Think it through

In a letter to the editor in The Columbus Dispatch Greg Ward whines:

Thursday’s Dispatch carried the news that state lawmakers have passed legislation allowing concealed-carry permit holders to carry guns in bars, restaurants and some stadiums, as well as making it easier for weapons to be carried in a vehicle.

As if that weren’t, in itself, troubling news to the police, restaurant owners and employees and other people with common sense, there appears to be far worse news on the horizon: A Republican legislator has introduced a bill that would eliminate the need for gun permits “and allow anyone who ‘qualifies for a permit’ — but doesn’t have one — to carry a concealed weapon.”

The wording begs the question: How will our law-enforcement officials know if a person “qualifies” to carry a gun unless that person has had to submit his qualifications to be judged?

It’s really very, very simple. But apparently Ward has the mindset of “Unless specifically allowed it is forbidden.” I thought this mindset went out the door with the collapse of the USSR but apparently there are still people stuck in the past.

The individual does not have to get permission from a LEO and being “judged” before being “allowed” to carry a concealed firearm. It is probably beyond the capacity of Ward to view things from the constitutionally mandated view of “innocent until proven guilty” and “that which is not prohibited is allowed” but I’ll explain it for him anyway.

Law enforcement cannot search people to see if they have a concealed weapon unless there is probable cause to search them or there are special circumstances that require a search for the safety of the officer. Hence the LEO will do the background check after having doing a legal search and finding a concealed weapon. At that time the individual will provide their identity and the LEO will do the background check.

There. That wasn’t so hard, was it? I’m betting Ward still won’t be able to grasp it. It’s an alien mindset for far too many people.


2 thoughts on “Think it through

  1. When legislation is proposed to allow guns in bars and restaurants, why to states act like this is the first time this has ever been proposed? There are cries of “blood in the streets” and “it will be like the old west.” Why do they not look to the states that have allowed this already, with no problems? There is no blood running from restaurant doors into the streets of Georgia.

  2. “Unless specifically allowed it is forbidden.”

    There’s a place where that approach to law is standard practice: North Korea. If he likes that idea so much, I’m sure arrangements can be made to send him there.

Comments are closed.