They Could Be Packing.

October 1, 2002 3:41 PM

They Could Be Packing. Or, Buddy's got a gun (sung to the Aeorosmith tune of almost the same name). Buddy Hackett, that is. Sorry for another news story link, but New York City's issuing fewer and fewer concealed carry permits, but more and more to celebs, including Steven Seagal, whom I thought wouldn't need one ....
posted by Jos Bleau (23 comments total)

NYC also demands that the holder of a pistol permit belong to a Gun Club/Range located within the city limits. A membership at a club/range costs on average about $500 per annum.
Buy a crossbow or a compound bow. Cheaper, scarier and just as effective.
posted by flatlander at 3:56 PM on October 1, 2002

What with the journalists covering Seagal's extortion and threats by some former 'business associates' < / fat tony> being hassled by the mob, I can rather see why he feels that he needs a gun.
posted by GriffX at 4:07 PM on October 1, 2002

flatlander: are crossbows even legal? if they are, it seems like they shouldn't be, for the reasons you mention.

personally, i'm grateful to live in a city were i can be reasonably confident that my fellow citizens are not packing heat. i remember visiting texas and noticing many of the stores had signs saying "no guns allowed." in the windows. just the fact that people apparently didn't assume that guns were not allowed in retail establishments was somewhat unnerving to me.

It would be great if we had the same kind of licencing system across the country that we have in New York. If you placed an affirmative duty on government to licence people, then you can bet that after a few incidents of licencing people that go out and kill their spouses, you will have very diligent background checks on people that want to carry guns.
posted by boltman at 4:53 PM on October 1, 2002

I'm in favor of concealed weapons. People in states with liberal conceal carry laws tend to be much more polite.
posted by small_ruminant at 5:01 PM on October 1, 2002

I'm beginning to think that the "concealed" part of concealed weapons is half the problem. Let's do away with concealable weapons, and anybody who wants to carry a firearm has to have a riot gun (maybe with a sling for easier carrying). They're scarier than crossbows or pistols, and if it's obvious to all and sundry that you're armed, the criminal element won't have to wonder whether to leave you alone -- they'll know.
posted by alumshubby at 5:04 PM on October 1, 2002

A few years ago here in the UK we decided to ban handguns because quite frankly we don't like people shooting up our schools. At the time the authorities were saying things like, it's really difficult to assess whether someone is stable enough to possess a handgun. I say there is an easy solution. All it requires is one additional question on the licence application. The question is "Would you like to own a handgun?". Now here is the clever bit. If the applicant answers "Yes" then they are clearly not stable enough to own a handgun. Like I said, easy
posted by cohiba at 5:06 PM on October 1, 2002

Boltman: The "No Guns Allowed" signs are of dubious legal merit. According to advocates of concealed carry, it is not legal to restrict someones right to carry in a public space. Gun control advocates disagree, of course.

Regarding the article: Who finds it surprising that when government approval is required to exercise one's right that this approval is granted preferentially to the wealthy and the well connected? This is why shall-issue carry laws are so popular (in certain circles). I recommend checking out the NRA's library of gun laws by state for fairly objective information on carry laws.
posted by stet at 5:26 PM on October 1, 2002

small_ruminant: I'm in favor of concealed weapons. People in states with liberal conceal carry laws tend to be much more polite.

Fascinating. I would love to see the statistics on this. I am also curious how they measure relative politeness. Is it based on some sort of national or international scale, or is it based on accepted politeness in area being studied. Also, wouldn't Texas kind of throw of the politeness/concealed gun possession curve?
_{I wonder if possessing a concealed handgun has made Buddy Hackett more polite.}
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:30 PM on October 1, 2002

stet: I believe the states that tend to place legal restrictions on the ability of private retailers to exclude people from their premises are the more liberal northeasten states, which are the same states that have tough gun control laws anyway. I would be shocked if a conservative property-rights obsessed state like Texas limited the rights of privately owned retailers to exclude anyone they damn well wanted to from their stores. (My property prof. calls this the "it's my land goddamnit" theory of property rights).

Of course, there are lots of federal laws like the Civil Rights Act and the ADA which prohibits private retailers from discrimination against certain types of people, but I'm quite sure that "gun-owner" is not a protected minority. (although that may change after another six years of Bush and Ashcroft)

(sorry fo the derail)
posted by boltman at 5:38 PM on October 1, 2002

I think that since the NRA insists that we interpret the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" in a strictly literal fashion, it should be applied in the same manner, i.e., the same guns that were in existence in 1789. Therefore, it should be legal to carry muzzleloaders.
posted by pmurray63 at 8:16 PM on October 1, 2002

i hear that Steven Seagal hits like a little girl.
posted by tolkhan at 8:26 PM on October 1, 2002

So would Buddy be carrying the gun in his hand, or in his ass?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:35 PM on October 1, 2002

Steven Seagal has a few really good reasons to carry a gun.
posted by Schnauzer at 10:13 PM on October 1, 2002

...after Mr. Seagal became a Buddhist and refused to perform in films depicting violence.

I *knew* that guy behind the counter at Burger King looked familiar.
posted by swell at 10:16 PM on October 1, 2002

Happy to live in Arizona, a shall-issue state. It's interesting to know that anybody around you could have a gun on them... or everybody could. It's also interesting to know that the people who have those guns legally are not felons, not under indictment for anything, not in need of psychiatric care, not involved in a domestic dispute, not addicted to drugs and have been through the class. Background checks are run, and any lying on the application is subject to a felony charge. Not a fool proof system, but for every person who doesn't get their gun legally, there are a hell of a lot more people who did. It's a nice deterrent.

So, yeah. I've got my CCW, I know people who have theirs. I almost never carry, but it's nice to know that I have that card. If I get pulled over, the first thing I'd show them is that card and my license. It lets them know I'm one of the good guys. And, it protects me from a lot of vague gun laws, like the ones that don't let me have a gun within 1000 feet of a school... like, even on a highway that goes near a school. I don't have to worry about inadvertantly committing a felony.

Finally, it's just one more reason to avoid committing any felonies. Commit one, and I never get to have my card again. That's all... it works for me.
posted by askheaves at 10:52 PM on October 1, 2002

When the bill of rights was drafted, no one said, "hey, the term 'inalienable' only applies to certain rights." they are ALL that way.
If you don't want a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon, then you must not mind giving up your right to free speech, do ya? Or perhaps protection from unlawful search and seizure?
The phrase, "Please don't hurt me, I'm not armed" hardly strikes fear into the hearts of criminals.

Check this post from the 29th of september about the 2nd amendment:
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

If you can't stomach ALL the freedoms this county allows us, get the heck out!!!! there are plenty of other places to go!
posted by sarguy at 2:44 AM on October 2, 2002

Yeah, it's comforting to know that all those criminals in NYC don't carry handguns, because it's illegal.
posted by Beholder at 5:04 AM on October 2, 2002

Visualize a world where the rich and powerful control all the guns. Now, class, what's our position on the Second Amendment, again?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:10 AM on October 2, 2002

What I find so strange about those in favor of concealed carry laws is the assumption that there are "good guys" and "bad guys" out there. The problem is not that people that carry concealed weapons are possibly "evil" but that many likely lack good judgment.

What happens when a bar brawl breaks out in a state where everyone carries concealed weapons? 20 drunk guys packing heat and really pissed off dosen't strike me as a particularly good idea. What happens when people that are generally good people, but also happen to be totally paranoid carry concealed weapons. How about people that have really bad tempers? Or people that simply cannot abide criminals, and will shoot anyone that commits a crime against them, no matter how petty or non-life threatening?

Also, I'm so tired of these 2nd amendment arguments. It's currently the law in this country that the second amendment does not refer to an individual right but a collective right of states to have militias, which is now obsolete with the rise of the national guard. You can argue until you're blue in the face that the founding fathers intended an individual right, but that doesn't change the fact that no court outside the wacky fifth circuit is going to take your arguments seriously. Society changes, the constitution has changed with it.
posted by boltman at 6:25 AM on October 2, 2002

Society changes, the constitution has changed with it.

Well, no, the Constitution says the same thing it said in 1789. That's the root of the issue, actually. If they amendeded the Constitution to clarify this issue, there could be no debate. Well, no debate after the amendment was passed, anyway.
posted by kindall at 8:29 AM on October 2, 2002

I was told by one of my gun-toting acquaintances here in Austin that the "no guns allowed" signs in businesses aren't really legally binding unless they're an establishment that's licensed to serve liquor.

The saying "an armed society is a polite society" has always been depressing and sort of creepy to me. If people are polite to you because you may be armed, it's not because of goodwill or common decency, it's because of fear. This is how animals live. One would hope that we've moved at least a little beyond this.
posted by picea at 8:41 AM on October 2, 2002

sorry kindall, I meant to say that our interpretation of the constitution has changed with it, which was exactly what the founding fathers intended.

Interestingly, there were early drafts of the 2nd amendment were the individual rights interpretation was a bit clearer, but those were rejected by the Senate. We don't know why because the Senate debated in private back then, but it stands to reason that the Senate actually wanted a rather vague amendment that could be flexibly interpreted by future generations.
posted by boltman at 1:55 PM on October 2, 2002

I don't get where one interpretation of the 2nd amendment is any more valid than mine, or anyone else's for that matter.
It seems glaringly clear that a pro gun concept of good judgement and an anti gun concept will differ on at least a few points. I don't foresee that changing any time soon.

Since the 2nd amendment argument is tiring, then lets say that the gun I carry is how I choose to express myself( 1st amendment, right?). I am guaranteed freedom of expression. I am also guaranteed the chance at the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. My gun is part of that life, and will be used to defend that life if need be. Deal with it.

Once again, if a person doesn't like the presence of guns in their country, there are other countries that are attempting to be without them. move there and free up the space here for a person who appreciates all liberties and rights.



That would be my "flexible" interpretation of this matter.
posted by sarguy at 12:53 AM on October 4, 2002