Barack Obama: "I Am Not In Favor Of Concealed Weapons"

Would you feel safer having more loaded and concealed guns being carried in the public places you and your family visit?

The issue has been in the news recently, including editorials in the New York Times last Friday and the Washington Post today.

On the one hand, the gun lobby wants to force concealed weapons (unconnected to law enforcement) into nearly every place you can imagine, including National Parks, college campuses, airports, even churches.

On the other hand, most Americans probably agree with the statement President Obama made on concealed weapons during his campaign:

I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.

Gun advocates - including many who comment on this blog - repeat the mantra that gun owners with concealed carry permits are all "law-abiding citizens," and that the public can trust all permit-holders to be responsible no matter where they insist on carrying their loaded semi-automatic pistols.

In the comments to my post last week, for example, someone pointed to a Tennessee concealed carry permit-holder recently charged with murder. In a response characteristic of many gun advocates, another commenter replied, "After years, you got one. When you get to thousands ... let me know."

Yet examples of criminals and other dangerous people with concealed carry permits are not hard to find. A new report seems to pop up every week, and the incidents that find their way into newspapers very likely under-represent the phenomenon. Indeed, one of the agenda items for the gun pushers is keeping information on who have these permits private, thus making it less likely that the public will know whether permit-holders are contributing to the violence.

The fact is that too many gun owners with concealed carry permits are not law-abiding citizens, while some permit-holders are so incompetent they shouldn't be allowed near a firearm in the first place, whether they've committed a crime or not. Just having a permit isn't reason enough to force loaded, concealed handguns into churches, airports, colleges, National Parks, and other places that Americans want to keep protected from gun violence.

Here is a look at just a few examples of dangerous or careless holders of concealed carry permits reported since last June:

• In Florida, a permit-holder pleaded guilty to second-degree murder; another was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm after a road rage incident; another was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and impersonating a law enforcement officer; another was charged with attempted second-degree murder, multiple counts of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and battery; a permit-holder and teacher (who is also reportedly a suspect in a battery case with a DUI record) faces felony charges of possessing firearms on school property; another was charged with violating his license after allegedly admitting he was under the influence of alcohol and armed in a bar; another allegedly shot his wife in the chest by accident while showing off his gun; another was charged with the negligent manslaughter of his girlfriend; another was charged with the murder of a Federal Customs agent; another accidentally shot himself in the leg outside a Wal-Mart store; another allegedly killed a man in a road rage incident; another accidentally shot himself in the leg at a "Downtown Disney" parking lot; another was charged with first degree murder. There is also the revelation that a Florida-certified firearms instructor allegedly sold concealed carry permits to people who hadn't passed a training test. Finally, New York Giants football player Plaxico Burress had a Florida permit until last May, just six months before he shot himself in the leg in a New York City bar. These incidents come on the heels of the Florida Sun-Sentinel series of investigative reports in 2007 finding 10 times as many Florida concealed carry permit-holders with dangerous or criminal records than previously admitted by the state. Ever since Florida first passed concealed carry in 1987, it has been one of the four most violent states in America.

• In Ohio, a permit-holder pleaded no contest to negligent assault after accidentally shooting a 10-year-old girl in the stomach; another was charged with aggravated menacing; another was convicted of aggravated menacing in a road rage incident; another was killed in a confrontation in an apparent "case of a person committing suicide by provoking police"; another was arrested with a blood alcohol level twice the legal limit and pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while impaired and improper handling of a firearm; another was charged with inducing panic after firing shots over a school baseball field; another is on trial for the aggravated murder of a police officer.

• In Pennsylvania, a permit-holder (who allegedly had cocaine in her system) was charged with the murder of an FBI agent; another was charged with two counts of terroristic threats; another was charged with reckless endangerment, aggravated assault and discharging a gun in public; another was charged with two counts of attempted murder and aggravated assault; another was charged with simple assault, stalking and harassment, and endangering the welfare of a child; another was charged with a triple murder.

