The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on March 24, 2009, 01:52:27 PM
-
http://www.examiner.com/x-2944-Denver-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d20-Big-cities-need-concealed-carry
Start with facts: rocks are harder than grapes, some people are killed by guns, etc. When we begin to organize those facts, we build data: Rocks are harder than any fruit, this number of people were killed by guns in the U.S. in 2007, etc. When the facts and data have become a framework of knowledge, some useful conclusions can be drawn. A most helpful framework as been created by John Lott, a researcher at the School of Law at Yale University, and chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1999. He studied the crime statistics for 2,853 counties in America for the period 1977 to 1992 for a book called "More Guns, Less Crime" and added data for 1993 and 1994 as the data became available from the FBI. Before the second edition published, he updated his research with crime statistics through 1997. That is a huge body of data!
It has been said by some big city mayors, among them Rudy Giuliani of New York that in the rural areas of America, people should be able to carry guns because the police are too far away and too few. In the cities, they say, it is a different situation. Concealed carry in cities is a threat to public safety. Time after time, we see the tightest gun control efforts in the biggest cities of our country. The District of Columbia is fighting tooth and nail the recent D.C vs Heller decision which reaffirmed the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. And exactly, why is that? I have given it a great deal of thought, and compared the environments. In Laramie, Wyoming, if you are in a crowded restaurant on a Friday night, the next restaurant is several blocks away and the next town is 50 miles of prairie away. Nonetheless, you find yourself in a crowded restaurant. Within those walls it is exactly the same experience as being in a crowded restaurant in downtown Denver where the next restaurant is sharing a wall with yours. In Laramie, when you are in your apartment, it is you and your family. In Denver when you are in your apartment, it is you and your family. There may be more units attached to your Denver apartment, but the feeling inside the home is the same. In the classroom, there is the teacher and her 25 students in Laramie, and in Denver. There are many more schools in Denver, but the classroom environment is very similar. At work, you sit at your desk and can see roughly the same number of co-workers in the room with you in Laramie and in Denver (except for the whole-floor cube farms of Dilbert fame). A small auto glass shop in Laramie looks like the same business in Denver. For the vast majority of us, the experience we have in our homes and places of work and play are not terribly different between small town and big city. Yes, Denver has traffic on a cobweb of highways that Laramie doesn't, but most murders, rapes, and assaults occur in homes, businesses and on the streets while folks are walking. Where is the difference?
How about police? The police forces in Laramie and Denver are vastly different. It takes far fewer police to cover 25,000 people than it does to cover 588,349. How fast do the police respond? It is usually pretty fast in both cases. In Laramie, they might have to drive 8 miles on empty streets to get to a call, while Denver police might only have to roll 10 blocks though traffic, then up three floors. It nets out. Still, it reminds me of the saying "When seconds count, we're there in a minute!" It is never fast enough, and often not fast enough to actually prevent the crime.
How about gun accidents? Surely here is a difference. If a gun goes off accidentally in Laramie, the chance of hitting someone must be less than in Denver. OK. But according to the facts, in 2005, the most recent year for complete US data, there were 789 accidental deaths caused by guns in the U.S according to the Center for Disease Control. That is not zero, but it isn't much for 295 million people. (That compares to 23,618 accidental poisonings in the same year) You can't make gun control policy on such a slim percentage, and you sure as heck can't legislate on hypothisized conclusions from anecdotal lore.
So, how do the two environments compare statistically? John Lott says:
"The most densely populated areas are the ones most helped by concealed-handgun laws. Passing a concealed-handgun law lowers the murder rates in counties with about 3,000 people per square mile by 8.5%, 12 times more than it lowers murders in the average county. The only real difference between the results for population and population density occur for the burglary rate, where concealed-handgun laws are associated with a small reduction in burglaries for the most densely populated areas."
Here is where the anti-gun crowd begins to go off the rails. The data accumulated and studied clearly shows a pronounced improvement in the safety of city dwellers with the passage of "shall-issue" concealed carry laws. Why should large cities be identified as requiring tighter gun control than rural areas? Again I ask, where is the difference?
-
The difference is that smaller cities have more honest politicians as they are known to a larger portion of their constituents were as in the BIG cities you you have former bag men being put in office by the "party machine" that gets large donations from organized crime.
Just a guess, but look at how many NY, NJ, and Chicago politicians get busted for being involved with racketeering.
-
I think you will find that most of the big citys disagree with that... I honestly can't think of a single large city( you know like top 10) where they want people to CCW Infact I don't know of any where its legal to do so.
-
I think you will find that most of the big citys disagree with that... I honestly can't think of a single large city( you know like top 10) where they want people to CCW Infact I don't know of any where its legal to do so.
Atlanta Ga., Dallas,and Miami, pop into my mind.
-
Atlanta, does not want them, neither does Miami ( or I should say dade county)
dallas only has ~ 1 mil people. thats not exactly a large city.
I was thinking more along the lines of
NYC
LA
SF
Chicago
Detriot
etc
-
Miami may not want them but they have no say in it (thank goodness!).
-
Miami may not want them but they have no say in it (thank goodness!).
Same with the other 2,
TABs talking out his hat again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
Dallas is #9,
I was surprised to see Miami only #43, but I notice that 5 of the top 10 have concealed carry.
Detriot #11
SF#13
-
I was thinking more along the lines of
NYC
LA
SF
Chicago
Detriot
etc
You are just proving the author's point.
-
Same with the other 2,
TABs talking out his hat again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
Dallas is #9,
I was surprised to see Miami only #43, but I notice that 5 of the top 10 have concealed carry.
Detriot #11
SF#13
When you count only the city limits the numbers look smaller. In actuality you can't tell where Dallas starts and Fort Worth begins or even where most of the burbs start and stop. All told the greater DFW area is home to over 5 million people.
-
I was surprised to see Houston is the 4th largest city in America, I thought Dallas would have been way ahead.
-
If and when, I move from the midwest I believe Texas would be my choice to live due to their gun laws and they are not afraid of using the death penalty. ;)
-
Hmm. No. 5, Philly. CCW allowed. The citizens wanted it, the crooked city Pols blocked it, the State told the City 2fn bad. Carry permitted.
-
I think you will find that most of the big citys disagree with that... I honestly can't think of a single large city( you know like top 10) where they want people to CCW Infact I don't know of any where its legal to do so.
That's exactly the point, TAB. not that it's legal, but that it SHOULD be.....that those locations need it worse than rural areas.
-
That's exactly the point, TAB. not that it's legal, but that it SHOULD be.....that those locations need it worse than rural areas.
Concealed carry is legal in all but 2 of the top 10, (darn difficult to get permit in 3 others.
Concealed carry is only illegal in 5 of the top 50, Granted in Ca. it is darn difficult to get a permit, but it IS legal. That leaves NY, Chicago , DC, Milwaukee. and Honolulu I'm not sure about.
TAB just doesn't know it.
-
Its legal in NYC, but you have to live some where outside of NYC to get a permit... just like SF or LA here.
While not exactly illegal... it might as well be as you can not get permits if you live there.( out side of "connections")
-
Its legal in NYC, but you have to live some where outside of NYC to get a permit... just like SF or LA here.
While not exactly illegal... it might as well be as you can not get permits if you live there.( out side of "connections")
So very, very wrong on NYC. NYC does not honor any permit not issued by NYC. I used to live in NY and had looked into CCW as it was taking off nation wide.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Your New York State pistol license is only valid in the State of New York. Unless it
is validated by New York City, you may not take your handguns into the city, this includes Self Protection
licensees, with a few exceptions.
You can get a license or exception issued for carry in the boroughs of NYC, but those are reserved for VIPs. Trust me.
-
So very, very wrong on NYC. NYC does not honor any permit not issued by NYC. I used to live in NY and had looked into CCW as it was taking off nation wide.
You can get a license or exception issued for carry in the boroughs of NYC, but those are reserved for VIPs. Trust me.
I thought the "Sullivan act" made carry illegal in the city.
-
I thought the "Sullivan act" made carry illegal in the city.
I guess that pretty much explains why there's no violent crime in NYC, huh?
-
For those interested, I would like to provide some clarification and information on how the complexities of pistol permits work in the City of New York....truly a unique place in this regard.
I have a New York City "Special Carry Unrestricted Pistol License", and regarding CCW in NYC, Fatman pretty much has it correct. However, there is no such thing as a pistol license "exception", of any sort, in New York City. The NYPD requires a separate NYC Pistol Permit that gets issued by the NYPD at One Police Plaza. They require you to show your NY State Unrestricted Pistol License in order to qualify for consideration of the separate NYC License. There is also no such thing as a NYC "validation" of another pistol permit. Only a separate NYC Pistol Permit is recognized by the NYPD.......period. Your New York State Pistol Permit, or any other state permit for that matter, means absolutely nothing within New York City's 5 boroughs and is simply not recognized.
A "Special Carry Unrestricted Pistol License" is only for those who reside in New York State but not within the 5 boroughs. Carrying within the 5 boroughs requires a NYC Unrestricted Pistol License which is also accepted throughout New York State. As I reside in upstate New York but work in NYC and carry everyday in the city, I obtained a "Special Carry" permit and I always make sure I carry both my state and city permits in my wallet. One note of interest is that while my New York State license allows unlimited handguns to be listed on the back of the permit, my NYC permit only permits two handguns to be listed and carried when in the 5 boroughs. This limitation is for "Special Carry" unrestricted permits. It is increased to 8 handguns for those issued a standard NYC unrestricted permit for residents of the 5 boroughs. Also, the vast majority of NYC Pistol Licenses are issued with restrictions which pretty much only allow for premise carry in the home or shop where you work. You cannot take your gun from there unless you are going to the range, which is virtually impossible to find in the 5 boroughs. Even then your gun must be transported in a locked case within your vehicle. Ranges in NYC are essentially for use by law enforcement.
Lastly, while New York State Permits are issued "until revoked" and never charge a renewal fee once issued, the NYC Licenses are a cash cow for the city and cost $340 for a 3 year permit and another $340 for every 3 year renewal after that. This fee is waived for retired NYPD officers who apply for an NYC pistol license, without which they would not be permitted to carry in the 5 boroughs. It is true, however, that unrestricted permits in NYC are virtually impossible to obtain and "Special Carry" permits are even rarer. Only a few dozen "Special Carry" permits have ever been issued from what I was told at Police Plaza. There is no such thing as a non-resident pistol permit in New York City....so Plaxico Burress, for example, being a NJ resident would have never been issued a NYC permit, no matter who he knew. Carrying a handgun without a NYC unrestricted pistol permit is punishable with a mandatory 3.5 year jail sentence. NYC pistol licenses are also very carefully produced with a number of NYPD holograms imbedded within both sides of the license so they are virtually impossible to forge.
I hope this information clears up much of the conjecture of what actually occurs in New York City regarding the issuance of pistol permits.
-
Infringement
-
Infringement
Not says the Supreme court.... since thier "IMO" is the one that matters...
-
It all leads to the "big" picture of Federal vs. State vs. City. Fed says 2nd Amend. is a right. State can "modify", the what, where, when, and how many...
City can totally "modify" the permit process and make it just about impossible for the avg. "Joe" to do what the state and Feds say is a right in this country.
Maddening........ The "system" is broken. Not just in the "RKBA", but many others aspects of our United States.
"The job of bureaucrats is to regulate, and left to their own devices, they will try to regulate everything they can."
Steven den Beste
-
Neat op ed and history of NY Sullivan Act.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." -- Thomas Jefferson, to George Washington, June 19, 1796.
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." -- William S. Burroughs.
Big Tim Sullivan was a notorious Irish gangster whose mob controlled New York City south of 14th Street around the turn of the 20th century. Throwing in his lot with the likes of Monk Eastman, Paul Kelly and Arnold Rothstein, Sullivan became an expert on that dark nexus where organized crime and politics consummate their unholy alliance, and soon became an influential figure in the corrupt Democratic machine there known as Tammany Hall.
He made the relatively easy transition from dangerous street thug and political ward heeler to New York state senator first in 1894. He left Albany in 1903 for a term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and returned to the legislature in 1909 after complaining that he lacked the juice in Washington he'd grown accustomed to on his home turf.
In 1911, the Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office faced a growing problem -- the Italians. Immigrant mafiosi newly arrived from Sicily and Naples were horning in on what had once been their exclusive domain. Gunfights on the Lower East Side and the neighborhood around Mulberry Street that was to become Little Italy grew more and more frequent, and it was getting so that you couldn't even shake down a barber shop or a greengrocer without some guy fresh off the boat taking a shot at you.
Not to worry, Big Tim told the boys. And in 1911, he took care of the problem.
The Sullivan Act was passed into law in New York state in 1911 and remains Big Tim's primary legacy. It effectively banned most people from owning and, especially, carrying handguns. Under the onerous conditions of the corrupted law, a peaceable citizen of sound mind could apply for a pistol permit, but if any of a number of elected or appointed officials objected to its issuance, he or she could be denied the license. The law remains in effect to this day and has been used as the basis for gun laws in many other states and municipalities.
One of those is Washington, D.C., which enacted its handgun law in 1973. Like the Sullivan law, it was written as a "may issue" permit statute, rather than the more common "must issue" permit statutes of many states. Under the "may issue" provision, a person can pass a police background check, take a gun safety course and jump through whatever other hoops the law requires, and still be turned down for a permit at the discretion of government officials.
Actual criminals, who have no problem breaking the laws against robbery, rape and murder, routinely ignore the absurd pistol-permitting process.
Last week, a challenge to the D.C. law wound up being argued before the United States Supreme Court. The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, who sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. A lower court threw the D.C. statute out, ruling it to be unreasonable and in violation of Heller's rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district appealed, and for the first time in our nation's history, the high court is preparing to rule on what the framers actually meant when they wrote the Second Amendment.
For many, that meaning has long been clear as glass: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Two clauses that some smart editor might have made into two sentences -- the first of which calls for the establishment of a "well regulated militia," thought by most authorities to be the present National Guard, and the second, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," which needs no interpretation at all. Beginning in the 1960s, however, left-leaning legal theorists and postmodern politicians began putting forth the notion that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with individual rights, that it instead was intended simply to make sure that the state-regulated militia members had guns. This ridiculous reading flew in the face of much that was written by Jefferson, Washington and the other men of action who bought our country's independence with blood and ink and gunpowder, but scant attention was paid.
Guns kill people, the revisionists said. We have the police to protect us, and the truths of 1776 have no place in 20th century society.
Big Tim Sullivan's law was mimeographed, retyped and copied out by hand, and sent around to state capitols and city halls around the country, where politicians -- primarily liberal Democrats -- took up his tainted cause.
The old gangster would have gotten a laugh had he lived to see the results of his crooked efforts. But a year after the Sullivan Act was passed in Albany, he went insane -- the result, it is said, of tertiary syphilis -- and was placed in a lunatic asylum. A year after that, he escaped, lay down on some railroad tracks up in the Bronx and was cut into three ragged pieces by a slow-moving freight train.
As a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat of nearly 35 years' standing, I never thought I'd say this, but thank goodness for Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They are the majority on the first high court in our nation's history to have the courage to tackle the Second Amendment issue head on.
And if the statements they made and the questions they asked last week as attorneys presented their oral arguments in the case are any indication, D.C. residents and those throughout the country may be liberated from the most outlandish and onerous gun control measures the states and cities have been able to pass in the four decades since the silly "Summer of Love" turned this great nation of ours on its head.
To begin with, the five justices clearly indicated that the "well regulated militia" clause is indeed separate from the "keep and bear arms" clause, and that alone is a huge step forward. How exactly they will rule on the specifics of the Washington law is less clear, but any easing of the restrictions it carries will represent a huge victory for gun owners everywhere.
Once the court sets its precedent, New York's Sullivan Act seems a likely next target for challenge by downtrodden gun owners whose rights have been violated for far too long.
Gun control has been a losing issue for Democrats for decades, and in national elections has cost them most of the western and southern states, as well as helping to create "swing states" out of such traditionally Democratic bastions as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida.
If Sen. John McCain has any sense, he'll use the Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority's decision, which will be handed down well before November, as a major campaign issue, pointing to either Sen. Hillary Clinton's or Sen. Barack Obama's past anti-gun stances.
And if Clinton and Obama have any sense -- which, thus far, they haven't shown they have -- they will avoid the gun issue like the plague, zipping their lips and acknowledging the Supreme Court's mandate to interpret questions regarding the Constitution. If they don't, they'll be handing the election to the GOP on a silver platter.
Since its ratification by congress on September 21, 1789, the Second Amendment has never before been interpreted as to its actual meaning and intent by the Supreme Court.
Hopefully, once the justices have done the right thing by Jefferson, Washington, and the American people, the matter will not come up again for another 219 years, at least.
Niagara Falls Reporter www.niagarafallsreporter.com March 25 2008
http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/column357.html
-
quote from fatman,..
And if Clinton and Obama have any sense -- which, thus far, they haven't shown they have -- they will avoid the gun issue like the plague, zipping their lips and acknowledging the Supreme Court's mandate to interpret questions regarding the Constitution. If they don't, they'll be handing the election to the GOP on a silver platter.
I think they are avoiding it for NOW, although slips have happened (because the liberals can't help it), Holder, Clinton, Feinstien,
Mexico, Oakland, etc,...
the only reason is the economy. IF, (keyword), WE the American People pull and claw our way out of this, THAN you'll see the snake in the corner of the garage, and the backdoor attempts at "regulating" firearms AND ammo will be non-stop.
It still has been less than 100 days,.....