Police Chief proposes absurd regulation of concealed weapons | Eastern NC Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    Washington City Council to consider difference between "park" and "recreational facility"

    The Washington City Council is scheduled to meet Monday (9-26-11) at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall. You can review the agenda by clicking here.

    One item of special interest will be "Discussion--Prohibition of Weapons in Public Recreation Areas." You can read the agenda backup material beginning on Page 15.

    The material reviews recent changes made in the law related to weapons on City property enacted by the last session of the Legislature. You can review H 650 by clicking here.

    Commentary

    Here is another one of those examples of the obsession of the City of Washington to control every aspect of whatever it is they think they can control. The proposal by the Police Chief is absolutely inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in enacting H 650.

    We say that because we sat in on the committee hearings on H 650 because of our interest in this matter.

    H 650, as it applies to this issue before the City Council, was intended to make it more consistent for holders of valid concealed handgun permits to exercise that right across the state. The proposal was explained by the sponsors as a way of getting municipal governments out of regulating this matter because it has led to a patchwork of varying regulations in municipalities across the state.

    Yet the Police Chief here is seizing on an obscure change in the law which changed the word "park" to "recreational facilities" while providing that a person could lock their weapon in a car while they were attending events where large crowds were gathered. That is how the provision was explained in the hearings.

    But for the legal eagles among us, we would also suggest that the age-old method of statutory interpretation of "consider the totality of the provision" would yield the same conclusion...that is that the intent of the law was to make it easier to exercise our right to bear arms by making it uniform across the state. The real debate in the committee was over "state parks" where weapons had been prohibited. This law was intended to permit valid holders of concealed permits to exercise those permits in state parks.

    Actually, there was much more discussion of other provisions of the law than this particular provision related to municipalities. Much more debate took place over the issue of whether a holder of a permit could take the weapon into a place of business that sells alcohol. But that's another story.

    But beyond the nuances of the wording of whether "parks" is the same as "recreational facilities" we would suggest that this is but another example of the City of Washington, and particularly the police department, imposing a "cure that is worse than the disease."

    If one checks the relatively recent news reports you find not one mention of any incident in which a holder of a concealed handgun permit has ever caused a major problem on city property of any kind. So what is the problem the Police Chief is trying to solve? Think about that now. No permit holder has ever used a weapon on city property that we can find a record of.

    Now we would normally have checked the police department records, but regular readers here know that we have been denied access to most of those records. Even when we get access it takes days and exorbitant efforts to do so. So we just did a search of the press releases issued by the WPD and low and behold not one mention of an abuse of a concealed weapon permit by anyone.

    To illustrate just one absurdity of the Police Chief's proposal, assume you have a concealed handgun permit and you are packing heat. You decide to visit the city's beautiful waterfront. Are you violating the law?

    Well, if this ordinance passes the answer is: Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on precisely where you are located at any given moment when a police officer determines you have a weapon. If you are a few feet more in one direction you're probably ok. If you are a few feet closer to the swings you are in a heap of trouble. And that is precisely what the General Assembly was attempting to correct.

    This is nothing more than another absurd abuse of government power. It is an attempt at finding a problem for the solution and in the process creating more problems than existed in the first place.

    So why would they do such a stupid thing? Answer: Because they can.