Special report: Mich Concealed gun law turns 10 years old-Blood didn't run in streets as predicted

[RamboLiberal]

Ten years after Michigan made it easier to carry concealed guns, its mandatory process for reporting who has the permits — and who had them taken away — is a shambles.

-----

More than 50,000 permits were issued the first year. License holders now stand at more than 270,000, double the number five years ago.

-----

The records indicate a tiny fraction of permit-holders break the law. Poor reporting aside, even many critics agree fears of increased violence and crime have not come to fruition.

“Let’s face it, all the worries about ‘blood in the streets’ did not happen,” said Kent County Clerk Mary Hollinrake, who nonetheless opposes many facets of the law.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/special_report_concealed_gun_l.html

Also sounds like Mich needs to go after the counties & prosecutors to make sure those who have been convicted of a crime or for some other reason CCW revoked to make sure it is done. And to report accurately the info.

[provis99]

1. well, thank god there's no gun violence in Detroit or Flint now.

Oh wait...

[mrcheerful]

3. From what I heard Grand Rapids is trying to catch up on Detroit and Flint

[RamboLiberal]

4. Uh huh - and how many were legal gun owners with a CCW?

Bet it is miniscule. Tell me about Chicago!

[provis99]

5. you obviously didn't read your own article.

Obviously anyone can get a CCW in Michigan, since as the article states, the counties aren't bothering to follow law in issuing and reporting on CCW permits.

[RamboLiberal]

7. Well isn't it up to Mich to enforce the damn law?

Kent county clerk says blood didn't run in the streets.

And the news paper reported after combing the records.

The records indicate a tiny fraction of permit-holders break the law. Poor reporting aside, even many critics agree fears of increased violence and crime have not come to fruition.

From the series:

Worst fears about concealed guns never materialized, but permits can't be credited for crime drop either

Violent crime in Michigan is falling, from 575 per 100,000 people in 1999 to 497 per 100,000 in 2009, according to FBI statistics. That’s a nearly 14 percent dip in the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people.

The crime rate is also down nationally, from 523 per 100,000 in 1999 to 429 in 2009, for a nearly 18 percent decline in the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people.

The state reports he referenced details about 1,000 crimes committed by some 250,000 licensees the most recent year. That’s about 250 crimes per 100,000 license holders, he noted. For the entire population, the rate was about 3,300 crimes per 100,000 people, he said.

Even given state records are significantly flawed — 14 counties did not file that year and others under-reported convictions — Dulan said license holders are far more likely to toe the line. They undergo training, expense and are “so afraid of losing the license they tend to err on the side of caution,” he said.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/worst_fears_about_concealed_gu.html

[BeFree]

13. There ya go

"Dulan said license holders are far more likely to toe the line. They undergo training, expense and are “so afraid of losing the license they tend to err on the side of caution,” he said."

Law abiding gun owners do not mind getting permitted.

It is just the outlaws that are afraid of getting a permit, therefore the best way to get the criminals is to make every gun owner get a permit. Then only outlaws will be breaking the law.

So... if someone is found with a gun and they don't have a permit, they are outlaws. Wow, that makes it quite simple, doesn't it?

[rl6214]

22. Not every gun owner wants to carry

So your trick won't work.

[BeFree]

26. See below

Or just answer this:

How is it that the courts decided getting a permit is constitutional?
Seriously, I'd like to know how that came about.

[jeepnstein]

34. If they don't want to carry...

they probably won't go through the trouble of getting a CCW permit. You don't need the state's permission to own a gun in Michigan. You do need it to carry concealed. It's a matter of personal choice each gun owner makes on their own.

Lawful citizens aren't the problem. It's the people who are engaged in various street crimes revolving around the illegal drug trade that make up the bulk of the violence we see in our cities.

[Atypical Liberal]

36. Speak for yourself.

Law abiding gun owners do not mind getting permitted.

Speak for yourself. I do not want the government creating databases of firearm owners.

[BeFree]

41. And I do

Everyone who could be a member of the 'well regulated militia', (expanded to include females, of course) should be pre-approved as to first, their sanity and then their capability to handle the awesome responsibility of having a constitutionally protected weapon that can kill any number of people at any given time.

In fact, do that and the really bad weapons like assault rifles may even be permissible.
Could you handle an AW responsibly? Can you prove it?

