Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn wrote to Florida Governor Rick Scott on May 1, 2012, requesting a temporary ban of concealed weapons at the Republican National Convention. According to the Tampa Bay Times, the two-page letter asked to temporarily prohibit the types of weapons the city cannot regulate. “Normally, licensed firearms carried in accordance with the Florida statute requirements do not pose a significant threat to the public,” the mayor wrote. “However, in the potentially contentious environment surrounding the RNC, a firearm unnecessarily increases the threat of imminent harm and injury to the residents and visitors of the city.”
The mayor makes a solid point. Thousands of protesters are expected to be in Tampa for the RNC, from August 27-30, and the risk of having firearms present amongst so many people is a dangerous one. Mayor Buckhorn appealed to Governor Scott saying, “As governor, you have the duty to meet dangers presented by events such as the RNC where there is a threat of substantial injury or harm to Florida residents and visitors to the state.”
Instead of agreeing with the mayor on the dangers of firearms and the importance of keeping civilians safe from them, Governor Scott strongly defended the people’s second amendment right: the right to bear arms. He wrote, “Like you, I share the concern that ‘violent anti-government protests or other civil unrest’ can pose ‘dangers’ and the ‘threat of substantial injury or harm to Florida residents and visitors to the state.’ But it is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law. It is at just such times that the constitutional right to self-defense is most precious and must be protected from government overreach. I am confident that the many federal, state and local law enforcement agencies focused on the RNC will fully protect Floridians and visitors, without the need to resort to sweeping infringements on our most sacred constitutional traditions.”
First of all, how does Governor Scott know that all people holding weapons are “law-abiding citizens?” He has no way of knowing for sure and the risk he takes in assuming this is dangerous. I am not saying that there are no such people who bear arms, but it only takes one person with a weapon and an unclear head to start a problem that can result in a deadly or harmful situation. I know this is the case in any situation, on any day, now that the crime rate has increased so much, but there is a difference between someone with a gun on a street on a random day and someone with a gun in a closed area in a crowd of thousands of people.
A perfect and tragic example can be taken from the infamous mass shooting that took place July 20th at a Century movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado during a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises. James Holmes, later referring to himself as “the Joker” to police, dressed in tactical clothing, set off tear gas grenades and shot randomly into the audience of theatre nine with multiple firearms, killing 12 people and injuring 58 others. According to The New York Times, Holmes used a 12-gauge shotgun, a Glock 22 handgun and a M&P15 semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine. All of which he bought legally. All it took was one person who was not in their right state of mind to use his precious Second Amendment right and cause a tragedy. This situation can happen anywhere and it is not far off to say that it could possibly occur during the Republican National Convention.
In the letter, the governor continues to say that in these precise times “the constitutional right to self-defense is most precious.” Essentially he is saying that people should have the right to bring their guns to the convention in case they need them for self-defense. This makes me think that Governor Scott thinks it’s OK for people to use weapons as a means of defense in case something happens. Does he expect people to start shooting at whoever is bothering them in the crowd? In the case of the Aurora shooting, Holmes was most certainly not using his firearms as self defense and a similar situation can happen during the RNC. Instead of encouraging people to be peaceful and handle tense situations with caution and respect, the governor seems to be encouraging citizens to bring out their guns and use them to solve their problems.
It is reassuring that the governor is confident in the federal, state and local law enforcements’ abilities to protect the civilians.
However, it is still a risky business to potentially have a hostile, armed person within such a huge crowd during those four days of the convention. Unless they are handled by trained law enforcement officers, weapons should not be allowed in the Event Zone. No matter the efforts people make to have a peaceful event, tensions can arise and skirmishes can take place. There will be groups of people with opposing political views and that can get pretty heated. It seems the Tampa City Council also shares the mayor’s opinion. According to the Tampa Bay Times, the council voted at the end of April to make its own appeal to Scott asking him to temporarily ban concealed weapons. “We believe it is necessary and prudent to take this reasonable step to prevent a potential tragedy,” council member Lisa Montelione wrote in a draft letter.
Governor Scott also added in his response letter to the mayor, “We have had political conventions in this country since the dawn of the Republic. They are an essential means of furthering our Constitutional rights of free speech and to vote. Our fundamental right to keep and bear arms has coexisted with these freedoms for just as long, and I see no reason to depart from that tradition this year.”
