Skip to content

The Flawed Premise

July 30, 2014

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/banking/carry-concealed-weapon-into-bank.aspx?ec_id=cmct_01_comm_PF_image_headline

“Customers who carry a concealed weapon into a bank could put others at greater risk of injury or death during a robbery, but only one U.S. state specifically prohibits carrying a concealed weapon inside a bank,” writes Marcie Geffner.

How about this thought? People carrying their own firearms can also prevent injury and death during attempted robberies. It happens. Lying about this fact, by omission, is irresponsible and deceitful. Like most of the media, Geffner chooses not to acknowledge these incidents, probably because it undermines the concept owning firearms is only ever unnecessary or dangerous. Neither is true- firearms prevent home invasions, robberies, and, for instance, curtail surplus populations of deer populations. The only practical way to keep numbers down is to reintroduce their natural predators or hunt them. Either would necessitate some form of weapons ownership.

But more to the point, having accounted for the bias in Geffner’s opening paragraph, let’s address the flawed premise of that bias. I think there is nothing wrong with carrying concealed weapons if they are registered by people who have undergone the necessary verification they are responsible with such a right. As it is, the Second Article guarantees the right to carry weapons in full view anywhere one wishes. I don’t advocate walking around with assault rifles or great swords, but if the place of business is not inhibited by it and those in it are not put off unduly, what legal right is there to restrict it?

Personally, I am all for every state requiring a permit for carrying concealed weapons. Anyone who has undergone a registration is documented, and most importantly, not very likely to undertake a crime by use of the weapon they are documented to own. As such, they should be allowed to carry them anywhere they want. Remember, though, anyone who does is on the list when martial law is enacted as per US-NORTHCOM mandate. Be aware, during emergencies like in the hurricane flooding Louisiana and the hunt for the Boston Marathon bomber, your weapons may be illegally seized by the government and not returned. This happens when the government raids militia members with alarming frequency. It doesn’t nullify one’s right to own firearms or carry them, but it does add one possible consequence.

The people you should worry about are the ones who don’t verify they can be responsible with concealed weapons. They may disregard the law, and if no one is allowed to carry concealed weapons legally, no one can effectively guard against the criminals should normal defenses fail. The people are supposed to be the army in the United States, remember—there is not supposed to be a standing army. If we can’t trust our own people to perform the most basic defense against criminals in a pinch, are we upholding the Framers’ intent at all by being responsible citizenry? Maybe in a future when humankind doesn’t resort to violence so easily we can forego such a provision of basic domestic defense. We clearly aren’t there yet.

Anyone who is registered to own a concealed weapon is entrusted by the state, local or otherwise. If the government trusts these people (hopefully with adequate provisions assessing their mental and political stability), who are banks to argue the point? Why should anyone complain if people carrying concealed weapons present no threat whatsoever?

Advertisements
4 Comments
  1. Always love the one-sided mentality of people like Geffner; only gun owners can put people in jeopardy.
    As if unarmed people can’t do anything like tick off a criminal, attack the bank robber, refuse to cooperate, etc.

    I think there is nothing wrong with carrying concealed weapons if they are registered by people who have undergone the necessary verification they are responsible with such a right.

    This is where I’ll disagree with you. The exercise of my rights should not depend on my ‘proving’ I can responsibly exercise them; that is why we have the law to address when I don’t.

    Do you think people should have to show appropriate knowledge and proficiency to practice a religion, free speech, freedom of assembly?

    Probably not. So why single out the right to keep and bear arms?

    And your thoughts here:

    Be aware, during emergencies like in the hurricane flooding Louisiana and the hunt for the Boston Marathon bomber, your weapons may be illegally seized by the government and not returned.

    Are exactly why I don’t agree with registration and licensing. Why give the government a record of who owns firearms?

    As it is, the Second Article guarantees the right to carry weapons in full view anywhere one wishes.

    Hmmm…trying to remember the wording where it says something about ‘full view’. How did that amendment [sic; Article] go?

    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.</i.

    That is what I thought. Doesn't limit how I decide to carry. [Ed: provisions of clauses in any legal document are rarely all-inclusive in application with the opening line. Congress and legislatures are obligated to undertake more detailed aspects as necessary, so long as as the right is not effectively canceled out by such actions.] Personally I think Open Carry is more honest but I can definitely see Concealed Carry advantages also.

    Anyone who is registered to own a concealed weapon is entrusted by the state, local or otherwise.

    Frankly I see it should be the other way around; anyone working for the state gives up a portion of their privacy and should be registered as to whether or not they carry firearms. I’m more likely to be shot by a cop than someone in my own family. I’m more likely to be ‘accidentally’ shot by a cop than another citizen.

    Bob S.

    • I still say we need some accountability for concealed weapons carriers. If we can do that without a government list, great. But no form of registry allows no oversight, and we can’t trust people that much. And honestly, some people SHOULD prove they have the capacity for intelligent right to free speech. But how would we determine minimum requirements…?

      That last thought about state workers? Spot on. It is a good insight I haven’t thought of.

  2. Handselkoan,

    I still say we need some accountability for concealed weapons carriers

    And the laws against murder, rape, robbery, assault isn’t accountability? HUH? Help me out here and tell me how much more accountable I need to be.

    But no form of registry allows no oversight, and we can’t trust people that much.

    What an elitist attitude ! Good Grief man, listen to you. We can trust people to raise children, vote, cook their own meals, buy gasoline and thousands of other dangerous chemicals — but guns are different.

    Frankly, I or any one shouldn’t have to prove trustworthiness to you or anyone else. Excuse me for saying it this way but with an attitude of nanny-state totalitarianism like that; I’m not sure I could trust you. Are you willing to meet my requirements of trustworthiness ? I warn you, it will be tough?

    The state isn’t here to tell who is trustworthy or not, it is too punish those who PROVE themselves not to be. And for that we already have enough laws.

    Bob S.

    • Law outlining the punishment of crimes committed is not oversight–they are reactions to actions done. Oversight is regulatory and/or preventative. For the power one has to carry firearms in concealment, something is necessary. That’s not elitist. It’s a practical response so anyone (who may have mental issues, for instance) isn’t inclined to just walk around with a hidden revolver and fire it off willy-nilly. Not that unreasonable.

      The power to kill with range weapons demands more preparation than parenting in this way. It is not our moral right to dictate how one raises a child if it is not dangerous to the child, the parent, or the society. The right to carry weaponry is a potential danger to anyone in range. Not that complicated. Damn right guns are different. Most people don’t know how to make mustard gas with household chemicals. Anyone can aim and shoot.

      Passing measures enacted only after an offense prevents nothing. If someone doesn’t feel the need to prove themselves, why would there be need to conceal the weapon? I didn’t say there should be unfair restrictions on that.

      For that matter, we do regulate First Article rights, and they need to be so claims of rights don’t run rampant at the expense of the common good or basic functionality. Regulation of free speech is what prevents telecommunications from completely ignoring our interests, for now. We regulate the right to petition the government for redress of grievances; we can’t march down a main street without due warning to the local government first to prevent injury and economic damage to businesses there. (Although, thanks to totalitarian law, we can’t march in Washington, D. C. at all if the current administration doesn’t like the message. If it does, no one is arrested. Curious, isn’t it?) We, as a nation, need to approve immigrants before they become citizens and license drivers because automobiles can be misused, causing great damage, injury, or death. Guns are designed for injury and death. If we regulate immigration for the common good, and we regulate drivers for a basic standard safety on the roads, how can we not regulate the public’s consumption of tools designed to maim and kill? It is an irrational argument.

      And you are flatly wrong on your last point: the state is not here to punish wrongdoers. That is a secondary function, and that it is not supposed to be the state as much as the people acting through the state by collective will. The state is supposed to be in place to maintain fair trade and order in the society. If the state must punish, the society has already failed in some way.

      Maintaining order is not totalitarianism by itself. Abuse of rights is dictatorial, and having some accountability over instruments of death, even in a republic, is not contrary to the Framers’ intent. Ignoring any sense of responsibility involving basic Constitutional rights, for the sake of convenience or a sense of entitlement when others can be put at risk because of it, is short-sighted at best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: