Advertisement

JBurgherr

Follow

Comment history

Lawmaker to take another shot at concealed carry

Beth, the managers of the facility have the ability to eject anyone whom they deem disruptive. If the people remain after being told to leave, they are in violation of treaspassing law.

You don't have to work there. You can quit and get a job elsewhere that suits your particular needs. That you don't like guns or are unconfortable around them doesn't end my right to own and carry them for my own self protection.

December 3, 2012 at 5:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawmaker to take another shot at concealed carry

"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."

Two recent Supreme Court Decisions have ruled the second amendment is an individual right, so this is settled case law.

I say, the 2nd Amendment is my "Concealed Carry Permit". Arizona and New Hampshire have it right; no further laws or regulations are required. The 2nd Amendment is sufficient.

December 3, 2012 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gun permits

Beatrice, would you care to reference your more recent studies?

July 30, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gun permits

*********************
Beatrice:
...The fact that family members are more likely to be killed by a handgun if one is kept in the home tells me that they aren't necessarily the best things to have around if the ultimate goal is protection of loved ones.
*********************
The problem is beatrice that you are stating as fact what is actually a myth perpetrated by a study back in 1986. The actual myth you are trying to quote is: “Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal.

Here are the real facts of this study: "Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad). Arthur L. Kellerman, Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, 314 New Eng. J.Med. 1557-60 1986. Kellerman admits that his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." He also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed." This is a classic case of a “study” conducted to achieve a desired result. In his critique of this “study”, Gary Kleck notes that the estimation of gun ownership rates were “inaccurate”, and that the total population came from a non-random selection of only two cities."

July 30, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gun permits

The folks who don't understand why a person would want to carry a firearm for self protection, I would pose the following:

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home, car or business? If you do, does this mean that deep inside, you really hope for a fire or is it that you just want play fireman and the extinguisher’s hose is really a symbol of your manhood? Neither (I hope). It simply means that you wish to be prepared in the awful event that it becomes needed. You have no idea when or if you will have a fire, so it is available at all times. So it is the same for those of us who have a CCW license for self defense. No more, no less. There is nothing lacking in my ego or in my masculinity. I am in my upper 40’s, a happy husband, father and grandfather. I have nothing to prove to myself, to you or anyone.

I have a very strong faith in God. I believe that the greatest gift which God has given me is my life and through that extension the lives of my wife and family. It is then my responsibility to protect this most precious of gifts.

I respect and am grateful to the men and women in law enforcement. However, they just can't be everywhere when desparately needed. Per the Supreme Court, the police actually have NO responsibility to save your life just because you call them. Therefore YOU have the primary responsibility for your own self protection. The well worn adage is unfortunately true “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

Your forefathers had the wisdom to make sure that your God-given right to possess arms (rocks, sticks, knives, swords, and yes firearms) was guaranteed in our founding documents so as to not be usurped by an out of control government. How wise they were.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington

July 30, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gun permits

rockchalkmohawk:

If a CCH licensee uses his/her firearm in a manner that is against the law, then they are to be procescuted just as any other person that breaks the law. If they are convicted by a jury of their peers, then the Attorney General revokes their CCH license.

But understand this, CCH licensee's are among the most law abiding individuals in the country. To obtain a CCH license in the State of Kansas, the applicant goes through the following:

1.)Take a state designated course taught by a state approved trainer. The student must complete a written test and get a perfect score. Then they must qualify at a shooting range. Cost approximately $100-125.
2.) Make application to the State at their local Sheriffs office and Pay fees. Cost $150.00. Be finger printed.
3.) The Sherrif forwards the application and finger prints to the Kansas Attorney General with any other pertinant information that the Sherrif may have on the individual.
4.) The Attorney General request KBI to provide a background check on the applicant.
5.) The Attorney General alerts the other sherrifs offices in the State of Kansas that the applicant has applied for the CCH license. If they wish to provide information positive or negative about the applicant they have 60 days to respond.
6.) If the background check comes back fine and no derogatory information comes back from the many Sherrifs offices, an approval letter is sent to the applicant.
7.) The applicant take the approval letter to the DMV, Pays 15.00, gets their picture taken and gets the license.

$300 and 90+ days start to finish to excercise a right!

How many criminals are going to go through this? For that matter, how many of your own friends can you say have been investigated by the KBI, finger printed and everything came back fine.

CCH licensee's should be the least of your worries.

July 29, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gun permits

I believe in concealed carry. I also believe that government has no business licensing me to do so.

Like all human rights, the right to self protection does not come from government but from God. The 2nd Amendment recognizes this and merely "guarantees" it in our republic. The Bill of Rights does not "Grant" me anything! If the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right (confirmed last year in the SCOTUS decision DC vs. Heller) then how can a government demand a lawful citizen to obtain, from them, a license to carry a weapon for self protection?

Imagine being required to have a government issued license to go to the church of your choice or needing a government permit to post your opinion on this blog?

Either it is a right or it is not.

July 29, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's on the books

Let me see if I understand this:A bill gets vetoed by the Governor. The House and Senate over-ride the veto (which is usually a news worthy event in and of itself.) The LJW does not bother to see what all the hub-bub is about. It never bothers to read the bill, and never reports to its readers about this bill's contents (which it now deems to be so abominable.) They never report as to why the Governor chose to veto. They never checked with any of the legislature as to why they overrode the veto. The LJW then has the audacity to wag it's finger at the legislature a year later for not notifying the public of laws beyond what is required to do...by law. "It's not in the spirit:" OH GOOD GRIEF!!! Do you want legislature to write your newspaper for you too?If this had been an Investigative Journalism 101 class, the LJW would have received an "F".This is an obvious political con job being perpetrated by the LJW because HB2528, which passed publicly a year ago, does not suit their political agenda.

June 16, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )