I’ve long since made it clear that when I see “gun-free zone” I read “hunting preserve for psychopathic mass murderers,” since only the law-abiding follow the rules and murderers are among the ultimate law-breakers. They seek victims who can’t fight back. Jackals seek herds of sheep and conspicuously avoid prides of lions.
A man I’m proud to call a long-time friend, Dave Workman, is one of our strongest and most practical voices for reason in the gun debate. He points out that gun-free zones, which require law-abiding pistol-packers to leave their firearms in their cars, create a situation which facilitates gun theft – the single main source of guns in the hands of criminals. Read it here. Courtesy of GUNS magazine, for which both Dave and I are long-standing contributors, and please share the link as widely as you can.
Anyone with a lick of brains realizes that those who plan robbery, rape or mass murder are not concerned with violating a “no guns” ordinance. Of course, this leaves out Democrat politicians.
I’ve tried, but haven’t had any success at getting the pols to also mandate safe storage facilities if they’re going to have “gun free/sensitive” facilities. Kind of like a heavy duty version of luggage storage in various terminal facilities.
As noted, it appears that the real intent is to make carry so inconvenient that one abandons it.
There are two sorts of gun-free zones. One is enforced by criminal law sanctions. The other is enforced only by the trespass law where if the property owner asks you to remove the firearm or yourself, you must comply. If you comply, the incident is over. The risk for the concealed carrier in the latter case is some Karen seeing the gun and freaking out. This has to be balanced against the risk of being caught without your gun when you need it or getting it stolen out of your car. A good place to start is removing the criminal sanction laws. Looking at you, Texas.
I don’t really trust the security of those little boxes with the cable though they are better than nothing. I have a console safe in my truck and a headrest safe in my car. Another thing to think about is planning. If you know you are going to have to go into a GFZ, stash the gun as you are leaving your last stop, not in the parking lot of the GFZ.
Let’s not use someone’s name as an insult.
The Tacoma and South Center malls in the pacific northwest are notorious gun theft areas for this very reason. Government forces citizens to leave their firearms unattended in the parking lot. It doesn’t help when vehicles have 2nd Amendment, gun manufacturer, and Gadsden flag stickers all over them. It’s like hanging out “free gun” signs.
Until the laws change, we must be more aware of how we present ourselves in public, particularly when Evil is very aware of where the treasure is.
Same reason I don’t wear clothing with my stance on 2A, favorite brand of pew, or other such advertisements. As a gal, and now an old gal, I value my element of surprise.
It is corporations forcing people to leave guns in cars there. WA GFZ signs are not enforced by criminal law except of specified places but rather by trespass law. Malls are not one of the specified places.
I only wear “tactical” or logo clothes when going to the range or working in the field. I don’t put gun-related stickers on my vehicle. Closest I have is an American flag, which I guess is pretty close these days.
My all time bes ale on no guns in bars tookplace in the east edge of Washington STate a while back.
Chap became a regular in a smalltown taven, all knew him as Bob. One aftenoon a gunman walked in, went up to the keep, pulled his pistol and demanded he put all the cash into this pouch and give it to him Bob, upin seeing this action, quietly stoo up walked up behind the obbe, pulling out his own pistol as he did so. He stood offone ound, putting the obbe down instantly. Duing the commotion, bob just as quietly walked out the font door.
Soon enough the Law showed up and began to take their report. Evventually they wantd to talk to “Bob”. He was gone. Asked about, no one knew anything about him beyond his name, and that he’d been coming some months, no addess, no phone, no vehicle info, he’s just Bob. And comes most days.
The Law asked that if anyone sees him again, tell him I”d like to talk to him. Didn’t happen.
My own guess is that most did know him but, knowing Washington State laws about guns in “establishments”, all went mum.
funny thing, next state south possession inside “establishments” is legal, as long as you don’t consume whilst so equipped. I have availed myself of this fact a numbe of times. Inside Washington I just don’t go to them.
Let’s try to imagine America the way the Founding Fathers intended, with The Second Amendment recognized by all 50 states. That would mean 50 states have Constitutional Carry.
What would happen? Criminals would obtain guns, and commit crimes with them. Well, that happens now, even with all the restrictions put in place by anti-gunners.
