For goodness sakes don't try to defend yourself

The North Carolina legislature has just passed a law intended to give battered spouses a little "something extra" when they seek a restraining order against an abusive spouse.  In apparent recognition of the fact that a restraining order isn't terribly useful when someone is determined to hurt you, this new law (if it isn't vetoed before October) would require courts to give abuse victims information on how to apply for a concealed weapon.

I don't have to tell you that some folks, ironically including "victims' advocates," are howling about the idea.

[V]ictim's advocates who support efforts to curb domestic violence said the measure could end up causing more problems by bringing guns into already volatile relationships.

"In my experience, if you've got a fire out there, I don't think you put it out by throwing gas on it," said Bart Rick, a Seattle-area sheriff who chairs the National Sheriffs' Association domestic violence committee. "When I read this ... I went 'Whoa.'"

Yeah.  "Whoa" should work nicely.  Sometimes I don't think these people have any understanding at all of the concept of "self-defense."  What are people supposed to do when threatened in their own homes?  Does a restraining order have any defensive value at all?  Do you hold the paper up and shout threateningly, "whoa, the state forbids you to be here!"  I feel safer already.

If it were possible for the police to pre-emptively arrest someone who poses a threat that would be one thing (although hardly reason enough to not take measures to defend yourself, not to mention that this poses problems of civil liberty).  But there's not a thing police can do to help you until the damage is done--and still these "advocates" are all worried that more people, mainly battered women, just might take their defense into their own two hands.  Frightening.  Just not as frightening as the idea of sitting at home, defenselessly waiting for your ex to come angrily banging on your door.

The president of the gun-rights group that pushed for the measure said it's more about helping victims of domestic violence help themselves.

"We're not interested in them shooting their abusers," said Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina. "We're interested in delivering a message: When police can't protect these people, they are capable of protecting themselves."

No point in sugar-coating your words, boys.  If they shoot their abusers it doesn't bother me a bit.

The bill, which passed overwhelmingly in both houses of the legislature, would also add protective orders to the evidence a sheriff can consider when determining whether to issue an emergency permit to carry a concealed weapon. Normally, an applicant must wait 90 days for such a permit.

Note that they're hardly talking about giving guns to these victims, or even recommending that they go buy one.  They're only letting them know that they can apply for a permit, and "greasing the skids" just slightly if they do apply.  That's all.  But heaven forbid that people should depend on anyone but the government for anything, especially personal protection.  The fact that the state is incapable of providing said protection is irrelevant.  If you have to do it yourself, it's just too dangerous to try.

All indications, of course, are that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, who are quite capable of being as responsible with a gun as with a car or any other machinery that carries an inherent risk of injury, is very detrimental to workers in the bad-guy industry, which isn't exactly known for stellar workers'-compensation plans or hospitalization benefits.

Maybe this sort of thing will catch on elsewhere.  Better yet, it might remind folks that they can apply for a permit whether or not the courts tell them they can.

(Thanks to Ralph Bristol.)

UPDATE:  Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon.net agrees with the above victims' advocates, and refers to those who approve of such self-defense as described above as "the Wingnutteria."  And at least one of her commenters still believes the lefty myths that a handgun is "a totally inadequate way of protecting yourselves. It might get you killed even more efficiently."  Their idea is to make the police do it instead, which is a great idea--if you can figure out a way to make it possible.

Oh--and I guess this sort of thing is inevitable, but unpartisan.com, who linked to this story (thanks!) refers to me as being on "the right."  I am anti-leftist, at least as the left is manifested today, but no genuine conservative or right-winger opposes the drug war, do they?

Thanks also to The Unrepentant Individual.

ANOTHER UPDATE:  Mark at Cutting Edge of Ecstasy says, "Information?  I'd give 'em a pistol right on the spot."  And he makes a point about informing people of their rights that I wish I had thought of.

The possession of a firearm is not an exceptional privilege that anyone should have to justify. The possession of a firearm is the right of US citizens. The police inform criminal suspects of their constitutional rights. Why should anyone object to the courts informing victims of theirs?

The answer, of course, is that the right to bear arms is a right that many people frankly wish you didn't have, and they don't mind trying to talk you out of exercising it--or, better yet, talking you into believing that you don't really have that right to begin with.