Lunch at the diner

Today I walked into the local diner for lunch. Being mindful of such things, I immediately noticed the guy at the end of the bar with a 9mm Glock on his hip.  He was not in uniform, but did have his badge next to the gun. 

Immediately I felt happy to know a cop was there in case anything went down, not that I assume that will happen, or live in fear, but simply as a matter of factual recognition. My co-worker and I sat down next to him leaving the obligatory We're-not-with-him space at the bar. I did not really think twice until I saw another person, in plain clothes approach our weapon carrying neighbor. A second; and third openly carried firearm, this time by an attractive young lady in a pants suit and gentleman in a golf shirt; their badges the only indicator that they were law enforcement. At this point, I took a quick look around to take a better inventory of my surroundings. This is important because as a citizen who carry's a gun with me every day, I have to stay mindful that officers can sometimes react poorly to cries of "a guy with a gun" so I take a quick nonchalant check on my shirt to make sure I am covered completely.  I am. As I looked around though, I notice two more officers, another lady and another guy in a t-shirt and jeans (who had the most built shoulders of anyone I have ever seen) openly carrying their weapons in normal everyday clothes.  

Five semi automatic firearms in a diner that seats 25 people. More importantly, I look over and see families. I see kids 6 year olds, 10 year olds with their moms out for a play date perhaps. I see people, moms and dads and business men and servers completely comfortable surrounded by weapons for the sole reason that those weapons are wielded by someone that although they look like normal citizens has a badge.

Recently during the Newtown Starbuck's situation an overly emotional editor for a local paper attempted (and in many ways succeeded) to elicit negative response toward gun owners by painting a picture. It went something like, "Image you are sitting in Starbuck's with your kids, when ARMED people walk in!" Is that not exactly what happened in my diner today? People with kids and people with guns in the same room, eating the same greasy food, drinking the same average coffee.

See the people who do not understand the gun culture imagine that if law abiding citizens take to regularly carrying guns then the result would be a bunch of crazy gun owners walking in to a coffee shop with camo outfits, face painted with green and black stripes waving a Gadsden flag, or maybe even a guy in a ghillie suit, holding their weapons out shoving their weapon down your throat literally or figuratively. Its just not like that. Why? Because I am that guy. I walked in with my firearm on my hip. If those armed officers were not there today, there still would have been people with kids and (at least one) person with a gun sitting together in the same diner. You may not have seen it, you may not have known, but there I was, weapon holstered quietly concealed eating my lunch. 

This is a scene that plays out all over the place. People with guns in our everyday life. However, because they are mostly concealed society has forgotten they are there. As generations pass, less people carry because its not visible. Out of sight out of mind. When a person stops a tragedy, they are called a hero, but quietly and with no regard for what they used. When a person succeeds in committing a crime however, their weapon is what is demonized.

I'm circling here because there is a point. Lets go back to the officers in the diner. If guns are evil and need to be removed from our society, then officers should conceal their weapons. We adults would know they are there as a necessary evil, but kids should not even know they exist. If on the other hand guns only take on the character of those wielding them, then why leave open gun carry to criminals and cops. why should a business man, or a mom out shopping with her kids not also be seen regularly to be carrying. The gun is there either way. Enough people carry on a regular basis that in any situation where more than 20 people are around, there is likely a gun. Why should our society not want to see firearms being associated to responsible citizens as opposed to only seeing them in the hands of criminals and cops, or worse, as depicted by Hollywood. It would seem we are not showing our true colors. 

There is a growing movement around the country, including here in CT, that where it is legal to openly carry a firearm, law abiding people are doing just that. Many prefer to carry concealed from a tactical point of view, but are carry openly to raise awareness. The next time you are out and see someone with a gun on their hip take a look. If you don't see a badge, don't worry. Its legal, good and right. If you want, feel free to ask the person about it. I'm sure they would be open to discussing. 

Gun Control, Demystified

Or, We are more together than apart


With so much hate and divisiveness being used in this debate, my goal rooted in love, is to point out a few observations, hopefully build a framework for real dialog, and challenge each side to come together.

All gun control laws can be grouped into one of three categories. Laws that punish criminals, laws that attempt to limit criminals’ access to guns, and laws that attempt to limit everyone’s access to guns. (There is a fourth, laws that track all guns. This is a non-issue as no one has made any real headway in trying this, so we will leave it out of this discussion.)

The first, laws that punish criminals, is obvious. We have laws on the books for sentencing law breakers with time in prison, even the death penalty in some places.  The very basis for our criminal justice system is rooted in the idea that corrective discipline is normal and works.  It works as a deterrent to crime, and as a corrective system for those who have committed crime. The effectiveness of this model is outside of the scope of this discussion, but generally this is an area where people are in agreement. We want “easy wins” where we can make “real change” with "bi-partisan support"; this is where we can have it. Enforce and make stricter gun crime punishments.

The second, laws that stop criminals from getting guns, there is also large support from both sides. While I am disappointed at the NRA for not backing proposals in this category like universal background checks, etc., I am not surprised.  The NRA is a lobbying group, and you would expect them to take the far position.  However, more and more pro-gunners are following their lead and buying into this position of “give up nothing!” "I can sell my gun to anyone I want" just does not work today. As gun owners we need to recognize that we have a crime problem, and that we have a responsibility to limit access to criminals.

The last, laws that limit everyone’s guns, is where the majority of the division is happening.   On this topic, we are polarized.  Laws in this group include the so-called assault weapons ban, and the high capacity magazine ban.  The problem with these laws is that they are actually limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.  Now those rights are limited all the time, and there is precedent to do so, but the negative reaction from the gun community is based on the idea that we see no real benefit to society as a result of these changes. I have discussed this at length, so I do not want to do so here.

The problem is that all of these topics are getting lumped into one big group of “upcoming gun control laws” and because we do not have the proper framework to discuss them, we fall into all or nothing discussions.

Instead, lets work to understand each proposed law.  Classify each in one of these categories. Universal background checks are not at all designed to limit law-abiding citizens access to guns, therefore we should support them.  Those who support banning certain guns need to understand that you are squarely in the third section which has dangers, and yelling about it wont help. If law abiding citizens are going to give up more of their rights, there needs to be a solid discussion on the benefits of doing so before you will convince anyone.  Educate yourself. Its hard for the gun community to take seriously calls to ban “assault weapons” when you still think they are “spraying bullets into a crowd.” Even better, show some measure of respect for the people that actually have knowledge of the topic. Their, our, opinion should matter to you because we own these devices, and we understand them. Recognize that this is and will be the hardest aspect of these types of proposals, and you should expect pushback. Ignoring that pushback puts you no better than the change nothing crowd.

If we come together, we can gain real traction on the first and second groups of laws.  If we have open and healthy discussions on the third, there may be some compromises that can be reached.   However, if we continue to argue from opposing viewpoints with all or nothing positions, we are no longer on the same team fighting for the same goal. We have instead embraced us versus them, battling each other, instead of crime.

On guns, God, love and hate.

Nothing is so clearly and poignantly evil than the murder of innocent lives.  Evil is rooted in hate. Hatred of self, hatred of others when fully realized leads to the most deplorable of evil acts.  Perhaps this is at the heart of the apostle’s letter when he says, “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” or in Jesus’ equating of murder to hatred in the sermon on the mount. 

The idea that at the root of murder is hate stands as a warning to us all.  When we allow ourselves to be filled with hate, we succumb to the evilest passions of our being.  To hate is to reject God and the message of our common depravity instead embracing our supposed goodness over the object of our hatred.  Hatred is the very antithesis to God, because God is love.

The recent communal discussion on guns and the role they play in our society has taken a significant turn toward hatred. With time passing farther away from the latest tragedy many pro-gun individuals feel free to express this hatred through mockery or disdain for anything or anyone who would ‘take our guns away.’ Similarly, still impassioned by the heinousness of this crime others are calling people lunatics, or wishing people rot in hell who simply believe their rights are being taken away. This too is rooted in the same hatred. 

It’s easy to hate. It’s our natural stance because we are evil. The sad irony is that the church who has supposedly been set free from evil control is leading the charge from both sides. 

Instead, choose Love.  Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your father in heaven. If you love only those who love you what reward is in that?  Everyone does that. Its time for us to recognize that we must love one another in spite of our differences. We must realize that people are in different places, and have different ideas.  We must remove the idea that we are better then anyone else.

I can foresee the supposed hypocrisy in this statement. Am I not saying the same thing; that I am somehow better than those that have chosen to hate. I am not. I have done the same things. I have enjoyed the quiet ridicule of those who have no idea the difference between a M-16 and an AR-15. I have, at times, allowed the idea that because I may know more than others on this topic, I am somehow better then they are. However, I am not the standard, God is. His rule, his morality is the standard, and I am consistently trying to reject those ideas and replace them with love. That love may not lead to my changing my opinion on a topic, but it aught to change the way I interact with another person who holds a different idea. I have seen very little love. 

We are a deeply divided people, which means the light that shines from our choosing love instead of hate will shine brighter than ever. 

Open Letter to our State officials

Many individuals are concerned over the upcoming barrage of new gun legislations. Obviously, emotional responses are strong as people weigh the freedoms we have vs the real danger of crazies and criminals. We are too close to Newtown to not be deeply effected.

What I fear is that we have succumb to the polarization of us vs them.

For the gun rights folks, we fear our reduction in liberty and invoke the spirit of Henry Tucker who said: "[The second amendment] may be considered as the true [safeguard] of liberty. Wherever the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty is on the brink of destruction."

Our counterparts say that the death of innocent children is just such a pretext worth prohibiting liberty. Theirs is a powerful and palpable stance in these troubled days.

Obviously, there will be outspoken people from both extremes however, I believe that most constituents want realistic measures put in place that reduce crime. It is critical that we recognize this mutual goal together and find the common elements where we can come together. Without setting that framework, we will argue and fight and nothing positive will prevail.

My request, my challenge as you go to Hartford is to fight the root causes. Those are the issues with bi-partisan support.

Those root issues are weak families, weak community, weak morals, and a culture of death.

You want the Assault weapons ban in place? We already have it. You want magazine limits, they wont help, but go for it, or let Washington do it. But do not pat yourselves on the back when those are done because all you have done is slapped a bandaid on a bullet wound. Those are the simple, surface level issues. If CT is going to lead, we need to tackle how to restore strong families, communities and morals to our culture. We need to restore love and respect for every human being. We need to respect authority, serve those less fortunate, and ensure that people are free to talk about their problems with someone who loves them. I’m not sure how you legislate those issues. I have a few ideas, but that’s your job. However, simply banning a few guns is not enough. These deeper issues are what we desperately need resolved.

Newtown

So much has happened in the past week.  The Newtown shootings are on everyone's mind approaching Christmas.  We live close to the city and our church serves many from that school. Immediately after, I felt really prompted to declare this:

Evil is fighting, and I think I understand the game plan, for out of this tragedy we will place more restrictions on our people driving further division. We will place stronger locks on our doors, furthering the loss of community, and we will further outsource to our government the ugly business of working with the evil people around us. When the only fix to this is to restore our love and community to every person around us. Placing boundaries around ourselves is not the answer for evil will find a way through them. Restoring our love for one another, even, nay especially, those we find challenging, restoring a strong sense of community, and restoring the spiritual strength of God's moral standards is the only solution to these problems. We cannot rely on the government to do these things. Only the Church has the power and source of strength needed to rise above. We must stop the hate, the vitriol, and the obsession with earthly things and live our lives as if we are in a spiritual battle for the lives of individuals, because we are. That is no longer a cliche. Lives are at stake. Wake up church. Work in us, Lord. Start with me.

So far we have seen legislation for more gun control, talk of stronger doors in schools, and more mental health oversight from the government.

I too have, and expect to continue to engage discussions about practical politics, but I do not want to forget the main issue.  Without real community change on a spiritual level, all the politics in the world will not help. We need to keep this as the real front issue.  Fill us Lord, with your Spirit and have us engage in loving your creation.  

Open Letter to Joint Committee on Judiciary

Honorable Judiciary Committee members,

I want to thank you for your time today going over multiple gun related bills.  It was a real privilege for me to see our state's government in action.  In today's day and age, too many assume government officials are not approachable or able to be influenced.  The humility many of the members present showed was commendable, and I thank you.

I did not submit testimony today, opting for watching and listening to the proceedings until about 4:30 when I had to leave.  I would like to recap my takeaways from today's comments and request that you take appropriate action in the coming days.

Ref SB 1094 - I believe the public made it clear that this bill will do significant economic damage and open the state to serious litigation if this bill were to pass.  Furthermore, arguments were made that there is no detailed proof that reducing the size of allowable magazines would reduce crime in anyway, but would add hardship to 65-70% of handgun owners, and 99% of rifle owners.  This committee must vote this "knee-jerk reaction" bill down.

Ref SB 1096 - Sen. Kissel repeatedly asked those opposed to 1094 about their stance on 1096. I was less than thrilled with the responses.  Mostly people were against it because they are against all gun legislation.  There was one testimony detailing the reloading issue where feasibly a person who is disallowed to own a firearm for legal reasons would still have ammunition.  This felt like reaching.  I happen to support the intent of 1096.  Make no mistake.  Gun owners are strickly for tougher enforcement of gun laws, and tougher punishments for gun crimes.  If the addition of ammunition in the statutes referenced in this bill gives the police a bigger set of teeth when dealing with criminals, then I am for it.  If this is yet an additional tool that will be barely used, then it will not help.  As one verbal testimony from today pointed out, we have a punishment problem.  We want stronger and more harsh punishments for those who commit crimes with firearms.  This is the fastest, most cost effective means of reducing gun crimes.

Ref SB 1148 - I cannot recall any testimonies about this bill.  I am ambivalent.  

Ref SB 1206 - This bill had a few testimonies, and all told, I believe that the group was summarily for the bill so long as a better definition of "interfere" was done.  Personally, I agree.  You should be free to videotape an officers actions so long as you are not an interference. I recognize the sensitive nature of that footage, but in this case, I believe that personal freedom should rule the legislation.  In the case of a misuse of that information, let a civil case be brought.

Ref SB 1210 - This bill was not nearly as clear in the testimony.  I feel like it got lost in the 1094 discussion which is unfortunate since this bill has real opportunity to become law. There were a few attempts to clarify 'castle doctrine' status in CT.  I believe that Sec. 53a-20 as is constitutes a fairly decent castle doctrine stance.  The question at the heart of these pieces of legislation is who should be given the "benefit of the doubt" in situations where there is a victim and an assailant.  By adding the "Presumption" clause, the legislature will be helping the victim by placing the requirement on the assailant to prove that the belief was unreasonable.  I believe this is a good addition to the statutes and should be passed.

Ref HB 6473 - I do not remember any verbal testimonies on this before I left, but this "three strikes" bill coincides with my earlier comments about wanting violent crimes punished harshly.  I support this bill's intent.  I would feel uncomfortable speaking to its specifics without further review.

Ref HB 6490 - The testimonies about this were correct in saying that CT can and should push to complete this federal mandate, and take the financial benefits of doing so early.

Ref HB 6615 - I believe the representative from the ACLU who gave testimony to this bill is right that Tasers should be considered potentially lethal.  Good practice dictates training requirements, etc. so i am unsure why it needs to be legislated.  Furthermore, care should be taken to know the real financial impact of Section 3.  If it can be done inexpensively, then so be it.  Tasers are tools for peace officers.  They should not be misused. However, if an unfortunate incident with a Taser leads to a death or other permanent harm, the peace officer should not be responsible.  We should not legislate to the point where Taser use is discouraged.  They are a good tool.

Ref HB 6616 - There was one verbal testimony that I remembered referencing this bill.  I felt bad for that presenter as his issue was surrounded by all the gun talk.  Again, I am ambivalent.

Thank you for your efforts and service to our state.  I look forward to reading the votes for the above bills in the coming days.

-Dwayne Boulden

_____________________________

Here is a listing of today's public hearing testimonies.

An Open Letter to Wachovia

To Wachovia Bank and its local CT branches,

Since college, I have been a Wachovia customer. I have held various checking and savings accounts, lines of credit, a mortgage, a second mortgage, used online banking and overdraft protection. I have been a faithful and loyal customer for over 10 years as I considered Wachovia "my bank." In kind, I was always thankful for the service and support I received in return.

However, today ended that long relationship. I have officially moved all my accounts to a new bank and closed the open accounts I have with your institution. I feel obliged to inform you why I have moved banks. Again, I have been very happy with Wachovia, and would prefer to stay and perhaps resolving the open issues will stop others from changing, and allow our family the chance to switch back as well.

First, the new fees. Since being bought by Wells Fargo, you added a fee to the Overdraft protection line of credit. This $25/year fee is unacceptable, especially since someone like me with 3 checking accounts would be paying $75/year. An overdraft protection account is only used when you go over, and there is a fair charge ($10) when you use it. There are finance charges on unpaid balances. There is no reason to charge a fee for this service.

Second, and more important is the posting of no firearms. Connecticut law (Chap. 529 Sec. 29-28) dictates that the person responsible for a property has a right to determine if firearms are allowed in their building. You are completely within your right to post no firearms on the buildings. However, I believe this is a foolish decision, and one that may cost you dearly in the long run. I can assure you that an individual intent on an attempted robbery of your facility will not stop on account of your small sign, in fact, he may even be emboldened knowing that legal firearm carrying patrons had to disarm prior to entering. Since many of your ATMs are inside the door of the building, this also applies to the late-night ATM stops which are prone to robbery, or worse. The logistics of disarming in your car prior to entering the bank are simply an annoyance and safety hazard too great for most carry-permit holders to bear.

Please know, I like Wachovia. I wish I could continue to do business with you. Unfortunately, until you make it easy and safe for law abiding citizens to enter the bank, and you remove the unnecessary fees, I will be elsewhere. I look forward to the day I can switch back.

Thank you,

Dwayne