Even before Kansas had a concealed-carry law, the 2005 Legislature tried to ensure that locals couldn’t restrict gun rights more tightly than the state. Now, though, some cities are putting their own spin on concealed-carry, following the League of Kansas Municipalities’ view that cities, like other property owners, can opt not to allow concealed handguns in their workplaces and on their property. Wichita “makes the carrying of a concealed weapon by any of its nonpolice employees while in the course of city duties a violation, continuing the long-standing city policy,” according to its legal department. And Hutchinson decided to bar concealed handguns in city-owned buildings or parks. Not surprisingly, all this municipal second-guessing has state Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, promising more legislative action. “It sets hundreds of legal traps for permit holders across the state,” he told The Eagle editorial board.
Meanwhile, concealed-carry supporters are pointing to a recent robbery attempt of a Topeka convenience store that was thwarted by an Oklahoma permit holder as evidence of the law’s positive impact.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 2/9
- outlander on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Freebird1971 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Phantom on Open thread 2/9
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 2/9
- ANTI on Open thread 2/9
- SolDevVB on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 2/9
- SolDevVB on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- ANTI on Open thread 2/9
107 Comments
Carrying a Gun Is an Absolute Right.The framers of the Constitution were under no pressure from the NRA when they wrote “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.What part of NOT do the illiterates out to subvert the Constitution NOT understand?The great Roman philosopher and senator, Cicero, immortalized armed self-defense as an “inalienable right” more than 2,000 years before the U.S. Constitution did so. Cicero said: There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.Even people to whom armed self-defense is but a remote abstraction often endorse, without even realizing it, the unquestionable principles underlying the right to carry a gun.Jaron Lanier, writing in Discover Magazine (Feb. 2001) said in reference to new copyright-protection technology – “In a democracy, citizens are supposed to act as partners in enforcing laws. Those forced to follow rules without being trusted even for a moment are, in fact, slaves.”A citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the security of his community is little better than the criminal who threatens it, and is better off living in a society that places lesser demands on his capacity to accept responsibility.So what is wrong with protecting your self, do you really want to trust your local government in protecting you?
Wiseman,
Keep in mind the reason for the right to bear arms. It’s side into the militia, which we no longer have. We interpret the ammendment in the broadest sense.
And, no, I don’t want to have guns outlawed.
sorry…*tied into the militia.
RD -There is more to it then that.
The Constitution of the state of Pennsylvania (adopted September 28, 1776) allocated more words to make the point even more unmistakable: “XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense 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.”
We the people are the civil power, not the government.
It sounds to me like this will eventually be challenged in a court, or the Attorney General will have to make a formal decision.
I also believe CC should be an absolute right – within limits. I support restricting carry for the mentally impaired and violent felons.
Municipalities need to back off on further restrictions since it will create unknown ’snares’ for carriers as they travel.
I respect any private business for posting a sign denying carry – it IS, obviously, their right.
But I firmly believe any business who denies CC is opening its arms to the criminals by announcing, “Come on in – you have the only weapon in the store.”
The recent incident where the Oklahoma gentleman protected the clerk at Phillips 66 by shooting the robber holding a gun to his head is a perfect example of why CC is the correct thing to do.
We, as citizens, should not be forced to sit around and hope a police officer happens by – or hope we can dial 911 as we are being attacked. We have every right to try and defend ourselves.
I don’t have a license – but I surely hope someone WITH a license is in the vicinity should anyone try to assault me.
You know, I want guarantees in life! I want to be able to rely that if needed the Police, they will arrive in time. That if I do not have a weapon, I will never need a weapon. That I can go to the park and there will not be some deranged person that hears the voices telling him to kill the lambs. That I can go to the store and not be walking out when some meth-head decides they have better use for the few dollars in my pocket then I do. And that is pretty much the value that they put on my life.
But life does not come with guarantees! It does come with odds, now the odds are in my favor that I will not be there at the same time as the meth-head. That I will not be in a park with the deranged person. Admitted, I know from years as a Law Enforcement Officer that the odd are the Police will not always arrive in time.
The odds are that everyone that is reading this will be a victim of a robbery, a burglary, an assault in their life time. It seems we all take our turn in the barrel, (Old joke) but when? On that no one can tell you, there is no calendar that you can look at to know. Most will just have to play the odds and wait their turn.
Last August my wife surprised me, she said that in thinking what to get me for my birthday. She decided to pay for me to get a CCP. My personal view, I am a good candidate, former L.E.O., I have qualified several times with a handgun, I have been under fire four times in my life and all of them I had a weapon ready. Yet did not return fire wildly and used the procedure outlined in every firearm’s training manual as to checking the backdrop, target and surrounding area as to whether I could safely return fire without the danger of hitting a non-combatant. All the above is what I would want someone to be that is standing beside me with a handgun on them. But as of yet I have not taken any steps to get the permit, to me it is the odds.
I know that sometime I may need it or the situation may arise that I could use it. The odds are actually in my favor that I will sometime in life. And in reality, there is NO situation I will enter that it is not a possibility that the need might arise. The list of examples is far to long of time in someone’s real life it would have been needed to be armed. To list here and I am sure that those here that support the right to carry already are thinking of them. Of course those opposed to right to carry have already heard them and were not swayed. But the point being that, there is a possibility that everywhere, in every circumstance, someone being armed and able to use a firearm. Could mean the difference between the lost of innocent life or not.
The last time I was lawfully carrying, I approached the pastor of my church and told him as a L.E.O. I would need to be armed and asked if he had any objections to me being so in his church? He said he understood and had none. It might of helped in that around the same time there had been several people killed or wounded at a church shooting in Emporia. By a member of the church that became deranged.Being I am a Southern Baptist, most churches of that denomination might not object.
