Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers

This is a discussion on Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Got to love Congressman Stearns Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers - HUMAN EVENTS Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers by Rep. Cliff Stearns 01/26/2009 ...

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Thumbs up Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers

    Got to love Congressman Stearns


    Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers - HUMAN EVENTS

    Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers
    by Rep. Cliff Stearns

    01/26/2009


    The right to bear arms is more than a Constitutional right: every human being has the natural unalienable right to self-defense. Cicero said 2,000 years ago, “If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”

    The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. Right to carry laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms for their own protection.

    So many liberal politicians and self-appointed experts want to keep honest Americans from having access to firearms, even though, since 2003, in states which allow concealed carry, violent crime rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1970s. The reverse logic of this "knee jerk" reaction is astounding and has lead to an outright assault on our basic Constitutional and natural rights. These misguided policies to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens literally mean a death sentence for thousands of Americans.


    Look at the facts. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, “[R]obbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.” In approximately 2.5 million instances each year, someone uses a firearm, predominantly a handgun, for self defense in this nation.

    In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.

    Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals -- it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.

    In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner.

    But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.

    Another study makes the moral case for expanding and enhancing right-to-carry laws. A report by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996 found "that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths." Further, the Lott-Mustard study noted, "If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly."

    Think about it. Nearly 8,000 of our fellow citizens have died between 1992 and 1996 because of the irrational fear that law-abiding Americans would abuse their right to self defense. In fact concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.

    Laws allowing the concealed carrying of a firearm are on the books in 48 states, in some form. Two-thirds of Americans live in states with right-to-carry laws, their respective state houses and governors recognizing their fundamental right to self-defense. But let me pose a question. Should your natural right to self defense and your Constitutional right to bear arms end when you cross a state line? I think not.

    That is why I, along with Representative Rich Boucher (D-Va.) introduced H.R. 197, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. Our legislation proposes a federal law that would entitle any person with a valid state-issued concealed carry permit to carry in any other state, as follows: In a state that issues carry permits, its laws would apply. In states that don’t issue carry permits, the Federal law providing a "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; etc. The bright-light standard in itself is not a license -- the individual would still have to possess a valid state permit issued by their state of residence. It doesn't make sense to me for Americans to forfeit their safety because they happen to be on vacation or on a business trip. This legislation would greatly enhance the safety of this nation's ever-increasing mobile society.

    As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Our society is a violent society. However, the innocent deserve access to the tools they need to defend themselves. By passing H.R. 197, we can help reduce the carnage wrought by armed criminals. Let's give those who decide to take the responsibility of possessing a concealed carry permit a fighting chance anywhere in America.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Stearns, a Republican, represents the 6th District of Florida in the U.S. House of Representatives.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,095
    I saw a show on tv Vice Cops or something like that,they stopped a guy in Florida that when they get him out of the car he's wearing a gun .The guy says I got a permit for that,then the cops found a buncha drugs in his car and the cop looks at him and said that permit doesn't cover you when your in the commission of a crime
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  4. #3
    Member Array laguna0seca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    112
    Representative Rich Boucher (D-Va.)
    Good to know there is some bipartisan support on at least one issue, however slight it may be.
    USMC Sergeant
    NRA Certified Instructor
    Utah BCI Certified Instructor
    Utah Self Defense Instruction- Utah CCW, Discount NRA memberships/renewals
    Gun Blog,CCW News and Reviews

  5. #4
    Member Array Gamisou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    right behind you!
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by daveh View Post
    word!

  6. #5
    Member Array Double Naught Spy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    453
    Guns do save lives, no doubt, but claiming drops in crime rates due to concealed carry is dubious at best. You have correlation without specified causation.
    In 2006 in Texas Commissioner Jerry Patterson published a nice article talking about how Texas CHL's lowered the crime rate in Texas. He was, after all, the senior author on the bill and it had been a decade of dropping crime rates in Texas since CHL went into effect in 1996. Cool, right? Stats prove it works.

    What the Commissioner failed to tell people was that the Texas crime rate was also in a downward trend BEFORE the CHL went into effect. Apparently the notion of the bill was so powerful, crime in Texas started dropping in the previous decade, wavering back and forth a bit, then started its downward fall in 1992. But this just proves that pro-gun legislation and activities now can have such a powerful effect as to affect crime levels backward through time!!!! Is that not amazing?

    Clear evidence that Texas CHLs reduce crime was so effective that when it went into effect in 1996, not only did the crime rate drop in Texas, but there was a national ripple effect that carried over to MA, CA, NY, and ME for several years(from Uniform FBI Crime Reports found online for each state). That is right, sir, statistics have proven that since the implementation of Texas CHL, the crime rates dropped in decidedly anti-gun states as well.

    So much for sarcasm. The point here is that folks should not look at this information without looking at it in context. Concealed carry does protect individuals by giving them the option to fight crime if the need arises...no doubt about it. However, the naive belief that concealed carry causes crime rates to drop is without actual causative proof since it does not account for aspects of crime rate drop before being enacted or drops in places where it hasn't been enacted.
    Considering yourself to be defenseless is the first administrative step to becoming a victim.

  7. #6
    Member Array jowgafist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    447
    contact your reps. and senators. tell them to support H.R. 197 and H.R. 17

  8. #7
    Member Array swaggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    132
    I'm sure I'll catch flack for this one, so I'll start offering my condolences to those living in said decidely anti-gun states.
    I realize since the end of the civil war, "state's rights" don't mean nearly what they used to and that we're no longer, truly, a nation of soverign states goverened by one federal entity for the common protection, but this seems to overstep a state's perogative in exactly the same way that most federal anti-gun legislation does. I don't see how we can be in support of this but so opposed to other overreaches of the federal government.
    I'd rather not take yet another step towards The United Super-Counties of America
    "Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less."
    "Save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword" - Gen. R. E. Lee

  9. #8
    Member Array fatcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by swaggs View Post
    I'm sure I'll catch flack for this one, so I'll start offering my condolences to those living in said decidely anti-gun states.
    I realize since the end of the civil war, "state's rights" don't mean nearly what they used to and that we're no longer, truly, a nation of soverign states goverened by one federal entity for the common protection, but this seems to overstep a state's perogative in exactly the same way that most federal anti-gun legislation does. I don't see how we can be in support of this but so opposed to other overreaches of the federal government.
    I'd rather not take yet another step towards The United Super-Counties of America
    That's a good point as far as fair legislation goes. However I will disagree in one sense, and that is that the anti-gun legislation hinders freedom, while he pro-gun legislation gives more freedoms.

    This might be tough to explain but I'll try.

    It is not a pick and choose situation as much as it is the positive overriding the negative. Since more freedom is what we all want, anything that overrides to grant more freedom by default is OK.

    In computers there is a lot of security rules, but certain rules at higher levels will override other more local rules. Those overrides will generally only be granted so as not to impede the process. This is very much the same idea as a more freedom oriented rule overriding a local more strict rule.

    So in that, I think most people will be OK with a federal rule for reciprocity overriding local laws. And I think we would be justified in allowing that two way street to ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by laguna0seca View Post
    Good to know there is some bipartisan support on at least one issue, however slight it may be.
    You know we are seeing this a lot more in recent years. I don't know if its backlash from 9/11 or what, but since around that time the number of Democrats backing pro-gun legislation is probably three times higher.

    Its funny, the Republicans are starting to see more and more anti-gun reps and the Democrats are seeing more. It could be just the cycle of things but it sure seems to be a bit of a wave of change.

    We will see just how much if this bill passes.

  10. #9
    Member Array swaggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by fatcat View Post
    In computers there is a lot of security rules, but certain rules at higher levels will override other more local rules. Those overrides will generally only be granted so as not to impede the process. This is very much the same idea as a more freedom oriented rule overriding a local more strict rule.
    So we should have a higher level rule saying that anyone on server "A" can come and access stuff on server "B" even though the admin of server "B" has reasons for not wanting that??

    Quote Originally Posted by fatcat View Post
    So in that, I think most people will be OK with a federal rule for reciprocity overriding local laws. And I think we would be justified in allowing that two way street to ride.
    So when legislation is passed saying guns that aren't legal in CA could be purchased in another state and brought in, so no state can sell these guns, we're all okay with that, right?? Because it's the same logical argument. (Looking at it from the actual logical structure, not the subject of the argument.)


    If Virginia, for example, God-Forbid, had a valid and recognized reason not to recognize permits from (also for example) North Carolina, then why should the Federal Government say "Too bad Virginia, we don't give a d*** and Tarheels can carry in across your state line no matter what you think"
    I'm definitely a State's Rights guy, and this is just all sorts of wrong ON THAT LEVEL.

    Otherwise I think it's great for the same reasons that the rest of you point out, and I would love to be able to drive from here to California and not worry about where I can carry and where I can't. I just think it ought be the state's call.
    "Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less."
    "Save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword" - Gen. R. E. Lee

  11. #10
    Member Array bbernard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fort Myers, FL
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by swaggs View Post
    I'm definitely a State's Rights guy, and this is just all sorts of wrong ON THAT LEVEL.

    Otherwise I think it's great for the same reasons that the rest of you point out, and I would love to be able to drive from here to California and not worry about where I can carry and where I can't. I just think it ought be the state's call.
    +1... I am also of the "State's Rights" mindset.... Last time I looked the states reciprocity laws have come a very long way. Having a Florida "resident CWL" gives me the right to carry in 34 other states.

    If H.R. 197 was written to only allow reciprocity in U.S. territories outside of the sovereign states then I may support it.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array AllAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, Kakalaki del Sur
    Posts
    2,403
    Im with swaggs and bbernard on this one. Im not supporting this.

    With the SC and NH permits I can go to all the states I want to go to. Thats all I need.
    My Music: www.reverbnation.com/dickiefredericks
    New tunes added.
    "The Double Tap Center Mass Boogie. Learn it, know it, love it, shoot it. Good guys should live, bad guys not so much. " - Ted Nugent 09

  13. #12
    Member Array fatcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by swaggs View Post
    So we should have a higher level rule saying that anyone on server "A" can come and access stuff on server "B" even though the admin of server "B" has reasons for not wanting that??



    So when legislation is passed saying guns that aren't legal in CA could be purchased in another state and brought in, so no state can sell these guns, we're all okay with that, right?? Because it's the same logical argument. (Looking at it from the actual logical structure, not the subject of the argument.)


    If Virginia, for example, God-Forbid, had a valid and recognized reason not to recognize permits from (also for example) North Carolina, then why should the Federal Government say "Too bad Virginia, we don't give a d*** and Tarheels can carry in across your state line no matter what you think"
    I'm definitely a State's Rights guy, and this is just all sorts of wrong ON THAT LEVEL.

    Otherwise I think it's great for the same reasons that the rest of you point out, and I would love to be able to drive from here to California and not worry about where I can carry and where I can't. I just think it ought be the state's call.
    No you kid of missed my point. I knew I was not going to be able to explain it right but let me try again.

    With the computer analogy, it was meant to show that security rules that stand higher will have no negative impact. In other words state laws that are more restrictive would still stand. And with that, the state laws would still stand for purchase and ownership.

    I totally understand what you are saying, and I agree that the states should remain in charge. And chances are they would still remain that way because any state can reject to enforce any federal law. So even if this does go through, there is a very good chance that some states will refuse to adopt the policy. I would imagine that NY for instance will still prohibit any carry in NYC.

    My only point was that the entire exercise of laws is to prohibit or control freedom. So in that, a law that allows more freedom, even in a round-about way is not a detriment to the cause. That was where I tried to tie in the computer security issue. To point out that security parameters that are less restrictive can in fact be more restrictive.

    I'm not saying I'm right or you are wrong, just making a point. But I agree that a "travel" law of reciprocity needs to be initiated on some level. I know people who refuse to leave their state because they cannot carry outside of it and that is no good.

  14. #13
    Member Array MiloSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    190
    I think this bill has the potential to come back and bite us. It establishes a precedent that the Federal Government has authority over how the states handle their CC laws. This may be good for us this time around, but once the precedent has been set (as I understand it, I'm no lawyer), it could reversed by the anti's and a law passed to limit CC. If the federal Government can legalize it, can't they also make it illegal? Looks to me like they don't have the constitutional authority to do either one. Not to say that they won't try to get away with it, though. I would say this bill could hurt us more than it could help us

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    --10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
    When in doubt empty the magazine.

    "There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy." - George Washington

  15. #14
    Ex Member Array DOGOFWAR01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WYOMING
    Posts
    562
    No thank you.

    This is a State Rights issue.

    No I do not want the federal govt to have anything to do with any gun laws except the Second Amendment as in the U.S. Constitution.

    I will not support this and I will write by Congressmen not to support this.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. How many Concealed Carry Permits are there in the US?
    By mandalitten in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: April 13th, 2013, 03:42 AM
  2. In Australia the Liberals want concealed carry permits.
    By Shrunken in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 10:33 PM
  3. 'Bill urges businesses to allow concealed carry permits on property'
    By laguna0seca in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: March 16th, 2010, 01:02 AM
  4. Ohio concealed carry permits
    By Mardet65 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2009, 04:45 PM
  5. For those with concealed carry permits
    By Van55 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: October 4th, 2008, 12:33 PM

Search tags for this page

california concealed carry permits
,
chl crime rates drop
,
conceal carry permit owners vs crime rate 2008
,
concealed carry dropping crime rate 32%
,

concealed carry permits are life savers

,

concealed carry permits are lifesavers

,
concealed carry saves life
,

concealed carry vs vigilanteism

,
crime rate in texas since chl
,

how many concealed carry permits in us

,
how much has the crime rate in tn dropped since concealed carry went into affect
,
state of texas weapons carry permit/license
Click on a term to search for related topics.