Bill allows concealed guns at ballparks / LJWorld.com

Kansas Legislature

Law would overrule city’s preference to ban weapons

April 8, 2007

Concealed weapons could soon be allowed at your child's sporting events

A bill passed by Kansas Legislature arrived at the Governor's office today that would allow you to carry a concealed weapon - with a permit - in city parks and playing fields. Enlarge video

Ryan McGeeney/Journal-World Photo

Kansas University senior Tyler Staples, Kansas City, Kan., left, and Jeremy Woods, right, leave Holcom Sports Complex after leading tryouts for the Lawrence Dynasty, a youth baseball team. Kansas lawmakers intend to amend the concealed-carry bill so that cities cannot ban firearms at outdoor youth sports venues.

Kent Houk has seen a lot during his time as a youth league baseball spectator: wild throws, close plays and did we mention wild throws?

What he doesn't want to see is fans carrying concealed weapons to the ballpark.

"I can't think of one instance where a person would need a concealed weapon at a youth league baseball game," said Houk, father of an 8-year-old and 10-year-old who play in the Douglas County Amateur Baseball Association. "I can't think of one good thing that would come out of that."

State legislators, though, disagree. Both the Kansas House and Senate have passed legislation that will prohibit cities and counties from putting up signs outlawing people from carrying concealed weapons onto the grounds of outdoor youth sporting venues, such as baseball, soccer and football fields.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has not yet signed the bill. A spokesman for Sebelius said the governor had not yet decided whether to support it.

Rep. Candy Ruff, D-Leavenworth, said Houk and others shouldn't worry. She said law-abiding residents have nothing to fear from other law-abiding residents who have gone through the proper training and certification to receive a concealed-carry permit in Kansas.

"People just need to get over this," said Ruff, who has been a champion for concealed-carry legislation.

Leaders with the Lawrence Parks and Recreation Department would like to have the ability to prohibit concealed carry on some of their properties. They were in the process of posting signs prohibiting concealed carry at Holcom Sports Complex, the YSI Complex and the Clinton Lake Adult Sports Complex.

Ernie Shaw, interim director of the department, said the combination of large numbers of children along with fans who sometimes let their emotions get the best of them was troubling.

"Our athletic events are like all athletic events," Shaw said. "Sometimes people get heated at them. Even people who are very trustworthy and who have gone through the certification process could still lose their temper."

Ruff said legislators made changes to the concealed-carry law because they wanted to ensure that the law was consistent across the state. The changes continue to allow cities and counties to prohibit weapons in public buildings. Businesses also are allowed to prohibit concealed weapons on their properties.

But Ruff said legislators thought it was important to stop cities and counties from prohibiting concealed weapons in areas that aren't enclosed. She said adequately posting areas such as parks would be difficult.

"More or less the idea is that you had to draw the line somewhere," Ruff said. "Buildings seemed to be the most logical place because those are identifiable areas."

Some city commissioners, though, said they wished legislators would have left the regulations alone. Commissioner Boog Highberger said city leaders should be able to do what they think is necessary to provide safe venues for children.

"But what they've done seems to be within their authority," Highberger said. "I assume our only course of action is to comply with the state law."

Officials have argued the law does have some contradictory features. For example, schools are allowed to prohibit concealed weapons at their sporting events, whether indoors or outdoors.

"Their events might be a little more of a contest, but we probably have 10 times the amount of activities they do," Shaw said. "The same tempers can flare regardless of the competition level."

Ruff, though, said statistics don't back up fears that problems will ensue if licensed, trained people are allowed to carry weapons to parks.

Shaw did concede that other states with concealed-carry laws have not reported significant problems with gun-toting fans at youth league events. But he said he still would like to have the option of playing it safe rather than sorry.

"The thing is that it does happen occasionally," Shaw said of problems. "And all it takes is one time."

- 6News reporter Laura McHugh contributed to this report.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

8 April 2007
at 6:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

srj (Anonymous) says…

I am more scared for the adult softball. Do you know how much drinking goes on in the parking lots after games?
8 April 2007
at 6:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

458casul (Anonymous) says…

cant drink and carry you will blow your foot off
8 April 2007
at 8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

“Rep. Candy Ruff, D-Leavenworth, said Houk and others shouldn't worry. She said law-abiding residents have nothing to fear from other law-abiding residents who have gone through the proper training and certification to receive a concealed-carry permit in Kansas.”

The “wild west” mentality is not the proper response to a serious issue such as this. Law enforcement has not supported conceal&carry. What exactly is proper training?
8 April 2007
at 8:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

More training than it takes to run a weed eater, Merrill.

Thanks.

Marion.
8 April 2007
at 8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

truthhurts (Anonymous) says…

Merrill - not hard to find. This is from the AG's website:

http://www.ksag.org/concealed_carry.s…

There is an 8 hour course required in addition to some other hoop jumping.
8 April 2007
at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

prioress (Anonymous) says…

I've heard of pitchers having a rifle arm. Now we can see the same in the stands?
8 April 2007
at 8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

not anti gun but I am against this, how many time you here about pissed off kids and friends on the losing side that shoot someone cuz they lost.

8 April 2007
at 8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Why did the legislators feel that it was a good idea to ban concealed weapons from their own chambers and from courts? I mean, these are adults trained in weapons handling etc.

Hypocrisy, maybe?
8 April 2007
at 8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

This is BS. THis law and those writing this piece of trash “reporting” is just doing hysterics tabloid gutter journalism.

This law prevents a muncipality from passing laws contrary to the State Statute, … nothing more.

As reported:

“The changes continue to allow cities and counties to prohibit weapons in public buildings. Businesses also are allowed to prohibit concealed weapons on their properties.”

They can put up signs in buildings. SO the Anti-gunners now bring up the issue and inflame it by saying this allows at balparks, because they want to inflame the public.

But the public has already spoken, and passed the law.

“”But Ruff said legislators thought it was important to stop cities and counties from prohibiting concealed weapons in areas that aren't enclosed. She said adequately posting areas such as parks would be difficult.

“More or less the idea is that you had to draw the line somewhere,” Ruff said. “Buildings seemed to be the most logical place because those are identifiable areas.”“

“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“

“Shaw did concede that other states with concealed-carry laws have not reported significant problems with gun-toting fans at youth league events. But he said he still would like to have the option of playing it safe rather than sorry.”

MOst of you anti gun people were raising cane over the “Voter ID” bill and stating that is was a solution to a problem that did not exist. Same logic applied here. This problem does not exist.
8 April 2007
at 9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

Cities should be able to decide some issues on the concealed & carry issue. And I think it's a good idea to ban it at all athletic venues, such as Clinton Softball complex and YSI. What's the point of bringing it there anyway?

And yourworstnightmare - that is a good point you made. why protect themselves when they aren't willing to protect our children where ever our children go?
8 April 2007
at 9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Sbestos,

Then is one able to carry a concealed weapon on the grounds of the statehouse? On the grounds of a courthouse?
8 April 2007
at 9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

A softball park is a darned dangerous place for a kid to be on its own!

Over 125,000 kids are injured severely enough to seek hospital treatment playing that game and on average 3 die from those injuries.

http://www.safeusa.org/sports/basebal…

I would not worry about law abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons.

There is NO “Dodge City” syndrome; never has been and never will be.

CCW holders simply do not a++ up in the manner in which the wimps fear.

Thanks.

Marion.
8 April 2007
at 9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Farmboy (Anonymous) says…

Cities still have right to regulate unconcealed carry. I say let them allow unconcealed carry. This would make it clear to everyone who is or who is not carrying. And you could determine who to avoid.

I think it would also do more to discourage criminal action. They wouldn't have to guess who is carrying a weapon.

And it would sure be easier to draw your weapon than having to reach into your purse or your shoulder holster.
I wonder: does the concealed weapon training include fast draws.
8 April 2007
at 9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

CC advocates, please answer why legislators included places where it is illegal, such as government buildings and bars.

If CC is so great and those who CC are such responsible citizens, why is it not allowed in these places?
8 April 2007
at 9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheOriginalCA (Anonymous) says…

As a notorious conservative, the gun issue(s) is one area that I am definitely NOT an area where I toe the party line! Statistics show that people who keep guns around for protection have more incidents with accidental shootings than incidents where the gun is needed for protection. There is no question that someone will eventually abuse a gun at a sporting event. It is not a matter of “if,” but it is a matter of “when!”

8 April 2007
at 9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Federal law (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623) states: “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” There was no misunderstanding about what this law means, either when Congress passed it or when President Clinton signed it in 1996. Conference Report 104-828 stated, “this section provides that illegal aliens are not eligible for in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education.”
8 April 2007
at 9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

biggunz (Anonymous) says…

do politicians have one ounce of common sense or are they all crooked idiots. why would anyone need a gun at a ballpark of all places. it's just a matter of time before some gun toting dad freaks out on a 14 year old umpire. maybe the umpires need to carry guns too.
8 April 2007
at 10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mike_blur (Mike Blur) says…

Well biggunz, you answered your question right there.

Many years ago, when I was a 17-yeal old umpire in youth tee-ball for crying out loud, I was subjected to heaps and heaps of abuse by ultra-competitive parents. There were a couple times I would have to pedal my bike furiously to escape irate parents!

(Apparently, it's wrong to call kids “out,” although if no one ever made an out, games would last literally forever…)

I wish I would have had the option of addressing the crowd before the game and saying, “Folks, my pops is here, and he's got my back. He's packin'.”

Anything that moderates already-inflamed passions at ballfields is a good thing.
8 April 2007
at 10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“why would anyone need a gun at a ballpark of all places.”

It is not passed to in order to have a gun at a ballpark, it is passed because the Will of the People of Kansas is that they do not want their 2nd amend. rights as they define them infringed. The CC law was passed by the State Legislature from popular grass roots interest. Not special interest. You anti gunners like to quote the “populat vote in 2004”. Well this is popular whether you like it or not, and is settled law.

30 some states have passed similar CC laws, and limited some cities jurisdiction in it.

“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”

“Just a matter of time till one of these with a CW uses it because of a presumed bad call, ie: against one of their little darlings.”

BSW SHadower. You have NO data on a CC permit holder with problems at an athletic field. WE DO however have NON CC permit holders bring out guns they legally do not have a right to carry or to possess.

I find some comfort in the fact that some will be in the stands to defuse this situation should it occur.
8 April 2007
at 10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Sbestos,

I don't disagree. However, why were some restrictions included, such as courthouses, government buildings, bars, and churches?

Do our constitutional rights not apply in these places? Please explain.
8 April 2007
at 10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

This is really simple. Just arm all umpires and referees. If a parent gets irate, the ref or ump just shoots them and their kid. Problem solved.
8 April 2007
at 10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

asbestos:

The anti-gun people operate emotionally rather than rationally.

They live fear oriented existences anda pay little attention to the facts and numbers; for example, firearms are used in the prevention or stopping of over 2,500,000 cirmes each year.

That is two and one half million crimes averted or stopped by the lawful use of firearms:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kle…

Thanks.

Marion.
8 April 2007
at 10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“The anti-gun people operate emotionally rather than rationally.”

There is nothing rational about concealed carry. It's net effect will be to increase gun deaths and injuries.

8 April 2007
at 10:53 a.m.

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
8 April 2007
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

The cc permit law has been in effect in Kansas for over 3 months. How many incidents of abuse, or macho posturing by a cc holder has anyone heard of or read about or seen on TV? The answer is none! There are 48 states with cc laws now. It is not happening in those states either. The average spectator at a ball field will never be aware of people attending with thier weapon concealed.
8 April 2007
at 11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…

I think gl0ck0wnr stated this best…

“The problem with the local laws is that there is no city to city consistency with them. One can be in violation of the law and not even know it and that is worrisome to *legal* owners. This bill simply regularizes laws across the state, but the paper picked an area and skewed it in a way that they knew would create sensationalist arguments.”

Why does the LJW allow concealed carry within their business, but prints articles with the teaser, sensationalist headlines?
Sales…
8 April 2007
at 11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Marion, your own link admits that those numbers are extrapolations from self-made claims of fifty (50) people! (And not defining basic terms like “defense” and “crime.”)

Whether concealed carry reduces, increases, or has no effect on crime is much debated. A fair reading of the literature shows only that additional study and experience is necessary.

That said, the easiest test - is crime higher in states without CC? - shows that the answer is no.

I do find it curious that these gun owners are “law abiding” - at least until the commit a crime - then become “law breaking,” and then cease to be part of the statistics.
8 April 2007
at 11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“And in those 3 months, how many crimes have been proven to be averted or stopped by CCW?”

Changed your argument from “it makes places more dangerous” to “it does not reduce crime”.

Nice tr y on the spin ther Shadower, but your anti gun spin illustrates you have no concern for the B0R or the 2nd Amend. or to what the total population wants and has shown to want in a representatively elected body!!!!

Sorry you malladjusted idealouges, but you have lost on this issue, and are in the minority!!!!!!!

“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”'

“That gamble didn't pay for the guy in Topeka.”?

Exactly it reduced one death there and no one other than gun right advocates recognize that fact.

I like oppen carry too, and it is already legal to open carry in kansas, you yahoos!!!!
8 April 2007
at 11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

” I say let them allow unconcealed carry.”

Open carry is already legal in Kansas there Farmboy!
8 April 2007
at 11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TtownKUlivin (Anonymous) says…

Okay, so instead of parents flipping out about there kids baseball games and getting in fights with coaches/umpires/other parents, there is a chance for the argument to erupt even further and give a egotistical-macho dad a choice to go to his hip for a little argument solving..maybe not, but you always have to think about the worst when it comes to something that can kill with one pull of the trigger.
8 April 2007
at 11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

You simpy “give-the-guy-the-money” wimps need to get both and education and a life!

I can help with the education but as far as the liefe, you are on your own!

The Armed Citizen:

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/De…

Massad Ayoob on the ARmed Citizen:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles…

Armed Citizen Saves Public Offical:

http://ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-rele…

More Crimes stopped By Armed Citizens:

http://www.nracentral.com/the_armed_c…

Armed Citizens Aid Police Officers:

http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/offic…

A Cop's Opinion:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/12/…

Numbers Simpy, Wimpy Anti-gunners Won't Like:

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

Thanks.

Marion.

8 April 2007
at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

>
Concealed Cary Permit holders are primarily protecting themselves and are not out to protect the general public. That is still the responsibility of the Police. Benifits to the general public are a bonus if and when it happens.
You will not hear of the times a permit holder has to resort to his weapon unless it results in the actual discharge of the weapon. Prevention of crimes go un-noticed and prevention is the desired result of CC.
8 April 2007
at 12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rehaag (Anonymous) says…

Oh boy, I am sure that will be very serious problem for carry the gun into the public area as sport events someday.

I see several times at the Walmart, I caught several people still carry handgun in the store while no gun sign on the windows. I see one kid saw the guy hide his gun in his pocket and kid told his mom about a man hide a gun, then they left the cart and walk out of the store so quickly. Same thing happen at the Target parking lot, I see a lady go out of car and opened the door again and pick up her handgun, then put it into her purse and go to the Target. Even in the park, where everybody listen to nice music outside, right near the police station! I see several people still carry their handgun in their pockets. What is that purpose for?

Can you leave the guns at home and lock it up? How do you feel if you carry the gun everyday, nothing happen to shot at somebody? Why do you need to bring the gun for? STUPID!
8 April 2007
at 12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

From the beginning of this nation, cities have been allowed the authority to regulate the carry of weapons in order to better handle local problems. I am ambivalent re the concealed carry concept itself, but I think the supporters of this legislation have gone too far. It's as though they are afraid that unless they provided opportunities to shoot the public will soon deem them irrelevant when they really want the power surge by carrying a gun anywhere they want. An extension of the paranoiac militia syndrom. The real losers in this debate, other than Sen. Journey in general, are the cities such as Lawrence who are experiencing gun play in certain public areas and are now powerless to use a historically held power to try and control the situation.
8 April 2007
at 12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“Also, I don't believe the way you and others interpret the 2nd amendment is correct.”

Based on what? Your opinion?

“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“

“as Lawrence who are experiencing gun play in certain public areas and are now powerless to use a historically held power to try and control the situation.”

BS Jackalope! THe gunplay in Lawrence is illegal and the City has all the authority it needs. THose are illegal firearms carryers. not legal premit holders!!!

See the difference yet????

“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“'

“I see several times at the Walmart, I caught several people still carry handgun in the store while no gun sign on the windows. I see one kid saw the guy hide his gun in his pocket and kid told his mom about a man hide a gun, then they left the cart and walk out of the store so quickly. Same thing happen at the Target parking lot, I see a lady go out of car and opened the door again and pick up her handgun, then put it into her purse and go to the Target. ”

bs rehagg!!! if you saw this and it is clearly illegal IF the sign is there why did you not do your Civic duty and turn in the illegal gun carryer? Chiken biosolid! You are the stupid one.

“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“'

Again one that got removed earlier because I criticized the LJWord “journalistic integrity”, and gave a link to the CJOnline article that had a much better article rather than the hysterical anti gun report from the LJWorld.

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/04080…
8 April 2007
at 12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

Mairan, This is one of the best stories I have read about concealed carry, thanks for posting it.

Every person concerned about citizens carring concealed weapons needs to read this story posted by Marion.

A cops Story:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/12/09/…
8 April 2007
at 12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

If you have trouble accessing the story “A Cops Story” go to Marions post above, as I see it has limited access.
8 April 2007
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

My, my, Asbestos. Cursing and yelling during a electronic conversation, no less. Glad we are not in the same room with you as you might feel compelled to display your gun. Too bad there is not a “temper control” test for concealed carry.
8 April 2007
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

EXks (Anonymous) says…

” Well, if we're going to allow concealed carry, then let's allow 'em everywhere and see what happens. America functions crisis-to-crisis”
Reality_Check

======================

I agree totally with Reality_Check. As an American, tax paying citizen, I want the right to carry a gun anywhere & anytime: including churches, court houses, the state legislator, schools, libraries, in my pickup truck, rodeo roping events, my 4H club, burger joints…..hey the list is endless!

The Kansas legislature should also pass a bill to have public executions! Mom and dad could bring the kids and make it a family affair. The state could sell tickets to public hangings and what a great way to put more dollars into the state tresurery!!

8 April 2007
at 12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

“The real losers in this debate, other than Sen. Journey in general, are the cities such as Lawrence who are experiencing gun play in certain public areas and are now powerless to use a historically held power to try and control the situation.”

Not gun play by permit holders, I'd warrant.
8 April 2007
at 12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

Posted by “shadower”>

CC holders are not out thumping thier chests about preventing crimes as some other people are thumping thiers about “show me the results”.
8 April 2007
at 12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

Allowing concealed carry at league events will likely destroy the leagues when concerned parents pull their children out.

I'm not opposed to CC (and if I lived in Topeka or Wichita I would consider applying for a permit myself), but there are places and times where it's not appropriate. Sports complexes are among the places where it's not appropriate. The Legislature should have left well enough alone. I hope Sebelius vetoes it.
8 April 2007
at 12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Jackalope showing his ignorance as ther is some testing done on it:

“Too bad there is not a “temper control” test for concealed carry.”

That is part of the training.
8 April 2007
at 12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

Asbestos… Did you pass?
8 April 2007
at 1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fletch (Anonymous) says…

…because loaded guns, children, and angry parents are always a good combination.
8 April 2007
at 1:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Would any of you you oppse conceaed carary please cite examples of “softball rage” involving CCW holders?

Links to articles, reports and court cases would be appropriate.

Thanks.

Marion.
8 April 2007
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

Be careful, shadower, you are just encouraging him to curse and yell again. The truth of the matter is that the 2nd amendment to “gun rights” supporters is similar to the 1st amendment and newspapers. It means to them what they want it to mean.

8 April 2007
at 1:55 p.m.

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
8 April 2007
at 2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JSpizias (Anonymous) says…

For those interested in legal aspects of gun control and the Second Amendment, I recommend you look at the work of Eugene Volokh, UCLA law professor who is one of the leading US authorities on the issue. Also, see the 2000 edition of Laurence Tribe's law school text on American Constitutional Law. Note also that the DC gun laws, which basically restrict anyone from owning an operable weapon, have recently been found unconstitutional.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/#GUNCO…
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id…
8 April 2007
at 2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jrlii (Anonymous) says…

Anyone who can't imagine a need to have a gun at a youth-league sporting event doesn't have much of an imagination. Example:

Coach yells at little Johnny.

6'5”, 350 pound Johnny, Sr. takes umbrage and begins to beat the tar out of Coach.

Coach, fearing his life is in danger, draws & fires.

The District Attorney, who does not believe in self-defense, files charges against Coach.

Coach is bankrupted, but lives.

Johnny, Sr? maybe he lives, maybe not. Either way he or his family file a civil suit against Coach for anything the lawyers didn't get.
8 April 2007
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

jrlii, run for your life the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
8 April 2007
at 3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

shadower, Just what was your question?
8 April 2007
at 3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

The LJW seems to be the Katie Horner for news regarding concealed carry issues.
8 April 2007
at 3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…

shadower:

It seems you have a problem discerning what is and what isn't a question, perhaps you should actually ask a question before insulting someones ability to answer it.

Hint: you asked Asbestos a question, not 50YearResident.
8 April 2007
at 3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

from shadower>

The “Key Word” in Concealed carry is “Concealed”. The fact is that the weapon is concealed to avoid calling attention to the permit holder. If he wanted attention (to scream loudly) then the weapon would be in the open. CC works because the would be criminals don't know how many or who has a weapon and that is why it works.

8 April 2007
at 3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“The issue of what the 2nd amendment means has never been acted on by SSOUS.”

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the Second Amendment's meaning by my count in five cases:
1. 1876 - U.S. v. Cruikshank
2. 1886 - Presser v. Illinois
3. 1894 - Miller v. Texas
4. 1939 - U.S. v. Miller (not the same 'Miller'!)
5. 1980 - Lewis v. U.S.

As is the rule, the Court uses the most narrow possible means of resolving the underlying issues in these cases, often leaving other issues undecided (which I suspect was the point in making the original statement).

JSpizias correctly identifies Eugene Volokh as one of the more outspoken proponents of a meaningless limiting clause in the Second Amendment (that whole part about “well regulated militia); and as such, has been much contradicted by other legal scholars.

And yes, the D.C. gun law, which practically made law-compliant ownership of firearms impossible, is quite likely, should it make its way to the Supreme Court, to be found unconstitutional. But that hardly fleshes out the length-and-limit of the Second Amendment. I should also note that the D.C. decision is the anomaly - most other federal appellate courts (all but one, I believe) have gone for a non-individualist reading of the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, the only persons likely to spend much efforts on this subject are extremists: those who insist on an absolute, unqualified, individual right to possess firearms, and those who want to ban such entirely whatever that pesky Second Amendment says or represents in the last two centuries of law.

And yes, I think anyone who insists on “packing heat” at a “little league” game is an extremist.
8 April 2007
at 4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“I should also note that the D.C. decision is the anomaly - most other federal appellate courts (all but one, I believe) have gone for a non-individualist reading of the Second Amendment.”

negative. There are over a 1000 different US District Court findings for the individual “right to keep and bear arms.”

Man, James do you really think that people will actually believe your lies?

IF “most courts” believed as you stated it woudl have been over and done with. What a dufus you are.

“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”

“absolute, unqualified, individual right to possess firearms,”

Yes that is the intent.

Article II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, *the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*

The right shall not be infringed

How much more clear can it get?
8 April 2007
at 4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Nothing about magazines, autorepeaters, autoloaders. length of barrel, caliber, lethality, nothing.

But it shall not be infringed.

Yes I know the “historical” thing and they “did not have those back then” argument. But The people had the right to keep arms equilivilant to those they were opposing to have a militia. Under that motars and howitzers are fair game. For a militia. So are automatics and machine guns.

It is not limited to “home protection” or “hunting”.

Wait til the economy tanks and we have all these illegal aliens unemployed in this country. YOU will see a need for home protection from the criminal that rarely gets prosecuted, usually disapears before trial, and can leave and get a new idnetity with no down time.

THAT is what you need to protect yourself from.

Additionally, we have the right to start shooting those “invaders” of US Soil, with armed militia, and those days are a coming if the politicians do not get off theior fat butts.

Ladies and gentlemen, our country has changed, and we will see how it has changed on the next economic downturn with widespread crime, especially in SSmalltown, USA. Easy to rip off.

The reason to “keep and bear arms”.
8 April 2007
at 4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Shadower, the “Well regulated militia” is not the “right”

How dumb can you be?
8 April 2007
at 4:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”

That being necessary, this right is conferred

“… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You have no clue how to read law.
8 April 2007
at 4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jakeman333 (Anonymous) says…

I think the simple act of applying to carry a concealed handgun should make you inelgible to carry one in the first place. Handguns have no place in society with the exception of law enforcement.
8 April 2007
at 5 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JSpizias (Anonymous) says…

Jamesaust,

Most thoughtful people and legal scholars recognize that no right is absolute, that applying standards similar to those used for the First Amendment are not unreasonable. William Van Alstyne, former Duke law professor, former member of the National Board of the ACLU, and Counsel for The American Association of University Professors, said it quite well in an article published in the Duke Law Journal in 1994 entitled “The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms”.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/alsty…
Some of Professor Alstyne's closing comments from this article (below) are especially pertinent.

“Again, however, one does not derive from these observations that each citizen has an uncircumscribable personal constitutional right to acquire, to own, and to employ any and all such arms as one might desire so to do, or necessarily to carry them into any place one might wish:::
The freedoms of speech and of the press, it has been correctly said, are not absolute…….Neither is one's right to keep and bear arms absolute:::.

The difference between these serious people and others, however, was a large difference in the very beginning of this country and it remains as a large difference in the end. The difference is that such serious people begin with a constitutional understanding that declines to trivialize the Second Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment, just as they likewise decline to trivialize any other right expressly identified elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. It is difficult to see why they are less than entirely right in this unremarkable view. That it has taken the NRA to speak for them, with respect to the Second Amendment, moreover, is merely interesting- perhaps far more as a comment on others, however, than on the NRA.

For the point to be made with respect to Congress and the Second Amendment[58] is that the essential claim (certainly not every claim - but the essential claim) advanced by the NRA with respect to the Second Amendment is extremely strong. Indeed, one may fairly declare, it is at least as well anchored in the Constitution in its own way as were the essential claims with respect to the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech as first advanced on the Supreme Court by Holmes and Brandeis, seventy years ago.[59] And until the Supreme Court manages to express the central premise of the Second Amendment more fully and far more appropriately than it has done thus far, the constructive role of the NRA today, like the role of the ACLU in the 1920s with respect to the First Amendment (as it then was), ought itself not lightly to be dismissed.[60] Indeed, it is largely by the “unreasonable” persistence of just such organizations in this country that the Bill of Rights has endured.
8 April 2007
at 5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

“Handguns have no place in society with the exception of law enforcement.”

What about?

http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/prog…

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_hun…

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/…

8 April 2007
at 5:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Simple question, folks.

Why are guns not allowed, concealed carry or not, in government buildings, churches, and bars?

Please explain.
8 April 2007
at 6:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Dollar General was robbed recently, with customers inside, and the criminal fired shots. Where were all the CC people then? There were no reports that any of the customers returned fire.

CC didn't appear to deter that criminal. He didn't seem at all concerned that one of those customers might have been packing heat. It didn't stop him from committing the crime.

How many other criminals don't give it a thought before perpetrating a crime? Probably lots and lots of them. Because, of course, they have that invincibility syndrome, too. Even if they consider CC ahead of time, it won't stop them from committing a crime. They will either think they're a better shot, or assume that most people won't be carrying weapons, or even if one is, they will win.

A good lot of criminals are high on drugs when they commit their crimes. Do you really think they have the capacity to think logically about CC before they go out and rob or shoot someone? Or they're out to settle a score with someone else, in which case nothing will stop them anyway. You know how people are, especially young people, when they want to get even.

Think about the recent shooting in KC, which resulted in the death of a two-year-old child who was sitting inside her house at the time. The police think it was a drive-by shooting that was some sort of retaliation for something her 19-year-old relative had done.

Did CC prevent that death? With so much gun violence being drive-by anyway, how would CC even go about addressing that issue?

Whenever and wherever tempers flare, violence is possible. And if guns are allowed, then gun violence is possible. Even those of you who support CC should have to admit that. If guns are present, then gun violence is possible. Perhaps not likely, but possible.

If it was YOUR child on that ball field, would you be willing to take the chance?

Would you be willing to take the chance that someone in the stands might be carrying a gun (remember, it's not only the criminals who don't know who does and does not have a gun anymore), and go into a fit of rage over some perceived injustice during the game, and NOT use that gun against an innocent bystander?

And every criminal has that moment when they commit their FIRST crime. It's not like you can accurately predict which people will and will not become criminals.

That next guy who commits his first crime might be someone who already has a CC permit.

And in my job, I'm required to have so many hours per year in CPR and first aid. I'm required to have a set amount of hours EVERY year.

So it only takes 8 hours of training to be able to possibly take a life (how often is this training required?), and 10 hours yearly to learn how to save one?
8 April 2007
at 6:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

458casul (Anonymous) says…

i will protect all with a 500 casul
8 April 2007
at 6:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

Jameaust, I agree with you and will add to your list this case. U.S. v. Rybar,103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996).
Asbestos, you mentioned that there were over 1000 US District Court cases upholding an individual's right to bear arms. Please show me the cites.
8 April 2007
at 6:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Go to the NRA website and look up “Legal cases”. They are all there.

“CC didn't appear to deter that criminal.”

Oh you expect to be protected now, without carrying yourself? That is dumb! Besides you were first arguing it is more dangerous, now you want immdeidate crime intervention. That is not the same thing.

“How many other criminals don't give it a thought before perpetrating a crime? ”

LOTS, most crimes are of “convienence”.

“Think about the recent shooting in KC, which resulted in the death of a two-year-old child who was sitting inside her house at the time. The police think it was a drive-by shooting that was some sort of retaliation for something her 19-year-old relative had done.”

Again NOT a Conceal Carry permit holder. That is a criminal in the drive by.

“If it was YOUR child on that ball field, would you be willing to take the chance?”

You are anyway, and do not realize it. Any criminal can have kids and will likely be at a ball game. What's to keep them from packing even if they are a felon? Nothing. But the CC will make them think twice.

“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“

“And every criminal has that moment when they commit their FIRST crime. It's not like you can accurately predict which people will and will not become criminals.

That next guy who commits his first crime might be someone who already has a CC permit.

And in my job, I'm required to have so many hours per year in CPR and first aid. I'm required to have a set amount of hours EVERY year.”

What??? Try just try to stay on topic. Your entire post was BS and spin.
8 April 2007
at 6:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

Whatever.

Just more liberal government, big brother legislating from the Statehouse. Glad to see Marion, asbestos, and the other liberal government, big brother supporters are loving it so much.

Why not let the city decide where CC is allowed? Because you liberal government, big brother types like the State telling the city what it can and cannot do.
8 April 2007
at 6:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

458casul (Anonymous) says…

assbest you and your buddies one rundle need a job
8 April 2007
at 6:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

No, Asbestos, I asked you to back up your claims. Cite the case law, that means cite the actual CASE, not give me a link to the NRA.

––––––––––––––––––––—

“But the CC will make them think twice.”
––––––––––––––––––––—
Now, show me the statistics that prove this, please? I think you are full of shi*.

8 April 2007
at 7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Shadower:

You NEED “diagnosis”!

Thanks.

Marion.
8 April 2007
at 7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on April 8, 2007 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shadower:

You NEED “diagnosis”!

Thanks.

Marion.

–––––––––––––––––––––

I guess I don't get it - are you a doctor or something?
8 April 2007
at 7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

I didn't say I wanted “protection” from anyone out there with a CC permit. But all the CC advocates, including yourself, have been spouting for months that CC would deter criminals.

Yet I have pointed out two recent cases where it did not.

How do you know the drive-by shooting wasn't done by a CC permit holder? Last I heard, they hadn't even caught the person who did it. So how can you be so sure? No, it's not likely that it was. But how can you know?

As I understand it, getting a CC permit requires 8 hours of training, mainly in gun safety. I think it's a very valid point. How long is a CC permit good for? Does it have to be renewed every year? If so, does it require the same training every year to keep a CC permit?

Does the training require people to learn how to shoot a gun? Do you have to spend so many hours on a firing range in order to learn accuracy? If so, are the hours required adequate enough to actually learn it? Some people have acquired this skill only through many months of practice. But the state expects people to learn it in 8 hours?

Are police officers required to spend so many hours on a firing range every year? If so, why? You obviously think the average joe should be able to do it after only 8 hours of training.

Does the training include knowing what to do if someone is accidentally shot (by you or someone else), as far as first aid and CPR are concerned?
8 April 2007
at 7:38 p.m.

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
8 April 2007
at 7:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

The REAL question is, who cares whothehellyouare?

You are a certified nutcase and therefore of NO consequence!

I shall respond to you no further!
8 April 2007
at 8:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

“Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on April 8, 2007 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
…I do NOT fail at anything!…”

Coffee came out of my nose when I read that.
8 April 2007
at 8:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Well, whatever you goofballs may think…………

In the meantime an event which will hit home for many on this forum has transpired.

Johhny Hart is gone:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/08/obit…

Thanks.

Marion.
8 April 2007
at 8:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

H.R. 1022, The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

H.R. 1022 would reauthorize the assault weapons ban.

Detailed Summary
Status of the Legislation
Points in Favor
Points Against
Detailed Summary

Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 - Reinstates for ten years repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (the assault weapons ban).

Revises the definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include conversion kits (for converting a firearm to such a weapon) and any semiautomatic rifle or pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and that has specified characteristics, including a telescoping stock.

Prohibits the transfer of such a weapon except through a licensed dealer or a state or local law enforcement agency, subject to specified requirements. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any such weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime, and of the nature and circumstances of the crime involved; and (2) annually submit the record to Congress and make it available to the public.

Prohibits: (1) the transfer of any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device; and (2) a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer who transfers such a device that was manufactured on or before this Act's enactment from failing to certify to the Attorney General, within 60 days of the transfer date, that the device was manufactured on or before that date. Sets forth penalties for violations.

Prohibits: (1) the transfer of such a weapon or device to a juvenile; and (2) the importation of such a device.

Status of the Legislation

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

8 April 2007
at 8:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

posted by krazyks<<I didn't say I wanted “protection” from anyone out there with a CC permit. But all the CC advocates, including yourself, have been spouting for months that CC would deter criminals.

Yet I have pointed out two recent cases where it did not.

Krazy, 2 recent robberies not stopped by a CC holder?
Maybe there were 4 planned robberies and 2 changed thier minds?
My point being that CC is not going to prevent 100% of the crimes. But if the program prevented even one from being carried out then the plan is working. There is no way to document crime that doesn't happen.
8 April 2007
at 8:32 p.m.

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
8 April 2007
at 8:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

Marion, would you please go over to the other side of this debate? You're embarrassing us with your failure to control your anger.
8 April 2007
at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

I'm not angry; merely fed up with IDIOTS.

I am quite tired of suffering fools.

Thanks.

Mrion.
8 April 2007
at 9:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

NICE Cut and Paste from the discredited Wiki. Obviously an edit to Wiki from an Anti Gunner:

“(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)”
Merrill and the constant cut and past form liberal websites.
8 April 2007
at 9:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

What's more liberal then having big-brother statehouse telling the city where it can hang its signs?

You so-called conservatives should be ashamed.
8 April 2007
at 10:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

from the article about Johnny Hart:

“He had such an emphasis on kindness, generosity, and patience,” said Richard Newcombe, founder and president of Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles.

Would that you could possibly emulate him, Marion.
8 April 2007
at 10:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

If we wish to go back to the original meaning of the Amendment, we should have a court ruling that says if and when the Brits invade us again, we have the right to bear arms.

Get a grip, fellas, you don't need to carry a big gun to compensate for your small penis.

8 April 2007
at 10:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fletch (Anonymous) says…

Nobody is trying to take away anybody's guns. we're merely trying to enforce the “well regulated” part of the second amendment.
8 April 2007
at 11:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mike_blur (Mike Blur) says…

“”Posted by scenebooster (anonymous) on April 8, 2007 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've yet to hear of a scenario that warrants having your gun at your kids ballgame…”“

Here you go scenebooster:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14681867/
If that was my kid the adult attacked, that man would not be alive right now.
9 April 2007
at 12:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

And you would be in prison right now.

The boy wasn't in danger of losing his life, so it wouldn't have been considered self-defense.

Atrocious behavior? Yes. But he suffered a couple of bruises. Nothing more serious.

And the temper behind you saying this man would not be alive if it was your kid is exactly why guns shouldn't be allowed at these events.
9 April 2007
at 12:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“negative. There are over a 1000 different US District Court findings for the individual “right to keep and bear arms.”

The Fifth and the D.C. Federal Appellate Courts accept an “individual” Second Amendment right. There are 12 total.

ALL other appellate courts find a public right.

Get your facts straight. Lying is a sin.
9 April 2007
at 12:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

JSpizias -
Well, except for the initial, conspicuous limitation on the Second Amendment “right”.
9 April 2007
at 12:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

militant (Anonymous) says…

Maybe the Royals could be persuaded to play better if they knew the fans were packing.
9 April 2007
at 6:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

“Posted by fletch (anonymous) on April 8, 2007 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nobody is trying to take away anybody's guns. we're merely trying to enforce the “well regulated” part of the second amendment.”

Oh yeah?

“Posted by jakeman333 (anonymous) on April 8, 2007 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the simple act of applying to carry a concealed handgun should make you inelgible to carry one in the first place. Handguns have no place in society with the exception of law enforcement.”
9 April 2007
at 7:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Fletch:

You have esposed your total ignorance of the Second Amendment and its history as well as your own ignorance of our language and ITS history!

Fletch wrote:

“Posted by fletch (anonymous) on April 8, 2007 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nobody is trying to take away anybody's guns. we're merely trying to enforce the “well regulated” part of the second amendment.”

Marion writes:

Don't feel alone as the meaning of the word “regulation” has changed somewhat in the intervening 2oo-odd years.

At the time of writing the Second Amendment, “well regulated” meant well trained, not “well restiricted” or “well controlled”; hence the military books of “regulation”.

There is nothing in the language of the time which in ANY way restricts firearms ownership by the people(And the courts have held that “the people” means the people!).

Any and all restrictions on firearms ownership are the product of later legislation, which may or may not have been upheld by courts.

Thanks.

Marion.

9 April 2007
at 7:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

let me add to your comment, RT.

I would add the psycho-left!

Thanks.

Marion.
9 April 2007
at 8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

You see, rt, anyone who possesses a firearm or understands the SEcond Amendment is termed a “gun nut” in the psychobabble of the Looney Left; using the term as an epithet.

The Looney Left is a danger to itself and others and is one of the reasons FOR the Second Amendment!

Thanks.

Marion.
9 April 2007
at 8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

If you think the term “well regulated militia” has nothing to do with the second amendment, then why did they put it in there?

I think what the original intent of the second amendment was to make sure that, just in case the same thing happened again, as it had with England, that the American people would be able to form that “well-regulated militia” to defend themselves and perhaps stage another revolution.

I don't think the founders envisioned a time when any joe would be allowed to walk around anywhere packing heat and do whatever he wanted to with that gun.

Of course, I could be wrong. I wasn't there at the time, and couldn't ask the founders exactly what they meant by the phrasing they used. The same is true of all of the “firearms enthusiasts”. You don't know exactly what they meant by it, either.

If anyone knew exactly what they meant by it, there wouldn't have been so many court challenges through the years.
9 April 2007
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

And the types of guns available to people at the time the Constitution was written were vastly different from the ones available today. The founders might have had an entirely different viewpoint if they could have foreseen a time with weapons that could mow down 50 people or more in a heartbeat.
9 April 2007
at 9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

crazyks:

How wrong you are!

if I may refer you to a few of the thoughts of the Founding Fathers on possession of firearms by a free people:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves :”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

“: the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights.

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; :”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

The Founding Fathers on Arms
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence : from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable : the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States.

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside : Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

cont'd:
9 April 2007
at 9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

con'td:

The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that : it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; : “
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom
“The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. “
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin
American Statesman

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Marion writes:

Study some history before you try to tell others what it is!

Thanks.

Marion.
9 April 2007
at 9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

NOW…….scenebooster, crazyks, couranna and shadower…………….

go lie someplace else!

Thanks.

Marion.
9 April 2007
at 9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigAl (Anonymous) says…

I am a gun owner, a hunter and a veteran. I am not far-left. Tell me, why is it necessary to carry a gun to a kids baseball game?
Why is that ok and not ok to carry on the Statehouse grounds. Who are we protecting, politicians or kids?

9 April 2007
at 10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Nice bit of Red Herring, there, scenebooster!

This thread is NOT about the current administration but about the facets of CCW.

Typical of the Psycholeft when it runs out of legitimate defence of its absurd positions; change the subject!

Such spin does not go un-noticed.

Thanks.

Marion.
9 April 2007
at 10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Uh, did you miss the part about references to the current administration?

Try reading the posts!

english!

do you speak it?

Thanks.

Marion.
9 April 2007
at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

Unbelievable.
9 April 2007
at 11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Ah, Posh!

You forget the highly skilled and valued marksmen who used the early Kentucky rifles!

The Kentucky Rifle at Saratoga:

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/milit…

The BBC on the Kentucky rifle:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/pda/A77…

The American Revolutionaries took out an amazing number of British officers with their squirrell guns, to the detriment of the Redcoat's plans to subdue the errant colonists.

The Kentucky Rifle was the “assault weapon” of its time.

Thanks.

Marion.
9 April 2007
at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

uhadmeatsmellthis (Anonymous) says…

Do some liberals not care for firearms…. am I reading this right?

What is wrong with guns?…..I have a few and have enjoyed hunting over the years.

The language and treatment of some on these articles is a little eye-raising. Mostly the gun opponents seem very hostile…..good thing they dont' like guns!

Of course just kidding.
9 April 2007
at 12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ebd10 (Anonymous) says…

Here's a fact for you; Oregon, a most decidedly liberal- Democrat state, has shall-issue Concealed Carry in which you are allowed to carry in churches, schools, universities, the state capitol, police stations,and anywhere except a county courthouse where a presiding judge has decreed 'no'. I guess Oregonians must be more trustworthy, mature, and level-headed than Kansans, huh?

I wish that the writers of these editorials would do a little research before they spew.
9 April 2007
at 12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

CC isn't the issue of the article. The issue is that the State feels like the City isn't mature enough to decide where CC is allowed (ex. the city-owned ballparks).

This is a home rule issue. The liberal Republicans in the Legislature want to have complete control over our lives.

Where are all you “conservatives” that cry about nanny-staters all the time? If this isn't big brother, I don't know what is.
9 April 2007
at 1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Marion - shame on you throwing out quotations by the bucketfull without making any specific point with them. Quantity is not quality.

What's more, some of your quotes are FAKES. I'm not saying you're faking them but rather you are copying from false citations. For example, George Washington never uttered the quote you attribute to him. (Frankly, the whole quote just sounds fake to begin with.) Disagree? Then present the original text - not somebody's claim to cite the original. (Hint: you won't be able to as the quote's falseness is well documented.)

I realize that “well regulated militia” is an inconvenience for your extremist theory of unregulated firearms but its not going anywhere and you, at least, aren't explaining it away.

Ironically, its those who complain the loudest about “activist judges” inserting words and meaning INTO the Constitution that seem most oblivious to reading words and meaning OUT OF the Constitution.

9 April 2007
at 1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

aeroscout17 (Anonymous) says…

Scenebooster et al, I just couldn't resist. Here are two scenarios:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-…
http://english.people.com.cn/english/…
9 April 2007
at 1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

Let's see, three states allow CC holders to carry their weapon in schools; New Hampshire, Oregon and Utah. Not sure about New Hampshire, but what is the saturaton of the Posse Comitatus and Freemen groups in the other states? Hmmm, I wonder; Posh, Marion, et al, are you Christian Patriots? Do you align yourselves with the individiual sovereignty/common law folks?
9 April 2007
at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

aeroscout17 (Anonymous) says…

Oh yeah, and the cops can be everywhere at once. That is why we don't ever have any shootings or crimes; oops, what was I thinking?

