For those of you who have been either paying attention to the news here in South Carolina or have been reading my blog, you know that South Carolina recently passed a law allowing Concealed Weapon Permit holders in SC to carry concealed in establishments that serve alcohol for consumption. I've made a couple of posts about why this is a good thing and why it won't be The End Of The World As We Know It as the liberals and gun-grabbers want you to think it would be, so I won't go into that again. Instead I want to talk about a topic that has been going on non-stop for the past week in social media that is directly related to the issue, and one that, in my humble opinion, is pretty much a non-issue.
Let's talk about signs. Specifically, the legal sign as stated by South Carolina law that a business owner must display if he/she wishes to proclaim their business a "no concealed carry" zone. (Also known as the "I don't want your business or money" sign.)
According to South Carolina law, a business owner who wants to tell you to take your money elsewhere by posting his/her business as a "no concealed carry" business must display a sign of a certain dimension and design, and the sign must be posted in a certain specific location in a certain specific manner. (And since I don't believe in helping those who would deny me my rights, I'm not going to mention the specifics here. You wanna know, Google it, but I ain't tellin' ya.) If a business owner complies with the law and posts the prescribed (or 'proper') sign in the prescribed or proper manner, then all CWP holders are required to comply with the business owner's wishes, and will henceforth go shop or eat somewhere else.
Note I said "prescribed" or "proper" sign. That, friends and neighbors, is the topic of the chat on social media; specifically, if a business posts a sign that isn't proper and/or fails to post it in the proper manner, are CWP holders legally required to honor it?
To be honest, I see both sides of the argument and fully understand both. On the one hand you have a very specific state law in place which describes in very specific terms the limitations put upon us as CWP holders, and we face stiff penalties for not following the law. So it's only fair to expect that those who oppose our exercising of our rights by posting their businesses as "no concealed carry" areas to comply with the law as stringently as we do. Therefore, according to South Carolina law, if a sign is not "proper" and posted in the "proper" manner, the sign has no binding legal authority and those of us with CWPs are free to shop and/or eat there to our heart's content.
On the other hand, you have a business owner who has made his/her desires and/or wishes very clear by posting a sign of some type, and I'm quite sure that if said owner discovers a CWP holder in the business with a concealed weapon, there's gonna be trouble. By posting a sign - not "the" sign, but "a" sign - the business owner has made his/her wishes and desires clear for all to see, whether we think they're legal or reasonable or not, and is expressing them as the law allows.
This, friends and neighbors, is a classic example of the letter of the law versus the intent of the law.
Let me give you an example that we can all identify with - speeding. The letter of the law says that you cannot drive faster than the posted speed limit of, say, 70 MPH, and any cop in the nation can legally pull you over and give you a ticket for doing 71 in a 70 MPH zone. (We're not going to discuss whether or not the judge would throw it out, so don't go there. That's another topic for another day.) But the intent of the law is for you to not go faster than the posted speed limit, and the cops give you a certain amount of speed over that before they'll pull you over and write you up because the faster you're going, the easier it is for them to prove in court that your intent was to speed. After all, you can defend two or three miles per hour over the limit, but you can't defend fifteen or twenty.
It's the same with the signs. The letter of the law is very clear and specific, but the bad part is that the intent of the CWP holder who ignores an improper sign is also very clear and easy to prove in court.
If I were a police officer and was dispatched to a business where you, as a CWP holder, have ignored a sign which the laws says isn't "proper," I'd arrest your ass. Period. And I say this as a veteran of 19 years of law enforcement. I'd arrest you for violating the law and would let the judge figure it out. After all, my job as a cop is to enforce the law, and the judge's job is to interpret it and administer punishment. So if I'm the cop, you're going to jail.
If I were the judge sitting on the bench and hearing this case, I'd toss it out in a second because the business failed to comply with the letter of the law by posting an improper sign. In order to be enforceable under South Carolina law, the sign must be of a certain design, of certain dimensions, and be posted in a certain location and manner; if you as a business holder failed to follow the law by posting the proper sign in the proper manner, then you've failed to follow the law and the CWP holder is under no legal obligation to obey said sign. Case dismissed.
Now, having said all that, let me say this: I would not want to be the CWP holder to test this theory out in court. Chances are 50-50 at best that you'll get a conservative Republican or Tea Party judge who will cite the letter of the law and toss the case out of court. But the chances are also 50-50 that you'll get a liberal Democrat gun-grabber for a judge who will cite the intent of the law and slap you with a hefty fine and suspend your CWP for five years. Then the whole thing goes to the Appellate court since the CWP holder will most likely appeal the decision, and from there who knows? We could be hearing about this going to the Supreme Court one day. But I, for one, would not want to be the CWP holder who brings this all about.
The simple solution is this: if there's a sign on the business, then just stay out. Take your money elsewhere. The business owner has made it clear to you that they don't want your money, so why give it to them? To stand on the letter of the law and prove a point? Really? You're going to PAY someone your hard-earned money just to prove a point? You're going to willingly give your money to a liberal gun-grabber who wants to take away your right to self-defense just to prove a minor point like this? REALLY?
