Since we don't generally have a lot to say about any one specific case of gun control, let this thread be a place where we can post bits of news related to gun control attempts or enforcement, and there's room for debate and discussion on any one of them. By news, by the way, I don't mean that it necessarily has to be something published in a newspaper. I'll start it out with one that I found some amusement in, given my nasty disposition. In June of 2016, the owner of a restaurant in Portland, Maine, who had been in business for twelve years at the time, reacted to the shooting at the gay nightclub in Florida by posting a notice on her website, on Facebook, and in interviews, that people who owned an assault rifle were not welcome in either of her restaurants. Source: Portland Press-Herald, June 16, 2016 I don't know exactly when her larger restaurant closed, but the building is now up for sale and listed as vacant. Source: New England Commercial Property Exchange, 8/8/18 She may have already sold the Foreside Tavern in Falmouth. Neither their site or Facebook page has any information about ownership or about a change in ownership, but I didn't look beyond a month or so. They have posted a notice saying that they will be closing on 8/20 "for a little summer break," without including a reopening date, however. Falmouth is a very liberal city. I don't know if you're allowed to buy a house there if you've ever voted Republican so she might be okay in Falmouth. Although usually recognized as Maine's most liberal city, Portland restaurants depend, far more than Falmouth, on people from other parts of Maine, who come to Portland to shop at the Maine Mall, and elsewhere. Nationally, a business might lose some of its profit margins but be able to stay in business when they cater to liberal pet causes, although we've seen CEOs forced to resign and companies trying to walk back political statements from time to time. But nationally, liberals are far more effective at scaring the hell out of companies whose owners dare even so much as say something nice about a Republican president. At the state or local levels, at least in Maine, I have seen more than one business go down after stepping into the gun control quagmire or other leftist causes, particularly after sensational headlines in the newspaper. It's like, they want to be part of that too, and they are applauded by the media. Only, months later they find that the people whose business they said they no longer wanted are taking that seriously, and they'll remember it long after the newspapers are done with the story. I wonder why they do it, sometimes. A restaurant in Patten was out of business within a year after the owner posted a small sign about weapons not being allowed in the restaurant and then, her biggest mistake, giving an interview to the newspaper about how she was in favor of gun control. I doubt very many people had brought weapons into her restaurant anyhow, and they probably wouldn't have even noticed the sign. But they do pay attention to who is taking a side against them on an issue that matters to them.
I have seen some of the same here in Texas on posted retail outlets, word gets around. Many places here that were concealed carry only 30;07 signs when open carry was voted in went to 30:06 no carry signs and both sure felt the sting of it and changed back and removed the 06 signs, I know of several personally it cost them, we even had some offering discounts to open carry citizens. Word does get around.
Here there are few businesses that are posted, but there is one with a sign:" concealed carry welcome here. Please carry concealed, but if needed, accuracy is appreciated".
Long ago, still in Illinois, a hulking brute of a guy several heads taller than I took it upon himself to declare he would kill me, given the chance. His chance came one night while our company bowling league was in session. He showed up there, attempted to get me into the restroom.......... I let the word out, and several dozen half-inebriated fellow employees decided to vigourously side with me, so the guy swore and left. Scared shitless for awhile, I bought a nice, tiny, very unusual Baby Browning .25 Automatic Lightweight, from a sporting goods store, for $57.50, and began carrying it in my pocket everywhere, completely illegally, of course. The purchase was made no questions asked, no background checks, no interference from Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; that was how it still worked in 1967. One year later, following the 2nd. Kennedy killing, the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed, changing forever law-abiding citizens' ability to easily obtain an "equalizer". Fortunately, the issue never presented itself again. Had I kept that little Browning, it would be worth about $500 today. Handguns, especially: better than money in the bank! Frank
Where did you live where it was illegal to carry a weapon in 1967? I was in tenth grade and I could carry a weapon.
