Redstate

that a state as conservative as Kansas (or its neighbor, Nebraska), should have stricter pistol laws than states like Oregon, Washington, or Vermont, where anyone may legally carry a concealed handgun.  And of course, I tire of the cries of doom from the anti-gun people, prophesying rivers of blood every time a right-to-carry law is mooted.  That such prophecies have yet to come to pass, despite the passage of such laws in most states in the union, never seems to affect the spiel.  So much for the "reality-based community."

Anyone have the actual numbers of carjackings in Texas once concealed weapons permits were easier to get there.

I would bet lots that the numbers when down.

But seriously, I would hope that the law would include training requirements for those that were permitted to get a new permit, training in both shooting and the law.

Now tell me, how could a Seattle Sheriff possibly understand North Carolina folks and their outlook on guns.

Are you being serious? What a ridiculous criticism. Seems to me like you're going to have this problem no matter who you elect to "chair the National Sheriffs' Association domestic violence committee"

Unless somewhere there's s sheriff out there who has worked and lived in all 50 states...

this Blinding Flash of the Obvious invalidates the criticism. The obvious solution is that the sheriff in question shouldn't be shooting from the lip with commentary like this. The appropriate way for him to comment is through testimony, written or in person, when the state legislature is considering the bill.

Isn't shooting from the hip what most of us amateur commentators on the internet do all the time?

you'd expect someone in this guy's position to act professional when commenting on his profession.

And I said shooting from the Lip.

Not familiar with that expression, I guess my eyes glossed over the l, heh.

Your reply is even more ridiculous

The diarist said "he shouldn't comment on North Carolina since he's from Seattle" and you think he shouldn't comment at all?

So nobody in an official capacity should express an opinion on anything, unless its in testimony, written or in person? Or am I interpreting your intent wrong?

If an official in a national organization, who has nothing to do with passing the law legislatively that I'm aware of, isn't allowed to comment on it, then what do you think about senators and the president and other people in government, who actively make and act on laws, commenting on them, outside the realm of a legal disposition?

I do think that someone at the absolute opposite end of the country would have little or no knowledge of North Carolina - in the South and the Midwest, we tend to have more experience handling guns (I would think) than people who live in Seattle - and for him to 'shoot his mouth off' about the issue seemed to me to be approaching condescension towards the legislators.

I would definitely apply for a concealed carry license if they were available here in Kansas - but we have a Democrat for governor, and there is no way she'll ever sign such a law.

I thought that many, probably most, conservatives were against the idea of gun licensing. Any thoughts, anybody? I'm not trying to start anything here. I freely admit to being (I suspect I am, at least) to the left of many fellow RedStaters on the issue of fire arms ownership. That's not to say I don't support the concept. I do, and heartily so. I just have never had much difficult with the concept of governmental oversight and regulation of firearms (I've tended to view it as a pretty straightforward  issue of law and order), as long as such regulations aren't a proxy for firearms prohibition.

And FWIW, not having read the NC proposal in detail, it sounds eminently sensible. Why not provide women in danger with information about how to protect themselves?

As you can tell from my handle, I am from North Carolina. I own several handguns and at one time, had a carry permit I have since let lapse. I have no objection to guns...

I have an objection to putting guns in the hands of people under the guise of "protecting" themselves. I used to have next-door neighbors that had domestic incidents a lot. When the police could come, I could very clearly hear what was going on. One of them, or both, were often drunk. What was a screaming fest between the couple usually turned into shouting at the cops as someone was put in the back of the squad car. These were clearly not rational or sober people - whether in danger or not, you don't want people like this shooting guns close to your home.

A cop once told me that domestic violence calls are sometimes the scariest calls they go on. They're unpredicable and volatile - people are often drunk and angry and the woman will often turn on the police. This is not the kind of situation into which you bring a gun.

If I knew I was going to be drinking, I put the gun in the case...I don't drive a car boozed up and I won't use a gun that way either. I don't want a drunken moron like my former next-door neighbor to come home, start smacking his wife around, have her get out the gun to scare him, he wrestle it out of her hands and a bullet comes flying through their window toward my house. Not interested.

If you don't think guns "go off" - when people are drunk they seem to have a funny way of doing that - ask my other neighbor that got shot by his stoner buddy while they were "just checking it out".

Good times, good times.

TROs often come in handy to cover the faces of dead women killed by the subject of the TRO.

Point well taken...but a gun pulled and not used only works once, if even that many times.

A battered wife is a weird scenario...at some point in her life, she probably felt something for her attacker. This isn't like shooting some stranger that comes up on you in a parking lot or some stranger that broke into your home. I've never shot anyone, but I can't imagine it's any easier when you know the victim.

If a woman picks up a gun to shoot her husband, she better put him down or she's going to be the one that ends up dead.

If I had my druthers the entire country would adopt Vermont-style carry.

Regrettably, that is not politically achievable, to large extent because the people on your side of the Big Ditch continue to subscribe to the discredited ideology of gun control as a panacea for the very urban pathologies that your own social policies have created.

Given this reality, I refuse to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, even though the consequence is to tacitly accept the legitimacy of government licensure of a fundamental civil and constitutional right.

Washington state, including Seattle, has had right-to-carry for decades, well before North Carolina.

permits-or better yet, let anyone carry who wants to.

When it comes to domestic violence, and given the fact that many TRO's aren't worth the paper they are printed on, telling a victim how to obtain a gun and various permits seems like a better method than a piced of paper that isn't going to prevent an ex determined to cause harm.

ridiculous because you are apparently incapable of arguing past a limited number of sentences that you have memorized.

Officials of national organizations don't speak on subjects unless their organization has taken a position. The organization in question is a membership organization. It's position is based on the consensus of its members. That is not the case here.

If you can't tell the difference between a membership organization and a elected official then I really can't help you out though help is, indeed, called for.

OK - TRO is a bad idea, I get it...

Here's a great one - you live in a house where your boyfriend/husband is beating the stuffing out of you.

Move Out.

If you move back into a violent situation, that's just not rational behavior, and irrational people shouldn't be encouraged to use guns. I had a carry permit when I delivered pizza. I went into some rough neighborhoods late at night, and I thought I needed to protect myself but I also didn't go into these neighborhoods when I didn't need to be there.

I see a difference between "supporting" and "encouraging". I support the right of anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, to obtain a firearm without the intervention of the government.

I encourage friends that ask to learn how to use a gun, not just the safety course but how to actually hit what they're aiming at. I encourage them to think carefully about the responsibilities of carrying a weapon and what that means for your home and children. Then go buy one.

Wow, I feel stupid. This is what happens when you rely on the news and don't get the information directly from the horse's mouth.

The actual bill is here.

I thought that the intent was to just give victims information about concealed carry permits, but my objection was - if the person is going back into the house, why are you encouraging them to have a gun? Encourage them to move out! I could understand why the Seattle sheriff wouldn't like it.

I was wrong - this information is made available when a spouse applies for a protective order. That's a positive step to remove oneself from a dangerous situation and encouraging people that take that kind of action to protect themselves is a good idea. Rock on.

best option, but in situations where a restraining order is needed, there is generally a fear of further harm.  I see no problem with the victim carrying a weapon in case it is neccessary.  YOu can fire the bullet a whole lot quicker than the cops can get there to enforce the order.

I think we agree - I have no problem with encouraging people that want to protect themselves with ways to do it that aren't just TROs.

BUT

The first thing a person has to do is move out or get the batterer out of the house, or they're not really that interested in protecting themselves. What's the saying about doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome? The NC law provides CCW permit information and expedited approval when people change their situation and take the first step in protecting themselves.

I don't want cops encouraging gun ownership just because someone was a victim of abuse. The last thing that someone needs to get in their head is, "Well, I can go back to him and if he gets out of line again, I can always take the gun out and he'll stop." That kind of thinking is a good way to end up staring down the barrel of your own gun. If you really want it to stop, get out of the house.