🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mountain Goat" <rmgoatNO@SPAMshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:c3e492pc3mulb191504442k3927mb6dbee@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:01:57 GMT, "Semper Liber"
> <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:
>
> >Power to the people? Patriots arise and defend your country from freedom
> >robbers foreign and domestic!
> >
> >
> >Gun law spurs no violence - No problems arising from concealed weapons
> >permits.
> >
> Who gives a flying fuck what they do in do in the demented states?

Because it destroys your usual 'leftard' argument that CCW's increase
violence.... DUH!!!!!!!!!

FBI Uniform Crime Report (1992) shows that 70% of violent crimes are
committed by 7% of criminals, many of whom are on probation or are given
parole and released early. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department
of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed
citizens; 40% state that they have decided against committing crimes for
fear their would-be victims were armed.

The FBI's statistics in the 1992 Uniform Crime Report also concluded:
"Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws limiting or
prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense." [1] "The
FBI's data also show that in 20 other states that issue CCW permits
(including Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Tennessee, Wyoming, and others),
these states have enjoyed a REDUCTION in crime as follows: 1) Violent crime
rates are LOWER by 21%. 2) Homicide rates are LOWER by 33% 3) Robbery rates
are LOWER by 37% and 4) Aggravated assaults are lower by 13%."[2]

States offer selective reciprocity in this area. That is, a permit-holder in
one state may be able to carry or transport a weapon in other states with a
reciprocity agreement with the home state. Reciprocity does impose on the
permit-holder the responsibility for knowing and understanding the
differences in the laws between the states.

In 39 of the US states, issuing officials may not arbitrarily deny a permit
application, a practice known as Florida-style "shall issue." A further
eight states have "may issue" laws; typically specific "need" must be
established, but in practice, this is often a mechanism to prohibit most
people from carrying.

These "may issue" states range from "shall issue" in practice (Alabama and
Connecticut are examples) to "at the whim of local officials" (such as New
York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California; rural officials in those
states liberally issue permits but officials in urbanized counties generally
are more restrictive) to "almost non-issue" in states such as Maryland where
even documented death threats are sometimes not sufficient to convince
officials to issue permits and to "never-issue" Hawaii, where permits are
never issued under any circumstances.

Two states, (Vermont and Alaska), allow any non-felon who has reached the
age of 16 or 21 respectively, to carry without a permit of any kind.
However, Alaska residents may still obtain a completely optional,
non-required permit so as to receive reciprocal carry rights in other
states, or to gain exemption from the NICS background check.

As of 2006, only two US States-Wisconsin and Illinois-have no provision
whatsoever that would allow for the legal concealed carry of firearms by
"ordinary" citizens. There are currently movements in each of these states
to pass concealed-carry laws; legislation was passed in 2004 and again in
2005, but vetoed by the respective governors. It is expected that Wisconsin
will have a signed Concealed Carry law by the end of 2007. The Kansas
legislature over-rode the governor's veto to pass CCW on March 23rd, 2006.



>
> >By PATRICK SULLIVAN
> >Original URL: http://www.record-eagle.com/2002/apr/07guns.htm
> >
> >      TRAVERSE CITY - Nine months after a state law that allows most
people
> >over the age of 21 to qualify for a concealed weapons permit, worries
that
> >gun violence would soar have not materialized and few glitches in the law
> >have been reported.
> >
> >      "It's obvious that people aren't shooting each other over traffic
> >disputes, there's no blood in the street," said David Bieganowski, a
> >Traverse City lawyer and chapter president of the Michigan Coalition for
> >Responsible Gun Owners.
> >
> >      Michigan law was changed July 1, 2001, to allow citizens over 21 to
> >receive a concealed weapons permit if they have completed a gun safety
> >course unless they have been convicted of a felony or certain
misdemeanors
> >or have a history of mental illness.
> >
> >      Bieganowski, who is also a National Rifle Association certified
> >firearms instructor and teaches the legal section of the gun safety
course
> >at several sportsman's clubs, said the biggest complaint he has heard is
> >from people who have been denied permits because they have been cited for
> >driving with an expired license plate.
> >
> >      Because the law bars anyone with certain misdemeanors within the
past
> >eight years or any misdemeanor within the past three years from getting a
> >permit, a violation for driving with an expired plate, a misdemeanor in
> >Michigan, forces gun boards to deny permits.
> >
> >      Department of Natural Resources fishing violations can also cause
an
> >applicant a three-year delay in obtaining a permit.
> >
> >      "I'm sure it was an unintended consequence," Bieganowski said.
"They
> >call me and I tell them to call their state representative because I
can't
> >do anything about it."
> >
> >      The overwhelming majority of people who apply for permits are
granted
> >them, according to records kept by the Michigan State Police and county
> >clerks.
> >
> >      In Grand Traverse County, 454 people have applied. Of those, five
have
> >been denied, 352 have been approved, and 97 are pending. Across northwest
> >Lower Michigan, 2,273 people have applied, 14 have been denied, 1,798
have
> >been approved and 461 are pending.
> >
> >      Across the region, just over 10 percent of the applicants are
women.
> >Of the 1,798 permits approved, 182 went to women.
> >
> >      The level of interest shown by women prompted Bieganowski to hold a
> >"women-only" concealed weapon training course at the Cedar Rod & Gun Club
in
> >June. The class, announced last month, has already almost filled.
> >
> >      "Women seem to light up a bit when they hear 'women-only,' "
> >Bieganowski said.
> >
> >      Many of the women who have already attended Bieganowski's classes
are
> >wives of men who own handguns. Women are more likely to want a concealed
> >weapon permit for the purpose of personal protection than men, he said.
> >
> >      "I'm sure the reasons are different and self-protection is the No.
1
> >reason for women, some men get them just out of principal," he said.
> >
> >      No shootings in northern Michigan have been connected to concealed
> >weapon permit holders.
> >
> >      Wilson Brott, a lawyer who has also provided legal training for
> >applicants, said the requirements to get a permit are meant to discourage
> >violence.
> >
> >      "What we try to do is make sure people are real wary of even
pulling
> >out your firearm," Brott said.
> >
> >      The law also more severely restricts where people can carry a
> >concealed weapon. Forbidden areas include bars, schools, churches, day
care
> >centers, hospitals and sports arenas.
> >
> >      Missaukee County's gun board began issuing permits under the new
law
> >months before it took effect and they have seen no problems with permit
> >holders, Missaukee Sheriff James Bosscher said.
> >
> >      "Some people want them for traveling, some people want to carry,
some
> >people want them just because it's their right," Bosscher said.
> >
> >      Patrick Sullivan is the reporter for crime, courts and public
safety.
> >He can be reached at (231) 933-xxxx, or at psullivan@record-eagle.com
> >
> >
> >> "Here is a law which is above the King and Parliament, and which even
He
> >and
> >> They must not and may not legally break. And in the event they or
anyone
> >> else were to try to abrogate it, such attempt at abrogation shall have
no
> >> force nor effect [1297] and can be safely ignored with no legal ill
> >effect.
> >> In addition, in the event of successful attempts at abrogation of such
> >> liberties, customs, or rights, the King has commanded and do hereby
compel
> >> any and all subjects to swear oath to join the barons to assail the
> >> properties and persons and families of those (saving the King, Queen
and
> >the
> >> royal children) who had successfully completed such abrogation,
including
> >> but not limited to that of the individual Members of Parliament who had
> >> voted in favour of any such successful attempts at abrogation [1215].
This
> >> reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter
is
> >> the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in
> >which
> >> men have held it."
> >>
> >>
> >> --Quote by Sir Winston Churchill, 1956
> >
> >>
> >> > The gun can only be legally used for target shooting
> >> > there fore it should be stored where it is used.
> >>
> >> The gun can be used to lawfully defend ones person or property when
> >> threatened..... This is a fundamental right, and any law that states
> >> otherwise can be safely ignored. End of Story.
> >>
> >> Per Arbour and LeBel JJ. : Section 88(1) of the Criminal Code requires
a
> >> subjective mens rea. Constitutional considerations aside, there is a
> >common
> >> law presumption that, absent a clear expression of Parliamentary
intent, a
> >> person is not liable for a criminal offence in the absence of
subjective
> >> mens rea. However, the elements of the offence must be distinguished
from
> >> the evidentiary problems that arise in any offence where the trier of
fact
> >> is called on to determine the subjective intent of an accused. To do
this,
> >> the trier of fact must look at the externalities or objective indicia
of
> >the
> >> accused's state of mind.
> >>      Under s. 88(1), an accused's subjective purpose must be one that
is
> >> dangerous to the public peace. To avoid importing an objective element
> >into
> >> a purely subjective approach, the concept of a "purpose dangerous to
the
> >> public peace" needs to be given concrete content. Within the meaning of
s.
> >> 88(1), it is the possession of a weapon with the intention of doing
harm
> >to
> >> persons or property, or showing reckless disregard for harm to persons
or
> >> property. Section 88(1) does not require actual use of the weapon, but
> >does
> >> require possession of a weapon coupled with an additional intention.
> >>
> >>
> >>