Federal Government
More Concealed Gun Questions
March 3, 2008 
No surprise, but the gun issue–like guns themselves won’t go away.
Not only is a Canyon County Commish caught with a piece at airport security, but now the U.S. Supremes have decided to tackle the issue with regard to the gun ban in the Nation’s Capitol.
Meanwhile Senator Mike “Junior” Crapo continues to garner headlines with his move to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons in the National Parks–ostensibly to “make state laws and national park policy compatible with each other.”
That argument holds little water when you realize the Feds–not the local sheriff or police–are the ones who handle law enforcement in most parks.
The gun nuts say NO ONE can take away the “right to self protection” and the lefty folks oppose the proliferation of weapons–especially in the parks.
The GUARDIAN would like to call the bluff of Junior with this challenge: “If guns are justified in the national parks, why not push for all the teachers, college girls, and assorted summer help to pack heat?
After all, these lovely ladies are alone and vulnerable in the wilderness, and could attract both two legged and 4 legged wolves as they empty trash at remote campsites. Would the senator deny these gallant public servants the “right to self protection?”
Truth is, the “certified law enforcement” rangers want to be the only Feds to carry guns.
We did some additional research and there are even bigger dilemmas. Since ALL publicly elected officials in Idaho can carry concealed weapons, could convicted felons elected to the mosquito control board carry? There is no mention of convicts or mental patients in the permit exemption–and lord knows there are politicos whose sanity is questionable.
We also learned Idaho honors ALL state concealed weapon permits and has reciprocal agreements with Arizona, Colorado, South Dakota, and North Carolina. Under the Crapo plan would the Feds honor concealed weapons permits from Idaho in the Mt. Rushmore National Park of South Dakota, but not in the Everglades Park in Florida?
Finally, there is a Homeland Security law which allows ex cops with 10 years prior service to carry concealed anywhere in the USA. That apparently means a country bumpkin deputy from Mississippi can carry in New York under federal law.
Anyone think these politicians are influenced by NRA contributions?
Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney–who issues concealed weapons permits–sent us a link that could be helpful to determine RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS between states. Note the fine print cautions.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
Mar 3, 2008, 4:49 pm
“to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons in the National Parks”
I haven’t seen anything in the news stories that said whether it would apply to concealed weapons.
All the arguments I’ve read seemed to be about “open carry” — that is, carrying a handgun in an open holster, or carrying a rifle or shotgun out in the open — both of which are legal almost everywhere except in courthouses, prisons, schools and the like.
Yes, you can still walk down the street in Boise or Phoenix or ‘most any town in the West (except Tombstone, Arizona, thanks to Wyatt Earp etc.) wearing a six-gun or other pistol or carrying a rifle or shotgun.
Before we had kids, I usually kept a revolver handy, and wore it in an open holster when I was out in the hills, deserts, mountains, etc. One day I was driving in from somewhere out yonder and stopped in Phoenix to go into a store. As I was walking from a parking space to the store, a police car pulled up beside me, and the officer yelled something like, “Hey, you, we don’t like people carrying guns in this city.” I responded, “Any law against it?” He said, “Er, uh, no.” So I just walked on and he drove away.
And that’s the scenario in most cities. Outside the cities, you can open carry anywhere except in the national parks, and you can carry concealed without a license anywhere except in cities, towns, mining camps (or maybe it’s railroad camps?) and a few other places specified in the concealed-weapons license law.
I’m not a gun nut (don’t belong to NRA, or campaign for guns or something), but I don’t object to people who want to carry them doing so in the great outdoors, and don’t see much difference between national parks, national forests, BLM land, etc.
I think that’s where the rub comes in: Why is just this one area different?
Mar 3, 2008, 4:53 pm
“Finally, there is a Homeland Security law which allows ex cops with 10 years prior service to carry concealed anywhere in the USA. That apparently means a country bumpkin deputy from Mississippi can carry in New York under federal law.”
I think you’ve got this backward. I’d a lot rather see the country bumpkin carry in New York that see a New York cop carry anywhere I am.
How many stories have you read about a country bumpkin deputy or sheriff pumping 40 rounds into somebody for pulling out his wallet, or waving a knife around or somesuch? And how many stories have you read about NYC (or any other city cops) going nutso and blasting a neighborhood to pieces to hit one guy who’s doing something wrong?
Hmmm????
Mar 3, 2008, 5:45 pm
and lord knows there are politicians whose sanity is questionable.
Geeee do you have to keep talking Idaho’s polititions.
Mar 3, 2008, 6:13 pm
Gordon: I don’t think the “finally” means “fortunately” or “at last”… but rather “and the last thing we learned is”.
Mar 3, 2008, 6:22 pm
“We did some additional research and there are even bigger dilemmas. Since ALL publicly elected officials in Idaho can carry concealed weapons, could convicted felons elected to the mosquito control board carry?”
Thats research? The Gun Control Act of 1968 makes felons possessing firearms a felony.
I have no worries about concealed weapon permit holders carrying anywhere they want. These aren’t the people committing crimes or shooting people.
EDITOR NOTE–Vinnie, our point is the apparent CONFLICT in the language. One law allows elected officials to carry, but it has no requirement that they not be wacko!
Mar 3, 2008, 7:31 pm
Did your research include the process by which an elected official can carry a concealed weapon? I have been told by an elected official, they still register with the sheriff in Ada County and issued a badge/ID card.
You are right that the law may be confusing but I think your concerns are covered elsewhere in the instructions to the sheriff.
“The citizen’s constitutional right to bear arms shall not be denied to him, unless
he:
a) Is ineligible to own, possess or receive a firearm under the provisions of state or federal law; or…..
f) Is currently suffering or has been adjudicated as follows, based on substantial evidence:
(i) Lacking mental capacity as defined in section 18-210, Idaho Code; or
(ii) Mentally ill as defined in section 66-317, Idaho Code; or
(iii) Gravely disabled as defined in section 66-317, Idaho Code; or
(iv) An incapacitated person as defined in section 15-5-101(a),Idaho Code”
As a gun owner, thanks for stereotype(gun nuts). I have not the need for a concealed weapon permit, but I don’t have a problem with them. I would guess most crimes involving a gun, most did not have a CWP or a hunting license(needed to carry in Idaho in the open).
EDITOR NOTE–Clancy, lighten up! We are equal opportunity offenders. We talked about “gun nuts and leftys” in the same sentence. There is NO REQUIREMENT that to be found in the concealed weapons “elected official exemption” that mentions ANYTHING about ID cards or permiits from the sheriff…nor is their any other requirement–just to be elected period. My point is the absurdity that we exempt politicos from the laws the rest of us are supposed to follow.
Mar 3, 2008, 7:45 pm
I may be wrong, but the prohibition against guns in National Parks was instituted to protect wildlife, because they don’t allow hunting in National Parks (why tempt people by allowing them to carry guns?).
Mar 3, 2008, 7:51 pm
The Gun Control Act of 1968.
So does that apply to crimes that were felonies in 1968 or any new felonies that have been contrived in the intervening years. It seems that every year, more and more misdemeanors are converted into felonies.
It’s something to ponder.
Mar 3, 2008, 8:25 pm
Hey Dave, we have no “national parks” in Idaho, but have you ever taken the drive up highway 21 from Boise to Stanley? Highway 21 crosses a lot federal land including 2 national forests and BLM land. Due to the vast federal land holdings in Idaho transporting a firearm from your home to your cabin is a federal offense unless you follow their ridiculous rules that vary from agency to agency.
I’m with Gordon on this one, the rules now prohibit the open carrying of firearms. With minor changes in the language the legislation could preclude concealed weapons while allowing for more uniform rules and laws, and the elected kooks from the mosquito abatement district, in which I actually voted in the last election (you have to watch for that one, usually just a short legal notice in the paper) would be precluded also.
Mar 3, 2008, 9:08 pm
Just wondering Dave – when Toe Tapping Larry toe taps his way to oblivion and Crapo becomes the senior senator, what will you call him then? Obviously the new guy will be junior.
EDITOR NOTE–We will call him “senior” on the GUARDIAN and “Senator” to his face–especially if we are seeking favors.
