Twenty six states allow concealed carry of firearms without a permit.
Oregon requires a permit.
An early version of yesterday's blog post contained an error. I inadvertently included the word "concealed" when discussing my own locality's policy regarding firearms training. I have corrected that.
 |
| https://www.usconcealedcarry.com |
Nearly any adult can buy, own, and carry a firearm in most of the USA. In blue-state Oregon, convicted felons, people convicted of a misdemeanor within the past four years, and people subject to restraining orders are prohibited from buying firearms. However, people with serious and well-documented substance or mental health problems can buy and carry firearms so long as they have not been convicted of crimes. The key is to avoid formal convictions or a court determination of mental illness. My sheriff told me that people with a clean record on those points do not set off "red flag" subjective interventions by law enforcement. It is not illegal to be angry, jumpy, paranoid, schizophrenic, or to have a strong fear and dislike of certain people or ethnicities. One can be some or all of those things and still legally carry a firearm.
 |
| Sheriff Nathan Sickler |
However, my county does require people to take and pass a class on firearm law and safety if a person wants a permit to legally carry that weapon concealed. A reader brought that error to my attention. He told me he personally had decided not to bother getting a concealed gun permit when he learned he needed to take a class.
My point remains the same, though. It is a head's up to all of us. The U.S. is increasingly a place where people have guns at the ready for personal protection. Some gun carriers may not be cool-headed rational people. Gun carriers can "stand their ground" based on their subjective belief that they are in danger. In the aftermath of a shooting, police and courts will look at what the victim might have done--perhaps innocently or inadvertently--to cause that belief. The balance has shifted on fault between the "self-defender" and the "shooting victim."
The direction in red-state legislatures is to loosen gun laws, not tighten them. In both red and blue states Americans notice that more people are carrying guns, so are deciding they, too, need a gun in self defense. More guns. More looking out for danger from others. What could go wrong?
What could go wrong are incidents like this one yesterday.
 |
| NBC report |
[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
25 comments:
Further slight correction. In stand your ground states, it is the jury who will decide the reasonableness of the shooter asserting a stand your ground or self defense defense. With 40% of Americans owning guns, the unarmed 60% may strongly disagree with how a jury assesses the subjective fear of a white person who inserts themselves into a protest by people of color, a la Kyle Rittenhouse. Which may instill yet more fear in others, and induce them to purchase firearms. A perfect capitalistic self licking ice cream cone…
Police first. Then, maybe courts and juries. But I added the words "and courts." Thanks.
Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked and defended himself. One of his attackers pointed a gun at him. The three attackers shot by Rittenhouse were white, not that this should matter.
The Rittenhouse case was a prime example of the liberal mainstream media pushing its preferred narrative (all racism, all the time) regardless of the actual facts.
FACTS:
I visited the following websites: atf.gov and ncsl.org
The website for the Federal Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms states:
"Federal Firearms Prohibition Under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(4) Persons Adjudicated As a Mental Defective or Committed to a Mental Institute" "are prohibited under Federal law from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing any firearm or ammunition."
See also 18 U.S.C. Section 922(d)
The website for the National Conference of State Legislatures has a list, by state, of "Laws Regarding Firearm Possession/Purchase and Mental Illness."
Correction: The name of the Federal agency is "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives." The "ATF" is part of the Federal Department of Justice.
As with the rules violated by Clarence Thomas, this is another area where people can decide the rules are “bad” or “stupid” and ignore them. If someone in Oregon can’t pass a background check and can’t get a friend to buy a gun for him, all he has to do is go to a gun show in Idaho where he can buy it himself.
Back in the days of the “wild west,” most towns had stricter gun control laws than they have now, even though guns then couldn’t mow down as many people as the ones we have today. The shootout at the O.K. Corral was over enforcement of Tombstone’s gun laws. It’s sick and wrong that we have so many people walking around armed, and there’s nothing the police can do about it until they start shooting.
To "Anonymous"
Adjudicated, sure. A lot of really dangerous and damaged people are not adjudicated as being mentally ill or under the heavy influence of mind-altering substances. My evidence is the many, many people sleeping in parks and in tents who refuse to enter treatment where they would get shelter. There is an enormous amount of untreated mental illness.
I wish there was more treatment and adjudication of mental illness, but that is not the America we live in.
Peter Sage
Seriously mentally ill people, including many homeless people, go in and out of psychiatric facilities their entire lives.
Once they are deemed "stable," at least temporarily, they are pushed out the door for both legal and cost reasons.
I am presenting FACTS and I know what I am talking about.
Maybe you should interview some of the people who work with mentally ill people and people who are both mentally ill and homeless.
The question for law enforcement--police chiefs, the sheriff--is where do laws against firearm possession fit in their priority list. I am certain that, whatever they might tell you, they could more vigorously enforce laws prohibiting felons and domestic abusers from possessing firearms. This county is full of people who have no legal right to possess, but they possess anyhow, without fear of consequences in the criminal justice system. There is no payoff in Jackson County for an elected sheriff or district attorney to to say that he or she will make a priority of rooting out people who are unlawfully possessing firearms and taking away their firearms.
Michael Trigoboff is right. If the guy who pointed the gun at Kyle had just had the smarts to shoot first, then he would be free of injury and Kyle would be dead.
The guy who saw Kyle had every reason to fear for his life, a kid walking around shooting people. He saw Kyle's gun waving around and getting ready to point at him, so he shot first.
Trigoboff makes my point for me. This is moving toward a shoot first world, and then you live to tell the story. The Florida homeowner came out angrily holding a gun. He could have--should have--been shot on sight by the driver, if he only had had a gun. If a guy comes toward me and my wife looking angry and holding a gun, yes I would be afraid for my life and hers. I would owe it to my wife to take action.
Kyle is no hero. He was lucky he shot first. We celebrate Kyle for shooting first in ambiguous circumstances of civil unrest.
Under the rules of engagement anyone who is afraid gets a free shot to kill another. My two posts are making that warning to people. There may be a Kyle out there, nervous and hopped up. The Florida homeowner is out there, nervous and hopped up. The neighbor who saw the basketball roll into his yard was something. Maybe afraid, too. Maybe just hopped up.
Avoid places where people will be hopped up and looking for trouble.
Concerned readers should educate themselves about GVROs (gun violence restraining orders) and Red Flag laws. Based on a very quick search, at least 15 states allow GVROs, including Oregon, California, Florida, Illinois and Indiana.
Experience with firearms should be a requirement to buy any gun. The NRA, FFA, State Game Commission and local firing range, ALL offered gun safety courses and the firing range required your demonstration of safe and proper handling and firing your weapon. It least, that was my experience in Beaverton, where I went to school. I was also a member of the high school rifle team and carried my target rifle to school, unloaded and stored in my locker. Only at the range did we load our rifles for practice or competition. A violation of any single safety procedure was met with suspension from the team and loss the the rifle. Fast forward to college where I had a part time job as an armed security officer, required to carry a sidearm. That job was mentored by the Portland Police Department requiring me to take a corse in the legal responsibility and obligation I must except to carry the weapon loaded. Upon passing the course I was then required to demonstrate proficiency in handling the weapon and accuracy in firing the piece, I was considered a special policeman. My training had me carrying the piece unloaded to and from the job. Loading my sidearm only at the job site, reversing the process going home. I never had a reason to use the weapon but the job wasn't ever going to be a career. I quit after 6 months feeling uncomfortable about the possibility shooting a person. Putting holes in a target and hunting deer and ducks felt different. That was where the NRA was too. If you shot someone you were a horrible person, shouldn't have a gun or a hunting license. Now the NRA's focus is as marketer for the gun manufactures, turning to "personal protection" rather than hunting, collecting and competition; to mass market guns. Nothing I experienced as expectations for a hunter or a competitive shooter were violations of the Second Amendment. To me, these steps I went through are just common sense; and, could easily be implemented again today.
Peter said:
Michael Trigoboff is right. If the guy who pointed the gun at Kyle had just had the smarts to shoot first, then he would be free of injury and Kyle would be dead.
The guy who saw Kyle had every reason to fear for his life, a kid walking around shooting people. He saw Kyle's gun waving around and getting ready to point at him, so he shot first.
The problem is, Peter’s description of what Kyle Rittenhouse did is not accurate. He was not “walking around shooting people.“
The first person Rittenhouse shot was chasing him (Rittenhouse was trying to get away from him) and grabbed the barrel of Rittenhouse‘s rifle, which was when Rittenhouse shot him.
The second person Rittenhouse shot hit him in the head with a skateboard and grabbed his rifle after Rittenhouse had been knocked to the ground by a crowd that was chasing him. Rittenhouse shot him when he grabbed the barrel of the rifle.
The third person Rittenhouse shot pointed a handgun at him while Rittenhouse was on the ground. If there had been video available of this third guy shooting Rittenhouse on the ground after Rittenhouse had been knocked down, he would justifiably have been charged with a crime.
The mainstream media was very good at not mentioning these important details. They had their narrative of the racist white supremacist with the assault rifle going around killing people of color; they were determined to project that narrative into the public mind. The fact that the three people Rittenhouse shot were white was very inconvenient for them.
These details (which completely contradicted the mainstream media narrative) came out during the trial, which is why Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges.
link
One long talk with the decision maker in the exact county I am talking about is pretty good evidence. What other sheriffs do isn't relevant here. Data on 100 sheriffs is not relevant either. Sheriff Stickler told me how he does it here. I am here. You talk with Sheriff Stickler and tell him he is wrong. Tell him how others do it. Try it
Is felon-in-possession a bargaining chip--a charge to drop as part of a plea bargain? Or is it a throw-the-book-at-the-defendant charge that prosecutors are committed to making stick? I think it's as often or more often than not an afterthought charge. Maybe a lot of jurors in this county don't like the idea that possession can be a crime in the first place, so prosecutors don't plant their flag on pursuing the charge come what may. For whatever reason, a lot of felons and a lot of domestic abusers have firearms. There isn't a deterrent effect at play. Let's enforce the laws we have and see what happens; there are plenty of gun laws on the books to enforce, and the presumption of innocence is a copout (search warrants based on reasonable evidence such as the ex-wife's testimony in the custody dispute that "he has guns" is a start for a search warrant). This is not to say that AR-15s should be legal, but it's an awfully heavy lift to get Congress to pass that.
There is a presumption of innocence. It takes a brave and maybe an act of hubris for a law enforcement person to say that someone loses their rights to carry a weapon if a court has not said so. My conversation with Sheriff Stickler was clear on the point that he went by the book, not by the gut. What we think we "know" about a person's fitness to carry a weapon is not what we can prove. Proving unfitness through a formal conviction is hard. It is not illegal to stand on a street-corner and talk gibberish. It is not illegal to think that all people in some ethnic group deserve immediate death. It is not illegal to be hateful and nasty and to send troll emails to public officials saying they are pedophiles. A lot of bad behavior and frightening behavior is legal. Maybe some sheriffs take aggressive proactive preventive measures. Others don't and don't think they should. "Red flags" are only actionable in hindsight. In any case my sheriff isn't staffed to do investigative psycho0logical tests on people who do not emerge as lawbreakers. The result is that people who I certainly consider unfit--wacko angry people--are free to buy guns. Sure, there is a red flag but that isn't the test. The test is formal adjudication.
The Kyle Trigoboff nonsense is exactly why people shouldn't be allowed to walk around armed. In a sane society, the cops would arrest them before the shooting started.
Kyle Rittenhouse took an AR-15 to a BLM protest and killed him a couple of Wokes. What a guy! Shot a third one too. You can see why he’s become such a hero to the far-White.
Anon: No, prosecutors actually are duty bound to charge the crimes that there is evidence of, and to not charge crimes for which there is no evidence. Which charge(s) a defendant enters a plea to may depend on what is in a plea offer package and the strength of the evidence on each charge. Although plea ‘bargains’ (no judgment there) have a bad reputation, that’s the way most criminal cases are resolved, and they reduce the time, expense and uncertainty of trial.
People can argue the finer points ad nauseum, but the big picture is that if this were a sane society, incidents like the Kyle Rittenhouse fiasco wouldn’t happen. Walking around armed would be illegal and the police wouldn’t have to wait for the shooting to start before making an arrest. Until we have rational gun laws, the Republican-condoned murder and mayhem will continue.
There were 1,035 homicides from kitchen knives in 2021.
How many of you have registered your kitchen knives, and gotten a permit to carry them?
The presumption of innocence applies after one is charged with a crime. It's a corollary of the government's burden of proof--the defendant charged with a crime has no duty to prove anything; that's because the defendant is presumed innocent. As far as arresting criminals is concerned, the presumption of innocence is beside the point. Plea bargaining is not a perjorative term. My point is that a lot of felons and family abusers (the ones with restraining orders against them) have firearms; the authorities don't make a big deal of that.
Sad. And it contributes to the disorder we are more and more taking for granted.
As a general proposition, kitchen knives are for cooking and eating. They could be registered, but you and I wouldn't want the red tape that goes with that.
Prosecutors are not duty bound to prosecute the crimes there is evidence of. They have discretion to decide that factors other than evidence of guilt outweigh the reasons to pursue criminal charges. We should ask ourselves why the topic of firearms possession held everyone's interest to the extent it has on this "easy Sunday." Only in America...
Indeed, how many of us have registered our kitchen knives and gotten a permit to carry them?
Personally, I don’t know anybody who does carry them. You can always count on a discussion of rational gun laws to bring out the stupid in gun nuts.
Can you share data on mass-stabbings? We'll wait.
Post a Comment