Ban on guns in Greensboro parks still undecided : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

GREENSBORO — The Greensboro City Council was divided Tuesday night on changing an ordinance to ban all concealed handguns from city parks and recreation areas.

The council voted 5-4 for the ban, but that isn’t sufficient to change an ordinance — at least six votes are needed. Another vote will be needed at the council’s next meeting. If it passes again, the ban would become effective.

Council members Nancy Vaughan, Trudy Wade, T. Dianne Bellamy-Small and Zack Matheny voted against the ordinance change.

Vaughan said she worried the ban would make Greensboro’s parks and recreation areas “a place for the criminals to bring their guns, because they’re not going to obey the law.”

Vaughan said she had heard from mothers who carry handguns in their purse who wondered how they would pick up their children from city parks and recreation areas, worrying they would have to drop the guns off at home before doing so.

Greensboro parks and recreation Director Greg Jackson said that actually wouldn’t be a problem — the proposed ordinance allows those with permits to leave guns in their locked cars if they need to while in places where the ban is in place.

Jackson said he agreed with Greensboro police Chief Ken Miller, who expressed support for the ban when asked for his input by the council. Miller said he could see no need to allow guns in city parks, permitted or otherwise.

Wade said with rapes and murders on the rise in Greensboro she does not want to tell women jogging in the city’s park that they can’t have a permitted concealed handgun while criminals will have no qualms about carrying the weapons.

Bellamy-Small also expressed concerns about citizens’ safety with the ban in place and said she saw serious problems with enforcing such a law.

Councilman Jim Kee said he agreed it might be difficult to enforce, but that doesn’t stop the city from giving parking tickets and collecting money from them, for instance.

Also Tuesday the council:

Voted to join with the Guilford County commissioners to fund the extension of city water and sewer service to the Lynwood Lakes and Forest Oaks Estates subdivisions in the county. As part of the agreement, the city and county will also partner to spend nearly $17 million to extend water and sewer to 9,000 undeveloped acres of the county to fuel development and draw industry there.
Voted to settle a discrimination lawsuit for $25,000. Parks and recreation employee Aggie Jean Jackson alleged in her suit that she was passed over for a job promotion because of her race and gender.
Voted to abolish its RUCO ordinance, which governed rental property standards. The ordinance has been suspended for months in accordance with state regulations.
Authorized a $200,000 loan to the Greensboro Parking Group for development of a parking lot and renovation of a vacant building on South Elm Street.

The property will become a Mexican restaurant that developers claim will create 12 full-time and 20 part-time jobs.

Contact Joe Killian at 373-7023 or joe.killian@news-record.com

demarisinyamouth

February 22, 2012 - 3:26 am EST

I have no problem with CCW permits. As I have one myself. But if a person feels the park is that dangerous, then maybe they should go to a different park.

Panacea

February 22, 2012 - 11:23 am EST

Right back at ya. The best way to not get into trouble is to avoid trouble. If the parks are really so dangerous, maybe the people who feel the only solution to guns is a gun should be the ones to go elsewhere.

I really look askance at the idea that being in public areas is so unsafe that the only way to feel safe is by carrying a gun.

David M.

February 25, 2012 - 10:04 am EST

Using that logic, why don't I just stay at home, lock the doors and order take out for every meal?

doghouse

February 22, 2012 - 4:36 am EST

We need to send Ken Miller and Greg Jackson packing (along with 5 city council members) right away. Two guys on the taxpayers payroll who want to do away with the citizens' 2nd Amendment right to self defense. When Ken says none "permitted or otherwise" does that include his service weapon? Arrogant bureaucrats..

February 22, 2012 - 11:26 am EST

Cops are always on duty, even when they're not on duty. They are required to carry their service weapons everywhere.

Also, certified police officers have extensive training on when NOT to fire a gun.

I am much more comfortable with the idea of a cop in a park with a concealed weapon than a private citizen because the vast majority of these private citizens do NOT have the training that tells them when not to shoot, or how to assess a situation to know the good guys from the bad guys.

Something which was proven in Tuscon when bystanders had to restrain a CCP holder from shooting innocent civilians who were restraining the real shooter.

February 22, 2012 - 4:58 pm EST

Right back at ya. Dr. Suzanna Hupp. Luby's Cafeteria, Killeen TX, October 16, 1991.

Luckily, at the national level, the tide has turned against Brady bunch radicals like Panacea. Evidently Greensboro has 5 council members, a police chief and parks chief who are bold enough to resist that tide, based on the Winston-Salem success, and may certainly be re-electable none the less. It may take lobbying in Raleigh to defeat this particular gun ban initiative.

sparkeysig

February 22, 2012 - 5:47 am EST

Sooooo, let me see if I understand the logic here, criminals, who by definition are somewhat less than inclined to follow the law, will be permitted to roam the parks free and armed by virtue of their disregard of firearms laws. Law abiding citizens on the other hand are now going to be compelled, by virtue of their law abiding nature, to keep their weapons safely and uselessly locked in their cars essentially relegating them to the status of sheep among wolves, am I missing something here?

I might also ask in what regard do parks differ from any other public space where unarmed law abiding citizens have been reduced to a prey animals among an opportunistic and the predatory criminal element?

While I have all the faith in the world in the fine man and woman of our police department and their commitment to our protection, simple logic dictates that they cannot be everywhere at once. What I am not hearing from the City Counsel, Director Jackson or Chief Miller are what concrete steps they are going to take to ensure that armed criminals are not permitted entry to our parks or anywhere else a law abiding citizen is not permitted to properly defend themselves.

Lastly to but certainly not leastly to demarisinyamouth’s statement that “if a person feels the park is that dangerous, then maybe they should go to a different park.” My tax dollars pay for that park, why should my right of use or safety even be a consideration in a park or park system that I pay for?

Bilbo

February 22, 2012 - 11:21 am EST

..I'm so tired of the "if criminals.." argument....it rationalizes the gun-owners feeling that they may pack ANYWHERE...churches....bars...restaturants..whereever....what it really masks are feelings of indaequacy somewhere...

..listen...even if you are a law-abiding citizen going into the park...use your gun...and when you come out...you'll most likely be a criminal yourself...

Lord Trigo

February 22, 2012 - 11:28 am EST

Not exactly, if you were using it to defend yourself or others. Read the laws.

Pro-Protection

February 22, 2012 - 6:22 am EST

I can't believe that some of these council members really think that by passing this ordinance, it will keep people who dont mind breaking the law, from carrying a firearm because they might get into trouble. If passed, only law abiding permit holders will conform to it. It will do nothing to keep out law breakers or make anyone safer in any Park.
I am amazed at the mentality of this way of thinking! How did these council members get as far as they have in life using logic such as this? It would be a great world if we didnt need to worry about crime but lets get real here. It's not going away and we need the ability to protect ourselves at all times.

February 22, 2012 - 11:14 am EST

Exactly... criminals aren't famous for their astute cost/benefit analysis, so the concept of deterring them through passing a law against guns in the parks is rather useless. I mean, do criminals actually think, "Well, I'm going to the park to beat and rob someone, but I better leave my gun here so I don't get charged with that"? I don't think so.

The_Doctor

February 22, 2012 - 6:26 am EST

How will the ban be enforced? Security checkpoints at the entrances? Random searches of park visitors? High flying drones with infra-red scanners?

Laws without enforcement mechanisms amount to little more than legislative masturbation.

February 22, 2012 - 11:17 am EST

The whole purpose of this is to give police yet another thing to charge someone with. Thanks to our overcrowded courts and endless plea-bargaining, the cops know they have to charge someone with umpteen crimes just to get one or two to stick.

tghdobro

February 22, 2012 - 7:05 am EST

I agree with Nancy and others. Law abiding citizens who are trained to handle firearms should not be restricted while criminals who do not care about our laws will have one less deterrent. It makes no sense, and the wrong people are being placed in the crosshairs. As someone who has worked with over 20 people in the last 5 years who have have their cars smashed in inside a public park by thugs without a conscience, what genuine purpose will this ordinance change serve? I don't see it.

CCP holders get training on how to shoot a gun, how to keep it concealed, and on the regulations they must follow. Nothing more.

They are not trained on how to assess a dangerous situation or on when NOT to draw a firearm.

That's my principal objection to concealed weapons in public places. Too many people don't know when not to use one.

February 22, 2012 - 11:37 am EST

Since just about anywhere outside your home, including malls, shopping centers, parks, sidewalks, etc. can be considered a public place, that would pretty much render the whole concept of concealed carry useless. I agree that if people are going to carry a gun, they should be required to receive training in how to use it in real-life, life-or-death situations. Not everyone reacts to a situation they way they think they would.

bbzeus14

February 22, 2012 - 7:28 am EST

Okay, let's allow gun-crazy NRA wacko citizens to carry concealed hand-guns in our public parks. What could possibly go wrong?

Rumor: Bellamy-Small, Matheny, Vaughan and Wade will soon sponsor a resolution changing the "Pledge of Allegiance" to say:

"I pledge allegiance to the NRA, and to the death and distruction for which it advocates, one gun at a time, under God, indivisible, without regard for life, liberty and justice for all."

(And City Council might pass the new pledge and require that it be used at the opening of every public meeting that a council-member attends!)

So who cares what Police Chief Miller says about the matter, anyway?

Bang, bang, bang! Whatever.

gsonc214

February 22, 2012 - 7:43 am EST

Explain the logic behind your response bb...as far as I can tell the ordinance makes it illegal to carry concealed in a park. Now, if you are going to follow the ordinance and not carry a gun, you must be a law-abiding citizen. If you are a law-abiding citizen, you werent going to use the gun that you might have carried in an illegal way anyway. However the thug that likes to take advantage of the law-abiding citizen and rob, rape, kidnap, etc is going to lay his gun down before he enters the park because the sign says so?? I kinda doubt it.

If gun possession laws were actually easily monitored and enforceable there would be no guns on the streets because most of the possessors wouldn't be able to buy one legally. Obviously they are not however, so the only good this ordinance does is keep the law-abiding citizen from being able to defend themselves. By the way, I'm not an NRA member nor do I have a CCP but I do own guns for self protection in the home.

February 22, 2012 - 8:25 am EST

gsonc, perhaps you should have a discussion with Chief Miller about your position on the matter -- I can't help you. It would be a waste of your time to talk to me, I'm sure.

February 22, 2012 - 11:16 am EST

Which means you don't have a logical explanation other than "gun-crazy NRA wacko citizens"....glad we could have this informative discussion.

February 22, 2012 - 12:27 pm EST

gsonc,, oh, well -- perhaps the city gun-nuts, which is to say anyone who wants to own a hand-gun, are now just one magical step (one vote) closer to shooting each other. (One can only dream.) And you may be interested to know that ebay recently announced separate auctions for personal atomic, anthrax, and polonium defensive arms -- and perhaps these items could be used for protection when you visit public parks. Yes, yes -- "back to wild, wild west days" in our parks! Shoot to kill! Why not? Whatever.

February 22, 2012 - 12:49 pm EST

Well we now have exaggeration to go with the caricatures and name-calling that The_Doctor mentioned below...still no facts or data to support your argument. Not even logical exaggeration considering any of the weapons mentioned would kill you and whoever is attacking.

If you'd read the article a little closer you'd see it is actually the anti-gun folks who only need one vote. Since the measure passed by the state legislature a CCP holder can carry in parks until city legislates otherwise.

b-logical

February 22, 2012 - 7:49 am EST

I felt this same way once-funny how your attitude changes when you become a victim. I will never again be unprepared. I will fight for my right to defend myself. I will be more alert - I will be looking over my shoulder, I will not put my guard down. The love for my fellow man was almost totally destroyed in one moment. I am a five foot tall - 100 pound Grandmother who is now on her toes and educated in the safety and proper use of a handgun. If I ever have to use my weapon it will be as a last resort but without hesitation. I have learned that I am responsible for my safety - depending on someone else to help you is not always as option. Wake up to the reality that thugs, drug users, crooks, gangs and jerks are out there. You are naive and living in a "bubble" like I did once. I pray that you never have to suffer as a victim. Yes- I will do my best to protect myself, my grandchildren and the ones I love with every bone in my body.

ComSense

February 22, 2012 - 9:47 am EST

b-logical, you are one of the true victim's in today's society. I wish it didn't take being a victim to get many others on board. Some believe they can live in that bubble their entire lives and shelter themselves and their families. This is not always true. Someday, someplace a time will come and they will wish they were more prepared.

