search
top

Endorsing Concealed Carry in California

Wow, check out this incredible editorial by a California paper against a concealed carry ban – for the specific reason that good people should be able to defend their lives. The mind boggles.

CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS.
Senator Roberts has introduced a bill to repeal the law making it a penal offense to carry concealed deadly weapons in this State. It may not sound well in theory to defend the repeal of this law; but we think the movement practically a good one. The old law was always a dead letter among the very class it was designed to restrict — the robbers, assassins and desperate characters. It was never needed as against civil citizens, for these never kill or wound save in self-defense. But the effect of it has been to give the worst men in the country greater advantages over the peaceably disposed than they had before; since the law, which is generally respected by the latter, never was regarded by the desperate and evil disposed. These have carried pistols, knives and slung-shots, just the same as if there were no law against it; and the police, always ready to make a dollar or win a little cheap reputation by arresting quiet citizens found by accident with concealed weapons, are very shy of the desperadoes and careful not to run the risk of their displeasure. The law by these means virtually disarmed the good citizens so that the wicked and outlawed portion have them completely at their mercy. It has become worse than a nuisance, and ought to be repealed without delay.

Which paper finally sees the issue so clearly? The Sacramento Daily Union of December 13, 1869.

I learned about a resource of historical newspapers from Clayton Cramer‘s speech at the NRA Second Amendment Symposium. He jokingly ended his speech with the comment that it only took what – 140 years – for the Supreme Court to catch up with newspaper editorials in California.

7 Responses to “Endorsing Concealed Carry in California”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    I had guessed it was not a contemporary article by the sentence containing “dead letter.” The language choice was not modern.

    • Bitter says:

      I figured that people would realize it was a very old paper pretty quickly. Regardless, I still thought it was pretty funny and worth sharing that, at one point in California history, it didn’t take newsmen long to figure out that laws only impact those willing to follow them in the first place.

  2. John Doe says:

    Can you share what the resource for historical newspapers was?

  3. Bubblehead Les says:

    So now we know that it takes about 140 years to go from Common Sense to Complete Idiocy.

  4. St Mark says:

    It is a joy to read old paper compared to the modern drivel where they spent 5 paragraphs as if they are writing an introduction to a novel [which newspaper wo/man aren’t secretly dreaming they are in fact, a writer?] before they get to anything of substance.

    It’s getting more and more difficult to read a modern “news” article.

top