Concealed Carry Might Soon Be Legal in D.C. – But Something about It Still Stinks

7400122_sWashington D.C. is the seat of power for the entire United States.

And for decades, residents of the nation’s capital have not been allowed to carry handguns legally.

In late July, a judge declared Washington D.C.’s hand gun ban unconstitutional.

The ban which has stood in place for since 1970 is in the process of being reviewed by city officials, and within a few weeks time it might be the case that residents can soon carry concealed weapons without fear of being arrested.

City council members have created an emergency review board and have introduced the new proposed law. D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) played a lead role in developing the new law.

According to The Washington Times:

The bill, Mendelson said, will permit city residents who own duly registered handguns and non-residents who hold state carrying licenses to apply to the D.C. police for a concealed carry permit. So-called open carry, such as the wearing of a weapon in a holster, will not be allowed under the proposed law, he said.

Now while this is all well and good, some of the stipulations of the law are that concealed permits will be issued on a “may carry” basis.

Meaning only a certain segment of the population will be allowed to carry. Those seeking a permit are going to have to go through D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, and will have to state a reason for seeking a permit.

‘The concept behind it is the absolute, complete prohibition probably cannot sustain judicial review, so we’re focusing on the individual,’ Mendelson said. ‘What we want to do is minimize the indicators that a person might have a mental illness or history of violence or a criminal record.’ Another goal, he added, is to ‘have a scheme that is relatively simple and can be understood.’

The bill was drafted to mimic many other states’ bills with a few notable differences.

Some of these include a proposed “provision establishing a 1,000-foot zone around the movement of dignitaries, such as presidential motorcades, and certain large-scale events where gun carrying would be prohibited. To be arrested and charged under that provision, however, a licensed gun owner would have to be given notice of the law by an officer and subsequently fail to leave the no-carry zone.”

Though the law could be passed, it might take some amount of time before the legality of it all could be firmly cemented in the District.

Mendleson says he would not be surprised to see the “the matter continue to play out in the courts. The Second Amendment has become a heavily litigated issue, and because of that I expect there will be further litigation,” he said, adding that they were “trying to find the right balance” between the public’s rights and public safety needs.

Never forget that the role of politicians over the past few years has been to strip Americans of their basic right to own a gun.

Whether or not this particular law in D.C. passes, the push for tighter and more extreme gun control looms always in the immediate future.

That’s why it’s important you do what you can to preempt the possibility of ever having to turn over your arms by owning arms that aren’t registered.

Click Here to Learn How To Build Your Own AR-15 “Ghost Gun.” No Serial Number. No Registration. 100% Legal.

  • Neal Avery

    To get a permit you must first give to the DNC!

  • rockyvnvmc

    The Bill of Rights created No Rights, but instead codified certain, pre-existing, natural rights of all mankind, into the basis of all of our laws; the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is the only amendment that includes the words; ‘Shall not be infringed’. Indicating that this right is all that much more important.
    Don’t let the words concerning ‘A well regulated Militia’ throw you. ‘well regulated’ in the nomenclature of the times meant ‘well trained’. As for a militia; ‘What, Sir, is the militia? It is all of the People, trained to Arms, preferably from an early age.’ ~ Richard Henry Lee 1776.
    In fact, the Militia Act of 1903 also called ‘the Dick Act’, created the Unorgani9zed Militia, which was to be comprised of all males, of military service age and veterans, up to age 60 (considered to be old age at that time). This law is still on the books. Thus, we are ALL members of a Militia, whether we know it, (or like it) or not.
    The right to defense of self, family, home and community far predates any government ever devised by man.
    Our ‘elected representatives’ are sworn to uphold the Constitution. In other words, to protect our pre-existing, natural rights from being infringed upon. It is not their places to decide how much of our rights, that we will be allowed to exercise.

    • Donald York

      Amen and AMEN!

    • Steve j

      Well stated. One thing both sides tend to drift off track on is the false notion that the constitution “granted” these rights, when they were just an affirmation of what rights we had that always existed.
      Another point often overlooked is the overwhelmingly consistent theme of the constitution. That its main focus was to LIMIT the power of government.

      These rights werent the “gift” of a benevolent government that can be rescinded. The amendments were a statement of what was known to be our natural rights, and the implementation of what the government was strictly forbidden to attempt to remove.

      • avlisk

        You can go today to whitehouse.gov, check out The Bill of Rights, and they will tell you that the 2nd Amendment GIVES the right to have firearms to the citizens, not PROTECTS a natural, civil right. I kid you not! Could they perhaps have an agenda? Could they perhaps want to lie to the ignorant American voter? Could they perhaps want to change history and what 2A is all about? Could they? I am shocked!
        PS They have ignored my plea to fix it for several months now.

        • b4k9zp

          Of course they have an agenda–which is to disarm the people of the USA and enslave them. Of course they want to their constituents, whom they wish to keep ignorant of their rights under the Constitution. Of course they want to change history, and what the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about. Not surprising that they have ignored your pleas. Don’t plead. DEMAND that they change the wording!

          • W.C.

            You’re right on target. The best way to crush these vermin is to financially starve them out. How quickly would they snap to if every single American at one time refused to pay another single red cent of any state or federal taxes?

          • Frank Hartzell

            I thought e only had to pay taxes if we were at war,not police actions.

          • bub

            Taxes aren’t important to them other than to keep us in check. They simply print more when the wish for more.

          • festmatt5440

            In a nation where the people have guns , they are called ‘ citizens ‘. In a nation where guns are outlawed / or have been taken away ; the people are known , as ‘ subjects ‘.

          • W.C.

            Australia’s telling us as loudly and earnestly as they can not to make the same msitake they made when they surrendered their gun rights. We’d be wise to listen.

          • b4k9zp

            Or “SLAVES”. That is the objective of the anti-gunners. To enslave everyone but those whom they think are the “elite”. (Themselves)

            Several noted philosophers in the 18th and 19th century rightly stated that the distinguishing characteristic between a free man and a slave is that the free man has the arms/weapons and the right to have them with which he can retain his freedom. A slave has no weapons and no rights.

        • Jay.bird

          I think I remember Gun Owners of America writing about this and trying to get it fixed. People just need to keep hammering them for change or they will not.

          • avlisk

            Do you suppose they are too stupid to understand the difference, or too evil to correct it? My suspicion is the latter. But I’m only basing that on observed policy from the last few years.

          • Jay.bird

            Too evil! They also want to change history in the childrens school books.

      • b4k9zp

        well said. Far too many government officials (including those of the present fraudulent administration) think that they are the only ones who can give or take away rights. But if they can give or take away something, then that is a privilege given only to those in the favor of those in government at the moment.

        That’s why the bill of rights was created–to tell those in power that they have NO POWER AT ALL over the rights of individuals, and cannot regulate, lessen or INFRINGE upon any of those rights.

        Definition of “infringed” (merriam webster online dictionary): (2) Wrongly limited or restricted (something, such as another person’s rights); (1) something that does not obey or follow (a rule, or law, etc.); or failed to keep (as in a law that was struck down for infringing upon the second amendment). .

        Synonyms for infringed: “breached”, “broken”, “contravened”, “fractured”, “offended”, “traduced”, “transgressed”, “disregarded”, “ignored”, “flouted”, “neglected”, overlooked”, “dismissed”, “scorned”, “defied”, “resisted”, “withstood”.

        Google dictionary defines “Infringed” as “acted to limit or undermine something, such as a right”. Synonyms given by google for infringed include “limited”, “restricted”, “curbed”, “checked”, “encroached upon”, “undermined”, “eroded”, “diminished”, “weakened”, “impaired”, “damaged”, or “compromised”.

        The second amendment’s language is clearly an ABSOLUTE prohibition against any and all laws that in any way interfere with, or diminish or limit the individual’s unalienable God given right to possess and carry “arms” anywhere they wish to go, any time they want to go there. And the “arms” mentioned in the 2nd amendment are clearly, from the history of the USA, as Tench Coxe, a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Constitutional convention of 1787, wrote in a letter to “The Pennsylvania Gazette” published on February 20, 1788: “…their swords and all the terrible implements of the soldier, [which] are the birthright of [all] Americans…”

        • W.C.

          That means that they couldn’t even limit the gun rights of convicted felons. That would only be right especially when the felony didn’t involve the use of a weapon.

          • b4k9zp

            Wrong. Even if the felon had committed a violent crime, once he served the entire sentence imposed by the court (or is pardoned by a governor or president), he cannot be denied his right to possess and carry arms. Of course if he uses or threatens to use any kind of weapon (even his bare hands or feet) in any future crime of violence, he should suffer ONLY the death penalty, and sentence should be executed within a maximum of one hundred eighty days after he is convicted for the second offense. That death penalty should be either by public hanging in the courthouse square of the local jurisdiction in which the crime was committed, or by public guillotining in that same location Hiding the execution behind the walls of the county courthouse or the main state penitentiary is non-productive.

          • W.C.

            I agree with that. I think the crime control act of 196-whatever was unconstitutional.
            The Constitution says the right of the PEOPLE, not just citizens “in good standing”.

            Back in the old west days, wasn’t a man given a horse and a rifle upon release from prison?

          • b4k9zp

            If he had them when he was taken to prison, I believe he was. And he had no restrictions on buying a rifle or handgun when he got to the nearest store that sold them. He could even buy a firearm through the mail from Sears, Roebuck and Company, Montgomery Ward, or several other “Mail order Catalog stores”. and as soon as his payment cleared the store’s bank the firearm(s) and ammunition were sent to him without any questions. And crime rates and crime numbers were a whole lot lower than they are now, after gun ban laws have been passed.

          • W.C.

            What do you think about what I said about why sex offenders should be allowed to be armed? What did you think about the parallel I drew with regards to de-clawing cats and not allowing sex offenders to protect themselves from vigilantes?

          • b4k9zp

            IMO, there’s nothing in the constitution that allows the government to keep them from being armed. The second amendment clearly states: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” No qualifications, no limitations, no “subject to the police power”. No limitations at all.

          • W.C.

            I agree totally. Did you think I made a legitimate parallel with the cat illustration?

          • b4k9zp

            For some reason your comment had not posted when I originally replied to you. Sorry about that. Yes, I think that is a valid comparison.

            BTW, I had a brother who was a veterinarian. He told me that he and his colleagues recommended that if you keep a cat, you never let the animal out of the house (even if you don’t de-claw them), because the veterinarians had found that cats kept in houses live longer lives, since they are not exposed to poisons, dogs, and diseased cats and vermin (their prey) . They also don’t create other baby cats, even if they are not neutered.

          • W.C.

            Thanks for reading my posts. 🙂

            And cats and cars don’t mix too well. Ever seen filet of feline on the roadkill cafe menu? 🙂

          • b4k9zp

            cats, dogs, armadillos (state roadkill of Texas) squirrels, and even snakes are quite common on the highways.

          • Daniel Brofford

            I think your right WC when I said in my earlier post about drug addicts and people that use them in crimes I just didn’t go on to explain that even those people should have the right upon completion of some types of programs.