• In South Carolina, a 4-year-old girl shot herself in the chest inside a Sam's Club store with the gun of her grandmother, a permit-holder and magistrate judge; another permit-holder was arrested after leaving his loaded pistol on a playground for a 7-year-old girl to find; another was charged with wanton endangerment after admitting that "he brandished a Glock Model 27 at [a] woman because he was angry with her for driving too slowly."

• In Tennessee, a permit-holder was recently charged with murdering someone in an argument over a parking space (mentioned above); another pleaded guilty to assault after allegedly threatening his wife; another was arrested for impersonating a police officer; another permit-holder, Tennessee Titans wide receiver Brandon Jones, pleaded guilty to taking his loaded gun into Nashville International Airport; another 99 Tennessee permit-holders were found to have felony convictions, DUI charges or orders of protection against them; as many as 200 were discovered to have disqualifying domestic violence records.

• In Texas, a college-age permit-holder was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after an altercation at a child's soccer game; permit-holder and country singer Billy Joe Shaver was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and unlawfully carrying a handgun connected with a shooting outside a bar; permit-holder and talk-show host Russ Martin was charged with beating his fiancee and brandishing a handgun; another permit-holder shot himself in the groin. This is eight years after the Los Angeles Times reported that Texas had "licensed hundreds of people with prior criminal convictions - including rape and armed robbery - and histories of violence, psychological disorders and drug or alcohol problems."

• In Utah, a permit-holder was charged with impersonating a police officer; another, a suspected sex offender, committed suicide in a police station; a college-age permit-holder was charged with aggravated assault after pointing his handgun at a carload of teenagers; another shot himself in the foot; another accidentally shot an acquaintance in the back, killing him; another accidentally shot a toilet inside a restaurant while pulling up his pants. Utah's weak permitting system has come under scrutiny in recent months, leading to a rare, but welcome partnership between elements of the gun lobby (though not the NRA) and gun violence prevention advocates to help strengthen it.

• In Virginia, a permit-holder was charged with second-degree murder; another was charged with possessing a weapon on school property while allegedly drinking beer; two other Virginia permit-holders recently were caught at the point of sale by a Brady criminal background check, showing that between receiving a permit and buying a firearm, permit-holders can easily fall into prohibited categories without having their licenses revoked.

The list goes on. Again, since last June:

• An Alabama school teacher and permit-holder was charged with marijuana possession and selling counterfeit merchandise;

• An Arizona permit-holder was charged with 14 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and four counts of endangerment after a shootout with police.

• In Arkansas, permit-holder and University of Arkansas defensive tackle Ernest Mitchell was cited for possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia and simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm.

• In Colorado, a man who apparently held permits in both Colorado and Utah was arrested while being armed and intoxicated on the grounds of a high school.

• A college-aged Connecticut permit-holder was charged with breach of the peace and reckless endangerment after allegedly brandishing his handgun at a mall.

• A Georgia permit-holder was arrested in Florida and charged with driving while intoxicated, racing and possession of a firearm while intoxicated, after allegedly driving drunk at 90-mph with two semi-automatic pistols on his lap. (Georgia and Florida share reciprocity.) As a spokesman for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation later said, "I don't know of any way to prove [that Georgia permit-holders] are law-abiding or disprove it, because there's no record to say one way or the other."

• In Idaho, a permit-holder shot and killed himself in an apparent gun-cleaning accident.

• An Indiana permit-holder was charged with operating a car under the influence of alcohol, a concealed carry permit violation, possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and marijuana possession; two others were charged in connection with separate road rage incidents; another was just arrested for allegedly waving his gun at a Mardi Gras party after reportedly saying, "I'll shoot anybody."

• In Iowa, a permit-holder was charged with possessing more than 150 pounds of marijuana.

