I’m not putting up with this. Already wrote a post on the subject in September 1, 2010 so I’m just going to copy and paste. I texted Jim that I did not want to do any more gun posts … but here I go again.
In the past, I have avoided the concealed carry versus open carry discussion simply because the final call is dependent on the law where you are and personal preference, but we can wade into it all right here. More than a year ago, I found a post in the US Carry forum by contributor Mainsail. He wrote the essay in March 2009 and it is reposted here – in full – with permission. (Thank you!) Read more
The stupid is strong with this one. Washington D.C. Deputy Mayor Paul Quander lets residents know if you’re robbed, you should just give in to the demands so you can walk away and live. The problem is, you don’t always walk away.
In Woollard v. Sheridan, a Maryland judge ruled the plaintiff did not have to prove “good and substantial reason” to carry. In Students for Concealed Carry on Campus v. Regents the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled Colorado’s 2003 Concealed Carry Act entirely preempts the University of Colorado’s power to prohibit licensed carry.
Do as we say, not as we do. Apparently, is the credo of David Brock over at Media Matters when it comes to carrying a pistol for self-defense.
This totally ticks me off. This bastard at the New York Times – Michael Luo – should be fired immediately for creating a totally false news story. Of course, I don’t expect the Times to do a damn thing about this mis-characterization of concealed weapon permit holders, it’s par for the course.
Regarding carry permits, Luo writes…
The bedrock argument for this movement is that permit holders are law-abiding citizens who should be able to carry guns in public to protect themselves. “These are people who have proven themselves to be among the most responsible and safe members of our community,” the federal legislation’s author, Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, said on the House floor.
To assess that claim, The New York Times examined the permit program in North Carolina, one of a dwindling number of states where the identities of permit holders remain public. The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare, detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.
More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun.
As soon as I read this, I knew he was going to completely leave out statistics concerning felonies and misdemeanors for the general population of North Carolina. I read the rest of the man’s drivel and was not disappointed.
Robert VerBruggen at NRO’s The Corner took the few minutes required to look at the easily accessible data Luo completely ignores in his white-washed opinion piece. He lets readers know – again – that those who hold pistol or concealed carry permits are high-quality residents across the board when it comes to everything from murder to traffic citations.
There are about 230,000 valid concealed-carry permits in North Carolina, so by pure chance, you’d expect these folks to be responsible for nearly 60 murders over five years. And yet only ten of them committed murder or manslaughter. Instead of “rais[ing] questions,” theTimes has demonstrated yet again that permit holders are more peaceful than the general population.
Luo goes on…
Charles Dowdle of Franklin was convicted of multiple felonies in 2006 for threatening to kill his girlfriend and chasing her to her sister’s house, where he fired a shotgun round through a closed door. He then pointed the gun at the sister, who knocked it away, causing it to fire again. Mr. Dowdle was sentenced to probation, but his concealed handgun permit remained active until it expired in 2009.
Mr. Dowdle, 63, said in a telephone interview that although he gave away his guns after his conviction, no one had ever done anything about his permit. He said he “could probably have purchased” a gun with it but had not done so because federal law forbade it.
How the hell does Luo or Dowdle figure just because he had the physical permit he would probably have access to purchase a gun? Two additional minutes of research would inform the biased author that the permit is not the only thing required when purchasing a pistol or rifle. The dealer must call for the required background check.
Was even one of the convicted felons who supposedly still had their permit able to purchase a firearm at a dealer? Luo probably could not find one in five years, so he does not mention anyone, but that wouldn’t stop him from writing this garbage.
I’m requesting the NYT to correct the obvious bias. I’ll be ignored.
If you have a concealed carry permit in the state of Ohio and you are carrying a handgun, you are required by law to “promptly” inform law enforcement on their approach you have a permit and are carrying. This video – released yesterday – deserves a post and your comment.
Pathetic. Disturbing. Unreal. It’s already totally unacceptable the state of New Jersey severely restricts residents concerning their 2nd Amendment rights, but now a New Jersey state legislator suggests – for $500 per year – the state would reconsider their opinion. They think they can generate tax revenue through the scheme.
And you can responsibly carry a pistol in a bar that serves alcohol, and you can even carry your firearm on college campuses. I thought most of the misconceptions concerning Connecticut state law when it comes to permits and carrying handguns had been squashed, yet some continue to put totally false garbage out there.
Some California residents may think this is a long shot, but an effort is in place to move legislation through the California legislature to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry a pistol in the Golden State.