WV.Bill to Allow Concealed Carry Without License Introduced

[oneshooter]

On Wednesday, Delegate David Walker, D-Clay, introduced at WVCDL's request House Bill 4235, which eliminates the requirement of a license to carry a concealed weapon.
HB 4235 also partially strengthens preemption, cleans up confusing and contradictory hunting laws regulating handguns, restores firearm rights to individuals who have received a pardon, expungement, or certain forms of relief from disabilities for a disqualifying crime, and maintains optional concealed weapon licenses for West Virginians to be able to carry in other states via reciprocity.

http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001dTY-NYldfV0Q9PcrWS9tS1k56gcH9TnbxIXcyIPbapZX7UAvo-SM7F2f-_pSFOdHdWETDPRl91tcOA-ykeIXAkrMHfUQvyctwRCiHPbcPCxb-idrYJ9F_KE-TDAoTLWfUKcQ10xobM61dplEFC7tJyRkbq4Tav5Mfht-5yy1j-xwlBWi6Tlh8Dm1vGn43DMQEecNxHf30JwpHA_SygMiTtm7MBmMRlDmblN8qrK0ItP96hODiGn6IDwEyhrijDdnqu-q-WYtUqo%3D


Another state reconizes the Rights of a Free People.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[thunder rising]

1. We can be just like Somalia!! Wooo hooo! If you can buy it (or steal it) you can carry it.

[rd_kent]

4. The old "chaos will rule" meme. Too bad it just has not turned out to be true.

I also note that it does not prevent you from repeating it.

[slackmaster]

10. Or maybe West Virginia could become more like...

...Vermont.

[brendan120678]

16. And Vermont as well (nt)

[Tim01]

24. Nothing happens. Lots of test cases already. nt

[Callisto32]

73. This will not end rule of law.

[proteus_lives]

79. Millions carry already.

Where is the bloodbath you people keep saying is happening?

[aliendroid]

89. gun control was an experiement in the 60s-80s that failed

"We can be just like Somalia!! Wooo hooo! If you can buy it (or steal it) you can carry it."

Are you ever going to get educated and stop making these arguments? In New Hampshire you can carry open anytime and anywhere but you need a license to carry on a school campus and there are videos of citizens going into police stations and into the state government building with a gun on the hip. Also New Hampshire has the lowest violent crime and murder rate in the country. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, some people still think the earth is flat, some people still think gun control reduces crime, but the smart people know the truth.

Why are you people so afraid of giving law abiding people right to carry their guns. We experimented with stricter gun laws starting in the 60s, they caused increased crime and now we are going the other way, reducing the restriction on gun laws and crime is going down.

The debate that gun control reduces crime should be over, any person with a cerebral cortex can see the data and figure out that gun control increases crime, so let's move on and support more freedom to the law abiding citizen.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[oneshooter]

9. And you speak for ALL on the forums?

I will be more than happy to inform the Admins. that the responsibility for all that is said on the DU forums must be cleared through you.
I am sure that they will be more than happy to be relieved of this duty.:sarcasm:

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[thunder rising]

13. I have to admit this thread does enjoy a great amount of protection in that regard.

[PavePusher]

15. Free speech?

Oh, teh horrerers!1!

[cowman]

20. WOW, I didn't

know you spoke for me and every else at DU, what an elitist attitude. Go post your bile elsewhere please

[katmondoo]

3. Goody We can kill each other with abandon

No holds barred. Can we have duels again?

[rd_kent]

5. What complete and utter nonsense.

[slackmaster]

11. It will be utter chaos and anarchy, just like...

...Vermont.

[Katya Mullethov]

18. If you wouldnt mind

I prefer all my abandon to be of the reckless type

Reckless : Adj .

1. a. Heedless or careless. b. Headstrong; rash.
2. Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences.


I strongly suspect if there ever is any killing going on , you wont be killing anyone back .So for accuracy you should ask " Can they kill -ME- with reckless abandon ? " No , they cant .

[GreenStormCloud]

21. WOW ! Superb response. LOL. N/T

[TPaine7]

50. Priceless. Classic.

I strongly suspect if there ever is any killing going on , you wont be killing anyone back .So for accuracy you should ask " Can they kill -ME- with reckless abandon ? "

:rofl:

Ah, the moral superiority of "innocent" victim-hood.

[Tim01]

30. It doesn't happen regardless of how afraid you are. Please calm down.nt

[proteus_lives]

80. Millions carry already.

Where are the bloodbaths?

[aliendroid]

90. the world is flat, gun control reduces crime, what will be the next widespread ignorance

You didn't get the memo yet, reducing gun laws is actually reducing crime, increasing gun restriction increased crime.

cut and paste:

Are you ever going to get educated and stop making these arguments? In New Hampshire you can carry open anytime and anywhere but you need a license to carry on a school campus and there are videos of citizens going into police stations and into the state government building with a gun on the hip. Also New Hampshire has the lowest violent crime and murder rate in the country. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, some people still think the earth is flat, some people still think gun control reduces crime, but the smart people know the truth.

Why are you people so afraid of giving law abiding people right to carry their guns. We experimented with stricter gun laws starting in the 60s, they caused increased crime and now we are going the other way, reducing the restriction on gun laws and crime is going down.

The debate that gun control reduces crime should be over, any person with a cerebral cortex can see the data and figure out that gun control increases crime, so let's move on and support more freedom to the law abiding citizen.

[PavePusher]

6. Addressing posts #1, 2 & 3.

Please try not to be stupid. Try real hard.

Alaska and Vermont seem to be surviving quite nicely with such laws right now. Real dens of inequity I tell you.

As a nation, we were generally a peaceful place prior to firearms licensing. Such laws were enacted to oppress slaves, former slaves, minorities and immigrants, and it brings shame on this forum that anyone would support such blatent bigotry.

If you can prove that licensing has had the effect of decreasing crime, then you have a talking point. But you'd better bring some substance to the table.

[virginia mountainman]

7. Will Brady, and the VPC step away from their starbucks petition..

Long enough to even notice, that they are getting their asses kicked??

The good works, are going on in statehouses around this nation....and the preeminent gun control group, is fretting over a coffee house ignoring them...ROFLMAO!!!!

THIS IS WHY WE WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cowman]

8. Trying to educate

the anti-gunners is useless because when you present them with facts all they do is insult and call names and come up with ridiculous arguments. Hey, we know we are winning the 2nd amend. debate and they know it also and it just pisses them off because the majority of americans don't believe a word they say

[jaxx]

12. This will make the criminals very happy.

Why should your rights trump mine?

[PavePusher]

14. How so?

Criminal use will still be criminal use.

What rights of yours are being "trumped"?


Please explain the low firearm crime rate in Vermont. I say we are just naturally better people, something in the air or water, y'know?

[cowman]

17. You think

criminals aren't already carrying guns, that statement just shows everyone the idiotic postitions the anti-2nd amend. crowd is

[jaxx]

26. I'm not an idiot. No conditions for carry, means it's legal for anybody.

[cowman]

31. Wrong again

convicted felons, mentally unstable people are barred from possessing firearms. I didn't call you an idiot personally I called the position of anti-2nd amend. groups idiotic

[jaxx]

34. Really? Like the VA Tech shooter?

Mentally unstable. But he got guns. How about the guy who killed Dr. Tiller? A ticking time bomb. Or the guy who shot the Holocaust Museum guards? Another ticking time bomb.

What that says is that gun owner laws need to be strengthened, not lightened.

[Katya Mullethov]

39. Somebody that gets it !

Existing laws will stop neither madman nor brigand . All that is needed , is to keep trying until we find the right balance of reasonable restricitons .

[jaxx]

55. Yes. And there a balance out there.

[Tim01]

47. An incredilby small percentage of the general population.

And since they have NEVER been declared dangerous or anything, they have access to knives, gasoline, cars,axes and worst of all, legal recreational drugs.

But giving the rare nutcase access to recreational drugs, and matches, and box cutters is what we in this country call an acceptable risk, so that the rest of us don't have to live in a police state.

Alcohol kills LOTS of people in this country, lots of children, and everybody is OK with that.

To be in favor of more controls on guns, and less controls on recreational drugs, is to be a hypocrite.

[jaxx]

57. That's where you lose me.

If you have to compare your gun carry to everything else then there is something wrong with it. Reminds me of the people who said Detroit was more dangerous than Iraq to justify the invasion.

[Tim01]

66. They are all VERY dangerous things that everybody has access too.

Really, with all the dangerous stuff we have access to in this country everyday could be a nightmare. I read recently where a guy in Australia rolled a shopping care full of bottled of fuel into the front doors of a business and ignited it.

Every single day in this country , anybody anywhere, could quite easily kill lots of people if they suddenly "snap". Do people grab the ax out of the back of their truck and start killing people over a traffic altercation? No. They could. Do they get in their car and drive over people who have offended them? No. Do they set the building in fire with people in it? No. Do they put rat poison in the coffee pot at work? No.
Surrounded by potential murder weapons. That really is the case. Guns do not change people into something they are not.




I worked with a hothead once at a lumber yard. During work one day he got mad at his girlfriend and went to beating the shit out of her with an air powered nail driver. He has a long history of violence. He is a felon and is not allowed to possess a gun. In my state he goes to jail for a very long time if he even touches one. It is only marginally useful to keep the guns away from a person who will violently beat a person with whatever is in his hand.
Everybody else, almost every last person, can be trusted with a razor knife, or an ax or a 5 gallon can of gas, or a gun.

The problem is that very tiny percentage who can't even be trusted with a staple gun at work.

How many times have you tried to murder somebody with a car? This is why we trust you with a potential murder weapon like a car.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

52. Every point you just posted does nothing to help your argument.

#1) Cho, the VT shooter, was mentally adjudicated. He was legally barred from owning firearms. Poor/incomplete legal process led to his ability to still acquire those firearms. In spite of his ability to acquire firearms, his possession of those firearms was STILL PROHIBITED.In fact, VT was a gun-free zone. Even if Cho could legally own firearms and had a carry license... he COULD NOT have legally carried his firearm on campus.

#2) If Roeder had no record of criminal activity and was not mentally adjudicated, then his right to purchase a firearm still exists. However, Roeder was carrying the loaded weapon illegally as a precursor to premeditated murder. No amount or stringency of carry laws could have prevented Roeder from carrying his firearm to kill Tiller. IN SPITE of it being illegal to carry around a loaded weapon, Roeder chose to anyway to commit criminal actions.

#3) I grow tired of explaining the same shit over and over... but suffice it to say, carry was illegal where the old guy brought his .22 caliber rifle. In fact, he was a convicted felon (they can't own guns).

In every instance LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE did not stop criminals. Congratulations... you've scored a hat-trick of failure. Laws in place did not stop criminals (let me type this next part extra slowly for you...) because they are CRIMINALS. They do not obey laws. At the end of the day laws are nothing but silly ink letters written on sheets of dried cellulose - laws don't stop crime. They give law enforcement the right to act against criminals. If you have a problem with criminals breaking laws - blame the lack of enforcement.

And finally, the dessert to your hat-trick of failure is:
The longstanding undisputed GOVERNMENT crime data that over the last DECADE, gun ownership by citizens has continued to Rise and laws have significantly RELAXED while violent crime comes in at decade LOWS. I'm sorry statistics and facts have to shit on your rainbow paradise of illogical reasoning.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Virginia has fixed the reporting failure that allowed Cho to pass his background check

despite having met the disqualification requirements in that state around mental health. (Committed for 24h I think)

What happended then should not be possible now, in that state. (and isn't in my state, and hasn't been for decades)

[X_Digger]

38. Silly, do criminals get charged with illegal possession in VT/AK? Why yes they do.

Removing the licensure requirements on a thing does not automatically make it legal for everyone.

Two laws on the books-
1. In order to concealed carry legally you must obtain a license.
2. Felons are prohibited from so much as touching a firearm or ammunition.

Now, remove item number one. What are you left with? No license required to carry concealed, yet felons are still prohibited.

(Not to mention, this is a state law, and federal law has restrictions in place regarding 'prohibited persons' and firearms. So even if item 2 did not exist, federal law would apply.)

[Tim01]

41. Please admit your position is wrong. Criminals are not allowed to have guns.nt

[aliendroid]

91. wow, the brady bunch is really pumping out propaganda and lies

First off I think someone pretty much shot down your position by informing you that criminals are not allowed to own guns, and the world is also round, did you know that?

Next, why would criminals be happy about this? They don't seem to be happy about the lack of restriction on open carry of firearms in new Hampshire, otherwise they'd be driving up there in buses to go commit crimes but the reality is the NH has the lowest crime rate in the USA. But in the real world, not in the brady world, a criminal who open carries increases his chance of being busted and noticed, while they try to not attract attention to themselves, and in the real world, not on the brady world, a criminal actually does not care if it is illegal to have a concealed gun, he carries it anyway.

This bill will make criminals pee in their pants because it strips from them their freedom to rob and kill without the fear of the victim defending themselves.

[slackmaster]

19. What right of yours are you referring to?

I'd just like to point out the false dilemma or other logical fallacy in your position.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[jaxx]

29. Look at the other answers. I hit the high points.

[PavePusher]

65. Please help point it out for me, I don't see it. What "Right" are you talking about? n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

22. What CONSTITUTIONAL right of yours is being "trumped"? N/T

[jaxx]

27. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

Guns don't make me feel secure, just the opposite.

[cowman]

33. So because you

don't like guns gives you the right to trample on my 2nd amend. right?

[jaxx]

36. No, I don't care if you have a gun if you're able to pass the registration laws.

I do care that you carry it into a restaurant, or into a theater or any other place where people congregate. If you came to my house I'd ask you to lock it in your car.

This is where gun people lose it. Nobody wants to take away your guns. But I do want you to be certified responsible and legal, no convictions of any kind of abuse, and please don't carry it around me.

[cowman]

48. So why

would you care if I carry in a restaurant or a theater if I have passed all the requirements to carry conceal? Obviouslly I'm not a danger to anyone except criminals and I would never reveal I am carrying unless my life or someone else's life were in imminent danger

[rd_kent]

51. Do you realize that you are in favor of what most of us want?

We want the database opened to private citizens so that anyone who purchases a gun can have an immediate background check to see if they are legally allowed to have one. If they are, then they can have one. Pretty simple, huh? In no way has YOUR rights been infringed and in no way have MY rights been infringed.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. You don't have the right to restrict my rights.

I do care that you carry it into a restaurant, or into a theater or any other place where people congregate.
Why? The gun will not jump out of the holster by itself and start shooting. You do realize that criminals will pay absolutely no attention to your restrictions, don't you? Haven't you noticed that mass shooting are always in so called gun-free zones? Have you ever asked yourself why one NEVER sees a mass shooting at a gun show? Have you noticed that an armed robbery of a gun store is rare?

If I came to your home, I would honor your request. After all, it is your home.

Nobody wants to take away your guns.
There are several prominent national politicians who have said that is exactly what they want to do.

But I do want you to be certified responsible and legal, no convictions of any kind of abuse,
OK. I can agree with that, completely.

please don't carry it around me.
This is where we clash. I carry full time when away from home, except in legally prohibited areas. A mere "no guns signs", in Texas, does not establish a legal prohibition and I usually ignore those. You do not have the right to demand that I be unarmed when we pass in the street, or other public areas. You may own your home, but you don't own the entire country.

[PavePusher]

63. What is this registration you speak of?

I always love it when people start to ramble on about "registration". Here in Arizona, we just stare at them until they wind down. Facsinating creatures....

[AtheistCrusader]

82. You would be perfectly within your rights to ask someone not to bring a gun onto your property

and you would have the full backing of the law to enforce your desire.

Everywhere else, you have no such expectation, and the 4th amendment is a prohibition against illegal search and siezure by the government. It doesn't even mean what you are trying to use it for.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. There is a difference between one's emotions and reality.

My guns do not effect the security of those things. Your feelings are irrelvent. You may feel threatened that a small asteroid passes between the earth and the moon, but that does not obligate the government to do anything about it.

You can feel whatever you want to about my guns. But you must prove, by facts and rational argument, that my guns do harm to you.

[slackmaster]

71. Your feelings don't trump other peoples' civil rights

You don't have a right to feel any particular way.

[Euromutt]

72. That's "secure against unreasonable search and seizure"

Also, whether or not you feel secure does not determine whether you are secure.

