The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/concealed-carry-second-amendment/index.html

Interesting. Doesn't this go against the Supreme Court Heller decision? Can they do that?

[Chew]

^^ read that earlier. This worries me. don't ****ing tread on my right to carry concealed.

[TheGoodBits]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/concealed-carry-second-amendment/index.html

Interesting. Doesn't this go against the Supreme Court Heller decision? Can they do that?

Read the whole article?

"The Heller decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, solidified a Second Amendment right of the public to keep guns, but it specifically noted the right was not absolute, and Fletcher pointed out that Scalia cited restrictions on concealed weapons as a historical example."

[TheGreatBuzz]

Yea I've never read the actual decision because it's lawyer speak and can be hard to interpret. But it seems to me that ScaLia meant that criminals don't get CCW but California said NOPE to most everyone. I see a supreme Court case coming again.

Edit: I've read interpretations and articles about it. I'm not com l lately uninformed.

Edited June 10, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[Larry]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/concealed-carry-second-amendment/index.html

Interesting. Doesn't this go against the Supreme Court Heller decision? Can they do that?

As a self appointed internet expert in constitutional history, I think they're correct. Face it, for a long time, carrying a concealed weapon (unless you're employed in a job that requires it, like a police detective), was like walking into a bank wearing a ski mask: It was proof that you intended to commit an armed crime.

As a voter, though? I'd oppose such laws. I didn't like our concealed carry laws when they first started. But I've come to see them as good for society. I think they're at least close to the way I think society should treat guns. (Basically, as being a slightly tougher version of a driver's license. Pass a written test, pass a marksmanship test, get a card, register your weapon).

[skinsmarydu]

(Basically, as being a slightly tougher version of a driver's license. Pass a written test, pass a marksmanship test, get a card, register your weapon).

Trouble is, not every state employs this system. Here in GA, you pass a background check, you get a CCP. I agree with you...a written test should at least be in place, and I dream of a marksmanship test. That would at least curtail the errant bullets that sometimes find unintended victims.

But as to it being "slightly tougher than a driver's license"...DL tests here in GA are given in 8 languages...and last time I checked (yesterday evening), road signs in GA are only posted in one language. Let's do better with smaller things that can be hidden, yet also kill, perhaps?

[Burgold]

I'm for limiting concealed permits. In many respects, I'd prefer citizens to go about with a holster. After all, if having a gun is about self-defense and deterrence then having your gun hidden isn't helping. It takes longer to draw and its visual absence makes the bad guys think you're a potential target. If they see that six shooter on your hip or that pump action rifle on your back though and meet your flinty Clint Eastwood gaze they may just mosey away before they get theirs. Of course, we might increase the number of bushwhackings, but that's a different problems.

 

 

[Larry]

I'm for limiting concealed permits. In many respects, I'd prefer citizens to go about with a holster. After all, if having a gun is about self-defense and deterrence then having your gun hidden isn't helping. It takes longer to draw and its visual absence makes the bad guys think you're a potential target. If they see that six shooter on your hip or that pump action rifle on your back though and meet your flinty Clint Eastwood gaze they may just mosey away before they get theirs. Of course, we might increase the number of bushwhackings, but that's a different problems.

 

That was how I initially felt. But I think I've come around to liking people carrying concealed.

To me, openly carrying is a threat. To everybody. And concealed is much less of one.

And I like the idea of making it harder tor the desperadoes to know if anybody's packing. Cuts down on bushwacking, for one thing.

[Burgold]

To me, openly carrying is a threat. To everybody. And concealed is much less of one.

 

Well, if I had my druthers, pardner t'wouldn't be no one moseyin' through town wid a gun, Not even dem tumbleweeds. Everyone would turn deir pistols over to da sheriff when they got to town and'd pick 'em up on deir way home. But since my druthers got darn plucked, I'd rather see 'em out in the open den stuck in a bustle beneath a corsett or hidden inside a dog's belly where dey need to be knifed out.

 

I don't disagree with you to an extent, Larry. It's really about which risk you think is greater. The deterrence of seeing a gun or the open question of do they have one and would they be quick enough to get at it if they did? Over all, I prefer the guns stayed at home or people carried them around in a state militia or deputized posse.

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by Burgold

[tshile]

I'm for limiting concealed permits. In many respects, I'd prefer citizens to go about with a holster. After all, if having a gun is about self-defense and deterrence then having your gun hidden isn't helping. It takes longer to draw and its visual absence makes the bad guys think you're a potential target.

This may come as a shock, but I'm going to disagree with you

I admit this isn't provable but...

I live in a state where (legally) carrying a concealed weapon means you cannot have certain crimes, you have to actually prove you took a safety class, and you can lose this ability for certain behavior (drugs, violent crime even if only a misdemeanor.) I don't want to get too carried away with this one, because the training requirement is loose, but none of that matters if you open carry.

Statistically, in my state, people who have concealed carry permits are significantly less likely to commit crimes. Your can deduce this by simply looking at state police records of revoked permits (they revoke it for damn near anything of consequence)

I also just dislike the optics of people carrying guns on their hips. While I don't personally care, I feel like it makes a lot of other people unformtable. I feel like people with kids have an extra layer of uncomfortability because now they have to explain to their kid why dip**** is walking around Walmart with handgun hanging (I've seen them literally hanging) off their pocket.

You have to register that you carry a gun. The cost and effort alone, while minimal, will deter some people. They will be lazy or just won't want to spend the 100 it costs. Sounds silly, but if you're not willing to pay 100 and sit through a basic safety course, then I think not having you carry a gun is a good thing.

And drawing isn't harder unless you strap it to your ankle, or you never practice or seek training (a problem that doesn't go away if the gun is visible)

-----

On to the 9th circuit ruling, didn't the 4th circuit overturn VA's law on this a long time ago? VA used to require a reason too I believe, before they became a shall-issue state

[TheGreatBuzz]

What state is that tshile?

[tshile]

I guess a simpler way to put it burgold - where I live concealed carry comes with more restrictions, than open carry (which only requires you legally own the weapon) and I'm definitely in the 'require more restrictions to carry a gun' camp.

I'd prefer they get rid of open carry for handguns, and require X training hours a year to keep your permit valid.

Retired VA law enforcement have to qualify *every year* to keep their permit valid. A regular citizen *never* has to qualify. Their permit gives them more (carry more places, carry all states) but still... people with 25+ years carrying a gun, with yearly training, are still required to qualify but citizens aren't. It's ass-backwards to me.

What state is that tshile?

Virginia

[skinsmarydu]

I guess a simpler way to put it burgold - where I live concealed carry comes with more restrictions, than open carry (which only requires you legally own the weapon) and I'm definitely in the 'require more restrictions to carry a gun' camp.

I'd prefer they get rid of open carry for handguns, and require X training hours a year to keep your permit valid.

Retired VA law enforcement have to qualify *every year* to keep their permit valid. A regular citizen *never* has to qualify. Their permit gives them more (carry more places, carry all states) but still... people with 25+ years carrying a gun, with yearly training, are still required to qualify but citizens aren't. It's ass-backwards to me.

Virginia

See, we're agreeing more & more lately.

[Larry]

Statistically, in my state, people who have concealed carry permits are significantly less likely to commit crimes.

Not so much a call out question for tshile, but more of a "his post reminded me of something I've wondered for some time" thing.

I've seen this claim made a whole bunch of times. And I don't really have any trouble believing it. But, does anybody have any support for it?

 

Let's face it. This subject probably has as many people pushing agenda-driven statistics as abortion does. Probably a good idea to be skeptical, even when it comes to claims that your gut says may well be right.

For example, just now, while typing this, a question occurs to me:

Are the people making this claim comparing "crimes committed by permit holders" against crimes committed by the population, as a whole? Or are they comparing them against crimes committed by people who qualify for CC permits, but don;t have one?

 

If you're just comparing tham against the population, as a whole, then you're comparing them against a group which includes people who have already been convicted of crimes, for example

[tshile]

Not so much a call out question for tshile, but more of a "his post reminded me of something I've wondered for some time" thing.

I've seen this claim made a whole bunch of times. And I don't really have any trouble believing it. But, does anybody have any support for it?

It's not cut and dry, which is why I used the term deduce when referencing it.

A few issues with the topic in general:

There are no federal requirements to release numbers. You're left with seeing the states that choose to, and reading 3rd party work (which often seems to have an agenda in the way they represent the information)

Every state has different rules about how you qualify for one and how you lose it. You have to look state by state.

Virginia state police had a report on their site about the percentage of permits revoked over a certain year period. It was something like 0.015%. You can have your permit revoked for committing a number of crimes, including but not limited do drug crimes and violent crimes. You also have it revoked for using your gun illegally (shooting someone or simply brandishing.) And remember, a felony means losing all your gun rights, so all of those count too

So not even that number are even found guilty of committing a gun crime. They could have simply punched someone at the bar, they'd be in that statistic.

I feel comfortable deducing from that, that people who have permits are less liking to commit crimes than those with. For that to not be the case they would have had to not get caught, or VA would have had to lapse in their responsibility to revoke the permit (I don't think VA takes this responsibility lightly.)

Now here's the rub - you want the report. I found it 4 or 5 years ago when my wife tried to argue that permit holders were more likely to commit crimes. It was not easy to find, it took a while. I will put a little effort into it when I'm back in town, but I make no promisses.

Important note: it says nothing about someone who used to have a permit, and committed a crime after it expired. It's only about people with permits at the time they are found guilty (I image if you let it expire after being arrested, but before being found guilty, that wouldn't count)

Edited June 10, 2016 by tshile

[Chew]

That was how I initially felt. But I think I've come around to liking people carrying concealed.

To me, openly carrying is a threat. To everybody. And concealed is much less of one.

And I like the idea of making it harder tor the desperadoes to know if anybody's packing. Cuts down on bushwacking, for one thing.

I agree on all points.  carrying concealed doesn't have in impact on those around you, because they don't know you're packing.  To me, folks that open carry are just morons who want attention and get off on making people uncomfortable.  Mostly hardcore conservative nutjobs.  Like the militia guys in Texas that follow muslim women to and from mosques with M-16s.  

 

Not all gun owners are weirdos, which is what I wish my fellow liberals would understand (not so much on ES, but real life, facebook, etc). 

 

If states are going to make it more difficult to get a CCW, then I'd like to request that the Sheriff's office assign a deputy to my family every time we leave the house for protection.  Sounds ridiculous, of course.  So just give me my ****ing permit and I"ll be lock and loaded and on my way.  

 

I'm not looking to quickdraw bad guys like John Wayne in Red River.  I just want to know that, if some cornball ass 40-year old virgin with mommy issues starts shooting in Kohls, at least I've got a chance if I'm cornered and can't escape.  I've been carrying concelead everywhere I go for 14 years now, and never once have come close to drawing.

 

 I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and get shot in the face.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Chew

[PleaseBlitz]

 

 

If states are going to make it more difficult to get a CCW, then I'd like to request that the Sheriff's office assign a deputy to my family every time we leave the house for protection.  Sounds ridiculous, of course.  So just give me my ****ing permit and I"ll be lock and loaded and on my way.  

 

 

 

The ruling notes that if you have an ACTUAL reason to need a concealed firearm, you can still get it.  It just says that "general self-defense" is not good enough, as in, I just want to have it for no good reason.

 

Same thing with the Sheriff.  If you call the Sheriff and have an ACTUAL reason you need them to protect you, they'll probably do it.  If you call the Sheriff and just say you'd like their company for no good reason, they'll probably tell you to stop calling.  

[Chew]

The ruling notes that if you have an ACTUAL reason to need a concealed firearm, you can still get it.  It just says that "general self-defense" is not good enough, as in, I just want to have it for no good reason.

 

Same thing with the Sheriff.  If you call the Sheriff and have an ACTUAL reason you need them to protect you, they'll probably do it.  If you call the Sheriff and just say you'd like their company for no good reason, they'll probably tell you to stop calling.  

 

Fair enough.  But i don't want "need a reason."  It's my right.  I don't want to waste my own tax dollars being escorted around by a Sheriff's dep when I can do just about as good a job as he can of protecting me by responsibly packing my own heat.  

 

Thankfully I live in "shall issue" state, so the shenanigans going on in southern Cali would never happen here in gun-loving Colorado.  

Edited June 10, 2016 by Chew

[PleaseBlitz]

Fair enough.  But i don't want "need a reason."  It's my right.  I don't want to waste my own tax dollars being escorted around by a Sheriff's dep when I can do just about as good a job as he can of protecting me by responsibly packing my own heat.  

 

Thankfully I live in "shall issue" state, so the shenanigans going on in southern Cali would never happen here in gun-loving Colorado.  

 

The Federal court just said that it isn't your right (in the 9th circuit), and cited to a hundred years of jurisprudence to drive that point home.  

 

But yea, you are probably good to go in Colorado (10th circuit), at least until Hillary nominates a 9th member to SCOTUS and they overturn the **** out of Heller (now that there is a circuit split).

[Popeman38]

Hillary is on record as saying "IF there is a right to bear arms, just like other rights it is subject limitations" so that should tell you where she stands on this issue.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Thanks for reminding me about the SC vacancy. May be the one thing that get me to vote R.

[skinsmarydu]

As I just posted in another thread:  we haven't eaten outside our home in at least 6 months.  Probably longer.

I pick up whatever we need on the way home & we stay at home. 

 

Who's the hostage?

[TheGreatBuzz]

IMO that's no way to live.  I try to do things like not sit with my back to the door but other than that, I won't let these things keep me from doing what I want.  If you do, they win.  I just figure if it's my time, then there is no stopping it.  Just my $.02 though.

[ixcuincle]

I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it until something gets done. Every time we have these incidents. And every time we threaten we need to do something to curtail the epidemic of gun violence. 

 

But nothing gets done. 

 

Do you know why nothing gets done? It's because gun owners and the lobby are powerful. It's because any kind of restriction, for the public good, is seen as an infringement on second amendment rights. No one is trying to take your gun away. We just want stricter background checks. What does that have to do with taking your gun away? How does that infringe on second amendment rights, to make sure crazy people don't get guns? 

 

I always found it hilarious how the gun industry was so averse to closing the background check loophole at gun shows too. There are a lot of holes that need to be fixed. 

 

I think one of the most appalling things about gun control is that a crazy guy shot up a school of kids, and no legislation was passed to make it more difficult for him to do that. That, as Obama said, was pretty much a sign that the gun lobby is pretty entrenched in American politics. And that any kind of regulation on guns is going to be knocked down by a largely partisan Republican house / senate. Smh. 

 

When will people realize this is more about your ****ing gun. This is about human life. Innocent life we're talking about here. Stop trying to block legislation. Stop trying to drag politics and the second amendment into it when people are losing their lives so often because of these massacres and violent incidents. 

[Burgold]

I agree. You can't live your life afraid. Live smart, but don't let madmen or ****s like these chase you off.

If nothing else think of the bus rule. Tomorrow you could get by one or a falling meteor or your fate may be to find its end at the hands of a rabid chipmunk.

Live. Laugh. Help. Teach. Play. Make. Cheer. Cry. And if you run... Run towards something.