[Atypical Liberal]

45. Just preserve anonymity.

Everyone who could be a member of the 'well regulated militia', (expanded to include females, of course) should be pre-approved as to first, their sanity and then their capability to handle the awesome responsibility of having a constitutionally protected weapon that can kill any number of people at any given time.

In fact, do that and the really bad weapons like assault rifles may even be permissible.
Could you handle an AW responsibly? Can you prove it?

Here is why what you are seeking won't ever come to pass:

First of all, we already know that by requiring permits for Concealed Carry that this self-selecting portion of the population hardly ever commits crime. Not only do they hardly ever commit firearm-related crime, they hardly ever commit crimes at all. When you look at the conviction data for Texas Concealed Carry, which covers everything from Public Lewdness to Homicide, CCW permit holders are less likely to commit any kind of crime than non-CCW permit holders.

It's getting to the point where some states are not even bothering requiring CCW permits, because they look at the data and see that there is no point in paying for a government bureaucracy to track a class of people who are hardly ever involved in crime.

Second of all, you are completely misinformed about "really bad weapons like assault rifles", assuming you are are talking about semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles. The fact of the matter is, all rifles, let alone assault rifles, only account for about 300 homicides every year - half as many as are committed using hands and feet. If rifles are "really bad weapons", then hands and feet must be "super-duper double-bad weapons."

Finally, I have no problem with universal Firearm Owner ID permits, just as Illinois does, provided that they preserve firearm ownership anonymity. One way to do this is to run every applicant for a state-issued driver's license or ID through the NICS system and issue an FOID to everyone, except those who opt out. In this way, everyone is pre-screened for firearm ownership illegibility and firearm ownership anonymity is preserved.

[BeFree]

47. That is a correlation

"...we already know that by requiring permits for Concealed Carry that this self-selecting portion of the population hardly ever commits crime"

Of course it does because it weeds out the Loughner types, which universal registration would likewise accomplish. Only better.

Imagine if Loughner was permitted to carry an assault rifle? Lawd, spare us.
Thank the Lawd we have some limits to arms ownership, we just need more and better.

[PavePusher]

52. Uh, because having a permit system means criminals won't have guns?

That seems to be what you just said.

Your logic is... incomplete, at best.

[BeFree]

54. If criminal: Can't buy bullets

Can't go to a shooting range. And if called on because they are shooting somewhere illegally will get caught.

Gotta start somewhere.

[PavePusher]

57. You don't seem to know much about criminals.

Good luck with that.

[BeFree]

62. That's it?

That all ya got? Pftttt

[cleanhippie]

79. It seems to be more than you have. Well, you do have a Pffft, so there is that.

[Atypical Liberal]

61. If you can't buy them, you just make them.

I currently make my own cartridges. I cast the bullets from wheel weights I buy from the local tire stores, and I recycle my brass and pick up fired brass from the range. I buy gunpowder and primers at the local sporting goods store.

I can manufacture ammunition for about 1/3 the cost of buying it.

[BeFree]

63. Yeah

And when you shoot outside, everyone within a 1/2 mile of you can hear it.

If you are a criminal, then you are fingered.
If you are not criminal then no problem.

[Atypical Liberal]

70. So what?

And when you shoot outside, everyone within a 1/2 mile of you can hear it.

Because I live inside the city limits, I have to go to the public shooting range. In theory, you are supposed to have a hunting license in order to shoot there. But I have never once seen a ranger there, nor been asked to provide my license. I have seen the local sheriff drive by twice, but he just drives through.

Criminals could shoot there with no problem.

But if I lived literally across the street from my current house, I would be in the county, and I could shoot on my property all day long and no one would bat an eyelash, and I have done so at friend's houses.

[Atypical Liberal]

60. Yes, it is a correlation.

Of course it does because it weeds out the Loughner types, which universal registration would likewise accomplish. Only better.

Again, Loughner had no problem passing the NICS background check system, and likely could have obtained a CCW permit if he had applied for one. Universal registration would have done nothing to stop Loughner. He had no disqualifying criminal nor mental health history that prohibited him from owning firearms.

Imagine if Loughner was permitted to carry an assault rifle? Lawd, spare us.

Loughner was permitted to carry an assault rifle.

Thank the Lawd we have some limits to arms ownership, we just need more and better.

I'm open to hearing what you have in mind, but it's clear that you don't even have a good grasp of how the current NICS system works.

[BeFree]

66. Great, just fucking dandy

Loughner had no problem passing the NICS background check system

Loughner was permitted to carry an assault rifle.

Well then, the laws need to be changed. I know that much, and so do you.

So what is your problem?

[Atypical Liberal]

71. My problems.

Well then, the laws need to be changed. I know that much, and so do you.

So what is your problem?

My problem is that your original proposal, universal registration, does not do anything to stop people like Lougner from obtaining firearms.

Now if you are talking about changing the laws regarding what disqualifies people from owning firearms, that is fine, but that is a totally separate issue from registration.

My problem also is that universal registration must respect anonymous firearm ownership. As I said, this is easily addressed by issuing FOIDs when driver's licenses or state-issued IDs are issued, unless people choose to opt out.

[one-eyed fat man]

80. Still smoking that stuff?

Loughner was/is a lunatic. His family failed to have him committed. The university THOUGHT he was crazy, all manner of friends and acquaintances we eagerly telling how THEY KNEW he was crazy.

But, no one thought he was crazy enough to DO anything about it. They did have him committed, evaluated, anything. Maybe his Mommy's working for the county kept some things out of the files.

He was STUPID enough to show up for a drug test he knew ahead of time he was going to have to take and still piss hot for dope.

None of that stuff was reported. He obviously lied on the 4473 when he bought his guns by denying he was an unlawful user of drugs. So As far as the "system" knew he had no record of drug use, craziness and nothing in his background check would have flagged him.

[PavePusher]

46. How about we apply that reasoning to everything that can be used as a weapon?

Why the focus merely on firearms? You're leaving out a rather large variety of potential weaponry....

[gejohnston]

6. Are you saying that

the violence in Detroit and Flint are being committed by CCW holders or that it did not exist before the CCW was liberalized?

If so, you sound qualified to replace teddy bear Newt at the Brady Bunch!

[provis99]

8. Michigan counties obviously don't care who gets a CCW.

that's the gist I get out of the article.

[gejohnston]

9. no, the gist was that the boards don't do a good job of

record keeping. The state police do the background checks.

[Logical]

2. This is so common, CCW license holders cause fewer issues than the general public. n-t

[Hoyt]

11. But not fewer than the portion of public that could get a permit if they couldn't live w/o one.

Most of the public is just as law abiding and have no need to carry a gun into Chuck E Cheeze or any other public place.

[Atypical Liberal]

37. This is false.

But not fewer than the portion of public that could get a permit if they couldn't live w/o one.

This is false. As the Texas and other statistics show, CCW permit holders are less likely to commit crimes than all non-CCW permit holders - even those who could get a permit of they wanted one but choose not to obtain one.

Most of the public is just as law abiding and have no need to carry a gun into Chuck E Cheeze or any other public place.

So why the push for firearm laws that mostly impact this majority of the public that is law abiding? Why not have firearm laws that just affect the minority of criminals?

[ileus]

10. 10 years of freedom....good job people.

[BeFree]

14. Yep

Get a permit, get trained and know and follow all gun laws and you have proven you can handle the freedom of owning a gun. Freedom isn't free. I think we can all agree that the way to solve this problem is for everyone who wants a gun gets a permit.

Then only outlaws will be un-permitted. Lawful citizens will get permits. Problem almost solved!

[derby378]

15. Speak for yourself...

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about needing a permit to own a gun anymore than the First Amendment says you need a permit in order to start a political blog.

You want to carry a loaded gun on city streets, then you get a permit. Let's try to see the forest for the trees.

[BeFree]

16. ""Well regulated""

Are you saying criminals have the right to pack heat?

Getting a permit is not infringement.

[derby378]

17. To carry, no. To merely own, however - you bet it is.

You can throw up the criminal canard as often as you like, but we know better.

[BeFree]

18. Eh?

You can own but not carry?
You don't have the right to carry?

You mean the courts have allowed limits to owners?
Where will it end?

I can't believe yall let this happen.
What reason is there for not being allowed to carry?

[Straw Man]

33. Read and learn.

Convicted felons are "prohibited persons" at the Federal level, per the Gun Control Act of 1968: can't own, so obviously can't carry. Most states require permits for carry of handguns. Some require it even to possess handguns -- New York, for example. A few states have the so-called "Constitutional Carry," meaning no permit required: Vermont, Arizona. However, felons are still barred per Federal Law. And one state allows no carry at all: Illinois. Although the subject is controversial, there doesn't appear to be a correlation between carry laws and crime rates. This may be because the people who commit the bulk of the crimes don't bother with permits because they generally can't get them anyway.

See?

[BeFree]

43. Here's the problem

Loughner types would be - dare say are - legally allowed to have a weapon. And buy bullets and practice shooting so that they can pull the trigger when in a favorable environment for them to do their dastardly deeds.

It took how many dead to prove Loughner was insane? Is that what you are willing to settle for?

[derby378]

59. We're simply correcting 40+ years of misguided thinking on guns

Loughner could have been proven insane with a frickin' eye exam, but that doesn't mean you go and punish everyone else in America because of him. If the United Kingdom wants to do that in response to Dunblaine, that's their lookout - and the shooter in question, IIRC, didn't even have a license for his guns that I'm aware of.

[one-eyed fat man]

82. How many people knew Loughner was insane?

Certainly his family and friends, the university, and that's just to start.

Why are you not after them for their negligence?

Should the failures of his family to get him the medical help he needed go unaccounted?

Before you say maybe they couldn't afford it, back up. Having the state commit him involuntarily to a state hospital because he was demonstrably insane would have cost them nothing.

The failure in the system was not that the NICS check failed. That part worked perfectly. What failed were those most immediately around the lunatic who failed to take any steps to have him evaluated, committed, treated or anything else.

All those did NOTHING until after they attack and then they were all lining up to tell the cameras how they knew Loughner was a nut-case all along.

[rl6214]

24. Learn what "well regulated" means

because you obviously have no clue.

[gejohnston]

31. Let me put it this way, do you think John Dillinger register the

sub machine guns he stolen from the national guard when NFA passed?

[Atypical Liberal]

40. Well regulated MILITIAS.

If you are going to quote the second amendment, please don't take it out of context.

"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."

You will note that the only thing spoken of being "well regulated" are militias.

Secondly, for future reference please note that in 18th century vernacular, if something was "well regulated" it meant "well functioning. For example, highly accurate clocks of the day, such as those used to set the time of lesser-accurate clocks, were known as "regulators". A component of machinery that keeps a machine operating within correct parameters is known as a "regulator". If your digestive system is working correctly you are said to be "regular".

"Well regulated" did not mean "operating under rules and regulations".

Thus a "well regulated" militia is simply a militia that is functioning in a proper manner.

But even if it meant that the militias were supposed to operate under regulations (which it doesn't), the second amendment only applies this to the militias. The People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Getting a permit is not infringement.

If I have to ask the government for permission to do something, that is in infringement. No one would tolerate having to have a permit in order to speak.

[Blown330]

19. Wow you need to brush up on...

...you problem solving skills. Outlaws will be un-permitted. Outlaws will still have guns. A solution that doesn't solve any problem is not a solution.





I'm glad you aren't an engineer or in a profession where people's safety has to be taken into consideration.

[BeFree]

20. One more step

No buying bullets without a permit.

Sure, criminals may get guns, but only criminals will sell you bullets.

[rl6214]

25. Yeah let's see you try getting away with that one.

You do know arms include bullets, right?

[PavePusher]

29. Your ignorance continues to amuse.....

Do you have any idea how easy it is to make bullets?

http://leeprecision.com/xcart/Bullet-Casting/

But I think you are actually talking about complete cartridges. You may refer back to the same website, and dozens more like it...

[rl6214]

23. The permit is to carry, not to own.

That permit is issued by the 2A.

[Atypical Liberal]

38. You are conflating ownership with carrying.

Yep Get a permit, get trained and know and follow all gun laws and you have proven you can handle the freedom of owning a gun. Freedom isn't free. I think we can all agree that the way to solve this problem is for everyone who wants a gun gets a permit.

No, I do not agree.

First of all, you are conflating wanting (owning) a gun with carrying a gun. I don't particularly like having to have a permit to carry a concealed firearm, but since so few people actually do this it does not create a firearm owner registry.

The second amendment was primarily intended to keep military-grade small arms suitable for militia use in the hands of the citizenry, so as to eliminate the need for, or at least be able to counter, federal military power.

If you agree with this, then you must see that giving the federal government a list of firearm owners undermines this ability.

Then only outlaws will be un-permitted. Lawful citizens will get permits. Problem almost solved!

What problem is almost solved?

[BeFree]

39. No, I don't.

""then you must see that giving the federal government a list of firearm owners undermines this ability.
]

I do not fear that the government will confiscate guns. We all know that ain't gonna happen. Evah.

