The TexasFred Blog
No Holds Barred: News, Opinion and Commentary
This is The Header Then

Gun laws are getting looser across much of US

December 12th, 2009 . by TexasFred

Gun laws are getting looser across much of US

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - It’s been the year of the gun in Tennessee. In a flurry of legislative action, handgun owners won the right to take their weapons onto sports fields and playgrounds and, at least briefly, into bars.

A change in leadership at the state Capitol helped open the doors to the gun-related bills and put Tennessee at the forefront of a largely unnoticed trend: In much of the country, it is getting easier to carry guns.

A nationwide review by The Associated Press found that over the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions.

Among other things, legislatures have allowed firearms to be carried in cars, made it illegal to ask job candidates whether they own a gun, and expanded agreements that make permits to carry handguns in one state valid in another.

Full Story Here:
Gun laws are getting looser across much of US

A long time ago, many years ago actually, my family was in the trucking business. There was an awful lot of regulation back then, state to state regulations on what was legal. How long, how tall, how heavy, and then there was registration. Nothing was uniform. Back in the old days, the big trucks weighed even more because of all the license plates and state stickers that covered the front ends of each and every truck.

That’s a lot like what a gun owner faces if he/she are traveling with a gun in their vehicle. Is it legal to have it under the seat? In the glove box? On the seat? On your person but in *plain sight*? Is my concealed handgun license recognized? And many more issues as well. All brought on by the anti-gun cabal, all supported by the likes of New York Cities anti-gun Mayor, Michael Bloomberg and his ilk.

Then locally, we have Hurst, Texas Mayor Richard Ward. An old anti-gun libber in disguise that would like nothing better than to see ALL gun labeled as *ILLEGAL*. SOURCE

Gun laws vary from state to state, there is little uniformity, even among gun friendly states. It would make things a lot easier for all concerned if there was a uniformity but I am guessing that will not happen. There are too many states that take a hard stance AGAINST guns, they will not adopt anything PRO gun, it’s not in their libber bones!

Among the recent gun-friendly laws:

- Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and Utah have made it illegal for businesses to bar their employees from storing guns in cars parked on company lots.

- Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia have made some or all handgun permit information confidential.

- Montana, Arizona and Kansas have allowed handgun permits to be issued to people who have had their felony convictions expunged or their full civil rights restored.

- Tennessee and Montana have passed laws that exempt weapons made and owned in-state from federal restrictions. Tennessee is the home to Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, the maker of a .50-caliber shoulder-fired rifle that the company says can shoot bullets up to five miles and is banned in California.

That last one about Tennessee and Montana and their passing laws that exempt weapons made and owned in-state from federal restrictions, I say, more power to them, and congratulate them in that effort! But also notice, the MSM can’t leave out the part about a Barrett .50 having a MAXIMUM range of 5 miles and how it’s banned in the state of California.

For what it’s worth, I would bet dollars to donuts that I can go to most any neighborhood in most any town in California and can BUY a Barrett .50, or most any fully automatic assault weapon my heart might desire. Legal and banned is a moot point in California. It may NOT be legal, and it may very well be banned, but somehow, the gangs and drug dealers always seem to have, and all too often, USE those ILLEGAL and banned weapons!

Must be all of those gun shows in Texas! :P

Public attitudes toward gun control have shifted strongly over the past 50 years, according to Gallup polling. In 1959, 60 percent of respondents said they favored a ban on handguns except for “police and other authorized persons.” Gallup’s most recent annual crime survey in October found 71 percent opposed such a ban.

Somehow, I just simply do NOT believe that last blockquote. If those figures are anywhere near accurate, the group polled must have been the 450 members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and that was the cross-section of American voters used.

“People go in there and start drinking and then they want to start a fight. What are they going to do if they got a gun in their hand?” said Larry Speck, 69, who works at an auto repair shop in Memphis. “I’ve got a gun permit and I’m not carrying mine in there even if they have a law.”

Chattanooga retiree Ken Hasse, 71, said he worries about the possible consequences of allowing people to carry their guns in places like parks. “It’s going to tempt somebody to use one,” he said.

Let me explain something to BOTH of you “I’m all for the 2nd amendment BUT” old fools, it does not matter WHAT the law says, there will ALWAYS be people that carry a gun to a bar and look for a fight. But it won’t be a LEGAL holder of a Concealed Handgun License. They know that if they are in an establishment that sells booze, and if they are drinking, and if they become involved in an altercation WITH a gun, right or wrong, they LOSE their CHL and won’t ever get it back.

The law about carrying a LEGAL weapon into an establishment that sells alcoholic beverages was put in place NOT to allow people to go out drinking and carrying, it was put in place to make it legal for a responsible, CHL holder to sit down to dinner in a place like Chili’s and have dinner with the family while still being able to protect the family from the evils that men do.

You can bet your bottom dollar that a CHL holder will be drinking coffee, tea, a soft drink or water, they will NOT jeopardize that CHL by being stupid. Well, the vast majority won’t. There is always a rare exception to ANY rule, but a true GUN person won’t risk it all over an act of sheer stupidity!

A Violence Policy Center project has mined news reports to find that more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. The project originally intended to list all gun crimes by permit holders, but there were too many to keep track of, Rand said.

“They shoot each other over parking spaces, at football games and at family events,” Rand said. “The idea that you’re making any place safer by injecting more guns is just completely contradicted by the facts.”

Kristen Rand is, in MY opinion, a barking moonbat! Begging pardon from ALL barking moonbats everywhere.

Do you remember all of those Drivers Ed films? Blood on the Highway and such? Well, there is blood on the highway, but you never hear folks like Kristin Rand, the legislative director the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group in Washington, saying one word about banning all of those dangerous cars that kill people daily!

The anti-gun cabal knows that they have a friend in the White House, look for them to try to enact as much anti-gun legislation as possible in the time Obama has remaining. And take heart, if all goes as planned, there WILL be a Conservative majority in BOTH houses after the elections of 2010, thus rendering Obama and Company all but useless.

2010 can’t get here soon enough!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Bookmark and Share
Return: Top of Home Page

9 Responses to “Gun laws are getting looser across much of US”

  1. comment number 1 by: Twitted by TexasFred

    [...] This post was Twitted by TexasFred [...]

  2. comment number 2 by: Silver Fox

    I had forgotten about all those tags on trucks, brought back some memories there Fred. Seems like every state has different guns laws and in some way I suppose thats good, as the one size fits all seldom works. My gun packing days are over, but I do carry my Desert Eagle in the car on trips. Around the small town I live everything is fairly peaceful so it seldom goes with me. Like you I’m waiting for the 2010 elections and will feel better when we have a few more reps. that support guns rights. Obama is certainly no friend to gun owners, or the Constitution as written. I twit all my post thru twitter feed and so far it has worked good for me, its automatic and each time I post in a few minutes or sometime maybe an hour the link pops up on twitter.

  3. comment number 3 by: Always On Watch

    I don’t care what the state laws are. I typically carry a firearm in the vehicle, particularly when we’re traveling. I’ve never had occasion to pull on anyone while traveling, but have twice done so on my private property. Quite the deterrent, I tell you!

  4. comment number 4 by: minuteman26

    If all law abiding citizens were allowed to carry whether it be open or concealed, crime would reduced by a great percentage.(IMHO). Would keep all the scumbags guessing. Does he/she or doesn’t he/she? Automatic weapons should also be made lawful without the govt getting involved except for a background check. The Swiss don’t seem to have a problem with that concept.

  5. comment number 5 by:

    It’s a little long but it makes sense.

    The illogic of handgun carry permits

    A decade and a half ago, Tennessee passed a “shall-issue” handgun carry law, requiring the Tennessee Department of Safety to issue a handgun carry permit to any citizen who takes the required training, has a clean record, is mentally competent, and has enough money to pay for the privilege.

    Tthirty-six states have passed similar laws. The legislatures and governors of these states have recognized that the typical crime does not occur when the police are nearby. Most crimes occur outside the home. Police most often can only clean up after the crime, take a report and start looking for the perpetrator.

    While the permitting process in Tennessee and other states has certainly improved the situation for citizens, it still places an undue burden on the peaceful citizen, but not on the criminal.

    In Vermont, it is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man. No permit is needed. In Vermont, citizens are not required to get a permit to carry a firearm. The State of Vermont has long recognized the right of its good citizens to defend themselves while away from home without the need of a permit.

    Most of the states surrounding Tennessee do not require a permit to carry a firearm loaded in a vehicle, but require a permit if one is to carry a firearm on or about the person. If one gets a permit in Georgia, the current cost is approximately $65.00. The current cost for a Tennessee permit is $120.00 plus $85 more or less for the required training. Quite a lot of money for someone working for minimum wage, or a retired citizen on a fixed income.

    The permit actually disables good citizens who desire to comply with the law, but can’t afford the financial burden of the permitting process. These citizens must make a difficult choice. Take their handgun with them and risk arrest or leave it at home and risk death or serious injury if attacked.

    Should a criminal be required to get a carry permit?

    Yes? If you answer yes, then you have a disagreement with the Supreme Court. The Court decided in 1968 (Haynes v. U.S.) that felons would not be required to comply with any gun registration laws, because compelling felons to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

    Obviously, requiring the criminal to apply for a permit would be foolish. A felon’s truthful answer to all the questions on the application would ensure denial of his application. It would also give law enforcement officers reason to believe that he was in possession of a handgun, which, for him, would be a crime. Thus he would have incriminated himself. See Haynes v. U.S.

    No? If you answer no, you will probably argue that the criminal is not going to get a permit any way. He is going to carry his handgun whenever and wherever he sees fit. To him the handgun is just a tool to use while plying his illicit trade. He would be no more interested in getting a permit than a carpenter would be in getting one for his hammer and saw. Felons have been forbidden ownership of firearms since passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act. They cannot legally own nor carry a gun for any purpose. If they acquire a gun, they violate the law. If they carry a gun, they violate the law.

    If the permitting process (for criminals) is prohibited by the 5th amendment and/or ignored by the criminal, what is really accomplished by the process? Clearly, the permitting process would be a wasted effort with the criminal element of society.

    Is there any common sense in requiring that permits be purchased by decent citizens?

    Yes? We need permits so that police will know who’s carrying a gun. But, criminals don’t get permits. What good does it do for police to know who the “good guys” are that are carrying a gun. This response is not valid.

    Yes? We need to insure that people that carry firearms have proper, adequate training. But, police who are trained extensively have a dismal record of one shot stops. Or stops with two or three shots.
    Obviously, anyone who is going to keep a firearm for protection at home or away needs training. But, states that allow unpermitted car carry do not report any significant problems. We don’t see newspaper reports of “untrained Georgia citizens” mistakenly shooting someone. This response is not valid either.

    No? Bingo. There is NO common sense nor logic in requiring citizens to get carry permits. The major accomplishment of the process is to supply states and nosy newspapers with a registration database of legitimate firearms owners. Is this the real goal?

    Gun rights advocates should lobby their legislatures ceaselessly until permits are no longer required.

    By: Liston Matthews, Knoxville Gun Rights Examiner

  6. comment number 6 by: TexasFred

    I just hope you obtained permission to post a full story..

    Great piece but I really hate fighting copyright stuff… :?

  7. comment number 7 by: brwnavy

    “The Swiss don’t seem to have a problem with that concept.”

    Neither do Israelis: China Confidential: Israelis Baffled by News of Defenseless US Soldiers

  8. comment number 8 by: extex_cop

    Good article Fred.

    This last year when I went on vacation I worried about which state would recognise my CCL and not throw me in jail if I got stopped.

    I found this link that shows all the USA states and lets you know which allow concealed carry in their states from other states. It’s easy to find if your state allows you to carry in another state. In fact…I printed out the map after I found which states recognised Texas CCL and allowed them to carry there….just in case one of the local cops didn’t know. I know this would not stop them from arresting me until there found out for sure…but it beat not having any onfo with me.

  9. comment number 9 by: BobF

    To carry a firearm concealed and drink alcohol isn’t one of the smarter things to do. If you consumed alcohol and had to use your firearm, it would be very difficult to prove self defense. A prosecutor would say your impairment prevented you from thinking properly and using alternatives to deadly force. Even if you only had one or two beers, a prosecutor who doesn’t like guns will tear you apart.