"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

National Veterans Carry Permit

While visiting New Mexico from Colorado recently my wife and I had the opportunity to attend a performance at the Santa Fe Opera. It is a nationally recognized venue, which you can also see in the final scenes in the movie Crazy Heart. As I stood overlooking the opera grounds at the hundreds of people there, I wondered who among the crowd was legally carrying a concealed pistol. It being New Mexico, I figured the odds for concealed carry, legal or otherwise, were pretty good.

A Colorado concealed carry permit is recognized by the state of New Mexico, and vice versa. While this is a good thing between neighboring states, there are differences in the conditions under which one may legally carry in different states, and it is the responsibility of the person with a permit to know and abide by those different requirements. For example, I keep a list of restaurants in Taos and Santa Fe, the two towns I am most likely to visit, in which concealed carry is permitted. In New Mexico, a restaurant that gains more than a certain percentage of its income from the sale of liquor is not one in which legal concealed carry is permissible. Not being able to compute that percentage myself, I rely on the list of those restaurants that are considered by the state to comply with that requirement. Before going to an eatery, I check the list I keep stored on my iphone.

Yes, this is a minor pain, but it is my responsibility to comply with the state law. But, the real pain is that permits are not valid in all states. Twenty different states may consider my carry permit to be valid, but the rest may not. Although I pass the background check and that's considered good with some states, it is not with others. The chances are good that I would also meet their permitting requirements, but I'd have to either live there, or apply in absentia. Not all states permit this.

If I were a Federal employee with the right and requirement to carry a concealed weapon and did so, after satisfying the necessary requirements, I would be able to legally carry in all states. If I were an active member of the armed forces with those same requirements and obligations, the same would hold true. But as a citizen of the United States as a whole, but residing in only one of the states, I don't have that right. Being an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Navy, surely one of the most ancient and federal of government organizations, and who was expected to be armed when and wherever necessary to defend the Constitution, I think that right should not be surrendered upon the honorable discharge of a veteran who would still qualify under a state requirements.

In other words, if an honorably discharged veteran of the American armed forces desires to legally carry a concealed weapon, and can pass a standard background check for that purpose, that person should be entitled to carry in any state in the Union, regardless of the vagaries of state law. I can carry legally in Colorado. Yet, when I travel to New York to visit family, I am not allowed to carry my weapon, concealed or otherwise. I am an honorably discharged Navy veteran, trained and experienced in weapons and weapons systems by the Navy, sanctioned by the State of Colorado to carry, yet, somehow in New York, all of this goes by the wayside and I am prohibited from exercising those rights.

I think it is time that all honorably discharged veterans of America's armed forces be able to apply for and receive, with appropriate and timely background checks, a concealed carry permit that is valid in all fifty states. I am going to continue to promote this idea on this blog and in communicaitons with all of my elected legislative representatives and to the White House. I am not a criminal. I am not unstable invididual, liable to go suddenly insane for no reason. I served honorably for eight years, most of that during the Viet Nam war. now, as a citizen and resident of Colorado, having passed the necessary background checks, I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I see no reason why I, and other veterans who meet those basic qualifications, should be discriminated against and prohibited from excercising that right in all states.

I will be asking for and promoting what I am calling the National Veterans Carry Permit law, to be passed by Congress and signed by the President which will allow qualifying veterans to exercise our Constitutional right to be armed in all fifty states of the Union.

I hope you will join me.

If you support this idea, or have constructive criticisms and ideas for improvements and support, please comment here or send me email at eindecker@gmail.com with your ideas.

As regular readers will know, I often review holsters and other gear on this blog. I would like to pass some of this forward to those who have constructive comments and feedback about the National Veterans Carry Permit (NVCP) proposal. I will choose the most interesting and helpful comment or idea every few weeks, post that here for others to read and consider, and send a piece of gear from one of my reviews to that person. The first award will be a new cargo pocket holster from SwapRig Holsters.

Let me hear from you. Even if you don't like the idea, let me know, but be real, cite evidence to back up your objections so that we can evaluate them in a mature way.

Posted with Blogsy

Lobo Gun Leather Offset Belt Clip IWB Holster

Lobo Gun Leather IWB Offset Holster

A few months ago I received a new Offset Belt Clip IWB Holster for my Ruger SR9c from Ray Cory. I posted an introduction to Ray and his advice from many years of law enforcement experience here: http://sdcarry.blogspot.com/search/label/Lobo%20Gun%20Leather

I have had the opportunity to use his  offset IWB holster for two different, albeit, similar guns. Ray made this holster for my SR9c and it performed as advertised for that task – securely and comfortably with a high enough ride to ensure the grip on the pistol was available for a fast and secure draw. Ray uses rather thin and flexible leather for this holster, cowhide in this case, not horsehide which I understand is stiffer than cowhide for the same thickness. While adequate for the Ruger, I personally would not have wanted to go with thinner leather, but I did enjoy the resulting comfort of the holster.

I no longer have the Ruger SR9c.  The Smith & Wesson M&P Shield is now my main carry gun. Curious about how this holster might work with it, I tried the Shield in Ray's holster designed for the Ruger and found it is almost a perfect fit. There may be a fraction of an inch extra on the slide shield, but if you didn't know the holster wasn't made for the Shield, you would never guess. The positive thing for me is that with the Shield's lighter weight, the holster feels just right. Not to stiff, not too flexible. The comfort is still there as is the excellent positioning of the grips above the belt line. And, the offset clip, riding behind the bulk of the pistol in the holster, keeps the profile slim and makes it even for concealable.

Sometimes too much is made of a holster's ability, or lack of it, to enable easy one-handed re-holstering of a firearm. There are times and activities in which this is a good thing to have in a holster, for example during practice sessions or at the range, but for a self defense carry gun and holster, I don't think it is a necessary feature. When I carry in public, the gun stays in the holster, and will do so unless the time comes for me to produce it. I doubt if I will be required to re-holster later without the aid of my other hand or eyes. Your opinion may differ.

So, for a good, well made and comfortable holster at a reasonable price, take a close look at Ray's work on his site: http://www.lobogunleather.com/1_home