As you are a fine example, you don't have to be a gun crazed nut, liberal, right wing or member of the NRA to become a victim and learn of the "bad" in OUR society. Once you become a victim you have two choices. Be prepared and never let it happen again or two continue to be a victim. There's usually not an easy wake up call to seeing this in our society. People think it's a joke when they see the old bumper sticker, "When guns are outlawed - Only Outlaws will have guns!" Think like Chief Ken Miller and this will be the case. Be narrow minded and think the police officers will always be there to protect you and you Will become a victim.

I'm very pro-police and pro-2nd amendment. As some have already posted here, show me where the headlines read "Individual with CCP involved in robbery...shooting...assault (Place your favorite daily gun crime news headline here). Not many people that take formal training, submit (willingly) to an FBI background check, fingerprinting and local background check and pay $90+ for a CCPermit are going to go around and terrorize the public...much less in the City parks. Get real people!

February 22, 2012 - 11:34 am EST

Just a warning, some antigun person (possibly Panacea) is going to link you to a website (violence policy center)with some instances of CCP holders committing crime. What the website fails to do however is show those instances as a rate per CCP holder compared to violence rates for the population overall. Those numbers would not support their arguments considering that there are literally millions of legal concealed carry holders vs less than 400 people killed in the last 5 years. Nearly 100 of those killed were listed under 20 mass killings that took place.

Just for fun, perhaps we should compare this to the number of licensed drivers who kill people driving drunk or recklessly....

February 22, 2012 - 3:17 pm EST

I am not an anti gun person. I own several fire arms, and support gun ownership . . . RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.

What I dispute is the ridiculous claim that just because you have to have a background check to have a CCP, that somehow makes the CCP holder "the good guy" who's going to come riding in to save the day. That's CRAP.

The website you refer to shows many instances where CCP holders have committed terrible crimes, including the murder of police officers.

I'm not interested in the rate of CCP holder's crimes to the general population; it's irrelevant to the contention that CCP holders are somehow "better" because they pass a background check. The crimes some CCP holders have committed lay this claim bare for the falsehood it is.

We can't assume that passing a background check means the weapon holder is some kind of angel. He isn't.

No more than we can assume that a licensed driver is necessarily going to be safe behind the wheel just because he passed the DMV test. We all know that's not so.

I'm actually not opposed to the existence of CCPs. I might even be open to CCP holders having their weapons in public parks but for the nonsensical justifications used by the pro gun side who refuse to acknowledge the risks and downsides of CCP carriers. That blind side settles the issue for me: they don't get it, they're not listening, therefore no guns in public parks.

February 22, 2012 - 4:48 pm EST

The rate of CCP holder's crimes to the general population is quite relevant, it shows that generally speaking the CCP holders are the ones who care enough about the law to go through the process of getting one instead of just getting a handgun permit or buying illegally. I could find you stories of cops gone bad too but that doesnt mean we should limit the police to a greater extent because of it. There are bad apples in every bunch, but many people use the argument that "some CCP holder's do bad things" to argue for further limitations to the 2nd amendment.

ok then

February 22, 2012 - 8:11 am EST

Congrats! That may be the most ignorant comment ever posted. "to the death and destruction for which it advocates"??? Where do you get your info on the NRA? do you even know who they are? The only death they may advocate is a criminals during a deadly situation. and the problem is?... and no i am not a member of the NRA but I am a strong supporter of not being a victim. Thank you bbzeus14 for taking one for the team by volunteering to be a victim of a senless crime.

Ozymandias

February 22, 2012 - 9:04 am EST

"So who cares what Police Chief Miller says about the matter, anyway?"

>>>I dunno? Greensboro PD has a long history great police chiefs with exemplary judgement and character. I think we should always just go with whatever the GPD chief says, on all matters. It seems to have worked out pretty well, so far.

"Bang, bang, bang! Whatever."

>>>>And goo-goo-goo-joob to you too, Bunky.

February 22, 2012 - 9:44 am EST

Once I eliminated all the angry over-the-top name calling and caricatures, there was barely anything remaining of your comment.

news-record.com

NEWS