Suit Seeks Right to Pack Heat in Public.

[elleng]

Lawsuit Seeks Right to Carry Concealed Weapons in the District.

The lawyer who won the battle to allow District residents to keep handguns in their homes is now fighting to allow residents and visitors to carry their weapons in public.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080702997.html?hpid=topnews

Glad I'm moving. Have to warn my daughters, when they return 'home.'

[DBoon]

1. In D.C?

So how many elected representatives will be gunned down?

There is a reason to restrict firearm use in a city with such a large concentration of federal representatives.

[Fleet]

2. There sure is...

Their aim is terrible! ;)

[SteveM]

34. I do recall one Ronald Reagan who got shot. Was that in D.C.?

with all its gun laws?

[TheWraith]

4. How many elected representatives are gunned down in home districts?

You know that there's nothing stopping a would-be murderer from carrying a gun in DC right now, right? Do you think somebody wakes up in the morning and says "I'd really like to murder some Congressmen, but carrying a concealed weapon is illegal in Washington DC!"

[fedupinhouston]

47. Ooooh...

I could answer this but somehow I'm thinking the mods as well as the Secret Service wouldnt QUITE accept my sense of humor.

[rd_kent]

13. What reason is that?

[HALO141]

28. Do tell

"There is a reason to restrict firearm use in a city with such a large concentration of federal representatives."

Your premise that they would be put at greater risk is fallacious.

Furthermore, if the politicians don't like it that's the best reason I can think of to do it. Fuck 'em. It's about time they started living in the real world along with the rest of us.

[fedupinhouston]

44. If they're worried about being shot...

...then maybe they should rethink how they're doing their jobs...

[beevul]

50. I doubt...

I doubt that many object to laws about firearm use, so long as they are reasonable.

"Firearm possession", however, is not "firearm use".

[elleng]

3. ADMINS:

I object that his post was moved from GD, as I posted it as an article of general interest.

elleng

[Statistical]

9. Freindly tips:

1) The mods move everything gun related to guns forum eventually. Some faster than others.

2) This is the wrong way to complain to a mod.

[SteveM]

37. There are rules at DU, but frankly, I have no trouble with this in G.D....

Here, the tactics, insults and poor arguments made by gun-controllers can be readily-revealed. And the audience is larger.

You may recall that a survey, asking how many DUers own at least one gun, was posted in GD for several days. 51% answered that they did own at least one gun, and many more were respondents indicated that they were thinking about purchasing a gun. Posting in GD would be the fastest way to dispel the notion that gun-control is a "liberal" issue. It is NOT. It is a highly-charged culture war wherein controllers wish to enact laws which were common in the Jim Crow South. This is the very soft underbelly of the gun-control lobby, even as they scream that "gun rights" folks want only to use guns to keep ___________________ in their place.

[krispos42]

5. Hmph.

[Tim01]

11. That sums it up.

[proteus_lives]

40. Yup, she sure frightened for no reason.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Where were you planning on moving to?

Most states allow this already.

If you really want to avoid it, I'd suggest Hawaii I guess.

[PavePusher]

15. Or Illinois. n/t

[rl6214]

7. I "pack heat" every single day

And NOBODY knows it. I have a concealed carry license. That means it's concealed, nobody should know about it. Do you know how many people may be "packing heat" in your presence at any time? Probably more than you know.

[PavePusher]

16. Not that there is anything wrong with Open Carry.

Why should one have to beg for permission to exercise a Civil Right?

[Statistical]

8. Where are you moving. 48 states allow conceal carry. 38 of the "shall issue". n/t

[benEzra]

10. Hope you don't move to Vermont, or Minnesota, or Massachusetts,

or Oregon, or Kansas, or Maine, or New Mexico, or...

The only two states in this country that don't issue carry licenses at all are Illinois and Wisconsin.

I myself hold a NC carry license that is valid in ~30 states, FWIW. To obtain it, I had to pass a Federal background check, state background check, mental health records check, have my fingerprints run by the FBI, take a class on self-defense law, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range (live fire), and spend a considerable amount of time at the sheriff's office. I don't personally think the ZOMG THE SKY IS FALLING! rhetoric here is warranted.

[PavePusher]

18. Ooooo..... Please move to Vermont, Please!!

No licence required to carry Concealed or Open. I dare you....

ETA: This is aimed at the O.P., sorry...

[paulsby]

23. Mass is disgusting

vis a vis CCW or at least was when i lived there.

i lived in a small town. applied for a permit to carry. chief (with complete authority to deny or not based on whimsy) denied it for "protection of life and property' and would only issue me the "target" license which only authorizes carry when going to and from the range.

i moved two towns over and the chief did issue me one. why? because he's pro CCW and liked me.

how fucking arbitrary is that?

so then i had the license and could carry concealed statewide.

i ended working for that same PD. the chief was pretty cool. he was a libertarian conservative. i get along with them great. he once told me "i don't care if somebody is smoking mj in the privacy of their homes. it's none of our business"

lol, my police chief said that. the guy was square as a jolly rancher, but had a very simple viewpoint. if people aren't bothering anybody else, it's not really the cops business what they are doing. words to live by.

[Tim01]

26. Very cool police chief. nt

[HALO141]

29. Wish we could say that about all LEO's. n/t

[paulsby]

39. wish we could say this about all legislators and our president

remember, cops don't write these stupid war on drug laws or ANY laws for that matter.

it's the fault of the people we elect, and that includes democrats. obama is against legalizing mj, and hardly an opponent of the war on drugs, also. so is his "drug czar" who was an idiot when he was in seattle, so i don;'t see why he won't be an idiot in office

[SteveM]

38. "May issue." Pure Jim Crow. In Massachusetts. (nt)

[iverglas]

54. yeah, eh?

"May issue." Pure Jim Crow. In Massachusetts.

Makes no fucking sense at all, does it?

But don't let that stop you saying it!


Massachusetts rejected right-wing racist gun militancy back when Spiro Agnew beat George Mahoney.

Still doin' it, I see!

[iverglas]

55. Noooo!

the chief was pretty cool. he was a libertarian conservative. i get along with them great.

Colour me flabbergasted!

Who'd 'a thunk that?!?

[Tim01]

12. Moving to North Korea? nt

[rd_kent]

14. Move to Canada, they have banned guns and have no gun violence at all!

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

24. speaking of canada

i'm in the seattle area.

vancouver just to the north of us in canada, has a higher crime rate, and a higher homicide rate (last i checked).

it's a BEAUTIFUL city, but statistically, i am safer walking around seattle than vancouver.

also, in seattle i can carry.

[iverglas]

31. yeah, I was speaking of Canada

I was explaining to any innocents who wandered by that rd_kent knew it is a lie to say Canada has banned guns, he was just joking around.


statistically, i am safer walking around seattle than vancouver.

Really? Heavily involved in the drug trade, are you?

Have a couple o' pretty maps

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/features/homicide/2008.html
http://www.cbc.ca/bc/features/homicide/2009.html


http://www.vancouversun.com/news/2008+kept+Vancouver+homicide+investigators+busy/1145115/story.html

The year that ended last week <2008> was a busy one for homicide investigators from across Metro Vancouver, whether in municipal forces working on their own or as part of the joint municipal-RCMP Integrated Homicide Investigation Team.

IHIT dealt with a record 58 murder victims — more than in any other year since the specialized team was founded in 2003, Cpl. Dale Carr said. ... By contrast, in 2007, there were 41 people killed in IHIT jurisdiction and that included the six slaughtered in one gangland act at the Balmoral Tower on Oct. 19, 2007.

... Domestic murders made up 23 per cent of the 2008 files and 88 per cent of those were cleared, which usually means charges laid or at least a report to Crown counsel.

... For the city of Vancouver, murder stats were actually down slightly over last year from 21 in 2007 to 18 in 2008.

Insp. Mike Porteous, of the Vancouver police department’s major crime section, said the trend to more gang-related shootings continued in 2008. In fact, of the 18 slayings in the year just ended, 10 are believed to be gang-related, Porteous said. ... Porteous said if you look at all the Vancouver murders since August of 2007, 17 out of 30 have been gangland hits.

IHIT includes all cities in the Lower Mainland except Vancouver, Delta and West Vancouver.
West Vancouver had 0 murders in 2008, Delta had one.

So we get, for the entire lower mainland area:

2007: 41+ 21 = 62 (no figures for West Van and Delta)
2008: 58 + 18 + 1 = 77

I'm being very generous and including the entire lower mainland. I don't think 18 homicides in the City of Vancouver are what anybody is fretting about. But hey, if we want to compare Vancouver proper and Seattle proper, we could do that.


http://geodepot.statcan.ca/Diss/Highlights/Page9/Page9c_e.cfm

More than two-thirds of British Columbia's population is concentrated in the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island region. This region had a population of just over 2.7 million people in 2001, up 7.3% from 1996. It accounted for 69% of B.C.'s total, and 9% of the nation's population.

So we'll add another 7.3%, to conservatively estimate growth since 2001.

2.9 million people.
77 homicides in 2008.


... In 1992, Tim Lambert wrote, in reply to someone claiming that Vancouver's homicide rate being way lower than Seattle's could be explained away:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1992/06/international-00016.php

It seems to me that you consider places in the US and Canada comparable if and only if the homicide rate in the Canadian place is higher than in the US place.

... Seattle's homicide rate was 11.3. Vancouver's was 6.9.

Haha.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/158309.asp

In all, 28 people were killed from attacks in 2008.

What population are we talking about here? What area is comparable to the nearly 3 million people in the lower BC mainland? Never mind other demographic factors -- Vancouver's status as major Asia Pacific seaport, the only metropolis in Canada on the entire west coast and its hinterlands, huge immigration inputs. Just numbers.

What you'll find, I think, is that there isn't a comparable Seattle area.

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/Population_Demographics/Overview/default.asp

Seattle-at-a-Glance
Population Est. 2009: 602,000

Is that the population covered by the 28 homicides in 2008? Hey, let's compare Seattle and Vancouver, please.

Vancouver 2008: 605,902. And 18 homicides. Vancouver's lookin good. But I still don't know what population the 28 homicides occurred in.

Who will tell me? Who will tell me what "Seattle" has a population of nearly 3 million? Or how to carve out a comparable "Seattle" and "Vancouver" - numbers wise only - and find out what the homicide numbers are? Best I can do at the moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington

The United States Census Bureau estimated the state's population was 6,549,224 as of 2008.
Nearly sixty percent of Washington's residents live in the Seattle metropolitan area.
As of the Census 2000, the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metropolitan Area's population was 3,043,878, approximately half the state's total population.

Aha - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_metropolitan_area

The U.S. Census Bureau defines the metropolitan area as the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area, with an estimated population of 3,344,813.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/wacrime.htm

Homicides in Washington State 2007: 173

One would expect the metropolitan area to have a higher homicide rate, but we'll make an assumption and say it's the same. So the metro area would have pretty close to half the state population. That would be about 85 murders.

BC lower mainland 2008:
2.9 million people.
77 homicides

Metro Seattle 2008:
3.3 million people
85 homicides

Given that I'd be pretty sure metro Seattle account for more than half the state's homicides, I'm just not seeing any huge difference here. In fact, I'm seeing virtual identity. I sure wish somebody could find the figures I can't. You down there want to outsource your record-keeping to Statistics Canada?


So.

Who will PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS, and provide the evidence to support their claims?

[iverglas]

45. are the crickets in Seattle

as mellifluous as the Vancouver crickets?

[PavePusher]

17. I volunteer to help you pack.

I'll even donate to your ticket fund.

P.S. Thanks for supporting the Constitutional Civil Rights that were so hard-won. Or not.

[libguy9560]

20. Oh, great, just what we need

More gun-toting crazies on our streets, walking among us.

[pipoman]

21. How does this translate into

"More gun-toting crazies on our streets, walking among us."? You do know that there isn't a magical force field around DC keeping 'crazies' from toting guns don't you? How about allowing the non crazies some effective legal self defense?

[rd_kent]

35. Can you please define "crazies"?

[fedupinhouston]

48. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

The crazies who want to be armed in D.C. already are. Did you stop to think about that for a moment or were you too busy jerking your knee?

[paulsby]

22. do you honestly think

allowing carry in DC will RAISE the crime rate?

seriously?

[Tim01]

25. Virginia. We all carry guns and 10 times less violent crime than D.C. nt

[iverglas]

32. oh me oh my

Just imagine if someone who weren't an adherent to the gun militant agenda were to say "Virginia. You all carry guns."

Yes, one always does well when one has a choice of whom to compare one's self with.

How does Virginia fare when compared with, oh, New Brunswick?

I am so much smarter than a Pakled. There. You're impressed, right?

[proteus_lives]

41. Man, even a ST:TNG reference sounds foul coming from you.

[virginia mountainman]

27. Here is some easy maps to help you find a place to live

You can move to Texas, or perhaps, South Carolina...



For reference, here is a map showing where you can OWN a Machine Guns.. These are the REAL DEAL, not the "semi autos" Brady and the MSM is all worried about, the assault weapon ban does nothing against 'real" assault weapons, only guns that look like them.

[slackmaster]

30. Machine gun possession is actually legal in California

But it's been regulated to the point where it is almost impossible.

[proteus_lives]

42. I live in a green state. It's great here.

;-)

[slackmaster]

33. As others have pointed out, there are very few places in the USA where nobody can get a CCW permit

And those are really no safer than places where people can get them.

I suggest you seek professional counseling for your irrational fear.

[TPaine7]

36. NEWSFLASH: Constitution Protects Right to Pack Heat in Public n/t

[iverglas]

46. .

NEWSFLASH: Constitution Protects Right to Pack Heat in Public

[proteus_lives]

43. I really pity you.

If someone exercising their constitutional rights makes you so fearful. You must vomit at the sound of free speech! :puke:

[rl6214]

49. It really dosen't matter

it isn't a US citizen, it is from canada.

[iverglas]

51. you're just blinded by hate, aren't you?

The OP in this thread is by elleng, who is:

Member since Mar 10th 2004
Number of posts 10723
Gender female
City Washington
State DC
Country US
Hobby politics!
Comment
We enshrined in our Constitution and in our system of government as our values - fairness, tolerance, decency, justice, mutual respect, and personal opportunity - our legitimacy as a nation. Wes Clark

Of course, she did say the relevant parts in her opening post. You didn't even have to see her profile. She lives in DC, and I suspect that she is a US citizen.


So, proteus_lives addresses an intentionally insulting and really really stupid comment TO elleng.

And in reply to that, proteus_lives gets, from you:

It really dosen't matter
Posted by rl6214
it isn't a US citizen, it is from canada.

Now, I'll bet that if elleng were a jingoistic xenophobic bigot, she would be insulted by your saying she is from Canada.

And I'll bet that if she thought you and your opinion were worth something more than the dogshit on her shoe, she'd be upset that you called her "it".

[beevul]

52. Project much?

Whom is it, exactly, blinded by hate?


"I care nothing if a gun militant dies?"

"Yeah, pretty much. That being what I said." - iverglas

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=174976


You're some progressive voice, aren't you?

[iverglas]

53. post random crap much?

My post was about something.

Yours doesn't appear to be.


Ever curious, though, I clicked.

Did you do that all by yourself? A post of mine identified in the post following as "post 56" appears as "original message", with only the one other post in the "thread"? And yet in that post I refer to something I had apparently already said ...

Now that's an odd one, isn't it? It sure would be a handy trick to have up one's sleeve if one wanted to pretend that what someone said didn't mean what it meant. If I ever needed to play such tricks, I'd try to figure out how it's done.

Ah, yes, here we go -- the old "what I really said":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=172819&mesg_id=174958

And the chance of me giving a crap about the safety of someone who asserts that s/he must have firearms to hand in order to avoid death at the hands of terrible people busting in their back door, when the person asserting this does nothing to reduce the likelihood that such people will have the means to cause injury or death easily and with little personal risk, and in fact does everything possible to ensure that such people have ready access to those means, well, there again, pretty much: NIL.

(emphasis in the original post)
Followed immediately, of course, by the old what I didn't say but someone thinks someone else might believe I said.

You may summarize my statement underlined above as: live by the gun, die by the gun.

Be a gun militant who agitates against any and all measures to reduce access to firearms by people who, it can reasonably be predicted, will use them to cause harm, and get yourself shot, and don't come crying to me.

"Hate"?

Naaah. I just, y'know, don't have any sympathy ...

:rofl:




typo fixed

[beevul]

56. So transparent

Hey! Look! Its one of those cloaking devices you pontificate about every so often...


Only...it doesn't appear to um...cloak...your meaning very well.


"Did you do that all by yourself? A post of mine identified in the post following as "post 56" appears as "original message", with only the one other post in the "thread"? And yet in that post I refer to something I had apparently already said ..."

Happens sometimes with bookmarked threads.


"Be a gun militant who agitates against any and all measures to reduce access to firearms by people who, it can reasonably be predicted, will use them to cause harm, and get yourself shot, and don't come crying to me."


If you see any of them about, do shoot off a flare. I'd wager they're nearly as rare as santa, the easter bunny, and honest anti-gunners.

At any rate, what I linked is a stronger case for hatred on your part by leaps and bounds, than that cobbled together dogs breakfast you attempted to foist onto that other poster.

Ta.

[iverglas]

57. your attentions are needed

by several people here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=247476&mesg_id=247476

A whole lot of them don't have any more sympathy than I do. Some of them actually revel.

I wish you luck in getting them to see the error of their ways.

Meanwhile, the bigoted and misogynistic insult attempted in this little subthread just fell danged flat, dinnit?

[beevul]

58. Uh...what are you yammering about?

"Meanwhile, the bigoted and misogynistic insult attempted in this little subthread just fell danged flat, dinnit?"


What is it exactly, that you are referring to that is a "bigoted and misogynistic insult attempted"?

"your attentions are needed by several people here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

A whole lot of them don't have any more sympathy than I do. Some of them actually revel."

(Of course, where sympathy is concerned, you make no distinction between sympathy for a so called "gun militant" versus sympathy for those that threaten people and commit violent crimes. COLOUR me shocked lol.)


Naw. I figure I'll wait until you start blathering on about the rights of the people killed as described in that OP, we both know you can hardly resist doing so. Then I'll call you out for being the hypocrite you are. Not doing so makes you a hypocrite as evidenced in the thread you linked. Doing so makes you a hypocrite in the thread I linked. You know, because "live by the gun, die by the gun" only applies to "gun militants", not to people committing crimes as far as you appear to be concerned.


You should have been a painter, rather than a legal...whatever...You have a penchant for painting yourself into corners.

:rofl:

The more I read your posts, the clearer it becomes why you so seldom make your position known - because it is almost always based on what suits your argument and almost never based on consistant principle.


This post is just another example shining a light brightly on what most of us already knew.

[iverglas]

59. you're the one who barged into this subthread

What is it exactly, that you are referring to that is a "bigoted and misogynistic insult attempted"?

I'm the one who assumed you had read it first.

Forgive me for making such stupid assumptions.

Way you go. Back to your regularly scheduled idiocy.


The more I read your posts, the clearer it becomes why you so seldom make your position known

I swear, I'm going to start posting, repeatedly, in every thread in this forum, what my position is on every issue there has ever been under the sun.

If you can identify an "issue" in post 43, the post to which I replied, please point me to it. The only one it raised in my mind was the one about the ethics and intelligence of someone who would write something like it.

[beevul]

60. Bwahahaha

Give me a second here to stop laughing and catch my breath.

I'm about as likely to listen to your opinion on ethics as I am to listen to the catholic churches opinion on atheism, or a pyromaniacs opinion on fire prevention.

"I swear, I'm going to start posting, repeatedly, in every thread in this forum, what my position is on every issue there has ever been under the sun."


Mkay. But I don't think anyone will be holding thier breath waiting. I envision the same canned "use the search feature" garbage as usual.

[elleng]

61. 'IT' was born in New York City,

and is currently living in Maryland.

Facts 'IS' important. :-(