By now most have heard about the remarkable court ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, declaring that the right of “self defense” is a sufficient reason to issue concealed weapon permits in San Diego County (assuming a person is otherwise eligible). Yes, the ruling could still be overturned (I’m not optimistic), but it DOES have the saving grace that it supports (and is supported by) the U.S. Constitution.
Perhaps that 2nd Amendment thingy might be considered in any further court deliberations. Hope springs eternal!
But today’s U-T story on the ruling is annoyingly incomplete, if not outright inaccurate. Many think the U-T is a conservative paper. It is, on the EDITORIAL pages. Not so much in the news department.
Look at their story on this court ruling today. It quotes several sources on how this decision (if upheld) will lead to a more dangerous California.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Feb/13/ccw-gun-conceal-carry-sheriff-opinion-peruta/?#article-copy
But what is important is what is NOT reported — it barely mentions that MOST states already operate under this ruling’s criteria — or are even MORE pro-carry than the decision mandates.
Nor does the story report the crime waves in these states resulting from widespread CWP’s issued. Of course, it doesn’t report that, because it doesn’t happen! Never has in a state that liberalizes its concealed carry restrictions.
For example, Texas has issued over 580,000 concealed carry permits. Gun grabbers assume that the result is that Texas is one gigantic “OK corral,” with shootouts over fender benders, bar arguments, etc.
Sadly (for the gun grabbers), the stats say otherwise. FBI stats show that Austin is now the second safest major (over 500K) city in America.
Moreover, in 2011 only 00.2% of the crimes in Texas were committed by concealed carry permit holders, and not all of those crimes involved guns or violence.
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2012-12-22-264494.112112-Texas-study-Concealed-carry-permit-holders-commit-less-than-1-of-the-crimes.html
Indeed, crime has consistently gone DOWN in such states. Yes, there are other factors affecting crime rates, but gun grabbers would gladly claim more guns = more crime — if only the statistics provided such a correlation.
BTW, aside from the “incomplete” reporting, it’s truly disturbing to read Chief Lansdowne’s warning that “studies have shown gun owners or their family members ae more likely to get shot by their own guns than shoot someone else.”
That aspect has NOTHING to do with the experience of concealed carry OUTSIDE the home, where CWP violence is both rare and often justified. Most of the “in house” gun violence the chief refers to are SUICIDES. Tell me how the right to carry a weapon OUTSIDE the house is going to increase the suicide rate or domestic violence.
Nor does the chief mention that MOST successful gun uses require simply the BRANDISHING of the weapon — over 80% of the time, no shots are fired.
Either Lansdowne is incredibly ignorant of a basic aspect of public safety, or he’s dumb as a stump.
I go with the first explanation — it’s amazing now ignorant parochial urban police chiefs — selected for political reasons — are concerning public safety in other states.
Okay, okay, I’ll concede one thing — Chief Lansdowne is also a rather dim bulb. But you’ve got to admit, at least he’s an IGNORANT dim bulb.
Comments 6
Great summary Richard. Thanks.
Richard,
You do a great job of researching and bring fact-based arguments to issues that are usually only discussed emotionally. I only wish that you could do so, at least once, without personal insults. I think you will find your arguments will be seen as more credible.
So true, Richard. I couldn’t stop shaking my head while reading this article.
One thing I noticed and was curious if you did too, Richard, the decision was written to be upheld at the Supreme Court level. This decision (if taken to the Supreme Court) will be decided by the same justices who decided Heller vs. D.C. and McDonald vs. Chicago.
It will be an easy win if Sheriff Gore decides to continue to fight.
Policy differences, not personal attacks. Disagree with the policy, but don’t personalize. No name calling. These are rules we’ve repeated now for years when it comes to comments. The same rules apply for the authors writing the posts.
The rules aside, the personal name calling does absolutely nothing to add to the argument, while actually diminishing it. As we’ve stated before, it’s so much easier to name call than it is to make a solid argument. But, when you have made a solid argument to begin with, there’s nothing more detrimental to getting your point across than to ensure people won’t take any of it seriously because of one or two unneeded sentences.
Okay, okay, I stand corrected. Lansdowne is a great guy. A hale fellow well met. A prince among men.
He’s just misinformed and illogical, in spite of his position of considerable responsibility in the field of law enforcement. Could happen to anyone, I suppose. No reflection on his intelligence.
My bad. I am SO ashamed! I’ll redouble my effort to be civil!
..boy, with sincerity like that, who needs sarcasm…