Not me. There's more than one place in town to shop or eat, and I'll go there in a minute rather than pay someone to let me make a point and run the risk of losing my permit for five years.
But that's just me. Y'all do as you want.
But if you get your ass in a crack and lose your permit for five years, don't come cryin' to me. All I'm gonna do is look you in the eye and say, "I told ya so!"
IHC
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Saturday, February 22, 2014
The Truth about "Smart Gun" Technology
If you've been paying attention to the news lately, you no doubt have heard that the first so-called "smart gun" has gone on sale in California. (Did you really think it would appear anywhere else?) While this piece of news was prominent on the major news outlets for a day or so, I was very much surprised that the liberals and the gun-grabbers weren't all over this like white on rice, trumpeting the the arrival of the much-awaited "smart gun" technology that they all seem to think will transform our nation into The Land of Unicorns and Rainbows.
In case you didn't hear about it, here's the short version: a German company has produced and is marketing a .22cal automatic pistol that contains an electronic device which prevents it from firing unless a wristwatch that contains a transmitter set to the same frequency as the pistol is within three feet of it. Sounds good, right?
That's exactly what the liberals and the gun-grabbers want you to think. Of course, everyone knows that new technology is always expensive as hell, and this pistol/watch combo is certainly no exception to the rule. The pistol sells for $1,399.00, and the required wristwatch - sold separately, of course - sells for $399.00.
That's a whopping total of $1,798.00 for both. A new Glock .40 pistol sells for around $600, which means that this new "smart gun" in the smallest caliber available and the required wristwatch sells for three times as much as a regular pistol.
That fact is important; keep it in mind because I'm coming back to it shortly. But right now, let's talk about why this "smart gun" will fail, shall we?
First and foremost, it's too expensive. Even the most ardent gun enthusiast will balk at the staggering price tag of this pistol/watch combo, especially since it's only available in .22 caliber. And anyone who knows guns knows that the bigger the caliber the bigger the cost, so when this pistol finally becomes available in larger calibers it's a sure bet that the price will go up accordingly. If the current market prices of weapons is any indicator, if this "smart gun" is ever offered in .40 or .45 caliber, I would be that the price tag would top out at around $2,000.00 for the pair. And since this pistol/watch combo is too expensive for the average shooter to afford, they won't sell. And when a product doesn't sell, the company stops producing it. So it won't be long before it's gonna be "bye-bye, smart gun."
The next reason why this "smart gun" will fail is because it isn't as "safe" as some might have you think. Anyone who knows anything at all about electronic security systems will tell you that any system can be hacked; therefore, it won't be long before someone out there starts marketing a "master" security wristwatch that will enable the wearer to operate any "smart gun" in existence, thereby compromising the main selling point of the gun.
Next in line is convenience. Simply put, this pistol/watch combo isn't convenient. If you're going to buy this pistol as a "plinker" and intend to do nothing but shoot at tin cans with it, then you're all set - if you want to spend that much money on a "plinker," that is. If you're going to buy it for home defense, you better remember to find and put on your wristwatch in the dark at 2AM when someone breaks into your house before you can fire your pistol. Good luck with that, by the way, because adrenaline is gonna make that little task a bitch.
It also won't be long before the bad guys will learn what that wrist watch looks like, and when they see you wearing it they're gonna know that you're armed. And that kinda defeats the whole purpose of carrying concealed, doesn't it?
Now let's get back to what I said about the price and why that's important.
The liberals and gun-grabbers in this country have long had two major strategies to disarm the American people. The first strategy is to enact more and more gun control laws until they can finally achieve their supreme goal, that being the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. But anyone who has an ounce of common sense knows that any plan requires a back-up, and this is no exception. The back-up plan has always been that if they couldn't legislate guns out of existence, they'd price them out of existence. They'd jack up the price of guns and ammunition so high by means of taxes and legislation that it would be too expensive for Joe Citizen to purchase, and would thereby accomplish their goal. And the main subject of this plan to price guns out of existence is now and has always been - you guessed it - "smart gun" technology.
You'll never get any of them to admit this, but I firmly believe that there's not a liberal or a gun-grabber out there who truly believes in their hearts that "smart gun" technology will work and is the answer to the nation's gun violence problem. The one and only reason they tout this technology is that for all of the reasons I just listed, the price being the major one, "smart gun" technology is their best hope at achieving their goal of repealing the 2nd Amendment.
But like I said, you'll never get them to admit it. To do so would immediately kill the anti-gun agenda nationwide and with it, the political career of the person who admits it.
So now we get to sit back and see what happens next. I kinda think I already know how this is going to turn out, but I guess only time will tell. But it sure is gonna be interesting to see how many of those pricey "smart guns" have sold out there in the Land of Fruits and Nuts in a month or so, don't you think?
IHC
In case you didn't hear about it, here's the short version: a German company has produced and is marketing a .22cal automatic pistol that contains an electronic device which prevents it from firing unless a wristwatch that contains a transmitter set to the same frequency as the pistol is within three feet of it. Sounds good, right?
That's exactly what the liberals and the gun-grabbers want you to think. Of course, everyone knows that new technology is always expensive as hell, and this pistol/watch combo is certainly no exception to the rule. The pistol sells for $1,399.00, and the required wristwatch - sold separately, of course - sells for $399.00.
That's a whopping total of $1,798.00 for both. A new Glock .40 pistol sells for around $600, which means that this new "smart gun" in the smallest caliber available and the required wristwatch sells for three times as much as a regular pistol.
That fact is important; keep it in mind because I'm coming back to it shortly. But right now, let's talk about why this "smart gun" will fail, shall we?
First and foremost, it's too expensive. Even the most ardent gun enthusiast will balk at the staggering price tag of this pistol/watch combo, especially since it's only available in .22 caliber. And anyone who knows guns knows that the bigger the caliber the bigger the cost, so when this pistol finally becomes available in larger calibers it's a sure bet that the price will go up accordingly. If the current market prices of weapons is any indicator, if this "smart gun" is ever offered in .40 or .45 caliber, I would be that the price tag would top out at around $2,000.00 for the pair. And since this pistol/watch combo is too expensive for the average shooter to afford, they won't sell. And when a product doesn't sell, the company stops producing it. So it won't be long before it's gonna be "bye-bye, smart gun."
The next reason why this "smart gun" will fail is because it isn't as "safe" as some might have you think. Anyone who knows anything at all about electronic security systems will tell you that any system can be hacked; therefore, it won't be long before someone out there starts marketing a "master" security wristwatch that will enable the wearer to operate any "smart gun" in existence, thereby compromising the main selling point of the gun.
Next in line is convenience. Simply put, this pistol/watch combo isn't convenient. If you're going to buy this pistol as a "plinker" and intend to do nothing but shoot at tin cans with it, then you're all set - if you want to spend that much money on a "plinker," that is. If you're going to buy it for home defense, you better remember to find and put on your wristwatch in the dark at 2AM when someone breaks into your house before you can fire your pistol. Good luck with that, by the way, because adrenaline is gonna make that little task a bitch.
It also won't be long before the bad guys will learn what that wrist watch looks like, and when they see you wearing it they're gonna know that you're armed. And that kinda defeats the whole purpose of carrying concealed, doesn't it?
Now let's get back to what I said about the price and why that's important.
The liberals and gun-grabbers in this country have long had two major strategies to disarm the American people. The first strategy is to enact more and more gun control laws until they can finally achieve their supreme goal, that being the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. But anyone who has an ounce of common sense knows that any plan requires a back-up, and this is no exception. The back-up plan has always been that if they couldn't legislate guns out of existence, they'd price them out of existence. They'd jack up the price of guns and ammunition so high by means of taxes and legislation that it would be too expensive for Joe Citizen to purchase, and would thereby accomplish their goal. And the main subject of this plan to price guns out of existence is now and has always been - you guessed it - "smart gun" technology.
You'll never get any of them to admit this, but I firmly believe that there's not a liberal or a gun-grabber out there who truly believes in their hearts that "smart gun" technology will work and is the answer to the nation's gun violence problem. The one and only reason they tout this technology is that for all of the reasons I just listed, the price being the major one, "smart gun" technology is their best hope at achieving their goal of repealing the 2nd Amendment.
But like I said, you'll never get them to admit it. To do so would immediately kill the anti-gun agenda nationwide and with it, the political career of the person who admits it.
So now we get to sit back and see what happens next. I kinda think I already know how this is going to turn out, but I guess only time will tell. But it sure is gonna be interesting to see how many of those pricey "smart guns" have sold out there in the Land of Fruits and Nuts in a month or so, don't you think?
IHC
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
An Open Letter to the Bar and Restaurant Owners of South Carolina
Ladies and Gentlemen,
By now I'm sure you are all aware that Governor Nikki Hailey has signed into law a bill which, among other things, allows Concealed Weapons Permit holders in the State of South Carolina to carry concealed in establishments that serve alcohol for consumption. The liberal news media in South Carolina have all done a very good job of trying to portray this as something it is not, spouting out the usual predictions of "old west-style, drunken shootouts in the streets" as they do every time a law is passed in favor of and upholding our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I am quite confident that their dire predictions are unfounded, given that the same predictions were made in 1994 when Florida became the first state to pass a "must-issue" CWP law and not only did the shoot-outs in the streets not happen, violent crime in that state has actually dropped since the passage and enactment of the law - just as it has dropped in every state that has passed a similar law since, South Carolina included.
In the week before this law was signed I have heard through the same liberal news media that many of you intend to post your establishments as a "no concealed carry" area, and I attribute this directly to the misinformation being disseminated by said liberal news media. You are absolutely within your legal right to do so, as the law which Governor Hailey signed into effect today clearly states, and I can guarantee you that as a law-abiding citizen, I will respect your wishes and not bring my weapon into your establishment. Of course, this means that I won't be bringing either myself or my wallet into your establishment either, choosing instead to eat in an establishment that does not require me to give up my Constitutional right to protect my life and the life of my loved ones in order to eat there. But before this happens, I thought there were a few things about this new law and the people whom it affects that you should know.
First and foremost, there is already a law on the books which prohibits a CWP holder from consuming alcohol while they are carrying a concealed weapon. For this reason, you need not fear the "drunken shoot-outs in the streets" as the liberal news media has so direly predicted. After all, if we're going obey the law and go through the process of obtaining a license to legally carry a concealed weapon, don't you think we're also going to obey any and all laws which prohibit the consumption of alcohol while armed? And if we can't consume alcohol while carrying concealed, then what's the point in going into a bar to begin with, anyway? Unless I'm the Designated Driver for the group I'm with, I can't think of a single one.
Besides, it's not us you have to worry about, Mr. & Mrs. Restaurant/Bar Owner, it's the bad guys who are already carrying concealed in your establishment without a permit.
That's right, you already have people in your bar who carry weapons concealed while drinking, and you have them in your establishment every single day. These are the people you need to worry about, not the law-abiding CWP holders. So let's take a quick look at both groups of people, shall we?
What do you know about the average CWP holder in South Carolina? Here's what you can count on:
1. He/she is at least 21 years of age and has not been diagnosed with any medical or psychological conditions which would preclude them from carrying a concealed weapon.
2. He/she has been fingerprinted and had a criminal background investigation conducted, and that background investigation has shown no convictions on any felony offenses, and no convictions on misdemeanor offenses with the exception of traffic violations (NOT to include DUI).
3. He/she has attended a course of classroom instruction for a mimimum of 6 hours which covered firearm safety, proper use and handling, and South Carolina laws on firearms the use of deadly force.
4. He/she has demonstrated a proficiency in handling firearms on a firing range before a state certified firearms instructor.
In comparison, what do you know about the bad guy sitting in your bar with a 9mm illegally tucked into his waistband? The answer: NOTHING.
The plain and simple answer is that you have nothing to fear from us, the law-abiding citizen, and everything to fear from the bad guys of which you know nothing who are already sitting in your bar.
In reality, the thing that this law does for us, the law-abiding CWP holders, is that it prevents us from having to disarm just to take our loved ones out to eat. Most of the time my wife and I will plan our day out, going around town and doing the things that we want to do, and a part of that will be to stop somewhere and have either lunch or dinner. I, for one, am very uncomfortable leaving my firearm in my car when I go into a restaurant to eat, and I would prefer not to do so. I'm also uncomfortable leaving it at home, and if you need to know why then I suggest you watch the evening news tonight and see just how many stories are shown depicting some kind of violent act committed against an innocent, and you'll have your answer. And as for bars, well, personally I don't frequent bars much at all, but when I do I leave the pistol at home. But once again, if I'm out with the wife and she wants to go to a bar and have a drink, this law will allow me to NOT have to disarm and leave my pistol in the car in order to do so. And once again, because the very same law prohibits it, I'll be having a Coke while my wife has something stronger.
But here's the important thing the law does for us: it prevents us from becoming helpless victims in the parking lot outside of your bar or restaurant, which is where the robbery is more likely to happen. The reality of it is that robberies don't take place inside the crowded bar or restaurant; there's too many people around, too many to control, too many witnesses, so the bad guy won't do the deed inside. He'll wait outside in the parking lot and catch one or two of your customers out there in the dark while they're walking to their car.
THAT, Mr. Bar & Restaurant Owner, is what this law is designed to fight. We no longer have to become potential victims just to frequent your bar or restaurant. It's as simple as that.
As I said in the beginning of this letter, you absolutely have the right to post your establishment as a "no concealed weapons" area, and I absolutely will obey the law and respect your wishes by not bringing a weapon into your establishment. But as I said, that also means neither myself nor my wallet will be going into your establishment, either. And there are a whole lot of us out there who feel the same way. I don't mean this as a threat or some kind of financial blackmail; I mean it for just what it is - a statement of facts that run both ways. If it is your decision to run the risk of lost profits due to this decision, then the outcome is on you as well.
Ask yourself one question: who would you feel safer with, a room full of half-drunken thugs who are carrying weapons illegally and would use those weapons against you or the others around you for no good reason, or a room full of sober, law-abiding armed citizens that will not hesitate to use their arms in defense of themselves, you, and the others around them?
I sure know which one I'd feel safer walking into.
IHC
By now I'm sure you are all aware that Governor Nikki Hailey has signed into law a bill which, among other things, allows Concealed Weapons Permit holders in the State of South Carolina to carry concealed in establishments that serve alcohol for consumption. The liberal news media in South Carolina have all done a very good job of trying to portray this as something it is not, spouting out the usual predictions of "old west-style, drunken shootouts in the streets" as they do every time a law is passed in favor of and upholding our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I am quite confident that their dire predictions are unfounded, given that the same predictions were made in 1994 when Florida became the first state to pass a "must-issue" CWP law and not only did the shoot-outs in the streets not happen, violent crime in that state has actually dropped since the passage and enactment of the law - just as it has dropped in every state that has passed a similar law since, South Carolina included.
In the week before this law was signed I have heard through the same liberal news media that many of you intend to post your establishments as a "no concealed carry" area, and I attribute this directly to the misinformation being disseminated by said liberal news media. You are absolutely within your legal right to do so, as the law which Governor Hailey signed into effect today clearly states, and I can guarantee you that as a law-abiding citizen, I will respect your wishes and not bring my weapon into your establishment. Of course, this means that I won't be bringing either myself or my wallet into your establishment either, choosing instead to eat in an establishment that does not require me to give up my Constitutional right to protect my life and the life of my loved ones in order to eat there. But before this happens, I thought there were a few things about this new law and the people whom it affects that you should know.
First and foremost, there is already a law on the books which prohibits a CWP holder from consuming alcohol while they are carrying a concealed weapon. For this reason, you need not fear the "drunken shoot-outs in the streets" as the liberal news media has so direly predicted. After all, if we're going obey the law and go through the process of obtaining a license to legally carry a concealed weapon, don't you think we're also going to obey any and all laws which prohibit the consumption of alcohol while armed? And if we can't consume alcohol while carrying concealed, then what's the point in going into a bar to begin with, anyway? Unless I'm the Designated Driver for the group I'm with, I can't think of a single one.
Besides, it's not us you have to worry about, Mr. & Mrs. Restaurant/Bar Owner, it's the bad guys who are already carrying concealed in your establishment without a permit.
That's right, you already have people in your bar who carry weapons concealed while drinking, and you have them in your establishment every single day. These are the people you need to worry about, not the law-abiding CWP holders. So let's take a quick look at both groups of people, shall we?
What do you know about the average CWP holder in South Carolina? Here's what you can count on:
1. He/she is at least 21 years of age and has not been diagnosed with any medical or psychological conditions which would preclude them from carrying a concealed weapon.
2. He/she has been fingerprinted and had a criminal background investigation conducted, and that background investigation has shown no convictions on any felony offenses, and no convictions on misdemeanor offenses with the exception of traffic violations (NOT to include DUI).
3. He/she has attended a course of classroom instruction for a mimimum of 6 hours which covered firearm safety, proper use and handling, and South Carolina laws on firearms the use of deadly force.
4. He/she has demonstrated a proficiency in handling firearms on a firing range before a state certified firearms instructor.
In comparison, what do you know about the bad guy sitting in your bar with a 9mm illegally tucked into his waistband? The answer: NOTHING.
The plain and simple answer is that you have nothing to fear from us, the law-abiding citizen, and everything to fear from the bad guys of which you know nothing who are already sitting in your bar.
In reality, the thing that this law does for us, the law-abiding CWP holders, is that it prevents us from having to disarm just to take our loved ones out to eat. Most of the time my wife and I will plan our day out, going around town and doing the things that we want to do, and a part of that will be to stop somewhere and have either lunch or dinner. I, for one, am very uncomfortable leaving my firearm in my car when I go into a restaurant to eat, and I would prefer not to do so. I'm also uncomfortable leaving it at home, and if you need to know why then I suggest you watch the evening news tonight and see just how many stories are shown depicting some kind of violent act committed against an innocent, and you'll have your answer. And as for bars, well, personally I don't frequent bars much at all, but when I do I leave the pistol at home. But once again, if I'm out with the wife and she wants to go to a bar and have a drink, this law will allow me to NOT have to disarm and leave my pistol in the car in order to do so. And once again, because the very same law prohibits it, I'll be having a Coke while my wife has something stronger.
But here's the important thing the law does for us: it prevents us from becoming helpless victims in the parking lot outside of your bar or restaurant, which is where the robbery is more likely to happen. The reality of it is that robberies don't take place inside the crowded bar or restaurant; there's too many people around, too many to control, too many witnesses, so the bad guy won't do the deed inside. He'll wait outside in the parking lot and catch one or two of your customers out there in the dark while they're walking to their car.
THAT, Mr. Bar & Restaurant Owner, is what this law is designed to fight. We no longer have to become potential victims just to frequent your bar or restaurant. It's as simple as that.
As I said in the beginning of this letter, you absolutely have the right to post your establishment as a "no concealed weapons" area, and I absolutely will obey the law and respect your wishes by not bringing a weapon into your establishment. But as I said, that also means neither myself nor my wallet will be going into your establishment, either. And there are a whole lot of us out there who feel the same way. I don't mean this as a threat or some kind of financial blackmail; I mean it for just what it is - a statement of facts that run both ways. If it is your decision to run the risk of lost profits due to this decision, then the outcome is on you as well.
Ask yourself one question: who would you feel safer with, a room full of half-drunken thugs who are carrying weapons illegally and would use those weapons against you or the others around you for no good reason, or a room full of sober, law-abiding armed citizens that will not hesitate to use their arms in defense of themselves, you, and the others around them?
I sure know which one I'd feel safer walking into.
IHC
Saturday, February 8, 2014
South Carolina Bill S308 - The Liberals Miss The Point Again
At 10:30AM on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 South Carolina Governor Nikki Hailey will sign into law Bill S308 which modifies the training requirements to obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit, decreases the punishments for violation of the CWP law and, most importantly, gives CWP holders the legal right to carry concealed in an establishment that serves alcohol for consumption. Naturally, that last part comes with the requirement that the CWP holder not consume alcohol while doing so, and just as naturally, that's the part of the law the liberals and gun-grabbers are choosing to ignore.
