Quote of the day–Karen Arntzen

They say that they are law abiding citizens but there’s no way of knowing that. There’s no accountability for this group.

Karen Arntzen
Of the California Brady Campaign.
November 27, 2010
Restaurant Is Stage For Debate Over Open Carry Law
[Via The Madman Raves.

I really don’t get her point.

Accountability? The open carry people she is talking about is just as accountable as she is. And just like with her when someone meets her on the street there is no way of knowing if she is law abiding.

Does she think that if the people open carrying were wearing a uniform and a badge that would make them more law abiding or accountable?

It’s as if I understand all the words she is using but I can’t make sense of her sentence.

The Madman Raves interprets it as “I believe she just called all open carry practitioners ‘criminals’.” —Joe]

34 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Karen Arntzen

  1. The cat’s out of the bag, I say. The antis have nothing left. Their options are to either further discredit themselves, or give up, and we know they aren’t going to give up. As the saying goes; when your opponent is destroying himself, just stay out of the way. (Or egg him on).

  2. Guilty until proven innocent sounds bass ackwards to me.

    Even if we did have to rely on this presumption (guilty till proven innocent), concealed carry permit holders are much less likely to commit violent crime than those people wearing a badge.

  3. I interpret this use of the word “accountability” to be meant as a euphemism for “control over”.

    As in, “There is no control over this group.” Probably by their self-appointed betters, for example, the Brady Group.

  4. I have to question the wisdom of protesting at these open carry events. It’s a total waste of time. Not many people turn out for either side (open carriers or protesters).

    Nick — Since none of these people have CCW permits or permits of any kind, there is no accountability with the group. They could be ex-felons parading their weapons in California. The laws are such that it’s impossible for the police to check.

  5. They could be ex-felons parading their weapons in California.

    You say that like it is somehow different from how gun-toting criminals typically behave in California…

  6. Which laws make it impossible to check? Constitutional restrictions on illegal search and seizure? Are police legally barred from stopping crimes as they happen?

    Furthermore if there is complete certainly that an “ex-felon” is a repeat felon, what’s he doing out on the street? What does this have to do with us? Did Wayne LaPierre preside over the ex-felon’s previous trial? Did the NRA supply a jury and instruct them to vote not guilty because it would be totally cool to have a dangerous felon back out on the street? Or are we talking about one of those mala prohibita violators who was convicted of a felony against himself?

  7. Oh but ubu, we totally solved that problem by making it illegal for ex-felons to have guns, remember?

    ‘Guilty until proven innocent’ is the assumption behind all gun restrictions.

  8. “I think there should be a license and a thorough background check to join an anti-gun group. After all, anyone can join and for all we know, they could be anti-American communists or jihadis trying to disarm the country by stealth. There’s no accountability for this group.”

    See, that sword cuts both ways. One could insert any other group, along with a corresponding set of epithets. It’s just empty rhetoric, with no substance or logic to it, which is all the more dangerous due to the threat it poses to any number of freedoms–not just second amendment ones.

  9. RE Felons:
    If they are “ex” felons would that not mean they are no longer felons, that they have already paid their “dues to society”, and should therefore have their rights restored.

    BTW – it is legal in some places for someone who was charged with a felony and served time for said felony to have access to non “modern” firearms such as cap & ball revolvers, antiques etc…

    Open carry scares them for some odd reason, I mean anyone who just says they are a law abiding citizen could just as easily run up and punch someone else in the face, should we all be required to keep our hands in our coat pockets for all time, you know just in case?

  10. Ubu52 writes “there is no accountability with the group. They could be ex-felons parading their weapons in California. “

    This argument relies on a presumption that these people (open carriers) are the slimiest of society. If this is indeed true than the action at issue is already illegal.

    Interestingly though, ubu52 has provided no empirical evidence for this presumption and I can’t help but question its validity. It sounds like he would like people to give up rights based on unfounded fears of convicted felons openly carrying.

    Furthermore, convicted felons have a large incentive (jail time) to hide any weapons they have. By ubu52’s logic, we would let police question and search the general public regardless of probable cause because they “could be ex-felons” concealing weapons. As the Pre WWII Germans would say, “papers please”.

  11. Damned good one, Publius. You should write more.

    I likem this game;
    “I think there should be a license and a thorough background check to run for office. After all, anyone can run and for all we know, they could be anti-American communists or jihadis trying to weaken the country by stealth. There’s no accountability for this group.”

    “I think there should be a license and a thorough background check to have children. After all, anyone can reproduce and for all we know, they could be anti-American communists or jihadis (or worse yet; Christians, or Jews, or patriots, or white people, or black people, or brown people) trying to overrun the country by sheer numbers. There’s no accountability for these groups.”

    “I think there should be a license and a thorough background check to post comments on blogs. After all, anyone can join and for all we know, they could be anti-American communists or jihadis trying to mislead and weaken the country by stealth. There’s no accountability for this group.”

    Yup; license everything and put The Smart People (bureaucrats and their enforcers) in charge of everything. Only then can we blithering retards, we the masses, have any hope of being “safe”.

  12. “Ex-felons” should be “felons.” It was late.

    So, everyone here supports the idea of the New Black Panthers open carrying for the purpose of intimidation, right? Because, without new laws, that is completely legal.

  13. I’m pretty sure that intimidation with a weapon is illegal in most areas. If a NBP is leaglly allowed to carry a firearm and they are not openly intimidating people with it, I’m fine with it as long as I also can wear a firearm.

    MD, in the case you state, I’m pretty sure that keeping your hands in your pockets would be considered concealing a weapon. Better to just leave your hands at home, locked up in a safe for added security.

  14. I support “New Black Panthers” carrying in the manner of their choosing in defense of their own lives.

    “Because, without new laws, that is completely legal.”

    That’s a shameful attempt to argue from a blank slate. Threatening is against the law from sea to shining sea. However, if you have a particular place in mind, name it so we can check the applicable code. If there’s a particular case you have in mind–oh wait, never mind, that involved weapons other than guns so it didn’t happen.

  15. The issue at stake is not whether you were intimidated, but whether the intent of the demonstrators was to intimidate. Those are two entirely different things. For example, there might be a 275-lb guy, all muscle, with a perpetual scowl on his face sitting in the bus shelter waiting for the next bus. I’m a pretty small guy–minus the flab, I weigh about 125 lbs. So, I might be intimidated by him, and I might even be so uncomfortable that I decide to wait outside in the wind and take a different bus. But all he’s doing is sitting there, minding his own business, trying to get from point A to point B. It would be ludicrous to arrest him for that. Even if he was deliberately scowling for the sake of being intimidating, he could have just been fired, or broken up with his girlfirend or even have some sort of odd facial paralysis (this is why intent is so very difficult to prove in court).

    How does this relate to guns, you ask? There is a very fine line between carrying them as part of a political protest or carrying them in case of a self-defense need (both of which are legitimate) and carrying them to intimidate and harass (not legitimate). So, short of clear evidence of intent to intimidate or harass–which would have to constitute doing something very obvious, such as drawing the gun and waving it around or sticking it in people’s faces–we have to leave well enough alone and try to assume the best.

    Even a smaller action that seems quite threatening, such as handling the butt of the gun in the holster, could be explained away as adjusting it because the holster was starting to slip (legitimate–it can happen even with a proper gun belt). In such a case, if I were a LEO, I would go up to the guy, explain that it could be perceived as threatening, and ask him to do the adjusting in private. I would also keep an eye on things a bit more closely. But if that were all, there would be nothing actionable.

  16. Also, thanks guys, but what I really need is range time. As soon as I can rustle up the dinero, I’m there.

  17. Laws against intimidation don’t really exist.

    It’s illegal to intimidate witnesses and victims of crime. Stalking is illegal in some states.

    Otherwise, in most states, I can take my loaded long gun and walk around your car in a parking lot for hours. That’s not really stalking (if I don’t know you). Would it make it make you uncomfortable? Probably. Is it illegal? Probably not.

    Likewise, I can walk around outside the place you work in. I can be vaguely threatening. I might get arrested for loitering, but there is no law that prevents me from intimidating you.

    Why do you think people open carry? “Self defense” is the common answer but it really comes down to intimidation. They hope to intimidate the criminal and he won’t choose to make them a victim. If the gun were really for self defense, they would CCW it, knowing that surprise is a great asset.

    Anyway, I think the protesters of open carry should be doing other things that might be more productive. Protesting these small gatherings is really kind of dumb.

  18. “I can be vaguely threatening” – No you can’t, this could give a police officer probable cause to search.

    If a threat is credible, there is also probable cause for a restraining order.

    Many cops would perceive simply pacing in front of a building with a gun as threatening behavior and would subject such a person to questioning/ a search. (not sure how I feel about this one but in any event the law is probably already in your favor)

  19. “Why do you think people open carry?”

    There are several reasons: to let criminals know that you are an armed target (this has advantages and disadvantages–it can say “leave me alone”, but it can also say “ambush me from behind”); because it’s more comfortable than carrying concealed; because you consider it “dishonorable” to carry your weapons hidden (this isn’t as much a reason as it used to be). I’m sure there are others as well; for example, I would imagine that it could be difficult for some people, who are disabled for one reason or another, to conceal a weapon.

    And sometimes, a criminal who doesn’t choose his victim right will still get an element of surprise!

    At the very least, open carry is worth fighting for, so that you won’t be thrown into jail for accidentally exposing your gun–as you can be, in Texas. In some places, it’s the only option you have, and open-carrying is a way of saying “Look, I’m not a threat! I can be trusted to carry this concealed, too!”

  20. “Otherwise, in most states, I can take my loaded long gun and walk around your car in a parking lot for hours.”

    The law cannot account for the neurosis of every inhabitant of this country. I’m at a loss to even understand that scenario. Who is the victim of “intimidation”, the car?

  21. Why do you think people open carry? “Self defense” is the common answer but it really comes down to intimidation. They hope to intimidate the criminal and he won’t choose to make them a victim. If the gun were really for self defense, they would CCW it, knowing that surprise is a great asset.

    First, I reject your notion that open carriers are doing so to intimidate anyone – that word implies a malicious intent that is not present, and you have no evidence of.

    That said, you do understand that convincing the other party not to attack you is the first part of any self-defense system, right? In fact, it is very first step in most official entities’ “continuum of force” chain, and is typically coined “presence” – in that the presence of a uniformed, typically armed individual tends to dissuade all but the truly dedicated from engaging in unlawful activities against that entity’s facilities. Actually shooting a firearm is one of the last steps of a “continuum of force”, even for civilians. Sadly, I lack the funds to hire my own, dedicated armed guard, so “presenting a hard target” (another variation on “presence”) is the best first option available to me, and an armed and aware target tends to be one of the harder ones out there.

    The gun really is for self-defense when openly carried, and you just perfectly explained why. The strange thing is that you simply do not understand the words that you wrote down… how the hell does that work?

    In other news, this is simply not true:

    Laws against intimidation don’t really exist.

    I quote Tennessee State Code 39-17-308, section (a), subsections (1) and (4):

    (a) A person commits an offense who intentionally:

    (1) Threatens, by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication, including, but not limited to, text messaging, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail or Internet services, to take action known to be unlawful against any person and by this action knowingly annoys or alarms the recipient;

    (4) Communicates with another person by any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose:

    (A) (i) With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or

    (ii) In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and

    (B) As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.

    As always, and as has already been pointed out to you, intent is key.

    I further quote TSC 39-17-309, section (b) in its entirety:

    (b) A person commits the offense of intimidating others from exercising civil rights who:

    (1) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee;

    (2) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that other exercised any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee;

    (3) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee; or

    (4) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that other exercised any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee.

    Freedom of association, and the corresponding freedom to not associate with people you do not want to, is a civil right.

    And, just for good measure, I will throw in the short-and-sweet 33-2-402 section (1):

    (1) “Abuse” means the knowing infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish;

    Now, I chose Tennessee because that is where I live, and I have a vested interest in knowing the laws of my state. However, I feel quite comfortable in saying that it is extremely like that Kalifornistan has similar laws – so why do you feel it is necessary to misrepresent the situation?

    Protesting these small gatherings is really kind of dumb.

    You said that once before already, and your beliefs were just as irrelevant then as they are now. The fact is that these gatherings obviously have generated some publicity, and have raised some awareness, and thus can be constituted as successes, no matter how small. If that is how free men choose to spend their time, you can not-so-politely piss off.

  22. Linoge:

    “Stalking is illegal in some states.”

    Yes, it’s illegal in Tennessee. Thanks for agreeing with me.

  23. Yes, but a major part of the point we’re trying to make is this:

    Open carrying is not stalking.

    Stalking is not open carrying.

  24. “Yes, but is orbiting a parked car illegal in Tennessee?”

    I suspect Tennessee doesn’t have an “anti-orbiting” code or Linoge would have posted it. California doesn’t have an “anti-orbiting” code. I’d be amazed if Tennessee had tougher laws in this area.

  25. What I posted was more than sufficient to prove that you both do not know what you are talking about, and are completely incorrect. Your inability or unwillingness to understand what I wrote, when I used as short words as possible and quoted directly from the pertinent documents, is neither my problem nor my concern.

Comments are closed.