So the governor vetoed Constitutional Carry. That much is clear.
But what pissed me off, and this has been worming it's way around my brain since Friday, is what he said.
He didn't want to increase the workload on police.
What??????
Excuse me, just a minute here Governor. I thought that's why we hired cops. They're job is to catch people breaking the law. You know, the criminal element? If that job is too hard, if that job is too taxing, then what does that say about the state of law enforcement and the people who go around creating stupid laws that force police to go around doing stupid shit instead of catching the truly criminal among us?
If they can't do the job, or it's too hard for them, then they need to find something else to do. Period.
Workload my ass. This was a cop-out (pun fully intended), plain and simple. It's not like they don't run a background check when they stop you for crossing the double yellow line. Or when they decide they want to check your ID for no apparent reason other than you were there and so were they. Isn't that why we pay for those dispatch centers? Don't they have that kind of information available at their finger tips?
Showing posts with label Concealed Carry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Concealed Carry. Show all posts
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
The Strength Of Their Convictions
So the Governor vetoed Constitutional Carry this morning. Citing difficulties in police determining who can/cannot legally carry, he's put the onus back on the legislature for the override.
Realizing of course that 2/3 vote of both houses is required for the override, we'll see if those state legislators that voted for the bill initially will follow through and vote to override.
This bill passed pretty handily in both houses: 22-11 in the state senate, and 50-18 in the state house. Though I do think there will be one or two state senators that will get squishy and not back up their previous 'yeah' vote.
Should be interesting to see how this turns out next week.
As an interesting aside, I did get a site visit from the state this morning regarding HB 1248:
I find it interesting that the AP posted this story at 10:59 am and I get a visit 30 minutes later.
Things that make you go...Hmmmmmmmm.
Realizing of course that 2/3 vote of both houses is required for the override, we'll see if those state legislators that voted for the bill initially will follow through and vote to override.
This bill passed pretty handily in both houses: 22-11 in the state senate, and 50-18 in the state house. Though I do think there will be one or two state senators that will get squishy and not back up their previous 'yeah' vote.
Should be interesting to see how this turns out next week.
As an interesting aside, I did get a site visit from the state this morning regarding HB 1248:
I find it interesting that the AP posted this story at 10:59 am and I get a visit 30 minutes later.
Things that make you go...Hmmmmmmmm.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Interesting Perspective
So the Governor has the Constutional Carry bill on his desk. He's not sure if he's going to sign it or not. (He's got until next week to make up his mind.)
Looking through the Codified Laws of South Dakota, he has 3 options available to him. He can 1) sign the bill, 2) veto the bill, or 3) not sign the bill and allow it to become law. My bet is on #3. Why? Let's face it. Consitutional Carry is a controvesial issue right now. CC is the unknown factor here. Only 4 states allow for concealed carry without a permit: Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming. But it's not like were talking about overturning May Issue and replacing it with CC here.
Just look at the vote totals. In the state house, HB 1248 passed 50-18. In the state senate, it passed 22-11. In order to override a veto, there needs to be 2/3 vote of each house. According to my math, the only concern is in the senate wher it passed with exactly 67%.
South Dakota concealed carry permits are the most easily obtainable permit to get in the country. How easy? $10 and a trip to the Sherriff's Department to fill out the half sheet sized application. No training requirement. No firing demonstration. No fingerprints. No serial numbers. That easy.
I've made my thoughts on CC pretty clear. And they've grown over the years. At first, I didn't mind the mimimal cost. But as I've read about the subject and educated myself over the 7 yrs I've had a permit, I've grown to loathe them. So even at $10, you are still paying the government for the priviledge of exercising your Constitutionally protected civil right to keep and bear arms.
Which brings us to the Chief of the Rapid City Police Department, Steve Allender. Chief Allender has his concerns about the bill. Understandably, he's concerned for the safety of his officers. I get it. I really do. But here's the rub. He's concerned about the workload this will put on his officers. It's refreshing to note he's not opposed to it in the usual sense like most other police chiefs. I do note however that without this piece of legislation, the criminal element is still going to carry their guns illegally. They are still going to try to puff up on his officers.
But that is not reason enough to impede the law-biding from exercising their rights.
Looking through the Codified Laws of South Dakota, he has 3 options available to him. He can 1) sign the bill, 2) veto the bill, or 3) not sign the bill and allow it to become law. My bet is on #3. Why? Let's face it. Consitutional Carry is a controvesial issue right now. CC is the unknown factor here. Only 4 states allow for concealed carry without a permit: Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming. But it's not like were talking about overturning May Issue and replacing it with CC here.
Just look at the vote totals. In the state house, HB 1248 passed 50-18. In the state senate, it passed 22-11. In order to override a veto, there needs to be 2/3 vote of each house. According to my math, the only concern is in the senate wher it passed with exactly 67%.
South Dakota concealed carry permits are the most easily obtainable permit to get in the country. How easy? $10 and a trip to the Sherriff's Department to fill out the half sheet sized application. No training requirement. No firing demonstration. No fingerprints. No serial numbers. That easy.
I've made my thoughts on CC pretty clear. And they've grown over the years. At first, I didn't mind the mimimal cost. But as I've read about the subject and educated myself over the 7 yrs I've had a permit, I've grown to loathe them. So even at $10, you are still paying the government for the priviledge of exercising your Constitutionally protected civil right to keep and bear arms.
Which brings us to the Chief of the Rapid City Police Department, Steve Allender. Chief Allender has his concerns about the bill. Understandably, he's concerned for the safety of his officers. I get it. I really do. But here's the rub. He's concerned about the workload this will put on his officers. It's refreshing to note he's not opposed to it in the usual sense like most other police chiefs. I do note however that without this piece of legislation, the criminal element is still going to carry their guns illegally. They are still going to try to puff up on his officers.
But that is not reason enough to impede the law-biding from exercising their rights.
This Is Interesting...
I've read op-eds from around the country related to the gun issue. Almost universally, they are against everything gun related. From semi-auto rifles, to concealed carry, to purchase requirements. It's a gimmee.
That is until today. The local cat box liner had an editorial today, coming out....
In FAVOR of Constitutional Carry in the state of South Dakota.
You know, when I got out of bed this morning, things felt a little weird. Now I now what set the world all helter-skelter.
That is until today. The local cat box liner had an editorial today, coming out....
In FAVOR of Constitutional Carry in the state of South Dakota.
You know, when I got out of bed this morning, things felt a little weird. Now I now what set the world all helter-skelter.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
We're Almost There
So, the state legislature is working on another bill for the state to go Constitutional Carry.
The first one went down in flames due to some adolescent pissing contest with one of the state gun rights group.
The last information I had was that a replacement bill had been introduced.
So it is with great pleasure I announce that CC has passed a giant hurdle and been passed out of committee.
Fingers crossed it comes to a floor vote.
The first one went down in flames due to some adolescent pissing contest with one of the state gun rights group.
The last information I had was that a replacement bill had been introduced.
So it is with great pleasure I announce that CC has passed a giant hurdle and been passed out of committee.
Fingers crossed it comes to a floor vote.
Friday, February 17, 2012
It's Baaa-ck!
Just when you thought Constitutional Carry was a dead issue in South Dakota, BAM! There it is again!
I don't know what was up with all the juvenile antics surrounding the last version, but this version doesn't sound much different.
Granted, South Dakota's permit system is largely symbolic, in that we don't have the training, fingerprinting, or serial number requirements of other states.
But still, it's the principal of the issue. In no other instance do we require a permit to exercise our rights. Imagine the uproar if we were to require a permit to attend church. Or to buy a book. Or have certain politically correct medical procedures done. The outrage would be unimagineable.
So why do we continue to put prior restraints on the rights that, to a shrinking minority of people, is politically incorrect? (Although that political incorrectness is becoming more and more irrelevant by the day.)
I don't know what was up with all the juvenile antics surrounding the last version, but this version doesn't sound much different.
Granted, South Dakota's permit system is largely symbolic, in that we don't have the training, fingerprinting, or serial number requirements of other states.
But still, it's the principal of the issue. In no other instance do we require a permit to exercise our rights. Imagine the uproar if we were to require a permit to attend church. Or to buy a book. Or have certain politically correct medical procedures done. The outrage would be unimagineable.
So why do we continue to put prior restraints on the rights that, to a shrinking minority of people, is politically incorrect? (Although that political incorrectness is becoming more and more irrelevant by the day.)
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Maybe Another On The List
So South Dakota is considering Constitutional Carry. This is a very good step for the fine people of the state. We're relatively free here. We're NFA-friendly, got one of the best permit systems in the country outside of AK/VT/AZ/WY in that a permit only costs $10 and there is no training requirement. Permits are good for 4 yrs and aside from the usual suspects that don't honor ANYONES permit, there are only a few that don't recognize ours.
I say good step because for a few years, in order to buy a handgun here, you had to have a permit to pick up your purchase at the time of sale. If you didn't have one, well, it was 3 days before you got to go to the range and fondle your new purchase. That changed, I want to say, back in either 2008 or 9.
The one thing that absolutely drives me up a wall in these debates is the argument that if we allow everyone with a clean record to carry a gun without a permit, then the criminals will too. I don't know how many times I've said to family, friends, and random strangers on different forums that 'Hell-oooo, the bad guys already don't have a permit. Why do you think they call them criminals?'
The other argument that holds absolutely no water in this discussion is the one involving background checks. The 'But' crowd (you know, the I'm a Gun Owner, but...-types?) love to point out that without the permit, how do you know if the person is allowed to have a Roscoe? Never mind the anal probing that filling out the lovely ATF form 4473 brings. Add another one on top of that, this time performed by the state in order to exercise a constitutionally protected civil right, and I can't really feel sorry for these guys who think this invasion of their privacy is anything other than begging permission to exercise said right.
I mean really? That act is the only time you'll ever be subjected to a prior restraint on your rights. At no other time are you forced to fill out a form to exercise a right. And in the case of a carry permit, you're paying for privilege. Try forcing a similar form at the voting booth, or public library, or hell even buying a computer and watch the so-called 'civil libertarians' heads rotate like Linda Blair in 'The Exorcist'.
So, let's get this done. I for one welcome being on the short list with VT, AK, AZ, and WY.
I say good step because for a few years, in order to buy a handgun here, you had to have a permit to pick up your purchase at the time of sale. If you didn't have one, well, it was 3 days before you got to go to the range and fondle your new purchase. That changed, I want to say, back in either 2008 or 9.
The one thing that absolutely drives me up a wall in these debates is the argument that if we allow everyone with a clean record to carry a gun without a permit, then the criminals will too. I don't know how many times I've said to family, friends, and random strangers on different forums that 'Hell-oooo, the bad guys already don't have a permit. Why do you think they call them criminals?'
The other argument that holds absolutely no water in this discussion is the one involving background checks. The 'But' crowd (you know, the I'm a Gun Owner, but...-types?) love to point out that without the permit, how do you know if the person is allowed to have a Roscoe? Never mind the anal probing that filling out the lovely ATF form 4473 brings. Add another one on top of that, this time performed by the state in order to exercise a constitutionally protected civil right, and I can't really feel sorry for these guys who think this invasion of their privacy is anything other than begging permission to exercise said right.
I mean really? That act is the only time you'll ever be subjected to a prior restraint on your rights. At no other time are you forced to fill out a form to exercise a right. And in the case of a carry permit, you're paying for privilege. Try forcing a similar form at the voting booth, or public library, or hell even buying a computer and watch the so-called 'civil libertarians' heads rotate like Linda Blair in 'The Exorcist'.
So, let's get this done. I for one welcome being on the short list with VT, AK, AZ, and WY.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Done Like Dinner
So, the Wyoming House has answered the call and passed constitutional carry on vote of 49-9.
All that's left is for the Gubner to sign said bill.
The comments are running about even, with the whiny, blood-in-the-streets crowd having a slim majority in comments. This'll last until the pro-rights crew gets back from the range, I reckon. I may even head back on over there and join the fray.
Today is a good day for the state of Wyoming!
All that's left is for the Gubner to sign said bill.
The comments are running about even, with the whiny, blood-in-the-streets crowd having a slim majority in comments. This'll last until the pro-rights crew gets back from the range, I reckon. I may even head back on over there and join the fray.
Today is a good day for the state of Wyoming!
Friday, February 25, 2011
A Different Tact
With all the hoopla surrounding the adaption of constitutional carry in Wyoming, the arguments in favor and against generally follow that of most gun control arguments. On the one side, you have the blood in the streets crowd, who see any loosening of gun laws as in invitation for mass murder and mayhem. On the other side, you have the arguments about civil rights and protection.
One argument in favor of constitutional carry in Wyoming that has not been fully explored is the cost. Why cost? Because most folks don't see that aspect or it gets glossed over and forgotten in the debate.
Generally, the cost of a concealed carry permit in the state of Wyoming is $74. This includes application fees and fingerprint costs. Renewal of said permit is $50. In order to get a permit in Wyoming, if you are not a veteran or member of the armed forces, you also have to take a class. That class can run upwards of $100 or more, depending on who's teaching. So there you have it, the overall cost of a concealed carry permit can easily reach $200, if you factor in the cost of gas to get to the class if there's not an instructor in your area.
What got me thinking about this, is my brother. He's got a decent job, makes good wages, but between bills, and paying off what his ex-wife left for him in the divorce, he's got a whole of week left at the end of his paycheck. He would love to get a permit, but as I noted above, the cost is prohibitive. When you add in the time off from work he'd have to take in order to attend the class, you can see why he doesn't have his toter's slip. After you factor in house payment/rent, car insurance, gas for said vehicle, food, and clothing, that $175 for a concealed carry permit is the gold ring they may never be able to afford. And if you're unemployed, even the cost of renewal could be prohibitive.
So, he has a decision to make. Does he carry illegally and risk the consequences of getting caught toting a piece without the state sanctioned permission slip? Meaning not only could he lose his piece, he could potentially never be able to own a gun again. Or does he accept that because he's broke, he cannot legally carry a firearm to defend himself?
And it's not just my brother. There are lots of folks who find themselves in this conundrum across the state.
I see passing constitutional carry as a benefit. Not only to those who already have a permit, but to those who can't afford to get one. Are they, who can't afford the piece of state-issued paper, any less deserving of being able to carry because of their economic status? Should concealed carry be a 'rich mans' right? For most folks, $200 may not seem like a lot of money. But to those who have no choice but live paycheck to paycheck, or who may be unemployed, the ability to defend themselves by finally being able to carry a concealed weapon would be a welcome change.
One argument in favor of constitutional carry in Wyoming that has not been fully explored is the cost. Why cost? Because most folks don't see that aspect or it gets glossed over and forgotten in the debate.
Generally, the cost of a concealed carry permit in the state of Wyoming is $74. This includes application fees and fingerprint costs. Renewal of said permit is $50. In order to get a permit in Wyoming, if you are not a veteran or member of the armed forces, you also have to take a class. That class can run upwards of $100 or more, depending on who's teaching. So there you have it, the overall cost of a concealed carry permit can easily reach $200, if you factor in the cost of gas to get to the class if there's not an instructor in your area.
What got me thinking about this, is my brother. He's got a decent job, makes good wages, but between bills, and paying off what his ex-wife left for him in the divorce, he's got a whole of week left at the end of his paycheck. He would love to get a permit, but as I noted above, the cost is prohibitive. When you add in the time off from work he'd have to take in order to attend the class, you can see why he doesn't have his toter's slip. After you factor in house payment/rent, car insurance, gas for said vehicle, food, and clothing, that $175 for a concealed carry permit is the gold ring they may never be able to afford. And if you're unemployed, even the cost of renewal could be prohibitive.
So, he has a decision to make. Does he carry illegally and risk the consequences of getting caught toting a piece without the state sanctioned permission slip? Meaning not only could he lose his piece, he could potentially never be able to own a gun again. Or does he accept that because he's broke, he cannot legally carry a firearm to defend himself?
And it's not just my brother. There are lots of folks who find themselves in this conundrum across the state.
I see passing constitutional carry as a benefit. Not only to those who already have a permit, but to those who can't afford to get one. Are they, who can't afford the piece of state-issued paper, any less deserving of being able to carry because of their economic status? Should concealed carry be a 'rich mans' right? For most folks, $200 may not seem like a lot of money. But to those who have no choice but live paycheck to paycheck, or who may be unemployed, the ability to defend themselves by finally being able to carry a concealed weapon would be a welcome change.
Friday, January 7, 2011
ACLU, Guns, and South Dakota
So, earlier this week, the ACLU has filed suit against the state of South Dakota regarding the requirement that one be a US citizen to get a concealed carry permit here.
I've had a couple of days to think about it, and I'm not really sure.
One the one hand, we have a guy who has lived in Sioux Falls for 30 yrs and has not gained his US citizenship. He is however, a permanent resident alien. Nobody is telling this guy he can't own a gun. They're just saying he can't carry it concealed.
On the other, we have a states rights argument. The state of South Dakota should have the right to dictate who can or cannot get a permit to carry. Since Congress failed to pass national reciprocity in the last session, it is still up to the states to dictate who gets what.
Where this thing gets sideways is this. With the Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010, the courts have said that states cannot ban firearms. In regards to states like Illinois and California, these decisions were a welcome change to decades of precedent regarding guns. The unintended consequence is that states that are friendly to guns like South Dakota can be knee-capped when they try to pass truly sensible gun laws (unlike the 'reasonable' ones the Brady Bunch and the VPC espouse). But with these decisions, they have effectively cut the states out of the picture in regards to firearm law. This law will be hard-pressed to remain in light of those two decisions.
First thing that really pops out at me is that he was not able to obtain a renewal on his permit until just recently? Permits last 4 yrs. If the law was enacted in 2002, even if he got his permit right before the change, he has renewed it at least once, if not twice since then. Why is it that now all of a sudden this is an issue?
Then, there's the fact that the ACLU is involved in this. It wasn't too long ago that the ACLU was against individual rights for firearms. Hell, the national leadership is still hostile to gun rights. One has to wonder if the national board is out of touch with its member state chapters. More and more we are hearing about folks at the state level making court arguments about individual firearms rights. First it was Nevada, now South Dakota.
So where do I come down on this? I'm still undecided.
I've had a couple of days to think about it, and I'm not really sure.
One the one hand, we have a guy who has lived in Sioux Falls for 30 yrs and has not gained his US citizenship. He is however, a permanent resident alien. Nobody is telling this guy he can't own a gun. They're just saying he can't carry it concealed.
On the other, we have a states rights argument. The state of South Dakota should have the right to dictate who can or cannot get a permit to carry. Since Congress failed to pass national reciprocity in the last session, it is still up to the states to dictate who gets what.
Where this thing gets sideways is this. With the Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010, the courts have said that states cannot ban firearms. In regards to states like Illinois and California, these decisions were a welcome change to decades of precedent regarding guns. The unintended consequence is that states that are friendly to guns like South Dakota can be knee-capped when they try to pass truly sensible gun laws (unlike the 'reasonable' ones the Brady Bunch and the VPC espouse). But with these decisions, they have effectively cut the states out of the picture in regards to firearm law. This law will be hard-pressed to remain in light of those two decisions.
First thing that really pops out at me is that he was not able to obtain a renewal on his permit until just recently? Permits last 4 yrs. If the law was enacted in 2002, even if he got his permit right before the change, he has renewed it at least once, if not twice since then. Why is it that now all of a sudden this is an issue?
Then, there's the fact that the ACLU is involved in this. It wasn't too long ago that the ACLU was against individual rights for firearms. Hell, the national leadership is still hostile to gun rights. One has to wonder if the national board is out of touch with its member state chapters. More and more we are hearing about folks at the state level making court arguments about individual firearms rights. First it was Nevada, now South Dakota.
So where do I come down on this? I'm still undecided.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Sorry for the light posting
It's been murder at work the last couple of weeks, plus some minor health issues equal light posting over the last few weeks.
Although I do believe a little update is in order.
I am now an Endowment member of the NRA. Did the whole Legacy upgrade thing. Along with the Legacy upgrade, I also got my wife an annual membership, just to see how she'd like it. If I get another Legacy upgrade, I may upgrade her to Life member status.
I've also been busy with a special project for my wife. Can't give too many details away right now, but I'll guarantee she'll be blown away by it.
On the news front, mass murder and mayhem erupted Monday as gunslingers were allowed to carry concealed weapons in National Parks. At least that's what the Brady Bunch et al are saying. Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has all the details.
Also on the legislative front, the editorial board of the Casper Star-Tribune gets it's paranoia on, by, well, I'll let them explain it themselves (hat tip to David Codrea for the link and the update). As a reminder (or a history lesson) this paper has consistently been against loosening gun laws in the state for the better part of 20 yrs. They were against may issue CC, then against shall issue CC, they fought tooth and nail to take the teeth out of the 'castle doctrine' bill that, while eventually passed, was a shadow of the original bill that was filed. Oh, and that National Parks thing? They were against that, too. And you wouldn't believe there postition on the two Firearms Freedom Acts introduced in the state legislature. But hey, at least they support the right to keep and bear arms, right?
Although I do believe a little update is in order.
I am now an Endowment member of the NRA. Did the whole Legacy upgrade thing. Along with the Legacy upgrade, I also got my wife an annual membership, just to see how she'd like it. If I get another Legacy upgrade, I may upgrade her to Life member status.
I've also been busy with a special project for my wife. Can't give too many details away right now, but I'll guarantee she'll be blown away by it.
On the news front, mass murder and mayhem erupted Monday as gunslingers were allowed to carry concealed weapons in National Parks. At least that's what the Brady Bunch et al are saying. Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has all the details.
Also on the legislative front, the editorial board of the Casper Star-Tribune gets it's paranoia on, by, well, I'll let them explain it themselves (hat tip to David Codrea for the link and the update). As a reminder (or a history lesson) this paper has consistently been against loosening gun laws in the state for the better part of 20 yrs. They were against may issue CC, then against shall issue CC, they fought tooth and nail to take the teeth out of the 'castle doctrine' bill that, while eventually passed, was a shadow of the original bill that was filed. Oh, and that National Parks thing? They were against that, too. And you wouldn't believe there postition on the two Firearms Freedom Acts introduced in the state legislature. But hey, at least they support the right to keep and bear arms, right?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Update: Authorized Journalist Who Gets It
A few days ago, I linked to an editorial from Bill McKewen, a reporter for the Fresno Bee who had an awakening.
We have an update to the story. Seems our intrepid reporter plans to follow through with his plans to not only buy a gun, but get his concealed carry permit from the good sheriff to boot.
His neighbors are all in a tizzy about it, telling him to move back to his old neighborhood so he can be safer. Of course, as part of his awakening, he's discovered that ancient American trademark individualism and is stying put. Good on him for not being cowed by the hand wringing of his 'neighbors'.
It will be interesting for follow ups, as he has also been invited to shoot "assault rifles". Maybe by the time his awakening is complete, he'll know about the lies surrounding semi-automatic rifles that look scary.
We have an update to the story. Seems our intrepid reporter plans to follow through with his plans to not only buy a gun, but get his concealed carry permit from the good sheriff to boot.
His neighbors are all in a tizzy about it, telling him to move back to his old neighborhood so he can be safer. Of course, as part of his awakening, he's discovered that ancient American trademark individualism and is stying put. Good on him for not being cowed by the hand wringing of his 'neighbors'.
It will be interesting for follow ups, as he has also been invited to shoot "assault rifles". Maybe by the time his awakening is complete, he'll know about the lies surrounding semi-automatic rifles that look scary.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
An 'Authorized Journalist' To Be Commended
You know, there are quite a few 'authorized journalists' out there who don't get it, and quite frankly never will. They will editorialize all day long about the evils of guns and the people who own them.
But Bill McKewen seems to have seen the light. In Kalifornia of all places. It sounds like he lives in an area of the state that still respects the rights of the law biding to do what's right. The County Sheriff seems to understand what's at stake, when they say "a society is safer when responsible people bear arms." She not only understands, but actively supports it. Carrying permit applications in her car? Wow! Is this really Kalifornia?
It's nice to know that there's some sane people in Kalifornia, and maybe there's hope yet for that state. We can talk about the 'assault weapons' thing later, but knowing that someone who used to carry the water for the Brady Bunch et al has come around is too good to pass up.
But Bill McKewen seems to have seen the light. In Kalifornia of all places. It sounds like he lives in an area of the state that still respects the rights of the law biding to do what's right. The County Sheriff seems to understand what's at stake, when they say "a society is safer when responsible people bear arms." She not only understands, but actively supports it. Carrying permit applications in her car? Wow! Is this really Kalifornia?
It's nice to know that there's some sane people in Kalifornia, and maybe there's hope yet for that state. We can talk about the 'assault weapons' thing later, but knowing that someone who used to carry the water for the Brady Bunch et al has come around is too good to pass up.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Another Educated Idiot
From the stately confines of the University of Indiana comes Josh Kraus, critical thinker extraordinaire and future something-or-other.
Young Josh's editorial in the student paper seems to indicate he's in total lockstep agreement with all the other anti-gun zealots in that he doesn't think his fellow students are trustworthy enough to protect themselves with the effective tools available because, as he states so eloquently "college campi are special places where hormones rage, academic demands loom, and substances beckon."
What our intrepid editorialist has conveniently forgotten is that these same hormone infested, stressed out, and drunk classmates of his can do what he advocates against after they cross some magical boundary that divides the real world from his 'special place'.
Fact is, with forced disarmament on college campuses around the country, it's not hard to find examples of crimes committed against students on campus either by fellow students or total strangers not affiliated with the college. Virginia Tech is but one example.
Now, nobody is advocating that ALL students be armed, but get real. There are hundreds of students at any given campus who are CCW permit holders who, given the chance, would carry to and from class on a daily basis and no one would be the wiser. I don't know how many times I've had to get in someones behind because they were just sure that when a gun law was loosened, there would be blood in the streets or people getting shot for asinine things like parking spots.
Reality is, those things that have always been predicted when gun laws are loosened have turned out to be wildly overstated fantasies of those who did the predicting.
Perhaps young Josh should concern himself with getting a good education and stop worrying about lawful people carrying lawful concealed weapons. He'll sleep much better at night.
Young Josh's editorial in the student paper seems to indicate he's in total lockstep agreement with all the other anti-gun zealots in that he doesn't think his fellow students are trustworthy enough to protect themselves with the effective tools available because, as he states so eloquently "college campi are special places where hormones rage, academic demands loom, and substances beckon."
What our intrepid editorialist has conveniently forgotten is that these same hormone infested, stressed out, and drunk classmates of his can do what he advocates against after they cross some magical boundary that divides the real world from his 'special place'.
Fact is, with forced disarmament on college campuses around the country, it's not hard to find examples of crimes committed against students on campus either by fellow students or total strangers not affiliated with the college. Virginia Tech is but one example.
Now, nobody is advocating that ALL students be armed, but get real. There are hundreds of students at any given campus who are CCW permit holders who, given the chance, would carry to and from class on a daily basis and no one would be the wiser. I don't know how many times I've had to get in someones behind because they were just sure that when a gun law was loosened, there would be blood in the streets or people getting shot for asinine things like parking spots.
Reality is, those things that have always been predicted when gun laws are loosened have turned out to be wildly overstated fantasies of those who did the predicting.
Perhaps young Josh should concern himself with getting a good education and stop worrying about lawful people carrying lawful concealed weapons. He'll sleep much better at night.
Friday, November 6, 2009
A Little Soul Searching
With all the hoopla over what happened yesterday at Ft Hood, I've held off commenting on the incident out of respect for the families of those who were casualties of the shooting.
But the more I read about it, the more I can't help but wonder why this doesn't happen more often. I mean every US military installation in the world is a "gun free zone". The only people who are allowed to 'carry' weapons on base (besides the base cops [civilian and contractor] and resident OSI/CID/NCIS special agents) are those who live in base housing, and only then they are allowed to 'carry' it from their house on base to the range or wherever they're taking the weapon and back. There is no concealed carry on base. Did I mention that everyone who lives on base must resgister their weapons with the base?
I found this out the hard way as one time I was going on base and had forgotten to remove my regular concealed carry piece from under the drivers seat of my truck. As luck would have it, I got stopped at the gate for a random vehicle search, and they found it for me. When I handed them my CCP, I was politely, but tersely told that my permit was not valid on base.
Now, I can bring a firearm on base, but it must be unloaded, cased, and the ammunition cannot be stored close to the weapon in question. Which kind of negates the whole defensive firearm aspect of concealed carry, don't you think?.
My initial reaction to what I was told was not for my defense while on base, but for the time I spend commuting to and from the base. I make a couple of stops coming and going from base and it's at these locations that I get nervous about not having my carry piece on me. I never dreamed (although I should have) that I may need it on base. This whole mess has me rethinking my threat-based decision-making paradigm.
That's not to say I haven't done it in the past. I teach foreign weapons familiarization and when transporting $25k worth of firearms, I'm not going to do it unarmed. It's the same mindset that goes with transporting military arms. When you have so many, the courier must be armed. I'm the same way. There's no way I'm going to give up $25k worth of firearms without a fight, I don't care who you are.
So this has me thinking, just how far do I want to push the issue?
But the more I read about it, the more I can't help but wonder why this doesn't happen more often. I mean every US military installation in the world is a "gun free zone". The only people who are allowed to 'carry' weapons on base (besides the base cops [civilian and contractor] and resident OSI/CID/NCIS special agents) are those who live in base housing, and only then they are allowed to 'carry' it from their house on base to the range or wherever they're taking the weapon and back. There is no concealed carry on base. Did I mention that everyone who lives on base must resgister their weapons with the base?
I found this out the hard way as one time I was going on base and had forgotten to remove my regular concealed carry piece from under the drivers seat of my truck. As luck would have it, I got stopped at the gate for a random vehicle search, and they found it for me. When I handed them my CCP, I was politely, but tersely told that my permit was not valid on base.
Now, I can bring a firearm on base, but it must be unloaded, cased, and the ammunition cannot be stored close to the weapon in question. Which kind of negates the whole defensive firearm aspect of concealed carry, don't you think?.
My initial reaction to what I was told was not for my defense while on base, but for the time I spend commuting to and from the base. I make a couple of stops coming and going from base and it's at these locations that I get nervous about not having my carry piece on me. I never dreamed (although I should have) that I may need it on base. This whole mess has me rethinking my threat-based decision-making paradigm.
That's not to say I haven't done it in the past. I teach foreign weapons familiarization and when transporting $25k worth of firearms, I'm not going to do it unarmed. It's the same mindset that goes with transporting military arms. When you have so many, the courier must be armed. I'm the same way. There's no way I'm going to give up $25k worth of firearms without a fight, I don't care who you are.
So this has me thinking, just how far do I want to push the issue?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Ahhh Boy
What starts out as a seemingly balanced article about guns and their usage in public quickly devolved into a hatchet piece by the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'm sure the guys over the Virginia Citizens Defense League are quite familiar with this brand of fish wrap, but this is the first time I've had experience with them.
Our intepid columnist quotes everyone involved on the anti-freedom side, but nothing from anyone from VCDL or anyone else on the pro side.
I really like the part at the end where Brady Puppet says "A society in which citizens see themselves as the last line of defense has already lost the battle."
I almost made this my inaugural post in a Quote of the Day category I've been kicking around for awhile. As good as this one was, the best is yet to come.
I have to take exception to that little statement there, bucko. See, if worms like you didn't work to undermine the prosecution of criminals by throwing everything that can be wrong with a person at the wall and watching to see what sticks, maybe we wouldn't have this kind of problem. I mean lets get real here. We are told time after time that we should give the criminal what they want, in this case it was everyone in the store dead. Which I guess comports with what the anti-gun/freedom crowd secretly wants. Mass shootings in which no one could defend themselves so they can dance in the blood of the victims to shout for even more controls on people who by their very nature will not be controlled expcept through return violence.
Our intepid columnist quotes everyone involved on the anti-freedom side, but nothing from anyone from VCDL or anyone else on the pro side.
I really like the part at the end where Brady Puppet says "A society in which citizens see themselves as the last line of defense has already lost the battle."
I almost made this my inaugural post in a Quote of the Day category I've been kicking around for awhile. As good as this one was, the best is yet to come.
I have to take exception to that little statement there, bucko. See, if worms like you didn't work to undermine the prosecution of criminals by throwing everything that can be wrong with a person at the wall and watching to see what sticks, maybe we wouldn't have this kind of problem. I mean lets get real here. We are told time after time that we should give the criminal what they want, in this case it was everyone in the store dead. Which I guess comports with what the anti-gun/freedom crowd secretly wants. Mass shootings in which no one could defend themselves so they can dance in the blood of the victims to shout for even more controls on people who by their very nature will not be controlled expcept through return violence.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Concealed Carry
One of the things that finally got me into blogging was an exchange I had on a newspaper comment thread about concealed carry in National Parks. Several commenters made rather snide remarks about my genitalia, my sexual preference, and my masculinity when I talked about why I carry. For me it all started 6 years ago.
I originally got my CHL so I could carry my hunting pistol, a Ruger Blackhawk in .41 mag, without fear of getting in trouble from the Game and Fish Dept. A couple of months later a young lady was taking out the trash from a fast food restaurant when she was attacked by a man wielding a knife. A coworker, another young lady, witnessed the attack and came to her defense. Both women were stabbed repeatedly, with one (the young lady who came to assist) dying from her wounds. This happened 4 miles from where I live. This stopped me cold. Had either of these two women had the means to stop the assault, both would still be alive today.
A lot of soul searching ensued, and I came to the conclusion alot of folks have come to. I am responsible for my own safety. Since that day, there have been exactly two occasions when I have been glad I had my carry piece.
The first occurred the night before my Aunt passed away in 2006. I stopped at a convenience store to get some supplies before heading home from my watch at my Aunt's bedside. When I pulled up to the store, there was an Asian man blocking both doors and from what I could see, was acting rather odd. I slipped my carry gun at the time, a Walther P22, into the holster in the small of my back and went inside. Walking back to the coolers to get me a soda, I watched as the guy started berating the hapless clerk about a carton of cigarettes. Waiting behind him in line, he was getting more and more agitated. As his agitation increased, I found myself itching the small of my back, just above where I had the Walther holstered. Then, in the blink of an eye, he was gone. Just like that. When I go to the cash register, I tried to calm the lady down by making small talk. Finally I said "It's times like this I'm glad I carry a concealed weapon." Her reply stopped my in my tracks. "You do? Thank you." The relief in her eyes will stay with me for as long as I live.
The second occasion happened the next year. I was heading home from a trip to the funstore here. As I made my way onto the feeder for the interstate a car passed me and almost took my front bumper off. As this was rush hour and wall to wall traffic (there's no gridlock here, just a bunch of people who got their license from the back of bubble gum wrapper) it irritated me, but I let it go. As soon as the car was safely back in my lane, a hand flashed out of the passenger side window holding what appeared from its silhouette to be a Beretta 92. Talk about getting your attention! I placed my carry piece in my lap, now a Kimber Ultra Carry, and called 911 to report the incident. In order to give the cops a decent description and license plate number, I had to follow them at a pretty good clip to get the information. I'm sure whoever listened to the tape afterwards got a good laugh at the dispatchers expense. When I was finally able to give the license number, after chasing them at speeds approaching 80 mph (this in a 65 mph zone) the dispatcher asked me "Sir, are you following them?" To which I replied "Duh, how do you think you got the info on where they are?"
Turned out the car I was chasing was full of high school kids and the weapon they pulled was an airsoft gun.
I am grateful that I have never had to use my carry piece. I hope I never have the occasion to, but that doesn't change that if I need to, I will.
I originally got my CHL so I could carry my hunting pistol, a Ruger Blackhawk in .41 mag, without fear of getting in trouble from the Game and Fish Dept. A couple of months later a young lady was taking out the trash from a fast food restaurant when she was attacked by a man wielding a knife. A coworker, another young lady, witnessed the attack and came to her defense. Both women were stabbed repeatedly, with one (the young lady who came to assist) dying from her wounds. This happened 4 miles from where I live. This stopped me cold. Had either of these two women had the means to stop the assault, both would still be alive today.
A lot of soul searching ensued, and I came to the conclusion alot of folks have come to. I am responsible for my own safety. Since that day, there have been exactly two occasions when I have been glad I had my carry piece.
The first occurred the night before my Aunt passed away in 2006. I stopped at a convenience store to get some supplies before heading home from my watch at my Aunt's bedside. When I pulled up to the store, there was an Asian man blocking both doors and from what I could see, was acting rather odd. I slipped my carry gun at the time, a Walther P22, into the holster in the small of my back and went inside. Walking back to the coolers to get me a soda, I watched as the guy started berating the hapless clerk about a carton of cigarettes. Waiting behind him in line, he was getting more and more agitated. As his agitation increased, I found myself itching the small of my back, just above where I had the Walther holstered. Then, in the blink of an eye, he was gone. Just like that. When I go to the cash register, I tried to calm the lady down by making small talk. Finally I said "It's times like this I'm glad I carry a concealed weapon." Her reply stopped my in my tracks. "You do? Thank you." The relief in her eyes will stay with me for as long as I live.
The second occasion happened the next year. I was heading home from a trip to the funstore here. As I made my way onto the feeder for the interstate a car passed me and almost took my front bumper off. As this was rush hour and wall to wall traffic (there's no gridlock here, just a bunch of people who got their license from the back of bubble gum wrapper) it irritated me, but I let it go. As soon as the car was safely back in my lane, a hand flashed out of the passenger side window holding what appeared from its silhouette to be a Beretta 92. Talk about getting your attention! I placed my carry piece in my lap, now a Kimber Ultra Carry, and called 911 to report the incident. In order to give the cops a decent description and license plate number, I had to follow them at a pretty good clip to get the information. I'm sure whoever listened to the tape afterwards got a good laugh at the dispatchers expense. When I was finally able to give the license number, after chasing them at speeds approaching 80 mph (this in a 65 mph zone) the dispatcher asked me "Sir, are you following them?" To which I replied "Duh, how do you think you got the info on where they are?"
Turned out the car I was chasing was full of high school kids and the weapon they pulled was an airsoft gun.
I am grateful that I have never had to use my carry piece. I hope I never have the occasion to, but that doesn't change that if I need to, I will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
