I finally have the *privilage* to carry a firearm in NY...

I'd say "right" but around here in NY (not the city but upstate) its not a right... you have to go through so many hoops to just get a *restricted* pistol permit then be fortunate to live in a county where the local county judge will issue unrestricted pistol permits to even have a chance to get one.

The process:
-Fill out application & pay $110 fee
-Get finger printed
-Get criminal & mental background checked
-Wait ~6 months

And that gets you a restricted permit good only to take your pistol to the range or hunting. There are a bunch of counties that won't issue unrestricted permits, but if you're lucky to be one like mine, then you get to:

-Write the county judge a letter asking him for the ability to carry
-Wait 2 months for a reply that you need a special $250 safety course
-Pay $250 for an 8-hour safety course taught by the police
-Submit another letter to the county judge informing him that you took the course
-Wait another 2 months

And finally I get the ability to carry!

So lets recap... it takes ~10 months, $360, and a squeaky-clean record to be given the chance to get an unrestricted permit and carry a pistol on your person for use in self-defense if the need ever arises.

Oh, and if you ever get arrested for any little thing, you can kiss it good-bye!

This is the reason why there is currently less than 0.2% of the people in my county with an unrestricted permit (thats close to 1 in 500 people).

I know many places are different, but damn, we sure don't need any more gun control around here...

good about them- they are quite arbitrary- a judge can basically say no because he doesnt like the color of your skin- it happens actually alot up in chenango county- they will basically issue any white person a permit but if you have dark skin- you have a chance in hell

...when blacks tried to register to vote, pre-1965.

they will basically issue any white person a permit but if you have dark skin- you have a chance in hell

Haven't I heard tell that you people have things like, oh, a constitution, and laws ...?

If a restaurant owner served white patrons but not black patrons, what would happen?

If a schoolteacher gave white students good marks and black students bad marks for doing the same work, what would happen?

If a parking control officer gave black drivers tickets but didn't give white drivers tickets for parking in the same no-parking zone, what would happen?

If a driving test official passed white students but failed black students who performed identically, what would happen?

If a government office hired white applicants but rejected black applicants with identical qualifications, what would happen?


I'll take the answers as read, shall I?


So how exactly do these judges get away with exercising this discretion arbitrarily and capriciously and based on criteria that they are not permitted to consider in making their decisions, i.e. skin colour?

Are there no higher authorities?

I would have thought there were. Really.

And I would have thought that I'd be seeing all the gun-luvver outfits, with all their very deep pockets, taking a few of these cases to those higher authorities. Having his/her decision quashed by a higher authority can have a very salutory effect on judges who do things like base their decisions on the colour of an individual's skin, you might understand.

So how exactly do these judges get away with exercising this discretion arbitrarily and capriciously and based on criteria that they are not permitted to consider in making their decisions, i.e. skin colour?

Are there no higher authorities?

I would have thought there were. Really.

And I would have thought that I'd be seeing all the gun-luvver outfits, with all their very deep pockets, taking a few of these cases to those higher authorities. Having his/her decision quashed by a higher authority can have a very salutory effect on judges who do things like base their decisions on the colour of an individual's skin, you might understand.


well, very simple- NYS law says that a person shall be issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm if he/she has a good reason...the catch is, the good reason is soley up to the judge's beliefs- so you get some judges who issue them to anyone- and you get others who only issue them to campaign donators.

THIS IS CALLED MAY ISSUE....it is a completely unfair system because it plays politics with a licensing system. Thats why shall issue is much fairer- it takes away the local judge/sheriff's ability to arbitrarily deny permits

There is very little you can do if you are denied a permit...taking the judge to court won't work because the law is on the judge's side- the judge already deemed that you did not have good reason- so you didnt get permit

what makes the NYS system above all worse is- that permit is needed to possess a handgun....no other state has such an arbitrary system- not even gun control paradise California....

the law in NYS says that if i am approved for a permit, it must be issued to me within 6 months of handing in my application- that is THE LAW- but many times in my own county, you can wait up till 15 months....and when you call up the PD to ask why its taking so long they get very rude to you and sometimes will say things like "you know you are not supposed to call about your status". I am in that predicament now...its been over 6 months and i have contacted my local PD about my permit and got that type of response.

"So how exactly do these judges get away with exercising this discretion arbitrarily and capriciously and based on criteria that they are not permitted to consider in making their decisions, i.e. skin colour?"


The answer to your question is that a May Issue system such as that found in New York and California is not open to dispute, if you fail to convince the issuing authority that they want to give you the permit, you don't get it. Period. They are under no obligation to explain the denial, and there is no legal recourse. In a Shall Issue system, such as almost every other state with concealed carry, the issuing authority must submit a letter explaining exactly why the permit applicant was denied, and if the reasons don't pass muster, the applicant can appeal that decision. States with May Issue systems should not be counted among concealed carry states, because they generally place so many restrictions and are so likely to turn applicants down unless they are rich or famous that it isn't an equal right for all who are capable of passing the scrutiny.

Can you give some other example of something -- anything at all -- that a judge does that is not subject to any review?

If the judge came out and said: I am denying you this permit because I don't like the colour of your skin -- what then?

If the judge came out and said: I am denying you this permit because I don't like the colour of your skin -- what then?

probably public outcry- calls for voting him out the next term- but you really can't do much...the review comes from the public at election time

this what makes NYS system so unfair

whenever you give discretion you open up the system to a wide range of abuse. Shall-issue systems don't have this- they have a set of criteria for prohibiting issuence of a permit

the only way a may-issue would be fair is if the "good reason" is set in stone like "must have restraining order against another person" or "must show 2 police reports showing you were a victim of a violent crime"...but no state would ever do this, its too murky, where would you draw the line?

NYS system is atrocious- its unfair at its best

probably public outcry- calls for voting him out the next term- but you really can't do much...the review comes from the public at election time

You don't believe that any more than I do.

because thats what the law says....judge or issuing department has wide attitude in approving permits

Sorry, you lost this one...its an unfair system

either the tale or that you believe it.

Nobody seems to want to answer the questions in post 47.

A schoolteacher has wide latitude (the word you were looking for) in assigning marks to students.

If a schoolteacher, in his/her discretion, consistently gave lower marks to black students than to white students for the same work, no, I'm sorry, there wouldn't be no recourse.

And I'm sorry, but I absolutely refuse to believe that there is no recourse against a judge exercising discretion based on racial considerations, no matter what the law s/he is acting under says.

The fact is that if the law permits that arbitrary exercise of discretion, the law itself is impermissible.

And the fact that NOBODY seems to be able to cite any actual instance of this problem existing, or anything that anybody has done to challenge the laws or decisions made under them ... well, there we go, eh?

