Gun control activists are putting people at risk with their latest attempt to infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans. In August, the Buckeye Firearms Association found that some of these groups are actually advocating citizens to call the police on people who either open or concealed carry in public. So, is this a soft form of swatting from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence on law-abiding citizenry? By the way, CSGV's Facebook page is, well, interesting–and I don’t mean that in a good way (via Fox News):
“This practice is exactly what they [Coalition to Stop Gun Violence] are doing,” said Erich Pratt, spokesman for Virginia-based Gun Owners of America. “It’s one thing if someone is using a gun in an illegal or unlawful manner. No one is questioning that. But this clearly sounds like swatting.”[…]
The main issue that gun advocates have with the Coalition’s tactics is the potential of putting law-abiding citizens in real danger. Officials for the anti-gun group say that this is not the case.
“In an era in which individuals are being allowed to carry loaded guns on our streets with no permit, background check or required training, it is common sense for concerned citizens to call 911 when they see an armed individual whose intentions are unclear,” Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “These [open carry] laws guarantee that we—and law enforcement—will have no idea about the criminal and/or mental health background of these individuals until they actually commit a crime; and by then it could be far too late. We have full confidence in our men and women in blue to assess these situations.
Pratt added that people calling the police on law-abiding citizens is tantamount to a crime, and anyone who does participate in this nonsensical practice should be charged for filing a false police report.
Fox also cited National Review’s Charles Cooke’s 2014 piece that noted other groups, like Moms Demand Action and GunFreeZone.net, also encourage their supporters to call the cops on Americans who doing nothing more than exercising one of our oldest civil rights.
Cooke recently placed Everitt’s logic under scrutiny as well:
Leaving aside for the moment that this proposal is extremely dangerous, Everitt’s logic leaves a lot to be desired. He presumes that citizens should be especially worried because in some areas individuals are “allowed to carry loaded guns on our streets with no permit, background check or required training.” But why? Suppose for the sake of argument that we lived in an era in which all carriers were supposed to obtain a “permit,” “background check,” and “required training.” What would that tell us exactly? Is Everitt suggesting that if the law-abiding were obliged to undergo a more strenuous licensing process, criminals would decline to carry guns? Does he conceive that mass shooters might refrain from causing carnage and terror if their state of residence insisted upon more stringent background checks? What, other than demonstrating the enduring power of the non sequitur, is he trying to achieve here?
On the other hand, Cooke noted, as I have in the past, that some open carry activists, namely Open Carry Texas, don't help the Second Amendment cause by bringing their long guns onto private property, or into Chipotle, seeking confrontation. When gun owners carry for self-defense, the point is to not draw attention. That’s tactically unsound. Luckily, the vast majority of gun owners don’t do that, and many of you have probably walked passed fellow citizens who were carrying a firearm (either open or concealed) depending on the state.
Nevertheless, it's the mindset of these gun control groups–and their tactics–that have made any discussion about gun policy a fool’s errand. There is a legitimate debate about how to keep the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. The vast majority of perpetrators of mass shootings have exhibited signs of mental illness, but Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and Moms Demand Action, seem to only be fixated on curbing Second Amendment rights. Moreover, Moms Demand is focused (again) on background checks after the horrific Charlestown shooting in South Carolina. They’re focusing on the very rare three-day delay provision within the pro-gun control Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that allows a gun dealer (though he’s not legally obligated to do so) to transfer a firearm to a customer with an incomplete background check if that process isn’t completed within three days.
In essence, all of these gun control groups are tiptoeing around what they really want, which they cannot advocate because it’s not popular: gun confiscation. A policy initiative that can never happen due to the amount of firearms circulating in the United States, the amount of homes who have guns, and the constitutional obstacles for which all of this can be achieved. There is no way the anti-gun crowd has the votes for this; they couldn’t even find enough votes for a new ban on so-called assault weapons in 2013.
It’s just ironic that the folks who say they want gun control because guns in public puts people’s lives at risk are deploying tactics that actually put people’s lives at risk.
It’s just appalling.
Why would pro-gun activists possibly think we want their "protection" in public? If they want to be courteous, actually,...
Posted by Coalition to Stop Gun Violence on Friday, September 4, 2015
If I see anyone Open Carry a gun, I'm pepper spraying them immediately, taking their gun and holding him there till the police arrive.
— Jennifer (@Jennifer4130) April 3, 2015How am I supposed to know which gun nut is the good guy or the bad guy?
#GunSense #WhateverItTakes #NotOneMore
— Jennifer (@Jennifer4130) September 4, 2015