First, I just want to correct the statement about the fairly stringent licensing process: If you're referring to the registration process, it's extremely easy to register a firearm in Dc. I've done it 3 times now, most recently a week ago. The process is: Fill out a form. Provide a serial number, make, model. Pay $13.00. That's it. When I registered the first time, I did have to be fingerprinted and they do a routine background check, but they keep those on file and didn't bother looking again 2 or 3 years after I registered the first one. I don't know if you consider that stringent, but it took me about 8 minutes total, so I thought it was pretty easy.
Good to know, but what about non-residents? That is the point of reciprocal carry.
Second, members of Congress ARE allowed to keep loaded firearms in their offices, but they have to unload if they're walking around on the capitol grounds. They can also transport over to Virginia with rules similar to any state if you don't have a carry permit. Unload and secure it until you get to your destination.
Info on this? I was unaware of that being legal. And considering 'secure it' means a lockbox for the gun and another for ammo, all in the trunk, I could see how it would be a PITA.
Finally, many members of Congress (most Republicans) have their local residence in Virginia (it's so much more red than DC). So they may have been coming directly from home to the ballfield, in which case, they wouldn't have even had to secure their guns. It could have been on the passenger seat or the dashboard or in a holster. Mo Brooks, who repeatedly brags about his concealed weapons permits, did not have his gun on him. Why not?
Good question. If they choose to not carry, that is their choice, but the call for reciprocal carry to me indicates that the lack of legal carry for them in DC had at least some impact in them not having their firearms on them. Another what-if is had the practice been in DC as opposed to Virginia?
Sure its possible (and probable) that the call for reciprocity was a political move at a opportune time (just like both sides have done for decades, including more recently with Florida), but it doesn't nullify the discussion.
Bottom line: I'm not buying that there was any restriction for any of these guys to have their weapons on them. I think it was just a matter of practicality: who wants to carry a gun on a baseball uniform?
As I already said, in the bag would be fine, not needed on the field.
Or a school trip?
Illegal in basically all states
Or in your Sunday best to church?
Myself and about 35 other men carry every Sunday.
Or on a day to school?
Every day that I went to college since campus carry and I had my permit.
or to a concert?
Typically illegal in Texas, but if not I'm carrying.
Or the shopping mall?
Every time.
The point is not if someone
chooses not too, its that if you have the legal right to do so, that right cannot be infringed.
What I'm saying is: why should everyone have to be armed to protect against a rare-event when a gun-nut goes crazy and shoots? Why not just keep guns out of the hands of nuts?
Careful who you are calling a gun nut... The guy was a Bernie supporter after all.
As for the Capitol Police taking down the gunman, that's their job. I'd much rather have fully trained, on-duty police protecting us from a lone gunman than a bunch of octogenarian politicians shooting around thinking they are Rambo.
Me too, but if the police aren't there I believe the representatives have the inherent right to self protection as well.