As for the China source re: the St. Louis story, I pulled the first free one. If you want to pay the Denver, Dallas or St. Louis newspapers to read it from a less “dubious” source, please feel free to look it up yourself.

You wanted scenarios, I gave you two. How would me having a gun changed it if I were there? I can tell you at least one of the people in St Louis would have lived.

Now what if that same fight broke out in the stands right in front of you and your family? Wouldn't you like to have the ability to protect yourself? Don't even call me paranoid; I've seen it even as a law enforcement officer.
9 April 2007
at 2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Valkyrie:

AS I have repeatedly stated on this forum and others:

I am NOT a Christian!

Thanks.

Marion.
9 April 2007
at 3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…

Possibly one of the most irresponsible and misleading articles I've seen yet in the LJW. Who says Yellow Journalism is dead? I'm sure that adults will now be shooting it out over sports events in Lawrence. Scores of weekend athletes and over zealous parents will be laying all over the publics schools and the Parks and Rec's athletic fields groaning and holding body parts perforated by volleys of lead flying through the air.

A responsible reporter would never write an article such as this and a responsible editor would never allow it to be published. what a bunch of malarky! And anyone who thinks this is an “issue” is just wrong, stupid or looking for a cause celebe.
9 April 2007
at 4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigAl (Anonymous) says…

The primary question still has not been answered. Why is it ok to carry a gun at a kids baseball game but not at the Statehouse?

And, why does a person even need a gun at a kids little league game?

I respectfully disagree with kneejerkreaction. I think this is an important story and it deserves serious consideration. We're talking about carrying guns at a childs activity.
9 April 2007
at 4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

All the news that fits.
9 April 2007
at 4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

paladin (Anonymous) says…

Laws and regulations regarding guns are inconsequential, if not irrelevant. As long as guns are produced, and as long as someone knows how to produce them, if someone wants them enough, he will have them. If he wants to carry one, needs to bad enough, he will, irrespective of any law. This has always been so. Its almost a primal given. I will always have guns. If I need one, I will have one. I do hope I never need one again. But, anything can happen. The founding fathers knew what they were talking about, because they were in closer touch with reality, more connected to their mortality, than the deluded people living today are. Gun laws are delusions of control, not control itself. Delusions of safety are states of mind, not reality.

9 April 2007
at 4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigAl (Anonymous) says…

paladin. I too own guns. I just don't see the need to carry them.
However, you make a good point.
9 April 2007
at 4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…

BigAl: If a person carries a concealed handgun, they have the option to carry it all the time. If they have to remember to take it off and leave it somewhere ALL the time, it's simply inconvenient. As to carrying a gun at a kid's event and not at the statehouse, who knows why they even chose the statehouse?

Remember, the people that are getting their CCH are over 21 and law abiding. It's no big deal if a legal CCH ends up at a kids event with a handgun, although I would think that most wouldn't feel the need unless they already had it with them.

Violent situations can happen at any moment, any where, but the majority of people will live a lifetime without ever being in a life threatening situation. The father who was gunned down in front of his family at a Topeka carwash after a school event wasn't expecting to be a victim, it just happened.
9 April 2007
at 5:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

“who knows why they even chose the statehouse?”

Seriously? You don't know??
9 April 2007
at 6:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

458casul (Anonymous) says…

500 CASUL will take care of it trust me
9 April 2007
at 6:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

paladin (Anonymous) says…

Do you mean the .500 S&W, .500 Linebaugh, .50 AE, .480 Ruger, .475 Linebaugh, .454 Casull, .445 SuperMag. …?
Very impressive, indeed. So, what?
9 April 2007
at 7:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

James_Macklin (Anonymous) says…

What you won't see at a ball game is a concealed weapon, see the dictionary to learn the meaning of “concealed.”
As to why adults should be armed at ball parks is simple to understand, children are targets of terrorists and perverts.
Kansas' concealed carry law doesn't allow concealed weapons at many places, too many in my opinion.

Before people get too concerned, remmber, children are not elligible for a CCH permit, you must be 21 years of age, a citizen with no criminal or substance abuse record, and many of qualifications. The Attorney General's website has full coverage of the current law and will be updated after HB 2528 becomes law, which is pretty much a sure thing, even if the Governor veto is given. The margins were more than enough to over-ride.

See the Kansas laws before you get all excited, guns are not bad or evil, that's why we arm our police and soldiers. Honest citizens with a CCH permit commit fewer crimes than either the police or military.
9 April 2007
at 8:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lynn731 (Anonymous) says…

Wasn't it wonderful how the liberal JW plastered the headline across the front page. If any of you whining liberals had taken the time to read the law when it was passed you would know where permit holders can and cannot carry firearms. It should come as no big surprise now. Get over it! Thank you, Lynn
9 April 2007
at 9:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Colt45 (Anonymous) says…

Unbelievable, ridiculous, non-issue made up to be a front page headline. So much for the standards of journalism.

From SB 418:

“[(c) ''Athletic event'' means athletic instruction, practice or
competition held at any location and including any number of
athletes.]”

and:

“(10) any athletic event not related to or involving firearms which is
sponsored by a private or public elementary or secondary school or any
private or public institution of postsecondary education;
(11) any professional athletic event not related to or involving
firearms;”

Maybe I read it wrong, the way I read it is it's not legal to carry at a sporting event not involving firearms anyway.

This is a poor example of journalism.

9 April 2007
at 9:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

On the contrary Colt45, this is bad legislation (not bad journalism. You did read it wrong:
“Both the Kansas House and Senate have passed legislation that will prohibit cities and counties from putting up signs outlawing people from carrying concealed weapons onto the grounds of outdoor youth sporting venues, such as baseball, soccer and football fields.”

City-owned ballparks are not sponsored by a school, therefore they are not included in SB418.

Whether you are for CC or not, the point of this article is that the state legislature is going to do whatever it takes to prevent a city from enforcing its own rules.

Now who's a liberal, Lynn731? The liberal Republicans in the legislature, that's who.
9 April 2007
at 10:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Colt45 (Anonymous) says…

I just got through reading the text of SB2528, I stand corrected, my apologies. It isn't law yet, therefore hadn't read it and should have before commenting. I still believe it is a non-issue and will continue to be. Time will tell. I also believe that this is hardly worthy of front page headlines.
10 April 2007
at 7:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lynn731 (Anonymous) says…

Paladin's comment was true, well explained, and I agree with him. Once again, only the state should regulate the concealed carry of firearms. Where they are allowed to be carried, and where they are not, should only be controlled by the state. It is difficult enough for a permit holder to constantly monitor where they are allowed to carry under the law, and watch for no gun signs on the doors of every place they enter. If you were to add to that various city ordinances, in different cities across the state, a permit holder would find it almost impossible to know every law in every different city they visit. That is the reason for the supplemental bill, and that is the reason why only the state should regulate concealed carry of firearms in Kansas. I still think the Journal World article last Sunday, was poorly done and was written in such a way as to to scare people. I will not get into arguments about it, that is my position. Thank you, Lynn
10 April 2007
at 9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Take a look at this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2…

Thanks.

Marion.
10 April 2007
at 2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

“And the types of guns available to people at the time the Constitution was written were vastly different from the ones available today. The founders might have had an entirely different viewpoint if they could have foreseen a time with weapons that could mow down 50 people or more in a heartbeat.”
http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/news/P…
There were plenty of high casualty producing weapons prior to the revolution. Chemical weapons were used by the early Romans.
Tyrants almost always forbid weapons to their subjects, whether it be firearms, bows, swords or spears. The founders understood that an armed population is able to resist tyranny (as did the tyrants).
A heart will normally beat 70 times per minute. So an average heartbeat is less than 1 second. Less still because in situations where one might shoot others heart rates tend to rise.
A typical fully automatic firearm (highly restricted, not the semi-autos commonly available) will fire at a rate of 800 rounds per minute. My calculations show that to approximately 15.555 rounds per heartbeat. Fully automatic fire also tends to be less accurate so that doesn't equal 15 hits. My semi-automatic weapons have considerably lower practical rates of fire. The only way I can see hitting 50 people or more in a heartbeat is if they are standing in a straight line and fired upon with a high velocity rifle and a non-deforming munition (not a likely scenario IMO).
The Columbine high school shooting resulted in 12 deaths in a period of about an hour (roughly .0028 deaths per heartbeat)

I can foresee an intergalactic spaceship, cold fusion, genetically altered long neck frogs; we just don't know how to build them yet.
The machine gun invented in 1718; da Vinci predicted the tank and helicopter; and Ben Franklin couldn't foresee more potent individual arms?
10 April 2007
at 3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigAl (Anonymous) says…

I think it is idiotic, childish, boorish and a general lack of manhood if you feel it necessary to carry a concealed weapon to a kids T-Ball game. Utterly ridiculous.

A person that feels the need to do this must be compensating for a lack of something else.

And no, I am not far-left. I am a gun owner, a hunter and a veteran. I don't need a gun to prove anything to anyone.
10 April 2007
at 3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

Scenarios justifying concealed carry at a kid's ball game:
1. Drug dealer who frequents the park claims I need to pay a “toll” to enjoy his park and threatens with a deadly weapon.
2. Youth team members approach an opposing team member/coach/parent/supporter with baseball bats (deadly weapons) for the purpose exacting some type of revenge.

SB 418 is the “personal and family protection act”. It's not the “general public protection act”, it's not the “crime reduction act”. Persons licensed to carry concealed do so for the purpose of protecting themselves and their family, not to be vigilante crime fighters.

Kansas has a population of about 2 million adults (2005 census), 5,122 (about .0025%) of those have CCH permits (as of 28 Feb). Violent crimes are not frequent; Many licensed persons will never use a gun in self defense. I think it's unlikely that concealed carry can be related to any crime trends.

Having a gun is not about making the community safer, it's about making me safer. It's not a substitute for or augment to law enforcement. In order for it to make a difference, we would need 1-2 million more Kansans licensed.

Even though it's doesn't really effect the community at large, the right to carry has a profound effect on those who have needed it.

“How do you feel if you carry the gun everyday, nothing happen to shot at somebody? Why do you need to bring the gun for? STUPID!”
I feel the same way I do when I wore my seatbelt and didn't get into a wreck, or when I have a fire extinguisher under my sink and the house doesn't catch fire.

The “cities' rights” argument does not convince me. Cities are required to recognize state issued drivers' licenses, Lawrence cannot post a “whites only” sign at their parks. There are plenty of examples where state and federal law trump local regulation. Why are we not complaining about these?

The idea that prohibiting .0025% of the population (a demographic that has a statistically lower crime rate than police officers) from protecting themselves and their families will have some impact on crime also rings false.
10 April 2007
at 4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

“The “cities' rights” argument does not convince me. Cities are required to recognize state issued drivers' licenses”

Maybe so, but the state does not tell cities where to allow the vehicles to be driven. If a city wants to ban vehicles to be driven on any particular street, it can do so, and never once tread upon the issue of having a driver's license. Cities can also limit the use of city parks and never once tread upon the issue of race. I fail to see you point, if you every had one.

10 April 2007
at 5:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JSpizias (Anonymous) says…

Last year I was walking in the park along Roe Avenue in Overland Park (Roe and 103rd Street). The park contains a walking track as well as several soccer fields. There is also a walking and biking trail which connects various parks along the route. Suddenly three or four police cars came roaring into the Park and drove to the end of the park where a trail went into the woods. As I went by where the police cars were parked I asked an officer what had happened. He indicated a woman had been attacked by a man and injured about 100 yards into the park along the trail which runs through the area.
If this woman had appropriate training and possessed a weapon there is a good possibility she might have been able to protect herself. Data from the US government shows that victims that use a firearm to defend themselves are only about half as likely to be injured as those who attempt to use other means or make no defense. It should be noted that we have had other assaults, including rapes, along walking and biking trails. I believe this is a very good reason to allow carry of concealed handguns in parks. If the word got around that some women might be armed and the attacker could get shot this could act as a deterrent against such attacks.
10 April 2007
at 5:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

I don't see how assaults, and robberies are “laughable”.

“Comply with any robbery”, this assumes mister bad guy will comply with the “etiquette” of not killing me if he gets my money. Somehow I don't trust a man who has threatened to kill me to not do so after I've given him money. A witness makes conviction a lot easier so why would a career criminal take that risk?
If instead of my money he wants to kill me? rape my sister? kidnap my child? Am I still to comply then?

“Somebody who threatens you with a deadly weapon most likely has said weapon out, correct? Then what, fastest draw wins?”
Yes. This is why I practice. The option of dying without resisting is not more appealing to me than the other. There's also no law that says I have to use my gun, but I'd rather keep my options open.

www.gunfacts.info
Victims who fight back are less likely to be injured or killed.

It's my theory that law enforcement gives out this advice to avoid liability.

Scenario #2 I was thinking more along the lines of the parking lot after the game. A need to fire from the stands seems less likely and would require much consideration of safety.

Yes I can make up scenarios, but these 2 (or similar events) actually happen on a daily basis. I've never heard of Iranian tanks or UFOs in Kansas from credible sources, nor would they be clearly defined threats justifying deadly force. Since mine is a concealed carry handgun license, bazookas aren't allowed.

I'm not saying the need for a gun is common since it most certainly isn't. Much in the same way that airplane crews do not commonly need flotation devices. I spent 7 months in Bosnia carrying a rifle that I only fired at paper targets. I didn't need it, but I wouldn't have gone without it.

BigAl, I am compensating for something. I'm compensating for my lack of ability to stop bullets and knives with my superman steel flesh and jedi mind powers. I'm compensating for my malfunctioning crystal ball that does not accurately predict when and where I might be assaulted. The best way I know to stop a deadly assault is with deadly force.

I guess I'm a wimp. I don't go around picking fights, I avoid fights when I can, and I don't have enough confidence in my ninja training kill a man at 10 paces with my bare hands. Some licensed women may not be offended by your claim that they lack manhood.
I'm not asking anyone else to carry a gun. If you think it's cowardly, then don't. I can live with your opinions of my manliness.
10 April 2007
at 6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

Jackalope, my point is that people are upset about concealed carry, not about so much the cities' rights. Many federal and state laws prevent cities from adopting conflicting regulation. These laws are rarely opposed based upon cities' rights. If somebody is afraid I'm going to shoot them I'd rather they just say so instead of coming up with another excuse.
Cities' rights is a perfectly valid argument. I just doubt (especially since reading these posts) that it's the real reason for opposition.

More important than the right of the city, state, or union is the right of the people. This bill is designed to protect the rights of the people.
10 April 2007
at 10:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…

Here's a scenario….

35 year old mother of two has received threatening letters from and is being stalked by a troubled man. She would like take her kids to a Little League game and doesn't expect trouble, but would like to take her fully-legal CC .38 with her just in case the guy follows them in the parking lot or something. It has nothing to do with the game per se. It has to do with the fact that her stalker knows her schedule.

When I worked in downtown St. Louis in a nice professional engineering office, I worked with 3 women who packed heat and I don't blame them. If I had had to walk to my car late at night in that sewer of a city, I would have been packing too, permit or no permit.
11 April 2007
at 2:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

I can't say that I blame a woman who is being stalked by a violent person for carrying a weapon.

However, I doubt that she would attempt to fire it at a youth sporting event, especially if she's a mother herself. She'd be too afraid she'd hit one of the children accidentally.

And that would be my main concern. That children could be hurt accidentally.
11 April 2007
at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

right_thinker wrote: “I feel special for the first time in my life.” Which surprises and saddens me, because all of us here have always thought of right_thinker as special.

StephenCCH wrote “Many federal and state laws prevent cities from adopting conflicting regulation.” Which is true, as far as it goes, but nearly all of those laws prevent cities from creating *less stringent* regulations. Nearly none of them prohibit the cities from being more stringent.

Finally, Newell_Post would have “packed heat” if working in St. Louis, but apparently didn't do so when working in St. Louis…there's a bit of a paradox here….
11 April 2007
at 8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

I spent last week in Lawrence. Didn't once feel so paranoid or insecure that I thought I needed to pack heat. It really made me realize the level of disconnect with the world that some of you people experience.
11 April 2007
at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

“Nearly none of them prohibit the cities from being more stringent.”
State law prohibits cities from further restricting gun sales.
Federal law requires states to recognize out of state drivers' licenses.
Federal law restricts cities and states from prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying weapons.
State law limits cities' restrictions on firearms transportation.
Federal law prohibits discrimination based upon race.
These are just a few examples. Such laws are not uncommon, and are designed to protect individual rights (which are far more important than government rights). Were it not for such laws we would still have separate schools, drinking fountains, and sections in buses and theaters. When Alabama failed to protect the rights of of it's black citizens, the federal government did. When Lawrence fails to protect the rights of it's law abiding citizens, the state intervenes. These laws are nothing new. The 1st amendment is a fine example.

“She'd be too afraid she'd hit one of the children accidentally.

And that would be my main concern. That children could be hurt accidentally.”
Of course it is. It's probably my biggest concern as an armed citizen. If I need to use deadly force, I will do so only when other options are not available and with maximum consideration for the safety of those around.
Rule 2 of firearms safety:Never let the muzzle of a gun point at anything you do not want to destroy.
Rule 4: Be absolutely sure of your target, and what is behind it.
This is taught in the required class. The class is very good at preparing us to carry safely.
I have spent countless hours, both in classes and on my own, studying to be a responsible armed citizen. I've read the laws, and dozens of articles on tactics, equipment, marksmanship, and legal issues. I've spent additional hours refining marksmanship, drawing, and concealment methods. I've spent thousands of dollars on training, license, and equipment. This lifestyle is not entered lightly.

For those against concealed carry, how many of you have even read SB 418? Do you even know the requirements to get a license? Why is it that cities and businesses can't even spend 5 minutes to read the regulation and post the correct sign? The majority of no guns signs (including those on city buildings) I see aren't remotely in compliance with the law.

11 April 2007
at 11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

staff04, my car is equipped with seatbelts and airbags; I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen and garage; I've taken first aid classes and have first aid kits in my car and house; I have homeowners and flood insurance; and the Boy Scouts taught me how to survive in open water.
To this day I've been in a crash that would require airbags or seatbelts; my house hasn't caught fire; I've never needed to stop sever bleeding, save a choking person, restart a heart, splint a fracture, or treat hypovolemic shock; I've never used my homeowners or flood insurance; and I've never been stranded in open water. Does any of this make me paranoid, or just that I carry a gun?
Disconnect? Do you know anybody who's been assaulted, robbed, raped, kidnapped, or murdered? I know plenty.
11 April 2007
at 3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

Where to start……
Crimes happen. Really they do. Every day. This includes assaults, robberies, kidnapping and rape. It happens in Kansas, not some far off island that only criminals and police have access to.
It is true that at any given moment it is statistically unlikely. Over time, it adds up to being more likely. A significant portion of the population will at some point in their lives experience a violent crime. Since I don't know if, when or where it might happen to me (if I did, I'd make other arrangements) it is reasonably prudent to prepare to be the target of a violent crime.

Drawing and firing upon an attacker is a completely reasonable and effective way to end an assault. If guns were ineffective in stopping crime, why would police have them? I recommend you take a defensive handgun course to get a true understanding of the tactics and their effects. It isn't just a matter of manipulating the gun, movement and physical contact may be required. There are some situations where it won't matter if I have a gun or not, but there are plenty where it will be essential.
The safety on a Glock pistol is on the trigger, taking off the safety is accomplished by squeezing the trigger. Revolvers generally do not have safeties.

Consider these factors:
1. Training. Street thugs generally do not invest the time and money in proper firearms training that professionals and self defense enthusiast do. They tend not to aim and are not familiar with their weapons.
2. Surprise. A career criminal might assault 400 people (remember that .0025%) before encountering an armed citizen. They are unaccustomed to resistance (because everyone seems to know that we should appease criminals)

Before I comment on your statistics, I'd like to address the sources.

Annual revue of public heath
New England journal of medicine
Archive of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine

So when I'm looking for expert advice on crime and guns I should look to a medical journal? Should I then consult Guns and Ammo magazine about heart surgery?
11 April 2007
at 3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

whoa. That last bit of spin got me dizzy.
11 April 2007
at 4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

Fact: Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S. For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:
¢ Four times more likely to burn to death or drown
¢ 17 times more likely to be poisoned
¢ 19 times more likely to fall
¢ And 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident
-2001, Center for Disease Control, wisqars

Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In
episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
-British Home Office

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.
-Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Who claimed that children lacked the strength to fire a handgun? I do not dispute this claim. Children must never have unsupervised access to a firearm. That's why mine are always in the safe, or on my person.

Fact: Switzerland has extremely lenient gun control (more so than the U.S.), and has the third lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita rate as England and Wales.
-Carol Kalish, International Crime Rates, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report

Fact: Brazil has mandatory licensing, registration, and maximum personal ownership quotas. It now bans any new sales to private citizens. Their homicide rate is almost three (3) times higher than the U.S.
-U.S. data Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Homicide trends in the United States”, September, 2004. Brazil data
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2005

Fact: …the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.
-Colin Greenwood, “Minutes of Evidence”, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003

By the way, your source for your last statistic is the Brady Campaign. What it fails to show is the murder rate with handguns (relative to the population), and the murder rate without handguns (noticed in the news lately that great Britain is having a problem with knives?)
11 April 2007
at 4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…

I said I WOULD have been packing if I had to walk to my car late at night in downtown St. Louis. I didn't. Since I was a manager, I got to park in the office building which was fairly safe. The young women who were not managers, but worked long hours sometimes, were the unlucky ones who had to walk 6 or 7 blocks to their parking lot at midnight.

I got held up by armed thugs in the Central West End walking to my car from a restaurant.
11 April 2007
at 4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

Just a point of clarification: I've not once here made any mention of having a law enforcement background or lack thereof.
11 April 2007
at 11:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

I disagree that law enforcement experience gives anyone special insight to the rights of citizens.

A study conducted of the New York City Police Department between 1987 and 1991 showed that the city paid out $44 million in claims to settle police misconduct litigation.

In 1976, 13,400 or more lawsuits were filed against police. One in 34 officers were sued. 40% for false arrest, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution, 27% for excessive force, 6% for misuse of firearms
-Darrell L. Ross, “Civil Liability in Criminal Justice” 2003

11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
-Cramer C and Kopel D. “Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws.” 1994

“I'm the only one in this room, that I know of, professional enough to carry this Glock 40.”
-Lee Paige, DEA, just before shooting himself

“I would never want an untrained and un-qualified person pulling a weapon”
Fortunately, everyone with a Kansas concealed carry permit or one from a recognized state has been trained and qualified. Police can focus on the criminals now.

The problem I see with Number 2: In all likelihood, police will take several minutes to respond. They will probably be responding because I called 911 to report the incident. A self defense shooting in most situations should be completed in well under a minute.

If a confused officer stumbles upon the situation, fails to properly assess, and fires upon me, I am still no worse off than if the criminal kills me (but my family will be wealthy).
If a responding officer makes himself known to me, my response is to immediately and unconditionally comply with said officer's instructions and behave in the most non threatening manner possible.
Oh yeah, this was in the class too.

nutcase, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't wish to believe that a law enforcement officer would go into a situation without assessment and begin firing without identifying himself and issuing some command. If that were the case in the recent Utah mall shooting there would be an off duty officer added to the casualty list.
11 April 2007
at 11:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

I do not call 911.

I call M11/9 SMG.

Thanks.

Marion.

12 April 2007
at 12:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Well, who cares?

Buncha simps, wimps and sissies around here anyway!

In the meantime, Kurt Vonnegut is gone:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/showbiz/books…

Thanks.

Marion.
12 April 2007
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

aeroscout17 (Anonymous) says…

Dang nutcase, hope you don't come upon an off-duty or undercover officer. I think you have earned your name.
12 April 2007
at 4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

It's true that there are several situations where having a gun will not improve the situation. The DC area shootings are one such example. But there are thousands of cases where armed citizens have successfully defended themselves from an assault. I'd be interested in any reports where an armed citizen was unsuccessful in fending off an attack, but I've yet to come across one.

A seatbelt won't help if a bus goes off an overpass and lands on my car, but they still have saved thousands of lives.

First aid training won't save someone who has been decapitated, but it still saves thousands of lives.

I think it would be irresponsible to ban the use and possession of safety devices because they aren't 100% effective.

“Do you see the irony of posting these stats from the british home office????”
I do. However a government agency responsible for reducing crime is still more qualified to census self defense than a medical journal.
It is evident that the British government has a habit of ignoring the facts about crime while infringing upon the rights of it's peaceable citizens.
12 April 2007
at 4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

StephenCCH (Anonymous) says…

My recommendation was for a defensive handgun course. Marksmanship is just one part of self defense.

I was a good shot when I was 12, but I didn't know anything about tactics.
12 April 2007
at 10:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
-Cramer C and Kopel D. “Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws.” 1994”

that means that 89% of the time the cops get the right guy. it also means that 98% of the citizen shootings get the right person too.
12 April 2007
at 11:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Well, citizens can do the “two to the body and one to the head” thing but the cops can't.

Thanks.

Marion.
2 July 2007
at 4:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kcredeye (Steve Burrows) says…

In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the “Sunshine State” would become the “Gunshine State.” Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

“What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit.” (“More Permits Mean Less Crime…” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, “Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats… While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes.”
(Source: “More Guns, Less Violent Crime”, Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column).

Post a blog entry

You have to be logged in to blog on LJWorld.com. Please log in or sign up.

Learn more about blogging on LJWorld.com.

Top ads RSS

Top jobs · Top rentals · Top transportation

Marketplace

Whitney Leigh Photography 816-516-5498

Find more businesses on Marketplace

Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services

Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 87 comments
Shelter needed November 22, 2009 · 1 comment
Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009 · 72 comments
Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 58 comments
Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 126 comments
Palin stirs feminist ambivalence November 21, 2009 · 29 comments
Blog: Coaches Temper & Abusive Behavior = Bad Sportsmanship November 21, 2009 · 3 comments
Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 158 comments
Wright’s role clarified November 21, 2009 · 18 comments
Lawrence man charged in hit-and-run accident that killed bicyclist November 19, 2009 · 116 comments

Winter sports officially begin for city schools November 17, 2009
Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
The cowboy way: Williamstown church ministry draws unique following November 21, 2009
No line at H1N1 immunization clinic November 21, 2009
Health and stress affect grades November 10, 2008
Lawrence couple excel in triathlons November 21, 2009
Americans save more but earn less as interest rates fall November 21, 2009
Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009
Developers propose redesigned Boardwalk Apartments November 22, 2009
Wright’s role clarified November 21, 2009

LJWorld.com

Kansas legislature

Kansas Legislature