Whether or not you believe gun-free zones should exist, and I don't, I think we should at least consider that if your idea of creating one is to put a sign on the door and nothing else, you probably shouldn't be allowed out in public without adult supervision.
And, unfortunately, we've got a case that's a prime example of why that is.
While it was one part of the Bruen decision that I didn't agree with necessarily, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote about "sensitive places." These are places where the government was justified in prohibiting guns, such as courthouses. I can understand the reasoning for those places, especially because just letting people walk in with guns would make breaking someone out during a court hearing trivially easy, should they want to.
But in this day and age, courthouses are often secured by more than a sign. Locally, I have to go through a metal detector manned by several armed sheriff's deputies who take care to make sure no weapons, even a keychain pocket knife, enter the courthouse.
A lot of other places that are deemed too "sensitive" to allow guns aren't sensitive enough to actually secure. In California, that includes libraries, which clearly worked out great.
The 18-year-old suspect in a shooting at a Northern California library did a walk-through of the building, then went to his vehicle, got a shotgun and fatally shot a man at the main door and another inside, law enforcement said Tuesday.
Chico Police Chief Billy Aldridge said gunshots and screams could be heard on a 911 call Monday evening from the Butte County Library’s branch in Chico — a city of about 100,000 people about 150 miles (240 kilometers) northeast of San Francisco.
“From the first 911 call to having him in custody was less than four minutes,” Aldridge said, praising officers for stemming the loss of life.
The suspect shot a man at the entrance of the library in the leg and then shot him in the head before firing multiple shots inside and shooting another man in the head, said Sid Patel, special agent in charge in the FBI’s Sacramento office.
The alleged killer had a fascination with the Columbine shooting, so he apparently figured this was his chance to do the same. While he didn't rack up the body count he likely wanted, thank God, he still killed two innocent people.
Chico authorities say they plan to add additional security going forward, but that's kind of closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out. Still, they kind of have to do something or else no one will go to the library anymore, at least for a little while.
See, the problem is that there aren't enough resources to actually secure every building that some states deem "sensitive." In California, that includes public libraries. They basically just put everyone on the honor system. Sure, violators can be charged, but they're still mostly trusting that no one wants to carry out an attack like this one. They're putting their faith that the sign on the door will be sufficient to keep guns outside of the building.
And, as we can plainly see, that's stupid.
If you're going to have gun-free zones, at least be realistic about what you can actually secure. Courthouses and government buildings with metal detectors and armed officers working them aren't impervious to would-be mass shooters, but they at least look like you're doing more than trusting the bad guys to play nice.
Unfortunately, anti-gunners will learn nothing from this. Even as they continue to try and argue things like the "vampire rule" are constitutional and warranted, they ignore the simple fact that if someone wants to ignore the laws against killing and maiming people, they're not going to be stopped by some silly rule that says you can't cross a given threshold with a gun unless there are people with guns of their own willing to enforce that rule.
Since so many of the people who like gun-free zones don't like the police at all, I just don't see that happening, even if it were feasible.
