Even that fact should raise suspicion. Why all the secrecy? Why is it impossible to even know who the permit holders are in most states? The answer is obvious. The gun-rights folks do not want to know the facts. They don't want to know that X number of permit holders committed felonies, and that most of them continued to own guns, like they do in North Carolina.
What's your opinion? Have the gun-rights advocates gone too far in their demands for special treatment? Shouldn't gun owners be held to the same common-sense standards of behavior as everyone else?The review also raises concerns about how well government officials police the permit process. In about half of the felony convictions, the authorities failed to revoke or suspend the holder’s permit, including for cases of murder, rape and kidnapping. The apparent oversights are especially worrisome in North Carolina, one of about 20 states where anyone with a valid concealed handgun permit can buy firearms without the federally mandated criminal background check. (Under federal law, felons lose the right to own guns.)
Ricky Wills, 59, kept his permit after recently spending several months behind bars for terrorizing his estranged wife and their daughter with a pair of guns and then shooting at their house while they, along with a sheriff’s deputy who had responded to a 911 call, were inside. “That’s crazy, absolutely crazy,” his wife, Debra Wills, said in an interview when told that her husband could most likely still buy a gun at any store in the state.
Please leave a comment.
"In about half of the felony convictions, the authorities failed to revoke or suspend the holder’s permit,"ReplyDelete
So, government employees' incompetence should determine the extent of my gun rights?
Why all the secrecy? You have it exactly backward. Why do our documents have to be available for anyone to see? We take an entirely lax attitude toward all manner of information about us. Sunshine laws ought to apply only to what the government does. There's no reason for private individuals to be the subject of public inspection.ReplyDelete
"So, government employees' incompetence should determine the extent of my gun rights?"ReplyDelete
No but government employees' incompetence should not play a part in revoking the gun permit of someone who has proven they have no business having the permit.
And how is that to be determined?
All of you "privacy" nuts don't care if your felony-convicted or violent tempered neighbor has a C&C? If, more probably, "he" pulls his weapon on you while drunk, drugged out, or just plain pissed off, I suppose you find it permissible to render the neighborhood a little "gunfight at the OK corral" scenario, by drawing your own weapon? You probably think we should do away with the police as well.ReplyDelete
There lies lunacy, not civilization. And BTW, I've gotten through life for 71 yrs without owning a gun.
Greg, my question about why all the secrecy was rhetorical, and besides I answered it myself.ReplyDelete
Ah, a rhetorical question. Those are good ones for others to answer, especially since you reached the wrong answer yourself.
Greg, you are such a cretin.ReplyDelete
Why do our documents have to be available for anyone to see? We take an entirely lax attitude toward all manner of information about us. Sunshine laws ought to apply only to what the government does. There's no reason for private individuals to be the subject of public inspection.
And you call me an authoritarian!
How about, laws and legal decisions need to made with proper evidence to back them up--especially in a Democracy.
Hiding facts related to the amount of concealed carry criminals whilst trying to paint them as "law abiding citizens" is pretty disreputable.
And as I have pointed out, takes this type of methodology.
Of course, people like Greg don't want the truth out about US firearms and how easily accessible they are to people who really shouldn't own them.
Unfortunately, that costs the public, which is yet another thing that people like Greg want to keep well hidden.
In fact, the Second Amendment right as interpreted by people such as Greg as a right to arms outside a militia context is a fairly idiotic assertion for a myriad of reasons.
The main one being that it is against the public interest for some people to own arms.
Laci the Dog,ReplyDelete
As I've made clear, the acts of public officials ought to be public, but private citizens have the right to privacy. How hard is that to understand?