The National Rifle Association (NRA) frequently claims that civilians who carry loaded guns in public are the most law-abiding citizens in America. While this is undoubtedly true in some cases, it has become apparent that the screening process in most states does little or nothing to stop dangerous individuals from carrying guns in public spaces.
In 2009, for example, there were six confirmed mass shootings (defined as four or more deaths) by concealed handgun permit holders, including the Fort Hood shooting by Nidal Malik Hasan and the killing of three policemen by neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh.
Approximately 38 states have “Shall-Issue” laws that force law enforcement officials to approve carry permits for any applicant who passes a basic computerized background check through the FBI’s NICS database (which is missing millions of disqualifying records). Individuals with misdemeanor criminal convictions, DUI offenses, past domestic abuse restraining orders, and histories of voluntary commitment to psychiatric institutions can and do obtain permits legally. Training requirements-if there are any for permit holders-are no more rigorous than a single day-class in instruction.
The NRA has also successfully lobbied for “Constitutional Carry” laws in five additional states (AK, AR, AZ VT, WY). These states allow individuals to carry loaded guns in public with no permit, no screening and no training.
In truth, there is no constitutional “right” to carry a loaded, concealed firearm in public. The Supreme Court was clear on this issue in their decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”
They certainly need to work on keeping up with the times Mike. There are actually seven states and Puerto Rico that are Constitutional carry, not five.
ReplyDelete"In truth, there is no constitutional “right” to carry a loaded, concealed firearm in public. The Supreme Court was clear on this issue in their decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. "
An interesting concept considering Heller was cited as one of the arguments that resulted in Moore vs. Madigan that took Illinois from a no issue state to a shall issue one.
Does shall issue mean there's a constitutional right to carry?
DeleteIt means they cant ban carry. In this case, the legislature chose to enact a shall issue permit system instead of, for example adopting a may issue system if they wanted to be as restrictive as possible.
DeleteI'm still waiting to hear how Palmer v. DC comes out. DC went from being no issue to a very restrictive may issue system and that move is currently being challenged as to whether it violated the judges intent.
In other words, no, shall issue does not mean there's a constitutional right to carry. Right?
Delete"In other words, no, shall issue does not mean there's a constitutional right to carry. Right?"
DeleteWell Mike, as the article states, though the Second Amendment has been determined to be an individual right, Heller also allows restrictions on that right. What each person's definition of reasonable is notwithstanding.
And we have now had two federal court decisions stating that the right to carry in public can't be prohibited, but again can be subject to restrictions. So if the argument can be made that as long as guns aren't completely banned, people can still exercise their right to possess firearms, couldn't the same claim be made of the right to carry in public?
BTW, I did some checking and the appeal I spoke of was dismissed so Palmer is complete. DC will remain a may-issue jurisdiction.
"I did some checking and the appeal I spoke of was dismissed so Palmer is complete. DC will remain a may-issue jurisdiction."
DeleteIt appears that I was mistaken, which will likely tickle Anon no end. It appears that the appeal I mentioned earlier is being heard today.
"A federal appeals court on Friday will consider whether District officials can continue to enforce strict laws for carrying concealed firearms on the streets of the nation’s capital.
At issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a provision of the city’s gun-control laws that requires a person to state a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit from the police. D.C. officials created the permitting system last year after a federal judge struck down the city’s long-standing public-carry ban as unconstitutional."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-weighs-dc-gun-law-that-requires-good-reason-for-carry-permit/2015/11/18/fdee0d7e-8e03-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html
...it has become apparent that the screening process in most states does little or nothing to stop dangerous individuals from carrying guns in public spaces.
ReplyDeleteBut we must ban private sales and temporary transfers so that even the slightest exchange in gun handling has to go through this screening process that does "little or nothing".
"Even the slightest exchange" is one of your lies that's been debunked. Yet you keep on keepin' on.
DeleteSaying “nuh-uh” repeatedly does not constitute a debunking. Point me to the text of the law that disagrees with what I said- that would be debunking. But you won’t be doing that. In fact, you have already conceded that I am indeed correct about the letter of the law, so this claim that you have somehow debunked my statements on transfer bans is ludicrous on many levels:
DeleteMikeB: “I don't deny what you say about the law, I only deny your ridiculous predictions.”
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/colion-noir-how-i-594-will-destroy.html#comment-form
Perhaps by “debunked” you mean conceded- just as “voluntary” means forced, “first” means second, “lawful gun owner” means prohibited person in violation of the law, “up” means down, and “filthy lying gun rights fanatic” means intrepid defender of liberty.
My, out of contect quote is hardly a winner for you. As you well know, many of the laws in question make provisions for family members and other particulars, which in your zeal you ignore and continue to pretend that "people are going to jail" for things like showing someone their gun.
DeleteLove how your new excuse is "that was put of context". How so? The context was the exact same as it is here- I am discussing exactly what is and is not a crime under these "background check" bills you guys push for. They start with the premises that handing someone a gun is a crime. From there, there is typically a limited set of exemptions. You mentioned family members. Well that's a very limited set of people, and in the case of I-594 the exemption is only for one specific type of transfer- gifts. It is still illegal to loan, sell, or let your relative handle your gun without a background check. If you hand your cousin your gun, the only way to remain law abiding is to let them keep it... for free, because a gift is the only type of family transfer that is exempted by the law.
DeleteThen you keep reverting back to this "go to jail" thing. I am not saying everyone who does this will go to jail, as I have explained to you multiple times. What is am saying is that it is against the law. It is a crime punishable by jail time. Thankfully a huge majority of cops and prosecutors are not as sadistic as you gun control fanatics, so yes, I expect these provisions to be largely unenforced. But you also said yourself that the law-abiding gun owners must follow the law to remain law-abiding. So what difference does it make to the las-abiding? We still can't hand our cousin our gun without forfeiting it.
Additionally, you are dodging my main point. You guys like to conveniently say that screening doesn't work when talking about CCW permitting, yet stress how banning private sales by forcing all transactions through FFLs and the NICS system will save countless lives. So which is it? You are quite guilty of this yourself. Sometimes you say gun control won't work until we have "proper gun control" where the screening process rejects half the applicants, but then out of the other side of your mouth you talk about passing these laws even at the state level will make huge improvements. Why don't you just be honest and consistent for once? Admit banning private sales is all part of an incremental plan. Pass these laws state by state, until you get it nationally, then change the requirements in order to quintuple the amount of NICS denials. That's your plan right? That's when you think gun control will start to work for a change, right?
Delete"Then you keep reverting back to this "go to jail" thing. I am not saying everyone who does this will go to jail, as I have explained to you multiple times."
DeleteActually, that's exactly what you have said many times. People will go to jail for these minor infractions. I have repeatedly retorted with the fact that they aren't and they won't, to which you changed your tune and claimed what you did here, that "not everyone will go to jail."
I repeat, NOONE is going to jail for handing a gun to another for twenty seconds to show it to him. Only you claim otherwise.
The screening we have for permits, although unadequate, is a far cry better than none at all. Does it need to be tightened up, you betcha. Does that mean we should continue to allow any idiot who wants a gun to buy one privately with no screening whatsoever, obviously not. To insist on continuing that policy because some folks may get their wrists slapped for minor infractions of a poorly written law, is the worst kind of fanaticism. To insist that people will go to jail for these imaginary scenarios, is beyond fanaticism, it's reprehensible and it results in needless deaths. You should be proud.
To insist on continuing that policy because some folks may get their wrists slapped for minor infractions of a poorly written law, is the worst kind of fanaticism.
DeleteNope...poorly written and passed legislation, is the worst kind of fanaticism.
MikeB: "Actually, that's exactly what you have said many times."
DeleteNo, I have not. Go ahead and play the gotcha game. Won't it feel nice to turn the tables on me for once? Still, regardless of what I said in the past, that's clearly not what I said now to start this thread, yet your deflection was to say I'm claiming everyone who does this will go to jail. What's really funny, is that you, the gun control propagandist that you are, and Mr. "we have no gun control" also thinks in some places we have gun control so radical, so extreme and draconian, that it should never be enforced. What does that say about Bloomberg and the people who wrote this law.
Even still, as I pointed out in my last post, what difference does the lack of enforcement make to the law abiding? You still say people should obey the law. You've said that before on this subject, and I'm willing to bet that is still one of the few things you don't flip-flop on. Washingtonians who are up on the law will have to make the choice to follow the law and not let their friends and family handle their gun for 20 seconds, or become "hidden criminals". Which do you think they should do, Mike?
And since you and I actually agree on something (that people shouldn't be going to jail for these things), can we agree that we should stop passing laws that say that? You know, common sense and honesty and all...
DeleteActually, that's exactly what you have said many times. People will go to jail for these minor infractions
DeleteSo, you should be able to point to an example . . . unless you're a sack of lying filth.
Kurt: "So, you should be able to point to an example . . . unless you're a sack of lying filth"
DeleteYep. The link I provided to our last conversation had me saying the exact opposite (that 99.9something% won't get in trouble for their crimes). And in that link, I have another link to the previous conversion, with me again correcting Mike's accusation that I'm saying prisons will be filled with people who let friends and family handle their guns. Maybe this is another case of MikeBspeak where "exactly" means "exactly the opposite".
"what difference does the lack of enforcement make to the law abiding?"
DeleteIt makes no difference whatever. The truly law abiding will adhere completely to the law. But, better yet, the law abiding who are reasonable will realize that no one is going to swoop in and arrest them for showing their gun to someone at the gun range. Unlike you, they will realize that's not the intent of the law.
Kurt, he certainly has said those things. Even he demurred with "regardless of what I said in the past." And you should know by now that I don't rise to the bait of your infantile name calling.
MikeB: “The truly law abiding will adhere completely to the law. But, better yet, the law abiding who are reasonable will realize that no one is going to swoop in and arrest them for showing their gun to someone at the gun range. Unlike you, they will realize that's not the intent of the law.”
DeleteWhat are you saying here? First you said they should follow the law completely, but then you seem to be implying that they don’t need to follow the parts of the law which the law makers didn’t really mean when they wrote it. Oh boy… The law as written is certainly the intent of the law. Unlike you, I realize that law doesn’t work with a “do as a mean, not as I say” philosophy. Finding police and prosecutors to enforce the law to the letter is another matter, and I have been quite clear that they will largely ignore these crimes. Please tell us what you mean when you say “no one is going to swoop in and arrest them for showing their gun to someone”. Should they go ahead and show the gun knowing that it is a crime, or not?
MikeB: “Kurt, he certainly has said those things.”
This is right out of Anonymous Steve’s playbook. “It’s in the archives for all to see”. Why don’t you go ahead and show us then.
MikeB: “Even he demurred with "regardless of what I said in the past."”
Give me a break. I haven’t said that before, and I am clearly not saying it now, which is what I mean by that. You can’t seem to argue against what I am saying so you make up something else to argue against and won’t back it up with any evidence that I said it. I have already provided several links to past conversations. Just go read those. You don’t have to dig around. You have this strong tendency to not correctly interpret words, and instead alter it in your mind to be what you want it to be. You do it when you argue with me, and you do it when reading law.
"But, better yet, the law abiding who are reasonable will realize that no one is going to swoop in and arrest them for showing their gun to someone at the gun range. Unlike you, they will realize that's not the intent of the law."
DeleteI'm afraid that the era of trusting the government to be "reasonable" fell by the wayside quite a while ago Mike. One has but to look at the contortions that many government officials go through to justify whatever programs of policies they came up when the good idea fairy visited them.
The first one that comes to mind is NYC's stop and frisk policy implemented by then Mayor Bloomberg. And of course, New York set the standard for poorly written laws with the SAFE Act.
Florida gun legislation is currently going through some potential changes due to the lack of reasonableness be law enforcement. Florida currently doesn't allow any kind of open carry, but there is a bill in the works which will remove the requirement to conceal completely because of unreasonable prosecutions of permit holders for inadvertent exposure.
This has been going on for a number of years, and the legislature even gave them a hint a couple of years ago by specifically passing a law stating that momentary exposure isn't illegal. They didn't get the hint, and now they are going to modify the law to remove the requirement entirely. So the law will be the same as it is in Minnesota.
In fact, one could argue that the public recognizing the lack of reasonableness of the government was the cause of the majority of states becoming shall issue.
Kurt, he certainly has said those things.
DeleteStill waiting on the evidence. Given your history, strong doubts about anything you assert are simple common sense until you present convincing evidence, as you have utterly, abjectly failed to do; here, in your claim about the mysterious older sister of the boy in Las Vegas, and in other instances beyond count.
Even he demurred with "regardless of what I said in the past."
And if you were more honest than Chris Christie, you would acknowledge that just before saying that, he reminded you that he had indeed not ever said what you claim he has said (amusingly saying he's done it "many times"), and challenged you catch him in a "gotcha." His "regardless of what I said in the past" was a hypothetical, pointing out that even if he had said what you claim he has, he isn't saying it in this thread, while you claim that he "continue[s] to pretend that 'people are going to jail.'"
And you should know by now that I don't rise to the bait of your infantile name calling.
Oh, Mikeb, Mikeb, Mikeb. Numerous problems with that sentence, starting with the fact that it's wildly at odds with reality (a lie, in other words):
Fuck you, Kurt. You want to pop in and call me an idiot in your circular slick way, fine. That's your last shot at name calling and personal insulting. You said you didn't want to be a regular commenter again anyway, right?
I'd say you "rose to [that] bait," and took it hook, line, and sinker, wouldn't you?
Also, I didn't do any name calling,"infantile" or not, in the comment to which you replied--just said that if you are not a lying sack of filth on the subject in question, you can easily prove it.
And sure, I have called you names with some frequency, but that's a pretty heavily trafficked two-way street. Perhaps you'll amuse us with an explanation of how calling me an "idiot," a "fanatic," a "monster," or a "f***ing inveterate liar" is any less "infantile" than any of the names I have bestowed upon you.
Thanks, Kurt. Very well said. I expect we won’t be seeing Mike rise to the challenge before him, but rather he will be running away from this thread.
DeleteBut Mike, before you go, please answer me this one question, which is even more important to me than the above challenge. Take this hypothetical situation: We have a legal gun owner who lives in Washington. He prides himself on knowing and following the law. He is at the house of his long-time friend and known non-prohibited gun owner- also in Washington. His friend says to him, “Hey Jack, I was cleaning my Lugar the other day, and now I just can’t seem to get it back together. You’re good with these old guns, right? Can you put it back together for me?”
He immediately thinks, ooh, now that I-594 has gone into effect, this would be against the law. But, he also trusts his friend implicitly, and knows that she would be initiating the crime herself. He also has every reason to believe that no one will ever know about this crime since it is taking place in the privacy of Jill’s home. He also believes (like I do), that the vast majority of police would not arrest him even if they were well-versed on the language of I-594 and witnessed and recorded the illegal transfer. He also believes (like you do), that the people who wrote the law did not intend for this to be a crime, despite the clear language to the contrary. What should Jack do? Should he follow the law, or go ahead and break it because he is reasonable and realizes that no one is going to swoop in and arrest him? Answer me this.
Am I going to get an answer, Mike?
DeleteI look forward to the answer to TS's question, too, Mikeb. Not holding my breath, though. I fear I don't have the lung capacity to hold my breath for all eternity.
Delete"What should Jack do?"
DeleteHe should help his friend reassemble the gun. He should do this because unlike you he's not taking an over-scrupulous understanding of the law. He's reasonable.
MikeB: “He should help his friend reassemble the gun. He should do this because unlike you he's not taking an over-scrupulous understanding of the law. He's reasonable.”
DeleteOh, so… bad laws be dammed.
I can be reasonable too, you know. To me, as a person who is knowledgeable on guns and a strong advocate for liberty, I find the idea of arresting someone for having the wrong shaped grip on their rifle to be just as preposterous as arresting Jack for helping Jill reassemble her Lugar. It would certainly be overly scrupulous of me to think I can’t have a normal grip on an AR-15 instead of this stupid contraption:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/12/14/goofy-looking-ar-15-stock-made-for-california/
Right?
filthy lying ["gun control"] fanatics
ReplyDeleteFixed it for ya'.
In 2009, for example, there were six confirmed mass shootings (defined as four or more deaths) by concealed handgun permit holders, including the Fort Hood shooting by Nidal Malik Hasan and the killing of three policemen by neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh.
Had to go back six years to find anything sufficiently exploitable for causing outrage among their idiot followers, I see. That's worth a chuckle.
Also, is anyone going to try to argue that even one shot fired in those long-ago incidents would not have been, if the perpetrators had not had concealed carry permits? I hope so--that would be a lot of fun.
"In 2009, for example, there were six confirmed mass shootings (defined as four or more deaths) by concealed handgun permit holders"
ReplyDeleteWell, according to a study on mass shootings by there were a total of 24 mass shootings in 2009. Which means that 18 were committed by non-permit holders, again proving that permit holders are much more law abiding than the general public.
Strangely enough though, an article by Mother Jones only lists four mass shootings total in 2009. I wonder where the disconnect is.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data
http://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Everytown-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Data-07-14-2015.xlsx
" there were a total of 24 mass shootings in 2009. Which means that 18 were committed by non-permit holders, again proving that permit holders are much more law abiding than the general public. "
DeleteHahahahahaha. You're not usually that funny.
"You're not usually that funny."
DeleteWell, it was a pretty funny article. Made more so by it being out of date. Maybe they were hoping that if they don't update the page to reflect current events, no one will notice the direction individual gun rights is moving. That being further away from their goals.
The article also has plenty of generalizations that make it inaccurate. For example,
"Approximately 38 states have “Shall-Issue” laws that force law enforcement officials to approve carry permits for any applicant who passes a basic computerized background check through the FBI’s NICS database (which is missing millions of disqualifying records)."
In reality, every state decides on its requirements for the background check. Some even require an applicant to submit fingerprints. Minnesota for example prohibits issuing a permit to those who are listed on the state's gang member database. Though it also allows an applicant to appeal such a denial if its an error, or if for example, the person hasn't been involved in the gang for a period of time.
And of course, the CSGV then goes into what it wishes it could control,
"Individuals with misdemeanor criminal convictions, DUI offenses, past domestic abuse restraining orders, and histories of voluntary commitment to psychiatric institutions can and do obtain permits legally."
You also need to mention Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), which dealt with carrying weapons in public outside the national defence context and the "unorganised Militia":
ReplyDelete"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."
"The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms without and independent of an act of Congress or law of the state authorizing the same is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system, they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.
It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.
IOW, government is well within its power to regulate the possession of weapons and unathorised military bodies.
Well-regulated refers to civilian control of the military with the founders having Shays' Rebellion in the front of their minds.
Shay's Rebellion was not about firearms, and I'd recommend looking up the word "regulated" as defined in the verbiage of the time.
DeleteThe right to keep and bear arms was a pre-exiting right [just as with free speech and religion] protected by - not granted by - the Constitution.
To use Heller as an example, is to agree the government has the right to decide gun laws and regulations. If Heller had been defeated would you agree with the same idea that government has the right to make regulations on guns? It went your way, this time. If it doesn't go your way next time, no doubt you will suggest the government has no right to decide gun regulations as the 2nd A states. Nice to be able to claim both sides no matter what the outcome. There is a name for that, but Mike won't publish it.
ReplyDeleteYes Anon, we have sort of traded places since the Heller decision and now its advocates of the gun control lobby who now look longingly towards the court seeing things there way. I personally don't think it will happen that quickly as you folk might fantasize considering that Miller was in force what, 70 years or so? In this case, a reversal of Heller would allow states to pass total gun bans, which would then have to pass through each individual legislature.
DeleteThere likely wouldn't be a big change overall and it would be a slow process. And keep in mind the overall direction of gun rights has been going in the opposite direction from total bans.
I imagine though that it will be a while. I can wait.