Tuesday, December 20, 2016

S.88 - A Firearm Liberty Bill? Think Twice South Carolina! © 2016 Phillip Evans

South Carolina State Senator Daniel B. Verdin, DanielVerdin@scsenate.org has pre-filed S.88, a bill to allow holders of an "Institutional Concealed Weapons Permit" to carry in schools, daycare facilities, churches, hospitals, doctor's offices. The new permit name is just a fancy way of saying it's an enhanced or extra special permit.

I just now, at 3:43PM, Dec 20th, sent the following email to the bill's sponsor. Items in brackets below were added by me after sending the email, as well as any bolding and italics:

Dear Senator Verdin,

I'm an active gun-rights advocate and blogger. Your S.88 bill at first glance seems to do some good things. But the cost is too high. More training, more often [every single year], etc.


Really, does the Second Amendment actually mandate training in order for free citizens to exercise their right to protect themselves and their loved ones? Does it present a list of off-limits locations longer than your arm? [I hope the Senator realizes that the answer to both is a resounding "No!"]

The pitfall with this bill [other than the extra required training], is that it does not address the other various public places a permit holder would still receive a FELONY charge for carrying in, such as public libraries, public museums, public park buildings, etc. 

People with the ENHANCED permit will believe they can surely carry in a library if they can carry in a school. WRONG! [Does the Senator understand the potential trap here for SC citizens?]

Yes, per SECTION 16-23-420 of the SC Code, ALL public buildings are off-limits except for rest stops.[To repeat - it is a felony charge even when licensed to carry]

S.88 does not address public libraries, public museums, public park buildings, etc.

WHY should South Carolina citizens and other lawful carriers visiting there be subject to ANY of this?

South Carolina has the worst gun-rights laws [I should have just said, "gun laws", but rights were on my brain] in the South. No open carry, no "public building" carry, mandated training.

Just when I thought 2017 would be the year for restoring rights in South Carolina, more GOVERNMENT CONTROLS!

How about an HONEST bill that restores our liberty? With Republicans in charge of the SC Legislature and the Governor's office, you'd think it wouldn't be this difficult.

Are there ANY true patriots left in the SC Legislature that will fix this mess? If so, I surely hope they'll let their voices ring loud and clear for the people once the session starts - and present a bill that truly restores the rights of THE PEOPLE.

Senator, this email to you will be presented on the Internet in a new article I will soon publish.

Please see my prior article on gun rights in SC at: http://pursuitofpatriotism.blogspot.com/2016/11/south-carolina-restoring-gun-rights-in.html

Best Regards,

Phil

Phillip Evans

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call and write Senator Verdin to let him know your concerns with this bill, and to ask for a straightforward bill that will restore the freedoms that Democrats robbed us of in past years.

The backward, racist-based Democrat gun-control laws in South Carolina need to be repealed, and NOW isn't too soon! Don't you wish Republicans would stop acting like they're just Democrat-lite?

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Florida Open Carry Bill For 2017 - Get It Done! © 2016 Phillip Evans

As of the time I'm writing this: Dec 13th, 2016, there is a pre-filed bill in the Senate of the Florida State Legislature, SB 140, which decriminalizes the open carry of pistols and also decriminalizes carrying a pistol into some places which are now off-limits - but only for those who are licensed to carry

You know, those folks* that are statistically proven to be six times more law-abiding than law-enforcement officers. In case it's not clear, these folks are "regular" or "mere" citizens (take your pick) who took the trouble to become licensed to carry a handgun in Florida.

Criminals don't get this pass. They'll have to continue to carry unlawfully. And if you believe they'll carry openly when this bill becomes law, I'll give you a huge discount on some swamp property!

The bill, SB 140, is sponsored by Sen. Greg Steube-R of Sarasota. He introduced a similar bill last year when he was a state representative.


Jackbarb posted the following comment at the Sun Sentinel: "Other than the intimidation faction, why would you want to open carry?"

Well, it depends on who is being intimidated. Since most criminals are opportunistic and don't want to work hard for their income, they look for easy prey... Someone that at least APPEARS to be un-armed. A person carrying a holstered pistol in plain view doesn't fit this description of easy prey. 

THAT's an intimidation factor right there. And a good one at that! 

Frankly, I want this type of criminal to know that others are better choices for them to assault. Criminals are stupid but not THAT stupid. They know where they can find people that won't shoot them, even if they slip up once in a while and miscalculate.

Yes, I suppose a crazed thug might intentionally target me because he sees that I am armed, but those criminals are rare compared to the common ones. I accept this small risk, because I have some ways to deal with even that kind of animal. However, nothing in life is perfect, even for those that conceal. Fumbling while drawing from a cover garment can cost you a precious second that could be fatal.

