I'm inclined to agree w/ 6 kings. *All* of the remaining "may issue" states have deeply entrenched institutional hostility to citizens armed in public. Yes, I know, there are enlightnened sheriffs in CA, and police chiefs in MA who will more or less defacto shall issue, but they are the exception, and not the rule.
In our past, some states have had to have civil/natural rights reform imposed on them from without, because they were incapable of reform from within. This is not much different, I think.
As a resident of Pennsylvania, I'm keenly aware of one of the major ironies of that map. Even though almost every state in the country is now shall-issue, Pennsylvania is almost completely surrounded by shall issue states that are, as 6Kings pointed out, hostile to self-defense rights. That means I can't practically leave the state without breaking a law.
Quick comment in between sessions...first, the fact that violence has gone down is proof enough that President Obama is highly unlikely to puruse any gun control measures. The last statement on the matter from the White House pointed out the trending downward of violent crime to gun control advocates. They really don't have a leg to stand on.
Second, I'm not ignoring comments in the EDU thread...I can't get in and I don't know why. Perhaps it's echo or some other issue but as soon as I can, I will respond.
Markadelphia, I've never denied that gun control is WAY down his list of priorities. Hell, he's even decided to take "immigration reform" off the table for now, given the sh!tstorm Arizona's SB1070 has stirred up, and the level of popular support it apparently has nationwide. Nobody's said the man's a fool. "Not pursu(ing) any gun control measures" however, does NOT equal "supporting gun rights," which is what you've been claiming. In conflict, you have to plan for what your opponent is able to do, not what he might do.
With respect to the EDU thread, it was not working last night but it seems to be working now, at least for me. Echo is apparently having problems. Well, more problems than normal.
The reason that the Obama Administration is unlikely to pursue any gun control measures is because it would be an expensive (politically) fight and there is almost no chance that he would win at this point. The fact that violent crime is down has little to nothing to do with it regardless of what they are saying. Obama would be disarming the populous if he could, but he can't, so he isn't.
first, the fact that violence has gone down is proof enough that President Obama is highly unlikely to puruse any gun control measures.
Completely, totally, without any basis.
You really don't understand what the word "proof" means, do you? Look it up.
That's not to say that Obama is going to pursue gun control, but gun control has never been related to violence, it's been about control. Control of the people who aren't violent. There is no direct correlation between those two, and violence, or the lack thereof does not prove what Obama's actions will be.
The last statement on the matter from the White House pointed out the trending downward of violent crime to gun control advocates. They really don't have a leg to stand on.
No, they don't, but then again, they never did. They didn't when Obama was on the Joyce Board, and started the "lawfare" that poisoned the appellate system. They didn't when Obama remarked that he'd outlaw all privately-held guns. They didn't at any point in time. That is unchanged.
If that's what motivates Obama and his administration, it's not "good" because it's based on incorrect assumptions and motivations. But it's acceptable, and about as good as we'll get.
But it demonstrate what you think of as "proof". It's not. It's not proof. Until you learn what words mean, and that there is an objective reality, you'll fail.
If two conditions were met: an increase in violent crimes, and public sentiment approving of gun control, Marxy knows damned well that Obama would seize the opportunity to implement yet another bit of his ideological agenda if he thought he could get away with it, and especially if he could get away with it cheaply.
It is our strength that stays the hand of the would be tyrant, and not his munificence. Thus it has always been.
What strikes me as odd about all of the comments here are two things.
1. President Obama signed into law a bill that increases gun rights. It was an amendment to a smaller bill (added by Tom Coburn) but he still did sign it. This law overturned a REAGAN ERA LAW that banned guns in national parks, refuges, and in luggage on trains. So, Reagan is still GOD and Obama is a gun grabber? Makes perfect sense to me...NOT. So, as president, Obama has signed one pro gun rights law and ZERO gun control laws.This is a fact. Deal with it and admit it as such.
2. Kevin spoke recently of benign neglect. Isn't that exactly what he has done with respect to the gun issue? All of you scream about the federal government staying out of the states' business and this map shows that they have done just that. It started under Bush and now has continued under Obama. One would think you would be happy but oh no...he's still a "would be tyrant" who is "ready to pounce when gets the chance." No logic whatsoever...a view made with the emotional mind and not the rational one.
It's not an issue of "strength," geek, it's an issue of facts. Guns don't cause violence and he knows this. It's common sense which is what he has been saying all along.
"This is a fact. Deal with it and admit it as such."
President Obamateur signed a bill which contained an extra provision that was not related to the subject of the bill. He did so because he wanted the bill to become law despite that extra provision. This is known in politics as a "compromise".
We have explained this to you time and again.
Hypocrisy boy, we admit, and have long admitted, that he did this, that this is a fact, and we deal with it as such.
This is, yet again, another instance of your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response, by which you deliberately miss the point and lay on yet another straw man.
Instead, you describe it as:
"No logic whatsoever...a view made with the emotional mind and not the rational one."
This is, yet again, another instance of your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response, by which you assert that we are what we have shown you to be.
"Guns don't cause violence and he knows this."
Likely he does know this, but, yet again, teacher boy, you don't know what he knows. This is your opinion of him, stated as a fact that you cannot know the truth of. Now, where have I seen that before ...
"It's common sense ..."
Yes, it is common sense.
"... which is what he has been saying all along."
No, it is emphatically NOT what he has been saying ALL ALONG.His record, prior to becoming President, was 100% anti gun, and you know it. We've put that record before you time and again, and you continue to ignore it. You would have us believe that one act of his matters but nothing else he has ever said or done matters.
This is, yet again, another instance of your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response, in which nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions you've already jumped to. You simply cull (look the word up, teacher boy) any evidence that you don't like.
So, hypocrisy boy, try your own advice: "This is a fact. Deal with it and admit it as such."
Well, is your sack up to it yet?
No, of course it isn't. You simply cannot admit significant error, can you? You simply will not understand that this horseshit won't work here, will you?
What strikes me as odd about all of the comments here are two things.
What's odder is that this has been explained to you before. Multiple times.
Why are you unable to 1) at least repeat our stance, even if you don't agree with it, or even understand it, and 2) based upon that, change what you're saying?
So, as president, Obama has signed one pro gun rights law and ZERO gun control laws.This is a fact. Deal with it and admit it as such.
No, he signed a bill with a pro-gun rider. There's a vast difference between what you said and reality.
Nobody has ever said that he hasn't. However, at the time he signed it, he still had on the whitehouse.gov website verbiage that claimed he wanted to pass a stronger "assault weapons" ban.
That's something you won't deal with. Or that he was the main architect of the Joyce Foundation's antigun activities. Or that he campaigned on, and for over 2 years, proposed and supported a gun ban.
Kevin spoke recently of benign neglect. Isn't that exactly what he has done with respect to the gun issue?
So far. And against his past history, and his campaign promises.
All of you scream about the federal government staying out of the states' business and this map shows that they have done just that.
Oh, no, you didn't. Ok, fine, you brought it back up, so let's get back to your idea how the government "works".
That map shows NOTHING of that sort. Not a thing. Just like you don't know what proof is, you can't see this map without throwing in your misunderstanding of civics.
no logic whatsoever...a view made with the emotional mind and not the rational one.
Says the man who doesn't know how the Government works, who doesn't know the job duties and roles of the President, who thinks he psychically knows what the President KNOWS and believes, but who doesn't know his past history, word, or claims.
it's an issue of facts. Guns don't cause violence and he knows this.
Since he "Knows" this, what changed, and when?
Stop running away from these questions. You've made claims, back them up. When did Obama change his mind?
Be specific. "Sometime" doesn't count. I want the time you at least knew he'd changed his mind.
For all its faults, my own Washington State is up there as shall issue back at the beginning. Even in Seattle, people are pretty gun friendly. Now if we could just change our SBR and suppressor laws, it'd be pretty dern good.
Substitute "might be a reason," in place of "isproof enough," and you might be making at least some sense with what is otherwise, as U-J demonstrated, a gross, incorrect syntax of the word "proof."
Again, Fuckwit, you are hopelessly outclassed here, so go the fuck away.
Sadly, my home state of WI is one of the two no issue states in this great country. Until Governor Doyle is gone, we have no hope of concealed carry in WI.
Fucking with gun control is low on Obamateur's to-do list, quite obviously. He has other fish to fry, which does not mean he wouldn't fry that fish if he could.
Watch the woman on the left of the screen at the very end of ol' Maxine's rant. Priceless phiz, ain't it?
And ain't it amazing how much can be learned by a Congresscritter's "oops", i.e. when she says what she means instead of when she's being careful in front of a camera?
Reagan severely hurt gun rights in Cali when he was Gov. and as you point out did so again as Pres.