Responsible citizens would continue to own, and use guns, safely. Well, that is what happens now. There would be negligent discharges, but we have just seen many guns sold since Obama became President, and yet negligent discharges have not risen with the rise in gun sales.
Would mass shootings still occur? Yes, there may be fewer of them, and, if America was a Second Amendment utopia, like we all dream of, those mass shootings would be shortened in duration. There would be fewer victims of mass shootings.
What would not happen? People who want to defend themselves with firearms would be allowed to do so everywhere, or almost everywhere. They would no longer be prevented from defending themselves with guns, as they are now, in gun-free zones. Maybe plaintiffs or defendants in courts would not be allowed to carry there. There may be laws against being drunk and armed at the same time. What would not happen is, a raped woman would not be able to claim that she wished she could have been armed when she was attacked. She would always have the choice to be armed, or unarmed.
Infringing on The Second Amendment makes America less safe, not more safe.
GFZs not only create the immediate Killing Fields, but also fertile fields of parking lots for gun thieves.
It also tells them that the folks walking To/From the parking lots and the GFZ designated areas are likely to be unarmed and therefore Gov’t-Mandated-Victims.
This issue is a spiral downward.
I am a law-abiding gun carrier.
I see I am about to enter a gun free-fire zone where my legal gun is not welcome.
The State wants me to buy a gun-safe that fits in my car;
so I can leave my gun in my car where I can’t use it to save anyone in the free-fire zone.
I can buy either a cheap gun-safe or an expensive gun-safe.
If I buy a cheap gun-safe the State will blame me for not spending enough.
If I buy an expensive gun-safe the State will be happy that I prevented a theft.
It is out-of-the-question to make a gun-safe for a car that can’t be broken into. (I know about safes. I bought a $25,000 safe 50 years ago because I needed it to be secure.) The ONLY kinds of safes for cars will be safes that can’t do much to deter a determined burglar. Cheap gun-safes for cars won’t do much to deter car burglars who are reasonably competent. Such burglars will always cut the cables or break into the boxes.
So, what are responsible gun owners to do? Spend $1,000 or $2,000 for each car for a gun-safe that’s pretty good? And another $1,000 – $2,000 for a second car? How about a third car/truck? Would that make the State happy? Or, spend $100 – $200 on a cheap gun-safe that won’t deter a burglar with a cable cutter?
Or, is it the most vital objective to keep law-abiding gun carriers from carrying in a free-fire zone?
Simple, the most vital objective is more Dead Proles for gravedancing on, so they can demand ever more of our precious real liberty be sacrificed in the name of some false-promise illusion of “safety.”
“….only the law-abiding follow the rules and murderers are among the ultimate law-breakers.”
True words, Mas. The recent stabbing murder of Iryna Zarutska, in Charlotte, NC, is another prime example.
No one came to the aid of this woman as she was brutally stabbed to death. Why not?
Answer: Because firearms and concealed carry are BANNED on public transportation in Charlotte. She was in a gun free zone. The gun free zone did not stop the murderer from carrying and using his knife. However, it was highly effective in preventing anyone, including the victim, from engaging in an armed response to the attack.
You are entirely correct when you point out that gun-free zones are hunting grounds for psychopaths.
Left-Wing policies, like GUN FREE ZONES, support violence. They don’t work against violence. Their results, like all left-wing policies, are counter-productive. They feed violence.
They are also counter to the guiding principles of the 2nd Amendment.
The people who advocate for gun-free zones are the ones with blood on their hands! Not the people who legally carry!
TN_MAN,
In this case, I think the criminal acted too fast to prevent the stabbing. On the video, I couldn’t even see the knife. I was told it was a pocket knife, so it was small. The stabber left the scene, and I didn’t even see anyone try to stop the bleeding. Maybe they remember what happened to Daniel Penny, when he simply restrained a violent criminal. Many believe it is best not to get involved these days, when Good Samaritans are punished for helping out (George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, too).
Was the criminal prevented from killing by laws against murder? No. Why was a mentally ill convict allowed to carry a knife? Why was a mentally ill convict allowed to ride the subway alone? Laws don’t prevent crime, yet innocent people obey the laws, to their own peril.
We need to stop listening to liberals. They harm society.
That GFZ, as near as I can tell, is transit district policy and not law.
@ Richard –
My understanding is that it is a local ordinance. So, it is a local law and not just an issue of policy. Here is the relevant section of law (Note Sec. 11-84):
“ARTICLE VII. – BUSES
Sec. 11-83. – No smoking on buses.
It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke, ignite, or hold while ignited a cigar, cigarette, pipe, or other similar device while aboard a bus operated by the town.
(Ord. No. O-74-43, 7-1-74)
Sec. 11-84. – Prohibition on possession of weapons on town buses.
No person shall carry, possess or use any firearm or other dangerous weapon while aboard a bus operated by the town. This section shall not apply to law enforcement or other government personnel acting within the scope of their employment.
Violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days.”
Please note that the murderer was in violation of this law. His knife certainly counted as an “other dangerous weapon” for the purposes of this ordinance.
So, he broke the rules of the Weapons-Free-Zone. However, that is a small matter compared to the law against homicide.
Maybe they should layer a weapon’s charge on top (like a cherry on top of the a Banana Split) to the charges of assault with a deadly weapon and murder!
Oh No! He violated their precious Weapon-Free-Zone Rule! Oh, the inhumanity! (Please note that this is sarcasm, Folks.)
@ Roger Willco –
Here is a theoretical question for members of this blog:
Suppose that public transportation WAS NOT a gun-free-zone in Charlotte. Suppose, as a result, that Iryna Zarutska was legally armed and OPEN CARRYING. Do you think that this psychopath would have still tried to stab her?
Mas says that a firearm is not a magic talisman. It cannot protect the bearing from harm by itself. However, would it have acted as a magic talisman (in this case) by discouraging an attack?
Opinions? Anyone?
Quote of the Day:
“An armed society is a polite society” – Robert A. Heinlein
TN, if she had been open carrying with her head in her smartphone and her back to him, that psycho might have simply snatched her gun, shot her dead, and proceeded to shoot a few more people with her gun.
@ Mas – “…open carrying with her head in her smartphone…”
Very true, Mas. A person in CONDITION WHITE is an easy target.
This goes back to the teachings of Jeff Cooper. Jeff Cooper always made it a point that a person carrying a firearm should ALWAYS be in CONDITION YELLOW when armed and in public. Ideally, a person carrying a firearm should also be trained in its use.
Therefore, for the handgun to have any “magical” protective effect, we would need to stipulate, further, that Iryna Zarutska had received training, with the firearm that she was OPEN CARRYING, that she was aware of the importance of situational awareness (when carrying in public) and was in CONDITION YELLOW. Therefore, she would not have her nose buried in her phone screen.
Also, of course, if one is open carrying, one should use a holster that provides some counter-measures against a firearm-grab attack.
However, you are 100% correct. A person in CONDITION WHITE is an easy target for a predator. This is true whether one is armed or not.
– “…proceeded to shoot a few more people with her gun…”
Perhaps, if this psychopath had grabbed a firearm, he would do exactly that. OTOH, he still had his knife but he did not stab anyone else. He seemed satisfied to just kill the White Girl.
About open carry. I once watched a video on YouTube. An open-carrier, gun in holster at 3 o’clock position, was at the counter in a convenience store. As he was talking to the clerk, and busy paying the bill with either cash or a card, a man approached him from behind and simply drew the gun out of the holster, then ran away.
As has been taught here, and elsewhere, the negative aspects of open carry seem to outweigh the postive aspects. Open carry may be acceptable in the woods, but around people it seems to cause problems.
I’m trying to think of a “safe” part of the body on which to open carry. Maybe right in front, on the chest or belly. I doubt I will ever open carry, even though it would be comfortable, enable a quick draw, and allow a larger gun to be carried. Concealed carry is the way to go.
If concealed carry was allowed on that subway in Charlotte, maybe the crook would have been afraid to do what he did. Maybe he would have been afraid of the victim or someone resisting, or even apprehending him.
Frankly, The Second Amendment is federal law, which trumps, or pre-empts state, county and municipal law. So, the subway prohibition on carrying weapons should have been ignored. It is unconstitutional. Citizens understand that, but judges don’t. I wish we could educate judges that any infringement on The Second Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights, attached to the Constitution, the SUPREME law of the land) is unconstitutional, therefore null and void.
The mere possession of a firearm, whether concealed or openly carried would have done nothing for that young women unless she was trained in its use, aware of her surroundings, and mentally & emotionally prepared to use lethal force against her attacker. It is horrific that a young war refugee & talented artist was taken from all of us by someone that should have been in prison.
@TN_MAN
Yeah I found that ordinance too but NC has preemption so it would have been hard to get a conviction if they had busted someone for carrying. Especially, in the aftermath of a horrendous crime. That said, I live by the principle, Mommas don’t let your babies grow up to be test cases.
@ Richard – “…so it would have been hard to get a conviction if they had busted someone for carrying.”
I looked up the North Carolina preemption law. It seems fairly well written. Here is an excerpt:
Ҥ 14-409.40. Statewide uniformity of local regulation.
(a) It is declared by the General Assembly that the regulation of firearms is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, and that the entire field of regulation of firearms is preempted from regulation by local governments except as provided by this section.
(a1) The General Assembly further declares that the lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution, sale, or transfer of firearms or ammunition to the public is not an unreasonably dangerous activity and does not constitute a nuisance per se and furthermore, that it is the unlawful use of firearms and ammunition, rather than their lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution, sale, or transfer that is the proximate cause of injuries arising from their unlawful use. This subsection applies only to causes of action brought under subsection (g) of this section.
(b) Unless otherwise permitted by statute, no county or municipality, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner the possession, ownership, storage, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, taxation, manufacture, transportation, or registration of firearms, firearms ammunition, components of firearms, dealers in firearms, or dealers in handgun components or parts.”
Furthermore, unlike a lot of preemption laws, the NC Law has some teeth. Consider this excerpt:
“(h) A person adversely affected by any ordinance, rule, or regulation promulgated or caused to be enforced by any county or municipality in violation of this section may bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages arising from the violation. The court shall award the prevailing party in an action brought under this subsection reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs as authorized by law.”
The township violated the preemption law when they passed their regulation disarming bus passengers. One could argue that the resulting Gun-Free-Zone helped create an environment whereby this psychopath was able to attack and murder Iryna Zarutska without any fear of resistance. In other words, by passing this illegal local law, the township was also (partly) responsible for her murder.
Section (h) gives people who are harmed by such illegal laws the right, under North Carolina Law, to sue for damages.
I suggest that the family of Iryna Zarutska should immediately file a Wrongful Death lawsuit against the township. Perhaps an award of several million dollars, for her Wrongful Death, would act to discourage other local authorities from illegally trampling upon the 2nd Amendment Rights of their Citizens.
Picking up on another comment you made. Someone actually did come to help her. A black man as it turns out. Whole video shows that. Too late though. Was the perp wandering around with his knife the cause of the delay or was it the difficulty of processing what had just happened? If the knife got the carotid artery, it was not survivable. We had a stabbing in a school district where I worked. Security staff with first aid training had hands on the victim 7 seconds after he hit the floor but the kid still died. Knife got the liver.
@Richard: Another blogger watching the video pointed out, it was ~20 seconds between the stabbing and Ms. Zarutska collapsing from blood loss. This stabbing could have taken place in the doorway of a Level I Trauma Center, and she still wouldn’t have survived.
I watched the video and noted that there was surprisingly little visible blood on her clothing, on the seat, and on the floor below her. (I’ve personally had more visible blood loss from a nosebleed.) If the majority of the blood loss was internal, even someone trained in first aid might not recognize what was happening right away, and with only 20 seconds between the attack and the collapse, there’s very little anyone could have done no matter what training or supplies they had on-hand.
The biggest mercy is that from the shock of the attack, Ms. Zarutska herself may not have realized what had happened before she lost consciousness.
Don’t be a test case is one of two lessons I took from a Constitutional Law class. Getting your name on an successful appellate decision isn’t worth the hassle, expense and time in the slammer during the appeal.
That said, with a state pre-emption law in place, that reg should be unenforceable on it’s face. Might depend upon how the state law is written.