Lincoln Nebraska Mayor Coleen Seng and Police Chief Cassidy were on the KLIN morning show on Tuesday, speaking about their intent to support a city ban, to counter the new state law authorizing private citizens to apply for and obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. There were some things said by Chief Cassidy in response to the hosts, Mark Halverson and Dwight Lane, which really trouble me.
One question dealt with the perception that his, and the Mayor’s opposition to the newly enacted concealed carry right were politically motivated. In his response, Cassidy disparaged the NRA for its political motives, and attributed (blamed may be more accurate) the drive to pass concealed carry to them. I would like to point out to Chief Cassidy, that the NRA exists largely for that very purpose, to counter the anti-constitutional forces that continually seek to undermine the Second Amendment.
The NRA necessarily must be proactive, because there are plenty of examples in the world were the state has removed the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms. Great Britain is a prime example and remains a model for anti-gun activists despite the fact that violent crime in that country has continued to increase, and the only meaningful change has been that the citizens were rendered even more vulnerable than they already were.
The U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment establishes a regulated militia, and it reaffirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms and specifically warns the government against infringement of that right. Note that the clause includes two specific words, the meaning of each is very clear. There is the right to “keep” arms, and there is the right to “bear” arms, and neither one of these rights are to be infringed.
So yes, Chief Cassidy, the NRA and others have exercised their political pull in the ongoing effort to protect the integrity of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Cassidy noted that his officers are concerned because “Good People” sometimes have bad days. He also doubted that the majority of proponents possessed the maturity and temperament to handle firearms. For this reason, they do not want guns thrown into the mix. I am again troubled, by the propensity of the Chief to make predictive judgments about any law abiding citizens. That is far beyond the scope of the authority given to police agencies, and their heads.
Along those lines, we give awesome powers to police officers. They not only carry arms, and often must use them in deadly confrontations, but they also have the authority to suspend the freedoms of citizens, and enter them into the custody of the criminal judicial system. I must point out, that these men and women to whom we entrust these awesome powers, are still people.
They suffer from the same ups and downs as all other law abiding citizens; good police officers are not immune from having very bad days. We assume, by and large, that these people are well intentioned, thoughtful, and are not likely to abuse the power bestowed upon them, even though from time to time some of them do.
The Police Chief makes broad condemnations of the general population, because of the potential that a tiny minority may have a “bad” day. I find that attitude to be presumptuous, condescending, and more than a little bit hypocritical.
Another troubling statement by Chief Cassidy was in response to a question about why some law enforcement officers do support the concealed carry laws, and what reason do they give. Cassidy’s response was that these law enforcement officials are mostly “elected” County Sheriffs, so they support the measures for their own political aspirations.
Chief Cassidy, do you find it troubling, when government’s police authority is directly accountable to the people, the citizens, through regular and proper elections? If you do, then I believe that attitude is but a short hop from the endorsement of living in a Police State. The ramifications of such arraignments have been clear for all to see, from former East Berlin, the former Soviet Union, modern day China, and our close communist neighbor, Cuba.
The City of Lincoln continues to be led by people, intent on micromanaging the rights and behaviors of law abiding citizens. Mayor Seng lays blame for her intent to remove from the citizens of Lincoln, their right to apply for and obtain a concealed weapons permit, on the wishes of the Chief of Police.
No one wants police officers to be in any more danger than they already are, but this provision made available to good people is simply not going to threaten them. Anyone with a propensity to harm a police officer with a weapon is likely to do so with or without a concealed weapons permit.
It is time that Lincoln’s citizens wake up and take notice. Just as a frog allows itself to be boiled to death when you turn up the heat little by little, our ability to live free from government interference and police intrusion is methodically being destroyed by over zealous bureaucrats and politicians.
Come on people, wake up and jump out of the pot before it is too late. This particular issue may not be dear to you, but one day this trend will touch something in your life as well. Perhaps the Mayor and the City Council will be announcing limits soon on the number of children allowed per household. Is it really a stretch?
Copyright ©2006, Phil Harris - All Rights Reserved - Contact