting rifles around schools in cities and suburbs will somehow acclimate the public to an acceptance of armed citizens is simply delusional.

The fastest way for us to loose our rights is to let the antis divide us and have us fighting among ourselves.  It seems they may have found a way to start that process in Michigan.

New York Times: Has the NRA Won?

That's the question New York Times' far left op/ed writer Charles M. Blow asks in response to the new Pew Research survey released last Friday that pointed out  "for the first time, more Americans say that protecting gun rights is more important than controlling gun ownership, 52 percent to 46 percent.”

It is now fair to ask whether the National Rifle Association is winning — or has in fact won — this era of the gun debate in this country. 

Gun control advocates have tried to use the horror that exists in the wake of mass shootings to catalyze the public into action around sensible gun restrictions. But rather than these tragedies being a cause for pause in ownership of guns, gun ownership has spiked in the wake of these shootings.

Blow goes on to lay out the information Pew's survey shows about how the public's attitude has changed over time then concludes:

One may begrudge and bemoan the fact, but it is hard to deny it: the N.R.A. appears to be winning this round.

I'm sure Blow was moaning the entire time he wrote his column.

New York Times: Minority Gun Owners Face Balancing Act

Over the weekend, the New York Times ran this article that talks about minority gun owners and what the Times refers to as a "balancing act" they face weighing the "isolation" of being a minority gun owner and the "stigma" of gun violence.  Once you get past the headline, it's not a bad article.

It starts off talking about Ken Blanchard, a minister, blogger and podcaster known as "Black Man With a Gun."  They caught up with Blanchard in April at the NRA Annual Meeting in Indianapolis. The article than goes into the numbers of minority gun owners and how they are lower than their white counterparts as well as their percentage of the population:

Blacks are less likely than whites to own a gun. In surveys from 1973 to 2012, an average of 27 percent of African-Americans nationwide said they owned a gun, compared with 47 percent of whites, according to data from NORC, a research center at the University of Chicago. Even so, their attendance at the N.R.A. convention was minuscule compared with their rate of gun ownership, let alone their presence in the population at large.

The accompanying video with the article featured interviews with a number of minority shooters at Anthony Colandro's Gun For Hire range.  It also mentioned NRANews Commentator Colion Noir.  While discussing the number of minorities who own firearms, the reporter accurately mentioned "the number of Blacks who admitted" to owning a firearm.  It is likely that a lot of gun owners, black and white, aren't likely to admit to a stranger on the phone if they own firearms, whether that person identifies themselves as a representative of a polling firm or not.  The reporter also repeated the myth that "overall less people own firearms now than in the past."  Tell that to the gun shops, firearms instructors, and manufacturers.

Talking about the "stigma" of being a Black gun owner, and how "gun violence" plays a part of that and how Blacks are more likely to be victims of such acts, the article also dredged up "Stand Your Ground" laws and the Trayvon Martin incident.  What the Times did not mention is that, at least in Florida, which has been the focus of such laws and where the Martin incident occurred, Blacks have actually benefited more from the Stand Your Ground defense.

Overall, it is a good article and worth checking out.

Update: Reverend Ken Blanchard, one of the main subjects of the story, spoke with Cam Edwards of NRANews about the experience and how the reporter became a convert to the Second Amendment.

Bloomberg Plans to Spend $50 Million to Create "Grassroots" Support for Gun Control

The New York Times has this story on how Michael Bloomberg is going to spend $50 million creating an "umbrella group" to create grassroots support for gun control:

Michael R. Bloomberg, making his first major political investment since leaving office, plans to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide grass-roots network to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence, an organization he hopes can eventually outmuscle the National Rifle Association.

Looking to model his approach after Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Times reports that Bloomberg is going to get away from the usual TV advertising campaigns that have long been a staple of the gun ban groups and plans to:

...put a large portion of his resources into the often-unseen field operations that have been effective for groups like the N.R.A. in driving single-issue, like-minded voters to the polls.

He's basically personally taking over Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Shannon Watts' Moms Demand Action, putting them into a new group called Everytown for Gun Safety.  Never mind that none of these groups have anything to do with teaching gun safety, and everything to do with banning firearms they don't like.

Democrats who want to retain control of the U.S. Senate have been less than thrilled with Bloomberg's efforts of late since he has targeted "Red State" Democrats as well as Republicans who did not support his positions.  Trying to put forth a bipartisan persona, he is also creating an advisory board that include individuals associated with both parties.

Underscoring his desire to work with both parties, Mr. Bloomberg is bringing on a new advisory board with prominent Republican and Democratic figures. Tom Ridge, the former Pennsylvania governor and Homeland Security secretary under President George W. Bush; Eli Broad, the philanthropist; Warren Buffett, the investor; and Michael G. Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under both Mr. Bush and President Obama, will all be board members.

The difference between the NRA and gun ban groups is the NRA has actual members who have some skin in the game - protecting their rights.  They own firearms and want to continue to be able to do so.  That's why even though the paid membership of the NRA is only about 5 million out of an estimated 110 million gun owners, a lot more than 5 million people associate their views with that of the NRA.  I'm not really sure there is this groundswell in a segment of the public to do for the gun ban lobby what gun owners are willing to do to protect their rights like volunteering to help like minded politicians and get out an vote for that issue, sometimes at the expense of other issues they support.

NY Times Article on SC Restaurant Carry

The article can be found here.  I have a suggestion for restaurants in South Carolina. Look to Virginia as a guide. With restaurant carry now for almost four years and there have been no problems. Few establishments have posted against the practice too.

On a related note, with the Virginia Hospitality Association had stayed neutral on the issue as their counterpart in South Carolina did. Might have passed sooner.

Misinformation in NY Times Op/Ed Calling for Right of Shooting Victims to Sue

I guess I should not have expected any less.  This New York Times Op/Ed is full of misinformation.  When it comes to firearms, facts are not necessary for the NY Times.  Besides repeating the discredited talking point about the percentage of firearms sold without background checks, the author claims that since the passage of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, people can't sue firearm manufacturers, even if a firearm is defective.  Sure, he uses an employee of the Brady Center as his source, but he should have checked it before using it in his article:

The 2005 law is just one example of Congressional actions that have reduced gun-industry liability and gutted consumer protections. The result of all this legislation, as Jonathan E. Lowy, director of the legal action project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, has noted, is that a defective BB gun can be recalled, but not a real gun with a similar defect.

The fact is, the law specifically allows suits for harm caused by a defective firearm:

The bills expressly allow suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales, or on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment (such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person) or breach of contract. The bill also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm (as opposed to cases of intentional misuse).

It's interesting that no one calls for suits against automobile manufacturers or car dealers when one of their products end up in the hands of a drunk driver, but firearm manufacturers are supposed to be held responsible for what happens with their product when it leaves the plant.

Newsflash to NYTimes Op/Ed Writer Gail Collins: Criminals Don't Obey the Law

Gail Collins wades in to the Trayvon Martin matter with this Op/Ed in today's New York Times, writing how it's nuts to be talking about reducing the number of young people wearing hoodies instead of the number of people carrying handguns.  She takes the customary swipe at politicians cowering before the NRA, writes about how easy it is to get a concealed handgun permit in Florida, then proceeds to aim her verbal barbs at the two versions of the national reciprocity bills currently in under consideration in congress.  It is here where she shows why gun ban proponents have lost favor with the American public.

Senators John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana have a competing bill that would relieve residents of states like Vermont and Arizona — which don’t require concealed weapons permits at all — from the cumbersome process of actually putting in some paperwork before they tote their handguns to, say, California or New Jersey. Under this one, Jared Loughner, who shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a judge, a small child and four other innocent Arizonans, could have brought his loaded handgun to Times Square.

Here's a newsflash Ms. Collins; nothing is going to keep a criminal like the Arizona shooter from bringing a gun into Times Square with or without national reciprocity - criminals don't obey the law - which is why law abiding folks want to be able to exercise our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.  Most all polling on the issue shows the vast majority of the public agrees we don't need new gun control laws.

Collins apparently thinks she lives in a crime free area because most people can't own a firearm in New York.

