The 7/19/12 Colorado Theater Shooting: An Open Letter to the Michigan Legislature...

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Michigan Legislature:

The mass shooting in a Colorado theater last night (7/19/12) vividly demonstrates what those  in the firearms carry community have been saying for years:  allowing businesses to be no-carry zones, either by legislation or by election on the part of the business owner, does nothing to enhance the safety of patrons.  The only people who are going to observe those signs and laws are law abiding citizens; lawbreakers have no regard for such things.  In fact, as can be seen clearly from this incident, the only thing these no-carry designations do is guarantee a higher victim count.

No fewer than ten (10) Supreme Court rulings have affirmed that personal protection is the obligation of the individual citizen - not the police.  The clearest opinion came in the SCOTUS ruling, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales (I hope the irony of this is not lost):

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection" (emphasis added).

In addition to the Supreme Court rulings, the universal drawdown of law enforcement across the country means that there are fewer officers available to respond to such situations, and that the response time needed to marshal the remaining officers will be correspondingly longer.  This makes the 2012 federal appeals court ruling in Woollard v Sheridan even more critical:

"As Judge Niemeyer points out, the Heller Court`s description of its holding as applying to the home, where the need "for defense of self, family, and property is most acute," suggests that the right also applies in some form "where that need is not `most acute.'" Id. at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 628). This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court`s historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms as "an individual right protecting against both public and private violence." Heller, 554 U.S. at 594. In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. See id. at 598. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment`s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and "self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be." Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1443, 1515-18 (2009))" (emphasis added).

The following statement appeared on the web site of Union Local 2544 of The National Border patrol Council, Tucson, AZ, relating to recent DHS training regarding active shooter incidents:

"Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings (referring to Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Giffords shooting - added) would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage" (emphasis added).

 Brendan Keefe, a reporter with WCPO in Ohio (formerly of WZZM in Kalamazoo), made the following observation in a 2008 report advocating for a "single officer response" approach to active shooter incidents entitled, "When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers":

"Based on the Virginia Tech data, experts determined the first officer on scene should make entry immediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter. Every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die." 

Since the average response time to 911 calls around the country is somewhere between 18-20 minutes, this means that significant numbers of people have already been killed or injured before an officer calling and waiting for backup has even arrived on the scene.

Gentlemen, the objective data demonstrate conclusively that so-called carry-free zones do nothing to promote our safety.  Additionally, they are a violation of our Second Amendment right to protect ourselves by carrying firearms, as has been established in at least ten SCOTUS  and additional federal appeals court rulings.  Further, there are no objective data available to demonstrate that Michigan CPL holders pose any sort of danger to the general public or that permitting them to carry in public spaces has led to the increase in shootings feared by opponents of concealed carry.

We have legislation currently pending in both houses of the legislature that would address these issues by allowing CPL holders to carry concealed in most places in Michigan.  This incident should serve to demonstrate why our state legislature needs to stop playing political games, remove burdensome requirements, and pass these bills as soon as possible.