LOL! Hey, if CCW is okay in d.c. it must not be and issue anywhere. Right? The bad guys do it all the time without any worries.
—hope this one sneaks past the firewall—
That was a shockingly non-anti-gun article from the Chicago Tribune. I was expecting something along the lines of “we can hold back the tide! Drink more Kool Aid!” Instead, he pointed out some of the benefits of concealed carry.
On problem I had was with his characterization of a concealed carrier shooting a fleeing armed robber as a “misuse.” I don’tknow the original story, but it sounds like he was justified from the article. If he hadn’t then the robber could have gotten away and harmed more people. That a cop had to take cover could suggest that the concealed carrier wasn’t aware of his surroundings, but it could also just mean the cop wasn’t aware of the concealed carrier. I’m pretty sure that in general cops don’t get too upset when citizens help them out.
Article I, section 8 grants Congress the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States. The phrase "in all cases whatsoever" had special significance to the Founders, because of Thomas Paine's use of it in The American Crisis to describe the tyranny of the Crown over the colonies. Clearly, it was inserted to extend Congress' normally limited powers (All Legislative powers herein granted…) to all Legislative powers of any kind, over DC.
Therefore, Congress has the authority (and the responsibility) to grant reciprocity to permit holders in the 48 states that have a permit system, and to grant CCW in DC to residents of the two states that do not.
After I was menaced by a mob at the National Zoo in 2011, I wrote repeatedly to my Senators and to my Representative about this, but I have never received a satisfactory reply (unsurprisingly).
Congress should act promptly to grant reciprocity in DC to any state permit holder. Congress should not (and does not have the power to) require New York to honor a Florida permit. All proposed legislation along those lines has contained unacceptable "national standards" for a state CCW permit, which would radically worsen the circumstances of those of us who live in free states.
The recent DC District Court decision found that the failure of the DC "government" to issue non-resident CCW permits was unconstitutional because it restricted the freedom to travel. If this finding should be upheld on appeal, it would require California, NY, NJ, IL, and MD to issue nonresident CCW, which would be infinitely better (even though their requirements are terrible) than if Congress granted Barbara Boxer a say in what NH should require in order to grant a permit.
Should read "Concealed Carry Nothing to Worry About...for Non-Criminals".
SCOTUS had ignored the Second Amendment since the 1930s, so there was no "view" to drastically shift from.
I really dislike articles that require you to register just to read the content.
I would have liked to read the article.
Steve Chapman's one of those rare liberals who's capable of seeing touches of both sides. I'm amazed. It's one thing to believe theoretically it's possible for liberals who can see 'the other side' - - it's another thing to see it in print. Weird, but nice.
He made several misstatements and assumptions.
The most glaring of these was “It’s people who lack licenses you have to fear.” This statement is disabused by noting those states where *no* license of any kind are needed.
Licenses change little, because a good person without a license is just as responsible as a good person without one.
Prohibitions matter, but it is more important that they be for *genuine* need, such as felony convictions. That is, unless judges in those states are allowed to restore gun rights after sentence has been served. Far more difficult, but not impossible, is to prohibit guns from the demonstrably mentally ill. People who in earlier times were said to “represent a possibility of harm to themselves or others.” A good as definition as any.
Another error of the writer: “There was a recent episode in a Chicago suburb when a 56-year-old man with a permit blasted away at a fleeing armed robbery suspect, forcing a cop to take cover.”
There is no real problem here, either. While the officer was wise to take cover *when his presence was not known* to the armed victim, (in much of the US) the victim was within his rights to fire on the fleeing robber.
The statement is not true! Concealed carry is a great cause of worry .........................for criminals.
"We moved our base camp last night and we’re now positioned literally
within feet of the river. Have been sitting here watching the border
patrol patrolling in their riverboats all night and all morning..."~Jim Robinson
Please support Free Republic
click the pic