Skip to comments.Concealed carry is nothing to worry about
Posted on 08/03/2014 5:50:16 AM PDT by rellimpank
Gun control advocates are learning the downside of getting their way. Recently, a federal judge struck down the District of Columbia's ban on the carrying of concealed handguns. Anti-gun forces have been losing in legislatures for a long time. Now they are finding that even where they win, they lose.
Washington used to have the strictest gun laws in America. Besides the prohibition of concealed guns, all firearms had to be registered and handgun ownership was forbidden.
Graphic: Legal restrictions of Illinois' concealed carry law Graphic: Legal restrictions of Illinois' concealed carry law READ THE STORY The restrictions had no evident effect on crime: In the 1990s, the nation's capital was known as the murder capital. But they invited a legal challenge a historic one, as it happened. In 2008, the Supreme Court invalidated the city's handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment.
It was the first time the court had recognized that individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms for the purpose of self-defense. It was also a drastic shift in the court's view of the Second Amendment, which for decades had been treated as a forgettable footnote.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
LOL! Hey, if CCW is okay in d.c. it must not be and issue anywhere. Right? The bad guys do it all the time without any worries.
—hope this one sneaks past the firewall—
That was a shockingly non-anti-gun article from the Chicago Tribune. I was expecting something along the lines of “we can hold back the tide! Drink more Kool Aid!” Instead, he pointed out some of the benefits of concealed carry.
On problem I had was with his characterization of a concealed carrier shooting a fleeing armed robber as a “misuse.” I don’tknow the original story, but it sounds like he was justified from the article. If he hadn’t then the robber could have gotten away and harmed more people. That a cop had to take cover could suggest that the concealed carrier wasn’t aware of his surroundings, but it could also just mean the cop wasn’t aware of the concealed carrier. I’m pretty sure that in general cops don’t get too upset when citizens help them out.
There were 82 shootings in Chicago alone during 4th of July...in 84 hr period that weekend...then 12 more on MON and TUES...this past week - a guy that was demoted in the Bank of America building working for a tech company - shot the CEO, but were apparently friends??? - and then they guy committed suicide...that’s just what was reported this past 30 days....
Chicago is out of control - $68 Billion in debt - just raise TAXES...and they know that anti-gun isn’t going to work...police are overwhelmed in this city...I’m leaving at the end of the month - I’ve had enough of the traffic, taxes, and danger just getting into the Loop every morning and trying to get out at the end of the day...commuting in/out is just crazy...
Article I, section 8 grants Congress the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States. The phrase "in all cases whatsoever" had special significance to the Founders, because of Thomas Paine's use of it in The American Crisis to describe the tyranny of the Crown over the colonies. Clearly, it was inserted to extend Congress' normally limited powers (All Legislative powers herein granted ) to all Legislative powers of any kind, over DC.
Therefore, Congress has the authority (and the responsibility) to grant reciprocity to permit holders in the 48 states that have a permit system, and to grant CCW in DC to residents of the two states that do not.
After I was menaced by a mob at the National Zoo in 2011, I wrote repeatedly to my Senators and to my Representative about this, but I have never received a satisfactory reply (unsurprisingly).
Congress should act promptly to grant reciprocity in DC to any state permit holder. Congress should not (and does not have the power to) require New York to honor a Florida permit. All proposed legislation along those lines has contained unacceptable "national standards" for a state CCW permit, which would radically worsen the circumstances of those of us who live in free states.
The recent DC District Court decision found that the failure of the DC "government" to issue non-resident CCW permits was unconstitutional because it restricted the freedom to travel. If this finding should be upheld on appeal, it would require California, NY, NJ, IL, and MD to issue nonresident CCW, which would be infinitely better (even though their requirements are terrible) than if Congress granted Barbara Boxer a say in what NH should require in order to grant a permit.
>>commuting in/out is just crazy...
You could move into the city.
My son is a cop in an Illinois city (Not Chicago), he has long been an advocate of concealed and open carry for ordinary, law abiding citizens, he says, he'll take all the help he can get.
As an Indiana resident...and one working from a work apt...it makes sense to leave and accept a position in my home area...I have a CCW permit for life in IN...I,m not giving that up...I have a home already and took this position to see if this is an area I would want to stay in...it is not...so I,m moving more into the IT and Cyber Security field....there is work every where for that...there is no way I wpuld want my family up here...
Should read "Concealed Carry Nothing to Worry About...for Non-Criminals".
SCOTUS had ignored the Second Amendment since the 1930s, so there was no "view" to drastically shift from.
I really dislike articles that require you to register just to read the content.
I would have liked to read the article.
Steve Chapman's one of those rare liberals who's capable of seeing touches of both sides. I'm amazed. It's one thing to believe theoretically it's possible for liberals who can see 'the other side' - - it's another thing to see it in print. Weird, but nice.
Be interesting to know how many of those 84 shootings were criminal, and how many (if any) were justified self defense.
He made several misstatements and assumptions.
The most glaring of these was “It’s people who lack licenses you have to fear.” This statement is disabused by noting those states where *no* license of any kind are needed.
Licenses change little, because a good person without a license is just as responsible as a good person without one.
Prohibitions matter, but it is more important that they be for *genuine* need, such as felony convictions. That is, unless judges in those states are allowed to restore gun rights after sentence has been served. Far more difficult, but not impossible, is to prohibit guns from the demonstrably mentally ill. People who in earlier times were said to “represent a possibility of harm to themselves or others.” A good as definition as any.
Another error of the writer: “There was a recent episode in a Chicago suburb when a 56-year-old man with a permit blasted away at a fleeing armed robbery suspect, forcing a cop to take cover.”
There is no real problem here, either. While the officer was wise to take cover *when his presence was not known* to the armed victim, (in much of the US) the victim was within his rights to fire on the fleeing robber.
I’ve carried for 45 years in 40 different states without a permit.
>>There were 82 shootings in Chicago alone during 4th of July<<
No, There were 82 victims in Chicago alone during 4th of July ....
Googling the first paragraph of fire walled articles usually (but not always) reveals the non-pay version of an article. In this case, it's co-published on RealClearPolitics.
In NC you can only apply deadly force if you or your loved ones are subject to death, bodily harm or rape. One the threat is stopped, you must cease fire. Further action could put you at risk for murder. You cannot go running down the street firing 33 rounds from your Glock 17 at a guy who stole your wallet.
Somehow I thought they changed the NC law to allow you to shoot if someone is breaking into your house. Once they are in your house it’s only allowed if you feared for your life. Perhaps some NC folks can clarify that.
LOL! You rebel you. But, I do get it. Why there is a CCW permit “requirement” for law abiding citizens is a load of horse hockey.
NC has the Castle Doctrine. If someone forces his way into your home you can assume he means to do harm and defend yourself without having a direct threat.
I'm a CCW holder here in Illinois, and I assume Chapman was referring to the law here in Illinois, and what we CCW holders resposibilities are prior to shooting.
Going through the required CCW training here in IL, one is specifically instructed that if a perpetrator is in the act of FLEEING once confronted by an armed CCW holder, the CCW holder *must* let the perpetrator go.
For example, if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and I paint them with my laser and they turn to flee my house, I have to let them go. Shooting anyone in the act of removing themselves from the scene is not considered a "good shoot" here in Illinois.
Don't anyone bitch at me about that --- that's just what the law says. I personally don't agree with it, but I have to abide by it.
Not in Illinois. Once a perp "turns and runs" we are bound by the law to let them go. Shooting at them while they're in the act of fleeing turns us into the criminal here in IL.
I say that having been through Illinois' CCW training, taught by a retired Marine and Illinois State Trooper.
That's the law. I didn't write it, don't complain to me how stupid it is. You'll be preaching to the choir.
The statement is not true! Concealed carry is a great cause of worry .........................for criminals.
” My son is a cop in an Illinois city (Not Chicago), he has long been an advocate of concealed and open carry for ordinary, law abiding citizens, he says, he’ll take all the help he can get. ”
Good for him! God bless!
"We moved our base camp last night and were now positioned literally
within feet of the river. Have been sitting here watching the border
patrol patrolling in their riverboats all night and all morning..."
Here's an article from Massad Ayoob I just saw about the incident in question. Apparently the investigators took the citizen's side.
If they are breaking in my house, then I can claim fear for my life and shoot to STOP the threat.
Thanks my friend. I will give that a try.
Any form of licensing or permit requirements are a clear violation of the Second Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they fail to understand?
I can only repeat what I was told by my CCW instructor (his credentials are in my previous post.) I also assume you intend to ask your question in the context of in defense of another in a public setting.
In Illinois, unless I, or someone I am immediately with are threatened with direct harm out in public, I should not pull my weapon and intervene. My responsibility under the law as my instructor understood it, was to remove myself and whoever I was immediately with away from the scene.
That is unless I want to be the first test case in Illinois for coming to someones defense and using my weapon (presumably to injure/kill/fend off the attacker of another individual.)
Ive carried for 45 years in 40 different states without a permit.
Out of sight, out of mind. AND you do not spook the herd.....
Same in Illinois as far as I know.
—I have been searching the title—usually works—I’ll do the paragraph from now on—thanks—