Really, just leave us alone. If you don’t like our rules, don’t come here. Is that too much to ask?

Here's a question for Ms. Collins, "Do you really think living in New York City is safer than living in Virginia?"

Don't worry, I have no intention of going to New York. 

NY Times Slams Appleseed Project - Appleseed Responds

That the New York Times Magazine did a hatchet job on the Appleseed Project does not surprise me. Reading the article, it doesn't take long to see the political bent of the author:

While Dailey has said Appleseed should be apolitical, the talk at this Appleseed boot camp and at several others I attended across the country over the course of a year contained pieces of a conversation that has unfolded behind the motley carnivals of the Tea Party movement: a serious deliberation on the right about the nature of the American founding and the limits of incivility.

Notice reference to the Tea Party movement as a "motley carnival." The angle to the article is that Appleseed is teaching armed resistance. This was all the Violence Policy Center needed to see to link to the article on their Twitter feed.

NYT on "Appleseed Project"--Mere Marksmen or More Militia Members?

One group the article's author (I refrain from calling him a reporter) spoke with stated the group "indoctrinates" participants. But when you view the accompanying video on the Time's web site, it seems to me the only indoctrination is teaching the American History that today's public schools fail to teach.

For their part, the Appleseed project has sent a Letter to the Editor and posted the rebuttal on their web site.

...we opened ourselves up and said our piece in trust that it would be conveyed by the press to its readers.

Sadly, today's article is not about us. It is not about the Appleseed Project. It is about militias and about anecdotal gun owners who are not members of our program. The constant focus on the militia movement, the Tea Party, and Mr. Faire are at the center of this article and as a result this article is not about us, since those things are not, and never have been the Appleseed Project.

...In its rush to cover the desired story, that is, scary militia groups, the NYT simply misses what is really important. Therein lies its disservice to both its readers and our program.

The Appleseed Project held in Chesterfield County here in Virginia several years ago and some of the folks hosting the clinic were also active in a local Friends of NRA Committee. VSSA helped promote the clinic on the VSSA web site. A quick look at the organization's web site demonstrates that Appleseed is particularly proud of their outreach to young shooters.

Just one more mainstream media take down on the shooting community.

NY Times Editorial Gets It Wrong Again

The New York Times has an editorial this morning opposing U.S. Senator Bryon Dorgan's (D-ND) bill that would allow for the public hunting of Elk in Theodore Roosevelt National Park located in western North Dakota.

The herd has grown from the 47 that was released into the southern part of the Park in 1985 to approximately 900 - a level above which the park's ecosystem can handle. According to the editorial, Dorgan has inserted a rider into the Interior Department appropriations bill that would allow for a public hunt to cull the herd.

The Times opposes this because:

The idea violates both common sense and the very idea of a national park.

...it would authorize an activity — public hunting — that is proscribed by the founding legislation for the national parks and their current management policies.

The Times' answer to the problem:

Rocky Mountain National Park provides a better model. There, hired sharpshooters have culled cow elk in parts of the park that are closed to the public. This is a safer, more efficient and less expensive way of reducing numbers than shooting bulls, which is what most hunters do.

That statement just shows how little the Times knows about hunting as a wildlife management tool. There are hunters every year who draw cow elk tags and gladly fill them. A public hunt could be managed in the same manner that other hunts are managed on public land in western states. In fact, the management of the hunt could be turned over to the state DNR, they could hold a lottery for tags, and issue more cow elk tags than bulls. Hunters are resource managers. While many would like a trophy, most enjoy the hunt and would be happy with what animal, cow or bull, that is taken in the hunt.

The Times undercuts their case by pointing out that limited hunting is allowed in Wyoming’s Grand Teton National Park under an exception in the law establishing the park in 1950 and even points out that Dorgan's rider is based on that model. So it would appear that the times is more concerned that this would start a snowball effect, opening hunting up in more National Parks. Hunting already occurs on other federal lands without incident. This hunt to cull the elk herd in TR National Park can be carried out without infringing on other public uses of the park.

Hunters are our best wildlife managers. They can safely and effectively manage the elk herd in TR National Park. The Times just doesn't know what it is talking about on this one.