Yes, it would be great if there were guarantees in life but until then there may be a need to be armed anywhere.
“…concealed-carry supporters are pointing to a recent robbery attempt of a Topeka convenience store that was thwarted by an Oklahoma permit holder as evidence of the law’s positive impact.”
Uhm. No.
The whole rationale of Concealed Carry advocates was that criminals wouldn’t commit crimes for fear that others might be packing heat. Obviously the fear of a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun didn’t prevent the attempted convenience store robbery attempt.
What’s amazing is how gun nuts fell for Concealed Carry as a cause. The NRA sold ‘em out to benefit handgun manufacturers, proving itself to be just another business-driven special interest instead of the “constitutional rights” advocate it claims to be.
To get a concealed carry permit, one has to submit all sorts of personal information to the government. Even if an applicant is rejected, the government’s got that critical info. The NRA *used* to object to governmental data banks of gun owners.
But, in the name of concealed carry, the NRA accepted background checks and data banks that identify gun owners.
Guess who’ll they come for first?
….”The whole rationale of Concealed Carry advocates was that criminals wouldn’t commit crimes for fear that others might be packing heat. Obviously the fear of a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun didn’t prevent the attempted convenience store robbery attempt”….
That wasn’t the entire rationale – but statistics PROVE that violent crime has DROPPED in States that have implemented CC.
As far as the Topeka incident – it was an ABSOLUTE SUCCESS for CC. The private citizen saved the clerk. That’s what it’s all about.
Win/win.
Don’t kid yourself that the government doesn’t already have ALL the data on the license.
If you apply for a job as a Police Officer – you will ALSO submit that data, as you will for many reasons.
CC is here to stay.
Kansas is better for it.
GS you have made a valid point and yes it has been proven out in the past. When Florida passed they right to carry law. The number of robbery and killings of out of state guest rose, I still remember an exchange between a reporter and the young suspect in a gang that targeted tourist.
Reporter: You say that your gang follows cars with out of State license plates?Thug: Yeah.Reporter: Why do you single out people from out of state and not those that are local?Thug: Because of the new law on right to carry.Now the reporter had a moment of denseness and asked the dumb question.Reporter: Why is that?Thug: because we know that people from out of state are not going to be carrying a gun!
There is that danger for any business that post such signs, of course someone being armed on the premise has not ever been a guarantee that the business will not be robbed. But the criminal element does take such things in to account.
Here’s the definitve answer to why CC is absolutely necessary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJyewrlm-E&NR
Wiseman better get his ass to iraq then and replace that illegal standing army we have there.What a bunch of rednecks.
I used to be a proponent of gun laws. It was when Shrub came to office, that I finally realized WHY the people might need to protect themselves from Government. Never once did I feel a President was dangerous to his own people before.
But we don’t have anything near the technology our government has. Think Kent State.
And by the way, I hear through the grapevine, that the state’s first concealed-carry incident, is NOT as it was described in the newspaper. I think the big pro conceal-carry people are going to be mightily disappointed in the end here.
I first became concerned with CC when Carter was in office. That man scared the crapola outta me with his Socialist agenda.
But, CC is a good remedy for an out-of-hand government no matter who is at the helm. It makes it much more difficult for any rogue body to totally dominate the populace.
It is interesting, however, that Democrats have long been behind seizing all personal weapons and The GOP in protecting our gun ownership and carry rights.
I think we are likely safer under a Republican administration for just that reason.
But when we have an administration that makes noise about taking the guns away – that’s when we need to start worrying.
The fallacy of CC is that it is built on a false premise, i.e., that honest, law-abiding people, who have every right to carry a firearm for their own protection or the protection of others (should the situation arise), will have no problem filling out a couple of forms and showing sufficient proficiency with the operation of a handgun, so as not to injure themselves or others accidently.And that the criminals won’t have firearms to commit murder, armed robbery, rape and other such mayhem. Hmmmmmmmm. I recall the same argument for the Brady Bill. That has surely worked well, hasn’t it?
As MonkeyHawk stated, “Guess who they’ll come for first?” It’s a political/bureaucratic success on two levels: It not only tells the government WHERE many of the guns are (in the hands of responsible people who are not going shoot them when they knock on the door, unlike gang members, career violent criminals or mentally deranged individuals) AND it is a revenue garnering instrument for the State.
The last time I noticed, the Second Amendment of the Constitution did not contain any phrase beginning with the word “if………….”. Like the Brady Bill, CC is one more example of “Be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it!”
Wiseman why do you always conviently omit the whole sentence to suit your needs. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” What part of WELL REGULATED do you not understand.
No, GS, they won’t implicitly take your guns away, they will just dismantle the constitution.
Sigh…..
The paranoid and there popguns again…..
This newpaper used a lot of ink and space fighting the CC law. There was talk of chaos in the streets, CC folks would turn cities into Old Dodge City.Hasn’t happened. The incident in Topeka is news to me. Did I miss it in the Eagle-Beacon? Or did they chose not to print it?”All the news that’s fit to print, unless it goes against our agenda”.
I wish the Eagle would choose a more responsible picture of a concealed weapon to use on these Gun Scare threads. It’s irresponsible to keep showing someone using a ClipDraw device with a Glock pistol. It is not safe. The Glock has no external safety to prevent fire when the trigger is pulled.It’s too easy for a fold of clothing to snare that trigger when bending or moving. The ClipDraw is reasonably safe to use with a pistol with an external safety, but is still not a recommended method.
Eagle, please find a picture that reflects a safer more responsible carry method. Someone who doesnt know better may hurt themselves because of this picture.
Political Mom
“And by the way, I hear through the grapevine, that the state’s first concealed-carry incident, is NOT as it was described in the newspaper. I think the big pro conceal-carry people are going to be mightily disappointed in the end here.”
Well why dont you tell what you are talking about. Give us some facts. What REALLY happened??? What is the GRAPEVINE saying?
I don’t have a problem with a City banning carry in a building that is a “workplace” for city workers, like an office or a shop or maintanance facility. I don’t have a problem with them banning CCH by employees while “on the job”.
But banning law abiding citizens from carrying in “public” parts of the city like parks, sidewalks,public parking areas and such. It just further illustrates the paranoia and flawed logic of people who can’t get it through their head that the kind of person they really need to worry about isn’t going to bother following the law.
Heckler I cannot say yet, because I don’t know if my source was accurate or not.
I’m just saying be prepared if it ends up being a huge letdown.
pmom-What crap. All blather, nothing to it.If there was something this paper could use to beat on CC, they would have printed it.They didn’t print the Topeka story. Why? You know why.
If we are to take a strict interpretational stance vis a vis the Constitution…Then you have the right to keep and bear a MUSKET! That was clearly the arms to which they were referring. They said nothing about any arms that might be invented down the road.And since it was all stated in the context of keeping a well regulated milita…OK everybody can take their muskets off the rack the next time the British start hassling us…not to run down to Quick Trip to break up a robbery.
That is, beyond a doubt, the dumbest argument on this issue I have ever heard. The only reason our Constitution has survived is that it is literally a living, breathing, changing and adaptive force that is as viable in 21st century as it was in 18th century. Quoting Winston Groom in Forrest Gump, “Stpid is as stupid does”.
The problem with the founding fathers is they felt the need to, for the purposes of posterity, immortalize the reason behind the 2nd Amendment. Anyone with a high school grasp of the English language would realize that the first part of the 2nd Amendment, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” is a subordinate clause. A parenthetical. It provides reason, but is not a qualifier or designed to target the intent of the main clause, which is “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Regardless of the reasoning of our forefathers, and regardless of your well-regulated militia blatherings, the statement is “the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.” In Constitutional terms, the people means the individual. The state would be the government, and the militia is an instrument of state governments (think National Guard). However, this amendment, regardless of its verbage, specifically grants the PEOPLE the right to bear arms, and not the STATE the right to determine who can and cannot bear arms. For the purposes of PEOPLE, we think citizens. We remove the rights of citizenship from our felons (voting, holding public office, firearms ownership) and other people adjudicated unfit. This is fine, and is as intended. However, when you try to apply the filter of “militia” to “people,” you fall short trying to apply it as a state-organized group since the original “militia” was nothing more than a group of patriotic, armed citizens willing to fight when asked. To summarize for the attention-spanless, the 2nd Amendment grants the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, not the right of the STATE to allow/disallow the bearing of arms. And to “bear” does not mean to “keep in a locked box in your basement.” It means to have them about your person.
“It is interesting, however, that Democrats have long been behind seizing all personal weapons and The GOP in protecting our gun ownership and carry rights.”
That is total BS – As a long time liberal and registered Democrat, I have yet to hear ANY Democrat call for seizing any or all guns. That is just NRA talking points crap.
I can assure you that this Democrat could care less if you own twenty guns or if you have a CCP or if you spend day and night at the local gun range. I really could care less.
I am amused when gun owners talk about protecting themselves against the government. Thats is some funny stuff.
Do you really think that your twelve guage and your .44 Magnum is going to frighten the US Marines?
Really?
StayingStill (and anyone else who believes the “militia only” arguement.
You need a little lesson in grammar; specifically 18th century legal grammar.
WARNING: Reading this will crush your “militia” arguement.
WARNING: Reading this may actually cause you to LEARN something.
Pay special attention to the explaination of “Purpose Clause” and “Main Clause”. It’s really all about simple grammar.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051601.shtml
Eek… I accidentally trolled as my wife. My bad. Above post “SoWhat” posted is actually me, Postal.
Heck:
It’s nice to see that, on occasion, we actually do agree on something.
WSclark
You are full of shit.
If you doubt that Sen. Feinstein’s ultimate goal is to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms, just recall her statement to Lesley Stahl during an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Feb. 24, 1995. At that time, the senator admitted: “If it were up to me, I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them in — turn them all in.”
I have more quotes like this (and sources) if you still doubt.
How about a link there, Heckie? You couldn’t be quoting out of context could you?
Postal
Very good, I hadn’t even read the SoWhat post. I was busy digging for references.
Futhermore, Heck, a “if it was up to me” statement is hardly a policy position. If it were up to me, George, Laura, Jenna and Barbie would be send to Baghdad water pistols.
That is hardly a policy position.
WSClark
Google is you friend.
You alluded to another Gun Banner fallacie that doenst hold water.”Do you really think that your twelve guage and your .44 Magnum is going to frighten the US Marines?”
If there were a full scale revolt against the U.S. government, what makes you think that the Marines would get involved? Did it ever occur to you that the U.S. military commanders might just decide to sit it out? Or even join the revolt? They do tend to be more “Right Wing” you know…..
