2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: 2aHawaii on September 17, 2010, 07:11:02 AM
-
In the latest report of an HPD officer being arrested, Police Chief Kealoha revealed some interesting statistics; 5 officers are being investigated for major crimes with 17 more being investigated by the prosecutors office.
Following disclosure of Rapozo's arrest, Kealoha said five officers in a 2,000-member force are being investigated for alleged major crimes.
Kealoha added that "cases involving an additional 17 officers are with the prosecutor's office."
This leads to my point: Why is Law Enforcement the only ones trustworthy enough to carry guns?
I think that most people feel that LEOs are some magical type of being that know better than all of us and are able to do no wrong. I would love to think that were the case, but like all of us, LEOs are just human and make mistakes like all of us. Some are corrupt, some steal, some beat on prostitutes.
I don't want anybody to feel like I am against the men and women that make up our various law enforcement agencies. I am not. They are great people that serve a great purpose and do a job that many others would not like to do.
This is all to say that LEOs shouldn't be the only ones allowed to carry.
-
As Chief K said, LEO are held to a "higher standard", they are, But, in many cases, espcially here in Hawaii, when convicted, they seem to get off or get lighter sentances just because they are LEO and life for them would be short in prison......
I have met LEOs, including Gold Badge carrying federal agents with badge heavy "attitude", where because they have "the Badge" they are above the law.
So sad
Hawaii's law enforcement coalition pointedly ignores/over looks the data colleted by states that have "shall issue" CCW. The data is overwhelmingly in favour of the CCW permittees as clearly being a cut Above the rest of the general population (and some police departments) where firearms safety and being law abiding is concerned. These states were mandated to keep careful records to prove/disprove safeness of CCW permittees. Many who were against CCW in their state(s) publically apologized for being wrong on their judgement of the CCW permittee.
In many states, some LEO's owe their life to CCW permittees who stopped and "backed up" officers in danger of being killed. Criminals Know LEO have a line they can't cross as far as being shot is concerned. They also know that a private citizen backing up a LEO doesn't have that "line" and will shoot . It has been shown numerous times that if a private citizen stops and saves a LEO, they usually get called Heroes by that Dept for saving the officer's life. Any Ooops in the shooting is usually overlooked.
-
Hawaii is too liberal and left a state to accept the idea that it's citizens are trustworthy. Even if by a miracle we pass a more reasonable CCW law here, all it would take is one mishap by a citizen and you'd politicians and people demanding a complete ban on CCW.
Yes, police officers are people just like the rest of us. We all make mistakes but when a police officer is involved in a shooting there is less of an impact than if a citizen were to do so. An entire police force can't have their weapons confiscated because of a accidental shooting.
I'm not saying us as citizens shouldn't be allowed to have weapons at the ready, I've been looking at my own attempt to get a CCW but I know my chances are nil.
-
LEOs have what is called SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Research that. This is the reason why LEOs don't worry about JACKSHIT when the bust your ass, anyone elses ass, or anything else they do.
LEOs CCW because they work for the State. Because the State wants to maintain the ability to KILL anyone at any given time.
For these reasons they appear to be magical.
-
LEOs have what is called SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Research that. This is the reason why LEOs don't worry about JACKSHIT when the bust your ass, anyone elses ass, or anything else they do.
LEOs CCW because they work for the State. Because the State wants to maintain the ability to KILL anyone at any given time.
For these reasons they appear to be magical.
I have family who are police officers and I plan on joining the force as well and never did I get the sense of being "magical". Yes some local cops have an attitude but so do cops elsewhere. Let's face it, no one is going respect the officer who speaks soft and nice to the guy beating on his wife or meth-heads.
Cliche as it sounds I still believe most officers never want to draw their weapon on anyone, much less take a life. They are trained to do so but as a last resort to protect the community as well as themselves. No disrespect but your reply is just the kind of thing that makes gun owners look bad.
-
Hawaii is too liberal and left a state to accept the idea that it's citizens are trustworthy. Even if by a miracle we pass a more reasonable CCW law here, all it would take is one mishap by a citizen and you'd politicians and people demanding a complete ban on CCW.
The recent shooting of the man in Waianae is a prime example of the sometimes silly expectations of self protection and protection of others. In the report a woman complains that the police should have 'shot him in the arm or something'. :wtf:
Waianae Shooting Leaves Community Shaken (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTmXTfCk0Y8#)
That statement of the woman, and others IIRC in the Staradvertiser report (sorry couldn't find that one), dumbfounded me. Prime example of how the public is so uninformed and ignorant of the right to self protection. Good job HPD. If someone came after me or my family with a machete I'd shoot 'em dead too.
-
LEOs have what is called SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Research that. This is the reason why LEOs don't worry about JACKSHIT when the bust your ass, anyone elses ass, or anything else they do.
LEOs CCW because they work for the State. Because the State wants to maintain the ability to KILL anyone at any given time.
For these reasons they appear to be magical.
I have family who are police officers and I plan on joining the force as well and never did I get the sense of being "magical". Yes some local cops have an attitude but so do cops elsewhere. Let's face it, no one is going respect the officer who speaks soft and nice to the guy beating on his wife or meth-heads.
Cliche as it sounds I still believe most officers never want to draw their weapon on anyone, much less take a life. They are trained to do so but as a last resort to protect the community as well as themselves. No disrespect but your reply is just the kind of thing that makes gun owners look bad.
I think you misread my response. And the OP. Please go back and do these two things. Mahalo.
-
LEOs have what is called SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Research that. This is the reason why LEOs don't worry about JACKSHIT when the bust your ass, anyone elses ass, or anything else they do.
:wtf:
What world do you live in? Do you even WATCH the news? I mean seriously, cops get put on trial on a regular basis for JUSTIFIED actions, not to mention when they go off the reservation.
The State wants to maintain the ability to KILL anyone at any given time.
Are you serious? It's rejects like you that give the rest of us a REALLY bad name. Leave your anarchist BS at the door or GTFO.
- Alex
-
So you have nothing to debate me with, just name calling. Ok, are you then saying that sovereign immunity doesn't exist? Are you saying that those covered under sovereign immunity are aware of that fact?
You have provided no facts to oppose anything I said. You only argument is that I am an anarchist, from a different world, and I should GTFO.
-
tonsofguns, I think it is the way you said it and not having much of an explanation behind it. Maybe if you can explain what you meant better, we can understand.
To everyone, let's try and be civil and not give more fodder to the antis.
-
I was alittle blunt, but if anyone wants more info on that, don't take my word for it, do your own legwork. I was merely answering your question of why some people seem magical.
-
This is just My Opinion but...
I believe the law Makers are worried that if all the "locals" stated carrying guns everywhere that the turists would get scared and stop coming. I may be way off but a uniformed, badged, armed LEO is a comfort to must, but all kinds of "common" people with guns would just be scary to alot of foriegners! Do any of you agree or disagree?
-
I didn't think of that angle and now that you brought it up, I'm sure it has a lot to do with it. One of the advertisements for coming here mention the safety of Honolulu. With tourism being a major part of the economy, the higher ups are scared that loosening of restrictions will hurt that safety rating. It won't.
-
So you have nothing to debate me with, just name calling. Ok, are you then saying that sovereign immunity doesn't exist? Are you saying that those covered under sovereign immunity are aware of that fact?
You have provided no facts to oppose anything I said. You only argument is that I am an anarchist, from a different world, and I should GTFO.
I don't generally debate with people who clearly have a bone to pick with "The Man." In my experience, it is utterly worthless...much like debating with anti-gun types. If you HONESTLY believe that the reason that LEOs are authorized by the state to carry a weapon concealed while off-duty is to KILL people, then I am forced to not only question your life experiences, but also the veracity of your character. Furthermore, as YOU are the one whois making such outlandish claims, the burden of proof lies with YOU to provide evidence to support your claim. "Usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed." (1)
With that being said...
Sovereign Immunity is defined as "A doctrine precluding the institution of a suit against the sovereign [government] without its consent." (2)
The Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute (3) tells us that "Generally, the idea that the sovereign or government is immune from lawsuits or other legal actions except when it consents to them. Historically, this was an absolute doctrinal position that held Federal, state, and local governments immune from tort liability arising from the activities of government. These days, the application of sovereign immunity is much less clear-cut, as different governments have waived liability in differing degrees under differing circumstances." (Emphasis mine)
What this means is that the GOVERNMENT (or state) has traditionally been exempt from lawsuits which come as a result of the activities of said government (and, most likely, it's entities). However, as far as I know, NO WHERE does any U.S. Code exempt the PERSON from liability for their actions. On the contrary (and as I alluded to earlier) Law Enforcement Officers are often held to a HIGHER standard in a criminal and civil courts, thus they are often forced to pay damages and/or restitution to "victims" (some are legitimate, some are not) of their actions. Furthermore, the officer's city or state is often held liable for the actions of the officer, as countless lawsuits demonstrate.
