Missouri becomes 45th Right to Carry State

[Pltcl_jnky]

The Missouri Senate just voted a few minutes ago to override Gov Bob Holden (Democrat) veto of the conceal and carry bill.

Giv Holden was also overriden two more times on a 24 hour waiting period for abortions and banning of lawsuits against gun manuf.

Holden becomes the first governor in Missouri history to have more than one bill overriden by the legislature and these three overrides are tied with the total number of overrides in the 20th century....

can you guess what party gained control of both chambers this year???
forst two guess do not count

[Superfly]

1. Yahoo!!!

5 more to go!

[CO Liberal]

2. Canada Keeps Looking Better And Better

Too many assholes with guns for ME to feel safe......

[Superfly]

6. Feel free...

just bring a coat.

[denverbill]

21. Oh those assholes are all about guns til someone actually brings one.

I love that guy in the Springs that started bringing his shotgun to the City Council meetings. The most extremist bunch of right-wingers in the whole damned state had to ban open carry at their meetings because of it.

[CO Liberal]

24. And All The Local Gun Wackos Are Mad......

Mad at the City Council for banning them, and mad at Don Ortega for pressing the issue by bringing his shotgun to meetings.

I heard Don Ortega a few times on local talk radio in Colorado Springs. He sounds like he's a sandwich short of a picnic.....

[maxomai_vs_rove]

4. Not really

I'd feel better if these were "shall issue" states like Oregon (or no-permit-required states like Vermont) instead of "issue if you're rich, powerful, and influential" states like New York.

Still, Missouri is a good step.

[Superfly]

7. It's a step in the right direction

.

[Mairead]

45. There were studies done in several Massachusetts towns that revealed

a striking similarity in how the police-chief's-discretion law really worked: 'issue freely to friends of police and politicians, and not at all to anyone else'.

[slackmaster]

60. Sounds a lot like California

See Jim March's data and analysis:

http://www.equalccw.com/expose.html

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

41. Feel free to move to Canada.

I'm sure they would love your snide attitude! Have a nice trip!

[Romulus]

3. civil rights matter

(edited to clarify: That is why I support the CCW override)

But too bad the legislature forgot about that principle when they overrode the abortion veto.

[maxomai_vs_rove]

5. Democrat vs. GOP vs. Civil Rights Agenda

No consistency at all in their positions; just do what they're told. "Sure, we'll protect the 2nd Amendment, but we're going to interfere with your 4th and 14th Amendment Right to Choose." I have no respect for such people.

[leetrisck]

8. The wording in the bill

unless something changed - all money will go to County Sheriff - no oversight, no audits. Cost for permit $100 - $50 after that - pay for background check - pay for class - all for the privilege of letting the sheriff know you have a gun. Must be 23 - but to Iraq at 18.

[reachout]

10. Overriding will of the voters

The concealed carry law was defeated by a 3.3% margin back in 1999. Has the general attitude in Missouri changed? Surveys indicated No. However, once the Repbulicans gained control of both houses of the state legislature overturing the will of the voters on this was near the top of their list. And yes, there were a number of crossover votes among rural Democrats. If they wanted to see if people now felt differently about the issue, they could have put it back on the ballot. This is really just an underhanded way for rural Missouri to override the state's majority population in the urban centers.

[Romulus]

13. gee

when the majority of CO voters decided to affirm an anti-gay referendum, I guess that decision should have been left alone. Same with California's Prop 209 (which was left alone).

Will of the majority, and all. Yessiree. :eyes:

[reachout]

28. apples and oranges

Amendment 2 in Colorado was not overturned by the legislature by rather struck down by the courts as it violated the constitutional gaurantee of equal protection.

will of the voters in a given state < constitution

Concealed carry is not a constitutional issue by any stretch of the imagination. Neither the wording of the second amendmentment nor any decisions by the SCOTUS make it so.


As for Prop 209, I may be in favor of affirmative action, and will argue vehemently for its implementation, but it is not my right to overturn the decision of the people of California (209 passed by a 10-point margin). I recognize AA as being of value to our society, but it is not an absolute right.

[CO Liberal]

29. And When The Will of the Majority Is Wrong.......

....is needs to be ruled against by the courts, as was the case with Colorado's Amendment 2.

The biggest problem I have with CCW is that once it's widely enacted, there's no turning back. If it results in more guns routinely being carried and more people being shot and killed, there will be no way to take back all those permits.

[slackmaster]

36. Can you please explain your statement, CO???

CO Liberal speculated:

"The biggest problem I have with CCW is that once it's widely enacted, there's no turning back. If it results in more guns routinely being carried and more people being shot and killed, there will be no way to take back all those permits."

If that actually happened I think the public outcry would be so strong it would be politically easy to rescind the law, or at least tighten up the requirements for getting a permit. Remember that Alaska legalized growing marijuana for personal use and then reversed itself. Laws can be always changed when there is a compelling need to do so.

So far that hasn't happened anywhere.

[Bandit]

47. Why has crime with guns skyrocketed then?

All across the nation crime rates have soared the last two years. It seems pretty plain to me, more guns available more people will use them.

[slackmaster]

50. Please provide evidence to support your statement

I know crime rates are up a bit as they always are when the economy tanks, but I challenge you to show that the increase is in any way attributable to otherwise lawful holders of concealed-carry permits committing crimes with their concealed firearms.

I'll wager a beverage of your choice that you can't do it.

[Bandit]

67. I'd offer the same bet to you. Prove that we are safer because of more

guns. It is easy to prove crime rates are up. Is it as easy for you to prove that if everyone has a concealed gun we are safer? Show me the proof?

[slackmaster]

69. You have obviously misunderstood my statement

I don't care whether or not liberalized concealed carry makes us MORE SAFE.

The only thing that matters is whether or not it makes us LESS SAFE.

Do you understand the difference?

Is it as easy for you to prove that if everyone has a concealed gun we are safer?

Do you have anything to offer to this discussion besides the same tired old strawman?

[Bandit]

71. If it doesn't make us more safe what's the purpose?

Strawman indeed. That is what I think of your argument. Prove the validity of concealed carry laws. What is their purpose? I can't prove those laws by themselves cause the increase in violent crime but where there is smoke there is usually fire. It should be up to you to prove that they are a legitimate tool against crime or else what is their purpose? Compensate for a lacking in some other area?

[Hanuman]

72. Have a go at this...

It's the first thing I saw when I googled it.

http://www.mnccrn.org/download/ho_030901.pdf

[Bandit]

77. He has been pretty thoroughly discredited

The concealed carry lobby would do far better to push their agenda with someone who is not so thoroughly discredited and doubted by those in and out of his field. Just as author Michael Bellesiles’ integrity was found by other scholars to be “seriously in question” after his book, Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, was found to be based on irreproducible records “lost in a flood” (sound familiar?), the forces who arrayed themselves against this pro-gun control scholar for his lack of academic integrity must likewise array themselves against anti-gun control scholars such as John Lott who are themselves guilty of gross academic dishonesty. Otherwise, their credibility will reside is the same rarefied air as “Mary Rosh” and Lott’s ethereal study “proving” that guns are almost foolproof at stopping crime.
You need to try again he has been found quite guilty of dis-information.

[Hanuman]

79. Bullshit.

Prove it with some FBI statistics that say the opposite. I double-dog dare you!

[slackmaster]

73. The purpose is for personal self-defense

Prove the validity of concealed carry laws. What is their purpose?

The purpose of shall-issue laws is to even the playing field; to remove arbitrary decisions by police or bureaucrats from the process of determining who does and who does not get a concealed weapons permit.

It's about fairness, equality, and individuals making decisions for themselves. A standard measure of who is and who is not considered trustworthy to carry a concealed weapon should he or she want to do so.

I can't prove those laws by themselves cause the increase in violent crime...

Then as a member of society at large you have no valid argument against them. If concealed weapons permit holders were causing a wave of crimes then you would have a legitimate beef with liberalized carry laws. But that has not happened and there is no reason other than irrational fear to believe that it will happen.

It should be up to you to prove that they are a legitimate tool against crime or else what is their purpose?

The purpose of carrying a concealed weapon is for an individual to have a better chance to defend himself or herself against an attack against his or her body than he or she would without the weapon. Guns can be highly effective as weapons of self-defense:

"During the 1987-1992 period,...
...an estimated annual average of 62,000
violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent
crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend
themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000
victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft
attempted to defend their property with guns."

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr

That's just a quick press release. Other BJS studies have shown that people who use a gun to defend themselves are significantly less likely to be injured or killed by an attacker than victims who are unarmed or armed with something other than a gun. I have to zip off to work now so I do not have time to find links to substantiate that, but feel free to search the Internet for that or contradictory evidence.

That plus the lack of any evidence that concealed weapon permit holders are causing their own crime wave is proof enough for me that giving people the choice to carry a concealed weapon is a good idea.

[Hanuman]

74. You nailed it....

see also my post 72 above for some hard statistical data showing that states with CCW laws have lower overall violent crime rates than those with a ban on CCWs.

[leetrisck]

14. Attitude about the same

Didn't look like the Repukes were going to be able to override Holden but they flew a reservist home from Guantanamo (senator) to vote. It wasn't even close though from what I've seen on the internet. 23-10 (I think).

[TheYellowDog]

18. As compared to you

infringing on the 1st, with campaign finance reform. ;-)

[Bandit]

49. Another onhe of those people that thinks money is speach.

I would have to disagree with you on this one. I realize the right-wing extreme court will go along with you and all the other right wingers but I feel it is wrong. Bribery is and always will be wrong in my book.

[papau]

9. While Mass says no to Right to Carry and has lowest rate of gun deaths!

not that the two are related -

it is just that I do not understand the NRA's need to make the ease or difficulty of getting a carry permit (I have one from Mass) a "victory celebration" or "gun owners defeat" choice.

But then I guess that is why I do not pay dues to the NRA!

But the GOP - that civil rights protector, Constitutional rights protector - that gave us the Patriot Act and is now marketing Partiot II - has gotten ellected by its ability to market minor gun "rights" as replacement for real privacy rights.

:-)

peace

:-)

[slackmaster]

40. Why not look at something more relevant than "gun deaths"?

For the year 2000,

Massachusetts had a murder rate of 2.0 per 100,000 population. Not bad at all.

But Vermont's murder rate was 1.5 per 100,000. (Reminder, Vermont is one of two states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons with no permit.)

Why do you people try to hide the truth behind contrived statistics?

[vision]

44. source?

How's Texas compare?
How about other states that have Concealed weapons?

[slackmaster]

56. Here's a good source that summarizes FBI data

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Anyone can look at the data and cherry-pick numbers to support any conclusion.

A meaningful analysis would compare CHANGES in crime rates before vs. after liberalized carry laws were implemented. That has been done and the conclusions are always equivocal. Basically nobody has ever proved that shall-issue laws help OR hurt. What really matters is whether or not permit holders are abusing their permitted weapons to commit crimes.

How's Texas compare?

Funny you should mention Texas. It's the only state I know of that both tracks and publishes on the Web information about conviction rates for weapons permit holders. Here's a link to the official Texas data:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Keep in mind that you should compare these conviction rates for permit holders to those for the population at large. About 1% of the population of Texas now has a concealed weapons permit. If the number in the third column is less than 1%, the concealed weapons holders are less prone to that kind of crime than the general population.

Permit holders are certainly not saints, but I don't see anything in the Texas data to indicate that the issueance of concealed weapons permits has caused any crime that would not have occurred in the absence of concealed weapons permits. (And a serious conviction does result in the permit being revoked.)

Here's another interesting set of data from Texas - Demographics:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm

Every state that issues permits has specific criteria for issuing them. If it turns out that standards are too loose, they can always be tightened. So far no state has ever had to do that.

[Hanuman]

75. See post 72.

.

[wuushew]

11. Expect Wisconsin to be the 46th very soon

Probably by the end of the year

[Cheesehead]

42. Yep, the "heater packers" are out in force here, too.

With their idiotic arguements about how the mere potential that someone may be packing will virtually eliminate random violence.

[goddess40]

62. I'm afraid so, Dem Rep Russ Decker will vote yes

he said if they word it right. I told him he was wrong, they don't get it.

[MrBenchley]

12. Another defeat for democracy

Missouri voters turned this down, but the GOP has pushed it through anyway.

"can you guess what party gained control of both chambers this year?"
Can you guess which parrty is the most corrupt? Can you guess which one is in the gun industry's pocket?