Mar 3, 2008, 9:13 pm
A word to the wise. If you are a country bumpkin deputy from Mississippi and you get caught with a handgun in D.C. or New York. Be prepared to be in jail for two-three days before someone there reads the “fine print”. Same thing applies to retired law enforcement types. Many years ago, I carried in checked luggage and declared. After a very lengthy conversation with two Fresno police officers that caused me to miss the flight, I decided it wasn’t really worth it. Their only question to me was “why do you carry?” My repeated response was that as long as I had a license and no record, with all due respect, it wasn’t any of their business why I chose to carry.
Sure, they can’t keep us from exercising our rights, but they CAN make it absolutely miserable.
Mar 3, 2008, 9:34 pm
“One law allows elected officials to carry, but it has no requirement that they not be wacko!”
Hey, there’s an idea! Maybe there oughta be a law that elected officials can’t be wacko — regardless of whether they pack heat.
Laws already define other requirements for each elective office, such as minimum age, place of residency, etc. Let’s just add “not be wacko” to that! Would solve the problem you bring up re wacko electees with guns, and a whole lot of other problems, too.
Of course, we’d have to replace a whole lot of officials, but once the dust settled from that …
(A few years ago some member of Congress kind of flipped out and wound up in a psychiatric hospital or some such place for a while. Eventually, the shrinks declared his problems solved and his normal brain function intact.
After he returned to the job, someone asked him whether he thought he really ought to be there. He replied, Well, I’m the only one in this entire place who is certified sane.”) An interesting thought.
Wade: I don’t know what your getting at. I didn’t take finally as meaning anything in particular. I was merely commenting on The Guardian’s concerns about hick cops in the big city.
Mar 3, 2008, 10:02 pm
That Homeland Security law that allows retired cops to carry weapons if they completed 10 years of service seems to mirror the Idaho Code. It doesn’t appear to have any age limits. Which makes it LOGICAL that even the youngest would be about 55 and if they retired 30 yrs ago the chances of a senile old cop packing a pistola are very real.
I can see it now. “They said he rached for a GUN, so I shot him. I didn’t know it was JUICY FRUIT.”
Mar 4, 2008, 8:10 am
Remember – gun’s don’t kill people, people who are allowed to carry guns kill people.
So the next logical step is to unarm people who carry guns.
No, that’s just a part of the constitution they are not ripping apart. There must be money in guns…. wow, never did think of that aspect. It’s as if MONEY and RICHES are the TRUE GODS of America.
So it looks as if you object to carrying guns you are being both un-American and offending it’s Gods. man – you are goin’ to hell!
Mar 4, 2008, 10:57 am
Your elitest aire deters from any argument you make. “Country Bumpkins,” you can do better than that. Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country yet nearly always is at the top of the murder statistics in the U.S. Lets leave Mississippi out of it.
Mar 4, 2008, 12:17 pm
Nobody addressed my question about felonies and gun ownership. This is the back door to disarming the public. Every year more and more crimes are deemed a felony. Many of them are non violent and no weapon was involved at all.
For instance, get caught growing marijuana, that’s a felony and there goes your ability to own a gun. What the hell does growing pot have to do with gun ownership?
Mar 4, 2008, 12:34 pm
Gotta disagree with you on this one, Dave. We have the right to carry firearms anywhere in this country – including on federal land. The restrictions that have been imposed to date, should be changed.
As for your statement: “The GUARDIAN would like to call the bluff of Junior with this challenge: “If guns are justified in the national parks, why not push for all the teachers, college girls, and assorted summer help to pack heat? …”
You know (or at least I hope you do) that there is a big difference between ALLOWING someone to do something and FORCING them to. I’m all for allowing teachers – including college professors or even their students – to protect themselves while on campus. No one is advocating FORCING someone to carry a firearm if they don’t want to.
EDITOR NOTE–We agree with ALLOW versus FORCING and that was our intent. The point we are aiming for is if there is a legitimate NEED to carry in the parks it would certainly be on the part of those we mentioned…they cannot carry under current policy.
Mar 4, 2008, 12:58 pm
The GUARDIAN would like to call the bluff of Junior with this challenge: “If guns are justified in the national parks, why not push for all the teachers, college girls, and assorted summer help to pack heat?
Assuming all those people would choose to carry a weapon, this would be a bad thing, why?
As I recall, the Constitution is supposed to keep the government from making laws preventing these folks from exercising their rights.
A more fruitful line of inquiry for the Guardian would be to ask why is it there are so many roadblocks for these folks to do what our Constitution clearly recognizes they have a right to do? You don’t even appear to have the issue correctly framed as you are calling for compelling people to carry a weapon. That is foolish and found nowhere in the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment recognizes the choice citizens have to keep and bear arms. Not everyone will. I wonder if the Guardian doesn’t realize that or just chose to ignore it?
I’d like to call the Guardian’s bluff. Why not just come out and say you don’t mind ignoring the Constitution in order to promote your own vision of the way things ought to be?
Blue
EDITOR NOTE–Blue you really missed the point!
I own guns, have no problem with carry etc. If Junior Senator REALLY wants to allow guns in parks, he should be an advocate for all those federal employes working there and get THEM the right to carry for “protection.” Me thinks he is responding to the gun lobby and not common sense “need,” or uniformity of law/policy.
You will find no stronger defender of the constitution (state or federal) than the GUARDIAN. The right to bear arms clause truly is one we don’t know how to read today. Once the Supremes decide I will abide by it…as will all cops and soldiers who have sworn to defend and obey it.
Mar 4, 2008, 2:27 pm
Dave… am I a gun nut? This may be a “confession” of sorts.
When I travel by motorcycle (which I do every summer on at least one glorious adventure), I feel more comfortable carrying my weapon.
Here’s a cliché: “Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.” I’ve never needed it.
Occasionally my travel takes me through a National Park. They never ask if I have a weapon, and I don’t volunteer that information. I’m always optimistic that it will stay securely packed. (And if it doesn’t, I’m dealing with more serious problems than whether or not I’m breaking park rules.) I will never be a threat to other visitors, or to park wildlife, unless I perceive it to be a life-and-death situation.
I’m good with the status quo. I’m also TOTALLY comfortable with an official sanction on my fellow law-abiding citizens packing heat.
On another topic… if you look at the reciprocity chart, you will find that interestingly, people from every state who have a CCW permit can carry a concealed weapon in Idaho. We don’t discriminate. If the local authorities say you’re a good guy, we’ll trust you to be a good guy in Idaho, too.
(Vermont doesn’t have a concealed-carry law at all. If the Feds let you have a gun, you can carry it either on open display OR concealed in Vermont. Which is really strange, when you figure Vermont is about as far-left as you can get in most respects.)
*** Whenever things are stagnating on Boise Guardian, you can ALWAYS post an opinion about guns, and people will respond. ***
Mar 4, 2008, 4:17 pm
So if Jr. Crapo gets his National Park gun totin rule OK’d, can I walk around with my AK47 with a loaded banana 30rnd clip? Will we be able to target shoot in Yellowstone? Perhaps we will find some of those lovely (and convenient) wide spots in the road we have here in Idaho where sportsmen shoot at beer cans,glass bottles, TV’s and roadsigns. Bring it on, America, heck yeah! The Fed fun busters will probably make us shoot outside the park. Best thing is, international guests at our National Parks are going to feel so much safer seeing armed nationals wandering around checking out the views.
Damn, I can’t wait till they let us drive our ATVs in the parks and pack guns.
Mar 4, 2008, 7:02 pm
With the majority of National Park visitors in tow with little children, how will the gun proponents carry their gun safe’s or locked cabinets in their cars to keep the kids from accidentally killing themselves? If they are safely put away from the kiddies, how are they going to use them for PROTECTION? I see no need to change the gun laws in the National Parks.
Mar 4, 2008, 7:45 pm
Must say this is interesting stuff. G-man, if you are up to the challenge, I will bet you by actual count at least 75% of all the yellow highway signs between State Street and the Cascade City limits on Highway 55 have bullet holes in them.
If the same “sportsmen” who blast all the signs in the Birds of Prey reserve are allowed to carry in the National Parks, the sign repair costs alone will cause another round of fee hikes.