Point is that courts have agreed that regulating guns is constitutional.
All that is left is deciding the smartest way to make better regulations so that Loughner types are eliminated from ever being legal gun owners. It is that simple.

[Atypical Liberal]

44. How do you know that?

I do not fear that the government will confiscate guns. We all know that ain't gonna happen. Evah.

You cannot predict the future, so you cannot know that. You are making the assumption that our government will forevermore be beholden to the interests of the people as a benign entity. I do not share your optimism.

Point is that courts have agreed that regulating guns is constitutional.

Just as regulating speech is constitutional. In very limited situations.

All that is left is deciding the smartest way to make better regulations so that Loughner types are eliminated from ever being legal gun owners. It is that simple.

I agree, it is quite simple. But issuing permits to law-abiding people would not have done anything to stop Loughner. He had no disqualifying history that would have prevented him from obtaining a permit to own a firearm. He passed NICS background checks when he purchased his firearms.

I actually have no problem with requiring permits for firearm ownership - so long as it preserves firearm anonymity.

One way to do this is to issue permits to everyone who applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID, unless they choose to opt out. In this way, the government cannot know that just because you have a permit you are a firearm owner.

[BeFree]

49. Well, la-de-da

Yep. Currently we do not have laws that weed out the Loughner types. No f'n shit.

Aren't you smart?

[Straw Man]

50. And fiddle-dee-dee.

Yep. Currently we do not have laws that weed out the Loughner types. No f'n shit.

Yes we do. They just aren't being applied and enforced. Loughner should have been mandated for evaluation after being kicked out of college. No one had the guts to do it.

Aren't you smart?

Aren't you?

[BeFree]

51. Why not applied and enforced?

Yes, I am. Smart. Really. You know it.

[Straw Man]

64. Ask your elected officials and those who have been appointed or hired ...

... to do the job. Then you might find the answers that will make you smarter.

[BeFree]

67. Yeah

But according to some here if I do, I am violating their rights!!

So what will you settle for?
What laws can you see in the future that would make it near impossible for Loughner types?

[Straw Man]

75. Violating the rights of elected officials by asking them to do their jobs?

Who ever said that?

The laws that would make anything "near impossible" for anybody would of necessity be draconian. Public policy is made by balancing risk against infringement on freedom. From what I've heard, you advocate several giant steps toward the latter. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because you also tend to shy away from specific recommendations.

The laws already exist that would have stopped Loughner from acquiring a gun. They weren't applied. No mandatory evaluation, no flag in the NICS system. What would YOU settle for? More laws that won't be enforced?

[Atypical Liberal]

69. Here is why.

Yes, I am. Smart. Really. You know it.

If you were really so smart, you would know the answer this question.

It used to be pretty easy to commit people to mental institutions. It was a particularly convenient way to get rid of female family members who might be considered to be "promiscuous" or otherwise had undesirable behavior problems. Families who no longer wanted to be burdened with caring for such people would often commit them to asylums.

http://www.toddlertime.com/advocacy/hospitals/Asylum/history-asylum.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment

For an example of this sort of thing, consider Rosemary Kennedy who was given a lobotomy in 1941 because of her supposed behavior problems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy

Beginning in the 1960's, there was a movement to deinstitutionalize asylums and there have been strict measures put in place that protect the rights of individuals, making it harder to involuntarily commit them to mental institutions. This was done to guard against the abuses mentioned above.

Locking someone away against their will, or even just removing their Constitutional rights, should require Due Process. You can't just have someone say that someone is crazy and that is that.

Today, the metric for mental health disqualification by NICS is that the individual must not have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and must not have been adjudicated mentally incompetent.

If you want to change the mental health qualifications I am open to discussion, but it is of utmost importance to respect the due process of law.

[Atypical Liberal]

65. I'm confused.

Yep. Currently we do not have laws that weed out the Loughner types. No f'n shit.

Aren't you smart?

OK, I'm confused. You were just proclaiming the need for universal registration by claiming it would weed out the "Loughner types".

But registration is simply going to use a NICS-style background check. Currently, the law for NICS is you will fail NICS if you have been convicted of certain felonies, or if you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, or if you have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Since Loughner had none of these disqualifying traits, he would and did pass a NICS background check.

It sounds like you are suggesting that universal registration would use some other method for screening firearm owners.

