Next SCOTUS case may give ALL Americans a constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public

[miketx]

I think soybeaner has shown us his true colors here.

 

[miketx]

They are almost identical in the context of placing restrictions on rights. They are both rights in my opinion, and if it's not unconstitutional to have requirements to vote such as ID, it's not unconstitutional to have requirements on firearms either. Any American legal to do either of those things are not being denied their right to them.

They are not almost identical, and I have explained why. In the case of only one of those rights can illegal abuse of that right by one or more persons violate that righr for others.

And people don't abuse guns?

As I stated earlier, I don't want everybody to have a gun--especially walking around with one. There are people that are not trustworthy with a gun, and that could bring harm to me, my family or my friends. If somebody abuses their right to vote, it may only hurt my candidate, but at least I'm alive and not injured.

As far as constitutionality goes, you either believe rights have regulations or you don't. You can't say that one right should have regulation and the other one not.

We already have laws and regulations for guns...if you are caught misusing a gun, that Right can be taken from you. But prior restraint is wrong.....you don't require people to take training in order to post on the internet, become a reporter or write a book.......or to get permission from the government before they can do those things.....if they commit libel or slander...they can be dealt with.....but not before.

Yes, but the difference is nobody is hurt or killed if somebody in your list above abuses those things. If you get a goof with a gun and he shoots you, it could cost you your life, your ability to work, or even a limb.

It's one of the reasons we have drivers training and licensing instead of just letting anybody drive a car. You have to demonstrate you have the responsibility and ability to drive before you get your drivers license. Why? Because you are going to be on that road with other people that you can bring harm to.

And how do you keep the government from creating standards of training so extreme, so expensive and so time consuming that only the rich and politically connected can pass them? Making the Right nonexistent? This is what they do in Europe to keep people from owning the few types of shotgun they allow for hunting....it has become the privelege of the wealthy......

Agreed. That's why I said I don't want the government anywhere near it.

 

[2aguy]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Nothing the left wing, anti gunners say about guns is true, fact based or the reality of guns in this Country...not one single thing...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Getting a license to carry a gun is not a violation of the Constitution. Not allowing felons to possess firearms is more of an infringement than a license.

I don't see how people can complain about getting a license to carry a gun, but say you need Voter-ID to vote. It's basically the same thing. I'm in favor of both a firearms license and Voter-ID.

By definition, one does not need a license or a permit to exercise a right. If one requires a license or a permit to do something, then that makes it, not a right, but a privilege, with government having the authority to grant or deny that privilege. The Second Amendment does not say anything about any privilege. It speaks of a right, belonging to the people, and forbids government from infringing that right. To allow government the power to treat it as a privilege, and usurp the power to grant or deny it by way of licensing, is a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution.

If you do not like that, then try to get an amendment ratified to overturn the Second Amendment. As it is, yours is a position of outright corruption and lawlessness.

Then let me ask: what is your position on Voter ID? Because if you are against carry licensing, then you must be against Voter ID. After all, voting is just as much of a right as guns are and probably more so.

Voter i.d. is free....so it is not a violation and all it does is confirm who you are....

True, but you can't be for one and not the other.

Saying Voter-ID is constitutional even though voting comes with regulations and carrying a weapon with regulations on training and licensing is unconstitutional is hypocritical. It has nothing to do with money, it's you are either for rights that are guided or you are not.

Voter-ID is free to those that can prove they don't have the money to obtain one. Depending on the state, I believe there is a cost to it. If not, it's funded by the taxpayers.

 

[2aguy]

I understand, but life is life. Nothing is perfect. Everybody knows you shouldn't drink and drive, yet we have hundreds of Americans killed every year because people get Fd up and feel they can still handle a car.

You're never going to stop gun accidents, but you could prevent some of them.

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

So have you ever used one in defense?

I have shot many, just never out of any necessity.

I don't buy it makes us any safer at all. Gun owners just guarantee more criminals with guns. Many countries with few guns are far safer than us. And just look how many people are accidently shot.

No...their culture makes them safer......their criminals have guns, they just don't use them to commit murder....

gun crime in London is up 42%.....they completely banned guns...

gun crime in the United STates, down 75%....we went from 200 million guns to 357-400 million guns with over 15 million people carrying them for self defense.

 

[2aguy]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

And that study is a lie....they are implying that people with concealed carry permits are doing the shooting...when in fact the criminals who are shooting each other in democrat voting districts are now targeting each other on the roads.....just like here in Chicago....

 

[miketx]

Again, for the gas bagger impaired....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Nothing the left wing, anti gunners say about guns is true, fact based or the reality of guns in this Country...not one single thing...

Or voting either.

 

[2aguy]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

So? Here is the main point of your story:

CBS News correspondent Jerika Duncan asked, “Is there a connection between concealed-carry permits and the amount of road rage shooting incidents?”

“We don’t have decades’ worth of data here, [but] the data that we do have suggests that that might be happening,” Burnett replied.

It "might" be happening? You mean they don't know if somebody has a CCW or not when they arrest them?

Sounds to me like he was trying to avoid the question.

Here in Chicago, the gangs are now shooting at each other when they see their enemies in cars on the roads.....and you can bet they are including drive by shootings against gang members in their vehicles as road rage incidents...

This report is a typical left wing, anti gun piece of crap.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They are almost identical in the context of placing restrictions on rights. They are both rights in my opinion, and if it's not unconstitutional to have requirements to vote such as ID, it's not unconstitutional to have requirements on firearms either. Any American legal to do either of those things are not being denied their right to them.

They are not almost identical, and I have explained why. In the case of only one of those rights can illegal abuse of that right by one or more persons violate that righr for others.

And people don't abuse guns?

As I stated earlier, I don't want everybody to have a gun--especially walking around with one. There are people that are not trustworthy with a gun, and that could bring harm to me, my family or my friends. If somebody abuses their right to vote, it may only hurt my candidate, but at least I'm alive and not injured.

As far as constitutionality goes, you either believe rights have regulations or you don't. You can't say that one right should have regulation and the other one not.

We already have laws and regulations for guns...if you are caught misusing a gun, that Right can be taken from you. But prior restraint is wrong.....you don't require people to take training in order to post on the internet, become a reporter or write a book.......or to get permission from the government before they can do those things.....if they commit libel or slander...they can be dealt with.....but not before.

Yes, but the difference is nobody is hurt or killed if somebody in your list above abuses those things. If you get a goof with a gun and he shoots you, it could cost you your life, your ability to work, or even a limb.

It's one of the reasons we have drivers training and licensing instead of just letting anybody drive a car. You have to demonstrate you have the responsibility and ability to drive before you get your drivers license. Why? Because you are going to be on that road with other people that you can bring harm to.

And how do you keep the government from creating standards of training so extreme, so expensive and so time consuming that only the rich and politically connected can pass them? Making the Right nonexistent? This is what they do in Europe to keep people from owning the few types of shotgun they allow for hunting....it has become the privelege of the wealthy......

That is a problem, and that could happen depending on who is leading the country at the time. But as for myself, I'm all for people carrying guns (obvious by my avatar) but I also want to be safe around those people as well. If you take the training, pass the test, gather all the identity information needed for a license, only the serious (and safest) people will be carrying. I know people I wouldn't trust with a BB gun because they are too irresponsible and stupid to handle one without possibly hurting somebody. Those are the people that would never jump through the hoops to get a license.

Another way of looking at it is, do you believe felons and mentally retarded people should have guns and be able to carry them around in public?

 

[2aguy]

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

But the rate of violence in other countries has also fallen. It's based on there being better entertainment at home, so less people are likely to be hanging out on the streets getting up to no good.

No....no....you don't get to say this and think we have to accept it...

You morons state that more guns in more hands will create more gun violence....that is the primary tenet of your anti gun movement....

And it is wrong...and you make it a lie....

In the 1990s we had 200 million guns in private hands and in 1997 4.7 million people carried guns for self defense....in 2016 we now had 357-400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense....

--our gun crime rate went down 75%......showing you are wrong.

--our gun murder rate went down 49%....showing you are wrong.

--our violent crme rate went down 72%....showing you are wrong....

========

Britain had a low gun crime rate before 1996...and then they banned and confiscated their guns......and their gun crime rate spiked...a lot....and then returned to the exact same level.....and now....

--gun crime in London went up 42% last year...

--violent crime in London went up 24% last year...and Britain was already more violent than the United States...


======

Australia banned guns and confiscated them.....now Melbourne Australia has a new nickname...the City of the GUn........

So again, you are wrong....

 

[2aguy]

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

But the rate of violence in other countries has also fallen. It's based on there being better entertainment at home, so less people are likely to be hanging out on the streets getting up to no good.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

The numbers don’t lie: banning guns means more crime

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

UK police behind effort to ban knives to end ‘knife violence’

This 3 part series is from last year...it documents the increasing gun crime in Australia...

Gun city: Young, dumb and armed

The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city.

----

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five year

-----------

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.

-------------

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing - unprovoked.”

------------

Gun crime soars
In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence.

The investigation has found:

• There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months - more than one incident a week since January 2015
• Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
• The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
• Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
• Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts

In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.
============
The second part of the series....
Gun city: Gunslingers of the North West


========================
'Thousands' of illegal guns tipped to be handed over in firearms amnesty

Asked roughly how many he expected to be handed in, Mr Keenan said: "Look I certainly think the number will be in the thousands."

The Australian Crime Commission estimated in 2012 there were at least 250,000 illegal guns in Australia. But a Senate report noted last year it was impossible to estimate how many illicit weapons are out there.

But....military weapons?

And despite Australia's strict border controls, the smuggling of high-powered military-style firearms is also a growing problem.

 

[2aguy]

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

So have you ever used one in defense?

I have shot many, just never out of any necessity.

I don't buy it makes us any safer at all. Gun owners just guarantee more criminals with guns. Many countries with few guns are far safer than us. And just look how many people are accidently shot.

Gun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?

If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.

You seem to have ignored all the facts. We have the most guns in the world, yet are far from the safest. Many countries with far fewer guns have much lower violent crime rates. Guns aren't making anyone safer.

It is their culture, not their guns that make them safe....and that is changing..their social welfare states are creating criminals...and they are importing criminals...and these new criminals are more violent.......

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

So? Here is the main point of your story:

CBS News correspondent Jerika Duncan asked, “Is there a connection between concealed-carry permits and the amount of road rage shooting incidents?”

“We don’t have decades’ worth of data here, [but] the data that we do have suggests that that might be happening,” Burnett replied.

It "might" be happening? You mean they don't know if somebody has a CCW or not when they arrest them?

Sounds to me like he was trying to avoid the question.

Here in Chicago, the gangs are now shooting at each other when they see their enemies in cars on the roads.....and you can bet they are including drive by shootings against gang members in their vehicles as road rage incidents...

This report is a typical left wing, anti gun piece of crap.

CCW's are only as good as the laws written to protect the victims. I would have no problem defending myself from an attacker in this state because the laws are written to favor us. I would be afraid to use my license in NYC or California unless it was do or die. In places like that, you can justifiably shoot somebody and still end up in jail or prison.

If Chicago had gun favoring laws for the CCW holders, it would do that city a lot of good to have armed citizens.

 

[2aguy]

99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

And that makes you safe in your home? No, it doesn't. It might give you the feeling of security, but you can still be robbed, and you're more likely to be killed.

Sure, you can still be robbed if you are sleeping or something, but let me tell you that if somebody starts breaking down my door, I'll have one in the chamber before they get in, and yes, that makes me safer. In fact, the idea that I might have a gun in my home makes me safer.

No, that just makes it more likely the criminal will be armed making you less safe.

Right. So what you're saying is that if a criminal suspected I wasn't armed, he would enter my home peacefully and ask to take my things? But if he knew I was armed, he might bring a firearm himself and risk his life for a couple hundred or couple thousand bucks?

Criminals may be dumb, but they're not risk takers when it comes to their own life. If a criminal knew I was armed, he would make damn sure I wasn't home when he came to steal my things.

Criminals in Britain enter homes knowing that the people are still there...they then torture them to get them to cooperate....using hot clothes irons, boiling water....to get them to obey....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

But the rate of violence in other countries has also fallen. It's based on there being better entertainment at home, so less people are likely to be hanging out on the streets getting up to no good.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

The numbers don’t lie: banning guns means more crime

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

UK police behind effort to ban knives to end ‘knife violence’

This 3 part series is from last year...it documents the increasing gun crime in Australia...

Gun city: Young, dumb and armed

The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city.

----

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five year

-----------

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.

-------------

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing - unprovoked.”

------------

Gun crime soars
In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence.

The investigation has found:

• There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months - more than one incident a week since January 2015
• Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
• The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
• Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
• Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts

In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.
============
The second part of the series....
Gun city: Gunslingers of the North West


========================
'Thousands' of illegal guns tipped to be handed over in firearms amnesty

Asked roughly how many he expected to be handed in, Mr Keenan said: "Look I certainly think the number will be in the thousands."

The Australian Crime Commission estimated in 2012 there were at least 250,000 illegal guns in Australia. But a Senate report noted last year it was impossible to estimate how many illicit weapons are out there.

But....military weapons?

And despite Australia's strict border controls, the smuggling of high-powered military-style firearms is also a growing problem.

 

[2aguy]

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

And that makes you safe in your home? No, it doesn't. It might give you the feeling of security, but you can still be robbed, and you're more likely to be killed.

Sure, you can still be robbed if you are sleeping or something, but let me tell you that if somebody starts breaking down my door, I'll have one in the chamber before they get in, and yes, that makes me safer. In fact, the idea that I might have a gun in my home makes me safer.

No, that just makes it more likely the criminal will be armed making you less safe.

Right. So what you're saying is that if a criminal suspected I wasn't armed, he would enter my home peacefully and ask to take my things? But if he knew I was armed, he might bring a firearm himself and risk his life for a couple hundred or couple thousand bucks?

Criminals may be dumb, but they're not risk takers when it comes to their own life. If a criminal knew I was armed, he would make damn sure I wasn't home when he came to steal my things.

First most of them aren't risk takers like you say, so they try to steal stuff when you aren't there. I believe you were a victim of that. They are trying not to get caught obviously.

What I'm saying is that criminals know there are lots of guns out there so they have to arm themselves. Criminals in countries with fewer guns are seldom armed with guns. More criminals with guns does not make us safer.

Wrong....they are now using more guns for their crimes over seas....gun crime in London is up 42% and in other major British cities it is up 10%.....and they banned and confiscated guns....

 

[2aguy]

Gun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?

If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.

You seem to have ignored all the facts. We have the most guns in the world, yet are far from the safest. Many countries with far fewer guns have much lower violent crime rates. Guns aren't making anyone safer.

It makes me safer, and that's all that counts.

If not being armed makes you safer, why do our police carry guns?

Our crime is not because of guns, our crime is because of criminals. How long has it been since we outlawed recreational drugs? Yet in spite or our laws, drug usage, overdose and deaths are at a record high.

No it really doesn't make you safer. How many defenses you have?

Police have to apprehend criminals. Completely different than defense.

Not saying crime is because of guns. But accidental shootings are because of guns. And those don't make you safer. Because we have lots of guns we have more armed criminals. Again, doesn't make you safer.

More firearms equal less violent crime… Fact

We have the most in the world. So why don't we have the least violent crime?

Our violent crime rate went down 72%...moron.

 

[2aguy]

Hileman noted that Cleveland was carrying a concealed 9mm Springfield XD, and had a permit to do so, according the affidavit.

Rindge resident accused in road rage case

Nobody shot........Next! Oh, and BTW, the guys name is Cleveland.....it didn't happen in Cleveland.

It is easy to find examples of unstable concealed carry holders in road rage incidents however. Are you saying it wasn't you?

And every year Americans with guns use them 1,500,000 times to stop violent attackers....as told to us by bill clinton and barak obama.....

And actual research shows that concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than the average citizen and even sworn police officers...

Troll.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

And that makes you safe in your home? No, it doesn't. It might give you the feeling of security, but you can still be robbed, and you're more likely to be killed.

Sure, you can still be robbed if you are sleeping or something, but let me tell you that if somebody starts breaking down my door, I'll have one in the chamber before they get in, and yes, that makes me safer. In fact, the idea that I might have a gun in my home makes me safer.

No, that just makes it more likely the criminal will be armed making you less safe.

Right. So what you're saying is that if a criminal suspected I wasn't armed, he would enter my home peacefully and ask to take my things? But if he knew I was armed, he might bring a firearm himself and risk his life for a couple hundred or couple thousand bucks?

Criminals may be dumb, but they're not risk takers when it comes to their own life. If a criminal knew I was armed, he would make damn sure I wasn't home when he came to steal my things.

Criminals in Britain enter homes knowing that the people are still there...they then torture them to get them to cooperate....using hot clothes irons, boiling water....to get them to obey....

UK police behind effort to ban knives to end ‘knife violence’