Second Amendment Right? Or Paranoia?

On Monday, July 19, 2010 the Columbian posted an interesting blog post on their Political Beat blog, Hedrick brings ‘heat’ to Stranger interview, referencing a video and interview from Seattle’s alternative media, the Stranger, Which Congressional Candidate Brought a Gun to The Stranger Yesterday?

Watching the video, I initially thought, “big deal, the guy has a concealed carry permit and carries a gun.” I admit that reading about the kids’ theater incident sounds a bit contrived and although I strongly support the Second Amendment and concealed carry with the proper permit, and that I wouldn’t carry a firearm into a kid’s movie, he does have a legal concealed carry permit.

Unless the theater bars guns, it is legal to carry, even if not the smartest thing a parent would do with his kids.

But, something didn’t set well with me. Something just didn’t sound right to me.

Admittedly, I do not support Hedrick in his congressional run, even though I supported him in standing up to Brian Baird last August. I even have questions that remain unanswered concerning his service in the US Marine Corps and disability claimed. But none of that entered my mind as I watched the video over and over trying to figure out what did not set well with me.

After a few viewings, it dawned on me what it was. If you didn’t pick up on it, watch again and pay attention towards the end of the video, after Hedrick tells the interviewer that they have a legal right to bar guns on their private property.

He states that he would not be there doing the interview in person, but it would be by phone, had they barred his carrying a gun into the interview.

The second amendment is a very serious right that carries with it grave responsibility. Concealed Carry, under current laws, is a privilege not to be taken lightly. I strongly support both, but also feel such a responsibility must be tempered with some good old fashioned common sense.

Much like holding a security clearance in the Military, having the clearance isn’t enough; you must also have “the need to know.”

As Hedrick even shows in the story about the incident at the children’s movie, it is extremely rare to need to pull a gun if you are carrying. However, the likelihood of actually needing your gun, although slim, can be real at any given moment.

But, to indicate that if you may not carry on someone’s private property, their legal right, you, a candidate for federal office, would not do an in person interview? It would be only by telephone?

Such a comment comes across to me as paranoia, or a young man still trying to prove to himself that he is a man, with little clue what manhood is really about.

I have to believe that he received adequate training in the safe and proper handling of rifles while in Basic Training and AIT, since he did serve a short while in the US Marine Corps, even if he is tight lipped about that service other than making his rank held central to his campaign, but I also wonder if that attitude of “no gun, no in person interview” extends to other venues, such as political forums or school functions with his children?

I wonder because RCW 9.41.280 prohibits firearms “in a public or private school building,” except under some strict exemptions.

To me, given his comment in the video, it would only seem logical that he would not attend school plays or PTA Meetings concerning his own children unless he was armed either.

I can only hope that this is not the case and that he obeys the law concerning concealed carry on school grounds and buildings, leaves it home or properly locked in his car and is there for his children.

There are those that see no problem with his carrying a concealed weapon to an interview. If not for the comment of “no gun, no in person interview,” neither would I.

But, that one little comment, giving us a glimpse into the mind of a candidate for office, leaves me feeling like he might just be too immature or too paranoid to be elected to office.