On July 29, some bills that passed the state Legislature and were signed by the governor became law. Included in these was SB 1070. Of course, there was a SB 1070-related protest, and counter-protest, downtown.
I like a good protest as much as anyone, but I had a celebration—of other laws going into effect—to attend elsewhere.
As I walked through Himmel Park, I ran into a friend. We chatted briefly, and I continued on my way. If my friend noticed the Glock model 21 pistol worn openly on my belt, he made no mention.
I soon came to a grove of trees near Treat Avenue, where 40 or so men and women were enjoying an all-American cookout with hamburgers and hot dogs—the works! Most were similarly armed.
I knew I had found the “Take Your Pistol for a Walk in the Park” party that I sought.
I saw the host of the party, liberty activist Ken Rineer, refilling the grills with dogs and burgers to keep up with the demand. It was in October 1996 that he met with Libertarian lawyer Ed Kahn and Tucson Police Department officers to have himself arrested. The purpose of the arrest was to create a case to challenge a recently enacted city ordinance that prohibited firearms in city parks—thus making the parks all the more attractive to robbers, rapists and the like.
Ken was recruited by Brassroots, a civil-rights organization that specializes in firearms issues, to risk heavy fines and jail time to take the city to court. The law was clearly on Ken’s side. The state of Arizona has a pre-emption statute that limits certain authority to the state government, including laws regarding firearms. Alas, courts being as they are in these modern times, Ken lost after the city appealed his initial victory, and the Arizona Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
OK, I know that many of you are thinking, “What the heck is it with these gun nuts? Is it so important that they have their guns in the park?” First, let me point out that many of my fellow party guests are not, in fact, “gun nuts,” or even enthusiasts. In fact, were you to ask Ken why there are as many as three different twist rates in AR-15 rifles, I doubt he could tell you.
The firearms issue lends focus to the greater issue of liberty, which is the issue we all hold in common. It is true that you could say that possessing a gun in the park is not in itself all that important, just as you could say that where you sit on the bus is not all that important—but only if you were ignorant of the greater issue at hand.
Activism goes on. When it became fashionable to post “no firearms” signs in the windows of businesses, Brassroots was there to point out that while it is certainly the right of a business to ban guns from the premises, in doing so, those businesses would lose a large block of customers. Most, realizing that customers are more important than fashion, came around pretty quickly. Phil Murphy, a past president of Brassroots, recalled addressing the issue with a specialty retailer that sold erotic paraphernalia and clothing. Exotic dancers, who shop there for clothing, were made particularly vulnerable during their late-night shopping and were ready to make noise about it. This situation was presented to the store’s manager, who contacted the home office, and within 40 hours, the signs came down.
Charles Heller—a radio personality, the secretary of Arizona Citizens Defense League (AZCDL) and an all-round good guy—spoke of the accomplishments in which the AZCDL (azcdl.org) played a crucial role. Though it was an impressive list, the most relevant to today’s celebration was the state legislation that strengthened the pre-emption statute regarding guns and knives, and legislation authorizing “constitutional carry,” meaning that you could carry your weapon discreetly or otherwise without a permission slip from the government, as the United States Constitution and Arizona Constitution guarantee.
It is not often that liberty activists have cause to celebrate, or that Ken, Phil, Charles and others actually see positive outcomes resulting from their efforts. Yet on July 29, while political theater raged downtown, men and women peacefully celebrated in the park, and remembered a 14-year-long struggle.
This article appears in Aug 26 – Sep 1, 2010.
I had a neighbor who won EVERY argument with, “Will, thin, Ahhhm gunna git mah GUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
As long as you’re “too principled” to own a gun, any moron who isn’t will win anything from you that he chooses. You are living the same way slaves lived. Is it really that comfortable for you?
You cannot arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves.
Nor can you disarm a free people and expect them to remain free.
–Donald L. Cline
What about MY right to live in a peaceful, loving community? What about my desire to reduce reduce drive-by shootings that kill children on their own porch by de-facto arrests of people owning non hunting-related guns?
The second amendment calls for guns within a “well-regulated militia.” Where is the right to take gun to a park and put the entire population at risk? Where is the right for private citizens to take guns to political rallies and intimidate anyone from participating?
To me it is bullying pure and simple. I get it. You are macho. You love to scare me. Hope you never get in the way of a drive-by shooting.
“What about my desire to reduce reduce drive-by shootings that kill children on their own porch by de-facto arrests of people owning non hunting-related guns?” Your desire has nothing to do with the people this author is talking about. None of them, to my knowledge, participate in drive by shootings. While I am not in total agreement with the author, when those who disagree with him point to people who use guns to commit crimes as a reason why people who don’t commit crimes with guns can’t carry them I realize they don’t really have a decent rationale for their position. Lots of people use otherwise harmless tools to hurt and kill others. Cars, knives, ropes, hammers, and other tools are used to kill or injure and we don’t seem to paint their users, or the tool, as some kind of evil implement that must be banned.
I think carrying openly is as much, if not more, a statement as it is a desire for protection. I realize my gun, when I carry it, intimidates and frightens others so I carry it concealed. Direct your anger to criminals-they’re the ones who are taking away your right to peace and quiet.
I have known people who for many years have traveled around town with weapons (but rarely on their person until recently) for their “safety” yet have never, ever been assaulted, robbed or provoked in any way. A weapon under the truck seat or in the glove box doesn’t act as a direct deterrent, except maybe in how it made the owner feel more confident or secure.
During that same period of time, I traveled extensively around the same town to many of the same locations without benefit of a weapon on me or in my vehicle and I too wasn’t ever assaulted, robbed or provoked in any way. I’ve been aggressively panhandled, cut off in traffic and the like, just like those with weapons. So it’s really a mindset.
Gun ownership can be a great hobby and provide great security. But one thing about guns in the park, or a bar for that matter, is that some of those without the political and social commitment to a cause, like this author wrote about, are less likely to be as controlled and thoughtful about emotional confrontations. Maybe principled is a better term. Gun ownership, in and of itself, never provided the gift of maturity and we can imagine going forward for that to continue. Just because someone is now openly armed doesn’t mean squat about a person’s maturity level or degree of self control he might have in stressful situations.
Congrats Ken. Finally a fair write up on your efforts and AZCDL, and recognition of your contributions to freedom. I’m happy for you, and everyone who worked so hard for what we have taken back. I’m glad to see an author also who recognizes the rights of the individual, protected by our constitution, and understands that liberty lends itself towards life. Thank you for your fairness Johnathan, and a well written to the point summary of our states (and citizens) recently recovered freedoms.
Gun control legislation does not have a cause/effect relationship with the following statement(quoted below). A weapons regulation law does not affect any sense of maturity or self control.
“Just because someone is now openly armed doesn’t mean squat about a person’s maturity level or degree of self control he might have in stressful situations.” (bkap)
If you mean to say that by government controlling ACCESS to a resouces, the results are legislated morality, your entertaining dangerous ideology. Any time a government attempts to control the behaviour or ‘virtues’ (however they may be arbitrarily defined) of its populace by seizing/restricting/regulating access to a product or a service is very dangerous ground indeed.
Secondly, to the remark about the confidence someone experience traveling both with and without a weapon concealed in a vehicle, that ‘confidence’ even if the firearm was never used or exposed IS a deterrent against crime, and it is statistically proven and emprically observable that those seeking to victimize (the bad guys) specifically seek out the easiest targets, which are those that appear weak, uncertain, or unaware. The confidence is observable, even if the reason for that assurance is NOT, and is therefore effective in itself. Some people have that confidence inherently, and some have it knowing they have a tool or other asset to defend themselves.
Finally, I would like to remind the opponents of these laws who point at criminal activity and violence as reasons why these laws are ‘bad’ or ‘inappropriate’ … Those who fight for these freedoms are at polar opposite ends of the spectrum to those who would victimize the innocent, oppress them, and TAKE their rights. Those who fight for these freedoms, however trivial or symbolic they may seem to you, are NOT the same people who have had no respect for the rule of law in the first place, and THEY are they threat to your freedoms and peace of mind.
So, who are you going to shoot with that gun in your belt. Do you have a protocol outlining when to show, draw and fire your gun? Police officers are highly trained and disciplined in the use of firearms and still occasionally fire in error. Your Glock was designed, built and is intended for one purpose..to shoot someone. So..I hope you don’t shoot me or mine because your angry, drunk, just nuts, or while showing off to your friends.
Greysailor, My intent is not to start an argument with you, but I must contest or expand on some of the statements you’ve made.
Firstly, if anyone has to use a firearm in their posession, whether it be belt or purse, it is indeed to defend my life or your life, from immediate and dire physical threat. Those like me, and I don’t speak for everyone who choses to carry a firearm, DO have a protocol outlining when to use a defensive display or fire our weapons. These protocol are firstly outlined according to state and federal law, and also to STOP THE THREAT. Not to kill. Not to maim. Not to scare. Not to beat our chests. It is to use the most efficient means available with the tool of your choice to protect life and liberty.
Secondly, I am disappointed (in the truth, not you) that most police officers (specialty units like SWAT being an exception) are NOT highly trained and disciplined in the use of firearms. They ‘qualify’ and ‘meet standards’ during academy, then afterwards must meet an easy proficency re-qual once a year (most departments, tucson local included). Many officers never fire their weapons except on the occasions they have to qualify. Now, this is not to say that they are unqualified to carry and use deadly force, but this should not be the standard by which you measure a citizens level of competency and ability. Most citizens invest their own hard-earned money when purchasing a firearm, and it is important for them to know how to maintain it, use it, and be proficient with it overall. This is individual responsibility and the government cannot legislate that, not even among their own police departments.
Thirdly, Glock (or any brand name of choice) were not built for the sole purpose of shooting someone. The were, indeed developed to be reliable and safe defensive and fighting weapons. Most firearms, reguardless of brand, are primarily used by the public for recreational or sporting purposes. Less than %1 of legally civillian owned firearms are ever used against another person, and holes in paper are all they ever make.
Finally, I hope you don’t think that just because someone is armed, that they want or may feel compelled to shoot you. While there are headline-making examples out there, most firearm owners are disproportionately responsible, private, patriotic, safe, and law abiding. There are too many reasons to explain why this is true in this forum, unless you would like to converse privately, I wouldn’t mind. I would just like to make a point that it is already, and has been for a long time, illegal to own a firearm if you are ‘nuts,’ have addiction, or to carry a firearm while intoxicated or drinking at all in public.
And while the world and are communities are not perfect places, the fact is that there is a margin of error, the responsibilty that comes with freedoms. The police may make a mistake, a citizen may make a mistake. All should be held accounable when this happens, without exception. But the very nature of in imperfections in our communties is the same reason some law abiding niehbors choose to use a firearm as a self defense tool.
Our parks aren’t all sunshine and grass. I do not let my family members run barefoot in a park unless I’ve checked the area for drug needles and broken glass (left by irresponsible, law-breaking drunks, who might assault you to show off to thier friends). In some areas of town, parks are simply not places for childeren, families, or even a capable adult walking through at the wrong time of day. Should their freedoms be restricted because of the criminal element? My good friend has to check their neiborhood park for bums, gang members and prostitutes before their childeren can play. The father likes to know, that even after taking every preperation for thier safety ahead of time, if the unexpected worst case happens, he can defend himself and his childeren. That is what freedom is about, and that is what we have won, among the recent laws passed in AZ.
With all respect. Thank you for voicing you concerns, and for hearing the ‘pro 2A’ point of view… Well just part of it, but thank you never the less.