Commercial Appeal article about HB0390--transportation of loaded long guns

[Guest Seminole]

The Commercial Appeal published an article today about HB0390 passing out of Committee yesterday.

Tenn. panel advances bill to allow loaded long guns in vehicles

By Richard Locker (Contact), Memphis Commercial Appeal

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

NASHVILLE -- Less than 24 hours after a man armed with two assault rifles, a shotgun and a handgun killed 10 people and then himself in Alabama, a Tennessee legislative committee on Wednesday approved a bill allowing handgun-carry licensees to carry loaded rifles and shotguns in their vehicles.

Although handgun-carry permit holders are legally allowed to carry loaded handguns -- on their persons and in their vehicles -- Tennessee law currently prohibits the transport of loaded rifles and shotguns in vehicles.

State Rep. Henry Fincher, D-Cookeville, said law enforcement officers have sometimes confiscated the rifles and shotguns of people stopped in their vehicles for other reasons if authorities found them loaded or with loaded magazines or clips nearby.

"This bill would allow a handgun-permit holder to have a loaded long gun in the car. If they have gone through the training and been cleared by the state to have the permits, they ought to be able to carry loaded long guns in their cars just as they can handguns. I really think it's more of a technical move" than a change in state policy, Fincher told reporters after the House Judiciary Committee approved his bill and sent it to the committee that schedules legislation for House floor votes.

Authorities in Alabama said 28-year-old Michael McLendon was armed with two assault rifles using high-capacity magazines taped together, a shotgun and a .38-caliber handgun to kill 10 people in an hourlong shooting rampage in southeastern Alabama on Tuesday afternoon before killing himself.

Although McLendon had been enrolled in a police training program, he was not a police officer and authorities have not said whether he had a handgun-carry permit. The Alabama legislature is considering -- as is Tennessee -- closing public access to the identities of handgun-carry permit holders.

Fincher said he had not heard of the Alabama shootings before Wednesday's committee meeting, but said that if handgun-carry permit holders had been nearby with their guns, the shooter would likely have been killed before his death toll reached 10.

-- Richard Locker: (615) 255-4923

I e-mailed Locker this reply and will copy it to Chris Peck, the editor of the CA.

Dear Mr. Locker,

I must say that your story in today's Commercial Appeal, "Tenn. panel advances bill to allow loaded long guns in vehicles," is disappointing from a factual perspective.

While the story purports to be about HB0390 (though the bill number is never mentioned), it is framed in terms of the criminal action of Michael McLendon, the young man who went on a shooting spree in south Alabama. McLendon's actions are completely irrelevant to a story about HB0390--not only would the passage of the bill have no affect on actions like his, but you admit in the penultimate paragraph that you don't even know whether he had an Alabama Concealed Carry permit. Framing the story in this way is clearly designed to prejudice the way readers perceive HB0390 and constitutes an interjection of an editorial opinion in what purports to be a news story.

Secondly, there is a glaring factual inaccuracy in the story that relates to McClendon's weapons, two of which are characterized as "assault rifles." The term "assault rifle" is a technical one with a specific meaning as only a small amount of research would have shown you. As wikipedia correctly states, and can be verified by reference to any specialized reference work pertaining to firearms, "an assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting either like a machine gun or one bullet at a time)." Now since McLendon's two rifles (an SKS and a Bushmaster AR-15) were--like any other semiautomatic rifle--capable of firing only a single shot at a time and incapable of automatic fire, it is clearly incorrect to use the term "assault rifle" to refer to them. I hope that the misuse of this term was a simple mistake on your part, born out of a lack of knowledge about its meaning, and that now that you know better you will not misuse it again. However, given the fact that that McLendon's actions were completely irrelevant to the story about this bill, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the incorrect use of the term "assault rifle" is simply another attempt to use scare tactics for the purpose of unduly alarm your readers about a bill that, as Rep. Fincher stated, is "more of a technical move" than a change in state policy."

While I have been a subscriber to the Commercial Appeal for the seven years I have lived in Memphis, I must say that such blatant misreporting and unprofessional use of scare tactics in relation to firearms bills currently working their way through the legislature are making me reconsider my subscription.

Sincerely,

Seminole

[Guest 70below]

Well said, let us know if you get a response.

[creeky]

That was VERY well written. Bravo!

[mcurrier]

Huzzah! Kudos.

[Guest betobeto]

Good job....

[E4 No More]

Very well stated, but, judging from the other articles of the CA, it'll "Fall on deaf ears."

[Guest Seminole]

I encourage all of you also to contact both the author as well as the Commercial Appeal's editor, Chris Peck.

[strickj]

Yanno,a wise person would realize that these articles are being published simply because of the response they're receiving.

So that means each time you look at one,or click on their site,you're just fueling the fire

What good does canceling your paper subscription do when your still reading the articles online? They're still making a profit by the web traffic!

Edited March 12, 2009 by strickj

[E4 No More]

The real damage is done by contacting the advertisers and tell them that you'll not patronize them as long as they show their approval with the paper's position by doing business with them. If they get enough negative comments they'll pull their money.

[DavidD]

Yanno,a wise person would realize that these articles are being published simply because of the response they're receiving.

So that means each time you look at one,or click on their site,you're just fueling the fire

What good does canceling your paper subscription do when your still reading the articles online? They're still making a profit by the web traffic!

Excellent points Strick. I just cancelled my subscription to the Tennessean and will not even look at it online. So now the only way I can read any of these rags is if one of youe guys (and gals) post the article on here. I won't even so much as follow a posted link. Wonder how long I can last.....

[towerclimber37]

hey! take heart..they may decide to listen to you...look at the NY Times..

they're over 1billion dollars in debt, have had to lease out part of their building to cover a ballooning loan payment and on top of that their readership has decreased 45% in the past 2 years. Looks like they'll either go under or be "reorganized" and come back under another name....

either way its still a piece of newspaper in my opinion.

These days, there's no longer fact based objectivity. The self purported journalists say that telling the story is more important than the facts.

I have to ask them "how's that workin out for ya!?"

[Guest db99wj]

Many, many papers are going out of business. Everytime someone dies, they lose a reader, everytime someone is born, a new internet reader is born. Think about that. It is a matter of time, major newspapers will be a thing of the past. It will all be electronic.

[Guest Seminole]

Well, I got a reply. Note first the slight-of-hand, using the term "assault weapon" as an equivalent of "assault rifle." Secondly, the excuse that well, the Alabama Department of Public Safety said they were assault rifles, and who am I to do anything but parrot what they say? Third, note the inability to think logically about his point number 2, the lack of connection between the AL event and the bill before the TN legislature: the thought process seems to be that both involve long guns in a vehicle, therefore they're related. Never mind that there is no evidence that the guy had an AL CCW permit and that fact somehow let him get away with carrying loaded long guns. Sheesh. . . .

Seminole,

Since you took the time to write and signed your name, I'm happy to respond.

1. There are no "glaring factual inaccuracies" in the article, I know what an assault rifle is. But even if I didn't, the Alabama Department of Public Safety does and I got the information directly from their official statement on the incident which is posted on their official website. The relevant excerpt says: "McLendon was armed with two assault rifles, an SKS and a Bushmaster, using high-capacity magazines taped together; a shotgun; and a .38-caliber handgun. At this time we believe that he fired in excess of 200 rounds during the assaults."

If you're interested, you can see it for yourself at: http://dps.alabama.gov/appDocuments/Notifications/Urgent/NewsBriefing03112009.pdf

There is no "official" definition of an assault weapon. The phrase is not trademarked. The military may have a definition. The NRA may have a definition. Others have other definitions. The Alabama DPS says assault weapons were involved in this rampage and in this case, the Alabama DPS is the official agency that gets to say. Not me. And I daresay that the law enforcement officers who reported the shootings as "like a string of firecrackers going off" -- as well as the families and friends of the victims -- feel as if they were "assaulted."

2. Here is why the two stories are related. The Tennessee legislation is about loaded long guns inside of motor vehicles. The Alabama shooter was driving around in a motor vehicle with loaded long guns (plus a handgun). In addition to the five relatives he killed, he killed five innocent bystanders -- three of whom were going about their business on the sides of public streets. The shooter shot and killed them from his vehicle. If the guns had not been loaded, he would have had to stop and load them. There is a slight chance that three people might have noticed what he was doing and had time to flee -- or as Rep. Fincher suggests, shoot him before he shot anyone else.

In addition to that fact, the Alabama shooting happened (as I reported) less than 24 hours before the bill came up in a Tennessee legislative committee. A logical person might think that during a discussion about loaded long guns in motor vehicles, the largest shooting rampage by a single shooter in the history of a neighboring state -- which involved firing long guns from a motor vehicle -- MIGHT have been mentioned. It was not.

I make no apologies for the story as it was written. It was 100 percent factual. You have every right to disagree. You have every right to voice your opinion. That is why we facilitate the posting of reader comments and make it easy for you to email staff members. I relish debate.

Thank you for writing, and thank you for subscribing to the newspaper.

[Guest db99wj]

The shooter shot and killed them from his vehicle. If the guns had not been loaded, he would have had to stop and load them. There is a slight chance that three people might have noticed what he was doing and had time to flee -- or as Rep. Fincher suggests, shoot him before he shot anyone else.

O my, I spit up coke on that one. So, this shooter, that is going around shooting would have followed the law in the first place, that he would have had to stop and load up, before he continued shooting......

I mean, really come on, why do the anti's think this way? Do they really think that if the law of the land said no guns, period, for hunting, for sport, for protection, carried, in your homes, on your farms, no guns anywhere..anytime...anyway, do you think these people would abide by the laws? Hell no. When are they going to realize that criminals don't give a fu&* about laws.

[Guest GT_Rat]

2. Here is why the two stories are related. The Tennessee legislation is about loaded long guns inside of motor vehicles. The Alabama shooter was driving around in a motor vehicle with loaded long guns (plus a handgun). In addition to the five relatives he killed, he killed five innocent bystanders -- three of whom were going about their business on the sides of public streets. The shooter shot and killed them from his vehicle. If the guns had not been loaded, he would have had to stop and load them. There is a slight chance that three people might have noticed what he was doing and had time to flee -- or as Rep. Fincher suggests, shoot him before he shot anyone else.

In addition to that fact, the Alabama shooting happened (as I reported) less than 24 hours before the bill came up in a Tennessee legislative committee. A logical person might think that during a discussion about loaded long guns in motor vehicles, the largest shooting rampage by a single shooter in the history of a neighboring state -- which involved firing long guns from a motor vehicle -- MIGHT have been mentioned. It was not.

So let me get this straight: A guy who has already made the decision before ever leaving home to murder five members of his family is going to take pause while hopping into his car to go kill more people and think, "Oh my, it's illegal for me to drive around with these loaded long guns," and stop and unload them? He really thinks that?

[Guest Linoge]

*sigh* Both the article, and Robert's response, just got fed into my grist mill as another piece of nonsense to take the Commercial Appeal to task over.

The article was erroneous in all manner of places (most especially concerning "assault weapons" (which do have an acceptable definition, whether Robert is willing to admit that or not) and "high capacity magazines"), but it was not nearly as bad as the email response he sent to you...

I am just 100% blown away that a reporter would actually write something that mind-numbingly stupid. Of course, I am talking about an "authorized journalist".

[Punisher84]

What a bunch of BS. That reply was the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[Guest OttoMaddox]

Anti-gun logic...

Edited March 12, 2009 by OttoMaddox

[Ninja9]

As a local talk show host here often says... No point in getting in a battle of wits with an unarmed man

[Guest Seminole]

This is the reply to his e-mail that I sent:

Mr. Locker,

I appreciate your deigning to reply to my previous e-mail, though despite the clear implication of your first sentence, I am not in the habit of sending anonymous correspondence--either real or virtual.

If you don't mind, I will reply in an inter-linear fashion to your e-mail.

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Locker, Richard <locker@commercialappeal.com> wrote:

Mr. Watkins,

Since you took the time to write and signed your name, I'm happy to respond.

1. There are no "glaring factual inaccuracies" in the article, I know what an assault rifle is.

Apparently not. See below.

But even if I didn't, the Alabama Department of Public Safety does and I got the information directly from their official statement on the incident which is posted on their official website. The relevant excerpt says: "McLendon was armed with two assault rifles, an SKS and a Bushmaster, using high-capacity magazines taped together; a shotgun; and a .38-caliber handgun. At this time we believe that he fired in excess of 200 rounds during the assaults."

If you're interested, you can see it for yourself at: http://dps.alabama.gov/appDocuments/...ng03112009.pdf

I'm aware that you were relying on the ADPS statement. However, it was my impression that it was the responsibility of a journalist not simply to parrot what is stated by interested parties, whether they be law-enforcement agencies or private citizens. Indeed, one of the reasons for the First Ammendment is precisely to guarantee the independence of the press from the state so as to help keep it accountable. Unfortunately, your statement above implies that you believe it to be sufficient to simply publicize what a government agency states rather than to apply any critical and independent judgment about its statement.

There is no "official" definition of an assault weapon.

First, please get your terms straight. Attention to distinctions is important in journalism as in other areas of life. You stated in the article (simply parroting ADPS as you admitted above), that McLendon used "assault rifles"--not "assault weapons." While you are correct that there is no commonly-accepted definition of an "assault weapon," there certainly is a standard definition of an "assault rifle." That definition is a military one and goes back to the original "assault rifle," the German Sturmgewehr of WWII, which allowed German soldiers to "storm" (assault) the enemy lines, overwhelming them with automatic fire. As a military weapon, the assault rifle is defined by the U.S. army as a weapon of intermediate power (more power than a pistol, but less than a battle rifle), having the ability to fire from the shoulder (that is, it has a a buttstock), the capability for selective fire (to be able to switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic), and the ammunition of which is supplied from a detachable box magazine. (Though you seem singularly uninterested in what the U.S. military has to say about what constitutes a military weapon, you can verify this definition by referring to US Army Intelligence Document FSTC-CW-07-03-70.)

The term "assault weapon" was coined by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center in 1988 as an admittedly deceptive term. In a paper entitled "Assault Weapon: Analysis, New Research and Legislation," Sugarman recommended exploiting this vague neologism for political purposes, writing, "Assault weapons . . . are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Unfortunately you have either succumbed to the confusion Sugarman intended or are intentionally perpetuating it.

The phrase is not trademarked. The military may have a definition. The NRA may have a definition. Others have other definitions. The Alabama DPS says assault weapons were involved in this rampage and in this case, the Alabama DPS is the official agency that gets to say. Not me.

Please be consistent and stick to the facts. The issue is "assault rifles," not "assault weapons," whatever they are. The military has no definition of "assault weapons," as the term is simply intentionally too vacuous for definition. Neither does the NRA. As you stated above, the Alabama DPS did not say that "assault weapons" were involved in this case, but that "assault rifles" were, an assertion that is demonstrably false if indeed the rifles McLendon used were an SKS and a Bushmaster. Neither rifle meets the description of an assault rifle and both have more in common with the rifles commonly used by deer hunters than those used by the military.

And I daresay that the law enforcement officers who reported the shootings as "like a string of firecrackers going off" -- as well as the families and friends of the victims -- feel as if they were "assaulted."

Well, by that standard, anyone attacked with a baseball bat could fairly describe the weapon as an "assault bat," but the addition of the adjective really serves no purpose since it would be obvious the assault took place and there is no ontological distinction between a "baseball bat" and an "assault bat"--merely a different use to which the bat is put. Will you from now on be describing any weapon used in an assault in these terms and refer to "assault bats," "assault chairs," assault brass knuckles," "assault screwdrivers," "assault fists," "assault shoes," etc.? I somehow doubt it, as the silliness of such terminology would soon become obvious.

The point is that your use of the term "assault rifle" sprang either from ignorance (which would be bad enough, but excuseasable and remediable), intellectual laziness or dishonesty (much worse traits since, unlike a simple lack of knowledge, these are character flaws) or (worst of all) intentional duplicitousness.

2. Here is why the two stories are related. The Tennessee legislation is about loaded long guns inside of motor vehicles. The Alabama shooter was driving around in a motor vehicle with loaded long guns (plus a handgun).

This is a tenuous connection at best. The Tennessee legislation proposes to allow people with Handgun Carry Permits, who already are permitted to carry loaded weapons in vehicles, to also carry long guns in such a fashion. For there to be a logical connection to the McLendon story it would need to be established that 1) McLendon had an Alabama Pistol License, something that you stated was unknown (Please note the correct name of the license. Your use of the term "handgun-carry permit" in the article constitutes another factual error. Both the license name and its regulations are different from those of Tennesse's "Handgun Carry Permit."); and 2) that a Pistol License was needed in order for him to legally carry loaded long guns in a vehicle, which is in fact not the case, as anyone may legally carry loaded long guns in vehicles in Alabama regardless of whether they have a Pistol License or not.

In addition to the five relatives he killed, he killed five innocent bystanders -- three of whom were going about their business on the sides of public streets. The shooter shot and killed them from his vehicle. If the guns had not been loaded, he would have had to stop and load them.

I'm sorry, but this line of "reasoning" (if it can be so dignified) is simply farcical. Do you honestly believe that someone intent on murdering numerous people would avoid transporting loaded long guns in his vehicle simply because it might be illegal? The illegality of murder didn't stop McLendon from shooting those people; why would making it illegal for him to carry loaded rifles in his car stop him from doing that?

There is a slight chance that three people might have noticed what he was doing and had time to flee -- or as Rep. Fincher suggests, shoot him before he shot anyone else.

If you really agree with Rep. Fincher on this point then you should be doing everything you can to help expand the legal carry of firearms in Tennessee. The problem in McLendon's case was not simply that someone with guns went nuts--it was that there were not enough other people with guns to stop him. While it will never be possible to prevent such murderous rampages (even in Germany, where firearms are heavily restricted), it most certainly is possible to minimize the duration and lethality of those rampages.

In addition to that fact, the Alabama shooting happened (as I reported) less than 24 hours before the bill came up in a Tennessee legislative committee.

Many other things happened in those 24 hours also. Their chronological proximity is irrelevant.

A logical person might think that during a discussion about loaded long guns in motor vehicles, the largest shooting rampage by a single shooter in the history of a neighboring state -- which involved firing long guns from a motor vehicle -- MIGHT have been mentioned. It was not.

A person might think so--but not on the basis of logic, as I have shown above.

I make no apologies for the story as it was written. It was 100 percent factual.

If you believe this you either have a strange definition of the word "factual" or you need to go back and re-read more closely what I have pointed out above.

You have every right to disagree. You have every right to voice your opinion.

Why thank you--how very gracious of you. Of course, your obviously ideologically-driven framing of the story and misrepresentation of the facts, calculated to influence readers' perception of the issue when they expect you to deliver an objective report, is, as you know, much more visible than my private correspondence. It is unfortunate that you seem either not to recognize or not to care that your enhanced power carries with it a high degree of ethical responsibility.

Sincerely,

Seminole

[Moped]

Well said Seminole!!! Please continue to feed us his replies!

[Smith]

Dang! Now that is a response and a heck of a rebuttal! I want you to write my opinions from now on!

[Guest Seminole]

Dang! Now that is a response and a heck of a rebuttal! I want you to write my opinions from now on.

Aw, shucks. . . now you're just embarrassing me.

[waynesan]

Good job dude.

Remind me to never tell you anything about anything I believe, or have believed, or think I believe, or no longer believe. I just couldn't defend myself from your interogation.

[Mark@Sea]

Newsflash! The Alabama murderer used a vehicle in carrying out his assaults. Although we are unable to get the Alabama DOT to release any information concerning whether he held a license to operate a vehicle on public streets, we are very concerned that the Tennessee Legislature has also allowed citizens to get licenses to operate vehicles. Many Tennessee licensed vehicle owners have committed vehicle crimes in the past, yet legislators have no plans to change or tighten the requirements for obtaining a license.

Seems to me that this makes as much sense as what they printed. Wonder if I could get a job at the CA?