And, remember, the Constitution is a guarantor of rights, not an abridger of rights. Would everyone love it so much if there were an organization called “Press and Speech Control, Inc.” dedicated to sanitizing news reports? How about “Self-Incrimination, Inc.” allowing coersion in interrogation and requiring people to testify against themselves in court? How about “Illegal Searches and Seizures, LLC,” dedicated to the proposition that if we searched more people, we’d find more drugs and illicit behavior. We can do this randomly. “Forced Religion, DBA Conglomerated Christian Churches.” We set up a “state” religion and set up laws to regulate free practice of other religions. “Anti-Free-Assembly League of America,” which prohibits any group from assembling and associating without specific permits and government oversight. “Women’s Suffrage Control.” “Black Suffrage Control.” How many of these do you think are a good idea??? Why are the other amendments so cut and dried, but the 2nd Amendment gets picked apart and is subject to such interpretationalist (and sensationalist hyberbolic BS) rhetoric?
The Constitution of the US is not a cafeteria. I want all of my rights defended, not just the ones that are popular.
WSClark
“I have yet to hear ANY Democrat call for seizing any or all guns.”
“”if it was up to me” statement is hardly a policy position. ”
I’m having a little trouble reconcilling these two statements of yours………..What’s your point? other than that you are loosing this arguement big time.
Heck, I just asked you to back up you assertion that Dems want to take away ALL gun rights.
I have owned guns in the past. As a unrepentant gearhead, I appreciate the workmanship and design of many guns. If you want a CCP, go for it – just try not to shoot me.
As for the military in a full scale revolt against the American government – they are sworn to uphold the Constitution – I would be betting on the US Military.
Besides, they have those nuclear thingies….
The comment Feinstein made was in regard to ASSAULT weapons, not general gun ownership….
You took the comment out of context, Heck….
And, Heck, I do agree that the ClipDraw is not the preferred method of carrying a Glock (by far, I prefer a paddle holster), a Glock does have a safe-action trigger and a long, double-action trigger pull. It takes more than a simple snag to make one go off. The firing pin is blocked and the trigger won’t move unless the little “inner trigger” is pushed in flush with the “outer trigger.”
If it were completely hazardous, they wouldn’t make the thing for Glocks. I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing it, but it’s less dangerous than shoving a cocked and locked 1911 down your pants, IMO. I could seriously see the safety getting clicked off by changing position.
Carried weapons should always ride in a holster if only to provide for retention and to prevent the migration of lint and debris into your gun.
However, for a carry weapon without a holster, I would prefer something with a decocker and a transfer bar safety. I have a DA/SA auto for that purpose… my Glock 22 is home defense only.
WSClark
If those people in government who are entrusted with protecting our freedoms (not granting us freedoms) are bastardizing the principles of our Constitution then the US Military may just see it as their DUTY to help straighten things out.
And do make it a point to read those posts on Grammar and the Constitution. Seriously, you may appreciate what you learn.
Postal
It would be entirely possible to catch that trigger on a small fold of clothing when putting it in your pants. Something similar happened to a cop recently. (can’t remember what state.) He holstered his Glock in his duty holster, not knowing that he caught a little cord or something hanging off of his jacket zipper (IIRC). When he got out of his car and stood up he pulled that trigger with his jacket and BOOM, bloody leg.
If I ever get my permit(hopefully its in the mail right now)I plan on carrying my XD45 in a CompTac paddle holster, at least during cold weather when a cover garment is in order. It’s trigger is similar to a Glocks, but has a grip safety as well. I’m very cautious about anything that may get pulled into that holster along with the weapon.
I wouldn’t carry a Glock in “Condition 0″ under any circumstances… like a “safety wipe” for the 1911, you can rack the slide on a Glock as you bring it to bear and lose almost no time. Here again, I can carry my .380 round-in-chamber with the safety on and the hammer down, and all I have to do is clear the safety and pull the trigger, since it’s double action.
Plus, for carry comfort, I really don’t like double stack mags. Wide grips print pretty good on a small guy like me.
And, gun gods, don’t smite me because I picked a .380 Auto… the .380 I *will* carry is better than the .40 S&W I won’t because of weight and size.
WSClark
And no, Feinstein’s remark, if you find the entire interview, was about ALL guns.
It’s hard to find the whole interview, it was before the internet was in full swing.
Statistics prove that violent crime drops in concealed carry states are only TEMPORARY drops, and after the criminal element realizes that CC does not impact them much, and can, indeed, be used to shield them from suspicion while carrying, the violent crime rate INCREASES over that of non-CC states. Just ask the National Conference on State Legislatures, or any other REPUTABLE tracking organization.
Just as the gun-nuts are insisting on “rights” to carry, the rest of us insist on our rights to be protected from them.
The municipal laws restricting CC are no less of a constitutional right than CC itself.
Remember, folks, even in the “wild west”, MOST towns had successful and effective laws requiring guns be checked (left at a hotel or sheriff’s office) upon entry to the town.
I support the restrictions, and wish our city council would pass an ordinance stating that CC is illegal in any building that does not post that is acceptable to carry! That will make things clearer: leave it home or locked in your trunk, unless you see a sign saying that idiots are allowed.
Guns don’t prevent people from killing, people do!
Jeez, I am going to go out on a limb here, “Debate” and risk having Heckler think that I am in complete agreement with him, but I actually support CC. If they feel more comfortable while armed, that is their right.
There have only been about a thousand applications for CCP in Sedgwick County – hardly a number that encourages an image of Old West shootouts.
If Heck and others have gone through the process to get a CCP, well, that is their right under the constitution and the law.
As I posted, hope that Heck doesn’t shoot me, but I have to trust that he has completed his training and is informed and competent in the use of his weapon.
To be honest, I have been a city boy for many, many years and have never been in a situation where having a gun would have been a benefit. I have never been witness to a robbery or have I ever been assaulted. That is just me, I guess, I watch where I am and what I am doing.
If Heck feels more secure with a gun, I have to support his right, even though we differ on other points of gun ownership.
The major debate comes down to (and this has yet to see a SCOTUS challenge) why we should even need CCW permits in the first place. Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) determined that you cannot license or register a fundamental right, and the First Amendment prevented taking names or registering people who bought certain periodicals, regardless of the fact that they were Communist Propaganda. SCOTUS has routinely upheld the idea that fundamental rights (like the ones outlined in the Constitution) are not subject to licensure and regulation in the same way that secondary and tertiary rights are (like the right to operate a daycare center in your home– rights granted by regulations themselves.)
To the end of my last post, the 2nd amendment does not create the right to bear arms, the right is assumed to have existed prior to the authoring.
Postal
.380? Shot placement!
WSClark
From ‘94-’96 I worked second shift in an industrial park adjoining “Dead Cow International” airport. By day it was as safe of a place as you could imagine, any crimanal would be a fool to pick on anyone there, lots of tough, hardworking man around who don’t make easy targets.
By night it changed. Lots of cars broken into, lots of theft and breakins. I would commonly be the last person to leave a large shop at 2:00 am. My car was broken into 3 times despite the fact that is was in a well lit parking lot which I could see from a window near my desk.Twice upon locking up and heading to my car I heard someone running away in the dark. Were they there to break into my car, were they there to attack me? That’s when I realized for the first time in my life how defensless I was. Prior to that time I thought Concealed Carry folks were nuts. I was a convert in short order.
If you think I’m paranoid, if you think I’m crazy for wanting the ability to defend myself when away from home that’s fine. I’ve come to the conclusion that people who DONT feel the need to carry a weapon for self defense are a little crazy. This is no longer the Mayberry-like country I grew up in as a kid.
Went out in the freezing today and laid down a full (7+1) load in the torso of a reduced (25 yd for 25 ft.) B-27. Nice, tight grouping… An actual man-sized target at the same range would have taken 8 to center mass. I can’t afford indoor range prices, and I have my own outdoor 25yd pistol range.
I should mention for the record that this pistol only has a 2.5″ barrel. I could shoot ragged holes with a 10″ Super Redhawk.
“if you think I’m crazy”
I am not sure where the hell that came from Heckler. I defended your right to owns guns and your right to seek a CCP.
I never suggested in any way that I thought you were crazy or paranoid. I only suggested that we have a difference in opinion concerning Democrats and guns in general.
Heckler: Just a piece of unsolicited advice … don’t cap somebody just for breaking into your car. The satisfaction you might feel will be overshadowed by the bars you’ll be looking through and your new “boyfriend”.
Its funny how rightwingers try to acusse democrats of taking their guns away when Republicans from Nixon, Reagan and Mayor Rudy all passed gun control measures on their watches.And the Military and the Government are the same thing and standing up to them thru armed revolt either gets you imprisoned or dead, just ask the Penn. Whiskey producers, the South, the Indians,60’s radicals, or the Davidians, McViegh and Randy Weaver.
To have the audacity to compare Native Americans and the Confederate States of America to the Branch Davidians, Symbionese Liberation Army, Timothy McVeigh and Randy Weaver is absolute proof positive that you should not be left untended, let alone allowed off the grounds.
Why, did they or didn’t they all fight against the government
rm6046
Understood. Property is cheap compared to the emotional and real expense of taking a human life.
I only mentioned the car in the context of illustrating how the environment I worked in changed after dark. If someoned tries to steal my car, I have the plate number and I have insurance.(unless I’m in it, in which case the stakes have changed).
Legally licensed CCW holders are not your threat from firearms. I do not yet have a CCW license, but I am planning to obtain one when I can work the class into my schedule. Dick Cheney, VP of the US, has shot more people than myself. I routinely expend around 1,000 rounds of ammo in a given year. I own multiple firearms, and I am both proficient in their use and keeping, and accurate in their deployment. Fortunately, I have been able to carry concealed where I need it most (on the property) forever… no law against it. But, say, I come home and someone is in my house, with my family, and most importantly, WITH MY GUNS. Where is my gun? Safely in my house, with the intruders, because up until recently taking one with me wasn’t even a priviledge.
WSClark
I appologize if I misunderstood your remarks. I thought I detected a touch of condescencion. I was wrong.
You really cannot be that stupid, or maybe you are. For starters, the Native Americans were the government. This was their country! We invaded it. The CSA was a country. It was a war between two countries. The CSA seceded and it was not a civil war, per se, but a war brought about by that secession. The rest of them were nothing but home grown terrorists … Osama bin Ladens with doo-rags or camo caps instead of a towels on their heads, but just as evil and deserving of their fates.
No harm, no foul, Heck, apology accepted.
As I said, I support your RIGHT. I always will. Isn’t that what America is all about?
Postal
You just illustrated one aspect of carrying a concealed weapon that many people dont seem to take into account,and it’s one of the most important ones of all, coming home.
You walk into the house and someones there that’s not supposed to be…..
The CSA was a country? Name one government anywhere on earth that recognized them as one Lincoln didn’t. In fact during its course depending where you lived was the war of succession or the war of rebellion in fact southern soldiers were generally referred as “rebels” The point being that rebelling against the US government has never succeeded even if the South came close. And with people like Quantrill, Bloody Bill Anderson, Nathan Forrest, John Wilkes Boothe, the Confederate Secret Service in Canada aren’t that far removed from modern day terrorist’s
Very good point. Security experts stress “know your surroundings”. The one place you know better than anywhere else is your home, but it is so familiar, that it often becomes the last place that you give the “once-over” before you go in. Be aware as you pull in the driveway. Glance around as the garage door open. Does anything look “out of place”? Maybe you don’t even ’see’ anything, you just feel something isn’t right. Carrying or not, DON’T GO IN! Get safely away and dial 911. An officer would much rather make an unnecessary trip, than have to make one to find someone to identify your body.
I like the idea of posting signs on buildings stating that CC are alllowed. This would send a message to everyone entering that someone or more than one people are packing heat. This would also make criminals think twice.I also want to disqualify all postal workers and people who drive cars. These two demographics have proven a potential for violence.
Ever heard of France, Dingdong? Big tall derrick in the middle of town, lots of artsy museums, good food, rather unpleasant folks, annoying yipping little dogs?
Southern soldiers were called “rebels” by the North. In the South, to this day, it is referred to as “The War of Northern Aggression”.
Today, Quantrill, Anderson & Forrest would be Special Forces Commanders. The Confederate Secret Service would be the C.I.A..
John Wilkes Booth, like Lee Harvey Oswald, David Koresch, Tim McVeigh, Randy Weaver, and the UniBomber, was a deranged sociopathic terrorist … I’ll certainly allow you that.
Actually I have heard of France and I’m 100% sure that Napoleon III didn’t recognize the CSA. And, if you believe that the Special forces purposely kill civilians, engage in looting, wear the scalps of their victims and murder captured combatants then you’re the delusional one, and I personally don’t have much respect for someone who holds are brave special forces servicemen in such low regards
I’m fairly sure they don’t wear the scalps of their foes, and that’s about all that’s correct about your last post. I certainly do not hold the Special Forces, be it the Green Berets, SEALs, Marine Black Ops, etc., in anything but the highest esteem, even awe sometimes. On the other hand, historically, the difference between a patriot and a terrorist is which side won. You see, in the real world, the winner gets to write the history for the first 100 years or so.
“PostalYou just illustrated one aspect of carrying a concealed weapon that many people dont seem to take into account,and it’s one of the most important ones of all, coming home.You walk into the house and someones there that’s not supposed to be…..”
Heckler –Now you know why I am for CCW.I have already experience that situation, they had a knife, I had nothing, and I got stab in the stomach because I was interfering with their crime spree by just walking in on them.
Also, I don’t recall accusing you of being delusional, as you imply.
The CSA was a country. Lincoln did not recognize it as such for political reasons, but he knew it was. It was a war against aggression, at first. When Lee went into Maryland to Antietum, things changed a bit, but still all the South wanted was to be left alone.John Wilkes Booth thought he was a patriot. Turns out Lincoln (alive) would have been better for Booths goals.Quantrill was a thug, Forrest was a soldier.
“The CSA was a country”
So, Fleet, you call people like me traitors, accusing us of treason because we are anti-Bush, but you are okay with the only group of any size that actually committed treason?
And you wonder why we call you a hypocrit.
WSC: For the record, I have never accused you or any anti-Bush Democrat of treason. But, having said that, the secession of the Confederacy was not treason. The CSA was defined geographically and constitutionally, with a national capitol, a government, etc. Even the despicable act of John Wilkes Booth was not treason. It was simply an assassination by a deranged sociopath who was not a citizen of the USA, but of the CSA. Even today, almost a century and a half later, there has been no evidence of state-sponsorship of Booth’s actions. In fact, the co-conspirators’ guilt and subsequent punishments are themselves seriously questionable. But there is no question that the CSA was a country.
“WSC: For the record, I have never accused you or any anti-Bush Democrat of treason.”
My question was addressed to Fleet who HAS accused me of treason and has advocated my execution.
I know that. I was stating that I hadn’t, my friend. Nor your execution. :)
Disqualify postal workers from CCW? Heck, we were some of the first to sign up. And look at what we give up: If we decide to utilize our new right under the law, we must now lock our gun in our car and walk from outside the restricted area because parking a gun-containing vehicle inside the confines of the employee parking area of a federal installation equals instant termination.
The “Right” to bear arms? Yeah, right. Depends on who you ask and who you work for.
Did I mention that upon entering this restricted area, I give up my 4th Amendment rights protecting me from search and seizure? They could search my car just to be entertaining themselves, without any kind of probable cause. It even says so on the sign on the fence before you go in.
Wiseman,
Thank you for the PA Constitution article. I see your point.
I liked reading writerdog’s views, too. Some things to think about.
The specific gun discussion had my eyes glazing over (j/k), but I do know what a Glock is and asked questions of my (then) local police about the guns they carried–all for research purposes.
As to whether or not the Marines would fight against the citizens of this country, I’m sure it would depend on the circumstances. However, I, too, have questioned whether they (as a whole) would be willing to kill family and friends. Then I remember Nazi Germany…
No, I don’t own a gun. I doubt I ever will. The damn things scare me. I’ll take a knife. ;) The idea of having more people (legally) carrying guns does sometimes frighten me. I’d hate to get caught in the crossfire between a CCW person and a bad guy. However, as writerdog said, there are no guarantees, so I don’t dwell on imaginings.
Having no CCW (or P or whatever is correct) did not stop the murder of a family friend in a Wal-Mart in Augusta. His father-in-law walked into the store where he worked with a gun (there were no in-store security cameras) and shot our friend point blank. No law banning or allowing guns would have stopped that.
I only ask that you, please, carry your gun with education and common sense (if you have it), and I pray you never have to or even feel the need to ever use it.
You all know that if you have to call an ambulance, and you have a gun on you, the ambulance staff have the right to ask to secure your weapon in there- if you don’t disarm, you won’t get treated….at least not till police arrive.
I’m also concerned about guns discharging from not being carried properly in public.
Hunters shoot themselves all the time, they know full well how to prevent it, yet it happens.
