Federal appeals court tosses state ban on carrying concealed weapons

Nice.

Sometimes it gets pretty confusing. Colorado State law says not city can pass a law that trumps State law. My city passed a law that says I can't carry a gun in my car that is it "concealed". A similar law was challenged in Denver and it was shutdown. Talking to the local PD, they will tell you what the city ordnance is, but they will tell you it has no teeth. But caution you on how you carry because you could be breaking the law.Then it get even more stupid.... I can open carry here, but I can't conceal without a permit... so I can't transport my gun to my car concealed... but now, once it is in the car, I am allowed to conceal it, without a permit.

Seems that's the case with IL.. They can't trump the 2A. Allowing one to "own" a gun does nothing if you can't actually "bear" it. For me, I think I will get a permit this year just to free me from any sort of law transporting... or obviously the rare occasion I want to be armed.... which then gets to the whole thing of "registering" to be able to exercise a right I already have.

Hummm, if they are doing it legally, then what problem do you have with it?

49 states now have CCW laws.....violent crime is down across the country.  I have no idea if the CCW laws sre the cause of violent crime being down.....but we can pretty safely say it hasn't caused violent crime to rise. 

Your argument seemed to at least hold SOME water before any state allowed CCW....but it sure doesn't now.

As for the bolded part.....you've been wrong 49 times already....the chance of you being right on #50 is ZERO.

My first thought when I read the OP was that Tony wasn't gonna be happy.  lol

btw, how many training days do the criminals go through to carry their guns?

You realize carrying a weapon intoxicated is against the law right? You realize you can't go into a bar with a concealed carry don't you... at least not anywhere I know.

You do realize shooting people without cause is actually a crime right?

So then people legally carrying... what exactly do you have a problem with?

You realize "brandishing" is against the law right?

At least you have a basic understanding of U.S. law that you are innocent until proven guilty... perhaps application would be in order.

You're starting to sound irrational.

I'm for gun ownership, but I get your point.

Personally, I don't see the need to carry unless you have an occupation that puts you in harms way or it could be required.

Right or wrong, I think if people think they need to carry, they are already in the mind set that they will be in situations where needing a gun is required and shooting someone is a real possibility and option.  Being in that mind set, may make one LOOK for that option in situations where it may not me needed.  Almost looking for an excuse?

I'm just thinking about myself.  IF I was in a confrontation and didn't have a gun, I might spend a LOT of time trying to talk my way out of a situation or figure out SOMEHOW to extricate myself from that situation.  If I had a gun on me, I may go to that before exhausting ever other option.  I'm sure gun owners will say that they are SO disciplined that they will draw ONLY if it's the last possible situation.  Granted, there may be some out there that are that disciplined.  But most?  Probably not.  For example could most people take getting a punch to the face and still not draw if they thought they could still get out of the situation without shooting or at least wait for help?  Probably not.  Are they required to wait, no, they are within their rights to kill someone, but to me, that's pretty final.  I guess FOR ME, I would accept getting punched in the face if I could avoid killing someone.

There is also the line "you can kill someone just as easy with a knife" which is legal.  True. BUT in the heat of the moment, again, knowing myself.  I could see it easier to pick up a gun and pull a trigger in that 5 seconds of blind rage, than go get a knife, get up all close and personal and start stabbing or slit a throat.  I think there is a leap going from one to the other.

Just like it's easy to bomb a city with a drone - it's just like a video game.  Tougher might be to bomb someone from a plane, then shoot someone down in a plan.  To shoot someone with a sniper rifle is probably tougher yet.  Then shorter range.  Tougher YET would be shooting someone in close quarters or point blank.  Even harder would be up close and personal with a knife or strangling.  All are just as effective, but the luxury of distance/separation makes it easier, IMO.  So simply having a gun DOES make domestic death rates go up, I would guess because I see it easier to shoot someone in a rage at a distance than getting up close and getting "personal" with a knife.  PLUS the added increase of accidental shootings.

My wife comes home at very odd hours for work.  And there have been a few times, awoken from a deep sleep, that she has scared the crap out of me.  Could something have happened if I had a gun close buy?  Not likely, but still a better chance than if I had NO gun close by.  I also have been delirious with fever twice in my life and did some pretty crazy things/had crazy thoughts.  Would something happen if I had a gun?  Not likely, but again, ZERO chance if I don't have one at all...

That being said.  I'm still going out shopping for one to teach the wife!  And of course, good safety devices.  Trigger lock and safe as I plan to use it for target shooting more than anything.

When I took my safety class in Littleton (years ago), you could open carry legally, but they still strongly suggested NOT doing it.  They would get you on creating a disturbance buy walking into a mcdonalds or what have you since it freaks people out and if they complain enough to call the cops...

So they can charge you with disturbing the peace rather than owning a gun (since that was legal).

OR, it was their way to drum up business for the CC class!  Which I meant to take, but never did.  Also their CQC class look super cool.

Uh...you realize that the Police have to have probable cause to "stop and frisk" and a frisk can ONLY be done for weapons under the law, right?

I would disagree with you and I don't think you'll be able to find any data to back up the bolded statement.

I know you're not anti gun per se' but I just want to help debunk common held beliefs about gun crimes and the effect of gun ownership on crime rates.

This is a good read.
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

and this is different than all the other Saturday nights in Chicago. 

Come on Tony, you have lived here for how many years.  Have you seen the level of violence in this city, it is out of control and escalating.  I have lived in the city for 14 years now and it gets worse each year.

Have you been on North Michigan Ave on a Saturday night?  Even in the winter it is out of control with gang bangers.  I'd like to be able to protect my family if necessary, both inside and outside of my house  

I'm a lot less concerned with getting shot by a drunk frat boy in Lincoln Park than I am getting beaten and robbed by the wilding's constantly going on in all parts of the city.   

The current strictest gun control in the nation is working wonders for us.  We are on pace to have the highest number of murders in the last 15 years.   What is your solution to protecting the good people in the city who contribute to society?  

If anybody wants to read a blog detailing out some of the issues in Chicago, this one is written by a cop.

i'm assuming you're talking about the federal govt?  if so, what does it have to do with IL gun laws?  i'm not making a point, just asking.

Fair enough.  I put in the disclaimer that's it's just my opinion.  To me, it just doesn't pass the smell test.  And honestly, there is no way to prove either side.

It's hard for me to believe, that for every domestic violence shooting that IF there was no gun, that the death would have happened regardless via stabbing, or beating or strangling.  But there is absolutely no way to tell.

Again, by the smell test, I think it may be easier (and quicker) to shoot someone in that moment of blind rage than commit in many cases, a longer and more brutal killing via stabbing/beating/strangling.  I think someone could STOP mid strangle, mid beating, mid stabbing and that person may not die.  After you pull the trigger, it's pretty final and no changing your mind then.

I'd say no.  Violent crimes being down are more due to a societal trend - the first CCW law was passed in 87 (FL), where as violent crime has been trending down since 1977 (murder peaked in 1980).

This goes along with that point, no causation between increased CCW laws and decreased violent crimes.

That above PDF is in direct response to the leading book on the subject - More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.

There are a number of other studies that refute the argument that more gun ownership has lead to fewer crimes.

However, there are a few studies that disagree, and are sited in the Lott book.  Including this one.

I wouldn't argue that, which you'll notice I didn't do.....but I think we can all safely argue, this far down the road, that more CCW hasn't led to more crime as the opponents always try to argue will happen.

And for the record, I'm completely NOT anti gun.  Love them.

But I'm not SO blinded that I can't acknowledge there is an inherent dangers and risks to owning them.  There some people that think they are perfectly safe and it's the shooter not the gun.  I sort of agree, that MOSTLY true, but there are just dangers to having them, period.  Like most things, can you live with the risks?  Just don't  pretend there aren't any.

I ride motorcycles too.  I'm not going to say they are safe.  There are only two kinds of motorcycle riders.  Ones that have crashed, and ones that haven't crashed YET.  It's mostly the safety/riding skills of the user, but there are still risks.

As for guns.  I think if locked up, and transported to the shooting range is fine and safe.  Deciding the have it locked and loaded on your nightstand and/or concealed on your person just adds even MORE risk that I don't feel is needed in MY environment.  YMMV.  It all depends on the environment and situation.  If I was putting myself in situations where it could be needed, maybe I should rethink the situations I'm putting myself in?

My experiences tell me that you are like the overwhelming majority of gun owners.

I'm quite alright with someone walking around with a holstered gun, but I have to ask, "What is the need to have a concealed gun?"  Can someone answer that for me please?  Again I have no problems with gun ownership in the least, but I kind of think in general, if it's something you feel the need to hide, then maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

If you don't feel comfortable walking around with a gun holstered out in the open (unless I'm wrong and it's illegal) then you probably shouldn't doing it.  So I see no actual need for the Concealed Handgun laws.  All you need is the second amendment, don't you?  Educate me please if I'm wrong here.