August 6, 2008
Don't change Charleston gun laws, mayor says
Group urges city officials to overturn laws
CHARLESTON, W.Va. - City Council members were surprised to find booklets at their desks Monday evening, asking them to overturn Charleston's handgun laws.
The light-blue booklets were placed there courtesy of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League whose president, Jim Mullins, said the group simply wants council to align its gun laws with the state's.
"I recoiled when I saw the book," said City Council President Tom Lane. "I drafted just about every one of those bills. It hasn't been that long ago we had a debate about this."
Post a Comment
YOU MUST FOLLOW THESE RULES TO POST A COMMENT:
Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, sexually explicit, racist or offensive will be removed. If you wouldn’t say it to your mother, don’t post it here.
Be civil. Don’t threaten to hurt anyone. Personal attacks, insults or harassment of any kind are subject to removal.
Be truthful. Don’t lie about a situation or person.
Keep it brief. Keep your comment to one post. Redundant or multiple posts in a row aren’t allowed.
Stay on task. Stick to the topics relevant to the story and discussion.
Let us know about offensive comments. Click the “Report Abuse” button if you think a comment is against the rules.
Advertisement - Your ad here
When it comes to buying flooring for your home, there's only one flooring store to visit, Carpet...
Advertisement - Your ad here
Well most people would just sit by and watch you bleed on the pavement and listen to the bushes rattle as the "Bad Men" get their way with your wife. With your comments, do you think I would help you. Since I am a gun-crazy toter, I should not, but it is not your wife's fault that you are the way you are. I would go to her aid and if it meant shooting the "Bad Men" because her "Real Man" could not protect her, then so be it. Now what is your reply?
Next law on the books to go in effect - FREE PARKING IN CHARLESTON. How to compensate for the lost revenue? Hmmm, cut spending on police and spend it on the citizen. They have the authority already to police themselves. We just make sure they have to tools to get the job done.
The perp in the Taco Bell incident was protected by the police. Soon as I can get one more piece of information I'll go public with what we have and file suit. He was a drug dealer and paid the cops off to look the other way.
Gravely ran in there first, and hid. (I believe) she said something to the extent of "he's going to kill me!" That is enough warning and enough time for anyone to loose their gun and be prepared. If Clark came in and was "searching", then some amount of time passed before she was found. Plus, he was distracted, which is enough for any decent shot to put two to his head. And I'm willing to bet you all the bystanders were trying to get as far away from Clark as possible, thus providing a clean shot.
Little scene analysis for you.
You may only need your weapon ONE TIME in your entire life but like house insurance, you don’t want to bet your life on NOT being covered. How often do you have to be killed before you decided to protect yourself?
The gun at my side means I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry because I am afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. I do not prepare because I fear...I do not fear because I am prepared!
And by the way... My Rights apply whether you believe them, agree with them, understand them, or not. That's why they are called "Rights."
I do not carry my weapon as a fashion statement, actually, I conceal it quite well to the point that if you did not know I had one, you would not detect it. And I do carry it at all times unless I am going to a restricted area like the courthouse or other city or federal buildings. And to the comment about me being a redneck, no not quite, but if were not for people like me about 200 years ago, this country would not be as free as it is.
The WVCDL would be very interested in your perspective on the issue. Feel free to contact any of us if you're interested in expressiong your opinions further.
I don't ever want to have to draw my weapon and I don't ever, ever want to shoot anyone. However, I don't wear my weapon as a fashion accessory. And, when I have to be downtown or at Town Center (think parking garage, a high-crime area), I am armed.
Question for the anti-2nd amendment folks: how many students would have been killed if the school allowed concealed carry? Answer: none. The shooter chose that target because it was soft and easy. No one would be able to challenge his killing spree.
Another question for the same audience: how many criminal shootings in Charleston have been committed by those licensed for concealed carry since the law's inception? Answer: none.
The city with the most oppressive gun laws is also the one that leads the nation in gun violence: Washington, DC.
If you think 18 year old kids aren't buying guns on street corners in Charleston every day, you're niave. We law-abiding folks simply go to South Charleston or elsewhere in the county to make our lawful purchases.
The rest of you who have no intelligent argument, but resort to name calling are proof that IQ tests should be required for internet access. Pass that law, Danny!
People often buy more than one gun a month (the ordinance in Charleston limits you to one) without shooting anyone. It happens every single day outside the Charleston city limits. And I have news for you. No one in the state of West Virginia can buy a handgun from a dealer without a federal background check. Charleston's check is redundant, inefficient, and simply a burden on it's residents.
And as for "booger's" comments below. Thanks for the laugh.
I don't know why anyone would need 4 guns in a month, and I don't have a problem with that, nor a background check. Their idea, it seems, is mainly to remove the 1 handgun a month restriction. I don't think there's any reason to remove that law in particular.
However, the article says nothing about how exactly the laws would change. J, how do they differ from the state laws?
I don't trust the police already, and I definitely won't if they're the only ones with the guns. That makes for a bad, bad situation history has seen repeated more than once.
Common sense dictates that people should be able to defend themselves, relying on no one else. No, not just anyone should be carrying around a gun - I agree with "take a class and get a permit". But people should certainly be able to defend their home with deadly force, if necessary. They agree to hold themselves responsible for any accidents that occur with the gun they own, and therefore have a good reason to store and use it safely.
Wrong. Read the words of the founders. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Then read the Heller decision.
I do however support the second part of your comment. Take a class. Get your permit. Protect yourself. And to that I'd add, join the WVCDL.
The answer is none. Criminals avoid armed citizenry, not too many people are willing to rob someone for some money to buy crack if there is a chance they will dropped for it.
Let's give a big thumbs-up to the Gazette! This is a modern marvel of "objective journalism." I see that not one pro Second Amendment councilman (and there are several) was interviewed. I see that neither Jim Mullins, myself, nor anyone with the WVCDL was interviewed.
Perhaps the Gazette should change it's name to the "Danny Jones Daily."
So, on city property like Parking Garages and Magic Island, you'd prefer that only the criminals should be armed. I have to wonder who is in need of an IQ test.
"People will do anything for attention, and the Mayor and City Council should have a laugh-in @ whom ever wants more guns in Charleston."
Yes, some people will do quite a bit for our right to self defense. When some thug shoves a .45 in your face, I suggest you laugh at them. Maybe they'll start giggling too instead of shooting you.
"The Charleston Gazette should print a record of the total amount of people who have a permit to carry 'heat' in Kanawha County."
This exposes some pretty powerful ignorance. The Gazette does EXACTLY THAT. They've been publishing the names of permit holders for years. There are quite a few.
But no rights to "access". Leave Charleston laws as they are."
Apparently you didn't read the Heller decision. Because "access" was addressed very clearly by our nation's highest court.
I think I'll have some fun with rebuttal.
"The background check is instant unless you have any type of record for anything. Then an inspector must review your file to ascertain if you are a prohibited person. If you can't wait 72 hours for your handgun, then you probably don't need one. Rifles and Shotguns are not included in this wait."
While this plays on the BS that people buy a gun and immediately commit murder, it acknowledges that, well, if someone were bent on that, just buy a shotgun! Or go to Spring Hill and buy a pistol. But the reality is that the "buy a gun and shoot someone immediately" scenario just doesn't happen. It's a red herring.
Limiting purchases to one fire arm per month only inhibits "collectors." There is a town outside of Atlanta which has a 99% armed citizenry. They have zero crime. No murders, rapes, robberies, burgularies, NOTHING for decades!
Laws like this take the guns out of the hands of the good guys. Bad guys don't wait 72 hours or buy one gun a month. Some sleazoid sells them what and when they want (to use it on you.) The most important concern for ownership of the private citizen is safety and home "accidents." Address laws that make sense, like if you own guns, have a GUN SAFE! Mandate safety classe, you know, like the ones they are pressing to have in our schools. DNR things hunting safety reduces accidents, that can be applied here as well.
Just an opini
Does it occur to Jones that many law-abiding citizens no longer go to city parks and swimming pools because of the violent louts who are taking them over, and they are deprived of any means to defend themselves?
Of course not. Being a fascist at heart, rather than empower people to defend themselves, he wants to double his user fee to install a network of surveillance cameras, so the need for his police to work with the people is eliminated altogether.
1. If Charleston can somehow limit a persons ability to purchase a firearm (1 per month) without violating our constitutional right to own firearms, than can we also limit welfare recipiants on how many kids they can have without violating thier constitutional rights of procreation, so we can reduce welfare costs (The more kids they have the bigger the welfare check).
2. If you limit or ban guns, criminals will be the only folks without limits or with guns.
3. Those of you living outside of Charleston, but in Kanawha County, like St Albans and Nitro (you folks have city reps visiting Louville right now to see the Metro form of government this week), these laws will more than likely apply to you and the businesses you have on your town if you submit to this crap. Oh yeah, the user fee as well.
4. We really have some stupid politicians who just need to go and do something else in life.
Then, there is a 72-hour wait to purchase a gun. Yes, it may only take 15 minutes to run the background check but they have this waiting period as a cool-off period for someone that may be in a rage at the time he/she tries to purchase a gun. Domestic Violence is on the rise and we don't need to enable men or women to purchase these guns in a fit of rage so they can kill their significant other. Many other cities and states across the country have this waiting period for just the same reason.
I have seen it printed time and time again that the police are not there to protect you (actually they can't), they are they to stop known activity if they see it and to investigate a crime after it happens.
Like I posted earlier, the young lady that was gunned down in Taco Bell was in my presence about 10 minutes before she was killed. I was armed in plain sight. If I had been at Taco Bell, the moment I saw the perp come through the door with the gun, he would have made two steps then then died before he hit the floor. Where was the "Kings" police? Out harrassing speeders instead of keeping an eye on a known criminal.
But no rights to "access". Leave Charleston laws as they are.
I am often a critic of Mayor Jones, and also believe in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, but anyone that does not think there are enough guns in Charleston, should be given an I.Q. test.
People will do anything for attention, and the Mayor and City Council should have a laugh-in @ whom ever wants more guns in Charleston.
The Charleston Gazette should print a record of the total amount of people who have a permit to carry 'heat' in Kanawha County.