New Concealed Weapons Law Approved by Congress

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
74
Eagle Creek
"Here’s an example of the way the House plan would work. California has very strict limits on who can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, involving extensive background checks by local law enforcement. Utah, on the other hand, is really mellow about the whole thing. You don’t even have to live there to get a Utah permit. Just ask the 215,000 non-Utah folks who’ve gotten one. And, in Florida, “it is so easy that a staffer in one of our offices was able to complete the form in less than 30 minutes,” said Representative Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat. Under this bill, California’s strict rules on gun permits are now expanded to include anybody who drives into the state waving a Florida or Utah permission slip.

The bill passed 272 to 154. It’s a law-enforcement nightmare for states that take gun regulation seriously. There’s no national database cops can check if they stop someone who’s carrying a gun with an out-of-state permit. Some state records aren’t available at all."

" “A common-sense solution to adapt to today’s needs,” said Representative Steve Chabot, an Ohio Republican, cheerfully."

Where do you start with a statement like this? The fact that common-sense might dictate the exact opposite outcome of this bill?

And what exactly does he mean by 'today's needs'? I have such a hard time getting my head around that one. Why, I ask, would anyone bother visiting another state if they felt the 'need' to carry a concealed weapon - save for emergency family visits. What about 'today' would make the carrying of a concealed weapon necessary? Is it really that dangerous in the US today that a law such as this is not only necessary but passes so easily? Gaia help us all if such is the case.

" “This bill is about freedom,” said Representative Chris Gibson, a Republican from upstate New York."

"Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose" Kris Kristofferson
" “As millions of American families can attest, there is no greater threat to our families than — the ability to protect,” said Representative Renee Ellmers, a Republican of North Carolina, flung into incoherence by the drama of the moment."

"Actually, the evidence suggests very strongly that a gun in the house will most likely be used to take out a relative. And guns in the house are not the subject of this bill anyway, since we’re talking about weapons being carted across state lines. So maybe the danger here is a crazed knife-wielding zombie breaking into the station wagon while the family is stopped for gas on the way to Disneyland.

Anyway, God wants everybody to be armed. “Mr. Speaker, rights do not come from the government. We are, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights,” said Representative Marlin Stutzman, an Indiana Republican.

Among these rights are life, liberty and a pistol in the glove compartment."


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/o...t-for.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212


Tsk, tsk, tsk.
 
Last edited:

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Anyway, God wants everybody to be armed. “Mr. Speaker, rights do not come from the government. We are, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights,”

Praise the lord and pass the ammo.

I wish for the day here in the great white north when we are allowed to carry sidearms and own firearms without having to beg the intrusive and controlling govt for permission. All their rules and laws won't ever stop dishonest people from owning and carrying guns but will prevent me from protecting myself and my family against those dishonest people.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
"Here’s an example of the way the House plan would work. California has very strict limits on who can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, involving extensive background checks by local law enforcement. Utah, on the other hand, is really mellow about the whole thing. You don’t even have to live there to get a Utah permit. Just ask the 215,000 non-Utah folks who’ve gotten one. And, in Florida, “it is so easy that a staffer in one of our offices was able to complete the form in less than 30 minutes,” said Representative Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat. Under this bill, California’s strict rules on gun permits are now expanded to include anybody who drives into the state waving a Florida or Utah permission slip.

The bill passed 272 to 154. It’s a law-enforcement nightmare for states that take gun regulation seriously. There’s no national database cops can check if they stop someone who’s carrying a gun with an out-of-state permit. Some state records aren’t available at all."

" “A common-sense solution to adapt to today’s needs,” said Representative Steve Chabot, an Ohio Republican, cheerfully."

Where do you start with a statement like this? The fact that common-sense might dictate the exact opposite outcome of this bill?

And what exactly does he mean by 'today's needs'? I have such a hard time getting my head around that one. Why, I ask, would anyone bother visiting another state if they felt the 'need' to carry a concealed weapon - save for emergency family visits. What about 'today' would make the carrying of a concealed weapon necessary? Is it really that dangerous in the US today that a law such as this is not only necessary but passes so easily? Gaia help us all if such is the case.

" “This bill is about freedom,” said Representative Chris Gibson, a Republican from upstate New York."

"Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose" Janis Joplin

" “As millions of American families can attest, there is no greater threat to our families than — the ability to protect,” said Representative Renee Ellmers, a Republican of North Carolina, flung into incoherence by the drama of the moment."

"Actually, the evidence suggests very strongly that a gun in the house will most likely be used to take out a relative. And guns in the house are not the subject of this bill anyway, since we’re talking about weapons being carted across state lines. So maybe the danger here is a crazed knife-wielding zombie breaking into the station wagon while the family is stopped for gas on the way to Disneyland.

Anyway, God wants everybody to be armed. “Mr. Speaker, rights do not come from the government. We are, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights,” said Representative Marlin Stutzman, an Indiana Republican.

Among these rights are life, liberty and a pistol in the glove compartment."


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/o...t-for.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212


Tsk, tsk, tsk.


Guns are used for defense in the United States between one and two million times a year..........19 times out of 20 no shots are fired.

Since the first states in the USA began allow widespread concealed carry of handguns in 1989, the murder rate has dropped by almost 50%

Seven million Americans have permits to carry.........and in addition, some states allow carry without permits.

"Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose" was written by Kris Kristofferson, not JJ

 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
74
Eagle Creek
You are absolutely right about Kris writing that Colpy............thanks for the correction. I amended my post.
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
Well praising the Lord does a lot of nothing and passing the ammo just makes us financially poorer.

Have you ever had the need to protect yourself or your family against dishonest people by shooting them??......... if you did, in Canada, unless you could prove you feared for your life, you would be the one facing a jail sentence.

Anyway, the dishonest do not use force to strip citizens of their wealth. They simply need to be fast talking and a good scam artist and you have lost your way of life. Couldn't even shoot them.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Have you ever had the need to protect yourself or your family against dishonest people by shooting them??.........

Nope...never had to fire a shot, but the 2 punks breaking into my workshop a few years back sure ran fast when they saw the wrong end of a gun....probably pissed their pants as they sprinted down the street.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Nope...never had to fire a shot, but the 2 punks breaking into my workshop a few years back sure ran fast when they saw the wrong end of a gun....probably pissed their pants as they sprinted down the street.

Which fits exactly the usual profile of defensive use....no harm done, crime prevented.
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
.
Which fits exactly the usual profile of defensive use....no harm done, crime prevented.

And the outcome would have been what, if they had come toting guns?? Would there have been a gun battle??.......

Illogical really.

My 80 year old dad fended off two thugs who barrelled into his house one evening. He used self defense and came away with the mask off one and the watch off the other. The police picked them up, because my mum immediately called 911 inspite of suffering from mild alzhiemers.


The firearm laws do not stop illegal arms, but it sure makes them harder for thugs to come by them. Of course, those who use legally obtained guns because they qualify, and then use them for illegal purposes are denied by the NRA or other clubs as members in good standing. .Nor are they ever counted in the stats as being legal gun owners.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
What I think is sad is we don't feel safe without guns. I don't own a gun I have never
gone hunting or target shooting but I don't think ill of people who have guns. I never
did see the need for the long gun registry in the first place. I also think certain guns
should be banned, like machine pistols, or what ever they are called.
Society is breaking down and people are feeling the need for protection but resorting
to concealed pistols is not really the answer in my view.

We need law enforcement and the court system to enforce the laws on the books now
and that does not happen in most cases. More guns doesn't have to be the answer in
our society, but the concept of its my right,, and is it required, don't match up..
Everything should be our right, some claim driving is a right, it isn't of course, driving is
a privilege and you have to pass a test to get a licence. If it were a right you wouldn't
have to pass a test. I wonder if the NRA ever took that side of the coin when they do
contest the law. If you have to have a law to own or purchase a weapon is it a right to
have that weapon? Shouldn't ask that question might cause all kinds of trouble.
I don't think owning a gun makes you anymore safe than not owning a gun. If you had
to use it to protect yourself in Canada it might be used against you in court and you might
go to prison. If you didn't have a gun and someone attacked you, you might go to the
cemetery. I see it this way, you might not win either way, as being in jail for a long time
is about as bad as being in jail, or I would think it would be.
 

shadowshiv

Dark Overlord
May 29, 2007
17,545
120
63
50
I don't have a problem with this. If someone wants to have a concealed weapon and it is permitted in their own State, then that is fine. That is their right(whether I agree with it or not). However, if the State they wish to travel to has stricter laws then the people entering the State should respect those laws.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
What I think is sad is we don't feel safe without guns. I don't own a gun I have never
gone hunting or target shooting but I don't think ill of people who have guns. I never
did see the need for the long gun registry in the first place. I also think certain guns
should be banned, like machine pistols, or what ever they are called.
Society is breaking down and people are feeling the need for protection but resorting
to concealed pistols is not really the answer in my view.

We need law enforcement and the court system to enforce the laws on the books now
and that does not happen in most cases. More guns doesn't have to be the answer in
our society, but the concept of its my right,, and is it required, don't match up..
Everything should be our right, some claim driving is a right, it isn't of course, driving is
a privilege and you have to pass a test to get a licence. If it were a right you wouldn't
have to pass a test. I wonder if the NRA ever took that side of the coin when they do
contest the law. If you have to have a law to own or purchase a weapon is it a right to
have that weapon? Shouldn't ask that question might cause all kinds of trouble.
I don't think owning a gun makes you anymore safe than not owning a gun. If you had
to use it to protect yourself in Canada it might be used against you in court and you might
go to prison. If you didn't have a gun and someone attacked you, you might go to the
cemetery. I see it this way, you might not win either way, as being in jail for a long time
is about as bad as being in jail, or I would think it would be.

Wow Grumpy, There is almost too much wrong with your post to even start. To begin with travelling in my personal conveyance is a right not a privilege. The original need for a driver's license was to operate a commercial vehicle, not a private one. It was only after the govt realized that could make a fortune by requiring all of us to have a license and also keep tabs on us with it that they passed the laws. As usual and like most people today you have been fed this bullsh*t about our rights being privileges granted to us by our oh so benevolent government so much for so long you actually believe it. Take a closer look at the Magna Carta, the BNA, the consolidated constitution acts all of which grant us our rights and then compare them to every legislated statute, like the MVA, which minimizes or takes away our rights or makes us pay a fee for them.

I have a right to own weapons and use them to protect myself, my family and my property. I have a right to drive my personal vehicle on any of the queen's highways as long as I am not using them for commerce or trade. I wish everyone would learn what our rights really are and how the govt uses deception and illegal legislation to infringe upon them in order to gain more control of our lives.
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
"Actually, the evidence suggests very strongly that a gun in the house will most likely be used to take out a relative. And guns in the house are not the subject of this bill anyway, since we’re talking about weapons being carted across state lines. So maybe the danger here is a crazed knife-wielding zombie breaking into the station wagon while the family is stopped for gas on the way to Disneyland.


Hmmm, it doesn't say who this quote is attributed to, but it's obviously someone with dangerous thought patterns if they are at all politically influential. The same, "you are three times more likely to be murdered by a gun in your own home", argument is used by most, if not all disarmament proponents, including Dr. Phil. The problem is that it is a lie. Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who authored this study, refused to release his data for three years. No wonder; the study included homicides where the guns were in fact, in the victims' homes, but they were brought there by the intruders. Other data showed the majority of the other injuries and homicides, either intentional or accidental, occurred in homes where other criminal activities were ongoing. This study has been de-bunked many times but that fact falls on the deaf ears of the intentionally ignorant statist sympathizers. Statistics never tell the whole story, so it is easy to get them to fill in the blanks of the story you're trying to tell. And tell a lie often enough...



I was unable to edit my previous post, (I could edit it, but for some reasont it wouldn't post). Anyway, the Kellerman study actually says you are 43 times as likely to be a firearm victim if there is a gun in the home. Using his methodlolgy, it was shown that you are 99 times as likely if there were no gun in the home. A terribly flawed study that is often quoted anyway.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Guns are used for defense in the United States between one and two million times a year..........19 times out of 20 no shots are fired.

Since the first states in the USA began allow widespread concealed carry of handguns in 1989, the murder rate has dropped by almost 50%

Seven million Americans have permits to carry.........and in addition, some states allow carry without permits.

"Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose" was written by Kris Kristofferson,


Got any numbers on how many crimes were committed using guns? I'm betting that it is much higher than the number of times guns were used for defence. Also how do you account for similar drops in the crime rate in countries that have much tighter gun control? Apparently the drop in the crime rate in the US is not related to open carry at all, it is something that is happening in all Western nations. Just pointing out that gun statistics can be used both ways.
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
Got any numbers on how many crimes were committed using guns? I'm betting that it is much higher than the number of times guns were used for defence. Also how do you account for similar drops in the crime rate in countries that have much tighter gun control? Apparently the drop in the crime rate in the US is not related to open carry at all, it is something that is happening in all Western nations. Just pointing out that gun statistics can be used both ways.
[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Comparing crimes committed and prevented is nearly impossible as committed crimes are generally reported where crimes prevented rarely are. Even the authors of such studies admit much of the evidence is anecdotal; if you scared off a thief by using a firearm, and there is little chance the person is coming back, there is no point in putting yourself in jeopardy of a world of hurt by reporting your actions.

The decline in crime rates is more due to demographics; the higher the concentration of youth the higher the crime rate. Where the rest of canada is seeing a decline, places like Halifax and Winnipeg are seeing an increase, especially in violent crime, within the younger population.

The decline of violent crime in the US was not due to "open carry" so much as concealed carry. Open carry does not necessarily make one safer from the determined criminal, people still rob armoured truck personnel and shoot LEO's. Open carry allows the criminal to easliy identify the threat and act accordingly. Concealed carry doesn't allow for that, and when it was allowed, first in Florida in the '80's, a nearly 50% drop in violent crime was reported, likely because criminals never knew who was armed and who was not.

Places in the US where firearms ownership is severly restricted or outright banned also showed the highest rates of violent crime, such as New York, Washington, Chicago, Detroit. If restricting firearms reduced crime, then banning them outright should have made Jamaica the safest place on earth, which it clearly hasn't.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Places in the US where firearms ownership is severly restricted or outright banned also showed the highest rates of violent crime, such as New York, Washington, Chicago, Detroit. If restricting firearms reduced crime, then banning them outright should have made Jamaica the safest place on earth, which it clearly hasn't.

You might be comparing apples and oranges here. The key to firearm control is not simply the passing of a law restricting firearms, but actually enforcing that law. Somehow I suspect that a developing country like Jamaica probably does not enforce any of its laws very effectively. Interestingly, however, if you compare the murder rate in Jamaica with that of New Orleans, they are about the same.

A better comparison is that of countries that are similar in their values and levels of government. Canada and the United States come to mind and it is interesting to note that Canada achieved the same drop in crime as the US without the average citizen being allowed to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise.

So far as the examples you have chosen for the US, they are among the most highly urbanized regions of the US, and a definite connection has been shown between urbanization and crime rates. However, with the exception of Detroit, I disagree with several of the cities you listed. New York, Washington, and Chicago do not have the highest crime rates in the US. In addition, I note you left out cities such as Houston and Phoenix; two cities that have very high murder rates and very few firearms restrictions. Crime in the US seems much more closely connected to poverty and high rates of unemployment than gun ownership.

Of course, if you want to see really low relative murder rates compare US cities of similar size to Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver; not to Kingston, Jamaica. To paraphrase your comment about Jamaica; if weakening gun laws reduced crime then the US should be the safest place on Earth, which it isn't.

I could go on, but I have had this debate with Colpy before. At that time I asked him for proof that the weak gun laws in the US actually made it a safer society. I am still waiting for that proof.
 

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
Once again, someone that does NOT understand how the US Governmental system works, is commenting on something that means exactly NOTHING.

CONGRESS DID NOT PASS THIS BILL! THIS BILL DID NOT, AND WILL NOT, BECOME LAW!

The Congress of the United States of America consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. In order for Congress to pass a bill, BOTH houses of the Congress must pass it.

In order to become law, after Congress passes a bill, the President has to sign it, or if the President has vetoed the bill, Congress must override that veto with a 2/3 majority vote.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
When people trot out the old 'criminals won't let gun control stop them from getting guns' line, I'm reminded of the concept that no law will prevent a person who wants to break it from breaking it. people who steal don't stop just because there is a law against it.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
The law only passed in the House of Representatives, still has to pass the Senate. It is a good start though. Yes there is a National Database of everybody who carries a state issued carry permit. The law will not apply to those who carry in states not requiring a permit, those residents cannot carry outside their state.



 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
.

And the outcome would have been what, if they had come toting guns?? Would there have been a gun battle??.......

Illogical really.

My 80 year old dad fended off two thugs who barrelled into his house one evening. He used self defense and came away with the mask off one and the watch off the other. The police picked them up, because my mum immediately called 911 inspite of suffering from mild alzhiemers.


The firearm laws do not stop illegal arms, but it sure makes them harder for thugs to come by them. Of course, those who use legally obtained guns because they qualify, and then use them for illegal purposes are denied by the NRA or other clubs as members in good standing. .Nor are they ever counted in the stats as being legal gun owners.

You got no idea just how easy it is to purchase a hand gun in Canada do you? Basically it is like drugs. Being illegal just makes it more expensive not harder.