The amount of mis-information and intentional dis-information being spread around about this law by the liberals and gun-grabbers just astounds me. The local newspaper for the Columbia area - and I refuse to name it and give the liberal, racist bastards the benefit of free publicity - ran a story last week which was, in my opinion, the biggest collection of half-truths, distortions, and dis-information I have ever seen. They featured three or four people giving their opinions in this article, one of which claimed to be both a bar owner and a CWP holder, and all of them said the same thing: CWP holders have no business taking a weapon into a bar and drinking.
And you know, they're 100% right. They're so right that the law actually prohibits it! Yes, that's right, friends and neighbors, the law that they're expending so much energy on bad-mouthing actually says the same thing they do, and prohibits CWP holders from consuming while carrying.
And if you can't drink while carrying, then what's the purpose of going into a bar in the first place? Guess the liberals never stopped to think about that, huh? Nah, that would only make them look like a bigger bunch of fools than they already are.
But of course, the liberals and gun-grabbers aren't going to acknowledge that part about the law prohibiting drinking while carrying. Nooooo, to do that would be to show the world that they really don't know what the hell they're talking about, and that their biggest fears of "old west-style shootouts in the streets" was nothing but the product of their over-active liberal imaginations and stood about as much chance of happening as that of a pig sprouting wings and flying away.
Anyone with a shred of common sense would realize that if the state of South Carolina decided that the citizens who applied for the license and completed the required training were mature and responsible enough to be granted permission to carry a concealed firearm, those same people were mature and responsible enough not to drink while doing so. One would think that would be a logical conclusion, but the liberals and gun-grabbers obviously think otherwise. They're all predicting drunken shootouts on the streets of Five Points, and just as the mass shoot-outs in Florida didn't materialize in the '90s when Florida enacted the first "must issue" law, the shootouts in the streets here won't happen either. No, the liberals refuse to realize that we CWP holders are mature, responsible adults who know right from wrong and who have proven by getting the permit in the first place that we intend to remain just what we are - law abiding citizens excercising our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Aside from that, it's also just good old fashioned common sense that tells you it's not a good idea to drink while armed. Like the old saying goes, and anyone who's ever taken a firearms training class anywhere in the United States has already heard this, "gunpowder and alcohol don't mix." We're smart enough and mature enough to realize this, and I think the liberals and gun-grabbers do us a great disservice by ignoring this point. But of course they don't care, so that's that.
But getting back to that article for just a moment, I think the stupidest thing I heard came from the guy who said he was both a bar owner and a CWP holder. He said that he was afraid a drunken patron would take the weapon away from the person carrying it and do some harm with it. While this may sound like a valid concern at first, upon closer examination it proves to be nothing but crap. After all, the whole point of carrying a concealed weapon is that no one knows you have it. And if no one knows you have it, how are they going to take it away from you? Yeah, a real genius, this liberal is, but it sounded good in the liberal rag newspaper so he's happy as hell with it.
Moron.
I guess the thing that still amazes and dumbfounds me is that after all this time, after all of the true and verifiable information that has been published by reputable sources such as the FBI and the DoJ, the liberals and gun-grabbers still want to disarm me and take away my right to defend my life and the lives of others in the name of keeping me safe. Well, excuse me for asking the obvious question, but if you disarm me in the face of danger, how is that keeping me safe? Ensuring that the bad guys are the only ones who have guns by disarming the rest of us is the most insane, illogical, irresponsible and downright stupid thing I think I've ever heard in my entire life. For the life of me I wish I knew what it was in the mind of the liberals that makes them think taking away my rights and disarming me will keep me "safe." I also wish I knew just what it was that makes them think that outlawing firearms will solve the gun violence problem, considering that the nation did that with meth, acid, LSD, cocaine, and a whole bunch of other drugs a long time ago, yet we still have a drug problem. If it didn't work with drugs, just what makes you think it will work with firearms? And we won't even talk about the whole Second Amendment thing...
So while Tuesday will be a day of sorrow for the liberals and gun-grabbers in South Carolina, for the rest of us with common sense and maturity it will be a day of celebration. On that day our maturity and responsibility will be formally recognized, and we will no longer have to sacrifice our right to self-defense and safety by having to disarm just to take our wives, husbands, or other loved ones out to dinner. Common sense in this area of concealed carry has finally come to South Carolina, and to the liberals and gun-grabbers out there I say only this:
EAT ME.
IHC
The amount of mis-information and intentional dis-information being spread around about this law by the liberals and gun-grabbers just astounds me. The local newspaper for the Columbia area - and I refuse to name it and give the liberal, racist bastards the benefit of free publicity - ran a story last week which was, in my opinion, the biggest collection of half-truths, distortions, and dis-information I have ever seen. They featured three or four people giving their opinions in this article, one of which claimed to be both a bar owner and a CWP holder, and all of them said the same thing: CWP holders have no business taking a weapon into a bar and drinking.
And you know, they're 100% right. They're so right that the law actually prohibits it! Yes, that's right, friends and neighbors, the law that they're expending so much energy on bad-mouthing actually says the same thing they do, and prohibits CWP holders from consuming while carrying.
And if you can't drink while carrying, then what's the purpose of going into a bar in the first place? Guess the liberals never stopped to think about that, huh? Nah, that would only make them look like a bigger bunch of fools than they already are.
But of course, the liberals and gun-grabbers aren't going to acknowledge that part about the law prohibiting drinking while carrying. Nooooo, to do that would be to show the world that they really don't know what the hell they're talking about, and that their biggest fears of "old west-style shootouts in the streets" was nothing but the product of their over-active liberal imaginations and stood about as much chance of happening as that of a pig sprouting wings and flying away.
Anyone with a shred of common sense would realize that if the state of South Carolina decided that the citizens who applied for the license and completed the required training were mature and responsible enough to be granted permission to carry a concealed firearm, those same people were mature and responsible enough not to drink while doing so. One would think that would be a logical conclusion, but the liberals and gun-grabbers obviously think otherwise. They're all predicting drunken shootouts on the streets of Five Points, and just as the mass shoot-outs in Florida didn't materialize in the '90s when Florida enacted the first "must issue" law, the shootouts in the streets here won't happen either. No, the liberals refuse to realize that we CWP holders are mature, responsible adults who know right from wrong and who have proven by getting the permit in the first place that we intend to remain just what we are - law abiding citizens excercising our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Aside from that, it's also just good old fashioned common sense that tells you it's not a good idea to drink while armed. Like the old saying goes, and anyone who's ever taken a firearms training class anywhere in the United States has already heard this, "gunpowder and alcohol don't mix." We're smart enough and mature enough to realize this, and I think the liberals and gun-grabbers do us a great disservice by ignoring this point. But of course they don't care, so that's that.
But getting back to that article for just a moment, I think the stupidest thing I heard came from the guy who said he was both a bar owner and a CWP holder. He said that he was afraid a drunken patron would take the weapon away from the person carrying it and do some harm with it. While this may sound like a valid concern at first, upon closer examination it proves to be nothing but crap. After all, the whole point of carrying a concealed weapon is that no one knows you have it. And if no one knows you have it, how are they going to take it away from you? Yeah, a real genius, this liberal is, but it sounded good in the liberal rag newspaper so he's happy as hell with it.
Moron.
I guess the thing that still amazes and dumbfounds me is that after all this time, after all of the true and verifiable information that has been published by reputable sources such as the FBI and the DoJ, the liberals and gun-grabbers still want to disarm me and take away my right to defend my life and the lives of others in the name of keeping me safe. Well, excuse me for asking the obvious question, but if you disarm me in the face of danger, how is that keeping me safe? Ensuring that the bad guys are the only ones who have guns by disarming the rest of us is the most insane, illogical, irresponsible and downright stupid thing I think I've ever heard in my entire life. For the life of me I wish I knew what it was in the mind of the liberals that makes them think taking away my rights and disarming me will keep me "safe." I also wish I knew just what it was that makes them think that outlawing firearms will solve the gun violence problem, considering that the nation did that with meth, acid, LSD, cocaine, and a whole bunch of other drugs a long time ago, yet we still have a drug problem. If it didn't work with drugs, just what makes you think it will work with firearms? And we won't even talk about the whole Second Amendment thing...
So while Tuesday will be a day of sorrow for the liberals and gun-grabbers in South Carolina, for the rest of us with common sense and maturity it will be a day of celebration. On that day our maturity and responsibility will be formally recognized, and we will no longer have to sacrifice our right to self-defense and safety by having to disarm just to take our wives, husbands, or other loved ones out to dinner. Common sense in this area of concealed carry has finally come to South Carolina, and to the liberals and gun-grabbers out there I say only this:
EAT ME.
IHC
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Lions and Turbans and Beards, Oh, My!
The latest thing to get all of the active and retired military folks - mostly the retired ones - I know on Facebook in a tizzy is the announcement this past week that the Secretary of Defense had ordered that members of the US Armed Forces would be allowed to wear religious headgear while in uniform and be allowed to grow full beards if their religion required it. The beard thing is something I kinda saw coming ever since the Fort Hood shooter - and I won't give him the enjoyment of mentioning his name here - refused to shave while in prison awaiting trial, citing his religion as the reason. That kinda let the wildcat out of the bag, and what didn't get a lot of publicity is that several religious organizations got involved and asked the simple question, "So why can't someone grow a beard for religious purposes?"
Apparently, the SecDef and the JCS couldn't come up with an answer that would fly. That's my guess, anyway.
So now the members of our Armed Forces can wear religious headgear and grow beards if their religion calls for it. While a great many people are decrying this as the beginning of the end of "good order and discipline" in the US Armed Forces, my opinion can best be summed up in two words: So what?
Once upon a time a very long time ago, growing beards in the US Armed Forces was widespread and readily accepted. If you take a look at any history books at pictures of soldiers in the War for Southern Independence, you'll see that a great many of them sported beards. Same way in the Spanish-American war, too. Around the turn of the 20th century the military put a stop to the practice for sanitary reasons with the exception of the US Navy, who still allowed sailors to grow beards for the simple reason that in the days before the fresh water condensor, sailors didn't have enough fresh water aboard ship to shower with every day much less waste on shaving. The Navy continued to allow its sailors to grow beards well into the 20th century until the Chief of Naval Operations, James D. Watkins, outlawed beards and goatees in 1984.
