In yet another anti-gun rant, the Times has once again sounded the good liberal mantra: Got a problem? Throw money at it.
Apparently, outgoing Senator George Allen (R, Vir.) has introduced one of his last bills in the waning days of the 109th sitting of the Senate, a bill allowing concealed carry of firearms inside our National Parks.
Naturally, the New York Times is not amused. (A Parting Shot From George Allen)
After informing us that the bill has passed the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, they emotionally proclaim that they "hope it will die the miserable death it deserves". Then they go on an interesting rant on how the gun lobby has:
- "co-opted the civil rights movement"... bet they have never said that of the Gay lobby who has made a specialty of "co-opting" civil rights rhetoric.
- nationalized the "armed paranoia that the NRA" stands for... bet they have never equated the pro abortion lobby to "paranoia" when Femenazis shrilly yell that women's "rights" are being violated if they have no access to abortions.
The Times also imagines that it has divined the minds of the Framers and proclaimed the 2nd Amendment a "collective right" instead of an individual's right, despite the easily proven fallacy of their claim -- which is why the law has, in the Times' words, "been misread in one legislature after another" bringing them to pass concealed carry laws.
At this time 48 states have some form of allowable concealed carry law. That being the case, it's hard to believe that 98% of the country has merely fallen for "paranoia". Worse, it is curious that the New York Times seems to be so against majority Democracy. After all, when 98% of the people agree to something, wouldn't that make the Times' point of view among the smallest of minority opinions?
How do they explain their way out of being so far from the mainstream position? More of their own brand of paranoia. The Times presumably feels that concealed carry laws have passed in so many -- no nearly ALL -- of the states by some conspiracy. It must be, because nearly every state has passed a concealed carry law "often in the face of strong public disapproval" in their estimation.
How it is that nearly every state in the Union can so blithely ignore this "strong public disapproval" for concealed carry is not explored. Apparently the Times imagines that just saying it makes it so. Kind of like when John Kerry says he really does love the US military, despite all his actions that shouts the opposite.
Their denial is amazing.
But the howler of the piece is the claim that throwing money at crime, as opposed to allowing citizens to protect themselves, would make us all safer in our National Parks.
If Americans want to feel safer in their national parks, the proper solution is to increase park funding...
It is hard to type while I am laughing so hard.
Now, remember they called the NRA paranoiacs? Try THIS paranoia on for size...
To zealots who believe that the Second Amendment trumps all others, the parks are merely another badland, like schools and church parking lots, that could be cleaned up if the carrying of private weapons were allowed. The concealed-weapon advocates are doing an excellent job of sounding terrified by “lonely wilderness trails.” But make no mistake. Senator Allen’s bill would make no one safer. It can only endanger the public.
Riiight. Being able to protect oneself makes everyone more "endangered".
Is that why every stuffed shirt Democrat in Federal government and state government, along with their friends in Hollywood, have armed bodyguards? Is it because they wish to "endanger the public"?
I report, you laugh until you can't breathe.
Comments Policy
Well.....Being a life-time m
November 24, 2006 - 01:55 ET by Indiana JoeWell.....
Being a life-time member of the NRA for about 20 years now (and an annual member for a LONG time before that), I'm hardly a disinterested party to this debate.
But neither is the NYT.
Basically, Warner, you cover all the points here that I would have made. Mainly, though, the overwhelming hubris of these cloistered "pundits" who can't believe or even begin to cope with the concept that they are WRONG! Time after time after TIME, when it comes to "ccw" laws.
Remember the alarmism of "shoot-outs over parking spaces" when states started finally recognizing the right of citizens to defend themselves? Now, as you state, 48 states have SOME form of concealed carry laws. Some are very strict, and some, like Vermont and, I believe, Alaska, have NO LAWS AGAINST such carrying of arms.
I debated the EXACT wording of the 2nd Amendment with a poster here once, crshedd, I believe. He cited the last SCOTUS decision on the matter, "US vs. Miller" of 1934, and noted that the court decided against the defendant.
BUT, as I pointed out, the court read the "militia" clause to indicate a right to own MILITARILY suitable weapons. And the court was not aware that the "sawed-off" shotgun that the defendant was charged with possession of was a standard-issue weapon since WW I. In fact, it was known in the military as a "trench gun." I then pointed out that "Miller" did, in fact, invalidate any modern "assault weapon" ban. Any rational reading of the decision couldn't HELP but reach the same conclusion.
My point was ignored, naturally. The poster kept saying he "agreed" with me that the "militia clause was outdated," when I said no such thing! And, NEITHER did the SCOTUS!
In typical liberal fashion, the NYT does the exact same thing with the "98% of the people" whom you cite in your article. "Majority rules" is an unbreakable tenet of this country... unless liberals disagree with that "majority." Then, it must be a "conspiracy." Or a "mistake." Or a "voting irregularity." Or SOMETHING.
Nothing new there...
"...the Right of the People...." Pretty clear language there, I should say.
You report. I laugh. And, sometimes, scream in frustration...
"Majority rules"
November 24, 2006 - 02:21 ET by Warner Todd Huston"Majority rules" is an unbreakable tenet of this country...
But, you DO realize that the NYT and like-minded leftists imagine that THEY know better FOR us, don't you?
Democracy only "works" when it runs in THEIR favor as far as they are concerned. When it doesn't something must have been "broken" or "the people" must somehow not have been heard!
"Majority rules" is
November 24, 2006 - 07:14 ET by Indiana Joe"Majority rules" is an unbreakable tenet of this country... unless liberals disagree with that "majority." Then, it must be a "conspiracy." Or a "mistake." Or a "voting irregularity." Or SOMETHING."
Oh, exactly and indubitably. That is, after all, my intented point in the entire quote above. Exactly WHY they believe "that THEY know better FOR us." Or rather, HOW they justify the "problems" with the "majority" not accepting the value of their "wisdom," is maybe a better way to state it.
Same thoughts, I believe, just maybe more awkward wording on my part....
Regards,
IJ
Majority doesn't always rule.
November 24, 2006 - 12:02 ET by mattmMajority doesn't always rule. Sometimes a plurality rules and sometimes a minority rules... This is why we have a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
This debate is one of the most revealing of the hypocrisy of the Left. They seem to believe that the Right to Bear arms is only for Liberal politicians and celebrities. Rosie O'Donnel doesn't carry a gun, but her bodyguards do. Some anti-2nd Amendment Liberal from California shot a burglar who was breaking into his home.
You see, Liberals make the rules, they don't have to abide by them.
"Some anti-2nd Amendment
November 24, 2006 - 13:38 ET by Indiana Joe"Some anti-2nd Amendment Liberal from California shot a burglar who was breaking into his home."
I believe the man you're referencing here is Carl Rowan, IIRC. He actually shot a man "lurking" outside, by his swimming pool. NOT a "justifiable" shooting, the way I heard it at the time. Again, if memory serves. But he's always been a big "anti-gunner" for the rest of us.
And what about Diane Feinstein waving a closed-chamber AK-47 around at a roomful of people (I've seen the pic) to demonstrate how "scary" it looked? Nothing ANYONE with ANY idea of GUN SAFETY would EVER consider doing. Not that SHE has a clue about "gun safety." Probably never handled one before in her life. Yet is one of the leading anti-gun proponents in the country:
"If I could have gotten the votes, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in right now,' I'd have done it"
Or words VERY close to that effect, in speaking of outlawing private possession of HER definition of "assault weapons."
Not only do they think they get to make the rules, and ignore them, they think they get to define the language. And the MSM falls right in step, "heeling" nicely.
Liberalism is hypocrisy def
November 24, 2006 - 14:11 ET by Warner Todd HustonLiberalism is hypocrisy defined.
Per Lansing Rod and Gun Clu
November 24, 2006 - 15:17 ET by Red JeepPer Lansing Rod and Gun Club, Inc. website: http://lansingrodand..., in an article by Jim Kouri dtd 09-24-05 entitled “Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat”:
“Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.”
Also: “…there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons…Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator.
…Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco -- an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.”
"For Example, well-known
November 26, 2006 - 10:14 ET by Indiana Joe"For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool."
Hey, I was RIGHT! Who'd a thunk it? LOL!
Thanks, RJ! Nice to know a still have a FEW synapses firing properly...... ;^)
do feel safer on
November 24, 2006 - 04:07 ET by foolnomorenow with the registration of guns and only a few having them, i feel soo much better ,just knowing that!! (b.s.).. Now up here in the land of the( be-corn-hill'ers) we have to registor a spit-ball gun and that has a three day wadding period. but we still let scary-kerry& ted kennedy drive cars now thats being progessive for you,,,,fair an balanced....
bless and support the troops <> thanks, job well done!!!!
Has the NYT ever thought th
November 24, 2006 - 06:44 ET by Red JeepHas the NYT ever thought that one might want gun protection in national parks against animals as well as humans? Bears are making a comeback in many areas of the country. Other animals will attack if you accidentally get close to their young.
If attacked by a human or an animal in a national park are you supposed to call 911 from your cell phone and wait an hour plus for help?
You have nothing to fear from an honest man carrying a firearm. Many crimes could have been stopped and lives saved if more people carried firearms.
NYC and Washington DC would be a lot safer if you could carry concealed in these cities.
One prime example of NYC liberal thinking about gun control is House Representative Carolyn McCarthy from Long Island. Her husband was killed when a madman went nuts on a commuter train and shot many people. One honest man on that train with a concealed firearm might have ended the murderer’s life or disabled him before her husband was murdered.
Her husband’s murder caused her to run for congress and be a strong proponent for gun control as if existing gun control laws had done anything to save her husband. If murder and crime could be stopped by gun control laws it would have stopped long ago.
I wonder if there are guards in the NYT’s building that are armed….?
You have nothing to fear fr
November 24, 2006 - 07:21 ET by liberal_bug_zapperYou have nothing to fear from an honest man carrying a firearm. Many crimes could have been stopped and lives saved if more people carried firearms. ~ Red Jeep
I would modify what you said slightly by stating that only if people are trained properly, and visit the shooting range once a week would I trust that we would be much safer, because an untrained person with a handgun is as dangerous as a criminal with one. Criminals would just rob untrained people of their guns.
Well, lbz, you raise what see
November 24, 2006 - 07:38 ET by Indiana JoeWell, lbz, you raise what seems a valid point. However, having heard of police shoot-outs where 41 shots are fired by several policemen with only one or two actually finding their target, I don't know that weekly training is necessary for civilian ccw holders. Inarguably, more practice leads to better marksmanship, a worthy goal.
Personally, I have not sent a single round "down-range" in over six months. Yet my skills are more than adequate to best the above number of shots-to-hits ratio of officers in the above-mentioned situation. And they only have to "qualify" every six months to one year. I see no need to place more of an imposition on civilians than on sworn, professional law enforcement officers.
And many times, the mere sight of an armed civilian results in the ending of the crime without a single shot being fired by either combatant. This exact situation happened to my (ex) wife. See the many well-researched articles and books by one John Lott.
Of more concern to me personally is the trend for private establishments to over-rule state "ccw" laws, forcing customers to leave their legally-carried firearms in their cars when entering a place of business. Years ago, in Texas I believe, there was an infamous mass-shooting inside a McDonald's.
Several survivors stated that, had they NOT obeyed the signs posted by that McDonald's, which the SHOOTER had disregarded, they could have ended that particular horror show rather quickly. Since then, many legislatures have been careful to include specific rules on how, when, and why such businesses may override the state's jusrisdiction, if at all.
A bit of clarification
November 24, 2006 - 17:31 ET by UnsaneSome clarification: the shooting in Texas you reference was a shooting inside a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen. This happened in 1992, IIRC, and indeed was one of the events that led to the push to get a concealed gun permit law passed in TX.
The McDonald's shooting I am familiar with happened in San Ysidro, CA, in July 1984.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Thanks, Unsane. I had a feeli
November 26, 2006 - 09:18 ET by Indiana JoeThanks, Unsane. I had a feeling I was a bit off in the details. But, of course, the point still stands. ... ;^)
Regards,
IJ
But, of course, the point sti
November 26, 2006 - 16:46 ET by UnsaneBut, of course, the point still stands. ... ;^) Hey, no argument here! Besides...
"The law is far, the fist is near." - Korean proverb
I'm not talking about marks
November 25, 2006 - 04:55 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI'm not talking about marksmanship.... they can still suck. The point is that if someone just goes out and buys a gun, sticks in in their purse or holster and goes out on to the street.... they're a damn sight more dangerous than if they get proper training and are use to what it is like to fire a gun. The first time one of those green horns fires a gun, they'll freak out and drop it or something.... not good since it is a known fact that many trained officers get killed with their own weapons. So how much easier would it be for a perp to kill an untrained civilian?
All I'm saying is, with training, some may actually become competent with a gun and hence, protect others around them as well.
By the way, I totally support the second amendment, I just think we need to make sure people know what the hell they are doing with the guns they buy and carry.
I agree somewhat with your
November 25, 2006 - 07:27 ET by Warner Todd HustonI agree somewhat with your point. However, you lapse into hyperbole far too often.
Sure some training is benificial. But a gun in the hands of the untrained is NOT necessarily a recipe for mass murder and "friendly fire"!!
Lastly, you should remember, guns are used without firing a shot very, very often. The second a civilian pulls it many times the crook just takes off not wanting to SEE if the gun owner is "trained" or not!
Still I agree that training is good.
Agreed, Warner. Here in India
November 26, 2006 - 09:34 ET by Indiana JoeAgreed, Warner. Here in Indiana, there is NO requirement to take any kind of gun-safety or marksmanship training. Lots of states DO have such requirements. I know of no data that shows CCW people are any more or less dangerous to the general public based on how much training the law requires.
As the "right-to-carry" movement spread from state to state, we were bombarded with rhetoric about how "blood would run in the streets." It never happened. Period. And the use of firearms to stop crime without a shot being fired is why I mentioned John Lott in my original post.
In Michigan, they DO have a requirement for training. A buddy of mine is a certified instructor. Such training costs quite a bit, over $100 I believe. Now, with all the talk in the last election about how "disenfranchised" the "poor" were by the concept of a $3 ID card, how can requiring hundreds of dollars for training NOT be an "infringement" of the 2nd Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms?"
Training IS good, I agree. No argument there. But personal responsibility is the key here. If you agree someone has a "right" to something, you have to be willing to trust them to use that "right" responsibly. And I think that, by and large, that's exactly what happens, training or no.
Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp was
November 25, 2006 - 08:03 ET by Red JeepDr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp was a Chiropractor and went with her parents to eat at Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Tx. in Oct 1991. At the time it was illegal to carry concealed in Texas but she did have a pistol that she carried in her purse. So often times she would leave the weapon under the front seat of her car when going into a public building, because if she were caught she could lose her medical license.
That is where that gun was when a murderer crashed his truck into the restaurant. The driver killed 23 and wounded 20, before being wounded when the police arrived and then killing himself. As her father rushed the gunman Dr. Hupp escaped out a broken window and thought her mother was behind her but she was not. Her father was killed rushing the gunman, and then the gunman shot her mother in the head as she tried to comfort her dying husband.
Even though Texas passed a concealed carry law in 1996 weapons are still banned in many public places.
"The point is, people like this--no, scumbags like this; I won't put them in the people category--are looking for easy targets. That's why we see things occurring at schools, post offices, churches and cafeterias in states that don't allow concealed carrying," said Hupp.
"A gun can be used to kill a family, or defend a family. I've lived what gun laws do. My parents died because of what gun laws do. I'm the quintessential soccer mom, and I want the right to protect my family. What happened to my parents will never happen again with my kids there."
( See: http://www.gunowners...)
I am fuzzy on the details, bu
November 26, 2006 - 09:36 ET by ChemicalOperatorI am fuzzy on the details,there is a town in the south, I want to say in Georgia that now requires its citizens to carry a weapon. Since they put the ordenance in crime has dropped off tremendously. Criminals are just less likely to commit a crime if they fear being shot.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
CO, the town I believe you're
November 27, 2006 - 07:25 ET by Indiana JoeCO, the town I believe you're referencing IS in Georgia. It's Kennisaw, if memory serves. But their law isn't a "carry" law. It's an "ownership" law. With exceptions for financial hardship and other reasons, I believe, each household is required to own a firearm.
And, yes, crime HAS gone down there markedly since the law was passed. Just the first year, I believe it was down by 30 to 40%. But it's been a while, those numbers are just what I seem to remember.
Good article. One minor nit
November 24, 2006 - 06:52 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsGood article. One minor nit to pick, 48/50 = 96% not 98%. Accuracy in reporting and all that.
DSG
Nit-picking 202: true, the &q
November 24, 2006 - 07:20 ET by Indiana JoeNit-picking 202:
True, the "STATE %" breaks down to 48/50 = "96%"
But the "98%" figure is related to "the people," or "population," which varies from state to state.
Since there is no citation for this number, it can't really be "crunched" here.
Class dissmissed.... ;^)
Sorry, Indiana. I can't bel
November 24, 2006 - 07:51 ET by crsheddSorry, Indiana. I can't believe 98 % of Americans agree on anything.
What you are assuming is in the 48 states that 100% of the people agree with the law of concealed weapons. Not going to happen.
Some of those 48 states could have a 50.1 to 49.9% majority who believe in concealed weapons.
In fact, a majority of the citizens in a state could be against concealed weapons but a majority of the legislative body could be for it (or at least influenced by stronger lobbies).
And this from the Democratic Leadership Council. I know you all will say the DLC lies about everything, the GOP has NEVER lied about anything. But, notice the poll was conducted for the WALL STREET JOURNAL, can't get much more conservative than that. http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=119&subid=157&contentid=1187
"...an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in April found that 73 percent of Americans oppose "passing new laws to make it easier for people to carry concealed weapons."
Just because politician votes for something it doesn't automatically mean all the citizens agree with it.
73 percent of Americans opp
November 24, 2006 - 07:57 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls73 percent of Americans oppose "passing new laws to make it easier for people to carry concealed weapons."
Seeing as there is no indication of what the question asked in the 6 year old poll was, perhaps the respondents felt current CCW laws were adequate. You can infer almost anything from a vague statement like the above.
DSG
Just a wild guess, but since
November 24, 2006 - 08:09 ET by crsheddJust a wild guess, but since the site placed "passing new laws to make it easier for people to carry concealed weapons." in quotes, I would suggest the question is along the lines of 'Do you agree or disagree with "passing new laws to make it easier for people to carry concealed weapons."
And, good point about the poll being 6 years old. I am sure America has gone from 73% against to 98% in favor of concealed weapons in just 6 years.
"I would suggest the que
November 24, 2006 - 08:38 ET by Indiana Joe"I would suggest the question is along the lines of 'Do you agree or disagree with "passing new laws to make it easier for people to carry concealed weapons." "
But, without any info on WHAT the existing laws are, the question strikes me as meaningless. Many people are not aware of their state laws on subjects they are not currently "up" on. Even some they should be.
Case in point: I've heard almost all my working life that "Indiana is a 'right-to-work' state. Never questioned it, never doubted it. Except, I WAS required to sign a union check-off when I hired into a union shop. So, I researched it on the 'Net, and found that the "right-to-work" law was repealed here in the mid-1960s! And here it is, 40 years later, and the majority of people it affects are unaware of that simple fact.
So, a poll asking "Do you believe Indiana should REMAIN a 'right-to-work' state?" asked out of that context, would yield some very interesting, yet meaningless, results.
(And the "98%" remark wasn't mine, and I addressed it's inclusion in my post elsewhere, btw.)
I would suggest the questio
November 24, 2006 - 18:07 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI would suggest the question is along the lines of 'Do you agree or
disagree with "passing new laws to make it easier for people to carry
concealed weapons."
I would suggest that as the people think there are already adequate laws on the books no new laws are needed. You can't dispute that as we don't know the question asked, the context, the people surveyed, etc. as I postulated above. Survey says (whatever you want it to say).
DSG
"Sorry, Indiana. I can
November 24, 2006 - 08:28 ET by Indiana Joe"Sorry, Indiana. I can't believe 98 % of Americans agree on anything."
Oh, of course not, crshedd. I was merely pointing out that the two numbers compared, the percentage of STATES with CCW laws, and the "people" who were noted as "98%," was comparing apples and oranges. It was purely a statistical point.
That's why the remark that "there is not a citation" for that number. But I DO know that poll after poll shows that somewhere between 70% and 80% of all households in the country OWN at least one firearm. I would infer that most of those people would believe in their right to "keep and bear" those arms.
As noted in another post, I guess that poll you cite is quite old. I find it thin proof that a "majority" of people are against the actions of their politicians on this topic. Especially considering that most of the recent movement towards more liberalized (pardon the expression, ;^) ) CCW laws have been "grass-roots" movements.
You stated 'But I DO know tha
November 24, 2006 - 17:03 ET by crsheddYou stated 'But I DO know that poll after poll shows that somewhere between 70% and 80% of all households in the country OWN at least one firearm.'
This comes from the NRA: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126
"Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner" (my emphasis).
Ah! I thought at first you we
November 26, 2006 - 09:54 ET by Indiana JoeAh! I thought at first you were going to dismiss the number, since the NRA was the source....
"...almost half of all households have at least one gun owner."
So I may stand corrected on my "70 to 80%" figure. Well, that's the number I'VE been hearing for years. And from the NRA, I thought.
But what about THIS, directly following?: "Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration."
Now, THAT seems to state that the number may be HIGHER, because of people's fears of "registration." Hard to dismiss that, if you're willing to accept the previous. I know it seems paranoid, but I know many gun owners who actually believe they may get that "knock on the door" someday. The idea that people would hesitate to admit they owned a gun is not too outrageous in light of some of the anti-gun rhetoric that came out of the Clinton years.