Mar 5, 2008, 1:20 am
“EDITOR NOTE–Blue you really missed the point!
I own guns, have no problem with carry etc. If Junior Senator REALLY wants to allow guns in parks, he should be an advocate for all those federal employes working there and get THEM the right to carry for “protection.” ”
Duh! If Junior gets his way, he *will* give all those fed employes the right to carry for protection. Obviously, if us’ns can carry, then so can them’uns, savvy?
And dog seems to be a good example of why maybe at that some people shouldn’t be allowed to carry. If he, she or it doesn’t know the difference between and AK47 with a 30-round clip, and a six-shooter or .38 special, and doesn’t know the difference between carrying and shooting, or that carrying is not a license to drive ARVs, etc. … Hooo, boy!
Pam, I dunno how they’ll keep the kids from getting shot on National Park lands. Maybe the same way they do on National Monument lands, state park lands, National Forest lands, BLM lands, etc. Haven’t heard of many shootings on any of them … a few car wrecks, though, and occasional falls off cliffs and suchlike. Dunno what to do about them thar kind a’ hurtins’.
Mr. Logic: Ya reckon something in Idaho law gives folks the right to shoot those signs? I don’t think so. Some folks just don’t obey laws, ya see, and they’re already packing heat in the national parks if they wanna.
Those who want to carry guns legally just might want to use them legally, too. Isn’t that logical?
Mar 5, 2008, 1:29 am
Just called up the linked Reciprocal Agreements. Wow! What a hodgepodge.
Whatever happened to the U.S. Constitution Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
That’s long been interpreted to mean that if you got married in one state, you’re married in all of them (Sorry, guys), and that if you have a driver’s license from one state, you’re legal to drive in any of them …
So if you’re licensed to carry concealed in one state, how can you *not* be allowed to carry concealed in all of them?”
???
Mar 5, 2008, 7:02 am
People don’t have a constitutional right to carry a gun. Militias (government licensed armies) do.
Therein lies the real argument.
Mar 5, 2008, 7:27 am
PAM,
For larger guns: Most newer guns have built in trigger locks (At least reminigton does). There are after market locks for those wich dont. Those who keep their guns safe in their home would be prone to use them. Those who dont keep their guns safe at home (where the risk is greater) wouldn’t keep their guns safe on the road anyway, locks or not. Restricting guns wont change that. Better education and better technology (in gun safes and trigger locks) will.
For handguns: There are gun safes of all types built for homes, cars and motorhomes that are small and designed for rapid access in a crisis.
So in both cases, your arguments don’t hold water (that gun locking technologies arnt available when on the road) .
So if you dont know what you are talking about, do your research before you speak.
http://www.hand-gun-safes.com/
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://elitetacticalsources.com/images/Linux%2520Site%2520-%2520Images/gun_sa5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.elitetacticalsources.com/gun_safes.htm&h=273&w=282&sz=18&hl=en&start=24&um=1&tbnid=Do-mbVX-P3PDbM:&tbnh=110&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgun%2Bsafes%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
Mr. Logic: Like other gun related crime, restricting guns wont prevent it. The honest people dont do that anyway, and the hoodlums (of all ages) dont care about any of the laws.
Dog,
In Yellowstone, the most dangerous thing to tourist will NEVER be guns, but them selves. Have you seen the yearly stats on buffalo/Bisen goring’s? More people die from that stupidity than in all of Ada and Canyon county from gun related deaths.
Mar 5, 2008, 10:54 am
My point is that tards can get a ccw permit. It’s a piece of paper that legally allows anyone deemed responsible to pack loaded heat. It is legal to be alcoholic, paranoid, have ptsd, hear voices, communist, anarchist, Republican, Democrat, take massive doses of legal prescribed Rx drugs, etc. last I heard. The Canyon County Republican Commissioner that got busted at the airport is a prime example. (Clown/tard..not sure yet) He should have been drug tested as well. He probably forgot because he was high on drugs or drunk. How about required annual refresher courses for ccw permits? I can dress up in my clown suit and go get a ccw legally because I’m a professional part time clown and that is how I dress for work.
Nemo, I guess the bison gorings is an axample of the herd culling the herd. Less stupid people, more parking for us.
Mar 5, 2008, 8:29 pm
[quote] The GUARDIAN would like to call the bluff of Junior with this challenge: “If guns are justified in the national parks, why not push for all the teachers, college girls, and assorted summer help to pack heat?
After all, these lovely ladies are alone and vulnerable in the wilderness, and could attract both two legged and 4 legged wolves as they empty trash at remote campsites. Would the senator deny these gallant public servants the “right to self protection?”
Truth is, the “certified law enforcement” rangers want to be the only Feds to carry guns.[/quote]
You skip the more basic question…does any level of government have the right to make any citizen unsafe to the point of injury or death? The answer, from this ‘gun nut’ is, of course, no.
Your second paragraph above is entertaining an marginally persuasive, if you forget about the very real examples of women raped and murdered in those parks.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_199607/ai_n8749751
http://www.fred.net/kathy/at/blade.html
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/mar/12us2.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286404,00.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/cary_stayner/index.html
Nope, no reason for women or anyone else to be armed in national parks, just like there is no need for anyone but the mass murders to be armed in our gun free zones…why, it might upset the left’s delicate feelings, and we wouldn’t like to do that.
Mar 5, 2008, 8:52 pm
“The right to bear arms clause truly is one we don’t know how to read today. Once the Supremes decide I will abide by it…as will all cops and soldiers who have sworn to defend and obey it.”
When you say ‘we don’t know how to read today’ you are really saying that the American education system has failed so many as to defy belief. What the Constitution says is clear, what the founders intended is also clear if one bothers to read what they wrote. What the courts have written is also astoundingly clear. To say one doesn’t understand it is to say more about your research than the intent of the founders. I recommend a quick read of Emmerson:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=docket&no=9910331cr0
You would find out exactly what the 2nd means and was meant to mean.
Mar 5, 2008, 8:59 pm
“People don’t have a constitutional right to carry a gun. Militias (government licensed armies) do.
Therein lies the real argument.”
You do realize that the ‘right’ as described by you does not appear in federal law until the 1930’s, about 140 years after the founders wrote it. The collective right was never discussed by the founders, was not envisioned by them and was a product of our law schools at the turn of the 20th century, a complete invention of revisionist law and history.
Mar 5, 2008, 11:25 pm
Tim said: “People don’t have a constitutional right to carry a gun. Militias (government licensed armies) do.”
Strangely, that scares me more than anything else anyone has said.
Mar 6, 2008, 2:36 am
Hey, Dog: If yer a clown, wouldn’t yer gun just shoot out a little flag with the word “Bang!” on it?
I wonder whether you need a permit for that one.
Mar 6, 2008, 7:41 pm
On a related point:
“Palestinian terrorist opened fire at a central Jerusalem yeshiva late Thursday night, killing eight students and wounding 11 others, police and rescue officials said. …As security forces raced to the scene, the gunman fired round after round of ammunition into the library at the seminary, religious Zionism’s flagship institution…..”We heard shooting and knew that something had happened,” recounted Yitzhak Dadon, 40, who studies at the yeshiva. Dadon said he cocked his handgun and went up to the roof of the yeshiva, where he saw the terrorist spraying gunfire indiscriminately at the crowd inside. Dadon said he fired two bullets at the terrorist, who began to stumble.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546422275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Note the important parts that apply to America. A gunman shot up a school, which would be a ‘gun free zone’ here. The campus security took time to arrive. A student intervened, shot the perp, stopping his fire and letting security arrive who finished the incident. Instead of 20 dead, an armed student stopped the deaths at 8.
So, of course, the lesson learned in America…NONE!
Mar 6, 2008, 7:54 pm
…, Than Carried by 6!
I’ve carried a 38 Wheel Gun loaded with +P Glaser Safety Slugs “forever”, and have never had to produce it, except when I had the misfortune of being in L.A. during the Rodney King Riots (And almost certainly wouldn’t be pecking this out today if I hadn’t had it), and another time when confronted by a wild dog up 8th Street (No, I didn’t shoot it).
Mar 7, 2008, 6:06 pm
Gordy, fact is, that’s my backup!