RSS Feed: TS-Si News Service. RSS Feed: TS-Si Research Service. TS-Si Reader Comments. Delicious: TS-Si News Service. Digg: TS-Si News Service.
Pinterest.
StumbleUpon. Facebook: TS-Si News Service.
GooglePlus: TS-Si News Service.
Twitter: Follow TS-Si News Service.

TS-Si is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.
TS-Si supports open access to publicly funded research.

Leave a comment.
Fight Over Gun Restrictions Heats Up Print E-mail
Living - Society
Maggie Clark (Stateline)   
Wednesday, 04 April 2012 02:00
Sign in rural United States: concealed weapons school.Washington, DC, USA. State and federal lawmakers continue to push for fewer gun restrictions despite a national conversation surrounding recent incidents of gun violence.

Recent school shootings in Ohio and California, and the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida have increased the scrutiny of state gun laws, but state legislators across the country continue to work on scaling back gun restrictions this session.


The Kansas House passed a bill last month to allow concealed-carry permit holders to carry their weapons into any public building that doesn’t have “adequate security,” like metal detectors or security guards, and Oregon pro-gun legislators narrowly defeated a bill that would have banned guns on schools grounds, which included K-12 schools, community colleges and universities. Virginia repealed its statute that blocked residents from buying more than one gun a month unless they got dispensation from the police, and Oklahoma legislators are likely to allow gun owners to visibly carry their now concealed weapons.

South Dakota lawmakers ventured the farthest in removing gun restrictions this session by voting to get rid of concealed-carry permit requirements and allow any state resident over age 18 with a valid drivers’ license to carry a concealed weapon without undergoing the background check now needed for a permit. Under the legislation, law enforcement officers in the field would have had to assess whether the gun owner had a criminal background or mental illness history that would preclude them from carrying the gun.

“I believe this simply restores some of the constitutional rights for the citizens of South Dakota," said state Senator Larry Rhoden, during floor debate. The bill passed both houses and looked likely to become law. But after being persuaded by law enforcement officials, Governor Dennis Daugaard vetoed it. “This (bill) weakens the reasonable protections currently in place, and it could lead to confusion and to longer and more frequent detainment of innocent citizens who choose to carry a concealed weapon,” Daugaard wrote in his veto message. “The current process preserves Second Amendment rights while respecting concerns for public safety, in particular the safety of law enforcement officers who put themselves at risk to protect us.”

South Dakota would have been the fifth state to allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit, along with Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming. With Daugaard’s veto, it looks as though no additional states will eliminate permits this year — New Hampshire’s House voted to eliminate permits, although Governor John Lynch has said he would veto the bill.

But legislation loosening gun restrictions is still gaining momentum, even in Washington. The national “right-to-carry” reciprocity act was just introduced in the U.S. Senate, which would allow any person with a valid concealed-carry permit to carry their handgun in any other state that issues permits. The National Rifle Association is heavily supporting the bill, which passed the House last year by a vote of 272-154.

Law enforcement officers across the country are becoming some of the loudest critics of eroding gun restrictions. For Chief Scott Knight, police chief in Chaska, Minnesota and chair of the International Association of Chiefs of Police firearms committee, the move away from gun permitting is troubling. “The fact that a permit is required in no way infringes on anyone’s rights to own a gun,” says Knight. “We are not here to take away anyone’s guns. We are concerned about the prohibited person [mentally ill, drug history, felons] being able to legally carry a gun. Reasonable gun owners have no problem with background checks.”

Evidence on restrictions’ results mixed

As the gun debate becomes more polarized among state and federal policy makers, advocates on both sides are also ratcheting up their efforts. Groups supporting gun control are calling for more local ordinances restricting gun ownership, while others are fighting to allow guns in schools, workplaces, courts and even churches. The drive to open up gun restrictions, says Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney at Legal Community Against Violence, stems from political reality. “In the last election, a lot of the legislatures became dominated by more Republican and conservative officials that might cater to the gun lobby,” says Cutilletta, “and with new elections coming, there might be a move to get more bills passed on this issue as soon as possible, before the next election.”