But, but, what about all those timid soccer moms that will grab their kids and flee the area if a, <GASP!> NON-badged person walks by wearing a g-g-gun all out in the open?

Frankly, as a frequent carrier of a visible pistol in public carried with nary a stitch of clothing over it, this has not been my experience. Even in crowded places such as Stone Mountain Park in Georgia, Atlanta city parks during crowded festivals, and other places I carry at in public.

Most people seem to not notice, and if they do, don't seem to care. 

And those that might care don't do anything about it, such as leave or at least call the police to report a lawful activity (at least legal in about 45 states). Those that might point and whisper in a restaurant (when they think I don't notice) still stay put and finish their meal, with no visible trembling I might add. And good for them. It's okay to be curious. So much for intimidating them - which by the way, I'm NOT trying to do.

In addition to crime deterrence, I carry a firearm openly in order to help educate people. 

I've had at least a handful of folks ask me how they can get their license to carry. I gladly give them the info and answer any questions on the law they ask if I happen to know the answer.

Children have come up to me to ask if I'm a police officer, although I wear nothing that resembles a uniform. I happily inoculate them against the lie that only cops and bad guys carry guns in public. So I guess you could say, I do it for the children. :-)

And, carrying openly is just plain physically comfortable.

It's nice in the Georgia heat and humidity to not have to wear a cover garment or stretch a t-shirt over a bulky holster and gun (which would look odd). 

Finally, an honorable right such as being armed for one's safety and that of one's friends and family is something that feels nice to exercise in public. 

It feels like freedom.

Call, write, and email your Representatives and Senators to let them know you support this bill! And ask your friends and family to do the same. Spread it on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media.

* When a campus carry bill was debated last year in the Florida Legislature, Representative Greg Steube pointed out that data shows that overall, adults with a license to carry are six times less likely to commit crime than police officers.

Friday, December 2, 2016

Hoplophobes - Any Hope For Them? © 2016 Phillip Evans

Hoplophobes (those who fear weapons) do have that projection thing down pretty well. 

Many of them truly believe that a mere citizen carrier of a firearm is a hair away from snapping and blowing everyone away in sight.

I'm not kidding. Some anti-gunners have actually admitted they are glad they don't carry a gun themselves for fear that they might use it to shoot someone in a fit of anger one day.
You know, like when THEY snap.

This emotional irrationality totally justifies their bigotry against those who carry a firearm for
self-protection. All the while in their minds they know they are hypocrites for hoping they never have to face an armed attacker while unarmed.

The Nitty-Gritty



It's easy for them to be lofty and idealistic when violence is a hypothetical discussion. Let it get real, such as when their life is suddenly threatened by an armed rapist or robber, then they wish they had a gun in their hand.

This has been proven over and over when new gun carriers confess that in the past they had been against owning or carrying a gun, but after surviving a frightening experience as a crime victim, they determined it would never happen again.

Criminals Would Behave Without Guns

The hoplophobe's view is the "reasonable one" (especially when backed up with "statistics"), hence they view with suspicion (and hatred and fear) anyone with the polar opposite view - that any free, sane, adult citizen should have the right to fight back with their own firearm.

This imagined high ground is something they can stand on while puffing out their chest to prove their "bravery" of deliberately going about in public unarmed, while whistling in the dark and hoping that someone other than them becomes a victim of crime if they ever have to pass through a "rough area of the neighborhood".

They believe if they can get the government to disarm the people at gun-point (government guns are good in their eyes), "gun crime" will disappear and they won't have to pretend anymore. They can stop their whistling in the dark - because there will then be no more assaults, rapes, robberies, or murders.


Without guns, criminals wouldn't resort to knives, clubs, swords, bats, fists, feet, ganging up on victims using superior numbers, or use crude guns that can easily be made at home. Riiiight.


Those who believe criminals couldn't still obtain modern guns even after mass confiscation are living in la-la land. And, the criminal underworld that would thrive in a society of helpless citizens would be enormous. There wouldn't be near enough tax dollars to hire enough police to try and protect us all.

A Grownup Is An Adult - Not Necessarily The Other Way Around

A firearm is a powerful tool that requires a mature person to handle responsibly. Since irrational fear is a sign of immaturity, hoplophobes naturally don't trust themselves to touch one. They justify their fear by demonizing firearms, and by association anyone that carries one, unless of course that person happens to have some type of government issued badge.

Childish Disconnect Ahead 

How ironic that when it comes to carrying guns, the police are revered as the only ones special enough to carry them, but the same leftists that assign such trust on the one hand demonize the police on the other, especially when police find themselves in a situation where they feel they had to use their firearm in defense of themselves or others.