[Pltcl_jnky]

15. true

yeah but almost 40 democrats joined the republicans in this vote in the house and 3 in the Senate (out of 34 total senators, 20 are R and 14 D)

in MO this and abortion are, of course like many places, are not partisan issues.

yes the people did defeat a right to carry measure in 1999. But this bill overriden today is much stricker requiring 12-15 hours of certified training, back ground checks, finger printing and you must be 23. Businesses may option out simply by placing a sign stating no guns allowed, guns are not allowed in schools, churches, polling places, government buildings, bars, and any place where more than 10,000 people gather (so most sporting events)! and a few other places I cannot remember. This will honestly make missouri the most restrictive of the shall issue states.

and this is not a defeat for democracy because they followed the law of a republic which is the legislature has the power to override!

[Romulus]

16. NC is about as bad

you can't carry in places that charge any admission (i.e. movies) or serve alcohol (i.e. most restaurants), state buildings, or banks.

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/north+carolina

[loyalsister]

37. "They followed the law"

but, was there any compelling need to override the will of the people on this issue??????????????
Unless there is an argument for necessity for the people's will to be overriden, it is an abandonment of the majority rules principle. Anyone who has an ounce of respect for themselves as a voter should be insulted by what this legislature has just done.
They have just told the voters of Missouri that what the majority said in 1999 is irrelevant, and the rural parts of MO will force their will on the cities.
This is another example of Republicans voting against their districts. Rural Republicans vote against their districts on Education, urban Republicans vote against their districts on guns.

[Yupster]

66. "Compelling need"

is kind of in the eye of the beholder.

[Hanuman]

78. Majority rules?

Oh, you mean a "Democracy." Sorry, but this is a "representative democracy." That's why Al Gore lost even though he had more votes. It's also why CA's prop 187 was overturned by a judge even though it was passed by the people. Ditto for medical marijuana in CA vs. the SCOTUS.

I could go on and on.

Personally, I too am often offended when a judge or a lawmaker trumps the will of the people- and I speak out on it a lot. But this is something that happens all the time.

[TheYellowDog]

17. Good

Right to carry laws reduce crime.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lancemurdoch]

25. I agree

When I have a problem with the Democrats it is usually from the left, especially on economic issues. I have never been big on gun control however. Some Democrats I know would like virtually all guns banned. I find this ridiculous, as the saying goes, when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. The war of drugs has thrown thousands, perhaps millions of people connected to marijuana growing, trafficking and selling in jail, yet if I desired to I could buy marijuana as easily as any legal product. Gun control is one of the reasons Democrats lose elections in rural areas and parts of the south as well. I don't see supporting the right to bear arms as a right wing issue, I'd rather see the workers of this country disarm the police then the police disarm the workers of this country.

[slackmaster]

35. Evidence for that is not yet clear

But as long as shall-issue laws don't INCREASE crime, what rational person would have a problem with them?

[Fescue4u]

19. Now the residents

Will enjoy a decrease in crime and will be safer.

Score another for the good guys!

[reachout]

22. Decreased Crime

I'd like to see you back up the decreased crime claim. And...before you even try the Lott and Mustard material, I might as well tell you I can deconstruct it as easily as the Right deconstructs Bellesiles.

Aaaand...go!

[wuushew]

26. Here is one study

The Association of Conceal Carry Legislation on the
Crime Rates in Utah 1992 – 1997

by

Jason Cash, B.S., Heath Diel, B.S., Joseph L. Lyon, M.D., M.P.H.
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah

1 July 1999


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Context: Studies have shown that states and counties that adopt fewer restrictions on concealed handgun laws experience changes in crime rates. These studies show that violent crime rates decrease while rates of crime against personal property increase.

Objective: To see if Utah’s crime rates have changed since passage of gun legislation in 1995 that made it easier to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Design: A population-based analysis of existing crime and routinely gathered demographic data in the state of Utah.

Setting: The State of Utah, 1992-1997.

Results: Crime rates against personal property continued to decline after the passage of the concealed legislation of 1995. Violent crime rates showed mixed results; assaults and robberies decreased, rape increased, and murder increased among young men. Incidence of unintentional firearm injuries fell from1992 to 1997. Crimes of assault, rape and murder did not increase or decrease in months after gun shows. The rate of revocation of conceal carry permits remains below the level before the adoption of conceal carry law. Assaults and weapons possession in schools had mixed trends. Assaults and weapons possessions increased in elementary school, but remained unchanged in secondary schools.

