Dentist opens fire on purse snatcher / Police say he shot as wife fought mugger
“Going to the aid of his wife as she and an armed man struggled over her purse in the parking lot of the Wal-Mart Supercenter in west Little Rock on Monday night, a 63-year-old dentist pulled out a .357-caliber revolver and opened fire, striking the would-be robber in the buttocks, police said Tuesday. Jonathan Terry, 24, of England fled but was found a short time later seeking treatment at the UAMS Medical Center. When he is released from the hospital, police said, they plan to charge him with aggravated robbery.” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, March 25, 2009. page 1.
In this second part of my interview with Bryan Hendricks, the outdoor editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, we discussed the controversy surrounding the concealed-carry weapon permits and his objections to the Arkansas Times’ decision to release the names of 58,000 Arkansans who have such permits.
The frightening experience of the 63-year-old dentist (noted above) who has a permit, used his revolver last month to defend his wife against armed robbery and put her assailant in the hospital with a bullet in his buttocks. Certainly this provides strong support for a tightly regulated right to carry concealed weapons and the owner’s right to privacy.
Current legislation now being considered includes:
• HB 1623, which will make private the personal information of all Right-to-Carry permit holders. Introduced on March 6 by pro-gun State Rep. Randy Stewart, the bill was overwhelmingly passed by the House by vote of 98 to 1 and is now headed to the Senate.
• HR 45, which is in the House Judiciary Committee with no co-sponsors, would require gun owners to register all firearms with an external feeding device.
• HB 1237, which would have allowed concealed-carry permit holders to take their weapons to church, was rejected last month by a Senate subcommittee.
Downs: What was your reaction when you first saw this listing of all 58,000 names in the Arkansas State Police Data Base, including your own?
Hendricks: Only Max Brantley knows what his motivation was but I interpreted it as an invitation to readers to access that data base, call concealed-carrier permit owners, write letters to them, and otherwise harass them.
Downs: In his defense, Brantley has said that because the people have a right to know what’s in public records, the Times and the press in general has a duty to tell them.
Hendricks: But by doing what he did, he exposed us to robbery and physical confrontation. To me it was an appeal to vigilantism. I am speaking here about the broader issue of how people now perceive the press. For example, nobody is asking the Obama administration or the present Congress any of the hard questions about what are their intentions and why are they doing what they are doing. Instead, it is cheerleading. Nobody is holding the government accountable now. They are constantly trying to sell us on the government’s great intentions and the government’s benevolence and the government’s compassion.
Downs: Should this be what a newspaper should be reporting?
Hendricks: No. A newspaper is supposed to cut through all this and either expose what the intentions are, what the ramifications are, and how is this going to affect us. We’re not seeing that now. During the last presidential administration, people of a certain political stripe thought the media was very unfair to George Bush. I think the media should be like that to everybody. The Bush administration was held pretty accountable. So was the Republican-led Congress, but that is not happening now.
Downs: The following charge was made recently on the GOP.COM Web site: “It is clear that the Obama Democrats are looking for any excuse to once again threaten our freedoms. Their nanny-state, Big Brother mentality has no place in our Constitutional Republic." What is your reaction?
Hendricks: I agree. See, it’s like this. Take HR 45, for example. You pass this law that requires me to register my firearm in order to own it or transfer it, but basically to just own it. This applies not just to concealed weapons but to everything. So shouldn’t you also have to obtain a license to have a newspaper? Or a license to check out a book from a library? Or subscribe to a magazine, because after all, has not every revolution, every riot, every war been incited and stoked and fed by the written and spoken word?
If you are going to make this infringement on the Second Amendment, then shouldn't you also have to make it on the First Amendment? And by what criteria do you differentiate? You can’t! I say the First Amendment is the most important in the Constitution but without the Second Amendment, you would have none of them.
Next week: Bryan Hendricks shares more of his views on carrying a concealed weapon and why he supports the proposed concealed-carry law. Questions? Concerns? Responses? Contact Bill Downs: downsw@sbcglobal.net.
