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.
You mean Florida did not become the "Gunshine State", nor did the rivers of Texas; the Rio Grande, Colorado, Brazos, and Trinity run red? At No large numbers of bodies floating down the Trinity into Galveston Bay, as they floated down the Yellow River in China where the populace was (and is) disarmed? How can that be if more guns = more crime?
You'd be wrong. In 1987...the first year that Florida passed it's model legislation that the rest of the states now follow...I was in the first wave of permit holders. THAT year saw crime drop against Florida residents by 24% and I was in a very unique position to see first hand the effects: I was a State of Florida Probation & Parole Officer. My "clients" were scared spitless. Each and every one of these dangerous felons took the risk of being arrested as a simple "cost of doing business." But faced with an armed citizen, afraid for the lives of his family? More than one said that it wasn't worth his life. In fact about 99% expressed similar views. BTW, in states without a ccw permit in that year, crime went UP.
Instead, the crimes against foregin and domestic tourists went up about a thoiusand percent. Remember the scandals of the dead English and German tourists in and around south Florida? It made national news and smeared Florida's rep worldwide. Then some smart Governor (JEB) signed into legislation a law allowing targeted reciprocity with other states especially those with a border in Florida. GW did exactly the same thing in Texas and then expanded the program. As did JEB.
Now, foreign tourists are still a target, but most bad guys leave the domestic (especially those license plates from the DEEP SOUTH) alone! It's one very important reason I only vacation in the south...where my FL ccw permit is valid.
Oh I don't know. If 2% of the population is armed, or two percent of the adult population say, in a group of 50 people the probability that at least one person was armed would be 63 percent. If you go to 3 percent armed the probability goes to 78 %. I suspect a 30 or 40 percent chance of getting shot is a pretty fair deterent. At 2% armed the chance of one or more being armed in a group of 20 is 33%.
Of course you have to add all those peaceable citizens who are armed, but not licensed. That could be an apreciable number, depending the state and the stituation, even considering only legally armed folks.
The same statistics I presented relative to groups apply to serial encounters with individuals. Thus 20 encounters, less two months of "work" at that low rate of 2-3 per week, would generate a 33% chance of encountering a CHL holder if only 2% of the populace had CHLs. Unfortunatly the "target population" for criminals and the population of those likely to go to the trouble to get a CHL are quite a bit different.
Not necessary. 3-5 months training plus a week or two a year for 6 years would produce more trained "militia" at less social and economic cost to the indivduals and to the treasury.
Last year at this time, newspapers all across Michigan noted the disappointment of county prosecutors and politically-appointed cops that there hadn't yet been a bloodbath among CCW holders. However, they held out hope that the second year of the new law would bring the carnage they desired.
I can confidently predict another wave of articles next week announcing disappointment of a second year without massacres, but holding out hope for the upcoming year. These leftist ghouls are actually hoping for one criminal homicide involving a CCW holder, so they can proclaim the law a failure, and demand its repeal.
So the gutless demorats and governor put it on the april 1999 ballot, where the dead, PC voters of st louis , kansas city and 8 other 3rd world counties cast enough votes to off set the other 106 counties in the state. The margin 3.3%.
In the 2000 election the demorats said "the voters spoke in 1999", lost seats in the legislatures. But, demo One Term Bob holden stole the governors office thanks to st louis.
In the 2002 election the demorats and OTB said "the voters spoke in 1999". Well the voters elected Republicans the majority in both houses of the state legislature.
In 2004 One Term Bob holden will problily be runing for office,,, staying " the voters spoke in 1999"
What BC, hey OTB the voters do think and do change their minds. Now OTG will veto, remmber 1999 STUPID.
In any case, the way probablities work, doublng (or more) the number of people who carry much more than doubles the odds of having someone carrying around.
Thanks! You have successfully driven back my CRS (Can't Remember SYNDROM) on the issue - LOL!
A RINO at his finest. Who protects you Mr. Taft?
"Six states - Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin - prohibit concealed weapons."
And several more effectively prohibit concealed carry (or any sort of carry for self defense) with "may issue" language: New Jersey (a big one), New York, Massachusetts, California, Maryland. I might be missing some.
I like that phrase.
My reading of the law is that anyone in Mass can get a permit (FID) to posess a pistol, but that the concealed permit is difficult to get, especially in the places where you would need it. If you have lived in Mass all your life, you would be shocked at how much easier it is to purchase, posess and cary guns in them.
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.