Governor Scott is only trying to maintain citizens’ second amendment rights, but it is an unsafe move. The second amendment right should be removed all together as it is outdated and was made under circumstances that no longer apply in the modern day. This law only makes it easier for people to obtain weapons that can provoke violent acts or can cause accidents, as was the case with Holmes in the Aurora shooting. Self defense and the second amendment right are not reasonable excuses for a normal citizen to be able to purchase a semi-automatic rifle or any other firearm. Governor Scott should think less about proudly keeping a hazardous constitutional law, and be more concerned about the safety of his citizens and people who will be visiting for the convention. The mayor’s request to ban people from carrying weapons for only four days is not unreasonable. It is manageable, and it should be done.
Paola Crespo can be reached at paola.crespo@theminaretonline.com
Loading ...
Wow- this article has all kinds of errors. I understand it is an opinion piece, but the logic he/she is using is ridiculous. Who edits this crap anyways?
That is the whole point – taking away the peoples’ rights of carrying concealed just might allow someone who isn’t right in the head to do something like this. If there is likely to be someone there with a firearm, they may be able to stop a crazy before it gets really bad. In the case where someone has body armor and is armed to the teeth, a lucky shot to the head might help the situation – it certainly won’t hurt it – then the police can show up in their 5 or 6 min response time to ‘save the day’ or to handle the crowd. Win-win.
The author is a fool. An ordinance denying citizens the right to bear arms will not keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them unlawfully. It is ridiculous to think so. In this case, I would feel much safer knowing that within the same crowd are law-abiding citizens packing heat who can and will draw them to protect themselves if some jackball decides to shoot up the place. If one or two students and professors had been armed at Virginia Tech, the rampage would have ended much sooner than it did. The same is true for Aurora, CO. To think that the police can prevent such actions is ludicrous. They are always at the scene too late to stop a lunatic. You should have more trust in your fellow man, and not the premise that an armed citizen will somehow become a lunatic with a gun in his hand. Since when is it better to cower and die than to defend yourself and others?
If one person or even a couple people in that theater would have had a gun on them it would have been a short shooting spree. The crazys and crimanals will still bring thier guns regardless of the law, if they are there to kill people they do not care if the law says they can not carry a gun, they are there to break the law. Furthermore calling 911 seamed to work out well for the people shot in the theater, or the university, or even the youth camp, all of witch had gun bans in effect.
If an unbalanced civilian posseses a gun lawfully or otherwise they should know that the chances of being successful in an attempt to kill others may be dettered by those he intends to harm to, because they are prepared to defend themselves and their loved ones. Ask the Aurora movie shooting survivors and family of victims if they wish the gunman could have been met with defensive firepower. Get armed, get trained, be prepared. These are tense, unsure times with a leadership bent on division and hate combined with a poor global and domestic outlook.
Obviously the author of this article doesn’t understand that if you are carrying a concealed weapon in accordance with Florida State law, you are a law abiding citizen. The crazy that would actually cause trouble, most likely doesn’t have a concealed weapon permit, but doesn’t really care. Personally, I would hope to be armed myself if some nutcase started shooting up the theater or convention I was in. I could at least defend myself, if not save many lives.
Anti gun advocates are the worst kind of hypocrite.
It makes no sense to me why anti-gun Love! to blame all tragedies on GUNS.and will continue.It is crazy to think or even attempt to change the publics mind about these incidents.
Guns in the hands of the law abiding people is our Constitutional right. Guns in the hands of the terrorist, is like guns in the hands of those who care less about the Constitution or our rights. Why do we make up LAWS that only the law abider pays attention to? The LAWLESS people will exist with or without laws and they will kill, murder, rape and rob no matter how many laws congress wants to create. This is not about GUNS or LAWS, it is a fact of life and our society has a hard time understanding, and…our politicians have no common sense about this and I don’t expect that to change any time soon.
Uh, the Constitution of the United States does NOT grant citizens the “right to vote.” In fact, Rep. Jessie Jackson Jr. has introduced House Joint Resolution 28: a proposal to add an Amendment to the Constitution which WOULD give us the “right to vote.”
The first paragraph in an article written by Jessie Jackson, Jr. on Democrats.com reads, and I quote, “Most Americans believe the legal right to vote in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only provides for nondiscrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments respectively. The U.S. Constitution contains no explicit right to vote!”
Perhaps Governor Scott should order a copy of the Constitution and bone-up!