• In Kentucky, a permit-holder was charged in the murder of his wife. According to the report, before she was shot and killed, "she said police told her William Seidl [her husband] had a permit for the gun, so there was nothing she could do."

• A Michigan permit-holder accidentally shot himself in the backside trying to move his weapon from one back pocket to the other.

• In Nevada, a permit-holder pleaded guilty to robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery as an accomplice to O.J. Simpson.

• A permit-holder in New York is now the suspect in a quadruple murder.

• In North Carolina, a permit-holder was charged in a double murder; a licensed firearms instructor was just arrested for selling firearms safety certificates required to get concealed carry permits, and was charged with solicitation of another to commit a felony. According to the report, "Deputies said they had not yet been able to determine how many of Smith's certificates were authentic and how many were fake."

• In Oklahoma, a permit-holder faced felony charges after apparently firing his weapon into the ground when his neighbor sprayed a garden hose at him; another pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter in connection with a road rage incident.

• In Washington, a permit-holder "with a history of drug addiction and schizophrenia" pleaded guilty to negligent assault in a shooting at the Seattle Folklife Festival.

...

To be clear, this shouldn't be seen as an indictment of all gun owners, and it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Most gun owners (as well as most non-gun owners) are law-abiding and responsible.

However, given incidents like these in just the past few months, and the life and death consequences of firearm misuse, Americans have good reason to want most places in public life to be gun-free - including free from guns in the hands of concealed carry permit-holders.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

 

 

Comments

[OdinsEye]

As usual, the Brady Camp pads their stats and anecdotes by including many incidents in which the permit holder was not doing anything wrong with the concealed firearm while carrying concealed.

[djkrlsn]

And Paul also neglects to supply the sample size that his examples are drawn from. Conclusions are going to be slightly different if the examples provided are say 90% of the relevent population as opposed to 0.001% of the population

[ProGunAmerican]

Just so UCCLady is aware, felons do not have to register their guns, per the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[ProGunAmerican]

UCCLady, I'd really like to know how you would go about seizing all of our firearms, despite the fact that this cannot happen in light of the Heller decision. But I'm curious, how would you do it, without starting the next civil war/revolution? You do know why the Second Amendment was written right, the core principle behind it? It was meant to provide a means of resistance to a tyrannical government. There is a reason the Second is right behind the First.

You also realize that you're gun confiscation desire will have zero impact on the criminals, they will be the only ones with guns, crime will skyrocket, it would be a disaster. "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".

[Bill666]

UCCLady, I would like to ask if you believe a person has a right to use any weapon at all for self-defense, and if so, what that weapon would be?

[twogunmojo]

dear ucclady: how is that search coming along...you know...the one where you want a "knowledgeable pro-gun person" to show me the error of my ways and how right you are...supporting the "laws on the books" is at best a cop out....if you believe yourself to be morally superior and would not ever take the life of another human being no matter what was being done to you then just say so.....or are their circumstances in which you would consider taking a life....honesty first please....as far as i can tell humans are the only animals that kills with wanton abandon..well...us and those 2 lions in "the ghost and the darkness"....but pro-rkba people are like border collies or other guard dogs....we protect those around us...now we don't care much if sheep want to do stupid sheep stuff all day..that is the right of the sheep but interlopers will be dealt with swiftly and severely...and if that entails choking the life out of a coyote then so be it....

[MajorTom125]

I'm waiting for something concrete to substantiate the belief that a human being does not have the right to defend himself or herself with a gun. So far, I'm not hearing anything that could be based on anything but emotion.

[djkrlsn]

Twogun--I can understand an individual making a decision not to resist or defend themselves--but it is unethical to deny someone else the tools for self defense

[twogunmojo]

my point exactly...where did she go anyway....

[UCCLady]

Response to mike102's comments below (the reading area was getting too narrow):

"You think nobody has a right to use a gun, yet you have no problem if the court says it's OK. That's a contradiction, in case you hadn't noticed."

Like I said before, don't paraphrase me and then point to your paraphrases and say I'm contradicting myself. What I have said is that I do not support, and will work against, laws allowing any availability or use of guns, including self defense with guns; HOWEVER, I recognize there are currently laws on the books which allow for self-defense with a gun and that prosecutors, courts, and juries will follow those laws in determining which shootings are legally justified. While I do not agree with these laws, and will work to get rid of them, I must ethically support the rule of laws currently on the books. There is no contradiction in that.

"If someone is in your home, you are justified in shooting them, in any court in any state I know of. You are still dancing around that one."

Please quote me where I'm "dancing around" that issue. Again, your assertions without my quotes.

"And as far as my effectiveness goes, ask around, newbie."

If you make assertions about my writings contradicting each other, but you don't put any quotes of mine against each other to demonstrate what you assert, you are ineffective in successfully demonstrating your assertion.

[mike102]

"I must ethically support the rule of laws currently on the books"

If you believe a person has no right to defend themselves with a gun, how can you ethically support the laws currently on the books. That's a contradiction, and there was no "paraphrasing" involved.


."What I said is that prosecutors, courts and juries will look at the totality of facts and use a "reasonable person" standard, in each case of use of force up to and including cases of lethal force, to determine whether such things as the subject's/­defendant'­s perceptions and subsequent level of force used is justified".

Not true if someone is IN YOUR HOME.

"Yes, you may be legally justified to shoot what you perceive to be an intruder in your home,"

There is no "may be" about it.

To be honest, I am not very interested in debating someone who thinks that a human being does not have the right to defend themselves with the most effective means at their disposal.

I am also not very interested in debating someone who thinks we should be required to give an intruder or assailant an even break, or use "proportional force". Do you think violent criminals are thinking about using proportional force? When an intruder breaks into my home, or a mugger confronts me elsewhere, am I supposed to ask what weapons he is carying so I can respond 'proportionately'.

When you are ready to embrace reality, come and talk to me. I'll still be here.

[djkrlsn]

And while UCC may be technically correct about proportion­ality--tha­t proportionality is based on the level of FORCE or THREAT in the attack--not the specific weapon involved. By UCC standards--a 5'1" 110lb 70+ year old individual would have to fist fight a 20 something 200lb+ world class martial artist that can kill most people in seconds without a weapon. Regardless of the location of the attack--lethal force can be met by lethal force (like I have said elsewhere--in every law enforcement agency I know of--it is well within policy to use a firearm to stop a knife attack. Here in L A county--officers were attacked by a homeless woman with a big screw driver, shot her and the shooting was ruled legit (family screamed bloody murder, but it didn't go very far).

[mike102]

You also never responded to another poster who asked you what weapons you think we should be allowed to use.

When someone is intruding into your home, or accosting you on the street, what you want is the capability to use overwhelmimgly superior force.

Ask any LEO.

[OdinsEye]

"While I do not agree with these laws, and will work to get rid of them, "

So you feel that a person does not have a right to self-defense. Gee, isn't that sweet!

[Thirdpower]

The Brady Campaign continues to be blatantly disingenuous when it comes to semi-auto firearms. They are now claiming that semi-auto and fully auto are the exact same thing.

"Some gun advocates disingenuously argue that assault weapons are only fully automatic machine guns, and that their semi-automatic versions are merely "like many hunting rifles."

That's false."

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/video-brady-campaign-explains-difference-between-automatic-weapons

So now the Brady Campaign admits it's after all semi-auto firearms. Not just scary looking 'assault weapons.

[molonlabe]

Hey, give them a break.

They are only "...try[ing] to explain it to people who don't think about guns all day " i.e., the vast majority of America " so they can understand [them]."

[djkrlsn]

Too bad the BC understand firearms about as well as I understand the physics of Romulan quarks

[djkrlsn]

More Brady stuff suitable for use as 100% organic soil amendment

[HisXLNC]

In response to UCCLady in regards to self-defense with a firearm not being a right:

Even if you were to reverse all popular opinion, Heller, etc and establish through law that self-defense with a firearm is not a right, it still wouldn't go anywhere. Human beings are animals. Animals like to live and animals will do anything possible to preserve their life. Rattlesnakes bite. Scorpion sting. And being that man is a tool using animal, man will always use the best tools possible to preserve his life. That tool being the firearm.

That's because self-defense with a firearm is not just a right, but a natural right. An inalienable right. It is not a right created by the word of man, but a right endowed on us by nature/creator. No change in legislation or public opinion will do away with this right.

So yes. Your advocacy is ultimately invalid. Just as invalid as advocating that dogs don't have the right to bite. You can't legislate away human nature.

[twogunmojo]

don't make me use my stuff on you man...thank you very much....a better question for ucclady is the simpler question to which i am sure we will not receive an honest short answer...is it ok if i keep and use a samurai sword to kill the intruder i just found in my kids room...and is it ok if i carry my randall bowie with me and use it to kill the mugger or rapist when i am out in public...tell me ucclady...since you pride yourself on being honest....as do i by the way....do i have the right to take the life of another who is threatening my life..my liberty...my pursuit of happiness

[UCCLady]

"i am sure we will not receive an honest short answer [to whether it is permissible to kill a home intruder or someone threatening life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness]"
--twogunmojo

Honest short answer:
No. It is a longstanding ethical, and in most places legal, principle of self-defense that *proportional* force is permissible, which may or may not be lethal force. The totality of facts about a situation (including your hypotheticals) and the "reasonable person" standard with respect to a proper response to those facts are taken into account to judge if a person was justified in the force they used or should go to jail.

Now, your turn to give an honest short answer to two questions:
1)Were you wrong to say you wouldn't get an honest short answer from me?
2)Am I more correct in my answer about use of lethal force than you are when you imply use of lethal force without regard to the legal concepts of proportionality and "reasonable person" standard in light of the set of facts in each situation?

[blueman55]

We are such arrogant creatures to believe that our scribblings on paper override the laws of nature.

[twogunmojo]

pay attention mr. pennington...this is why i do not trust you...shed­ances...uc­clady or any other people who want to take away my rights...i would like to hear your comments on the following story....why is it ok for the bad cops to stay anonymous and not posters on this or any other blog....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090305/ap_on_re_us/chicago_police_suit_2

[twogunmojo]

paging mr. pennington­....paging mr. pennington...

[twogunmojo]

mr. pennington and company: i do not post my name and address here because it is not required...when it is required i imagine the anti-gunners will vanish overnight...also i did not ask you mr. pennington what obama thinks about ccw...i asked what you thought about my proposal...whether it be ccw or open carry i leave up to you...my compatriots and i disagree on several issues...but we do not disagree on the rkba and that as an individual right one can exercise said right as much or as little as one wishes...speaking for myself i do not mind telling you that before tn. became a shall issue state it did not stop me from carrying my gun if i felt it necessary...if the 2nd is repealed in my lifetime it will not stop me from carrying my gun...call me an anarchist but we gen xers were born to it...we grew up listening to the clash and john prine...neil young and the cult....we read silverberg and asimov...and dante and shakespeare...we love john wayne and clint eastwood....and dennis hopper and david lynch....we supported the ira and afghan rebels...we hated the british and the soviets...gen x may be the last real americans...we will not go quietly into the night...we will never give up our lives...our liberties...our pursuits of happiness to make you and yours feel better about yourselves.....

[mike102]

Ditto for us 'Boomers'.

[djkrlsn]

This is a question for Kelli, UCClady and Doug--why is it legitimate for government employees and security guards to have firearms for selfdefense but not for civilians to have a gun. Also UCClady--what makes it legit for me to carry what is functionally a martial arts staff or shillealeagh for self defense but not a firearm or baton.

[ProGunAmerican]

Democrat Senator's Max Baucus and John Tester of Montana, wrote a letter to AG Eric Holder, basically saying, lay off our guns! I love it! They will oppose any revival of the assault weapons ban, something Pelosi and Reid have already said.

http://tester.senate.gov/Newsroom/pr_030309_holderguns.cfm

[molonlabe]

Which is why you will be seeing an all out push by the anti's to try to ban CCW. It's basically all they've got anymore.

[ProGunAmerican]

UCCLady, I'll reiterate some points others have made here. You said "gun ownership for self defense is not a right". Oh really? I'd advise you to read the Heller decision, the Supreme Court specifically decreed the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS FOR SELF DEFENSE. You, UCCLady, do not get to decree our rights, nor does the Brady Campaign! The U.S Constitution protects certain in-aliable rights, among those, self defense, which often involves guns, knives, fist's, even baseball bats. I'm sure you know what natural human rights are, UCCLady? Self defense is one of them, its a god given right protected by the Constitution.

Kelli, you mention that you understand the cattle rancher's need for firearms, the utility of them, for things such as predator control. I'm sure you still want to make it as difficult as humanly possible for him to obtain said firearms, correct? This is hypocritical.

Lastly, I find Kelli's views on gun ownership and self defense, disgusting and revolting, to be frank. The same language she used in referencing us. Its amazing the names we get called, because we stand for the Constitution and freedom. Mind boggling.

[UCCLady]

I've addressed below the Heller decision, that I understand it, that I oppose it, and that in our political system one may advocate the reversal of SCOTUS decisions and that SCOTUS decisions have been reversed.

I believe that the right to self-defense does not include specifically firearms being used for self-defense. Therefore, I can--without contradict­ion--advoc­ate a total ban of firearms from all areas. Whether anyone agrees with that or not, my position does not suffer from a significant weakness that, frankly, the Brady Campaign and some other gun-control people continue to inflict upon themselves. That weakness being the paradox of their (public) acquiescence to Heller and their support of what they call "sensible gun laws" and their, honestly, totally anti gun-rights positions.

There has NEVER been a gun-control or gun-ban idea I didn't like. The difference, as I see it, between people like myself and the Brady Campaign and people like the Brady Campaign, is that I don't dance around it.

[djkrlsn]

Question--do you support disarming the police and do you really think your position has a snowcone's chance in Hades of surviving? I still give you credit for recognizing that the Brady tactic of supporting Heller while still advocating civilian disarmament ("no miltary "style" weapons" pretty much means ban everything) can cause some major problem with consistancy (just like claiming to not support gun bans while supporting every gun ban coming down the pike)

[mike102]

Dateline Phialdelphia..... ....... ......

Action News has just learned, that today in Philadalphia, no police officers were shot by repeat, violent felons who are at large due to prison overcrowding .... ..... ..... .;....

[shedances]

Last comment on this thread for shedances:

"You are against the use of guns for home defense. You are aginst the use of guns for personal defense. The people who do misuse firearms to harm others, namely criminals, don't seem to interest you or the BC whatsoever. We have never heard a word from either of you in that regard."

Let's set the record straight.

I think that you, Ltbromhead, & a few others here, use 'self-defense' in order to justify all forms of gun ownership & carrying, which I oppose & find disgusting, frankly. Some of what you folks cite is not self defense necessarily ... such as carrying in our (otherwise) very safe national parks, etc. Civilian gun ownership is both a limited & regulated right. And my firm support of such laws and proposals ~ inc. bans on ownership of assault weapons for the civilian market ~ is also my right. Moreover, it isn't in your power to tell me how I should think about firearms (remember Doug's advice on "entitlement" a few days ago? I think that applies well here).

I'm also interested in prevention; not in shaking my head after-the-fact & seeing the aftermath of deaths. I'm also interested in research on those who later become involved with guns in a decidedly harmful way (e.g., Kowalski's findings on high school gunmen obsessed with guns & death, etc.).

If you don't like my views, well all I can honestly say is you'll live!

[blueman55]

Just remember kids,

In BradyLand guns are bad. Unless they are being used to throw people in prison for smoking a joint or to fight wars based on lies!

[LtBromhead]

"is also my right. Moreover, it isn't in your power to tell me how I should think about firearms (remember Doug's advice on "entitlement" a few days ago? I think that applies well here)."

For the last time, shedances, nobody is trying to tell you how to think. Nobody is forcing anything on you. So let's stop pretending we're being persecuted, OK? And is you who clearly feel that YOU are entitled to force your agenda on the rest of America.

I"'m also interested in prevention; not in shaking my head after-the-fact & seeing the aftermath of deaths."

You are not intersted in prevention enough to call for more severe punishment of violent felons, so don't talk to us like we're the ones standing around shaking our heads. You shake your head and then call for more restrictions on law abiding people, and we are not the problem.

[Ohio9]

Well I'm sure violent criminals love your views. But if you ever come into contact with them, I gotta say, the chances of your survival will be greatly reduced, no matter how much they agree with you on the notion that their victims should not be armed.

While you certainly do have a right to support this notion, when you make it in a debate, I don't think it is too much to ask for some facts to back up your claims. Whenever you ask for things to support our position, we happily provide them. In contrast, you still have not provided a shread of evidence to support the claim that CCW makes parks less safe, or that State parks which have allowed CCW for years are any less safe then Federal parks which only allowed it recently.

Finally, if you want to be able to defend yourself 24 hours a day from any potential threat, based on the obvious fact that criminals will not call you in advance to let you know they are coming, then yes, self defense DOES require carrying everywhere, including in places that had formerly "gun free" rules that criminals have never and will never obey.

[UCCLady]

shedances,

I admire your sympathy for those traumatized and killed by guns. And I think highly of you for being on here so much to take up the gun-control side of things.

I think the problem we are running into with the pro-gun people here, specifically on the issue of civilian carry, stems from, frankly, an implicit contradiction in our message. In addition to advocating for gun bans in parks, colleges, and everywhere else we are trying to incrementally achieve, we MUST ALSO be clear that our position is that self-defense with a gun is not a right. Otherwise, they get us every time with the argument, for example, "in order to be prepared for self-defense in national parks, my ability to carry there must not be banned."

Honestly, they are rationally and logically correct, unless our position is clear that self-defense with a gun is not a right. So, let's be clear about it, I say.

What do you think?

[Ohio9]

UCCLady, I thank you for your honesty. I wish sheedances would be as open as you are in her view that armed self defense is not a right.

However, it is important for you to realize that your position is no longer relalvent. On July 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that individual gun ownership for self defense IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. You may not agree with their ruling, and you may not like it, but it is the law of the land now, and there is nothing you can do about it.

So while I do not doubt the passion of your beliefs, the fact of the matter is that when it comes to the gun debate in this country, they are no longer valid.

[LtBromhead]

UCCLady, how can you say that self defense with a gun is not a right, when so many criminals are armed to the teeth? They aren't using Casaba Melons to attack people.

[djkrlsn]

UCC--please read the Heller decision--part of the ruling clearly stated that the 2nd amendment protects the ownership of firearms for legitimate/lawful purposes (specifically including self defense) so your claim that there is no right to possess firearms for selfdefense is invalid on its face--therefore so is advocacy for banning civilian CCW or the banning of proven self defensive handguns by civilians

[molonlabe]

"...we MUST ALSO be clear that our position is that self-defense with a gun is not a right."

Oh my..........

[vespasian1]

Are you aware that according to a Gallup Poll, taken at the time Heller was being decided, some three quarters of the people are in disagreement with your position?

Fortunately, we do not have majority rule in a constitutional republic, so no one can force you to own a gun.