Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, August 8, 2010

Critics target concealed carry changes

August 8, 2010

Advertisement

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but there’s a gun battle going on in Kansas.

Don’t feel bad if you haven’t. The two sides don’t even agree what’s in the crosshairs.

On one side, groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence say nothing short of normalcy is at stake.

“The NRA and the gun lobby want to normalize carrying guns anytime, anyplace and, as a result, the country is at a real critical point,” said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “What we’re saying is, that isn’t normal behavior.”

On the other side, the aforementioned National Rifle Association says the integrity of the Constitution is on the line.

“Some folks would argue with us that the right to carry a firearm for personal protection is not a fundamental right, but we now have two Supreme Court cases that have affirmed it,” said Jordan Austin, the NRA lobbyist assigned to Kansas.

Forget about brokering a truce between those two sides. It seems they’ve been disagreeing since Moses (at least the one played by former NRA leader Charlton Heston).

But make no mistake about this: Kansas is in the field of battle. After the Kansas Legislature last session agreed to loosen the restrictions on who could receive a license to carry a concealed firearm, questions have emerged on whether Kansas will be next to follow a recent Arizona law that makes it legal to carry concealed weapons without any permit.

“That is fundamentally what we believe, but it is not a political reality in some states,” Austin said of not needing a license to carry concealed. “But we’re doing what we can to move closer to that, and I think Kansas has taken a big step forward. Arizona sent a great message and I already have had legislators in Kansas say, are we next? Let’s start considering this.”

The changes

As the Journal-World reported last month, the Legislature removed several of the reasons the Kansas Attorney General’s office could deny a concealed carry permit to an applicant. Essentially, the new law allows anyone who qualifies to possess a gun under federal and state laws to also receive a license to carry it concealed.

As a result, it no longer is permissible to deny a license to a person who has been:

• Convicted of two DUIs during the last five years.

• Convicted of carrying under the influence in another state during the last five years.

• Documented to have attempted suicide during the last five years.

In addition, the new law removed a provision that required concealed-carry license holders to submit to a breath test if a law enforcement officer suspected they were carrying a weapon under the influence. If they refused, they lost their license. Now, license holders must only consent to a test if they’ve shot someone.

None of the changes surprise Malte.

“We see this going on all over the country,” Malte said. “Most of the calls I get are about how state by state the NRA is continually dismantling the concealed carry permitting process that they actually worked to set up in the first place.”

Malte calls the NRA’s tactics the “ultimate level of hypocrisy.” Austin, though, said there’s nothing hypocritical about the movement. He said it is a result of the Supreme Court making the protections of the Second Amendment clearer. The court issued what are largely considered the most significant Second Amendment rulings of the last decade in 2008 and 2010 in the Heller and McDonald cases.

“I think that is causing a lot of states to evaluate how their gun laws are written,” Austin said.

In some cases, that’s causing lawmakers to recognize that gun law isn’t always analogous to other state laws. Austin said some of the changes in Kansas law go to that point.

For example, he said he has heard arguments that the laws governing concealed carry and alcohol violations should be much like the laws governing alcohol and driving. A Kansas driver who refuses to submit to a breath test, for instance, still loses his or her driver’s license.

But Austin said there’s a large difference.

“The fundamental difference we see is that a driver’s license is a privilege,” Austin said. “A right to carry a firearm is a right.”

Little opposition

If you think this issue is being driven entirely from the right side of the political spectrum, think again.

Gov. Mark Parkinson, a Democrat, signed the bill. Attorney General Stephen Six, a Democrat whose office is responsible for administering the concealed carry program, sent a representative to testify in support of the bill.

But representatives for both politicians were reluctant to discuss specifics about their bosses’ support for many of the provisions in the bill.

Amy Jordan Wooden, press secretary for Parkinson, declined to answer questions about why the governor believed provisions related to DUIs, alcohol testing and carrying under the influence needed to be changed. She said those questions should be directed to members of the Legislature.

Gavin Young, a spokesman with Six’s office, said the attorney general supported the underlying concept of the bill, but Young declined to address whether Six supported several of the specific changes in the bill.

The bill passed both houses of the Legislature overwhelmingly — 37-2 in the Senate and 103-15 in the House. Whether many of the legislators knew all of the provisions in the bill is unclear. At least one area legislator was surprised to learn of the alcohol-related changes. Several summaries of the bill did not address many of the specific provisions that would be changed.

“Many of those changes don’t sound good,” said Rep. Tom Sloan, who voted for the bill.

Sloan R-Lawrence, said he was surprised the attorney general’s office and state law enforcement groups didn’t do more to raise concerns with the bill.

Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, did vote against the bill. But he’s not surprised more opposition didn’t surface. He said the concealed carry issue just doesn’t receive much discussion among the Kansas public.

“One of the reasons these bills are sailing through the Legislature is that there is absolutely no organized opposition to these efforts,” Davis said.

Future changes

Expect more talk about concealed carry in future legislative sessions. Austin, with the NRA, did not rule out seeking legislation that would allow Kansans to carry concealed without going through a license process.

Some lawmakers said they weren’t sure such a measure would be successful. Rep. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora, serves on the House’s Federal and State Affairs Committee, which hears many of the concealed carry issues. He said he would be open to considering such a law, but thought the current makeup of the Legislature would prevent it from passing.

Instead, he said provisions that allow concealed carry licensees to enter government buildings that do not provide metal detectors or other security ought to be reconsidered. Such a provision was originally included in last year’s legislation but was stripped out when formal opposition did emerge.

Both the League of Kansas Municipalities and the Board of Regents objected to that provision. Currently, governments can post their buildings with “no guns” signs.

Brown thinks a law to change that may have a chance in the future.

“If you or I are a violent person, do you really think that sign is going to cause us to go put our guns up and go get our knives?” Brown said. “That sign is not enough to protect anyone’s safety.”

Comments

jrlii 3 years, 8 months ago

For me, the best thing about concealed carry is it makes it possible for women to defend themselves.

Even highly trained martial artists rarely come off well against opponents twice their weight, and guys twice the weight of my 5'3" niece are pretty common. Give her one pound of pistol, and that pretty well negates his hundred plus pound size advantage.

Since the dawn of the firearms era, bullies have tried to gain exclusive use of firearms. The Brady campaign and their supporters effectively support those who would victimize others.

Even the tiny bullet out of a .22 pocket pistol can ruin a thug's whole day.

0

thuja 3 years, 8 months ago

This is what you choose to think about in your mind. These situations?

You gun people freak me out. Like you can't wait for it to really happen.

Why else would you imagine it in such detail?

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 8 months ago

The goal isn't to kill, but incapacitate. A .25 or any derringer might psychologically incapacitate a person, but it's unlikely to physically incapacitate them very quickly. So, if they choose to ignore the wound, very easy when you're pumped up on adrenaline or drugs, and attack you, well you've got nothing else to do.

A shotgun is great for home defense, although a pistol allows for easier movement around corners and a less likely chance someone can grab the weapon from you.

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 8 months ago

My recommendation:

Ruger LCP .380 Hornady critical defense ammo. You will hardly notice that you have it in your pocket.

Home defense: Nothing is more frightening than the sound of a shotgun being cocked. 12 guage. Actually, just about any 12 guage will do the job.

0

Hydra 3 years, 8 months ago

Not according to guardian! At 10 to 15 feet it would take a real talent to miss a target with a double barrel. :O)

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

In real life, a shotgun isn't a point-in-the-general-direction weapon. You still have to aim if you want to hit your target. At 10 yards, you'll get about a 20 inch spread from a cylinder choke. http://hunting.about.com/od/shotgun/l/aastshotgunfaqa.htm

0

Hydra 3 years, 8 months ago

Let's inject a little sanity in this thread. If you want a gun for personal defense to carry with you at all times. Go with a 25 cal auto or 38 derringer You can substitue a 45 if you really have to have something bigger. . If you have to shoot someone that way it won't go thru them and injure someone else 2 blocks down. Never carry a 357.

Now for home defense I highly recommend a double barreled sawed-off 12 ga. shot gun with a pistol grip. You just have to pull both triggers and it's next to impossible to miss the target all together.

Hope these little tips help! :O)`

0

nudist 3 years, 8 months ago

This change doesn't really affect me...

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

RoeD, I've never witnessed such behavior from someone smoking pot -- sure your roomie wasn't smoking pot laced with something else? I have seen such behavior by many people drinking.

This brings us back to the argument at hand, since people with a history of DUI offenses are now being told they can conceal and carry. As you know, I agree with jay -- the Wild West scenarios aren't accurate. However, the more the laws are loosened, the greater that possiblity rises. Just as other people who break laws can loose their rights, should those caught drinking and driving be allowed access to a concealed weapon? It is worth asking.

0

jaywalker 3 years, 8 months ago

Always interesting that people fight law-abider's carrying guns, as if crime rates will sky-rocket and random shootings/The Ol' Wild West will break out. It just isn't so.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

  • Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

  • When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

  • 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

  • As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

  • As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

Perhaps I'll peacefully assemble today. Maybe I'll petition my government for the redress of a grievance. The Bill of Rights is just so cool!

0

Conservative2011 3 years, 8 months ago

It is my right to carry a weapon (handgun) for self defense, concealed or not. It is also my right to grow and consume whatever I want. God created Marijuana, not the government. Personal freedom is being eroded by both parties, wake up and take your freedoms back and protect the few we have left.

0

Mr_B9 3 years, 8 months ago

Oh great, now we will have to do this all over again... LOL...

0

pace 3 years, 8 months ago

Not to quibble but some of my comments that are posted to this topic were actually in response to a different story. Odd mix up.

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 8 months ago

As I read information provided in this link;

http://www.ksag.org/files/2009_Annual_Report_-_Signed.pdf

two people who were denied in 2009 might have acquired CCW permits under the new rules. Feel free to correct me if I missed anything. I say might, because the personnel who teach the classes are trained to watch for suspicious behavior, and have final say based on scoring and observation as to who passes. They are pro-CCW, but they don't want idiots with guns out there any more than you or I. Will more people with DUI's, carrying under the influence, or having attempted suicide attempt to get CCW permits under the new rules? Possibly. Time will tell if this is a wise decision, or if it even makes a difference.

0

marlin44 3 years, 8 months ago

Does anyone honestly believe that if you make a law against owning a gun and take all guns away from the people who are honest enough to give them up that it will stop a criminal from shooting someone? Think a little! If a criminal is planning on comitting the crime of murder do you really think he is going to worry about breaking the law of having a gun? Maybe you think it would be harder for him to find a gun if they are outlawed? Anyone with a few of the right tools can make a gun. Just like during prohibition, there would be people making what the criminals want. If a person wants to carry a gun thats his or her right. I am 51 years old and have been carrying concealed for as long as it has been legal in my state and fortunately I have never needed it. But if I ever do, I hope I still have the right to have it.

0

Ramv36 3 years, 8 months ago

Kansans, your freedom-loving neighbors to the East feel you pain and stand behind you as you work to expand freedom in your great state. Concealed Carry in Missouri was also an uphill battle all the way, but after much effort we topped that hill and our rights were restored.

If you like stories like this and feel as I do, don't miss my new blog, The Rob Report: News and Ideas that are liberally conservative.

http://ramv36.wordpress.com

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 8 months ago

Only 11% of the American people have any confidence at all in the Congress of the United States. This is the lowest on record.

What does that tell you about trusing politicians when they start arguing about putting more restrictions on our freedoms?

If this was the only situation I have seen regarding guns I might be open to your argument. However, there are thousands of attacks across the country against a citizens right to own and/or carry or to own any kind of gun. There is an agenda and it is nationwide and it is heavily funded and politically driven.

Our problem today is that both political parties have crossed the line on what should be acceptable and they are not taking care of the American people. That is why they get an 11% confidence rating.

The political parties have lost touch with the average American and we have we have just about had enough.

Politicians now believe that with enough money and the right line of BS, they can get away with anything. I think it is time that we drew our line in the sand and this is one of them.

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

"As a result, it no longer is permissible to deny a license to a person who has been: • Convicted of two DUIs during the last five years. • Convicted of carrying under the influence in another state during the last five years. • Documented to have attempted suicide during the last five years."

Actually, this is what people are questioning. Not everyone agrees and some feel this is loosening the laws too much. It isn't about staggering drunks, or Michael Moore, or even Ted Nugent for that matter. It is about questioning the limits of ownership for those who have shown less than proper judgment, be it with alcohol, criminal activity or attempted suicide. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled. The notion of politicians coming in and taking away people's guns is done. It is over. The gun rights folks won. It has nothing to do with the NRA. The NRA has drawn the line they have because they are a lobbyist organization. If they didn't draw lines to stir people up, they wouldn't make money. What lobbyist firm is okay with making less money?

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 8 months ago

So what the anti-gun folks are implying in this particular argument is that the NRA and concealed carry supporters are in favor of selling guns to crazy people and alcoholics who will stagger down the street waving a bottle of Jack and firing shots into the sides of houses.

The anti-gun folks want to paint a disturbing picture that does not exist.

If you want to be alarmed and even scared of these folks, start researching what is happening in other states, particular where the liberals are politically strongest. Gun rights are withering away. All their sweet talk about you keeping your hunting rifle, etc. is just so much talk. They will not stop until we are completely unarmed as a nation and only the criminals and politically connected or very rich will have access to firearms.

You want ammunition too? Forget about it.

Remember Michael Moore? He wants everybody with a gun to look like a murderer.

The goal of this argument from the beginning is to make law abiding citizens who are the backbone of this country into looking irresponsible.

Our grandfathers and fathers and many of us fought on foreign soil to protect our freedoms. Now the liberals think we are not responsible enough to handle firearms.

Their solution is that the government has to take our guns away before we hurt ourselves.

I think that the reason that the NRA has drawn the line they have drawn is because they know that the liberals eventually want to take away your right to own a gun. They want the Supreme Court to decide that the right to own a gun is not guaranteed by the constitution. If they can do that, we are going to be disarmed as a nation. Only the criminals, police, military and of course illegal aliens will have guns.

0

happy_go_lucky 3 years, 8 months ago

When in discussion of a planned attack on America, later becoming the plan set in motion at Pearl Harbor.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

I (heart) bea when she gets all stern and judgemental and totally misreads everything people post.

0

BlackVelvet 3 years, 8 months ago

Beatrice said ".....Also, on the issue of war, the reason we haven't been attacked on our shores has more to do with distance......"

I read somewhere that the Japanese had planned to invade our shores but decided against it since "everyone there has a gun!"

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

I think bea's about to go all Carl T. Rowan on somebody.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 3 years, 8 months ago

OK guys, on both sides of the fence, It's hot. Sweat is soaking through my holster leaving salt deposits in the leather, and I am having to clean and oil daily.

Just be kind and play nice.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 8 months ago

Crimany, let's just hand out guns free with every 12 pack or as gifts at bars at the end of the night.

Maybe have Headquarters hand them out to people in distress.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

"...what are the odds that a mean and crazy person without a gun will be able to kill dozens of people in one attack with a knife?"

Mass murder with knives happens on a fairly regular basis in Japan and China.

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

To angeleyes, if you really stumped someone with the "only outlaws" line, then that person is proof that if you outtlaw evolution in Kansas, only outlaws will evolve.

To the knife analogy I have to ask, what are the odds that a mean and crazy person without a gun will be able to kill dozens of people in one attack with a knife? How often have people attacked someone with a knife, and an innocent bystander across the street get killed? When was the last time you heard of someone being killed on America's roadways in a driveby stabbing, or a child killed while sleeping in their bed by someone throwing a knife out the car window?

Please don't minimize the lethal quality of guns by comparing them to knives or other potential weapons. Things like knives, baseball bats, cars, etc. can be used to committ deadly force, but they have a utilitarian use. Only when misused do they kill. Guns don't have any other use. They are made to shoot bullets, and bullets kill. Why do you think police arm themselves with guns and not cutlery?

Also, on the issue of war, the reason we haven't been attacked on our shores has more to do with distance. Great Britain was attacked because of its close proximity to Germany. Any trained army could easily minimize the threat of scattered, armed citizens. If our armed citizens are such a strength against other nations, then why do we spend more than the next 13 highest spending nations combined on our national defense? You should be up in arms over that waste of money.

0

waynebriscoeforuscongress 3 years, 8 months ago

The real issue here is not about Concealed Carry. The real issue is whether or not our Rights as Americans should be legislated away. Not just Gun Rights but all Rights. We have a government that currently over regulates, over taxes, and over spends with no apparent regard for the will of the people.

My position on Gun Control is that I will fight hard against any attempt to restrict the Second Amendment. We must all stay vigilant in order to insure and preserve our Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. Where possible I will further work to restore rights already taken by previous legislation.

If you are a citizen of the United States you have a right to purchase a gun under the 2nd Amendment. No where does it say whether you can or can not conceal it. The four most important words are "shall not be infringed".

Amendment 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.

When you restrict one Right you restrict all of them.

0

MacHeath 3 years, 8 months ago

I would be much more worried about folks that carry that don't have a license...

0

MacHeath 3 years, 8 months ago

This issue is just something the J/W drummed up to cause controversy. The law changes streamlined the law. You aren't going to find many CC holders getting drunk, and carrying their weapon anyway. The folks that would go to the trouble of getting a CC license are not a bunch of fools. This is much ado about nothing.

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 8 months ago

You almost have to laugh at the Democrats because of the way they self destruct when choosing political issues to fight about.

1) Taking guns away from law abiding American citizens 2) Suing a state that is trying to stop wildly out of control illegal immigration. (Did somebody mention the billions we invested in homeland security. For what?) 3) Getting saddled with the moniker, "Baby killers", and not being able to shake it off. 4) Scaring the hell out of small business with not just national health care bundled in a maize of paper that nobody understands or has time to read but the threat of cap and trade, a scheme that would require a major new exchange in Chicago for a new generation of middlemen buying and selling products to manage it. 5) Bail outs for big banks to invest in foreign economies, crumbs for the smaller banks and the loan stream to small and medium businesses looking like a dry creek bed. 6) Stimulus money disbursements looking more and more like a sandbox for liberal economists to test out their theories before they go back to teaching.

It is looking more and more like the Repugnacrats are going to rule us again because the Democrats have performed very poorly. It is obvious that some very narrow minded people who are very out of touch are dreaming up ways to commit political suicide and they haven't learned a thing. Just take your money and run.

0

tange 3 years, 8 months ago

Wheels back on, for a moment.

Given that the issue is concealed carry, why do you suppose so many carrying commenters seem to wear their permits like a badge? Hmm?

( Therein lies a clue... and, possibly, a warning. )

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

Another beautiful day to peacefully exercise my rights under the Constitution of the United States.

0

pace 3 years, 8 months ago

I don't know how you were raised to equate some drunk guy in a tutu coming toward you with the same emotions you would have if some drunk pulled out his pistol and pointed it at you. Must of been an interesting home.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 8 months ago

Here is my question. Who are you to say how I choose to protect myself and leave my house everyday? I bet if I went outside in a pink tutu you'd say "he's an individual, it's just what he chooses to do, it's his life who are we to tell him how to live it." Does that same mentality not apply here? You can't argue that people who carry concealed are dangerous to society, because it's proven not to be the case. The argument whether carrying is necessary is moot, because that's my business and my choice!

Also, let's clear this up. A gun is a tool, and for most CCH, it's one of many tools, a last resort. First, I try to stay out of dangerous situations, I'm not going to go walking alleys downtown at 3AM. I'm going to park in a well lit area and be very aware of my surroundings. Second, I have some martial arts self defense techniques at my disposal. Third, I usually carry pepper spray as well. Finally, if all those fail and I'm still in danger, I have a firearm. That's system isn't for everyone, some might feel paranoid taking that level of preparedness. Just because you're uncomfortable doing it doesn't give you a right to restrict someone else from doing it. I'm very comfortable in my day to day activities, I'm aware but not paranoid.

0

Jim Phillips 3 years, 8 months ago

Back in the day when there were reporters on newspapers' payrolls instead of "journalists", the reporter would research and find out just how many people had been refused a CCH license for violation of any of the aforementioned charges. Once the information was presented, the reader could determine for himself if there was a real problem or if the story was a filler story. I guess the Hurst doctrines are still alive and well.

0

HaRDNoK9 3 years, 8 months ago

Beatrice, I do not believe that you are a pacifist. I think that there are a lot of people out there who have never owned or used or trained to use a gun. Your not so far fetched belief is that if CCW permits are easier to get, people who otherwise would never have owned a gun will run out and get one just because they can, not because they have any respect for the responsibilities involved in owning one. Those people will be much more likely to need one once they have one, not because they actually do need it, but because they believe that having one makes them stronger than they were without one. That attitude will make them more comfortable with putting themselves at higher risk. That increased risk will invariably put society at large at greater risk, and ultimately put gun ownership at risk, but not before it has cost more lives. Isn't your question to concealed carry permit holders' belief that they need to carry all the time born out of a desire to avert all of these tragedies? You are asking critical questions of current CCW holders and hopefully they will ask the same critical questions of the CCW holders of tomorrow. Am I close? Because I am just not hearing you say anything that would indicate to me that you are anti-gun.

0

kansasmutt 3 years, 8 months ago

If you have a gun and dont need it, your covered, If you have a gun and do need it, your alive. That is why i carry 24-7 and have no problem if i need to use it. I have the right to protect myself and my wife. I carry open.

0

tange 3 years, 8 months ago

I blame the wanton immorality of the 60s and all the dirty hippie worship by modern-day "conservatives"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCMTf8Hnu3E

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

I sense the wheels are starting to come off this conversation. Just questioning the "need" to conceal and carry has already been deemed the act of a pacifist, so it can't be long before gun owners really are just compensating for a "small caliber shooter" is offered up.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

And I still want my bazooka, seeing as how I am a pacifist and all.

0

Mr_B9 3 years, 8 months ago

mushhawk (anonymous) Maybe our legislatures should take away our right to free speech. This way we would not have to see such idiotic posts.

0

Ray March 3 years, 8 months ago

our legislature is idiotic with guns. they would let kids bring them into daycare if it would pass.

0

Sparko 3 years, 8 months ago

Maybe if the right wing was as concerned for the plight of the Middle Class as it was about macho posturing about guns? Idiots. Nice distraction though. Look--over there--an abortion clinic. I wonder how many gun factories have been out-sourced?

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

I'll say this once again, LJW needs to give Chad a raise so he can afford a centerfire handgun.

0

yankeevet 3 years, 8 months ago

Omar Thornton, the Connecticut shooting suspect who took eight lives then killed himself last week Wednesday, himself said his actions were all about race and racism. If one of the victims had of been "carrying" this could of been preventive................The guy got caught stealing beer; and selling it; so he pulls out the race card; as well as a weapon.

0

Bowtech 3 years, 8 months ago

Beatrice, there is always a chance that even though you are wearing a seat belt you could still be killed in an automobile accident. So does the smart driver just say "It may not save my life, so why bother?" There will always be situations where no matter what you try to do to protect yourself you will become a victim, but to just say that you are not even going to try because you might fail is a sorry attitude. That is pretty much just choosing to be a victim. If that is your preference, fine, but don't deny others every option available.

0

Mr_B9 3 years, 8 months ago

ljwanonymous (anonymous) It appears to me you have a hard time believing anyone should even own a gun. (For any reason) The reality is it's OUR constitutional right to bear arms. It is also your right to not be a gun owner, however, you stated that you were. Just because you were a sworn Deputy Sheriff in another state doesn't mean squat. You perhaps could have been a jailer which would never even strap on a gun. Some Deputy Sheriffs find this career choice is not for them and find they are better suited tending to fluffy bunnies. Why do pacifists with dovish ideas think they are smarter than our constitution?

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

If you find fault with the current KS laws regarding legal concealed carry, let your state representative or senator know and start working to change the law. That's what the pro-right-of-self-defense folks did. Beating straw men and generally whining on the interwebs won't change much. BTW, you can still avoid having to associate with law-abiding citizens carrying firearms in Wisconsin, Illinois and DC. http://www.handgunlaw.us/

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

Black Velvet: "A threat or attack can occur anywhere. Even in a church. My wife would rather not need a gun in her purse, but it's a better option than being a rape victim or worse. And she is properly trained, which anyone who carries a gun should be."

First off, I absolutely agree that anyone who carries a gun should be trained. However, own a gun or be a rape victim or worse -- those aren't the only alternatives.

In truth, guns give women a false sense of security. Since there simply isn't enough time to pull your gun out, turn off the safety, aim it and fire when physically overpowered. The "worse" could very easily be having a gun taken from you and used against you. Same is true with pepper spray or mace.

If you don't know how to protect yourself by other means, then you could be in trouble.

Here is a good read on the subject from a personal safety expert. She writes,: "... Food for thought…….why do you think our military and law enforcement are taught 'hand-to-hand combat' extensively in training? Simple answer…….they may not have enough time to draw their weapons to defend themselves in the event of an altercation. They must know how to protect and defend themselves 'realistically' with their minds and bodies rather than depending on their weapon. ..." http://annyjacoby.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/females-guns-mythsexcuses-factsreality-3/

0

Centerville 3 years, 8 months ago

But does it require registration of the carrier?

0

BlackVelvet 3 years, 8 months ago

The "no guns allowed" signs sure prevent a lot of armed robberies and school shootings, don't they?

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

"Why is getting a permit not going straight down the registratioin path?" KS law doesn't require registration of firearms when getting a concealed carry permit.

0

Centerville 3 years, 8 months ago

Please educate me: Why do we have concealed carry laws in the first place? Why is getting a permit not going straight down the registratioin path? I have no interest in letting any government know about my firearm situation. Although, I do find those mass hysteria "No Guns Allowed" signs to be amusing.

0

tange 3 years, 8 months ago

This forum has proven to be unexpectedly helpful with regard to personal safety. I'm already augmenting my home safety shopping list... band-aids gauze mercurochrome handgun ( .22, .38, .44—the bigger the better ) concealed carry permit helmet ( hmm... wonder if they come in tin foil...? )

0

independant1 3 years, 8 months ago

I didn't have a gun the first time I was robbed. A more telling statistic is how many robberys and violent crimes happen to law abiding citizens? And how many times would the victim scare off or stop the attacker if they'd had a gun.

0

frankfussman 3 years, 8 months ago

The late Professor Maynard Shelly once wrote in a letter to the editor that Congress should pass a bill requiring every US citizen to carry a gun.

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

Liberty One: "There are 2.1-2.5 million protective uses of a gun per year in the US." He sites the NRA for this quote.

There are someowhere between 40 - 50 million gun owners in America. If 2.1 - 2.5 million people use their guns each year for protection -- not just had it for protection just in case, but actually used it for protection -- then at least 5 percent of all gun owners used their gun in a protective use per year. Not in a lifetime, but per year. This means that in 20 years, virtually every gun owner will need to use their gun in a protective manner at least once.

Now I ask in an informal poll, of those who own guns how many times have you needed to use it to protect yourself? Have you ever actually used your gun for protection against crime, or do you have it just in case?

I'm not saying people haven't used guns to protect themselves, or that if the number is lower we should take people's guns away, I just think that such a high number is not accurate and that the NRA shouldn't be spreading such false material to support their cause.

0

Bowtech 3 years, 8 months ago

ljwanonymous - The requirements to obtain a drivers license are far less stringent than the requirements to obtain a CCW. Can you argue that in the hands of an untrained operator a motor vehicle is not a truely dangerous weapon? You are comfortable driving on the street every day with thousands of other drivers who are in control of a dangerous weapon. You have become comfortable with this situation through repetition. I am guessing that you are not a gun owner and are not familiar with firearms. Is it not logical that the more that you are exposed to fellow citizens who are carrying concealed firearms in a responsible manner, the more you will realize that statistically you are in no more danger from them than you are your fellow drivers? Is it not possible that you will get over your irrational fear of guns?

Have ever really thought about the fact that every day you pass within just a few feet of hundreds of vehicles going in the opposite direction, any one of which could kill you if the operator does not act in a responsible manner?

I don't have a CCW, but I respect the right of any law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed firearm if they choose to do so; for whatever reason. I also am not so naive as to believe that I am in any more danger from that person than I am from those hundreds that I pass going the opposite direction every day.

0

BlackVelvet 3 years, 8 months ago

Here's a hint for all you "no one needs guns" folks......If you don't want a gun to protect yourself or your loved ones, don't get one. It's that simple. But just as I won't tell you how to raise your kids or otherwise live your life, as long as I'm not breaking any laws, please resist the urge to tell me how to live my life and how I choose to protect my family and myself.

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

Pyrofighter: "I would rather have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have it."

Stated earlier here, it is a line that has been used virtually every time guns and personal protection are discussed. "Better safe than sorry." Not unreasonable logic, although it seems very unlikely one will ever need a gun when going about their daily activities.

However, did you know that one million people a year visit hospitals to treat brain injuries: http://www.health-news-and-information.com/4civista/libv/e08.shtml

Fifty thousand die from head injuries. That far exceeds people killed by violent criminals with guns. So, if someone is really trying to stay safe on a daily basis, they would be much better off wearing a helmet everywhere they go than carrying a gun.

So, how many of the "better safe than sorry" gun folks are willing to really be safe and start wearing a helmet as you go about your day? (by the way, a tin foil hat is not a helmet)

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 8 months ago

ljwanonymous, prove to me you do not abuse your spouse. Prove to me you do not steal from your employer. Prove to me that you are able to determine my skill, training and knowledge are inadequate to protect myself, family and friends, or even you.

Your request for proof makes no more sense than mine

0

Liberty_One 3 years, 8 months ago

ljwanonymous (anonymous) says…

"I assume based on your answer, you have at least once needed a spare tire. Now answer the question, when have you ever needed a weapon?"

There are 2.1--2.5 million protective uses of a gun per year in the US. Even though women own firearms at a lower rate then men, about 50% of these protective uses were by women. In addition to a disproportionate share being women, blacks and hispanics also make up a disproportionate share compared to overall gun ownership rates, as well as urban dwellers. About 75% of these protective uses were without firing a shot.

This is from the Kleck and Gertz survey, the results of which can be found on the NRA-ILA website. The numbers may actually be higher, since minors were not included in the survey, and it was a telephone survey, meaning those who are poorer and less likely to own a phone, but more likely to be a victim of a crime, were missed as well.

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 8 months ago

Again, as I've said before, were it not for the NRA, likely guns would be either mostly illegal or completely illegal. Clinton and his buds were out to get 'em for eight years. It was the biggest political fight of the late 20th century. Liberals don't like constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, just the ones granted by a liberal activist court.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

Current KS law does not allow concealed carry everywhere. I'm okay with that.

0

ljwanonymous 3 years, 8 months ago

Especially when average citizen lacks, skills, training and knowledge needed to properly handle a weapon.

0

ljwanonymous 3 years, 8 months ago

Prove to me why the average citizen needs to carry a weapon everywhere.

0

Pollocaca 3 years, 8 months ago

There is a good reason Democrats don't like guns. They are the ones that statisically break the most laws. Guns would not be necessary if they didn't create the most problems.

Google it. Look at the people that create the problems.

Prove me wrong.

0

ljwanonymous 3 years, 8 months ago

So you say twice and neither time in a city. So why are these people screaming so loudly to carry a weapon any and everywhere?

0

budtugly 3 years, 8 months ago

ljwanonymous.....Twice and neither time was in a city but I don't usually hang out in cities. Ask that question to the retired KU professor and his wife who were killed by dogs a couple of years ago..oh wait they are dead that's right.

0

voevoda 3 years, 8 months ago

There is, I think, some common ground between proponents of gun ownership and proponents of gun control: they can agree that the problem does not lie with responsible gun owners, but rather with irresponsible ones.
Who should be judged too irresponsible to carry firearms? Here's my list: People who don't know how to use and store firearms safely. People with a history of violence against people and/or property, even if a gun wasn't involved. People who make threats of violence, even if they haven't carried them out. People who are impaired by consumption of alcohol or drugs or other substances. Then the question becomes how to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people, and to do so within the confines of the Second Amendment. I suggest looking to the "well-regulated militia" provision. Unlike the other guarantees of rights in the Bill of Rights (such as speech, assembly, and religion), the right to bear arms comes with a proviso. Case law has already established that "militia" need not mean a body officially established by the government, and that individuals need not belong to any group in order to possess firearms legally. So what about "well-regulated"? I think that most of us can agree that people on my list are not regulating themselves well. I'd go further than some gun proponents and say that people who aren't able to regulate themselves well ought not to carry guns. If they don't have the good sense to understand that for themselves (duh, they aren't able to regulate themselves well), then somebody has to do it for them and take their guns away from them. That doesn't have to be the Federal government, or even the State government, or even the Local government. I'd be happy if families or gun clubs or gun merchants do it. When that becomes the culture of our society and the NRA, then we'll have the gun violence level of Switzerland, and all of us will feel safer.

0

ljwanonymous 3 years, 8 months ago

I assume based on your answer, you have at least once needed a spare tire. Now answer the question, when have you ever needed a weapon?

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

I hardly ever need the spare tire I keep in the trunk of my car. That doesn't mean I'm going to start leaving it at home.

0

ljwanonymous 3 years, 8 months ago

Will try again. "How many times have any of you truly needed a weapon to protect yourself or others?"

Can just one of you gun lovers attempt to answer this?

0

Bowtech 3 years, 8 months ago

ljwanonymous - And I would like to ask you, when was the last time that you were injured by a law-abiding citizen with a concealed cary permit? Do you have a friend or family member who has been injured? Do you know someone in your hometown that has been injured by a permit holder? If you can answer in the affirmative to any of these questions, you are indeed in the minority.

I think your fear of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is irrational. I would venture to guess that the possibility of you being injured or killed by an irresponsible driver that is talking or texting on a cell phone is at least one hundred times, possibly one thousand times more likely than the possibility of you being injured by a CCW holder.

Yes, firearms are one of the dangerous tools that we as Americans are exposed to every day, but they are far less likely to cause you harm than a host of other things that you have become comfortable with. I for one am much more afraid of all of the idiots that I see on the street that seem to think that reading that text or making that "important call" is not putting the rest of us in danger.

0

pentiuman 3 years, 8 months ago

“The NRA and the gun lobby want to normalize carrying guns anytime, anyplace and, as a result, the country is at a real critical point,” said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

I don't know for sure about the NRA or gun lobby groups, but personally, for me that statement is quite false. As a general rule, I don't support gun owners carrying guns into courthouses, churches, bars, prisons, I.R.S. buildings, on airplanes, amusement rides, or in pools! (My point is that people need to choose their words more carefully when making a call against a party different from theirs.)

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 8 months ago

If it wasn't so gd hot, I'd break out a few guns and make some noise in the back yard. I haven't even had a gun out of the safe since I shot my deer last October. Well, except for my .38, which is always closeby.

0

Outsidelookingin 3 years, 8 months ago

I only feel like I need to carry when I go to KCK, Topeka, or Lawrence. Thug wannabe's located there.

0

ljwanonymous 3 years, 8 months ago

How many times have any of you truly needed a weapon to protect yourself or others?

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

Until I can openly carry my bazooka, then my rights are being suppressed. What gives anyone else the right to describe what I deem necessary for self protection? Bazookas or bust!

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 8 months ago

I got my cch when they were available and legal early '07, and have not carried alot. It is a right I wanted to exercise and it was a gratifying experience. However, I do not feel paranoid enough to be saying "Oh damn, I forgot my gun" everytime I go out somewhere. I'll leave the paranoia to the far-left.

0

budtugly 3 years, 8 months ago

I went through the conceal and carry process and have the license . I think Arizona has went to far to not require the license now because it means that people who do not want to be fingerprinted,palm-printed etc. can carry. I did not want the govt to have any records on me but it was worth it to get the permit. They have them anyway. My problem with carrying without having to go through the process is that people that are gang members.. etc. cannot be arrested for carrying. Maybe I am wrong but I thought there were some real positives to the way the current Kansas Law was written. Guns and booze certainly do not mix either and I drink, but not while I carry.

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 8 months ago

Gun control advocates talked of a 'step by step' process for years to eventually eliminate nearly every privately owned weapon while crime was rising, especially in cities and states where guns were most restricted.If, as Brian Malte states, the NRA is using the same tactics, and crime statistics are dropping, then maybe the anti-gun lobby is wrong. My opinion, responsible gun owners are not to be feared. Irresponsible people don't care what laws are on the books.

0

tange 3 years, 8 months ago

" a woman's touch, the highest love a strong mind, a strong body all the things you could've had all the things you should've been...."

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 8 months ago

I'm planning on mounting one of these on my car. It's wholly unnecessary, but I need to assert my rights.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1012

0

Kris_H 3 years, 8 months ago

There are lots of reasons for wanting to carry a concealed weapon. I wish there weren't any, but I'm not living in a fantasy world.

To me, it's the right of the law-abiding citizen to carry a weapon. People who have two DUIs in five years on their record are not, in my book, law-abiding. I have to wonder what motivated the desire to change that particular part of the law?

I'll have to look up what the penalty will be for carrying under the influence before I can comment on that. But I think guns and alcohol are a terrible combination and should be discouraged with force of law.

0

kubacker 3 years, 8 months ago

To make people like the idiot that shot 8 unarmed people at that Lawrence apartment complex think twice before he decides he can shoot up an apartment full of people without someone from the apartment complex stepping outside with their own gun and blowing his brains all over the sidewalk.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

The Brady Bunch seems to have fallen on hard times.

"...In those comments, though, one person noted the Brady Center's Political Action Committee's latest filings, as collected and reported by Open Secrets, and it's great news -- for those of us who dislike the Brady Center.

As of June 30, 2010, their books looked like this:

Total Receipts: $2,500. Total Spent: $4,680. Begin Cash On Hand: $11,813. End Cash On Hand: $9,636.

The once-almighty gun-grabbing group, less than a hundred days before the midterm elections, has doled out less than five grand this year, and has less than ten thousand more to spend. Further, they've only collected $2,500 this year to date.

The list of the favorite candidates of the gun-grabbers? Seven Democrats, five running for House seats and two in the Senate. Kristen Gillibrand (NY) was the big winner, with $1,000. Jeff Merkley (OR) got $500. And for the House, each got $250: Gerry Connolly (VA), Phil Hare (IL), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Dan Maffei (NY), and Michael E. McMahon (NY).

A grand total of $2,750.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. And with such a satisfying thud."

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/08/07/a-premature-dancing-on-a-grave.php

0

rbwaa 3 years, 8 months ago

what's really frightening is the widespread paranoia which is fueling this push for change -- just because it is a 'right' why does a person believe it is necessary to carry a gun concealed or otherwise?

0

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 8 months ago

"What we’re saying is, that isn’t normal behavior.”

According to whom? Further, how is this opinion germane to a discussion of rights?

0

Moderateguy 3 years, 8 months ago

Should be an interesting day. A little early for popcorn though.

0

Bob Kraxner 3 years, 8 months ago

Carrying guns isn't normal, but since criminals always have been, wouldn't it be better to have one and possibly never need it... rather than to need one and not have it ? If criminals don't know for sure who is armed and who isn't, then would they assume that most are ?

0

Jackie Jackasserson 3 years, 8 months ago

that signs won't deter criminals is a poor argument for not posting them. we still post speed limits and other signs.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.