Archive for the ‘Violence’ Category

Conspiracy theories are nothing new, of course, and they can even be entertaining at times (I especially liked 7 and 8). Too often, though, conspiracy theorists take their silly ideas a step too far.

Sandy Hook “Truthers,” in particular, spread an extraordinarily vile brand of lie that hurts people already harmed by tragedy. They insist that Sandy Hook was some type of government plot to take away citizen’s gun rights, which is just foolish nonsense. I’ve even been confronted by some of these misguided souls on Twitter who have insisted to me that Sandy Hook never happened at all and that I was participating in a conspiracy to spread government lies.

Yeah, that’s right. Government lies.

Grace McDonnell was killed at Sandy Hook

Grace McDonnell was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012

Children died at Sandy Hook, and the government had nothing at all to do with it. In fact, all of the ridiculous claims by Sandy Hook Truthers have been easily debunked. For whatever reason, though, the Truthers have persisted in their efforts and are hurting people in the process, including one mother of Sandy Hook victim, Grace McDonnell.

According to a Huffington Post article, one Truther recently stole a memorial sign at a playground named in honor of Grace and then contacted the child’s mother to tell her that her dead daughter never existed in the first place. 

Peace Sign Stolen From Conn. Playground Honoring Sandy Hook Victim

I hate to give any type of audience or attention to these obviously disturbed people, or even acknowledge their existence at all, but they’re taking away energy and focus from the real issues that we need to address. We need to be developing ways to avoid these types of tragedies by effectively intervening with people experiencing serious mental health crises, not getting bogged down in nonsense about Sandy Hook being a hoax.

Not only was Sandy Hook not a hoax, I would argue that it’s nearly impossible for the government to pull off any type of large-scale hoax without everyone quickly finding out about it. They’re just not that good, and any people involved would have an incredibly hard time keeping something like that secret.

So, enough already. Let these parents grieve and, if you buy into these nutty theories, find yourself some help.

Share this post with everyone you think might be interested.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Last week, the Department of Justice released its report about the Albuquerque Police Department’s use of force practices, which have been much in the news lately.

Last month, APD officers shot and killed James Boyd, a mentally ill man who was involved in a standoff  with officers that was captured on one officer’s helmet cam. Video of that shooting has sparked considerable controversy about the APD’s apparent tendency toward using excessive force, even against people who posed little or no direct threat to officers.

Video: APD releases HelmetCam footage of shooting

The DOJ’s investigation, initiated in 2012, takes a broader look at the department’s overall practices. Its conclusions are direct, damning, and represent just the type of straight talk and analysis necessary to begin the process of bringing APD into compliance with the law and with the best interests of New Mexico citizens.

As it turns out, concerns about the Boyd shooting may just be the tip of the iceberg in terms of improper use of deadly force by APD officers. According to the DOJ report (PDF):

Albuquerque police officers too often use deadly force in an unconstitutional manner in their use of firearms. To illustrate, of the 20 officer-involved shootings resulting in fatalities from 2009 to 2012, we concluded that a majority of these shootings were unconstitutional. Albuquerque police officers often use deadly force in circumstances where there is no imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to officers or others. Instead, officers used deadly force against people who posed a minimal threat, including individuals who posed a threat only to themselves or who were unarmed. Officers also used deadly force in situations where the conduct of the officers heightened the danger and contributed to the need to use force. (emphasis added)

The use of less-than-lethal force by APD officers was little better. According to the report, officer misconduct in this area represented a pattern of abuse that was described as “systemic.”  A lack of effective training, policy development, and appropriate oversight all contributed to incidents of improper use of force in a wide range of situations, including against those involving mentally ill suspects and defendants.

Justice Dept. accuses Albuquerque PD of ‘unjustified force’

In their overall summary of findings regarding the APD, the DOJ had this to say:

We have reasonable cause to believe that officers of the Albuquerque Police Department engage in a pattern or practice of use of excessive force, including unreasonable deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment….

The report provides a number of examples in support of its claim that excessive force was used by APD officers. Many of these involved the use of Tasers and other less-than-lethal weapons that were deployed in ways that were improper, harmful, and unnecessary.

