Wednesday, September 1, 2010

The Concealed Carry Charade

As mentioned by Jadegold and one of our Anonymous commenters on another thread, here's a wonderful description of what I call the "concealed carry charade."

The argument for allowing concealed-carry permit holders to cart loaded firearms everywhere, even to places of worship and college campuses, is based on the assumption that such gun owners are beyond reproach and pose no threat to anyone except criminals.

“We are dealing with the safest of the safe,” says state Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock).

“People who get these permits are extremely law-abiding citizens,” says state Senate Majority Whip Mitch Seabaugh (R-Sharpsburg), who heads the Senate committee studying gun laws.


It turns out that neither of these two characters could back up their claims with proof or evidence. I guess they were just expressing their feelings.

When asked whether concealed-carry permit holders are indeed civic paragons who never break the law, GBI spokesman John Bankhead responded with the equivalent of a shrug:

“Nobody knows,” he said. “The state of Georgia doesn’t track it. I don’t know of any way to prove they are law-abiding or disprove it, because there’s no record to say one way or the other.”

“A blind person can get a permit in Georgia, since all you have to do is pass a background check,” says Bankhead. “And that person can be arrested the very next week for a felony, convicted of that felony the next month and still have that permit for the next five years.”


The article goes on to explain how in Georgia it's almost impossible for the police to check if a person has a valid gun permit. Georgia has no central database where an officer can check easily on whether a permit exists, says Bankhead. “All the records are kept within each of the 159 probate courts,” he says. “There is no way to check whether the permit is valid. Police would have to call the court in the county where the permit was issued to find out if it was valid.


Judges are also concerned that background checks may not catch applicants with mental health problems treated in private mental hospitals or those deemed to be not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial. Nor do checks always identify people who have been determined in guardianship hearings to be unable to handle their own affairs. While different information databases may contain bits of information, they don’t necessarily connect to provide a full picture, says state Department of Human Resources official Karen Bailey-Smith.

When you add all that up, the reality must be a far cry from the "extremely law-abiding citizens" the concealed carry folks are supposed to be. That's what I call a "charade."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

50 comments:

  1. “We are dealing with the safest of the safe,” says state Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock).

    It takes zero digging to understand this statement is a lie.

    I'm sorry but to me, the 'safest of the safe' isn't someone who has a long string of misdemeanors which may include assault and theft. And one can get a CCW with such a record.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course it is not a lie, Jadegold is the liar.

    Per FL CCW stats.

    Of the 746,740 currently valid licenses a total of 5,674 have been revoked for ANY reason (including non-criminal reasons)

    That's a rate of .0076%

    Of that 5,674 a total of 168 were revoked for a crime committed with a firearm by the CCW holder.

    That's 168 out of a total of 746,430 (or 1,825,143 if you go by total licenses issued.)

    So who's lying again? Jadegold and the anti-gunners.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe not in Georgia, but in TN, your HCP number is the same as your driver's license number, & the cops can easily pull it up.
    Also, statistically, HCP holders are safer than the Only Ones.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous--WHAT? Jadegold LIED? I find it difficult to believe, seeing as how it's never happened before (except pretty much every post & comment).

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It takes zero digging to understand this statement is a lie:
    I'm sorry but to me, the 'safest of the safe' isn't someone who has a long string of misdemeanors which may include assault and theft. And one can get a CCW with such a record."

    There, I fixed it for ya, Jadefool.


    Don't worry, though, most of us can figure out, if Jadegold said it, it is probably a lie.

    The only states that allow people to still get permits with long strings or misdemeanors which may include assault and theft are may issue states, where political connections and "campaign contributions" in exchange for a permit is the norm, unless you're just some average Joe who wants a permit.

    Shall issue states, in almost every case, provide a specific clause that would prevent people with such backgrounds from getting permits.

    If you have proof of a specific permit holder that has a valid permit, yet committed assault or theft or has a long string or misdemeanors (all before they got the permit), please show us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MikeB, as I pointed out to Jadegold (and you as well) in the other post, despite all the handwringing over the supposed faults in the system, the opinion piece could only point out TWO people who had been arrested, only one of whom had been convicted.

    Those numbers right there prove our point. If the editorial board couldn't find more examples than that when arguing their point, then the issue truly must not be an issue. You know as well as I that they would have searched high and low to find examples to prove their point, and they could only find two people arrested out of all the permit holders?

    "The article goes on to explain how in Georgia it's almost impossible for the police to check if a person has a valid gun permit. Georgia has no central database where an officer can check easily on whether a permit exists, says Bankhead. “All the records are kept within each of the 159 probate courts,” he says. “There is no way to check whether the permit is valid. Police would have to call the court in the county where the permit was issued to find out if it was valid."

    Again, it's not an article; it's an opinion piece. Articles contain facts and have a point. Opinions may or may not contain facts and try to move a reader to a conclusion.

    As for it being near impossible for the police to check, I have to ask why? What is so hard about making a phone call during business hours. People all around the country are forced to do that very thing, all the time. The investigative work and the paperwork (done at the end of the shift) will likely fall into the business hours at one end or another of a business day. What is so hard about having to call?

    I grant you, I think a centralized system would be more convenient, but only law enforcement should have access to it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon is flailing as fast as he can.

    Revocation rates (only in FL) don't tell the complete story. Anon is suggesting that every CCW holder (in FL) who commits a felony automatically has his CCW permit revoked.

    In point of fact, many counties don't even track CCW holder permits against prohibiting crimes. For example, Dade County did track Dade County-issued CCWs against crimes committed in Dade County. But it did not track CCWs issued by other counties or crimes committed outside the county.

    Sadly, even the state of FL admits their numbers are suspect:

    Records put gun statistics in doubt
    By Megan O'Matz and John Maines | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
    January 30, 2007
    Since 1987, the state says, 158 people have committed crimes with firearms after being licensed to carry concealed weapons.
    Gun enthusiasts point to the number when arguing that licensed gun carriers are responsible people who rarely break the law while armed.
    But the number is suspect.
    State officials can't back it up, and, when asked to identify the shooters, gave the South Florida Sun-Sentinel a list of 48 names. The other names, according to the Division of Licensing, were deleted under a requirement that information on inactive permit holders is to be purged after two years.
    Mary Kennedy, a Licensing Division bureau chief, said she could not identify all of the culprits. "I don't even know who they are," she said. Of the number 158, she said, "I can't tell you that it's right." For 10 months, from February through November of last year, the tally did not change. It stood at 157. Only in December did it rise to 158.
    By comparison, the Michigan State Police in its most recent annual report on its concealed pistol license program reported that 255 licensees carried pistols in the commission of crimes in one year alone, 2005-06, and 101 brandished or used them.
    Nevertheless, the gun lobby continues to ballyhoo Florida's low count.
    Last year, when the number was still at 157, the National Rifle Association on its Web site boasted that concealed weapon licensees "are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. Florida's experience is illustrative. ... To date, Florida has issued 1,136,496 permits, and revoked 157 (0.014%) due to gun crimes by permit holders."


    Additionally, Anon completely ignores the fact that one can have a CCW and still have a long record of misdemeanors--including for assault and theft.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Additionally, Anon completely ignores the fact that one can have a CCW and still have a long record of misdemeanors--including for assault and theft."

    It was a lie the first time you said it, Jade. It's remains a lie.

    Show us examples, or go back to your coloring book.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Proving Mikey W. wrong is so easy.

    Per state of FL eligibility requirements, one can be disqualified from getting a CCW if:

    1. you are a convicted or adjudicated felon;

    2. you have 2 or more DWIs/DUIs in the past 3 years.

    3. you have a misdemeanor conviction involving violence within past 3 years.

    4. you currently have a restraining order against you for domestic violence or acts of repeated violence.

    5. you have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution (note: this can be appealed).

    Just another case where Mikey W. rides the stupid train.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Really, Jade, is this the best you can do?

    "By comparison, the Michigan State Police in its most recent annual report on its concealed pistol license program reported that 255 licensees carried pistols in the commission of crimes in one year alone, 2005-06, and 101 brandished or used them."

    Okay, let's take a look at those numbers.

    255 permit holders carried guns during the commision of some type of crime. Crimes that range from DUI to assault, forgery to passing on the right.

    Keep in mind also that Michigan has very strict rules, and will revoke a license for something as benign as driving on an expired license, or bouncing a check, or failing to observe a particular wildlife rule, like not sealing your own otter.

    Doing a quick search, I found the Michigan State Police annual report for July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 and discovered that in that year alone, 31000 permits were issued.

    Assume no other permits were ever issued, even though the program started in 2000. Let's assume the 31000 people with permits are the only people with permits in the entire state of Michigan.

    255 out of 31000.
    Do the math.
    .008 percent.

    And that starts with a faulty assumption that favors you, and despite that, you can't even get to 1%!

    You're not making a compelling case, Jade. Less than one tenth of a percent isn't a significant number of people breaking the law, no matter how you slice it. Your numbers don't even get there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Proving Mikey W. wrong is so easy."

    Don't know where Mike W is, but I'm not him.

    As to proving me (or him) wrong, you've actually helped to prove my point. Those are all things that will disqualify an applicant, not give a free pass if the applicant has a certain number, or if they happened long ago.

    You're so wrong, you're helping to prove my point.

    Show us people who have a current permit, and a long history of misdemeanors, including theft or assault. If you can't do it, then you are wrong. Admit it, or go back to your coloring book.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 255 out of 31000.
    Do the math.
    .008 percent.


    Yup, thus jade proves out point for us, that CCW holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding.

    Sen. Rogers was right.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm glad Mikey W. mentions MI, as they, too, don't necessarily track crimes committed by CCW holders. Again, the big assumption Mikey W. expects us to swallow is that if a CCW holder commits a felony, he loses his CCW.

    The fact is many counties in MI don't track CCW violations. At all. The most recent MSP report shows about 12% of MI counties furnished no data.

    Again, Mikey W. completely ignores the fact that one can have a CCW and still have a long record of misdemeanors--including for assault and theft.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Again, Mikey W. completely ignores the fact that one can have a CCW and still have a long record of misdemeanors--including for assault and theft."

    Your reading comprehension is as faulty as your logic.

    If you can prove it, do it. Otherwise, you're full of shit as always.

    Still not Mike W.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The fact is many counties in MI don't track CCW violations. At all. The most recent MSP report shows about 12% of MI counties furnished no data."

    So many things wrong in that statement, Jade, that I almost don't know where to start. Oh wait, yes I do.

    That means 88% did provide data. Assume the other 12% were similar in violation rates. Or if it makes you feel better, assume a 100% violation rate in those counties, which we both know is blatantly wrong.

    Do the math.

    What is the percentage?

    Also, if MI isn't tracking violations by permit holders, what is the point of the report, since it is titled "Michigan State Police Concealed Pistol Licensure Annual Report" and the report is a list of violations, and the number of violations, annually?

    Jade, you don't seem to comprehend so well. Is it possible that English isn't your first language?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mikey W: It beats me why MI is furnishing incomplete reports. Why does FL issue reports they acknowledge they can't verify?

    But that doesn't change the fact that they are incomplete.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "But that doesn't change the fact that they are incomplete."

    Incomplete does not equal inaccurate. The information presented, unless you are claiming otherwise, is accurate, even if it is not 100% reported county by county.

    The information presented is more than adequate to prove our point. Even at ten times the known rate of criminal activity and revocation rate, you still would have less than 1% criminal activity and revocation amongst permit holders.

    Can you prove otherwise? You still haven't provided even ONE example that I have repeatedly asked for. Are you even going to try?

    Still not Mike W, but if it helps you to think I am, go ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jade: “Again, the big assumption Mikey W. expects us to swallow is that if a CCW holder commits a felony, he loses his CCW.”

    I would assume the federal law of not being allowed to own a gun trumps a state issued CCW. Maybe the case is that some states don’t go through the formality if it is not necessary. Jade, I know I am asking for a lot from you, but can you show us an example of a convicted felon where they police were unable to tell that he was a prohibited person? If so, it should certainly be fixed.

    Jade: “I'm sorry but to me, the 'safest of the safe' isn't someone who has a long string of misdemeanors which may include assault and theft. And one can get a CCW with such a record.”

    Yet there are also places where citizens with completely clean records can’t get one. Would you support a universal streamlined process that does away with “may-issue” laws?

    ReplyDelete
  19. The information presented is more than adequate to prove our point. Even at ten times the known rate of criminal activity and revocation rate, you still would have less than 1% criminal activity and revocation amongst permit holders.

    Actually not, Mikey W. You're still stuck on the misguided belief that every CCW holder who commits a felony gets his CCW revoked. As I've demonstrated, that simply isn't true.

    Additionally, you insist on setting the bar for "safest of the safe" at felony convictions. That's a really low bar. To my mind, someone who has never been arrested (like me) constitutes the "safest of the safe."

    Not somebody who may have a string of misdemeanors for assault and/or theft and a couple DUIs.

    Face facts, Mikey W. Someone who has a string of misdemeanors on his record is going to have difficulty getting a job or a clearance or any position of reponsibility--yet, you would call this guy "the safest of the safe" and let him wander around with a firearm.

    ReplyDelete
  20. OK, let's use my example of the client who was arrested with the jammed AK-47 on the road next to Philadelphia International Airport.

    We could have some fun and assume, for argument's sake he was (is) on the terrorist watch list.

    While his CCW permit was revoked, the charges were beaten and the record expunged.

    But, nevermind, he still had a revoked permit.

    He went to a neighbouring county, where he was not resident and managed to get a CCW permit there. But he returned that permit.

    Even though he committed perjury, he was never convicted.

    Also, he was able to get the Florida non-resident permit (this was the case that brought this to the attention of the PA authorities).

    So, Client is never convicted.

    In fact, the record is expunged, which means you can believe this is true or not.

    Personally, I'd prefer that people like this not be allowed to think about owning firearms let alone have a CCW permit.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Laci: Great point.

    It should come as no surprise that many of the most rabid gunloon bloggers demanding little or no oversight of CCW licensing do not have spotless records.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jade: “To my mind, someone who has never been arrested (like me) constitutes the "safest of the safe."’

    And depending on where you live, you can not get a permit.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And depending on where you live, you can not get a permit.

    A feature not a bug.

    Thing is, I don't spend my life worrying that some Die Hard scenario is imminent. I'm reasonably well-adjusted and successful in my social and professional life that I don't need a gun to feel 'important' or make people 'respect' me.

    Nor do I live life in some sheltered bubble; I've lived all over this country--in large urban areas and in rural communities. I've lived and travelled abroad, Never did I feel I needed a gun or believed a gun would improve any situation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Actually not, Mikey W."

    You have the comma in the wrong place.

    "You're still stuck on the misguided belief that every CCW holder who commits a felony gets his CCW revoked"

    Nope, I'm not. Mike W might be, but we'll have to wait and ask him when he comes to this discussion. I am under the impression that permit holders don't commit crimes at anywhere near the rate the rest of the population does. And the numbers back up that impression.

    "As I've demonstrated, that simply isn't true."

    Where? Did you make a post somewhere else, because you haven't demonstrated anything but a complete and total lack of ability to follow logic, and a lack of reading comprehension. Plus you appear to be bad at math. And you still haven't provided an answer to my question.

    "Additionally, you insist on setting the bar for "safest of the safe" at felony convictions. That's a really low bar."

    No, not really. And it's a far better bar than "felony arrest" because anybody can be arrested for any reason. Whether or not there's enough evidence to convict is what matters.

    "To my mind, someone who has never been arrested (like me) constitutes the "safest of the safe." "

    In general, I would agree. I, too, have never been arrested. However, I have a permit (several actually), and you do not. But this isn't about whether non-permit holders are more law abiding as a group than the general population, because the general population, by and large, is made up of non-permit holders.

    The comparison is, are people who have to pass a background check to carry a pistol generally more law abiding than a population of people who do not have to pass a background check. And the numbers prove that we are.

    "Someone who has a string of misdemeanors on his record is going to have difficulty getting a job or a clearance or any position of reponsibility--yet, you would call this guy "the safest of the safe" and let him wander around with a firearm."

    In general, I would, if he passed his background check and received his permit. I can't answer for Mike W.

    But, as I have asked for again and again, please show me an example of this person. You keep repeating the same lie, but it isn't any less a lie because you said it more.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "It should come as no surprise that many of the most rabid gunloon bloggers demanding little or no oversight of CCW licensing do not have spotless records."

    And you have evidence of this, too?

    ReplyDelete
  26. And you have evidence of this, too?

    Yup.

    ReplyDelete
  27. And you'll present it?

    No.

    Because as usual, you're full of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wondering if you've read Dan Baum's piece at Harper's, "Happiness is a worn gun: My concealed weapon and me"? It's very interesting, been meaning to write a post about it but haven't got around to it yet ...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Laci, so your point, that Jade thinks is so great, is that your client that was not convicted of anything applied for a permit and was awarded one because he was not convicted of anything.

    Does that just about sum it all up?

    Sounds like the fault rests with the piss-poor Pennsylvania legal system rather than a license bureau.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm laughing at the Mike W. references. I noticed he'd stopped coming around and that he was kind of replaced by an anonymous commenter or two. I don't know what it is about that behaviour, coming around as anonymous when we all know you as someone else, but the word "ball-less" comes to mind. Is that a word?

    I'll bet Mike W. is not the only one either.

    About the small numbers of revocations of CCW licenses having some meaning, I agree with Jadegold who described it perfectly. "Revocation rates (only in FL) don't tell the complete story."

    The article indicates that in Georgia, which I suppose means elsewhere too, sometimes a guy who passes the background check and gets the license and subsequently commits a felony might continue to keep his license. Now, this here could be called another loophole. And why a truly legitimate gun owner would not be screaming to high heaven about this abuse is a mystery to me.

    But mysteries abound. Gun owners love them loopholes.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes, Mike, because an old state CCW permit is a valid exception to Federal felon in possession rules.

    ::rolls eyes::

    Laci's owner: I fear the criminal who believes he won't be caught carrying illegally more than the guy who realizes he broke a law and voluntarily relinquishes the privilege granted.

    I challenge you to find an impartial jury to convict someone who did what your "terrorist" did.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "The article indicates that in Georgia, which I suppose means elsewhere too, sometimes a guy who passes the background check and gets the license and subsequently commits a felony might continue to keep his license."

    What good does the license do him since he is a prohibited person and cannot own a gun?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I noticed he'd stopped coming around and that he was kind of replaced by an anonymous commenter or two. I don't know what it is about that behaviour, coming around as anonymous when we all know you as someone else, but the word "ball-less" comes to mind. Is that a word?

    Can you not tell who the anonymous users are? I mean you do have the logs you can look at right? This is how several of JadeGold's sock puppet accounts have been rooted out. You know what is ball-less? Harrassing people, posting info on their spouses, posting their pictures online, and alerting their employers to posts they've made. This is something JadeGold does after he finds out a user's real name. Again, maybe that is why people feel they need to pose as anonymous on here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Poor Ruffy.

    Let's see if I understand him. If someone posts a picture of someone they claim is them on their blog and I use it--it's harrassing people?

    M'kay. I'll cop to that.

    The rest of your claims are nonsense.

    OTOH, when Weerd issues death threats it's ok?

    Well, at least your consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Is that a word?"

    Technically, it's two words.

    I think it's funny that you and Jadegold assume every anonymous poster is somebody who previously posted on here under another name, but now is choosing to be anonymous. I really think it's funny that Jade assumes I am Mike W (I guess because I call him "Jade" sometimes, as Mike W sometimes used to when he posted). You could be right, and there might be several people who used to come here under other names and now post as anonymous. I'm not one of them, though.

    I've been coming here for a bit, and I post as anonymous because I like anonymous. My words are out there, and you can feel free to like them, hate, disagree, agree. Whatever.

    But the words are there, and they stand for themselves. People won't disagree with them solely because of their hatred for a particular person.

    From our side of the aisle, anything Jade writes is pretty much guaranteed to be met with skepticism, derision and laughter. Unfortunately, that is what will happen, even if he makes a valid point here or there. A rarity, I admit, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "OTOH, when Weerd issues death threats it's ok?"

    And you've called the police over this illegal activity, correct?

    Oh, wait, you're full of shit again. Diapers!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. OTOH, when Weerd issues death threats it's ok?


    I fully support you taking legal action if you feel that it is a threat. The fact that you haven't done so shows me that you don't even think it was a threat.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jadegold: “A feature not a bug.”

    That is because you don’t want a permit, and that is fine- don’t get one. You spend this whole post lamenting how some states don’t have high enough standards, but then also have no problem with states that don’t issue permits even to the “safest of the safe”. It seems if you are just against permits entirely. So why should we believe gun controllers when they say they are only interested in raising the qualification bar? I’d like to see shall-issue to squeaky clean records with full state reciprocity. Is that not a good middle ground?

    ReplyDelete
  39. TS: You make a number of assumptions that are simply false.

    Again--as it stands now--people can get CCW permits when they may have a long criminal record. They can also have convictions for DUIs.

    These are not the "safest of the safe." All they are are folks who have successfully managed to beat felony raps and/or possibly involuntary commitment to a mental hospital.

    Similarly, as I've sagely noted, it's very possible that CCW holders who may commit felonies after getting their permit aren't often identified. As a result, we have felons carrying guns around in public.

    Basically, the only point you can legitimately make is that we need free access to CCW to protect us from the CCW holders.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Similarly, as I've sagely noted..."

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    "...it's very possible that CCW holders who may commit felonies after getting their permit aren't often identified."

    And yet, you have failed to produce even ONE example of that, despite your insistence that it happens often.

    "... we have felons carrying guns around in public."

    Guess what? There are always felons carrying guns in public. Criminals tend to ignore the law, Jade. That's why they do things like carry guns (without permits), steal things and kill people.

    Passing laws and pretending they don't isn't a realitic option for dealing with it, though.

    Have you called the police about Weer'd Beard's supposed "death threat" yet?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mikey W: As I've sagely noted, previously, Weerd made a death threat against me. I am not obligated to call the police nor do I feel a need to do so.

    I've long understood gunloons talk a pretty big game but when it comes to action--well, let's just say they usually find other things to do when called upon to show their hands.

    If, in the unlikely event Weerd experiences a once-in-a-lifetime surge of testerone--I'm still not concerned.

    Sagely noted. Also.

    ReplyDelete
  42. So, in other words, you didn't believe it was a death threat either.

    Sagely noted.

    Still nothing on the permit holders with long records?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jade: “You make a number of assumptions that are simply false.”

    Like what? I said there are some place that don’t grant permits to even the “safest of the safe”, which you agreed by called it a “feature”. Please point to my exact line which you see as a “false assumption”. I was talking about a middle ground which you don’t seem to be interested in.

    Jade: “As a result, we have felons carrying guns around in public.”

    Which is a felony in itself regardless of whether they still have a state issued piece of paper. Just show us one example of a felon who was able to walk away from a weapons charge because he still had a CCW. Just one.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jade: “As I've sagely noted, previously, Weerd made a death threat against me. I am not obligated to call the police nor do I feel a need to do so.”

    These are very serious allegations which you should not toss around lightly. I suspect you are just trying to smear Weer’d, so I’ll ask you; do you really feel Weer’d made a legitimate threat against your life? You may not feel obligated to call the police, but MikeB certainly has an obligation to make sure death threats aren’t happening on his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  45. TS: Your false assumptions:
    1. There are no states that do not issue CCW permits. Yes, some states may be more difficult than others but you apparently believe that unless they're handing them out on the street, it's extraordinarily difficult to get one.
    2. You engage in the ol' slippery slope argument again by erroneously claiming that some states forbid CCW and, thus, this means any regulation certainly will lead to a complete ban and seizing of all guns.
    3. "Squeaky clean" may mean something different to each of us. Additionally, it's only a factor. Other factors would include things like competency.

    Re Weerd's death threat--I never smear anyone. I know very little about Weerd--so pretending I know what's in his mind is something I can't claim. OTOH, I do have some experience with gunloons and with folks are genuinely bada##es. Gunloons tend to talk bigger than their actions. Bada##es don't talk, they do.

    ReplyDelete
  46. So frustrating…

    Jade: “1. There are no states that do not issue CCW permits.”

    That is not what I said (the great thing about this blog is you can go back and read what I said). I said there are states that do no allow permits to “the safest of the safe”. Those are people who have never been convicted, arrested, or even suspected of any criminal activity. And it is not a matter of being more difficult than other states- we are talking about people not being able to get them AT ALL, no matter how hard you try (OK, maybe you have to get elected mayor, or star in a blockbuster movie- but that is pretty damn hard to do). Are you denying this? Secondly, Illinois and Wisconsin are no-issue states- so even with you claiming something I didn’t say, you are still wrong.

    “2. You engage in the ol' slippery slope argument again…”

    I don’t know how you went there from me suggesting that permit qualifications should be tightened but also apply to everyone no matter where they live… but I do believe in the slippery slope of gun control, so… whatever.

    “3. "Squeaky clean" may mean something different to each of us. Additionally, it's only a factor. Other factors would include things like competency.”

    And they still can’t get a permit if they live in a gun control town in a gun control state.

    “Re Weerd's death threat--I never smear anyone.”

    Did you just say that?

    “Gunloons tend to talk bigger than their actions. Bada##es don't talk, they do.”

    True. These people whom you label “gunloons” (and I take it you include me) tend to be honest law-abiding people who stand up for their rights with “talk” and do not take criminal “badass” actions. Why then do you stand in their way of our right to own firearms?

    ReplyDelete
  47. About determining if the anonymous commenters are using the same IP addresses as former known commenters, I've never attempted to do it. I don't really care that much who you are. It is a pain in the ass though trying to distinguish one annonymous guy from another, names would help with that.

    And ball-less is either a word or it's not. It can't be two words.

    FWM asked, "What good does the license do him since he is a prohibited person and cannot own a gun?"

    How about this? A guy gets the CCW permit and later turns bad, felony convictions, domestic violence, the works. He continues to carry although he's much too dangerous to do so in a peaceful society. When a cop stops him for a traffic violation, he produces his driver's license, informs the cop he's legally carrying, even though it's a lie and produces his CCW permit.

    After receiving a warning or a speeding ticket, he goes on his merry way either home to abuse his wife some more or maybe to get drunk and loaded with the boys. He's a time bomb just waiting to go off, who could have been defused if the system had proper checks.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "And ball-less is either a word or it's not. It can't be two words."

    That was a joke. Do you see how humor can be completely missed in the written media? There's no inflection, no body language to receive additional clues as to whether the person was being facetious, teasing, being ironic, sarcastic, etc.

    We need to invent an HTML humor-equivalent to bold or italics, to let people know that a particular comment is a joke, or meant to be taken lightly, even if the rest of the text isn't.

    < just kidding >
    < jk >

    < sarcasm >
    < sc >

    ReplyDelete
  49. MikeB: “When a cop stops him for a traffic violation, he produces his driver's license, informs the cop he's legally carrying, even though it's a lie and produces his CCW permit.”

    Then the officer goes back to his car, punches in his DL into the system to see if he has any outstanding warrants (which the officer IS going to do- even if the intention is only to issue a warning)- and low and behold it turns out he is a convicted felon. The officer arrests him on a weapons charge, throws him in jail, and he is not able to go home and beat his wife.

    If the story you and jade tell is true- show us an example (because it would certainly need to be fixed). But your excuse of “the system has recall loophole” is not a good reason to not issue them in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I think you're right Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete