HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Kansas supports suit oppo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 12:22 PM

 

Kansas supports suit opposing concealed-carry permit restrictions


Kansas has joined 13 other states in supporting the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment by agreeing that people don’t need to show why they want a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

Attorney General Derek Schmidt said Thursday he has added Kansas to a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Richmond, Va. The appellate court is reviewing a decision by a Maryland district court that struck down a Maryland requirement that a person must show a reason for needing a concealed permit before one is issued.

“Citizens who qualify to have a concealed carry permit should not be required to clear the further hurdle of showing the government why they need to have a firearm,” Schmidt said. “The Second Amendment protects the individual’s right to keep and bear arms and does not allow the government to demand to know the reason why.”

Kansas is one of 39 states with a concealed-carry law on the books that doesn’t require a person to give a reason for needing the license, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/06/3800238/kansas-supports-suit-opposing.html#storylink=cpy


It's basically a given why someone would want to have a concealed carry license... it's for personal and family protection. What we are seeing is bureaucracy getting in the way of our constitutional rights.

I hate to bring up a touchy subject, but even if you aren't Pro-RKBA, try to think of it this way: Would you want someone passing a law requiring you to explain yourself and submit to extra-judicial scrutiny to have an abortion or any other personal procedure? It's no one's business, especially not the governments.

I'm all about more options, not less. Like a woman's right to choose, I support the choice to carry a personal firearm for protection and will so everything I can to keep it both legal and safe.

96 replies, 7351 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 96 replies Author Time Post
Reply Kansas supports suit opposing concealed-carry permit restrictions (Original post)
rDigital Sep 2012 OP
jody Sep 2012 #1
rDigital Sep 2012 #2
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #3
oneshooter Sep 2012 #4
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #5
oneshooter Sep 2012 #6
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #10
hack89 Sep 2012 #16
Jenoch Sep 2012 #20
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #21
hack89 Sep 2012 #23
bongbong Sep 2012 #28
hack89 Sep 2012 #7
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #12
hack89 Sep 2012 #13
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #22
hack89 Sep 2012 #24
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #25
hack89 Sep 2012 #26
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #38
hack89 Sep 2012 #39
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #45
hack89 Sep 2012 #47
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #49
hack89 Sep 2012 #50
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #58
MrDiaz Sep 2012 #63
hack89 Sep 2012 #67
gejohnston Sep 2012 #52
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #51
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #55
MrDiaz Sep 2012 #64
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #68
gejohnston Sep 2012 #71
MrDiaz Sep 2012 #78
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #74
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #80
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #83
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #30
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #43
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #53
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #59
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #73
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #81
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #84
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #88
gejohnston Sep 2012 #89
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #90
gejohnston Sep 2012 #91
oneshooter Sep 2012 #35
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #41
gejohnston Sep 2012 #44
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #46
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #56
Jenoch Sep 2012 #57
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #61
MrDiaz Sep 2012 #65
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #72
MrDiaz Sep 2012 #77
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #82
MrDiaz Sep 2012 #85
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #86
MrDiaz Sep 2012 #87
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #92
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #94
Jenoch Sep 2012 #69
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #79
Jenoch Sep 2012 #95
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #96
oneshooter Sep 2012 #62
Jenoch Sep 2012 #70
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #8
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #11
rDigital Sep 2012 #19
bongbong Sep 2012 #29
rl6214 Sep 2012 #32
bongbong Sep 2012 #37
rl6214 Sep 2012 #40
bongbong Sep 2012 #42
aikoaiko Sep 2012 #66
Kezzy604 Sep 2012 #33
gejohnston Sep 2012 #34
Jenoch Sep 2012 #36
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #31
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #48
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #54
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #60
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #75
gejohnston Sep 2012 #18
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #27
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #9
oneshooter Sep 2012 #15
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #17
ileus Sep 2012 #14
MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #76
friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #93

Response to rDigital (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 12:29 PM

1. I remain amazed how so many can ignore the precedent established by PA (1776) and VT (1777).

 

"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and (inalienable by PA and unalienable by VT) rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

The right to defend self and property can not be given away nor is it a privilege to be granted at the pleasure of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 12:36 PM

2. A little off topic, but as a side note:

 

I have an out of state PA carry license. Pa does not require any training, just that you pass a background check. $20 and I was on my way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Original post)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:35 AM

3. That's hilarious! No restrictions for those who qualify. What a load of gobbledygook!

“Citizens who qualify to have a concealed carry permit should not be required to clear the further hurdle of showing the government why they need to have a firearm,” Schmidt said. “The Second Amendment protects the individual’s right to keep and bear arms and does not allow the government to demand to know the reason why.”


Why should we, the people, want to know what folk want to do with their guns or what kind of guns they carry? We shouldn't if we're happy with being surrounded by nutters carrying concealed handguns and a spare $20 to spend on a permit. Hey, if it's legal, why don't we all do it?

"It's basically a given why someone would want to have a concealed carry license... it's for personal and family protection. What we are seeing is bureaucracy getting in the way of our constitutional rights. "

No, it's not a given. It's an illusion. The best way to protect yourself and your family from violence is to keep yourself and them as far away from loaded firearms as possible, except when engaged in an activity like target shooting or hunting, where everyone around is aware of the firearms and their potential danger.

I'm all about more options, too. Smart options. Evolutionary options. The right to choose does not make the choice the best course of action. The decision to have an abortion is an important life changing decision, hopefully a decision not made lightly. Most abortions could be avoided by making better decisions beforehand. Abortion should not be used as a method of birth control just because it is legal. The same decision making process should be used each time one decides to carry a gun in public. "Do I really need to do this? Do I have other options? Am I really prepared to shoot someone today? Why am I really doing this? Is this the way I really want to live my life?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:46 AM

4. "or what kind of guns they carry?" A few states,Californis and Mass. have your carry weapon

listed on the permit. Those are the only weapons you are allowed to carry.
Texas has no such restrictions. I have been known to carry a SIG229, a Colt SAA, Pre war Browning HiPower, and a 1860 Army 44 cal revolver.
All legal to carry in Texas.

So why would you want to know WHAT they carry, as long as it is legal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 12:10 PM

5. Why? It's called awareness.

If I'm walking or riding my bike on the highway I like to know what's coming the other way, whether it's a semi, a drunk driver veering all over the road or some nutjob carrying a gun. Shame on me, but I like to keep my options open. The legality of lunacy does not make it any saner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 01:33 PM

6. So you plan to pull a Hoyt, and detain people in order to check their papers?

As the firearms are listed on the license that is the only way you will know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 06:42 PM

10. What nonsense! Papers?

Haven't you realized yet that I don't buy into the whole permit nonsense? I don't want you to need a permit or have to show one. I neither know nor care what you or others carry. I care only about the health of a society that promotes such outlandish behavior and those individuals who pass it off as "normal".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 08:10 PM

16. But you care why we carry

and if our reason is not good enough, we should not be allowed to carry. Does that sum up your view?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 12:19 PM

20. Starboard

does not wish LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS to carry weapons, why would he wish it to be legal for civilians to carry weapons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 01:46 PM

21. No! Where did I say you should not be "allowed" to carry?

I encourage those who carry or think about carrying to carefully examine their motives and consider the dangers of such behavior. I don't "care" why you carry, anymore than I care what books you read. I care about promoting routine carry as something rational. I care about selling the practice as a form of legitimate self defense. I care about the effects of such a mindset on society and the direction it leads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 02:19 PM

23. Of course it is a legitimate form of self defense

it may not be for everyone or every situation but there is no question that it is legitimate. It is extremely effective and has had no demonstrable ill effect on society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 05:54 PM

28. Angry DU Gun Lobby

 

Don't criticize the Delicate Flowers too much. Without their guns, they'd starve since they'd be too scared to go to the supermarket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 01:42 PM

7. So you are a "show me your papers" kind of guy?

ok.

Amazing how gun control brings out the authoritarians on the progressive side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 06:58 PM

12. Wrong! Just the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 07:41 PM

13. But you do support citizens having to justify the exercising of a civil liberty

to the government. Which implies you support the government saying "no, I don't like your reason."

What other civil liberty do you want to grant the government such power over? I should not have to beg the government to be able to exercise a constitutional right - "because I want to" is a perfectly acceptable reason.

That's what prompted my authoritarian comment - the notion that it is my burden to justify carrying a gun. If I meet the requirements for a CCW then the government should have no other option but to give me one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 01:54 PM

22. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

I don't support being answerable to society for exercising a "right", be it a constitutional right or a basic human right.
It is not a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 02:23 PM

24. "Keep and bear arms" certainly covers concealed carry.

the point is that if society says CCW is legal, then the government should not be allowed to exercise arbitrary and discretionary power to deny someone a license because they don't approve of the reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #24)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 03:51 PM

25. 2A does not cover CCW - that is the problem

The only real solution is to scrap 2A and enact sensible legislation. If CCW were covered under 2A, then permits would not be required. The licensing and permitting system is totally bogus, imo, and, as you say, is totally arbitrary. Problem is, you can't call something a right and then restrict it. What you can restrict is the type of arms available, in the same way as government restricts the kinds of vehicles allowed on public roads.

Carrying a handgun is not a specific constitutional right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #25)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 04:02 PM

26. And you have the case law to back up this assertion?

So you scrap the 2A and enact legislation. What happens when it is challenged? Laws are constitutional or they are not. What section of the constitution will cover guns if not the 2A?

Abortion is not a specific constitutional right. Neither is gay marriage. I think they are constitutional - do you?










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:37 PM

38. Neither abortion, nor gay marriage, nor guns are mentioned in the constitution.

Abortion is protected under the 14th Amendment's right to privacy. Gay marriage is still going the rounds.
2A is ridiculously non-specific, especially considering the weaponry available today compared to 200 years ago. The right to self-defense is a natural and universal law. It is part of Common Law and Roman Law and has no specific need to be covered by an amendment to the constitution.
What the legislature needs to do is establish which kinds of weapons should be legally available to own and which may be carried in public, so that both the private and public interests are served. The latest craze of carrying concealed handguns does not bode well for our advancement as a society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #38)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:49 PM

39. Arms = weapons. Which included guns when the Constitution was written.

you are delving into silliness here.

When you can show me the actual harm caused by CCW then we can talk. Your irrational fears are no enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:52 PM

45. Delving into silliness?

Comparing the guns of today with those available 240 years ago - that is drowning in silliness, not delving.

If you cannot see the harm to society caused by the random carrying of concealed handguns in public, then we have no worthwhile discussion. If you think I am afraid because I think routine carry is a bad idea, then we have no worthwhile discussion.
I am neither rationally, nor irrationally afraid of concealed carry. I do wonder about the rationality of those who carry without good cause and the demons they might be dealing with.

I'm here to have a conversation, though, not to psychoanalyze either side of the argument. I have no emotional attachment to guns. I enjoy shooting them from time to time, but would only consider using one for self defense in the most extreme circumstances. My interest in guns is probably average. I am far more interested in people and the ways in which they think and behave, especially when they engage in aberrant behavior and how such behavior gets diluted by propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #45)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:04 PM

47. Then show us the harm

show us the hard facts - the increased number of shootings, injuries and death. And link them specifically to CCW.

Can you do that? The FBI has reams of crime statistics so if they existed you would have no problem finding them.

But you can't - so you toss out statements like "If you cannot see the harm to society caused by the random carrying of concealed handguns in public". Time for you to put up or shut up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #47)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:20 PM

49. Do you think global warming happened overnight?

We could parry all day long with anecdotes that support one side or the other. The legalization of homicide in SYG states such as Fla and the reclassification of murder to justifiable homicide in numerous cases, speaks for itself. The outrageous and delusional comments by those who believe the death toll in Aurora would have been less, had more guns been brought into play in the darkened theater, speak for themselves. Social madness tends to grow at it's own speed like a cancer. The symptoms are not always obvious, but when it starts to metastasize, it gets harder to avoid devastating consequences.

I understand your determination to justify your behavior. That is quite normal. Nobody likes to admit they have made the wrong decision, but humility will always triumph over pride.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #49)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:24 PM

50. So lets wait until you have some actual facts?

you refuse to accept that gun violence is at historic lows and still declining. That's fine - I can understand how it would upset your world view. But laws should be based on reality and facts - not fanciful fears of what is going to happen any day now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #50)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:08 PM

58. The reduction in gun violence has no proven connection to CCW

If that were the case, then why are more people buying handguns? Makes no sense.
What do these facts have to do with your decision making process? Do you carry a gun because violence is down? Do you feel particularly vulnerable? Or do you do it just because you can?

Those are the facts I'm interested in. The facts that make people tick a little differently and how that affects society as a whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #58)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:38 PM

63. let me get this straight

 

CCW's are at an all time high, gun ownership is at an all time high. And gun violence is at an all time low. And you say they have nothing to do with each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #58)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:07 PM

67. But how do we measure the harm of CCW if not by people being shot?

if more people carrying in public has not led to more shootings, injuries or deaths then the reason they carry is irrelevant. They are not harming anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #49)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:30 PM

52. not buying it

The legalization of homicide in SYG states such as Fla and the reclassification of murder to justifiable homicide in numerous cases, speaks for itself.
there has always been legal homicide. SYG has not reclassified anything. It simply shifted the burden of proof from proving you are innocent of murder or manslaughter to the State having to prove you committed the crime. I could make a better argument criminalizing and ostracizing people who resist violent offenders are doing the harm.

The outrageous and delusional comments by those who believe the death toll in Aurora would have been less, had more guns been brought into play in the darkened theater, speak for themselves.
Directed fire at the one guy on the stage? Certainly not as insane as the "having more guns in the mix at VT would have been worse" when worse is impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #45)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:28 PM

51. In most states CCW isn't random.

Those who legally carry are tightly screened, except in a few states. Statistics show that those who carry legally are of very little danger to the public and sometimes they save innocent lives. In fact, they save more innocent lives than they take.

I will accept that it is rational to fear those who carry illegally, as they are criminals by definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:00 PM

55. I didn't mean the issuing of permits was random, but the practice of carrying.

I understand that they are screened in most states. I wonder if that screening involves an in depth psych evaluation. I know that if it entered my mind to carry on a routine basis, I would seek out such an evaluation.

The legality of those who carry may define them as criminals, depending where they live. This seems very arbitrary to me. I'm sure it bothers you not, that you would be considered a criminal in many places outside of Texas.
Are you saying that you carry because you are afraid of others who carry illegally?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #55)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:40 PM

64. those who carry illegally

 

are usually the ones committing crimes... not the other way around. How often do murders happen from CCW holders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #64)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:50 PM

68. Rarely, especially in SYG states where murder has been reclassified.

The bar has been lowered so far by SYG laws that the onus is now on the dead guy to prove it wasn't legitimate SD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #68)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:13 PM

71. NO

It is up to the State to prove it was manslaughter or murder.
In DTR, too many innocent people went to jail or broke proving their innocence after calling the cops on themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #68)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 06:38 AM

78. yea

 

after long and careful consideration i have come to the realization that you are not an intelligent human being. But that's Ok...You will be alright. Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #55)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:14 PM

74. Past actions are the best predictor of future actions.

A person who has been law-abiding for 40 years is highly unlikely to suddenly turn into a violent criminal. It does happen sometimes, but very rarely. In Texas the murder rate for CHLers, averaged over several recent years is about 1/300th that of the general public.

I carry because there is the possibility that a violent criminal may target me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #74)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:30 PM

80. Yet you support 21 year old college students carrying on campus.

How long have they been "law abiding"? So, you have never broken a law during the past 40 years. Is that what you are saying? I think that makes you pretty unique. You carry a gun because you fear a violent criminal attack, yet you have never been attacked by a violent criminal. Your wife had a couple of scary moments when she worked in a shady neighborhood, yet even she was not violently attacked either. Now you both carry guns.
All of that kinda disputes your claim that "Past actions are the best predictor of future actions".

You seem to operate on the opposite principle. I've never been attacked in the past, but I'll carry a gun today because my past experience has taught me nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #80)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 02:42 PM

83. By age 21 most people have establish their life-pattern.

Some change it, but not a large percentage.

I have been attacked, strong arm robbery, December 1964.

My wife was not attacked because the would-be attackers realized that they were about to die suddenly if they didn't make a rapid change of plan, not because she had a firm voice.

Our past actions are predicting that we won't abuse our license. There are criminals in society who have been committed violent crimes and they are loose among society. I don't know the past actions of those strangers who paths I may cross. I can't predict whether we may meet one of them and if we might be targeted. Therefore it is better to be prepared.

You are unlikely to be attacked in the future, but the probability is not zero.

I respect your right to your decision to be unarmed, but not the decision itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #25)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 07:10 PM

30. Scrap 2A? Not gonna happen.

Any amendment to the constitution has to be ratifried by 3/4 of the states. That is after having to be pased by 2/3 majority in BOTH the House and the Senate.

Very, very hard to do. Especially when you remember that about 1/2 of the congress has an NRA rating of "A".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #30)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:31 PM

43. Not gonna happen anytime soon, maybe never.

It really depends on future rulings by SCOTUS, which will hopefully catch up with the realities of the third millennium in the not too distant future. Of course, the people are also responsible, especially if you are correct regarding half of congress receiving approval from an organization that supports, enables and promotes domestic terrorism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:36 PM

53. If a future SCOTUS gutted the 2A, a new, stronger 2A replacement would be passed.

Thirty-nine states have shall-issue and appear to be happy with their laws. It only takes 38 states to ratify an amendment.

So if you were to get your wish and a new justice at SCOTUS tipped the balance to 5-4 against guns, in less than a year you would see a new Constitutional Amendment that restored the right in very clear modern language that even the new SCOTUS would have to accept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:11 PM

59. States are neither happy nor unhappy.

The people will ultimately decide. Meanwhile, let's hope we get some updated brains appointed to SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #59)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:04 PM

73. The people in those 39 states have already decided.

They elected legislators that gave them shall-issue and they continue to elect legislators that keep shall-issue.

