Where were the sane licensed carrying gun owners in all this?

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Hornet33
I know I would. The way I see it, the mall owner who is a private citizen denied fellow citizens of their second ammendment right on his/her property, but that property is open to the general public and so it's his/her responsiblity to provide for their protection in lew of letting them provide their own. The owner failed to do this so he/she should have the pants sued off of him/her by the families of the victims.

I can understand if I go over to someones home and they ask me not to bring my gun into their house. I have no problem with that. It's a private dwelling that is not open to the general public. I cannot go into that home without the express consent of the owner or I would be breaking the law.

A store on the other hand is a different story. Those are open to the general public. Unless the store is going to screen every single person who walks through the door for firearms, provide active security messures, then they cannot garantee my safety so they have no right to ask me to leave my gun outside.

Like I said before, all they can do is ask me to leave, and in that case I'll take my money and go buy what I need somewhere else.

On one hand I'd like to be able to agree with you on this post. On the other hand understanding the situation as a property owner / renter would feel about it I know that they have a perfect right to set standards for those that enter their premises.

Keep in mind, this is not public property, it's private property and they can set the rules for it. If they decide that they want a "gun free zone" they can do so and are perfectly legal in asking you to either leave the gun home or leave the premises. They are not required to provide security as that is not their responsibility, that is the communities responsibility. Then again there is no requirement that a community (read that police agency) provide security for any individual.

As far as suing the store / mall over this you are going to have to show that they were somehow more or less directly responsible for the loss. If one or more of the victims were holders of a CCW permit and then denied the use of their legal weapon to protect themselves from the shooter, I think you have a valid position as the mall / store did remove their own level of security from them.

If on the other hand if none of them, were CCW holders then there was nothing the mall / store did that infringed on their individual safety / security. They had the same security as if they were out on the street. For an individual on the street there is no expectation for rescue by any other citizen or ccw holder. One would hope that if the situation was happening in plain sight and direct view of the ccw holder that they would be taking some kind of action consistent with saving their life and the life of the victim.

Remember that a ccw does not give you a hunting license to go out looking for people doing illegal things. The ccw does not imbue the holder with the authority to go out and police the area or solve "problems". It does give them the ability to respond with deadly force to something which poses a direct deadly threat to them or someone in their immediate vicinity.

[Bingolong]

See Rules #2, #5

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Maverick
On one hand I'd like to be able to agree with you on this post. On the other hand understanding the situation as a property owner / renter would feel about it I know that they have a perfect right to set standards for those that enter their premises.

Keep in mind, this is not public property, it's private property and they can set the rules for it. If they decide that they want a "gun free zone" they can do so and are perfectly legal in asking you to either leave the gun home or leave the premises. They are not required to provide security as that is not their responsibility, that is the communities responsibility. Then again there is no requirement that a community (read that police agency) provide security for any individual.

As far as suing the store / mall over this you are going to have to show that they were somehow more or less directly responsible for the loss. If one or more of the victims were holders of a CCW permit and then denied the use of their legal weapon to protect themselves from the shooter, I think you have a valid position as the mall / store did remove their own level of security from them.

If on the other hand if none of them, were CCW holders then there was nothing the mall / store did that infringed on their individual safety / security. They had the same security as if they were out on the street. For an individual on the street there is no expectation for rescue by any other citizen or ccw holder. One would hope that if the situation was happening in plain sight and direct view of the ccw holder that they would be taking some kind of action consistent with saving their life and the life of the victim.

Remember that a ccw does not give you a hunting license to go out looking for people doing illegal things. The ccw does not imbue the holder with the authority to go out and police the area or solve "problems". It does give them the ability to respond with deadly force to something which poses a direct deadly threat to them or someone in their immediate vicinity.

Maverick,(and other current/former LEO's in here) What kind of view do your colleagues' take of CCW holders' taking action? Do they believe in it, or do they see the danger of a form of Vigilantism starting?

P.S. Kinda off topic, but I noticed that the Omaha PD were patting themselves on the back for a quick response. 6 Min. for the first policeman to walk through the door and stand there, looking around.

Here's a link to it. http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10204466

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Did you mean to click on the "What is a Militia" thread?

Yes I did thank you.

[Maverick]

Frode,

I think that for the most part, it depends on where you are from and the feelings towards guns in the general populace. In AZ. a ccw is not unusual and most of the LEO's from this area don't have any problem with them at all. If it's a good shooting most of us are more likely to comment on the group size more than anything else.

On the other hand if the leo is from some place like Mass. don't expect them to feel particularly friendly about it. They were already programmed  by their environment to fear the tool.

As long as the ccw holder who is or has used their weapon to stop a situation follows commands of the responding Officer(s) it is likely to be a good thing. This is assuming you are justified in what ever action you took. Keep in mind that the responding units have far less info than you do and do not know who is the good guy / bad guy when they arrive. They will focus on securing the scene and that means taking control of all weapons in sight at that time, then investigating what was going on.


I think this pretty much sums up my feeling and that of most of the folks I worked with before I retired. That's why I posted it in a previous statement.

"One would hope that if the situation was happening in plain sight and direct view of the ccw holder that they would be taking some kind of action consistent with saving their life and the life of the victim.

Remember that a ccw does not give you a hunting license to go out looking for people doing illegal things. The ccw does not imbue the holder with the authority to go out and police the area or solve "problems". It does give them the ability to respond with deadly force to something which poses a direct deadly threat to them or someone in their immediate vicinity."

Having a CCW permit means you have been given a tool to allow you more options in times of extremis forced upon you. It is not permission to go out and LOOK for those situations so you can use the weapon. "

Does that make any sense to you? It's hard to explain just by text on the bbs.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by lazs2
yep.. the real test would be to sue someone who declared a place a "gun free zone" and then failed to protect people from a gunman.

If you take away my right to protect myself and then allow others to attack me...

should you not be sued?  should you not be liable?  or at least.. say that entering a gun free zone... is the same as signing a waiver for your safety?  In which case it should be posted that the owner(s) of said gun free zone take no responsibility for your safety.

lazs

Just curious Laz, do you live in an area where you figure you will need a gun?  Have you ever been in a position where you've had to pull a gun?  What's gotten you to the point where you feel so strongly about carrying?

Not trying to pick a fight.  I just haven't ever found myself in a spot where I felt like carrying a gun was something I needed to do.

[Tigeress]

An academic study in support of CCW in cases like the Omaha mass murder.

From the Social Science Research Network...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement

Abstract:      
Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings.

These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce copycats.

Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic.

While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.

We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.

Download the pdf document from here --> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/99042103.pdf?abstractid=161637&mirid=2

TIGERESS

Edit: from --> http://grdurand.com/blogger/2007/12/another-gun-free-zone-shooting.html

Scott Ott envisions an alternate universe:

As Mr. Hawkins moved into the ideal sniper position on the upper deck, an unnamed middle-aged man emerging from the nearby Von Maur department store noticed his odd behavior and glimpsed the muzzle of the rifle peeking out from the sweater. Almost instinctively the man moved toward Mr. Hawkins, reaching to his belt to draw out a Springfield EMP, a small, 9mm semi-automatic handgun.

As the would-be famous mass killer raised the rifle to his shoulder, the unnamed shopper commanded him to stop. Mr. Hawkins turned the muzzle of the AK-47 toward the commanding voice, a single shot rang out and Mr. Hawkins staggered, dropped his weapon and fell against the railing.

By this time, two other shoppers were aiming their pistols at Mr. Hawkins — a young, single woman pulled a .40 caliber Glock 27 from her purse, and a retired farmer drew his 9mm Ruger SR9 (an early Christmas gift from his wife). Together with the first man they moved in to separate Mr. Hawkins from his gun, search him for other weapons and restrain him until law enforcement arrived.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Maverick
Frode,

I think that for the most part, it depends on where you are from and the feelings towards guns in the general populace. In AZ. a ccw is not unusual and most of the LEO's from this area don't have any problem with them at all. If it's a good shooting most of us are more likely to comment on the group size more than anything else.

On the other hand if the leo is from some place like Mass. don't expect them to feel particularly friendly about it. They were already programmed  by their environment to fear the tool.

As long as the ccw holder who is or has used their weapon to stop a situation follows commands of the responding Officer(s) it is likely to be a good thing. This is assuming you are justified in what ever action you took. Keep in mind that the responding units have far less info than you do and do not know who is the good guy / bad guy when they arrive. They will focus on securing the scene and that means taking control of all weapons in sight at that time, then investigating what was going on.


I think this pretty much sums up my feeling and that of most of the folks I worked with before I retired. That's why I posted it in a previous statement.

"One would hope that if the situation was happening in plain sight and direct view of the ccw holder that they would be taking some kind of action consistent with saving their life and the life of the victim.

Remember that a ccw does not give you a hunting license to go out looking for people doing illegal things. The ccw does not imbue the holder with the authority to go out and police the area or solve "problems". It does give them the ability to respond with deadly force to something which poses a direct deadly threat to them or someone in their immediate vicinity."

Having a CCW permit means you have been given a tool to allow you more options in times of extremis forced upon you. It is not permission to go out and LOOK for those situations so you can use the weapon. "

Does that make any sense to you? It's hard to explain just by text on the bbs.

Thanks, Mav. I know a CCW is a great responsibility, One which has to be used with the utmost consideration. I know it's not just sticking a gun in your pants, and eyeing every suspicious(to you) passerby on the street. I do a lot of work in Los Angeles, Quite a bit in places like Vernon, South Gate, Watts, and Compton. Those are the only times' I've even stuck my gun under the seat of my car. But, when I'd drive through those places, I would'nt linger, I'd just get to where I was going, and leave the trouble behind.

[john9001]

See Rule #5

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by john9001
See Rule #5

Last I remember, it has been a quite a few years, you could drive down the road with a pistol loaded right on the dash.

[SteveBailey]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Last I remember, it has been a quite a few years, you could drive down the road with a pistol loaded right on the dash.

As long as it's in a holster.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Last I remember, it has been a quite a few years, you could drive down the road with a pistol loaded right on the dash.

Last I recall Arizona allowed open carry but not concealed. I think concealed has proven to be a more effective deterrent.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by john9001
See Rule #5

Nice of you to take it entirely out of context. I suppose you feel LEO's are not entitled to an opinion at all just because of their job. An opinion does not mean they will not follow the requirements of the law.

Be that as it may you are welcome to put me on ignore as well.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by AKIron
Last I recall Arizona allowed open carry but not concealed. I think concealed has proven to be a more effective deterrent.

AZ. does have a ccw permit. There is still open carry as well but there are restrictions such as a bar and pharmacy.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Maverick
Be that as it may you are welcome to put me on ignore as well.

i will never put anyone on ignore.