Not having my original post in front of me, I seem to recall that the point I was trying to make was that, by and large, the public was in favor of RTC legislation. I know of no case where RTC laws were passed against the will of the majority of the people. I don't mean it didn't happen, just that I know of no examples. Whether the actual number of gun-owning households is 50% or 80% really isn't germane to that question, IMO.
But I do stand corrected, apparently.
Regards,
IJ
This is one of those articl
November 24, 2006 - 07:32 ET by Right2thePointThis is one of those articles where the original concept is somehow used to expand into broad generalizations that the narrow issue should not address.
I can suggest that another area we will be discussing in the future due to the PC nature of society is not just gay marriage but polygamy.
It will not be carried along on the strength of it's own merits in the debate, but will be part of the package related to Muslim belief systems and how much our system of laws apply to religious groups versus what some of their belief systems allow.
"I can suggest that ano
November 24, 2006 - 07:48 ET by Indiana Joe"I can suggest that another area we will be discussing in the future due to the PC nature of society is not just gay marriage but polygamy."
Um, Right2thePoint, there was a thread just the other day here on NB that addressed that particular point. Maybe the "starter" didn't, but the thread itself worked it's way to that conclusion.
It's already started.....
Regards,
IJ
Concealed Carry
November 24, 2006 - 08:03 ET by georgetwalkerjrI've had a CCP in LA, and currently have a non-resident permit from Florida. In the past I've been a CCP instructor in LA, and am currently a NRA civilian and law enforcement firearms instructor. Needless to say, I'm very pro-2nd Amendment and carry a pistol virtually 24-7. However, I know for a fact that there are not 48 states with concealed permit laws. In particular neither IL or MN have them, and there are a number of others. I'd be curious about where you got your information for this piece. You might be interested in the best overall website on this issue, www.packing.org. It's an outstanding resource for gun laws around the country. Keep up the good work at NewsBusters.....I start the day with it every morning. Best, George Walker
No concealed carry in New Y
November 24, 2006 - 08:08 ET by Red JeepNo concealed carry in New York State unless you are a politician.
George,My apologies. I replie
November 24, 2006 - 09:06 ET by Indiana JoeGeorge,
My apologies. I replied to your post below before noting this one. Now I feel like I was preaching to the choir. You are obviously "in the loop" in this debate, and I apologize for assuming otherwise.
However, I still feel that the difference between "shall issue" and more "traditional," shall we say, permitting systems may account for the discrepancy between the "35" states the packing.org link references, and the "48" states THIS article mentions. Even in NYS, as another person mentions, a "private citizen," with the right "connections," CAN get a CCW permit.
In spite of the legal impediments thrown in the way of the "average" citizen in such a situation, I feel it is fair to count that as a "right-to-carry" state. I mean, at least there is SOME law providing for it, no matter how mis-applied.
Regards,
IJ
MN does have a carry law. I
November 24, 2006 - 10:51 ET by amberMN does have a carry law. It is not CCW, it is just a permit to cary. It costs $100 to register and have your permit for 3 years. Everyone can get one as long as they pass the requirments. It took me 1 day to get mine in the mail.
I struggle with deciding weather to obey the law and not cary in schools or other places. I know the only time they would see my pistol is if I need it and in that event I could care less if I go to jail for using it, but I still struggle with it. Schools are dangerous places in my thinking. Not only can you not cary, you also can not have any form of protection, a knife or even mace. The new laws say that, if a gunman enters the school, the school is supposed to go into full lockdown mode and anyone not in a classroom will be locked out. To me, that is sick. My 5 year old child who just went to the bathroom would be locked out in the school with a raving lunatic and no adult would protect her or let her into relative safety. I say relative safety because all it would take is one shot and the shooter would be in the room anyways. I don't know, I wish some of these parents who lost children to school violence would start fighting for the right of children to protect themselves (with mace or something like it) and for the teachers to protect the students.
I was in a parent group talking about the new scool laws and I said that I thought if you had a permit you should be alloud to cary in the school, or anywhere. One guy replied that he thought the reason there was more violence is because we are more paranoid. I said that the world did not become dangerous because I lock my car door. Another woman said that she thought "world peace is possible and it will happen in my lifetime because all people have to do is choose it." I laughed, then I realized she was serious. Our planet has never been a peaceful place, not one time in history. These are the people we are up against. People who think everything is going to be beautiful and peacefull in their lives and who are willing to sacrifice mine and my family's life to preserve their la la land.
amber weapons
November 24, 2006 - 11:04 ET by misterbillamber weapons.
No brainer, you are a decent citizen, concerned for yourself and your family. I would not fear your CCW. As you said, the only time anyone would know it is if you, family or school were threatened. I would hope you would not be punished should you draw your weapon in that case.
Amber
November 24, 2006 - 11:25 ET by iveseenitallAmber:
You've hit upon the sad and pathetic dream world of the immature liberals. It has been written (Emerson) that peace is always in close proximity to war. It may be horrible, but it's true. Liberals don't live in the real world. Unfortunately, they are constantly attempting to poison the minds of others with their drivel.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Carthage need to hear that
November 24, 2006 - 17:34 ET by UnsaneAnother woman said that she thought "world peace is possible and it will happen in my lifetime because all people have to do is choose it." amber - If you ever run across that silly woman ever again, offer her a trip to Carthage so that she can preach that message, for the Carthaginians will be much appreciative. (Hat tip to Heinlein's Starship Troopers)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
November 24, 2006 - 10:51 ET by amber
Packing.org has been having
November 24, 2006 - 17:06 ET by Carbon SasquatchPacking.org has been having a little trouble keeping up this past year. Several plains states have joined the 'shall issue' column. Some of the new laws won't take effect until the first of the year, when the count will be 40 shall issue, 8 may issue and two (MN and IL) no issue. Some of the 8 may issue states are clearly in name only, including NY and CA where only the important folks get permits. The most flagrant rights violator is HI, where the only permit ever issued was to the civilian armorer for the Honolulu PD so he could transport police weapons to the range for test firing. My info source is NRANews.com.
Hard to get.... but still legal!
November 25, 2006 - 11:07 ET by dmntd1Cut and paste still isn't working? or is it just me? Anyways.....
per 225 ILCS 447/35, Illinois does have a concealed carry permit (I know, I have one). The restrictions on this permit require the holder to be licensed, or employed by a licensed agency, as a private detective, or security agency. Even then, it is only allowed to be carried one hour prior to work hours to one hour post-work.
Additionally, retired law enforcement officers are allowed to carry concealed. I know of one specific employer that prefers to hire retired state troopers for that exact reason. With their ~$80,000 pension, they can afford to work for $10-12/hr now.
Please make sure your train of thought carries freight.
Hardly a "shall issue&
November 25, 2006 - 22:49 ET by Warner Todd HustonHardly a "shall issue" state, though. You basically have to be a security guard or cop. That is NOT something open to a common citizen.
Not only not a "shall-is
November 26, 2006 - 10:03 ET by Indiana JoeNot only not a "shall-issue" state, but NOT a RTC state at all, for the reasons you express.
No carry for the average citizen for their own protection; no way, no how.
The NYT needs to get a clue
November 24, 2006 - 08:11 ET by sarcasmoThe NYT needs to get a clue. The right to keep and bear arms IS A CIVIL RIGHT, so there's nothing to co-opt! "Civil rights" has come to mean something more-like racial-preferences in this country's PC NewSpeak, but some of us are English-geeks, and insist that words have meanings. And as others (even Harvard's Lawrence Tribe, a raging conservative if ever there was one, right?) have admitted, it's also an individual right. And you're right about the laughter -- someone with artistic talent needs to do a cartoon with a freshly-assaulted/mugged NYT editor in a national park saying, 'if only the federal government had spent more money..."
JMR
35 States Have CCWhttp://www.packing.org/state/report_shall_issu
November 24, 2006 - 08:24 ET by georgetwalkerjrChecking the www.packing.org site, I see that 35 states currently have CCW permit laws. You can check it out at: http://www.packing.o...
Haven't checked the link, geo
November 24, 2006 - 08:52 ET by Indiana JoeHaven't checked the link, georgetwalkerjr. But you must realize there is a difference in "shall-issue" laws, and other forms of "CCW" laws. I noted the "/report_shall_issue.php" in the url you posted.
Basically, a "shall-issue" law is designed to get around the sad fact that in many states in the past, one had to be a friend of a politician or other official to even have a CHANCE to get approved for a carry permit. It was (and still is, in places) basically a political patronage system. But there ARE laws in those states that DO allow private citizens to carry concealed. So they DO count as "CCW permitted" states.
"Shall-issue" states, on the other hand, put the burden on the STATE to have a REASON to refuse issuance of a permit. That can be past mental health issues, past criminal record, current or former drug abuse, etc. They may or may not also require licensed training and other things to qualify. But if an applicant meets these criteria to be issued a permit, the law says that the permit "SHALL" be "ISSUED." No "political hoops" to jump through.
Hence, the term "shall-issue State." And the discrepancy in the numbers I believe you are pointing to. 35 "shall-issue" states, vs 46 "carry-permitted" states.
Have I understood your point? And, hopefully, addressed it?
Regards,
IJ <edit> See above for my personal "D'OH!!!" <end edit>
Where is all the outr
November 24, 2006 - 12:51 ET by james789Where is all the outrage from the 120,000 deaths in America each year from Doctors and Nurses who do not wash their hands properly between patients? Why waste natural resources over something that won't amount to much of anything or save very many lives one way or the other?
If elected, I vow to repeal the 17th Amendment, change the
minimum military enlistment age to the minimum drinking age and push for term
limits for all politicians in federal government.
By all means allow conceale
November 24, 2006 - 13:21 ET by we are not amusedBy all means allow concealed carry in the National Parks. The Park service now allows bears to roam the campgrounds at will, and have put severe restrictions upon the campers to protect them. This may not make much difference to the class of people whom the park service desires, the people who drive huge motorhomes and campers, but to someone who likes to ride a bike, a motorcycle, an older jeep (or even a newer one, if you are driving with the top off) or a convertible, they DON'T like you. I have been putting up with that for several years, and two years ago, I found out the hard way that guns are not allowed in National Parks even if they are locked up. I made the mistake of telling a National Park ranger the truth, That yes I had a gun, that it was locked up in the trunk. While I had known one wasn't suppose to carry a gun in the park, and that hunting was not allowed, I had no idea that a gun locked up in the trunk, in its carrying case and unloaded was a Federal offence. I guess I got off lucky, in that I wasn't arrested, but that is the last time I ever answer that question truthfully. I learned from my father and other locals that one never went into the back country without a weapon, preferably a rifle, but at least a pistol. This wasn't to defend one's self from people, but from bears, mountain lions, and several other varieties of wildlife. Plus it was a great survival tool, suitable for procuring food, starting fires, and signaling for help in an emergancy.
The ban was apparently put in place by the Cinton administration as a part of its war on guns, and serves no purpose other than to make it another "gun free zone" where criminals are safe from their intended victims, and where the bears can munch on children without fear.
Is it not true that New York
November 24, 2006 - 15:26 ET by Andrew H.Is it not true that New York will be a study of gun control--won't we see unarmed citizens and armed crminals? Has this already happened? I suspect it has and that probably many people have paid the price and are paying for another liberal miss in social construction.
Never relent.
Amusingly enough, New York
November 24, 2006 - 15:30 ET by Warner Todd HustonAmusingly enough, New York has a "shall issue" law, meaning they ARE a carry permit state!
That's cool--but I think it's
November 24, 2006 - 15:37 ET by Andrew H.That's cool--but I think it's tough to carry in the city--but could be wrong. That's why I asked... In my view, no permit or anything from government should be required, but I suspect that battle has been lost in all fifty. To me, it is one example of freedom being limited.
Never relent.
"In my view, no permit o
November 26, 2006 - 10:06 ET by Indiana Joe"In my view, no permit or anything from government should be required, but I suspect that battle has been lost in all fifty."
AOH, unless it's been changed, I'm pretty sure Vermont has the system you speak of. Last I heard, there was no permit required for CCW in that state. Seems like there's one more also, I want to say... Alaska?
If I got the NYT's I would ma
November 24, 2006 - 17:08 ET by bigtimerIf I got the NYT's I would make a paper airplane out of it and yell...
PULL!
At least using the NY
November 24, 2006 - 18:24 ET by james789At least using the NYT for target practice, the paper wouldn't be a waste of natural resources.
If elected, I vow to repeal the 17th Amendment, change the
minimum military enlistment age to the minimum drinking age and push for term
limits for all politicians in federal government.
I'll vote for you. Never re
November 25, 2006 - 07:51 ET by Andrew H.I'll vote for you.
Never relent.
I wonder if a rape victim has
November 25, 2006 - 10:29 ET by Casey97I wonder if a rape victim has ever said, “…boy I’m sure glad I wasn’t armed...”?
/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-
With Democrat revisionist history and liberals guaranteeing the future (global warming, nuclear destruction, etc.) only the future is certain; the past is always changing<