Conceal Carry (copy) (copy)

A brief filed by Maryland Shall Issue, a gun rights organization, argues that the state’s gun laws are unconstitutional and have been superseded by other case precedents.

ANNAPOLIS — A bill to eliminate the state’s Handgun Permit Review Board was scrutinized on Tuesday by House lawmakers who pressed for evidence that the board acted improperly when it routinely overturned Maryland State Police decisions.

Sen. Pamela Beidle (D-Anne Arundel) introduced the bill late this session to move all concealed handgun permit appeals from the governor-appointed handgun review board to the Office of Administrative Hearings, after the Senate Executive Nominations Committee repeatedly questioned the board’s record in 2018 of overturning some, or all, of the state police’s decisions 82% of the time upon appeal.

Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee, however, pressed for evidence that the board was acting improperly when it overturned the state police’s decisions.

“Do you have any record of any crime that got committed by somebody that has a permit?” Del. Jesse Pippy (R-Frederick and Carroll) asked Beidle.

Beidle said no one was tracking whether a person who appealed a concealed handgun permit or the restrictions attached to the permit then committed a crime. She also pushed back that the committee should not wait for a crime to be committed before changing the process.

“They’re actually being too liberal in their decisions,” Beidle said of the board.

It was Del. Dan Cox (R-Frederick and Carroll), however, who pushed the hardest against Beidle’s assessment that the Handgun Permit Review Board was overturning decisions too often. Without data to back up the idea that the board’s decisions were incorrect, her claim was baseless, he said in an interview afterward.

Figures do show, however, that the board’s rate of overturning the Maryland State Police’s decisions has grown in recent years, Beidle said. In 2017, the board overturned — in part or completely — 54% of the police’s decisions, and by 2018, it was overturning 82% of them.

Administrative law judges would be better prepared to review the appeals, she said later. The Office of Administrative Hearings also currently has 40 judges, who are prepared to hear a backlog of 367 appeals.

Cox pointed out, however, that the state police are involved in the training of the administrative law judges.

The state police share information with the judges at the Office of Administrative Hearings on their procedures in processing and investigating handgun carry permits. Its most recent presentation was in January, said Greg Shipley, Maryland State Police director of communications.

Del. Susan McComas (R-Harford), who has served on the Judiciary Committee since 2003, also questioned whether the Legislature had given the current process enough time to work. Although the Handgun Permit Review Board has been in existence since the 1970s, a second layer of appeal to the Office of Administrative Hearings was only added last session and went into effect on Oct. 1, 2018.

“What I see is that you’ve jumped the gun here and not let the process work itself out,” McComas said.

Beyond moving the appeals process to a new office, some lawmakers were also concerned that citizen oversight was being cut out of the appeals process by eliminating the Handgun Permit Review Board.

“Having a bipartisan, citizen oversight board that is hearing all angles and looking holistically at a case is a more transparent and open process than government workers rubber-stamping an appeals process,” Pippy said.

In an interview after the hearing, Beidle said she felt the committee was “disrespectful” to her, and she was surprised that the chairman allowed some of the questions to continue.

The committee began to consider a vote on the bill on Tuesday, but delayed its decision by a day — at the request of a member — so it could compare the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The Senate version is an emergency bill, which would take effect immediately.

Chairman Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore City) said before the hearing that it was his intent to hold a vote.

“We have seven days to go. Yes, we’re going to vote on it before the end of session,” Clippinger said.

Follow Samantha Hogan on Twitter: @SAHogan.

Samantha Hogan is the state house, environment, agriculture and energy reporter for The Frederick News-Post.

(55) comments

pappyjoe

Guns don`t kill people, people kill people. Our courts poor sentencing guidelines are part of killing people. Tighten-up the guidelines by not housing them for short periods of time. When a gun is used by someone not in self-defense but by means of hatred in killing, firing squad. Force all criminals incarcerated in all prisons, short stays in local jails to watch on TV what happens when a person is killed by hatred with a gun instead of self-defense. Prison population is overloaded presently by un-exceptable sentencing guideline is 1 reason. The "that`s inhuman" using an electric chair, firing squad and hanging went to a lolly by shot in the arm. Nationwide coverage in prisons/jails having prisoners observe what happens when you do this plus not 30 years from the time of sentencing but the next day, will plant a seed in their criminal minds.

phydeaux994

Why does the average citizen like you guys/gals wanting to carry a concealed weapon all the time need to carry a concealed weapon all the time?? Do you attract robbers more than a citizen who does not carry a concealed weapon all the time?? Do you hang out or walk around in high crime areas in the middle of the night alone?? What exactly is the origin of this obsession to carry a concealed weapon every time you leave your home?? It’s kind of weird!!

DickD

[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

gabrielshorn2013

Nobody here that I can see has made such an argument phy. You are setting up a straw man that you then call weird. I have no reason to carry every day, but there are times, such as when I have to travel to Baltimore on business, where I would feel more comfortable armed. I have provided links previously to stories where a firearm saved someone's life. Several were people with concealed carry permits.

DickD

Well, Gabe, you are the one that insists you need a concealed gun. I think phy is exactly right!

gabrielshorn2013

Please show me Dick where I have ever said I wanted to carry every day. Never did. So no Dick, phy and you are exactly wrong.

gabrielshorn2013

Phy, since you don't know me, please do not presume what I give a rat's but about. As I explained to Dick below, when he insisted that less guns equals less shootings, his prima facie argument makes sense, as does less swimming pools equals less drownings, and less food equals less obesity. The arguments are reduced to absurdity. What it should be is less criminals with guns equals less criminals shooting their victims. We just disagree how to get there. You say get rid of guns, and I say get rid of the criminal using guns in their crimes. Put them away for the full extent of Federal law. No plea bargains, and no concurrent sentences. No repeat offenders on the street to shoot someone else. Richmond VA did this years age with Project Exile. Criminals using firearms spent their entire Federal prison on the other side of the country. Shootings and murders with firearms dropped by 30 percent.

Comment deleted.
phydeaux994

I’m 78. Got my first gun, .22/.410 over/under for Christmas when I was 12. I have owned guns all my life, handed down from my Grandad/Dad/Me/Son. Only a .20 ga Remington Junior shotgun for home defense now. Never a hand gun. I am against millions of anonymous, illegal guns that anyone of any age can possess for any purpose, mostly by illegal people (criminals). Especially kids, most of whom aren’t criminals until they have a gun. About 40% of gun violence, murder, maiming, robbing, threatening, is committed buy underage persons. Making every gun have a person responsible to answer for its use, or misuse, would help reduce gun violence. And the NRA refuses to acknowledge that. Hence, they don’t give a rat’s butt about the lives lost or ruined by gun violence. And neither do you or gab or those against reasonable gun control that does not effect your Rights under the 2A.

Comment deleted.
Hayduke2

So rikki, explain why we have so many issues here that other countries do not have. Guess your argument doesn't hold water.

DickD

Study showing more guns equals more murders.https://www.nber.org/papers/w7967NBER Working Paper No. 7967Issued in October 2000NBER Program(s):Public Economics This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain at least one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity.

gabrielshorn2013

The National Bureau for Economic Research says link is invalid Dick. Try this one:

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/

DickD

If gun owners are not being careful to keep their guns from criminals, they too should be prosecuted.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-sales-how-dangerous-people-get-weapons/ Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage obtained them by direct purchase from a store. To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified. Anyone providing the gun in such transactions would be culpable if he or she had reason to know that the buyer was disqualified, was acting as a straw purchaser or if had violated state regulations pertaining to such private transactions. A transaction can be illegal for several reasons, but of particular interest are transactions that involve disqualified individuals – those banned from purchase or possession due to criminal record, age, adjudicated mental illness, illegal alien status or some other reason. Convicted felons, teenagers and other people who are legally barred from possession would ordinarily be blocked from purchasing a gun from a gun store because they would fail the background check or lack the permit or license required by some states. The importance of the informal (undocumented) market in supplying criminals is suggested by the results of inmate surveys and data gleaned from guns confiscated by the police. A national survey of inmates of state prisons found that just 10 percent of youthful (age 18-40) male respondents who admitted to having a gun at the time of their arrest had obtained it from a gun store. The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members.

gabrielshorn2013

Agreed Dick. All but one of mine are in a 750+ lb. safe. The other is in a safe that can only be opened with my fingerprint. I guess a burglar can always rent a crane or cut my fingers off.

DickD

Court of law, should never be unreasonable, Gabe.

gabrielshorn2013

Not sure of what you are trying to say here Dick. I told you, my firearms are safely stored from theft, as are those of all the people I know. Are yours in a safe?

DickD

And I am saying that is reasonable storage, Gabe.

DickD

More guns equals more crime!http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-more-guns-less-crime-3-0/ Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council  (NRC), concluded that “with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — there are many more cataloging the numerous ways in whichLott has erred.

jgrose79

Beidel’s statement that they can’t wait to remove the review board until there is blood on the floor was one of the most ignorant statements I have heard in a while. One thing Beidel failed to acknowledge is the fact that MSP has revoked hundreds of permits which we already granted previously. I have the data on this from MSP through a PIA request. Apparently, the democrats are so inept that they cannot take the time to investigate the issue further to see what many leaders in the 2A community have been researching and gathering for years. Maryland has only 54,000+ Wear and Carry permits in a state with 6,000,000 citizens. I have those statistics via PIA request as well. Maryland also has approved 4,000 or so permits, that doesn’t mean they are new permits. It’s mostly renewals already on the system. Overturning MSP on permits that are in question by the applicants is not a huge number. Think about this, they are trying to throw out a 82%figure to make you think that the board is overturning 82% of the MSP denials and restrictions. Only 360 people in one year out of 4,000+ renewals have applied for an appeal hearing to discuss their issues with their permits. This is not a valid way of arguing against such a board by using huge percentage figures, but not telling people what it is a portion of. Pathetic yet again!
The hypocrisy is alarming, but not unusual with democrats. In one statement they claim that, “We need citizen oversight into police actions due to unfair treatment of minorities and Maryland’s citizens.”. In another statement made by Beidel and other democrats including the Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, they claim that, “MSP does a great job and should be trusted that they are always making the correct decision on these wear and carry permits, so no citizen oversight is needed.”
These fools believe that the OAH will accommodate the citizens request for a fair review of their appeal. Yet time and time again when MSP has appealed the handgun review board’s decisions, the courts have required the applicant to prove their need rather than MSP having the requirement to provide evidence as to why an applicant shouldn’t have had their restrictions removed or permit granted.” That isn’t how the courts are supposed to work. The petitioner, MSP, who filed the appeal should have the burden of providing information for their reason of appeal. Maryland is a joke!

DickD

More guns, more opportunity for criminals to get guns.https://www.guns.com/news/2019/01/15/doj-survey-most-armed-criminals-dont-get-their-firearms-from-gun-shows-stores "The survey of prison inmates in state and federal facilities found that, while a third had guns during their crime, most got them in places other than gun stores. (Photo: U.S. Bureau of Prisons)A survey released this month by the U.S. Department of Justice found that the vast majority of gun-armed criminals serving time obtained their guns on the street or via other means.The nationwide survey of 1.37 million inmates at the state and federal level, conducted in 2016, found that about a third said they possessed or carried a firearm while committing their crime. Of those 256,400 prisoners, some 43 percent said they obtained their guns from illicit “street” sources such as other criminals, often by bartering stolen goods or drugs. The next leading source, about 25 percent, came as gifts or purchases from friends or family members. About 6 percent were able to receive their guns through theft.When it came to retail sources such as gun shows, flea markets, firearm stores, and pawn shops, only about 10 percent said they were able to obtain their weapons from such outlets through purchases or trades. Of those, the majority reported that a background check was conducted as part of the sale, although in many cases they did not purchase it under their own name.In all, only about 1 percent of prisoners who used a firearm during their crime had obtained it through a retail sale."

gabrielshorn2013

Thank you Dick! We have been saying that all along! Criminals obtain their firearms through illegal means a vast majority of the time.[[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

DickD

Yes, but the point I am making is the more guns, the more guns criminals will have, Gabe.

pappyjoe

Dick any person that has been a Maryland citizen all their lives with a spotless record mentally/lawfully which see`s a criminal uprising in their city, town and or neighborhood should be approved on the spot. Mine you that slip of paper does`t mean squat to a upstanding citizen just more comfortable.

DickD

FBI statistics show more guns cause more deaths and not vigilante justice that the NRA touts.https://thinkprogress.org/more-guns-mean-more-crime-37ae003e8bb5/ More guns mean more crime.This statement seems as obvious as “more eggs mean more omelets” or “more cars mean more traffic.” And yet the claim that deadly weapons can help combat crime gets trotted out every time a tragedy similar to the one that just occurred in Las Vegas plays out.“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre claimed in 2012. After a mass shooting at a community college in 2015, Donald Trump claimed that “if you had a couple of the teachers or somebody with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off.”The circumstances of the Las Vegas shooting make it very difficult to argue that events would have played out differently if only a vigilante hero had used a concealed firearm to take out the killer. Police say that a lone gunman opened fire on a large crowd attending a music festival from his 32nd floor hotel room. By the time SWAT teams arrived at the room, police say that the shooter had already committed suicide.Nevertheless, even if LaPierre’s “good guy with a gun” may occasionally be able to stop a mass shooter in the middle of a killing spree, the reality still remains that more guns equal more crime — and more deaths.To understand why, consider the following FBI data, which lists the number of gun-related murders each year from 2010-14 by the type of weapon used.In 2014, there were 6,165 gun murders where the type of gun used to commit the crime is known. Of those murders, over 90 percent were committed by a handgun. This pattern is fairly consistent over the course of many years. Between 2001-05, for example, approximately 47,500 people in the United States were murdered by guns. Almost 8 in 10 of those murders were committed with a handgun.The reason why handguns are so frequently used to murder people is because, as sociologist Jennifer Schwartz explains, nearly half of all homicides are “preceded by some sort of argument or fight, such as a conflict over money or property, anger over one partner cheating on another, severe punishment of a child or abuse of a partner, retaliation for an earlier dispute, or a drunken fight over an insult or other affront.” Handguns, which are common, small, and easy to conceal, allow these disagreements to escalate into deadly violence.On the other hand, mass shootings in public places that randomly target civilians are fairly rare events. According to a paper by conservative law professor Josh Blackman, only “roughly .1% of deaths from gunfire take place during a mass shooting (defined as 4 or more deaths in a single event).”Even if you agree with LaPierre that a vigilante gun owner can sometimes end a mass killing, such killings are very rare. Arguments, by contrast, are extremely common. There simply aren’t that many opportunities for a gun owner to play hero, but there are many opportunities for them to be overcome by a fit of rage.The intellectual basis for the myth that guns prevent crime can be traced back to a book, appropriately titled More Guns, Less Crime, by economist John Lott. But Lott is the sort of figure who, if he wasn’t useful to a powerful lobby group, would almost certainly be a discredited punchline. Lott, for example, justifies some of the claims in his book by pointing to “national surveys” that he claims to have conducted himself. As ThinkProgress has previously reported, there is good reason to doubt whether this survey data even exists.Yet, when Lott was asked to produce his data, he claimed that it was lost in a hard drive crash. Nor, according to UCLA law professor Adam Winkler’s book Gunfight, could Lott name the research assistants who supposedly helped conduct the survey. Lott couldn’t produce the questions the survey supposedly asked. Or name the funder who paid for his survey. Or even produce phone records indicating that the survey calls had taken place.Lott bases much of his conclusions on the fact that Florida saw a drop in gun violence after it enacted a permissive carry law. Yet Florida also enacted gun regulations such as background checks and waiting periods a few years later. So this drop could just as easily be attributed to gun restrictions as it could to more permissive gun laws.Elsewhere in his research, Lott compared gun violence trends in conservative states like Idaho and West Virginia to trends in places like Washington, D.C. and New York City, and found that urban areas with strict gun laws were more likely to have a spike in violence. The problem is that he made this comparison during a period when cities saw an increase in violence for reasons quite unrelated to gun laws.As sociologist Ted Goertzel explains, “What actually happened was that there was an explosion of crack-related homicides in major eastern cities in the 1980s and early 1990s. Lott’s whole argument came down to a claim that the largely rural and western ‘shall issue’ states were spared the crack-related homicide epidemic because of their ‘shall issue’ laws.”  

gabrielshorn2013

Were these concealed weapons Dick? After all, that is the topic at hand. Can we stick to it? People with CCW licenses have a far lower rate of criminal activity than the general population. After all, they have been thoroughly vetted by the State Police, and fingerprinted. Will you agree to that?

DickD

Guns are guns, Gabe, the fewer, the safer everyone is.

gabrielshorn2013

Not necessarily. I have provided many links over time where a firearm has saved a life. Should those people’s lives be sacrificed to achieve the goal of reducing the number of guns? Doesn’t seem fair to them.

DickD

There are a few times that you would be right, Gabe, but the times that you would be wrong are far greater.

phydeaux994

What DickD said above gab. That is the bottom line. Less (illegal) guns, less gun violence. I have no problem with legal guns. Buy as many as you can afford. But put your name on the books that you are responsible for securing them and controlling their use. And reasonable gun control is required to achieve that. Look to Canada. Their gun laws would pass 2A Rights I believe. Start there.

DickD

If the committee was routinely over turning the State Police, it's obvious that they should be removed. We don't need more guns on the streets.

gabrielshorn2013

Those that applied have a need to carry, and tried to do it legally, Dick. How many murders have been committed by CCW holders? Hint...none. However, the criminals will still carry without the license because they're criminals. How many criminals with illegal guns shoot others and commit murder? Those numbers are readily available.

DickD

Same old tired argument, Gabe.

gabrielshorn2013

So dispute it then Dick. Facts are facts. CCW holders are not involved in crimes. They have been thoroughly vetted and fingerprinted by the State Police.

DickD

Gabe, the problem is gun owners allow their guns to be stolen and some make straw purchases for those that cannot legally purchase a gun. And the proof is there that the more guns, the more crime.

gabrielshorn2013

What does this have to do with the concealed carry permit Dick? Those that apply already have the firearm.

Samanthapowers

horn - you a lawyer?

gabrielshorn2013

Are you Sam?

Samanthapowers

Heck no. You?

gabrielshorn2013

Red herring Sam.

gabrielshorn2013

What question is that Sam? If you are asking about my being a lawyer, it is irrelevant to the discussion, and what I do for a living is really none of your business now is it?

User1

Hell, these carrying criminals don’t even have a HQL to own a gun! They are the last ones to give a d**m! And the liberal judges in Maryland just let them off in Maryland when they are arrested for armed robbery or attempted murder. Makes perfect sense but what can you expect in Marylinistan!

DickD

Liberal judges, User? Do you want to be prosecuted if a gun you own is stolen and used in a murder? It is a .possibility.

Stanford study shows states with RTC experience higher rates of violent crime than states where other laws have been adopted. https://medium.com/@RVAwonk/more-guns-more-crime-f461e11c6d2Examining four decades of crime data, a team of Stanford researchers found that states that have enacted so-called ‘right to carry’ (RTC) concealed handgun laws experience higher rates of violent crime than states where these laws have not been adopted. The findings are among the most powerful evidence in a growing line of research refuting the claim that arming more citizens enhances public safety.“There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Stanford Law Professor John Donohue and colleagues concluded in the new study.RTC laws, also known as ‘shall issue’ laws, lower the bar to qualify for a concealed carry license by requiring states to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who meets basic criteria for gun ownership. As a result, states that adopt RTC laws grant concealed carry permits at higher rates than states where more discretion is used (“may issue” states) and thus have greater numbers of armed citizens.If, as groups like the National Rifle Association argue, higher rates of gun ownership really do reduce crime, we would expect to see lower crime rates in states with RTC laws, where more residents carry guns. But that’s not what the evidence shows. In fact, as this latest study found, the evidence suggests that just the opposite is true.

Hayduke2

Gabe - out of the 17,000+ permits in MD, how many of the CCW holders have used their weapons for protection? How many of those denied initially had an issue?

gabrielshorn2013

Hay, define "used their weapons for protection." Do you mean killing someone attacking them" Aiming their weapon at their attacker? Or merely showing or brandishing their weapon, thus causing their threat to think again about attacking? Since MD is a "may issue" state, they must have thought they had a valid reason.

Hayduke2

Etiher - just looking for data...

gabrielshorn2013

Hay, I was just searching myself, and ran across this. Lots of annotated statements.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/

gabrielshorn2013

Here is another annotated reference hay:

https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/

User1

Really Dick? These are responsiple guns owners applying for a CC....THEY ALREADY OWN A GUN!!! The licensing section arbitrarily put restrictions on permits that have been declared unconstitutional in other states. These restrictions include carrying large sums of money, being threatened with bodily harm, working armed security among others. And again....absolutely NO statistics on anyone overturned by the board committing a crime. Just another attempted infringement by a know nothing Dimocrat!

DickD

What you gun fanatics fail to understand is the more guns on the street, the more likely criminals will get guns.
10 to 15% of illegal guns are stolen, most of the rest are purchased from a straw man - someone with a legal right to buy a gun and then transfers the gun to a criminal.https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Asymmetrical

The solution to that problem is to criminally punish those who purchase a gun legally and sell or transfer them to those committing crimes. It would be easy to do because all guns have a serial number allowing them to be traced to the original owner. This way we would not be penalizing honest, law abiding Marylanders who have a right to self-defense.

DickD

That would be a good solution, As, if the serial number is not removed. Doesn't it seem anyone buying a gun to resell for someone that could not legally get one would want to remove that serial number?

gabrielshorn2013

Dick, please read the following:

(k) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport, ship, or receive, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered or to possess or receive any firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered and has, at any time, been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

18 USC 222(k) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

You mean a criminal would violate the Federal laws and commit a felony by filing off the serial number of a firearm? I'm shocked. The penalty for being caught with such a weapon is 5 years as per 18 USC 924. Check it out.

DickD

Gabe, once a weapon is stolen the thief is not going to be concerned about crossing state lines.

gabrielshorn2013

Again, you mean that criminals don't respect the law? Shocking. They would if it was enforced to the maximum, with no plea bargains, and no concurrent time. Earn 25 years, spend 25 years in prison. BTW, the section of the law I quoted included mere possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, not just interstate transport. So the seller earns 5 years for selling it and the buyer gets 5 years for mere possession.

DickD

The point remains, the more guns the more deaths by guns and you can't get around that, Gabe.

gabrielshorn2013

Yes Dick, your prima facie argument hold water, just as less swimming pools equals less drownings, and less food equals less obesity. However, you have reduced your arguments to near absurdity. It should be less criminals with guns equals less crimes with guns. What you and I disagree on is how to get there. You say get rid of guns. I say keep the guns, but put those that abuse that right in prison for a long time. Take someone's life with a gun, forfeit your own.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!