States currently considering the no permit law include
Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virgina, according to the NRA.
The first state to jump into the mix appears to be South Dakota after lawmakers last week created a law allowing anyone 18 or older with a valid state driver’s license to carry a concealed weapon following a clean background check, that bill is still awaiting final approval from Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard.
Well, I guess you could say crime rates are low in Alaska and Arizona. I guess it depends on what you compare them to.
Supporters of the measure argue that crime rates are already low in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming, states where a carry and conceal permit is not required.
What's your opinion on this "Constitutional Carry" idea? Please leave a comment.
"Well, I guess you could say crime rates are low in Alaska and Arizona. I guess it depends on what you compare them to."
ReplyDeleteSimple. Compare them to places with strict like California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois and AZ and AK crime rates are low.
And the crime rate in Vermont is the lowest in the country. How can that be?
ReplyDeleteThere is value in the permitting process, both in showing that the license holder has a clean record and in making reciprocity with other states possible. (Reciprocity could be taken care of, if H.R. 822 gets passed.) But the flaw in the thinking of gun grabbers is that bad people won't carry guns. No matter what system--no issue, may issue, shall issue, constitutional carry--a state has, criminals will carry their guns.
Until the gun control side can understand that banning good people from carrying does nothing to stop gun crime, this conversation won't advance.
I told you that already. Vermont has no Camdens or Newarks.
DeleteASnd I've also mentioned before the we're not talking about "banning good people from carrying." We're talking about making sure they are good people.
Hmm. MikeB recognizes that Vermont does not have widespread "gun violence" and yet has "weak gun control". And MikeB also recognizes that there is rampant "gun violence" in Camden and Newark and yet there is "strong gun control".
DeleteMikeB you have just stated that gun control has no effect on "gun violence"? So why do you cling to your gun control idealogy when it clearly does not reduce "gun violence"?
What is it about Camden and Newark that you love so much, and what does that have to do with the argument? There are plenty of states with large cities that also allow concealed carry--Pennsylvania, for example. Philadelphia is just across the river from Camden, but carry is allowed in one and not in the other.
DeleteIMHO "keep and bear" includes bear, as in carry. And as it said even in South Dakota a clean background check is required. So the wife beaters, felons and mentally ill still will not be legally allowed to own, much less carry a gun.
ReplyDeleteThe expression "keep and bear" is exactly as anachronistic and meaningless as the Amendment itself.
DeleteYou guys like guns for your various reasons. Then you latch onto this obsolete section of the founding documents to justify it.
It's total bullshit. I say you should be able to have your guns if you qualify to have them, not because there's a 2A or a "god-given right."
Well MikeB there are two problems with your statement.
DeleteFirst, you state that people can have guns if they "qualify". Something tells me that your qualifications will reject most people. And regardless of who qualifies, your idea is that they can have all the guns they want as long as they are locked up in a gun safe and useless for self defense.
Second, even if your ideas allowed people to carry guns around, your idea of "valid" circumstances where those citizens could actually use their guns would effectively make them useless. Your notion of a time to actually use a gun is when the victim has already tried to escape only to have the criminal overtake them, the victim has already called 911 and waited at least 15 minutes for law enforcement, the criminal has already shot the victim, there is an earthen backstop behind the criminal, and there are no other people within sight or earshot that could possibly be injured from a stray bullet or a ricochet.
Maybe all of that seems sensible to you. To me, it looks like you couldn't outright ban firearms thus you advocate so many requirements that no one will ever be able to use a firearm ... in other words a veiled de facto ban on firearms.
If the Second Amendment is an anachronism, then so is the First. It's that simple. The language is the same. The document is the same. Mikeb, I've pointed out to time and again how our government is violating rights all over the Constitution, and you say nothing to that. It all goes together.
DeleteThe Bill of Rights is like the hull of a ship below the waterline. Knock out any board, and the water floods in.
Greg, that doesn't follow. The 2A is obsolete. That has nothing to do with whether or not the 1A is too, or the 3A. It happens that the 3rd Amendment is too, but the 1st is not. What's wrong with that?
DeleteWho says the 2nd Amendment is obsolete? If it were not for the 2nd Amendment, various local, state, and federal government entities would have made it illegal to own/possess firearms in various ways/locations. Without firearms, many more people would be victims of property and violent crimes. And the potential for terrorist attacks or foreign nations to invade would increase.
DeleteAnd what is the recourse for people in the 10s of thousands of square miles of our country along the Mexico border where local law enforcement has said they are no longer able to protect the citizens even if they wanted to do so?
What is your basis for saying the 2nd Amendment is obsolete?
When I say the 2A is obsolete, what I really mean is it should be.
DeleteI base that on common sense.
One big mistake you make is presuming that if the 2A were eliminated, "federal government entities would have made it illegal to own/possess firearms in various ways/locations."
You don't know that and I doubt very much if it would happen.
And if it didn't, that would be because Congress and the states have created their own protections of gun rights. But if we decide to eliminate one part of the Bill of Rights, what's to say that we won't eliminate the rest of it? You claim to be concerned about civil rights, but the idea of tossing constitutional protections overboard doesn't worry you.
DeleteMikeB, we most certainly do know that government entities pass laws making it illegal to even own guns ... such as the District of Columbia's laws that made it illegal for a citizen to possess a handgun in their home. The only reason people can possess handguns in their home in D.C. now is because of the 2008 Heller decision which is based on the 2nd Amendment.
DeleteYes, and you think that would happen everywhere, Arizona for example?
DeleteI seriously doubt it.
MikeB I am not sure I understand your reply ... namely your pronoun "that". Are you suggesting that some units of government would never criminalize ownership of firearms? If that is your point it is irrelevant because all citizens of the United States have a right to own firearms to protect life and liberty.
DeleteUsing the same logic, we could dismiss with the First Amendment since there would never be a time when free speech would be banned everywhere in the U.S. That is silly.
1st Amendment comparisons fail because unlike the 2A, the concepts in the 1A are germaine to the issues of today's society. Free speech and freedom of religion are still applicable. The 2nd Amendment on the other hand has no application outside the militia concept of the 18th century.
DeleteAre you asserting that possessing firearms for self defense is not relevant today? Or are you asserting that possessing firearms for self defense does not fall under the 2nd Amendment?
DeleteI guess it doesn't matter because both of your possible assertions would be wrong. The 18 year old woman who defended herself and her infant in Oklahoma recently (about 20 minutes after calling 911) is a recent example where armed self defense is very much relevant today. And the man who wanted to keep a handgun for self defense in his home in Chicago prevailed under the 2nd Amendment in 2010 at the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Are you asserting that possessing firearms for self defense is not relevant today? Or are you asserting that possessing firearms for self defense does not fall under the 2nd Amendment?"
DeleteNo to the first, yes to the second. The Supreme Court, bought and paid for by special interests is no yardstick to measure anything. The 2A is obsolete and meaningless. That doesn't mean that no one can have guns or that the government would ever become tyrannical.