Another state passes Constitutional Carry!
Gunner Asch
Subject: [AZCDL_Alerts] Governor signs Constitutional Carry!
YOU did it! Today, April 16, 2010, Governor Brewer signed SB 1108, the
AzCDL-requested Constitutional Carry bill, into law. Arizona now
becomes the third state to not require written permission from the
government for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms
discretely. Because Arizona is the first state in the U.S. with a large
urban population to take this significant step, this is a watershed
moment for the entire country.
AzCDL has been working towards this moment since we formed 5 years ago.
Constitutional Carry has always been one of our primary goals. Every
success over the last 5 years has been pursued with today's historic
occasion in mind. However, having a goal is meaningless without the
support and activism of over 3,000 committed members. The citizens of
Arizona, along with the citizens of other states that follow in our
footsteps, owe YOU, the members of AzCDL, a debt of gratitude.
If you don't have a permit, don't start carrying concealed just yet.
The law won't become effective until 90 days after "Sine Die" when the
Legislature officially adjourns. Since they are still working through a
slew of bills, we don't expect Sine Die anytime soon. In past years,
the effective date of bills has been around September.
CCW permits still have a purpose. You'll need one to streamline gun
purchases, to carry in states that honor Arizona permits and for
carrying concealed in establishments that serve alcohol. And, the
training you receive to obtain a permit is an added bonus. Along with
restoring your right to bear arms, SB 1108 added additional training
opportunities for obtaining a permit. NRA classes and training from
places like Front Sight and Gunsite will be able to qualify as permit
training.
If you decide not to obtain a CCW permit, that doesn't mean you
shouldn't train. The heaviest thing about wearing a firearm is the
responsibility that comes with it. Take that money that you save on
permit and renewal fees and spend it on quality training as often as you
can. Lead by example – the world is watching.
For the record, AzCDL contacted the other major candidates for Governor,
Terry Goddard, Dean Martin, Buzz Mills, and John Munger, about whether
they would have signed SB 1108. At this point Dean Martin, Buzz Mills,
and John Munger have responded that they support the bill and would have
signed it. We are still waiting to hear from Terry Goddard.
Larry Caldwell
gunne...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
> YOU did it! Today, April 16, 2010, Governor Brewer signed SB 1108, the
> AzCDL-requested Constitutional Carry bill, into law. Arizona now
> becomes the third state to not require written permission from the
> government for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms
> discretely.
And the gun control nuts are shitting pineapples that the residents of
DC might actually get to defend themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/opinion/16fri4.html
They still want to "protect" people, in blind denial of reality. While
guns were banned in Washington DC, only criminals had guns. The
resulting blood bath was a national disgrace.
Bill Noble
"Larry Caldwell" <ask...@followup.news> wrote in message
news:MPG.2633529dc...@nntp.aioe.org...
have you been in Juarez recently? that will give you a good idea of what
happens when there are lots of guns in the hands of fools
Garlicdude
Those of us that aren't fools need to protect ourselves against the fools who
have guns, more than likely obtained illegally.
--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude ©
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
Ignoramus25624
concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
prefer some numbers.
i
John R. Carroll
I can't address your question but having owned a couple of clubs, I wouldn't
want armed people walking around in my place unless they were either mine or
the police. I doubt my insurance carrier would offer coverage if I did allow
it and, drinking or not, guns and booze are a bad mix.
I'd be surprised to learn that Arizona's business community was failing to
excercise their own right to refuse service.
The risk here needs to be zero to the extent it can be. Otherwise, legal or
not, you'd be liable.
--
John R. Carroll
Gunner Asch
No, Bill..Juarez shows you what happens when you ban firearms from the
citizens and only the crooks carry..
Doesnt look well for the antigun types, does it?
Im curious...hummm...Vermont, Alaska and now Aridzona.....I wonder why
they dont have the crime stats of gun banned places...like DC?
Tell us all, if you would be so kind.
<VBG>
Gunner
Larry Caldwell
udnVS1jemdZFTWn...@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
pul...@garlic.com (Garlicdude) says...
> Bill Noble wrote:
> > have you been in Juarez recently? that will give you a good idea of
> > what happens when there are lots of guns in the hands of fools
>
>
> Those of us that aren't fools need to protect ourselves against the fools who
> have guns, more than likely obtained illegally.
Juarez is an excellent example, since it is really one city in two
countries, Juarez in Mexico where gun ownership is illegal, and El Paso
in the USA, where gun ownership is legal. On the US side of the Rio
Grande, gun violence is minimal. On the Mexican side of the river,
there are murders daily. Just like in Washington DC, only criminals
have guns.
Gunner Asch
California CCW laws make no distinction between where one carries. Its
quite legal to carry into bars and taverns.
Yet in California..the gun crime rate of CCW holders is far far lower
than that of the cops themselves.
Here are some stats
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
Total numbers from the time period of October 1, 1987 - March 31, 2010
23 yr time total.
And from
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x155031#155033
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 07:36 PM by jmg257
"One study found that in Florida CCW holders were 300 times less likely
than the general population to commit a crime. The firearm crime rate
among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per
100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole.
Between the beginning of Florida’s permitting program and the end of
2005, the state issued 1,104,468 concealed weapons permits. During that
time period; 3,643 permits were revoked—a rate of about .3 percent. Of
those revocations; 2,941 involved a crime after licensure; 157 of those
crimes involved the use of a firearm. "
"A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less
likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a
non-violent offense."
"North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their
license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law."
Georgia: "studies by numerous independent researchers and state agencies
have found that concealed handgun license holders are five times less
likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes"
in 2004, the state of Utah had a permit revocation rate of about .4
percent. The rate for revocations due to
firearm offenses was .02 percent..
between 1986 and 2003, only .8 percent of Kentucky's 71,770 licenses
were revoked for any reason
in 2001, Indiana revoked about .2 percent of its outstanding concealed
weapon permits
since the inception of its concealed weapons program in 1995, Virginia
has seen a revocation rate of just .2
percent.
between October of 1994 and February of 1996, the state of Wyoming
issued 2,273 permits and revoked
four, a revocation rate of just under .2 percent.
between 1996, when its shall-issue law passed, and September of 1999,
the state of Oklahoma issued 30,406
permits and revoked only 62–a rate of .2 percent.
The truth shouldn't come as a surprise either.
This is what you typically know about a person who has a CCW in many
states:
(specifically Tennessee in the example)
They've never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a
term exceeding one (1) year".
They've never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence.
They've never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
They were not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
They were not the subject of an order of protection at the time they
applied for a CCW.
They haven't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the
past 10 years
They haven't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to
drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
They've never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
They've never been discharged from the military under dishonorable
conditions ("dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than
honorable discharge Chapter 1340-2-5-.02 (5)").
They've never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
They've never received social security disability benefits "by reason of
alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."
Besides, most CCW holders know exactly what the law is, and the
responsibility of carrying and the serious implications of using a CCW
inappropriately, so many holders tend to AVOID more situations that may
be inclined to lead to trouble.
Gunner, daily carry for....27 yrs so far with California CCW
Wes
>have you been in Juarez recently? that will give you a good idea of what
>happens when there are lots of guns in the hands of fools
I was under the impression that 'legal' ownership of firearms was heavily restricted in
Mexico.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Wes
Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what difference is there
in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:_poyn.219732$rq1.2...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> Ignoramus25624 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25624.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people carry
>>concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
>>armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
>>prefer some numbers.
>
> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
> difference is there
> in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>
> Wes
The emphasis, and Gunner's statistics, miss the key point -- which has been
proven by careful regression analysis. The operative factor is that the CCW
holders are people who have no serious criminal record and who have not been
institutionalized.
In other words, the difference is not between CCW holders and the general
population. It's between people who have passed a CCW-type background check
and the general population.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
>> difference is there
>> in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>
>> Wes
>
>The emphasis, and Gunner's statistics, miss the key point -- which has been
>proven by careful regression analysis. The operative factor is that the CCW
>holders are people who have no serious criminal record and who have not been
>institutionalized.
>
>In other words, the difference is not between CCW holders and the general
>population. It's between people who have passed a CCW-type background check
>and the general population.
What does that have to do with Iggy's question on carrying in bars?
I'll grant you that the ccw permiting process tends to weed people out at the cost of
weeding some people that may really need to be able to carry that just can't afford the
costs involved. Think near poverty service workers and such.
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
>>> difference is there
>>> in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>>
>>> Wes
>>
>>The emphasis, and Gunner's statistics, miss the key point -- which has
>>been
>>proven by careful regression analysis. The operative factor is that the
>>CCW
>>holders are people who have no serious criminal record and who have not
>>been
>>institutionalized.
>>
>>In other words, the difference is not between CCW holders and the general
>>population. It's between people who have passed a CCW-type background
>>check
>>and the general population.
>
>
> What does that have to do with Iggy's question on carrying in bars?
Well, you were comparing it with carrying in a supermarket. My point --
which addresses Gunner's claims more than yours -- is that carrying in a
supermarket isn't the issue, either, according to the statistics. It's
passing a background check.
>
> I'll grant you that the ccw permiting process tends to weed people out at
> the cost of
> weeding some people that may really need to be able to carry that just
> can't afford the
> costs involved. Think near poverty service workers and such.
>
> Wes
What a shame.
There are around a dozen major classes of work that require background
checks (I once needed state fingerprinting to work in a country club that
had a liquor license, even though I worked 100 yards from any bar). Run a
regression on them, as I saw in a paper I read two or three years ago, and
they have about the same crime rate as CCW holders.
If you want to isolate people who are carrying guns, then you have to
include people who are criminals because they're carrying guns. No kidding.
Separated from those who've had a background check, they're in the same
statistical cohort. Then it gets interesting -- between those who have a
prior criminal record and those who don't.
In the end, looking at the crime rates for people with CCWs, the only
significant correlation you get is between those who have had criminal
background checks and those who didn't. The numbers come out about the same
and there is no significant difference between those who had the background
check for a CCW, and those who had a check because they're involved in
social work with children.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> Ignoramus25624 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25624.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people carry
>> concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
>> armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
>> prefer some numbers.
>
> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
> difference is there in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at least a few
of the bar patrons will be.
--
John R. Carroll
Ignoramus25624
> "Bill Noble" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>have you been in Juarez recently? that will give you a good idea of what
>>happens when there are lots of guns in the hands of fools
>
> I was under the impression that 'legal' ownership of firearms was
> heavily restricted in Mexico.
You are 100% right. Mexico is in many ways a perfect illustration of
failure of gun control.
Ignoramus25624
>
>>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
>>> difference is there
>>> in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>>
>>> Wes
>>
>>The emphasis, and Gunner's statistics, miss the key point -- which has been
>>proven by careful regression analysis. The operative factor is that the CCW
>>holders are people who have no serious criminal record and who have not been
>>institutionalized.
>>
>>In other words, the difference is not between CCW holders and the general
>>population. It's between people who have passed a CCW-type background check
>>and the general population.
>
>
> What does that have to do with Iggy's question on carrying in bars?
>
> I'll grant you that the ccw permiting process tends to weed people
> out at the cost of weeding some people that may really need to be
> able to carry that just can't afford the costs involved. Think near
> poverty service workers and such.
That "weeding" seems to be a great practice.
i
Wes
>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
>> difference is there in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>
>The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at least a few
>of the bar patrons will be.
The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk. There are laws against serving
people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying must be stone cold sober. My personal
feelings are to avoid places where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.
Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to the original reply.
Eregon
news:4bca13e0$0$4984$607e...@cv.net:
> The emphasis, and Gunner's statistics, miss the key point -- which has
> been proven by careful regression analysis. The operative factor is
> that the CCW holders are people who have no serious criminal record
> and who have not been institutionalized.
>
> In other words, the difference is not between CCW holders and the
> general population. It's between people who have passed a CCW-type
> background check and the general population.
Since the crooks and crazies will carry whatever/whenever/whereever they
want anyway, what's your beef?
Is it that the average citizen won't have to waste a lot of time filling
out asinine government forms only to have some gun-control-freak deny his
application "just because"?
Is it that Arizona might not get as much revenue from those who wish to
carry?
You ARE aware, are you not, that the whole purpose of a CCW permit is to
give the "carrier" a legal alibi when some officious badge-toter
"discovers" that the "carrier" is "carrying" since the CCW laws generally
require that the piece be so concealed that no one other than the
"carrier" knows that it's being "carried" and that - if it becomes
apparent that the "carrier" is "carrying" - a CCW holder can be charged
when a piece becomes apparent to others...
You ARE aware, are you not, that the biggest argument AGAINST "carrying"
is Self Defense? Self Defense NOT against robbers, murderers, etc. but
against LAWYERS! After all, if you have a CCW then you're a prime target
for any shyster since (s)he can easily get a listing of all CCW holders
from the state govt. and be lying in wait for you the next time that you
drive through a school zone. One good photo of you and (s)he can run to
the court house to file an "Endangering" suit against you for enough to
pay the whole tab for Obamacare.
It'd be even worse if you actually used that cannon since all of the
perp's kinfolk and/or heirs will line up to sue you for "Wrongful Death"
and any bystanders will be lining up to sue you for "Reckless
Endangerment", "Brandishing", and anything else that a starving shyster
can envision. <evil grin>
Eregon
news:8qednVrAm-XTvFfW...@giganews.com:
> The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at least
> a few of the bar patrons will be.
You must not have any 24-hour supermarkets in your area: that's where the
drunks go when the bars close...
John R. Carroll
There aren't many but even what there is can't sell anything after hours.
--
John R. Carroll
Wes
>> What does that have to do with Iggy's question on carrying in bars?
>>
>> I'll grant you that the ccw permiting process tends to weed people
>> out at the cost of weeding some people that may really need to be
>> able to carry that just can't afford the costs involved. Think near
>> poverty service workers and such.
>
>That "weeding" seems to be a great practice.
The good points of the process is that in most states that have reciprocal agreements it
is based on a certain level of training.
Training is important. Most people have no idea when the use of lethal force is allowed.
Then there is the matter of safe gun handling. Practical matters of just not being in the
wrong place if you can avoid it. People often are clueless about these things.
Then there are the costs. My last renewal was 115.00 for 5 years. Gee, if I had done
something wrong during the previous 5 years I think they would have yanked my permit.
Indiana has lifetime permits now.
I can't remember what I paid for training. I'm a member of a gun club so I got a
discount.
Then there is the increasing cost of firearms driven up by lawsuits funded by anti gun
groups and mayors using public funds. Consider Bloomberg. I'd like to send that boy back
to pre WWII Germany to get a real education on gun control.
Anyway, for many that really need protection that live in poorer communities were there is
a lot of crime and poor police protection that earn a low standard of living, they are
priced out of being able to legally protect themselves.
Do you think the Obama administration would support a tax credit for 'working families' to
get the training and permiting to protect their own families?
Wes
Have your argument with Gunner. Please don't use me as his proxy. I'm talking apples and
you are talking oranges.
Wes
Wes
Yes, it is. There are a lot of guns in Mexico, owned by people that are not comitting
mayhem, but they are possessing them illegally.
Sad when providing for one's defense is a crime.
Wes
Eregon
WGAS?
Your complaint was about drunks with weapons...and claimed that the
supermarket shoppers were more likely to be sober than the bar patrons
(see your comment quoted above).
One big difference between the bar and the 24-hour supermarket: the bar
(in most areas) has a "closing time" while the supermarket doesn't. This
time - in some areas - can be at 0500 with an "opening time" of 0600.
Just how much sobriety would you expect the bar patrons to gain during
this period?
Wes
>You ARE aware, are you not, that the biggest argument AGAINST "carrying"
>is Self Defense? Self Defense NOT against robbers, murderers, etc. but
>against LAWYERS! After all, if you have a CCW then you're a prime target
>for any shyster since (s)he can easily get a listing of all CCW holders
>from the state govt. and be lying in wait for you the next time that you
>drive through a school zone. One good photo of you and (s)he can run to
>the court house to file an "Endangering" suit against you for enough to
>pay the whole tab for Obamacare.
I believe the gun free school zone act was trimmed in US vs Lopez. I didn't do an
exhaustive reading but I belive my CCW permit protects me from that act of law.
Wes
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe,
>>> what difference is there in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>
>> The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
>> least a few of the bar patrons will be.
>
>
> The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk.
There always will be Wes, at least on occasion.
>There are laws
> against serving people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying
> must be stone cold sober.
I've seen people with half a snootful try and snatch a cops gun away from
him. Something that started out as a joke ended up not being so funny.
There are also other circumstances that would seem less stupid where a gun
might come out that might seem perfectly reasonable or legitimate. Get a job
in any place liquor is served and you'll get an eyeful of the effects and
results even very modest drinking can have on seemingly normal people. You
could also just go down to your local tavern for a beer and chat up the
servers.
>My personal feelings are to avoid places
> where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.
The best possibility by far.
Way far.
>
> Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to
> the original reply.
When there is booze, there shouldn't be guns.
It's just my philosophy Wes and tempered by experience.
Anyway, I doubt that anyone will be able to get insurance and I for one
wouldn't want to stake my business or livelihood on the potential outcome,
even if the chance is very small.
This is one of the reasons I've always thought it was nuts for legitimate
businesses to use bootleg software.
The issue of theft aside, everything you have worked so hard is at risk to
save a few bucks if you get caught. That's now way to live, especially if
you have a family counting on you.
Unless Arizona's new law was carefully considered and drafted, it could
easily cause more trouble than the benefit it protects.
The only ones benefiting in the end might be attorneys. Know what I mean?
