I do my best to be a law-abiding person. Beyond speeding, I don't knowingly break the law, and even speeding is something I've tried to avoid everywhere but the interstate, and I don't travel all that much, so it's rare. The reason I bring this up is that we have gun laws in this country that many people break, if for no other reason than they're stupid.
I'm not one of them.
However, I also want to be clear that I'm not judging anyone. I'm merely laying out where my own actions tend to stand, because over at Reason, J.D. Tuccille has an interesting piece about defying restrictive gun laws, based on what happened in Bend, Oregon.
Last week, not only did Oregon's restrictive gun laws fail to stop a shooter intent on killing innocent people, but a passing good Samaritan had to violate those laws to end the murder spree. Fortunately, authorities don't appear intent on prosecuting Kaylub Giamanco, father to two girls who attend the school, for ignoring the ban on guns on school grounds to save lives. But the law is clearly more of a threat to people with good intent than it is to those bent on doing harm. Such laws should and must be defied, but lawmakers need to remove these legal minefields before they do more damage.
...The thing about criminals, though, is that they don't obey laws. That's especially true of those who plan murder sprees they don't intend to survive. The consequences the perpetrators anticipate involve death, and if that's not a deterrent, the potential prosecution of their moldering corpses holds little weight.
Unfortunately, legal peril can be a deterrent to good people who intend no harm. The threat of authoritarian laws and malicious prosecutors who enjoy state protection could convince some people to leave the means of self defense at home. Fortunately, Kaylub Giamanco wasn't one of them.
And it is fortunate. He broke a law that he most likely knew was on the books, all because he was worried about the shooter.
However, don't think for a moment that everyone who carries a gun will be so quick to get involved. I've talked with people in states like California that say that unless they or theirs are in danger, they're not getting involved at all. Why? Because of a hostility, as Tuccille himself puts it in his piece, toward self-defense. He's not wrong, especially when dealing with anti-gun states.
The law is clear.
The problem is that the law deters the wrong people in a critical moment like that. And, as someone who outright refuses to break the law, I can say that I know good and well I'd never be able to live with myself if I didn't make the exception that I'm sure Giamanco made that fateful day.
He saved an untold number of lives. The term "hero" accurately applies to him.
But he had to break the law to do it, and we're all glad that he did.
It's important that we all know that what's good and what's lawful aren't always the same thing.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member