Recently the Lincoln Journal Star in an anonymous "editorial" stoked the fires of Concealed Carry again.
The Journal Star and countless others are acting as though Nebraska is the first State to enact such a law. They have their heads in the sand or are conveniently ignoring that this has been the norm in a majority of states for the last 20 to 100 years or more.
It begs the question
Since a majority of the 50 states have already been down this road and there has not ever been the shootouts over parking spaces or blood running in the streets the naysayers predicted, why is it the Journal Star Staff and others think Nebraska will be the exception?
They want my money but they consistently imply that because I own firearms I am, not to be trusted, irresponsible and a menace to society.
What is it that they seem to know about their fellow Cornhuskers that makes them think we are not as responsible and well meaning as the residents of the rest of the states that have had concealed carry laws for years? That is one reason I do not take a home subscription to the LJS.
A third choice
The LJS editorial points out two choices;
But suppose a gun-toter wants to shop in a store that sports the no-guns sign. If a crook can’t tell who’s packing, how can the shopkeeper tell if the citizen takes a gun in anyway? And if the citizen dutifully leaves his gun in his car, what a lucky break for a crook who has only to smash a window to add to his arsenal.
- Choice one - Disobey the sign and carry anyway.
- Choice two - Leave the firearm in the vehicle when entering a posted business.
What LJS fails to mention and should be considered by businesses worried about their bottom line is the third choice that a number of legal Concealed Carriers will opt for;
- Choice three - Refusal to patronize any business that posts a sign.
Choice three is the one I will avail myself of. It is a businesses right to permit whom they wish in their premises and I will repsect that. Respect is a two way street, if a business does not respect my decision to maintain the lawful ability to protect myself and my family I will not spend my money there.
Personally I think that if someone leaves their firearm in a vehicle because a business is posted and that persons firearm is stolen while they are patronizing that business then the owners/managers of that business should be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that firearm. In the least they should be able to be sued in civil court by the victims of crimes committed with a firearm that was stolen from their parking lot.
In its infinite wisdom the LJS points out;
The fact that most law-enforcement agencies have distanced themselves from the law should tell us something about its potential for danger.
Danger?? Show me the danger
Police administrations distance themselves from laws like this because it will effect their bottom line budget. Every year police administrations request additional funds to bolster their budgets under the pretense of protecting the public. For years police administrators have deluded the public into thinking they (the police department) are the sole responsibility for the citizens safety. The only danger is to their bottom line.
To many Sheeple in this country have been brainwashed into thinking that the Police are suppose to be at their beck and call for any little snit that they find themselves in.
News flash Sheeple;
Police agencies are under no legal obligation to protect you as an individual.
Police agencies exist to serve the public as a whole i.e. clearing traffic accidents, quelling riots or public disturbances, and investigating crimes.
Police Officers for the most part can not prevent crimes. Rarely are police officers at the scene of a crime before or as it is happening. For the most part they (through no fault of their own) show up after the fact.
Yes they will put out an all points for your SUV that was hijacked from your wife with your 18 month old baby in the back. Yes they will see that your daughter gets a rape kit and adequate medical attention when they find her bruised body in a back alley. Yes they will see that you get to the hospital when a couple of thugs rough you up and take your wallet because "you stayed at Tulley's Bar too long again".
The cold hard fact is when you need them most they won't be there. For those critical moments you are on your own, what you do may mean life or death.
Oh and if you can get a call through and they don't show up in your definition of a timely manner or your call slips through the cracks and they don't show at all?
Don't even think about suing them.
That has been tried before countless times in countless states and the result has always been the same;
Police Officers are under no legal obligation to protect citizens as individuals only society as a whole.
The only people the police are by law required to protect is those that they have a "special relationship" with. A 'special relationship" is generally held to be a person "in custody".
No an Order of Protection does not qualify as a "special relationship".
Call the local police department and tell them a person you have an order against just called you and said they are on their way over to kill you.
The response will generally be something to the effect of;
"We're sorry Mr/Mrs Citizen but we can't do anything until the person actually shows up at your residence. Call us back when he/she gets there."
Want to know how many 911 recordings there are where the caller was assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered on tape while the police were "in route"?
I have said it before and I will say it again, there is not one single Police Officer I know that won't put his or her life on the line to come to your aid. I know for a fact that they do it because it is in their heart and not their bank account. For what they do Peace Officers have an under paid and under appreciated lot in life.
The way it is
What the average citizen need to understand is that no matter how much police officers may want to be they can not be there when you are assaulted, robbed, raped or worse. They just have no way of knowing your in trouble until the incident is over and then all they can do is respond and help pick up the pieces. It is a fact of life, deal with it.
US v. Miller
One the commenter's to the "editorial" on-line referenced US v. Miller. Miller the most misunderstood actions ever taken by the US Supreme Court. It is touted as the "Miller Decision" and I can deduce that the commenter has never actually read it. In Miller the Supreme Court decided nothing. That's right zip, zilch, nada, nothing.
SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) remanded the case back to the lower court because it wasn't given notice that a "short-barreled shotgun was firearm in use by the Militia. By it's own writing if SCOTUS had been given notice that such a firearm was in use by the military they would have decided in Millers favor.
After it was remanded back to the lower court and before further action could be taken in his defense Miller died.
Those of you that so handily quote Miller in error should do yourselves the favor of reading it instead of relying on what somebody else tells them it means. Then at least you won't appear to be so ignorant when you open your mouth and remove all doubt.