Posted on 11/29/2015 1:15:32 AM PST by richardb72
Since the terrorist attacks in Paris, such far-away places as Pennsylvania have experienced a surge in applications for concealed handgun permits.
Permit requests have at least doubled in some large counties, including Allegheny. Pennsylvania has more than 1 million permit holders — 10.6 percent of the adult population — so the undoubtedly short-lived surge won't dramatically change the number of permit holders, but an increase still will make Pennsylvanians safer.
Police tend to support an increase in permit holders. “What would help most in preventing large-scale shootings in public?†PoliceOne asked its 450,000 American officer members in 2013. The most common answer: “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.â€
Eighty percent of the surveyed officers believed allowing permitted concealed handguns would reduce the number of victims of mass public shootings.
Israel learned that lesson the hard way. In its first decades of existence, Israel responded to attacks by increasing the number of soldiers and armed police on the streets. Mass killers, however, can target the officers first or pick a target that isn't guarded.
No matter how much money Israel spent, all the terrorists needed was a little patience. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at triblive.com ...
But wait ....Obama says “ Enough ! “
Renting your second amendment rights, creating a group that comes to depend on those fees and tends to influence NRA groups not to take the cash cow away. Sheriff groups hold huge sway on NRA agendas and because of it NRA often does not end up fighting for your rights to carry without renting the right.
Go like Kansas did. Concealed-carry without all the hassle. For Kansas residents.
At least that’s what I’ve heard. If it changed or that’s not true, somebody advise. Thanks.
Open carry is much more effective. AND you don’t need to have the regime know or ask their permission.
General knowledge that permits are increasing and publicity, including the loud hand-wringing of the gun controllers, makes crowded venues less dangerous and everyone generally safer. except of course in Gun Free Zones.
Constitutional Carry. Whatever, however, whenever.
Tax Credits for concealed carry holders.
Many crimes are stopped by concealed carry holders every year. If there is to be anything which is encouraged, it should be more law-abiding gun owners.
Yes, enough is enough. Time for the testicle challenged Congress to impeach and remove the drug addled degenerate enemy of America from the presidency. Alas, L4B has their cajones in his little Michael-guarded lockbox.
I’ve had my CHL for many years now and I can tell ya, being responsible for your own security and that of my family gives me a great since of peace.
It’s not for everyone.
But the Second Amendment IS for everyone.
All the permit system are clearly an infringement .
Good post
Yes, the 2nd amendment is for everyone....but! Some folks just don't have the maturity, demeanor, aptitude and or mental stability. This is why there is a permitting process.
Here's an example, different machine, same concept. I've known several folks in my life who wanted to ride motorcycles. Cool. But when you see them on their brand spankin new Harley, you can tell...this person needs some instruction before they hurt themselves. Most become proficient in maneuvering and handling the motorcycle...but not all.
I've know a couple of folks that ended up getting seriously injured. I could just tell from the get-go, they did not belong on a motorcycle. Same goes with firearms.
I believe that a person who is thinking of carrying a firearm openly or concealed should go through the permitting process.
It is the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure someone wanting to carry a firearm does not put another in jeopardy. In fact, during my three renewals, I attended class/range time to qualify and there were folks there (men and woman) that went out and purchased a brand new firearm and here they sit in a concealed carry class and have no idea how to operate that weapon. True story.
Some came to classroom with the firearms LOADED, I saw a few on the firing line experience a stove pipe and while attempting to workout the jam, they inadvertently pointed the weapon toward the person standing next to them.
The notion...anytime/anywhere sounds great, but firearms in the hands of the untrained novice is never a good thing.
First, a person must demonstrate the aptitude to manipulate that weapon in a safe manner. Load, unload, strip/clean and fire then holster safely.
Secondly, isn't a good idea for folks wanting to carry know the firearm laws...the do’s and don’ts?
Third, if a person is a felon...shouldn't they be vetted? If someone has a history of domestic violence or prone to road rage incidents or been arrested for assaults go through some sort of scrutiny?
Here in Texas, if you're a law abiding citizen, even with minor offenses in your past (5+ years past), you are still qualified to go through the class and obtain a permit. It is a very simple process and to be quite frank...informative and somewhat fun. All the while, you're leaning about the law, the consequences of using/not using your firearm and range time to help that individual become proficient in the use of their weapon. I believe this is reasonable. Texas is a PRO-carry state and they do not attempt to stand in the way of law abiding citizens from carrying a firearm to protect themselves and their families. They have however set up a system to vet/train folks before they carry.
I went through an FBI and TX. DPS background check, 15 hours classroom instruction and then range time. Every single moment I felt was practical and reasonable.
An important philosophy behind both open and concealed carry needs to be promulgated to the public:
“The public *are* the police.”
“The uniformed police are a convenience to the public, acting as the day and night watch, collectors of evidence, and doggedly pursuing wanted suspects for the courts.”
“That they also respond to a ‘hue and cry’ is useful, when they can. But there are inherently far too few of them, so the public must assume responsibility for its own protection. Only the public can police in all places and at all times.”
“In a dangerous situation, the public and police must support each other. This means the armed citizen has both the ability and responsibility to do so.”
TribLive (or perhaps John Lott) made technical errors:
(headline) America could use more concealed carry gun permit holders.
The poll made no mention of gun licenses or permits, only “policies”. Big difference.
Other errors: While PoliceOne did ask its 450,000 members, only 15,000 responded. 28.8% said “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.”
Here is the actual poll:
You might add, that contrary to what they believe, police officers ARE civilians too. If they want to be military they should join the real military.
I’ll be right on it.
...”the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed..” We don’t need no stinking, unconstitutional permits!
It is true that they are civilians, but they have been given both special authority and much, much more responsibility than are other citizens.
A great example is that police are obligated to at least try and arrest those committing major violent felonies. But under generous rules, in many situations, ordinary citizens can just kill them.
Police are burdened with paperwork, redundant supervision and review of their actions, and need protection from their superiors with a union. But that is the price demanded of them by a distrustful public.
On a lighter side, when I worked for the PD, we had an officer who actually wrote himself a speeding ticket.
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.