Concealed Carry

... for openly and legally carrying a firearm at her child's soccer game has now gotten it back.  And thus justice is served, even when law enforcement is determined to prevent it.

... and The Mad Rocket Scientist explains just how large that responsibility is.

By way of SaysUncle comes information on H.R. 4547, a bill creating national concealed-carry reciprocity.   This is the right way to do national concealed carry.  Just like the states are required to recognize a driver's license issued in another state, they should be required to recognize a concealed-carry license issued by another state.  Unlike a federal licensing system, this is Constitutional, and it allows each state to set its own criteria.  My only gripe would be the fact that it would probably require an official act to kick in -- that is, Alaska and Vermont residents would need to get a permit in order to get the benefits of reciprocity.  Neither state currently requires a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

The legislature of Wisconsin has voted to allow concealed-carry.  The governor has vetoed the bill.  On Tuesday, January 31st, a veto override vote is scheduled.  More information is available from Packing.org -- and if you live in Wisconsin, you might want to call your critters.

Recently, a friend was looking for crime statistics on concealed-carry.  She was debating someone whose idea of a citation was "Hey, I read it years ago in an article of Scientific American.  I trust those peer-reviewed articles more than anything you can show me."

The way to deal with these people is not to become frustrated; it's to realize that they aren't listening and aren't ready to listen. They are arguing with you in order to hear themselves talk, and reinforcing their own beliefs by "refuting" (ie, ignoring) your arguments. 

There's no point in arguing directly with people who don't want to see the evidence.  But you can point out for the audience, if any, that the person on the other side is ignoring the evidence, and to do that, it helps to have some evidence at hand.

Here's some for next time, with a hat tip to Zendo Deb.

... apparantly can't be trusted to know the law.  This is a problem, and it's one of the things that makes a national concealed-carry system attractive.

According to The Beagle Express, one of the victims of the Tacoma mall shooting was carrying a concealed firearm, and was shot after drawing his weapon and confronting the attacker.

This is what shall-issue concealed carry means.  Not that mall shootings happen and can't be stopped; they'll happen regardless of the concealed-carry laws.  What I'm referring to is what almost happened; the murdered was almost stopped four hours before the police could "negotiate" with him.

You may remember a somewhat recent (in the last year, I think) shooting in Texas.  A concealed-carry permit holder was on the scene, armed, and exchanged gunfire with the criminal, saving several lives at the cost of his own.

You don't hear about this aspect of these events in the media much, but it is happening with increasing frequency.  Do the math: there are 21 million people in Texas, and 223584 permits, so about 1% of the population is licensed to carry.  That means, if you are in a place with at least 100 people nearby, and you are in Texas, and you're not in a location where concealed firearms are forbidden, then someone around you is probably carrying.

To be honest, probably more than one -- not everyone carries legally, and there are legal ways to carry a firearm with you in your car without obtaining a license.

These people have indicated their willingness to do violence in order to protect themselves, and quite possibly to protect those around them.  They don't smell funny and they don't look any different.  But every single one represents the opportunity to stop a murderer in his tracks, cutting their rampage short.

But they'll smile and say hello and play with your kids safely.  They aren't dangerous, because they are guardians, not predators.  They are safe because their firearms handling skills are meticulous, due to experience, practice, and training.  After all, it's something they do for fun.  The real thing isn't fun, but similar skills apply.

The more people who take up the responsibility of bearing arms, the better off everyone will be, because there will always be more murderous psychotics... but the supply of guardians is all too limited.

UPDATE: Mr. Completely notes that there is a medical fund for Dan McKown, to which you can donate at any Bank of America branch.

A while back I reported on an interesting case: David Bach, an experienced military officer and alleged "badass", was suing New York to obtain a concealed-carry permit valid in that state.  Bach lives in Virginia, but regularly travels to visit family in New York, and would like to be able to protect himself on those journeys by carrying his personal firearm.  New York, of course, would rather he did not. 

Although Bach lost his case, there's a law review article out suggesting that he should have won.  It should come as no surprise that I agree.  He should have won.  Even leaving aside the combination of the 2nd + 14th amendments that should protect the right to bear arms universally, if a marriage license in Virginia is valid in New York under the Privileges and Immunities and full-faith-and-credit clause, so should a concealed-carry license be.