Conclusion: Passage of concealed carry legislation in Utah does not fit the trends in crime rates experienced by other states that have passed similar laws. Previous research indicates that crimes against individuals decrease while crimes against property involving stealth increase after passage of conceal carry laws. In Utah:
1. Murder rates decreased overall after 1995. However, there was a marked increase in the murder rates committed by males in the 10-24 age group, probably due to gang violence.
2. Assault rates decreased at an accelerated rate.
3. Rape rates do not appear to be affected by the law.
4. Robbery rates decreased at a greater rate.
5. Crimes against property involving stealth (burglary, larceny, auto theft) did not increase as predicted and do not seem to be affected by the law.
6. The unintentional firearm injury rates decreased despite a 17-fold increase in permit holders, which indicates that responsible individuals carry guns.
7. Assaults and weapons possession in elementary schools show that these schools may be developing into a more hostile environment, while secondary schools do not appear to have changed.
8. Permit revocation reasons shows that permit holders do not use their firearms to commit crime.

http://utahshootingsports.com/usscstudy.htm

[reachout]

31. Unrepresentative Sample

Looking back over the history of gun-related homicides after the passage of the 'shall issue' law in Utah in 1995: They decreased by 13% the following year, rose by 11% in 1997, fell in 1998, increased in 1999, fell again in 2000, and rose in 2001.

The problem with most of these studies is the limited scope of the question within the broader range of factors and the sometimes cyclical rates of crime. I'm not saying this report is wrong for what it looks at, just that it has an insufficient timeline to support a conclusion.

[wuushew]

32. Recent study from this year makes the news

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=105-08152003


Also please present a pro-concealed carry study if you will

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vision]

46. No it is upon you

Gun advocates claim that guns decrease crime, so prove it.

[slackmaster]

53. Here's how I look at it

I don't care whether or not carrying concealed guns decreases crime. As long as it doesn't increase crime nobody has a good reason to object to liberalized carry laws.

[greekspeak]

23. Gov. Holden

I think that his reelection is questionable this next time around. I do not percieve him as a very popular man in Missouri, although I have no poll information or anything like it to back it up. I have never been a big fan myself. I think Mel Carnahan was a much better governor, although either outshines AssCrotch as governor any day.

[loyalsister]

38. Not only has Holden been Gored

he inheireted a budget mess. A governor in his position is not going to be able to do anything right. This legislature totally set him up to have a public backlash against him. At the end of last session, he was handed two bills. He could sign one for Education or one for Social Services. Both bills made major cuts, and he had to make further cuts beyond what was in the one bill he could sign because he has to balance the budget. He signed the bill that cut social services considerably. By doing that, the legislature forced him to piss off a large portion of his own constituency.
His reelection is questionable. The Republicans have been very successful in manipulating these circumstances to their advantage. The media has been extremely cooperative, as well. He is a mild mannered guy and they have generalized that to paint him as a weakling.
Facts don't bear that out, though. He vetoed a record number of bills last year. In the end, however he can't just shut down the government.

[MadHound]

27. Well, its nice to see the NRA subvert the will of the people

This is such bullshit! Back in '96 the NRA tried to ram through a CCW law, which Carnahan promptly vetoed. Then in '99 the NRA mounted the first public initiative ballot issue on CCW. It failed. So now, despite the will of the people, the NRA rams through a CCW law, using a 'Pug controlled Congress to do it's bidding. So much for democracy. So much for the will of the people concept that this country was built on. I hope all of the gun nuts are happy, for in the name of their precious compensatory mechanisms the ideal of our country being built on the will of the people has just died.

And don't give me that BS that Missouri will be a safer place with stealthly armed citizens. The data on that notion is muddled at best, and at worst it looks like MORE people will get shot. And does this really make up for the fact that democracy was subverted today?

I have a question for all of you who are for CCW. If you are for this idea because you want the bad guys to be intimidated, why not just strap the gun on your hip and carry it out in the open? Then everybody will KNOW not to mess with you.

