PDA

View Full Version : False statement made about CCW in the USA


Tarn_Helm
02-16-2009, 5:42 PM
“UPI,” United Press International, ran a story on “open carry” on 02/12/09.

In this story, UPI makes the following false assertion (quoting an uncited USA Today article): “Most states ban concealed weapons, USA Today says.”

This assertion is completely false.

In fact, 40 out of 50 states are “shall issue,” which means that the rules for obtaining a permit to carry a concealed loaded weapon for purposes of lawful self-defense are basically similar to rules for getting a driver’s license: you meet the requirements and the state must issue you the permit.

There are many websites where this can be verified—and that is not counting the individual state websites on which the law itself is articulated:
 http://www.handgunlaw.us/
 http://www.gunmap.org/
 http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18
 http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

Morale of the story: Inform yourself.

The mainstream media will not sufficiently inform you, and they might MISinform you.

4 U.S. states mull openly carrying guns
Published: Feb. 12, 2009 at 8:46 AM http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/12/4_US_states_mull_openly_carrying_guns/UPI-12611234446390/

AUSTIN, Texas, Feb. 12 (UPI) -- Four Southern U.S. states may join much of the rest of the country in letting people carry handguns openly in a holster, gun-rights proponents say.

If Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas pass "open carry" legislation, then only New York and Florida would bar carrying handguns openly, proponents say.

The four states "are extremely gun-friendly," OpenCarry.org co-founder John Pierce tells USA Today.

"They understand the individual rights aspect," he says. "Yet for whatever reason, the carry laws in these states are restrictive."

OpenCarry's motto is "a right unexercised is a right lost."

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars the infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Most states ban concealed weapons, USA Today says. Illinois and Wisconsin ban carrying handguns entirely, the National Rifle Association says.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, tells the newspaper his group, which opposes open-carry laws, does not "want more people carrying guns either openly or concealed because the more guns you have in a situation, the more likely you are to get gun violence."

Texas Open Carry Work Group chairman Ian McCarthy, a student, says a concealed gun is uncomfortable during hot Texas summers, takes longer to draw in self-defense and won't deter a criminal.

"If a criminal sees you're armed, he's not going to mess with you," McCarthy says.

***
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]
***

Perhaps we all need to post comments voicing our disapproval of the level of "excellence" UPI evinced in the article above.

TheBundo
02-16-2009, 5:47 PM
Link to the article so we can find out the author? You should send this to him/her as well

Tarn_Helm
02-16-2009, 6:01 PM
Link to the article so we can find out the author? You should send this to him/her as well

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/12/4_US_states_mull_openly_carrying_guns/UPI-12611234446390/

:thumbsup:

DDT
02-16-2009, 9:44 PM
commented.

Liberty1
02-16-2009, 9:50 PM
48 states do ban CC. Then they create exemptions including licensing or police officer carry etc.... But a "ban" is the default situation. You can be detained and arrested until you prove your exemption.

But your point is understood. They should have used "criminalized" and not "banned" to be more clear as only WI and IL fully ban.

vrand
02-16-2009, 10:02 PM
48 states do ban CC..

Yea, Vermont and Alaska, allow a non-felon, aged 16 or 21 respectively, to conceal-carry without requiring a permit as a fundamental right.

Open Carry Map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/USA_Carry_Map.jpg/800px-

:thumbsup:

stylett9
02-16-2009, 10:05 PM
commented as "michael"

Tarn_Helm
02-16-2009, 10:15 PM
48 states do ban CC. Then they create exemptions including licensing or police officer carry etc.... But a "ban" is the default situation. You can be detained and arrested until you prove your exemption.

Actually, a "ban" is the default situation with regard to defecation.

It is actually illegal to expel your feces indoors (and in many cases, outdoors) in the United States of America.

You can be detained and arrested until you prove you have dumped your dump in a toilet that meets health and safety codes.

I like the way you think.

You might want to meet a recently made friend of mine.

Kestryll introduced me to him.

It went something like this:

"Tarn, meet Humor.

Humor, meet Tarn."

I get your point.

I personally think there should be no infringement of the Second Amendment: i.e., no regulation.

But you have pushed the generally accepted norms of usage in our language beyond any and all natural boundaries with your argument.

Deconstruction (http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/derrida.htm) doesn't impress me, so don't try it on me.

It's not even new.

A rhetorician by the name of Gorgias of Leontini (http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gorgias.htm) tried it a long time ago.

It (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction) remains the favorite trope of the "Left."

Gorgias' version is infinitely more elegant than the loquacious, self-impressed modern versions.

In its summation, this nihilistic argument becomes a "trilemma":

i. Nothing exists
ii. Even if existence exists, it cannot be known
iii. Even if it could be known, it cannot be communicated. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gorgias.htm#SH2a)

You want to start talking in paradoxes?

Throw down.
:cowboy:

bohoki
02-17-2009, 11:44 AM
In this story, UPI makes the following false assertion (quoting an uncited USA Today article): “Most states ban concealed weapons, USA Today says.”

This assertion is completely false.


yes on its face it is false since "concealed weapons" is so undefinable

does is mean a ban of concealable weapons? does it ban concealing weapons?
what does "ban" mean?


but since the meaning is so vague it coudl be argued that it is true since it is unlawful to carry a concealed weapon without local government issued permission

thegratenate
02-17-2009, 11:51 AM
I believe that this falls under the category of "true but misleading", as the article is leading the reader to believe that most states simply do not allow CCW, while the reality is that nearly all states, issue permits, and the vast majority issue to anyone who is not disqualified. The author has no journalistic integrity or else he would have stated, " carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is prohibited in nearly all states".

DDT
02-17-2009, 12:57 PM
48 states do ban CC. Then they create exemptions including licensing or police officer carry etc.... But a "ban" is the default situation. You can be detained and arrested until you prove your exemption.

That is really an ignorant statement. Do 50 states ban driving because they require a license to be permitted to drive and if you don't have a license you can be detained and arrested until you prove you can drive? I've heard they have the same ban on flying a plane and even, in many cities on owning a business.

Liberty1
02-17-2009, 8:39 PM
OK! OK! OK! UNCLE! :surrender: :)

DDT
02-17-2009, 9:28 PM
OK! OK! OK! UNCLE! :surrender: :)

You should know better than to try and defend USA Today... :p

CA_Libertarian
02-18-2009, 2:32 PM
That is really an ignorant statement. Do 50 states ban driving because they require a license to be permitted to drive and if you don't have a license you can be detained and arrested until you prove you can drive? I've heard they have the same ban on flying a plane and even, in many cities on owning a business.

IMHO, it is your view that is ignorant.

How do you define a ban? Is it not the prohibition of a certain activity? The government bans rights so it can make money off selling the priviledge. In most states your right to carry concealed has been banned - as have your rights to drive, fly, and engage in free trade in. They do, however, have a tax and a test available that may get you the priviledge to engage in similar activities.

Did certain southern states not "ban" blacks from voting by instituting a test and a tax? Or does the existance of a tax and a test make the regulation permissible? Is taxing and testing drivers and gun owners any different? I know many people who can't afford to pay their car registration (a tax), and I know one guy who can't read or write to take the handgun safety certificate test, but received all the same training I did in safe gun handling (I trust him more than most other people I know when it comes to gun safety).

People take for granted the government regulation of everything. IMO, the government has no more business regulating the method of carry than they do the right to stop me from selling goods/services. Requiring someone to pay a tax, take a test, or beg permission is NOT freedom.

From time to time, please step back and ask yourself: how did this great country servive 100 years ago when we didn't have a full time nanny?

Try and imagine a free country. Maybe we could try that agian?

DDT
02-18-2009, 3:02 PM
People take for granted the government regulation of everything. IMO, the government has no more business regulating the method of carry than they do the right to stop me from selling goods/services. Requiring someone to pay a tax, take a test, or beg permission is NOT freedom.


I think you showed my point exquisitely here.

It is regulation (I agree it shouldn't be and I work to change that) not a ban. Are they impinging on a civil right? Yes. It that acceptable? No. Is it freedom? No. Is it a ban? No.

The common definition of the term ban is a prohibition. Requiring one to get a license is not a prohibition.

Now, if you were to claim that 38 or those 40 states ban carrying a concealed weapon without a permit I would agree.

To make your argument you would also have to stipulate that we are banned from living in our own homes because you WILL lose that right if you don't pay your property tax. This has the same effect but no right thinking person would accept the assertion that there is a general ban on private home ownership in this country. Are you willing to stipulate that there is a general ban on home ownership?