At a fundraising event last week in Missouri, security officers kept Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in a safe room for several minutes after reports that a person in attendance might be carrying a gun.
He wasn’t, but the incident shows how the prospect of citizens carrying concealed guns in public can lead to fear and confusion, not safety.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Jed on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
44 Comments
The only fear and confusion being spread, Randy, is by you and the Eagle through your continual bleating on this issue. I suppose the Governor’s bodyguards will also surrender their weapons? No? Why not? What’s good for the goose . . . .
Get over it Randy. Criminals don’t obey laws (I’ll write slow, so you can follow along – THAT’S WHY THEY’RE CALLED CRIMINALS) and gun control laws only limit those who don’t need limiting in the first place. You seek, again, to disarm the law-abiding. Ask the families of the students at VT how that worked out.
And BTW, the Gov’s veto of HB 2528 (reminding petty tyrants in local gov’t that a state law means what it says – pre-emption means pre-emption) was overridden this morning. That makes the Governor 0 for 2 on this issue; thankfully, the legislature has more common sense and sees through the dishonesty that comes out of the Governor’s office (and the Eagle) on this issue.
Governments don’t create rights; rights are inalienable, and gov’ts only guarantee what is already there. But gov’ts are also composed of men, inherently corruptable and hungry for power. So remember, Randy: It is the right guaranteed in the 2nd amendment which ultimately guarantees the 1st (upon which your livelihood depends), not the other way around. Be careful relying solely on the state to guarantee that right; governments have no great love of a free press.
GMC70 said it PERFECTLY! Great post!
If you read the Eagle’s article describing the ‘incident’, you find the Governor was at a Democratic fundraising event – and that a Democratic fundraiser was suspected of having a gun.
Is Sebelius fearful even of her own Democratic fundraisers!?! You would think a Democratic fundraiser could be trusted. What does she have to fear? Can’t a Democrat trust the people, even their own people?
Turned out the guy didn’t have a gun, but it was NOT reported in the Eagle if he had a permit or would have been carrying it legally or not in that location.
As long as he was obeying the law, why should anyone care if he had a gun or not?
How in the Hell does “packing” not show “safety?”
Evidently, you’ve had your does of “gun-smoke.”
Anyone that remembers the Sixties would know why the Governor’s security detail would be concerned about a rumor of someone with a gun in the room. Robert Kennedy was at a Democratic victory party when he was assassinated. Political leaders are threatened all the time – it rarely makes the news. Reagan was shot by a mental patient that wanted to impress an actress.
The rabid pro-gunners can spin it anyway they want. Would you have been happier if the rumor proved to be true and someone that had faked their way into the room had assassinated the Governor?
BTW – at a private gathering, the host is perfectly within their rights to request that no one be carrying a weapon.
You rabid no gunners have fixed New York where only the crooks have guns.
Proud no-gun-nut-case are ya?
New York also offers free needles so the drug-dealers don’t lose customers.
Second dumbest thing the Legislature has done this sesssion. The first veto was the first dumbest.
I wonder why the League of Municipalities or some of the other city-oriented organizations didn’t stick a thumb into this fight.
Even Wyatt Earp made people check their guns at the edge of town.
Bleep Phil Journey and all his ilk.
And I own guns, so don’t slam me on that.
2nd dumbest move….
the override of the first veto.
rats
I wonder if Senator Jim Webb would have been allowed to pack at the event?
(Proud no-gun-nut-case are ya?)
Huh? I am a gun owner.
Republican, aren’t you the guy that can determine my marital status by my posts? How about my age? Anything else? I would like to hear it, since I have never referenced my status here or anywhere else. Let’s hear it.
Sorry Bob i won’t give you the pleasure of what I know. You’ll just have to wildy speculate and go with conspiracy thinking. Wait, nm…that’s what you do anyway.
“He wasn’t, but…”
Perfect. scholfield’s panties in a wad for nothing. Doesn’t take much, does it?
Sorry Bob i won’t give you the pleasure of what I know.
In other words you are full of shit.
i think one should ask Matt Clay what happens when the police just see a gun.
Now that the legislation has taken care of the bill 2528, now we need to fine tune the background checks.We need to be up holding the Constitution’s 2nd amendments rights to a well regulated militia.A well regulated militia is key to the rights to bear arms.
Say Bob, Sirhan Sirhan could not have carried LEGALLY in California. Nor could Hinkley have carried legally in Washington DC. The ‘threat’ in this case was ‘identified’ because someone saw a gun in the apartment of the organiser of the fundraising event. So, the legal possession of a gun in a law abiding citizens home constitutes a threat to anyone?
Dead wrong:
A well regulated militia, and the right of the people keep and to bear arms, are two separate issues.
Learn to read.
One issue is for the “State” and the other is for the “People.”
Gee, it was a Democrat that led the charge to override the Gov.
Get over it Randy and others.
GMC your very wrong bringing up the tragedy at VT to bolster your argument.
Do you think that law in Virginia will be changed, gun free zones on campus? It’s not!
Desires of professors or grad students, carrying, are they paid? What is that thought? They are being given security responsibility on campus and no one pays them? That’s not reasonable at all.
Argue people have a right to protect themselves, but to be designated protectors of others is more responsibility defined.
If campus is paying for “guns” they should have a badge and continuous hours of training, campus police. Higher authority. CC are authority and judgment only to themselves.
One might have pulled a gun on Cho earlier just to get him out of class. The guy very hard to deal with in personality but kept turning in good grades.
The judgments of some CC people on campus have to be considered. They aren’t continuously trained as security is the biggest problem.
I challenge the “law-abiding” assertion of CC some individuals. Who knows if their ethical. Drink and carry?
The No Guns Allowed Sign desires. A business, church or public gathering places can put up the sign. Doesn’t mean some security or business owner doesn’t have a weapon of their own.
Unethical CC person disregards the sign.
The gun lobby doesn’t want the type of weapon someone is carrying to be known. Where they got it.
GMC has said, many he knows don’t get their guns through retail stores. No, their background shouldn’t be searched, those are “good” folks.
People that have domestic violence charges, assaults, DUI or drug crimes in the past. Their not “criminal” at the moment.
The gun lobby wants weapons in all hands, many unethical and irresponsible pick them up. Hide from the database, demand no registration records kept.
Gun lobby doesn’t even offer mandatory training with the weapon purchased. Training has to be mandatory when purchasing a gun
Learn to drive, with the rules and regulations. Learn the responsibility of handling the weapon. It takes maturity and ethics.
Loaded guns not easily accessible to kids who will play with them. Loaded guns not in a pocket when loaded on alcohol.
“Law-abiding” in quotes, because many challenge that thought.
I fear all the irresponsible with guns, criminal, hiding from the database or unethical cc person after a few hours of training.
That is no defender of society, only unto themselves.
Legislators prove their bought and owned by the gun lobby.
You missed the point, Max. It is completely possible to get around CC rules is one wants to play the game. ID theft pertains to more than just credit cards. Hinckley obtained his gun legally in Hawaii. I do not recall how Sirhan got his.
Malcolm X was assassinated by a group of “admirers.” George Wallace was shot by a “supporter.” At a private function, the organizers have an absolute right to demand that there are no guns. If I ask you to my home, I also have the right to ask that you do not bring a gun, if that is my choice. It is also your right not to come.
When it comes to politicians, safe is better than sorry. I do not think that you would be allowed to pack a pistol at a White House function, even with an invite and a concealed carry permit.
Bob, you are correct in that there are always ways to get around the rules. There are no guarantees in life.
It is precisely because criminals break the rules, that the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves must be maintained. Because criminals break laws, is no reason to take away the natural right to self-defense, the 2nd Amendment, and Freedom.
And passing more gun laws will not stop those who are breaking existing gun laws today.
For those high-level politicians, whom some say deserve more protection then the rest of us common folk (we are expendable after all), then those areas that are sealed off for their protection can be protected to some extent, but only if metal detectors and secure permiters are used. Simply posting a sign at a political event or any particular location provides NO additional security at all.(Some would argue the signs actually decrease security)
Passing any law without the means to enforce that law, provides security to no one, though some are foolishly comforted by the promises of a politician, and the words on a page.
And one note to Mrage above, you are correct in that the concealed carry law does not protect society directly, but it does provide protection to the individuals who choose to exercise their rights. The 2nd Amendment after all, is an Individual right. However, when even a small percentage (2-5%) of the population exercises this individual right of concealed carry, overwhelming statistics show a significant decline in violent crime – and that DOES benefit society.
Perhaps you missed my previous comment – I own a gun. I have no desire to see any reasonable person denied their rights. The point is, it is a different case with a high profile politicians. It is more than reasonable to ask that folks not carry when in that situation. Normally, your average citizen is not in danger of assassination.
Not disputing one’s right to bear arms — but I haven’t seen many / any statistics to support this
“…overwhelming statistics show a significant decline in violent crime…. ”
I guess it might depend on where you live ….. and who is counting what ….
I oppose almost all gun control but there are places- such as a rally where the President will be- that you should leave your gun in the car. I think people should only give up their right to have a gun when it is assured via searches or metal detectors that everybody present is unarmed as well. So let’s say a business- like a bar- does not wish patrons to have arms in the bar- fine with me so long as you make everybody walk through the metal detector. Otherwise I am packin heat if I choose to.
And, kev, in Kansas should you so do in a bar, you will be in violation of the statutes concerning concealed carry.
Was Randy ever a journalist? Read the report.
1. Gun spotted in guy’s apartment.2. Fund-raiser was not at the apartment.3. Guy who owned the gun was not carrying the gun at the fund-raiser.
So from this Randy’s concludes: “People carrying guns in public is bad.”
This isn’t even a case of over-zealous police. It’s an over-anxious democrat fearful that somebody in their vicinity might have a gun. So someone, just like Randy, was there stirring up fear.
Not to mention the bouncers are liable to beat the shit out of you and confiscate your gun.
Proud:
Not trying to defend Schofield — he’s part of the Beagle that refuses to adequately recognize the sacrifices of our soldiers —
His comments above said:
“….incident shows how the prospect of citizens carrying concealed guns in public can lead to fear and confusion, not safety.”
did not say WILL lead — said can lead .. did not say give me your gun —-
definitely did not say:”People carrying guns in public is bad.”
…… and it was a democrat ratting out a democrat ….
Here’s a clip from the Missouri paper that Sch… article referenced —- simply a matter of an ounce of prevention ….. we expect the same amount of attention to detail from the Secret Service protecting the pres etc …. the exerpt:
The heightened security occurred after an event volunteer reported seeing a handgun at the St. Louis apartment of Matt Lieberman, a Democratic Party fundraising consultant who helped plan the event, said party spokesman Jack Cardetti. Law enforcement officials talked to Lieberman, determined he did not have a weapon with him and allowed him to remain at the event, Cardetti said.
“When you have a room of 900 people, including a governor and U.S. senator and lots of public officials, you want to make absolutely clear that there is not a gun at that event,” Cardetti said
My mistake he was a democratic consultant — does not make him a democrat ….
Yeah, I once said that I was going to bring a gun to The Eagle’s meet up just so that the gung-ho CC people could enjoy the nagging questions that the rest of us feel.
The irony-impared Republican took me seriously and heckled me for it repeatedly.
Strangely, when it’s the Gov. as potential victim, he has nothing but sympathy for the putative CC-er.
Say Ken, to name one source: Google “Lott & Mustard Study” or get the book by John Lott.
Also, look-up crime stats for any of the 48 states that have concealed carry laws – check out the before and after stats.
Dennis:
It was the League of Kansas Municipalities over-reaching after the original CC bill passed which caused this bill. If the League and its member cities had simply followed the law in the first place, this bill would not have been necessary.
Capn:
Assuming you are legal, I have no problem at all with you carrying, near me or not. I have no “nagging questions” with legal CC holders exercising their right and legal privilege. But please don’t tell me about it, nor “show it off” to get a rise out of someone. Concealed means just that – concealed. Keep it to yourself, thanks.
I have no problem with others declining to carry (or own) a firearm. It is entirely your choice, and certainly is not for everyone. I do have a problem with those who would bar others who abide by the law from choosing to do so. You choose to not carry, fine. Just don’t restrict my choices.
…the incident shows how the prospect of citizens carrying concealed guns in public can lead to fear and confusion, not safety.
Hmmm. Seems like it led mostly to fear, and no compromise in safety. Is there a moral there?
…the incident shows how the prospect of citizens carrying concealed guns in public can lead to fear and confusion, not safety.
Hmmm. Seems like it led mostly to fear, and no compromise in safety. Is there a moral there?
Mrage:
Once again you raise a strawman – just get your facts straight.
1) no one has suggested that persons carrying on campus have any responsibility for campus security. They would carry, if allowed, for the same reasons any person (other than law enforcement) carries – protection of self. Perhaps, if the circumstances demand, others. But we are not cops, nor do we pretend to be.
2) Carry is barred when drinking. Carry is barred in bars, where posted, and a number of other places. We understand that quite well, and respect same. As VT demonstrates vividly, however, don’t imagine that those with intent to do harm will do so – they won’t. We saw the result.
You wish to regulate by law, Mrage, what cannot be regulated and those who will ignore the law anyway. Posting a magic sign does not make you safe. Relying on security (which you imagine is well-trained, and that I promise you is just wishful thinking) will not make you safe. There is no absolute guarantee of anyone’s safety, ever. Ultimately, even with the heroic efforts of law enforcement, in the moments that count I may well have to rely on myself for my safety. Murphy’s Law still applies, and wishing will not change it.
My Scout leader always taught me to be prepared – hope for, and work for, the best, but be prepared for the worst.
Why would you deny citizens that?
Max
I did a little research as you suggested.
I find some stats that indicate violent crime in states with CC have lowered rates of violent crime — a few that say otherwise ..
some also state that the reduction in crime rates can also be attributed to items like neighborhood watches, increased police patrols, better equipped law enforcement agencies etc ….
So it might be fair to say that CC laws have contributed to a decrease in crime rates …. But is / may not be the only reason.
I have no doubt that Lott and Mustard made a strong case for reduced crime rates — but in the google it brought up as many hits that disputed the accuracy of his research
http://www.reason.com/contrib/show/671.xml
(he’s also a gun owner)
Summarizes Lotts research shortcomings as:
Lott doesn’t properly compute statistical significance.Lott cannot account for all the relevant variables.Lott’s results are not consistent.Lott misrepresents the data.
My concern is your statement that none of them validate your comment
“…overwhelming statistics show a significant decline in violent crime…. ”
none of them are overwhelming and none appear as a significant decline — a decline probably significant ? don’t see it as any more significant than contributions by better police forces, neighborhood watches etc ….
Don’t deny your right to carry — never will — but don’t over play the stats
Dennis:
It was the League of Kansas Municipalities over-reaching after the original CC bill passed which caused this bill. If the League and its member cities had simply followed the law in the first place, this bill would not have been necessary.
BS.The law sucked in the first place.Wyatt Earp
Gee Ed, you are right.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Separated by commas but all in one sentence.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” George Mason (3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)”The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, … all men capable of bearing arms;…” — Richard Henry Lee writing in “Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic”, 1788, page 169.”Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.” — Tench Coxe – 1788.
BTW Ed, I do know how to read.
The State prints a nice “free” booklet to tell you how to drive and park. It also prints a book to tell you how to fish and another to tell you how to hunt.
But the State does not publish a book to tell you about the laws that come into play with self-defense and the use of firearms or any other weapon.
I do have thois elaws on my web site. I think they should be taught in all public and private schools to everyone over the age of 9.
Who knows, it might even improve the pool of jurors.
ah James Macklin, glad you showed up.
For some reason ksfarmgrrl is convinced I am you. So,not to besmirch your good name perhaps you could set her straight.
Hmmmm . . . James doesn’t seem interested in clearing up this mystery.
Too bad.