It's an interesting exploration of a little-visited section of the Constitution, and worth the read if you're interested in that sort of thing.

The New Hampshire Senate voted Thursday to let gunowners carry concealed weapons without a license. The 13-10 vote sent the measure to the House. Supporters argued that the constitutional right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed by requiring gunowners to apply for licenses. Alton Republican Robert Boyce said the constitution gives people the right to protect themselves. But opponents said getting a license from the local police department is a needed safeguard. Nashua Democrat Joseph Foster said getting a license is a reasonable regulation that doesn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon. Other opponents said eliminating the requirement might result in more guns being carried.

I was fairly impressed that the bill got introduced; even with the extremely positive concealed-carry conditions at the moment, I'm surprised it passed. Surprised but not at ALL dismayed. Good work. Now get it through the House, and we can have Vermont-Alaska-NewHampshire carry as a goal to strive for.

New Hampshire has a chance to help women who find themselves terrified, in my situation, by passing Senate Bill 454, which will do away with the paperwork now required to carry a concealed weapon. How unfortunate that the NH Women?s Lobby doesn?t see it that way and is opposing the bill, which can help women more than men. Men, after all, sometimes have fighting skills and brute physical strength that can help them defend themselves; women rarely do.

In short, the words used are plain and unambiguous. There is no constitutional prohibition against the wearing of concealed weapons; there is only a prohibition against invoking the right to keep and bear arms to justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Consequently, the General Assembly, which has plenary power to enact legislation on any subject in the absence of a constitutional prohibition, Board of Educ. of City of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis, 879 S.W.2d 530, 533 (Mo. banc 1994), has the final say in the use and regulation of concealed weapons. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Concealed-Carry Act is not unconstitutional under article I, section 23.

This is from the Missouri Supreme Court ruling on whether the concealed-carry law violates the state constitution. Clearly, it does not, and the court so ruled. There are some remaining problems regarding "unfunded mandates" (since the law requires that permit fees be spent only on "training and equipment"), but those can probably be resolved. The big issue is over... and we won.

Altering specified requirements for the issuance of handgun permits; repealing the requirement that the Secretary of State Police find that an applicant seeking a permit has a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun; establishing a 45-day period within which the Secretary must issue a permit to carry a handgun after an application is approved; requiring that an individual be certified by a qualified handgun instructor before receiving a permit; etc.

Maryland considers shall-issue. Only a few states left!

Mitchell was working the counter, waiting on a man. Shane, as he often does, walked in, approached his mom as she counted out change and wisecracked, "Hand over your money, lady."

In her best wry-mom tone, Mitchell said, "Oh, knock it off, Shane."

To which the customer responded: "You better watch it. I am armed."

"I asked him if he was a police officer. The American Fork police station is kitty-corner from the store and we know all the cops. But they wear their weapons where you can see them. So then I asked if he was a concealed weapon permit holder and he reluctantly said, 'Yes.' Then he left."

Mother and son shared a good chuckle, and then a bit of a chill. "We were flabbergasted at his audacity and his anxious attitude to let us know he was packing heat. We pretty quickly realized it could have gotten out of hand. This was a joke, but what if that guy had suddenly decided to defend me by shooting my son?

Flabbergasted? Audacity? The man had just witnessed what looked like a crime in progress. Clearly, while the parent and child knew each and knew they were joking around, this third-party had no way of knowing that. What he did see, and overhear, was clearly intended to present exactly the impression he got. That this was a joke between family members doesn't come across to a stranger, lacking context.

And what action was taken here? Did the armed customer draw down on the jokester? Did he shoot someone? Did he wave his gun around, or scream and shout? Did he call the police on his cell phone, which any honest citizen would be perfectly within his rights to do after overhearing that exchange?

No. Just a simple, quiet statement: "Watch yourself. I'm armed." That's hardly an improper response to what must have looked like an attempted robbery. And yet it draws heavy criticism from this editorialist. Like joking about bombs in an airport, some jokes just aren't funny in the wrong context.

During the last legislative session, before Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the gun bill into law, the debate had advocates like John Caile predicting the community would be safer with more law-abiding citizens carrying guns. Certainly, he said, the notion of an armed public would scare off the bad guys. Opponents feared more gun violence. Public safety officials say there's no evidence to support either side.

"It's way too early to tell that. And there's no empirical evidence to indicate either way," said Kevin Smith, spokesman for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

Nevertheless, several lawmakers are introducing legislation to reverse the law, and activists like Kate Havelin, with the Twin Cities Million Mom March, hopes that her message now will echo into the future.

"We think that having more guns on our streets, at our places of worship, at the mall, will not be made safer with people with handguns. It's a way to put all of us at greater risk," Havelin said.

9 months after the law, with no measurable effect on safety, and the anti-gun lobbists are still trying to claim "greater risk".

As Joan Rivers used to say: "Can we talk?" About guns? Not the ranting and raving from the "show-guns" and the "no-guns," but reasonable, rational, common-sense talk?

Let's be realistic: Concealed weapons are the Viagra of social dysfunction. And firearms trigger political acid reflux among certain socially supercharged activists.

But most of us fall somewhere in between. We don't need a shouldered pistol to feel comfortable in a crowd. Still, we appreciate a rifle or a sidearm at appropriate times and places. We don't look to the Constitution to justify our attitudes, and we certainly don't consider it a moral obligation to carry heat.

Many of us own guns, but we don't carry them around. We know enough about the dangers of firearms that we don't showcase them in holsters or the back window racks of our pickups. And we're concerned about those who carry guns near our family or friends. We suspect that anyone who needs a gun to feel safe is probably nervous enough to do something foolish with it.

Note how this individual starts off trying to sound reasonable, but quickly descends from "reasonable" to "concerned" to "suspect". In short, it's another bait-and-switch by a gun banner.

Personally, I don't feel nervous around people carrying guns peacefully and competently. And I don't have any particular suspicion concerning the nerves of people who choose to carry concealed.

Anyone with an I.Q. over 50 caliber knows that waving a gun at a criminal is foolish. Criminals aren't like the guys you see in the movies; criminals are more like the belligerent drunks you might see at a bar. Criminals do not act rationally; if they did, they wouldn't be criminals. Actually firing a gun in such situations is even more foolish. Only a few things can happen ? all negative, except one. First, you can miss everything and everyone. That's the only positive outcome. Second, you can get yourself shot. Third, you can shoot or cause to be shot an innocent bystander. Fourth, you can wound your target and get sued, even if the target has a gun himself. Fifth, you can kill the target and end up in jail for manslaughter.

This is a common tactic that combines several logical fallacies. The author isn't bothering to actually support his arguments; he's making the assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with his points is stupid. That works fine for people who agree, and for people who don't know any better and so assume that the point is uncontested. Simultaneously, it's a preemptive attack on those who disagree. They are accused of being stupid right off the bat. This encourages opponents to agree with the basic premise (so as not to be labeled "stupid") while finding some other quibble to base their argument on.

But there's a problem: it's wrong. Sure, criminals aren't like the guys you see in movies (you know, the ones that commit their crimes with skill and panache rather than armed force). But they aren't like belligerent drunks either. (That fallacy is called a false dichotomy -- presenting a choice between two options, both wrong, and ignoring additional choices that may be better than the two presented). Instead, criminals are typically repeat offenders with an escalating cycle of violent behavior. They aren't law-abiding citizens that get drunk or have a bad day and go nuts; they are people who make the decision, for whatever reasons, to engage in criminal behavior.

And once lives are threatened by a criminal, choices start to narrow for those on the scene. Do you let the criminal commit his crime? If he's threatening lives, letting it happen may be an option for a coward, but not for anyone I would want to call "friend". By attempting to intervene, it's true that the gun owner is putting himself in for a lot of trouble, but the lives he might save will certainly thank him for taking the risk on their behalf.

And if the criminal escalates the matter, by refusing to comply in the face of armed force, it may become necessary to shoot. Nobody likes this option; not the criminal, not the shooter, not the criminal's victims, not the police, not the hospital, not the court system. But what are the alternatives? To die helplessly, or to let an innocent victim die when you could have stopped it? No thanks.

Most states have detailed laws covering when use of force is justified and require concealed-carry permit holders to know these laws. Most courses that teach them cover the consequences of shooting, even justified, in exacting detail. Nobody wants shots fired. But sometimes, there's no better choice.

And if you listen to editorials like this one, you won't have that choice at all.

Legalization of a constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm will not happen for Wisconsin gun owners thanks to the governor's veto and the treachery of one of the measure's sponsors in the state House, Rep. Gary Sherman (D-Port Wing).

Sherman, having sponsored the bill when it was introduced in the House, was the single vote that killed the effort to override the governor's veto. Why Sherman would do this is perplexing since he comes from a district that voted over eight-to-one for adding language in 1998 to the Wisconsin constitution protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps he has planned to return to private life after the next election.

Sherman (and the others opposed to concealed carry) should be held to account for the murder of every unarmed victim in Wisconsin from now until the final passage of concealed carry legislation.

HB 989, the NRA-backed Right-to-Carry Reciprocity reform bill, has been reported out of the House Judiciary B Committee and will be considered by the full House next week. Currently, Mississippi has negotiated reciprocal agreements with only five states. This bill will open the door for agreements to be negotiated with most other Right-to-Carry states. Please contact your State Representative and urge him to support HB 989. SB 2705, the Senate version of HB 989, has been reported out of the Senate Judiciary B Committee and is awaiting action by the full Senate next week as well. Please contact your State Senator and urge him to support SB 2705. Also, please encourage Senators to support SB 2623, legislation creating a specialized NRA license plate and directing fees collected from these plates to the NRA Foundation State Account for Mississippi.

The state's highest court will hear arguments in the battle over the right to ban guns on the University of Utah campus. University administrators say the school has the right to keep its 28-year ban on guns on campus despite a state law that says otherwise.

The Legislature passed a bill this year requiring the university to allow permitted firearms on campus. But the Utah Supreme Court in May declared moot the issue of whether the university is acting against state regulations. The state's appeal will continue with both sides only arguing whether the ban is against the state Constitution.

I find the arrogance of the university in this case incredible. Of course they are subject to the law, just as everyone else! Concealed firearms have nothing to do with "academic freedom". They have a lot to do with the student's safety, though.

Normally, I wouldn't support forcing the university to allow concealed guns on its property. But the university is a public institution, which makes the case substantially different.

Constitutional rights came up against public safety yesterday at a public hearing on a bill to do away with the criminal penalty for carrying a loaded, concealed firearm without a license. Nearly 100 people packed two rooms of the Legislative Office Building as SB 454 was debated.

Gun owners, gun rights advocacy and hunting groups and members of the Free State movement turned out to support the bill. Opponents included law enforcement officers, the Million Moms March New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Women?s Lobby; lawmakers were on both sides of the issue.

Looks like the Free State Project is starting to have an effect.

OFCC warned supporters about the next battleground in the concealed carry fight just hours after HB12 was signed into law. In Gun ban extremists' expected ''Business Blitz'' begins, we noted that Ohio's liberal media outlets were all-too willing to help "share the gospel" of business bans.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry has posted a list of businesses posting no-ccw signs. Many of these are national chains, so it's well worth checking out the list -- and evaluating whether you want to continue to do business with anyone on it.

DEBATES OVER whether citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns always seems to end up with fearful stories about what might happen. We hear horror stories about how permit holders might endanger the lives of others and of shootouts in the streets. But within a year, all the fuss dies away. No state that has adopted a right-to-carry law has rescinded it, and for good reason.

New Hampshire, whose original right-to-carry law was adopted in 1923, is an old hand at dealing with these fears. Yet, in seeking to further liberalize its law, many of the old concerns are being revisited. In February, the state Senate passed a bill, 13-10, to let law-abiding citizens carry concealed handguns without requiring them to get a license or pay fees. The state House votes on the bill today.

While no longer requiring a license, the bill really does not change who can legally carry a concealed handgun. Federal law still forbids felons, anyone charged with domestic violence, someone who has been dishonorably discharged from the service or anyone who?s been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital from even owning or possessing a gun.

The New Hampshire House voted on the bill Lott is referring to yesterday, which would remove licensing requirements for concealed carry in New Hampshire. If passed, the bill would result in "Vermont-style carry" within the state. It has already passed the Senate.

I don't know the outcome of the vote. If I find out, I'll pass it on.

A New Hampshire House committee is taking aim at a plan to do away with any requirements for carrying a concealed weapon in the state.

By a vote of 16 to 3, the House Criminal Justice Committee rejected a plan to eliminate concealed-weapons permits in New Hampshire. The bill will still go to the full House with a negative recommendation from the committee.

A number of committee members are former and current police officers, and they expressed concerns about public safety and an influx of guns from out of state.

This is the bill that would have given New Hampshire Vermont-style (permitless) concealed-carry. Since it goes to the full House anyways, I don't think this particular vote means much. But I'm watching closely regardless. If you live in New Hampshire, pay attention.

Civil rights supporters will rally on the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol on April 28 at noon to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act, better known as the "MCPPA."

The rally, sponsored by Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) and its Concealed Carry Reform Now (CCRN) division, will feature speeches from Rep. Lynda Boudreau (R-Faribault) and Sen. Pat Pariseau (R-Farmington), authors of the House and Senate versions of the bill that became law one year ago.

The law, which Governor Tim Pawlenty signed on April 28, 2003, removed arbitrary approval or denial of pistol carry permits by law enforcement officials, instead requiring Minnesota county sheriffs to issue permits to competent, law-abiding adults upon successful completion of a training course and background check.

Although opponents predicted that passage would lead to widespread violence and bloodshed, there hasn't been a single case reported of a permit holder misusing a gun in public.

This strikes me as a really, really good idea. One of the image problems that gun owners have, especially when defending their rights for concealed carry and similar issues, is low public visibility of "good" gun owners. Crimes with guns get on the news all the time; law-abiding gun owners just don't get noticed, except sometimes as hunters, or when the news media finds the least-educated and least-articulate gun owner they can to put on the news as an "alternative viewpoint".

Just getting out in a group and saying, in effect, "We are gun owners. We're here, and we're not causing any problems. Sometimes we're even carrying concealed in public, and we're not causing any problems then either." It doesn't seem like much, but it can be a potent reminder.

In the past two days, the Warren Tribune Chronicle (Trumbull Co.) and Elyria Chronicle-Telegram (Lorain Co.) have begun punishing the citizens of their respective counties as a means of protesting Ohio's new concealed carry law.

Both news outlets, known for a history of publishing vehemently anti-concealed carry editorials, published the names of every person who has been issued a CHL in the county.

This is a clear case of the journalistic class forgetting their duty to the people in favor of putting forward their own biases. In other words, these two papers have abandoned honor and abused their privileged position. While this may not sound like a big deal at first, it's significant because rarely have people in their position been willing to display their biases blatantly. Their power and influence derives from the perception of integrity -- that is, the idea that a journalist makes an effort to sort out the facts from the opinions and to responsibly present the major points of view.

When that respect is lost, so is the power. The media in general has already lost the trust of the people, who generally perceive the bias more clearly than they are given credit for. As their influence wanes, the media pundits -- like the editorial board of these papers -- will be driven to become even more shrill in attempting to force through their policies; all the while their readers will be slowly seeking alternatives sources of news.

That's the Internet, folks. It destroys the media influence block by providing alternative sources for information -- allowing people to doubt the accounts fed to them, and seek out better sources for themselves.

The religous institutions? motion for summary judgment asserts that the Conceal & Carry Law was passed as part of a bill that includes more than one subject, in violation of the Minnesota Constitution. The Minnesota House of Representatives improperly attached the Conceal & Carry Law to a Department of Natural Resources bill already passed unanimously by the Minnesota Senate, says the motion.

?Our motion papers contend that the Minnesota House hijacked a non-controversial bill and used it as an unlawful vehicle for conceal-and-carry,? said David Lillehaug, one of the attorneys for the religious institutions. ?If the motion is granted, the Conceal & Carry Law will be null and void.?

The motion also alleges that the Conceal & Carry Law?s provisions regarding parking areas and tenant spaces are unconstitutional. The Law prevents owners of parking areas and tenant spaces from banning gun-carriers. The motion contends that this violates the rights of private property owners under both the Minnesota and the United States Constitutions.

I think this can be best classed as a technicality, and even if the suit succeeds, the legislature will likely return to the issue in short order to correct the problem. However, anyone living in Minnesota should be paying attention for opportunities to speak out on this issue; the fight isn't over yet.