To be fair, not all hoplophobes are leftists. Those that aren't are probably among the ones we have the best hope of convincing with a little education, that even deadly weapons can safely be used by ordinary citizens as effective tools to preserve innocent lives from the predators that would take them. 

Sometimes It's Downright Good To Be Dangerous

When someone dangerous is trying to harm you, you had better want to be as dangerous as you need to be in order to save your life and those of your loved ones. That may be your only chance.

We Didn't Think It Could Happen Here! Well, Duh!

When violent crime happens in a place where it is not expected, hoplophobes are utterly shocked, but quickly calm down after the perpetrator is captured or killed, as if there isn't another one out there ready to strike at another unexpected time and place.

We always hear on TV or read in the paper where someone in their neighborhood states, "We never thought anything like this could happen here - this is a safe neighborhood!"

That very fact is comforting to them later on when the shock wears off. It confirms in their mind that since crime is not always happening everywhere all the time, that its relative rarity is proof that no one seriously needs to carry a gun everywhere they go.

The More People Carry - The Less Crime

Fact: States that have restored firearm carry rights to their citizens have had their crime rates go down, and if not down in some states, at least they stay flat. Allowing people to carry a gun in more places has never been shown to cause more crime.

This Is Reality, Not Fantasy Land

For high crime areas of a city or town, hoplophobes give their only and obvious (to them) solution to someone considering carrying a weapon - "just don't go there!", as if that's all anyone needs to do. Well pardon us; there may be some places we do have to go that are not guarded by fairies riding around on winged unicorns spreading happy dust.

And so those of us who do make it a habit to be armed daily as we go about our business in public are mocked with such non sequiturs as:

"Why do need to carry a gun in a park? Afraid the squirrels will throw their nuts at you?" 

"Why do you need to carry a gun in a supermarket? Afraid you'll be a-salted?"

Show them news reports of robberies, rapes, or murders that have happened in some of those beautiful, safe places and they will simply be brushed off as isolated events. Further "evidence" to them that crime is not a serious reason to carry a pistol every day.

Should they be up in years, they will tell you they've never needed a gun in their 65 years, so why should they need one now. And if they haven't needed one, you certainly don't either, now or ever. All you need to do is follow their advice to always travel about in safe places and lock your doors at night.

Not Everyone Is So Lucky

The fortunate (and probably lucky) ones that have lived a long life unarmed and unharmed have no business counseling others to eschew weapons as they have, unless their crystal ball can accurately predict that others will have the same outcome.

To be fair, they are not completely irrational when they opine on their years of never having been a victim of violent crime. It's actually human nature to expect peace and order each succeeding tomorrow if that's all that's ever been experienced. We tend to live our lives in our own little comfort bubble, believing that since all is well, all will be well...

Until that bubble is rudely and unexpectedly burst. Violent crime is not only brutal - it often takes its victims by surprise by the speed with which it strikes.

Hoplophobes know this, and reason that even if they were armed, they would not be able to truly protect themselves. And if they can't, then foolish us, we can't either.

Knowledge Is A Good Thing

This is where again, a little education can go a long way. Carriers of weapons tend to pay more attention to their surroundings - it's called situational awareness. While it can still happen, we are less likely to be taken by surprise. We also go to the shooting range, and practice drawing our firearm either from concealment or from an open-carry holster. Some even take advanced training courses.

There are many documented cases of would-be crime victims using their firearms, sometimes against multiple attackers, with great results. Google is your research assistant, so do your research. Look up Saint James Church Massacre. One man with one revolver saved lives during a coordinated terrorist attack, going up against four heavily armed terrorists.

A Gun Improves Your Chances Of Not Getting Hurt

It is true that a gun is an equalizer. In the hand of one who is fighting for his or her life, it is often more than an equalizer. Even multiple armed criminals tend to flee when being shot at. by one person. They had staked out what they had hoped was an easy, unarmed victim. Then it became too much work for them to well, work for it. They turn tail, regroup, and later seek out easier prey.

The defenders are then poo-pooed for unnecessarily fighting back. If only they had submitted to the criminals' demands, nothing would have happened.

To be fair, there are probably more cases where this is true than not. However, how do you know you can trust the benevolence of your armed robber to leave witnesses alive? Far too many have offered zero resistance, giving it all up, and were still shot dead as they lay on the floor. I might not survive an armed criminal one day, but I can think of a better way of dying than lying on the floor or kneeling on my knees, I assure you.

Even if the criminal lets you live, he may still give you a serious gash in your skull with his gun wielded as a club for good measure, to make sure you know he's serious that you don't call the police for awhile.

Is a lifetime of headaches, double-vision, or trouble walking a straight line worth the compliance? I'd rather he have a freshly fired bullet and I have my head with no artificial crease in it.

Too Much Of A Demand To Comply With

What if the demand was your body? It has been proven that women who have fought back against rapists with their firearms have had consistently much better outcomes than women who either comply or who fight back with less effective tools such as pepper spray or martial arts. 

Some years ago Meredith Emerson used all her martial arts skill and was still subdued and later killed by Gary Hilton after being attacked while hiking in the North Georgia mountains. I have zero reason to believe she was a hoplophobe, but for whatever reason she was not armed with a gun. I wish she had been.

I have nothing against martial arts, but if you can only have one or the other, choose a gun.

Who in their right mind tells women that have suffered rape not to carry a gun to guard against any possible future attacks, and at the same time profess they are for "women's rights"?

To tell a woman she can be anything she wants to be, but that she is helpless to use her own gun to stop a rapist is ridiculous. President Obama told rape survivor Kimberly Corban just that. Pontificating that her gun, "more often the case", would just be taken away and used against her.

How politicians get away with stating this garbage boggles the mind.

Getting The Message?

Sadly, most hoplophobes will not be convinced by anything I've presented here. A few may be won over on a case by case basis if they happen to befriend a gun carrier that doesn't appear to be too scary, who takes them to the range and lets them fire a handgun for the first time. Or maybe even an AR-15 rifle.

Did you know that an AR-15 rifle has less "kick" than most pistols? And certainly far less than a 12-gauge shotgun.

                                                 The "AR" Stands For Armalite

A little knowledge and experience can bolster confidence in one's abilities. The thought that one just might not have to ever be harmed as a crime victim could then take bloom.

Take It Away, Waylon!

Mamas and daddies, don't let your babies grow up to be hoplophobes. Teach them gun safety, how to shoot, and that when they get of age they can carry a firearm as a tool of self-defense. It's what grownups do.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

South Carolina - Restoring Gun Rights in 2017? © 2016 Phillip Evans

South Carolina state law currently forbids a licensed citizen to carry a concealed pistol in any public building (rest stop buildings are the exception).

While the wording of SECTION 16-23-420 appears at first glance to only be referring to school buildings, they slipped in a Mickey (intentional or not), that includes ANY public building without qualifying it must be a school building.

Wait - it looks like it WAS intentional. See http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c023.php and look at this section within 16-23-420:


"F) This section does not apply to a person who is authorized to carry concealed weapons pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31 of Title 23 when upon any premises, property, or building that is part of an interstate highway rest area facility."

If it was clear that 16-23-420 ONLY talked about school buildings, why would rest stop areas need to be excepted?

To violate this statue is to be subject to being charged and convicted of a felony! - Unless you ask and receive permission from local government officials to carry your firearm in their public buildings. And guess how many will grant you, my fellow peon, permission?


Yes - exactly ZERO!

For merely carrying your firearm (out of a desire to protect yourself and your loved ones) in a public library, publicly owned gift shop, publicly owned visitor center, park community center, publicly owned theater, or other such city, state, or county building, the South Carolina Legislature has deemed you worthy of being imprisoned for multiple years behind locked bars away from your family.




This is an odious injustice, a morally offensive affront to the American sense of liberty!

What perchance justifies criminalizing your personal defense in these buildings? Is it because armed criminals choose to avoid them out of a sense of decency?

Is it because the security measures in place are so effective they negate the need for citizens to be armed?

If the answer to both questions is "no", then politics is the only reason to infringe on your right to bear arms in your tax-payer funded buildings. 


Preventing your bloodshed (and that of your loved ones) at the hands of armed criminals is apparently far less important than the desire of some SC lawmakers to maintain their political office.

Ironically, those who show a backbone and support bills that restore liberty need not fear for their political future. The majority of those who stand for freedom win re-election.

Let SC state politicians be aware that just because there is an "R" next to their name doesn't mean they will receive support from those who cherish their rights in the next election. Actions speak louder than words.

After eight years of Obama, we now have a President-elect who is not ashamed to support our right to keep and bear arms. We are about to see some action on the Federal side. Let's see some now from the states. 


Shame on South Carolina if a New Yorker manages to outdo a southern state's duty to restore our eroded gun rights back to where they are supposed to be!

If any SC state politician wants to know what backbone looks like, all they need to do is look at U.S.Representative for SC, Trey Gowdy, who unapologetically defends the Second Amendment Rights of free American citizens.

Let your voice be heard! Let your lawmakers know you want your right restored to carry in your public, tax-payer supported buildings. 

Click HERE to send an email to all SC Senate members.

Click HERE to send an email to all SC House members.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Trump Wins The Presidency!

Okay folks, get used to saying "President Trump". 

