Uncategorized

DISCOVERIES OF AN ANTI-GUNNER: MY CONVERSION TO THE OTHER SIDE

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Discoveries Of An Anti-Gunner: My Conversion To The Other Side

by Robyn Sundoval

In 1651, Thomas Hobbes wrote that free people consent to give up their individual rights in order to establish a political community, i.e., civil society, which establishes laws so that everyone can enjoy security. Although simplistic, this theory supports the following arguments for gun control:

Private citizens should give up the right to own military-style weapons, so that a violent person cannot get one to use on innocent people. In our First World society, we have police, sheriffs, constables, SWAT teams, reservists, military, Special Forces, and a variety of teams that can respond to an emergency at a moment’s notice. If military weapons are needed, a cadre of weapons can arrive with expertly trained professionals.

Citizens who want guns should give up the right of privacy so that they can be vetted to keep guns out of the wrong hands. If you don’t have anything to hide, you should submit to a background check. The government can keep a registry so that if a gun is passed to a new owner it can be tracked so that it is not used unlawfully.

Gun owners should give up the right to buy large quantities of ammunition, so that a violent person cannot obtain thousands of rounds of ammo. Similarly, gun owners should use smaller magazines to limit the round count so that if someone uses a gun unlawfully there may be fewer fatalities.

Lastly, it doesn’t support Hobbes’ theory, but this argument often accompanies the previous ones: The NRA should be universally recognized as a heartless political engine that is funded by firearm manufacturers for profit and it mocks the deaths of innocent people.
I spent many years making these arguments in support of gun control. I cried out, “Enough is enough!” when another senseless murder happened because of a gun. I reviled politicians who were in the NRA’s pockets. I didn’t let my kids play with toy guns. I wanted to end America’s obsession with destruction and start a new generation of we’re-all-in-this-together, rational human beings.

Then I bought a gun.

After a 10-year conversation weighing the pros and cons, my husband and I bought a handgun. I was suddenly on the other side of the mountain and what I discovered was very surprising:

Surprise #1: Gun owners are some of the most family-friendly, kind-hearted people I’d ever met. They welcome newcomers and are willing and happy to teach anyone who wants to learn. It is common to find veterans, active military, and law enforcement men and women at the range. This isn’t solely because of the enjoyment for shooting itself; rather it is the culture of people who enjoy shooting sports. Many shooters grew up in 4H or scouting programs that emphasize good citizenship and working together for the common good, and they’re raising their children in the same values. From a young age children are taught gun safety, responsibility, and accountability, and family times at the shooting range or deer lease create lasting memories and traditions.
Surprise #2: On my very first trip to the range the first thing I had to do was watch a video that reviewed NRA’s safety guidelines. I discovered that lobbying is only one facet of the NRA. A primary role has always been marksmanship education and safety, but you wouldn’t know that if you’ve never been to a shooting range. At a range you’ll see that most firearms instructors have taken NRA classes to become certified and many shooting ranges offer NRA classes to new and advanced shooters. The NRA also has the Eddie Eagle program to teach gun safety to young children, and it hosts a variety of shooting competitions that can lead a youth shooter to college scholarships and Olympic dreams.
Surprise #3: It is socially unacceptable in the shooting community to use a firearm irresponsibly. Post a picture on social media of you at the range without ear protection? Prepare for ridicule. Share a picture of your child holding a toy cap-gun with her finger off the trigger? People will comment just as much about her trigger discipline as her cute smile. They hold each other to a higher standard of safety, so when a senseless tragedy happens gun owners are the first to yell, “Enough is enough!” They want to know why it happened, how it could have been prevented, and solutions to complicated problems. They continue to model responsible behavior with firearms and value safety and accountability.

Surprise #4: A “military-style” rifle is actually the same as any other rifle. They can look scary because you see them in war movies and video games, but the body style makes them lightweight and easy to hold and customize so that it fits your body correctly. Having a rifle that is the right size for you makes it more comfortable to shoot and therefore more accurate and safer. The rails look tactical, but that allows you to safely attach flashlights or other accessories. Once you learn about them, they are really not scary at all and are fun to shoot! By the way, automatic weapons are already illegal for (most) private citizens to own. You can’t make them extra-illegal.
Surprise #5: Although it is a big responsibility to have a firearm that scared me at first, I feel safer with it. I’ve seen cities be hit by natural disasters that become opportunities for crime, and I know that if we lose power or communications I can keep outsiders from looting our home. I watched mothers in a Nairobi mall beg gunmen for their children’s lives, and I feel safer knowing that we can find shelter and have a fighting chance. I’m not anything close to the female-equivalent of Jason Bourne, but I continue to take training classes and practice so that I model responsible behavior and can protect my family if the need arises.

We can see Thomas Hobbes’ social theory at work in our society because we frequently give up rights in order to have order and security. Some examples are speed limits, drinking ages, and showing ID before you can buy Sudafed. However, the first thing you must know about Hobbes’ theory is that it only works if everyone is on board.

Remember when I said that shooters are often veterans and law enforcement? They sacrifice their lives to protect the common good, but also recognize that not everyone is good. Many gun owners believe that using a gun to protect their loved ones is not only a constitutionally protected right but a moral obligation. I championed for gun control for a long time, but I found that once I became self-reliant for my personal security, the arguments no longer made sense. Here are the reasons why:

There is a saying that regardless of species the most dangerous place is between a mother and her young. If my family is threatened and I have the training and tools to protect my children, it is my right and duty to do so. If I have nonlethal options I will use them — and part of good training is knowing if I do. If I can call 911 and wait for help I may do so. The problem with relying on law enforcement is that they respond after you call them. If someone is assaulting you or breaking into your home, you’ll be toast before the cadre of professionals arrive.

More than anybody, the good guys want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. Many law-abiding gun owners understand the reasoning for background checks before buying a gun, and many have conceal/open carry licenses that require background checks plus fingerprinting. The problem is that 38 states submit less than 80% of their felony convictions to the database for background checks, so more than 7,000,000 felons aren’t in the system. This is another example of trying to make something extra-illegal: it is illegal for convicted felons to have guns, so we don’t need more laws about it. We need all of the names entered into the background check database, so that when they try to buy a gun they can be arrested for it.

While the background check database holds names of those who should not have guns, it makes gun owners very nervous when you talk about “registries” of good guys. It sounds like paranoia to anti-gun people, but this is an era of intense religious and racial tensions, with polarizing, far-left and far-right politicians. Gun owners do not want a list that could be used to identify them for the simple fact that guns are expensive and they don’t want anyone knowing what they have, in addition to a “gun round up” or any other dramatic possibilities. They feel safer being anonymous knowing they can personally protect their families in case of a widespread information or communication outage, terrorist attack, or natural disaster.

Also if the government intends to track every gun that passes hands it can only log the transactions of people who go to the office and file the paperwork. I’ve never seen a movie of a fugitive getting a duffle bag of passports and pistols that he takes to the state office to file. Similarly, I am carded to buy a box of Sudafed, but the bad guy doesn’t show ID when he steals a case of it for his meth lab. Laws like these are meaningless because only good guys adhere to them, and that creates a registry of good guys. That does nothing to keep guns (or large quantities of ammunition) away from criminals and crazy people.

Another example of going after the good guys is limiting magazine capacity. When I was anti-gun, this sounded pretty serious; however, now I know that it takes less than 2 seconds to change a magazine. It doesn’t slow anybody down, and more importantly, it doesn’t solve the problem of bad guys getting guns in the first place. Focus on the stuff that matters.

As for the NRA, when I wasn’t a gun owner I hated “them” passionately. I began to appreciate the training programs, publications, and other services, but dragged my feet on joining. The acceptance of the NRA was my final step into the gun culture. Now I support the NRA because it fights for *me*. I like the security (and enjoyment) that my gun gives me and I want to keep it. If you aren’t a gun owner you just won’t understand that.

If we truly lived in a Hobbes society where everyone was on board and accountable, then there would be no need for gun control. It seems easier to control guns than human behavior, just like it is easier to take all the markers away when your toddler writes on the wall. As a long-term strategy, however, we need to address the root of the problems: the irresponsible parent that didn’t keep it locked in a safe away from a child, or the gang member skirting background checks, or the teenager struggling with mental instability, or the domestic or international terrorist with a plan to get on the evening news. These behavior problems are much harder to address, but allocating resources to our law enforcement, criminal justice, and mental health systems is a good place to start.

We don’t need more laws to monitor what good guys are doing, or gun control laws that make things extra-illegal. We need we’re-all-in-this-together leaders to get to the root of these complex problems and develop rational policies so that all law-abiding Americans can enjoy the security of a civil society.

I used to wish that the government would get rid of all the guns and then everyone would be safe, but I discovered that the utopia in my mind was actually a society with no bad guys. It was never about guns at all.

SHE SHOWED RESTRAINT

Thursday, June 26, 2014

She Showed Restraint as He Smashed the Cash Register. But Everything Changed When He Pressed His Knife Against Her Chest.

A suspected robber found a female business owner alone in her store on Monday — but he soon found out she wasn’t defenseless.

A 47-year-old man entered Stan’s Heath Foods in Mayfair, Pennsylvania, at around 5 p.m. on Monday waving a knife and demanding the cash from the register, according to police. The suspect reportedly took the register and slammed it on the ground to get it open.

After he collected the money from the register, he then reportedly pressed his knife against the female store owner’s chest. It seems she was armed the entire time, but didn’t pull her firearm until she felt threatened.

The store owner, identified only as a 46-year-old woman, neutralized the suspect with one very accurate shot to the chest. The suspect was later pronounced dead.

“When police got here to transport him to the hospital, he still had a $100 clutched in his left hand,” Chief Inspector Scott Small told WPVI-TV.

The business owner was not physically injured during the incident.

2014 UTAH LEGISLATIVE BILLS TO WATCH — UPDATE 3

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

The Utah Legislature commenced its’ 2014 Legislative session on Monday. Below is a list of bills that may have an affect on you and your 2nd amendment rights. These will be updated and others added as the session progresses. Click on a title to taken to the related page on the Legislatures website.

—
H.B. 75S1 Restoration of Civil Rights for Nonviolent Felons.

BILL STATUS: Bill has passed both the House and Senate and is awaiting signature of the Governor.

This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.

51          (c) As used in this section, a conviction of a felony or adjudication of delinquency for
52      an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult does not include:
53          (i) a conviction or adjudication of delinquency for an offense pertaining to antitrust
54      violations, unfair trade practices, restraint of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the
55      regulation of business practices not involving theft or fraud; or
56          (ii) a conviction or adjudication of delinquency which, according to the law of the
57      jurisdiction in which it occurred, has been expunged, set aside, reduced to a misdemeanor by
58      court order, pardoned or regarding which the person’s civil rights have been restored unless the
59      pardon, reduction, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person
60      may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
61          (d) It is the burden of the defendant in a criminal case to provide evidence that a
62      conviction or adjudication of delinquency is subject to an exception provided in Subsection
63      (1)(c), after which it is the burden of the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
64      conviction or adjudication of delinquency is not subject to that exception.

—
H.B. 276 Disorderly Conduct Amendments

BILL STATUS: This bill has passed both the House and Senate but was modified on the Senate floor which requires it to pass in the house as modified.

This bill includes displaying a dangerous weapon under certain circumstances in the definition of disorderly conduct.

Suggested change to the code: (directly from the bill at the time of posting)

(3) The mere carrying or possession of a holstered or encased firearm, whether visible
44      or concealed, without additional behavior or circumstances that would cause a reasonable
45      person to believe the holstered or encased firearm was carried or possessed S. [ unlawfully or ] .S
45a      with
46      criminal intent, does not constitute a violation of this section. S. [ For purposes of this section, the
47      belief of a reasonable person may not be based on a mistake of law. ] .S Nothing in this Subsection
48      (3) may limit or prohibit a law enforcement officer from approaching or engaging any person in
49      a voluntary conversation.

—
H.B. 70 Forcible Entry Amendments

BILL STATUS: This bill has passed the House and in the third reading calendar for the Senate, just waiting final vote. It has not been modified since its introduction.

This bill modifies the Utah Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the use of forcible entry by law enforcement officers when conducting a search or making an arrest.

Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:

Amends existing law regarding the use of forcible entry by law enforcement officers to include searches;
Requires law enforcement officers to identify themselves before forcing entry into a building;
Amends existing law to allow law enforcement officers to force entry into a building without first issuing a demand or explanation if there is probable cause to believe that evidence will be easily or quickly destroyed;
Requires law enforcement officers to use the least amount of force necessary when executing forcible entry, as authorized;
Requires that any application for a warrant to forcibly enter a place of residence shall:
- explain why law enforcement officials cannot use less invasive or confrontational methods to effectuate the necessary search or arrest;
- explain why the search or arrest cannot be executed during the day, if it is to be executed at night, as defined; and
- describe investigative activities that have been or will be undertaken prior to executing the search or arrest to ensure that the correct building has been
- identified or explain why no investigative activities are needed; and
- clarifies that any information or property obtained in violation of these provisions is inadmissible in court.

‘YOU COULD NEVER ANTICIPATE THIS HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

What began as a simple traffic stop ended in a humiliating and nightmarish ordeal for a New Mexico man. It won’t come as a surprise to most people why the man has now filed a federal civil rights lawsuit over lack of narcotics.

The incident began on Jan. 2 as David Eckert was leaving the local Walmart in Deming, N.M. He reportedly failed to make a complete stop at a stop sign, prompting police to pull him over.

The officers asked him to step out of the vehicle and claim the man appeared to be clenching his buttocks, Eckert’s attorney, Shannon Kennedy, told TheBlaze. It is unclear why police removed him from the vehicle in the first place. However, because the cops believed he was clenching his buttocks, they took it as reason to suspect him of hiding narcotics in his anal cavity.

Police officers detained Eckert after a narcotics sniffing dog allegedly issued a “hit” on Eckert’s car seat. Meanwhile, they sought a search warrant for an anal cavity search.

“What is so strange about this case is they held him with no evidence,” Kennedy said. “They seized him to collect evidence, to go on a fishing expedition on someone’s body.”

Upon securing the warrant, Deming police officers took the man to an emergency room, but hit their first snag when a doctor refused to perform the anal cavity search because he believed it to be “unethical.”

So police tried again at the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City, N.M., where doctors agreed to the search.

KOB-TV outlined the disturbing series of events that occurred next, details confirmed by medical records and official documents provided to TheBlaze by Eckert’s attorney:

1. Eckert’s abdominal area was X-rayed; no narcotics were found.

2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

4. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

5. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

6. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

7. Doctors then X-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.

8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, rectum, colon and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

Kennedy told TheBlaze these are undisputed facts from medical records, not claims made by her client.

As he was being detained and probed, Kennedy said Eckert never gave doctors his consent to perform the procedures and protested his treatment, which all arose from the simple traffic violation.

The entire ordeal lasted for roughly 12 hours.

TheBlaze has reached out to the Deming Police Department. This story will be updated should the department respond.

“It’s a nightmare, its unfathomable. You could never anticipate this happening in the United States of America,” Kennedy said, adding that in 18 years of practicing civil rights law, “this may be the most egregious case I have ever seen with law enforcement abuse.”

Kennedy also said the search warrant — in which there were legal concerns anyway — was carried out illegally because it was only valid in Luna County, N.M. The anal cavity search and other procedures were performed at the Gila Regional Medical Center, in Grant County.

Further, she said the search warrant was only good through 10 p.m., but medical records show the preparation for the colonoscopy started at 1 a.m. the next morning. In theory, even if the search warrant were completely legal and compliant, it was no longer valid.

Eckert is suing the city of Deming and Deming police officers Bobby Orosco, Robert Chavez and officer Hernandez. He is also suing Hidalgo County deputies David Arredondo, Robert Rodriquez and Patrick Green; Deputy District Attorney Daniel Dougherty and the Gila Regional Medical Center, including Robert Wilcox, M.D. and Okay Odocha, M.D.

Take a look at Eckert’s official lawsuit and other related documents provided to TheBlaze:

THE FACEBOOK PHOTO THAT GOT A MOM BANNED FROM HER DAUGHTER’S SCHOOL

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

A Georgia mother and Army veteran is demanding an apology from her daughter’s school after she was reportedly banned from visiting the building because she posted a photo of her conceal weapons permit on Facebook, WRDW-TV reports.

Tanya Mount told the news station that she feels like a “criminal,” even though she’s done nothing wrong.

“I want to be heard,” she said. “I want a public apology.”

Mount claims she was given a note from Richmond County Board of Education police warning her of criminal trespassing. The notice reportedly banned the mother from visiting McBean Elementary School, where her disabled daughter goes to school.

When she asked what she had done wrong, she allegedly got the following response: “The principal is scared of you and she doesn’t want you on the grounds.”

“I ask, ‘for what?’ And he asks, ‘were you in the Army?’ And I said, ‘yes,’” the mother explained. “He’s like, ‘do you have a concealed weapons permit?’ I said, ‘yes.’”

Mount claims the entire ordeal was caused by her decision to post a picture of her new concealed weapons permit on her Facebook page. She says she has had no problems with the school principal, though their entire history is not known.

When WJBF-TV called McBean Elementary Principal Janina Dallas to confirm that the “no trespass” order was issued over the Facebook post, the principal reportedly said, “Yes, it was.”

“It is my duty and responsibility as the principal of this school to ensure the safety and security of all of our faculty, staff and students,” Dallas told WJBF-TV.

“I feel that this is some high school crap. He said she said. She should have contacted me instead of taking the legal route, which was uncalled for,” Mount said, referring to Dallas.

Mount has reportedly gotten permission to transfer her daughter to another school.

“I am a private person. However, after serving OUR country, it is my DUTY to make sure that our lives are not infringed upon. However, do it all within the confinements of the LAW, I am a law-abiding citizen,” Mount later posted on Facebook.

MAN TRIES CHECKING RIFLES, HANDGUNS AND AMMO AT JFK AIRPORT

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Police arrested 23-year-old Keenan Draughon at New York’s Kennedy International Airport Saturday morning after he tried to check two defaced rifles and two handguns.

Both rifles were missing their serial numbers and one had a round in the chamber. Police spokesman Joseph Pentangelo says the Tennessee man also tried to check two magazines capable of holding 15 rounds of 9-millimeter ammunition.

These magazines are illegal in New York.

Draughon was arrested trying to board a flight to Charlotte, N.C., after Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police found the weapons.

Police said the 23-year-old told a United Airlines attendant that he wanted to check two cases containing firearms for his flight to Charlotte, a spokesperson for the Queens County district attorney’s office said in a statement.

Draughon was carrying two 9-millimeter pistols and two .22-caliber rifles, the statement said.

Keenan’s father, Kevin, told the New York Times Saturday his son joined the Army when he was 19 and is an “avid hunter in Tennessee.”

Kevin Draughon said his 23-year-old son was in the New York area visiting relatives.

“We haven’t seen him since he had joined Army,” he said.

Draughon was charged with six counts of criminal possession of a weapon, according to authorities.

U.S. Transportation Security Administration rules allow only unloaded weapons in checked luggage.

The Times offers more detail on the reasoning behind the charges leveled at Draughon:

Transportation Security Administration rules state that passengers can transport firearms if they are unloaded and locked in a hard container. All firearms, firearm parts and ammunition must be checked. But under most circumstances, New York City law prohibits visitors from bringing firearms into the city even if they are legally licensed in the visitors’ home state.

This means that while weapons can sometimes be lawfully checked onto a flight destined for New York, gun owners can be arrested if they are caught with the weapons while visiting the city or at city airports when they try to check their weapons for outbound flights.

If convicted, the Tennessee man could face up to seven years in prison.

“Before leaving home, passengers should acquaint themselves with the weapon laws of the jurisdiction that they are visiting,” Richard A. Brown, the Queens district attorney, said in the statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

THE D.C. GUN RAID YOU WON’T BELIEVE

Thursday, October 24, 2013

When more than 30 police officers in full tactical gear descended upon the house of a successful Washington, D.C., businessman with no criminal record last summer, they were looking for “firearms and ammunition … gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts,” The Washington Times reported.

But what did police find after they shut down the streets for blocks around Mark Witaschek’s Georgetown home, broke down a bathroom door with a battering ram and pulled his 16-year-old son out of the shower naked, pointed guns at the heads of Witaschek and his girlfriend, handcuffed them and then “tossed the place” for two hours?

Very little, according to the Times’ Emily Miller:

“One live round of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition” — actually an inoperable shell that misfired during a hunt years earlier that Witaschek kept as a souvenir.
“One handgun holster” — perfectly legal.
“One expended round of .270 caliber ammunition” — a spent brass casing.
“One box of Knight bullets for reloading,” according to police notation on the warrant. Except, Miller reveals, they aren’t for reloading — they’re for antique-replica, single-shot, muzzle-loading rifles.

And after all that, in the wake of a raid which Witaschek estimates resulted in $10,000 damage to his house, he faces two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition, the Times reported.

D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail, the Times noted.

While Witaschek has never had a firearm in Washington, D.C., Miller wrote that he’s being “prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” The trial starts Nov. 4.

STARBUCKS NO GUN POLICY & WHY!

Friday, September 27, 2013

Recently Starbucks Coffee came out with a letter (see below) indicating that firearms are no longer welcome on their property. This has created a lot of controversy about open carry versus property rights.

Let’s first talk about the subject of open carry. I personally choose to concealed carry for tactical reasons. That does not mean that I never open carry but I consider my intended environment before doing so. Open carrying in a crowded environment does not necessary relate to a positive experience for everyone and may draw unwanted attention. I do however support your right to choose how you carry.

Let’s get to the point about people open carrying firearm, specifically long guns, in Starbucks. A recent trend has been to pose with AR-15’s and Ak47’s and post it on social media. They are doing with this for political reasons and to draw attention to themselves.

In my opinion, making a political statement in a non-political arena servers not real purpose and does not benefit the cause.

It was recently pointed out that Starbucks was found in 1971 in Seattle and from that time until 2013, they had no problems with people open carrying firearms. They didn’t have a problem with it until OC’ers made Starbucks a political forum and inundated stores nationwide armed to the teeth. This messed with their business. This thrust Starbucks, who did not wish to be part of the firearm debate, front and center on the subject ultimately interfering with their ability to due business.

Let’s address private property rights. First and foremost, lets be clear that you have no rights on private property. The Bill of Rights, was written to regulate government entities and nothing is law affords you rights beyond that. Starbucks is private property and with a few exceptions can do business or more specifically not do business with anyone they wish. Since the beginning they allowed anyone unabated to solicit their services. Their policies that was simply respect the laws of each state.

Starbucks recently changed their long standing policy because of our actions. We entered their property and created a situation that interfered with their ability to conduct business. Their new policy makes their wishes clear, however, the same policy state that their employees will take not action if it was to occur. I interpret this policy as a serious warning to please take them out of the debate.

After this policy was released, some took to social media to show how ignorant we can be. They claimed that Starbucks is tromping on their constitutional rights, they are totalitarians and other unsavory statements. As previously discussed, Starbucks is a private company on their property and can do as they wish.

What we really need to do is realize that our actions, while well intentioned, can have an adverse effect. Apologize to Starbucks and hope that this policy that really isn’t being enforced, will allow them the ability to fade back into the background.

What we can take from this is the knowledge that the 2nd amendment rights don’t trump any other rights. Many have fought and died for ALL these rights and one should never stand taller then any another. Just as important, we should also take the political debate to the political arena. It does not belong in the private sector.

Open carrying a firearm comes with responsibility and, at times, we forget about our primary reason for carrying. Protect ourselves and others. You can still accomplish this by carrying a pistol in a proper holster that completely covers the trigger. Many firearm enthusiasts do not consider a firearm to be safe unless the trigger is properly covered. Long guns do not afford this safety especially when being handled in the manner seen in these photos.

In the end, please consider your environment when deciding how to carry and always be an ambassador
to the overall cause.

Understandably not everyone may agree with my position. That’s OK and I welcome a conversation on the matter. Please feel free to contact me through our contact us page Also, please feel free to share this on social media. There more people talking about it the more of a consensus our community will have on the subject.

An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks Coffee Company

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

SUSPENDED STUDENT MAY BE EXPELLED FOR A TOY GUN

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

A suspended seventh-grade student in Virginia Beach, Va., could be expelled for the rest of the school year for shooting an airsoft gun with a friend in his yard as they waited for the bus to come.

Khalid Caraballo, 12, and his friend, Aidan, were suspended for “possession, handling and use of a firearm” because they “shot two other friends who were with them while playing” with the

airsoft guns, WAVY-TV reported.

Caraballo answered “no, sir,” when asked if he took the toy gun to the bus stop or to school.

“We were in our yard. This had nothing to do with school,” the student said.

Caraballo’s mother, Angel, said being punished for “possession, handling and use of a firearm” was “pretty harsh” for a toy that she bought for $25.

Tim Clark, Aidan’s father, told the news station that the school neglected to use common sense in the incident that occurred off school property.

“Has zero tolerance gone too far?”