Gats in holsters, girls on shoulders

If you outlaw bringing guns to bars….

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell recently signed a bill into law that allows “concealed carry permit holders to bring loaded guns” into bars. But the local gun lobby is trying to get it changed so they will also be allowed to consume alcohol. And in Georgia, the state house recently passed a bill would make it “legal to enter a bar or restaurant with a licensed concealed weapon and get drunk,” as long as the individual doesn’t fire the weapon.

And the first time some brave patriot gets sloshed and lights up a honky-tonk, you know whose fault it will be? The patrons who weren’t packing heat. If they’d had guns, they could have stopped him.

168 replies
  1. 1
    Tom in TN says:

    Hmm. A bill that encourages stupid rednecks to get drunk and shoot each other. I’m not sure I see a problem here.

  2. 2
    Roger Moore says:

    Don’t take your guns to town son
    Leave your guns at home Bill
    Don’t take your guns to town

  3. 3
    DougJ says:

    @Tom in TN:

    I don’t care if someone’s a redneck, he should be able to enjoy an alcoholic beverage without getting shot. We’re trying to have a civilization here.

  4. 4
    Brian J says:

    Isn’t that sort of like allowing someone to break open a six pack behind the wheel, just as long as he doesn’t get drunk?

    Well anyway, guns aren’t a particularly big part of life for everyday people where I live. Perhaps it’s a cultural divide I can’t paper over, but I still find it hard to believe that there’s really a need for allowing this. What was the great motivation behind this change? Maybe, just maybe, there’s enough competence in gun use to prevent accidents from happening, but still, why take the chance?

  5. 5
    LD50 says:

    I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before some Southern state makes gun ownership mandatory for white males.

  6. 6
    Sour Kraut says:

    Why don’t we extend this exception to the police? I’m sure they’d appreciate being able to tie a few on during their lunch breaks. Besides, a drunk officer will be more relaxed and therefore a much better shot. You betcha.

  7. 7
    Third Eye Open says:

    I want to go to the armed bars…I mean, seriously, if you’re a cop, aren’t you going to avoid the drunks you know are packing heat?

  8. 8
    David says:

    In Michigan, legally blind residents are permitted guns and hunting licenses.

  9. 9
    LD50 says:

    Perhaps it’s a cultural divide I can’t paper over, but I still find it hard to believe that there’s really a need for allowing this. What was the great motivation behind this change? Maybe, just maybe, there’s enough competence in gun use to prevent accidents from happening, but still, why take the chance?

    Because there millions of gun owners in America who go berserk with rage at the thought that there should be any restrictions at all on gun owners. So passing ever more ridiculously permissive laws is a cheap way of building one’s “see! I’m not a liberal!” bona fides.

  10. 10
  11. 11
    FormerSwingVoter says:

    Was this really a problem? Were state legislators getting outraged phone calls from constituents who had to drop off their guns at home before getting hammered?

    I mean… really?

  12. 12
    Brian J says:

    @LD50:

    In other words, there’s really no legislative justification for this? It’s purely political?

    That shouldn’t surprise me, but don’t they usually try to justify this in some way? Or have they just given up on attempt at a facade of seriousness?

  13. 13
    russell says:

    OK, can I ask a simple question?

    What is the point of a law that makes it legal to carry a concealed weapon, but illegal to fire it? Or rather, what is the freaking point of carrying a concealed weapon if *it’s illegal to use it for it’s intended purpose*?

    I had the same question about the open carry laws that require the weapon to not be loaded. What the hell is stupider than advertising that you have a weapon with you, but it’s not useable for purposes of defense at the moment?

    I’m actually sympathetic to the general argument that Teh Founders intended that responsible citizens should be able to own and use firearms, but I just don’t have the gun fetish gene.

    Can’t they just go play paintball and get this crap out of their system that way? Why do they have to carry their guns around with them *all f**king day*?!? Are armed bands of bloodthirsty pirates roaming the highways and byways? Are there grizzly bears lurking in the men’s rooms of bars in GA and VA?

    I don’t get it.

  14. 14
    licensed to kill time says:

    Are there no limits for the gun lobbyists? Do they really want a society where every single sentient being is packing heat all the time? Don’t they remember the cowboy movies where the sheriff confiscated all guns at the town limit? You got ’em back when you left town. There was a reason for that.

  15. 15
    Martin says:

    @DougJ: We’re failing.

  16. 16
    Egypt Steve says:

    Seriously, what does anybody have against drunk people firing their guns in bars? What happens if some terrorist shows up at the road house, planning to get drunk and hoping for a $5 blowjob in the parking lot before he crashes his plane into Sarah Palin’s tour-bus. I mean, shouldn’t we be allowed to shoot the fucking haji on sight?

    I don’t get it.

  17. 17
    Dog is My Copilot says:

    Hey… it’ll be the wild West all over again! Yeehaw!

  18. 18

    And in Georgia, the state house recently passed a bill would make it “legal to enter a bar or restaurant with a licensed concealed weapon and get drunk,” as long as the individual doesn’t fire the weapon.

    Loaded patron + loaded gun = Good.

    Loaded patron + Gun unloaded into the ceiling/wall/bar/patrons/employees = bad.

    So long as they made that clear.

    We’re trying to have a civilization here.

    We are. Unfortunately we share this land mass with a bunch of people who aren’t happy unless they’re dry-humping the hell out of the 2nd Amendment.

  19. 19
    Citizen Alan says:

    Okay, I’ve got it. The Repukes just announced that the 2012 Republican Convention will be in Tampa. So that gives us just over 2 years to get the Florida legislature to pass a bill that requires visitors to (a) carry a gun at all times and (b) accept any alcoholic beverage that is offered to them. Voila, the problem of crazy, Teabagger Repukes taking back the White House will solve itself!

  20. 20
    Brian J says:

    @Egypt Steve:

    You make a convincing case.

  21. 21
    russell says:

    In Michigan, legally blind residents are permitted guns and hunting licenses.

    Yeah, but only if they can demonstrate that the Force is strong with them.

  22. 22
    Citizen_X says:

    @russell:

    Are there grizzly bears lurking in the men’s rooms of bars in GA and VA?

    Well, depending on the bar, maybe bears, but that’s a completely different matter.

  23. 23
    Keith says:

    These people do realize that the Founding Fathers weren’t a part of the Wild West, right?

  24. 24
    Legalize says:

    @russell:

    It breaks down like this: it’s legal to buy it, it’s legal to own it, and, if you’re the proprietor of a hash bar, it’s legal to sell it. It’s legal to carry it, but that doesn’t really matter ’cause – get a load of this – if you get stopped by the cops in Amsterdam, it’s illegal for them to search you. I mean, that’s a right the cops in Amsterdam don’t have.

  25. 25
    wenchacha says:

    So I can add Virginia and Georgia to my no-visit list of states. So far, it’s just those two plus Arizona. I’m sure I’m leaving out some glaring examples.

    And Brian J: I think a better analogy is to let people drive drunk, as long as they don’t get in accidents. What kind of Nanny State do we want, anyway? If people don’t want to be shot in bars or run over by drunks, they’re free to stay home.

  26. 26
    Punchy says:

    Georgia’s gunning to win the next 29 consecutive annual Darwin Awards.

    This. will. be. Teh. Awesum.

  27. 27
    MikeJ says:

    @David: You’ve been listening to David Sedaris. Is that in Six to Eight Black Men?

  28. 28
    Egypt Steve says:

    @ licensed to kill time:

    John Wayne obviously hated America.

    Anyhow, George Carlin had it right. I forget what the build-up was, but it had something to do with substituting “fuck” for “kill,” with the punchline:

    “Alright, Sheriff — we’re gonna fuck ya now.”

  29. 29
    DougJ says:

    @Legalize:

    I’m going, that’s all there is to it, I’m fuckin’ going.

  30. 30
    David says:

    I recently watched a great movie about the Hatfields and the McCoys from 1949 (called Roseanna McCoy). It highlighted the different lifestyles of the two families — the crude and dirty Hatfields were hunters and hated the effeminate, clodhopping McCoys with their farms and roads and towns. But when the fair came through town everyone who went checked their guns, like a coatcheck for guns, so that EVERYONE could relax and enjoy the fair.

  31. 31
    Comrade Colette Collaboratrice says:

    @Keith: These people think Davey Crockett and Dan’l Boone were among the Founding Fathers.

  32. 32
    artem1s says:

    Seems like this is an assault on private business being allowed to refuse entry to someone toting a sidearm. Once they can get into bars they will argue that no establishment can refuse them entry.

    Seriously, aren’t there people you work with daily that you would rather not see carrying firearms to work? Are they not the same ones who are most likely to carry, given half the chance?

  33. 33
    cleek says:

    And the first time some brave patriot gets sloshed and lights up a honky-tonk, you know whose fault it will be?

    and the first time some black guy at a bar shoots some other black guy, expect tut-tutting about the ‘character’ of inner city neighborhoods.

  34. 34
    themann1086 says:

    Also, hoocoodanode?!?

  35. 35
    Alice Blue says:

    @LD50: A number of years ago, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law making gun ownership mandatory for all of its households.

    There is now a bill awaiting Governor Perdue’s signature that would allow guns to be brought into the Atlanta airport.

  36. 36
    MikeJ says:

    @David:

    But when the fair came through town everyone who went checked their guns, like a coatcheck for guns, so that EVERYONE could relax and enjoy the fair.

    Wyatt Earp had no fear of being gunless either. In Alaska no less. Also. Too.

  37. 37
    Face says:

    I have to agree with the sentiment that this is no different than drinking straight Jack D while driving, as long as I never cross the 0.08 BAL. In seperate, both actions (drinking alhohol and driving) are legal, just like firearm possession and bar hopping are. So if they’re going to allow the latter together, under what rationale can you still prohibit open containers in cars by people not legally intoxicated?

  38. 38
    zmulls says:

    @Egypt Steve:

    Carlin had the cowpoke say “OK, Sheriff, we’re gonna fuck you now……but we’re gonna fuck you *slowwww*”

  39. 39
    mistersnrub says:

    Looks like the Shepherdson and Grangerford gene pools are still carrying on strong.

  40. 40
    licensed to kill time says:

    __

    Are there grizzly bears lurking in the men’s rooms of bars in GA and VA?

    Apparently it’s the mama grizzlies we have to worry about now.

  41. 41
    SpotWeld says:

    As if it wasn’t hard enough to cut off someone who is already beligerently drunk.

  42. 42
    Face says:

    @cleek: Oh no. No no no no. Nope. The Black guy doesn’t have to shoot anyone; he just has to show up with a gun. THEN we’ll find out just how enjoyable “open carry” is in GA.

    I’m sure the 2nd Amend. only refers to whites, right?

  43. 43
    Brachiator says:

    @Brian J:

    In other words, there’s really no legislative justification for this? It’s purely political?

    You betcha. Here’s Sarah Palin’s recent speech to NRA members.

    “Don’t doubt for a minute that, if they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment,” said Palin, a lifelong NRA member who once had a baby shower at a local gun range in Alaska. “It’s the job of all of us at the NRA and its allies to stop them in their tracks.”

    “Real Americans” must be allowed to have guns all the time, everywhere. It’s in the Bible.

  44. 44
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    I give it 2 years before they pass a law allowing guns inside jails.

  45. 45
    Punchy says:

    @peach flavored shampoo: And daycares. And ER rooms. And divorce attorney offices. And courtrooms……..

  46. 46
    notreallyme says:

    And people are getting heckled around here for thinking the governor wears no clothes and that this policy is a slap in the face to the other Virginia university?

    This guy is a joke and a bad one at that.

  47. 47
    Ash Can says:

    I think it would be a dandy PR move on Gov. McDonnell’s part if he spent every weekend night hanging out incognito in various backwoods saloons down in “real” Virginia to prove to all us stupid lie-bruls how safe and enlightened his law is, and how the gun-toting patriots in his state would never even think of drinking likker while packing.

  48. 48

    Generally I do not agree with you folks on much of anything. Having grown up in Texas and currently living in a relatively gun friendly state, I have the ability to carry my gun just about anywhere, and I like it like that. Having said that, my father taught me to shoot at a young age. (I shot my first rifle around age seven.) He taught me many rules about how to shoot. The first rules he taught me before I ever got to lay hands on a firearm, was SAFETY FIRST, SAFETY SECOND, SAFETY ALWAYS. One of the most important tings, long before I even thought about drinking, was alcohol and firearms NEVER mix. Having said that, why I think carrying in a bar is, by and large, no different from carrying anywhere else, I would never drink and carry and cannot support that bit of insanity. A few years ago, two work friends and I went out target shooting. I am an avid target shooter, and one of the other guys an avid hunter. When we got to our shooting site, the third guy said, “Who brought the beer?” The hunter and I could only look at him with shock and disbelief. Booze and guns NEVER mix.

  49. 49
    mclaren says:

    The hell with guns. Flamethrowers. That’s what we need in bars — flamethrowers handled by people who have been drinking.

  50. 50
    Joel says:

    The sound you hear is Plaxico Burress weeping softly.

    Also, love the Biggie reference.

  51. 51
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    Actually, the people that would actually use this law are suburban/exurban wingnuts. Believe me, most of the rurl rednecks all y’all are talkin’ ’bout in those rurl areas of McDonnell’s state (I know it well having lived there) don’t own handguns. Handguns are for pussies.

    Now, if you’re talking rifles, assault rifles, shotguns and the like, that’s a different story. Any given home will have at least 30 of each scattered throughout, many of which have been handed down from generation to generation.

  52. 52

    I own guns and I shoot them and while I don’t drink I also have no patience for mixing alcohol and firearms. When I had construction employees the introduction talk included a bit about how I didn’t care what they did with their own time but using drugs or alcohol on site was grounds for immediate dismissal and showing up impaired by a hangover would get you sent home first time and dismissed the second since I don’t think power tools and other elements of that work mix with intoxicants.

    OTOH some of the sentiments around here regarding firearms are just as stupid.

  53. 53
    PeakVT says:

    I just do not understand the interest people have in carrying guns on a routine basis. What are they so afraid of?

    ETA: I suppose if I owned a TV I would understand this phenomenon better.

  54. 54
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    @mclaren:

    The hell with guns. Flamethrowers. That’s what we need in bars—flamethrowers handled by people who have been drinking.

    I’d be down with being able to own and use RPGs on the highways. Sure, it would turn our socialist interstate system into something out of Mad Max but I’d sure feel better having taken out a slew of dumbfuck drivers before somebody with more firepower finally got to me.

    Oh waitaminute, that’s Somalia. Better get my passport updated.

  55. 55
    The Moar You Know says:

    I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before some Southern state makes gun ownership mandatory for white males.

    @LD50: Kennesaw, Georgia is 28 years ahead of you.

  56. 56
    stuckinred says:

    @PeakVT: “You think freely,” he pronounces, “You’re an American. I don’t care
    what your politics are, if you are enclosed by fear, that’s
    un-American.”

    Studs Terkel

  57. 57
    Dork says:

    I always picture Man A being shot by Man B, who gets shot by heroic Man C. Man D, coming in late, only sees Man C as the aggessor, not the savior, and shoots him. Man D is gunned down by the undercover officer, but he’s black, so Man E believes he’s trouble, so Man E caps the cop. Then uniformed cops show up and the black dead cop gets blamed for everything.

  58. 58
    joeyess says:

    This will one day fall into the “who could have predicted?” category. In fact, “who could have predicted?” should be a Balloon Juice tag.

  59. 59
    Don says:

    At the risk of opening myself up to abuse here, I was okay with the change in the concealed carry law here in Virginia as it was done. It was a silly inconsistency that open carry was okay but concealed – unless you worked in the venue – was prohibited.

    I’d just as soon more folk left their piece at home, but the law as it was resulted in them having to take it out and leave it in the car if they wanted to have lunch at Appelbees. I’d rather it was under their control than in the car waiting to be stolen.

    This carry-but-no-booze seemed like a reasonable compromise to me, though I’d have liked a no booze if you’re carrying, period. Allowing folks to drink though? Nuts to that. This is so dumb it almost seems like a plant – do these clowns not know/care that they’re making themselves a laughingstock?

    @artem1s: I don’t see how you can claim this is an effort to impede on a business’ right to refuse. Nothing in the law changes prevents a business from prohibiting weapons – concealed or open – from being allowed in. I just went into a bar on Saturday in Alexandria that had a prominent sign on their front door saying that you couldn’t bring your piece in.

  60. 60
    LD50 says:

    @Right Wing Extreme:

    Having said that, my father taught me to shoot at a young age. (I shot my first rifle around age seven.) He taught me many rules about how to shoot. The first rules he taught me before I ever got to lay hands on

    I guess someone shot him before he could finish the sentence.

  61. 61
    "Fair and Balanced" Dave says:

    Virginia and Georgia had to something to avoid losing out to Arizona as the most batshit insane State.

  62. 62
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    I just went into a bar on Saturday in Alexandria that had a prominent sign on their front door saying that you couldn’t bring your piece in.

    When they passed a similar law here in Misery, hmmmm, yunno what happened? Every bidness everywhere posted signs saying “No Firearms”.

  63. 63
    Corner Stone says:

    Anyone who’s ever had to take the keys away from a drunk friend (or whatever), can only ponder the fun if said drunk had a firearm – or might have a firearm.
    And I’m too old to be in that possible situation but I can imagine lots of youthful mistakes in judgment leading to some bad choices all around.

  64. 64
    joeyess says:

    @SpotWeld: Being in the bar business myself, that post made me laugh out loud. Thank you.

  65. 65
    aimai says:

    Yes, because “sentiments expressed on a blog” and making fun of America’s love affair with guns and the morons who have to carry them all the time are “just as stupid” as fighting to pass a law allowing drunks to carry loaded weapons in potentially high conflict social spaces like bars.

    Get a fucking clue, Chuck: general laws for general safety will occasionally have to impinge on the rights of some people to do somethings some of the time. That’s just the way it works. You were happy to constrain your workers because you grasped that simple rule, and true, when it came to your right to a safe workplace. Well, I feel the exact same way about public spaces in which I, as a member of the public, might choose to venture.

    Why shouldn’t we point, laugh, and make fun of the idiots who think that the laws of space, time, and motion will be suspended so cletus the slack jawed voter can get his jollies fondling his gun and there won’t be any repercussions of a deadly nature?
    aimai

  66. 66
    LD50 says:

    @The Moar You Know: The reason Wikipedia gives for Kennesaw passing that law is classic:

    In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois.

    Even back in the ’80s, the timeless conservative principle of “do whatever pisses off the liberals” was alive and well.

  67. 67
    patrick II says:

    And in Georgia, the state house recently passed a bill would make it “legal to enter a bar or restaurant with a licensed concealed weapon and get drunk,” as long as the individual doesn’t fire the weapon.

    I’m not sure why they had to state it’s legal “as long as the individual doesn’t fire the weapon” Isn’t it already illegal to fire a gun in a Georgia bar? Was there some debate about that?

    @Brian J:

    Isn’t that sort of like allowing someone to break open a six pack behind the wheel, just as long as he doesn’t get drunk?

    No, it’s more like allowing someone to break open a six pack behind the wheel and get drunk — as long as he doesn’t have an accident.

  68. 68

    I live in OR which has a concealed carry law and I don’t recall ever seeing a sign on a business barring firearms, though they certainly can do so. Public buildings are off-limits. I have actually been quite a few places other than my little spot in the state.

  69. 69
    Corner Stone says:

    @LD50:

    I guess someone shot him before he could finish the sentence.

    I thought it was going to be:
    “Were to never pull a rifle out of the truck barrel first. Like th…”

  70. 70

    Ah, greetings LD50. No I fat fingered the enter key, but as you can see I went back and finished.

  71. 71
    Elisabeth says:

    Mostly OT but related to guns. Apparently, A&E was filing The First 48 when the little girl in Detroit was killed Saturday night. The family’s attorney has seen the video (the police have not) and believes the police fired a shot into the house.

  72. 72
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Face:

    I’m sure the 2nd Amend. only refers to whites, right?

    Why do you think California’s open carry laws went away in the first place? People freaked out when the Black Panthers started taking advantage of a law that clearly wasn’t meant for their kind of people.

  73. 73
    David says:

    When is the last time you saw the headline:

    Shooting Rampage Stopped By Gun-Carrying Gun Enthusiast

    ?

  74. 74

    Chuck Butcher,

    I also live in OR, and I do not think the law allows businesses to make that choice. I could be wrong however. Until recently you could not carry in establishments that serve alcohol. I know they were talking about changing it to no drinky, no carry, but I can not remember where it went.

  75. 75

    @David: Yesterday as a matter of fact. The story was a few months old though.

  76. 76
    JGabriel says:

    In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition.

    How is that even enforceable?

    “Yes, Your Honor, we’d like a warrant to search the defendant’s premises for no gun.”

    .

  77. 77

    @aimai:
    Get a fucking clue yourself, dimbulb. I have no patience with alcohol and firearms as stated. As for yours or others paranoia about firearms – fuck off.

    Nothing in the BOR is about being safe, it is about setting limits on government which does mean risk. Maybe you’d like to explain all the safe behavior engendered by the 1st?

  78. 78
    TooFunnyToBePresident says:

    You guys seem to be missing the fact that the Georgia law is really just about dissuading Auburn fans from wearing their Tigers paraphernalia into Georgia bars on gamedays.

    “If he didn’t wanna get shot, he shoulda wore a Bulldogs jersey.”

  79. 79
  80. 80
    Pasquinade says:

    Is it true that they banned guns at the recent NRA convention…where Palin, Beck, Norris, Nugent, et al, appeared?

  81. 81
    LD50 says:

    @Face:

    I’m sure the 2nd Amend. only refers to whites, right?

    I noticed that Kennesaw is overwhelmingly white, and was very likely even more so in the 80s. The hardened cynic in me makes me suspect that the white burghers of a town like, say, Clarksdale, Mississippi would be unlikely to pass a law like that.

  82. 82
    fanshawe says:

    @David:

    Deterrence. Would-be-rampagers are completely rational actors and know to avoid places where gun carrying enthusiasts are likely to be. It’s like all of those would be murderers scared away by the death penalty. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.

  83. 83

    @JGabriel: They do not enforce it. There was an article about the whole thing last year. There are generous exceptions for the old, infirm and objectors. Beyond that, they still do not enforce it.

  84. 84
    freelancer says:

    This will one day fall into the “who could have predicted?” category. In fact, “who could have predicted?” should be a Balloon Juice tag.

    You don’t say

  85. 85

    @Chuck Butcher: Fair enough. It is odd though that I have never seen a sign on a business. Growing up in TX I saw them 3-4 times a day. Maybe it is just the part of OR I am in, but even on my monthly trips to Portland I cannot remember seeing one.

  86. 86
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    @kommrade reproductive vigor:

    Loaded patron + loaded gun = Good.

    Alcohol causes problems, and guns solve problems. Seems like a no-brainer to me! Also, I’m betting the Darwin Awards will be seeing a significant uptick in entries.

  87. 87

    There are people with obvious reasons to carry, women with harrassment/abuse issues, people who carry large amounts of valuables, etc. Attempts to differentiate between those who simply wanted to and those who quite reasonably wanted to failed any test of equal treatment. Go ahead and try to figure out a way to do so, you’d be way ahead of a whole lot of legal minds.

    The number of concealed carry people who get involved in legal trouble is vanishingly small compared to society at large. Pouring alcohol or drugs on anything is an invitation to problems with that and certainly includes firearms.

  88. 88
    Martin says:

    @Chuck Butcher: Its going to vary based on the nature of the people coming in, the community, the local culture, and so on.

    My dad lives in Florence and has noticed that some businesses (either in Florence or Eugene, not sure which) will get a bunch of open carry folks come through, while most others get none. There’s really no culture of open carry there, instead it appears that you have a handful of people going out of their way to open carry to make a point. My dad has talked to some of these business owners and their attitude is that if they just let it play out, the open carry folks will go back to their old behavior, which is to not make a spectacle of walking around with a firearm. If they ban them at the store level, they’re afraid the open carry folks are going to escalate because they are more interested in making a point than anything else with the firearm.

    So, I don’t think you can compare Oregon (or at least coastal Oregon) to many southern states, or even many western states.

  89. 89
    Corner Stone says:

    @Elisabeth: Also OT but gun related.
    Girard, the individual in MA of pure evil fame:
    Resident in ‘Armageddon’ gun case gets 4-year continuance
    They dropped all the charges except for the police lab determination that two items were silencers and not flash suppressors.

  90. 90
    LD50 says:

    @Bubblegum Tate:

    Alcohol causes problems, and guns solve problems.

    Wrong: alcohol is the cause of, *and* the solution to, all of life’s problems.

  91. 91

    @Right Wing Extreme:
    Not to put too fine a point on it, this is OR and that is TX and my POV is that if this were TX I wouldn’t be living here. You’ll also see plenty of signs that say, “refuse entry for any reason.”

  92. 92
    Shawnzilla says:

    I guess Wyatt Earp would be called a communist socialist faggot cause I’m pretty sure he was big on not carrying your six shooter into bars in either Dodge City or Tombstone. That is if movies have taught me anything about history.

  93. 93
    me says:

    @LD50: “Lets never drink again. And we never did. /glug”

  94. 94
    Martin says:

    @Chuck Butcher: Can we recognize that there are people who have more reason to carry than others, and that if the people with less reason to carry make a spectacle over carrying, it’s more likely to undermine the efforts of those with more reason to carry?

  95. 95

    @Martin:
    I’m not real sure why you think my frame of reference is coastal OR, though I’ve sure been around a bit.

  96. 96
    geg6 says:

    OT, but how happy am I to see a Dan Onorato ad on BJ the day before primary day in PA? Speaking of which, the local media are already covering Specter like a dead man. And I honestly don’t know if he’s going to lose. I’m voting Sestak, but, man, can they wait to report the guy’s political obit until he actually loses?

    And on topic, I don’t want ANYONE with a gun around me, with or without alcohol. Thankfully, I live in a semi-sane state that does not allow guns in bars, at least legally.

  97. 97
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Oh, goody, a guy who needs a court order to take his psychiatric medication has a legal right to own guns.

    I feel so much safer now.

  98. 98
    Tonybrown74 says:

    We are a fucking stupid nation …

  99. 99
    LD50 says:

    Some Texan once said (I’m sure someone here will know who) that Texas was justified in having such lax gun laws because there’s more people in Texas “who need killing”.

  100. 100
    Martin says:

    @Chuck Butcher: I have no idea what your frame of reference is. I have no idea if it’s even worth noting the difference between eastern and costal OR on an issue like this. After all, I was merely noting my dad’s frame of reference without trying to draw any conclusions about yours. No need to get defensive when I was clarifying my information without suggesting anything of yours.

  101. 101

    @Martin: Martin I have to agree with you. Most of the open carry crowd are doing it to make a point. If a store were to ban it, then they would have the open carry equivalent of a picket line. Personally, I almost never open carry. I will when I am hunting, camping or traveling, each for different reasons, but on a day-to-day basis it tends to cause trouble. Even if I am within my legal rights, my goal is to get through my day with as little hassle as possible, be it from my fellow citizens or law enforcement, and open carry just does not accomplish that.

  102. 102
    Michael says:

    I’ve found the ideal candidate for the 2012 GOP ticket. He’s got a horse, a gun, speakers blaring out Western theme music and he’s obviously an angry Teatard.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQdTgkY321s

    This is the kind of stupid shit that actually resonates in the South, in case y’all are wondering about the pathology down this way.

  103. 103

    @Martin:
    Then entire reason for concealed carry is to not make a spectacle. I have open carried during hunting season rather than leave a pistol in a vehicle otherwise most places I’ve seen it is a rarity. Lately some people seem to think they’re making a point that I am unimpressed with by carrying open.

    The mystification of firearms has been carried on by both sides of the issue. That is a poor way to develope policy or carry on a discussion.

  104. 104
    LD50 says:

    @Michael: That ad is full of awesome for more reasons than I can count. John needs to devote a whole thread to it.

  105. 105
    fucen tarmal says:

    When they passed a similar law here in Misery, hmmmm, yunno what happened? Every bidness everywhere posted signs saying “No Firearms”.

    see? a boondoggle for the sign printing industry, powerful forces are in play here.

    so, basically, you can carry a gun, and not light up a cigarette, because second hand smoke, that is the real danger here. lets get rid of the thing that may kill you over a period of time with repeated exposure, but keep the thing that might kill you at any moment.

    i’m feeling kinda kaczynski right now, i think i’ll drink at home tonight.

    even broader, when one group is arguing merely for the right to serve openly in the military, or foolishly get married, or another group to not have to prove they live in a country they are supposed to love so much, just because they seem furren, or another group, to drive a late model vehicle without arousing suspicion, or so many others…

    and the other group is asserting its rights by extending their “right” to a theoretical extreme that doesn’t make reasonable practical sense, even amongst members of the in-group, just because it is symbolic of how unrestricted their right should be in the abstract….

    is there any question which among these groups is really the one having oppression envy?

  106. 106

    @Chuck Butcher: It is true, I have seen the “For any reason” signs here and there. I simply find it odd that TX, with it’s well established gun culture, has more no firearms signs than OR which has a different tradition all together in the western part of the state. I think I would find it odd to see one over here as the culture is so different than over the mountains.

  107. 107
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    as part of the conditions of his release, Girard must undergo a mental health evaluation and treatment by a psychiatrist — including in-patient treatment as deemed necessary

    He must also continue to take proper medication, and surrender all weapons and military gear taken upon his arrest.

    It’s not clear from this article what medications he may have been taking before this incident. IMO the whole thing still seems very dodgy. He was arrested for owning verious legal items, and basically held preventatively – with no act committed.
    The only charges he couldn’t get away from relied solely on the local police lab’s determination, as best as I can tell.
    They had it in for this guy and lots of people here judged him guilty with absolutely no proof except for the arrest and a very vague statement from an estranged wife.

  108. 108
    Joel says:

    @LD50: Message discipline.

  109. 109
    Elisabeth says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    And, evidently, those flash grenade thingies, too. Just like the police used in the Detroit incident. But I thought Obama was comin’ to git R guns and stuff.

  110. 110
    FunkyOdor says:

    How about all Balloon Juicers in these states start carrying around holstered water pistols?

  111. 111
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Elisabeth:

    Mostly OT but related to guns. Apparently, A&E was filing The First 48 when the little girl in Detroit was killed Saturday night. The family’s attorney has seen the video (the police have not) and believes the police fired a shot into the house.

    Whoa. Shit just got real, son.

  112. 112
    Not me says:

    Pasquinade – yes it’s true. No guns, open or concealed, were allowed to be carried in the NRA convention.

  113. 113
    Martin says:

    @Right Wing Extreme: I actually don’t have a problem with open carry laws overall, but there are places/situations where it’s a better idea than others. Further, I’m suspicious of the motives of people pushing for these laws. I don’t think extending open carry to bars is there to promote the safety of women with harrassment/abuse issues, people who carry large amounts of valuables, etc.

    I understand the argument that laws should be as minimally invading as possible, but firearms themselves are invading, so it’s not as easy an argument to make in the case of handgun laws. This doesn’t seem like one of those lack-of-common sense laws, like not allowing people to drive while wearing a baseball cap (which I would support if it was limited to the Yankees.) Otherwise, what does society gain with this law, other than to make a point? It might be more liberty for handgun owners that want to carry to a bar, but it seems like less for everyone else around the bar, including other handgun owners.

  114. 114
    Citizen Alan says:

    @Michael:

    The funniest thing about the Dale Anderson commercial is that poor horse who seems to be thinking: “Somebody get me the fuck away from this crazy guy! He is freaking me out!”

  115. 115
    tavella says:

    @Elisabeth: Apparently, A&E was filing The First 48 when the little girl in Detroit was killed Saturday night. The family’s attorney has seen the video (the police have not) and believes the police fired a shot into the house.

    So they were performing for the tee-vee? No wonder it went to shit. There’s nothing worse than cops trying to look hard for the cameras.

  116. 116
    joeyess says:

    @freelancer: Oh yes. I stand corrected.

  117. 117
    slippy says:

    @Pasquinade: It sounds like the kind of ridiculous rumor right-wingers would fabricate about one of the left’s dearly-held positions.

    Of course, it also could be true.

  118. 118
    jwb says:

    @mclaren: I was thinking RPG, myself. Then I got to wondering if that was too modest and starting thinking that really we all deserve to be armed with our own personal thermonuclear devices. I mean, there is no real end point to NRA logic.

  119. 119
    jwb says:

    @Dork: John Woo should so totally film that.

  120. 120
    licensed to kill time says:

    @Michael:

    Oh man, that is all kinds of win. “I’ll name names and take no prisoners” and get the good ol’ boys back in the saddle where they belong, by gum! Holy frack of the mother.

  121. 121
    LD50 says:

    @Citizen Alan: One thing my wife noticed about the ad is the incongruity of a Alabaman wearing a cowboy hat. Considering it was made a state in 1819, what do cowboys have to do with Alabama? About as much as the Confederate flag has to do with Michigan and Maine, I guess.

  122. 122
    Ken says:

    @Tom in TN: I see your point; sort of a ‘herd-thinning’ measure.

  123. 123
    Martin says:

    @Chuck Butcher: No, there’s definitely a cohort of people making a spectacle of it. My dad, who notices people walking around with firearms having come from NYC where it stands out like having a police siren on your head, will go into the same coffee shop regularly for 3 years then suddenly, every Saturday, 8 guys now walk in prominently open-carrying, sitting where they are most likely to be observed, etc. It’s pretty obvious to everyone that they are trying to make a point.

    Are you really trying to suggest that there isn’t a deliberate open carry movement? Do you really need 50 people carrying sidearms to pick up trash? I appreciate the volunteer work, but I think it’s disingenuous to say that there isn’t a deliberate movement at work here.

  124. 124
    Elisabeth says:

    @tavella:

    I don’t know. I watch that show while I’m working out. Usually it’s pretty mundane police work (to my untrained eye). It’s not like A&E’s other fugitive-hunting gung-ho crap shows.

    Be interesting to see what the video shows (and if A&E airs it once the investigation is over).

  125. 125
    The Moar You Know says:

    @Michael: I’m from Alabama, and I laughed really hard at that commercial but at the same time it’s not funny at all; they eat that shit up down there.

  126. 126
    Douglas says:

    @Michael:
    Does he know that the Argiculture Commissioner doesn’t get to shoot people?

  127. 127
    JGabriel says:

    @LD50:

    One thing my wife noticed about the ad is the incongruity of a Alabaman wearing a cowboy hat.

    I may be wrong, but it looked to be a more rounded farmer’s hat than a cowboy’s Stetson. The Bonanza-style musak certainly seemed incongruous though.

    .

  128. 128
    MattR says:

    @Douglas:

    Does he know that the Argiculture Commissioner doesn’t get to shoot people?

    That is phase 2 of his plan.

  129. 129
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Corner Stone:

    They had it in for this guy and lots of people here judged him guilty with absolutely no proof except for the arrest and a very vague statement from an estranged wife.

    Again, generally a court can’t order you to take unneeded medication, so there must be at least some evidence that the guy has mental health issues.

    The Virginia Tech shooter’s firearms were legal, too. I don’t have a problem if people without mental illnesses want to carry guns around, as long as they don’t get pissy when I point and laugh at them, but letting paranoid schizophrenics and depressives carry loaded firearms in public seems like a really, really bad idea for everyone, including themselves.

  130. 130
    JGabriel says:

    @Michael:

    I’ve found the ideal candidate for the 2012 GOP ticket. He’s got a horse, a gun, speakers blaring out Western theme music …

    But does he have a pickup truck?

    .

  131. 131
    LD50 says:

    @Douglas: That’s another hilarious aspect of that ad — all that macho posturing over a government position regulating soybeans.

  132. 132
    Catsy says:

    So to review:

    People who drink or smoke weed are prohibited from operating an automobile–a device for which they are licensed, a device which has the potential to kill if misused or used while impaired. We come down on this pretty hard, as I recall.

    But drinking and carrying a firearm? A-OK, because it’s a constitutional right!

    Sometimes I wonder if our culture deserves to survive.

  133. 133
    Martin says:

    @MattR: Hey, where do you think all the illegals are?

    And TPM is reporting that Poizner has a new ad out here in CA attacking Whitman for banning gun sales on eBay but continuing porn sales. It just gets better and better.

  134. 134
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mnemosyne: And again, my issue is that there’s no proof of him having a mental illness. At least not that I remember reading about this case.
    All we had was the State saying he was guilty/crazy and everyone and their brother jumped right on board to concur. He had a legal right to own all that equipment, except the two items the police lab determined illegal. The article indicates he’s been ordered to undergo an evaluation per terms of his release. I didn’t see them list a finding.

    Basically, this is very similar to my deep concern that a lot of people here, and other places, jump right onboard any time the government makes a declaration of guilt.
    Just like with the law the SC made a ruling on that allows confinement after a term is up (the law, not the SC ruling). And just like with al-Alawki whom a lot of people here were fine with the idea of a rocket up his ass because the government said he was guilty of being a terrorist.
    Collectively, we seem to be saying that if the government says it about some group we disagree with, then it must be true.
    In this case, a lot of people react with a decisive knee jerk when guns are mentioned. Most times it doesn’t seem like a rational response, but fine. The MA police got a tip, they went in, made a big deal of busting the guy, then were essentially forced to play that guy for everything they could. Once they declared him a danger to society they could not possibly let him go free without a big fight – whatever the facts showed. And people here just accepted it at face value, with nothing but an arrest to show as evidence of guilt.
    And yes, concern troll is concerned.

  135. 135
    Elie says:

    @russell:

    We have a BLACK PRESIDENT!

    White people have to be ready in EVERY situation to defend themselves because they are in extreme danger from the BLACK PRESIDENT.

    Seriously. What else could be stimulating such an intensely and obvious disproportionate response? Like you say, does anyone see marauders on every highway and byway? Nope. But we have A BLACK PRESIDENT!

  136. 136

    @Martin: I totally agree, it is a movement trying to make a point. However, the point I think that gets made is, “I have a gun, neiner, neiner.” I think that in most cases it is to garner attention. I do not have a problem with open carry overall either. I only do it when no other option exists, such as I am on my way back from hunting and I do not want to leave it unattended in the car, or I am helping my friend, who is a rancher, check the fences. If an animal that is causing trouble, coyotes, rattlesnake etc. I do not want to be digging around for my pistol, I want to have it ready now. As for carrying in public in an everyday situation, while there is no protection from seeing something that might offend, as opposed to your right to carry, it is invasive. For all that I have been poked fun at for being a southerner, my parents raised me to be a gentleman. I this case it means carry concealed if I am going to carry in public. Like I said this keeps me from the nonsense of having to deal with cowardly idiots who wet themselves at the mere sight of a big scary gun, or the police when said idiot calls the police. beyond that, when I carry, I prefer to keep it to myself. Beyond all of that, it is courtesy, the same reason I no longer wear my “Fuck You I’m From Texas” t-shirt. I do not feel the need to rub it in under someone’s nose, nor see the point in purposely making other uncomfortable. I also agree that open carry in the service of “making a point” makes it worse, not better for everyone.

  137. 137
    Brad Hanon says:

    Can I just point out that that Anderson nutjob is exhibiting suicidally poor gun handling in his look-at-my-penis TV spot?

    Seriously, watch when he pulls that rifle out. He’s waving it around, putting it on a fence, leaning it back on his shoulder, all with his finger right on the trigger. In the same ad where he claims to have been both a cop and a marine. Is he playing the “Those safety rules are means for people who aren’t as experienced and skilled as me” game? Because people who play that game… they end up killing people by accident a lot.

  138. 138
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Corner Stone, when a court orders you to get psychiatric treatment up to and including in-patient care and to “continue to take proper medication,” they’re talking about psychiatric medication, not your blood pressure medication.

    Unless you’re trying to claim that the court has illegally ordered a guy with no mental illness to take psychiatric medication as part of their jihad against guns, your point is extremely silly because a psychiatric patient who needs court monitoring to take his medication is a very poor candidate for gun ownership.

  139. 139
    RedKitten says:

    I’m sorry…Sarah Palin had a baby shower at a target range?

    Is there some sort of clause that all 2nd Amendment nuts are legally required to be incredibly fucking tacky?

  140. 140

    @RedKitten: I had my last wedding at the country club golf course, what is the difference?

  141. 141
    Lysana says:

    @Right Wing Extreme:

    I had my last wedding at the country club golf course, what is the difference?

    My one question would be whether the baby could be affected by the noise.

  142. 142
    JGabriel says:

    RedKitten:

    I’m sorry…Sarah Palin had a baby shower at a target range?

    Right Wing Extreme:

    I had my last wedding at the country club golf course, what is the difference?

    In Texas? None at all.

    .

  143. 143
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mnemosyne: There is no point to bothering with you on this. You assume facts not in evidence and work from there.
    And please, can you at least admit the truth – there is and was no history of any mental illness finding in evidence.
    Just because the court has ordered an evaluation DOES NOT mean he has a mental illness.
    I just read every article I could find on this case. There is zero mention of any mental illness finding or previous medication mentioned – even by his wife.
    This goes to my contention here. The State has ordered an evaluation and you automatically assume that means he is mentally ill.

  144. 144
    Andrew says:

    These Idiots just want to bring back the wild west, once they get the Conceal and Carry while drunk law, they will then go after the Conceal carry and drunk while shooting in the air and yelling YEEEEHHHAAAAARRR!!!!

    If they want to play Cowboys and Indians can’t they do it at home for crying out loud.

  145. 145
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Corner Stone:

    The State has ordered an evaluation and you automatically assume that means he is mentally ill.

    No, the state has ordered that he “continues taking proper medication.” What medication do you think they’re ordering that he continue to take that a lack of would affect his judgment and ability to own weapons? Are they ordering him to keep up on his boner medication?

    The only non-psychiatric medication I can think of that would affect his state of mind enough to make him potentially unable to properly handle weapons would be diabetes medication since blood sugar problems can cause you to act irrationally. If you can find evidence that the court ordered him to continue “taking proper medication” because of his diabetes, then you would have a point, but that order is most common with psychiatric medications. It would be a very unusual order to issue for any other type of medication.

    But, hey, let’s cling to the small chance that in this particular case, the judge meant something totally different. If that’s the case, then I will join you in being indignant on his behalf. You seem to be grasping at straws, though, to come up with any explanation other than the most common.

  146. 146
    LD50 says:

    @Right Wing Extreme: You don’t think there’s a difference between a country club and a target range.

    Gotcha.

  147. 147
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    But, hey, let’s cling to the small chance that in this particular case, the judge meant something totally different. If that’s the case, then I will join you in being indignant on his behalf. You seem to be grasping at straws, though, to come up with any explanation other than the most common.

    Find where it says he was on psychiatric medication before the police arrested him. Show me the evidence. His wife would have certainly mentioned that if it were the case.
    Otherwise the most likely conclusion is the police ordered him on meds while incarcerated.

  148. 148
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Otherwise the most likely conclusion is the police ordered him on meds while incarcerated.

    It is illegal for a court to order someone put on medication without a psychiatrist recommending it. So either (a) the guy had an undiagnosed mental illness that led to a psychiatrist recommending that he be put on medication or (b) the court has illegally forced him to take psychiatric medication that he didn’t need.

    Sure, (b) is possible, but I think I’m going to need a little more evidence before I agree with you that we are now, Soviet-style, forcibly medicating people who are not mentally ill because we don’t like their political stances.

  149. 149
    Calming Influence says:

    “…make it “legal to enter a bar or restaurant with a licensed concealed weapon and get drunk,” as long as the individual doesn’t fire the weapon.”

    I find this too restrictive. You should be able to get drunk and fire your weapon in a bar, as long as you don’t hit another patron.

    I’m thinking of a bar I was in a few years back that must have had over fifty deer, elk, and moose heads on the walls, as well as a stuffed bear. Now be honest: who among you wouldn’t love to sit at a bar getting shit-faced and partake in a little dead-critter hunting?

  150. 150
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mnemosyne: My contention is this – and call it crazy if it makes you feel better:
    When you have any police interaction and end up with a black eye or split lip – you will be arrested and charged with “resisting arrest”, or assault on a police officer. It’s a pre-emptive defense by the officer. No matter what you did or did not do, if you have a visible mark you will be charged.
    Ask any police officer you know, and I suggest they will agree with you.

    In this case, they SWAT teamed his condo, arrested him, then put on a big media circus with pics of all the “illegal” contraband. And they told everyone they would be revoking his right to own a firearm and they held him because he was a danger to society. Even though there was no record of threats or any prior acts.
    Now, they toss all the charges against him except for the silencer charge – which I find specious but let’s say it’s above board.*
    After holding him indefinitely, with no discernible case or evidence, and playing up the media portion, I suggest they have no choice but to make the mental illness determination. He’s a threat, he has guns, he has food stored, he’s planning for societal collapse and Armageddon.
    Lot’s of people were thinking about societal collapse, including Sec Treas, the President, and every Congress person who voted for TARP.
    So, to conclude, call me wacky if I choose not to believe the State in this one instance without a lot more evidence presented.
    He may need help, and I’m not evaluating him so I don’t know for sure either way. But I need more than the State charging him with owning legal items.

    *IMO, they had their lab determine those devices as silencers so they could use them as leverage to force him to accept the mental evaluation moving forward.

  151. 151
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    forcibly medicating people who are not mentally ill because we don’t like their political stances.

    Ever heard of Don Siegelman ?

  152. 152
    New Yorker says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Funny, the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this was “A Boy Named Sue”: “well, it was Gatlinburg in mid-July, I just hit town and my throat was dry. I thought I’d go and have myself a brew.”

  153. 153
    Wolfdaughter says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Just to follow up on what Mnemosyne said. Here in Arizona, yes even in bugf—king nuts Arizona, people aren’t court-ordered willy-nilly to take psychiatric medication. People who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar, etc., who have a history of NOT taking their medication, are the only people court-ordered. And this requires testimony before the court from licensed psych health professionals that the person, absent meds, will likely be a danger to him/herself and/or to others.

    Being court-ordered to take meds is no light thing. I know. I have a friend who’s bipolar and schizoactive, and she has been court-ordered to take her meds, because from time to time she has quit taking them. She’s never yet been a danger to others, but has attempted suicide more than once, and believe me, she gets REALLY REALLY irrational when she’s not on her meds. AND she ends up in the psych unit in one or another hospital for a week or two every time and she’s on AHCCCS, Arizona’s version of Medicaid, so she cost taxpayer dollars for said hospital treatment. I’ve had plenty of interactions with her on meds and off.

    If this guy has been court-ordered to take his meds, it was for a good reason and after thorough investigation.

  154. 154

    @JGabriel: Was a golf course in Washington State. Moved from TX before I took up golf.

    @LD50: That sort of depends. Neither is exactly what I would call a “normal” place for a wedding. Although the judge did walk over from his house. See below for further.

    @Lysana: I am sure the baby could hear the noise. There have been studies that a baby knows the sound of it’s mother’s voice at birth. This makes sense being that the sound would carry through the body. There have also been studies that in a home where a father and/or other children are present those voices are familiar as well. As for harm, I would honestly have to say I do not know, but I doubt it.

    It would also depend on the firing range. Bear with me for a minute. Most of the ranges I have been to consist of a gun and ammo shop, maybe a gunsmith area and either shooting lanes indoors or outdoor areas for one or more types of shooting, pistol, rifle, trap and skeet. Living s big sky country for the last eight years or so, my “range” has been somewhere out in the middle of nowhere preferably with a large hill in the background. These descriptions are not the end all and be all of ranges.

    I once went shooting with a high school friend who is now “well off”. His “range” was essentially a country club, but instead of golf, they did the firearm thing. They had a nice restaurant, 4 star as I recall, banquet rooms, party rooms, a bar etc. Being that this was a rich persons gathering place for gun enthusiasts, I could easily imagine a baby-shower in one of the rooms. There would also likely be very little noise to upset the ladies or harm the baby. How weird it is to have a baby-shower at a range depends on your preconceived notions of what a shooting range looks like. Being that Sarah has money and connected friends, I imagine she is a member of a place like this, and probably visits far more. On the other hand, I would not put it past her to go to a more “common” range.

  155. 155
    Corner Stone says:

    @Wolfdaughter: Girard may be very ill, and need help.
    I don’t know.
    But, without further prior history or evidence this is a curious call.

    He was a successful, socially functioning consultant with some ideas of bad times to come.

    One of my good friend’s dad’s bought Krugerrands and corn and wheat and rice in the 70’s. He was a senior executive for an int’l chemical company.

    I’m not making a determination about his mental health. If he needs help I hope he gets it.
    But the easiest way to shut you up for anything moving forward is to place the crazy tag on you.

  156. 156
    Hob says:

    @Corner Stone: I’ve certainly heard of Don Siegelman. I hadn’t heard of him being court-ordered to take psychiatric drugs, though — which I assume is what you’re saying, but I can’t find any reference to that on the site you linked to, or from general Googling. Could you elaborate?

    BTW, though I don’t know anything about Massachusetts, what Wolfdaughter and Mnemosyne have said about the law seems accurate based on my experience working in public health in California. And I don’t get your point that the authorities “have no choice but to make the mental illness determination” to “shut [him] up for anything moving forward”; if they’ve really got nothing and are just trying to avoid embarrassment, surely it’s simpler to just quietly drop the charges.

    Not to mention that (from all reports) he wasn’t just worried about “bad times to come.” He was getting ready for Armageddon, and for martial law. How was he getting ready? By moving out to the wilderness, building a shelter, and learning to grow food? By praying? By preparing to become a political refugee? No: by stockpiling a shitload of guns in his apartment. Sorry, he’s nuts.

  157. 157
    Ash Can says:

    I had my last wedding at the country club golf course, what is the difference?

    Jesus Christ on a three-legged mule bound for Poughkeepsie. Those are some STRONG drugs there.

  158. 158
    Corner Stone says:

    @Hob: Sure. Siegelman was an example that the State will use it’s power to act against political enemies. He was jailed, which to me is a little more harsh than meds. I thought that should be clear but I can see what you’re saying.

    And I don’t get your point that the authorities “have no choice but to make the mental illness determination” to “shut [him] up for anything moving forward”; if they’ve really got nothing and are just trying to avoid embarrassment, surely it’s simpler to just quietly drop the charges.

    And I thought I was very clear on this. They aren’t trying to avoid embarrassment. They are pre-defending themselves of charges moving forward. This is pretty clear.

    by stockpiling a shitload of guns

    No. This is false. There were two people who lived there, and his wife had a CHL as well. “Shitload”? Six guns per person +/-? Initial reports indicated about “20” but that was later revised down. “after police pulled a collection of 11 rifles and two handguns”
    I’m sorry, but lots of people across a wide spectrum would not consider this a “shitload”. For example, my uncle collected six-gun pistols from the Old West. He had almost 50 in glass fronted cabinets, some from documented historical figures of the Wild West.
    And even if it were a “shitload”, all the firearms were legal. Legal. Let me say that again. Legal.
    Legal.

  159. 159
    Corner Stone says:

    @Hob:

    if they’ve really got nothing and are just trying to avoid embarrassment, surely it’s simpler to just quietly drop the charges.

    Sorry, he’s nuts.

    Need I say more?

  160. 160
    Hob says:

    @Corner Stone: I don’t know if you need to say more, but I have no idea what you’re getting at with that last non-comment.

    It seems to me that you’re trying to argue that if a court drops a bunch of charges against someone, but also requires him to get a psychiatric evaluation, then somehow they’re immunizing themselves if he should later sue for wrongful prosecution. It’s unclear on how that’s supposed to work. “Don’t listen to that guy because he’s crazy” may work all too well in the court of public opinion, but it’s not actually grounds for denying an appeal.

    The Siegelman reference continues to baffle me. Is your point that (a) people are sometimes unjustly prosecuted and imprisoned, and therefore (b) courts have carte blanche to do any other thing they want to a person, if it could be considered less harsh than imprisonment? If so, that’s both untrue and illogical. Wolfdaughter on this thread, and cmorenc on the “indefinite detention for sex offenders” thread, have been pointing out that there’s some very specific legal history around involuntary psychiatric treatment, which you seem to be hand-waving away.

    Also, you can continue to say “legal, legal, legal” as many times as you want, but I never disputed that. And since they’ve dropped those charges, apparently the state is no longer disputing that either. But yeah, in my unprofessional and inconsequential opinion, I do believe that someone who adds that many guns to his household not because he’s collecting them, but for the express purpose of preparing for an apocalyptic event– whether it be a Biblical one, in which case guns are irrelevant, or a nuclear one, in which case getting the fuck out of your condo would be a more logical first step, or an Obama Martial Law one, in which case all you’re preparing for is to get killed in a police siege– is almost certainly a psychotic person who, if heavily armed with legal legal legal firearms, would be a danger to himself and others. I’m not trying to convince you or the judge or anyone else of this, I’m just trying to explain why your attempt to portray the guy as a harmless political prisoner is so unconvincing to me and, I would imagine, others.

  161. 161
    ET says:

    Yeah, guns and alcohol area always a good mix.

    It won’t take long for a redneck or college kid to kill someone or be killed. But what are a few deaths when the 2nd amendment right to carry guns into bars with a bunch of drunk people is infringed?

  162. 162
    russell says:

    I had my last wedding at the country club golf course, what is the difference?

    Well, the thing that leaps right out at me is that people are shooting guns at a firing range. Just saying.

    For example, my uncle collected six-gun pistols from the Old West. He had almost 50 in glass fronted cabinets, some from documented historical figures of the Wild West.

    Did your uncle also tell the cops he was assembling his collection to prepare for Armageddon and a regime of martial law?

    And even if it were a “shitload”, all the firearms were legal. Legal. Let me say that again. Legal.
    Legal.

    And even if they were, the guy is bugfuck nuts.

    Let me say that again. Nuts. Squirrel-brain, batshit nuts.

    Manchester MA is an extremely well-groomed, very upscale suburban town on the ocean in Cape Ann, about 20 or so miles north of Boston. The most notable feature of the town is Singing Beach, where the sand chirps if you scuff your feet on it, and a lot of stately New England homes built by a lot of stately New England rich people.

    This guy had 11 rifles, a couple of handguns, illegal silencers, ***thousands*** of rounds of ammunition, double sided assault knives, tear gas and smoke grenades, police batons, and other “military gear”.

    He was found guilty of shooting his gun too close to a dwelling, which actually is illegal in MA, and of owning the illegal silencers.

    He was ordered to get psychiatric counseling because he is *manifestly bugfuck insane*, and folks who are *manifestly bugfuck insane* who also own twice their weight in ordinance should probably get some counseling.

    As far as I can tell, nobody was going out of their way to bust on this guy. He’s a freaking nutjob with a lot of guns. That really ought to get the attention of law enforcement.

    yes it’s true. No guns, open or concealed, were allowed to be carried in the NRA convention.

    Pussies.

  163. 163
    Corner Stone says:

    @russell:

    He was found guilty of shooting his gun too close to a dwelling, which actually is illegal in MA, and of owning the illegal silencers.

    I didn’t see where he was found guilty of anything at all Dr. Russell.

  164. 164
    russell says:

    My bad, continued without a finding.

    In MA law, “continued without a finding” is an admission that there is sufficient evidence to find you guilty of the charges in question. It’s usually offered as part of a plea bargain.

    Girard is a nutjob. I’m not saying that because he has guns, I’m saying it because he’s a freaking straight up nutjob.

    He didn’t have 11 rifles and a couple of handguns because he was interested in guns and shooting and like to collect nice things. He had a freaking arsenal, because he believed the end of the freaking world was at hand and, if he was going to go down at all, he was going to go down fighting and take a lot of folks with him.

    From a local paper at the time of this initial arrest:

    “Police also found a large collection of military camouflage clothing, knives, handcuffs, bullet proof vests and helmets, stockpiles of medicine and nonperishable food products throughout the home. An indoor shooting range in the attack was also discovered.

    Girard told police that he was preparing for an Armageddon.”

    They did the due diligence, figured out what was legal and what was not, gave the guy instructions to get some help for his paranoid fantasy life, and cut him a great big break on the stuff he was actually guilty of.

    I don’t see where he’s being picked on by anybody.

  165. 165
    Corner Stone says:

    @russell: Ok. Hypothetically, let’s say I’m a sporting enthusiast. How many firearms and of what type/model am I allowed to have?
    Are 4 shotguns ok but 4 shotguns and a rifle make me crazy? Where do I go from being a citizen and sporting enthusiast to crazy nutjob?

    Or is it the guns plus the statement? Or should I say alleged statement. The police who arrested him reported the statement and I couldn’t find it entered into evidence anywhere.

    All the things you list as evidence of craziness are all legal to own, and if that’s what he wants to spend money on then how is it our problem? Bullet proof vests don’t kill people, and neither do 6 month food supplies. Medicine supplies?

    Some people here have a revulsion factor when it comes to guns. And that’s fine.
    The other day this blog went nova when the cops busted in and shot a corgi, and IIRC it was related to the war on drugs.
    My guess is that if they had someone who was suspected of having a “shitload” of guns on property, and they bust in and shot the corgi for no good reason that not too many peeps would’ve been uttered.

    IOW, Girard may or may not be mentally unbalanced – I don’t know. But I’m not going to take what has been offered so far and convict him on what they’ve got.

  166. 166
    russell says:

    Ok. Hypothetically, let’s say I’m a sporting enthusiast.

    Better yet, let’s not bother.

    Girard is not a hypothetical guy. He’s a real guy, who really has lots of weapons that have nothing to do with sporting uses of firearms. He has a home-made shooting range in the third floor of his home, which happens to be a multi-family unit with other people on the other side of the walls. He has a long and well documented electronic trail of blog comments in which he espouses standard, grade-A, paranoid anti-government wackjobbery.

    If you are a gun collector, or you like to hunt or shoot for sport, I don’t care how many guns you have. Have a hundred. Have two hundred. I really don’t care.

    Girard is a nutjob. He is not being persecuted for owning guns. His wife and a friend of his tipped the cops not just about his weapons stash, but about a number of politically incendiary statements he’d made, and about his stated intentions to shoot people if his paranoid delusions came to pass. These statements weren’t fabricated by the cops, he has also made them in the public record.

    Google him up, you’ll find as much as you need.

    If this guy was in my neighborhood, you are damned straight I’d want the cops to check him out. Not because he owns guns, but because he is a freaking nutcase who owns lots and lots of guns and talks about shooting people with them.

    I think you really want to find another poster boy for gun rights.

  167. 167
    Corner Stone says:

    I think you really want to find another poster boy for gun rights.

    It’s not about gun rights, although that seems to be what pushes peoples buttons here. I don’t hold a torch for Mr. Girard, nor his life choices. He may be the worst person in the world this side of Rush Limbaugh. But it isn’t about that.
    It’s about convicting him with no evidence other than an arrest.
    I did just google him. I googled “gregory girard” by itself, then sorted by date using 1 year. I skimmed all the links for the first 10 pages of links Google returned. Then I googled “gregory girard” crazy and skimmed the links in the 5 pages of links Google returned to see if the people calling him crazy had quotes. They all had evidence of his arrest as proof that he was crazy.
    In short, I could not find what you refer to above.
    His estranged wife has said he made statements that on their face seem disturbing. But we really don’t know what was said, nor the context. If you choose to place high value on the comments of his estranged wife, then ok. I’ve been out with a couple when the wife got mad at her hubby and as they passed the significantly large doorman said out loud how bad her husband hated F’ng n-words. Then when the doorman didn’t pummel him, she struck hubby in the face and when the cops came they arrested the husband for assault even though witnesses told them she was the one acting erratically.
    Long boring story, I agree. But my point is I need a little more before I start convicting them.
    And if you want to start arresting people for saying violent things about traitors then I suggest you start with the GOP.
    And if you want to start arresting people for fearmongering a social breakdown and Armeggedon then I suggest you start with Hank Paulson.

  168. 168
    russell says:

    In short, I could not find what you refer to above.

    http://discuss.epluribusmedia......-dangerous

    He used to have his own page on the Patriots For America site (http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/) but they took it down.

    It’s not about gun rights

    My mistake, it appeared from your comments that the guns were at least part of what you were on about.

    I think if you review how Girard was handled by local cops and the courts, you’ll find that he was not treated particularly badly.

    He was held without bail for a while because he had a history of publicly talking about shooting people, and he had a lot of guns.

    They did the homework, figured out what he actually had, and dropped the inappropriate charges. The stuff he was actually guilty of, they continued without a finding and required him to get some psychiatric counseling, because he’s pretty clearly dealing with some paranoia.

    They could have taken him to trial, and he’d probably be looking at jail time.

    Net/net, it seems, to me, that Girard came out of it OK, and probably a lot better than he might have. Maybe better than he deserved. That’s my take. YMMV.

Comments are closed.