makes my day.
My friends' day, too!
Posted on 03/24/2003 12:16:09 PM PST by jdege
Posted on Mon, Mar. 24, 2003
CHICAGO - KRT NEWSFEATURES
(KRT) - Gun rights advocates in several states are gaining in their efforts to liberalize firearm possession laws as public support for stronger gun-control regulation wavers.
Legislatures in Missouri, Ohio, Minnesota and other states are poised to approve bills making it easier for people to carry guns in public.
The reasons behind this move speak to the complex nature of politics and guns in a post-Sept. 11 America. Ferocious debates have divided legislatures, police organizations and the academic community. Members of those groups argue the polar claims that arming citizens will make people safer or that more guns will produce more crime.
Disputed research over right-to-carry laws is at the heart of the battle. A book by former University of Chicago professor John Lott claiming that liberalized gun ownership laws have helped reduce crime was challenged recently by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, who argued that such laws may increase crime.
In the meantime, dire visions of Dodge City-caliber mayhem that were forecast two years ago by critics of Michigan's new concealed-carry law have not materialized, according to Michigan State Police.
Although the National Rifle Association-sponsored move to liberalize state gun ownership laws predates the 2001 terrorist attacks, public concern about homeland security seems to have aided the gun lobby's efforts and fanned the political flames of controversy.
In Missouri, where voters in 1999 defeated a ballot proposal allowing people the right to carry concealed weapons, the state House this month approved a measure similar to the one voters rejected. Democratic Gov. Bob Holden has vowed to veto the bill, which is before the Senate.
"The people have already spoken," said Mary Still, Holden's press secretary. "The governor does not think this would take the state in the right direction, and it would not make society safer."
Members of the Ohio House last week passed by a wide margin a bill giving Ohioans the right to carry guns in their purses, jackets, cars and elsewhere. The Ohio Highway Patrol and police chiefs oppose the measure, and Republican Gov. Bob Taft is expected to veto the bill if it reaches his desk in its current form.
The debate in Ohio is complicated by two court rulings that declared the state's long-standing ban on carrying a concealed weapon unconstitutional. The Ohio Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the matter next month, and the legislature is scrambling to fill a potential legal void.
Meanwhile, Minnesota lawmakers, with the endorsement of Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, are expected to clear the way for Minnesotans to be able to carry handguns. Police organizations oppose the measure. Former Gov. Jesse Ventura, who left office Jan. 1, added to the right-to-carry momentum by obtaining a concealed-carry permit.
Though the bills vary from state to state, all have language that allows law-abiding, mentally competent adults who pass background checks and undergo firearms training to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. Thirty-three states have adopted such laws, many of them in the past decade.
Six states - Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin - prohibit concealed weapons.
The remaining states allow concealed weapons, but only after local officials have approved an individual's application. In these states, people have to prove they need to carry a gun.
Some measurements of public sentiment suggest a groundswell of support for relaxing gun ownership regulations. A Gallup Poll in late 1990 showed that 78 percent said gun sale laws should be stricter. That percentage has dropped each year, falling to 51 percent in January.
The University of Chicago's General Social Survey in 2001 found strong majority support for specific measures to regulate firearms, promote firearm safety and prevent criminals from obtaining guns.
A little more than half of respondents - 52 percent - said they favor allowing concealed-carry permits, but only for those with special needs, such as private detectives. The public, the survey said, was evenly divided at 44 percent on whether right-to-carry laws would make society less or more safe.
"I think there is a very slight weakening for gun-control measures," said Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey, adding that he thinks the terrorist attacks of 2001 have done little to change the public's fundamental attitudes toward guns. Even though gun sales nationwide shot up in the two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Smith said, they have returned to their normal pattern.
"It's not my sense that attitudes have changed since 9-11," said Karlyn Bowman, a resident fellow who studies polling at the American Enterprise Institute. But there is evidence, Bowman said, that people want to be able to own guns for personal reasons.
Supporters of right-to-carry laws hold up Lott's research, arguing that guns protect people against lawbreakers. Opponents warn of societal mayhem and claim the effort is little more than a NRA-sanctioned effort to bolster sagging gun sales.
Politicians are divided in ways that often reflect the urban and rural compositions of legislatures. When Missouri voters defeated the right-to-carry proposal in 1999, only 10 of the state's 110 counties rejected it. However, those were the most-populous counties and those votes helped create the 52 percent to 48 percent rejection of the measure.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch, representing Missouri's largest city, ridiculed supporters of the right-to-carry bill in a recent editorial.
"It's preposterous for a lawmaker to imply that a concealed-carry law would have made Americans safer on Sept. 11, or now," the editorial read.
"Missourians have had this duel before. ... That should have settled the matter."
The effect of relaxing gun ownership regulations is being studied and disputed. In Michigan, where critics warned that as many as 200,000 people might apply for gun permits in the first year, about 71,000 people have sought permits since July 2001. Michigan's violent crime rate dropped slightly last year, but state police officials do not attribute the decline to gun ownership.
"There really aren't any significant issues that have come to light in terms of road rage or people pulling out their guns in a dispute," said 1st Lt. Kari Kusmierz of the state police. "But we can't draw any conclusions about the law's impact."
Nor can officials determine whether the 71,000 permits issued since 2001 represent a net increase in gun ownership in Michigan. Some applicants, they acknowledged, already may have owned guns illegally and obtained permits to satisfy the law. Minnesota lawmakers, with the backing of Gov. Pawlenty, are expected to clear the way for residents to carry handguns.
I read it in a reputable publication and neglected to "bookmark" it (in internet parlance - I actually read it in a hard-copy publication).
I'm also angry at myself for throwing away the picture of Jane Fonda sitting at that NVN anitaircraft gun, left hand on trigger mechanism, NVN helmet set jauntily on her head, flashing the peace sign with her right hand! I may never learn - LOL! I simply read too much to keep it all!!
Heck, there's even one of those towns (in Georgia, I think - in the southeast US I KNOW), which enacted "must own" rules - if you live within the city limit your MUST own a gun (not necessarily carry, but DEFINITELY have in your house) - the crime rate did not merelyt decrease, it went to ZERO! One crime in the five(+) years since it went into effect, and that was a drifter who didn't know about the law - broke into a house to burglarize it (they assume) and was killed for his effort! This was a newspaper article - here, again, I failed to keep track of it - sigh!
Next time I see this in print or in any other form, you can bet I won't let it get away again!!
I wonder if the NRA would have these statistics - it WAS a report on crime statistics in the context of gun ownership, as I recall!
A perfect example of why they don't want private gun ownership are the so-called "peace" rallies that have popped up recently. The left wants to be able to amass themselves into mobs to intimidate those who would oppose them. A punk with a Molotove cocktail isn't so threatening when he can be dropped from a safe distance before he gets within range of your store/car/home.
A professional criminal (ie one who supports himself thru robbery and muggings) has to do a LOT of crimes per year to get enough cash. Somebody who did two or three stickups a week would encounter an armed citizen within a few months.
"The people have already spoken," said Mary Still, Holden's press secretary. "The governor does not think this would take the state in the right direction, and it would not make society safer."
I'm still angry as hell over that one! First off, the measure was defeated in just 3 counties in the state (I believe). Jackson, which hold Kansas City, Boone, which holds Columbia, and St Loius County. And I believe that it was shown that in St Louis County there were more votes cast than registered voters!
There were serious allegations of voter fraud, and Steven Hill, (at the time) the US Attourney in KC, actively worked against the measure, going so far as to send out letters voicing his opposition to the measure on his office letterhead. And there were a long list of corporate opponents, none of which I'll ever do buisness with again, including Hallmark, the KC Royals, and the KC Chiefs.
Mark
makes my day. My friends' day, too!
Here is a link to a report by John Lott (this is in PDF format). I think this early report by him eventually became his book "More Guns, Less Crime" -- should be available at your library or bookstore.
In case that link doesn't work for you, here's the same site, home page.
I have heard it said, but I have also head a lot of people who are gun friendly say that that some times crime goes down a bit and some times it stays flat.
Overall, I believe violent crime goes down. Even if it doesn't, it's still a good thing that more law-abiding citizens are armed.
One of the hallmarks of the left is victimization. Being a victim confers status within their ranks. The left wants you to be a helpless victim, totally beholden to government for everything. Those who own firearms are saying to hell with that and taking responsibility for their own safety. One of the fears of the left is that women will embrace firearms ownership. Once that happens, the left will fold, for it is women who keep it alive and elect the likes of Clinton.
Because it represents something they CAN'T control.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
As usual, the media distorts. South Dakota, for instance, is a "right to carry" state. Law enforcement must prove the citizen should not have a concealed permit. "Need" is determined by the citizen. After all, this is a "RIGHT"...not a "privledge".
Well said.
Your reading of the article is more accurate than mine was.
A point to remember, my South Dakota does not require "training" for a concealed permit. Law enforcement can only deny a permit based on a citizen's actions (past), and not hold it hostage to an infinitely malleable "training" requirement (future). I don't know how many of the 33 states this applies to.
Good news about Colorado and New Mexico. BTW, congratulations and good luck on your exploring of the "gun-nuttery abyss".
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.