Moreover, in the highly unlikely event that some fool puts a bullet in you, he will be investigated and prosecuted. If that's good enough for victims of violent crime in your opinion, why isn't it good enough for you?

[Callisto32]

75. THAT is an incomplete sentence.

You have no constitutional right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects.

You have the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The way words work together is especially important in law. Taking things out of context is NOT a valid argument.

[SteveM]

86. The people have this protection... from GOVERNMENT...

The 4th Amendment recognizes a right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects. To be secure from whom? The government.

If you want to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" from the ordinary crim/thug, you had better secure that right yourself; hence the 2nd Amendment.

[farmout rightarm]

88. How do you feel about this fellow who I suspect you would -want- armed before last week

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=11947356

[rd_kent]

23. I'm sorry, but your argument seems to contradict itself.

I don't think that this change will affect criminals at all, but it will, in fact, allow you to exercise YOUR rights as YOU see fit. Please explain how this affects YOUR rights in a negative way.

[jaxx]

25. Gladly.

Why should I have to worry about every tom dick and harry having a gun? I don't have one, that puts me at a disadvantage. No restrictions on who carries. No thanks.

[cowman]

28. It is

your right not to have a gun just like it is my right to have one. BTW criminals are restricted from carrying a gun so your argument makes no sense

[jaxx]

32. This is what was posted:

On Wednesday, Delegate David Walker, D-Clay, introduced at WVCDL's request House Bill 4235, which eliminates the requirement of a license to carry a concealed weapon.
HB 4235 also partially strengthens preemption, cleans up confusing and contradictory hunting laws regulating handguns, restores firearm rights to individuals who have received a pardon, expungement, or certain forms of relief from disabilities for a disqualifying crime, and maintains optional concealed weapon licenses for West Virginians to be able to carry in other states via reciprocity.<<

We'll never agree on this, I don't want a gun and you want to carry one around. Just don't carry it around me, ok? If I saw someone with a gun I'd call the police. If you were legal you could explain it to him/her. I can't tell the good guys from the bad guys when they've got a gun.

[cowman]

35. If I'm carrying

a gun you won't know, hence the words concealed carry and I'll bet you ever get accosted by a criminal with violence towards you and a ccw holder shows up and saves your all you would be grateful but i could be wrong

[jaxx]

37. Don't be a hero for me.

And if you coat comes open or I see the bulge of a gun...then you're not so concealed anymore. You become an object of fear.

[cowman]

40. Don't flatter yourself

and you would never see my gun or a bulge because I know how to keep my weapon concealed and I doubt you would ever see me because I live in the very gun friendly state of NV which trusts its citizens with firearms, so go ahead and execise your right to not own a gun but don't step on my right to own and carry one thank you very much

[cowman]

45. Maybe I do

become an object of fear and that is legitimate because you don't know me, I'll give you that but that doesn't give you the right to restrict my right to own or carry a concealed weapon

[oneshooter]

46. "And if you coat comes open or I see the bulge of a gun"

Then you will be seeing a felon. As long as you are still in Illinois. I don't see how this change in West Virginia law should cause you any problems. You still have restricted 2A rights in Illinois.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

61. Don't come to Arizona. We don't bother with coats.... n/t

[burrfoot]

42. A couple of quick points-

We're talking about concealed carry here, not open carry. If it's being done right, you won't see someone with a gun. If it's being done wrong and you do see it, you indeed have the option of calling the police.

You've said that you don't feel safe around people with guns, and that you can't "tell the good guys from the bad guys when they've got a gun." Ok. That's a legitimate feeling. However none of us has a right to feel anything. If that was the case, wouldn't your "right" to feel safer by not allowing me to carry a gun be cancelled out by my "right" to feel safer by not being unarmed?

I think it's worth noting again, though, that the people you have cause to fear (i.e. criminals) are already carrying guns.

Why don't you want a law abiding citizen to be able to do the same?

[rd_kent]

44. You seem to have an unreasonable fear of "bad guys".

you said "I can't tell the good guys from the bad guys when they've got a gun."

Well, the good guys, or at least the LEGAL ones, will be the one NOT waving it around or pointing at someone or robbing them. The good guys, or LEGAL ones, will be the ones going about their business, just like you, and with concealed carry, you propbably won't even know they are armed. So again, I ask, what is going to change from the way it is now?

[jaxx]

54. No, I just don't like guns around me.

Fear doesn't rule my life.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. That post is self-contradictory.

You claim that guns cause you fear so you get hyper about the idea of someone being armed, and then you claim that fear doesn't rule your life. I submit that your irrational fear of guns is ruling part of your life.

[PavePusher]

62. Ummmm... Apparently, it does.... n/t

[rd_kent]

64. Fear doesn't rule mine either. But just because you "dont want guns around" you

does not mean MY rights get infringed, right?

[one-eyed fat man]

85. Good guy vs bad guy

The bad guy is the guy with the gun in your face demanding your money or your virtue.

The good guy is the one minding his own business; with the gun under his coat you never see .

Pretty simple.

Bad guys don't care what the rules are, stealing from you doesn't bother them; beating you stupid doesn't bother them; they get off on terrorizing people! Why do you think some silly gun law will stop them when all the others don't?

[PavePusher]

87. No, absent R.A.S., I do NOT have to explain myself to you...

the police, or anyone.

We have this wonderful thing called the Constitution. You might want to read it, and some of the history about it.

'Cause right now, you sure don't seem to understand it.

[rd_kent]

43. But you don't have to worry about it now. What is going to change?

[GreenStormCloud]

59. So get one and learn how to use it. Then you will not be at a disadvantage.

That is precisely the reason why I carry a gun. I do not want to be at a disadvantage versus a violent felon. I assume you do realize that violent criminals will be armed regardless of the laws.

[PavePusher]

69. So, you do live in fear. Got it. n/t

[burrfoot]

53. I think this is going to have the opposite effect.

As a criminal, would you be happier if there was strong CCW regulation/ban on firearms, or would you be happier if almost anyone you came across on the street could be carring a firearm?

I'm not a criminal (I swear! :evilgrin:); but if I was I'm pretty sure I'd be happier with the former.

[jaxx]

58. Again. Nobody wants to take your guns, that is a knee jerk reaction.

I'm no criminal either and I'd just as soon nobody carried one around waiting to get to use it.

Now, this is a sub-thread that is too long. It's been good to discuss this, and it's been a decent conversation. Thanks. If you will excuse me, I've got a bunch of snow to get off the car so I can go to work tonight.

Have a good one, all of you.

[burrfoot]

67. I understand-

and, kidding aside, I get that no one is out to take away the guns of lawful owners/CCW holders with this issue.

For the sake of argument, I wonder how many people would really change their behavior if carry were unlicensed? Sort of like if drugs were legalized.....criminals already use, idiots are still idiots, and probably only a relatively small portion of people would go to the trouble of carrying on a daily basis.

People who aren't interested in the appropriate training (both legal and practical) and are just waiting to get to use their guns (and I will admit, there probably are some like that) may not go to the bother of carrying after the novelty wears off.

Does anybody know if anyone keeps track of how many people actually carry in Alaska or Vermont? I'm not sure how one would come up with that statistic particularly in those states, but I'd be curious to know if it's particularly higher or lower a percentage than in other states where carry is legal but a license is required.

Good luck with the snow!

[GreenStormCloud]

68. Except that guns have already been taken.

California required that an entire group of guns be either turned in or taken out of state.

The now defunct AWB prohibited the manufacture or sale of a class of guns. Although present guns were grandfathered in, it was still a taking because it did not allow people to buy them.

VPC, formerly Handgun Control, Inc. has previously stated a policy of attempting to get all private ownership of handguns banned.

Politicians of Chicago and DC have shown that they desire to ban all guns.

There are several high profile politicans that have announced a desire to ban all guns. Most notable is Dianne Feinstein.
"Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't there."

We know all too well that there are people who do indeed want to ban all guns and pick them all up.

[Katya Mullethov]

70. We...come....in....peace

It's all about the balance . You can have the gun , you just cant carry it . If you will note , this is the same MO used on EVERY other weapon approaching a handgun in the slightest in regards to game changing lethality , and a whole bunch of stuff for stupid reasons (switchblades and butterfly knives) . You can have em . You just can't carry them .



If you cant carry a handgun , you are legaly left with ...with what ? Seriously .

[cowman]

76. That's pure

horseshit. The vast majority of ccw holders don't carry so we can wait around to use it. Now you are just showing your ignorance and as far as nobody wants to take away our guns, what about Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Richard Daly and many many more. Check your facts before you spout off

[cowman]

77. Oh and BTW

NOBODY here has called you a criminal

[burrfoot]

78. I think the criminal comment was

aimed at me- I mentioned it a previous post. I think Jaxx said it as agreeing with me (I said "I'm not a criminal but...." and she then said "I'm no criminal either...."); I don't think she was calling anybody out for a negative comment.

I don't agree with her opinion, but I do appreciate that she's one of the few who left who seem willing to discuss an opposing point of view while maintaining civility.

Hope you come back, Jaxx, and that you're not snowed in too badly!

[AtheistCrusader]

83. I'd love to not feel any need to carry a firearm. It's an uncomfortable hunk of metal.

If you could somehow guarantee I will never be in a situation where I might have to defend myself or a loved one against physical force, I wouldn't carry.

But you can't. So I do.

[aliendroid]

92. you lie!

"Again. Nobody wants to take your guns, that is a knee jerk reaction."

That's what they told the people in the UK many years ago when they passed registration of firearms, and then when the grabbed the first wave of "evil" guns. Now they have a full gun ban. You know what, you lie!!!!

You anti-gun people LIE!

Look at Rebecca peters! that woman lies so often and is so confused about her own lies that she can't even get them straight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQEDk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WwLz9hBZfM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD1YmYuRtI8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVKvyYqtJ1w

[Callisto32]

74. That argument gets us nowhere.

Both sides can say it, it doesn't work for either.

[Euromutt]

84. I don't know that I support this; I rather like CCW permits

Now, before anyone gets all "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" on me (not that that's hugely likely on this forum), I should hasten to point out that I firmly support the existence of unlicensed open carry. I should also point out, however, that I'm not pro-RKBA because I think the Second Amendment is holy writ, engraved in stone with a lightning bolt (albeit possibly one directed by Ben Franklin's kite), but still, given that it's there, I figure what it translates to in practical terms is that the several states have to provide at least one option for unlicensed carry of an operable defensive firearm (either open or concealed), and as long as that is available, they can regulate/restrict the other.

My personal preference goes out to unlicensed open carry, coupled with "shall issue" licensed concealed carry. It's practically an axiom that those who intend to commit unlawful acts with a firearm prefer to carry it concealed; the NFA of 1934 restricts possession of short-barreled long guns because they may be concealed under a long coat (though those aren't anywhere near as common as they were in the 1930s) and why the bulk of gun crimes are committed with handguns. Those intent upon unlawful activity with a firearm typically do not carry their weapons openly. Hence, the very fact that one is openly carrying a holstered handgun is in and of itself a strong indication that one has no nefarious intent with it. With concealed firearms, I think it's reasonable to assert that there is a bona fide purpose to having something that distinguishes those carrying a concealed firearm for lawful reasons from those who are carrying it with criminal intent; that something would be a concealed carry permit.

Admittedly, in a sense holsters already fulfill that role to a large extent; the criminally inclined typically do not invest in a holster, given that they may have to dispose of the weapon in a nearby body of water at short notice. That is, however, a current fashion and may be superseded by later trends, just like the 26" minimum overall length of a non-NFA long gun has become rather quaint now that very few people wear long coats (overcoats, greatcoats, trench coats, dusters, etc.) on a frequent basis anymore.

[aliendroid]

93. As to the op, my position

Like the firearms act of 1968, the idea of blocking criminals from concealed carry probably will not reduce or increae crime, although shall issue concealed carry permits reduced crime, going to unrestricted concealed carry may have a small reduciton of crime rate but not as significant as the shall issue permits. It's just a small bump in the road to gaining the ability to conceal your gun and having a CC permit also is a way to show everyone you are a law abiding citizen. So I'm somewhat neutral on this issue because most people can get a CC permit now without much difficulty. It is more important that the states that may issue (but not if you are a regular person) carry permits go to shall issue (to all normal people).