@Ken Anderson "Long ago, still in Illinois, ........" Illinois forbade carry of a weapon, whether concealed or not, until just a few years ago. Even carry in a vehicle was illegal, though folks going on hunting trips disregarded the law. Illinois was thought by the lawyers who even supported CCW to likely be the last and only statIllinois Possession of a handgun in the City of Chicago was then illegal. Yet, most everyone knew that everyone possessed one. A strange warpage of the law extending to nearly all residents. We lived 1 mile west of the Chicago City Limits, in Berwyn. Our local laws concerning firearms in general, and handguns in particular, were garbled: no one seemed able to interpret their accuracy. So, every Berwyn resident was thought to possess a handgun, and that was likely probable. My Dad had several, which I inherited. During my 30 years in Berwyn, from birth until exit, I never once had need to hold and point a gun in self-defense. Knew of no one else who had. Everyone knew guns were TOOLS, albeight MIGHTY TOOLS, to be used only at times of supreme duress. Frank
A week or so ago, an off-duty Dallas police officer entered the wrong apartment, thinking it was hers, and shot and killed the rightful occupant when he didn't "respond to her commands." I don't know if she's been charged yet, but they are talking about manslaughter charges. She lived in the same complex. In the days that followed, it looked as if she wasn't going to be charged at all, and I think that would have been a travesty. From what I've seen, I don't doubt that she was confused and may have thought she was in her own apartment although, if not for the fact that she was reported to have been returning home after a shift on duty, I would have thought that alcohol might have been involved. I've lived in apartments where all the doors look the same, but there are numbers on the door, and I know that I have never even tried to enter the wrong apartment. I think the manslaughter charge is reasonable. I don't believe that she entered the apartment with the intention of killing someone and, believing that the occupant was an intruder in her own apartment, I don't doubt that she felt threatened. But if I walked into someone else's house and shot the unarmed occupant, you can be sure that I'd be charged, and manslaughter probably wouldn't be the only charge. There have been many cases of on- or off-duty police being held to a far lighter standard when it comes to shootings than a gun-carrying citizen would be held to, including one only a couple of towns from me, where the police went to the wrong house sometime after midnight, and the door was answered by someone holding a rifle. The police shot him multiple times, killing him. The police weren't charged because the investigators believed that the mistaken address was an honest error and they were justified in feeling threatened when confronted by a man holding a rifle. In my opinion, that was absolutely wrong. He had every right, under Maine law, to own and possess a weapon in his own home, and the most obvious purpose for having a weapon is for self-defense. There were no allegations even that he was pointing it at them. If you are allowed to own and possess a weapon for self-defense, then holding that weapon while answering the door would not be unreasonable. If I knocked on someone's door at 3:00 o'clock in the morning and shot the guy who answered the door because he also had a weapon, I would have been arrested on the scene. There have also been cases, and I am thinking of one that also occurred in Maine, where the police shot someone to death simply because they got tired of waiting around. He was someone who they knew to have a history of mental illness. He was holding a knife but he wasn't within twenty feet of the police. When he did not respond to their commands for him to drop the knife, they shot him seventeen times, I think it was. There too, there were no charges, nor was any internal disciplinary actions taken. While I consider myself to be pro-law enforcement, I believe that the police should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen, given that they are mandated to have more training than the average citizen. I know that, when I was a paramedic, my actions on the scene of an emergency would be held to a higher standard than the untrained citizen who stopped to render aid. In other cases, such as where the police shoot someone because they mistook a cell phone to be a weapon, I don't think they are necessarily in the wrong. In a potentially dangerous situation, they have only seconds to decide whether the threat is real and, under those circumstances, they could easily assume that someone is reaching for a handgun rather than a cellphone. However, if they have the wrong guy, and are confronting someone who shouldn't have been confronted in the first place, those might be different circumstances. These days, people frequently want to be able to film any encounters they have with the police, and they may pull out their cellphone to do so. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that citizens are responsible for always obeying commands, whether or not the commands are lawful. While it might be the safest course of action, in a free society, innocent people should not be under the command of the police, nor should they be afraid to reach for their cellphone.
I agree with the sentiments expredded in your last post, @Ken Anderson. There have been numerous cases involving police making errors, assaulting the wrong house, and innocent people dying as a result. I worked with someone who was an ex-policeman and probably carried concealed in our workplace even though it was strictly firearms-free. I expressed, and he agreed with, the idea that if you are carrying properly concealed, no one will know unless there is an emergency. He obviously was properly trained as he was also ex-military, and was the primary instructor for the "Non-Violent Intervention and De-Escalation" course at that facility. I always believed that he carried a small weapon in an ankle holster, although I never asked as I didn't want to know.
I have to disagree with that last statement, @Ken Anderson. If people don't have to obey police commands, they might as well be suggestions.
So you're okay with an off-duty cop entering my home in the middle of the night to order me around, although I am committing no crime, and I am supposed to do as he says? While I agree that the safest course of action, when faced with a person with a gun, might be to do as he says, if I have committed no crime, the person with the gun is no more than a thug. And if someone comes into my house in the middle of the night with a gun, rather than obeying the intruder's commands, I might just use my own gun. A policeman issuing an unlawful order is no better than a thug.
If he or she identifies himself or herself as an officer of the law, I think it would be best to obey is/her commands and take it up with the law afterward. That way, nobody dies. If they just bust in without saying who they are, I probably would shot them, too.
I have never disagreed that this might be the safest course of action in dealing with anyone with a weapon, but a cop who is issuing an unlawful order is not acting as an officer of the law. By the way, it is not at all uncommon in home invasions for the invaders to identify themselves as police. It lessens their chances of being shot in the event that the homeowner is armed.