Far fewer people are choosing to go into law enforcement, and many experienced officers are leaving the field, making it difficult for police agencies to maintain adequate staffing levels, all while violent crime is on the rise in many large cities. Columbia is not immune to this trend. Targeted attacks on law enforcement (Dallas, Baton Rouge) and a rise in line-of-duty deaths have further complicated an incredibly stressful and dangerous job.

It’s against this backdrop that the S.C. House passed a bill to make it legal for people to openly carry handguns in the state, with certain location exceptions. The bill won’t become law this year, but it will be front and center when lawmakers return to Columbia in January, and we need to understand its implications.

The right to bear arms is fundamental to our democracy, but the sale, purchase, ownership and carrying of guns comes with great responsibility and use of common sense, and I firmly believe an open-carry law will significantly complicate police interactions with citizens, resulting in many unintended consequences.

Open-carry law or not, when citizens see someone with a gun, they will call the police. When responding to “person with a gun” calls, officers have few details to help them quickly determine an armed individual’s intent and whether that person poses a threat to public safety or the individual.

No doubt, we would encounter many innocent, law-abiding people who were armed in compliance with an open carry law. But some will be violent criminals, perhaps even gang members, who don’t yet have a felony on their record that prohibits them from possessing weapons.

Also let’s not forget the numerous and frequent protests, demonstrations and marches in our city. Open carry could make it extraordinarily difficult for police to protect those exercising their right to assemble and protest peacefully. There is no denying that easily accessible firearms add fuel to already emotionally charged situations, which too often results in tragedy.

Recently, Columbia police officers answered a call about a “person with a gun acting erratically” at a local Wal-Mart. It was just the second day on the job for one of the responding officers. Upon their arrival, the officers were easily able to identify the suspect, but because he was in a store with many innocent people nearby, the officers allowed him to leave the store before engaging with him. Obviously, this was a tense, dangerous situation, putting a large number of our citizens and our officers at risk as the armed suspect moved from Wal-Mart through a parking lot and into another business, ignoring officers’ commands.

Imagine this same scenario if South Carolina had an open-carry law.

Conceivably, there could have been many individuals with weapons displayed when officers arrived, making it extremely difficult to distinguish between the suspect(s), accomplices and innocent bystanders.

This entire line of argument is so full of shit I barely know where to begin.  There is a deeper problem here than just his argumentation, but I’ll get to that after I spend a few paragraphs fisking his invective.

He begins by invoking memories of the Dallas cop shooting and the possible implications of open carry for response to that event.  But as we’ve covered concerning that event, the Dallas police on the scene responded to the shooter based on their knowledge of his location and eventually killed him with robotics and explosive ordnance (if I’m not mistaken, the first of its kind in American history, which might also have implications for due process – what if he wasn’t the real shooter?).

The alleged open carrier was toting a rifle slung across his back, entirely legal in Texas even then, and police “identified” him as a “suspect” via social media.  He wasn’t a suspect, he was guilty of nothing, and social media was worthless in that situation.  The investigation of social media wasn’t conducted by LEOs on the scene of the shooting, and thus no resources (used to respond to the individual who allegedly did the shooting) were taken up with this “investigation.”  It was entirely wasted effort to prove nothing, including the notion that open carry had something to do with the event.  The investigation didn’t affect LEOs on the scene in any way, shape or form.  It didn’t stop them, and it didn’t help them.  It was completely irrelevant to everything that happened that night.

So based on this, we know that Holbrook’s invocation of Dallas fails on every point.  Next, Holbrook invokes the idea that calls will be made to the police.  To which we may respond, so what?  It would be a good opportunity for 911 services to educate people on the new state law.  “Ma’am, what was he doing with the gun?  Was he brandishing it or pointing it at someone?”  No.  “Well then, he wasn’t breaking any laws.  Open carry is legal in South Carolina.”

Well, he was acting erratically.  “Hmmm … what do you mean by that?”  Well, I don’t know, he just seemed shifty.  “Ma’am, seeming shifty isn’t illegal.  Please hang up and call us when there is a law or regulation being broken.  Otherwise, you are wasting our time.”

This conversation is entirely plausible.  Don’t discount it as an example to follow for 911 operators, or classroom material.  But then Holbrook begins the weirdest exploration in this whole commentary when he discusses the notion of violent gang members who have never committed a felony and have no record.  To which we might all ask, “What the hell are you talking about?”

If you want to invoke gun ownership generally, then your invective targets too much because criminals bent on harm can conceal as well as carry openly.  You, Mr. Holbrook, began by asserting that there is a right to carry weapons, and you have devolved into violent people (who have absolutely no record) having guns, which has nothing to do with open carry which is the supposed topic of this article.  Good Lord, man.  Take a class in rhetoric or logic.

That violent people who have been found guilty via due process are already prohibited from purchasing weapons via form 4473 isn’t mentioned because it doesn’t fit your narrative.  Your narrative is that we need you to perform this function, and clearly we don’t.

I say clearly because for the final problem I’ll mention (there are so many I have to draw the line somewhere), you completely ignore the operating data from right across the state line in North Carolina where we are a “gold star” traditional open carry state.  None of the problems you say obtain actually do in North Carolina, and we have cities too, and we have beaches, and we have sprawling urban areas, and rural areas, and mountains, and whatever you have.  We have more of it.  Open carry simply hasn’t been the problem you say it should be.  And if the data proves you wrong, then you’re wrong.

But that leads me to the final anchor of my response.  I smell a rat.  No, not Holbrook, although he seems rattish enough to me, but the rat I smell ensconces in the South Carolina Senate.  There may be many of them.  I have called most senates dens of iniquity housing gargoyles and demons.  I think I’m correct in that assessment.

I suspect this.  I suspect that South Carolina senators don’t really want to do this because they are cop suckers.  They delayed this just long enough that it forces it to the next session of the senate.  It’s easy enough, and it could have hit the governor’s desk, but it was delayed.  We all know it.  Just admit the truth.  They delayed this so that cops could inveigh against the proposal.  If a cop says it, it must be right.  We are law and order people.  After all, we support cops, right?

But lawmakers have no more right to dictate how we carry our weapons that they do to dictate whether we have them in the first pace.  All gun control laws are an infringement on our God-given rights to bear arms, and thus they are immoral.

I’m disappointed in the commentary, Holbrook.  Give me some real red meat to chew on.  This one was too easy.