A few folks got their panties in a knot over this guy's yard sign. The rest of us just kind of smile.

 

Like ******* dominoes... congrats if you live in Missouri... you live in the 11th state to enact Constitutional Carry!

Lawmakers Override Nixon?s Veto To Pass Constitutional Carry In Missouri ? Bearing Arms
The Republican-led Legislature enacted the law Wednesday by a 24-6 Senate vote and a 112-41 vote in the House. Both exceeded the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.
The legislation will allow most people to carry concealed guns without needing a permit. That means they won't have to go through the training currently required for permit holders. Missouri will join 10 other states with what supporters describe as a "constitutional carry" right.
The measure also expands legal protections for those who use deadly force to defend themselves in both public and private places.

Virginia was almost there this year, and is expected to get it passed in the next legislative season... of course it will get veto'd by the Gov and we don't have the votes for an override. Maybe in a few years should we get a Conservative governor.

 

Woman opens fire on three home invaders| Latest News Videos | Fox News

 

Parents of Pizza Hut robbery suspect question why employee fatally shot their son in the head | WNCN

 

Yup, employee broke company policy while on duty. Not judging at all just stating a fact. Parents will claim pain and suffering and sue the **** out of the company for allowing this.

Pizza Hut Employee Breaks No Weapons Policy, Stops Armed Robbery » Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

seems to me it was effective.

 

 

Hammer down on 1911 fail. Amateur...

 

Passerby shoots, kills motorist assaulting deputy after traffic stop | Fox News

 

Brain et al.

What do you think constitutes 'common sense gun legislation'?

It seems like everyone throws around that word and there are a billion interpretations. I'm with joe re: his post looking at a local news site and filtering results. Those kinds of stories are far more effective at getting people interested in banning guns than a few stories of folks being lawfully able to stop a crime.

If the answer is nothing whatsoever, then it allows the same 'bad guys with a gun' to be armed in situations where they're going to be doing bad **** regardless.

Side note: I really hate this bad guy with a gun vs good guy with a gun ****. It's so over simplistic. Especially because, you know... police.

 

owning guns is a constitutionally protected right. laws limiting that right are not common sense.

a common sense gun law would be: it is illegal to murder someone.

 

I dont know how to make it any simpler......criminals dont follow laws, that is why they are criminals. You could make eleventy billion more laws....like making it more illegaler (ha) to murder someone and guess what? That kingpin drug dealer doesnt give a rat's ***. Universal background check? Sounds great right? What if I told you that kingpin doesnt waltz on down to the local gun store and legally purchase his 9 yo?

In the end, what happens when there are more gun laws? It is more hoops for the average gun owner to jump through and it wont do a god damn thing. More laws that the law abiding (key words here) will have to abide by.

tldr more laws for the law abiding will not make you any safer.

 

When the police can arrive faster than 55 grains of copper jacketed lead, then you can invalidate the "good guy w/gun vs. bad guy w/gun" argument.

A common sense gun law would be: you must have common sense to have a gun, and if you do have common sense, then you may carry a gun at pretty much any given time.

The problem with this law is: nobody has ever defined "common sense", as it is not an objective assessment. Common sense to me is vastly different from common sense to my sister, or from common sense to my 3 month old son. Common sense to me today at 32 years old is even vastly different from common sense to me 10 years ago. The problem with having a "common sense law" is that it is only "common sense" to the one single individual that creates it at the time it is created. A "common sense law" that seems to be prevalent is "guns must be stored in a locked safe"...that makes absolutely no sense to me. Why should my ability to defend myself in my home be hampered by a locked safe? In 6 months, I bet my common sense is different - "I should make sure my son who is learning to walk can't get to the 12-gauge under the bed".

 

Common sense gun law:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

There is this thing about the news... If it was something that happened all the time it wouldn't be IN the news.

Googling or researching news reports of any event will give you skewed numbers vs the actual probability.

How many articles were written about all the airline crashes that DIDN'T happen?

If we are talking about gun safety, you know when people have accidents? When they touch the gun, especially with the trigger exposed. Yet here in Illinois if I need to take the train into the city I have to store the firearm in a case and then load and holster it when I get off the train and out of the station. If you consider the fact that many businesses post signs that have the force of law prohibiting me from carrying, it leads to far, far too much weapons manipulation in public as far as I am concerned.

So to me - it's common sense to leave all firearms holstered in public unless completely necessary, and if that is the case there should be a place that a carrier can disarm safely without fear of being rushed or being in public view and they should have a place to securely store the firearm while they are disarmed. (court houses for example).

But common sense to some would be the status quo...

Which is safer assuming people will be carrying firearms?

 

I've lived in several places with strict gun control and several without and I've practice crim law in rural and urban areas and I've noticed several things:
-the vast majority of people who misuse guns are already serious criminals who aren't allowed to own firearms in the first place (crime stats and the criminal justice system are dominated by repeat offenders- "frequent flyers")
-criminals generally don't get their guns from legal sources like gun stores, gun shows, etc. Someone with warrants isn't going to hang out at the average gun show that is crawling with cops, a few of whom may actually recognize them from before.
-the problems with crime in the big city are less about guns than they are about a general failure to identify repeat offenders and get them off the street for long stretches of time. The difference in sentencing outcomes between rural and urban areas is huge. The cities tend towards slaps on the wrist while the more rural areas tend to impose much stricter sentences for the same crimes. It's funny seeing guys with dozens of serious priors (and slaps on the wrist) come from South Florida to the panhandle and do a home invasion. They go to trial knowing that even if they lose they'll only get a few years. Then suddenly they are buried in life sentences because this isn't Miami anymore. One of these approaches results in a lot less crime than the other. Keep in mind this has little to do with cops catching criminals and a lot more to do with prosecutors and judges taking easy-way-out approaches to managing their (admittedly excessive) workload. It takes a lot of hard work taking defendants to trial and getting them harsh sentences before word gets around that turning down even a stiff plea is a bad idea. Mandatory minimums and sentencing enhancements do nothing to fix this because to get those you still have to take the charges to trial and win- this is how a home invader can get a 1 year sentence- just plead it down to burglary of a structure and nobody has to do any work. Everyone wins except the next set of victims.
-the vast majority of gun control proposals are thought up by people who know nothing about criminology and nothing about guns. Well, they know they don't like guns, that's about it. The assault weapons ban (and before that, the handgun bans) were attempts to divide up gun owners and marginalize them one slice at at time. It failed, so they've moved on to broadening prohibited persons and making it harder to share gun culture with others. The current crop of "close the X loophole" proposals are just attempts to make it illegal for people to teach each other how to shoot (it treats lending a gun to your friend in your backyard as a "transfer" ie, the same as a permanent sale). The "terror watch list" and "gun restraining order" things are just an attempt to create a no-due-process method of taking away people's rights. I predict these will fail as well.

I am pretty confident that NY and CA are going to lose their gun control regimes in the next 10 years. There are currently 3 solid votes to start tearing down assault weapons bans on the court, with 3 opposed and one squish. Under Trump (who is extremely pro gun- watch the interview with his son at silencerco), I predict more pro-gun supreme court justices, bringing us up to maybe 5 pro-gun total, with one squish and 3 opposed. I also think we'll see 50 state reciprocity and/or some sort of pro-gun-rights action at the federal level in the next two years.

 

Sorry my bad, current SCOTUS is 4 opposed, 3 for, 1 squish. With Scalia replaced with a pro-gun judge, that brings it up to 4-1-4 for gun rights.

Currently highly unlikely to die of old age: Roberts, Alito, Scalia replacement (pro), Sotomayor, Kagan (anti)
Getting old: Thomas (pro), Kennedy (squish), Ginsburg, Breyer (anti)

Which means a pro-gun president Trump could potentially move the court 2-3 votes towards gun rights from its pre-Scalia-death state. It also allows us to replace the only two pro-gun votes that were worrying due to age (Thomas, Scalia).

 

Re: common sense. I think Voltaire said it best "Common sense is not so common."
This is the full quote: 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.

I'd agree with that, but it seems the interpretation of that statement was changed pretty significantly during the NRA's PR campaign in the 1970's. In the 1930's, the NRA supported the national firearms act. That interpretation is new and even constitutional scholars disagree about whether the original writing is to be read as a individuals representing a state militia (as they were in that time) vs everyday citizens. Which is coincidentally the same time gun manufacturers and lobbyists started wielding more influence.

I think that anyone believing that an all out gun ban is feasible in America is completely delusional. That said, I feel like those that own weapons should be able to prove that they can use them and know how to store them properly. We do the same for cars, though as many say, that's not a constitutional protection or even mentioned (duh) like guns were.

From what I've read, concealed carry was banned by states as far back as the 1800's. I.e. much closer to a time when folks understood the true meaning of what the FF's intended given that they actually knew/talked to them. The texan governor in 1893 supposedly said, “the mission of the concealed weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man.”

I guess my biggest point is that anyone posting anything as an absolute reading of history or of the constitution should be called into question. There's a lot of historical back and forth about this. For me, it's as important to see how people interpreted this closer to the writing of the constitution as it is to see how people interpret it today.

Posted for comment.

 

I don't have time to take issue with every item you posted, but for the moment I'd like to challenge this notion.

We do NOT put requirements on ownership of automobiles nor do we require registration or licensure or training of any kind. PERIOD.

You are perfectly able to buy a car from a private party with no registration and drive it on your own property or property you have permission to drive it on. You don't need a license, or any sort of documentation except that required by the owner of the property you are driving on. (I bet you can buy from a dealer, but it would be more difficult because it is so uncommon)

Driving on public streets is another matter entirely.

 

You asked me what a common sense gun law was. You didn't ask for the law of the land. I gave my answer. I left nothing out.