Guns can be picked up and used for good or evil, but they are morally neutral objects. Gun-control advocates always try to obscure this point as they strain mightily, without success, to connect the dots between bad gun acts and lawful gun ownership. So in commenting on efforts by some state legislators to ease a number of gun restrictions, The Journal Gazette just has to tie it to a recent murder:
On Tuesday, Indianapolis Police Officer David Moore lay in a coma, suffering from mortal wounds he suffered Sunday when the driver of a car he pulled over fired four gunshots.
Not too far away Tuesday, in the Statehouse, nine Indiana state senators voted to make it easier for anyone to carry a handgun in a car. Hoosiers, they proclaimed, shouldn't need a license to carry a handgun when they want to carry a handgun in a car. Nor, for that matter, should they need a license to carry a handgun on someone else's property.
Yeah, start right out with the police officer in a coma. That's the way to have a rational, intelligent discussion. But the man who killed him was a convicted felon mistakenly let out of prison who was not allowed to have a gun under current law. Making it more or less difficult to get and have a gun makes no difference to people like him. How many times do we have to make this point?
In the meantime, the debate in Indianapolis is whether to seek the death penalty against the man who killed the officer. One opinion is that they won't because of, get this, his age. Since he is 60 and it takes so long to go through the appeals process, he would be at least in his mid-70s before the penalty was carried out, and it's highly probable he would die in prison before he was executed. This is interesting:
Age also can play a role in a jury's willingness to recommend death, said Scott Newman, Brizzi's predecessor.
Newman, who sent six people to Death Row during his eight-year stint as prosecutor, said juries are less likely to impose the death sentence on people in their early 20s or younger, sometimes because they think those people can move past the mistakes of their youth and redeem themselves. Juries also seem less likely to recommend death as punishment for people who are past their early 50s, he said.
So you and I get a pass, young whippersnapper. Somebody better take our guns.
Comments
Leo:
That's probably why they don't prefer to have ME on any jury...
I'm a graduate of the Judge Roy Bean school of JUSTICE.
(Mr. Hardy could always suffer an "accident"...that happens a lot in jail) NO big loss there.
And technically, the law about carrying in a vehicle in Indiana IS sort of odd.
It says you CANNOT transport a pistol in a vehicle UNLESS you have a license (CCP).
(WTF???)
That would make it a CRIME to bring home ANY pistol you JUST BOUGHT at a gunshop then, right?
(Wonder why cops don't hang out at firearms stores...sure way to jack UP the citation quotas, eh?)
And what about going to a shooting range?
No mention about THAT.
(another crime)
Let's just make it a crime for LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS to NOT have a firearm.
That oughta scare a lot of the criminals back under whatever rocks they crawled from.
(or it SHOULD)
;)
How many lawful uses of a gun take place each year to stop a rape, assault, burglary or other crime? The attention seems to be placed on those who are harmed, what about those who are saved?
It is clear that guns can be obtained by those who under current law are not allowed to obtain them. Therefore, making stricter gun laws does nothing to prevent future harm, but most likely cause more harm because law abiding citizens will not be able to protect themselves and others.
As I said before, the answer may be that we all need to pack so that someone has the means to take the idiot down. Waiting for law enforcement did not work in Arizona, it took good citizens to stop the idiot, but they did not have a gun and many were shot in the process.
There is a difference between "transporting" a weapon and "carrying" a weapon. The former is generally considered to be legally acceptable practice that provides for allowing an unlicensed individual to get their weapon from one place to another. The latter means that the person is in a position to immediately use the weapon.
I think this bill is seriously flawed because it virtually nullifies the requirement to have a permit for carrying a weapon.
Everywhere I am aware of (except in those state where open carry is legal), "carrying" a weapon means carrying a concealed weapon. That's generally what the license is for. In Texas, you have to have a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) to carry a weapon (and it MUST be concealed at all times), but not to simple have it in your car. This state calls it a "travelling" law - the weapon cannot be in plain sight and may be loaded, no license required, not just back and forth to and from the range or home from the gun store, but any time you're driving. (and, there are provisions in the "travelling" law that allows for a person to conceal the weapon going to the car and taking the weapon back into the home without a license) However, being a strong private property state, there is a provision in our CHL statute that provides for a private property owner to not allow someone to carry a concealed handgun onto their property, home, or place of business, even if the person has a CHL.
Phil:
I read the IN law, and the WORDING is so damn "vague" regarding the "transport" of a firearm...no real distinction is made one way or the other.
It doesn't even say "if the weapon is field stripped and lying in pieces" in your trunk under lock and key.
It needs to be written in a way that makes NO mistake as far as "original intent" when transporting.
(technically, we "personally transport" a firearm whenever we conceal-carry)
I think THAT is the heart of the matter.
Define the INTENT.
I prefer that everyone that CAN pack heat...to DO so.
(then again, I live in the part of town the city TRULY LOVES (to ignore, that is).
Stay safe.
Bob,Bob,Bob....the legislature doesn't have the time to write the law in common sense terms, they've got bigger fish to fry. For God's sake man there are 70 year olds out there trying to buy booze without proper I.D.!!!
Tim:
ROFLMAO...!
Sorry, my friend...don't know WHAT the hell came over me.
BTW, I saw one of those seniors pissing against a garage once, after downing his cheap-ass cognac...they're OUT there!
;)
Bob,
From what I have read before on the subject, it appears that judicial precedent has largely defined "transporting" as having the weapon in a place/condition where it is not readily acessible/usable. "Carrying" is the opposite.
So, at one end of the spectrum, the weapon would be unloaded, with a trigger lock, in a locked case, in the trunk of your car. At the other end, the weapon is lying on the passenger seat or under the driver's seat, with a bullet in the chamber. Granted, the many stages in between these two extremes leave much room for interpretation. And that is why I agree with you that there is a need for clearer language in the laws.
I think Indiana is a relatively gun-friendly state, but I have always been a bit nervous when taking my weapon across state lines. I once drove to Kentucky, in a hatchback. I didn't need the gun with me there, but I didn't want to leave it unattended at the house and I had no where else to deposit it. Since there was no trunk, I placed the weapon in the spare wheel compartment. I reasoned that there was no way they could consider it readily accesible in that position. But as I drove a bit, I began to realize just how much that might make me look like I was trying too hard to hide it.
I guess when our legislators are too busy/stupid/cowardly to give us clear laws, we're bound to have these types of confusiing situations. It sure is nice to live in a democracy - eh?