Expanded gun rights debated

GeecheeBoi84 (anonymous) says...

"Critics of the amendment say it would allow people to get concealed-weapons permits in states with the fewest restrictions, then take guns almost anywhere."

Heh, people in power are either lazy or just dumb... If you're going to make a nationwide amendment, just make a mandatory, across-the-board level of training.

"State concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers and other murderers"

That's right, cuz the average criminal doesn't already own a gun illegally. They gotta get a permit... Concealed weapon systems legally level the playing field, so non-criminals can have a chance at defending their lives without becoming criminals themselves.

For da love of God, PLEASE pass this bill!!! It doesn't make sense, w/ a SC permit, I can carry in South and North Carolina, FLORIDA, but NOT Georgia??!!! If I'm going into a state/territory I'm unfamiliar with, I'm gonna want to carry my gun more than ever... Passing this would save me the hassle of gettin a FL out-of-state permit so dat my state reciprosity list would increase. SC's list is pathetic... (BTW, FL doesn't require you to retreat, meaning if you're being attacked, you won't be on trial for defending yourself to the END, regardless of whether or not you had an opportunity to escape, unlike SC's law.)

July 22, 2009 at 1:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

10216340 (anonymous) says...

"Right now you walk down the streets in New York or Nassau County or Westchester County, you can have the solace of knowing that if someone has a gun on them, they've gone through a rigorous back-ground check," Schumer said at a Sunday news conference that was reported in USA Today.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.....I'm sure those criminals have also gone through that same "rigorous back-ground check". Mr/Ms Schumer evidently is living on a different plant from the rest of us.

ROTFL

July 22, 2009 at 5:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

voxpopuli (anonymous) says...

While I agree with this and would like to see it, doesn't this infringe on the states power to make laws?

July 22, 2009 at 5:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

majorjohnson (anonymous) says...

"Right now you walk down the streets in New York or Nassau County or Westchester County, you can have the solace of knowing that if someone has a gun on them, they've gone through a rigorous back-ground check," Schumer said

Considering that the only people with ccw in New York are LEOs or politicians, it's apparent that Chuck Schumer thinks they are the only ones with concealed weapons. I wonder why all those LEOs and politicians are committing around 100,000 gun crimes every year? Maybe they need more extensive gun controls up there.

"showing that people with permits for concealed handguns killed seven police officers and 44 private citizens from May 2007 through April 2009."

Hmmm...52 deaths out of 10's of millions of concealed permit owners over 2 years. I bet that's around the rate of "fall in the bathtub" deaths in this country. And I note that it doesn't say they were convicted of murder...curious.

How about we just make it a crime for criminals to have guns? That will fix the whole problem!

July 22, 2009 at 6:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

majorjohnson (anonymous) says...

It doesn't if the second amendment relates to the rights of the people vox. Probably the biggest sticking point of the debate over the 2nd is whether it specifically points out that the people have the right or whether the federal government alone can't restrict the right, leaving it to the states to do so if they wish. If we applied that strategy to the 1rst the states could restrict freedom of speech and religion, whereas the federal government could not. The 10th states that all powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.

But since the number of enumerated rights of the federal government are very small and our government has expanded to the point that it even controls the size of the toilet you poop in in your private bathroom, there's no real reason to think the constitution is anything but something for the federal government to find a loophole in though. We've gotten to where the phrase "general welfare" has become the only restriction on the federal government, which means it's not restricted at all from anything, even if specifically restricted in the text of the constitution itself.

July 22, 2009 at 6:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

metallic (anonymous) says...

>>>...the Violence Policy Center cited a study showing that people with permits for concealed handguns killed seven police officers and 44 private citizens from May 2007 through April 2009.<<<

What "study" is this?

Additionally, what were the final rulings in these shooting (if the numbers are accurate)?

How many of these 51 shootings by people with concealed-carry permits resulted in murder convictions?

Were any of these 51 shootings determined to be justified self-defense?

Did these involve "friendly fire" incidents (police sometimes shoot other police officers accidentally) where the concealed-carry permit holder mistook a plain clothes police officer for an assailant?

It wouldn't surprise me to see the Violence Policy Center misuse data -- like lumping justified self-defense shootings, or "friendly fire" accidental shootings into numbers to make it look like concealed-carry permit holders were intentionally murdering police officers and innocent people.

July 22, 2009 at 6:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gringolandia (anonymous) says...

But...but....i thought the Obama was going to take all of our guns away?

Wake up, conservative sheeple. Don't believe everything you hear at church or on Rush Limbaugh. Conservative talking points are warping minds.

July 22, 2009 at 7:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

majorjohnson (anonymous) says...

Your liberal talking points aren't any better gringola. I'm an atheist and don't listen to Limbaugh, I consider myself a real conservative which means that you have no right to force me to pay for your health care and they have no right to force me to be regulated by their reading of the bible, and I find the talking points of neither extreme to be of any value whatsoever. A pox on both their houses.

July 22, 2009 at 7:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

theronce (anonymous) says...

This will not pass...too many ignorant, paid for, or power hungry legislators.

July 22, 2009 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

zekemire (anonymous) says...

Violence Policy Center= idiot liberal leftist against the Constitution! These type anarchist radical groups need to be eliminated by law! Who funds this stupidity? If taxpayer money goes to support any of the leftist groups including the aclu, naacp, peta, greenpeace, southern poverty law center, coastal conservation league, sierra club, acorn, just to name a few, WE AS VOTERS MUST DEMAND THAT OUR ELECTED MORONS REPEAL ANY ACT THAT ALLOWS THIS MISUSE OF TAXPAYER MONEY, OR, THEY MUST GO TO JAIL!!!

July 22, 2009 at 7:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

cappy (anonymous) says...

"Several local law-enforcement officials contacted Tuesday said they had not studied the proposal enough to be able to comment on it."
Nobody in congress bothers to read any proposals so why bother with this one. Just pass it. Oh, its' not part of the lord god obama's plan for the new America.

July 22, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dawhetsell (anonymous) says...

We have idiots like Center Director Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center . Making statements like "State concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers and other murderers, that people with permits for concealed handguns killed seven police officers and 44 private citizens from May 2007 through April 2009.".
Even if this was true, How many police cfficers and private citizens were killed by criminals? I will answer it for you THOUSANDS. Maybe the idiot Kristen Rand will be walking down the street and a criminal will pull a gun and Kristen will say " you can not shoot or rob me because I am the Director of the Violence Policy Center". Do you think this will stop them idiot. I rather have my CWP because the cops can not protect you. They only come to investagate you when you are DEAD. Let us protect ourselfs anywhere in this country.

July 22, 2009 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CHRISJIII (anonymous) says...

Another bad idea from the GOP and the NRA. DeMint's stamp of approval should be a red flag to everyone that this is a bad idea!!!!

July 22, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blacman (anonymous) says...

chris
Didn't know there was a difference between GOP and NRA! It should be the policy of the P&C to remove EVERY comment that refers to President Obama as anything but just that "President". Let the pubbies go whine on another board.

July 22, 2009 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

beefsaver (anonymous) says...

"State concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers and other murderers," Center Director Kristen Rand said in a statement on the center's Web site. "It is beyond irrational for Congress to vote to expand the reach of these deadly laws."

So any CWP holders want to fill me in on this one? I can't seem to find the block on the form to declare that I'm a murderer, or more specifically a "cop killer." I see a large number of questions to disqualify felons, criminals, those judged unfit to carry firearms, drug addicts, fugitives, and the like. A SLED background check is also required to verify those answers. The process appears identical to that (save for dramatic fees and a ballistics sample) in New York state. NYC is an entirely different matter... just don't carry a gun there.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial Fund (http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Fac...), the years 2006-08 saw 161 officers shot, averaging 54 per year. Compare those to the 3.5/year cited by Ms. Rand. A tragedy either way, but a gross misrepresentation of a plague.

This debate should shine a light on states that have lax regulations on CWPs, so that one can feel confident in refuting the Wild West argument raised by Senator Schumer.

July 22, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...

As an attorney, I've been somewhat amazed at some of the people I've seen with concealed weapons permits. The criminal records check may be OK, but the mental health treatment check is clearly defective. There are people with clear paranoia problems and delusional complexes, who may or may not be on their medication, who may be getting these permits.

There isn't any really reliable way to check for mental health treatment. Records are not centrally accumulated and indexed. Health insurance companies generally know, but that's only for people who have coverage.

July 22, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...

beefsaver et al, fyi on NYC gun laws. My friend recently purchased a gun and got a license to carry it here.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/nyc.aspx

I'm not sure what I think about this whole thing, especially considering the fact that it was tacked on to a defense bill. (Side note: I am getting so sick of important issues, or even unimportant ones, getting tacked on to completely unrelated bills, what in the world does CWPs have to do with the DofD.) There is a reason different states have different gun laws and for the most part people agree it's the prerogative...I suppose unless it's somehow impeding gun rights. In NYC, you have to have special cause to carry a concealed weapon (what about I want to carry a gun around?), I assume you don't in South Carolina. I don't think anyone with common sense would want to carry a gun around this city, it just seems like a pain in the butt. Keep one in your apartment or house, yes definitely.

But let me get this straight. Someone from South Carolina travels to New York City and has a concealed weapon, by NYC law they aren't allowed to carry unless they have special permission. Do you then have to get the special permission or abide by the special laws of whatever city or state government when you travel there? This whole thing seems like a bureaucratic nightmare. What will the enforcement of local laws look like?

On the other hand this argument:

Reliable, empirical research shows that states with concealed-carry laws enjoy significantly lower violent crimes rates than those states that do not," Thune said on his Web site.

"Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit crimes when they fear that they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed," he said

This seems almost as ridiculous as the argument from the woman at the Violence Policy Center. Really? I hate when people say that. Most states with lax gun laws are Western and Mountain states, like South Dakota where this Senator is from where crime is low anyways. I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that "criminals know people have concealed weapons." Classic correlation without causation. Either way, South Carolina certainly can not argue the same.

July 22, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

yird (anonymous) says...

Posted by SCdeacinNYC on July 22, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit crimes when they fear that they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed," he said

"This seems almost as ridiculous as the argument from the woman at the Violence Policy Center. Really? I hate when people say that. Most states with lax gun laws are Western and Mountain states, like South Dakota where this Senator is from where crime is low anyways."
========================================

Nothing "ridiculous" about it. Back in 1983 I believe, Morton Grove IL passed highly restrictive handgun legislation as a measure to reduce the crime rate.

The sheriff in Kennasau Ga almost immediately ordered all residents to have a hand gun even going as far as to provide a weapon to those who could not afford to buy one.

The crime rate in Morton Grove shot up dramatically once criminals new it was essentially a "gun free zone" while at the same time Kennesau realized a reduction in crime that placed it at near the lowest in the whole country.

Criminals will always seek prey that will be easy to overcome.

July 22, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

cjewell07 (anonymous) says...

I love how Republicants have to argue to give power to the federal government and take it away from the states on this issue! Destruction of state sovereignty at it's finest! It is too ironic!

July 22, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RTC (anonymous) says...

Go to www.legallyarmed.com. A great website that answers alot of questions.

July 22, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mainermike (anonymous) says...

AS I SEE IT, By Mainer Mike Brown.

I feel safer knowing that I can carry a gun to protect me.

July 22, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

desspec (anonymous) says...

"Those who hammer their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

July 22, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BootstrapRed (anonymous) says...

We don't need this legislation! If the 2nd Amendment was properly applied (as intended), gun "control" laws would not exist! What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so difficult to understand?

July 22, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

issuetaker (anonymous) says...

cjeweII07, You may be right on that issue. Let's recall the rest of the 10th, though, reserving power to the
"people" and deny power to both entities when it comes to being able to carry a firearm anywhere, anytime --and openly at that.

July 22, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MC29461 (anonymous) says...

"On the other side of the fence, the Violence Policy Center cited a study showing that people with permits for concealed handguns killed seven police officers and 44 private citizens from May 2007 through April 2009."

Another lie from liberals who have will say anything to prove their point.

I could not find any study on the Violence Policy Center's site that even mentioned the cited study. If these facts were true they would have quickly posted them on their website to bolster their position.

This is just another case of the P&C quoting some liberal organization without checking their facts.

Pure lazy reporting.

July 22, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

counterpoint (anonymous) says...

majorjohnson - you're paying for it one way or another.

July 22, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

WhatMeWorry (anonymous) says...

This is a simple matter of states' rights. The Constitution protects our right to bear arms, but traditionally states have been allowed to decide to what degree.

Passing this bill would trample on those rights, just as passing a law forbidding concealed weapons would.

If the people of NY voted not to have concealed handguns on their streets, then that should be respected.

And if you're complaining about having to know a state's laws before bringing in your concealed weapon, you're probably too much whiny sissy to carry a firearm.

If that's a serious weapon you are carrying, man up and learn the law.

July 22, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BlackReign (anonymous) says...

There is already Concealed Carry Reciprocity in most states that have CWP.

Floridas list;

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news...

SC
http://www.sled.sc.gov/Reciprocity1.a...
Arizona, Texas, Montana, and many more all have Concealed Carry Reciprocity in one form or another.

So WHY, do the feds want to get involved in 'crossing' state lines with a weapon? Something fishy here.

This should be left up to the States its a 10th amend issue.

Federal gun regulators have written to gun dealers around Tennessee, dropping the hammer on a new state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.

The letter, dated just days ago, was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, "purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations."

The Obama administration has even pushed for a treaty that would require sportsmen who reload their ammunition to obtain a federal license.

The Montana plan cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that "guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889."

"The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889," the Montana plan states.

"The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly pre-empted by federal law. Congress has not expressly pre-empted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition," it says.

July 22, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

yird (anonymous) says...

Posted by cjewell07 on July 22, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love how Republicants have to argue to give power to the federal government and take it away from the states on this issue! Destruction of state sovereignty at it's finest! It is too ironic!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Huh? To begin with the democratic party has traditionally been the party (and especially now)that has been most interested in promoting government sponsored social programs which naturally lead to more power for the federal governments.
AS for the tenth amendment, it has no bearing on the gun issue. Neither the states or the federal government have the right to take away a right.
Bear in mind that it is not the governments role to grant rights, only to ensure that they are not denied.

Nowhere in the constitution is there anything remotely related to giving a woman a right to kill her unborn baby yet it is fiercely defended as a right.

The 2nd amendment states clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe some of you don't think that is a right worth defending.

That puts your way of thinking, as it relates to both abortion and guns, right in line with that of other remarkable individuals like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Kim Jong iL.

Doesn't that make you feel proud?

July 22, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BlackReign (anonymous) says...

Bill Summary
This bill states that federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state. This bill states that firearms accessories imported into Tennessee that are subject to federal regulation do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce simply because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Tennessee.

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billi...

July 22, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodforyou (anonymous) says...

This should be decided at the state level. If you don't like another state's gun laws, stay home.

July 22, 2009 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Numba10 (anonymous) says...

those of you citing states rights are wasting your time ---states rights were lost for all during the Civil War---

Even if this law passes one thing it appears all have missed is that you will still be required to follow the gun laws of the state you travel to

Our society has developed into one in which people think the police are the solution to thier problems. Unfortunately they are not. The police do not even enforce standing court orders regarding child visitation, you must go back to court to get a contempt order and an order to enforce.

The Violence Center(improperly named)should post along with the number of police killed by concealed gun owners the number of innocent citizens killed each year by police (but of course they will justify these)as this would shine a light on a need to disarm the police.

Every citizen has a right to defend themselves whether it is against a criminal act or against a government usurping its power---that is why the second amendment is there to give the citizenry the right to take back its government or to found a new one.

July 22, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsence (anonymous) says...

Where are all the conservatives who usually speak out in favor of states rights? Now we have the Feds (DeMint) wanting to tell other states (who didn't vote for him) how they need to regulate guns? I guess Federal intervention in states affairs is OK as long as it's not your rights being trampled.

July 22, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Numba10 (anonymous) says...

commonsense---the bill requires concealed gun owners to abide by the gun laws of the states they travel to---so your statement is incorrect

July 22, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HardWorker (anonymous) says...

It's a shame this bill didn't pass...

July 22, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Luna (anonymous) says...

Why all the hating? violence center has a place in this world, but of course, there will be people that say the Constitution this and that, but want to take away someone elses freedom of speech.

and it is all the liberal pinko commies faults?

may need to educate yourself on who actually stands up and defends your rights to say stupid stuff.

July 22, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Numba10 (anonymous) says...

Luna---that would be people like me a combat veteran--who took the oath to defend the constitution

July 22, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GeneralSumter (anonymous) says...

HardWorker said - It's a shame this bill didn't pass...

I agree, but what a real shame is that a majority voted FOR this (58-39), but not enough to make it an amendment. CNN's story had a applicable quote from the senator from Wyoming who likened this to having a driver's license. Our SC driver's lic. is honored by all other states, CWP should be too. It really is no different! Our cars in SC no longer have to pass annual inspection, yet we can drive them to California where emission laws are tight. How's that different from allowing a person with a CWP from a "lower restriction" state to one with "more restrictions"? Still have to abide by the state laws in which you're carrying.

PS. Michael Bloomberg is a blooming idiot.

July 22, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BytheC (anonymous) says...

Phew, they defeated the bill.

Now I can go back to the comforting thought that I'll be shot by a fellow South Carolinian and not someone from "off".

Thought I was in trouble there for a minute.

July 22, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Luna (anonymous) says...

numba - thank you for your service, but it also organizations like the liberal commies at the ACLU.

yep, I know how you hate these types, but their mission is to defend EVERYONES civil rights.

you defended it with a gun and they defend it with the law. different sides of the same coin.

I would be in favor of this bill if I could be assured every state had strong background checks. and I also think that 'hand guns are made for killing, ain't good for nothin' else.'

July 22, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

signseeker17 (anonymous) says...

Aren't any and all gun laws a restriction on your 2nd Amendment "rights"? Let's just abolish ALL gun laws. Why not just go ahead and let every man, woman and child in the US carry a concealed weapon, and let the paranoia loose once and for all? While we're at it, we can distribute UZIs to every household in America because we all have the "right" ro "defense". We'll be the safest nation in the world; "crime" will disappear overnight, and the criminal justice system will become obsolete, because everyone will have the "right" to "dispense justice" whenever they feel like it. And there'll be lots of jobs for cemetary workers. But we'll have to be sure and put guns in the coffins with the corpses - they have 2nd Amendment "rights" too, don't they? God bless the NRA for protecting our "rights"!

July 22, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HardWorker (anonymous) says...

Posted by BytheC

Now I can go back to the comforting thought that I'll be shot by a fellow South Carolinian and not someone from "off".

A fellow South Carolinian may also save your life one day.

July 22, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

theronce (anonymous) says...

I get nervous any time that the feds want to dabble.

July 22, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

cjewell07 (anonymous) says...

YIRD what are you talking about? Do you know? The point I was trying to make is that the party of small federal government is trying to expand the federal government. It is IRONIC!

July 22, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

yird (anonymous) says...

Posted by BytheC on July 22, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Phew, they defeated the bill.

Now I can go back to the comforting thought that I'll be shot by a fellow South Carolinian and not someone from "off".

Thought I was in trouble there for a minute.
=================================================
You just may be in a situation one day, where because you don't have a gun with which to defend yourself, you really will be in trouble.

If you get shot by a fellow South Carolinian it wont be by a CWP holder.

July 22, 2009 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

yird (anonymous) says...

Posted by cjewell07 on July 22, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YIRD what are you talking about? Do you know? The point I was trying to make is that the party of small federal government is trying to expand the federal government. It is IRONIC!

==========================================
What's really "IRONIC" and moronic is you don't have a clue as to what your "talking" about.
Go take a nap or something!

July 22, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Numba10 (anonymous) says...

Luna --i think the background is done by the feds thru FBI or ATF

July 22, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NakedYoga (anonymous) says...

GeeCheeBoi84: "Heh, people in power are either lazy or just dumb... If you're going to make a nationwide amendment, just make a mandatory, across-the-board level of training."

That would probably be unconstitutional as a violation of the Commerce Clause.

July 22, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

st33lz (anonymous) says...

I don't think they should allow it unless the guns that are allowed and the background investigations are held at a high level and the requirements are the same across the board.

Down here in SC, you can basically go into a firearm store and buy a sawed-off shotgun? For what? Your not hunting with it and if you need it for protection than you are either hanging out with the wrong crowd or are doing something wrong which requires such as thing.

In NJ, the guidelines on WHAT type of firearm you can buy and the investigation to buy a firearm in general is significantly more thorough. And it should be.

July 22, 2009 at 6:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jammer (anonymous) says...

st33 you can NOT go into a gun store and buy a sawed off shotgun, they are illegal !! ... where'd u come up with that one??

Luna, yes a handgun is for killing... killing the person that's trying to kill you first

the target practice is only to get u competent enough to kill rather than be killed... I mean to STOP someone from killing/raping you...

what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?? it doesn't stop at state lines...

there have been many rulings in courts that state that the police are not responsible for our safety or to protect us as individuals... they are to protect us as a whole, our systems and our leaders but individual protection is up to ourselves to take care of

so I think I shall do that for my family and I, no matter what they do or don't rule on today.... or any other day

July 22, 2009 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jammer (anonymous) says...

Geechee we have the castle doctrine law here too, we aren't required to retreat like you stated... not even if it's a property issue rather than a life

July 22, 2009 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hairy1663 (anonymous) says...

st33lz, you need to do some fact checking, the requirement are basically the same. You can't be a felon,mentally ill,a user of illegal drugs and you have to be a U.S. citizen.You have to know the law involved with concealed carry and you have to show basic proficiency with the weapon.

You can't walk into any gun shop and by a "sawed off shotgun". A shot gun is an excellent weapon for home defense and to quote Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp "the second amendment isn't about duck hunting"

NJ isn't more thorough,they're just more likely to deny you your constitutional rights. And your proud of it!

July 22, 2009 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hairy1663 (anonymous) says...

Posted by wjhamilton3 on July 22, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As an attorney, I've been somewhat amazed at some of the people I've seen with concealed weapons permits.

Thats funny as a member of society, I've been somewhat amazed at some of the attorneys practicing law!

I think there should be a criminal back ground check,drug test and a mental evaluation before taking the BAR exam. Plus I think there should be two more years of school that would concentrate on ethics and values.

July 22, 2009 at 8:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GeecheeBoi84 (anonymous) says...

Jammer: Say word?!?! Last time I read my cwp packet, it stated that lethal force was only supposed to be used as an absolute last means, and if there's da slightest chance that you could safely retreat, you were required to. I'll google it later then and dbl check... I hope you're right!

NakedYoga: Good point. But it seems to me, if they can dodge corners like the Commerce Clause to create a "national" gun permit -- where a state has to respect your permit whether dem boi agree w/ yo level of training or not, they could make some sort of national standard of training as well. Unless I'm missing somethin???

July 22, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jammer (anonymous) says...

Geechee ... http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c...

they updated the castle doctrine for this state last year to even include inside you vehicle... due to car jackings I'm sure

July 22, 2009 at 8:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GeecheeBoi84 (anonymous) says...

Good lookin out jammer!

July 22, 2009 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rollo (anonymous) says...

"On the other side of the fence, the Violence Policy Center cited a study showing that people with permits for concealed handguns killed seven police officers and 44 private citizens from May 2007 through April 2009."

And no other police or civilians were killed by gunfire over that same two year period? What are the total statistics? and what were the circumstances for these shootings?

How many police officers were shot and killed in Wash DC by people who did not have C&C permits in the same time period?

July 22, 2009 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )