Officer O'Neil.
Look up the thread "THE WILD WILD WEST OF TACOMA" March of this year. I do not know how to link to it.
This was the start of the thread I think.
imported post
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/0...of-tacoma.html
I looked down the empty streets of town, squinting against the brightness of the setting sun. As it dipped over the horizon, the shadows produced a lone figure whose dusty, er, duster, flapped in the light breeze that arose in the sun’s absence.
The unbuttoned coat was tucked behind a holstered gun that loomed larger, suddenly, than the man himself, who now moved steadily towards me as if caught in the breeze. He reached towards the pistol, and I braced. His hand slipped, instead, into a pocket from which he drew . . . a cell phone.
Cut, cut, cut.
With apologies to Louis L’Amour, my purpose here is not to write a Western. That much is obvious, considering Mr. L’Amour would have risen from the dead to wallop me with a decomposed saddle blanket had I continued.
My ironic purpose, however, is not to wrassle with literary cowboys, but to document the incident that recently happened to me a few days ago on the lonesome prairies of Tacoma.
This gentleman was one of the promoters of the so-called “open carry� laws. In increasing numbers, these folks are challenging the status quo by moseying around in public places, armed with a handgun. Concerned and vocal critics of these folks are wondering aloud if the town, any town, is big enough for the unarmed and the “openly armed.�
The justification for openly carrying a firearm in public is solidly based on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and further expanded in our state’s constitution – Article 1, Sec 24, if you care to do a little light reading. These laws have encouraged advocates to share, display and even tattoo their allegiance to said gun rights.
Thus, say its proponents, “open carry� is well-founded. I would go so far as to say it could be considered reasonable. Reasonable, yes, assuming that it’s 1872 in a town filled with tumbleweeds and Texans in equal portion, where a man can stand tall at a bar with a shot of whiskey or lie still in a pine box with posies.
In short, except for the potholes, Tacoma bears little resemblance to any place 150 years ago, west or east of the Pecos.
But today, citizens openly displaying a holster bearing their six, 10 or 17 shooters, as the case may be, are anachronistic. Despite ubiquitous photos of “open carry� advocates sitting comfortably in a coffee shop, this action exemplifies a disconnect with today’s reality, much as an 1870s cowpoke texting on the range.
First, and foremost, is the sincere concern and fear of unarmed individuals. How many passers-by would simply choose to pass on by, rather than stop and take a table next to an armed a) patriotic American choosing to exercise his or her constitutional rights; b) unsavory sort who relishes the expressions of fear on others’ faces; c) unstable individual with little or no firearms training, questionable judgment and maybe an unbalanced medication issue?
The melting pot, or chunky stew, that is America guarantees that a random sample of any group will contain all of these options.
For police officers such as myself, who sat through lengthy written tests, oral boards, polygraphs and batteries of psychological exams, all for the purpose of proving our physical and mental fitness to carry the same firearm, the issue appears unbalanced.
The idea may have made sense in the bygone frontier era when police departments were, by and large, nonexistent, but with hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers on duty in our country, “open carry� can get complicated.
I have responded to 911 calls involving “open carry� individuals and had to address the sincere and rational fear on behalf of the unarmed caller. But was there a threat? The answer is, it’s complicated.
With all respect to the law-abiding citizens who openly carry firearms, it is no longer 1872. While businesses are within their rights to prohibit this activity, common sense and respect for the sincere concerns of others should suggest other options for those wishing to exercise their rights.
If the problem is the inability to pass the background check for a concealed weapons permit, then maybe the pistol needs to stay back on the ranch.
Police officer Brian O’Neill of Gig Harbor is a former reader columnist. E-mail him at
btoflyer@comcast.net. His views do not represent that of his police agency.