Bush became governor because he promised to sign shall-issue after Richards vetoed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #73)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:38 PM

81. So that's how you roll in Texas

You dump a great Democratic governor for the biggest dufus because he let you carry your guns around. Wonderful!
You need to get your priorities sorted out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #81)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 02:55 PM

84. The same story has been played out in other states with other governors.

Wisconsin being the most recent. Here is the timeline:

http://chippewa.com/news/local/article_44572dba-0283-11e1-a47d-001cc4c002e0.html

1848: Wisconsin becomes a state.

1872: The state passes a law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, except by “a peace officer.“

1998: Wisconsin voters approve a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of state residents to bear and keep arms for any “lawful purpose.“

1999: A bill to let state residents carry concealed weapons is introduced in the state Legislature. It does not pass. As of the end of 2008, eight other such bills will be introduced, all unsuccessful.

2003: The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in separate cases, upholds the conviction of a man who had two concealed handguns in his vehicle absent any specific or imminent threat, but tosses the conviction of a Milwaukee shop owner in a high-crime Milwaukee neighborhood who kept a loaded gun hidden behind a counter.

Late 2003: The state Legislature overwhelming passes and Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle vetoes a bill to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Early 2004: The Senate votes 23-10 to override Doyle’s veto, but a veto override attempt in the Assembly falls one vote short of the requisite two-thirds majority. The vote was 65-34.

January 2006: Gov. Jim Doyle vetoes a concealed carry bill passed by the Legislature, leaving Wisconsin as one of four states to have an absolute prohibition. Again, a veto override attempt narrowly fails. The vote in the Assembly was 64-34.

April 2009: J.B. Van Hollen, Wisconsin’s Republican attorney general, issues an advisory memo to prosecutors ruling that nothing in Wisconsin law prohibits state residents from carrying firearms openly, in plain view.

November 2010: Wisconsin elects Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP gains control of both houses of the state Legislature.

May 10, 2011: A new concealed carry bill is introduced in Wisconsin. In its original form it creates a blanket right to carry concealed weapons, with no licensing or training requirement.

June 9: The Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee approves an amended version of the bill that includes licensing and training.

June 14: The state Senate passes the bill on a 25-8 vote.

June 21: The bill passes the Assembly on a vote of 68-27.

July 8: Gov. Walker signs the measure into law. The effective date is Nov. 1.


Democrats in other states have lost elections because they opposed concealed carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #84)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:26 PM

88. "Democrats in other states have lost elections because they opposed concealed carry."

That says a lot. Shame on those who would vote against a Democrat over such an issue. We should not be bullied by the NRA or the neanderthals who run and support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #88)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:37 PM

89. it's called the will of the people

or at least the will of the people who show up to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #89)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:27 PM

90. Ah yes, the "will of the people".

Nothing to do with the power of propaganda and the lobbying of special interests and the buying of politicians. How silly of me not to realize it's all about the "will of the people".
I used to think that was true in all democracies, especially this one, until 2000, when I realized that elections in this country have very little to do with the will of the people. In every other democratic country I've lived in, the guy with the most votes is declared the winner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #90)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:57 AM

91. propaganda shapes the will of the people.

there is a book on it called Manufactured Consent. What the gun control movement lacks in money and actual support, it makes up for in free propaganda from editorial writers and big city politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #25)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:04 PM

35. "The only real solution is to scrap 2A and enact sensible legislation."

So what sensible legislation would you be willing to support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:23 PM

41. Good question.

In terms of firearms ownership, I would make few changes to current law, though I would not oppose the total abolition of handguns as we know them. The handgun issue is a tough one for me. I like them for many reasons and I dislike them for many reasons, but in the final analysis, I think society as a whole would benefit from their disappearance. However, that is not going to happen.

What I consider far more important is the practice of carrying lethal weapons for purported self-defense. Sensible legislation would restrict those weapons to being less lethal. We need to develop effective "stoppers" rather than "destroyers". Not the easiest challenge, but a worthy one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #41)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:41 PM

44. if he can just get the stun function down and perfected


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #44)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:01 PM

46. Brilliant!

Ironically, it would probably work for SD in most situations.
I was thinking more along these lines, though still in early stages.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/less-lethal-combo/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #46)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:01 PM

56. Check out this vomit flashlight:

&feature=related

The drawback is that it may not be effective in daylight. The brain trying to sync outside its normal rhythm causes nausea and vomiting. Kind of big for regular carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #41)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:02 PM

57. If a law were to be passed

that abolished handguns and some sort of mandatory buy-back program was instituted, how would you account for all of the handguns that would not be turned in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #57)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:32 PM

61. Well, it's a hypothetical, but I'll give it a shot.

Obviously, there would be handguns that wouldn't be turned in. However, those who held on to them would be loathe to break the law by carrying them beyond there own property line. Especially if the penalty for doing so were severe. I don't think any form of gun grabbing or police raids would be called for. Their presence in public would just die out.