Evidence on whether restrictive or laissez-faire gun policy works is mixed. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun and Policy Research found that a more restrictive permitting system is more consistent with respect for personal autonomy and harm prevention. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University and author of a number of studies on gun policy and its effects on crime, found that doing away with background checks and bans on guns for convicted criminals could increase violent crime. But of the gun restrictions that have been implemented so far, Kleck adds, “most have no measurable effect on crime rates. For example, eliminating restrictive requirements for getting carry permits … did not increase crime rates (or reduce them, contrary to what some analysts claimed).”

An increase in crime was a worry for South Dakota sheriffs, who opposed the legislative effort to eliminate concealed carry permits for state residents. “If they would have done away with the permit,” says Sheriff Kevin Scotting, president of the South Dakota Sheriff’s Association, “if you had a drivers’ license, you could carry a concealed weapon. I don’t think that is enough oversight.” Scotting also raised concerns that in a state like South Dakota, where more people carry guns than not, eliminating the permitting system for in-state carry would force police to check that everyone who was carrying a gun did not have a criminal background.

Scotting predicts that the efforts to eliminate permits will not stop with this year. “I do believe that bill, in some form or another will be back. I’m pretty confident that we’ll probably see it again.”

SourceThis article is adapted and extended from Fight over gun restrictions heats up by Maggie Clark, published concurrently on the Stateline.org website.

Stateline ReportStateline is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news service of the Pew Center on the States that provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy. TS-Si thanks The Pew Charitable Trusts for its support and cooperation.

Stateline reports are prepared and published by TS-Si.org with permission. Signed articles do not necessarily convey an official position of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates.

TS-Si News Service.The TS-Si News Service is a collaborative effort by TS-Si.org editors, contributors, and corresponding institutions. Sources can include the cited individuals and organizations, as well as TS-Si.org staff contributions. Articles and news reports do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. We welcome your comments. Use the form below to leave a public comment or send private correspondence via the TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge any personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.


TS-Si is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.


Last Updated on Wednesday, 04 April 2012 07:08
 

Comments   

 
# Pamela 2012-04-04 17:36
MOst of the "Recent gun violence" is committed by either deranged persons or those that are NOT legally entitled to own a weapon and that did NOT obtain the weapon legally. Do also note that most of the mass shootings if not ALL of them have occurred in supposedly "Gun Free" zones which obviously functioned to only disarm the law abiding citizens and prevent them from being anything other than a victim along with numerous other victims. Sadly the "main stream" media usually fail to report the numerous times a LEGALLY armed citizen has been able to protect himself, his family and other citizens because he was armed. In other instances, they deliberately omit information or slant it such a way to be inflammatory and put the "citizen shooter" in as bad a light as possible.
I have no problem with the permitting system AS LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO ACCESS to that information NOR HAS ANY RECORD of what firearms or how many firearms I own. Many of those "law enforcement " people that oppose concealed carry for citizens are elected and are politicians more than law officers. A Officer with any common sense will tell you that you should be able to protect yourself because they cannot do so and surprisingly are NOT REQUIRED to protect you. They ARE great for showing up later to draw a chalk outline around the body or take a list of what was stolen.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

TS-Si often publishes material that presents challenges and insights worthy of extended discussion. We encourage lively, open debate and ask that you show respect for others with responsible comments. This can be done with emotional maturity and intelligence. Before commenting, please thoroughly read the article and other comments, then stay on topic. Address the issues without presumptions about the author(s) or other persons.

We will remove any comment that is a personal attack or off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, libelous, mysogonist, obscene, phobic, profane, racist, or otherwise inappropriate. Removal for cause may occur without prior notice and repeat offenders may lose commenting privileges. These abuses and/or any attempt to post a solicitations and/or advertising, flood, spam, or otherwise disrupt TS-Si.org operations are subject to further sanctions.

All comments are subject to our terms of use and overall site policies, available under the About menu tab.


Security code
Refresh