Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: More anti-CCW nonsense
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 14:49:32 GMT

In article <6qan35$8mn$1@news-1.news.gte.net>, Dean, Greg
<N9NWO@GTE.net> wrote:
> >    In Texas, holders of concealed weapons licenses were arrested
> >    for weapons-related crimes at a rate more than twice as high
> >    as the general population of adults 21 and older in the first
> >    six months of 1997, according to a study performed by the group.
>
> Oh really?  I would like to see that study.  And the peer review.

So would I.  But note that even if this is true, it's meaningless.  In
fact, it's downright content-free.  What, exactly, is a "weapons-
related crime[]"?  Also, what happened after that first six months?

It's entirely plausible that CCW holders were getting arrested on
technical violations of the terms of their permits, particularly in
the first six months after CCW reform, when the limit of the law
probably wasn't all that clear to everyone, and awareness among police
was probably heightened.  Also, since one might expect CCW permit
holders to be carrying weapons at something like 100 times the rate
of the "general population," I'd say that getting arrested at
merely twice the rate is doing pretty damned well.

Of course, these "stud[ies]" aren't going to look at the actual rate
of violent crime perpetrated by CCW holders.  That would strongly
contradict their agenda.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: More anti-CCW nonsense
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 05:54:29 GMT

In article <6qg54o$m4j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Dan Z
<danielz@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >So would I.  But note that even if this is true, it's meaningless.  In
> >fact, it's downright content-free.  What, exactly, is a "weapons-
> >related crime[]"?  Also, what happened after that first six months?
>
> Actually, there was a misinterpretation of the law at first. The law
> said that CHL holders must carry their license "at all times."  The
> police would stop someone for a traffic violation, dispatch would
> say the person was a CHL holder, the cop would ask to see the CHL
> license.  If the person didn't have it, EVEN THOUGH HE WASN'T
> CARRYING THE GUN, he would get arrested. These charges were later
> dropped after the correct law interpretation was disseminated.
>
> Figures released by the Violence Policy Center in an attempt to make
> Texas CHL holders look bad actually proved that they were more than
> 3 times MORE law abiding than the general public.

I'm . . . I'm speechless.  Just when I thought VPC / HCI / CPHV et al.
had plumbed the lowest depths of deception and intentional obfuscation
in the service of their agenda, they prove once again that all their
previous lies and cheap demagogic stunts were merely the diving board
from which they were prepared to leap into new depths.

Even I never thought to be so cynical as to anticipate that they'd
misrepresent something to this extent.  No wonder these lefty flakes
are all bearded -- I wouldn't be able to look at myself in a mirror
(to shave), either!
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: dcd@firstnethou.com (Dan Day)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: More anti-CCW nonsense
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 05:40:46 GMT

On 8 Aug 1998 00:12:08 GMT, danielz@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>Actually, there was a misinterpretation of the law at first. The law
>said that CHL holders must carry their license "at all times."  The
>police would stop someone for a traffic violation, dispatch would say
>the person was a CHL holder, the cop would ask to see the CHL license.
>If the person didn't have it, EVEN THOUGH HE WASN'T CARRYING THE GUN,
>he would get arrested. These charges were later dropped after the
>correct law interpretation was disseminated.

Actually, it's even worse than that.  It wasn't a "misinterpretation"
of the law, it was THE WAY THE LAW WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.

Thankfully, the Texas Legislature came back later and modified the law
so that it was more sane.
--
  "I worry about my judgment when anything I believe in or
  do regularly begins to be accepted by the American public."
                                      -- George Carlin