          • W.C.

            Yup!! A criminal is much less likely to go where he could encounter armed resistance. I read a blog by a fire arms training expert that pointed out something interesting and probably 1000% true..He said the gunman who shot so many in that Colorado Theater passed up closer venues because those establishments did not ban handguns on the property. He chose the theater because they had up a “NO GUNS ALLOWED” sign.

          • b4k9zp

            It is well known, and has been well known to criminologists since at least 1809, (See Cesare Beccaria’s “An Essay on Crimes and Punishments” dating from 1809), that the laws that prohibit the carrying of arms in any location only prohibit the carrying of arms by persons who are neither inclined nor determined to commit violent crimes against others; and ENCOURAGE, rather than prohibit murders in those locations, for it is so much easier for a criminal to assault and kill a disarmed victim than it is for him to face someone who is armed.

          • Daniel Brofford

            I wondered WC when someone would talk about that subject. I think that it is unconstitutional for them to take away the second amendment from someone because they are a felon. Now there are people that shouldn’t have them but common sense would dictate that such as drug addicts and people that use them in crimes.

          • b4k9zp

            But then how are you to keep those people from getting them? You cannot without depriving everyone the freedom to have the weapons in their possession at all times.

          • Gannan

            It was said, in the days of the Old West, that even a Lunatic needed a gun, because a bear did not know the difference between looney and sane…

          • b4k9zp

            Nor did an Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Sioux or other American Indian brave. Or other western citizens.

          • avlisk

            Before we ban “convicted felons” from carrying, we need to keep in mind that Shaneen Allen was jailed and accused of a felony, and well on her way to conviction until Ray Rice stepped up and shined a light on the whole corrupt New Jersey legal system.

          • W.C.

            I agree with you. I know it sounded like I was in favor of banning felons from owning a gun, but I am NOT in favor of such a ban. I agree that we as humans CREATED BY GOD have a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to protect ourselves, our property, and our families. The Bill of Rights just expresses that right in writing and states the government has no authority to abridge that right to any extent in any manner whatsoever.

            I am overjoyed that Shaneen Allen was released with all charges dropped. Thank God for that. She should have never been cuffed in the first place. I smell a false arrest/false imprisonment lawsuit coming. I know I’d file one so big I’d never have to work another stroke the rest of my life! I’m only 45.

          • avlisk

            I don’t know if she will. She should have all her civil rights restored to what they were before, obviously. I want to see that corrupt prosecutor himself prosecuted and lose his job, as happened to Shaneen (and Brian Aitken, too, but that’s another similar case). Not only unconstitutional what McClain did, but morally reprehensible, too. I wonder where the news coverage was. I wonder where Rev Al and Rev Jesse were on this. I wonder where Gov Christie was on this. I feel like I’m living at Animal Farm sometimes. I still believe in doing the right thing, politics and agenda aside. I hope morality will prevail. Alas, I am preparing for something different.

          • W.C.

            I agree that her rights should be fully restored and her record expunged to where it’s as if this event never took place.

            Al and Jesse are hate mongers. This didn’t fit their agenda.

            I’m afraid we’re waaaaaaaay past the time when morality and politics/politicians will ever go in the same sentence again.

        • W.C.

          I couldn’t have said that any better myself!!

    • Edgar Roupe

      Federal also requires that all members of the militia possess weapons of the type currently in use by the regular armed forces. I wonder how many anti “assault weapons” politicians know that.
      (“Assault weapon”? A Remington Nylon 66 makes a dandy little “assault weapon”!)
      It is the duty of free men to be at all times armed.

      • avlisk

        It occurs to me that in order to “ensure the security of a free state”, the average citizen has a duty to keep and bear. Not just a right to do so, but a duty. How else can we fight back against those who promote tyranny against us? To be a good American, it is our duty to keep and bear arms, not just our right.

        • David in MA

          This is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, especially after dealing with a monarchy (dictatorship)……. THEY KNEW HOW POWER CORRUPTS GOOD PEOPLE TO WHERE THEY BECOME BAD PEOPLE (like the boy king wanna-be)

          • Frank Hartzell

            how bout bad people ,pretending like the fake in the black house.

        • Edgar Roupe

          It is the duty of free men to be at all times armed.
          I am.

          • b4k9zp

            Good quote from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright in 1824. The entire quote says: “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent, or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”

            Samuel Adams wrote: “It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty, — to oppress without control or the restaint of
            laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves…” in an Essay published in The Advertiser (1748) and later reprinted in “The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams, Volume 1”, by William Vincent Wells; Little, Brown, and Company; Boston, 1865.

          • avlisk

            I just heard a guy called Massad Ayoob (My spelling might be off, as it’s an odd name) on The Polite Society Podcast from 10/5/14 who eloquently speaks to this. Check it, and him, out.

          • Edgar Roupe

            Mas has been one of my favorite gun writers for years. He knows what he’s talking about when it comes to handguns, concealed carry, the fine points of legal self defense, and a lot of related things. I think anyone considering getting a concealed carry permit should read Ayoob’s stuff. I’ve always been one of his fans. I’m glad you like him. Stick with Mas – he won’t steer you wrong.

          • b4k9zp

            Massad Ayoob’s “In the Gravest Extreme” book is or should be required reading for anyone who is thinking of carrying a firearm for their own protection. Of course he just says the same things that Col Jeff Cooper (USMC) taught in his “Gunsite Ranch” courses.

    • avlisk

      I am of the opinion that the President of the United States should uphold the oath of office that he takes, to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution of the United States. I know the current resident of the oval office took that oath. . .I heard him take it. Therefore, based on the last 6 years, I consider him the Traitor-In-Chief because he isn’t adhering to his oath, and in fact, is setting the example that others in his administration, both present and past, also have not followed. “Shall not be infringed” is my law. I follow it every day.

      • David in MA

        It was rumored he took the oath of office on the Koran and we now know the Koran lets the dirty lousy muslims lie to promote their sick government/religious agenda…..!

        • hangman

          And the only good Muslim is the one that has gone to be with his, or hers virgins.

          • David in MA

            ha ha ha I heard the 72 virgins are all males.

          • b4k9zp

            Actually, the word in Arabic is “houris”, which are entirely sexless beings. They are also known as “demons” to Christians.

          • David in MA

            So, all these idiots think they will go to heaven and frolic with 72 virgins will actually end up in hell?

          • Neal Avery

            We will bury them in wild hog skins if they come over here.

          • David in MA

            “They” are here along with 100 million illegal Hispanics and 35,000 or so released criminals from prison who along with Obama’s government moles who just before the 2014 elections (if the poles suggest democrats losing control) will spark Obama’s martial law army. The final coup on America, should be interesting to see how many will fight for abomination and give up what America has to offer vs. his idea of government………. Tonight a Blood Moon, tomorrow Bloody Streets, we know it’s coming.

          • Gannan

            is that after we drown them in pig / hog blood ?? :-))

          • Gannan

            is that after we drown them in pig / hog blood ?? :-))

          • b4k9zp

            If they are Muslims and don’t believe in and follow the Lord Jesus Christ, they are guaranteed to wind up in hades with their master satan, also called beelzebub, lucifer, apollyon and other names.

          • Gannan

            With [ hells ] bells on :-))
            Entry to the Kingdom of God, hinges upon following the example, and sacrifice of Jesus, the Christ…
            [[ Christ is not Jesus’ last name ]]
            Islam,among other “religions ” do not recognize the Deity of Jesus… Father, Son, Holy Spirit ] therefore, they are all in for one very rude awakening

          • Gannan

            With [ hells ] bells on :-))
            Entry to the Kingdom of God, hinges upon following the example, and sacrifice of Jesus, the Christ…
            [[ Christ is not Jesus’ last name ]]
            Islam,among other “religions ” do not recognize the Deity of Jesus… [ Father, Son, Holy Spirit ] therefore, they are all in for one very rude awakening

          • Lizard

            Goats

          • hangman

            And virgins they are, as Muslims are gay, as evidenced by the muslim in the white house.
            Pee ppe virgins, butt hole sluts. (Notice that they always keep a camel, and they are always on their knees, with their butts up in the air, pointing to the camel?)

          • mac12sam12

            It’s actually one 72 year old virgin and one well worn goat.

          • David in MA

            LOL
            I am amazed how these muslim women can support such a concept, can you imagine any true American woman’s rights person or persons advocating such a system, knowing their significant other treats them like chit, force them to wear a full body cover, forbid to not socialize with anyone outside the family, etc. and all with the idea they are only something to contend with and the reward of 72 virgins is their significant other’s (male) main goal in life with the blessings of allah?

          • b4k9zp

            Muslim women aren’t given any choice. They have no freedom of speech, or anything else. They are slaves.

          • David in MA

            I wonder why the “Burn your Bra” women’s Lib movement has not started a “FREE THE ISLAMIC WOMEN” movement.

          • Daniel Brofford

            LOL yeah David now that you mention it they just say virgins they don’t say weather they are male or female. Me and you both know there isn’t any of that true but it would be hilarious if they got to hell and the devil had 72 old men for them to be with

          • jany38

            Not really but they all look like Janet Reno and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

        • joebabe

          Their style of lying is called Taqiyah…….permission to lie to all enemies and especially infidels so that they may promote their “Religion of Peace”. Spread the word! …..explains a lot about this administration…doesn’t it?

          • Kenny Coffman

            It says EVERYTHING about this POS administration. Google “Lois Lerner busts into house” on Youtube and watch her run from a reporter (in her WEALTHY D.C. neighborhood where she lives — OFF OUR DIME) and frantically try to get into an unknown person’s home to ESCAPE TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT TARGETING CONSERVATIVES FOR POLITICAL GAIN while she was the head of the IRS. It’s absolutely pitiful — just like she and THE REST OF OUR POS GOVERNMENT IS. Oh yeah, we were talking about lying Muslims and how it’s ok as long as they’re in top positions of the U.S. government. I forgot.

    • tom2

      Kudos to your comment and I’d add this. During The Revolution, Washington used “regulars” who were paid, trained enlistees alongside “militia” who were armed, volunteer citizens. The latter were picked up along the trails or answered clarion calls to battle. Somehow the demlibs cannot differentiate between part time national guard units and militia. The former are part of paid, trained “regulars” with the primary duty of augmenting full time armed forces. Perhaps if the demlibs ever served their nation, they’d understand these simple facts.

      • b4k9zp

        The militia were also supposed to be paid by the federal government when they were called into federal service. Or at least by their respective states. They were in some cases, in the American Revolution, with “Continental dollars”, which by 1783 were just about worthless.

    • OCDiver

      And it’s up to “We the People” to continually remind said Government officials that they work for us not the other way around!!

  • hangman57

    It seems to me ,if their current law was unconstitutional , how can a city Council make another law that violates the 2nd Amendment . The 2nd Amendment under the Bill of Rights , Under our Constitution ,is very clear about our gun rights .”The right of the people to keep and bear arms ,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ” . It does not say anything about restricting that right with any permits ,gun free zones or even taking finger prints . So when Politicians make up laws to violate our Constitutional Rights . These Politicians violate the Constitution they take a oath to uphold .

    • Steve j

      Because they can. They’ve had a gun ban since the 70’s, putting ridiculous, almost impossible, stipulations for one to exercise a right we’ve always had is just a more sly version of the ban they’ve always had.
      Back and forth to court again. And again. Etc.
      these socialist scum have no intention of ever relenting on the disarmament of a free people. Because they cannot implement their ultimate goal with an armed citizenry.

      Don’t expect anything better of them. Expecting them to be honerable and abide by the constitution and the laws of this nation is unrealistic. Expect the worst of the leftist democrats at all times and you’ll never be disappointed or surprised.

      • David in MA

        “Because they can”
        OR
        because “WE” let them?

        • b4k9zp

          More the latter than the former, IMO.

      • Frank Hartzell

        I’ve never known a politiction to tell me the truth as is,so why would I expect anything else but lies and double talk from any of what we have to work with[2nd.&3rd generation liers],we need new blood in office,not power.

        • David in MA

          Who keeps electing them?
          With so many against these spinster politicians, who keeps electing them?
          Is the solution: More Republicans move to “Electoral States” to gain freedom?

    • tom2

      The get away with this stuff because the people tolerate it. I’ve heard that as many as a million New York firearm owners refuse to comply with the SAFE Act, effectively daring the government to enforce the new law. Rumors hold that their counterparts in Connecticut total half a million. The District of Columbia doesn’t seem as interested in a government that obeys the law, particularly The Constitution — recall Marion Barry.

      • David in MA

        Marion Barry, isn’t he the guy who got elected/re-elected Mayor while in prison over something to do with cocaine? Says a lot about the D.C. voter, ya thinks?

        • tom2

          He’s the guy.

        • b4k9zp

          Not surprising. Adam Clayton Powell, a US Representative from NYC, IIRC, was re-elected several times by his constituents after being convicted for income tax fraud, and several other crimes.

          • David in MA

            and the common denominator is?

          • b4k9zp

            Dare I say it (because it is the truth)? Both men were black.

          • David in MA

            And the voters in these places were primarily black people?

    • Frank Hartzell

      without knowing who has a gun , they can’t come and take them..

  • Wayne Tisdale

    Having to give a stated reason for wanting or needing to obtain a concealed handgun license is
    definitely beyond the true intension of our second amendment rights. What a bunch of bull.

    • Frank Hartzell

      how else can they keep track of all the guns AND owners

    • joebabe

      Here is a “reason” for wanting to obtain a concealed firearm…..witness the release of current 35,000 jail inmates let loose on the public.And also the 100,000’s of illegals and terrorists crossing our ” borders”,unchecked ,we may need some help. From these numbers,some will be committing some crimes. The No. 1 reason for obtaining a firearm is……to protect yourself and family from individual and groups that seek to cause you great bodily harm or death. Remember…when seconds count, the police are just minutes away!

      • Edgar Roupe

        No one with more than half a brain can deny those people are among us.
        Keep your guns handy and your dogs hungry.

  • Travis Leigh

    People need to wake up and get this idiots they elected out of office more laws more BS that does not work the bad guys love all those laws they don’t have to worry about the honest people of this country stoppng them if the idiots in office would stop and see whats going on around them in Oklahoma if not for a CEO and his concealed gun there would have been at 2 women with there heads cut off the radicals are here in this country and the only thing they understand is a bullet between the eyes

    • slotiac32

      They don’t care about the bullet; they want to die and go to Islamheaven and get their 7 (or is it 14?) virgins to molest and rape! Scum of the earth!

      • Frank Hartzell

        it’s 77 and what I would like to know is where are they all comming from.I thought the pop.of heaven was numbered.Can some one explain it to me,I’m Isnummyised.

  • Edgar Roupe

    So you can carry concealed in DC as long as Cathy says it’s okay, right?
    That deal sucks!

    • David in MA

      and, Cathy will say NO, WHY?
      Because the Congress of the United States of America PAYS THE BILLS/SALARIES/GARBAGE REMOVAL/ETC. FOR WASHINGTON, D.C……DAT WHY.

      • b4k9zp

        Because Article I, section eight, paragraph 17 of the Constitution
        clearly states that ONLY the Congress has the exclusive power to “exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not
        exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the
        acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States,…”. The Constitution gives no power to Congress to delegate that authority to anyone else.

        • David in MA

          So, your saying the D.C. city council cannot legislate ~~~~~ anything, in the D.C. District?

          • b4k9zp

            Not according to the Constitution. Only the Congress of the USA can legislate anything in the District. And it’s not me that says it, but the Constitution itself.

  • James Andrews

    Tis corrupt city will make it very very hard to get said permits. But we must all continue to fight them until we win!

  • MLM

    I never thought I would be a criminal but that is what I’ve become. I will never give up my guns. I follow our constitution ONLY……

    • Frank Hartzell

      Then how is that a crime?

      • b4k9zp

        It is a crime to those who criminally refuse to obey their oath to support the Constitution of the USA, which INCLUDES all twenty-seven amendments ratified by the states.

  • David in MA

    Mine says “any lawful purpose”, why isn’t this enough especially where the Constitution does not require any reason, at all?

    • Frank Hartzell

      get a 10,000 man march on D.C.,are they going to arrest 10,000 armed people. I know it doesn’t sound fesable but it is a idea.

      • David in MA

        If the marchers are white they will, most of the army is now made up with black people and most of them want to get “whitey” so they can become the top cock like the cock suck in the WH now….It will be like Uganda, quiet and peaceful, everyone will be happy then! Well, that is, until the next black person wants to be top cock, then it will be like Uganda all over again…. But do not worry, you and I will be dead by then.

        • Frank Hartzell

          I’m not sure about the army being mostly black,but yes you are most likely right,we are a endangered spiecies in our own country lately.Don’t you mean the Black house,there’s not many white,anything there anymore.

          • David in MA

            Although I believe Obama is on an Islamic Marxist mission he has mostly (from what I’ve seen on T.V.) black people around him, kind of like an afican “head-man” (no pun intended)…… BUT, for Americans it is a good example of affirmative action, hiring black people and finding they aren’t worth a chit. Just look at the “black security” keeping the fence jumper out of the White House recently……. ignorant and overweight useless people…… (Now you race baiters go for it!, call me a racist….but also call me right!— not referring to you Frank, but to the Obama phone/food stamp idiots)

          • Frank Hartzell

            I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it.By the way I’m not and woun’t be politically correct,if you get what I mean..

  • homer1057

    See Matt 10:34/Luke 22:36 KJV These scriptures say: a sword is need, but being that was the weapon of choice then…it is now a gun, and we should be armed to stand against tyranny of any kind, and we should protect our families, and nations against the above! Govt gun control is just NOT legal or right, UNLESS you are the govt and you want to “Control” the populace! ALL Gun Control results in “Communism/Facism”!!

    • b4k9zp

      actually , firearms had not been invented in the centuries before Christ was born. Nor had even black powder been invented.

  • apzzyk

    This is just an opinion. I think that the more firearms that we have in circulation the more likely we will have an incident, sooner rather than later, regarding the use of a firearm in something that really scares the hell out of the general public and with the concealed carry that will just speed up the incident. Under what I read above, Hinkley could have gotten a concealed weapon permit in CO or almost any state, passed the background check because he had never been committed to a mental hospital and had no criminal history. He could have merely claimed that he was afraid of the boogie man or Mickey Mouse or something and cleared that part – the authorities simply do not have the time, money or people to check out whether a fear is rational or not. Now Hinkley has been a guest of the government at St. Mary’s for about 35 years and is still considered to be a threat to Reagan.
    On the 1000 foot zone, in DC public officials are all over and they move from place to place, so will anyone ever be in the area where the right to carry will ever exist? How can such a law be enforced? If one were wearing western style boots, as I do, if I can carry my wallet there (ever heard of getting your boot picked?), I could carry and no one would ever know – even without any permit or even illegally.
    Given that most people do not own firearms, I think that what is now going on with this emphasis on gun rights, will, after a few incidents, swing back to where most of us think is more reasonable. When this happens, the NRA will loose its disproportionate influence, which may never return because gun owners may be shunned.

    • lha

      That concept has been disproved many times,and is a knee-jerk reaction. This parrots the “main street media” and their claim that more gun laws equal less crime,including gun crime. In reality,the exact opposite is true in that better access to firearms is conducive to less crime,including gun violence. A lunatic can always obtain a gun,as can a criminal,but a law-abiding person,faced with restricted access to firearms,will be unprotected,thus vulnerable.

      • W.C.

        Amen!! I’ve said that a million times. Enact more gun control laws and the only people you will be disarming are the law-abiding citizens and NOT THE CRIMINALS. CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS IN DEFIANCE OF ANY AND ALL LAWS PASSED BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST THAT; CRIMINALS!

    • b4k9zp

      Hinckley was perfectly sane when he attempted to murder Ronald Reagan, despite his claims that he was mentally ill. If he is ever declared to be “cured”, he should be put to death with no further delay, because he was videotaped shooting the president. The evidence is incontrovertible.

      Despite your rants, there is no reason to restrict the ownership of any gun by any government. In fact, the constitution flatly prohibits any and all such limitations on the right to keep and bear arms.

      Concealed carry laws that require the person who carries to get government permission to exercise their unalienable civil right to possess arms and carry them anywhere they want to go are flatly unconstitutional, especially since they require the payment of a fee or tax to get that permission to carry from the government. That principle was held to be unconstitutional by the ratification of the 24th amendment which banned payment of any form of poll tax before one could vote in any election. The principle is the same. Requiring any individual to pay a fee or tax, or get a permit, to exercise their civil rights is unconscionable, unconstitutional, and highly racist, for its only purpose is to make ownership and carrying of firearms so expensive that only the richest can afford to have them.

      Because of your idiotic knee jerk reaction that guns are somehow causing all the shootings, people like you will never understand that we have the right to keep and bear arms not just for defense of our persons and property, but for defense of our rights against any despotic or tyrannical actions by any government. I’d suggest you google “The McMinn County War (1946)” also known as “The Battle of Athens (1946)” to find out what happens when a tyrannical county sheriff in Tennessee tried to steal an election in 1946, because he knew he was about to be kicked out of office.

      • apzzyk

        First, it was Dr. Sally Jonhson, and other Government Forensic Psychiatrists and Psychologists, and independent people with the same training and experience, who found that Hinkley had an extreme fixation with Jody Foster, which at least made him legally insane at the time and thought that hew was doing right by doing this. Under the McNaughton rule, which had been in effect at the time, he was unable to tell right from wrong or anticipate the consequences of his act. This made him insane at the time of the act. Since then, with advances in medication, it has been possible to ‘restore a person to reason’ so that he can assist his attorney in his defense, which is the new insanity criteria, which has nothing to do with his mental state at the time. Even here, medications are not always effective, given different situations, so people, like Gabby Gifford’s shooter, spent time in a federal institution, getting stabilized on his meds, so he was fine in these circumstances, but when he left them he, again, became delusional, and could not have exercised his right to testify on his own behalf, and his attorney was able to get him to plea to a lessor included offense, which would put him in a mental facility for the rest of his life because of the envrironmental dependency.

        When Brady died, and it was ruled that his wounds from the attempted assination that his life was shortened, he could have been tried for murder. The decision was made not to do that, because he had been in custody for all of the time allowed by the law at the time (at the time the maximum federal penalty for murder was 20 years), which he has already spent, so to keep him in custody it is easier just to keep having hearings before a judge where people can just testify that he is still a danger to society. Being a danger to society is not a crime in any jurisdiction.

        A hand gun, which is the only type where concealed carry is applicable – you have to carry long guns openly because of their size, unless you want to go around in a trench coat in the summer and call attention to yourself, it not meant to be one where you can actually defend yourself or others in a public place. For example, if a robber walks in to a business with his gun drawn and tells everyone ‘hands up’ are you going to be stupid enough to try to get to your concealed weapon – call attention to yourself – by refusing to obey this order? If you do, I hope you enjoy your ride to the hospital or morgue. When I carried my .45 in the field in the USMC, I used a shoulder holster which was on the outside of my uniform so that I would have easy access to it – I could hit the deck, get it out of the holster and then do something with it.

        The problem here is that if someone with a concealed weapon tries to intervene by pulling his gun while a robbery is in progress, and no fire has taken place so far, that the robber is likely to try to defend himself from you and this would increase the probably that some innocent person would be shot.

        In such a case, you might become rightfully dead, or dead right.

        The reasons for a decrease or increase in a particular place is not solely a function of people being armed or not, but has to include many other social factors, in addition to the mental health of the person. Economics are one of these – there reallly are crimes of necessity – where a person robs one store with cash on hand so that s/he can go buy groceries for their kids. So a decrease in crime is usually associated with an improvement in the economy. The economy is probably also a factor in domestic violence in which a gun may be used by an otherwise law abiding citizen.

        When I was stationed in SF in the 1950’s there was the ‘Wednesday Bank Robber’. Almost every Wednesday, usually in the mid afternoon, a man would rob a bank at gun point and escape with the money, so the authorities would ‘mark’ money and give every teller a bag, so that they could traced the money when it was spent. The problem was that none of the marked money ever was spent, or if it was it was not in SF. A man with just another strange hobby?

        A thing that actually scares me about this carrying of firearms, whether concealed or not, is that if the carrier is actually reasonably affraid for his or her life or safety, there must be some reason for it, and that would mean that whoever they fear would also be armed. The last thing that I want to be is someone who is inadvertently in the middle of this potential shoot out. So if I saw an armed person in a store or somewhere I would just try to get out as soon as possible – this would not be good for business.

        A couple of months ago a man in Florida, who had claimed that he was afraid of the kids in the next car because of their musing and had opened up, wounded 3 and killed one, got a lot of time for attempted murder on the 3, and a hung jury on the 1 dead, and is being retried. The son of a friend (who happened to be black) while I lived in NC had a T-shit that read, across the back: “I am the one your parents have told you to fear”. I thought it was just funny.

        The bottom line is that you do what you want to, but just try not to hurt or kill anyone in the process.

        • b4k9zp

          “Insanity” is no defense. he was and is still responsible for his actions. Despite your claims, and his claims, he knew right from wrong and could anticipate the consequences of his actions, but he or his family was able to hire a lawyer who convinced a jury that he wasn’t. If he is ever pronounced “cured”, he should be executed without delay, for there is no reason to re-try him.

          But all that is irrelevant. The bottom line is that every law abiding citizen has the right to own and carry the same arms that are used by the police and military, and have them in their possession at all times. And no government, or business entity, or private individual, has any power to deny anyone that right.

          • apzzyk

            I am sorry about your being on the wrong side of history and reality. The insanity defense goes back as far as at least Athens, and probably to Egypt. The McNaughten rule, which is a part of the English Common Law that is accepted by the US, since independence dates back to at least 1700, and as we learn more, a larger definition of it may be acceptable to the courts.
            For example, in Colorado Springs they have a special court to hear cases involving Vets or active duty military where the court considers prior experience. We know from observation, that vets suffering from PTSD, have a higher rate of such things as spouse abuse by violence.
            This problem is why I am a 100% disabled vet. Personally I have had at least 3 episodes of ‘blacking out’ when I get extremely angry – here it is a case of ‘fight or flight’ where, if I seem to have a way out, I choose flight. In one possible, short term case (that is I recovered my memory very soon after the episode) In this case I was at a college bar – or in the parking lot and the car driven by a female ahead of me stalled and our bumpers did not match, so I got on the hood of my car and one of my passengers became the driver, and sitting on the hood of the car ahead to avoid damage to either my driver moved ahead and we were making progress until another person came up and totally blind-sided me, and that is all that I remember until the next morning when I found blood stains on my clothing, but had no cuts. All that the new driver told me was that I had been loaded into the back seat of my car, and him taking me to the door before he walked home.
            In my discussions with older (WWII) Marines who had decorations for personal heroism – up to the Navy Cross – none could remember the events for which they were decorated. This was mentioned by one of the recent recipiants of the Metal of Honor.
            This type of ‘black out’ was also described by other Marines who had made one or more landings in the Pacific – they could remember getting into the landing craft and part of the trip to the beach, and then nothing for a few hours or days. Was it sane to get off of landing craft while being fired at by the enemy and facing near certain death?
            I have also had numerous ‘night terror’ episodes where, in my thrashing around, have hit my bed partner.
            Also, in the USMC, I was found not to be responsible for my conduct at court martial, after I had been awaken with something which I felt was a weapon, and hitting the Capt. who had poked me with something hard.
            If you suffered a seizure while holding your gun and discharging it and wounding or killing someone, should you be held criminally responsible?.

          • b4k9zp

            I am not on the wrong side of anything. “Insanity” is no defense, since everyone is ultimately responsible for all the choices they make, especially since it is so easy to claim “insanity” when one is as sane as can be.

          • apzzyk

            If Adolph Hitler were still alive he would be glad to know that he was still gaining supporters. One of his first actions against his own people was to send the insane, retarded, and other ‘defectives’ to the gas chambers.

            Since Hinklley, the insanity defense has actually become less common. Some states have created a new category of ‘guilty, but insane’ where the defendent just gets to go to a state hospital to spend the rest of his life insteded of going to prison or facing the death penalty, where if they were found simply insane at the time, they would go to a facility to be ‘returned to reason’.

            One of the best indications of insanity is to see whether a person has contact with reality. Here reality is based on a consensus – most people agree that the grass is green – that tress do do not emit carbon dioxide, that there is not a space ship in he tail of comets, that jumping from a 10 story building is going to damage or kill them, and at least accepting the well suppoted science of the day – such as global warming is real, but the cause can still be debated. Here, buy your fefusal to accept the consensus that at some time people cannot, for reasons beyond their control, adt irrationally and to the detriment of others, would be a form of insanity itself, but you have not yet acted on your beliefs so, at least so far, you have not done anything – acting on these – to draw you to the attention of authorities so that you might be ‘restored to reason’ if possible.
            Why did you ignore my example of the seizure behavior? If you have ever suffered from a TBI, as most of us have, you might have a seizure at any time. So that after you will be able to see that while having it you were not rational.

  • Gannan

    This little quote, from the contributor directly under mine, says it all… Obama… sit down and shut up !!!

    “The right to defense of self, family, home and community far predates any government ever devised by man.”

    Our ‘elected representatives’ are sworn to uphold the Constitution. In other words, to protect our pre-existing, natural rights from being infringed upon. It is not their places to decide how much of our rights, that we will be allowed to exercise.

  • festmatt5440

    So ‘ ; DC ‘ , might get ‘ RTC ‘. But , it will never happen in the ‘ capital ‘ of the ” Communist ” state ; Chicago “.

    • b4k9zp

      The Illinois Federal District Court ordered the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago to begin “shall issue” right to carry permits in Chicago and the rest of the state. That law has been passed, and the first “shall issue” permits have been issued in Chicago. And crime in that city immediately began dropping.

  • burnt press

    Any and all laws that restrict arms carrying or owning are unconstitutional. thus should be null and void.

  • supergun

    The Court outlawed such illegal infringement in California, of all places. The officials continue to pass illegal gun laws and continue to infringe upon the citizens 2nd Amendments rights. If they were put in jail and fined, they would stop this crap.

  • bub

    “ ‘trying to find the right balance’ between the public’s rights and public safety needs.”

    What are you talking about?

    2nd Amendment Rights = Public Safety

    • b4k9zp

      Where does it say that the public has any right to expect safety?

      Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both said, at different times, that anyone who is willing to sacrifice any degree of freedom for some promised increase in safety or security deserves neither any safety nor any security, but also no freedom. And many have rightly observed that such ignorant people will lose their safety, their security and their freedom because they are willing to give up a little liberty at a time./

  • John

    Yeah, just like concealed carry is legal in New Jersey. But try getting a permit. It is impossible. Unless you are ex law enforcement, a politician, a famous actor, or a friend of someone in power you can forget it. It is such a farce. It might as well be illegal here as it might as well be in D.C. The average Joe is never going to get a permit.

  • Wumingren

    Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier: “What’s your excuse for wanting to carry a concealed firearm?”

    Me: “Because I want to defend myself against berserk Islamists who might try to cut my head off. Tell me that isn’t a good enough reason.”

    • b4k9zp

      What’s your excuse for wanting to carry openly or concealed?

      Me. First, it is my constitutionally protected civil right to carry anywhere I want to go. Second, I live in a nation where the police are not required to provide protection to any individual at any time, even if they personally observe a crime in progress. Third, It’s none of your blankety blank business why I want to carry a weapon.

  • Wumingren

    “To be arrested and charged under that provision, however, a licensed gun owner would have to be given notice of the law by an officer and subsequently fail to leave the no-carry zone.”

    Will there be any limit to the number of times one is notified to leave certain areas before one is arrested? If one were to be sent from one zone to another and end up with piled on notices, will that constitute reason for one’s arrest? I just don’t trust the justice system anymore. Somewhere in the process will be provisions for tripping up the otherwise honest, law-abiding citizen.

  • CYNICALZ

    In the era of governmental decay, know of nothing out of DC that gives credit to sanity. Would not give any one of them a gun. Either you protect yourself or you do not. Other wise, check your guns at the door.

  • aurora9

    A good ploy to find out who the gun owners are!

  • Original Rebel

    Typical! These lawmakers don’t pass laws – they pass LOOPHOLES!

  • 1S-1K

    Are they going to check all the criminals carrying illegal firearms? No? I didn’t think so! To much work! There will still be more criminals carrying weapons than honest card carrying citizens.