--
John R. Carroll
Eregon
news:mlqyn.381117$Hq1.1...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com:
As may be - but if some slimeball filed a civil suit against you you'd
still have to pay a lawyer to represent you and THAT isn't cheap...
Just remember to counter-sue for legal expenses...
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in
> news:qNedneRHr5aZs1fW...@giganews.com:
>
>> Eregon wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in
>>> news:8qednVrAm-XTvFfW...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
>>>> least a few of the bar patrons will be.
>>>
>>> You must not have any 24-hour supermarkets in your area: that's
>>> where the drunks go when the bars close...
>>
>> There aren't many but even what there is can't sell anything after
>> hours.
>>
>
> WGAS?
>
> Your complaint was about drunks with weapons...and claimed that the
> supermarket shoppers were more likely to be sober than the bar patrons
> (see your comment quoted above).
I didn't have a complaint, I made an observation abd it wasn't "drunks with
weapons", it was with people drinking in the presence of firearms.
It's not legal to drink in supermarkets so I'd imagine there are fewer
shoppers that have alchohol in their system.
That doesn't mean I haven't seen people that were really loaded in
supermarkets. I have. They are the exception, not the rule.
>
> One big difference between the bar and the 24-hour supermarket: the
> bar (in most areas) has a "closing time" while the supermarket
> doesn't.
You can stay open around the clock in many States if you are able to lock
your taps and cabinets.
Some places here do just that. In the absence of those provisions, you can't
even have cleaning personal in the building during the hours liquor can't be
served.
--
John R. Carroll
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
>>> difference is there in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>
>>The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at least a few
>>of the bar patrons will be.
>
>
>The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk. There are laws against serving
>people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying must be stone cold sober. My personal
>feelings are to avoid places where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.
>
>Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to the original reply.
>
>Wes
Its also interesting to note how many cops spend copious amounts of time
in bars while off duty, and are carrying.
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Jim Wilkins
> ... The operative factor is that the CCW
> holders are people who have no serious criminal record and who have not been
> institutionalized.
>
> In other words, the difference is not between CCW holders and the general
> population. It's between people who have passed a CCW-type background check
> and the general population.
If there is a common factor among the considerable number of people
I've known who applied for and received NH carry permits, it's that
they are the more alert and attentive ones. the people who maintain
SA. The ones who oppose guns tend to be much more self-absorbed. In
general I don't trust them with power tools either.
jsw
Gunner Asch
Good post!
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>"Bill Noble" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>have you been in Juarez recently? that will give you a good idea of what
>>happens when there are lots of guns in the hands of fools
>
>
>I was under the impression that 'legal' ownership of firearms was heavily restricted in
>Mexico.
>
Handguns are largely banned in Mexico except for the well connected.
One of the reasons I NEVER drive my service truck into Mexico when
making a service call. Even empty handgun cartridge cases can get you
years of prison time.
I always rent a car at the border an then go over.
Gunner
>Wes
Gunner Asch
The only "gun control" that works...is proper grip and stance.
Gunner
Wes
>Wes wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>
>>>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe,
>>>> what difference is there in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>>
>>> The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
>>> least a few of the bar patrons will be.
>>
>>
>> The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk.
>
>There always will be Wes, at least on occasion.
Yes there will. Should the guy just minding his business having a burger have his life at
risk because some drunk decides to go off on him?
>
>
>>There are laws
>> against serving people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying
>> must be stone cold sober.
>
>I've seen people with half a snootful try and snatch a cops gun away from
>him. Something that started out as a joke ended up not being so funny.
>There are also other circumstances that would seem less stupid where a gun
>might come out that might seem perfectly reasonable or legitimate. Get a job
>in any place liquor is served and you'll get an eyeful of the effects and
>results even very modest drinking can have on seemingly normal people. You
>could also just go down to your local tavern for a beer and chat up the
>servers.
We are discussing concealed carry, not open carry. While I support open carry it has
issues with weapon retention.
>
>>My personal feelings are to avoid places
>> where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.
>
>The best possibility by far.
>Way far.
:)
>
>>
>> Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to
>> the original reply.
>
>When there is booze, there shouldn't be guns.
>It's just my philosophy Wes and tempered by experience.
>Anyway, I doubt that anyone will be able to get insurance and I for one
>wouldn't want to stake my business or livelihood on the potential outcome,
>even if the chance is very small.
There are few decent places to get a meal that don't have a liquour license in our
economy. I believe this senario is the thrust of the change in legislation.
The chances of me visiting the local rowdy bar for a burger near closing time if carrying
there was legal is zero.
Insurance works on large numbers. If the actuarial data is predictable, they will adjust
their rates if necessary. I don't think there will be any noticable change. Haven't seen
blood in the streets in Michigan due to CCW. Doubt it is happening anywhere else.
>
>This is one of the reasons I've always thought it was nuts for legitimate
>businesses to use bootleg software.
>The issue of theft aside, everything you have worked so hard is at risk to
>save a few bucks if you get caught. That's now way to live, especially if
>you have a family counting on you.
The happiest day of my life was when a facility that was part of the corporation I used to
work for got busted. Instant corporate ruling to be legal now. I didn't have to spend
too much to get that way since I did my best to run a legal shop. That was in the days
when you could float licenses over a network. Now executives are a bit more enlightened
about licensing.
>
>Unless Arizona's new law was carefully considered and drafted, it could
>easily cause more trouble than the benefit it protects.
>The only ones benefiting in the end might be attorneys. Know what I mean?
I listen to Charles Heller's podcasts regularly. He is a founding member of the Arizona
citizens defense league. He has always seemed to be a rational person on firearms issues.
I don't have a lot of worries on that but then I haven't been in Arizona since a
deployment at MCAS Yuma in the late 70's.
Wes
Wes
>Its also interesting to note how many cops spend copious amounts of time
>in bars while off duty, and are carrying.
>
>Gunner
I have noticed that. I don't support the idea of drinking and carrying in public, even if
one is a cop.
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> Wes wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe,
>>>>> what difference is there in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>>>
>>>> The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
>>>> least a few of the bar patrons will be.
>>>
>>>
>>> The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk.
>>
>> There always will be Wes, at least on occasion.
>
> Yes there will. Should the guy just minding his business having a
> burger have his life at risk because some drunk decides to go off on
> him?
That wasn't what I was talking about. The truth is that your life wasn't
likely at risk to start with.
The possibility of getting the shit kicked out of you is a lot different
than getting dead.
>>
>>
>>> There are laws
>>> against serving people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying
>>> must be stone cold sober.
>>
>> I've seen people with half a snootful try and snatch a cops gun away
>> from him. Something that started out as a joke ended up not being so
>> funny. There are also other circumstances that would seem less
>> stupid where a gun might come out that might seem perfectly
>> reasonable or legitimate. Get a job in any place liquor is served
>> and you'll get an eyeful of the effects and results even very modest
>> drinking can have on seemingly normal people. You could also just go
>> down to your local tavern for a beer and chat up the servers.
>
> We are discussing concealed carry, not open carry.
So am I.
When there is a fair chance that everyone in the room is armed a person
might go for someone elses gun.
That's especially true when, for instance, some drunk is beating the shit
out of his wife or girlfriend and you have a brawl.
>
> There are few decent places to get a meal that don't have a liquour
> license in our economy. I believe this senario is the thrust of the
> change in legislation.
That may well be.
I'm apt to think it's because of all of the Drug/Latin Gang kidnappings and
murders in Phoenix.
>
> The chances of me visiting the local rowdy bar for a burger near
> closing time if carrying there was legal is zero.
You can find bad behavior anywhere Wes, especially where you'd least think.
Don't believe me, ask around a little - start with your local Applebee's or
Chili's.
>
> Insurance works on large numbers. If the actuarial data is
> predictable, they will adjust their rates if necessary. I don't
> think there will be any noticable change. Haven't seen blood in the
> streets in Michigan due to CCW. Doubt it is happening anywhere else.
Michigan requires a permit with all that the proceedure entails. I thought
AZ was going to skip all of that.
>
> I listen to Charles Heller's podcasts regularly. He is a founding
> member of the Arizona citizens defense league. He has always seemed
> to be a rational person on firearms issues.
That's the same thing we hear out here when it comes to ballot initiatives.
The result of those good intentions to address real issues frequently looks
a lot like Prop. 187.
Didn't last a month.
>I don't have a lot of
> worries on that but then I haven't been in Arizona since a deployment
> at MCAS Yuma in the late 70's.
I'm not worried at all.
I've got egg noodles on the stove cooking in half a pound of butter and
enough beef broth that when it's done, all I'll have is a little juice left
and a big bunch of yummie noodles.
LOL
--
John R. Carroll
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>Ed,
>
>Have your argument with Gunner. Please don't use me as his proxy. I'm talking apples and
>you are talking oranges.
>
>
>Wes
Actually..Ed is talking bullshit. It may smell somewhat like
oranges...but...
Gunner
Stormin Mormon
starting a fight. If I'm carrying a concealed firearm, or
not. Both have very low risk of me displaying anger or
violence.
I may not be typical. As a Mormon, I've had a LOT (whole
parade of) people try to bash me out of that goddamn Moron
cult. And, as a good LDS member, I am completely free of
alcohol, or any mind altering drugs. So, that factoid of
data might not be useful.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ignoramus25624" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25624.invalid> wrote
in message
news:AdCdnWGr1ZWXYlTW...@giganews.com...
I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people
carry
concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there
been many
armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would
rather
prefer some numbers.
i
Ed Huntress
"Eregon" <Era...@Saphira.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9D5DA98...@74.209.131.10...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:4bca13e0$0$4984$607e...@cv.net:
>
>> The emphasis, and Gunner's statistics, miss the key point -- which has
>> been proven by careful regression analysis. The operative factor is
>> that the CCW holders are people who have no serious criminal record
>> and who have not been institutionalized.
>>
>> In other words, the difference is not between CCW holders and the
>> general population. It's between people who have passed a CCW-type
>> background check and the general population.
>
> Since the crooks and crazies will carry whatever/whenever/whereever they
> want anyway, what's your beef?
There's no beef. I happen to favor right-to-carry laws. But I'm not
impressed with phony arguments, as you should know. Gunner's statistics,
although accurate on their face (more or less; I dug into it about three
years ago and learned that it's more equivocal than his selections suggest),
lead to a phony conclusion -- that concealed carry, itself, implies more
responsible behavior. There's no real evidence of that, for several reasons.
>
> Is it that the average citizen won't have to waste a lot of time filling
> out asinine government forms only to have some gun-control-freak deny his
> application "just because"?
It's just the statistical evidence: People who go through background checks
and are approved are less likely to commit crimes. That's what the paper I
referred to was about. I'm not saying it was the last word (I really can't
follow much regression analysis) but it seems likely that the methodology
was solid and that the conclusions were correct. As is often the case, some
researchers spent a lot of time and effort confirming something that anyone
with a clear head probably realizes intuitively.
>
> Is it that Arizona might not get as much revenue from those who wish to
> carry?
I doubt if revenue had anything to do with the law. The fact is that Arizona
has a strong conservative element in their politics, as well as a
libertarian element, and that they just combined through history and
circumstance to pass a law that is generally favored out there.
>
> You ARE aware, are you not, that the whole purpose of a CCW permit is to
> give the "carrier" a legal alibi when some officious badge-toter
> "discovers" that the "carrier" is "carrying" since the CCW laws generally
> require that the piece be so concealed that no one other than the
> "carrier" knows that it's being "carried" and that - if it becomes
> apparent that the "carrier" is "carrying" - a CCW holder can be charged
> when a piece becomes apparent to others...
I'm aware of how gun laws work. I was a very active pro-gun activist around
15 - 20 years ago.
>
> You ARE aware, are you not, that the biggest argument AGAINST "carrying"
> is Self Defense? Self Defense NOT against robbers, murderers, etc. but
> against LAWYERS!
WHOSE biggest argument? Not mine.
> After all, if you have a CCW then you're a prime target
> for any shyster since (s)he can easily get a listing of all CCW holders
> from the state govt. and be lying in wait for you the next time that you
> drive through a school zone. One good photo of you and (s)he can run to
> the court house to file an "Endangering" suit against you for enough to
> pay the whole tab for Obamacare.
You have a vivid imagination. It tends to color your posts, frequently. d8-)
>
> It'd be even worse if you actually used that cannon since all of the
> perp's kinfolk and/or heirs will line up to sue you for "Wrongful Death"
> and any bystanders will be lining up to sue you for "Reckless
> Endangerment", "Brandishing", and anything else that a starving shyster
> can envision. <evil grin>
Paranoia strikes deep, Eregon.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
> Ed,
>
> Have your argument with Gunner. Please don't use me as his proxy. I'm
> talking apples and
> you are talking oranges.
>
>
> Wes
Gee, I thought we were both talking about the effect of carrying guns
concealed. Besides, Gunner won't talk to me anymore. He doesn't seem to like
it. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Don Foreman
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>"Larry Caldwell" <ask...@followup.news> wrote in message
>news:MPG.2633529dc...@nntp.aioe.org...
>> In article <l6eis51i5mgka8b5h...@4ax.com>,
>> gunne...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
>>
>>> YOU did it! Today, April 16, 2010, Governor Brewer signed SB 1108, the
>>> AzCDL-requested Constitutional Carry bill, into law. Arizona now
>>> becomes the third state to not require written permission from the
>>> government for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms
>>> discretely.
>>
>> And the gun control nuts are shitting pineapples that the residents of
>> DC might actually get to defend themselves.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/opinion/16fri4.html
>>
>> They still want to "protect" people, in blind denial of reality. While
>> guns were banned in Washington DC, only criminals had guns. The
>> resulting blood bath was a national disgrace.
>
>have you been in Juarez recently? that will give you a good idea of what
>happens when there are lots of guns in the hands of fools
There is indeed peril when fools have guns, free speech or votes.
Eregon
So do Lawyers - in the bank balance.
When Lawyers get in the act almost anything can happen regardless of the
specific wording of a specific law. Nowhere is this more apparent than
cases that are decided by emotional appeals to jurors - usually in the
plaintiff's favor - such as the bimbo whose coffee splattered because she
was too stupid to use a cup holder and, yet, got a lot of money out of
McDonalds. (Although her award was reduced on appeal the fact is that she
should have been required to pay McDonalds' legal expenses instead of
collecting anything.)
Perhaps you didn't hear that Joe Horn (the Texas man who provided that
state's first "Castle Law" case) had a lawsuit filed by one of the
burglars' families for "Wrongful Death". The Murder case verdict (and the
"Castle Law") was all that saved his home and savings as the civil suit
was withdrawn.
Not all states have "Castle Laws".
There are far too many that expect [potential] victims to run screaming
for their lives when confronted by an attacker/intruder.
Eregon
> It's not legal to drink in supermarkets so I'd imagine there are fewer
> shoppers that have alchohol in their system.
You ARE imagining things.
> That doesn't mean I haven't seen people that were really loaded in
> supermarkets. I have. They are the exception, not the rule.
>
How often do you go to the supermarket at 0200?
Steve B
They lost reciprocity with Nevada because Utah dropped its requirement for a
live fire qualification from applicants.
Duh. So, now when we go to Vegas, we have to be a little more diligent, and
I carry pepper spray more.
To get a Utah permit, you could qualify with any semi-auto, and be qualified
for all calibers. Same with wheel guns. In Nevada, you had to qualify with
EVERY pistol you wanted to carry. And pay extra. Cost ran up quick.
Steve
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l6eis51i5mgka8b5h...@4ax.com...
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 3:38 PM
> Subject: [AZCDL_Alerts] Governor signs Constitutional Carry!
>
>
>
> YOU did it! Today, April 16, 2010, Governor Brewer signed SB 1108, the
> AzCDL-requested Constitutional Carry bill, into law. Arizona now
> becomes the third state to not require written permission from the
> government for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms
> discretely. Because Arizona is the first state in the U.S. with a large
> urban population to take this significant step, this is a watershed
> moment for the entire country.
>
> AzCDL has been working towards this moment since we formed 5 years ago.
> Constitutional Carry has always been one of our primary goals. Every
> success over the last 5 years has been pursued with today's historic
> occasion in mind. However, having a goal is meaningless without the
> support and activism of over 3,000 committed members. The citizens of
> Arizona, along with the citizens of other states that follow in our
> footsteps, owe YOU, the members of AzCDL, a debt of gratitude.
>
> If you don't have a permit, don't start carrying concealed just yet.
> The law won't become effective until 90 days after "Sine Die" when the
> Legislature officially adjourns. Since they are still working through a
> slew of bills, we don't expect Sine Die anytime soon. In past years,
> the effective date of bills has been around September.
>
> CCW permits still have a purpose. You'll need one to streamline gun
> purchases, to carry in states that honor Arizona permits and for
> carrying concealed in establishments that serve alcohol. And, the
> training you receive to obtain a permit is an added bonus. Along with
> restoring your right to bear arms, SB 1108 added additional training
> opportunities for obtaining a permit. NRA classes and training from
> places like Front Sight and Gunsite will be able to qualify as permit
> training.
>
> If you decide not to obtain a CCW permit, that doesn't mean you
> shouldn't train. The heaviest thing about wearing a firearm is the
> responsibility that comes with it. Take that money that you save on
> permit and renewal fees and spend it on quality training as often as you
> can. Lead by example - the world is watching.
>
> For the record, AzCDL contacted the other major candidates for Governor,
> Terry Goddard, Dean Martin, Buzz Mills, and John Munger, about whether
> they would have signed SB 1108. At this point Dean Martin, Buzz Mills,
> and John Munger have responded that they support the bill and would have
> signed it. We are still waiting to hear from Terry Goddard.
