I just received a response to my original e-mail:
Dear Mr. Tansill,
I am Gary Sandling, the Vice President of Visitor Programs and Services
at Monticello. Your email was sent to me regarding your dissatisfaction
for being asked to store your firearm when visiting Monticello. As you
understand, Monticello is owned (since 1923) by a private non-profit
foundation and receives no ongoing public funding. We do ask visitors
who carry a firearm to store it and not carry it on Foundation property.
We do not post this policy on our website or on any signage, frankly,
because the number of times that we have to ask visitors to comply with
this policy is very low. I am sorry that you found this problematic.
Although I realize that you find the policy unacceptable, I hope you
will at least consider why we think such a policy necessary. We have
hundreds, even thousands, of visitors every day at Monticello, and many
of them would be very uncomfortable standing in close proximity to a
person, to them a complete stranger, openly armed. We know this because
of past experiences where visitors were uncomfortable in exactly these
circumstances. We have the policy for this reason. It is not a political
statement. I understand and respect your objection to the policy but I
hope you can, at the very least, understand why we have it.
I am authorizing our Accounting department to refund the costs of the
tickets for you and your wife. I hope she still had an enjoyable visit
despite these circumstances. I appreciate that you took the time to
write to us and tell us about your dissatisfaction with our policy.
Sincerely,
Gary Sandling
My reply:
Dear Mr. Sandling:
Thank you for your response. I do understand that some persons might be uncomfortable around an armed stranger. I take it that these same persons must therefore be uncomfortable in the presence of armed police, since the vast majority of policemen are strangers to the vast majority of the population?
At one time most people were "uncomfortable" having blacks co-mingle with whites. After much struggle and debate, we no longer deny people their civil rights based on the color of their skin. In fact, we passed a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery (the 13th), another that guarantees civil rights (the 14th), and a third which stipulates that voting rights shall not be abridged due to race, among other things (the 15th). I believe that somewhere in the constitution is contained another amendment dealing with firearms, and the right of the citizenry to keep and bear such weapons. I believe it is the Second Amendment.
Consider also that most mass killings have occurred in "gun free zones". Virginia Tech, Columbine High School, the West Nickel Mines School (Amish children), and the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC come immediately to mind. A "gun free zone" is, in truth, a "Criminal Empowerment" zone, and I for one am "uncomfortable" playing the role of disarmed victim. You, however, are perfectly willing to sacrifice my comfort to promote a false sense of safety amongst the uninformed. (Incidentally - we visited Miche Tavern, Jefferson Vineyards, and Ash Lawn highlands among other places while we were in Charlottesville. I was armed in the same manner at each of those places as I had been at Monticello. At no point other than at Monticello was this issue raised).
Lastly, if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be shocked and appalled at your policy. Your own website contains references to quotes from Jefferson regarding firearms or material he read concerning firearms, the stifling of rights, and the willingness of others to ignore laws and do harm to unarmed citizens. I refer you to this link on your website:
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/in ... ng_of_arms
I invite you to rethink your policy in light of the foregoing.