Archive for Sunday, August 6, 2006

Concealed carry law makes gun sales soar

Instructors say demand high for certification classes

August 6, 2006


Kansans are lining up to buy guns and learn how to shoot them.

"Usually summers in the gun business are deader than a doornail, but we're having a record year," said Jeff Howlett, owner of Kansas Firearms Specialties in Tonganoxie.

Much of the increased interest in guns is because people are arming themselves to take advantage of the new Kansas concealed carry gun law, Howlett said.

"We're selling a lot of pistols," he said.

While buying their guns, Kansans also are requesting and completing applications for obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. Applications became available July 1 at local sheriff's offices and online from the Kansas attorney general's office.

As of Friday, the attorney general's office had received 446 applications, said Chuck Sexson, former assistant director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and now the state's director of concealed services. Though applications are being accepted, licenses won't be issued until Jan. 1 or after.

Passing the tests

Moreover, the state has trained and certified 250 people who can conduct the eight-hour firearms safety course the law requires everyone complete in order to get a license.

"We're adding to that every week," Sexson said of the number of certified trainers. "We'd like to have up around 300 instructors as kind of a core group. We'll certainly take as many as we can certify because that simply gets more programs out there for the applicants to attend."

Last week, two investigators were added to Sexson's office to conduct background checks on the license applicants. An applicant must be at least 21 and cannot have a criminal history or a history of mental illness.

"Most of our applicants - 90 percent - we're not finding any significant issues with their backgrounds," Sexson said.

A list of certified instructors by county and how to contact them are on the attorney general's Web site. There are five instructors so far in Douglas County. One of them is Lawrence resident Mark Witt.

Interest in the classes is high, Witt said. A class he's scheduled for Aug. 12 is already full with 24 people signed up. So is a class in September. He's now having people sign up for a class in October.

Instructors set their own cost for the class. They teach the course as outlined by the attorney general's office. "They have it specified, and we're just going to follow the law," Witt said.

Classes with Joe Nave, another certified instructor, are given through Howlett's business. One night last week, 16 people went through the course, Howlett said. More than 20 were expected for a weekend class, he said.

Seeking protection

Most of them aren't planning to carry concealed weapons all the time, Howlett said.

"They say they are just going to go ahead and (take the course); that it's probably good practice and if they ever do want to carry, they can," he said.

Howlett said he and his wife plan to obtain licenses.

"Folks are doing it for their own safety. A lot of women are going through this," he said.

Licensees will not be able to carry guns everywhere. The law notes certain places, such as churches and bars, where guns are not allowed. Other businesses will be allowed to post signs forbidding weapons in their establishments if owners choose to do so.

But no signs are going up until the state determines a specific design and format for standard use, Sexson said. A public hearing on a possible sign design will be in October.

Once issued, the licenses are good for four years. Based on the experiences of other states, Kansas could issue up to 25,000 licenses over the next couple of years, Sexson said.

Sexson said he also thinks his office will be prepared to send notification of acceptance to applicants by the end of December. They will then finish the licensing process by going to a driver's license renewal office to have a concealed carry identification card made. Or they can have a notice placed on their drivers' licenses, similar to the licenses of organ donors.

"I think everything is going pretty smoothly," Sexson said of the licensing process.


Mike Birch 11 years, 9 months ago

Well, chalk one up for the average everyday citizen who

doesn't like the idea of being a victim! It will be

interesting to see what kind of an effect this will have

on crime, the system, and society in general.


redsunrising 11 years, 9 months ago

Oooh, I feel so much safer now knowing that every hot headed idiot I meet might be carrying a gun. I once argued with my brother about the stupidity of guns and I thought he was going to go get his gun and shoot me to prove he was right. Yep, I feel a lot safer now.

Jamesaust 11 years, 9 months ago

Oh, no, Marion -- a Glock 30 is your concealed-carry choice.

rayikeo 11 years, 9 months ago

(redsunrising) is obscured by fog. Those hotheads you are talking about are already armed with thier guns and walking the streets waiting for a victim (maybe like you) that they know will not have any weapon.

The ones under this law will be people like your banker, your lawyer, your local businessman, your next door neighbor. People you trust and respect. Some day one of these people may save your life. They are not the ones to be feared.

grimpeur 11 years, 9 months ago

"Some day one of these people may save your life. "

No, they most likely will not ever save your life or anyone else's. Sad and troubling that this vigilante hero fantasy is playing in folks' heads as they carry their guns into the street. All they will do is endanger themselves and those around them.

Nice scare words, though. And that's what it's all about--being very, very scared. Hope it's working for you, because you are plainly terrified. News flash:

It must suck to live in constant fear.

Sigmund 11 years, 9 months ago

Actually the knowledge that these people are armed and you might be too, might save you from ever being attacked in the first place. A lot of women are going through the training and given the rash of recent violence against women recently here in Lawrence I can't blame them.

BedlamX 11 years, 9 months ago


Look into the H&K P2000 compact (or sub-compact) or the CZ RAMI. Both are available in .40 S&W, have a decent mag capacity and are small enough to conceal in a jacket pocket. They also feel great in my rather small hands and both have recieved rave reviews from shooters.

conservativepunker 11 years, 9 months ago

Funny y'all are talking about semi autos. I'd rather place my life in the reliability of a nice snubbie .38, such as the Smith and Wesson 642 or Taurus 85. Only 5 shots, but at those ranges, that's all ya need. I know semi-autos look really cool in the movies, dropping mags and all, but the reliability factor of a revolver is much better. As Jeff Cooper once said "You need more than five shots, you've lost".

mom_of_three 11 years, 9 months ago

I have felt safe without carrying a gun for the past 20 years, having taken self defense classes, and will continue to do so. If someone is going to shoot me, he will do so whether I have a gun or not.

Several posters have noted that someone carrying a gun may save someone's life who isn't carrying a gun.
And it is very possible that someone carrying a gun, hoping to save someone, may also unintentionally take a life.

badger 11 years, 9 months ago

I agree with mom_of_three. I've walked around my whole life and felt quite safe for the vast majority of it without a gun.

Some people will want a gun to feel safer. That's their choice, but very few of the people who insist they need guns to be safer actually do. There are a lot of other choices that could be made. They'd prefer to use a gun.

And omb, I'm less worried about someone killing an innocent bystander than I am about someone who's gone through the training, made the choice, and gotten the license finding himself or herself in a 'situation', using that training, and finding out that he or she wasn't actually ready to be a taker of human life. A lot of people go through some serious emotional trauma after killing someone, even if that killing was perfectly justified and reasonable, and I'm absolutely sure that not everyone going through training in any state is ready to face actually killing someone. I'm not really sure how to address the, "If you carry your gun you may be faced with a situation where you have to kill someone, and even though once you are threatened enough to draw, it's you or him, that can still be a traumatic experience," section of the training.

sits back and waits for the bravado-laden "I won't be bothered by taking some scum off the streets because I have ENORMOUS TESTICLES" assertions

hipper_than_hip 11 years, 9 months ago

.40 cal is a pimp round. Go .38+P, .357, or .45 ACP.

Mari Aubuchon 11 years, 9 months ago

OMB wrote: "Find a legitimate news story from the USA showing that a holder of a concealed weapons permit has wounded an innocent bystander. "

A recent example:

redneck 11 years, 9 months ago

Maybe if everybody knew more about guns, they wouldn't be so afraid of law abiding citizens carrying them. Everybody wines about all those wacko's who are packing guns and how they only shoot inocent bystanders. Show me ONE instance to where a bystander was shot by someone who HAS a permit to carry a weapon and has gone through the training. Come on, I DARE you to show me just ONE instance! The people who have shot inocent people were NEVER trained as to when to actually pull out a weapon or how to even use it properly. And to those people who waive their guns around thinking that will scare the perpitrator off. Here is one tip that I have learned from reading a lot about self defence. Do NOT pull out your gun, unless you are going to pull the trigger within seconds and if you are not prepaired to empty the clip into their chest. In OTHER words, don't use it unless you know for certain that they are going to do more than just take your wallet. Why would you want to kill somebody because they are going to take your wallet that may have mabye 100 bucks in it? Do not pull out a gun unless they are going to do bodily harm or kill you. Why do we all trust the police who carry weapons? Aren't they people just like the rest of us who get pissed off? Also, the police deal with low-lifes 8 hours a day 5 days a week and I'll guarantee you that they get sick and tired of dealing with these people. So next time you want to make a comment about law-abiding citizens carrying guns, make sure you have the facts first.

Mari Aubuchon 11 years, 9 months ago

Redneck : See above.


In response to this post by redcommierising:

"I once argued with my brother about the stupidity of guns and I thought he was going to go get his gun and shoot me to prove he was right. "

You wrote:

"He should have."

You appear to be exactly the kind of hothead to which redsun was referring.

redneck 11 years, 9 months ago

Hey Mari! I guess you found one! I'm proud of you man! The man was drunk and he was screwing around with it. I think I have heard of police officers having accidents with their guns, but we haven't taken their guns away. I feel sorry for the guy who got shot, but he was stupid for hanging around a drunk with a loaded weapon. I'll tell you what. Lets take vehicles away from people, because some people are stupid even though they have gone through drives education.

MWIV 11 years, 9 months ago

redneck - right on! If we could legislate stupidity, half of this town (the left side) would be locked up.

redneck 11 years, 9 months ago

Why do you assume that I'm a hot head man? You are calling me a hothead when you don't even know me man. I'm not calling you ANYTHING except for mis-informed. I guess you will never understand where I'm comming from and I will never understand where you are comming from, but we don't need to call each other names over it. Also, I never told anybody that their brother SHOULD have shot them. I agree with you on that one. It was way out of line for them to say that.

Mari Aubuchon 11 years, 9 months ago

Redneck: I just gave you the most recent case I could find in a minute or so.

Would taking a cab be considered "asking for it"? I recall an incident in Austin back in 2000 in which a cabbie shot two unarmed passengers with his legally-concealed handgun (look it up in the Statesman).

By the way, legally-concealed weapons status is rarely reported to the media nor is it easily accessible to the public, therefore it is difficult to assess how many shootings result from licensed concealed weapons.

We do, however, know from the states of Texas and Utah that the owners of legally-concealed weapons are far more likely to go on to commit weapons-related crimes than those without such licenses.

You may want to believe that the people who will carry legally-concealed weapons are heroes who are only concerned with defending themselves and others. However, one man's perception of self-defense could just be an itchy trigger finger. Bring alcohol, depression, road rage, domestic disputes, or any of a hundred other situations where judgement may be impaired or mistaken and there will be problems.

Even if we discount accidents there is the issue of notRankly, unless you are able to see into the hearts of men and women, you have no idea of what violent impulses or stupid reactions they are capable.

Remember, people like BTK are well-respected members of their community. Just because someone is well-groomed, employed, and a church goer does not mean that they are not capable of killing.

kcredeye 11 years, 9 months ago

I would suggest that before one forms an opinion about concealed carry, they accomplish some research on the states that already HAVE concealed carry. I know of NO such states, who have had wittnessed any wide-spread problems with concealed carry holders. As a Missouri resident (with concealed carry), I heard the same misguided concerns expressed by many uninformed Kansans, and (as they will be in Kansas), they proved to be unfounded. Armed law abiding citizens, are the least of what we need to be worrying about!

badger 11 years, 9 months ago

omb said:

"BTW, mari, do you have a citation for "We do, however, know from the states of Texas and Utah that the owners of legally-concealed weapons are far more likely to go on to commit weapons-related crimes than those without such licenses."?"

I don't have a citation for it, and I don't know if it's true, but I can offer what might be an explanation for it. If Joe Blow forgets he's got a hunting rifle in the gun rack when he drives into town for more beer, Officer Bubba may well run his license to make sure he doesn't have any wants or warrants, then say "OK, son, it's an honest mistake and I did the same thing a couple years back. Just be more careful," and the gun crime doesn't get reported. However, if Jim Blow, Joe's CCW-holding brother, forgets he has his shoulder holster on and walks into the liquor store with a gun, Officer Bubba has a store owner upset about a gun in his store, and someone violating laws he's certified to have been taught, so he pretty much has to report the gun crime. Joe may just have been hunting for a few months, but Jim's got a piece of paper that says, "I should know better than this."

Higher standards of teaching and certification mean it's a lot less likely you'll get a more forgiving attitude when you make a mistake, IMO, so we'll see more reports of crimes among CCW permit holders.

The Cheney case, though it doesn't directly deal with CCW, does demonstrate that even people with training and years of experience can make mistakes and seriously injure innocent bystanders, and that when we consider any changes to gun control laws, it's not unreasonable at all to look at whether or not it will result in an increase of situations where those careless mistakes could happen. Usually, in the case of CCW, I would expect* that the increase in training and regulation would offset the increase in people carrying guns around with them, and we'd see minimal, if any, increase in bystander injury.

*this expectation is not based on any statistical analysis, just the basic logic that trained people are less likely to make careless mistakes and so the smaller percentage of carelessness multiplied by the larger number of overall users kind of balances out.

badger 11 years, 9 months ago

"I have carried for thirty years and on occasion that little chunk of concealed metal has served me well."

Marion, are you suggesting that you've been carrying a concealed weapon for three decades? That's interesting, as you've never indicated any reason (like being a law enforcement officer) that suggests doing so might be legal for you.

As you are so proud of using your real name here, I certainly hope that someone reviewing a concealed carry permit application you might have submitted doesn't recognize that name and have reason to question your application based on your clear assertion in a public place that you may well have been breaking the law for thirty years with regard to firearms...

BOE 11 years, 9 months ago

Posted by enforcer on August 6, 2006 at 4:07 p.m.

Badger have yopu no life?

I have watched for months while you .......



ASBESTOS 11 years, 9 months ago


In your car and not on your person is not concealed.

The other 2 examples you gave is YES they are concealed in acordance with the LAW. The rhetoric and the use of english may allow hair splitting, the LAW however definse these issues. Trying to be an armchair quarterback in this thing, you need to read the ANYONE considering the CC permit MUST do. If you are asking thses questions, the training didn't take, and you will not get a CC permit.

BOE 11 years, 9 months ago

Posted by bialystocknbloom on August 6, 2006 at 6:03 p.m.

"I myself really enjoy "Tora Tora Tora" as well..."


If you're a fan of "Tora Tora Tora" , you'd like the new release with the director's commentary; both he and a film historian who is prompting him with questions. Good thing too, because it seems like he needed some prompting. I believe he died this past year.

Talks about the Japanese involvement in the film, as well as setting up the bigger action scenes.

Well worth watching.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 9 months ago

Boy was I wrong! You are concealed carry if you can reach the gun without changing position!

"Q: If my handgun is on the seat beside me, am I still considered to be "carrying?" A: Yes. The statute refers to carrying a gun "on or about" your person. Texas courts generally have considered this to include any gun within your reach, including one stored in your glove compartment or even in a passenger's purse, if you can reach it without materially changing your position."

ASBESTOS 11 years, 9 months ago

If you leave your seat, or greater than arms length from what you can reach in your seat. That would be materially changed.

Rationalanimal 11 years, 9 months ago

Criminals are now on notice. "[Granny's] gotta gun."

badger 11 years, 9 months ago

omb - I have yet to see a liquor store in Austin that doesn't have the sign, so I figured it was part of the law since the sign says it's a crime to possess a firearm on the premises. It may just be a People's Republic of Austin variation. As to the 'rifle in the gun rack' example, it was illegal in the town where I went to college to drive around with a gun in your gun rack inside city limits, so I was dredging up an example from past history. I haven't bothered to learn the specifics of carrying here in Austin, except how to transport a gun from home to range legally, because that's all the involved I am with carrying, transporting, or using guns. If I decide to buy one or spend more energy with the SO's than simply learning how to load, shoot, unload and clean them (I refuse to spend any significant quantity of time in a house where a gun is if I could not handle it safely, regardless of whether I ever expect to actually handle it or not), I'll likely take some gun law and safety courses, at which time I'll have better examples and you'll all have to find some other nits to pick.

As the examples themselves seem to have distracted people from the actual point of my post, let me rephrase:

If Joe Blow, who doesn't have a concealed carry permit, breaks gun law X due to an innocent mistake (without harming or endangering anyone), it is more likely that his brother Jim, who does have a concealed carry permit, would actually be charged or cited for a gun crime for a similar innocent mistake, because of the presumption that someone who had trained and qualified for a CCW permit should 'know better' and the notion that people will be looking harder at a cop letting someone with a permit go for a minor violation. That, not a higher likelihood of commission of gun crime, might explain why people with CCW permits might seem to be more likely to commit a gun crime than someone who didn't have one.

I love how I try to offer an explanation of the fact that a statement or statistic might reflect a difference in enforcement as opposed to a difference in behaviour, actually trying to offer some support for people who don't think that CCW permit holders are more likely to commit gun crimes, and it's the people whose argument I'm offering support for who pick nits and jump down my throat. Duly noted.

badger 11 years, 9 months ago

With regard to the Statesman story, here's the most comprehensive explanation of the cabdriver story I could find in the Statesman:

(just as a note, I live like a mile and a half from where this all happened, which surprises me because it's a quiet, friendly neighborhood)

The driver was charged, but he died in his cell about six months later, before he could be found innocent or guilty by a jury. Foremost among the questions that prompted him to be charged with capital murder was the fact that neither of the men he shot had any sort of bruising or abrasion on their hands, and that one of them was shot with his back to the cab driver, according to this article:

Kelly Powell 11 years, 9 months ago

I still say people should carry swords and we should reinstate dueling laws....I am all for more people volunteering off this planet and this would provide three benefits....1 it is difficult to be killed by a stray sword 2 it would be a hell of a lot more entertaining for spectators 3 I believe it would improve our fashion sense.

Doug Harvey 11 years, 9 months ago

I have the answer: let's pass a "concealed nuke" law. We can all take safety courses for carrying our pocket-nukes. Mutually assured destruction will keep us all safe. Never mind learning how to play nice.

Someone may have said this already, but those John Wayne movies? They were FICTION.

badger 11 years, 9 months ago


"Posted by redneck (anonymous) on August 6, 2006 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe if everybody knew more about guns, they wouldn't be so afraid of law abiding citizens carrying them. Everybody wines about all those wacko's who are packing guns and how they only shoot inocent bystanders. Show me ONE instance to where a bystander was shot by someone who HAS a permit to carry a weapon and has gone through the training. Come on, I DARE you to show me just ONE instance! "

It wasn't your post scenebooster was responding to. You're not the only one who issued a challenge.

Perhaps, though, you might consider issuing an apology.

badger 11 years, 9 months ago

Scenebooster - I know this is unsolicited advice, but my mom used to tell me, "It's a lot easier for folks to swallow the fact that they were wrong about something if you don't expect them to choke on it."

prioress 11 years, 9 months ago

I, for one, feel "safer" already. Since there is so much variation in circumstance, human personality, etc., much of the research on concealed carry and its efficacy is, to put it bluntly, imputed causality.

jayhawks71 11 years, 9 months ago

Consider the 2nd amendment and what it protects. Think about the behavior our government has exhibited in the past number of years. Think about the behavior of government in New Orleans post-Katrina. Government agents going house to house taking people's guns... at a time when the police force of New Orleans wasn't able to protect (and wasn't even there for the most part) citizens and looting was popular (including by the police). The government agents go in and take guns from law-abiding citizens so they can't defend themselves (and of course the government is immune from prosecution on such a bone-headed move) This all makes complete sense. Right? Government protecting us from nothing.

badger 11 years, 9 months ago

scenebooster said:

"Just showing the restraint I typically receive from the other side, as well as answering his original post...nothing wrong with that, is there?"

Not unless you're a fan of civil discourse and behaving with class regardless of the actions of others.

Or, as the same sainted mother would say, "I don't care if he hit you first. You're still being a little snot."

You say it's OK to be jerky to someone because other people are jerky to you. omb may have called you out, but he didn't call you names. He and I have clashed a time or two, and I've not known him to be that way. He'll rip the everloving daylights out of what you say, but he leaves the personal attacks out of it. Just because some folks aren't capable of having a conversation without slinging mud or throwing trash, that doesn't merit tarring everyone who agrees with them on an issue with that brush.

If you feel people are being jerks on this issue, all the more reason to not add to the number of jerks in the conversation by being one.

Doesn't mean I don't think omb should apologize, just means I think he shouldn't be called names or spoken to nastily for making a mistake.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 9 months ago

If we are going to have "air guitar wars" I get to be KISS. Have the boots, eyeliner, and all ; )

"You gotta loose your mind in...Detroit..... Rock City



How bout Shout it out loud?

"When ya want some fun and the night's begun do ya think you're gonna find it?"

80's Rock was the best corporate or no

it WAS FUN!!!

The men were thin had hair,

the women wore leather Mini's and fishnets, & stillettos...ummmm!

acg 11 years, 9 months ago

bial, why no Pearl Jam? What's wrong with Pearl Jam?

I don't have a gun and am glad for it. Not because I think that they should control the amount of guns owned by citizens or any of that (even though I just watched Bowling for Columbine last night and found it fascinating) but because I'm a hot head. I get annoyed in traffic, in lines, in crowds of sheeple, around idiots, around anyone associated with Fred Phelps, etc. If I had a gun, I would shoot someone with it, I just know I would. It's better that we just don't even go there.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 9 months ago


I was a KISS nut. Everything,.....never saw them live : (

I DID however have backstage passes 2 nights in a row (you will NEVER believe this) 1981, Red Rocks, Grateful Dead.

I also saw Queensryche from the 6th row at Sandstone. Jefferson Airplane in '84 7th row, Grace is COOL! 10 row Blue Oyster Cult and Black Sabbath (very dark show). Monsters of Rock well 83,000 of my closest friends on my b-day.

Van Halen just about any time I went. Whitesnake, Deep Purple, anytime anywhere. Say VH in Honolulu, that was cool too, "Those Summer Nights and my Radio" at the Stadium....PERFECT!

ASBESTOS 11 years, 9 months ago

'82 or '83 then. It WAS very HAZY memory. The ROCKS bring out the BEST in everyone who plays there. I heard a local say that the best shows he saw there was U-2 and the WHO. Not sure of the years. "Bloody Sunday SUnday" MTV video, and the who was after Keith.

Saw Roaring Scilence and the one with "Silent Lucidity". I believe "EMPIRE" tour. Meatloaf was a GREAT SHOW too, all 3.

Kelly Powell 11 years, 9 months ago

Where the hell did I mention air guitars? I really,really want them to bring back dueling.....And none of that pansy german school boy face scarring....I'm talking thunderdome baby!

gbaker 11 years, 9 months ago

Looks like the Last call and the Granda will be back in the paper. That's cool, Lawrence needs a good thining out anyway.

jayhawks71 11 years, 9 months ago

Conservativeman, can you point to the specific Supreme Court rulings. If you are accurate then licensing firearms and laws against concealed carry are unconstitutional and they would have SCOTUS precedent to back them up.

The government doesn't "give" us rights; the Bill of Rights doesn't "give" us rights, it lays them out for us. It identifies those things that the government must not do. The government gives licenses for privileges, you don't need a license for a right.

Until I see the print of Supreme Court decision, I think you are dreaming that SCOTUS has backed up the 2nd amendment (and interprets the US Constitution to mean that you have the right to carry).

egypt 11 years, 9 months ago

just what I was thinking... Now you are going to have a bunch of paranoid gun happy kansass running around. Havent we learned anything from last call.

jayhawks71 11 years, 9 months ago

Interesting how the Dred Scott case and Cruikshank cases say very different things about the right to bear arms. In the first, Taney suggests that by freeing Blacks and making them citizens, that they "get rights" by being citizens; only the voting right would be one afforded by citizen status. In the second case, (see point 3) makes a point completely opposed to the Taney's claim in Dred Scott; that is that government gives rights. Government does not such thing; Congress does no such thing.

Let's look further at what Cruikshank says: "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."

Further, the Dred Scott ruling mentions the right to bear arms only in passing as a by-product of giving former slaves citizens status; the case itself had nothing to do with bearing arms, and if you look at the length of the opinion, you will see how minor the arms mention is.

Further, based on the Cruikshank ruling it is clear that Taney was wrong to identify certain rights as those afforded citizens; people have them; they are unalienable, government does not give them. So the Dred Scott case really doesn't provide a SCOTUS ruling on the right to bear arms (which is based on the faulty premise that giving someone citizen status gives them the right to bear arms). And Cruikshank (see above) basically says that Congress can't infringe, so again, not a SCOTUS ruling on the right to bear arms other than saying it is up to the States and the people to regulate arms, which they do by licensing people to own a gun.

jayhawks71 11 years, 9 months ago

IF one truly has a right to bear arms, then one should consider all licensing to be unconstitutional. You don't need government to GIVE you a right to bear arms, and licenses don't endow rights; licenses afford privileges.

I don't believe either of the cases you mention address thd issue raised in my post. If you re-read my post, you will see what I asked for. "If you are accurate then licensing firearms and laws against concealed carry are unconstitutional and they would have SCOTUS precedent to back them up". There is no SCOTUS precedent on the issue of a RIGHT to bear arms which would nullify the ability to license arms (unconstitutional).

I am not disagreeing that people have the right, I simply don't believe (still) that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of concealed carry.

Wilbur_Nether 11 years, 9 months ago

conservativeman suggested: "It is the RESPONSIBILITY of each citizen to be armed, militarily armed...."

Unless, of course, by refusing to be so armed the citizen is exercising his (or her) Constitutionally protected right to follow the religion of choice--one of the historic peace churches (Mennonite, Society of Friends, Church of the Brethren), for example--that embraces pacifism as a way of life.

jayhawks71 11 years, 9 months ago

Conservativeman, I am not disagreeing with you that there is a fundamental right to bear arms protected by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. However, SCOTUS has NOT come out with a ruling on the right to bear arms, if they had, licensing of firearms would have been overturned as unconstitutional. Every single person who owns a firearm "legally" is forced to get a license have they not? They all have legal standing to sue any governing body that has jurisdiction over them for requiring them to get a license for a right, and certainly for imposing sanction (fines or imprisonment) for exercising their right.

SCOTUS has not ruled on this issue and if they have, I would like to see it with my own eyes; the cases you presented were interesting as far as peering into the history of government. A SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment that upholds the RIGHT to bear arms would make all licensing "violations" unenforceable, licensing "requirements" unconstitutional, and concealed carry laws unnecessary.

Wilbur_Nether 11 years, 9 months ago

righthinker thought: "A way of life that has been provided for them by an armed military," which isn't quite true. It's a way of life that has been provided for them by the U.S. Constitution.

hottruckinmama 11 years, 9 months ago

i myself am scared to death of guns. but if other people want to have them i think thats fine. if i had to use one to defend myself i'd probably be like barney fife..and shoot myself in the foot. my son has a 22 (?) his dad gave him a few years back for christmas. he goes out with his dad sometimes and shoots at cans and stuff.

Wilbur_Nether 11 years, 9 months ago

conservativeman offered a quote from TR, "The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer," which is from his progressive, "Bull Moose" days. The Progressive party ran on a platform that included social welfare, farm subsidies, a centralized bank, mandated medical coverage for all, suffrage for women, and both inheritance and income taxes to pay for all this. He argued for governmental oversight of business and industry to protect the little guy. He split the Republican vote, allowing the election to go to Woodrow Wilson. He also described himself as a pretty average fellow who had to work particulary hard to be that good. And the quote is completely irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the US Constitution reads that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." That is the same Constitution that reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Interestingly enough, the Constitution does not say anything about requiring an individual to serve in the military (or the militia). Only that the people have the right to keep and bear Arms. conservativeman continued "The pacifist can serve in other roles but is not exempt the responsibility of citizenship." Of which there can be no question. The responsibility of that citizenship, though, has nothing to do with bringing harm to others. The Constitution is the Law of the Land. If one is to accept the 2nd amendment as fundamental and uninfringible, the 1st must be equally so.

Wilbur_Nether 11 years, 9 months ago

Here, I found what I was searching for earlier. I think that James Madison is probably a better source for looking at the original intent of the 2nd Amendment than TR. (Who, despite my earlier indictment, was a decent fellow with many highly positive attributes. And one my more admired presidents. Which admiration seems to be harder to inspire with each succeeding year.)

Upon introducing the motion for a Bill of Rights to the Congress, Madison noted that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." The reference is in the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress.

xenophonschild 11 years, 9 months ago

If having all these concealed weapons makes all you law-abiding citizens feel safe, then good.

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 11 years, 9 months ago

Marion, that was an awesome response. I agree that come January 1st, violent crime will go down in Kansas. I'm a small guy, so I carry a S&W CS 45. I have supported concealed carry for many years, and in a small way helped get it passed into law. My only problem with the version that finally made it into law, is there are far too many places where one cannot carry their firearm. Add to this the signs that businesses can post prohibiting firearms, and the issue of where one can carry becomes quite complicated. It should not be this way. In fact, I have problems with law abiding citizens having to have a permit at all. I like Vermont style concealed carry. Before President Bush signed H.R. 218 (the house bill number that applies) into law, retired peace officers could not carry a weapon the day they retired, after carrying one for 25 years or more. It took the State of Kansas a year or more to get their ducks in a row so the bill could be applied here. This is the bill the Governor brags about signing. All it did was make Kansas law in line with federal law, so officers could carry nationwide. I would like to see state concealed carry laws reciprocal with all other states concealed carry laws. There are some that are now, but I think all should be. Thank you, Lynn

Wilbur_Nether 11 years, 9 months ago

conservativeman observed: "The quote is not "irrelevant", it is revealing. The pacifist is nothing but a wishful coward expressing his/her belief on the sacrafice of others." Which is nonsense. The quote is hyperbolic rhetoric; an early 20th century sound bite, nothing more. It has not reasoning, no explanation behind it. It incites but does not illuminate. It represents persons as things they are not. I know a number of pacifists from a number of different religions--Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Quakers, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, pagans, Presbyterians....not one of them "a wishful coward." Not one of them has ever said to me they would not die for a cause, only that they would not engage in violence against another person. I dunno, being willing to die for a belief...that sounds kinda brave to me.

conservativeman conservatinued with: "The constitution does not specify that one must serve in the military. It does however require the government to provide for the common defense. ...I believe the only other means of "raising" an army is to enlist it's citizens." Which is an interesting perspective given that we have a volunteer military. And the officers I've talked to (Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and Air Force--probably need to expand my circle of friends, given that I don't know anyone who is active in the Marines at the moment) have all told me they'd much rather have a volunteer military than conscripts.

By the way, conservativeman, the historic peace churches members have often suffered condemnation, isolation, humiliation, retaliation, physical abuse, and occasionally even been killed for their refusal. It would behoove you to learn a little more about their positions, backgrounds, experiences, and belief systems before assigning pithy little tags like cowards or persons inflicted with a hypothetical disease like "peaceitis."

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 11 years, 9 months ago

Oh, and I cannot understand why this bill, which will bring violent crime down, is so offensive to liberals. If one wants to "fix" the neighborhoods where violent crime comes from, go do it. If you don't have an armed law enforcement officer, or a competent armed CCW holder with you, you might not come back out. They just don't get it, do they? Thank you, Lynn

Wilbur_Nether 11 years, 9 months ago

conservativeman speculated that "Apparently the congress felt as I and TR do."

Would that be the same TR that advocated for social welfare to care for women and children, expanded government mandates on employers, inheritance and income taxes, women's suffrage, and all other manner of ill that you vehemently oppose? Wasn't that conservativeman who posted on the flag flap thread that the 19th amendment is bad, results in social welfare, &c.?

xenophonschild 11 years, 9 months ago


I'm shocked. "a result of felons"?

And here I thought you brave lads were going to protect the rest of us in the event of any unusual circumstance wherein the military goes around confiscating weapons.

Do you actually know, ever personally knew, any violent felons? The reason I ask is you seem unusually . . . unacquainted with genuinely violent felons.

Wilbur_Nether 11 years, 9 months ago

conservativeman wrote: "As for my belief that pacifists are cowards, well, I call'em as I see'em. Afraid to fight."

I concede that you call'em as you see'em and are unwilling to consider that there may be other valid viewpoints. My posts here waste my energy and annoy you. No value to any of us.

"Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. You should perhaps take a US Hist course or two." Huh. Good idea. Sure wish I'd thought of that when I was in Kansas grade schools/high schools/colleges. And probably I should study them from four or five different viewpoints to be able to sort out some of the complexities that occurred, rather than reading taking a whole bunch of classes and reading a lot of books from a single perspective, too. Thanks, conservativeman--I think you have finally helped me open my mind!

Wilbur_Nether 11 years, 9 months ago

Fair enough--although I hardly did you any favor to return, since I'm the one walking away enlightened.

Kelly Powell 11 years, 9 months ago

conman....Give me a break! saying all felons who have commited a violent crime are "neanderthals" who have bad genes.....This is a ludicrous statement......I'm not being a bleeding heart, but when you start shading towards eugenics I have to speak up. Yes, there are some people in this world that it would be a pleasure to get rid of ....But neither you or I are smart enough or wise enough to be the arbitrater of that final justice....unless it is in defense of ones loved ones or self.

xenophonschild 11 years, 9 months ago


That's one of his least offensive offerings. You might take a look at his "organ-harvesting" from incarcerated felons schemes to exact retribution and pay for the costs of incarceration.

He's probably a great admirer of Franco and Mussalino; they were fascists like he is.

jayhawks71 11 years, 9 months ago

conservativeman, what does the constitution say about plagiarism. That is the second post that you basically cut and paste what another person (with an agenda) states. You didn't even go and look up the cases. At least the quote that I pulled from Dred Scott reflected a bit of research into the opinion of the Court.

You are reading quote taken out of context. This does not mean that the quote is being twisted, it simply means you have no idea of the rest of the context of anything you posted here. The article is about whether the constitution is referring to "milita" only.

Further, the quote from Mr. Kates says that non-resident, non-citizens don't have certain rights. This is patently false. The bill of rights protects rights endowed in people, natural rights. The Bill of Rights gives NO MAN rights; it protects them. Does this mean that when YOU, a citizen, goes to another country that you have protection if you carry a gun where they say you cannot.... no, you do not. However, you still have that right, it is simply not being respected or protected by the US Constitution. When a non-citizen is arrested on US soil, he STILL HAS THOSE RIGHTS. AGain, the government doesn't give rights, its purpose is to protect rights, and a few other things. Thats it.

You don't lose rights endowed by "our creator" because you leave US soil, and you don't get cut out of those rights because you are not on US soil, you simply don't have the protection of the government. The first seems pretty obvious to people; the latter is evidinced by the US Military holding people in Gitmo. They are keeping them off of US soil so that they (NON citizens) do not get the protections afforded them. The argument has been whether: 1) they should have those protections regardless of where they are being kept and 2) whether being kept off US soil is appropriate.

gphawk89 11 years, 9 months ago

Gun sales will spike briefly and then settle back to usual levels. Interest in CCW training and licenses will spike briefly and settle back to normal levels (whatever those are...). This will be non-news in a few months. The only visible difference will be "no guns" signs posted on the front doors of most businesses.

Klickhammer 11 years, 9 months ago

What about the fraud inherent in supporting the corrupt party line, which you've fallen for hook, line, and sinker? The US doesn't care so much about mass graves and genocide and ethnic cleansing. If we did, the world would be drastically different than it is now. In fact, you can discover numerous examples where the US has supported this very thing, on a scale in step with the greatest atrocities of modern history over and over again. The only sensible, honest conclusions you can make when viewing US actions are that we care only about our own self-interests. Sensible, that is, if you care to examine US actions outside the filter.

Ironically, you think you are being patriotic for supporting the US blindly (supporting oppressive, illegal US policy.) I say, shame on you who willfully lets his tax dollar support war, famine, oppression, and unjust actions inflicted on often innocent people throughout the world. Shame on you who can't think his way though a wet tissue, and shame on you who pretends to boast about these actions and views them in a favorable light. I challenge you to reconsider. The US needs thinkers like you to save it from the sandpit.

Some of us believe in universal human rights, the kind that ought to be afforded to those not in a position to help our economy, or to help us maintain our position of a superpower, or to justify any actions (or those of our allies) based on whatever whim and fancy that can be conjured up often in light of the facts. The litmus test is simple, in a very real sense: another power ought not to impose its will on an independent state, especially for the purpose of control. A superpower ought not to senselessly kill (or support the killing of) innocent people. We fail this litmus test it's red with blood. Those who care to argue this point are welcome but be warned you will come out looking feeble, for blind patriotism is a fool's domain.

Klickhammer 11 years, 9 months ago

conservativeman, you always resort to character attacks, or ad hominem. Billing me as crazy doesn't cut it with me. Of all the ideas in my post, you addressed none of them. Not a single one. I simply want ideas, reasoning, and logic to clash here on LJWorld -- I'm not here to call names. Why can't you compete on that level? Too hard?

Until you can address my ideas, I have no respect for you.

geekin_topekan 11 years, 9 months ago

I don't know if he had a conceal/carry permit.I don't know if he carried for protection or just carried it.I do know that he had brandished a handgun.He even pointed it at two young boys as a gesture of his dominance. I know now that he was a veteran of the Air Force who lost his flight status after being shot down.Does this give him credential or rights?Doesn't matter now I guess.He's dead.Shot at point blank range by his own gun.Maybe he should have left his gun at home that day.Maybe his death saved many more?Who knows. His family says he would go out and think by himself and he meant no harm to anyone.Funny how his favorite thinking spot was on a ridge right above a homeless bunch of squaters.(sp?).Does carry/conceal mean point it at 12 and 13 year old boys? The events of that day will be forever etched in my mind.His death was totally avoidable.But his gun gave him false courage where there was none otherwise.Words became insults,gestures became fists,life became death.I wish he would have left his gun at home that day.I was 16 at the time. Conceal/carry doesn't mean immortal and righteous.For some it will mean carrying your own death permit.Leave your gun at home.I have seen the evils of conceal/carry with my own eyes.

Devon Kissinger 11 years, 9 months ago

"Posted by geekin_topekan (anonymous) on August 10, 2006 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Conceal/carry doesn't mean immortal and righteous.For some it will mean carrying your own death permit.Leave your gun at home.I have seen the evils of conceal/carry with my own eyes."

Geekin, have you seen the good in concealed carry? How about the man named Mark Wilson in Tyler, Texas who died while saving numerous others from a crazy ex-husband outside of the courthouse? Or my personal experience of having a handgun in hand after finding a woman being beaten with a tire iron in Pottawatomie county? She was beaten and stabbed with it before I was able to get there, but she lived and so did I. I didn't shoot him but if he'd have hit her one more time or taken one more step toward me he'd have 6 .357 mag silvertips in the chest. If Kansas had concealed carry then it wouldn't have taken me so long to get there, sadly she carried several serious injuries away with her.

CCW does not mean immortal or righteous, on that you are correct, it was never meant to or even implied. It simply means you are prepared to deal with certain inevitabilities. At some point every person is going to be faced with situations that may truly mean life or death. I honestly believe that had I not had my weapon and been ready to use it, I would not be here typing this today and the girl would have been dead as well.

There are many good reasons for CCW, unfortunately too many of them reside outside of places like Lansing or Leavenworth.

Devon Kissinger 11 years, 9 months ago


Marion, The Colt Combat Commander in .45 has been my preference for sometime now, 4.25 inch barrel, not too big nor too small and 8+1 of .45 is just good medicine. :)

Devon Kissinger 11 years, 9 months ago

Marion, I've come to learn that the 1911 is the finest creation of JMB, that is until folks start mucking around with the design. The sub 4 inchers are finicky little critters that work when they get fed only the proper diet. I can stuff any old thing in my commander and it'll eat it up and spit it out. Also, if they don't rattle someone's been playing JMB, and JMB they're not. The 1911 is supposed to be loose so it will work in field conditions, every time. For those that don't know and are interested, JMB = John Moses Browning.

atat_at_at_at 11 years, 9 months ago

If rt is trying to get himself banned, he is being a failure at that. There have been posters that got themselves deleted in a single day. rt is annoying about like a splinter on an outhouse seat.

dukalmighty 11 years, 2 months ago

I would suggest you use a weapon that you can shoot and handle accurately up to around 15 feet,most shooting situations will occur within that distance.I would suggest nothing smaller than a .380 auto,a .45 acp ain't worth a crap if ya can't consistently put your rounds on target at the range.In a stress situation you will shoot like you train on the range,the key element here is practice,and hope you never have to use it.I would suggest you shoot center mass less chance of a miss and unless the perp is wearing body armour i would highly suggest you stay away from head shots,A head shot can be construed as intent to kill/assassinate rather than to stop the attack.In texas it is illegal to carry in an establishment where 41% or more of their business is alcohol related,It's also illegal to be under the influence of alcohol/or drugs and be carrying a concealed weapon.I just moved here a few months ago from kansas and after checking kansas ccw laws saw where kansas will allow tx ccw holders to carry in ks.I'm no vigilante,in fact i have served in the military and law enforcement and one thing that is usually true is police officers are usually the last ones at the scene of a crime.I'm not in law enforcement today and my ccw is for personal protection,not for vigilantism.But if i'm ever eating in a restaurant and some crazy bastard decides he wants to kill some innocent people,he will encounter at least one that has the ability to stop 2 cents

kcredeye 11 years ago we've seen in other states that have had concealed carry for years.....there has not been wild west shootings on the streets of Kansas City or Saint Louis, involving licensed concealed carry citizens! This should be no surprise to those who've researched the issue; but likely a dissapointment to those who'd like to remove our Second Amendment rights.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.