Here's an odd one. It's common for legislators to not read proposals carefully enough to know exactly what they're passing (note, for example, the recent law that ordered noncompetitive races taken off the ballot, apparently to everyone's surprise). But here's a legislator dismayed to discover that a bill he authored resulted in exactly the kind of activity his bill made possible. The legislation in question is the law that allows Hoosiers to carry firearms in public locations such as parks, libraries and some municipal buildings, written by State Sen. Jim Tomes, a freshman Republican from Wadesville. He said situations like the recent one at an Evansville Zoo were never what he had in mind:
Still, Tomes said, he was "furious" when a man refused when asked to conceal a handgun holstered at his hip while at the zoo on Sept. 10. Police escorted him out because, they said in an incident report, he "started causing a scene."
"A responsible person doesn't do that," Tomes said. "We have our rights. We hear a lot about that. But we also have obligations and responsibilities, and that requires us to conduct ourselves in a manner that would not generate alarm out in public."
[. . .]
Tomes, though, said the point of the law is not to increase the number of guns present at public locations. It's to allow Hoosiers to keep their firearms close by without legal worries.
"It's not that they want it in the zoo; it's that they want it with them when they travel. It's not that they need it in a city park or that they need it in the library; it's that they want it on their person when they're out and about," he said.
To keep such incidents from happening again, Tomes said it's up to those proponents of the new law to carry the water.
"I don't know if there will be some other person that decides that this is what they want to do," he said.
"This is really going to come to bear on the community of people that enjoy firearms to make sure that they can educate people — to say that, 'Look, you have a duty and a responsibility to behave appropriately.' "
If Tomes wants to be furious with someone, he should start with himself rather than the Evansville gun-toter. Yes, it can be said that the man acted without common sense, even that he wasn't being a good neighbor or a thoughtful citizen. But that's not the law's concern, unless our overseers in the General Assembly want to start mandating our etiquette. The new law expanded the number of places where guns can be carried and took away most of local governments' ability to issue exceptions, which means when and where to carry a gun (including openly, if one chooses) has been largely put into the hands of individual citizens. Imagine if the senator's admonition -- be nice, keep a low profile, be aware of others' feelings when you do what you're legally entitled to do -- were applied to other basic rights. You've got free speech, you know -- just shut up when people are offended or scared by what you say.
Comments
Last I knew, we DID have to shut up, rather than yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or making "terroristic threats" even if they are, in fact, impossible to carry out. ("If you don't get away from my wife, I'm gonna shove your butt up your nostril").
And yeah, acknowledging that there are plusses and minuses, I'd err on the side of freedom in both cases (although I think that open carry should be encouraged, and concealed carry discouraged.)
I think that anyone who open carries should be required to pin the pink card to their clothing in a prominent manner (just like the cops do with their badge). And I think that anyone (not just cops) should be able to stop such persons, ask to inspect the card, and to see their identification as well. And I think that any person who refused to comply with that should be treated as a hostile threat to public safety.
If these common sense measure were enacted first, then I guess I'd be in support of open carry also. Absent that, common sense would suggest to me that the gun should only be displayed when immediate circumstances create a high probability that it will need to be used.
Why should you need a pink card at all, Phil, for open carry? Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia only require a permit for concealed carry, not for open carry.
Carrying a weapon, after all, is a constitutional right. You don't need a blue card to carry a bible, a chartreuse card to keep the government from taking your property without due process, nor a purple card to attend church.
Both open-carry and concealed-carry used to be legal everywhere except NYC, which had the Sullivan Act. It's only been within the last 40 years that they started requiring permits for concealed carry.
You know, Indiana used to define burglary as breaking and entering at night-time, in order to commit a felony. It didn't have to be a taking of property, but both breaking and entering had to occur at night time, and you got 2 to 14 years for burglary in addition to whatever punishment you got for that felony (if, indeed, you actually committed the felony once you got inside.)
That law existed because concealment is inherently hostile.
I don't think persons who have committed violent crimes should be allowed to carry weapons. And I think requiring a pink card is a fair and simple way to make sure they don't.
Given the expansive proclivities of our government, I'm sure that the prohibitions go much wider than this, but that is another issue.
Phil, we don't have a colored cards to be pinned on the chest, indicating that one hasn't committed a felony, and thus may be allowed to register to vote.
We don't have a colored card to be pinned on the chest, indicating that one hasn't been convicted of a sex crime and thus may be allowed to work in a day care center.
We don't have a colored card to be pinned on the chest that indicates one has tested free of tuberculosis, and thus may employed to mop the floor in food service businesses.
The "land of the free" indicates a presumption that people are allowed to do anything not specifically prohibited. If you want to brand people with a scarlet letter, I suppose that's OK, but let's only burden the guilty, not the rest of us.
Harl,
At what point would you consider someone to be an imminent threat to you? What if they walked around holding the gun in their hands? What if they pointed it in your direction? As long as they don