Arizona reporter Kellie Mejdrich writes that she obtained an Arizona CCW permit over her lunch break and it only cost her a c-note, despite the fact that she had never handled a firearm before in her life. (I should point out that she's saying this as though it's a bad thing.)
She points out that now she'll "be able to carry that concealed weapon into restaurants that serve alcohol, most national and city parks, near schools — and 36 other states that recognize [her] permit."
I will point out that the keyboard on which she's exercising her First Amendment rights, which is practically identical to the one used to write The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf, is legal in all fifty states and she didn't have to show any license (or proof of the ability to think clearly) before setting down at it and letting fly in public.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
I would have to ask her "So why is this a problem, Kelly - you planning on murdering somebody?"
-Popgun
So, reading the article, it looks like she basically lied in order to get into the short training class, by signing up for a class intended for people with firearms experience when she knew she had none.
That seems rather dishonest of her.
Typical hit piece authored by someone who lied to get the permit. She should be forced to live in NEw York City.
Have you always been a liar or is it something you just started at as a journalist?
Gerry
So... what's the law in Arizona like about lying on official documents?
Now I REALLY want to move to Arizona!
Yeah but leftists LIKE to freely speak, and write articles.
She doesn't really WANT to carry a gun, so why should it be easy for OTHER people (who probably don't vote the right way) exercise those less important rights?
This one reminds me of the Boston Globe reporter who went to a gun show in New Hampshire and had his friend(who was a New Hampshire resident) buy a gun for him.
His friend then illegally transfered the gun to him. This was of course proof of the evils of the gun show loophole.
Funny that, if you commit a crime and ignore the law you can get away with all kinds of stuff. According to our friends in the media this is somehow our fault.
In my view, the problem here is that people (like said "journalist") mistakenly think that safe firearm handling is difficult.
1) All guns are always loaded.
2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4) Identify your target, and what is behind it.
See, 4 simple rules. Takes about 10 seconds to read them. Once you know and follow them, you have all the knowlege you need to safely handle a firearm. If you are too stupid to follow these 4 simple rules, no amount of training will help because, as we all know, you can't fix stupid. A whole HOUR class? Everything past the 10 seconds it takes to read the 4 rules is icing. Nice to know, and if you are a responsible person you will WANT to know that stuff to keep yourself out of trouble, but not really required to safely handle a gun.
s
Oh, and one more point. (sorry, I'll put the soap box away after this one, I promise).
Crime statistics dealing with those who hold CCW permits show that those who get their CCW to actually CARRY a gun (as opposed to moonbats doing so in order to prove a point) tend to be a responsible, law abiding, group with a crime rate vastly lower than the citizenry at large. In the places that I have seen the numbers on, they tend to have a much lower crime rate than even the law enforcement officers of the area.
I wonder, if we could crunch the numbers and get the crime rate amongst journalists, would they have anywhere near as good a record? (quite frankly, I don't know)
s
The unspoken problem, one that I'm certain she is well aware of, is that even without that permit, she could still carry that firearm into all of those places.
The permit just makes it "legal".
If her intent is to shoot the place up, what does she care if she's carrying it legally or not?
They know this. They *have* to know this.
It's a prelude to banning ownership - because if you can't trust someone with a permit, you can't trust them to own a gun, period.
They know this. They *have* to know this.
They're on the losing end of history. More and more states allow concealed carry; some open carry; they are down to one state with no provision and the vast majority of states are now "shall issue".
They're losing this battle. They know this. They *have* to know this.
And yet they still, with depressing regularity, produce these idiotic hit pieces that show that, yes, if you are willing to break the law, you can get things you otherwise shouldn't have.
Um? Dur?
Yosemite Sam hit the nail on the head. The Globe's big deal was that this reporter was able to go to another state and make a straw purchased. Um? Dur? What's the difference, legality-wise, between doing that (Federal Crime) and buying a stolen gun out of the trunk of a car?
It can't possibly be that they're honestly afraid of the wrong people getting guns. The nightly news is *FILLED* with stories of gangbangers, teens, etc. who have guns. Keeping firearms out of the hands of folks what shouldn't have them isn't working - yet the response from the johnny-one-note media is "ZOMG LOOK HOW EASY IT IS TO GET TEH PERMITSZZZ!!!"???
They know this. They *have* to know this.
The fact that she obtained her permit fraudulently notwithstanding, her interview afterward with the instructor was a bit amusing.
A regular Chris Hansen, she is.
When someone starts with the position that the system that they grew up with is right, even if it is unconstitutional, it makes no sense to argue with them. Unfortunately when that person has the power of the pen it becomes necessary to point out the errors in there thought processing, beginning with the fact that even the Nevada restrictions to constitutional carry are unconstitutional, if you believe that the last clause of the second amendment carries any weight in law. That one clause removes all of her arguments if it is ever applied to the gun laws nationwide.
I wonder, does having her shorts wadded up that much make her walk funny?
Oh, sheesh, I just saw a picture of her. nevermind.
I suppose it would do no good to point out to her that, thanks to her permit, she can now legally carry a gun that would make it MUCH easier for her to defend herself from a robber, rapist, or murderer.
It never ceases to amaze me that liberal minorities and women, whose stock in trade is the victim card, are so adamant about making it HARDER for people to be not be victimized. One would think that they would be the first to want people to be able to protect themselves from being enslaved, lynched, or raped.
