Off-duty bartender Mica Smith was dining on the patio of Conversion Brewing Company in Lebanon, Ore., with his wife and friends when he heard a man yell, “What the [expletive] did you say to me?” Smith then saw 30-year-old Michael Ryan VanGelder—who was standing over a woman in the parking lot—pull out a knife.
Fortunately for the victim, Smith wasn’t just a bartender—he was also a 10-year Army veteran and a concealed-carry permit holder. Smith ran toward VanGelder and drew his handgun, warning VanGelder to drop the knife, but VanGelder ran instead. After a chase, Smith and the female victim managed to tackle VanGelder and take his weapon. Fearing he would try to run again, Smith’s wife sat on the perpetrator and Smith kept watch with gun at the ready until police arrived.
Witnessing Smith’s brave actions has made some observers question their anti-gun beliefs. “There were people there that were against concealed carry,” said Smith. “But after what happened, they've changed their minds.”
D.C. Won’t Take “Good Reason” To Supreme Court
When it was previously announced that the District of Columbia Circuit Court would not revisit the ruling by a three-judge panel declaring D.C.’s “good reason” requirement for concealed-carry permits to be unconstitutional, many observers assumed that the next step would be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the city government has now announced that it does not plan to pursue this option.
“I continue to believe the District’s ‘good reason’ requirement is a common-sense, and constitutional, gun regulation,” D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said, in a statement made along with Mayor Muriel Bowser and Police Chief Cathy Lanier. “However, we must reckon with the fact that an adverse decision by the Supreme Court could have wide-ranging negative effects not just on District residents, but on the country as a whole.”
This decision removes the immediate prospect of a Supreme Court ruling strengthening gun rights on the national level, but at the same time it removes an onerous restriction on D.C. residents that left many vulnerable people without a viable means of self-defense. Friends of the Second Amendment will not mourn the passing of the “good reason” clause.
NY Times Calls For Repeal Of Second Amendment
Is this the ultimate admission that gun control doesn’t work? An opinion piece in The New York Times acknowledges that liberals keep losing the gun control debate and, because of that, it’s time to take it a step further and repeal the Second Amendment entirely.
Writer Bret Stephens uses words like “quaint” and “curious” when discussing the amendment, and even refers to the verbiage contained within as a “suggestion.” He cites the “liberal errors of fact” in the gun discussion—including the “gun show loophole” and erroneous 40 percent background check figure—and admits that the NRA "doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.”
Repealing the Second Amendment may seem like an impossible mission, Stephens says, but “most great causes begin as improbable ones.” Escalating a failure to pass gun control legislation into an attempt to tear apart the U.S. Constitution seems like the equivalent of a kid picking up his ball and going home when he loses—i.e., if we can’t control parts of the amendment, then you can’t have it at all.