PMom: Are you saying that if you lose the gunfight, the humiliation has just begun ???? :)
No, if you have a gunfight, the police will be there first.
If you have a heart attack and you dont’ wanna give up your gun, you’re gonna die there.
“I only ask that you, please, carry your gun with education and common sense (if you have it), and I pray you never have to or even feel the need to ever use it.”
RD –Yeah, I have common sense; I have not yet applied for a CCP.Having the capability does not give you the reasons of why you should carry.There are pluses and minuses to everything, it might save me or someone else but at the same time it can ruin your liberty and your well being.It is a big responsibility to commit to.
In my opinion, the ordinances which bar carry on public property other than the properties that are barred by law are illegal ordinances, as they violate the statute just passed by the legislature.
SB418, cited below:
“New Sec. 17. (a) The legislature finds as a matter of public policyand fact that it is necessary to provide statewide uniform standards for issuing licenses to carry concealed weapons for self-defense and finds it necessary to occupy the field of regulation of the bearing of concealed weapons for self-defense to ensure that no honest, law-abiding personwho qualifies under the provisions of this act is objectively or arbitrarily denied the person’s rights. Any city ordinance or county resolution that regulates, restricts or prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons shall not be applicable to any person licensed in accordance with the provisions of this act.”
Someone will have to be a test case, however. I have no desire to be that test case, but I suspect when that case comes, local municipalities who pass these ordinances will lose, and the ordinances struck down.
We’ll see. Frankly, unless someone is being stupid, I suspect that LEOs have no interest in busting CC holders, even if in a city park. LEOs for the most part, support CC.
Local Home rule vs State authority?
ws-The Confederacy did not commit treason and nobody was tried for it. They didn’t advocate the overthrow of the Federal goverment, they merely wanted out from under the control of the goverment.rm-You are correct that there was no state sponsorship for the shooting of Lincoln. But, incorrect about the co-conspiritor’s guilt. There is no doubt about it. One can question whether Mary Surratt should have been hung or put in prison for life, but that’s all that can be questioned.
Oh-oh, looks like the city’s legal department has not done their homework on the SB418 statutes.
wiseman,
I’m only a little uncomfortable around guns. I believe it’s your right, and I would never deny you or anyone else (within reason) that right. I just choose not to.
My values on this may differ from yours, but I understand that mine are personal and should not be forced on you. As long as I’m not forced to own or carry a gun, everything is fine.
RD – that’s actually a pretty admirable attitude. I wish all liberals would think like that.
Too many are unduly frightened by guns and therefore just want the banned across the board.
PM – hunters shooting themselves and CC are in two separate categories. Hunters carry high powered rifles for big game, and shotguns for fowl most of the time and they are plannng to shoot at a moment’s notice – so they often don’t have any safety on – and there is a shell in the chamber. Pretty dangerous.
Most modern handguns (semi automatics) have not only safety’s – but you don’t carry them with a bullet in the chamber – AND often there is an additional release that needs to be squeezed on the back of the gun before you can pull the trigger. Either way, if there is not a bullet in the chamber – it’s not going to go off accidentally. It sim;y can’t.
Now, if someone is carrying the old six-shooters – and I don’t know if that is allowed – there may be more of a chance.
There was an incident in Wichita ten or so years ago where an officer was shot in leg. He and his partner had been playing “quick draw” while on duty and I’m not sure if they actually had bullets in the chambers of semi-automatics (a stupid thing) or if they were carrying revolvers – but it was a bad deal.
GSheridan:
“Most modern handguns (semi automatics) have not only safety’s – but you don’t carry them with a bullet in the chamber”
Yes, you do, unless you’re a fool. In a pinch, without a round in the chamber, it’s a club, not a firearm. If that weapon is needed, God forbid, you will want that round in the chamber. Safety on (if it has one – mine does not; it’s a DA only), of course. Officers ALWAYS carry one in the chamber.
Revolvers always have a round in the chamber (other than the old Single Action Army, the “six-shooter,” – it was unsafe to carry one in the chamber), and have no specific safety.
GMC brings up an interesting point in his post last night. It will take a “test case” to determine the answer to whether, after the fact, the legislature may declare a subject one of state-wide importance, thereby invalidating local ordinances and resolutions passed by the appropriate municipal or county body the original statute not containing such findings was in effect.
Personally, I believe there should be a state-wide statute dealing with these issues, so anyone will know the “rules” irrespective of the locale in which he finds himself. However, the legislature is at fault (once again) in not anticipating this, and making suitable findings a part of the original statute.
should be “…while the original statute…”
Vaughn, I think the legislature DID anticipate this, and occupied the field with SB418. Local governments are creatures of state government, and have no inherent sovereignty (unlike States in the federal system). In other words, home rule exists at the pleasure of the State.
State law can, and in this case I believe did, invalidate local ordinance. And these ordinances were passed AFTER SB418, not before, and in fact were a reaction to SB418, so the local governments knew the law and knew that SB418 occupied the field.
Basically, you have a bunch of GFW municipalities who are defying state law, and as Journey puts it, setting hundreds of traps for citizens who are abiding by state law. He’s right; it shouldn’t take a test case, and someone spending hundreds, perhaps thousands, on legal defense to strike these ordinances down.
GMC, thanks for the additional information and clarification. I will do my homework next time.
OK, the issue becomes the right of a municipality, being a public employer, to post the signs; and, as a public property owner, to post the signs. This, it seems to me, is within the language of the authorizing legislation, and not violative of the statute as originally enacted.
Agreed that the provisions of SB418 proscribes the municipalities/counties from adopting their own ordinances on the issue of concealed carry; but, the language of the statute seems to allow prohibition of concealed carry in the workplace and on the property of the city/county. Did I miss something here?
I gotta be curious about the paranoid conceal carry folks.
What did you people DO before you got your right to carry?
What did you walk around jumping at every unexplained noise or bright flash of light?
VT -
You’ve got two issues here.
1) city as employer. Statute clearly permits employers to determine whether employees can carry, and not a problem.
2) City as property owner. The problem, of course, is that CC by its nature puts CC holders in public places, and city government owns wide swaths of public places – streets, parks, etc. Barring carry in those places in effect overturns the state law which “occupies the field.” And the statute has a long laundry list of places, including city-owned places, where carry is not permitted; the statute is quite specific. I’ll not quibble with those for now, silly as they are. But the statute specified WHICH public places were off limits.
In addition, I’d argue that the city is not a “property owner” in the sense that a private owner is, in any case. While the city as an entity is title holder, these lands are PUBLICLY owned; i.e., they belong to us. They are commonly held, by and for all of us, not just the “city.”
These are simply local gov’ts attempting to undo, piecemeal, what the legislature did.
GMC, looks like we agree to disagree here. It appears to this observer that the statute specified public owners holding the same rights as private owners vis a vis posting its property. I understand the issue of trying to anticipate every potential place where the legislature may have determined concealed carry to be not desired, thus the “catch all” of public property, to shorthand the expression.
I suggest this is a problem for the legislature to cure, if it is desired; otherwise, I am of the opinion that the League of Municipalities is on solid footing based upon the language of the statute itself.
Vaughn -
“inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”
i.e., for our non-Latin readers, the express inclusion of one thing (here a long list of things) implies the exclusion of others.
Seems to me to apply perfectly here. But we’ll see, as it plays out. I’ve been wrong before (it happened once in 2002, if I remember . . . . .)
:-)
GMC, thought of that; decided to spare the other readers, though. :)
And, GMC, just one more thing before I get back to work: the provisions of SB418 state that the law is to be “liberally construed”; thus, the old “inclusio…exclusio…” would not seem to apply, as I seem to recall those dreary first year law school days when, being guided by the grand practitioners of the Socratic Method, I was tripping all over myself…:-)
GMC – I can slide a round into the chamber in a fraction of a second.
Why does it take you so long?
I carry mine in the clip – and pump one in when I’m ready to shoot.
On my Kimber, I can load one, release the safety, and shoot – all in a little over a second – if that.
But, yes – I did know that about revolvers.
Those who didn’t feel ‘threatened’ before ‘Shrub’ need to do some research. When ‘Poppy’ Bush was in office he financed CIA dirty ops with COKE from S. America. At that same time, Klinton was snorting that coke and running it through MENA and Jr. helped ‘Poppy’ by laundering it through Harken Energy. The DemonRATS are no better than the Repugs and have promised NO IMPEACHMENT, no investigation into 911, no investigation into fraudulent voting machines and Ra Ra go War on Iran….
YOU’D BETTER BE ARMED or be ready for your END in one of Cheney’s Haliburton built CONCENTRATION CAMPS! No ‘paranoia’ here folks, this is sadly today’s NEWS!
WAKE UP!
GS -
Why, you ask? —–
1) the weapon is perfectly safe with one in the chamber; your Kimber is designed (by John Browning) to be carried “cocked and locked.” There is no reason not to do so. With modern firing pin safeties, as I’m sure a Kimber has, there is no chance of accidental discharge by striking the hammer or dropping the weapon. And a 1911 has redundant safeties – thumb safety plus grip safety. Full size Kimber? .45 ACP? Good round, good gun.
Remember, however, the only safety that really matters is the one between your ears. Think, practice, make safe gun handling a habit, and double check always.
2) I might need that second or two. If it comes to that, I want every advantage I can get.
BTW – it appears that Larry has been sniffin’ a bit too much of that coke himself; either that or the tinfoil is too tight!
Average attacker can clear the distance between him and his victim in less than two seconds. Average armed civilian can deploy the weapon (assuming it’s “cocked and locked” or a DA/SA. Round in chamber.) in around two seconds. Every fraction of a second counts, especially:
In close quarters (car, where you have more limited range of motion)
When surprised
A perpetrator will not stand around and wait for you to rack the slide on your Kimber… even if you tell him it will take you less than a second.
Carrying an automatic with a round in the chamber is ONLY dangerous when you are carrying:
Striker-fired weapons (think Saturday Night Special-grade guns, the TEC-9 (which could be concealed but good luck actually killing someone with the most inaccurate, unreliable gun on earth.) Revolvers without a transfer bar, where the hammer impinges on the firing pin directly (the old school Rugers, some GI revolvers.) Any other automatic can be safely carried provided two things:
#1. You holster provides for adequate retention, and is designed to keep the moving parts of the weapon from being actuated while it is in the holster (clothing snags)
#2. Your holster has a complete trigger-guard, without gaps that may allow foreign objects to press the trigger. Also, it must not compress the beavertail safety on 1911s/XD pistols–must have a thumb break or be retained by the trigger guard. Also, the holster must protect the safety mechanism on SA automatics (the 1911s especially) from being turned off.
Guns are only as safe as their users. Idiots have been shooting themselves and others in all manner of places and at random times for years. Hopefully, well educated people (who might just be the only people who can afford the licensing–yow!) with a sense of law will be a little safer than that.
Driving is a priviledge, not a right guaranteed by the constitution, and we’re not revoking the drivers license of every friggin’ idiot who runs a red light and plows someone. Poor driving contributes to WAY MORE DEATH than concealed carry.
GS — get a CCL and defend yourself –