Why was Zimmerman allowed to have a concealed firearm?
by David Atkins
I share the feelings of most progressives that the Zimmerman case highlights above all the tawdry state of race relations in America. That said, I'm also pessimistic about the ability of anything in its aftermath to improve racial harmony. It's a teachable moment, but I'm not sure any lessons will be learned by the people who need to learn them. Perhaps more importantly, there's not a whole lot that legislators can do to change hearts and minds. An activist furious about the jury's decision can march in the street, but it's not clear what precisely they would be asking for.
It does seem clear, though, that regardless of the circumstances of the incident and Zimmerman's motives, both men would likely be alive today but for the presence of the gun. It was Zimmerman's gun, not his racism, that caused what would have been just a fistfight to turn into a murder.
And given Zimmerman's history of violence and thuggery, there is no reason he should ever have had access to a concealed firearm. Amanda Marcotte has an excellent post in which she cites some of Zimmerman's history that should have prevented him from gun ownership in a sane world:
In July 2005, he was arrested for“resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.
Marcotte comments:
Under common sense gun regulation, Zimmerman would have permanently lost his right to concealed carry when he assaulted a cop. If not then, then when the state granted a restraining order. (His retaliatory restraining order is further evidence of his paranoid mind set that should be taken into consideration when evaluating this case.) If a case is serious enough that the state can force you into an alcohol education program, then it should be serious enough to take your gun away from you. If, as the gun lobby claims, they are only protecting the rights of responsible gun owners, people who have a colorful history of irresponsibility should absolutely not have the right to own guns.
What makes all this even more unsettling is that you look at this history, and you see a man who is being told, over and over again, that he gets to be a violent asshole and no one will do anything to stop him. They’ll even make sure that he’s free to strap a gun on again and pretend that he’s roaming around in a war zone. The odds that a man like this will retire from a career of violence quietly are pretty low.
Legislators can't do much to enforce racial harmony. But racial harmony and understanding wasn't a prerequisite for saving a life on that fateful night. It would have been nice not to have had a racist paranoiac stalking unarmed teenagers on the street, but that sort of thing is difficult to control for. The presence of the gun, on the other hand, is quite a different story. That is something legislators can control for. It's something the community can demand. It's something that can make a measurable impact to save lives.
It's long past time to do something about it. You can't stop the Zimmermans of the world from being the dangerous jerks they are. But you can take away the easiest, most convenient tool they have to turn from being dangerous jerks to deadly dangerous jerks. George Zimmermans usually don't kill people--they're too craven. George Zimmermans with guns kill people.
.