How many have concealed carry permit to carry a gun ?

[k0ua]

To our Canadian friends, keep in mind some of our states no longer require a CCW license to carry a handgun concealed in your automobile. Missouri is an example of that. Only when we carry concealed on our person outside of our homes, our business's or our auto's do we need the CCW permit. And several states no longer even require that. Below are some changes to the gun laws in my state in 2014. Overall I am rather proud of these changes in my states laws.

GOOD NEWS (September 11, 2014): Senate Bill 656, which was vetoed by the Governor, was subsequently enacted during the veto override session and will go into effect in 30 days. The bill contained some major revisions to Missouri firearm laws.

1. A person with a valid concealed carry permit in their possession may carry open, regardless of local ordinances. (Pack-N-Heat does not recommend you ever open carry. Open carry not only scares innocent people, but you lose the element of surprise and leaves you open to the possibility of someone stealing your self-defense weapon. Not to mention the hassles you'll endure when someone calls the police on you. However, if exposing your weapon eliminates a threat…)
2. School districts may designate one or more elementary or secondary school teachers or administrators as a school protection officer. This is a voluntary position held in addition to their normal duties. Volunteers must submit a written request to the superintendent of the school district which employs him or her along with proof of completion of an approved school protection officer training course. Those who wish to carry a concealed weapon must also provide proof of their concealed carry permit status. (There are many, many more rules on this subject. If you have specific questions or concerns, please contact us.)
3. No health care professionals licensed in this state, nor anyone under his or her supervision, nor any person or entity that has possession or control of medical records, may disclose information gathered in a doctor/patient relationship about the status of a patient as an owner of a firearm, unless by order of a court of appropriate jurisdiction, in response to a threat to the health or safety of that patient or another person, as part of a referral to a mental health professional, or with the patient’s express consent on a separate document dealing solely with firearm ownership.
4. Possessing a firearm while also knowingly in possession of a controlled substance that is sufficient for a felony violation is now considered the crime of unlawful use of a weapon.
5. The age limit for obtaining a Missouri concealed carry permit has been lowered from 21 to 19.
6. No housing authority, authority, or lessor receiving public funds from a housing authority or authority shall prohibit a lessee or a member of the lessee’s immediate household or guest from personally possessing firearms within an individual residence, common areas, or from carrying or transporting firearms to and from such residence in a manner allowed by law.


GOOD NEWS (September 2014): Senate Joint Resolution 36, which became Amendment 5 on the August 2014 ballot, won with 61% of the votes. The NRA is calling this the “Gold Standard”, providing the strongest state protection for our right to keep and bear arms. It reads:
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.

 

[k0ua]

You sure about that? In 2007 it was estimated that China produced $1.6B worth of tea.... Maybe just an apartment overlooking Centra Park?

Well, maybe for $1.6B... long as I didn't have to stay there all the time...

 

[MossRoad]

Well, maybe for $1.6B... long as I didn't have to stay there all the time...

Yeah, keep a small place in the country.... or several countries! :laughing:

 

[davrow]

You guys can't fart without without a scrubber or a greenhouse gas permit can you?

**** right! And every single Californian thinks that is how it should be! <not!>

I do have a Utah permit - just have never had a chance to use it.

 

[IslandTractor]

All a man has is his word. Lying under oath... you've lost some respect points tonight.

He's not only lost respect but also given ammunition to those who would prefer to enact laws or constitutional changes to place tighter controls on firearms. The "anti" gun crowd (myself included) really doesn't get upset by reasonable people with firearms. It's the nutjobs we worry about. Those who consider firearm possession essentially a religious rather than civic matter are part of that group. If you think your right to firearms transcends the rule of law then we have a problem. Firearms became what is almost a religious matter in this country only a few decades ago. No one was terribly concerned about firearm possession until approximately the 1960's. The NRA used to be a sportsman's organization and the Supremes rarely got involved except to clarify things like who could and couldn't use an obvious weapon of war (machine gun). So, in our roughly 250 year history, firearms have been an emotional and political football for only fifty years. While reasonable people can and have compromised on firearm issues in the past, the radical firearm worshipers (bringing AR15s to McDonalds etc) are pushing buttons that are dangerous. I don't care how much Bubba likes his guns, if he is irresponsible and or ignores reasonable laws then perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to carry. A vote or two on the Supreme Court is all it would take to go back to more restrictive gun laws.

 

[lostcreekranch]

After you get your permit that should be good for buying guns too. No need to get another check just to buy...

Yes, that is correct in Texas.

Sent from my iPad using TractorByNet

 

[lostcreekranch]

I suppose this is inappropriate or something, but I just cracked up when I saw this the other day- "Pants up, Don't loot!"

Sent from my iPad using TractorByNet

 

[houstonscott]

He's not only lost respect but also given ammunition to those who would prefer to enact laws or constitutional changes to place tighter controls on firearms. The "anti" gun crowd (myself included) really doesn't get upset by reasonable people with firearms. It's the nutjobs we worry about. Those who consider firearm possession essentially a religious rather than civic matter are part of that group. If you think your right to firearms transcends the rule of law then we have a problem. Firearms became what is almost a religious matter in this country only a few decades ago. No one was terribly concerned about firearm possession until approximately the 1960's. The NRA used to be a sportsman's organization and the Supremes rarely got involved except to clarify things like who could and couldn't use an obvious weapon of war (machine gun). So, in our roughly 250 year history, firearms have been an emotional and political football for only fifty years. While reasonable people can and have compromised on firearm issues in the past, the radical firearm worshipers (bringing AR15s to McDonalds etc) are pushing buttons that are dangerous. I don't care how much Bubba likes his guns, if he is irresponsible and or ignores reasonable laws then perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to carry. A vote or two on the Supreme Court is all it would take to go back to more restrictive gun laws.

Which is exactly when the progressives decided they wanted to "infringe" on that right. Hence the gigantic majority push back. HS

 

[jix]

Fellow members of TBN have stated their positions on CCW, as is their right to do. Nor do I quibble with any of those opinions.
As for myself, I can recall too many cases where deadly weapons have been used for killing students in schools, for killing police officers in cold blood, for robbery, for shooting sprees out of revenge against employers and peers in the workplace. Many of these cases involved the possession of weapons by insane persons, or persons temporarily bereft of reason by virtue of rage or influenced by drugs or liquor. Many persons died by suicide with hand guns.

On the balance of the pros and cons, it seems reasonable to restrict the carrying of weapons for the common good, because a weapon of lethal force is not something that anyone can be always trusted with, at any and all times. If you have a gun, and you temporarily lose control of yourself for ANY reason, you are a part of a problem, not a part of a solution.

For the number of incidences where a weapon has saved a life, there are many other incidents where pulling a weapon has cost a life.
In a civilized society, there should be no need to carry. Yes there are criminals who may rob you. In many cases they will do so at gunpoint. If you carry, they may still rob you..and may kill you too, if you offer deadly force against them to prevent that robbery. Police cannot be everywhere all of the time and so robbery is perhaps inevitable once in a while. I believe it is wiser to allow the loss of property than to accept being shot by a frightened criminal as an alternative.

No law can be written, nor enforced, which will guarantee freedom from criminal exploitation.. and carrying handguns is similarly unable to guarantee freedom from crime....but carrying handguns wholesale has often been proven to get innocent people killed.


Much is made about "freedom" in the arguments to support the right to bear arms...but I suggest that more reflection on the definition of freedom is required.

The ancient greeks philosophied that freedom is nothing more than the right to be self-disciplined, for if we are not self-disciplined we lose our right to govern ourselves and must submit to government by others, else we live in anarchy.

Guns do not confer self-discipline, hence they do not guarantee freedom. They do help to guarantee freedom FROM OPPRESSION
The American Consitution was drafted following the war against British colonialism where it was necessary to raise arms against wrongful use of power [the Stamp Act] by Britain to impose and collect taxes, without representation. That war was caused by a travesty against the rights of people in the day..and the people rebelled, justifiably, using force against force. For this rebellion to succeed, arms were necessary. Hence the right to bear arms in a regulated and well disciplined militia was [and remains] justified.but this justification has been modified to mean that every person, whether in a well-regulated militia or not, has the right to bear arms anywhere at any time without cause

I disagree with that understanding of the American Constitution. I do agree with the Constitution original intent and rationale, just as I agree with Lincoln's Gettysburg address

It is a matter of context..and common sense. People, acting in concert and in self-discipline are free. People acting otherwise, never are.

 

[timster2]

As for myself, I can recall too many cases where deadly weapons have been used for killing students in schools, for killing police officers in cold blood, for robbery, for shooting sprees out of revenge against employers and peers in the workplace.

When a gun is used to save a life it is not newsworthy and rarely makes the national news. This leads to a perception that there is more bad then good. It happens more often then you would be led to believe. Having been involved in a case of justified use of my firearm and the resulting publicity I watched how far and accurate the reporting would go. Not surprisingly the newspaper report was inaccurate. In the newspaper it was reported that I went and retrieved a gun, no I was carrying it as I usually do. No newspaper reporter interviewed me or the other person that was involved, the guy whose life I saved. I don't know where the misinformation came from and I blame the newspaper and reporter. It does prove, however, that what is printed is not always factual and is often edited to reflect a political agenda.