Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Bryan Preston


June 18, 2013 - 8:29 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Ms. Magazine’s Heidi Yewman writes about her harrowing experience obtaining a Glock pistol and a concealed carry permit. You can almost hear her labored breathing and see the sweat drip as she writes about it.

What’s got me jittery this morning is the 9mm Glock that’s holstered on my hip. Me, lead gun policy protester at the 2010 Starbuck’s shareholder meeting. Me, a board member of the Brady Campaign. Me, the author of a book about the impact of gun violence, Beyond the Bullet.

Yes, I bought a handgun and will carry it everywhere I go over the next 30 days. I have four rules: Carry it with me at all times, follow the laws of my state, only do what is minimally required for permits, licensing, purchasing and carrying, and finally be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public.

So, in exercising your Second Amendment rights you’re similar to thousands of fine Texas women for 30 days? Ok, but there’s no reason to be worked up about it.

And she really is worked up about it.

I started my 30-day gun trial with a little window-shopping. I visited a gun show and two gun dealers. I ended up buying a Glock 9mm handgun from Tony, a gun dealer four miles from my house. I settled on this model because it was a smallish gun and because Tony recommended it for my stated purposes of protecting myself and my home.

It was obvious from the way I handled the gun that I knew nothing about firearms. Tony sold it to me anyway.

What else was he supposed to do? As an adult, it’s Yewman’s responsibility to become familiar with the product she is buying. This may strike some as too basic to bother writing, but gun dealers do not exist to stop adults from buying guns. That isn’t their job. Every gun dealer I have ever dealt with has been more than happy to explain anything and everything, if you ask. Gun range operators will show you how to hold and fire your weapon. They take the mystery out of it all. If you ask. Yewman shouldn’t imply any blame on the dealer for her own choice to protest something with which she is wholly unfamiliar, and then buy that product before becoming familiar with it.

Back to Yewman’s 30-day harrowing ordeal.

The whole thing [buying the gun] took  7 minutes. As a gratified consumer, I thought, “Well, that was easy.” Then the terrifying reality hit me, “Holy hell, that was EASY.”  Too easy. I still knew nothing about firearms.

But that never stopped her from protesting them and campaigning to outlaw them. What does this say about the leaders of the anti-Second Amendment movement?

Tony told me a Glock doesn’t have an external safety feature, so when I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an earth-shaking explosion. This was the first time my hands shook from the adrenaline surge and the first time I questioned the wisdom of this 30-day experiment.

Shooting a car’s gas tank will not cause an explosion. That’s cop show stuff. It may cause a dangerous leak, but you still need something to ignite the fuel. Modern firearms like Glock pistols are difficult if not impossible to discharge accidentally. Impossible, if they’re not loaded, and this one was definitely not loaded. More on that below.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Something she probably hasn't taken into account... if she DOES end up hurting someone she's in deep $hit. Why? Because she's publicly documented that she's deliberately acting in a negligent manner.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have a carry permit in a different state, and so cannot speak to the particulars of this woman's experience. I have, however, purchased many guns. Several things struck me about this experience:
*Any pistol I have ever purchased was proven to be unloaded before I ever even touched it. I have never even seen one loaded in a gun store.

*Pistols, even used ones, usually come with some type of packaging. Magazines are frequently packed separately from the pistol itself.

*The author, so far as I can tell, does not mention ever loading or firing the pistol.

All of this means that, so far as the author indicates, she never loaded the magazine (did she even purchase ammunition?) and never saw it loaded. She must have handled it enough to make the purchase, but never asked the clerk if it was loaded. Then, arriving home, she realizes that it might somehow have loaded itself in the interim.

If this narrative is false, she is a liar. If it is true, she is dangerously stupid. Is there a third alternative?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Add me to the list of people who have made comments on the Ms. blog that were either deleted or sitting perpetually in the moderator's queue. Can't have any comments showing that upset the narrative!

What I find most offensive and annoying about the commentors over there is the way so many of them talk about how irresponsible "most" gun owners are and about how "so many" of us have no idea how to use our weapons safely, legally and responsibly. This is bigotry, pure and simple. These people don't know guns or gun owners, at all, yet feel comfortable talking about what we're "obviously" like. And like all bigots they are invulnerable to facts and reason.

The other pathology on display there is their apparent belief that their fellow citizens are all just one dirty look away from trying to murder them, and it's only the lack of immediate access to a firearm that stops them. I think that's whay headshrinkers call "projection".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (121)
All Comments   (121)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
She isn't saying that all gun owners are just as amped up and afraid of their weapons. She is saying she feels a certain way, and that's acceptable, isn't it?

My question to you all is this: Do you think her irresponsibility and ignorance is justifiably legal or would you rather include gun safety classes, waiting periods, more thorough background checks, and training for gun ownership?

Because she is ignorant. She is reckless. She is, as the cop says, an idiot who needs classes. I fully agree with those statements. That's her point. She needs safety and training classes but we don't require them.

We have the right to drive cars, but first we must prove that we have an understanding of the laws and practices of the road. Then we have to practice driving with a seasoned driver. Then we have to prove we can drive with a representative of the DMV who assesses our ability.

Why can't that be true for guns, too?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The other thing she needs to realize is that to prove herself right Heidi Yewman MUST SHOOT AND INJURE OR KILL SOMEONE by accident with her gun. Otherwise her premise about proving the dangerousness of people with guns and no training is proven false.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Since people are posting their moderated or deleted comments here, here's mine (with one typo corrected):

Mauser says:
June 16, 2013 at 5:16 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Well, if she’s so ignorant of how to operate the gun, then she probably doesn’t even know how to LOAD it, so therefore, nobody in the Starbucks is in any danger from her unloaded gun. But if she’s read the manual that came with the gun, she would have violated her premise. Likewise, the gun shop owner would have gladly shown her how to operate it and make it safe, how to clean it, etc. (Accessory sales, don’t you know.) She didn’t mention whether or not she bought any ammunition.

So, it’s idiocy to let someone own a gun without training. What other constitutional rights should be treated that way? Wouldn’t it be so much NICER if people had to get training before they were allowed to speak publicly? A Government-issued license to be a Journalist perhaps.

All rights come with responsibilities. But the burden of those responsibilities lies with the PERSON, not the Government. The Government can HOLD you responsible, but it can’t MAKE you responsible. All the driver training in the world and Awareness campaigns can’t stop people from getting behind the wheel drunk. Likewise, if our author REALLY wanted to hurt kids at Starbucks, an extra training class or three wouldn’t have stopped her.

The lesson she’s missing though is that now that it’s possible, now that she’s capable of doing harm, she is finally, on a real and serious rather than hypothetical level, confronting those thoughts. She needs to understand where in her self the ideation of even considering harming kids comes from. She needs to have the strength of character to confront those thoughts and stuff them down in a hole like a civilized human being. It’s good practice, more people need to learn that skill. It’s okay to have moments of darkness so long as they are followed by moments of revulsion.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When I saw that article I noticed that nowhere in the article or the comments was any mention of the four rules of safe gun handling. Everyone commenting here knows them, I'm sure. We all know that nobody should so much as touch a gun if he doesn't follow those rules at all times.

They are very good, comprehensive, and practical rules; but while logical, they're not entirely obvious. It is certainly possible that someone who has deliberately avoided all contact with that evil "gun culture" would be ignorant of these rules. And that would be an obvious safety problem.

Now of course in any class or instructional program about gun handling, these rules would be the first thing covered. But, if a person doesn't take such a class, it is possible that he could remain ignorant of them?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Her whole schtick is that its bad that the government did not MAKE her learn them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Has anybody else noticed, that Part I was published ten days ago? This was supposed to be a four part article, was it not?

Has part two evaporated, after the incredulous response to Part 1?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All it proves is liberals are willfully ignorant of what they decide to hate. She cannot be unaware of the fact ALL decent firearm companies, trainers and retailers repeatedly suggest that all firearm owners be either experience in handling of weapons or take a course to make them familiar with the weapon. Doing it the way she has IS how you get someone hurt.

She isn't serious, and only serious people should own guns.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
(Apologies if this is a duplicate)

This is all a play to show how dangerous guns and gun owners are. She doesn't believe anyone would go through training unless the law requires it. She also seems upset that the gun owner didn't treat her like an idiot simply because she's female.

I hope everyone sees where this is going. Next article will be about an "incident" she has. It'll be staged, and she may or may not admit that...but she'll be put in a position to "use" the gun. Since it's unloaded she won't hurt anyone, but she'll use the situation to show that she would have hurt or killed an innocent person. She all but admitted this with her last rule saying she would be prepared at all times to use the gun to protect herself.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Bryan is incorrect about a few things in this article. First, the cost of a license with optional lamination is very likely $56.50, most jurisdictions offer lamination for $3 - $5.

Second, wait times to apply for a license in some small city police stations is high because they typically only accept applications one or two days a week, but the alternative is to apply at your county sheriff's office where it's first come first serve. It took me an hour to renew mine and for my wife to obtain her first permit last October. It took 2-3 weeks for the permits to arrive in the mail. She states "it took longer to get a license for my dog". She doesn't say how long it took for her permit to arrive but I take her comment to mean it took her almost no time to fill out the application, pay her fee and get fingerprinted.

Third, there is no exam, proficiency course or training required to obtain a concealed carry permit in WA. You can google the RCW's or look up the WA Dept. of Licensing FAQ's yourself.

Finally, with a concealed weapons permit you can purchase a handgun without any waiting period so that part of her story is correct as well.

The rest of her article..... Pure crap.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Third, there is no exam, proficiency course or training required to obtain a concealed carry permit in WA. You can google the RCW's or look up the WA Dept. of Licensing FAQ's yourself."


When I applied to the Clark County Sherrif for a Washington state CPL, I was told that I needed to be able to prove I had completed a range safety course. I showed my Oregon state concealed carry permit and was told that was sufficient since Oregon also required certification of completion of a firearms safety and concealed carry course. I believe that requirement is still in effect in Washington state, regardless of what any website might say.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You can keep saying I'm incorrect or you can provide some proof. I have a Washington CPL, I Just renewed my CPL and my wife just got her first CPL. Training is not required. You're from Oregon. I live here, I've provided links to multiple websites all stating the same thing. All you have is your claim that "it's what they told me."

In case you can't google for yourself:

You must meet all of the following requirements to get a concealed pistol license (RCW 9.41.070):
Be 21 years of age or older at time of application.
Be a United States citizen or a permanent resident alien with permanent resident card (green card).
Have no pending trial, appeal, or sentencing on a charge that would prohibit you from having a license.
Have no outstanding warrants for any charge, from any court.
Have no court order or injunction against possessing a firearm.
Have never been adjudicated mentally defective or incompetent to manage your own affairs.
Have never been committed to a mental institution.
Have no felony convictions, or adjudications for a felony offense, in this state or elsewhere. “Felony” means any felony offense under the laws of Washington, or any federal or out-of-state offense comparable to a felony offense under the laws of Washington.
Within the past year, haven’t been an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, narcotics, or any other controlled substance.
Haven’t been convicted of 3 or more violations of Washington’s firearms laws within any 5-year period.
Haven’t been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
Aren’t currently subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child, an intimate partner, or the child of an intimate partner.
Have never renounced your United States citizenship.
Have no convictions for any of the following crimes committed by one family member against another:
Assault IV
Reckless Endangerment
Criminal Trespass in the first degree
Violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from the residence

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I too left comments that were never published. I guess she didn't like being challenged with logic, reason, facts and truth. Or that I pointed out that by going armed with no training in the use of firearms, she could have been charged with reckless endangerment.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm with the she's not much danger to public safety school of thought. The statistics for unintentional handgun deaths are are so small as to be negligible (less than .005% of all handgun deaths) and if that's the best the anti-gun crowd can come up with they are certainly on the ropes!

Her whole premiss is that she's carrying a gun, she's ignorant and that makes her a hazard so she shouldn't be able to carry. Just because she THINKS she presents a public safety hazard doesn't make her one. Just because she's terrified it will go off while in a holster doesn't increase the likelihood that it will. She would only be a problem is she actually wanted to use it and she makes it clear she does not.

I'm not irritated she bought a gun with so little working knowledge, I'm irritated that she's publicly justifying acting like an overwrought, ninny because she's a woman in close proximity to a firearm. As a woman, I don't appreciate the stereotype or that an organization who claims to be about the empowerment of women would use one acting so powerless to justify their propaganda.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All