Welcoming Concealed Carry Licensees Back

I guess the Sanford, Florida police chief realized that banning people who have already had background checks that revealed they are law-abiding citizens from Neighborhood Watch programs was a bad idea.

He refuses to say why he changed his mind, and actually tells the press that he doesn’t have to answer for his decisions on the matter.

I don’t agree with his attitude that he has no obligation to account for his actions as police chief, but at least the result in this situation is better for communities.

8 Responses to “Welcoming Concealed Carry Licensees Back”

  1. tkdkerry says:

    I haven’t followed the links, but I’ll hazard a guess that he “doesn’t have to answer” because he hasn’t yet found an answer that will keep his tookus out of the political fire.

    • Bitter says:

      Likely. The article argues that they believe it’s because gun groups expressed disapproval for the decision. (Honestly, I didn’t catch any particular group weighing in on it, but I haven’t really sought out whether any did.) I suspect it was more likely that several volunteers quit or said they would quit when the rules went into effect.

    • Merle says:

      Yep, that seems to be the most likely answer.


  2. Archer says:

    He’s walked it back to restating the rules as they were, and claiming it was a “miscommunication” (where have we heard that before?). “Citizen Patrol” members (the guys/gals with the uniform and city-provided car) aren’t allowed to carry on patrol, but “Neighborhood Watch” members can. There’s speculation that GZimmerman didn’t accept the “Citizen Patrol” promotion because he’d have to disarm, but that’s just speculation.

    Personally, I think he’s claiming a miscommunication so as not to lose face backing down from the public outcry, and he’s lucky he has a convenient excuse (the existing difference between Citizen Patrol and Neighborhood Watch) to do so, but I don’t doubt for a second that his intention was to disarm Neighborhood Watch volunteers. Else, if they were going to keep the rules as they already were, why the big announcements on the “updated” policy?

  3. PhilaBOR says:

    It’s not like any neighborhood watchman in Sanford WOULD EVER HAVE TO USE A GUN TO SAVE HIS LIFE!

  4. Merle says:

    Sorry but this does not compute as I have no clue about the conditions in Sanford.


  5. Zermoid says:

    I have a feeling he changed his mind when the State govt told him it was illegal and he had no authority to make such a ruling in the first place.
    And if any disarmed citizen on a neighborhood watch was injured/killed as a result of being unarmed he could be held liable.