To counter your point that "LEOs don't worry about JACKSHIT when the bust your ass, anyone elses ass, or anything else they do," I will refer you to Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (4)
"The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." (Emphasis mine)
Clearly, LEOs do have to worry about their actions.
I refuse to spend hours pulling up the thousands of case files on this stuff, but I will provide a recent example of both a Law Enforcement Officer being sued as well as the State. I'm sure anyone willing to research the topic further will be able to find as many other case studies as they feel is sufficient.
From The Sherwood Voice, 9 September 2010 (5)
"Rodney Burrell of Sherwood sued officers Vernon Blocker and Scott McFarland for, according to his formal complaint, 'unreasonable seizure in violation of his rights.'
The case was heard in the U.S. District Court by District Judge William Wilson.
Blocker and McFarland have together been charged $190,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, to be paid to Burrell."
From the Charleston Gazette (6):
"Matthew Leavitt, a former police officer in Montgomery who is now in federal prison, harassed and beat Twan and Lauren Reynolds, a mixed-race couple, back in September 2008, after they stopped at a 7-Eleven in Montgomery. In December 2009, the couple settled a lawsuit against the city for $500,000. Leavitt previously worked as a police officer in Cedar Grove, Madison, Smithers, Mount Hope and Gauley Bridge."
(1) Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370
(2) http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm)
(3) http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity)
(4) http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/800/case.html (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/800/case.html)
(5) http://www.nlrtimes.com/articles/2010/09/10/sherwood_voice/local_news/nws03.txt (http://www.nlrtimes.com/articles/2010/09/10/sherwood_voice/local_news/nws03.txt)
(6) http://sundaygazettemail.com/Opinion/Editorials/201009120295 (http://sundaygazettemail.com/Opinion/Editorials/201009120295)
P.S.: Please forgive my laziness in not properly formatting my references...I believe the links should be sufficient.
- Alex
-
This is just My Opinion but...
I believe the law Makers are worried that if all the "locals" stated carrying guns everywhere that the turists would get scared and stop coming. I may be way off but a uniformed, badged, armed LEO is a comfort to must, but all kinds of "common" people with guns would just be scary to alot of foriegners! Do any of you agree or disagree?
I am sure that this plays some role in their decision...how large of a role, I have no idea. However, there are many states which allow only concealed carry in public (e.g., Florida); I see no reason why Hawaii couldn't follow this route. The vast majority of tourists would be completely oblivious to the fact that there are people carrying concealed around them (just like they are oblivious to it in their home state). I can see how the state would be concerned about a bunch of people open carrying in Waikiki, that COULD potentially scare away some tourists (but I doubt it), but if everyone is carrying concealed, there would be no change in what tourists see from day-to-day.
- Alex
-
Nice rebuttal Alex. Very in-depth and informative.
I know for a fact that LEOs are always considered "on duty" and that is why they are always carrying. If that was even a question.
-
Nice indeed, informative and proved my point. You actually did all the research for us. Except you forgot to cut and paste all those court cases and articles where officers violate others constitutional rights, over step their legal boundaries, and commit crimes themselves for which punishment is abated due to sovereign immunity. If you would please post all those articles now I'm sure we would all enjoy that.
And yes, I know its shameful for a gun owner to say this, but guns are made for killing, and the State requires officers and others to carry them. Didn't always use to, but times ha ve changed. Sugar coat that any way you see fit.
-
tonsofguns, I think you are blowing it out of proportion. Many times officers can have immunity, but it is not absolute, and if they are in direct violation of a right, they can have none. Findlaw has a good article on dealing with police misconduct (http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/police-misconduct-rights.html). While it may be difficult to prove an officer violated civil rights, it is not impossible.
A good, recent example of this is the BART officer's shooting of Oscar Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant). Not only were there civil damages brought, but also criminal.
I'm sorry to hear you say that guns are made for killing. For most police officers, the gun is a tool to maintain the upper hand (mentally) and most officers will never have to use it. Just look at how many tazerings (tazings?) are happening now instead of shootings. They don't want to shoot people. That is just outlandish.
-
Nice indeed, informative and proved my point. You actually did all the research for us. Except you forgot to cut and paste all those court cases and articles where officers violate others constitutional rights, over step their legal boundaries, and commit crimes themselves for which punishment is abated due to sovereign immunity. If you would please post all those articles now I'm sure we would all enjoy that.
And yes, I know its shameful for a gun owner to say this, but guns are made for killing, and the State requires officers and others to carry them. Didn't always use to, but times ha ve changed. Sugar coat that any way you see fit.
This will be my last post on the subject, because as I said earlier, debating with people like you is an absolute waste of time. First, how exactly did my post prove your point? I clearly demonstrated (using cases that have ended in the last month) that LEOs and the state can be held liable for their actions if they do not act accordingly. If sovereign immunity applied to LEOs, then CLEARLY the two cases that I posted could not have happened (does the term legal precedent mean anything to you?). This is completely contrary to your statement that LEOs can violate the public's rights without penalty. The police (and the state) are routinely held accountable when they act out of line, anyone that watches the news with any sort of regularity knows this.
Regarding your statement about guns, LEOs carry them off-duty because, as 2aHawaii already stated, they are ALWAYS on duty. If they see a crime being committed (particularly a crime that involves serious offenses against a person), then they are going to do what they need to in order to stop it. Yes guns CAN be used to kill people, however the fact of the matter is that the people who commit crimes generally have (illegally owned) guns, and bringing a knife (or expandable baton, or OC spray) to a gunfight is foolhardy. Furthermore, according to the San Diego County DA (1), just over half (56%) of Officer Involved Shootings in San Diego between 1996 and 2006 ended in death; not quite the blood bath that one would expect when the state wants to kill people ::) . You stated as a matter of FACT, not opinion, that the state allows LEOs to carry off-duty because they (the state) wants to be able to kill people. I'm waiving a massive BS flag on that one.
By the way, you are still using the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. YOU still hold the burden of proof to defend YOUR claim, not me. You were the one calling for "facts" earlier; I provided them, and now you are saying that I didn't post the proper facts to defend YOUR portion of the argument...sorry, but that's not how debates work.
Lastly, I know that you own a store in the local area, which one is it? I would like to know so that I can be sure to take my business elsewhere.
Edit to add: I forgot the reference:
(1) http://www.sdcda.org/office/ois_review_rpt.pdf (http://www.sdcda.org/office/ois_review_rpt.pdf)
- Alex
-
Yea I'm over it. Back to the archives for this thread.
-
This is just My Opinion but...
I believe the law Makers are worried that if all the "locals" stated carrying guns everywhere that the turists would get scared and stop coming. I may be way off but a uniformed, badged, armed LEO is a comfort to must, but all kinds of "common" people with guns would just be scary to alot of foriegners! Do any of you agree or disagree?
This is a very true statement, and one of the largest reasons why conceal carry will be restored to Hawaii. I would prefer a option of open or concealed, but the tourism industry will only allow for one.
-
Book, "Death By Government" by R. J. Rummel a UH professor, updated every now and then.
Very interesting and eye opening.
-
I think what's tonsofguns is trying to say is the double standard of our justice system.
-
Book, "Death By Government (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560009276/?tag=2ahawaii-20)" by R. J. Rummel a UH professor, updated every now and then.
Very interesting and eye opening.
It does look interesting. I also found some of it (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM) on a UH website.
-
I think what's tonsofguns is trying to say is the double standard of our justice system.
I too think that is what most folks, and not just us "gun guys" are concerned about. First, to clarify things, governments have soverign immunity, which is sometimes carried over to the individuals in the government. Qualified immunity is generally the issue with police officers.
“Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.†Pearson v. Callahan (07-751). Specifically, it protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs’ rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established†statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,†courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.
Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.
Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. While judges, prosecutors, legislators, and some other government officials do not receive qualified immunity, most are protected by other immunity doctrines.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity)
And while there are some cases of police being tried and convicted of crimes, there are many where it appears those officers involved did receive some special protections or were cut a little more "slack" than your ordinary citizen.
For example, what do you think would have happened in the generally gun unfriendly state of Mass. to an ordinary citizen who did this:
drove drunk, crashed his car on a Dorchester street, pointed his gun at a Boston police officer, and later fired his gun into the ceiling of his home.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/09/trooper_to_be_a.html?p1=News_links (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/09/trooper_to_be_a.html?p1=News_links)
Well, first the ordinary citizen would have to be grateful if he survived after pointing his gun at a police officer. But in this instance not only did the guy who went on the rampage survive, he was released on his own recognizance.
And here's another case case with an interesting twist in that the honest officer who investigates the coverup of an unlawful assault on a driver by a DEA agent is forced to "retire early" for not standing united with those attempting the cover up....and note that those officers involved were not charged or convicted of anything related to the beating and the DEA agent is still employed....
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/25/2250584/exposing-agent-costs-kck-detective.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/25/2250584/exposing-agent-costs-kck-detective.html)
There are plenty of other, similar cases. And, the reason I am interested in them is not to disparage the police or because I have something "against the man" but rather to assail the oft used meme that only police are qualified to carry guns for protection. It is clear that the police are no more infalliable than the rest of us and ergo that the rest of us should not be denied the right to carry firearms for personal protection based on that false meme.
-
Another example...what would have happened if you or I did this??
DENVER - A Gilpin County Sheriff's deputy was allowed to fly from Denver International Airport Sunday, even after Denver Police confiscated his personal handgun and a loaded magazine from his carry-on luggage....
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=156548&catid=339 (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=156548&catid=339)
-
Just out of curiosity, how does this discourse further the goals of 2aH? I COMPLETELY understand the frustration presented this thread, but attacking the police is NOT going to help us get in their good graces. Look, it's no secret that there is a major disconnect between the LEOs and the gun owners here in Hawaii...this is probably one of the BIGGEST differences between Hawaii (and other anti-gun states) and the pro-gun states. It is also one of the easiest (although slow) things to change through positive interaction (i.e.: inviting LEOs to our meetings). Having the police on the side of gun owners is a SIGNIFICANT step towards "shall issue" laws, among other things.
- Alex
-
I don't think I am attacking the police, nor am I being anti-police. But factual responses to those who believe that police are the only ones trained enough to be able to carry guns are always appropriate retorts to an emotional argument against concealed carry.
Example:
Anti: Citizens are not trained and therefore will not be able to hit their intended target or will panic and shoot at an innocent person.
2A: Like this guy?
http://www.laindependent.com/news/local/west-hollywood/deputy-west-hollywood-liquor-store-clerk-shooting-sheriff-104253944.html (http://www.laindependent.com/news/local/west-hollywood/deputy-west-hollywood-liquor-store-clerk-shooting-sheriff-104253944.html)
""The deputy fired eight rounds and missed him,'' Ault told WeHo News. “Ultimately, deputies determined that the man the deputy fired upon was the store's clerk who was pointing to them trying to get their attention.''
Anti: That idiot that tried to take his gun on the plane should be thrown in jail...he's obviously lying or too stupid to be trusted with a gun, let alone a CCW
2A: Like this guy?
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=156548&catid=339 (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=156548&catid=339)
DENVER - A Gilpin County Sheriff's deputy was allowed to fly from Denver International Airport Sunday, even after Denver Police confiscated his personal handgun and a loaded magazine from his carry-on luggage....
I don't think there is a big disconnect between the police the gun community...cops who shoot know us and support us, even if they cannot do so in a "too public" way. Did you know the cops who work the gun show are volunteers? Notice you see the same cops every year? It is the brass, the politician cops who are our concern. And, iroinically the ones most likely to try and present the "we're the only ones trained enough" argument in response to any effort to get CCW. Until we change the political "climate," here, or until we get a police chief with an unusual disregard for his career, we're unlikely to see any change from the HPD brass.
But you are right in that the more police we can get to support us, both publically and "behind the scenes," the better we should be able to do. How do you balance using factual evidence to refute emotional arguments and not appear to bash all cops?
-
The big disconnect is between police administration and their "perception" of what they think the public Needs to be protected from.
Not to mention that it cuts into their eliteist mentality. If the general puclic carried guns, who needs the police.....
Most HPD officers have little or no experience with firearms, if they are a product of the public school system, then the majority
were not taught to "be all they can be" in sense of major individualism.
The Wife has been told by several HPD officers (pro 2A) who have seen her shoot, that she is better than a lot of officers who have little or no
interest in firearms. These are the officers that consider a gun a "tool of the trade" and not a Life Saving device.
The majority of gun owners are highly independent Individuals with a "can do" atitude.
Case in point. In a Major emergency, like a Cat 5 Hurricane, Tsunami, or earthquake, how many of you would go to a shelter if your home is
damaged but still livable?
Would you go before or After the hurricane/tsunami?
I asked this question on the Hawaii forum and on several gun forums. 99.9% said they'd stay. I think only 1 said they'd go only if nothing was left and they couldn't go to a relative's place.
I have a class mate from 1st grade, an O supporter (even now), who said that he would go to a shelter when they ran out of food. Not because the home was wrecked. The Wife and other friends really don't think too much of him.....
The various PDs that support 2A are those with Chiefs who are in tune with the people they work for. They are the one that encourage their
citizens to come and get their CCW permit and make it easy for them to acquire it.
If i went to my Wife's friend's home in Minnesota, I can get a non resident permit fairly easily. Downside is that it will be mailed to home here in Hawaii and I can use it Next time I visit Minnesota.
If I went with my other friend to his small Texas (50,000+ population) I can have my Texas permit in 5 days and use it for the rest of the time
I'm in Texas.
If I vist my friend in Juneau, Alaska, I don't need a permit to carry. Juneau is the capitol of Alaska and is smaller than Kailua in population.
IF we can Change One local Chief to issue a CCW permit, the dam will burst. All we need is one Chief to issue that One permit.....
-
If I vist my friend in Juneau, Alaska, I don't need a permit to carry. Juneau is the capitol of Alaska and is smaller than Kailua in population.
Why are they not shooting each other dead on a daily basis? Haha. JK
Alaska is cool!
-
If I went with my other friend to his small Texas (50,000+ population) I can have my Texas permit in 5 days and use it for the rest of the time I'm in Texas
How would you get this? Texas CHL has a minimum of 60 days processing before they issue.
-
Alaska, even in Summer can get Cold for me. Especially when it rains.
Love to hear the sound of FULL AUTO echoing across the water when I was fishing there.
I think Alaska has more guns per capita than any other place in the US.
The only thing that locals will tell you is Please do not open carry when the tour boats are in town, tends to get the tourists upset.
They're not used to people walking around with loaded guns. Out of town is not a problem. Recommended in fact.
A black bear with cub walked thru the lodge area when I was there. Not to mention a grumpy Female Grizzly was also in the area.
The lodge kept a Loaded 12 ga right next to the front door, "just in case".....
My good friend just retired from the EMT service as a senior admin guy. He tells me that there has never been a problem with CCW in Alaska.
RE Texas, that's what my friend was told when he went back home to his "small" town. He can get his non res permit in 5 days.
Guess it all depends on where you are and the attitude of the Chief. Back then, the Chief Actively Encouraged the people in his town
to get CCW permits.
As a side note, several years later, in that town, a citizen with a CCW carrying a 45 1911 took on an Unhappy man with an AK-47(full auto/supressors is legal in Texas), that was shooting up the town courthouse. The citizen took him on at 75 yards. He lost, but slowed the bad guy down enough that DPS and the Sherriff's Deputies got him. The citizen was called Hero by Texas Law Enforcement.
Remember the local guy Pagan that was in a Texas prison and escaped, raped a local woman and was caught in Mexico?
It was Open Season on him. Almost every major county highway intersection had a Deputy backed up by local hunters looking for him.
He was lucky the Mexican cops found him and returned him to Texas. Don't want to imagine what he'd look like if the locals got him.
All boils down to how law enforcement in an area looks at guns. They know the pros and cons and the Good guys get to carry.
-
^Old Guy, you always have the most interesting posts.
Case in point. In a Major emergency, like a Cat 5 Hurricane, Tsunami, or earthquake, how many of you would go to a shelter if your home is
damaged but still livable?
Would you go before or After the hurricane/tsunami?
I asked this question on the Hawaii forum and on several gun forums. 99.9% said they'd stay. I think only 1 said they'd go only if nothing was left and they couldn't go to a relative's place.
I'd be in the 99% who stay. I can provide for myself and my family on my property much more efficently than any government run disaster program. The living conditions would be cleaner and more comfortable at home, the food would be better, we'd be safer, and in the long run it'd probably end up costing less. Gosh, a private enterprise doing things more efficently than the public sector... who'd have thought. :P
-
If I vist my friend in Juneau, Alaska, I don't need a permit to carry. Juneau is the capitol of Alaska and is smaller than Kailua in population.
Why are they not shooting each other dead on a daily basis? Haha. JK
Alaska is cool!
If I remember correctly, Alaska has the most lax gun control, but also has the highest gun death per capita. May be totally false or outdated. If true, must be all the alocholics O_o.
-
^Old Guy, you always have the most interesting posts.
Case in point. In a Major emergency, like a Cat 5 Hurricane, Tsunami, or earthquake, how many of you would go to a shelter if your home is
damaged but still livable?
Would you go before or After the hurricane/tsunami?
I asked this question on the Hawaii forum and on several gun forums. 99.9% said they'd stay. I think only 1 said they'd go only if nothing was left and they couldn't go to a relative's place.
I'd be in the 99% who stay. I can provide for myself and my family on my property much more efficently than any government run disaster program. The living conditions would be cleaner and more comfortable at home, the food would be better, we'd be safer, and in the long run it'd probably end up costing less. Gosh, a private enterprise doing things more efficently than the public sector... who'd have thought. :P
You got that right bro!
-
RE Texas, that's what my friend was told when he went back home to his "small" town. He can get his non res permit in 5 days.
Guess it all depends on where you are and the attitude of the Chief. Back then, the Chief Actively Encouraged the people in his town
to get CCW permits
Fortunately in Texas (my home state) the Chief of Police (or any LEO/political figure head) has no say in whether you get or don't get a permit. You can get a TEXAS CHL without living there, but you must take the course in the state. You can carry in Texas and in states that recognize Texas NON-Resident CHL. Process time is still about 60 days. Hell, they even have an online application process...
Read all about it!:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm)
-
I've never been to Texas.
Just repeating what my friend told me when he went back home to visit his parents.
He was chatting with a local Sgt who told him his LIFE class for Hawaii Certification is OK and can get his CCW permit in a week.
Carry for the rest of the time he was there.
He's one of the "good old boys". Tell you stories you can't believe, but they're true.
As a summer job, one of his duties was to dynamite harden cow manure piles. BIG piles of Sh-t.
Or the time he and some friends tried to dynamite the only tree for miles aroung and had an old man drive
past just when the charge went off. FWIW, trees don't cut like they do in the TV and movies......
He wants me to go bird hunting with him back home. Just so he can watch me go full auto(with a pump shotgun)
the first time a rattlesnake scares me.......
Honest, I do not make these stories up.
One of his sayings about heavy rain, "Tall cow pissing on a flat rock".
Yeah, he's full of them......
-
If I remember correctly, Alaska has the most lax gun control, but also has the highest gun death per capita. May be totally false or outdated. If true, must be all the alocholics O_o.
Actually per: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000 (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000), DC has the highest gun 'Death' rate, and Alaska is second.
Odd, I thought DC's gun laws where one of the strictest in the nation?
However, Gun 'Deaths' are not the same as Gun 'Murders'. Apples and oranges. A quick serch on 'Gun homicide By State' did not show any quick numbers. I need more time to research this further, but my intinct tells me that gun 'Murder' will be higher amongst states where guns are strictly controlled for law abiding citizens.
Other interesting read on firearm murder rates:
From: http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm (http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm)
For example, though Norway has far and away the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it nevertheless has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and Austria.
In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Eight decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. Yet Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.
-
If I remember correctly, Alaska has the most lax gun control, but also has the highest gun death per capita. May be totally false or outdated. If true, must be all the alocholics O_o.
Actually per: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000 (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000), DC has the highest gun 'Death' rate, and Alaska is second.
Odd, I thought DC's gun laws where one of the strictest in the nation?
However, Gun 'Deaths' are not the same as Gun 'Murders'. Apples and oranges. A quick serch on 'Gun homicide By State' did not show any quick numbers. I need more time to research this further, but my intinct tells me that gun 'Murder' will be higher amongst states where guns are strictly controlled for law abiding citizens.
Other interesting read on firearm murder rates:
From: http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm (http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm)
For example, though Norway has far and away the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it nevertheless has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and Austria.
In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Eight decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. Yet Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.
Take a look at Hawaii and "Homicide victims by other weapons" to put this in perspective