I'm starting to write this article at 10:52pm on election night. However, I've stated back in August at http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=270530 that Trump would win.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

There are a variety of reasons he will win tonight:

1. Trump better sold himself to the American people. He actually made a point to mention the names of states where working people are hurting, and he did it more than once in the debates. He knows salesmanship. 

I'm not being cynical in the least. I believe he really cares for hurting people, and he connected with them skillfully. 

2. Trump deftly channeled the anger the American people have against Washington.

3. Trump was not afraid to be politically incorrect. People are tired of being told they are offensive for what they say or think about various issues that concern them. 

4. Trump has had ups and downs in business, but overall has come out on top. People want someone in the Oval Office that can make better trade deals and stimulate the creation of good paying jobs.

5. Trump favors using our natural resources of coal, natural gas, and oil to better our economy. His message basically was Palin's "Drill, baby, drill!", without using those exact words.

6. Trump has promised to shake up the status quo. People want to see real change, and a lot of it, not just a little.

7. Trump promised "No more gun-free zones", and U.S. Supreme Court Justices that will truly honor our Second Amendment Rights. No reasonable person wants to be helpless to defend themselves against murderous criminals.

8. Trump promised to secure our borders. Intelligent people knew he never stated that all illegal immigrants were criminals, but that some are. We want to keep them out, and a secure wall will go a long way towards that goal.

9. Many minorities who publicly stated their support for Hillary had a change of heart in the voting booth, because they want better jobs and less crime. 

10. Trump moved from the darkside to the lightside by embracing the pro-life position.



There are a variety of reasons Hillary will lose tonight:

1. People don't trust her. She is a proven liar.

2. She cost American lives with her incompetence in Benghazi.

3. She careless allowed government secrets to get into foreign hands by using a private email server without proper protections to send and receive classified emails.

4. Her obvious and raw ambition showed she was only concerned about getting the power of the top office in U.S. Government, and was willing to say anything to get it.

5. She essentially embraced Obama and his policies, with only a promise to "tweak" here and there. Poetic justice considering she personally hates Obama.

6. She is the elitist, status quo candidate who had no real solutions.

7. Her arrogance in calling half the country "deplorables" was palpable.

8. Her lip service to the Second Amendment while supporting all sorts of firearms bans, even supporting Australian style confiscation was not acceptable to the American people.

9. She dragged the names of Bill Clinton's sexual assault victims through the mud for her political gain.

10. Her wholehearted support of partial birth abortion, even up to the moment of birth was deplorable to many women.


Okay, it's now 11:36pm, and the NY Times Poll is predicting 95% chance win for Trump.

By the way, I voted for Trump here in Georgia. I'm proud to be called deplorable by Hillary Clinton. 


Sunday, August 14, 2016

Carrying Firearms Openly Deters Crime © 2016 by Phillip Evans

We may never know how many crimes have been deterred by good guys carrying their holstered pistols in plain view, since criminals don't normally report aborted crimes.

The practice of open carry, sometimes abbreviated as OC'ing, is done by only a small percentage of weapons carriers, as most good guys prefer to conceal their weapons.

Photo by Lucio Eastman

I have nothing against anyone who prefers to carry concealed. Carry as you wish. Live and let live. The point is to carry and be ready to exercise your human right to not be a victim. 

Whoever said that the best way to exercise your right to not be a victim, is to whip out a cell phone and call someone else with a gun is a complete fool. Police can't be everywhere, and real adult men and women understand that one does not delegate the safety of one's life and those of their loved ones to others.

I support the right of open carry on the principle that I should not be forced to appear to be unarmed. Most criminals prefer easy targets. They don't want to work hard for their spoils. Ninety-nine point nine times out of a hundred they will choose someone that appears to be unarmed. 

I want to clearly appear to be armed.

I'd rather deter the crime in the first place with my openly carried firearm than be forced to draw from concealment and shoot my armed attacker.

Here are some real life incidents that involved good guys carrying openly who deterred crimes and in one case saved lives after the crime was in progress:

Bank robbery deterred by an open carrier of a holstered pistol: http://www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/vadetail.html?RECID=1022854

Store robbery deterred by an open carrier of a holstered pistol: http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=147404

Open carrier able to draw quickly to shoot robber that had shot the store owner:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?60072-Virginia-open-carrier-self-defense-incident-shows-open-carry-can-have-tactical-advantages

Kennesaw, GA - Waffle House robbery deterred by two open carriers of 1911 .45 pistols: http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=91303

South Carolina and Florida will put citizens in jail for carrying a visibly holstered pistol, even those who are licensed to carry. So much for liberty in those states. I suppose when their citizens get tired of the infringement of their Second Amendment Rights, they'll put a stop to it by throwing their lip-service to freedom politicians out of office and electing those that truly honor the U.S. Constitution.

Friday, August 5, 2016

Fox Theatre Atlanta - "Disarm Yourself Or Don't Come In!" © 2016 Phillip Evans

So now the Fox Theatre decides to install metal detectors to keep out ________ (I'll let you take a stab at the answer here first. Take a few seconds to think about it while you play that familiar Jeopardy melody in your head).

Bzzzzt! Times up!

To keep out good guys with guns! That's right, not just "regular" law-abiding citizens but even off-duty police officers must leave their pistols in their vehicles for criminals to steal and use in other crimes. To be fair, off-duty officers hired for security at the Fox will be allowed to be armed.

I certainly respect the Fox Theatre's right to not allow citizens the ability to defend themselves, since it is privately owned property. But I also respect the right of my dollars to never be traded there for the privilege of walking unarmed in a downtown Atlanta parking lot at night and sitting in a theater no matter how good the show may be. Thanks, but no thanks.

Photo by Scott Ehardt

In addition, a mildly determined bad guy can still smuggle a firearm into the theater in spite of their metal detectors. Here's why: They don't do pat-downs, require you to remove any articles of clothing, nor x-ray anything.

Half-Hearted Security Doesn't Work

The TSA uses metal detectors at airports, but they also feel you up and make you remove stuff, as well as radiate your bags. That is what is truly needed to keep out guns. 


If the Fox Theatre doesn't do pat-downs, require removal of belts, or x-ray bags, then bad guys will be able to easily smuggle weapons past the metal detectors.

All a bad guy needs to do is claim they have a metal hip joint or metal spinal pins, or claim they have a metal implant in an ankle while carrying inside a boot. Or, they could hide a pistol inside their pants just beneath a large metal belt buckle. I'm sure there are other tricks such as false-bottom bags. Remember, they don't x-ray anything.

"Sitting Duck Shoot-Em Up" - Now Playing

If the Fox is going to disarm their patrons, it needs to have real security, not security theater, otherwise their patrons will be sitting ducks - unless a hired gun (maybe one or two are on duty at most) manages to come to your rescue in time. 

If a bad guy does manage to get a weapon in and injures or kills people, I hope the Fox Theatre gets sued for not allowing innocent people the chance to effectively defend themselves. Perhaps it would not be a winning lawsuit (you do have a choice to not go there, after all), but at least it would help shine a light on the issue and convince others to avoid places that would make them helpless at a venue, not to mention walking to or from it in a dangerous parking lot where criminals will now know you'll be unarmed when they see you going to and from the Fox Theatre.

Self-Protection Not To Be Delegated

One may argue that the theater does have armed security, so all is well. Let me then ask, how many good guy guns would you want available if a couple of heavily armed terrorists decide to shoot the gatekeepers and rush right past the metal detectors? Or if an unarmed terrorist gets in and then opens a back or side door to let in his armed comrades?

I say let people be armed to protect themselves wherever they go where a criminal or terrorist might show up. We have the natural human right to save our own lives! Each of us has only one life after all, and they are rather precious. In the case of the Fox Theatre in Atlanta, let's let our non-transferred dollars send them that message. I know I will.

If you write them to inquire, you'll get the following canned response:

"Thank you so much for reaching out to us and sharing your concern regarding the Fox Theatre's policy on firearms. The Fox Theatre’s policy states that licensed, on-duty law enforcement officers are permitted to bring their firearms on premise after reporting to the theater’s contracted Atlanta Police Department officer. The Fox Theatre is committed to creating a safe and pleasant environment for our guests and employees. We maintain a close working relationship with the Atlanta Police Department in order to execute our comprehensive security programs, and we employ off-duty officers to enforce the theater’s code of conduct. [bold mine]

We are saddened that you will not be returning to the Fox, but should you change your mind, we'd love to have you back.

My Best,
Jamie Vosmeier | Senior Director, Sales and Marketing
660 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30308"


Is This Their Code of Conduct?

Code of Conduct: We at the Fox Theatre forbid shooting, stabbing, or otherwise causing great bodily harm or death to our patrons. Of course, we also forbid our patrons to carry the arms that would allow them to prevent such attacks on themselves.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Lunatic Magnet? Joel Achenbach's Final Solution For Self-Defense Rights © 2016 Phillip Evans

"That said … I’ve never seen anything as bizarre as an event where you can’t bring a toy gun or a water pistol, but you can bring a real gun — even the kind of semiautomatic rifle seen so often in mass shootings — that is loaded." - Joel Achenbach writing about the RNC Convention in Cleveland, Ohio


WashingtonPost.com Photo
Used under Fair Use Doctrine

Ah, so Mr. Achenbach has finally figured out a way to repeal the Second Amendment! 

1. It's easy to ban toy guns - after all, they have no Second Amendment protections. Afterwards, with toy guns banned, it would be bizarre to allow real guns. 

2. The shear bizarrity of the situation would demand banning firearms, and nothing in the U.S. Constitution could hold back the force that such bizarrity (there, I said it again) would bring to bear. 

3. The ban would be applied to everybody, except agents of the government, and except criminals and terrorists who will keep their guns concealed until they decide to use them to rape, rob, and mass murder innocent people.

You know, it's bizarre (and too bad) that toy trains were not banned in Nazi Germany. That could have saved the lives of many from being transported on the rails to the death camps for execution. 

If only Mr. Achenbach had a time machine. He could go back in time and advocate for toy trains to be banned, or he could warn his fellow Jews to arm themselves with loaded guns if trains could not be banned. I suppose he would choose which of the two he considered the best option.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Pulse Orlando Nightclub and Paris' Bataclan Concert Hall...Victim-Rich Zones © 2016 by Phillip Evans

Greatest Common Denominator

What does the shooting at the Orlando nightclub named Pulse Orlando have in common with the Paris, France Bataclan Concert Hall shooting?

Besides Muslim attackers, both places are by law off-limits to anyone carrying a firearm. The "anyone" even includes any of the victims that might have been able to save their lives by returning fire at the evil gunmen.

As citizens, we like to think of laws as rules to live by that are good and just. It is wrong to commit murder, so we have laws against it. That's a good thing. It should always be against the law to commit murder. 

Fancy Law Terminology

The laws which prohibit acts that harm others are called "malum in se" laws because these acts are morally wrong. The Latin phrase means "evil in itself".

The kind of laws which prohibit even good people to carry a weapon for the purpose of protecting their lives are called "malum prohibitum" laws. It's when governments say, "It's evil just because we say it is prohibited".


Taking Candy From A Baby

Now, would anyone in their right mind take away a victim's pistol as he or she was using it to return fire at murderer Omar Mir Seddique Mateen inside the Pulse Orlando? That could be perceived as a worse act than taking candy from a baby. However, the state of Florida sure did it in a manner of speaking.

Under Florida law it is a crime to carry a pistol inside any establishment that obtains more than 50% of its revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages. Florida disarmed every single victim inside Pulse Orlando because its legislators do not have the stomach for liberty.

Acceptable Price

Dead victims in mass shootings such as this that occurred around 2:00am Sunday, June 12th in Orlando are the acceptable price to pay for political expediency. Florida politicians won't admit this with words, but their actions speak loud enough.

They need to protect themselves, of course, from being defeated in elections and losing office, so they cave to hysteria which says that licensed adults simply cannot be trusted to carry a handgun inside any place where more than 50% of its revenue is from the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Revenue Can Kill You

In those establishments in Florida where less than 50% of its revenue is from the sale of alcoholic drinks, licensed carriers may carry their concealed pistols within the law and even consume alcohol.

In the case of the legal for carry establishments, licensed carriers of weapons may drink alcoholic beverages under state law, so why the ban for the other places? Does a business' revenue stream cause otherwise responsible, licensed-to-carry adults get drunk and shoot up the place? 

Looks like this is a prohibition based on revenue percentages. Is that a good reason to deny victims life-saving measures in the face of lethal danger from crazies, regular criminals, or terrorists? 

Drunken Shootouts At Bars?

Has Florida had a rash of licensed carriers shooting up restaurants that serve alcohol?

In Georgia it has been legal since 2010 to have a drink and carry a firearm in restaurants that serve alcohol. Has there been a rash of licensed carriers since then shooting up any of these places? Also in Georgia, since 2014 it has been legal to drink and carry a firearm in bars and nightclubs. Still no blood flowing in the streets as was predicted by those who despise liberty. I'm glad that my state of Georgia no longer has these victim zones. 

My Faith Advocates For Saving Lives

Even though my Christian faith considers homosexuality to be a sin, I want gays to be armed with guns anywhere they go to protect their lives. That includes bars and nightclubs. Why is this my point of view? It's because gays have the same human right of self-defense as anyone else. Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin, and we are all sinners.

There was no good or just moral reason for the Orlando Pulse victims to have been stripped of the dignity to defend themselves by the state of Florida. How dare the government treat them like untrustworthy children!

Take Action!

Call and email your Florida Representatives and Senators to demand that immoral laws which create victim zones be repealed! 

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Memphis Zoo - Right To Carry Violated © Phillip M. Evans

I just submitted the following to be posted on the Tennessee Firearms Association Facebook page:

Memphis police threatened to arrest me for trespass at Memphis Zoo May 31st, 2016. I recorded the audio of the encounter.

Here's what happened: I was carrying concealed at the zoo with my family, and at the end of our visit, decided to switch to open carry in the restroom. My son and I then walked around a little in the zoo and visited the playground. We then walked back toward the entrance/exit. Near the admin building while still inside the park, I was accosted by an officer who illegally detained me and had me go into the admin building so that a zoo official could explain to me their no weapons policy. I was told if I went back into the zoo that I'd be arrested for trespass.

The zoo is city owned property within the bounds of Overton Park and used for recreational purposes. Atty. General Slattery has said that such property is legal to carry at even if leased or controlled by a private entity. I have emailed the audio file to the TFA, and have joined as a member.

I am a citizen of the state of Georgia and am licensed to carry. I was on vacation and wanted to fight for all of our rights to carry regardless of what state we reside in. I am tired of local governments continuing to thumb their noses at state law. It's high time this gets put a stop to.



Local governments are a hoot, aren't they? Just because a state law is passed saying they can't do something, like ban firearms, doesn't mean they have to obey it, huh?

I suppose the Democrat controlled City of Memphis just can't stand the idea of personal freedoms, such as the right to protect your life with a firearm. 

I'm not letting Tennessee state government off the hook easily either. The lawmakers could have put penalties into the new "Guns in Parks" law for its violation. They certainly do that for things us mere citizens could violate. If you speed, you get a speeding ticket and have to pay it out of your own pocket. 

If local governments ban firearm carry in parks, even when state law says they can't, no penalty. Well, duh! No wonder they keep doing it.

The citizens of Tennessee who treasure their freedom need to rise up in protest! 

Here's how: Do the exact same thing I did, and do it often! Show them you don't appreciate them not following state law. Record them violating the law. 

Also, call and write Attorney General Slattery to ask what he will do to make sure that state law is followed. 

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

South Carolina Firearms Carry Now Legal for Georgians! © 2016 by Phillip Evans

Yay! As of Friday, June 3rd, 2016 Georgians who possess a current Georgia Weapons license may now carry their firearms in the great state of South Carolina. Uncork the champagne and blow the noisemakers!

SC Governor Nikki Haley, and the SC Legislators who passed HB 3799 deserve our thanks.


However, there are still some flies in the soup.

In South Carolina, you must hide your pistol from plain view with a cover garment, purse, fanny pack, or some other concealment option. There, your license to carry does not include carrying openly. That could get you jailed, and that's not good.

Most criminals are opportunistic, and will attack someone they believe to be unarmed. If you cannot carry your pistol openly, then a criminal could believe you to be unarmed. In SC you are prohibited from preemptively deterring such an attack, but can only respond once it begins by pulling your concealed weapon and firing it if necessary. 

I prefer to not shoot anyone, and am glad that in my home state of Georgia, I can and do carry my Glock 23 or CZ75B openly. My visible gun lets most criminals know it might be best to choose a different target. Sure, a few crazies may try to attack me to get my gun, but I have a some tricks up my sleeve to deal with that if and when that should happen.

It's ironic that two southern states that are supposed to be about freedom, Florida and South Carolina, feel that an openly carried pistol is just too much for citizens to handle, even though open carry is legal in 45 other states.

Also, in SC there's just too many off-limits places. Any publicly owned building, whether a library, museum, or visitor center is illegal to carry a firearm in. SC really needs to get true state preemption. 

Do criminals avoid public buildings? 

If not, then I should be able to carry anywhere a criminal can carry. Most public buildings in SC have no weapons screening at all. So maybe I'll carry in them anyway, since I will have to conceal anyway. I'll only carry my gun for the purpose of keeping myself and my family safe, so they shouldn't mind if I break a malum prohibitum law designed to penalize the good guys instead of the bad guys.

Will I bite the hand that feeds? 

Yeah, a little. Making me look like any other unarmed person makes me a potential target to most criminals. That's not good. It's also not good that it will take more time to draw from concealment if I have to draw my gun. I can draw much faster with my open carry holsters when nothing covers them to get in the way. That time delay could be critical.

So what am I going to do in SC? Same thing I will when I visit Florida. I'll openly wear an empty holster with a lid cover that looks like it could have something in it. That's perfectly legal in both Florida and SC. I may even wear a t-shirt that states I am lawfully armed.

It's high time that both Florida and SC get on the freedom train with 45 other states and decriminalize the open carry of pistols. 

Agree or disagree with open carry being a good idea or not. At least you should be able to agree with me that I should not be subject to being put behind bars just for wearing a holstered, visible pistol.

Just who is it that says our Second Amendment Rights must be exercised in secret when going about our business in public? Busybodies?