New York Times on Loosening Gun Laws

Gun rights advocates are hoping for even fewer restrictions on where they can have a firearm. Among their top goals is to make Arizona the third state where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Bills in the House and the Senate would also eliminate background checks and training classes for people to carry hidden guns.

“All we’re doing is handcuffing good people, restricting their constitutional, God-given right to carry and perhaps their ability to defend their families,” said State Senator Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican sponsoring the bill.

Right on!

Police departments worry that making permits optional might encourage more people with bad motives to carry concealed weapons, said John Thomas, a lobbyist for the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. It also could lead to more accidents by people not adequately trained, Mr. Thomas said.

As always I disagree with the “encourage more people with bad motives to carry” argument, because criminals do not care about the law.  The part about accidents happening more frequently is a valid concern.  I hope that even for their own personal safety, no one would carry a gun that they were not familiar with.

Full Article at the New York Times website – HERE

6 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Josh January 31, 2010 at 10:37 pm

The part about eliminating background checks and training classes sure sounds like a recipe for problems. What’s bad about a background check? It’s only going to weed out people who are legally barred from owning a handgun I would think. And training classes? I’m a combat veteran and former Ranger-qualified 11B, 82nd Airborne paratrooper, and while I have some training with weapons, a little more training couldn’t hurt. Especially since I don’t have experience carrying a concealed handgun, and I’m certain that part of the training specifically deals with the legal aspects of carrying a weapon in your home state.

Reply

Bryan Spiegel February 1, 2010 at 11:28 am

What criminal has been stopped by a background check? They get denied, and go find some other way to get the firearm. All these checks are is a tax on law abiding people.

Reply

Josh February 1, 2010 at 11:48 am

I don’t mean to imply that a background check stops all criminals from obtaining weapons. But, “What criminal has been stopped…?”. You say it yourself, “they get denied…” The background check prevents those who aren’t’ legally allowed to purchase weapons from obtaining them from licensed dealers.

Your argument is akin to saying, “Why check people’s ID at the liquor store, if they’re underage they’re going to find a way to get liquor anyway, so we might as well sell it to them.”

Reply

Admin (Mike) February 1, 2010 at 02:42 pm

I agree, stopping the training classes seems like a bad idea. Same with the background checks, because I definitely think they at least make it a bit harder for someone that is mentally unstable, or a criminal to get a weapon.

Of course like Bryan mentioned, that’s not going to stop a criminal from finding another way to get a gun, and people that have an undocumented mental illness will definitely continue to slip through the cracks.

Reply

Josh February 2, 2010 at 01:32 am

I’m all for background checks and a day or two class on CCP’s. Cover topics from basic range safety, gun and holster choices, on range (I like Texas … gotta fill a paper plate full of holes to pass), and back to the classroom to discuss the realistic possibilities of having to use the chunk of metal you’re carrying. Sure, I can carry a gun … but proficiency under stress, and a combat mindset take training and preparation.

But then I also agree with Mr. Ted Nugent … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

Reply

Admin (Mike) February 2, 2010 at 04:41 pm

Classic Ted Nugent vid for sure.

I see nothing wrong with actually making someone prove they can operate a gun and display some level of accuracy before letting them carry it around. Like you said though, all that will be thrown out the window once stress is added in.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: