Skip to comments.Permits Soar to Allow More Concealed Guns
Posted on 07/05/2013 7:11:14 AM PDT by yoe
A growing number of Americans are getting permission to carry firearms in publicand under their clothesa development that has sparked concern among some law-enforcement authorities.
Applications for "concealed-carry" permits are soaring in many states, some of which recently eased permit requirements.
[snip] Research is split on whether more armed citizens deter or exacerbate gun violence. Economist John Lott, a conservative commentator and author of "More Guns, Less Crime," said data show concealed-carry laws reduce violent crime.
[snip] n 2008 and 2010 rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants broad license to keep and bear arms in the home. But the court left unclear whether and to what degree the right to carry a weapon extends outside the home, leaving states largely free to set up their own rules.
[snip] Residents of Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont don't need permits to carry a concealed weapon. In 2002, that was the case only in Vermont.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Private competition is not good for unions.
That's tough, Officer Fife. WE THE PEOPLE make the laws, you just enforce them, and you damned better respect our rights.
Any LEO that is opposed to a law-abiding citizen peacefully exercising his/her 2nd Amendment right and having a valid state permit to carry that weapon in a concealed manner should be fired outright. Screw their concerns. They should not be in the job in the first place.
Because law enforcement cannot protect us, we must do it ourselves. Having them come with their yellow chalk to outline your body or the bodies of your loved ones is not exactly what we have in mind as “protection.”
“has sparked concern among some law-enforcement authorities”
translation, opposed by the Fraternal Order of Police and all the other jack booted fascist thugs that think “serve and protect” means be our Masters.
I don't think they fear the competition. I think they fear not being able to bully citizens, shoot their dogs, etc.
The operative word here is "authorities." This alleged "concern" is only among high ranking, APPOINTED, LE "authorities." Rank and file LEOs and locally elected "law enforcement authorities" have no such concerns.
I am in 100% full agreement with your assessment of the situation.
And despite the State-run media’s exploitation, pistol permit applications have soared here in Newtown. Another friend, and father of young kids who lives in Sandy Hook, just got his and is eager to “go shopping.”
JBTs on notice.
Cops should really get concerned when dogs get CC permits.
Re: felons need not apply.
I would change that to violent felons only. Che k kiting is a felony, yet why should one lose their 2A rights over that? I would also argue that a 68 yom who was violent in his teens should also get their 2A rights restored.
a development that has sparked concern among some law-enforcement authorities.
What I've seen again and again is miles beyond so-called "concern." I've seen hysteria, outright lies, scare-mongering, more lies, illogic, anti-Second Amendment bigotry, still more lies, and lies on top of lies on top of liesall from people in police uniforms.
Here's what I've also seen: nationally, people with concealed carry permits are much less likely than sworn law enforcement officers to be arrested for felonies.
Sheriffs in my Colorado county have issued well over 16,000 concealed carry permits since 1995. To date, not even one has been revoked for a firearms-related offense.
I like to hold up Arizona as a great example of gun liberty.
When I do, some critic always spouts off about Arizona ranking 11th for gun homicide in the US.
But what they don’t know is that 71% of gun homicides in Arizona are *suicides*.
And since Arizona went whole hog for gun liberty, the violent crime rate in the state has dropped more than 38%! That is more than double the national drop in crime rate.
As I like to conclude: “The only people stupid enough to commit gun crime in Arizona usually aren’t from here (mostly Mexican); or they are so insane that they don’t care if other people are shooting back at them. And they are.”
Yes. The headline quote from the WSJ is from the International Association of Police Chiefs. There were no quotes from various Sheriffs, nor from the NRA.
The article was slanted, to put it mildly.
“And the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates for gun control, said that since 2007, concealed-carry permit holders have fatally shot about 500 people, that 128 of them have been convicted of manslaughter or homicide, and 36 have committed murder-suicides.”
Yep, the article was VERY biased. When given stats from a left-wing group, one must ALWAYS parse them - and one can get quite for even assuming that the data provided is valid.
In this case, 500 shootings in 6 years, out of 5,000,000 holders (low-end estimated average number over those 6 years) - or about 1 per 10,000 permit holders. Not exactly the WILD WEST that the big-city cops and liberals were SURE would ensue. In fact, if there were only 1 fatal shooting per 10,000 people in New York City in 6 years, then there would have only been 1,000 fatal shootings in that time, or about 167 fatal shootings per year. Last year, they set a record LOW of 414 homicides (actually, an excellent year for them)...and they have been much much higher in the past (as in nearly 2,000).
So how about those 500 homicides? It looks like 75% of them were justified, or at least to the extend of not being able to convict the shooter (CCW holder). So now you have 128 murderers with CCWs. So closer to 21 murders per year from CCW holders. Not bad for a group of 5,000,000 people.
But what about them? How many of them killed while in public? In other words, how many of them took their weapons out on the street and killed someone? That’s an important number, because the remaining people (probably the majority), would have killed without a CCW. In other words, a nutcase shooting his wife at home may have a CCW (and a gun, of course), but the CCW HAS NOTHING to do with the killing...no more than his driver license or voter registration had anything to do with it. So one SHOULD NOT blame the CCW in any way...he didn’t need it to be legal before the killing.
That is how you parse something from the left.
“Any LEO that is opposed to a law-abiding citizen peacefully exercising his/her 2nd Amendment right should be fired outright. Screw their concerns. They should not be in the job in the first place.”
Fixed it for you.
No permits are required or allowed under a common-sense reading of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
“shall not be infringed” is the key phrase,and it does not mention Congress or any other specific political division.
Taking into account that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land,all political subdivisions are forbidden to infringe.
Of course the ink was hardly dry on the Constitution before scheming politicians began trying out arguments for more limits on personal freedom and less limit on governmental power.All too often the people have allowed the schemers to have their way.
We've had upside-down thinking in this country for so long, it's radical to actually say the truth. A sad situation...
Hey DTogo, I’m a reporter working on an article about all the pistol permits being issued in Newtown. Maybe you can help me out with the article? Drop me a line at firstname.lastname@example.org.