Well, I haven’t. Instead I am making a more subtle point.
The perspective I bring to the
table is that I live in the great state of Virginia. Now don’t go off half-cocked based on this
post, but almost everyone in Virginia (whether a resident or not) who can lawfully possess a gun can open
carry in most places. Again, check the
laws before you do this. This is meant
to be a thumbnail summary, and thus it might have exceptions that would bite
you in the behind if you are not careful. But the bottom line is that the
rule in Virginia is most people can open carry most of the time, as long as
they are not otherwise disqualified.
You see, open carry primarily
protects the person who practices it and those close to them physically. There are two benefits to openly carrying a
gun. The first is obviously if you need
to protect yourself, you can pull it out and do what you have to—a whole range
from merely brandishing the gun, to threatening to use the gun, to actually killing
in self-defense if necessary. The second
benefit is the deterrent effect. A thief
is not likely to try to mug a person openly carrying a gun or someone in the
vicinity. Indeed, you have to think that
any person dealing with a person openly carrying a gun is not as likely to start
an argument and the like.
By comparison, if you practice
concealed carry, society gains a greater benefit. Of course the first benefit, the ability to
actually use a gun if you have to, remains intact. But now the second benefit is dissipated so
that rather than you individually deterring harm directed at yourself and those
immediately around you, now it is society as a whole that benefits. Now the criminals don’t know who might be armed or not. So they are less likely to commit crime
generally.
For instance, a number of years ago
there was a rash of tourist slayings in Florida. I remember at the time one of the causes was believed
to be Florida’s
concealed carry laws. The criminals
reasoned that a Florida resident might be carrying a concealed handgun. But tourists, particularly from foreign
countries, were considerably less likely to be armed, so they targeted the
And Florida’s policies might have
led to the death of Trayvon Martin. This
is because unlikely Virginia, where open carry is generally allowed, but with
some exceptions, in Florida open carry is generally banned, with only a few exceptions.
From Fl. Sta. §
790.053:
790.053 Open
carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as
otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person
to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or
device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a
concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a
firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the
ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed
in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
(2) A person may
openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
(a) A self-defense
chemical spray.
(b) A nonlethal
stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device
that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
(3) Any person
violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable
as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
If I was in the neighborhood
watch, like George Zimmerman, I would want to carry a gun with me, too. And I would want to carry it openly, so that
any suspicious person would know not to even start a fight.
But Zimmerman didn’t have that
option. He was forbidden by law from
showing that gun.
Now as you read this, dear reader,
the jury is trying to figure out what can be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. But let’s put that aside and
instead ask what is most likely to have happened.
I have long maintained that this
was the most likely scenario (and this is why I am convinced of Zimmerman’s innocence). Zimmerman saw Martin and thought that he was
acting like a potential burglar. So he
kept an eye on him, and so on. Martin saw
this happening and he started to get worried.
He thought maybe Zimmerman planned to hurt him.
Now, the best thing to do for Martin
to have done might have been to call the police and all of this would have been
straightened out but Martin in life when he probably was not yet secure in his
manhood. He wanted to seem tough. He didn’t want to call the police. He wanted to confront it.
Fight, flight or call for help is
the typical response to danger, and he chose to fight.
Now this is key to my
analysis. Martin might not have been
doing anything morally wrong by doing so.
Maybe it was unwise. If Martin
had lived and someone decided to charge him
with assault, he might have been able to plead self-defense.
So Martin continued to beat Zimmerman. Zimmerman became afraid this beating would
seriously injure him, or worse, and pulled out his gun and then shot him. That’s what I think happened.
Do you think that is at least
close to what happened? Well, even if
you don’t let’s pretend it was, because it serves a point I am making that is
larger than the circumstances between Zimmerman and Martin.
Okay, now run through the same
scenario with this time Zimmerman openly carrying his gun. Then, in that case, Martin might have seen
the gun and when he decided between fight, flight or calling the police, he
might not have chosen to fight. And if
he didn’t choose to fight, more than likely he would be alive today.
Zimmerman probably could have
simply removed his gun as he got out of the car. He could have justified pulling it out as a
form of self-defense, effectively deterring crime. The courts recognize that even brandishing a
weapon can a lawful method of self-defense and certainly beats actually firing
it. But the law is written so that he
does so at his own risk. I can’t guarantee
he wouldn’t be arrested for showing his gun in those circumstances, and
therefore a reasonable person might be afraid to do so.
But if the law was as it was here
in Virginia, Zimmerman almost certainly could have openly carried his gun, and
carrying it openly, leaving it in its holster might have been enough to deter
Martin from trying to sucker punch him. I
cannot guess what he would prefer to do, but he would have that option. And maybe if he had that option, he would
have open carried. And maybe if he would
have, Trayvon Martin wouldn’t have attacked him. And if Trayvon Martin hadn’t attacked
Zimmerman he would almost certainly be alive today.
Frankly, to this day, I do not
understand why some states prefer concealed carry. Normally in life we choose to alert people to
the dangers that surround them. We
purchase rafts that warn us that they are not emergency floatation
devices. We buy cars that warn us about myriad
risks, from the deployment of airbags to letting your oil run too low. Supermarkets put up those yellow folding signs
when the floor is wet. And there are the
infamously ridiculous warnings signs. My
favorite was a warning on a box of fish hooks that said “harmful if swallowed.” There is no word on whether the same warning also
stated “if this is not harmful if swallowed, it’s broken.” We see warning signs all the time, from the sensible
to the senseless.
Now I don’t believe in outing or
naming and shaming gun owners (in part because
it has the effect of telling everyone else who isn’t a gun owner). But I don’t understand why a state wants to force
you to keep the fact that you are able to defend yourself with deadly force a
secret.
Of course there is no guarantee
that George Zimmerman would have practiced open carry if he was given the
chance. And maybe something in Martin’s
character wouldn’t have deterred him from attacking a gun owner or maybe he
wouldn’t have seen it anyway (it was
dark, after all). But there can be no
denying that by requiring people to hide the fact they are armed—instead of
allowing people to choose—they have dramatically increased the chance of deadly
misunderstandings, where no one did anything wrong, but someone ended up dead, which
is ultimately what I think happened here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
Here in PA we are allowed Open Carry everywhere EXCEPT for Philadelphia where, arguably, it's most needed.
ReplyDeleteLots of typos in this post. Need to proofread it again. Otherwise, quite on-point. If open-carry (for weapons) was the norm, there would be a lot less such crimes in America.
ReplyDeleteMr. Walker,
ReplyDeleteYes. BUT...
Suppose I am a bad guy up to no good and I walk into your bank when you are there doing whatever. Whom do I shoot first?
Why, the people whose guns I can see, don't you think? You first.
It is certainly true that law-abiding folks are quite constrained these days the bad guys have free rein and are protected, no? I would not argue that point.
For something completely different--
I have been following your situation and that of your wife's since about the beginning. I wish I could help and I also wish I had something intelligent to say to advise you how to handle being the target of the harpies who are focused on your family. I don't. I would if I could. YMMV. If it is open carry for you...?
July 13, 2013 at 6:49 PM
To the poster immediately above:
ReplyDeleteYes, carrying open will -- as with, say, wearing a police uniform -- basically put a target on your back ... to SOME. However, it will be a deterrent to MOST.
As with most everything in life, you have to weigh the benefits versus the costs. I think it's reasonable to believe that open-carry benefits far outweigh the unfortunate costs.