OUR VIEW: Please check your firearm at the door
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Staff Editorial
Published: September 29, 2008
» SUMMARY: There is merit in Gordon Meriwether’s suggestion to prohibit guns at local government meetings.
Every so often, the topic of gun rights grabs headlines in Culpeper. And when it does, count on a passionate response from people who, otherwise, could care less what happens in our community.
Such was the case Sept. 9 when more than a dozen members of the Fairfax-based Virginia Citizen Defense League showed up at a Culpeper Town Council meeting — pistols on hips — to protest a relatively insignificant proposal by the police chief to regulate the discharge of firearms in town limits.
All of this rubbed town resident Gordon Meriwether the wrong way, and, to a large degree, we can understand why. In a Star-Exponent column Sept. 17, Meriwether had harsh words for the “intimidating” out-of-towners.
His column brought up a difficult question that has merit on both sides: Should guns even be allowed at local government meetings in the first place? Meriwether argued no, asking Town Council to pass an ordinance to ban them from “legislative sessions, committee meetings and public hearings.”
As we see it, this is a tough one. We strongly support gun ownership as a tenant of the Second Amendment. In the right hands, guns can be a deterrent to crime and a way to enhance safety.
But where do you draw the line when it comes to a person’s right to carry a gun in public? Obviously, you can’t pack heat on a plane, in a courtroom or in the hallowed halls of Congress. Perhaps the same rules should apply at public meetings of local government — but only if there is police security at the door.
Will that ever happen in Culpeper? Probably not. But it’s certainly an idea worth considering in a public format.
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Wildfire08 ) on October 06, 2008 at 8:56 am
Wonderbread, Semper-fi mom or anyone else against personal responsibility; could you please answer a few questions about your feelings?
1) Do you object to armored car curriers being armed, when they, block the fire lane, and walk into Safeway with GUNS?
Why not? Are the contents of that bag, worth more than your loved ones? The contents of that bag, the truck’s contents, as well as the truck itself; are all insured against theft or other criminal damage or harm, and if stolen would be fully replace with insurance money.
My loved ones are worth more to me, than anything you could put in that truck. Aren’t yours?
2) If you or your loved ones were under a criminal attack; would you call the police; and if so WHY? Wouldn’t the police, who are strangers, come with guns? Or would you tell them, that YOU aren’t afraid, and for the cops that respond to leave their guns at the station?
3) Why do you feel that it is morally superior for a cop to get blood on his hands, protecting what you are unwilling/too fearful to protect?
I would really appreciate you shedding a little light on your position and beliefs. Thank You.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Wildfire08 ) on October 02, 2008 at 3:52 am
Let’s start this with a few inconvenient facts:
#1: If the SERVANTS (law enforcement officers) can be armed in any location; their MASTERS (“We the People”) should be able to be armed as well.
#2: 95% of the time Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) arrive too late to prevent a crime or even arrest the suspect. (Witkin, Gordon, Guttman, Monika and Lenzy, Tracy. “This is 911 ... please hold.” U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1998)
#3: Even though Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) almost NEVER encounter a criminal during a crime of violence: The VICTIMS are ALWAYS there.
#4: Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) have NO DUTY TO PROTECT us as individuals, that is made clear by these court rulings:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
#4) Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) have less of an interest in protecting me and my loved ones, than I do.
semper fi mom states: “I guess there are a lot of scared people out there who feel threatened 24/7”
You are correct; that’s why they shake in fear at the thought of someone taking personal responsibility for their own safety.
As for the baseless notion that the people willing to take personal responsibility for their own safety are “afraid”;
I have a jack and spare tire in the trunk of each of my vehicles, even though I haven’t had a flat or blowout in over 20 years, despite driving over a MILLION miles in that time frame.
Does your vehicle have a jack and a spare tire in the trunk? WHY? Are you too irresponsible to buy decent tires?
In my literal million miles of driving; I have always carried insurance coverage, though I haven’t made a single insurance claim.
Are you driving UNINSURED? If you’re insured; why? Are you planning to have a wreck?
I also have fire extinguishers and smoke detectors in my home. Do you? Are you planning to set your house on fire?
Simp mom states: “Really, folks, there’s a sensible balance and there ARE places where weaponry is not necessary; regardless of someone wanting to carry a weapon.”
You are CORRECT! A person should NEVER carry a gun, where there is no possibility of a criminal attack occurring.
Now, would you please tell us WHERE a criminal attack WOULD NEVER occur? At a high school? A college campus? Maybe a restaurant or church? Where can a person, who’s not too cowardly to takes personal responsibility, be sure of no criminal attack?
Simp mom stated: “Rational people can come up with rational solutions”
Really? You’d think that out of the 32 college students at Virginia Tech; at least one would have been rational.
Yet, those 2 ARMED students at the Virginia Appalachian School of Law; stopped the armed murderer without firing a shot, BECAUSE they were armed. The same was true at Pearl HS.
Wonderbread states: “last time i went in safeway i did not feel danger at every turn.”
I have no doubt!
My dad retired with 35 years as a deputy, and he never took a crime report where the victims said: “Duh, yeah, I KNEW I wasa gonna get robbed! I didn’t feel safe there in that neighborhood.” (Criminal’s prey on the unsuspecting.)
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( El Debibble ) on October 01, 2008 at 6:39 am
SFMom, if you aren’t an expert then tell me how people who carry are “scared”? Why do you need to know if I am carrying? Why would you assume I will go postal? Now tell me again who is “snide”. You still aren’t getting it. The middle ground is NOT you telling me when I can protect myself and when my 2 rights should be overridden. It’s not about being scared, it is being prudent. Do you park at the dark end of large parking lots at night? If you do, you shouldn’t. It isn’t prudent.
Wonderbread, I don’t care where YOU feel safe. I have a right and I expect to be able to exercise that right without being constrained by your opinion. I AM trained to look for concealed weapons. What does that have to do with anything? My am more concerned with open carry and what could happen if some idiot decides to take someone else’s gun. I think everyone legally allowed to posses a firearm should be allowed to carry it concealed. Out of site, out of your mind. What about paranoia? The only paranoia is yours. I am a law abiding citizen, but you seem to be more concerned with me than you are criminals, who BTW don’t care about laws.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( AFMom ) on September 30, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Nicely said, Marinm.
Semper fi mom - I’m not scared. I don’t always carry, but when I do carry, it’s not because I’m scared. I carry because it’s my right to carry. As for going “postal”, do you really think a law stating that someone isn’t allowed to carry a gun in a public place is going to stop a psycho from carrying a gun? I don’t think so. It’s not the law abiding gun carriers that you need to worry about.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( marinm ) on September 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm
The VA AG just published an opinion on the ability for citizens to carry openly or concealed in State parks—awesome!
To Semper fi mom,
The middle ground is that you have the choice to have a gun or not. No one from VCDL or any other gun rights organization is ‘forcing’ you to have a gun. But, we are asking you to respect our right to choose to have a firearm on us whenever and wherever we are legally able to. And, any public building with only STRICT limitations (courthouses for example) to public facilities where carry is restricted.
I am for also providing teachers the ability to carry concealed weapons in Virginia classrooms at the K-12 level.
So, the middle road is you’re allowed to have your 1st amendment right to disagree with me and I’ll have my 2nd amendment right to make sure you never lose your 1st amendment right.
To many people have died so that I may have the right to carry. And, I feel obligated to do so - so that they’re sacrifice is not lost.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( semper fi mom ) on September 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm
El Debibble - I don’t recall claiming to be an expert on firearms. The only people who will do any shooting are the people who carry firearms. There is middle ground. Rational people can come up with rational solutions - and there can be one for this little quandry as well….if people stop being snide, nasty, and rabid on both sides of the issue.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( wonderbread ) on September 30, 2008 at 1:24 pm
el debibble - run into a lot of trouble around town, do ya? you talk rights and protection, but what about paranoia? if that concealed weapon (which I’m not trained to look for ... bummer) makes you feel safer, that’s great. last time i went in safeway i did not feel danger at every turn.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( El Debibble ) on September 30, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Semper-fi mom, if you knew half as much about anything as you like to act like you do you would realize you’re being silly. It is not a matter of feeling threatened. However, it is a matter of being prepared and it sure isn’t a matter of it being any of your business if I have a concealed weapon.
If I go “postal” a law is going to stop me?
It also is not up to you to decide where weaponry is or isn’t necessary. There cannot be any middle ground when there is NO ONE willing to guarantee my safety. I obviously can’t depend on you.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( semper fi mom ) on September 30, 2008 at 9:37 am
Wow - I guess there are a lot of scared people out there who feel threatened 24/7…perhaps, we should be scared of El Debibble, who doesn’t want us to know he’s packing…what if he goes “postal” and shoots us? Really, folks, there’s a sensible balance and there ARE places where weaponry is not necessary; regardless of someone wanting to carry a weapon. There’s bound to be some middle ground here…
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( marinm ) on September 30, 2008 at 7:29 am
The moment that you take away or restrict the 2nd amendment in a public building (especially a government building) you have created the opportunity to restrict other rights of the people.
Don’t like someone’s opinion? Pass an ordinance so that they’re not allowed to speak to a town council.
Don’t like what they’ve written in a local newspaper? Revoke that newspapers license to print.
Where does a legislator with a grudge against any special interest or detractors then stop? Whats the incentive to stop? Where does it end? It’s a vicious cycle that we should never allow.
It’s interesting that I can visit my state delegate at the state capitol with a pistol on my side but that a town council is suddenly sacred ground that allows me to lose my rights.
Report Inappropriate Comment