Author Topic: USA Today Article on Carry Permit Increases (Read 4107 times)

Cathy1911 · « **on:** August 04, 2009, 12:31:37 PM »

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-03-guns_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Just don't make the mistake I did and read through the comments while eating. ::bleah::

armed and humorous · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2009, 12:55:29 PM »

Maybe I'm all wet, but I think anyone who rushes out to get a concealed carry permit because they fear more gun control is nuts. If I really thought the feds were going to come and take my guns, I sure wouldn't want them to know I had one in my shorts. I'd want as many unregistered guns as I could hide somewhere. Now, as for crime, that may be another story as far as CHP.

wwhuskerman · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2009, 05:37:11 PM »

Quote from: armed and humorous on August 04, 2009, 12:55:29 PM

Maybe I'm all wet, but I think anyone who rushes out to get a concealed carry permit because they fear more gun control is nuts. If I really thought the feds were going to come and take my guns, I sure wouldn't want them to know I had one in my shorts.

I was thinking about a CHP for a long time, and yes, the last election was a key in my decision to do so. Beyond the other reasons I was thinking of getting one, I saw it as a "pre-emptive" measure against the likelihood of increase gun regulation. Something along the lines of "I'm getting it while I can." I've talked to a number of "gun department" folks at the big stores, and at the small shops, and that phrase is one of the most common reasons they hear from people purchasing firearms.

I have no doubt that our Dear Leader's minions would love to disarm the public, but barring a national emergency that "requires" everyone to turn in their arms (see: New Orleans gun owners after Katrina on a national level), they will have to do it in stages.

Stage 1: If they get ahold of healthcare, get ready for, "oh, you want to buy a gun? Well, you know that falls under the government's "dangerous activities list" that drives up healthcare costs, so the 40% tax will apply." (Seriously folks, they get ahold of healthcare and IT'S OVER.)

Stage 2: "Hey, guys... we're still having crimes involving guns, so yea... those of you who have guns and conceal carry permits can keep them... we're just not allowing any new ones", the hope being that will placate many people with a "well, I've got mine, better not stir the pot..." mindset.

Stage 3: "Well, crime just hasn't decreased like we thought it would... um, adds to healthcare costs, yea, that too... so yea, we're going to be needing all those "assault" rifles... then handguns, etc.

Oh, you'll still have your "hunting guns." That is... if they qualify as "hunting guns" (watch gun companies' contributions to the new "Firearms Regulations Committee" skyrocket to make sure THEIR gun is a "qualified by the government" hunting rifle.) And you'll have that 40% tax on your guns. And your ammo. And your licenses. And your accessories. ANNUALLY. Oh I know it sounds like a pain, but the IRS's new Form 93843 Gun Ownership form will make it easy.

Sorry if I sound like a conspiracy nut headed for the cabin in Montana, but if you asked most people five years ago... hell, last year, if the government could, in the span of a few months, take over the auto industry, start bills in the Senate instead of the constitutionally-mandated House (stimulus bill), create trillions in new debt, nationalize healthcare, change the 2nd Amendment balance of the Supreme Court, etc... most of 'em would've laughed and said "your a conspiracy nut, better move to Montana."

Seriously... I'm just spewing this off the top of my head... but I'll bet every one of these scenarios has been discussed at higher levels of government than I'd like to believe.

<puts tinfoil hat back on, returns to buying gold and canned goods>

armed and humorous · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2009, 06:10:42 PM »

I guess your argument of "getting it while I can" makes sense. The reason that didn't really occur to me is that I'm thinking if they do away with CHP, they're not going to grandfather anyone in, but instead, stop it for everyone. I'll concede it is possible your scenario could come into play. I can't help but keep thinking that, if we (gun owners/2A supporters) are really as strong as we think we are, we just need to keep on top of things and make sure gun-control goes back where it came from (liberal a**holes). If we're already in the minority, I'm glad I won't be around long enough to see what happens to the country once the liberals get their way. If I'm not already dead, I'll still have a gun I can shoot myself with!

Randy · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2009, 06:58:58 PM »

We Pro Second Amendment supporters may very well already be in the minority. Living in the Midwest as we do and away from the overcrowded afraid to look people in the eye coastal regions, we are somewhat cocooned from the political left wing. If the liberals get there way it very well may be very soon. While I hope that day never happens I fear for my child and grandchild as to what may lie ahead for them. Thus I will fight the good fight as long as I can. Why shoot yourself when this is what the liberals would cherish for one to do thus supporting their reasoning. Save that bullet for more useful means. You may need to melt it for a fishing sinker or some other creative reason.

SBarry · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2009, 07:02:44 PM »

Many hunters (fudds) think their 30-06 or 270 hunting rifle will be exempt from a future gun control bill. What they fail to realize is that "Sniper Rifles" will come right after the assault weapons confiscation, pray to God that never happens.

The "DC Snipers" stirred the pot on taking away any weapon that can kill over 100 yards, what does that make your 30-06? That is why it is so very important to not let them get any more bills passed to take away or limit anything to do with assault weapons.

The 50 BMG is thought to be the first thing on the anti's list to ban, because it can penetrate armor, acccording to them. My question is, Why are they worried about a gun that can penetrate armor, unless there are plans to send armored vehicles out to confiscate your local gun nut's cashe.

The official stance of NFOA is, "No compromise on any gun bills."

LitlRat

armed and humorous · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:22:56 PM »

With all due respect, LitlRat, and with gratitude that you are a level 5 benefactor member, I question your statement that "No compromise on any gun bills" is the official stance of the NFOA. Where does it say that? Has that been voted on at some point before I became a member? If that question were to come up for a vote, the NFOA may well go along with you, if they haven't already (I was unable to find anything in the bylaws or the forum supporting that statement). However, if that's not the case, then your statement is just your opinion, right?

I'm only asking a question here, so don't get your undies in a knot!

huskergun · « **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:31:39 PM »

Quote from: LitlRat on August 05, 2009, 07:02:44 PM

The official stance of NFOA is, "No compromise on any gun bills."

LitlRat

Works for me.

SBarry · « **Reply #8 on:** August 05, 2009, 10:19:18 PM »

Quote from: armed and humorous on August 05, 2009, 09:22:56 PM

With all due respect, LitlRat, and with gratitude that you are a level 5 benefactor member, I question your statement that "No compromise on any gun bills" is the official stance of the NFOA. Where does it say that? Has that been voted on at some point before I became a member? If that question were to come up for a vote, the NFOA may well go along with you, if they haven't already (I was unable to find anything in the bylaws or the forum supporting that statement). However, if that's not the case, then your statement is just your opinion, right?

I'm only asking a question here, so don't get your undies in a knot!

Don't worry, I don't wear any

And yes, that is my opinion, but also an opinion shared by a lot of members. And we do not compromise! I think it should be our official slogan.

And as far as the level five thing, easiest decision that I have made in a long time. Much wiser than sending $35 to the NRA to waffle on our 2nd amendment stance.

armed and humorous · « **Reply #9 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:01:55 PM »

Okay, LitlRat, thanks for clarifying that. I'm certainly not going to say you, or huskergun, or anyone else, is wrong to stand up for what they believe is right. Let me ask you another question, though. If you had to choose between having all guns made illegal and confiscated (which according to a lot of you is the goal of the antis), or keeping your hunting/target rifles/shotguns and handguns but with some limitations (such as magazine sizes, no full auto, registration, etc.), what would you choose? Let's say hypothetically, at least, that you have no other options outside of anarchy, succession, or armed revolution. (This would pretty much be the case if you and I and the others in groups such as ours couldn't muster the votes to get our way.)

Just something for you to ponder.

OnTheFly · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:47:23 PM »

Back to the original topic...CCP applications are on the increase.

Armed and humorous: You ask what sense it makes for people to rush out to get their CHP when it only provides a list for the government. One benefit to this behavior is a result of what you argue to be a negative. That is a government maintained list. While the public does not see the names of the CHP holders, they can get the number of permits issued. The higher the number of permits per capita, the larger the perceived influence on the election outcomes. Said another way, there is safety in numbers. It is just another way to let the politicians know there is a high number of us who cherish our 2A rights.

Fly

Randy · « **Reply #11 on:** August 06, 2009, 01:16:18 AM »

Fly, well put.

This year on LB145 a Unicameral Bill to prevent CCW on Universities the NRA went on record as Neutral while the NFOA went on record as an Opponent.

Please everyone be respectful of each other and choose your words and quotes carefully.
For the record the NFOA By-Laws:
ARTICLE II
Mission Statement / Purpose
"The mission of the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association is to provide a consistent and unified voice for Nebraska firearm owners.

"NFOA is organized for the purpose of voicing the opinion of its membership to the Nebraska Legislature and other law making bodies within the state as well as Federal level, as it pertains to firearms. NFOA members will also make it a priority to educate residents on firearms related issues.

armed and humorous · « **Reply #12 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:00:27 AM »

There is something to your point, too, Fly. I agree, the more of us there are, the more influence we will have. My original comment on this topic stemmed from this quote in the article: They also say they fear gun control, he says. Last week, Boydston spoke with an elderly couple seeking a permit. "They are positive the president is on the verge of coming to our homes and taking our weapons," he says. That was the basis for my statement. If you were positive they were going to confiscate people's guns, you wouldn't want them to know you had one if you could help it.

Yes, there are other reasons for more people applying for CHP that do make sense. I didn't mean to say there were no good reasons, just that the quoted reason didn't make sense. I try to look at things from every angle, and sometimes I miss one or two. That is one of the advantages of forums and reading others comments. It gives you new perspectives. Also why I question and offer alternatives to some of your comments (not you personally, but the group). Sometimes I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

In that regard, there may be a couple of downsides to rushing out to get a CHP. First, there have been cases where the names of permit holders have been leaked. Second, as the general public recognizes the increase in our numbers, it could causes greater alarm among the antis triggering even more attacks on our 2A rights.

OnTheFly · « **Reply #13 on:** August 06, 2009, 09:54:38 AM »

A & H,

I guess the dividing line between our points lies with what is meant by the statement

Quote

"They are positive the president is on the verge of coming to our homes and taking our weapons,"

At face value it would mean that it is a done deal and the government is literally coming in the near future to take the guns. In this case, no, do not let the government know who you are. Or, from my perspective, we are getting dangerously close to this and immediate action is required to prevent it.

As far as numbers go. They can always be used to sway people in whatever direction desired. From our pro 2A vantage point, if we can make those who are sitting on the fence aware of the increase in CHPs issued without a correlated increase in crimes/violence, we may be able to win some of them over to our way of thinking. At the very least it will make them doubt the reasoning from the other side.

Fly

armed and humorous · « **Reply #14 on:** August 06, 2009, 11:02:27 AM »

I would tend to agree that the more aware politicians are of our presence, the more influence we would have on them. I also agree that it is important to sway the fence sitters to our position. That is why I think it is wise to avoid extreme, give no ground, attitudes. It's not that I don't want totally uninfringed 2A rights, but more that I don't expect that will ever happen. There's not much point in holding out for something that is futile when we can perhaps gain some ground with a slightly more cooperative stance. I know, many of you in the NFOA are hardliners when it comes to compromise, and I'm not suggesting we give more ground, only that we don't appear to the rest of society like some kind of extremist cult, which would turn more people against us.
I watched a video someone here linked to recently. I'm not sure who was behind it, but it featured the Texas lady who lost her folks in a mass shooting at a restaurant. It was well done (the videok, not the shooting), but I think a bit unrealistic when it came to the aspect of total uninfringed 2A rights. Yes, the forefathers probably meant exactly what they said, "uninfringed". However, arms at that time were rather limited in their effectiveness, and one man with a gun was not a great threat to public safety when most everyone else had a similar gun. Now, with modern weapons, one man can create a real tradgedy in seconds, before anyone could stop him. We're not going to see private ownership of nuclear weapons, Apache helicopters equipped with miniguns, or M1A1 tanks no matter how much any of us might like to have them. There are going to be restrictions. Our job, as I see it, is to do the best we can to keep them "reasonable".