>
>
Ed Huntress
"Eregon" <Era...@Saphira.org> wrote in message
From CCW to spilling coffee from McDonald's; you seem to have something to
bitch about at every turn.
I can see it gives you a lot to write about here. Now, if we could get you
to check your facts first, it might even be worth reading. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Steve B
"Ignoramus25624" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25624.invalid> wrote in message
news:AdCdnWGr1ZWXYlTW...@giganews.com...
>I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people carry
> concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
> armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
> prefer some numbers.
>
> i
It varies state to state, but I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that
most states ban firearms where they sell liquor. Just as they ban them in
banks, schools, public buildings, libraries, and any private properties
(like Walmart or Walgreens) where the company posts No Firearms Allowed,
Lawful or otherwise.
I wait to be corrected from someone who knows the exact stats. When I lived
in Texas, it was posted prominently, and was a felony. Not sure if that
still applies. Most bars just use the private property right to ban them,
as alcohol and guns are an unbalanced equation.
Steve
Steve B
"Wes" <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
> Ignoramus25624 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25624.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people carry
>>concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
>>armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
>>prefer some numbers.
>
> difference is there
> in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>
> Wes
I forgot about that Wes. In my last class, we were informed that if we had
one drink while carrying, it was grounds for forfeiture of permit. State of
Nevada. NO alcohol threshold limit like driving.
Steve
Ed Huntress
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:58:03 -0400, Wes <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Ed,
>>
>>Have your argument with Gunner. Please don't use me as his proxy. I'm
>>talking apples and
>>you are talking oranges.
>>
>>
>>Wes
>
> Actually..Ed is talking bullshit. It may smell somewhat like
> oranges...but...
>
> Gunner
I thought you claimed that you don't read my posts? <g>
Don't bother to try, Gunner. We know how you do with facts. If you can't
cut-and-paste 'em from some bullshit blog, you can't handle it.
--
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.25624.invalid> scrawled the following:
>I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people carry
>concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
>armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
>prefer some numbers.
No, there haven't been or we all would have heard of them, screamed
from the rooftops and every liberal newspaper and TV station
worldwide. Look at the stats. Concealed carry owners are not
criminals, they're law-abiding citizens. There might be fewer
criminals in Chitown if there had been citizens carrying there. But
you guys got what you wanted. <shrug>
There are 275 million guns in America and only 13k murders per annum.
The vast majority of owners are not CCW licensed. You do the math, Mr.
Algebra.
http://www.kc3.com/CCWSTATS.html general stats you might find
interesting.
http://www.concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf Why is your
state red, Ig? <g> "Fact: The general public is:
1) 5.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent offenses than CCW
permit holders.
2) 13.5 times more likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than
the than CCW permit holders."
There goes your theory, sport.
There's not too much on bar/nightclub/tavern CCW online, but I did
find some which said that there was no ban on it in many states, and
that if the establishment had a "NO FIREARMS" sign, you couldn't carry
there. Ig, it's not a problem...except with unlicensed rowdies.
---
A book burrows into your life in a very profound way
because the experience of reading is not passive.
--Erica Jong
Larry Jaques
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.25624.invalid> scrawled the following:
>On 2010-04-17, Wes <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
>>>> difference is there
>>>> in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>>>
>>>> Wes
>>>
>>>The emphasis, and Gunner's statistics, miss the key point -- which has been
>>>proven by careful regression analysis. The operative factor is that the CCW
>>>holders are people who have no serious criminal record and who have not been
>>>institutionalized.
>>>
>>>In other words, the difference is not between CCW holders and the general
>>>population. It's between people who have passed a CCW-type background check
>>>and the general population.
>>
>>
>> What does that have to do with Iggy's question on carrying in bars?
>>
>> I'll grant you that the ccw permiting process tends to weed people
>> out at the cost of weeding some people that may really need to be
>> able to carry that just can't afford the costs involved. Think near
>> poverty service workers and such.
>
>That "weeding" seems to be a great practice.
Ig, "weeding" means that the weedee can't have a license. It doesn't
mean they won't go into a bar with a gun. It's the unlicensed folks
you have to worry about, not the licensed folks.
Eregon
> From CCW to spilling coffee from McDonald's; you seem to have
> something to bitch about at every turn.
Who was complaining about CCWs?
I merely pointed out one reason why some eschew them. <Grin>
>
> I can see it gives you a lot to write about here. Now, if we could get
> you to check your facts first, it might even be worth reading. d8-)
>
I check them but not from Liberal sources since those all lie
continuously. <grin>
You would be unlikely to be surprised at the number of idiots that cite
the Huffington Post...
Ed Huntress
"Larry Jaques" <lja...@diversify.invalid> wrote in message
news:pb4ls5569nmhi23nv...@4ax.com...
In other words, it's not a question of whether or not they have a concealed
gun. It's a question of whether they passed a background check. Right?
BTW, what was that comment about seeing it "on every TV station"? I thought
you didn't have a TV.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Eregon" <Era...@Saphira.org> wrote in message
I don't cite any Posts, unless it's an opinion piece. As a writer, editor,
and researcher, I go for the original data sources. That's how it's done
when it's done right.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
> In article<E-
> udnVS1jemdZFTWn...@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
> pul...@garlic.com (Garlicdude) says...
>> Bill Noble wrote:
>
>>> have you been in Juarez recently? that will give you a good idea of
>>> what happens when there are lots of guns in the hands of fools
>>
>>
>> have guns, more than likely obtained illegally.
>
> Juarez is an excellent example, since it is really one city in two
> countries, Juarez in Mexico where gun ownership is illegal, and El Paso
> in the USA, where gun ownership is legal. On the US side of the Rio
> Grande, gun violence is minimal. On the Mexican side of the river,
> there are murders daily. Just like in Washington DC, only criminals
> have guns.
You forgot to mention the one difference that is the most important of
all. On one side of the border are Americans and on the other side of
the border are Mexicans. See? Big difference.
Hawke
Don Foreman
>
>You ARE aware, are you not, that the whole purpose of a CCW permit is to
>give the "carrier" a legal alibi when some officious badge-toter
>"discovers" that the "carrier" is "carrying" since the CCW laws generally
>require that the piece be so concealed that no one other than the
>"carrier" knows that it's being "carried" and that - if it becomes
>apparent that the "carrier" is "carrying" - a CCW holder can be charged
>when a piece becomes apparent to others...
That isn't true in MN. The permit says "permit to carry a pistol". It
permits concealment but does not require it. In fact, no permit is
necessary to openly carry in most of the state, except for some metro
area counties. Permit holders may openly carry anywhere in the state
where they may carry concealed.
Being legal doesn't make it a good idea, particularly in Minneapolis.
Minneapolis is not gun-friendly. I think there is only one gun shop
left in Minneapolis and it's constantly under siege by pols. There are
quite a few in surrounding burbs that are different political entities
but otherwise indistinguishable as part of the metro area.
Aside from in gun shops, at ranges and hunters and plinkers afield, I
don't recall ever seeing anyone not wearing a uniform carry openly in
MN. I spend most of my time in metroland.
One of the rare occasions where I do carry more than a pocket popper
is when I shoot at an indoor range only blocks from North Minneapolis,
where parking is in an underground ramp. There's a lot of drug and
gang activity in North Minneapolis. I can see how a denizen might
regard that ramp as a prime ambush site for a senior gent lugging
what must obviously be a rangebag since I'm headed for the door
labelled "Bill's Gunshop and Range". On those occasions I slip on an
open-carry OWB belt-clip holster with either a .40 S&W or a .45ACP for
the short walk between car and range door. I'd pack a .357 snubby if
I owned one because overpenetration isn't a concern in a
concrete-walled sparsely-populated sit. I don't own one so I go with
.40 or .45. Even openly carried, it still isn't highly visible
because lighting is poor in that ramp even in daytime during the
winter months, but it's a lot quicker to deploy than it would be if
concealed.
I don't know if seeing it would be deterrent or attractant and won't
speculate. I pay attention during the drive-in, while parking, and
when I get out of the car I do a careful 360 scan before unlocking the
trunk. Ditto when I exit that range en route to the car. The last
thing an assailant who decided to proceed would see is a front view in
a draftsman's parlance, or what a human factors engineer might
describe as "what you saw is what you got".
Most of my life these days is spent in a blissful condition
chartreuse: not quite condition-green-oblivious to environment, but
definitely low key.
Don Foreman
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:35:22 -0400, Wes <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>
>>>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
>>>> difference is there in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>>
>>>The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at least a few
>>>of the bar patrons will be.
>>
>>
>>The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk. There are laws against serving
>>people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying must be stone cold sober. My personal
>>feelings are to avoid places where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.
>>
>>Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to the original reply.
>>
>>Wes
>
>
>Its also interesting to note how many cops spend copious amounts of time
>in bars while off duty, and are carrying.
>
>Gunner
It is, they do, and that does occasionally result in tragedy. A
couple were news in these parts at the time but I can't find cites
now. Fancy that.
Wes
Sorry Ed,
I was trying to stay on topic in an off topic thread. :)
Wes
Ed Huntress
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:0ihms5967njo00sbu...@4ax.com...
> "Bill Noble" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>"Larry Caldwell" <ask...@followup.news> wrote
>>>
>>>> YOU did it! Today, April 16, 2010, Governor Brewer signed SB 1108, the
>>>> AzCDL-requested Constitutional Carry bill, into law. Arizona now
>>>> becomes the third state to not require written permission from the
>>>> government for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear
>>>> arms
>>>> discretely.
>>>
>>> DC might actually get to defend themselves.
>
>>happens when there are lots of guns in the hands of fools
>
> is hardly "in the hands of fools". Nice anti-gun spin though. I give
> it a 1 on a scale from zero to infinity.
Give 'em a break, Wes. They're poor campesinos, and can't afford the
background-check fees. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Eregon
news:i42ls593096hr06vt...@4ax.com:
> On 17 Apr 2010 21:39:57 GMT, Eregon <Era...@Saphira.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You ARE aware, are you not, that the whole purpose of a CCW permit is
>>to give the "carrier" a legal alibi when some officious badge-toter
>>"discovers" that the "carrier" is "carrying" since the CCW laws
>>generally require that the piece be so concealed that no one other
>>than the "carrier" knows that it's being "carried" and that - if it
>>becomes apparent that the "carrier" is "carrying" - a CCW holder can
>>be charged when a piece becomes apparent to others...
>
> That isn't true in MN. The permit says "permit to carry a pistol". It
> permits concealment but does not require it. In fact, no permit is
> necessary to openly carry in most of the state, except for some metro
> area counties. Permit holders may openly carry anywhere in the state
> where they may carry concealed.
An excellent example of the variations in CCW Laws between the various
states.<grin>
Congratulations.
Seriously.
Ed Huntress
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:...
Whoop, that wasn't Wes, so my wisecrack is misdirected. Sorry 'bout that.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>>>have you been in Juarez recently? that will give you a good idea of what
>>>happens when there are lots of guns in the hands of fools
>>
>> Open warfare between several well organized international drug cartels
>> is hardly "in the hands of fools". Nice anti-gun spin though. I give
>> it a 1 on a scale from zero to infinity.
>
>Give 'em a break, Wes. They're poor campesinos, and can't afford the
>background-check fees. d8-)
>
I think I have my filters set too high, I'm obviously missing a lot the thread on this
one.
Wes
Wes
>> Give 'em a break, Wes. They're poor campesinos, and can't afford the
>> background-check fees. d8-)
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>Whoop, that wasn't Wes, so my wisecrack is misdirected. Sorry 'bout that.
Now I read this just after I cracked back.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Gunner Asch
<desertt...@dishynail.net> wrote:
>I hope Utah adopts it. They already have some lax regs, one being too lax.
>They lost reciprocity with Nevada because Utah dropped its requirement for a
>live fire qualification from applicants.
>
>Duh. So, now when we go to Vegas, we have to be a little more diligent, and
>I carry pepper spray more.
>
>To get a Utah permit, you could qualify with any semi-auto, and be qualified
>for all calibers. Same with wheel guns. In Nevada, you had to qualify with
>EVERY pistol you wanted to carry. And pay extra. Cost ran up quick.
>
>Steve
California, we have to qualify with up to (3) weapons, and like many
other states, qualify with revolvers And self loaders.
And yes..it does add up, though most instructors dont charge anything
extra for qualifying with revolvers or self loaders.
Im quite satisfied with Californias CCW testing and regs. Its only for
(2) years...so Ive got to cough up nearly $120 every two years to carry
my firearms. And NO other state with the exception of Michigan
recognizes it.
On the other hand..California recognizes NO other states CCW...and Cal
is a May Issue State, rather than a Shall Issue state.
The County of Los Angeles...all 3 MILLION people..has aproximately (9)
NINE CCWs issued.
Kern County...population 700,000...one of the biggest counties in
California, has over 5,000 issued
And that my friend..sucks big time.
Most..most..rural cops will honor an out of state CCW. Not all cops..but
a significant number will understand that reciprocity is a good thing.
Hell..even some..some city cops will do the same. But its NOT the law
and in many places in California...they dont even honor California CCWs.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
California has no restrictions on CCW in bars, etc etc.
In fact, I visit bars at least 3 nights a week when Im down in So. Cal
working, and I carry.
On the other hand..I dont consume booze at all, and go there to play
pool.
Gunner
Steve B
It was so in Nevada. I had a Las Vegas Metro carry permit, but it had
exceptions in North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City, in some cases
where a mere street dividing line distinguished what was law on one side of
the street and not so on the other.
It seems that there should be some precedence, or order of which law
supercedes which. Private property is the first. If they declare NO GUN,
it's no guns. But if you're licensed in a state, and then have to tap-dance
through the infinite number of jurisdictions, some of which want you to keep
the ammo locked in the trunk, and the gun locked in a safe back at the home,
one runs into problems in real time. And understanding the convoluted logic
of lawmakers enough to consider being a law breaker.
Steve
Steve B
If I didn't drink, I could have made a living out of pool. I have a table
in my house right now. Old habits die hard.
Many was the night that I came home with more money than I left with, yet no
recollection.
First rule of hustling: Always let them think they can beat you. They will
play you as long as they THINK they can beat you. Once they realize they
can't, they quit. And if you ever misjudge a rube, you lose.
Steve
Gunner Asch
<lja...@diversify.invalid> wrote:
>There are 275 million guns in America and only 13k murders per annum.
Actually..its closer to 400 million guns.
Just a heads up
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Gunner Asch
<desertt...@dishynail.net> wrote:
Yes...Ive heard that before.
<VBG>
Gunner
Wes
>It seems that there should be some precedence, or order of which law
>supercedes which. Private property is the first. If they declare NO GUN,
>it's no guns. But if you're licensed in a state, and then have to tap-dance
>through the infinite number of jurisdictions, some of which want you to keep
>the ammo locked in the trunk, and the gun locked in a safe back at the home,
>one runs into problems in real time. And understanding the convoluted logic
>of lawmakers enough to consider being a law breaker.
State preemption. A good thing for the most part. It helps to avoid crazy quilt zones
where you can be operating illegaly by local law.
Wes
>Wes wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>
>>> Wes wrote:
>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe,
>>>>>> what difference is there in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>>>>
>>>>> The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
>>>>> least a few of the bar patrons will be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk.
>>>
>>> There always will be Wes, at least on occasion.
>>
>> Yes there will. Should the guy just minding his business having a
>> burger have his life at risk because some drunk decides to go off on
>> him?
>
>That wasn't what I was talking about. The truth is that your life wasn't
>likely at risk to start with.
>The possibility of getting the shit kicked out of you is a lot different
>than getting dead.
How do you know when a fight with a drunk adult male is only a scuffle? There are clear
lines one doesn't cross, if the idiot thinks he is safe playing the bully in some drunken
stupor well, Darwinism has it's good points.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are laws
>>>> against serving people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying
>>>> must be stone cold sober.
>>>
>>> I've seen people with half a snootful try and snatch a cops gun away
>>> from him. Something that started out as a joke ended up not being so
>>> funny. There are also other circumstances that would seem less
>>> stupid where a gun might come out that might seem perfectly
>>> reasonable or legitimate. Get a job in any place liquor is served
>>> and you'll get an eyeful of the effects and results even very modest
>>> drinking can have on seemingly normal people. You could also just go
>>> down to your local tavern for a beer and chat up the servers.
John, I've worked in a bar before. The one I worked at was nice and quiet.
>>
>> We are discussing concealed carry, not open carry.
>
>So am I.
>When there is a fair chance that everyone in the room is armed a person
>might go for someone elses gun.
>That's especially true when, for instance, some drunk is beating the shit
>out of his wife or girlfriend and you have a brawl.
If some ass hole is beating the chit out of his girlfriend I'd hope every man there worth
a damn was ready to intervene physically. Remember the use of deadly force is only
allowed if your life is at risk. After that, it gets sketchy.
>
>>
>> There are few decent places to get a meal that don't have a liquour
>> license in our economy. I believe this senario is the thrust of the
>> change in legislation.
>
>That may well be.
>I'm apt to think it's because of all of the Drug/Latin Gang kidnappings and
>murders in Phoenix.
Well if the citizens are a bit afraid, they likely like the idea of being armed. 9/11
wasn't a bad thing for gun rights in the US.
>
>
>>
>> The chances of me visiting the local rowdy bar for a burger near
>> closing time if carrying there was legal is zero.
>
>You can find bad behavior anywhere Wes, especially where you'd least think.
>Don't believe me, ask around a little - start with your local Applebee's or
>Chili's.
Well then that is an excellent reason to be armed. If I take mom to Applebee's, I don't
plan on drinking but I do plan on making sure her night is uneventful. I will be carrying
if it was legal. IIRC, Applebee's is a NCZ. I would sure hope I don't have a Suzanna
Gratia Hupp experience. Remember Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen? Not having a firearm with
some nut job picks you place and time can be deadly.
>
>>
>> Insurance works on large numbers. If the actuarial data is
>> predictable, they will adjust their rates if necessary. I don't
>> think there will be any noticable change. Haven't seen blood in the
>> streets in Michigan due to CCW. Doubt it is happening anywhere else.
>
>Michigan requires a permit with all that the proceedure entails. I thought
>AZ was going to skip all of that.
For carry inside the state. For reciprocity, you have to do the full ccw process.
>
>>
>> I listen to Charles Heller's podcasts regularly. He is a founding
>> member of the Arizona citizens defense league. He has always seemed
>> to be a rational person on firearms issues.
>
>That's the same thing we hear out here when it comes to ballot initiatives.
>The result of those good intentions to address real issues frequently looks
>a lot like Prop. 187.
>Didn't last a month.
I'm not familiar with Prop 187. When was ballot initiatives introduced? What was the
driving force? Pure democracy has issues if the voters have no understanding of how
economics work. Since the state is responsible for education, I guess the California
educational system failed big time. Is civics even part of the curriculum any more?
>
>>I don't have a lot of
>> worries on that but then I haven't been in Arizona since a deployment
>> at MCAS Yuma in the late 70's.
>
>I'm not worried at all.
>I've got egg noodles on the stove cooking in half a pound of butter and
>enough beef broth that when it's done, all I'll have is a little juice left
>and a big bunch of yummie noodles.
John, be careful, half a pound sounds like cholesterol city. I did have a couple slices
of Boston Brown bread with butter today so I can't be too hard on you today. ;)
NN, I gotta go to work in the morning.
Wes
cavelamb
"The Color of Money" was a good story about just exactly that.
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
Michael A. Terrell
Eregon wrote:
>
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in news:
> _KqdnVrJXsh1qVfW...@giganews.com:
>
> > It's not legal to drink in supermarkets so I'd imagine there are fewer
> > shoppers that have alchohol in their system.
>
> You ARE imagining things.
>
> > That doesn't mean I haven't seen people that were really loaded in
> > supermarkets. I have. They are the exception, not the rule.
> >
>
> How often do you go to the supermarket at 0200?
A couple times a week, when I worked second shift. Very few
customers, and they were busy restocking so the selection was better.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
John R. Carroll
> Eregon wrote:
>>
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in news:
>> _KqdnVrJXsh1qVfW...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> It's not legal to drink in supermarkets so I'd imagine there are
>>> fewer shoppers that have alchohol in their system.
>>
>> You ARE imagining things.
>>
>>> That doesn't mean I haven't seen people that were really loaded in
>>> supermarkets. I have. They are the exception, not the rule.
>>>
>>
>> How often do you go to the supermarket at 0200?
>
>
> A couple times a week, when I worked second shift. Very few
> customers, and they were busy restocking so the selection was better.
The drunks are usually around restocking for Sunday football or basketball
games after running out at a house party.
Those are the ones I've seen anyway.
--
John R. Carroll
Don Foreman
<desertt...@dishynail.net> wrote:
>
>"Wes" <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:_poyn.219732$rq1.2...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
>> Ignoramus25624 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25624.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people carry
>>>concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
>>>armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
>>>prefer some numbers.
>>
>> Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
>> difference is there
>> in carrying in a bar or supermarket?
>>
>> Wes
>
>I forgot about that Wes. In my last class, we were informed that if we had
>one drink while carrying, it was grounds for forfeiture of permit. State of
>Nevada. NO alcohol threshold limit like driving.
>
>Steve
In MN the legal threshold for CCW is half the threshold for legally
operating a motor vehicle. It is not illegal for CCW holders to carry
in an establishment that serves alcohol unless the proprietor has
posted otherwise.
Don Foreman
<desertt...@dishynail.net> wrote:
>I hope Utah adopts it. They already have some lax regs, one being too lax.
>They lost reciprocity with Nevada because Utah dropped its requirement for a
>live fire qualification from applicants.
>
>Duh. So, now when we go to Vegas, we have to be a little more diligent, and
>I carry pepper spray more.
>
>To get a Utah permit, you could qualify with any semi-auto, and be qualified
>for all calibers. Same with wheel guns. In Nevada, you had to qualify with
>EVERY pistol you wanted to carry. And pay extra. Cost ran up quick.
>
>Steve
MN requires live-fire range qual but it can be done with any handgun.
Steve B
"Wes" <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
> "Steve B" <desertt...@dishynail.net> wrote:
>
>>It seems that there should be some precedence, or order of which law
>>supercedes which. Private property is the first. If they declare NO GUN,
>>it's no guns. But if you're licensed in a state, and then have to
>>tap-dance
>>through the infinite number of jurisdictions, some of which want you to
>>keep
>>the ammo locked in the trunk, and the gun locked in a safe back at the
>>home,
>>one runs into problems in real time. And understanding the convoluted
>>logic
>>of lawmakers enough to consider being a law breaker.
>
> State preemption. A good thing for the most part. It helps to avoid
> crazy quilt zones
> where you can be operating illegaly by local law.
>
> Wes
If I could keep up with southern Nevada's jurisdictional lines, I could go
to work for the NSA and make some real money.
Steve
Steve B
>>>>>> The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
>>>>>> least a few of the bar patrons will be.
About eight or ten years ago, in Las Vegas, a guy went walking through
Albertson's grocery store late at night shooting whoever he came upon, and
stalking some as prey. He used a handgun and shotgun. I do not recall if
he was impaired by alcohol or not.
He killed four or five people, and is currently making license plates on a
long term contract.
Point is, you can find crazy people anywhere, and they might not be drunk.
Would have been nice if one person had a gun that night.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2000/Jul-13-Thu-2000/news/13959260.html
Steve
Ed Huntress
"Steve B" <desertt...@dishynail.net> wrote in message
news:no4t97-...@news.infowest.com...
>
>
>>>>>>> The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
>>>>>>> least a few of the bar patrons will be.
>
> About eight or ten years ago, in Las Vegas, a guy went walking through
> Albertson's grocery store late at night shooting whoever he came upon, and
> stalking some as prey. He used a handgun and shotgun. I do not recall if
> he was impaired by alcohol or not.
>
> He killed four or five people, and is currently making license plates on a
> long term contract.
>
> Point is, you can find crazy people anywhere, and they might not be drunk.
>
> Would have been nice if one person had a gun that night.
One person did!
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> Wes wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>
>> That wasn't what I was talking about. The truth is that your life
>> wasn't likely at risk to start with.
>> The possibility of getting the shit kicked out of you is a lot
>> different than getting dead.
>
> How do you know when a fight with a drunk adult male is only a
> scuffle?
Exactly my point Wes.
>
> John, I've worked in a bar before. The one I worked at was nice and
> quiet.
And yet once in a blue moon something really bad still happened.
>
> If some ass hole is beating the chit out of his girlfriend I'd hope
> every man there worth a damn was ready to intervene physically.
Well they won't, Wes.
>> That may well be.
>> I'm apt to think it's because of all of the Drug/Latin Gang
>> kidnappings and murders in Phoenix.
>
> Well if the citizens are a bit afraid, they likely like the idea of
> being armed. 9/11 wasn't a bad thing for gun rights in the US.
Nothing about 9/11 was good for the US Wes and it's impact on gun rights was
exactly zero as a practical matter.
Kidnapping for ransom has seen a huge increase in urban Arizona.
>> Michigan requires a permit with all that the proceedure entails. I
>> thought AZ was going to skip all of that.
>
> For carry inside the state. For reciprocity, you have to do the full
> ccw process.
Well, we are only talking about Arizona here.
I could have missed something.
>>
>>>
>>> I listen to Charles Heller's podcasts regularly. He is a founding
>>> member of the Arizona citizens defense league. He has always seemed
>>> to be a rational person on firearms issues.
>>
>> That's the same thing we hear out here when it comes to ballot
>> initiatives. The result of those good intentions to address real
>> issues frequently looks a lot like Prop. 187.
>> Didn't last a month.
>
> I'm not familiar with Prop 187.
Prop. 187 was proposed as a ballot initiative to eliminate the costs related
to illegal immigrants.
Kids would have been denied access to the public school system and a host of
other publicly funded stuff.
There was also provision to require police verification of residency status.
None of this was bad, in and of itself. What was bad is that the language in
the bill wasn't constitutional.
The courts threw nearly the entire thing out immediately and what was left
standing was ridiculous.
>When was ballot initiatives
> introduced?
1911 (?) at California's las constitutional convention.
>What was the driving force?
The railroads had quite literally bought the State legislature.
Ballot initiatives provided a form of direct representation to counter that
and provide a mechanism going forward to insure that citizens could override
an unresponsive legislature.
>Pure democracy has issues
> if the voters have no understanding of how economics work. Since the
> state is responsible for education, I guess the California
> educational system failed big time. Is civics even part of the
> curriculum any more?
I think it still is but the problem isn't Civics. The problem is that people
drafting laws skip any real legal or constitutional review of what is
drafted and passed. Darrell Isa made his money selling aftermarket car audio
equipment.
>>
>>> I don't have a lot of
>>> worries on that but then I haven't been in Arizona since a
>>> deployment at MCAS Yuma in the late 70's.
>>
>> I'm not worried at all.
>> I've got egg noodles on the stove cooking in half a pound of butter
>> and enough beef broth that when it's done, all I'll have is a little
>> juice left and a big bunch of yummie noodles.
>
> John, be careful, half a pound sounds like cholesterol city. I did
> have a couple slices of Boston Brown bread with butter today so I
> can't be too hard on you today. ;)
>
I'm eating nearly 6,000 calories a day right now Wes and will continue to do
so until I'm back up to 150 pounds or so.
I normally eat 3-4,000 per day anyway without putting on any weight.
--
John R. Carroll
Jim Stewart
> And the gun control nuts are shitting pineapples...
I'd pay money to see that...
Wes
>Wes wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>
>>> Wes wrote:
>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>>
>>> That wasn't what I was talking about. The truth is that your life
>>> wasn't likely at risk to start with.
>>> The possibility of getting the shit kicked out of you is a lot
>>> different than getting dead.
>>
>> How do you know when a fight with a drunk adult male is only a
>> scuffle?
>
>Exactly my point Wes.
Too late to re-read the thread. Once someone crosses a certain line of impropriety, the
judgment is up to me to make.
>
>
>>
>> John, I've worked in a bar before. The one I worked at was nice and
>> quiet.
>
>And yet once in a blue moon something really bad still happened.
Bad things happen every where. More often when guns are restricted.
>
>>
>> If some ass hole is beating the chit out of his girlfriend I'd hope
>> every man there worth a damn was ready to intervene physically.
>
>Well they won't, Wes.
>>> That may well be.
>>> I'm apt to think it's because of all of the Drug/Latin Gang
>>> kidnappings and murders in Phoenix.
>>
>> Well if the citizens are a bit afraid, they likely like the idea of
>> being armed. 9/11 wasn't a bad thing for gun rights in the US.
>
>Nothing about 9/11 was good for the US Wes and it's impact on gun rights was
>exactly zero as a practical matter.
Oh I disagree on that one. It opened many minds to the idea that no one is safe.
>Kidnapping for ransom has seen a huge increase in urban Arizona.
That is a great reason to carry.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I listen to Charles Heller's podcasts regularly. He is a founding
>>>> member of the Arizona citizens defense league. He has always seemed
>>>> to be a rational person on firearms issues.
>>>
>>> That's the same thing we hear out here when it comes to ballot
>>> initiatives. The result of those good intentions to address real
>>> issues frequently looks a lot like Prop. 187.
>>> Didn't last a month.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with Prop 187.
>
>Prop. 187 was proposed as a ballot initiative to eliminate the costs related
>to illegal immigrants.
>Kids would have been denied access to the public school system and a host of
>other publicly funded stuff.
>There was also provision to require police verification of residency status.
>None of this was bad, in and of itself. What was bad is that the language in
>the bill wasn't constitutional.
>The courts threw nearly the entire thing out immediately and what was left
>standing was ridiculous.
So did the citizens have a good idea or are your courts out of control? I'm thinking your
California courts are the issue. California, isn't that part of the 9th Circus as the
circuit is often referred to in conservative America?
>
>>When was ballot initiatives
>> introduced?
>
>1911 (?) at California's las constitutional convention.
>
>>What was the driving force?
>
>The railroads had quite literally bought the State legislature.
>Ballot initiatives provided a form of direct representation to counter that
>and provide a mechanism going forward to insure that citizens could override
>an unresponsive legislature.
Thanks for the history lesson on that.
>
>>Pure democracy has issues
>> if the voters have no understanding of how economics work. Since the
>> state is responsible for education, I guess the California
>> educational system failed big time. Is civics even part of the
>> curriculum any more?
>
>I think it still is but the problem isn't Civics. The problem is that people
>drafting laws skip any real legal or constitutional review of what is
>drafted and passed. Darrell Isa made his money selling aftermarket car audio
>equipment.
At least he understands profit and loss. When you have politicians that never earned a
living out side of government, or managed a business, do you really want them making law?
>
>>>
>>>> I don't have a lot of
>>>> worries on that but then I haven't been in Arizona since a
>>>> deployment at MCAS Yuma in the late 70's.
>>>
>>> I'm not worried at all.
>>> I've got egg noodles on the stove cooking in half a pound of butter
>>> and enough beef broth that when it's done, all I'll have is a little
>>> juice left and a big bunch of yummie noodles.
>>
>> John, be careful, half a pound sounds like cholesterol city. I did
>> have a couple slices of Boston Brown bread with butter today so I
>> can't be too hard on you today. ;)
>>
>
>I'm eating nearly 6,000 calories a day right now Wes and will continue to do
>so until I'm back up to 150 pounds or so.
>I normally eat 3-4,000 per day anyway without putting on any weight.
Damn. I'm willing to give you 50 lbs free. It sounds like you are on the mend. How tall
are you?
Wes
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> Wes wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wes wrote:
>>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>
>> Nothing about 9/11 was good for the US Wes and it's impact on gun
>> rights was exactly zero as a practical matter.
>
> Oh I disagree on that one. It opened many minds to the idea that no
> one is safe.
BUt the result was a lot less of our constitutionally protected freedoms,
not more.
>
>> Kidnapping for ransom has seen a huge increase in urban Arizona.
>
> That is a great reason to carry.
Well, like I said, I think that is one of the big reasons the law was passed
just now.
>>
>> I think it still is but the problem isn't Civics. The problem is
>> that people drafting laws skip any real legal or constitutional
>> review of what is drafted and passed. Darrell Isa made his money
>> selling aftermarket car audio equipment.
>
> At least he understands profit and loss. When you have politicians
> that never earned a living out side of government, or managed a
> business, do you really want them making law?
Good governance has little to do with profit and loss in the business sense
Wes.
The constituencies are very different and so is the purpose.
Ed's Auto Sound and Sterio is poor training in the law.
Knowing what you want to do doesn't count if you can't get it done properly.
Just look at Ahnald. Very succesful in business. He's really got it
together.
> Damn. I'm willing to give you 50 lbs free. It sounds like you are
> on the mend. How tall are you?
With my mouth open or closed?
Hahahahaha!
--
John R. Carroll
Michael A. Terrell
Especially if the pins were pulled...
Gunner Asch
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Jim Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Larry Caldwell wrote:
>>
>> > And the gun control nuts are shitting pineapples...
>>
>> I'd pay money to see that...
>
>
> Especially if the pins were pulled...
LOL!!
Gunner
Michael A. Terrell
No need to worry about them suffering brain damage. They were
damaged, long ago and far away!
Chief Egalitarian
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hqe5vf$k6u$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 4/17/2010 12:17 PM, Larry Caldwell wrote:
>> In article<E-
>> udnVS1jemdZFTWn...@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
>> pul...@garlic.com (Garlicdude) says...
>>> Bill Noble wrote:
>>
>>>> have you been in Juarez recently? that will give you a good idea of
>>>> what happens when there are lots of guns in the hands of fools
>>>
>>>
>>> Those of us that aren't fools need to protect ourselves against the
>>> fools who
>>> have guns, more than likely obtained illegally.
>>
>> Juarez is an excellent example, since it is really one city in two
>> countries, Juarez in Mexico where gun ownership is illegal, and El Paso
>> in the USA, where gun ownership is legal. On the US side of the Rio
>> Grande, gun violence is minimal. On the Mexican side of the river,
>> there are murders daily. Just like in Washington DC, only criminals
>> have guns.
>
>
> You forgot to mention the one difference that is the most important of
> all. On one side of the border are Americans and on the other side of the
> border are Mexicans. See? Big difference.
>
> Hawke
Now why are you stereotyping Mexicans? I thought you told us that you rather
liked Mexicans. Are you saying that just because you are a Mexican, you will
murder someone each day? How racist!
Larry Jaques
<jste...@jkmicro.com> scrawled the following:
>Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
>> And the gun control nuts are shitting pineapples...
>
>I'd pay money to see that...
Ditto. Pineapples, pine cones, porcupines, telephone poles,
bulldozers, and/or their Beemers.
---
A book burrows into your life in a very profound way
because the experience of reading is not passive.
--Erica Jong