That doesn't mean folks can't find him admirable in other areas, note few who know the facts laud him as anything special on gun rights overall.
On what planet though, do you have to write a paragraph on every issue to either laud or criticize a candidate on a different issue?
Look, Obama has made the political decision not to die on the hill of gun control. Based on his previous acts and never renounced past statements that doesn't make him a supporter of gun rights or even neutral, just a wise opponant.
We didn't put off invading Europe until '44 because we were a friend to the Nazi's or neutral on the subject, we didn't invade because we would have lost. Once those conditions changed we went in with everything we had.
Obama, Pelosi, Schumer et al will go on the offensive against gun rights the moment they think they can get away with it without committing political suicide.
Daley's actions are a sideshow in Greece, MAIG's are a raid on Dieppe. They will continue such minor actions to test whether the time is ripe to go back on the offensive, so we must waste our time treating their increasingly pitiful nonsense as serious to maintain our deterrance.
I've noticed that Obama tends to pick virulently anti-gun* people to fill positions. Is there anyone he has appointed who hasn't been virulently anti-gun*?
(*Anti-gun is actually short for being against privately owned guns. They seem to have no problem with guns in the hands of the government; in other words, guns on their side, none on ours. But that's just too long to write every time. ;) )
Second, I'm not ignoring comments in the EDU thread...I can't get in and I don't know why. Perhaps it's echo or some other issue but as soon as I can, I will respond.
Well, nothing's stopping you from responding to *this* thread.
Or which is the larger amount - 22 or 15?
You've not answered that in almost a year now, IIRC.
Good to hear about Iowa. But Utah is not shall issue. While I was able to get a handgun buyers permit in Iowa, I cannot in Utah. Whatever else they say, it is not "Shall Issue". Be warned.
Hmmm... As I recall, there was a brisk business in Arizona for Utah out-of-state CCW permits because Utah had much higher reciprocity. And I was not aware of any need for a "handgun buyers permit" in Utah. Your "permit" is your Utah driver's license or other state ID, AFAIK.
If you aren't a Utah resident, you cannot buy a handgun there. If you are a Utah resident, you don't need a "handgun buyers permit". In fact, there is no "handgun buyer's permit" in Utah.
They DO have a concealed carry permit -- which even out of state residents can get, and is "shall issue" for anyone who meets the statutory requirements.
Obama, however, called for a host of new gun-control measures: strengthening the assault-weapons ban to include high-capacity clips made prior to 1994; holding parents criminally responsible for children who injure someone with a gun found in the home; placing trigger locks on all guns; and allowing gun buyers to purchase only one weapon per month.
Hynes advocated increasing penalties for crimes committed with a gun, and Hull would increase funding to update technology that provides instant background checks on gun buyers.
All of the candidates, except Hynes, said they opposed allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Hynes and Chico said states, not the federal government, should regulate the matter.
"I consider this an issue for the states to decide, not the federal government," Chico said.
Obama disagreed. He backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions.
"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/04/and-then-there-were-eight.html (39 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
You can still consider the may issue states as hostile to concealed carry so don't let the color fool you. The yellow is just like the red.
I'm inclined to agree w/ 6 kings. *All* of the remaining "may issue" states have deeply entrenched institutional hostility to citizens armed in public. Yes, I know, there are enlightnened sheriffs in CA, and police chiefs in MA who will more or less defacto shall issue, but they are the exception, and not the rule.
In our past, some states have had to have civil/natural rights reform imposed on them from without, because they were incapable of reform from within. This is not much different, I think.
You ought to see the PSH that's accompanying the change in carry laws in this state, including (originally) the removal of the campus exclusion zones.
Inside the dispassionate, reasoned, halls of academia, that is.
Local tv coverage is all about how the change will make it easier to get ahold of a gun* even though there has been no change in those regulations.
*OK, technically it is easier to get ahold of your gun if you are carrying it.
I'm proud of you guys in Iowa finally getting shall issue (and 100% recongnition of toher state permits as a bonus).
Of course, I'm prouder of us, for getting AZ changed from blue to green on the map...
Now we all need to go green.
As a resident of Pennsylvania, I'm keenly aware of one of the major ironies of that map. Even though almost every state in the country is now shall-issue, Pennsylvania is almost completely surrounded by shall issue states that are, as 6Kings pointed out, hostile to self-defense rights. That means I can't practically leave the state without breaking a law.
Quick comment in between sessions...first, the fact that violence has gone down is proof enough that President Obama is highly unlikely to puruse any gun control measures. The last statement on the matter from the White House pointed out the trending downward of violent crime to gun control advocates. They really don't have a leg to stand on.
Second, I'm not ignoring comments in the EDU thread...I can't get in and I don't know why. Perhaps it's echo or some other issue but as soon as I can, I will respond.
Markadelphia, I've never denied that gun control is WAY down his list of priorities. Hell, he's even decided to take "immigration reform" off the table for now, given the sh!tstorm Arizona's SB1070 has stirred up, and the level of popular support it apparently has nationwide. Nobody's said the man's a fool. "Not pursu(ing) any gun control measures" however, does NOT equal "supporting gun rights," which is what you've been claiming. In conflict, you have to plan for what your opponent is able to do, not what he might do.
With respect to the EDU thread, it was not working last night but it seems to be working now, at least for me. Echo is apparently having problems. Well, more problems than normal.
Still not working for me at 1330 CDT. Wibndows XP SP3, Firefox 3.6.3, if that helps.
The reason that the Obama Administration is unlikely to pursue any gun control measures is because it would be an expensive (politically) fight and there is almost no chance that he would win at this point. The fact that violent crime is down has little to nothing to do with it regardless of what they are saying. Obama would be disarming the populous if he could, but he can't, so he isn't.
s
first, the fact that violence has gone down is proof enough that President Obama is highly unlikely to puruse any gun control measures.
Completely, totally, without any basis.
You really don't understand what the word "proof" means, do you? Look it up.
That's not to say that Obama is going to pursue gun control, but gun control has never been related to violence, it's been about control. Control of the people who aren't violent. There is no direct correlation between those two, and violence, or the lack thereof does not prove what Obama's actions will be.
The last statement on the matter from the White House pointed out the trending downward of violent crime to gun control advocates. They really don't have a leg to stand on.
No, they don't, but then again, they never did. They didn't when Obama was on the Joyce Board, and started the "lawfare" that poisoned the appellate system. They didn't when Obama remarked that he'd outlaw all privately-held guns. They didn't at any point in time. That is unchanged.
If that's what motivates Obama and his administration, it's not "good" because it's based on incorrect assumptions and motivations. But it's acceptable, and about as good as we'll get.
But it demonstrate what you think of as "proof". It's not. It's not proof. Until you learn what words mean, and that there is an objective reality, you'll fail.
If two conditions were met: an increase in violent crimes, and public sentiment approving of gun control, Marxy knows damned well that Obama would seize the opportunity to implement yet another bit of his ideological agenda if he thought he could get away with it, and especially if he could get away with it cheaply.
It is our strength that stays the hand of the would be tyrant, and not his munificence. Thus it has always been.
What strikes me as odd about all of the comments here are two things.
1. President Obama signed into law a bill that increases gun rights. It was an amendment to a smaller bill (added by Tom Coburn) but he still did sign it. This law overturned a REAGAN ERA LAW that banned guns in national parks, refuges, and in luggage on trains. So, Reagan is still GOD and Obama is a gun grabber? Makes perfect sense to me...NOT. So, as president, Obama has signed one pro gun rights law and ZERO gun control laws.This is a fact. Deal with it and admit it as such.
2. Kevin spoke recently of benign neglect. Isn't that exactly what he has done with respect to the gun issue? All of you scream about the federal government staying out of the states' business and this map shows that they have done just that. It started under Bush and now has continued under Obama. One would think you would be happy but oh no...he's still a "would be tyrant" who is "ready to pounce when gets the chance." No logic whatsoever...a view made with the emotional mind and not the rational one.
It's not an issue of "strength," geek, it's an issue of facts. Guns don't cause violence and he knows this. It's common sense which is what he has been saying all along.
"This is a fact. Deal with it and admit it as such."
President Obamateur signed a bill which contained an extra provision that was not related to the subject of the bill. He did so because he wanted the bill to become law despite that extra provision. This is known in politics as a "compromise".
We have explained this to you time and again.
Hypocrisy boy, we admit, and have long admitted, that he did this, that this is a fact, and we deal with it as such.
This is, yet again, another instance of your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response, by which you deliberately miss the point and lay on yet another straw man.
Instead, you describe it as:
"No logic whatsoever...a view made with the emotional mind and not the rational one."
This is, yet again, another instance of your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response, by which you assert that we are what we have shown you to be.
"Guns don't cause violence and he knows this."
Likely he does know this, but, yet again, teacher boy, you don't know what he knows. This is your opinion of him, stated as a fact that you cannot know the truth of. Now, where have I seen that before ...
"It's common sense ..."
Yes, it is common sense.
"... which is what he has been saying all along."
No, it is emphatically NOT what he has been saying ALL ALONG. His record, prior to becoming President, was 100% anti gun, and you know it. We've put that record before you time and again, and you continue to ignore it. You would have us believe that one act of his matters but nothing else he has ever said or done matters.
This is, yet again, another instance of your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response, in which nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions you've already jumped to. You simply cull (look the word up, teacher boy) any evidence that you don't like.
So, hypocrisy boy, try your own advice: "This is a fact. Deal with it and admit it as such."
Well, is your sack up to it yet?
No, of course it isn't. You simply cannot admit significant error, can you? You simply will not understand that this horseshit won't work here, will you?
What strikes me as odd about all of the comments here are two things.
What's odder is that this has been explained to you before. Multiple times.
Why are you unable to 1) at least repeat our stance, even if you don't agree with it, or even understand it, and 2) based upon that, change what you're saying?
So, as president, Obama has signed one pro gun rights law and ZERO gun control laws.This is a fact. Deal with it and admit it as such.
No, he signed a bill with a pro-gun rider. There's a vast difference between what you said and reality.
Nobody has ever said that he hasn't. However, at the time he signed it, he still had on the whitehouse.gov website verbiage that claimed he wanted to pass a stronger "assault weapons" ban.
That's something you won't deal with. Or that he was the main architect of the Joyce Foundation's antigun activities. Or that he campaigned on, and for over 2 years, proposed and supported a gun ban.
Kevin spoke recently of benign neglect. Isn't that exactly what he has done with respect to the gun issue?
So far. And against his past history, and his campaign promises.
All of you scream about the federal government staying out of the states' business and this map shows that they have done just that.
Oh, no, you didn't. Ok, fine, you brought it back up, so let's get back to your idea how the government "works".
That map shows NOTHING of that sort. Not a thing. Just like you don't know what proof is, you can't see this map without throwing in your misunderstanding of civics.
no logic whatsoever...a view made with the emotional mind and not the rational one.
Says the man who doesn't know how the Government works, who doesn't know the job duties and roles of the President, who thinks he psychically knows what the President KNOWS and believes, but who doesn't know his past history, word, or claims.
it's an issue of facts. Guns don't cause violence and he knows this.
Since he "Knows" this, what changed, and when?
Stop running away from these questions. You've made claims, back them up. When did Obama change his mind?
Be specific. "Sometime" doesn't count. I want the time you at least knew he'd changed his mind.
>>Marxy's response in toto
So, that's what passes for critical thought in Marxy's neck of the woods, eh? Sophomoric. And he accuses us of bias confirmation....
Walks away, laughing his ass off
So since Obama is a gun rights supporter now, that means that his Sec. of State actually didn't commit to a UN "Small Arms Treaty"?
Or are you saying the UN Small Arms Treaty won't be any form of gun control?
Or are you saying that's Hilary and the UN, it's nothing to do with him?
For all its faults, my own Washington State is up there as shall issue back at the beginning. Even in Seattle, people are pretty gun friendly. Now if we could just change our SBR and suppressor laws, it'd be pretty dern good.
Washington State has also outlawed affirmative action...hmmm...
And your opinion of this is...?
Marxy,
Substitute "might be a reason," in place of "is proof enough," and you might be making at least some sense with what is otherwise, as U-J demonstrated, a gross, incorrect syntax of the word "proof."
Again, Fuckwit, you are hopelessly outclassed here, so go the fuck away.
Sadly, my home state of WI is one of the two no issue states in this great country. Until Governor Doyle is gone, we have no hope of concealed carry in WI.
Fucking with gun control is low on Obamateur's to-do list, quite obviously. He has other fish to fry, which does not mean he wouldn't fry that fish if he could.
Wanna smell some of his other fish? Go see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
Watch the woman on the left of the screen at the very end of ol' Maxine's rant. Priceless phiz, ain't it?
And ain't it amazing how much can be learned by a Congresscritter's "oops", i.e. when she says what she means instead of when she's being careful in front of a camera?
mark,
The word you're missing is "nuance".
Reagan severely hurt gun rights in Cali when he was Gov. and as you point out did so again as Pres.
That doesn't mean folks can't find him admirable in other areas, note few who know the facts laud him as anything special on gun rights overall.
On what planet though, do you have to write a paragraph on every issue to either laud or criticize a candidate on a different issue?
Look, Obama has made the political decision not to die on the hill of gun control. Based on his previous acts and never renounced past statements that doesn't make him a supporter of gun rights or even neutral, just a wise opponant.
We didn't put off invading Europe until '44 because we were a friend to the Nazi's or neutral on the subject, we didn't invade because we would have lost. Once those conditions changed we went in with everything we had.
Obama, Pelosi, Schumer et al will go on the offensive against gun rights the moment they think they can get away with it without committing political suicide.
Daley's actions are a sideshow in Greece, MAIG's are a raid on Dieppe. They will continue such minor actions to test whether the time is ripe to go back on the offensive, so we must waste our time treating their increasingly pitiful nonsense as serious to maintain our deterrance.
I've noticed that Obama tends to pick virulently anti-gun* people to fill positions. Is there anyone he has appointed who hasn't been virulently anti-gun*?
(*Anti-gun is actually short for being against privately owned guns. They seem to have no problem with guns in the hands of the government; in other words, guns on their side, none on ours. But that's just too long to write every time. ;) )
But, Ed, that DOESN'T COUNT.
He hasn't outlawed Texas! Or forced every state capitol to have his Graven Image! Why can't you accept the truth of that?
It just puzzles me.
Second, I'm not ignoring comments in the EDU thread...I can't get in and I don't know why. Perhaps it's echo or some other issue but as soon as I can, I will respond.
Well, nothing's stopping you from responding to *this* thread.
Or which is the larger amount - 22 or 15?
You've not answered that in almost a year now, IIRC.
I'm not ignoring comments in the EDU thread......but as soon as I can, I will respond.
Yes?
Apparently "as soon as I can" doesn't mean to Mark what it means to everybody else... Along with the rest of the English Language...
Good to hear about Iowa. But Utah is not shall issue. While I was able to get a handgun buyers permit in Iowa, I cannot in Utah. Whatever else they say, it is not "Shall Issue". Be warned.
Hmmm... As I recall, there was a brisk business in Arizona for Utah out-of-state CCW permits because Utah had much higher reciprocity. And I was not aware of any need for a "handgun buyers permit" in Utah. Your "permit" is your Utah driver's license or other state ID, AFAIK.
Isn't the handgun purchase only within your state of residence a Federal issue?
Yes, indeed!
Doom,
If you aren't a Utah resident, you cannot buy a handgun there. If you are a Utah resident, you don't need a "handgun buyers permit". In fact, there is no "handgun buyer's permit" in Utah.
They DO have a concealed carry permit -- which even out of state residents can get, and is "shall issue" for anyone who meets the statutory requirements.
just a reminder of who Obama is, with regard to gun rights (from the Wayback machine - the page has been removed from the original site):
http://web.archive.org/web/20040531035935/http://www.icadp.org/page236.html
Obama, however, called for a host of new gun-control measures: strengthening the assault-weapons ban to include high-capacity clips made prior to 1994; holding parents criminally responsible for children who injure someone with a gun found in the home; placing trigger locks on all guns; and allowing gun buyers to purchase only one weapon per month.
Hynes advocated increasing penalties for crimes committed with a gun, and Hull would increase funding to update technology that provides instant background checks on gun buyers.
All of the candidates, except Hynes, said they opposed allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Hynes and Chico said states, not the federal government, should regulate the matter.
"I consider this an issue for the states to decide, not the federal government," Chico said.
Obama disagreed. He backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions.
"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said.
5 days since Mark deigned to bother.
Well, it's better than some of of his prior attempts.
http://js-kit.com/api/static/pop_comments?ref=http://smallestminority.blogspot.com&path=%2F3597173155497101348
Markadelphia
Let me think about these for awhile.
Tuesday September 25, 2007, 13:01:30 GMT-0400
http://js-kit.com/api/static/pop_comments?ref=http://smallestminority.blogspot.com&path=%2F4685054642067854730#583761
"until you have had the experience that I have had, you won't understand my definition of responsibility."
Nor, apparently, any other word in the English language. Which all of the rest of us seem to be on the same page about.
TWELVE!
TWELVE DAYS SINCE MARKADELPHIA RAN AWAY!
HAA HAA HAA!
I LOVE it!
And just because I also love rubbing it in…
Brave Sir Marxy
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>