Two Students Hurt in Accidental L. A. School Shooting

     Dear Friends,
     That was a headline that I read a few minutes ago.  It struck me as really odd and after a little thinking, it makes for a good story to describe how well gun control laws work.  With all the calls for restricting handgun magazine capacity, prohibiting gun possession within 1,000 feet of "high ranking governmental officials" and tightening up on gun ownership for people like the Tucson shooter we need to think through whether these proposals will work.
     According to the school shooting article, an LA school district spokesman said that a student brought a gun to school in a backpack and it went off when he dropped it. He said two people were wounded and a police spokesman said it was three. 
     Before I continue, let me state for the record that it ios my personal conviction that there is no such thing as a "gun accident."  Somewhere along the line, any unintentional discharge involves a violation of the basic rules of gun safety. Any intentional discharge is categorically the responsibility of the person who has the gun in their hand.
     My question is this: how could it have been accidental when there are plenty of laws to prevent such a thing from happening?
     Gun control laws prohibit possession of a firearm on school grounds or within 1,000 except for law enforcement personnel. Press reports indicate the gun was brought in by a student - not a police officer. It seems the law was violated here.
     Gun control laws prohibit purchase of a handgun by any otherwise legally entitled person under the age of 21.  Unless the high school student was over 21, they didn't purchase it themself.  Since that is pretty unlikely, it would seem that another law was violated.
     Gun control laws generally make it hard to possess a handgun in California unless it is an intra-familial handgun transaction. While that type of transfer is certainly possible, chances are probably better that is not the case, resulting in the violation of another law.
     Gun control laws prohibit the concealed carry of a handgun unless a person has met the licensing requirements mandated by law.  As far as I know, high schoolers generally can't meet those requirements so once again, uless subsequent reports prove otherwise I'll hazard a guess that yet another law was broken.
     It would further seem that the student who brought the gun to school (in and of itself a stupid act) did not take reasonable care to ensure it was unloaded and carried in a safe manner so as not to cause harm to others. Whether criminal negligence laws apply in this case will be up to the local District Attorney. I don't believe that I am going out on a limb by guessing that lawsuits will come out of this event.
     Now about those new gun control proposals that are currently being discussed.  It seems that "high governmental officials" probably were not within 1,000 feet of this tragedy, so that would have had not prevented this.  Press reports do not indicate that more than one round was fired, so limiting magazine capacity would not have prevented this.  Further, it is unknown whether the shooter who dropped the backpack had any identifiable mental defects that could have prevented this shooting.
     In other words, this was no accident, laws to prevent it were broken and new laws would not have prevented it.
     I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.  Please feel free to leave your comments below.
     Sincerely yours,
     Tom Goffe

"Do you like to shoot...? ...get on the subway and go to Maryland."

     Dear Friends,

     "We're acting as judges. If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history -- by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns?" he asked. "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."

 

     That was United Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer last weekend in a Fox News interview. You can read the first part of the interview here and the second part here. In the quote above, he was explaining his thinking behind the dissenting opinion he wrote in response to the Heller case that the Supreme Court recently decided. The emphasis I added to the final 3 sentences tell me that Justice Breyer does not seem to inhabit the more practical world in which the rest of us live.

 

     With respect, Mr. Justice, it doesn't work that way and the American people will have none of this twisted thinking.  To begin with, prior to that decision, it was against the law for anyone in Washington, DC to own a handgun in any way.  Even if you liked to shoot pistols at targets, you could not own one if you lived in Washington, DC.  As for owning one to defend your home or family against the predators in DC - forget it. You had little choice but to call the police and hope for the best.

     Secondly, even if you broke the law by owning a handgun in DC, you would be breaking the law again by carrying one in the DC Metro.  Even if you lived in Virginia (where handguns are legal to own) and wanted to use the Metro to go shooting in Maryland (where shooting a gun is still nominally legal) you would be breaking the law by carrying it onto the Metro and be breaking the law again by carrying it in DC.

     Third, he says that "there is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun." That is certainly true as long as you do not view breaking a few gun laws as a problem.  Personally, I like avoiding things like that. I love our police, but I religiously stay out of trouble - life is easier that way.

     By way of background, I lived in New York City for five years and later worked in Washington, DC for nearly six years.  I've gotten familiar with this brand of "thinking." When I moved to North Carolina the gun laws were a breath of fresh air by comparison.  That is not to say that we don't have some legal impediments to gun ownership, though.  Obtaining the permission of my local sheriff to purchase a handgun is one. The laws pertaining to the possession of any gun during a "state of emergency" are another that trouble me greatly. There are some aspects of where one can and cannot legally carry a concealed handgun that make little, if any sense.

    So what can we do about this convoluted thinking?  Instead of letting judges like Mr. Breyer determine what is and isn't a "problem" and hoping for the best - why not just cut to the chase and remedy these faults in the law by changing the law?  Many times judges find that they are forced to decide what the law means or how it should be applied when it is not specific enough or if it conflicts with another law.  By introducing and enacting laws that will remove the strange impediments to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that have cropped up over the years, we can strengthen our liberties.  I hope you will join me in letting our new legislature know where you stand on this important issue.

 

     Sincerely yours,

     Tom Goffe

Election is over - what is next?

     Dear Friends,
     The NC State Board of Elections is set to meet tomorrow in Raleigh and finally certify the results of the November 2 election.  As you may have noticed, the candidate that the NRA endorsed for Congress in the 2nd District as well as the slate of 2nd Amendment supporters vying for election to the NC House and Senate did really well.  Thanks to your votes and hard work, 85% of them won in their respective races.
     Now is the time to start thinking about how we can turn the election results into action to strengthen our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  This is where your thoughts and opinions are important.  What would you like to see them do?  Is it to end the law that otherwise law-abiding citizens must obtain a permit from their local sheriff in order to purchase a handgun?  What about ending the de facto disarming of citizens by the Governor when she declares a state of emergency?  Maybe you'd like to remove the prohibition that keeps law-abiding students and citizens from concealed carry on university campuses?  Is there something else regarding enjoying the full rights we are supposed to enjoy under the provisions of the 2nd that you'd like to see enacted?
     Please add your comments or send me an e-mail and give me your thoughts.  We have a fantastic opportunity and while the political environment is right we must make the most of it.  I look forward to hearing your ideas.
     Sincerely yours,
     Tom Goffe

Out & About: This Weekend at the Fayetteville Gun Show

     Dear Friends,
     This weekend we will be at the Fayetteville Gun Show on Saturday and Sunday.  It will be in the Crown Coliseum at the Cumberland County Civic Center.  Show hours are Saturday (9:00-5:00) and Sunday (10:00-5:00).  If you visit the C&E Gun Shows web site you can get a coupon good for a dollar off the regular admission price of $7.00. Better yet, if you join the NRA or renew your annual membership at the show, you can get in free.  Directions to the show are available when you click on this link. We will be passing out campaign literature, bumper stickers, yard signs and talking about the importance of the upcoming election with 2nd Amendment supporters.  It will also give you a chance to join the NRA's Frontlines if you have not done so online. Bring your family and friends to this fun event and be sure to stop by our table.
     Also in the news, there was an attempted robbery at a pizza restaurant in Charlotte.  What the crooks didn't count on was that one of the employees was armed.  Read how this citizen used his rights to save his own life and that of two other employees.  Remember this when gun rights opponents tell you that regular folks don't have any need to rely on a gun for personal defense.
     New today is something I'll call the Tip of the Day. With this I hope to share some of the interesting ideas, trivia and things I've learned as the campaign to support our Right to Keep and Bear Arms progresses.
____________________________________
     Today's tip is about bumper stickers.  Did you know that a bumper sticker that costs a campaign pennies is worth up to $250.00 to them in terms of advertising impact? In other words, when you put one of their bumper stickers on your car you have just saved them $250.00 that they would have had to spend on TV, radio or newspaper advertising to achieve the same visibility to voters. For campaigns on a shoestring this is a great use of scarce donation dollars.

     Sincerely yours,
     Tom Goffe