Posted on 12/31/2010 2:12:29 PM PST by Libloather
Link only - New gun law takes effect Monday
Let’s watch what happens to the crime rate
and see if liberals will EVER learn from facts...
One sheriff (Pulkrabek) said he’s concerned because he used to get to review why someone wanted a permit...and that “just personal safety” wasn’t good enough.
Good reason to change to law. Even better to someday change it to be like Arizona, without needing a permit for carry.
Still, that will be years away. First Arizona needs to show that no permit doesn’t equal dangerous crime, just as it hasn’t in Alaska & Vermont. But I get pissed off at these local yocal sheriffs thinking they have the right to decide if someone REALLY needs to defend themselves. You’ll notice all their cops REALLY need one...
Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said:
“I think we’re going to see more and more people who are not law-abiding citizens that are able to qualify”
My understanding is that the new law will remove the Chief LEO’s discretion in issuing the permit.
So, Would they simply run a NIC check on the Individual to confirm that they have no legal disabilities?
That would seem too simple. /sarc
ping
I see a bad word. “Permit”.
What's needed for 2011 is for Wisconsin to adopt CCW (now that they have a Republican governor finally), thus isolating Illinois as the only no-issue state. After that would come getting New Jersey to go "shall issue".
I do have to laugh at the Johnson county sheriff. He is the same guy who was mad that out of county permits were valid in his county.
Another interesting thing is that the news in the Quad Cities is worried about a “Flood” of new permit holders, even though Scott county has been effectively shall issue for a few years now. In fact, the new law pretty much mirrors what was being done. Come Monday over lunch, I plan on going to the court house to find out what I need to do for my renewal.
A suit has been filed in NJ to overturn its stupid law...
http://anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Docs/Right_to_Carry_Lawsuit_Novem.pdf
Quad cities? If you mean Davenport, Bettendorf, Moline, Rock Island, there's two of them there that won't be issuing any permits.
IMHO, Iowa took the first step in 2010 but they need to take more in 2011.
Mr. niteowl77
would cheer if wisconsin got a carry law but would cheer louder if illinois got one. not a chance in hell for that.
Why would AZ still need to show that? As you note, it's already been demonstrated in other states for decades, even in states that begin and end with an "A". Will the 47th state to recognize their citizens' rights STILL need to "prove" that it works before #48 no longer has an excuse?
Why would he think a stupid thing like that? Did the legislature forget to exclude convicted felons from shall-issue? What a moron.
For similar reasons, I'd like to see NJ pass CCW and have Christie sign it. With NJ "shall issue", it would become harder for surrounding states to stay "may issue if you are a big campaign contributor to the right people"
“Last year Wisconsin had a carry bill pass the legislature, but got vetoed by the Dem governor. Now they have a Republican governor, so they have no excuse. I’d like to see it happen this year. It would be hard then for Illinois to continue to justify being the ONLY state with no CCW provision.”
Wisconsin patriots are working hard to Constitutional Carry. If they don’t, they should be able to get CCW bill that is not too onerous.
Wisconsin has a very strong state Constitutional provision supporting the right to bear arms for personal security and defense.
Should be: “working hard to pass Constitutional Carry”
www.wisconsincarry.org
“Will the 47th state to recognize their citizens’ rights STILL need to “prove” that it works before #48 no longer has an excuse?”
20 years ago, concealed carry was tough to do in most states. Now most are ‘shall issue’ states. We’re making progress. And every time a person from Iowa passes thru Arizona and notices we (I live south of Tucson) don’t have mass gunfights, even tho we can carry concealed or open without a permit, Iowa becomes one person closer to following our example.
What part of the 2nd Amendment “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” confuses anyone?
I agree that private property owners may post “rules against weapons” on their own property, so long as they assume all liability, and adequately provide for the personal protection of the people they publicly invite onto their properties.
Bars,Banks,Courthouses and jails come immediately to my mind as places where bans on personal weapons might be logically understood as a reasonable restriction to entry by the private property owner, or government facility.
Does your concealed weapons permit issued by your “permitting government agency” allow you to carry a weapon onto those private property or government premises that have openly posted bans on weapons?
No?
Tell me why anyone would seek a government issued permit to carry a weapon, either openly or concealed, when you already have the right bear arms, if it's not a special license to carry your weapon on private and/or public property where it is currently “banned” by the property owners.
Yes, I have in the past held CCW permits.One from a State, and one from a USA Territory.
But I was young then, and heavily conditioned by the Feds to accept many severe restrictions on my own personal constitutional rights due to my voluntarily sworn oath to enter into military service.
What is your excuse as a civilian, in allowing the Feds and your local and State government, to make a mockery of every man and woman who ever swore to protect and defend the USA from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
Very true, but most of the time the news and paper still refers to the Quad Cities, even on things just affecting one side of the river.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.