Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Regarding citizen Justin Dean's recent interpretation of his Second Amendment rights, as discussed in a letter to the editor by Zack Beisswanger ("Carrier of gun had legitimate motive," Jan. 3), I have some questions.
A runner passes an exercise station along Back Cove. A Dec. 24 incident in which a man carried a gun along the Back Cove trail and through other parts of Portland continues to prompt discussion.
2012 file photo/Gordon Chibroski
Beisswanger asks why some view the open carry display any differently from the reaction to that very display by other citizens, who called authorities to report it. He calls the differing reactions "a double standard," because Dean "broke no laws."
Answer: Many are incredulous that folks in Maine can carry what many regard as weapons of war without a license, specific training or the need to answer the most basic of inquiries that any citizen might face at a polling station or random driving checkpoint.
Beisswanger notes we should take comfort because the weapon carrier is an Army veteran. With a healthy respect for firearms and much higher regard for those in uniform, I submit that service members suffer the same frailties as the general populace, having been both victimized by, and perpetrators of, domestic mass gun violence.
I dare say that even if this veteran were in full fatigue uniform, so to have been known as the well-trained Ranger he is, some might have been more alarmed rather than less.
There is a reason hockey fights are tolerated on ice but lead to arrest elsewhere. There are also reasons these weapons, especially when equipped with high-capacity magazines, are called "assault weapons" and are perfectly congruous where one is expecting to assault a group or be assaulted, but very incongruous within suburban exercise trails! As a society, we need to address this.
Dean claimed to appreciate the nuances between carrying an assault weapon publicly in his hands – which he calls "ridiculous" ("Bill Nemitz: A world so safe, it's scary," Dec. 28) – or in a sling – which is apparently OK – while somehow missing broad social norms and signaling to many intimidation, insecurity and fear.
Kudos should be given to law enforcement for handling an unnerving situation with professionalism and cool heads.
Mike Del Tergo
To the man who carried an AR-15 assault rifle around Portland just 10 days after the same type of weapon was used in the Connecticut tragedy ("Man with assault rifle prompts flurry of police calls in Portland," Dec. 25), shame on you!
To the state of Maine, shame on you for making it perfectly legal for this man to do what he did, even though there was no need to defend himself, which I thought was the reason gun owners want to have guns in the first place.
I have never spent much time in Portland, so maybe I am missing something. Did he indeed feel a need to defend himself while walking in the West End and the Parkside neighborhood and on the Back Cove trail?
To Police Chief Michael Sauschuck, I have a question for you. You said, "It was not the right time to send that type of message" (that he was exercising his Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm).
My question is, when is the right time? Should he have waited 20 days a month, perhaps a year?
On a personal note, I have never owned a gun and have no desire to. I do agree that people should have the right to own a gun, but is it getting to the point where it is no longer just a right to own a gun but it is now a requirement in order to feel safe?
Robert J. Dow
I am one of the hundreds of millions of Americans who do not carry a gun while going about my daily business. Would someone please tell me how I am supposed to figure out if I am in danger when I see someone carrying a gun?
Neither I nor the police, upon seeing a man with a gun, have the authority to determine if he is carrying it legally or if the gun is legal or loaded.
Worse, I cannot determine simply by looking at this man whether he is paranoid, delusional, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or otherwise out of touch with reality. I cannot determine if he is super-angry or otherwise out of control.
Considering that one out of four Americans has suffered from some kind of mental problem, the odds of this guy not being rational or in control are substantial.
One doesn't have to be a convicted felon or a person legally determined to be "a danger to himself or others" to shoot someone. One simply needs to be out of touch with reality, out of control, a klutz or just plain evil.
One example of our not being able to determine if someone is dangerous is James Pak, whom neither the police nor his victims thought was dangerous before he allegedly killed his victims.
In other words, when I see a man carrying a gun, I have no way of knowing whether he is an Adam Lanza or not.
If the United States Supreme Court will not allow guns in its courtroom, why should I, by law, be exposed to guns almost everywhere I go?
We are not at war. I should not have to be more afraid of being shot than my family was in occupied Denmark during World War II.
So let me get this right: Three members of the Portland City Council's Public Safety, Health and Human Services Committee voted to recommend adoption of a smoking ban in all city parks and public spaces and are sending it on to the full council to address ("Smoking ban heads to full council," Jan. 9).
Yet a person can walk into any park or public space, carry a loaded AR-15 rifle and not even be questioned, let alone searched or fined.
Am I the only one who has a problem with this picture?
Chake K. Higgison