What method do you propose?

[BeFree]

68. Eh?

I propose banning all that shit. Hard regulations. Real f'n hard.

The question is, since you are so smart, what do you propose?
Surely you aren't proposing everything is just dandy?
Maybe we should just abandon all gun laws?
What?

[Atypical Liberal]

72. Ban what shit? What regulations?

I propose banning all that shit. Hard regulations. Real f'n hard.

Banning what shit, exactly?

What regulations are you proposing, exactly?

All you've suggested so far is "universal registration". Registration does nothing but make a list of firearm owners. If you want to change the rules for who is qualified to own firearms, that's fine, propose some.

The question is, since you are so smart, what do you propose?
Surely you aren't proposing everything is just dandy?
Maybe we should just abandon all gun laws?
What?

Frankly, I suspect you could abandon all gun laws, and very little would change. You see, most firearm owners - 98% of them, are not involved in firearm crimes every year. They can't be - there simply are not enough violent crimes committed every year to go spread around the 40-80 million firearm owners in this country. Even if every single violent crime - firearm related or not - was committed by a firearm owner, that would only amount to about 2% of firearm owners.

So most firearm owners are law-abiding people going about their normal everyday lives. If you tossed every single firearm law today, it's unlikely that they would all turn into murdering thugs tomorrow.

Another simple fact is that the vast majority of firearm homicides - and probably firearm crimes in general - are committed by people with extensive prior criminal histories:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

These are people who are already prohibited by law from owning firearms, but this hasn't slowed them down at all.

So in terms of preventing criminal activity, today's firearm laws don't affect 98% of firearm owners and don't do much to prevent criminals from using guns in crime.

The good news is, in spite of record sales of firearms and ammunition, violent crime rates have continued to decline over the last decade, and are at their lowest point in 40 years.

I am pretty much OK with the current NICS background check requirements:

Federal Categories of Persons Prohibited From Receiving

* A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
* Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
* An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
* A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
* A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
* A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
* A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
* A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
* The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
* A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
* A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

The biggest problem with NICS is not the requirements, it is poor reporting to the NICS database by the States! In order for the NICS system to be effective, it has to have current, accurate data. So my only "problem" with the system is that states need to stay on top of their reporting. This is how Cho passed the NICS requirements - Virginia had poor NICS reporting and has subsequently beefed up its reporting after Virginia Tech.

However, nearly all private sales in the United States do not require a NICS background check. Nor is the NICS system open to private individuals to use. Consequently, nearly anyone in the US can sell a firearm to anyone else with no questions asked. What Illinois does is require all firearm owners to have an FOID - firearm owner identification. When you sell a firearm to a private individual, you must keep a copy of the buyer's FOID information for some years after the sale.

I would not be opposed to an FOID system like Illinois has, except instead of making it opt-in, which creates a list of all firearm owners, I would make it opt-out, which preserves anonymity.

[derby378]

76. Except that a permit is a permit is a permit

Opt-in, opt-out, it's all the same - you're at the mercy of government officials simply for exercising your Constitutional rights. And we've seen the problems that Illinois' own FOID system has caused for legitimate gun owners.

Again, if you want to carry in an urban setting, I can see the need for permits for concealed-carry. BeFree's strategy looks like a one-size-fits-all approach, and that is one reason why it will fail.

[Atypical Liberal]

78. Anonymity.

Except that a permit is a permit is a permit Opt-in, opt-out, it's all the same

No, they are very different. An opt-in system creates a de facto registry of firearm owners, since only people who own or are very likely to own firearms will opt-in to get an FOID. An opt-out system means you cannot be sure that just because someone has an FOID they actually own firearms.

As long as the issuance of permits is done as shall issue, which most CCW permits are today, I don't see the problem.

Basically, nearly everyone would get an FOID as part of getting a driver's license.

[PavePusher]

53. " Freedom isn't free." You misunderstand what that means.

Freedom is free of charge, not free from responsibility.

[BeFree]

55. Right

If you want the freedom to own and shoot a gun somewhere besides under your own roof, then you should prove you are responsible enough to get anywhere near the rest of society with that gun.

Damn, you are catching on. I am proud of you.

[PavePusher]

56. Well, the issue with Rights is that you are presumed responsible until proven otherwise.

That's the way our system was set up and intended.

I know a lot of Authoritarians have a problem with that.

[BeFree]

58. Yeah, sure

Then just abolish most laws?
See, it has been proven too many gun owners are not responsible enough.
But you know that.

Are you one to state that there should be no laws pertaining to guns?
If you think there should be any, then by your claims you are authoritarian.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. Appeal to (nonexistant) authority, and a strawman argument for dessert

See, it has been proven too many gun owners are not responsible enough. But you know that.

I know no such thing, and you've elided just who or what has 'proven' what you claim.

Are you one to state that there should be no laws pertaining to guns?

Even the NRA doesn't believe this horseshit- they support the NICS system, for example, and are down with the idea of

prohibiting convicted felons and those adjudged mentally incompetent from owning guns.

If you think there should be any, then by your claims you are authoritarian.

Except that ain't what he said- His stance (and mine) is that denying people the exercise of a civil right without benefit of due

process is an authoritarian act, whether it be freely traveling about the country or keeping and bearing arms-

and we've got all nine Supreme Court justices agreeing in a recent case that keeping and bearing arms is a civil right.


A pox on your mindset. It's the same ones that gives us those "reasonable" and "commonsense" restrictions on abortion

that Kansans are currently 'enjoying'.

[PavePusher]

77. Laws deliniate what a community/political entity has decided is behavior....

that endangers/harms others without good cause, and establish punishment for exceeding those bounds.

But by their very nature, laws do not, of themselves, limit the choices free people make. Only the individual can do that.

I in no way believe there should be no gun laws. WHatever gave you that idea?

[Straw Man]

81. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but you're making absolutely no sense.

Then just abolish most laws?
See, it has been proven too many gun owners are not responsible enough.
But you know that.

Are you one to state that there should be no laws pertaining to guns?
If you think there should be any, then by your claims you are authoritarian.

You do realize that there is a middle-ground between your "real f'n hard" police-state wetdream of "banning all that shit" on the one hand, and a total absence of laws on the other, don't you? Maybe you don't.

[Hoyt]

12. I don't think folks are concerned about blood in streets in short-term. It's guns polluting society

that's an issue. Long-term, we are just pumping more guns into the system (and most are being bought by the same gun obsessed people). Those will have to be dealt with at some point.

[ileus]

21. Society tarnishes guns...not the other way around. Guns are magnificent devices by themselves

and in the hands of citizens that know and love them...

[Hoyt]

28. "Magnificent Devices" -- good god man, get a life.

[rl6214]

27. No it's your perverted ideas polluting society hoyt

that and your perverse language (gun obsessed people)

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. "...guns polluting society". Tell us, do you drink only pure grain alcohol and branch water?

One rarely encounters the word 'polluting' used as you do without the phrase 'precious bodily fluids' somewhere nearby...

[gejohnston]

32. squeezos, an oil field thing

everclear, grenadine and orange juice.

[WatsonT]

35. Can you even see the goalposts any more?

I mean you've moved them so many times by now they must be over the horizon at this point.

[Atypical Liberal]

42. We'll keep waiting for crime rates to go up.

I don't think folks are concerned about blood in streets in short-term. It's guns polluting society that's an issue. Long-term, we are just pumping more guns into the system (and most are being bought by the same gun obsessed people). Those will have to be dealt with at some point.



We are currently on a trend of nearly two decades of declining violent crime rates, and we are currently at the lowest rate of violent crime in nearly forty years.

In this same time frame we have gone from virtually no state allowing concealed carry to now every state except Illinois allowing it. Firearm and ammunition sales are at record highs.

But hey, I'm sure the sky is going to fall any minute now.

[spin]

48. Admittedly if your goal is to disarm all citizens, the fact that more guns are being bought by ...

American citizens must be very discouraging.

When I was shooting at a range in the Tampa Bay area I saw a lot of new shooters bringing firearms to the range for the first time. I often helped them learn the basics of shooting and was happy to answer their questions.

In my opinion the statistics that show that fewer people have firearms in their house are unrealistic. Such statistics prove only that many people are unwilling to honestly answer questions about personal firearm ownership during a survey conducted over the phone or one by a person who comes to their door.

My daughter worked as a census worker last year and she had a difficult time getting a significant percentage of the people she interviewed to tell her how many people lived in their house. Sadly many people do not trust our government today.

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. I hope the fact that more guns are being bought by Americans gives certain persons a bleeding ulcer.

They will undoubtedly also be suffering from an extreme case of piles. Having a largish stick up your ass tends to do that....