Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Ban guns, or require ‘em

Friday, April 30, 1999 | 12:04 p.m.

MAYBE IT IS the strange weather or maybe it is something in the water -- and who doesn't know by now that there is really something strange in the water, other than those elected to protect us from such things and who can't tell a thing from their head-in-the-sand vantage points -- but am I the only one to misapprehend what is going on at the state Legislature?

It must be me because I don't hear anyone else raising a voice of concern about some bills working their way through the legislative process toward a cherished place on Gov. Kenny Guinn's desk. Or perhaps it is because no one wants to tangle with the NRA and the gun lobby in Nevada. That would make more sense, which is why I am one of the crazy ones to at least question what's going on in this state.

I am referring specifically to Assembly Bill 166, which has just been amended in the state Senate to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on school campuses. Otherwise the bill makes it clear that Nevadans can hitch on their guns, hide them beneath their coats or inside their boots, and walk into just about any public building in the Silver State. Except schools. And except for federal buildings, state buildings, police stations, prisons and courthouses. I am not sure how many other public buildings that leaves for the gunslingers to roam about wearing their concealed protection devices, but the fact that so many are ruled out of bounds makes me question the need for such a law.

Right now, Nevadans who have the proper credentials can carry concealed weapons on their persons. Until now I haven't heard a hue and cry to prevent legitimate gun toters from wearing their pride and joy wherever they go, public or private. That's why we have those metal detectors in airports and federal courthouses and such -- to stop anyone from carrying, legal or not. It is kind of a safety thing, you know.

The theory behind the metal detectors is that whatever and whoever is going on in those particular buildings have a right not to be confronted with malice aforethought or even a deadly weapon while in the pursuit of their occupations. So if I understand this new Nevada law correctly, unless you have a metal detector or you work within one of the proscribed buildings, your health and safety while on the job is not as much of a concern of the state as are the lives of those who work elsewhere.

If you ask me, things are backwards. Especially in today's world. I would be banning concealed or even unconcealed weapons from every public building. That would mean the bulk of the weapons could be worn with pride only in the privacy of your own home or car or in your neighbor's house, assuming he consented to such an arrangement. Of course if the private office in which you worked or visited allowed for such sartorial accoutrements, that would be OK. If not, check the guns at the door.

But back to the public buildings for a moment. If the purpose of the legislation is to promote public welfare and safety by allowing the good citizens of the state to carry self-protection on their hips or in their holsters, then why limit Nevadans by the places in which they can wear them? After all, we have proof positive that most of the nutcases that have exploded onto the public scene have done so in public spaces. Whether in post offices, other federal buildings or, unfortunately, our schools, the real places where citizens need protection are the same ones in which the guns are prohibited.

That doesn't make any sense to me. In fact, what makes even less sense is the need to carry those weapons concealed upon our persons. Why not do away with the concealed weapons permits and require law-abiding citizens to carry guns in holsters strapped to our legs or, if we are wearing dresses, in some other fashion that would let the bad guys know that the citizenry is armed and dangerous. Dangerous being the operative word, of course.

For those who contend that good people wearing bad guns lowers the crime rate, then wearing them where all can see should lower that statistic even more. In that case, the law should be changed to allow weapons to be worn everyplace, especially in federal buildings and schools, because that's where most of the trouble is!

OK, OK! I am kidding. I can admit that. But who are our state legislators kidding when they propose the kind of laws that seem to be making their way onto the books? Tell me you are joking, guys and gals. Tell me it isn't true that the NRA is having its way with you. Again!

*

Speaking of jokes ...

The Sun's editorial Thursday chided the Supreme Court of Nevada for rewriting the reporter's shield law in a recent case involving a Review-Journal reporter. In ignoring the plain English language of the statute, two of three judges sitting on the case decided that the Alice in Wonderland approach to sound legal reasoning should apply. While I agree wholeheartedly that the court was wrong and should have the good sense to reverse itself, I find myself in somewhat of a quandary.

You see, by agreeing that the high court was wrong -- about which there is no question -- I find myself agreeing with the R-J's editor, Tom Mitchell, a man with whom I find little else in this world upon which we can agree. If nothing else, the fact that we do agree should give the Supremes a reason to rethink their position and find out why the impossible has happened.

I do disagree with editor Mitchell on one matter regarding his recent attack on the high court. Instead of using the law and otherwise reasonable persuasion, he let his arrogance rule the day. I know he can't help it, it's just part of what they do down the street. But it does make it a bit more difficult for the rest of us to take his side.

As long as I am on this subject, I can offer a little unsolicited advice. It is critical that a newspaper stand behind its reporters when they are right, especially where such a serious matter as the shield law is at stake. In such matters, it is important that the editor lead by example. As such and as we have always been ready to do at the Sun, if the court remains unpersuaded by the R-J's arguments, there will come a time when the reporter, Glenn Puit, will have to decide whether to testify or take the principled route -- jail. In that case, it should be incumbent upon his editor, Mitchell, to be prepared to march right alongside, or even ahead of, Puit and into that waiting jail cell until calmer heads prevail within the court system.

Knowing his dedication to principle, I am sure Mitchell will do just that. Until that time comes, though, all we can do is hope.

That the Supreme Court does the right thing, I mean.

archive