When Wichita and other cities passed their own restrictions on where concealed-carry permit holders can carry handguns, lawmakers came back this year with more legislation negating such local limits, then overrode Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ veto. Accordingly, the Wichita City Council is scheduled to repeal its limits Tuesday. Arguably, the process worked, with pro-carry arguments carrying the day. But let it be said — again — that the outcome also stands as a defeat for the principle of local control.
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
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
62 Comments
Well ya know, all these gun totin’ conservative kansans LOVE the principle of local control.
Until they dont!
However, the Eagle is still carrying the water for liars like Bloomburg and the sky-is-falling, we’re all gonna die opponents of CC (where, now 6 months in, are those rivers of blood in the streets we were told would happen? Hmm . . . ). Or has the Eagle dropped the flimsy facade of having no position on CC?
There are times, of course, that local control makes sense, and times it does not. And there is no constitutional principle of local control at issue within a state (unlike the federal/state relationship, states are unitary structures, with local gov’ts created and operating at the pleasure of the State). The legislature decided (overwhelmingly) that in this case local control made no sense. Of course, they said that when CC first passed as well, but the League of Kansas Municipalities saw fit to tell their members to just ignore the law.
Just desserts.
Come on farmgrrl!
We’re talking about the second ammendement! Of course conservatives are for local control. . . of maybe dog licenses, or speed limits, or of zoning requirements.
But a second amendment right? Why in the hell do we even have to be licensed by the state?
What if you were pulled over by the police and they were allowed to search your car unless you had a picture ID that allowed you to exercise your fourth ammendment right?
What if you wanted to post your opinion on this BLOG but first you had to have your certificate of first ammendment rights on file with the WE?
What if you wanted to go to church next Sunday but it required a picture ID from the City of Wichita that certified your ability to practice your religion in an informed and legal manner?
Yes dear, I’m all for local control in government. . . .unless I’m not. So what? It’s still America isn’t it?
Hank
Sorry Hank, but when the state thinks it can tell Lawrence not to have a domestic partnership registry, that is conservatism flying in the FACE of local control.
We’d like to have local control on water policy too, but the state has funny ideas about that. They somehow think Hays and Russell own ALL the water rights in western kansas.
My point is, when people get their way on the local level, they dont want any national or state restrictions.
When they dont get their way, they go screaming to the state or the feds. And the one with the most political muscle or campaign donations wins. THAT is the real determination about local control.
To the victors go the spoils.
Obey signs. That’s local and personal control, yet fools with guns and their ego’s will disregard signs.
They will shame No Gun Zones with shameful statements. There is always that CC defender could’ve, should’ve, been there and done what?
They are all excellent shots, some claim better than law enforcement.
They are more brave too. Wait, isn’t an unarmed person in this violent society brave?
Why does the NRA help the feds with database tweaks to stop crazies from buying retail, yet foster the non background checks at gun stores. Fight in state governments when cities are trying to limit handgun sales to one a month. NRA likes to flood the market, helps the manufacturing to continue.
Gun runners are plentiful, its a business with no records of sales, just like the NRA likes it.
With a gun, some people become more irresponsible than they would normally be.
Sure; local control. Each county and each city will have their own rules. Great. That’s really no control. I would sure feel better if each county commissioner and each city council-person were looking out for me. Each one with their little tin-horn politican attitude, each with their own prejudices. Sure, that’s what we need. NOT!
But darling,
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
The whole purpose of the CCH act was to standardize the laws statewide concerning CC. Then the local municpalities start with their innane restrictions.
What if we finally pass a gay rights ammendment to the constitution and Claflin, KS is allowed to pass rules on lesbian couples’ access to the city park?
I’m not happy with the CCH laws in this state, or any state for that matter. I don’t mind if they have very strict laws concerning the commision of crimes with a gun, but the 20,000 or so laws concerning guns generally only apply to honest citizens. They don’t effect criminals.
I have a friend that is a highway patrolman in Missouri. In Missouri if you have a CCW license the officer is informed of it when he runs your tag. My friend always gives a sigh of relief when the driver he pulls over at night has a CCW permit. He knows that he has just pulled over a law-abiding citizen and he has nothing to be concerned about!
Hank
Hey Mrage,
If you pick 5 cops at random I’ll bet you a lot of money that I’m a better shot that 4 of them.
I’ll bet my boy is better than all of them.
Your crap about the NRA, well, is just crap.
Hank
“What if we finally pass a gay rights ammendment to the constitution and Claflin, KS is allowed to pass rules on lesbian couples’ access to the city park?”
Hank, now YOU are the one comparing apples and oranges. If the hate amendment would be repealed, and then a LOCAL ordinance was passed forbidding gay marriage that would be one thing.
But denying access to a park? That is law, not constitutional amendment.
And, btw, drinking is legal but cities and counties routinely forbid it in parks and near schools. They arent making drink illegal, but they ARE restricting where and how it may be done in THEIR community.
These communities are not trying to make concealed carry illegal in defiance of the state. They just want to be able to say when and where.
Just like with drinking….
…and the last time I checked, there is NO state law that forbids domestic partnership registries.
That’s why lance “I want to be AG” kinzer was so hot to propose one.
Why does the NRA help the feds with database tweaks to stop crazies from buying retail, yet foster the non background checks at gun (shows).
That confused you Hank? I meant to say shows not stores.
Nathan should join the police then.
You and GMC claim to be such excellent shots better than police.
No one cares! Society hopes you drive well and don’t injure people that way.
Some cops are terrible with their guns. They shoot people too much for questionable reasons.
What’s their moral and decision making ability.
When not to shoot is important.
“OCALA, FL (AP) — A Marion County Jail inmate tried to commit suicide by hammering an ink pen in to his left eye with a Bible.”
I’m not sure if we should call for ink pen or Bible control.
When ink pens are outlawed, only outlaws will have ink pens.
Mrage, you wrote:
The NRA “. . . foster the non background checks at gun (shows).”at 2:48, 4:04
Bulls%@#.
There is no “gun show loophole,” there never was. The rules for background checks are absolutely no different at gun shows than anywhere else. A FFL dealer must do a background check when he sells a firearm in his shop; when he goes off to a gun show, he must – gasp – do the same background check.
The “gun show loophole” is a myth, fostered to drive a political agenda.
Private owners, not dealers, may sell to each other without paperwork. Today’s Eagle, for example, has an ad for a Colt SAA in 44-40( nice gun, BTW). Private seller, no paperwork. You can argue to require paperwork for that, if you like, but just how do you propose enforcing same?
AND – “That’s local and personal control, yet fools with guns and their ego’s will disregard signs.” Mrage at 2:48.
Can you cite a SINGLE instance of a CCH holder violating a no-carry restriction? I know of none so far, though it may have inadvertantly happened. I’d bet you know of none.
The fact of the matter is the CCH holder is not a threat to you in the least, yet you worry like a ninny over a threat that does not exist. Why?
Or perhaps he IS a threat to you; if so, what are you doing that you shouldn’t be????? HMMMMM????
GMC,
Are private owners and their collection of guns selling at gun shows?
If private owners can sell their guns at a show, from trunk of the car without records, that’s not a problem?
Gun for sale in the paper…how about a place where private owners can go, at any gun store, lets say.
Pay a small fee to transfer ownership of the gun. The sale is recorded.
A gun is more dangerous than someone selling a blender.
Someone got a new gun and the state understands that.
Why wouldn’t a legal person want to do that?
Confiscation..those paranoid thoughts.
I know three people that carried guns illegally. One is now police. Licensed to carry. The other two, I’m not sure if they have got the CC license. I haven’t seen them since the state process started.
You said, friends of yours stay away from the database. Maybe those guys have a reason.
I don’t respect people hiding from the database if they buy a handgun or assault rifle.
I have no fear of CC pointing a gun at me. If one does, surely their a fool because something they fear occurred. I don’t cause others to fear their safety.
That’s what could happen. People bump into each other in dark parking lot. Words exchanged, shots fired. One defends the action, when the other has no weapon on them.
Carrying a gun, some want to pull it out and point it at other people. Any kind of threat, misunderstanding.
Two guys in a pickup, backed up from leaving and cursed at a woman. In a Quick Trip parking lot, one evening last year. A parking issue. Should they have been shot by her?
They were threatening enough with their language.
Could have one of them had a gun, shoot someone coming to her defense?
CC curse other people, get angry and cause arguments in the street.
Sure they do!
Some people get guns from private transfer and they shouldn’t have it. That’s why registering matters.Gun stores should be places to transfer legal ownership. The gun is checked out, it hasn’t been altered by the seller.
State sets up somewhere, a place to transfer gun ownership. Cities can staff it.
Legally and responsibly gun transfers between private owners.
No offense mrage,
But your posts are pretty incoherent.
I find myself wanting to respond…. but… yeah… not too sure…
In regards to making something like carrying a firearm in the State something standardized it makes sense to preempt local control.
“The fact of the matter is the CCH holder is not a threat to you in the least, yet you worry like a ninny over a threat that does not exist.”
What total bullshit. A cch holder is different from other human beings because of what? What godlike powers do you guys believe cch gives a person? Do you guys think your knights of the freakin round table? More like pussies with pistols.
Rambo,
Why would you be scared of an individual who:
-paid around 100 dollars to sit through a class on Concealed carry.
-Had to go to the Sheriff’s Department to get fingerprinted
-Had to pay 40 dollars to the Sherrif and 100 to the AG.
-Has to submit to an extensive background check with a wait of at least 45 days.
-Has to submit a photgrapgh and fingerprints to be placed on record with the AG.
-Go to the DMV to obtain license after background check and approval.
Is this really the person you are scared of?
Mrage, when you advocate the registration of a gun transfer, you are really uninformed. For the sale of a gun from an FFH, the federal background check has to be done on the buyer, not the gun. Questions like SSN, are you a felon, did you ever…., etc. This is required before the dealer can sell the gun, to make sure he’s not selling to a bad guy.There is NO gun registration in Kansas. Nobody is tracking the serial number of who owns what, as they do for vehicles. If one wants to register the gun with the manufacturer, they can, just as if they bought a computer or coffee pot. But it is not required.The reason for not registering, and keeping track of the address and owner of each and every weapon is for several reasons.1. It would be very expensive and time consuming.2. It would place a burden on the disposal by a law-abiding person.3. Bad guys would steal weapons, and even if reported by the last owner, the “trail” would be lost, and useless anyway.(IMHO this is the crux of the issue)4. Emotions are stirred when we think that every single dictator in the last two centuries registered weapons prior to confiscating them. The very reason of the 2nd Amendment is to protect Americans from tyranny. That’s why it was put in there, by the very people who just fought the British in a Revolution.5. A private seller (me selling you one of my guns) has no way to access the Federal database on people. I don’t have the right to check on you, and determine if you are a felon. Nor should I. It is a balance between privacy and security.6. There are, by any count, MILLIONS of weapons out there, unknown, untracked, and of course, unregistered. Even if we started registering weapons from day one of manufacture, it would only track the new purchases. New guns are expensive, starting at about $500. Good guys buy new guns, criminals buy old ones, especially of unknown origin. Or black-market, or illegally imported. So all the hoopla, the cost and manpower of the database would result in the tracking of weapons that are NOT the problem.7. Look at the beaurocracy we have created to register automobiles. They only last about 20 years. A gun can last 100 years, be passed down through generations, and moved (in location) many times. Even if a state registration DID exist, what about when that family moved to a non-registration state? Assuming they notified the departing state they were moving to MO, TX, whatever, then the trail is again lost, because the new state would not track it.
I could probably come up with more reasons, but hopefully by now, you realize the BIG difference between checking on a person, and imposing a registration on a weapon. As always, the politics, and costs, come into play.
Who’s says I’m scared Nathan I’m merely pointing out that cch people are capable of committing crimes the same as any other mortal humans.In the state of Florida if you plea down from a felony charge you can still get a cch. Kansas law on the surface implies the same thing.If somebody is willing to jump through a few hoops to carry a gun does not make them stable.
Rambo, your point is taken. Of course, a CCH holder can go wacko, and commit a crime. But given the costs, background check, and other stability factors, that person is much less likely to do so. That’s why the state does the check, so that mis-behavers will get filtered out.I find it strange that you give yourself the very macho name of Rambo, but don’t have a CCH yourself! Why not?
The Constitution says I don’t have to jump thru hundreds of state hoops to do want its already says i can do. “Vermont carry” seems to work OK in Vermont and Texas
“I find it strange that you give yourself the very macho name of Rambo, but don’t have a CCH yourself! Why not?”
Don’t feel the need. Never been in a situation when it would of done any good. Now if we could carry AK-47’s in the open that would make a difference.
Banks have armed security they get robbed. You have to be realistic about these things.
“You have to be realistic about these things.”I think we’re on common ground. We both know that most of the shootings we see, even right here in Wichita, have some level of involvement with both the victims and shooters. Drugs, etc.We also both know there are unwin-able situations, where a lone responder is over-armed.Where we differ is on where the “realistic” line is drawn. There are those of us who feel, that given a one-on-one threat, we could change the outcome if we had a quick, reliable way to defend ourselves. Sam Colt called the handgun the “great equalizer.” Since we fervently believe we have the right to do so, we brisk at attempts to throttle, or completely choke, that right. Like you, I think some of the posts here are extreme, and make claims and assertions that are questionable. But I don’t worry too much about them. I worry more about the real bad guys, who are not articulate enough to post their views on a computer, who couldn’t pass a background check going back 3 days, who hold no sanctity for life, and will just as soon kill you for your Nikes as look at you. Those guys, and the wackos like Cho, the Holiday Inn sniper in Wichita (years ago) and the like.Guns, like fire extinguishers can, in the hands of the user, either take a life, or save a life.When and if you ever get curious about getting a gun, or a CCH, find me here, and I’ll get you the information you need.Regards
“These communities are not trying to make concealed carry illegal in defiance of the state. They just want to be able to say when and where.” ksfarmgrrl.When you try to compare the legal right to drink alcohol, as limited by the state/local govt, you too, are comparing apples to oranges. Driving a car, drinking, buying, possessing alcohol, and other examples, are all regulated by law from the beginning. There is no Constitutional right to do any of those things.However, the 2nd Amendment says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. OK, so how do we deal with that? Years ago, Wichita banned “open carry.” Now, in an effort to comply with the 2nd Amendment, we have, in effect, “you can bear arms, but don’t let us see it, and we want to check you out first.”Even the background checks, which we comply with for the sake of public safety, assume some probability of guilt, before one can be declared innocent. That, by itself, infringes on the right of the people, but we have evolved to that point.Required courses, fees, photos, etc, add to the amount of infringement. But again, we have acquiesced that point in the name of public safety.So now we get to the crux, are we allowed to bear arms or not? Further restrictions, especially in public places, where the threat exists, would seem, in the view of many legal experts, to reduce the 2nd Amendment right to a moot point. Given the “hoops” we have passed, there really is no reason to further restrict concealed carry. But this discussion also involves emotion, even more than reason and facts. People want laws passed, as inane as the law might be, to make the populace “feel good.” We all know that “No Guns Allowed” posters only keep the good guys out. Do you think any armed robber ever once backed off from a store because of that sign? On the contrary, the sign told him, “everybody in here is defenseless! Come in and do your thing, and nobody will shoot back at you.”To me, the facts and the truth will lead to the proper course of action. Emotion and bias, along with fear of the unknown, will drive knee-jerk reactions that could cost lives, let alone hampering the freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
As a private citizen, if I were to sell my gun to another private citizen.I would be going thru an FFL of my choosing for a background check of the buyer.It is worth the cost for a broker, it is being a responsible gun owner.
Wiseman, I think you are pontificating, not saying what you would actually do. Do you have a gun? Have you actually sold one? Did you go through an FFH? I doubt it.I’ll bet you didn’t check out the background the last time you sold a car, a home, or that steak knife set at your last garage sale, either.Face it, when somebody wants to sell something, they are only counting the “green” or asking if the check is good.To say you would check into whether or not your hypothetical buyer is qualified is not believeable. Have you ever done so, or are you just spouting an ideal?
States and counties should offer Wiseman a place to transfer his weapons.
The County or State office is the responsible broker.
Guns aren’t cars or other kinds of property.
Guns equal steak knifes?
I haven’t sold guns to anyone else. I didn’t purchase weapons to sell. Only to use for hunting.
The database is to track trends. Who is buying and selling a lot of weapons. Who is irresponsible losing or trading weapons.
Zelda,
A state database could be constructed. Every county could have a office to process transfer of guns.
If a desperate need for money exists, the desperation can’t be sell guns to anyone at a garage sale.
That irresponsible.
Sell the guns at a registered office. The buyer pays for the process.
It’s easy to say, would be difficult to create.
The goal is making transfer of weapons between private parties a legitimate process.
What about family handing down weapons, each doesn’t have to update the database.
If the daughter marries, her father’s gun goes with her. She divorces eventually, the ex husband takes her gun.
She could tell the office, the gun was transferred to her ex. Her family is no longer responsible for it.
The ex needs to register that weapon. He could sell to anybody and eventually a criminal has it. He has no clue who bought it.
That’s irresponsible.
When people move out of state for more than 6 months, the registration ends.
The responsible gun owner lets the state know, the move happened.
Change of address cards or online form.
NRA shouldn’t try to corrupt state legislators to keep changing how the database is set up.
States and counties have interest in guns being transferred between private parties.
Private parties should want to legitimize the process. Two real people are transferring guns.
Mrage, you live in a dream world. This will never, ever happen here. The State of Kansas can’t afford it, and the voters would never approve of it, let alone pay for it.As to your comment, “The goal is making transfer of weapons between private parties a legitimate process.” Guess what, it is a legal, and legitimate process right now. It would only become illegitimate if the draconian, Orwellian database you envision became reality. What next? Selling my swiss army knife or a baseball bat? What about that machette in my garage that I use to cut weeds? What if I sell my motorcyle without a helmet? You see, Mrage, things are not the problem, actions that people do with those things are the problem. Yours is also the pie-in-the-sky world of dreamers and idealists. If you would like to exercise your rights to own a gun, and even carry it, let me know. If you too, are just pontificating, and speaking from an uniformed, idealistic, govt-takes-care-of-everything-without-real-or-social-cost point of view, then we disagree pretty strongly.
Any business that has a “no guns allowed” sign might as well hang out a “we don’t want your money” sign because I will take it the same way.
“The goal is making transfer of weapons between private parties a legitimate process.”
Just because the government is involved does not make a process ‘legitimate’.
“There are those of us who feel, that given a one-on-one threat, we could change the outcome if we had a quick, reliable way to defend ourselves. Sam Colt called the handgun the “great equalizer.”
Your right Zelda we agree on most everything. My biggest bitch with CCH is the false sense of security it provides.I remember seeing an FBI stat. saying [last year?]47 police officers had been killed with their own guns. If the pro’s are getting their guns taken away what is going to happen to the overweight middle aged cube dweller? Throw in some police style combat training and yearly requalifing and I might take CCH a little more seriously. As it is now it’s just a way to separate a few of your hard earned dollars from your wallet.
“The fact of the matter is the CCH holder is not a threat to you in the least, yet you worry like a ninny over a threat that does not exist.”
What total bullshit. A cch holder is different from other human beings because of what? What godlike powers do you guys believe cch gives a person? Do you guys think your knights of the freakin round table? More like pussies with pistols.
Posted by: rambo | June 18, 2007 at 10:51PM
Rambo – I can say so because 15+ years of experience in 40+ states with liberal CC laws say so. Crimes committed by CC holders with their weapons are virtually unknown. Experience, my friend. It’s not the card that makes it so, of course. It is the nature of the people who get that card. And why that is so was laid out by Nathan a few posts later.
Consider – there are three types of people carrying:1) the CCH holder, who’s not a threat in the least, for reasons laid out above;2) the carrier of a weapon who has not jumped through the CCH hoops, but who carries for whatever reasons. I don’t condone same, but it exists. He’s not a threat either, but doesn’t have the card, for whatever reason. You’ll never know he’s there, of course, he works the hardest at concealing;3) the thug, who intends to harm or intimidate, who brandishes the firearm (or worse) to gain prestige, or power, or more tangible ill-gotten gain. He IS a threat.
A “gunbuster” sign will stop the first from entering armed; he abides by the law. We know so because he has done so to get the permit (at substantial cost), and will not risk losing same.The sign might stop the second, but he’ll likely never show the weapon unless, God forbid, it’s needed.The sign will have no impact on the third whatsoever, and may embolden him to act.
Further, those signs increase the likelihood of weapons being stolen; thieves need merely post outside a “no guns” business and wait for someone to place his weapon in the vehicle.
Now – just how did the “gunbuster” sign make anyone safer?
And Mrage – several have answered you as best we can, trying to wade through your nearly incoherant stream of sorta-sentences. Read and learn. And learn to write coherently. Think “paragraph.” “Complete thoughts.”
GMC,
I have considered all the what if arguments.
Since your a prosecutor can you tell me if I coped a plea on a felony charge had it reduced down could I still get a CCH in Kansas?
What determines physically able in the state of Kansas as a factor in gaining a CCH?
If I took a shot missed and hit a civilian what would I be charged with?
I’ll have to read your response later. I have to generate some cash for the commonwealth.
Rambo -
Depends on the crime of conviction. Check out the statute and see. KSA 75-7c01 et seq. The local sheriff would also be able to communicate the circumstances to the AG and recommend not granting, if appropriate. KSA 75-7c05(c)(2).
As far as physically able, you’d have to pass the shooting course. It’s not too hard; frankly, it’s not hard enough, in my opinion. And I’d prefer to see annual requalifing or a minimum required range time to stay qualified, but I didn’t write the statute. And it’s better than none at all.
If you took a shot and missed and hit a civilian – that’s a harder question. I think it’s VERY fact dependant, and I don’t think it serves any interest to speculate. More important is to understand just when deadly force is justified. My suspicion (and this is off the cuff, without any research, so take it for what it’s worth) is that IF the use of force was clearly justified, and if the circumstances were such that using force is not blatently reckless, then such a circumstance should not have any criminal penalties (though there could well be civil repercussions). Committing a crime requires at least some level of criminal intent; it seems to me that in such a circumstance, there would be no criminal intent.
BTW- I object to the term “copped a plea.” Plea bargaining may leave a bad taste, but it’s a necessary and legitimate part of the process and when used correctly results in appropriate sanctions tailored to the individual circumstances. But that’s a treatise in itself, which will have to wait for another day.
Getting busy; gotta go. Have a good day.
To you local controll fans-
How much Local Control is there over Freedon of Speach, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association?
I could go on down that street but won’t…
At it’s most basic the Second Amendment is an extension of the most basic of rights, the Right to Life and to Self Preservation. And since the right to Self Preservation is meaningless without effective tools with which to defend it, by denying individuals the right to keep and bear those tools any government entity denying me the access to those tools is infringing on my right to self preservation.
Why should I have to give that up upon crossing an imaginary line on the road?
Zelda, open up mouth and insert foot, you are being contrary in a topic that you know nothing about.I have been a gun owner for the last 27 years.I sell and purchase thru an FFL in the Sheriff Dept., a reputable pawn shop, several retail stores, local and internet.I will not purchase or sell without a FFL; I have always done it this way.The cheapest that I have found in using a broker in the local area is 25 dollars, any FFL will do the transfer for a cost.I do this by my own choice, without the need to having a law to tell me to and it is what I believe in being a responsible gun owner.
Gun control is trying stop adult irresponsibility. Adults misusing guns, young people can eventually get them.
Bad people can get the weapons without going through a background check.
When a private owner sells guns to strangers, its legal, but could be irresponsible too.
What people do with a “thing”. A gun is for killing animals or people at a distance.
With repetition and power of ammunition. Size of clips and ease of firing.
It’s not like anything else could be used as weapon.
Heckler,
Clipped from the American Bar Association website…
Opponents of firearms control legislation have relied upon the Second Amendment’s guarantee of “the right to bear arms.”
The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states:
“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.”
The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual’s right to keep or carry firearms.
GMC,
I’ll clip and paste coherently, just for you.
A study released by the Justice Department suggesting background checks at gun shows would do little to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases.
The result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases.
Less than 9 percent were bought at retail outlets and only seven-tenths of 1 percent came from gun shows.
Zelda,
Your zeal for carrying a handgun.
America’s gun problem is a handgun problem. Handguns exact an inordinate toll on American lives.
The vast majority of gun death and injury–in homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings–is carried out with easily concealable pistols and revolvers.
Protecting consumer health and safety lead to one inevitable conclusion: handguns should be banned.
There are an estimated 192 million firearms in civilian hands. Yet, fewer and fewer Americans own more and more guns.
Surprisingly, only 25 percent of adults own a firearm. Of these, three out of four own more than one gun.
About 10 percent of the adult population owns 77 percent of thetotal stock of firearms.
In 1997——there were 89 firearm deaths per day, or a firearm death every 16 minutes.
In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.
The largest category of firearms fatality is suicide, not homicide.—–
Are people depressed when they desire to carry a gun? Depressed that crime is so bad and fear of their lives?
Socially bad things happen, who is at fault. Parenting? Poor school system? Poor economics cause crimes.
Drug use and abuse by Americans is causing crimes. Illegal drugs cross the border. Weed is grown indoor and outdoor.
Narcotics are over prescribed by doctors. Pharma is a federally protected business. The sale of prescriptions is huge.
People are nuts hooked on drugs and they have gun.
Criminals use guns to support their addictions.
Interest rates are manipulated, people are committing gun crimes to afford a lifestyle.
Stolen money for food, rent, car payment or mortgage.
National health care plan and coverage, some won’t feel so desperate when they have children.
When they have access to medicine that helps them recover.
Medical malpractice leads some to use a gun.
The financial attack on citizens using a hospital and they don’t have insurance.
People can go bankrupt from medical bills. It makes them angry and their right to feel that way.
What if interest rates from the largest investment banks aren’t so terrible on people. People under financial stress commit gun crimes.
Alcoholism, the fuel needed to commit gun crimes. Drunk and crazy, easy to shoot a weapon.
Morality is wiped away while drunk in some people.
Bad people must have harder time attaining weapons.
The fight isn’t against people who are responsible with guns.
Don’t sell guns to strangers. Using some way to sell guns through a broker.
Brokers should demand background checks on every buyer.
There are some bad retail gun stores. They know criminals are buying them.
Gun stores help militia’s that desire to fight the government. They may sell guns, drugs and counterfeit money to support the militia lifestyle.
Some militia’s are training to be terrorists and they want to attack the White House. Attack the Government’s rules of law.
Threaten judges with death.
2nd Amendment doesn’t give legality to criminal militia’s.
Mrage
Before the beginning of the Twentieth Century there was not even a debate. The Second was an individual right. The collective right is a product of the Twentieth Century judges.
I’d be happy to debate the Second Amendment, it’s history and meaning anytime. The collective rights theory is one that an objective person cannot come to upon a full examination of it’s history.
Heckler,
That’s fine your passionate about the 2nd Amendment, but societies have to go forward.
The most recent Supreme Court judgments have to be followed.
There is a section of lawyers, Federalists, trying to roll back Supreme Court rulings. The NRA never sleeps.
When guns become a societal problem as they exist today, not for defense, but to commit crimes, something has to be done about it.
No one is talking about confiscation from legal gun owners.
Criminals believe they have a right to own guns. Taking that belief away is key.
You can’t legally buy a gun as a criminal. But any criminal can find a gun.
Does anyone know the above Mrage person? Do they have a chemical dependency problem or neurological impairment. That rant is unintelligible.
West,
Who is they? Who are you? What’s your intelligent point, that isn’t one.
Mrage, the assertion that the 2nd Amendment rights is only a collective right for a militia is seriously flawed, and has been declared so by the District of Columbia’s court, and the appeals court. (The District does not fall under any state, and thus is solely in a Federal status)On May 8th, 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia turned DOWN the petition for a rehearing of Parker vs D.C. The D.C. court has declared unconstitutional the District’s outright ban on handguns, citing the 2nd Amendment as an Individual Right, just the same as the People’s right to free speech, etc. The District’s only recourse now is to either toss their laws prohibiting gun ownership, or appeal further to the US Supreme Court. They are doing nothing, they fear they will lose in the Supreme Court.Federal Judge, backed up by an Appeals court, nothing left but the Supreme Court.The D.C. case is a great case in point, in that with over 20 years of just plain outlawing the mere possession of handguns in the city, that area continues to be plagued with one of the highest crime levels of the country, by any standard of measurement. All these years, of course, the criminals see the area as a place where they can run rabid, without fear of retaliation by a victim. At the same time, the law-abiding people there have been DENIED their right to defend themselves with the most usefull defense tool available.D.C. has until August to do something. Stay tuned!
Mrage, you took up 1/2 the space in this post and provided 1/1,000,000 of the content.
You simply must avoid the topics such as gun control, until you take the time to learn the topic – and then take the time to write in E-N-G-L-I-S-H.
Not that this blog will Ban you or anything, but you do take up a ton of empty space. Really makes you look bad.
Thought you should know.
Have a nice evening.
Have some tea.
Take a pill.
Go watch TV.
Rest your keyboard.
Save some blogspace.
For others to breathe.
Your causing global warming.
You know?
Cool down.
Relax.
Breathe deep.
Go to sleep.
Zelda,
Cities try but they can’t solve handgun problems. It has to be Congress. State legislators provide guidance. Cities are begging for violence to slow down.
D.C. has no protection, only Congress they can turn to. D.C. doesn’t not have political strength there.
There can’t be federal political protection and blanket defense of the gun industry.
Cities have to try and confiscate guns from criminals. Do they receive enough federal money? Some cities claim they don’t.
Cities try to limit one handgun sold a month. Other states don’t have those restrictions. Guns are transferred in vehicles across state lines.
Some state legislators are corrupted, they don’t value certain cities. Wichita doesn’t have political strength in Topeka.
Some of our local legislators worked against us to benefit themselves in Topeka. In other states legislator’s don’t value large cities with a lot of crime.
Political strength has moved to the suburbs while inner cities are full of violence.
Mrage -
I’ll speak to what you addressed to me first. And yes, thanks for the cut and paste, because your own writing is barely coherant. Even for you, your 8:34 is unintelligible. Take a nap.
“Less than 9 percent were bought at retail outlets and only seven-tenths of 1 percent came from gun shows.”
You proved my point for me. Thanks.
2nd. Heckler’s exactly right about the collective theory of the 2nd Am. It’s almost entirely a 20th century concoction, one without historical or textual basis, and one without much academic support. It’s dead, or will be soon. In short, “the people” in the 2nd Am. means exactly the same as “the people” in the rest of the Bill of Rights; when the founders wanted to protect a collective right they knew how (see the 10th Am.).
Give it up. The collective 2nd Amendment is dead, and good riddance.
And don’t put too much stock in your stats about who owns how many guns. There are millions of guns out there unnoticed by anyone. There’s no registration in most states, and polls on this subject I suspect are incredibly unreliable (I know if I was asked if I owned firearms and how many by a pollster the answer would be 1) no – a lie – or 2) none of your damn business). Owners understand what you don’t: gov’t will ALWAYS seek to expand its power, and registration is ALWAYS followed by confiscation, sooner or later – usually justified by some “for the children” pap.
Mrage
There is a process defined in the Constitution for making changes to it and the Bill of Rights. It is well defined and has been used before.
And Mrage, judges have absolutely no place in that process. You don’t like the Second Amendment? Amend it using the Constitutional process, stop counting on left-wing judges to twist it into something it never was.
Hey!
I’ve got an idea! How about a liberal/conservative shoot-off?
We could form two five man teams and have a contest at Lake Afton Observatory gun range. Then afterwards we’ll retire to my place for a cookout and a beer or two.
Losers pay for the refreshments!
I have all the targets, etc all the contestants would have to do is show up with their favorite handgun.
I know of at least four or five people that would be interested.
Hank
Hank – I’m in. Sounds like a good time for all. Any specifications on firearms? I don’t know if I could live with myself if I lose to liberal, though . . . . ;-)
Perhaps we also ought to invite a few non-shooters? I’ve yet to take any new shooter to the range and not have them leave with a grin after a few rounds with a 1911 or a .357 mag. It’s encumbant on us to introduce others to shooting, to preserve the sport, and the right.
Great idea GM!
Nathan is a Hunter Safety instructor and also a Marksmanship instructor in the Marine Corp. We could start newbes out with a .22 and move them up to however big they want to go!
Hell, I’d even provide little trophys. One for biggest gun, best team, best individual score, scariest gun, etc.,
Hank
So, so far we have three members of the conservative, good guys, white hats team.
Any libs want to take up the challenge?
Hank
LOL
Might as well engrave XXX into the biggest gun trophy dad.
Probably should say that you need to use a standard semi-auto or revolver.
I can just imagine someone showing up with their 4,000 dollar super duper .22 with scope
I’d show up, bring my 12 year old if that would be alright. Sounds like a good time.
Hey morg,
I’ll check in at the range and get a few dates and see when we can do it that’s agreeable to most of the people.
For the ones that would like to shoot that have never done it we’ll supply a few guns, ammo and instruction.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone that wants to come is welcome!
Hank
Hey GM,
Looks like we may need to woory about getting beat by a 12 year old now!
Since this is a CCH thread, I’m thinking that as far as caliber for the match we might limit it to a pistol that we would reasonably carry concealed.
If we do that, I’d be shooting with Momma’s .38 special. It would pretty much rule out .22 target pistols and XXX’s 500. Although I don’t think he’d want to compete with the hand cannon anyway.
If we get enough interest in a match we’ll come up with some rules. Otherwise we might just have a day at the range for those interested and then retire to our clubhouse on the lake for a BBQ.
Hank
Hank – do we want to post on an open thread, to invite others? I know WS apparantly is a shooting liberal; perhaps others might be interested.
Yes, I was thinking about posting on the next open thread but we can start today. This one is a little dated.
Hank
Hank and GMC
I hope you guys can round up a few libs to shoot the pants off of. It’s sounds like fun, but I likely can’t make it to something like that. If I did it’d be a last minute type of deal. Be safe.
Well, if we can’t get enough libs we’ll have it between the conservatives and the independents, or the Libitarians, or the Jehova’s Witnesses. . .
But it looks like we have enough to go to the range for some kind of reason. . . We’ll think of one later!
Hank
I’ll be there shooting for the libitarian team.We’ll be wearing off pink tee shirts.
Hank -
Let us know when and where. I’d invite Mrage, but I’m afraid she couldn’t figure out which end was the dangerous end . . .