For example, one case involved a 60-year-old man, initially armed with a knife, who had made a threat against another man while intoxicated. The APD sent 47 officers to the scene, shot the man with five “bean bag” rounds, launched a flash bang grenade at him, shot him with a wooden baton round, deployed a police canine against him, then tased him repeatedly until he collapsed.  All of that happened after he had dropped the knife.

A judge, who later reviewed the case, wrote that:

“…no reasonable person could believe that an inhibited, slow-moving, 60-year-old individual, who made no physical or verbal threats, and wielded no weapons, could constitute a threat to the safety of any of the forty-seven armed and shielded police officers who stood over twenty feet away.”

In another incident detailed in the report, officers tased and physically assaulted a mentally disabled man who was literally incapable, due to his disability, of complying with APD officer’s commands. As it turned out, the man had wandered away from a group home where he had been living. He had the mental capacity of a five-year-old child.

APD officers also tased and assaulted individuals who were incapacitated due to a drug overdose, or who were so intoxicated that they were proned out on a couch unable to move, or so mentally ill that they were not capable of rational thinking or decision making. In one case, officers were called simply to check on the welfare of a mentally ill young man, who had done nothing illegal, and ended up kicking, choking, and arresting him after he declined their attempts to interact with him, which he had every right to do.

DOJ Investigates APD

Example after example makes clear that the APD is not a police force in any sense, but an aggressive, out-of-control, occupying force bent on imposing its will on the citizenry, even upon the law-abiding citizens in their jurisdiction. The DOJ report goes on to document factors, such as the lack of effective training for officers, a lack of oversight by supervisors and other leaders in the organization, failure to properly document use of force incidents, including very serious ones, such as shootings – all of which contributed to a culture of violence and illegality in the APD.

As part of the background for this report, the DOJ offered up this succinct statement that summarizes my personal feelings about policing in general:

A well-functioning police department has the trust of the residents it protects, functions as a part of the community rather than insulated from it, and cultivates legitimacy when the public views it as engaging with them fairly and respecting the rule of law.

Police departments are not separate from the communities they serve. They do not exist to control the population. Police departments are integral elements of community life that exist for the sole purposes of protecting and serving the citizenry. They are under the direct control of duly elected representatives, and they are fully accountable to the community and anyone who visits or travels there.

Gun

The DOJ report provides a starting place for rectifying the deep and systemic flaws in the APD.  It also serves as an object lesson for police departments everywhere that wish to avoid descending into the type of embarrassingly autocratic, overly aggressive, and flagrantly illegal behavior demonstrated by the APD.

Read the full report for yourself here, and leave a comment below.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Shooting-7600-E-Roosevelt-Blvd-DC-14-02-018292

The Philadelphia Police Department released the below video of a gun battle that took place in the hallways of a motel last month in the Rhawnhurst neighborhood of the city.

According to the Philly Police Blog:

On March 31, 2014, at 12:28am, 2nd District officers responded to a radio call for a shooting inside the Roosevelt Motor Inn located at 7600 Roosevelt Boulevard. When police arrived an employee stated he heard gunshots coming from a hallway. Soon after the gunshots an unknown black male ran past the front desk armed with a handgun and fled through the parking lot then south on the Roosevelt Boulevard. Surveillance video recovered depicts a group of black male running through the hallways shooting at each other. No complainant’s were found and no one was found injured.

I can’t be sure, but I think these guys believe they’re playing the real-life version of GTA. One of these idiots even tries to pull off a trick shot around a blind corner (starting at about 1:25 in the video).

Check it out for yourself.

Shooting 7600 E Roosevelt Blvd DC# 14 02 018292

Have a safe weekend!

Help us out by sharing this post with your favorite social sharing site!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

In late March, Texas Governor Rick Perry sent a letter to the Department of Justice (PDF) bemoaning the fact that his state would have to comply with key provisions of federal legislation intended to reduce sexual violence in prisons and jails.  This federal legislation–the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)–was passed back in 2003, and ten years of effort have been put into researching and refining rules related to its implementation.

Image courtesy of tiverlucky FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of tiverlucky FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Now it’s time for states to come into compliance with the law, and Perry has taken the opportunity to play politics with its mandates instead of doing the right thing and making his prisons and jails safer for his communities.  The governor’s arguments against PREA implementation are not only myopic and disingenuous, but are also couched in the type of snark and sarcasm that so often passes for political discourse these days.

Let’s see what he had to say.

Point #1

The governor’s letter begins with this false claim:

The rules [of PREA] appear to have been created in a vacuum with little regard for input from those who daily operate state prisons and local jails.

In fact, the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC), which was created by the PREA legislation, sought input from correctional officials at all levels of the system for years before implementation of the law began. According to the NPREC:

The NPREC was a bipartisan panel created by Congress as part of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. The Commission was charged with studying federal, state and local government policies and practices related to the prevention, detection, response and monitoring of sexual abuse in correction and detention facilities in the United States. Consistent with the Act, the Commission’s recommendations are designed to make the prevention of rape a top priority in America’s jails, prisons, lockups, juvenile facilities, and other detention facilities. The commission submitted its report to the President, Congress, The Attorney General, The Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal and state officials on June 23, 2009.

Representatives from Perry’s own state department of corrections have even gone so far as to praise the federal government’s efforts to gather information about local prison and jail operations as part of developing implementation rules:

…during one of several public comment periods, Texas corrections department head Brad Livingston wrote to the Department of Justice in 2010, “it is apparent the Department of Justice gave careful consideration to the comments submitted by many interested parties during 2010, the TDCJ has few issues relating to the proposed national standards.”

Far from being created in a vacuum, the opposite appears to have been the case. To claim now that the state cannot comply because of a lack of input by correctional experts is disingenuous, to say the least, and an outright falsehood in the worst case.

Point #2

The governor goes on to contend that his state is leading the effort to reduce sexual assaults in prisons through its Safe Prisons Program:

Since 2001, TDCJ [Texas Department of Criminal Justice] has started the Safe Prisons Program, created and tested zero tolerance policies, added additional video surveillance, established a PREA ombudsman and developed comprehensive sexual assault training for staff and offenders.

The sad fact is that Texas prisons are among the least safe in the country today. Based on data collected from 2009 to 2011 as part of PREA, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found one correctional unit in Texas as having the highest rate of sexual assault in the United States, and five other Texas prisons or jails as being particularly violent as well – a higher number than any other state in the survey.

Point #3

Next, the governor asserts that he is under “threat of criminal penalties” if he does not certify that all jails and prisons in his state are in compliance with PREA’s requirements by May of this year. This is another disingenuous statement, given that he does have other options under the law. According to the National PREA Resource Center:

Pursuant to the PREA statute, the governor has three options: 1) submit a certification that the state is in full compliance; 2) submit an assurance that not less than five percent of its DOJ funding for prison purposes shall be used only for the purpose of enabling the state to adopt and achieve full compliance with the PREA standards; or 3) accept a five percent reduction in such grants.

He is looking at losing funding if he doesn’t comply, but he could choose to simply assure that a portion of federal funding his state currently receives for prison operations could be used to bring facilities into compliance. That doesn’t sound like a threat. It sounds like a reasonable measure to help states improve their practices.

1687022_-rick-perry-05-jl-10-11-2010

It’s pretty clear that all this is just political grandstanding. Instead of taking his obligations seriously in this area, Perry is choosing to turn his correctional system into just another opportunity to score political points with his base. Ironically, he is also choosing to operate a correctional system that is incredibly dangerous, not only to the inmates it confines, but to the public at large, including his political supporters.

One of the driving forces behind PREA is the idea that the chances of successful inmate rehabilitation are significantly reduced when inmates are subjected to sexual violence while incarcerated. Considering that Dallas and Houston are perennially among the top ten cities with the highest rates of crime in the country,  as is the state of Texas overall, you would think that rehabilitating offenders, and reducing the likelihood of them engaging in repeated criminal behavior, would be a high priority.

Further, research on the benefits of preventing sexual violence in correctional environments also make clear that such efforts are important, not only on humanitarian grounds, but also because they can result in significant cost savings as well:

Prevention dollars, if appropriately targeted, save therapeutic intervention dollars. To capture these “savings,” however, inmate safety must be a top priority. Prioritizing safety requires the establishment of reasonable standards of safety and safety benchmarks for prisons, followed by measuring performance on safety accurately and reliably and reporting performance data in ways consistent with standards of transparency and accountability. Safe, humane prisons can be expected to yield immediate savings by avoiding the costs of treating the consequences of physical and sexual assault, and longer term savings if the people leaving prison are less impaired with emotional and psychological difficulties created by the prison environment.

Instead of wasting money on programs that apparently don’t work to reduce sexual violence in prisons (the Safe Prisons Project), and wasting time complaining to the DOJ about having to comply with PREA, the governor should set his sights on taking responsibility for what he is allowing to occur in his jails and prisons.

I’m just glad I don’t live in Texas.

Please take a moment to share this post with your favorite social media sites!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

yelling

I recently posted the below on Medium.com, a blogging site with a ton of interesting and compelling content. You can check out some of my other submissions there by following this link.

I’m a gun owner. I’m also someone who has circumambulated the entire 360 degrees of the gun rights issue, from adamant supporter to adamant opponent and back again. In my early days in the military, I was a staunch defender of gun rights. I owned and shot firearms regularly and felt very strongly that service to my country included defending all elements of the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment.

After leaving the service, and after seeing firsthand some of the destruction and pain caused by gun violence, I took my first turn toward support of gun control. I reasoned that if there were fewer guns, it naturally followed that there would have to be less gun violence. I bought into the logic that guns were the problem, not people. I also believed that in modern society, with its well-established safety infrastructure, guns were merely a relic from the past that were no longer necessary.

I’m also a peace-loving person at heart. I have no intention of ever hurting anyone, let alone using a firearm against another human being. That, more than anything else, lulled me into a belief that my ideas of peaceful co-existence were the best way forward.

I believe now that I was wrong.

As I’ve moved into middle-age, and watched the back and forth between the pro- and anti-gun factions over the years, I’ve taken the final turn back toward where I started. What I realized is that neither side has a lock on the truth about guns, violence, or human nature. In their desire, however, to “win” the argument over the limits to gun ownership, both sides have ramped up the rhetoric and have engaged in the type of group polarization that does little to solve anything.

In their zeal to convince the undecided that fewer or more restrictions on gun ownership should be adopted, each side has moved ever closer to the fringes, further away from each other, and ever farther from reasonable solutions. The debate is no longer about solutions, in fact, it’s about the perceived shortcomings of the other side.

Gun owners get branded as uneducated rednecks hellbent on shooting up the countryside, and gun control supporters are labelled as soft-headed liberals with a victim mentality. Try starting a reasonable discussion about guns and gun control from that perspective. It’s a setup for a yelling match in which neither side hears nor cares what the other side is saying.

And that’s exactly what’s occurring now. Ad hominem attacks are just a diversion from the real issues, and a recipe for paralysis.

For what it’s worth, here’s where I’ve landed: Even though it may sound contradictory in the extreme, I’m a peaceful person who chooses to legally own and legally carry a handgun. I’m not a trigger-happy cowboy by any means—far from it—but I’m also not anyone’s victim. I don’t hope to ever use my firearm, but I’m also prepared to do so in defense of my own life or that of a loved one, if reasonable and necessary.

I will always choose first to run from danger, if at all possible, and call the police to deal with the threat. But, I also won’t count on that as the one and only option. If I can’t flee, and my life is in jeopardy, I will do what I have to do to neutralize the threat, including using a firearm. It’s just that simple.

I also refuse to abdicate my constitutional rights regarding firearm ownership just because guns make some people uncomfortable or even fearful. I subscribe to the libertarian ideal that government power and authority should be limited to only what is absolutely necessary. I view taking away my right to use reasonable force to defend myself and my loved ones as an unreasonable intrusion on my liberty.

Those who disagree with me on all of this on the basis of logic are, of course, free to do so. I’ve stopped caring about the contradictions in my choice to simultaneously embrace peace and to arm myself. In a real sense, it’s no contradiction at all. Police officers make the same choice (or at least they should), and entire countries do, too. Many non-warring nations have standing armies, which is an entirely prudent and reasonable choice in my opinion.

I do support reasonable limitations on gun ownership, including universal background checks. But I don’t support wholesale restrictions on the types of firearms a qualified person can own or possess, and I certainly don’t agree that the only way to ensure a safe society is to unreasonably limit the access of law-abiding citizens to gun ownership. That no longer makes any sense to me.

To make meaningful progress, though, we need to talk about these ideas. We need to hear each other out and work together on this. I have a right to arm and defend myself, and you have a right to feel safe, too. Let’s talk about what all that means and how we can best make that happen.

We need to discuss these issues without the anger, the hyperbole, and the unreasonable expectations that seem to be the norm. Gun-rights and gun-control advocates need to view each other as well-intentioned people with valid concerns. Both groups need to find common ground to reasonably discuss how we can move forward as a country, both safely and in a way that recognizes the constitutional rights of gun ownership enshrined in our founding documents.

I think it’s entirely possible, and I think it’s time to have a reasonable discourse for all our sakes.

Please share this post with all your favorite services!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Image courtesy of Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Graphic video was released this week of an officer-involved shooting by officers from the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). The video, which appears to have been taken by a police helmet cam, shows officers at the end of a nearly three-hour standoff with a man who was reportedly mentally ill. After several minutes, the man appears to turn away from the police and is then shot several times in the back.

Release of the video has lead to protests by local citizens concerned that this was an unjustified shooting and an excessive use of force against a vulnerable person.

(more…)

It slices, it dices, and it even stuns suspects!

Image courtesy of Victor Habbick / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of Victor Habbick / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Drones are everywhere these days, it seems. Hobbyists, researchers, photographers, students, and yes, the government, are all actively using drones for a wide range of purposes, both peaceful and violent.

From protecting wildlife and surveying damage in the aftermath of natural disasters, to killing people by remote control in foreign countries, drones are quickly becoming the platform of choice for a diverse array of activities.

Killing by drone is probably not going to fly here in the US anytime soon (we hope), but never fear; a less-than-lethal solution is close at hand.

Drones are now being developed than can deploy taser-like weapons to stun and temporarily disable interns and other suspicious characters.

(more…)

Image courtesy of koratmember / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of koratmember / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Last week, the US Department of State released its human rights report for 2013, which offers up an assessment of human rights compliance and non-compliance in countries around the world. Secretary of State, John Kerry, had this to say about this year’s report:

Governments that protect human rights and are accountable to their citizens are more secure, bolster international peace and security, and enjoy shared prosperity with stable democratic countries around the world. Countries that fail to uphold human rights can face economic deprivation and international isolation. Despite that simple truth, these reports show that too many governments continue to tighten their grasp on free expression, association, and assembly, using increasingly repressive laws, politically motivated prosecutions and even new technologies to deny citizens their universal human rights, in the public square, and in virtual space.

The irony here, of course, is that our nation’s credibility is questionable at best on many of these measures. The NSA’s eavesdropping activities alone, as revealed by the Snowden leaks, have made it clear that our own government is willing to engage in legally questionable practices that have a chilling effect on free speech, freedom of expression, and the willingness of citizens to lawfully disagree with their own government. Eavesdropping, of the type that the government claims is legal and necessary, also erodes press freedoms enshrined in the US Constitution that are fundamental to the maintenance of a free and vibrant democracy.

(more…)

Image courtesy of Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

If you haven’t seen it yet, the below dashcam video of a New Jersey man being stopped, beaten, and otherwise abused by police — without any apparent justification or cause, as it turns out — is pretty disturbing to watch. 

According to a New York Daily News article about the incident, Marcus Jeter, the man being arrested in the video, was pulled over by police who accused him of fleeing and attempting to take one of their firearms during a struggle. None of which was true.

Alleged Police Misconduct Caught on Tape

Jeter had this to say about what happened during the encounter:

“The next thing I know, as he’s coming around the car, the glass gets busted and all the glass goes in my face,” Jeter told WABC. “My hands are up. As soon as he opens the door, one of the officers just reached in and punched me in the face. As he’s trying to take my seatbelt off, he’s elbowing me in my jaw. And I’m like ‘Ahhh!’ and he’s like ‘Stop trying to take my gun! Stop resisting arrest!’”

Police initially charged Jeter with several felonies, all of which could have landed him in prison for as much as five years.  But all those were later dropped after an alleged police cover-up was disclosed.  Several officers involved have since been charged with a variety of crimes stemming from the incident, including assault and falsifying reports, after a second dashcam video was turned over to Jeter’s defense attorney. It shows pretty clearly what actually happened that night.

And, the only crimes it appears to show are those being committed by the police.

One of the officers has already pleaded guilty to a “tampering” charge, but the cases against two other officers are still pending. I’m willing to give the officers the benefit of the doubt, of course, just like any other accused person. It’s important for all the facts to come in and to wait and see what a judge and jury determine to be true about what happened that night.

But, I also can’t fathom why any cop anywhere would be okay with assaulting and verbally abusing an innocent person, arresting him without probable cause, charging him with crimes he never committed, lying about all of this in police reports, and then believing that somehow he would get away with it.

To me, that’s not only about an individual officer’s willingness to engage in illegal, unethical, and antisocial behavior, but also smacks of an overall culture of corruption. The officers must have felt they could act with impunity, if indeed they did do what they appear to have done in the video and what’s been alleged in the formal charges against them.

Either that, or there’s some other reasonable explanation that hasn’t been revealed yet.

It’s awful to think what might have happened to Jeter had his attorney not requested the video, or had police not released it. An innocent man would likely have gone to prison for doing nothing more than running across some cops with an apparent axe to grind.

Have a safe weekend!

Share this post with all your favorite services!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

The US Constitution proclaims the right of the people to keep and bear firearms, but the reality for some law-abiding citizens has been quite the opposite. Last summer, the New York Times published an article about otherwise law-abiding folks from all walks of life being arrested and charged in New York City for violating local firearm statutes.

Photo courtesy of nesoiam

Photo courtesy of nesoiam

Their crime? Bringing a legally-owned firearm from their home state to New York City without first understanding New York’s draconian gun laws.

According to the above Times article:

The visitor arrives in New York and retrieves the gun. No problem there. They see the city, whether armed or with the gun locked away at the hotel, without incident. Trouble arrives upon their return to La Guardia Airport or Kennedy Airport to fly home. The visitors repeat the procedure practiced at their home airport, presenting the firearm to a gate agent to be checked. Only this time, the gate agent calls police officers from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the airports. The gun owners are then placed under arrest.

I wouldn’t argue against the fact that gun violence is a problem in our country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 14,000 homicides were perpetrated in 2011, and 9,900 of those involved a firearm (PDF).  Obviously, the government does have a compelling public safety interest in reducing violence of all types, including gun violence.

I also wouldn’t argue against the right of individual states to establish their own laws either — whether that be to regulate firearms or anything else — but the patchwork of legal standards that exist around the country is destined to make law-abiding citizens, who have no intent to violate any law, into felons simply due to a misunderstanding.

So, what’s a law-abiding gun owner to do?

Many people scour the internet for advice before traveling with their firearm to another state.  A very, very bad idea, and here’s why:

Reciprocal Carry - Minnesota

The above was found on a web site intended to provide information about state-by-state gun laws across the US. It claims that Minnesota (my home state) doesn’t recognize firearm carry permits from any other states. But the link it provides in support of that assertion takes you to:

Minnesota DPS Gun Laws

That’s right. This is the Minnesota Department of Public Safety page on permit reciprocity that correctly identifies the out-of-state permits that Minnesota will indeed recognize as valid.

Now, you may or may not care about permit reciprocity issues specifically, but my point is that the internet has a very high potential to be wrong about all kinds of things (shocking, I know). And if you rely on it exclusively for guidance on where you can bring your legally owned firearm, you’ll potentially suffer the consequences.

So, take this advice from the Minnesota DPS:

Minnesota permit holders who plan to visit another state, and who also wish to carry a concealed firearm while visiting that state, are urged to contact that state before traveling. This will allow Minnesota permit holders to determine all restrictions or prohibitions regarding the carrying of concealed firearms in those states, as well as their laws regarding firearms and weapons in general. Most of these states have web pages dedicated to this subject. State firearm laws and reciprocal agreements may change frequently, and are also subject to court interpretation. Information contained on this page is not to be considered legal advice.

You should always contact an attorney licensed to practice law in your state for any legal advice.

In fact, contact an attorney who is familiar with all of the jurisdictions involved, and ask questions until you fully understand the gun laws at your destination and everywhere in between. It’s worth the time and money to protect yourself from needlessly being arrested and prosecuted for a crime you had no intention of committing.

What are some thoughts on all this? Do you have any experiences dealing with gun laws in other states? Leave a comment and share your ideas and experiences below!

Share this post with all your favorite services!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine