blackpundit.com

I mentioned about the Conceal Carry Weapon (CCW) for both Utah and Florida a while back. You can now take a class to obtain your CCW for Utah and Florida here in California. Here is the site:

http://www.ccwusa.com/site/

Here is a glimpse of what this permit has to offer:

Get your Multi-State, Non-Resident CCW Permit Now!
Utah and Florida Multi-State, Non-Resident Concealed Firearm Permits have no State residency requirement and may be obtained by any legal resident of the United States. These are the most valuable Multi-State CCW Permits available, based on recognition from other States and total cost. A Utah Permit is only $59.00 for five years! Your Utah Concealed Firearm Permit is valid in 28 States! With a Utah and Florida Non-Resident Concealed Carry Permit you may legally carry in the following 30 States:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

*Additional State regulatory licenses and/or professional permits may be required from individual States while working as an Investigator, Bail Enforcement Agent, or Executive Protection Professional.

$125 Course Fee Includes Both Utah and Florida*

*Florida CCW Permit applications require proof of prior training or experience, or live-fire range qualification. There is an additional charge of $25.00 for range qualification if needed. Individual State application fees not included.

Utah & Florida Concealed Carry Permits do NOT allow you to carry a concealed firearm in the State of California.

In October, Florida expanded a law that a person have the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their home or vehicle by intruding unlawfully and forcefully. The addition to this is law is that if a person is attacked in public, that person no longer has to retreat. They now have a right to stand on their own. Here are some excerpts of the article:

In the past year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws. Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.

Thanks to this sort of law, a prostitute in Port Richey, Fla., who killed her 72-year-old client with his own gun, rather than flee when he threatened to kill her, was not charged last month. Similarly, the police in Clearwater, Fla., did not arrest a man who shot a neighbor in early June after a shouting match over putting out garbage, though authorities say they are still reviewing the evidence.

The Florida law, which served as a model for other states, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.”

The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.

The central innovation in the Florida law, said Anthony Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, is not its elimination of the duty to retreat, which has been eroding nationally through judicial decisions, but in expanding the right to shoot intruders who pose no threat to the occupant’s safety.

Jason Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.

“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Allen’s door. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

California shares this law that you can shoot someone without questions if that person unlawfully and forcefully break into your home, with an exception of a relative or a person who lives in that household. But California does not extend this law to a vehicle. I think California should consider that as an expansion. This will reduce car jacking significantly.

I believe the example of Jason and his neighbor is not within the domains of this law. Jason’s neighbor should have been arrested. Florida’s expansion of this law says to meet force with force. Shooting someone over shouting is NOT meeting force with force.

Here is a good link on how gun control was used on blacks after slavery. Here are some excerpts:

After the Civil War, the defeated Southern states aimed to preserve slavery in fact if not in law. The states enacted Black Codes which barred the black freedmen from exercising basic civil rights, including the right to bear arms. Mississippi’s provision was typical: No freedman “shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition.”

If the Southern States used gun control on blacks after the civil war, then what does that say about gun control today?

According to CNN, two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta and tried to hold up the place and fired shots. The two owners of the store, Bobby Doster and Gloria Turner, pulled out their pistols, opened fire and killed to two men.

The armed suspect and his partner were killed. The owners won’t be charged, according to local officials, because they were acting in self-defense.

“I just started shooting,” said Gloria Turner, 56. “I was trying to blow his brains out is what I was trying to do.”

“All hell broke loose,” she said. “I was trying to shoot and dial 911 at the same time.”

Both suspects took cover behind the store’s meat counter as the owners opened fire. Gloria Turner said she doesn’t know how many bullets were fired, or how many times the suspects were hit.

Police arrived about five minutes after receiving Gloria Turner’s call; the suspects died a short time later at a hospital.

This is a perfect example why bearing arms should be every law-abiding citizen’s right.

Imagine if the store went like this:

Two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta and tried to hold up the place and fired shots. The two owners of the store were shot and killed as one of them tried to call 911 for help. They had no guns to protect themselves at their place of business because state law prohibits gun ownership in private businesses.

As you guys all might know, I am pro-gun and I do feel that owning guns and having the right to carry a concealed gun (conceal carry weapons or CCW) can and will deter violence. There is a good article by Richard Munday that proves how gun ownership and carrying a conceal weapon truly deters violence. He shows how Britain long time ago was very loose with gun control and how the crime rate in Britain back then was extremely less than the crime rate of Britain now.

This article also shows that Florida new legislative trend in 1987, the “right-to-carry” permit reduced homicides in Florida. Other states followed this trend and a nation wide survey of the impact of the legislation was done by John Lott and David Mustard showed that the right-to-carry states seen an 8 percent reduction in murders, 7 percent reduction in aggravated assaults, and a 5 percent reduction in rapes.

Here are some important, must read excerpts taken from this article:

In a material sense, Britain today has much less of a “gun culture” than at any time in its recent history. A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge’s even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called “Saturday Night Specials”. Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potter’s journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.

We should not fool ourselves, however, that such things were possible then because society was more peaceful. Those years were ones of much more social and political turbulence than our own: with violent and incendiary suffrage protests, massive industrial strikes where the Army was called in and people were killed, where there was the menace of a revolutionary General Strike, and where the country was riven by the imminent prospect of a civil war in Ireland. It was in such a society that, as late as 1914, the right even of an Irishman to carry a loaded revolver in the streets was upheld in the courts (Rex v. Smith, KB 1914) as a manifestation simply of the guarantees provided by our Bill of Rights.

In such troubled times, why did the commonplace carrying of firearms not result in mayhem? How could it be that in the years before the First World War, armed crime in London amounted to less than 2 per cent of what we see today? One answer that might have been taken as self-evident then, but which has become political anathema now, is that the prevalence of firearms had a stabilising influence and a deterrent effect upon crime. Such deterrent potential was indeed acknowledged in part in Britain’s first Firearms Act, which was introduced as an emergency measure in response to fears of a Bolshevik upheaval in 1920. Home Office guidance on the implementation of the Act recognised “good reason for having a revolver if a person lives in a solitary house, where protection from thieves and burglars is essential”. The Home Office issued more restrictive guidance in 1937, but it was only in 1946 that the new Labour Home Secretary announced that self-defence would no longer generally be accepted as a good reason for acquiring a pistol (and as late as 1951 this reason was still being proffered in three-quarters of all applications for pistol licences, and upheld in the courts). Between 1946 and 1951, we might note, armed robbery, the most significant index of serious armed crime, averaged under two dozen incidents a year in London; today, that number is exceeded every week.

Restrictive “gun control” in Britain is a recent experiment, in which the progressive “toughening” of the regulation of legal gun ownership has been followed by an increasingly dramatic rise in violent armed crime. Eighty-four years after the legal availability of pistols was restricted to Firearm Certificate holders, and seven years after their private possession was generally prohibited, they still figure in 58 per cent of armed crimes. Home Office evidence to the Dunblane Inquiry prior to the handgun ban indicated that there was an annual average of just two incidents in which licensed pistols appeared in crime.

For a long time it has been possible to draw a map of the United States showing the inverse relationship between liberal gun laws and violent crime. At one end of the scale are the “murder capitals” of Washington, Chicago and New York, with their gun bans (New York City has had a theoretical general prohibition of handguns since 1911); at the other extreme, the state of Vermont, without gun laws, and with the lowest rate of violent crime in the Union (a 13th that of Britain). From the late Eighties, however, the relative proportions on the map have changed radically. Prior to that time it was illegal in much of the United States to bear arms away from the home or workplace, but Florida set a new legislative trend in 1987, with the introduction of “right-to-carry” permits for concealed firearms.

In a nationwide survey of the impact of the legislation, John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago found that by 1992, right-to-carry states had already seen an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes.

Over the last 25 years the number of firearms in private hands in the United States has more than doubled. At the same time the violent crime rate has dropped dramatically, with the significant downswing following the spread of right-to-carry legislation. The US Bureau of Justice observes that “firearms-related crime has plummeted since 1993″, and it has declined also as a proportion of overall violent offences. Violent crime in total has declined so much since 1994 that it has now reached, the bureau states, “the lowest level ever recorded”.

Now, how can you argue with these facts?

Could terrorism be an excuse to ban guns? Well it seems like many political leaders are using terrorism as an excuse to ban guns.

Last year it was the semi-automatic assault-weapons ban before it expired. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.) claimed the ban was “the most effective measures against terrorism that we have.” Of course, nothing happened when the law expired last year. There was nothing unique about the guns that are banned under the law. Though the phrase “assault weapon” conjures up images of the rapid-fire machine guns used by the military, in fact the weapons covered by the ban function the same as any semiautomatic hunting rifle; they fire the exact same bullets with the exact same rapidity and produce the exact same damage as hunting rifles.

Back in the mid-1980s it was the hysteria over “plastic guns” when the Austrian company Glock began exporting pistols to the United States. Labeled as “terrorist specials” by the press, fear spread that their plastic frame and grip would make them invisible to metal detectors. Glocks are now common and there are good reasons they are one of the favorite pistols of American police officers. The “plastic gun” ban did not ban anything since it is not possible to actually build a working plastic gun.

Now it is the 50-caliber rifles’ turn, especially with California outlawing the sale of these guns since the beginning of the year. For years gun-control groups have tried to ban 50-caliber rifles because of fears that criminals could use them. Such bans have not been passed these guns were simply not suited for crime. Fifty-caliber rifles are big, heavy guns, weighing at least 30 pounds and using a 29-inch barrel. They are also relatively expensive. Models that hold one bullet at a time run nearly $3,000. Semi-automatic versions cost around $7,000. Wealthy target shooters and big-game hunters, not criminals, purchase them. The bottom line is that only one person in the U.S. has been killed with such a gun, and even that one alleged case is debated.

Fighting terrorism is a noble cause, but the laws we pass must have some real link to solving the problem. Absent that, many will think that 60 Minutes and gun-control groups are simply using terrorism as an excuse to promote rules that he previously pushed. Making it difficult for law-abiding Americans to own guns should not be the only accomplishment of new laws.

I just wish some of these liberals sit and realize that banning guns is not a solution. It does not deter violence and will not stop terrorism. All these liberals are doing is preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. And I am very disappointed that California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supported the ban for the 50-caliber rifles. This ban is pointless.

Wow! Companies are already selling assault weapons. I was searching gunbroker.com to see if gun stores were selling assault rifles yet. I came across atlanticfirearms.com. Man, they are selling Uzi’s, AK47s, 50 Cals, Mp5s. You name it, they got it. I wish I didn’t live in California right now. Sometimes I feel like moving out of state (but not to DC) just because of California strict gun laws. I hope California get with the program (that will never happen). I guess the first step is to get Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein out of office! I’ll take her place.

I know reading this and my other gun posts, you might think I sound like some kind of warmonger. But I’m not. Guns would be the last source for order. I don’t know why I have such passion for guns. I just consider it another boy toy with a lot more responsibility. It just really irritates me when criminals give guns a bad name. Then these crazy liberals start creating all these silly gun laws, which then limits my gun choice.

I was watching Fox News last night and they had this one guy (I can’t remember his name) stating that gun related crimes have significantly reduced since the assault rifle ban ten years ago. There are many rifles out today like the Springfield M1A and the Rugen Mini 14 that are legal with today’s standard that have very similar characteristics as assault rifles. They both use potent rounds, shoot very fast and are very accurate. The Mini 14 uses the .223 caliber just as the banned AR-15 and the M1A uses the 7.62mm NATO (.308 Win.) just as the banned H&K Battle Rifles. The main difference between the assault rifles and legal rifles is that the assault rifles have pistol grip stocks, flash suppressors, and high round magazines. The round and the accuracy is still the same, which I consider the most potent part of a gun. Therefore, if the gun related crimes have reduced significantly and there are still legal rifles out there with the same main characteristics as the assault rifles, then that means the assault rifle ban was worthless and gun related crimes did not significantly reduce because of the assault rifle ban. They just reduced in general. Besides, do liberals really think that removing a flash suppressor and a pistol grip stock and reducing the capacity max of a magazine reduces gun related crimes? I don’t think so! Putting guns into law-abiding citizen’s hands reduces gun related crimes.

The only argument I could possibly see on banning on an assault rifle is the high round magazine. But still, you can have as many magazines as you want. Therefore, the bullets are still unlimited. What is the difference between two 10 round magazines vs. one 20 round magazine. The way guns are made today, it takes no time to change from one magazine to another. In both cases, you still have 20 rounds coming after your a$$.

In essence, assault rifle ban is meaningless and does not make a difference. So why band them and give the government more power. Hypothetically speaking, what happens if the government becomes extremely corrupted and a militia needs to be formed in order to secure a free state? It would be the militia with the little guns vs. the government’s military with the BIG guns. No more free state, just a corrupted government with all the power! But I think many liberals have too much trust in the government to see this.

John Kerry is attacking President George Bush for not voting on the assault rifle ban. John Kerry claims, “George Bush make the job of terrorists easier and make the job of the American’s police officers harder, and that’s just plain wrong.” That’s BS Mr. John Kerry. First, the ban was not intended for terrorists. Second, terrorists have their own assault rifles. And third, it is just plain wrong (as Kerry put it) for police to be able to have weapons law abiding citizens cannot own. Police officers are not the cleanest law abiding citizens themselves. Some police officers are criminals too.

The US Democrat presidential candidate has attacked President Bush for failing to push for the renewal of a 10-year ban on private use of assault weapons.

John Kerry accused his rival of placing gun lobby interests above those of police and gun crime victims’ families.

“George Bush chose to make the job of terrorists easier and make the job of America’s police officers harder, and that’s just plain wrong.”

Big ups for the assault weapon ban expiring today! President Bush says he will sign the bill on assault rifle if congress passes it, which will not likely happen. Senator Bill Frist thinks that, “the will of the people is consistent with letting it expire. So it will expire.” California democrat senator Dianne Feinstein calls the NRA selfish and says, “they have the ability to go into certain districts and defeat people.” HA! Lady, leave the NRA alone!

President Bush says he will sign a bill renewing the assault weapons ban if Congress passes it. How likely is that?

“There are not the votes to pass the bill,” explained House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, on Wednesday. “If the president asked me, I would tell him the same thing.”

Senate majority leader Bill Frist said, “I think the will of the people is consistent with letting it expire. So it will expire.'’

“The NRA, with all of its selfishness, has the ability to go into certain districts and defeat people,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, on Thursday.

I don’t understand why many liberals mislead the public about assault rifles. Putting a control on assault rifles does not control deaths or violence. Besides, there are far more vehicle related deaths than firearm deaths. So why not put control on cars? Make the speed limit to 20mph.

Speaking of guns, my Kahr PM9 has a recall on the barrel. I’m on my way to send it in. By the way, for all you gun enthusiast out there, the Kahr PM9 is the BEST firearm for concealment purposes. Just though I’ll let you know. Checkout my post on how you can get a CCW in two states and it will be honored in many other states.

Republican Sue Myrick of North Carolina has written House Speaker for a vote to overturn the all firearms ban at the nations capitol, DC.

Conservative Republican members of Congress are pressing for a House floor debate Sept. 13 on a bill to overturn the District of Columbia’s ban on all firearms in the nation’s capitol.

Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, representing the conservative Republican Study Committee, has written House Speaker Dennis Hastert asking for the vote. Sept. 13 is the date when the federal ban on assault weapons expires because Republican leaders don’t plan to bring it up in the House.

Besides being the nation’s capitol, DC is also the murder capitol. In my post Gun Control, I state that gun control takes away guns from law abiding citizens which then promotes violence. I believe this is the same case for DC. All DC law abiding citizens need their Second Amendment Right, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” to protect themselves from criminals and murderers.

I am a gun enthusiast. I believe every one should have the right to bear arms. It is our Second Amendment, but yet many liberals are trying to take these rights away from citizens, giving government full control. Many liberals believe that gun control lessens violence. Taking away guns from law abiding citizens actually promotes violence. The people who cause violence are criminals and criminals do not obey the law, so how would gun control lessen violence? The outcome of full gun control would be a society of law abiding citizens without guns and criminals with guns. So wouldn’t you think a criminal is more likely to break into someone’s home if they knew that person did not bare arms?

Here in California with all these democrats, there is no way in the world I would be able to carry a concealed weapon anytime soon. Luckily, Utah and Florida have it such that you can apply for their CCW without having to apply in person. In addition, you do not have to be a Utah or Florida resident. Their CCW’s are recognized in 24 other states. Note on the spreadsheet that the red means there is an extra valid state that the other CCW’s states do not validate.

Click here for spreadsheet

Here is what I have broken down for you for each state:
Cost for CCW.
Course fees.
Websites.
How to apply and what you need to apply.
Renewal fees.
States that validate the CCWs.

I thought this would be some good information for some of you travelers to know just in case you wanted to carry a concealed weapon legally.