I hope that any member of NFOA who speaks to the public keeps in mind that he/she represents the group and does not make statements of personal opinion while claiming them as those of the NFOA without consent of the rest of the group. The official spokesperson for us is the president or his appointed boardmember(s), not rank and file members. Speak all you want, and any way you want as an idividual.

huskergun · « **Reply #15 on:** August 06, 2009, 07:50:33 PM »

huskergun · « **Reply #16 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:23:16 PM »

A and H,
My thoughts......
I don't even know where to start...
I believe that the President is the voice of the NFOA however the people who are the members are the policy makers....According to the bylaws.
You believe that "extreme, give no ground attitudes" should be avoided. I believe that attitudes of those who would give up thier rights such as you continue to do by saying we should give in to gain ( which you have insinuated many times on differant areas of this forum over and over) should be avoided.... That attitude still confuses the hell out of me. Please don't explain it .
Anyway, moving on..... I know of NO ONE here on this site that is or has promoted any "extreme cult" behavior. But, if standing up for what our founders (people smarter than you and me) wanted is extreme then I'll wear that badge with honor. Not the cult part.
Here are my final thoughts. Your last two posts spoke volumes to me. The things you talk about are some of the same things that those on the anti side have used to try to scare people over and over again. It's tiring.

When I contact the lawmakers that represent me and the voters of Nebraska I will tell them that I am a proud member of the NFOA along with the NRA.
Oh, The whole devils advocate thing is getting a little old.
I'm done. More important things to do than get sucked up in this again with you.
Later

armed and humorous · « **Reply #17 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:35:27 PM »

Huskergun and anyone else who thinks I am with the antis:

I won't bother trying to explain anything to you any more. Consider yourself the winner(s) if you like. I have better things to do to.

SBarry · « **Reply #18 on:** August 06, 2009, 09:11:59 PM »

Contrary to what some believe, I am more than the average member. I have personaly spoken to more NFOA members than anyone. I know how they feel, what they want to see out of our organization, and how they are scared of losing their guns. I can speak for over 400 members, because they have talked to me and expressed their concerns. And the overwhelming majority have the opinion that we should not compromise any more.

The average member signs up, and does not do any more than that. By signing up and letting me know what their concerns are, they have let me have their voice, because when I ask them to sign up, I say "Let the NFOA have your voice, let us speak for you when we talk to politicians."

Most are fed up with the NRA and their "Compromise your rights away" stance, and I tell them, "We don't compromise, we shouldn't have to." Some of our senators compromise, but those who listen to us know where we stand. We are damn lucky we have a few who believe as we do.

Armed and Humorous, I do not take offense to anything you have said, and don't think you are an anti. It is good you are here, you have livened up the boards, and it is good to see another opinion once in a while. We represent all guns owners in Nebraska, whether they own an AK47 or a cap and ball Colt, if they will let us.

DanClrk51 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 08, 2009, 09:33:06 AM »

Quote from: LitlRat on August 06, 2009, 09:11:59 PM

I know how they feel, what they want to see out of our organization, and how they are scared of losing their guns. I can speak for over 400 members, because they have talked to me and expressed their concerns. And the overwhelming majority have the opinion that we should not compromise any more.

Most are fed up with the NRA and their "Compromise your rights away" stance, and I tell them, "We don't compromise, we shouldn't have to."

I agree!!! I'm sick of compromise, compromising is what keeps getting our rights taken away bit by bit and more restrictions placed on those rights. I don't care if our goal of an unlimited 2A is likely to happen or not. I want NFOA unlike the NRA (which I am still a member of because they do do alot for the 2A) to fight ANY and ALL rules, policies, ordinances, and laws regulating firearms. The 2A says "A well regulated militia" not "well regulated arms"!