The fact is that if the law permits that arbitrary exercise of discretion, the law itself is impermissible.

the NYS senate has tried to change this but the NYC controlled assembly thinks its all fine and dandy

The question of whether a law is permissible itself, as we have established at great length in the past, is not a matter to be decided by a legislature -- and while it can be remedied by a legislature, if it is not, it is the courts' job.

Review of legislation for whatever defect -- violation of constitutional guarantees, allowing the arbitration and capricious exercise of discretion by an authority -- is what courts do.

And I'm still seeing lots of sound and fury but nobody taking anything to a court.

Mind you, given the court where it would all end up ... that court could find itself in a bit of a bind.

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/cj/judicial.html

By a 5-4 vote, the Court upheld McCleskey’s death sentence. It found that while the statistical evidence cast doubt on the fairness of the Georgia death penalty in general, the evidence did not speak to whether capital punishment was unfairly applied to McCleskey himself. In order to justify overturning his death sentence, the Court held, McCleskey would need to demonstrate that his own sentence was tainted by racial considerations, which he could not do. Responding to McCleskey’s claim that his death sentence was arbitrary and therefore “cruel and unusual punishment,” the Court found that although McCleskey’s death sentence may have been arbitrary, the degree of arbitrariness was “constitutionally acceptable,” given the discretion traditionally afforded prosecutors and juries in seeking and imposing the death penalty.

McCleskey “may be the single most important decision the Court has ever issued on the subject of race and crime” because it signaled the Court’s unwillingness to confront statistical evidence of racial unfairness in the criminal justice process. The requirement that a defendant demonstrate that racial bias infected his case specifically is almost always an impossible test. In setting the bar so high, the Court declared, in effect, that systemic racial bias does not offend the Constitution. The Court candidly expressed concern that overturning McCleskey’s sentence on the grounds he presented would have opened the door to challenges based on other statistical disparities in the criminal justice system. But that concern is our concern – the criminal justice system is awash in racial disparities. As Justice William Brennan stated in dissent, the Court’s decision “seem(ed) to suggest a fear of too much justice.”

Now, we're assuming that some sort of case could be made that race plays a role in the exercise of the discretion in aggregate/systemic terms. I haven't actually seen proof or even evidence of that anywhere, of course.


All in all, it's just so entertaining that up here in the big bad true north, where all things firearm are about as "may-issue" as you can get, there is a procedure for reviewing the exercise of discetion by a firearms officer in issuing or denying a firearms permit ...

Oh, and that systemic bias has been recognized and rejected by the courts for quite a few years now.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/02/13/court030213.html

"All in all, it's just so entertaining that up here in the big bad true north, where all things firearm are about as "may-issue" as you can get, there is a procedure for reviewing the exercise of discetion by a firearms officer in issuing or denying a firearms permit ..."

your system has a set of criteria one must meet....NYS system is soley up to a single person to decide whether you should get a permit

the licensing office (usually a judge) can deny a permit for any reason....and they do not have to tell you what that reason is....you have NO COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE WHEN YOU ARE DENIED...there is no appeal. You can make a mistake on your application and they won't even tell you that you did, you will just get a denial card 6 months later in the mail and have to start over. you don't know this system, there is nothing fair about it. BTW a judge can arbitrarily revoke your permit for any reason they feel fit

you don't seem to get it, it is the worse licensing system in america for this reason...it is so unfair because it leaves total discretion up to the judge

your system has a set of criteria one must meet

No. And no and no. Absolutely one hundred per cent no. You haven't paid any attention at all, have you? Issuance of a possession and acquisition licence is 100% discretionary -- to read the law.

I'm not talking about issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm -- that is not equally discretionary.

I'm talking about a discretionary system, i.e. one that is comparable to the one you are talking about. The issuance of firearms licences in Canada is such a comparable system.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/as/1995/c39/whole.html

6. (1) A person is eligible to hold a licence only if the person is not prohibited by a prohibition order from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition.

7.(1) An individual is eligible to hold a licence only if the individual

(a) successfully completes the Canadian Firearms Safety Course ...

The only specified ineligibility factors are an actual prohibition order, most commonly made at the time of sentencing for a violent or firearms-related offence, and failure to complete the required course (or meet the equivalency criteria). And of course age comes into it somewhere.

Then come the discretionary elements:

5. (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.

Criteria

(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous five years,

(a) has been convicted or discharged under section 736 of the Criminal Code of

(i) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted,

(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,

(iii) an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment), or

(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 39(1) or (2) or 48(1) or (2) of the Food and Drugs Act or subsection 4(1) or (2) or 5(1) of the Narcotic Control Act;

(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; or

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.

The authority is directed to direct his/her mind to certain considerations, but the discretion is not fettered in the legislation.

A gun-head funded paper reproduced at the website of the vile right-wing gun-head MP Gary Breitkreutz states the critique:

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/violatescharterofrightsandfreedom.htm

The excessive discretion exercised by the Chief Firearms Officer in each province also violates the norms of procedural fairness. As Justice Conrad of the Alberta Court of Appeal oberved <the dissenting opinion in that court>: “The entire licensing scheme is at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer. It is a discretion without minimum standards, or any absolute standards for that matter.” This unfettered discretion violates the norms of the rule of law that date back to the Magna Carta (1215). Dicey’s articulated this principle still stands:

“We mean, in the first place, that no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or in goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. In this sense the rule of law is contrasted with every system of government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of constraint.”

This rule of law principle was enforced in Canadian courts prior to the Charter in the famous case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis (1959), and is strengthened by section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court's decision on the question demonstrates how there simply is no such thing, in a free and democratic society under the rule of law and all that jazz, as unfettered discretion; the Alberta decision was appealed:

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc31/2000scc31.html
(I have omitted discussion of granting of authorization to transport/carry, and discretion to register firearms, which are somewhat fettered in the legislation.)

37. ... A licence shall be refused if the applicant is not eligible to hold one: s. 68. Eligibility to hold a licence is delineated in the rest of the Act: a person is ineligible to hold a licence if the person has been convicted of certain offences (s. 5(2)) or is subject to a prohibition order (s. 6); s. 7 requires the applicant to complete a safety course.
... Furthermore, the chief firearms officer and the Registrar are explicitly subject to the supervision of the courts. Refusal or revocation of a licence or a registration certificate may be referred to a provincial court judge: s. 74. ...

The obvious inference is that if the discretion were NOT subject to review, it WOULD be an impermissible grant of discretion.

And yet the discretion is not fettered in the legislation itself. It is subject to review, but it is not fettered. The review would obviously be able to involve questions such as impermissible discrimination.

The simple, straightforward fact is that a grant of unfettered discretion with a prohibition on any review of the exercise of that discretion, would be contrary to the most fundamental rules of a society under the rule of law, if it were exercised in a way that is plainly so impermissible as to discriminate on the basis of skin colour.

If the Cdn law had barred review, it would undoubtedly have been struck down.

The review provisions are:

74. (1) Subject to subsection (2), where

(a) a chief firearms officer or the Registrar refuses to issue or revokes a licence, registration certificate, authorization to transport, authorization to export or authorization to import, ... the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval may refer the matter to a provincial court judge in the territorial division in which the applicant or holder resides.

75. ... (3) At the hearing of the reference, the burden of proof is on the applicant or holder to satisfy the provincial court judge that the refusal to issue or revocation of the licence, registration certificate or authorization, the decision or the refusal to approve or revocation of the approval was not justified.

76. On the hearing of a reference, the provincial court judge may, by order,

(a) confirm the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister;

(b) direct the chief firearms officer or Registrar to issue a licence ...

77. (1) Subject to section 78, where a provincial court judge makes an order under paragraph 76(a), the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval, as the case may be, may appeal to the superior court against the order. ...

So, to transpose that to your situation -- your situation being in a free and democratic society under the rule of law and all that jazz -- if the law does grant absolute, unfettered discretion and prohibit any form of review, it is obviously contrary to the fundamental principles of your constitution and justice system.

And the way to deal with it would be for someone to challenge a denial of a permit by challenging the validity of the legislation itself under which the decision denying the permit was made.

As the gun-heads in Canada tried to do, by way of a constitutional reference, but failed precisely because the exercise of the discretion is subject to review, and obviously because there are inherent requirements governing the exercise of discretionary powers. One of which is that skin colour may not be used as a criterion, duh, precisely because permitting such an exercise of discretion would violate the constitutional guarantee of equality before (and under, here) the law.

None of that is simple, but it's quite unavoidably true.



The best I can find for what the law in NY state is is this:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$PEN400.00$$@TXPEN0400.00+&LIST=SEA3+&BROWSER=40750369+&TOKEN=22340074+&TARGET=VIEW

Virtually incomprehensible from a lack of formatting. This seems to be the relevant bit:

§ 400.00 Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms.

1. Eligibility.
No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true.

No license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant

(a) twenty-one years of age or older, provided, however, ...
(b) of good moral character;
(c) who has not been convicted anywhere of a felony or a serious offense;
(d) who has stated whether he or she has ever suffered any mental illness or been confined to any hospital or institution, public or private, for mental illness;
(e) who has not had a license revoked or who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order issued ...
(f) in the county of Westchester, ... and
(g) concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license.

2. Types of licenses.
... A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to

(a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder;

... (f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof;

Have I managed to find the gist of it? Gets kinda tiresome hearing all the chatter about how awful things are when no one has ever produced any actual information about how those things are ...

The problem alleged seems to be that the legislation provides that a licence for a pistol or revolver shall be issued to have and carry concealed by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof.

And presumably it is within the discretion of the issuing authority to determine whether "proper cause" exists.

And if it could be demonstrated that proper cause had been found to exist in the case of one applicant but not in the case of another similarly situated applicant whose skin colour was different ... no court would find an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion based on impermissible considerations?

My main question remains, though: who has challenged such a decision, and what was the result, and if no one has, why not?

And much of the time, only the "privileged" get to use it, such as in NYC and Los Angeles county. In NYC at one point they actually had a dollar amount that applicants must handle per day to let them begin to qualify. It was something like $50,000 a day on your person. I can't imagine a system that puts such a clear demarcation line on the $$ value it's citizens lives are worth.

But it is solely the discretion of the issuing authority, and they don't need to have any reason at all, and since they don't need a reason or to tell applicants why they were denied, the reasons can and have included race.

And much of the time, only the "privileged" get to use it, such as in NYC and Los Angeles county. In NYC at one point they actually had a dollar amount that applicants must handle per day to let them begin to qualify.

Gee. Do you think that might actually have been directed to people who handle money AS PART OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT? As in, someone else's money? As in, people who work for companies that collect and distribute cash?

Given that that's how the requirements work in Canada, it certainly looks that way to me.

I don't really think the "privileged" walk around with $50,000 on their persons. I think the people who do that are the not enormously highly paid people who work for security companies. Who are then special targets of people who use violence to acquire property.

And I think you know all that as well as I do.


I can't imagine a system that puts such a clear demarcation line on the $$ value it's citizens lives are worth.

I can't imagine someone twisting reality so tightly that s/he could say something like that in this situation.

But then ...

Iverglas wrote: "Gee. Do you think that might actually have been directed to people who handle money AS PART OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT? As in, someone else's money? As in, people who work for companies that collect and distribute cash?"

Can you explain why someone who handles money has more right to self-protection than my family does?

I could try, but it would probably be better if you spoke for yourself.

Wow you are one hell of a spacecase.

So someone posts something you don't fully agree with and your immediate response is to try to bully him into submission?

I'm glad you're in Canada, and I hope that your level of bigotry and intolerance doesn't spread too heavily into our Democratic party.

So someone posts something you don't fully agree with and your immediate response is to try to bully him into submission?

What exactly would this "something I don't fully agree with" be?

I don't at all agree with intentional misrepresentations of reality in efforts to persuade, I can assure you of that.

What I was responding to was this "question":

Can you explain why someone who handles money has more right to self-protection than my family does?

Since someone who handles money DOES NOT HAVE "more right to self-protection than" anyone else in issue, the "question" was an ignorant, obnoxious attempt to spin someone's attention away from the fact that the previous post, to which I had responded, contained an even worse misrepresentation of reality. That was: that permits to carry firearms are somehow reserved for the "privileged". I demonstrated that this characterization was false, so the response was to pretend that something else that was false was true.

I do hope this helps you.

I "don't fully agree with" the practice of misrepresenting reality. Shoot me.

Feel free to explain why you said:

And much of the time, only the "privileged" get to use it, such as in NYC and Los Angeles county.

It seems to me that you trying to look like it was the RICH and/or POWERFUL who are issued such licences, when it is obvious from the fact that you referred to the carrying of large amounts of money that it is the WORKING CLASS security employees who are issued such licences.

Why would you refer to people like that as "privileged"?

I think that's obvious too, myself, but do feel free to explain.

Is irrelevant, and besides that, it is both. Famous, powerful, rich, campaign contributors, and personal friends of the issuing authority (Sheriff in California, judge in New York) are the people who end up getting permits. It happens. Lee Baca is about the highest profile repeat offender.

But some of us like to do nothing but antagonize others for not being in lockstep with their thoughts.

Too bad certain people seem to think you can't be liberal and still support citizens right to survive, over the wellbeing of the criminal assailant. Too bad they want to alienate enyone who knows, "it can happen to me".

Carry on

Too bad certain people seem to think you can't be liberal and still support citizens right to survive, over the wellbeing of the criminal assailant.

some people wouldn't know how to make an honest, straightforward statement of fact if their life depended on it.

Because it inevitably gets abused.

Talking about Lee Baca, Los Angeles County Sherriff, and a chronic abuser of his office

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/flash/VideoBlogs/VideoBlog3.php

From the Wikipedia article

"Special reserves program
In 1999, Baca established a special reserves program. According to the Los Angeles Times, the program was designed to cater to celebrities, executives, star athletes and other "notable persons". Some members of the Sheriff's Department said they were worried that the program would be abused, particularly by those seeking a backdoor way to secure a concealed weapons permit in Los Angeles County.<3>

Within a month of Baca swearing in his first new celebrity reserve deputies, one of his recruits had been suspended and relieved of duty for brandishing a firearm in a confrontation outside his Bel-Air home.<4> Less than six months later, another member of the special celebrity reserve unit was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of international money laundering. No well-known celebrities joined the program, and less than 20 little-known wealthy individuals actually participated. It was suspended in November, 2006. <5>"

Too arbitrary.

I support the idea of taking a safety class, demostrating basic competence with drawing and firing your handgun from concealment, and a legal rights, responsibilities, and restrictions class for concealed carry in public.

But waiting this long is ridiculous, and if you pass a background check yet still have to get permission from a judge or police chief based on an arbitrary and unaccountable standard is unfair.


And being arbitrary and procrastinating does not address the real problem: career violent, convicted criminals illegally carrying illegally-aquired weapons.

still waiting for my NYS permit that will allow me to carry a concealed loaded pistol to and from a range

Come on. Who could resist that one?


So lets recap... it takes ~10 months, $360, and a squeaky-clean record to be given the chance to get an unrestricted permit and carry a pistol on your person for use in self-defense if the need ever arises.

So in other words, it's pretty bloody easy, eh?

And let's not mince words. You are now permitted to promenade around with a pistol on your person for use for any purpose you might happen to take a shine to.

Because nobody on this green earth has any control over what you do do with it.

and i could run people the fuck over, but i don't. What is your fucking point?

Fuck, did I have a fucking point? Fucking hell, I guess I thought it was fucking obvious. Fuckin eh, eh?

You have a driver's licence and you could run people over.

You left out the stuff in the middle about how you (and a multi-few million other people) actually use the vehicles that they have a licence to drive, day in and day out, to do things that it would be more than difficult to do without them and that if they didn't do, their society would cease to function.

I'm thinking that might just be a wee bit relevant here when it comes to doing the cost-benefit analysis of each situation ...

you saying I can wave a gun around and just do whatever I want. People do not do that, well sane ones anyway.

It just gets old when people on this forum think all gun owners are cretins going around just shooting things.

They are not the root of all evil and like anything else that can kill, comes with responsibility.

That is such a flawed analogy, yet you gun people insist on using it ad nauseum. Basically what you're saying is that, because there are many car accident injuries in this country, what's wrong with adding to that total with some gun injuries? Do you see how that doesn't support your argument?

I am just saying each is a huge responsibilty, that is all. Some people are and some are not.

I wish this country, the US was more focused on love and less on violence and killing. That is what needs to change, not gun ownership. The attitude in the US.

Michael Moore's "bowling for columbine" was good. It was not an anti-gun movie as it was a cultural movie. Canada has a ton of guns as well, they just do not have the same attitude and are not as paranoid as Americans. I wish we were closer to them, potholes on the news, instead of fear and death.

So we have to have stricter gun laws.

You really think that regulating firearms even more is the answer to anything, as opposed to just punishing people for violent crimes? Why not just stop letting violent offenders go free with a slap on the wrist instead?

Why criminalize an item, over criminalizing the dangerous actions that are really the problem? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to ignore the fact that a person needs to make a conscious decision to attack another person, it isn't the fact that they simply own a weapon that will instigate them to do it.

I'm all for stricter regulations on who can get a firearm and stricter enforcement once that firearm is sold. I'm for eliminating the gunshow, newpaper and website loopholes that allow people to sell their guns to other people, sight unseen with no checks on the transfer. (And I know that it happens; I've been to many gun nut websites). I'm all for law enforcement taking gun laws more seriously.

You can give me a hundred excuses why there shouldn't be more gun laws on the books, but that's all they are--excuses. I want to see less gun violence in this country. I know that doesn't interest you, but there are many more of us out here than there are of you.

Once the gun is sold? You are aware that guns are not rented from the gubmint aren't you?

In fact, barring its use in a crime, the government has absolutely no legitimate interest in or oversight of any firearm after it is transferred to private hands, private in this case being a private citizen who is not a FFL holder.

And as far as selling guns to others sight unseen, that is quite impossible, for a gun to be shipped it must be received by an FFL holder, who cannot transfer a firearm to a citizen without doing an NICS check first.

If it is impossible to sell someone a gun by shipping it to them directly, then how do you suppose that people sell each other guns "sight unseen"?

As far as enforcing LAWS goes, you are quite wrong, I too am in favor of better enforcement. The difference is that while I am in favor of tighter enforcement of violent crime, and actually using the sentencing laws we have on the books instead of giving them all minor sentences and parole, you think we should just make it harder for private citizens to legitimately own guns, and make it such an invasive state of being that no one will want to.

Which one of us is coming down on the side of freedom?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080115112238AAUNnAA

I'd do a more thorough search and enter some gun nut sites, but I have to be going now because I am a volunteer for a DEMOCRATIC candidate and I'll be spending the rest of the day there. Bye now.

But I bought my first handgun at 18, and I have yet to shoot anyone with it.

Sorry but I just don't get so alarmed over young adults being able to shoot. It isn't a 'private sale loophole' because there is no federal law against non-felonious individuals between 18-21 owning handguns, just against them buying handguns from Federal Firearms License holders. And there are more uses for handguns than just running around killing people.

Good luck volunteering, I hope you get to be outside, it's great out.

Why did you capitalize 'democratic'? Are you insinuating that anyone who doesn't feel as alarmed as you must not really be a democrat? That's the message I'm getting.

So because I don't have the same shock and amazement as you about adults under 21 being legal in many states to own privately purchased handguns, and because I wished you a good afternoon out in the sun, you accuse me of being a troll?

Brilliant deduction.

When there is a ruckus in the gun forum, we get people who become DU members to post only in the gun forum where they feel comfortable. They usually don't have a profile. You do, but for some reason you refuse to enter your gender. I'm not saying that's wrong, just typical. SOME of these people do, indeed, turn out to be trolls and eventually "out" themselves by posting ridiculous right-wing ideas and they get themselves tombstoned. Within the past six months, I've cut my ignore list down by eight people because of those tombstones. That has to tell you something.

By the way, I wasn't "out in the sun" yesterday. You must live in this area, though, if you knew what the weather was like. I was sitting in an office, calling voters for four hours.

I'm in Maine, and the weather, when I posted that, was gorgeous. all that rain we have been having sucked, I was not thrilled about it, there was actually some serious flooding in Fort Kent, Maine, on the Canadian border. I flew up there to video it, it was shown last Thursday nationally on Fox news, I don't know what other networks aired it.

And I'll enter my gender when I'm goddamn good and ready.

Just curious- "posting ridiculous right-wing ideas"

What kind of ridiculous right wing ideas? I don't follow the 'news' often, be it radio, tv or internet, so I am a little in the dark about what the trends are. Actually I'm really in the dark, very few if any people I see in my day-to-day life talk politics ever, and I'm pretty mild on them myself. Pretty much all of my political beliefs are rooted in a desire to not be bugged over meaningless issues. Which is one reason I am so opposed to "tougher gun laws", they achieve nothing, cost something, and harass harmless citizens.

I flew up there to video it, it was shown last Thursday nationally on Fox news, I don't know what other networks aired it.

Myself, I actually would have prohibited anything of mine being used by FoxNews. In the past, I have refused on several occasions to give interviews to right-wing trash media. (Didn't stop one such piece of trash from putting my picture on page one, but that I couldn't control. I certainly didn't give it to them.)

Odd how people differ.

Being a government employee I don't have any control over where my work goes.

And i don't exactly know how much I believe that any mainstream media is far-right or far-left. Sorry but fox, cnn, msnbc, none of them are what I would call"rightwing trash media".

Let's see how much flak I take for just saying that none of our networks are all that far-out.


AS far as this sub-forum is concerned, every one of the news outlets sucks and is ill-informed on the topic of guns.


by the way, how have you survived on this forum for so long? All I have ever seen you do in posts is disrupt meaningful discussion and act like a troglodyte.

It seems that I'm not by any stretch the only one to notice.

In fact, barring its use in a crime, the government has absolutely no legitimate interest in or oversight of any firearm after it is transferred to private hands, private in this case being a private citizen who is not a FFL holder.

but I'm sure you're aware -- surely you're aware -- that opinions are all they are.

Does the government have any legitimate interest in or oversight of a motor vehicle after it leaves the dealership lot? I have to assume you'll say "no". So where are the squawking car-nut boards demanding an end to motor vehicle registration, and where are your posts on those boards?

Dog licences? Unconstitooshunal, surely. (And if you really want to argue that you do not have a right to own a dog, just as some morons argue that they do not have a right to own/drive a car, well, don't let me stop you. But don't let my gummint try to stop me from owning either a dog or a car, is all I can say. It'll be in court before it can blink. That's what we do up here when it comes to our rights.)


And as far as selling guns to others sight unseen, that is quite impossible, for a gun to be shipped it must be received by an FFL holder, who cannot transfer a firearm to a citizen without doing an NICS check first.

Ah, there must be magic forcefields in your post office that stop guns from getting through.

Or maybe the is the one known case in the universe where laws stop things from happening ... "quite impossible", hmm.

If it is impossible to sell someone a gun by shipping it to them directly, then how do you suppose that people sell each other guns "sight unseen"?

I think we weren't supposed to notice, of course, that you were being just a tad disingenuous in your interpretation of what zanne said:

I'm for eliminating the gunshow, newpaper and website loopholes that allow people to sell their guns to other people, sight unseen with no checks on the transfer.

Somehow, I didn't read that as people going to gun shows to sell guns and wearing blindfolds while they made the transfers ... I kinda read it as meaning selling guns to someone they had never seen before. But you can play dumb if you like.


Which one of us is coming down on the side of freedom?

Which one of you is coming down on the side of truth, honesty and giving a shit about somebody besides him/herself?

Rhetorical question.

would like that. Whether "just have more gun laws" is an answer is debatable. Though it SEEMS to make sense, much obviously depends on what laws, if/how they are enforced, and how they would infringe on privacy, property and other personal rights. I am one who is hoping the USSC will re-iterate the right to arms, and decide that strict scrutiny must be used to help decide such questions.

How does that stop criminals that do not follow those laws and get guns illegally? There are a ton of laws already, let's enforce those first before writing new ones that punish law abiding citizens.

How about that?

There are a ton of laws already, let's enforce those first before writing new ones that punish law abiding citizens.

Damned if I know how a law-abiding citizen would get punished for breaking a law ...

But ne'er mind that.

How are you suggesting that these laws be enforced?

Law says: criminal may not have firearm.

Enforce law, please. Make it so criminal does not have firearm. How are you doing it?

First of all i would up the penalty for using a gun in a crime and make them stick. You rob someone at gunpoint,, you are in deep shit, no questions. You kill/maim someone with a gun while doing something malicious, you go to prison for your life, no death penalty, you get to sit in a cell and do some thinking for a long time. I would do that along with community education about that fact so everyone gets it. Teach people to respect firearms. They do not make you look cool or tough. They do not make you a gangster. They are for a few things and all are to be respected.

To me that is the biggie, no education. The kids that car-jacked me held the gun horizontally like they were tough gangsters. That is where it needs to start or before those ages. In addition, change the culture of this country that is so pro violence. Parents should be raising their kids teaching them right and wrong, what is a video game and what is real. what happens in the movies and what is reality.

i would start there, problem is there is a lot of money to be made cuz we have been taught that stuff is "cool". And i do not think most families are tight as they used to be, both parents mostly need to work which means daycare for the kids and not like the daycare is not doing what they can but cannot be one on one like a stay at home parent. They turn their kids into zombies with prescription drugs. You are 4, you are supposed to run around like an idiot, laugh, scream and have fun. To me this country has lost the idea of what is important as a whole. No wonder why so many people are on prescription drugs and stressed out.

Sorry about the length... some of those questions I have had my entire life.

Canada has a fraction of the firearms per capita that the U.S. has.

Canada has a tiny, minuscule fraction of the HANDGUNS per capita that the U.S. has. And Canada has very strict, although not strict enough, rules about who may possess handguns and how they may possess them.

And that, as I recall, was the big flaw in Moore's movie. He disregarded the most important difference between the situations in the two countries.

which you so conveniently choose to ignore.

While you're at it, feel free to say that murder by vehicle does not exist either.

It just gets old when people on this forum think all gun owners are cretins going around just shooting things.

is people replying to other people's posts with ignorant false insulting shit like that.


They are not the root of all evil and like anything else that can kill, comes with responsibility.

Zippidedoodah, chum.

I really can never believe this one. So it comes with responsibility. SO THE FUCK WHAT???

How, exactly how, does you saying that something "comes with responsibility" (because that is all this is -- YOU SAYING that something comes with responsibility) operate to produce some effect in the real world?

Now Joe, remember, having that gun comes with responsibility.

Okay Jane. Bang!

Having the gun came with responsibility. Jane is dead.

How can that be???

Now Joe, remember, having that gun comes with responsibility.

Okay Jane. Bang!

Having the gun came with responsibility. Jane is dead.

How can that be???

Because some people are not responsible with their firearms! About 2% of firearm owners, apparently. Tragic, but not worth restricting the rights of the other 98%.

is empty meaningless static. I've got that right? I think so.

so all this noise about responsibility is empty meaningless static. I've got that right? I think so.

Apparently 249,000,000 or so people every year don't think so. So no, you've got it wrong.

You left out the stuff in the middle about how you (and a multi-few million other people) actually use the vehicles that they have a licence to drive, day in and day out, to do things that it would be more than difficult to do without them and that if they didn't do, their society would cease to function.

Likewise, a few multi-million people use their firearms day in and day out. Society may not cease to function if they stopped doing it, but so what? The point is, they are used properly by far, far more people than use them improperly.

I'm thinking that might just be a wee bit relevant here when it comes to doing the cost-benefit analysis of each situation ...

Exactly. Unfortunately, you refuse to acknowledge the benefits of being armed.

The dotted lines running up the page might help.

Likewise, a few multi-million people use their firearms day in and day out.

This discussion is about carrying firearms in public.

If you'd like to join it, feel free to take a shot.

hahahahaha hah.

This discussion is about carrying firearms in public.

I'm quite sure when you combine the number of police officers and CCW permit holders carrying their firearms in public, we have a few multi-million people using their firearms day in and day out.

Even without police officers, I'm sure there are well over a million CCW permit holders going about their business every day while armed.

Texas has nearly a quarter of a million permit holders, while Indiana has over a quarter of a million permit holders. Utah has 40,000. Florida has nearly half a million permit holders alone.

Here's an interesting tidbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_weapon
"Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and less than 4200 permits for any reason. <40>"

That's about 1-tenth of 1 percent of permit holders who had their license revoked for a firearm crime, and about 1/3rd of a percent for all revocations for any reason. Over a 20 year period.

Although solid proof of the effect of concealed-carry laws in reducing violent crime is relatively recent, it has long been clear that they do not threaten public safety. The most detailed information we have about the behavior of such permit holders comes from Dade County, Florida.

When Florida's law went into effect, Miami's police chief ordered his officers to compile detailed reports of all police encounters with permit holders. In Miami, the number of permits increased from 1,200 in September 1987 to 21,092 in August 1992, when the police department decided that the behavior of permit holders did not merit further study. In five years, permit holders were convicted in these instances of criminal misuse of a firearm: two cases of aggravated assault involving a firearm, one case of armed trespass, and one case of a motorist shooting at another driver. In addition, one permit holder unthinkingly attempted to enter the secure area at Miami's airport with a firearm in her purse, and another accidentally shot himself in the leg.

The Dade County police also recorded the following incidents involving defensive use of licensed concealed firearms: two robbery cases in which the permit holder produced a firearm and the robbers fled; two cases involving permit holders who intervened to attempt to stop a robbery, but the robbers were not apprehended (and no one else was hurt); one robbery victim whose gun was seized by the robber; a man who shot a pit bull that was attacking him; two cases of a citizen capturing a burglar; three cases of a burglar who was frightened off but not captured; one case of thwarted rape; and a bail bondsman who fired two shots at a fleeing bail-jumper wanted for armed robbery. There were no reports of permit holders shooting innocent people by accident.

In Florida as a whole, 315,000 permits had been issued by December 31, 1995. Only five had been revoked because the permit holder committed a violent crime with a gun.

Permit holders are not angels, but they are an unusually law-abiding collection of citizens. In Florida, for example, permit holders are about 300 times less likely to perpetrate a gun crime than Floridians without permits. Florida's experience has been copied nationwide. This should not be at all surprising: A person could carry a concealed handgun without a permit and, unless he gives himself away by committing some other offense, he would never be caught. Hence permit applicants tend to be those citizens willing to pay a large fee (usually more than $100) to comply with a law they could probably break with impunity.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3574822.html

You're actually on "Democratic" Underground, quoting something from The Hoover Insitution? Well, I guess we know what side of the political divide you come from!

the right of an honest licensed American citizen to carry weapons. All I would find on those sites would be statements about how allowing people to carry concealed weapons would turn the United States into the "Old West".

However the legalization of licensed concealed carry in the majority of the states has proved these extravagant predictions false.

The current trend towards adopting concealed carry laws has been met with opposition; however, no state which has adopted a "shall-issue" concealed carry law (where, if the requirements for a permit are met, the permit must be issued without discretion) has reversed its decision. As of February 2008, 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry,<1> and about half provide for some variant on non-concealed "open-carry".

*******

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and less than 4200 permits for any reason.{/b}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

Also note the information on this official Florida Government web page:
Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report
October 1, 1987 - April 30, 2008
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Now all you have to do to counter my argument is find some news report that says something like: "Concealed Weapons Permit Holders Launch a Crime Wave". Good luck.

As far as your comment:

You're actually on "Democratic" Underground, quoting something from The Hoover Insitution? Well, I guess we know what side of the political divide you come from!

Some Democrats would obviously love to require any member of the Democratic to be anti-gun. They sincerely believe that people that own or carry weapons are somehow inferior or lack intelligence, and therefore could only be Republicans or at the minimum conservatives.

But many people who own and value firearms for many reasons, including self defense, are Democrats. They do not support the Bush administration or the direction the Republicans have led this country.

For info on pro-gun Democrats visit http://a2dems.net/



"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

- Stephen Hawking

Does it really matter where the information came from? It is a detailed breakdown of documented incidents, real life data, not theories about how permit holders think they are macho men and that there will be shootings over parking spaces. If it said something like, "the Democratic party is a bunch of nancy-boys who hate guns because they are scared they will shoot their empty scrotums off with them" then yes, I could see you being biased against the information.

Certainly looks level-headed and reasonable to me though. Doesn't make a single outrageous claim, unless you think that a fact-based study on Concealed Carry holders that proves they are far more law abiding than the rest of their fellow citizens is outrageous.

Jeez, you'd think this had never been broached and fully addressed in this space before ...

times in the future.

It has been addressed by pointing out what a load of manure it is. Address that.

a quote by Robert Half.

or

“Use soft words and hard arguments.”
English proverb

maybe

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

So in other words, it's pretty bloody easy, eh?

Nope, my brother's friend was in the army, got honorably discharged, applied for a pistol permit and got rejected because during his service his mom was diagnosed with cancer and the army gave him ~2 months of free, one hour a week counseling because of it... apparently ANY counseling is documented and an easy way for them to reject your permit. I can see if he had post traumatic stress or something like that, but he's 100% normal, he was just taking the army up on their offer cause it was free and someone to talk to about it. He says now if he knew he'd never have done it, as he's afraid after VT this will kill any chance of him being able to become a police officer.

And let's not mince words. You are now permitted to promenade around with a pistol on your person for use for any purpose you might happen to take a shine to.

I'm not sure why you would think responsible gun owners love to brandish their weapons or walk around looking for trouble... there's no "open carry" allowed in NY and we were told straight from the judge that if you fail to properly conceal your gun and the police get a call from someone scared that they saw "someone with a gun", you're losing your permit.

The police officer at the training told us that one of the local deputies was shopping off-duty with his gun in his waistband covered with a sweatshirt, he bent down to pick up something from a lower shelf, some lady saw the butt of his gun, called 911 and told them that "some guy is waving a gun around at the store and is going to rob the place" This is the reason I probably over-conceal just to make sure no one knows I'm carrying.

Because nobody on this green earth has any control over what you do do with it.

True, I COULD snap at any time and just start firing at people... you COULD snap while driving and drive through a farmer's market... some pilot COULD snap and purposely crash his plane killing everyone onboard... some cook COULD snap and stab another cook in the neck with a giant knife...

I like my freedom, I like my life, I like my family, I'm not going to put any of that at risk by acting foolishly with a firearm.


iverglas, you sound a little gun-shy, I'm betting you've never held a firearm and all you know about them is from movies. I have the right to defend myself and my family with deadly force if faced with deadly force. I will not assume the victim role if I'm ever faced with a criminal who intends on hurting myself or my family.

I'm not sure why you would think responsible gun owners love to brandish their weapons or walk around looking for trouble...

I'm sure you're very unsure indeed ... since I didn't say any such fucking thing and you have no reason for ascribing any such thought to me.


I like my freedom, I like my life, I like my family, I'm not going to put any of that at risk by acting foolishly with a firearm.

Sez you. You'll forgive me if I say that it's completely meaningless.


iverglas, you sound a little gun-shy, I'm betting you've never held a firearm and all you know about them is from movies.

Actually, you sound like a person who prefers insulting other people, and pretending to believe things about them that we all know you don't really believe and are just saying to try to bully your way into looking like you've won some sort of argument, rather than behaving civilly in public.

Gosh. Just the sort of person I think should be wandering around in public with a firearm.

Not unlike pretty much the whole lot of people hereabouts who wander around in public with firearms, though, so it's not like you're novel.

Maine is awesome, messed up open carry laws because of the whole car thing but if you have a permit then that kind of eliminates the car issue with open carry. So if we print then some moonbat claiming you are waving a gun around and trying to rob the store won't cause any undue legal troubles. Excellent.

And hurrah.

It's been established that the crime rate among permit holders, even in states where permits are simpler to get, is a miniscule fraction of the general population's. In light of the fact that most gun crimes are committed by people without CCW permits and with long criminal histories, why should concealed carry by the verifiably law-abiding not be allowed?

You are now permitted to promenade around with a pistol on your person for use for any purpose you might happen to take a shine to.

If you are saying that the poster is legally permitted to use their CCW firearm for any purpose, you are making a false statement. If you are saying something different, explain.

It's been established that the crime rate among permit holders, even in states where permits are simpler to get, is a miniscule fraction of the general population's.

Let's have it. The proof of that statement.

As if a comparison to "the general population" were meaningful anyway -- and you, I am quite sure, know just exactly how misleading such a comparison is.

you merely dispute the source because it doesn't come from a extremely liberal anti-gun site. Of course, those sites never contain any studies that show gun ownership or licensed concealed carry in a positive light.

You're very literate. Present some proof that the crime rate among permit holders is as high or higher than the crime rate of the general population.

If you can accomplish this, it might convince some gun owners with concealed carry permits (including me) to change their viewpoint.

Emotional arguments are fine but not very convincing. At one time in history, the church insisted the world was flat and totally ignored any evidence that disproved their Biblical belief.

Perhaps you could come up with some statistics that show that permit holders rarely use their concealed weapons to stop criminal activity. This should be no great challenge, as most people licensed to carry avoid confrontation and practice situational awareness. They don't go around looking for trouble and they don't play cop. Police work is normally not their profession and they are wise enough to leave it to trained law enforcement.

You could produce statistics that prove that gun owners are more likely to accidentally injure themselves or others with their weapons, or that they were more likely to shoot a family member in anger. While this might be true of gun owners in general, I doubt that people with concealed weapons permits would constitute a significant percentage of those statistics. And, of course, someone could reply that car owners are more likely to have accidents or be involved in "road rage" incidents than those that don't own or drive cars.

But people with concealed carry permits are like drivers who have a CDL license (Commercial Driver's License). The requirements for that license are much higher than that required to merely drive a common vehicle. People with a CDL license often drive more miles in a single year than some normal drivers rack up in their lifetime. And yes, a very small percentage of semi drivers have accidents.

But then you could argue that a driver's license or a CDL license is far more necessary than a concealed carry permit. That would be a good and valid argument and you could possibly win in a discussion on that point. After all, there are always sound arguments to support both sides of any issue.

But many of us in the United States sincerely believe that we have certain rights guaranteed by OUR Constitution that allow us to own/ carry firearms. We believe that that right applies to hunters, collectors, target shooters AND those who chose to defend themselves with a firearm if and only when necessary. Our Supreme Court may soon make a decision that will have an impact on this issue.

People who live in other countries (like your Canada) live under different laws. Different societies and cultures often believe their own laws are wise and well thought out and work well (and in fact they may well be). But societies and cultures often differ significantly. What works in one country may fail in another.

As I've said before, violence is a problem in the United States. Draconian firearms laws do little to reduce violence and may encourage it as honest citizens will be unable to legally own weapons. Criminals, by definition, don't obey or follow laws. Armed criminals and disarmed citizens will do little if anything to reduce violence. The solution to violence in the state lies not in extreme gun control, but instead in isolating and solving the root causes of the problem.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

fine with me!

Significantly contribute to crime rates.

I posted a link to a report by the Hoover Institution in post #9 which you promptly rejected because it failed to meet your high standards. (It wasn't a liberal think tank.)

Although solid proof of the effect of concealed-carry laws in reducing violent crime is relatively recent, it has long been clear that they do not threaten public safety.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3574822...

So I'll post a few more. I expect you'll reject these also as they refute your argument. That's fine with me as I'm sitting here at the computer doing noting more important than listening to music.

In Michigan and elsewhere (liberal permitting is the rule in about 40 states), those who seek CCW permits, get training and pay licensing fees tend to be "the kind of people who don't break laws," Lott said.

Nationally, the rate of CCW permits being revoked is very low, he said. State Police reports in Michigan indicate that 2,178 permits have been revoked or suspended since 2001, slightly more than 1% of those issued.

Another State Police report found that 175 Michigan permit holders were convicted of a crime, most of them nonviolent, requiring revocation or suspension of their permits between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006.
http://blogpublic.lib.msu.edu/index.php?blog=5&title=more_concealed_weapon_permits_has_not_le&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths. If the rest country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, at least 1,570 murders and over 4,177 rapes would have been avoided. On the other hand, consistent with the notion that criminals respond to incentives, county level data provides evidence that concealed handgun laws are associated with increases in property crimes involving stealth and where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim are minimal. The largest population counties where the deterrence effect on violent crimes is the greatest is also where the substitution effect into these property crimes is the highest. The estimated annual gain in 1992 from allowing concealed handguns was over $6.21 billion.
http://hematite.com/dragon/Lott_ORDu.html

As Dodenhoff illustrates with many examples from throughout the nation, the fear that Americans with legally concealed guns would begin blasting away at others has not been substantiated.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/25730.html

Of course you'll merely reject the information in these links as manure. And that's fine with me. The small amount of time I invested in this research may well prove worthwhile in future posts on this and other sites.

Just for the fun of it I'll repeat my challenge to you in post 21:

Now all you have to do to counter my argument is find some news report that says something like: "Concealed Weapons Permit Holders Launch a Crime Wave". Good luck.
**************************

“I have learned never to ridicule any man's opinion, however strange it may seem”

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.”

“You see, but you do not observe”
Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr.

So in other words, it's pretty bloody easy, eh?

Right. You have to wait nearly a year and pay nearly $400 to exercise a right that our Constitution says "shall not be infringed".

Sure as hell sounds like an infringement to me. What if you had to do the same to write a letter to the editor of your newspaper?

And let's not mince words. You are now permitted to promenade around with a pistol on your person for use for any purpose you might happen to take a shine to.

Because nobody on this green earth has any control over what you do do with it.

Yup, just like no one has any control over what you do with a car once you get your license to drive. Look - he's been vetted, and deemed trustworthy, under some of the most restrictive requirements for CCW permit ownership in the nation.

And yet in spite of this unlimited ability to promenade around with your pistol for any use they might take a shine to, CCW permit holders have been demonstrated to be among the most law-abiding citizens in the nation. So apparently even though they could do anything with their pistol they might happen to take a shine to, they don't.

We seem to have shifted off the one I ordinarily inhabit.

So in other words, it's pretty bloody easy, eh?
Right. You have to wait nearly a year and pay nearly $400 to exercise a right that our Constitution says "shall not be infringed".
Sure as hell sounds like an infringement to me. What if you had to do the same to write a letter to the editor of your newspaper?

I say it's easy ... you say it's an infringement ... have we switched languages, maybe? Is this the Twilight Zone episode where all of a sudden everyone around our hero is using words he knows, but they don't mean the same things anymore?

When I said "easy", did you read that as meaning "doesn't infringe my almighty unalienable fuck you right to do whatever I want"?

I'm afraid I can't get it to read that way in reverse. Sorry!

what plane are we on today? We seem to have shifted off the one I ordinarily inhabit.

Beats me, Iverglas.

I say it's easy ... you say it's an infringement ... have we switched languages, maybe?

No, you, as per usual, are simply wrong, while I, as usual, am simply correct.

When I said "easy", did you read that as meaning "doesn't infringe my almighty unalienable fuck you right to do whatever I want"?

Except we aren't talking about the right to do whatever I want We are talking about a Constitutionally enumerated right. Waiting nearly a year and paying nearly $400 to exercise a Constitutionally enumerated right does not meet any definition of "easy" I can think of.

But don't worry, Iverglas. I know where you're coming from. As far as you're concerned, if I had to mine the iron ore, smelt it, forge and machine the parts, and hand assemble a firearm, it would still be too easy for you.

don't forget about the "well-regulated" part, eh?

In those times "well-regulated" had more meanings than it does today, one of which being trained or equipped.

And besides, "the militia" has been clearly defined as being EVERY able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. And the National Guard is not a militia, just in case that's where you'd like to take it.

Couldn't resist that.

What did you imagine my allusion was to?

If you had resisted the impulse to make it plain that the joke went right over your head, you wouldn't have looked like a dunderhead.

You don't get it. "May issue" permitting processes don't need even the subterfuge of a literacy test in Sunflower County. But since you raised the issue for no seeming purpose, I felt compelled to edumacate you.

The word that the author of the opening post was looking for was

PRIVILEGE

Privilege. Not Privilage.

Getting it at all now?

So you didn't get it. No literacy test for posting at DU, after all!

... That is the saving grace of NY's policy in my opinion.

Enjoy it!

...on going through that odious process.
I live in PA, and in my county there are at least 25,000 people with the PA License to Carry a Firearm.

I'm sorry you live in such a repressive society. I will be traveling through New York on my way to Cape Cod this summer and I hate the idea of entering a police state.

mark

unlike many other states, where gun-crimes are so commonplace.

You really did just say that NY "takes its gun laws seriously"? WTF?

And then this!

"unlike many other states, where gun-crimes are so commonplace."

Sorry but for the most part states that have reasonable carry laws like Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana, etc. don't have anywhere NEAR the crime rate of NY. And I am not familiar with "guncrime". What the hell is guncrime? Is that anything like thoughtcrime, because it sounds like it would be similiar.

States like Maine don't have common guncrime because we don't criminalize guns, we criminalize actions. Something you may not be familiar with, but it is actions that cause harm to others, not simply owning or carrying a gun.

I guess that's why neighboring Vermont and New Hampshire, with gun laws much more permissive than NY, have much higher violent crime rates... oh wait.

How rich! Comparing NY to VT and NH.

Did you flunk statistics or something?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_05.html

This is the state-by-state violent crime table from the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2006, the last year for which complete data is available. New York's rate of violent crimes per 100,000 population is 434.9. Vermont's rate is 136.6. It's also interesting to note that there are a number of major metropolitan areas where firearms and CCW permits are readily available, such as Minneapolis/St. Paul in Minnesota and Seattle in Washington, and those areas don't have close to the rates of violence seen in gun-free utopias like Chicago and Washington D.C.

that those facts make a huge difference in the crimes-rates of an area or a state, do you?

how convenient that fact is........:puke:

I am falling in love with my Glock 27 after an especially enchanting day at the range this weekend, but I also have a CZ 75D PCR that isn't bad to carry, just a pain to find decent non-custom holsters for. I think FIST will make holsters for them, so I think I will order one from them soon. I just got a Kydex IWB from FIST for my 27 actually, it fits great and has a perfect amount of cant.

If you need a good holster, FIST isn't that expensive, the wait on my IWB was about two and a half months, and is good quality.

... law-abiding citizen (which I assume you are). Glad you have the right to enjoy your second amendment rights, and can protect yourself.