"Gun Free Zones": Decisions

Having spent the last two days in New Mexico, where there is a reciprocal agreement between States that renders my concealed carry permit valid there, I have to say that you must be still aware of the differences in the concealed carry and handgun laws in states you visit.

I know that in New Mexico you are obligated to know if the eating establishment you are thinking about going to derives more than 50% of it's income from the sale of liquor. I'm not sure how I would go about getting that info, especially if I saw a restaurant that I wanted to go to right then. Or, even later, for that matter. Do the restaurants know what this ratio is on any given day? Is it an annual assessment? How does the State determine this?

Sticky ground. I've solved this by finding an "approved" eatery list for the towns I visit most often in New Mexico and I carry it in my iPhone for quick reference.

However, there are other differences you must be aware of from state to state. One big one is the "gun free zone" signs. Or, "weapons prohibited". Or, "No Firearms", etc. You get the idea. An establishment owner can post signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms while inside. In some states these signs must comply with fairly rigorous requirements: size of the sign and lettering. Color. Where it must be posted, and more. It pays to know what these legal requirements on the sign posters are so that you will be able to tell if the signs are not legal, and can be disregarded or not.

In some states, all the owner or manager of an establishment with such a sign posted can do is ask you to leave, or be in danger of trespass. In some states, they carry more legal force and might get you in trouble with the authorities. It pays to know what's what in these instances.

I ran into a sign in Trader Joe's in Santa Fe, New Mexico that warned against carrying any gun, loaded or not, into their store or face a possible charge from a forth degree felony. I have no idea what a "forth degree felony" is in New Mexico, nor do I intend to find out. Now, I like Trader Joe's - good and different foods and drink at very reasonable prices - but I had to wonder about what was going through people's heads who read that sign. Did they feel safe? Secure? Warm and loving toward their fellows? Were they now confident that no armed criminal, psycho or sociopath would dare to visit Trader Joe's? Did they understand that criminals, psychos and sociopaths (to name only a few) do not read anti-gun signs, and, if they did bother to read them, would not care what they say.

In fact, it can, and has been argued, that such bold anti-gun declarations serve to mark potential sites for future violence by those very types the signs were created to discourage.

Rationally, this is probably understandable, but, emotionally, not so much. Why is this? Why is it that a reasonably rational person can learn and understand facts and the outcomes of logical thinking processes, such as, "if you put your hand on that hot stove, you'll burn it." but not be able to make the connection with, "a gun will put a woman and a man on more equal footing when it comes to self protection and resisting violence."

Of course businesses that seek to prohibit those of us who are legally carrying from being able to protect ourselves can do without our business. It helps to get that message across to them. I'm going to make a serious effort to respond with an actual letter - snail mail - stating my views about this and that I won't support their business until the signs come down. Probably won't bring any signs down, but they will certainly get some feedback from the other side.

Meanwhile, in those states and areas where the sign is legally no more than a recommendation, I will make my own determination whether to lock my gun in the car and go on in, unarmed, or just decline the request.

Unarmed in the Big Apple

Right now I am in the far northern part of the island of Manhattan, hanging out with my son who lives here. I flew out of Denver last week, leaving my M&P Shield 9mm in the car to be stowed at home until I return. Although the state of Colorado has deemed it good that I be licensed for concealed carry, the state of New York feels otherwise. Even so, being an honorably discharged veteran who was trained and encouraged to be proficient with weapons of many kinds for eight years of active duty, I am considered by New York to be somehow not capable of carrying a firearm responsibly while in that state.

Anyone who has walked the streets in the Big Apple, especially later at night just trying to get from here to there, or rides the subway, knows how it feels to be unarmed in the midst of what can be charitably called "sketchy people". Uneasy is not quite the right word. Especially if one is a so-called senior citizen, which I happen to be. Large, strong dudes who might be more than happy, given the right set of circumstances, to relieve you of your valuables, can pretty much have their way considering the fact that New York's Finest are seldom seen in certain neighborhoods. Like the rats scuttling through Central Park near the Natural History Museum (a very cool place, by the way) the feeling of vulnerability is constantly with you as you walk the streets of New York.

I think this partly stems from the attitudes I saw last night. We are in midtown Manhattan, after seven p.m., walking through the mobbed sidewalks, dodging people who are headed straight for you, with their earphones firmly plugged in, or perhaps scrolling their smart phones for directions or the subway map, maybe thumbing a text to a friend all the while dodging quickly around the EMTs wheeling a victim out of a store into the ambulance double parked in the street. They are uncaring, unconcerned with the human drama unfolding around them, intent on their own purposes, unconcerned with and unconnected to the humans around them — that is a key to understanding how oblivious and uncaring those who live like this can become. Be ready to protect myself or other innocents from possible and intentional harm? Not me, brother. It is everyone for themselves and count me out if I have to get involved on your behalf.

Is this harsh? Yes. Is it true? Probably more so than I would like to believe.

Would the police like to be in a situation in which things have gone irretrievably bad, weapons are drawn and the bad guys, the cops and the honest civilians are armed? No. But, what about the much more likely scenario in which the cops aren't there (they really can't be everywhere, nor should they be required to be) and it is just the bad guys with the guns, knives, baseball bags, chains, tire irons or muscles and the college student on the way home for the day, or the grandmother who has spent part of her social security check at the grocery store who runs afoul of neighborhood thugs looking for drug money?

Why anyone thinks that an honest, law-abiding citizen should be prohibited from carrying a gun for self defense while criminals and crazies are illegally armed is frankly beyond me. Probably the same people who think that having armed forces to protect our country and freedoms is fine unless one of them gets hurt or killed in the process.

A very ignorant person once said to me, after seeing me in my uniform after I had carried a flag with our home town color guard, "Freedom is free". He went on to say that wars and armed forces weren't necessary. I pointed out that because many men and women had worn the uniform and put their lives on the line in order that he have the freedom to utter such crap, that freedom is brought at a price. The same must be said about our individual freedoms.

There is no clear answer to evil and violence. These have been with us as long as we have been able to recount them in song and story. To wish them away by telling honest, good people that they can not have the rights and means to protect themselves and other innocents from evil and violence is certainly wrong, short sighted and certainly immoral.

Posted with Blogsy