Those using a gun in the commission of a crime would be subject to the harshest of penalties. Works pretty well in the UK and I believe it could work just as well here, given enough time and education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #61)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:48 PM

65. how about those

 

who use a gun to commit violent crime get a gun used on them instead. Thats sounds like a harsh penalty and a very effective one. So effective in fact i think that criminals now have knowledge that there are alot more gun owners than there used to be Which is why violent Crime rates have dropped, they no longer feel they would have the upper hand at any given time against their victim. Don't you see, the problem is already being fixed, it has been slowly being fixed the last 30 years. GUN VIOLENCE IS AT AN ALL TIME LOW. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #65)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:39 PM

72. What is the problem? Are you serious?

I would say your mindset is a huge part of the problem. You advocate introducing more guns into the mix so the "good guys" can now shoot the "bad guys". With all due respect, that is simplistic thinking and served us well when we lived in caves. Fortunately, most of us are striving for more progressive solutions.
Your claim that violent crime rates have fallen because of CCW laws is bogus and has no basis in reality. The majority of violent crime is gang related. Gang violence peaked in the mid 90's and has been mostly in decline since then, not because of frightened citizens carrying concealed handguns, but because of good community activism and police/community relations in major cities like Los Angeles and NYC.

Your support for concealed carry, together with your Dirty Harry mentality makes you part of the problem, rather than the solution. Let me explain why. Your solution is to fight fire with fire. Makes a lot of sense, until one stops to think about the consequences. Where do the "bad guys" get their guns? Oops! Correct, from folk like you. They either buy them from you if you are unscrupulous, which means you are not clairvoyant, for how could you know they are "bad guys" unless they have already been caught, convicted and entered (under the name they give you) into the system. Buying a gun in this country is as easy as buying pot. It's harder to buy beer in some parts of the country. And if they don't buy them from you, they steal them from you. Remember, they are the bad guys. They know how to con you and they know how to steal from you. But now you have your $20 piece of paper which entitles you to play the "Lone Ranger". Good luck with that. You don't transition from being a "good guy" to a killer, no matter the justification, that easily. Ask George Zimmerman. He's not the first and won't be the last, but I'll bet you he's ruing the day he decided to carry a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #72)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:45 PM

77. I'm not

 

Suggesting that, all I am saying is that over the past three decades legal gun ownership has been steadily inclining, and actual gun violence has been steadily declining. 1+1=2 right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #77)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:43 PM

82. In a simplistic world maybe. Not in the real world.

It's called faulty causality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #82)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 02:59 PM

85. okay so what world

 

is it that when something is working, and violence is going down, that you should change the course of action that has been working to get those numbers low?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #85)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 05:37 PM

86. There is zero evidence that carrying more guns around has reduced violence.

It is a bogus claim by those who would have us believe such drivel.
The very act of carrying a loaded weapon is inherently violent. Violent crime numbers are on the decline for a variety of reasons. One important reason is better community policing in urban areas, especially the gang infested inner city war zones where most violent crime takes place. Another important reason is the reclassification of many killings by so-called "good guys" of so-called "bad guys" in states where SYG laws have given the green light to those who would shoot anyone they claim they were in fear of. So, many of yesterday's murder and manslaughter cases have become today's justifiable homicides. What used to be a serious crime has become a public service in some states like Texas and Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #86)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:33 AM

87. yes you keep

 

saying this to those of us who would believe such drivel, the state must defend you if your dead man...who else will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #86)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:07 PM

92. Some excerpted points

- "The very act of carrying a loaded weapon is inherently violent." Not according to the dictionary.

- "One important reason is better community policing in urban areas..." Absolutely and this is a very good thing. The diversion of criminal justice resources from policing areas with high gang activity to deal with prosecution of otherwise lawful citizens would be wrong.

- "...many of yesterday's murder and manslaughter cases have become today's justifiable homicides." This is a good thing.


Thinking that higher incidence of firearm ownership lowers crime is just as fallacious as thinking that lower incidence of firearm ownership will lower crime. There is no direct causal relationship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #92)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:13 PM

94. I don't think I have suggested a causal relationship between crime and firearm ownership.

What people own is not the issue, unless and until it comes into conflict with the public interest, especially public safety. This is where carrying in public comes in and why I describe it as an inherently violent act. Despite the fact that most who carry never use their weapons against others, the very reason they carry is to shoot those they perceive as life threatening. You might argue that the mere act of carrying is not violent, but it is a precursor to violence and demonstrates a mindset of preparedness and propensity for violence.
Then you might argue that MAD works for nations, so why not for individuals. To which, I would say that MAD doesn't work all that well and do we want a world that resembles an ongoing Mexican standoff?

I'm not sure what you mean by "The diversion of criminal justice resources from policing areas with high gang activity to deal with prosecution of otherwise lawful citizens would be wrong. " Of course it would be wrong, but who is suggesting it?

I do not think it is a good thing that the definition of "justifiable homicide" has broadened to the point where, barring third party testimony, the onus is on the dead guy to show it wasn't justifiable. I also object to shooting people in the back as they run away and present no danger, which is apparently legal in certain states. But I must admit, it is a great way to lower the murder stats and boost the cause for carrying. Shoot another "bad guy" and everyone cheers. Is that what you really want? Is that what you mean by "a good thing"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #61)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:59 PM

69. "Their presence in public would just die out. "??????

How do you explain this? The bad guys would have all the firepower and the general public would be sitting ducks, especially if you got your wish to disarm the police as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #69)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:53 PM

79. Disarm the police? Not my wish.

The only thing I propose is stopping the routine carry of handguns, by police and others. A far cry from disarming the police or anyone, including the "ducks". Ask those theater goers in Aurora about what it's like to be a "sitting duck" and how much it would have helped to have a bunch of "good guys" joining in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #79)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:37 PM

95. I have not posted anything

saying the Aurora shooter would likely have been taken down by a CCW holder if there had been one at the theater that morning. It seems it was such a chaotic scene that I cannot make such claims.

If you are in favor of cops not carrying handguns, that means you are in favor of cops being disarmed. It is not semantics. If the cops are not carrying guns, they are disarmed. What part of that do you not understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #95)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 11:47 AM

96. Disarming means taking them away.

Not being routinely armed means not strutting through the streets wearing a loaded handgun. I am arguing against the routine carry of lethal weapons, by anyone, that's all. Obviously, there are rare situations when the cops need to be armed, or have weapons readily available. Same, to a far lesser degree, for civilians.
Now, what part of that don't you understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #57)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:34 PM

62. And how would you pay "fair market value" for those that are turned in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:01 PM

70. Beats me.

I wrote that hypothetical simply to get a response. I got a response all right. I am amazed at the ignorance about guns, crime, and criminals that is displayed by some people on these threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 01:52 PM

8. Situational awareness

 

Is always a good thing. Sometimes it will allow you to completely avoid a bad situation. Other times, you'll find yourself in a situation where it will only buy you time and distance between you and the threat. If you're in the latter situation it is best to have as many tools at your disposal as possible to give you options. That is why people carry weapons for protection. Situational awareness is a good skill to develop but it doesn't protect you from all of life's dangers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 06:57 PM

11. Correct. And neither does a gun protect you from all of life's dangers.

I think the chances of improving your chances of survival are marginal at best. It's impossible to determine whether one's chances are improved or worsened, IMO. As long as carrying is legal for some, it should be everyone's right to carry a gun.
Situational awareness is a far better tool for survival, as it involves honing the senses, exercising the mind and body, and dealing with one's fears in a more fluid and organic way, rather than a dangerously simplistic and reactionary way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:54 PM

19. X1000 Situational awareness has saved more lives than any tool could.

 

Also avoid the Triangle of Stupid: don't do stupid things in stupid places with stupid people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #19)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 05:56 PM

29. Agreed!

 

> don't do stupid things in stupid places with stupid people.

That's why so many Europeans avoid America when picking a vacation destination.

They understand there are too many Delicate Flowers (AKA Gun Religionists) ready to shoot first, ask questions later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 07:38 PM

32. The bong crowds latest stupid terminology..."Delicate Flowers"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:22 PM

37. Yes!

 

I can't claim credit for it, but so many of you Delicate Flowers were whining about "gun-relgionist".

Delicate Flowers are super-sensitive, yet super-tough, yet too-scared-to-leave-the-house-without-a-gun, bunch of walking NRA Talking Point Parrots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:59 PM

40. Well if it makes you feel better and helps get your panties unbunched and you feel the need

 

to call names, something you do often and also whine about often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #40)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:28 PM

42. LOLOLOLOL

 

> o call names,

You Delicate Flowers are so SUPER sensitive! I thought jettisoning "gun relgionist", which I got flamed for, in favor of a soft, sensitive name like "Delicate Flower" would be OK!

Such sensitivity. Such emotion. Now I know why Delicate Flowers need guns to feel brave enough to walk out the front door!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 06:06 PM

66. Poor Bongbong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 07:41 PM

33. Well....

If that is the way they feel maybe they should go to Mexico where the gun laws are much more restrictive and no one ever gets shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 07:47 PM

34. Oh I don't know,

Run in to quite a few of them around here. Canadian flags still fly high in Florida trailer parks. In a couple of months my local Wal Mart parking lot will be filled with cars with Ontario plates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:24 PM

36. "That's why so many Europeans avoid America when picking a vacation destination."

Do you have any actual facts or factual links to support this claim of yours? How many is 'so many'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 07:16 PM

31. That post is why we pro-RKBA frequently post ancedotes about gun saves.

Those news report show that SOMETIMES a gun does save the legal carrier. Texas statistics show that legal concealed carry poses no danger to the general public, and that sometimes they save an innocent life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:08 PM

48. Tx stats show YOU that. They prove nothing. Neither do anecdotes.

We also know that dropping a couple of nuclear weapons on the cities of an enemy can end a conflict and save lots of lives on our side. You see, it's all about how far you want to dig into those stats and anecdotes, if those are the things that guide your decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #48)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:44 PM

54. Have you looked at the Texas stats.?

The number of innocent lives saved exceeds the number of CHLesr convicted of murder. That is rather straight forward arithmetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #54)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:24 PM

60. Arithmetic tends to be straight forward.

I wonder how anyone can conjure up the number of innocent lives saved. In a state where justifiable homicide is part of daily life, none of your "stats" are very credible.
I wouldn't be holding up Texas as the standard bearer of accuracy, progress or political sanity. Your governor is a blithering idiot who keeps getting reelected and he succeeded another blithering idiot. You execute more people than the rest of the world combined. I won't continue, because I love much about Texas and have many dear friends there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #60)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:24 PM

75. So you throw away information you don't like.

I won't defend Bush or Perry. But I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of our Department of Public Safety.

The number of innocent lives saved is fairly easy. There are hundreds of justified shootings (Includes those wounded as well as killed) annually. Each one of those has to go before a grand jury before it is judged as justified. You can't argue that in none of those cases was the defenders life in danger.

We typically have zero, one, or two CHL murders per year. Out of hundreds of justified shootings there only need to be a few innocent lives saved to have CHLers save more innocent lives than they take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 08:48 PM

18. the police are not "we the people"

We the people are represented though the various elected Representatives and elected administrators. Obama is "We the People" but Holder is not. I don't know who decides in MD, but NYC the decision is up to a police Sgt, with a police Lt to verify the decision.
If it's legal why don't we all do it? Most don't. Go to Vermont, Wyoming, Arizona, or even Oregon and see how many open carriers there are. For example:
In Wyoming, you can't carry concealed in a government meeting. You can open carry. Why? When Wyoming liberalized CCW, the leg had to think about it where you can and can not carry. Since open carry is very rare, and as far as I know, no one has at a city council meeting, making a law on the subject would amount to creating a solution in search of a problem. There is no restriction simply because no one thought of it, or thought of a need for it. If there is a sudden surge of former New Yorkers (or people from Utah, both are the butt of jokes there) decide to make asses out of themselves, I'm sure the leg would change the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 04:20 PM

27. You don't have the right to make that choice for me or my family.

 

The best way to protect yourself and your family from violence is to keep yourself and them as far away from loaded firearms as possible, except when engaged in an activity like target shooting or hunting, where everyone around is aware of the firearms and their potential danger.

You don't have the right to make that choice for me or my family, and I will resist any attempts by people like you to use the government to make that choice for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Original post)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 02:02 PM

9. This issue is the crux of one of the more gigantic frauds going.

I can think of only one reason for a private citizen to carry concealed or open, that is for protection of themselves or perhaps a person nearby from violent aggression or the threat thereof. What other reason could there possibly be? Maybe there is someone who wants to open carry a Colt revolver in order to dress exactly like Billy the Kid but I'm guessing that's not really an option on the form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #9)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 07:56 PM

15. This is Texas, I have to carry all of them

including the 1860 concealed. Its the Law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 08:23 PM

17. That's fine

rDigital's OP was about the MD CCW form asking for a reason for issuing the permit. I was saying there is only one reason to CC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Original post)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 07:54 PM

14. Finally true progressiveness....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:47 PM

76. I would expect nothing less from the backward state of KS

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #76)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 07:56 PM

93. I take it you don't care for their 'reasonable' and 'common-sense' abortion restrictions as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread