Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: WHAT’S THE CASE AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 28, 2015
Author: S. H. Blannenberry
Post Date: 2015-11-28 16:48:11 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 13836
Comments: 39
WHAT’S THE CASE AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY?
Several states including Tennessee, Montana and Colorado, Texas are currently considering bills that would allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms without a permit. Constitutional or permitless carry, as it’s known, is already the law of the land in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont and Wyoming.
To the chagrin of gun-grabbers, none of those states with permitless concealed carry laws have descended into chaos. There is no widespread upheaval. There are no maundering hordes of armed miscreants. There appears to be no disruption to civilized society. Everything is pretty much as it was before the laws passed.
State Rep. Rick Womick (Photo: John A. Gillis/Gannett Tennessee) State Rep. Rick Womick (Photo: John A. Gillis/Gannett Tennessee)
Given this reality, the question is: what’s the case against Constitutional carry? In other words, why shouldn’t we allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms without a license?
One can also argue that the Constitution protects one’s right to not just keep arms but to bear (carry) them as well. So why are we letting permits and the permitting process get in the way of this fundamental right?
Recently, Tennessee lawmaker Rep. Rick Womick introduced such a bill into the state House. In talking with The Tennessean, Womick defined the bill and made a pretty good case as why one should support it.
“That is what they call a constitutional carry bill,” explained Womick, a Republican, to The Tennessean. “What this bill would do is allow you to carry a gun without a permit either concealed or unconcealed. It’s straight Second Amendment.”
“The bottom line is if you want to carry a handgun or a shotgun to go hunting, you still have to follow the law, but you don’t have to have a permit to do so,” continued Womick. “It only applies to a citizen in good legal standing.”
Indeed. Yet many Democratic lawmakers and gun control supporters oppose it. On what grounds you ask?
“I believe every gun owner should require a permit,” said Darrell Bouldin, the second vice chair of the Rutherford County Democratic Party. “And I believe that we should have even stricture gun-control laws where anyone who applies should have a complete background check and be denied said permit if they have a criminal background or have a background of instability of some kind.”
Rtc2.gif “Rtc2” by Jeff Dege, Luieburger – commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F il e:Rtc.gif. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Likewise, Sara Mitchell of Rutherford County said, “We have an epidemic of gun violence in America, including shootings by children who gain access to their parents’ guns. Rather than relaxing gun laws, we should be trying to strengthen them and hold adults accountable for safeguarding their guns so that they are not accessible to children.”
Both Bouldin and Mitchell’s arguments are easy to shoot down. To start with Bouldin, his reasoning is we should have permits because, well, he simply believes we should. There are no facts or logic to back up his position, just his feelings on the issue. This is common with anti-gunners. They want to roll back the Second Amendment because they believe it’s the right thing to do or that it will save lives or that it will make us all safer, etc. Yet the facts just aren’t on their side.
By the numbers gun-loving Vermont had the lowest firearm murder rate per 100,000 residents in 2010. Vermont’s rate was .3 murders per 100,000 — again the lowest of all 50 states! Meanwhile, although it’s not a state, the District of Columbia which had a no-issue concealed carry standard in 2010 had by far the highest with 16.5 gun murders per 100,000 residents. That’s more than double the next closest state, which was Louisiana with 7.7 gun murders per 100,000 inhabitants.
While one should be cautious to make generalizations about crime data as there are many factors that influence crime rates, a rather obvious conclusion that one could discern from the numbers is that laws restricting concealed carry licensing have no measurable impact on the gun murder rate. If it they did, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont and Wyoming would all be at the top of the list. But they’re not. Respectively, per 100,000 residents, the rates were Alaska 2.7; Arizona 3.6; Arkansas 3.2; Vermont .3; and Wyoming 0.9. How does those numbers compare with the rest of the nation? To give you an idea the median rate was 2.7 murders per 100,000 residents.
Bouldin makes another critical blunder that is typical of a gun-grabber. That is, he fails to realize that criminals do not apply for concealed carry permits. Why would they? By their very nature they are outlaws, literally, meaning they don’t follow the law! Making the process more burdensome will only impact law-abiding applicants. Drug dealers and thugs will continue to pack heat without the permit.
Mitchell’s comments are equally absurd. There is no epidemic of gun violence in America. All crime, including violent crime, property crime and the gun-related homicide rate have uniformly declined over the past two decades. While one can argue that shootings are still too common in the U.S., the reality is that things are much better than they were in the 1980s and 1990s when gun laws were far more restrictive. Additionally, the majorities of shootings in this country happen in and around city centers (Chicago, D.C., Detroit) where there is widespread drug and gang activity. Were we to address the very real epidemic of drug/gang-related activity, then we’d see a serious decline in the number of gun murders. But instead of acknowledging this aspect of the crime equation, Mitchell is content with blaming guns and gun ownership.
Crime Rates in the U.S. It was sourced form wikipedia, but for more extensive numbers check out the FBI stats. Crime Rates in the U.S. It was sourced form wikipedia, but for more extensive numbers check out the FBI stats.
Mitchell also builds a straw man. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, permitless carry, she diverts attention to the disparate issue of children and firearms. On this subject, there is a lot to discuss, such as when to teach children about gun safety, optimal ways to secure firearms in a home, the decline in accidental shooting deaths over the past several years, among others. But let’s save this for another day and stick to the main question: the argument against constitutional carry.
From what I garner, there is only one semi-persuasive case to make against constitutional carry. And it has to do with mandatory training that it requires to obtain a permit. Some folks, including many gun owners, believe that mandatory training of some sort (range time and classroom time) and of some length (upwards of four hours but no more than 16 hours, which is Illinois’s requirement) is beneficial for the applicant and serves the interest of public safety. Someone who has had training, the theory goes, is more responsible, more safe, and more aware than someone who has not been trained.
It’s a hard argument to refute in any empirical way because there are no — at least to my knowledge — studies that examine the impact that gun safety training has had on a population. The only defense against mandatory training is that it’s an infringement on the Second Amendment. In a literal sense that may be true, but in reality no court or judge is going to rule that training is tantamount to an infringement. Instead, the court or judge would argue that it’s a “reasonable limitation,” much in the same way that one may need to obtain a permit before assembling in a public park. Constitutional purists will be pissed off by this, and rightfully so, but it is the world in which we live in.
Perhaps it’s just my Libertarian perspective but I think the dilemma over training ultimately comes down to the individual. Whether or not there is a training requirement in place, responsible individuals will still act responsibly. They will seek out training and instruction on their own. They will go the extra mile to ensure that they are safe when carrying in public. They will take time to learn local laws. They will do things the right way because that’s who they are. And, on the other side of the coin, knuckleheads will continue to be knuckleheads regardless of whether they receive training. Ironically then, I believe mandatory training is only effective on the folks who ultimately don’t need it.
So, what is a gun owner to do? I support Constitutional carry. Pending further developments, I see no concrete reason why one should oppose it. At the same time, if residents of a state are comfortable with a permissive ‘shall-issue’ standard that requires training, then I guess I support that standard as well. It may not be ideal or what the founders intended, but it seems to be a reasonable compromise in an age where gun ownership is constantly under fire.
Anyways, that’s where I come out on this. What are your thoughts?
Notice anything wrong? Send Silk feedback
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
" I support Constitutional carry. "
I do too.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
#2. To: Stoner (#1)
Both Open and Concealed Carry are the Law of the Land.
(Although, even here at LF, many will argue that fact)
#3. To: tpaine (#2)
" Both Open and Concealed Carry are the Law of the Land. "
I have a permit, but believe it should be unnecessary.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
#4. To: Stoner (#3)
"I have a permit, but believe it should be unnecessary."
Same with a driver's license?
#5. To: tpaine (#0)
I recommend anyone reading this article verify their state law before carrying where and how he says it is legal. He has stated concealed carry is legal in Arkansas without a permit. He is wrong.
Several states including Tennessee, Montana and Colorado, Texas are currently considering bills that would allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms without a permit. Constitutional or permitless carry, as it’s known, is already the law of the land in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont and Wyoming.
The author's correct name is S.L. Blannelberry. The article from February 20, 2015 may be found at: https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/whats-case-constitutional-carry/.
It is currently lawful to open carry, except where prohibited, or for unlawful purposes.
Concealed carry remains subject to a concealed carry permit.
http://www.shoothouseusa.com/uploads/AG_Opinion_on_Open_Carry_20150828.pdf
Arkansas AG Opinion Opinion 2015-064 of 28 August 2015 re Open Carry
So, what does the foregoing actually mean for Arkansas law enforcement and for the people of Arkansas? While I do not encourage open carry, so long as a person has no intent “to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person,” he or she may possess a handgun without violating § 5-73-120(a).[19] That means in general merely possessing a handgun on your person or in your occupied vehicle does not violate § 5-73-120(a) and may be done if it does not violate other laws or regulations. However, there are four critical caveats that should certainly be taken into consideration. Any person who carries a handgun should be aware that a law enforcement officer might lawfully inquire into that person’s purpose. Determining culpability or potential culpability under § 5-73-120(a) is initially a matter for law enforcement following guidelines that routinely apply when investigating a misdemeanor involving the danger of forcible injury to persons. A law enforcement officer may stop and detain any person reasonably suspected of violating section § 5-73-120(a) if necessary to identify the person or determine the lawfulness of his or her conduct.[20] Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion will depend upon a number of circumstance-specific factors. Some of these factors are recounted in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-81-203 (Repl. 2005), including:(1) the demeanor of the suspect; (2) the gait and manner of the suspect; (3) any information received from third persons; and (4) the suspect’s proximity to known criminal conduct.
While merely possessing a loaded handgun completely on its own is not enough for reasonable suspicion of a violation of § 5-73-120(a), possessing a loaded handgun in combination with just one additional factor may, depending on the circumstances, be enough to create reasonable suspicion of intent to unlawfully employ the handgun as a weapon (and thus reasonable suspicion of a violation of § 5-73-120(a)).
Other statutes prohibit possession of a handgun in certain circumstances regardless of whether a person has the intent to use the handgun unlawfully. Those statutes still have full force and effect. For example, § 5-73-122(a)(1) prohibits (with exceptions not relevant here) possessing a deadly weapon “in any publicly owned building or facility or on the State Capitol grounds.” So a person could not lawfully bring a handgun with him or her to the State Capitol grounds even though doing so wouldn’t necessarily violate § 5-73-120(a). I provide a non-exhaustive list of those statutes in the Addendum to this opinion. I have summarized the principal statutes that make it unlawful to carry a firearm, notwithstanding the absence of a purpose prohibited by section § 5-73-120(a).
3. A private property owner or occupant is still entitled to keep handguns (and other firearms) and persons with handguns (and other firearms) off his, her, or its property. If a person enters or stays on private property against the owner’s or occupant’s stated desire that he or she not enter or that he or she leaves, that person may be guilty of criminal trespass. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-203.
Nothing in Act 746, § 5-73-120(a), or this opinion is intended to suggest a person may carry a concealed handgun in public without a properly issued concealed-carry license.[21] In fact, except during a journey, it is likely that the Arkansas Supreme Court would allow the presumption that a person who has flouted the concealed-carry regime in Arkansas law by possessing a concealed handgun without a concealed-carry license has the requisite unlawful intent for a violation of § 5-73-120(a).
Point 4 requires additional explanation. In my opinion, a person may not lawfully carry a concealed handgun in public without a properly issued concealed-carry license. I believe this necessarily follows from the concealed-carry licensing scheme that predates Act 746 and that, in my opinion, was unaffected by Act 746.[22] The licensing requirement is recognized in the “concealed handgun” exception under § 5-73-120:
It is permissible to carry a handgun under this section if at the time of the act of carrying a weapon....[t]he person is in possession of a concealed handgun and has a valid license to carry a concealed handgun under § 5-73-301 et seq., or recognized under § 5-73-321 and is not in a prohibited place as defined by § 5-73-306.[23]Among the many requirements for obtaining a concealed-carry license is a statement under oath that the applicant “desires a legal means to carry a concealed handgun to defend himself or herself.”[24] In my opinion, these licensing requirements were unaffected by Act 746. To conclude otherwise would essentially nullify the concealed-carry law’s oath requirement, contrary to established rules of statutory construction.[25]
From Arkansas Code Annotated:
2012 Arkansas Code
Title 5 - Criminal Offenses
Subtitle 6 - Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Or Welfare
Chapter 73 - Weapons
Subchapter 3 - -- Concealed Handguns
§ 5-73-306 - Prohibited places.Universal Citation: AR Code § 5-73-306 (2012)
NO LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBCHAPTER AUTHORIZES ANY PERSON TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN INTO:
(1) Any police station, sheriff's station, or Department of Arkansas State Police station;
(2) Any Arkansas Highway Police Division of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department facility;
(3) (A) Any building of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department or onto grounds adjacent to any building of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department.
(B) However, subdivision (3)(A) of this section does not apply to a rest area or weigh station of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department;
(4) Any detention facility, prison, or jail;
(5) Any courthouse;
(6) (A) Any courtroom.
(B) However, nothing in this subchapter precludes a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon into his or her courtroom;
(7) Any polling place; ACT 1175 of 2015 removes polling places
(8) Any meeting place of the governing body of any governmental entity;
(9) Any meeting of the General Assembly or a committee of the General Assembly;
(10) Any state office;
(11) Any athletic event not related to firearms;
(12) Any portion of an establishment, except a restaurant as defined in § 3-5- 1202, licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises;
(13) Any portion of an establishment, except a restaurant as defined in § 3-5- 1202, where beer or light wine is consumed on the premises;
(14)(A) Any school, college, community college, or university campus building or event, unless for the purpose of participating in an authorized firearms-related activity; Mar. 1, 2013 Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, signed H.B. 1479 in to law.
(B) However, subdivision (14)(A) of this section does not apply to a kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) private school operated by a church or other place of worship that:
(i) Is located on the developed property of the kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) private school;
(ii) Allows the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into the church or other place of worship under this section; and
(iii) Allows the licensee to possess a concealed handgun on the developed property of the kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) private school under § 5- 73-119(e);
(15) Inside the passenger terminal of any airport, except that no person is prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the passenger terminal if the firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking the firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft;
(16)(A) Any church or other place of worship; Feb. 11, 2013, Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, signed the Church Protection Act into law.
(B) However, this subchapter does not preclude a church or other place of worship from determining who may carry a concealed handgun into the church or other place of worship;
(17) Any place where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by federal law;
(18) Any place where a parade or demonstration requiring a permit is being held, and the licensee is a participant in the parade or demonstration; or
(19) (A) (i) Any place at the discretion of the person or entity exercising control over the physical location of the place by placing at each entrance to the place a written notice clearly readable at a distance of not less than ten feet (10') that "carrying a handgun is prohibited".
(ii) (a) If the place does not have a roadway entrance, there shall be a written notice placed anywhere upon the premises of the place. (b) In addition to the requirement of subdivision (19)(A)(ii)(a) of this section, there shall be at least one (1) written notice posted within every three (3) acres of a place with no roadway entrance.
(iii) A written notice as described in subdivision (19)(A)(i) of this section is not required for a private home.
(iv) Any licensee entering a private home shall notify the occupant that the licensee is carrying a concealed handgun.
(B) Subdivision (19)(A) of this section does not apply if the physical location is a public university, public college, or community college, as defined in § 5-73-322,
#6. To: tpaine (#0)
I'll never understand why some people think they need a permission slip from the government in order to exercise a Constitutional right.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts#7. To: misterwhite (#4) (Edited)
"I have a permit, but believe it should be unnecessary."Same with a driver's license?
Do you need a license to speak or protest?
How about to publish a newspaper or operate a web site?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts#8. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#5)
Both Open and Concealed Carry are the Law of the Land.
(Although, even here at LF, many will argue that fact)
The author's correct name is S.L. Blannelberry. The article from February 20, 2015 may be found at: https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/whats-case-constitutional- carry/.
True to form, nolu shows up to nitpick, and to argue against our Constitution..
It is currently lawful to open carry, except where prohibited, or for unlawful purposes.
We have an inalienable right to bear arms, according to the 2nd Amendment, part of our 'supreme law of the land'..
Concealed carry remains subject to a concealed carry permit.
That's your unconstitutional opinion, backed up by over two hundred years of unconstitutional opinions spewed forth by traitorous politicians, judges, and lawyers.. -- Congrats, -- you're in the company of assholes.
#9. To: Deckard, Stoner, Y'ALL (#6)
I have a permit, but believe it should be unnecessary. --- Stoner
Deckard wrote:
I'll never understand why some people think they need a permission slip from the government in order to exercise a Constitutional right.
Near as I can see, the misunderstanding started on the frontiers, when various towns erroneously posted 'laws' against carrying arms, and they were never challenged constitutionally.
The political class loved the newfound (unconstitutional) power to prohibit, -- And here we are, surrounded by idiots..
#10. To: tpaine (#8)
Both Open and Concealed Carry are the Law of the Land.
Getting arrested and jailed for concealed carry without a permit is the law of Arkansas.
The jurisdiction of the tpaine Court of the Imagination is not recognized.
#11. To: nolu chan (#10)
Concealed carry remains subject to a concealed carry permit.
That's your unconstitutional opinion, backed up by over two hundred years of unconstitutional opinions spewed forth by traitorous politicians, judges, and lawyers.. -- Congrats, -- you're in the company of assholes.
Getting arrested and jailed for concealed carry without a permit is the law of Arkansas.
And that makes you happy as hell, doesn't it..
The jurisdiction of the tpaine Court of the Imagination is not recognized.
No imagination necessary, on my part, to recognize you as a gun grabber nolu..
#12. To: tpaine (#11) (Edited)
The real issue with this is the dingbats get to carry just like the reasonable people. It is like going back to the 1870, 1880's when that cowboy culture existed. A man can be a man without a gun in his hand. When I was young I had a gun in my golf bag, considering where I lived there might be the odd snake or crow to deal with, but reality is there was more fantasy to it than necessity, and that is what this is, fantasy.
Not carrying a gun is not an infringement of your rights, having a gun at home in your closet is just as much exercising your rights as strutting your stuff about town with a big iron on yoru hip, in fact doing that is compensating for something lacking in your life
#13. To: Deckard (#6)
I'll never understand why some people think they need a permission slip from the government in order to exercise a Constitutional right.
Maybe they are worried some trigger happy copper never read the Constitution and may mistake them for a criminal.
Stranger less threatening things have happened on your threads.
"I will praise You, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And I will glorify Your name forevermore. For great is Your mercy toward me, And You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol." Psalm 86:12-13
#14. To: paraclete (#12)
considering where I lived there might be the odd snake or crow to deal with, but reality is there was more fantasy to it than necessity, and that is what this is, fantasy.
No venomous snakes and mountain lions around your parts?
In Texas just going fishing can be an adventure. Come across a rattle snake no problem. They rattle, you move on. Defensive creatures unless you step on them.
Come across a Cottonmouth, oh boy. Shoot and ask questions later. That snake will chase you, find you and kill you. Very territorial.
"I will praise You, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And I will glorify Your name forevermore. For great is Your mercy toward me, And You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol." Psalm 86:12-13
#15. To: redleghunter (#14)
No venomous snakes and mountain lions around your parts?
oh we have some marvellous venomous snakes but none give you a warning, there is the death adder who hides under a rock, or leaf, waiting for you and the king brown who bites you just for fun and then there is the taipan, the spiders are to die for too, and we do have some legendary panthers roaming these mountains but a six foot six buck kangaroo can be just as dangerous. My dad would never leave a snake unkilled even if was minding its own business
#16. To: Deckard, tpaine (#6)
" I'll never understand why some people think they need a permission slip from the government in order to exercise a Constitutional right. "
I understand, and sympathize with your point.
I can not speak for everyone, but only for myself. I feel like I should not need a license to carry concealed. I did carry that way for years. Later, I decided to acquire the license. My thought process was that if confronted by LEO's, either on the street, or in my vehicle, or in a store while carrying concealed, or heaven forbid, if something happened and I had to use my firearm, then with the license my risk of being charged would be minimal. I know some diehards will say that is the chicken way out. But, besides providing for my family, I do not intend to expose them to my unnecessary expenditure of thousands of dollars of legal bills just to prove I am a purist.
Those that disagree with that, Fine. You go ahead and carry without the permit. Then if something happens, and you go bankrupt going through the courts to try to prove that you "don't need" the permit, do not cry to me.
Fortunately, I have not had any issues to this point.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
#17. To: Stoner (#16)
What if you are denied a "permit to carry?" You see, the government continues to restrict the right to possession and carry a firearm, while lowering the bar to continue to restrict sales, ownership, carry and transportation.
Get it into your head that there are three classifications of citizenship:
1) those that have unrestrained right to carry,
2) those that must apply for a permit to carry, and
3) those that may not carry under any legal circumstance.
Group 1 gets smaller in a police state while both Groups 2 and 3 become larger. Which group are you in, again?
#18. To: buckeroo (#17)
" What if you are denied a "permit to carry?" "
Well, that is hypothetical, since I do have one.
I see your point, but you need to reread my previous post. If you want to "carry the banner" and prove the point, have at it.
Back to your hypothetical, if I were denied the permit, I would "cross that bridge when I get to it". As I stated in my previous post, if you had read it, you would read that I stated that I carried without a "permit" for years.
If necessary I would probably do it again. I do not leave home much, and around on the farm here, I do not need one. I carry everyday. And when I am in public, I am armed. Just the other day, I ran into a LEO friend at Wal Mart. Besides other topics, we discussed what we were currently carrying
As I am setting here typing, I have a 1911 with two spare mags beside me, and a 12 ga standing in the corner, and a rifle in the other corner.
Now I will ask you the same question: " What if you are denied a "permit to carry?"
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
#19. To: Stoner (#18)
"What if you are denied a "permit to carry?"
It can happen at any tyme; this is true, even if you have an existing permit to carry. A permit to carry is a priviledge; it is not guaranteed and is subject to fees, licenses and taxes as the state deems necessary to sanction any approval process; it is subject to all kinds of nuisances that avoid "rights" by mere proclaimation.
#20. To: buckeroo (#19)
So ?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
#21. To: paraclete (#12)
Not carrying a gun is not an infringement of your rights, -----strutting your stuff about town with a big iron on yoru hip, in fact doing that is compensating for something lacking in your life.
Weird opinion, as it is a documented fact (from 50+ years of 'The Armed Citizen) that bearing arms, - open or concealed, can save your life, and the lives of others.
The real issue with this is the dingbats get to carry just like the reasonable people.
Yep, and judging by your postings, you're one of the dingbats. --- Thanks for the entertainment...
#22. To: Stoner (#20)
So what is the point of applying for a "permit" when you have the right to begin with?
#23. To: buckeroo (#22)
" So what is the point of applying for a "permit" when you have the right to begin with? "
Look kid, are you really that effing stupid? You obviously did not read my comments in Post 16, or you are really effing stupid, since I explained there.
Or, maybe you just want to aggravate someone with your childish questions. Well, how about you go away kid. Leave the basement, go upstairs & tell your mother she wants you.
Oh, and FU !!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
#24. To: Stoner (#23)
You obviously did not read my comments in Post 16
Obviously, I read your post #16, which prompted my first reply. You are simply afraid of your rights or to defend your rights or to stand up FOR your rights or all of the foregoing points. Instead, you have opted to huncker down and blindly sign a document that grants a "priviledge" that can be taken away in a heartbeat.
You exemplify the reason for America's loss of rights, liberties, freedoms and individual dignity.
#25. To: paraclete (#12)
The real issue with this is the dingbats get to carry just like the reasonable people. It is like going back to the 1870, 1880's when that cowboy culture existed.
I guess you are one of those people who have been brainwashed by all the western movies you have seen?
Fact is, the Wild West was fairly safe if one removes Indians from equation.
#26. To: paraclete (#15)
Ah the mighty Down Under:)
Well yes you have your hands full.
"I will praise You, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And I will glorify Your name forevermore. For great is Your mercy toward me, And You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol." Psalm 86:12-13
#27. To: tpaine (#11)
Getting arrested and jailed for concealed carry without a permit is the law of Arkansas.And that makes you happy as hell, doesn't it..
It's no biggie to me. Permits are not that difficult to get. Arkansas also requires certified training for a hunting license.
What would make me happy is a youtube of you on your way to the tombs, explaining to an NYPD officer that you have a constitutional right to carry concealed in NYC.
#28. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#27)
Getting arrested and jailed for concealed carry without a permit is the law of Arkansas.
And that makes you happy as hell, doesn't it..
What would make me happy is a youtube of you on your way to the tombs, explaining to an NYPD officer that you have a constitutional right to carry concealed in NYC.
Supposedly, you took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution when you joined the Navy.
I pity anyone that still believes that you are an honorable man..
#29. To: tpaine (#28)
Supposedly, you took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution when you joined the Navy.I pity anyone that still believes that you are an honorable man..
Yeah 79-year old yukon, whatever you say.
I would enjoy a youtube of your lawyer explaining to you that you cannot argue in court, as a defense, that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to concealed carry in NYC.
#30. To: redleghunter (#26)
Ah the mighty Down Under:)Well yes you have your hands full.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. -
See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847#sthash.60TKi6rT.dpuf
Yeah I would say they do have their hands full...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#31. To: CZ82 (#30) (Edited)
In 2006,
seeing as you are incapable of using up to date statistics
Between 2013 and 2014 the number of recorded victims decreased for the majority of offence categories. Robbery had the largest proportional decrease of 16% (1,825 victims). Homicide, kidnapping/abduction, robbery, unlawful entry with intent and motor vehicle theft victims all fell to five year lows.
the way I read it something must be working and it doesn't need guns in the hands of the population to make it happen. What it is is you have to live in a reasonable society that believes in the rule of law and fair play. you have the impression we don't own guns, that is incorrect, we just don't possess the more dangerous military assault weapons and you have to have a good reason for owning a weapon not just a whim, but we also have regulations regarding other weapons and that may do as much to explain these statistics
#32. To: paraclete (#31)
you are incapable
So why didn't you post the rest of those Wiki stats that showed Sexual assaults and Blackmail extortion was up???
A nice graph from say 1980-Present with links would be nice if you want people to believe things have gotten better since you bought back guns, kinda like this one. Which shows US rates going down quite steadily as the amount of firearms has gone up quite steadily...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778268.html
Or maybe the crime rate there is dropping because the population is finally becoming civilized. Australia used to be the dumping grounds for other countries undesirables wasn't it??
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#33. To: Dead Culture Watch (#25)
Where he lives they still have a version of the Wild West, it's called the Northern Territory...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#34. To: CZ82 (#32) (Edited)
Australia used to be the dumping grounds for other countries undesirables
No it was the dumping ground for british persecuted minorities after you ceased to take them.(American war of independence 1770, colonisation of Australia 1788) The difference between Australia and the US is we have never known slavery and so don't have the same issues with black populations, we also don't have the hispanic issue. For the uninformed, the Northern Territory is a remote area populated mainly by aboriginal australians. It has its own unique set of issues much the same as your native american reserves do.
If sexual assault statistics show an increase it is due to greater reporting and the rise in muslim populations, we are aware of how many of those offenders there are.
I would like to post graphics but I don't know how to find this function
#35. To: paraclete (#34)
The difference between Australia and the US is we have never known slavery and so don't have the same issues with black populations, we also don't have the hispanic issue. For the uninformed, the Northern Territory is a remote area populated mainly by aboriginal australians. It has its own unique set of issues much the same as your native american reserves do.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Territory is the murder capital of Australia, according to new crime statistics.
The state and territory breakdown of Recorded Crime - Victims from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the Northern Territory has the highest rate of murder at 7.7 per 100,000 people. This is over three times greater than the next highest state.
In the Northern Territory, Indigenous people continue to be overrepresented in assault statistics. There were 130 Indigenous victims of sexual assault in 2012 in comparison to 153 non-Indigenous victims. This is despite only 30% of the Northern Territory population being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background.
Actually it sounds like the Northern Territory has the same problems with minorities that the US does...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#36. To: CZ82 (#35) (Edited)
Actually it sounds like the Northern Territory has the same problems with minorities that the US does...
No the problems are not the same. The aboriginals are the majority in the NT. What you have there is a people whose social fabric and culture has been broken down so those who have moved from their traditional home are involved in street crime, disorder and family violence. Drugs in the form of petrol sniffing, etc are also a problem. There is a high aboriginal prison population in the NT and there is no prospect of employment so reoffending becomes attractive. Candidly, the answers are hard to find because there is no model elsewhere we might find and traditional law, which is harsh, is the only answer. This only works in tribal groups
These people have a tradition of tribal conflict and a set of social rules that mean that it is easy for them to be on the wrong side of their culture and thus shunned. Once ejected there is nowhere they can go but to become derelect.
the statistics of the NT distort the national statistics and the situation is not helped with the addition of US troops rotating through there and seeking recreation. Promiscusness also seems to be a feature of the decline of their culture Thes statistics put it in perspective
The number of victims of homicide and related offences rose from 15 victims in 2010-11 to 19 in 2011-12, an increase of 27%. The increase occurred in murder victims, with the 17 murder victims recorded in 2011-12 being the highest of the six-year reporting period. There were fewer victims of attempted murder, manslaughter and driving causing death in 2011-12 than in most years of the reporting period.
The assault victimisation rate in 2011-12 was 3,019 victims per 100,000 population,or approximately 3 assault victims per 100 persons. This rate has not changed substantially in the last two years. The 2011-12 victimisation rate was 35% greater than in 2006-07.
The assault victimisation rate for Indigenous females in 2011-12 was 10,710 victims per 100,000 Indigenous females, more than three times as large as the overall victimisation rate, and more than 12 times as large as the rate for non- Indigenous females of 876 per 100,000 population. The rate for Indigenous males was 2,957 victims per 100,000 population, twice as large as the rate for non- Indigenous males of 1,446 per 100,000 population.
As with overall assaults, Indigenous females had a much greater victimisation rate for alcohol-related assault than other demographic groups. The victimisation rate for Indigenous females was 7,008 victims per 100,000 Indigenous females or 7 per 100 persons, nearly four times the overall population rate of 1,783 per 100,000 population, and more than 18 times the rate for non-Indigenous females of 376 per 100,000 population.
In 2011-12, Indigenous females made up 73% of all domestic violence victims in the Northern Territory and experienced domestic violence at a rate of 8,780 victims per 100,000 population, almost 23 times the rate for non-Indigenous females.
From 2010-11 to 2011-12, the rate for Indigenous female victims fell by 34%; the rate for non-Indigenous female victims fell by 28%; the rate for Indigenous male victims fell by 13%; and the rate for non-Indigenous male victims fell by 9%.
The property offence rate in 2011-12 was 9,163 offences per 100,000 population, or just over 9 offences per 100 persons. As several property offences may occur in a single incident and apply to one or more persons, this rate should not be interpreted as 9 percent of people experiencing property crime. The property offence rate was 2% greater than in 2010-11, but 7% less than in 2006-07.
in 2010-11 and 2% greater than in 2006-07. The rate of actual commercial break- ins was 711 per 100,000 population in 2011-12, 1% less than in 2010-11 but 1% greater than in 2006-07. The rate of theft from retail premises in 2011-12 was 437 per 100,000 population, 7% less than in 2010-11 but 74% greater than in 2006-07.
As you can see murder whilst occuring is actually a small component of crime at less that 20 occurences a year and that is true of our entire experience. guns in the hands of the perpetrators of violent crimes could only increase the death rate
#37. To: nolu chan (#29)
Supposedly, you took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution when you joined the Navy.
I pity anyone that still believes that you are an honorable man..
I would enjoy a youtube of your lawyer explaining to you that you cannot argue in court, as a defense, that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to concealed carry in NYC.
And the fact that you would enjoy such a blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL court 'ruling', tells everyone at LF what a dishonorable creep you really are. -- Thanks...
#38. To: paraclete (#36)
The aboriginals are the majority in the NT.This is despite only 30% of the Northern Territory population being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/1362.7Feature%20Article1Mar%202011
Debating your own governments statistics???
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#39. To: CZ82 (#38) (Edited)
The aboriginals are the majority in the NT.
There are 100 national origins represented in the northern territory. Aboriginals are the largest population group
natural born australian 30%, English with 44,662 (20.2%), Irish with 14,346 (6.8%), Scottish with 11,759 (5.6%), German with 7,729 (3.7%) and Italian with 3,308 (1.5%). Indigenous Australian people make up 32.5% of the Northern Territory's population, while Chinese people with 4,081 make up (1.9%).
These statistics take no account of mixed race people
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]