Democracy in America; dying the death of a thousands cuts. I hope all of the gun nuts are happy with themselves.

[slackmaster]

34. A Columbo-style question for you

Who elected the members of the state Senate?

[MadHound]

51. The people of the state, but certainly not a majority of them.

Most people don't vote in elections for public office, but the turn out for Prop B(the CCW vote in '99) was record, and the measure was voted down. Once again I state that the gun nuts, gun lobbies and the NRA have subverted the will of the people of this state.

Did most of the people want NAFTA? No, but the national Congress voted it in anyway at the behest of the corporate powers and lobbyists that be. The will of the people was subverted in that instance, and the same BS is at work on this issue.

[slackmaster]

64. You may very well be right

I don't know. But if enough people are pissed off enough that this bill was slipped through, won't they flock to the polls at the next general election to throw the rascals out?

If they don't, then maybe they don't really care so much about the matter.

[MadHound]

65. Quite possibly, but even if they throw the bums out

We're still left with this excrement that they left behind, and all of the problems associated with it. I just hate the tyranny of the minority.

[Desertrose]

30. damn....

and I repeat it...
DAMN!


Peace
DR

[qb]

43. I can't believe Minnesota actually beat Missouri in passing C&C

Can we get an honorary membership in the Confederacy?

[Yupster]

68. Only if ya'll can sing this verse with meaning...

"In Dixieland I'll make my stand
to live and die for Dixie..."

Missouri don't need ta qualify. It was represented in the Confederate congress throughout the CSA's life, and was one of the 13 stars on the Starry Cross.

[Syn_Dem]

48. Eh....

St. Louis just got a lot more scarier.

[slackmaster]

52. I've been to St. Louis many times

It's never stuck me as a scary city in the least.

What are you really afraid of, and is your fear based on anything concrete or is it just a gut reaction to some other fear?

[MadHound]

55. Try downtown, or better yet, East St. Louis

Go downtown, just outside the Arch/Bush Stadium complex, or down by Forest Park where Chuck Berry's Blueberry Hill is at, or better yet head over to East St. Louis. These are all scary places with regular gunfire going on. I know, I lived in the area for a few months. Now with CCW its just going to get worse, especially with the frightened suburbanites carrying and busting a cap into anybody who looks at them funny(and yes, St. Louis suburbanites are quite frightened, I've got relatives who define this mindset).

[slackmaster]

58. You have stated a testable hypothesis!

A lot better than most have done here:

"These are all scary places with regular gunfire going on. I know, I lived in the area for a few months. Now with CCW its just going to get worse, especially with the frightened suburbanites carrying and busting a cap into anybody who looks at them funny(and yes, St. Louis suburbanites are quite frightened, I've got relatives who define this mindset)."

Time will tell. Please keep track of what actually happens and post it here or in the Dungeon (J/PS forum).

I look forward to your results, positive or negative.

[CBHagman]

54. So much for the referendum of a few years back.

So the Missouri legislature urinates all over the democratic process AND the late Mel Carnahan by passing right-to-carry, thereby freeing up Missouri to compete with other states for senseless bloodshed.

I'm sure that every employee at a store, restaurant, or sports arena would like to PERSONALLY thank the pro-right-to-carry legislature members by kicking their backsides up between their shoulder blades.

[DocSavage]

59. Law abiding citizens

Ah, once again, people are more scared of law abiding citizens carring a weapon then a criminal carrying one. How many people are out there right now with a pistol under the seat of thier car or one in thier briefcase because of the criminal element on the street. You seem to be more concerned on taking a right away than protecting a right.

Push the issue some more. More supporters of gun rights will be elected and your agenda will go out the window.

[MadHound]

61. Its not necessarily law abiding citizens who are going to be carrying!

Anybody who is convicted of a violent misdemeanor can apply and recieve a CCW permit after five years. So much for law abiding. And quite frankly, while there is a right to carry guns, there is no inherent right anywhere in the Constitution that you can carry it concealed(a chickenshit idea if I ever saw one, if you're going to carry a gun, do it out in the open, don't sneak around like a thief. Besides, the open carrying of a gun is more intimidating anyway, isn't that what you want?)

Besides, part of the uproar over this is that the 'Pug Congress subverted the clearly defined will of the people. Do you honestly think this is a good idea? Would you agree with travesty happening if it didn't involve guns? And gee, now with more people in this state carrying guns in their cars and purses and briefcases where they are easily stolen, more of these guns will wind up in my neighborhood shooting up the place. You want to pay my next repair bill when my car gets shot up? Or my funeral bill when I get shot up? All for your precious compensatory mechanism, Thanks, I feel so much safer now NOT!

[slackmaster]

63. Look outside the box MadHound

Anybody who is convicted of a violent misdemeanor can apply and recieve a CCW permit after five years.

And anyone who is willing to break the law can carry a loaded gun without a permit.

...if you're going to carry a gun, do it out in the open, don't sneak around like a thief....

A reasonable argument, but carrying openly has some disadvantages. It's potentially provocative and provides a better opportunity for someone to steal your gun.

Besides, the open carrying of a gun is more intimidating anyway, isn't that what you want?

If that's really what you think then you are missing the point completely. The ONLY purpose of carrying a concealed weapon is to have it available as a last resort for personal self-defense.

[MadHound]

70. Don't know what box you're referring to slack, but . . .

I will examine your points

" And anyone who is willing to break the law can carry a loaded gun without a permit."

True, true. But this arguement holds true with any subject if you're willing to break the law. What you're saying is that violent convicts are going to carry concealed anyway so why not legalize the matter for them. Circular logic. Would you want a violent convict who can carry concealed living next to you? Or a wife abuser who can carry concealed going out with your sister?

"It's potentially provocative and provides a better opportunity for someone to steal your gun"

How is it potentially provacative? Quite frankly I think that most people who saw somebody walking down the street with a gun strapped to their body would go out of their way to avoid this person. I highly doubt that upon seeing an openly carried gun that somebody would challenge them to a draw wild west style(not that that really happened in the old West, it was just a creation of pulp fiction and the movies). As far as better oppurtunity goes, well any pickpocket worth their salt can spot a concealed gun and can pluck it off of you with nobody being the wiser(trust me on this one, I had a sordid youth and gained experience in many matters that are outside the bounds of the law. I'm much better now). However, now that CCW is legal many more people will be stashing a gun in their car. High times for all of the car thieves.

" If that's really what you think then you are missing the point completely. The ONLY purpose of carrying a concealed weapon is to have it available as a last resort for personal self-defense."

That's what these yahoos around here think. Time after time I've heard the arguement that if CCW was legal then crime would go down because criminals would have to assume that everybody carries and would hesitate. Sounds like an intimidation arguement to me. And if one wishes to be intimidating, I say be up front about it, because then I can avoid the matter. With CCW, not only do the criminals have to assume everybody carries(which could lead to more violent crimes), but the police will have to also, which will lead to more police brutality. I let you know how things go the next time I'm stopped for a ticket.

[slackmaster]

76. Violent criminals are going to carry with or without a permit

The purpose a permits is to allow people who are NOT violent criminals to carry for personal self-defense. If your state law allows a misdemeanor conviction to drop off the disqualifying criteria after 5 years, then your state considers such a person to not be a violent criminal. If that is wrong it will become obvious and an adjustment to the law may be needed. As I said earlier, no state has yet had to adjust its standards for issuance. I hope yours does not have to become a first in that regard.

Time after time I've heard the arguement that if CCW was legal then crime would go down because criminals would have to assume that everybody carries and would hesitate.

But I have never said any such thing. Why do you want me to defend the statements of others, statements with which I happen to disagree?

With CCW, not only do the criminals have to assume everybody carries(which could lead to more violent crimes), but the police will have to also, which will lead to more police brutality....

Another testable hypotheses. Please watch the news and crime stats and let us all know how it works out over the next year or three.

I let you know how things go the next time I'm stopped for a ticket.

I can guaran-fucking-tee you that any cop who pulls you over will already know whether or not you have a concealed weapons permit before he or she sets foot out of the squad car. That information IS fed to their computer systems just like wants and warrants.

Thanks for the reply.

[Q]

57. Is it also a 'right to work' state?

- I have to laugh at those who think the Bill of Rights isn't dead because they're allowed to carry a gun in secret.

[pstokely]

80. not yet

probably will be soon with the Repuke legis