Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
But you seem to have missed my main point. Why would someone, absent protest, need to take a gun into a municiple building? There is no reason. Thus the policy (put in place before anybody got the idea to protest, and almost certainly without thinking that anyone would care) was a good one: someone coming into a municiple building with a gun is suspicious. The reg just allows the poor government worker a little cover so that s/he doesn't have to decide if the person looks menacing/deranged.
Why have you decided this should be a state level issue? Why not local? Why not Federal? Why shouldn't the good people of Falls Church (and despite the shameful circumstances of the city's founding, they are good people) be able to decide the level of gun control within their own community? Why should the people of Roanoke and Richmond be able to force their views and values on Falls Church, merely because 350 years ago someone in England thought the Potomac river looked like a good place to divide up the territories controlled by two different Crown functionaries?
|
I'll address two points, one "need" or utility of guns, and the other "local control.
The first is what is commonly missed when people argue against concealed carry. The need is exactly the same need that exists on the streets, the alleys and the parks of a community. The need is that criminals can and will obtain guns in our community, and will not hesitate to use them. The police are often slow to respond. Ironically, Atticus' exact scenario highlights this.
So when a criminal goes into a municipal building and starts shooting, why shouldn't the citizens be able to shoot back?
Our fundamental disagreement probably revolves around this definition of "need". You might argue that no such "need" exists in some cases (whereas, in airplanes, I'd tend to agree that a "need" to ban guns exists because a likely result is catastrophic if a firearm is discharged). Unfortunately, the constitution and the legislature of the great state of Virginia have spoken on behalf of the people, and at the least they have not indicated that there is no need.
Don't get me wrong. I see these scenarios as at least improbable or rare. In the greater context of things, I think the "open" unpermitted carry laws are likely to get dumped in favor of permitted concealed carry laws. At least, to me, that seems like a great and reasonable compromise.
As to the second issue, I won't presume to guess where you stand on issues like gay marriage and abortion, but how in the world is a right expressly provided in the Constitution "local", when the Supreme Court has federalized rights that they made up out of thin air? Personally, I think a "permitting" process should carry across state lines, and even be organized (though not necessarily implemented) at the federal level so that people who are permitted can bring their guns with them when they move or travel (but not into airplane cabins).
The thing is, if every suburb gets to set its own rules, the results become absurd. In Falls Church its okay to have a pistol in your trunk, but in Alexandria its not? The right is effectively denied if the rule is local.
But hey, like I said, I'm not a gun owner and there are some scenarios that would throw me for a loop. Implement a concealed-carry law (with permits) and make it so that anybody noticed with a gun (i.e., not so well-concealed) can be subject to proof of permit.
The humor I'm seeing in all of this is that Falls Church would probably not have to confront this issue if they had just instructed their employees to use their own judgement etc. etc. etc., the same way the rest of the citizens of the state presumably use theirs. As a reverse-analogy, even though I favor drug legalization (or lots of executions), I don't want my town instructing its police not to enforce laws against drug users or drug dealers.
But I like this talk of "local" control you bring up. Care to continue?