But now the beards are back, but for an entirely different reason. There are folks who are saying that it's the end of "good order and discipline" in the Armed Forces, but I kinda think they're over-reacting just a bit. If growing a beard was going to pose a health hazard to the troops as it did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then I'd say get yourself a razor and stand real close to it. But the truth is, with the living conditions of the troops both on land and on board ship being as good as they are, the reason of "sanitary and health concerns" won't hold water.
I have only two concerns about the beard issue, one of which I also have about the religious headgear thing. My first concern with beards is that wearing a full beard will absolutely prevent a gas mask from sealing like it's supposed to, which means that if the beard-wearing serviceman gets caught in a chemical/biological gas attack, he's going to die. Period. However, on the flip side, if I'm having this concern then I'm quite sure that someone in the Pentagon has already had that same thought, and I wouldn't be surprised if when the new regulation comes out it comes with a stipulation that all beards must be removed when a military member deploys to a combat zone. To me, that's only common sense - unless you want the bearded wonder to come back in a box.
The other concern, the one I share about the religious headgear too, is that people will take advantage of it and suddenly "get religion" so they can grow a beard. And don't even try to tell me that won't happen, because you and I both know that as surely as God made little green apples and the sun will rise tomorrow morning, it most certainly will. I just hope that the military powers that be come up with a game plan to handle this.
As for the headgear, I have no problem with that as long as the military member realizes that they're gonna have to wear a helmet when they're in a combat zone, something I also hope the military powers that be will address. Aside from that, I don't see how a soldier wearing a Sikh turban instead of a black beret is going to affect "good order and discipline" in the ranks. The people who think that this is the "end of the military" as THEY know it are either out of touch with what today's military is really like, or they're just so set in their ways that they refuse to see it any other way. I have full and absolute confidence that when the new regulations on the wear of religious headgear and beards comes out, it's going to come out with a shitpot load of restrictions and requirements that will keep both well under control. I can see the market for a MARPAT, ACU or ABU pattern turban opening up now!
Hey, that's not a bad idea! Wonder who I can contact to get that one rolling?
IHC
Apparently, the SecDef and the JCS couldn't come up with an answer that would fly. That's my guess, anyway.
So now the members of our Armed Forces can wear religious headgear and grow beards if their religion calls for it. While a great many people are decrying this as the beginning of the end of "good order and discipline" in the US Armed Forces, my opinion can best be summed up in two words: So what?
Once upon a time a very long time ago, growing beards in the US Armed Forces was widespread and readily accepted. If you take a look at any history books at pictures of soldiers in the War for Southern Independence, you'll see that a great many of them sported beards. Same way in the Spanish-American war, too. Around the turn of the 20th century the military put a stop to the practice for sanitary reasons with the exception of the US Navy, who still allowed sailors to grow beards for the simple reason that in the days before the fresh water condensor, sailors didn't have enough fresh water aboard ship to shower with every day much less waste on shaving. The Navy continued to allow its sailors to grow beards well into the 20th century until the Chief of Naval Operations, James D. Watkins, outlawed beards and goatees in 1984.
But now the beards are back, but for an entirely different reason. There are folks who are saying that it's the end of "good order and discipline" in the Armed Forces, but I kinda think they're over-reacting just a bit. If growing a beard was going to pose a health hazard to the troops as it did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then I'd say get yourself a razor and stand real close to it. But the truth is, with the living conditions of the troops both on land and on board ship being as good as they are, the reason of "sanitary and health concerns" won't hold water.
I have only two concerns about the beard issue, one of which I also have about the religious headgear thing. My first concern with beards is that wearing a full beard will absolutely prevent a gas mask from sealing like it's supposed to, which means that if the beard-wearing serviceman gets caught in a chemical/biological gas attack, he's going to die. Period. However, on the flip side, if I'm having this concern then I'm quite sure that someone in the Pentagon has already had that same thought, and I wouldn't be surprised if when the new regulation comes out it comes with a stipulation that all beards must be removed when a military member deploys to a combat zone. To me, that's only common sense - unless you want the bearded wonder to come back in a box.
The other concern, the one I share about the religious headgear too, is that people will take advantage of it and suddenly "get religion" so they can grow a beard. And don't even try to tell me that won't happen, because you and I both know that as surely as God made little green apples and the sun will rise tomorrow morning, it most certainly will. I just hope that the military powers that be come up with a game plan to handle this.
As for the headgear, I have no problem with that as long as the military member realizes that they're gonna have to wear a helmet when they're in a combat zone, something I also hope the military powers that be will address. Aside from that, I don't see how a soldier wearing a Sikh turban instead of a black beret is going to affect "good order and discipline" in the ranks. The people who think that this is the "end of the military" as THEY know it are either out of touch with what today's military is really like, or they're just so set in their ways that they refuse to see it any other way. I have full and absolute confidence that when the new regulations on the wear of religious headgear and beards comes out, it's going to come out with a shitpot load of restrictions and requirements that will keep both well under control. I can see the market for a MARPAT, ACU or ABU pattern turban opening up now!
Hey, that's not a bad idea! Wonder who I can contact to get that one rolling?
IHC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)