One, of course, would be very wrong.
If they started treating the 1st amendment like they treat the 2nd you'd never stop hearing the howling... What ever happeded to BAG day??? I just happened to score a new Ruger Willey Capp GP100..
Imagine if she needed to fill out government forms and pay a C-note for permission to get an abortion.
AND, Arizona is a Constitutional Carry State.
She didn't NEED a permit to carry concealed.
(Of course, criminals and liers never do!)
I just submitted an email inquiry through the Arizona DPS's website with the link to the article to see if DPS might be interested in pursuing charges against this smug little liberal.
Hopefully she'll reap the fruits of her labors.
All I want to know is how much does a 3 Bedroom Ranch in Maricopa County go for? If THAT'S all it takes to have a CHP, then it's time for me to move!
I have not read up on AZ law (and I am not a lawyer), but I don't think that she did anything particularly illegal. Sure, the class she took was targeted at experienced gun owners (which she admitted that she was not), but as far as I recall, the requirement is to "get training of some sort", not to "get training that is designed for your particular skill level".
Many of us would argue that a training requirement is pretty much BS anyway, designed to be just one more hoop to jump through on your way towards (legally) practicing a constitutionally protected right. It behooves everyone who practices that right to get proper training so that they know what they are doing. However, when a constitutional right is envolved, it should be enough to trust the citizen to do what is right rather than make a law enforcing it (at gun point) and run the risk of infringing on that right.
s
The journalist maybe is wants to have a tool for self defense against threats to her. Carrying a gun requires responsibility on behalf of the owner.
I'm just happy our state was able to separate this skirt from her money, because in Arizona a conceal & carry permit isn't required to tote your smoke wagon around town.
Kelli with an "i" - sheesh, is she still twelve? I think it's - great she's truly an idiot and she thinks she found the DaVinci Code, the Mysterious Island of Loophole - but it's AZ so she didn't really need to do ANY of this, and it won't help her in CA where all her Facebook friends think she's clever - God help her.
Scenario 2: What she found was The Mysterious Island of Forbidden-Fruit & Temptation - Liberals cannot resist Temptation, it's a narcotic they always crave, and she'll be sorely tempted to go to the range. Ideally based on her social profile it would be a drive up to the Scottsdale Gun Club range with all the high-zoot gun-stuff and fancy drinks at the Sushi-Lemongrass Bar or whatever, and there she'll meet some nice people and really blow her own mind about her BS preconceptions.
And then she can "friend" a whole bunch of new people on Facebook...
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of
fools. Let's start with typewriters." - Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)
Pretty much everybody wins commentator of the day on this one. I used to live in Vermont, where walking down Main St. in Brattleboro with a loaded belt-fed in your hands might be a federal offense, but nothing the local cop would be bothered by.
I remember walking into a restaurant in West B. one pretty autumn day, leaving my shotgun over on the rack with all the others, and having a great lunch.
Now I live in Connecticut, where a complete background check, three letters of recommendation (used to be five), four or five hours of classrooom time learning and being tested on the state's gun laws, and another four or five hours range time are required to get said permit.
Either works, as long as they HAVE to give you the permit after you have demonstrated that you are a reasonable human being.
I suspect that prodominantly rural and/or conservative states where firearms ownership is the norm don't need as much prep work done to keep their liberal minority palliated. In suburban dominated Connecticut, the still pretty reasonable requirements serve to keep the media and loons off our backs. When they start up, we just ask them "was it a permit holder or a gangbanger with a black market Mamba?"
I will say that I have seen better gun handling skills among Connecticut permit or hunting license holders that I saw in Vermont, and firearms accidents are lower among folks with some training.
Connecticut gets less than one fatal accidental discharge a decade among hunters nowadays.
Back in High School in the 60's, pre mandatory training, I lost a classmenber in my junior year to a hunting accident, and another in my senior year.
So I'm happy with what I have now, and I would be happy with nothing at all in Vermont, although a bit edgier in the parking lot of the Sportsman's Lounge down on Canal Street in Brat, with dozens of flat out drunk "hunters" showing each other the usually loaded rifles they had been carrying all day along with the dead deer in the back of their pickups.
Here's my thing - she could carry a gun in any of those places without a permit. She just couldn't do so legally. Why she is so concerned with a person carrying a gun there when they went to the trouble to get a permit so they could do so legally is beyond me. It's all the folks who are carrying guns there ILLEGALLY that she needs to be worried about.
Besides, since she broke the law to get the permit in the first place... she's acting illegally, too. I wonder if she thinks that not having a permit is some sort of a magical sheild against carrying a gun. She really is enamored with the magical powers of unenforceable laws, isn't she?
Hit piece... and agree with the keyboard comment :-)
Hit piece... and agree with the keyboard comment :-)
Paid some bucks, filled out a form, filled in the fingerprint cards, and sent it all to DPS along with a copy of my California CCW and my Utah CFP.
The only reason for an AZ permit is to carry in Nevada as NV doesn't honor Cal's but does honor AZ.
The reporter? is a git.
I left a comment there pointing out the journalist's admission of perjury, and that she should learn how to use what she got a permit for, lest she run into fellow lawbreakers.
Apparently the Atomic Nerds are going full SWPL and censoring comments on the "racist cake" post.
I commented there, that the last time I met a strange Nigger in a Men's room, I addressed him thusly: "How do you do, Your Grace?" He was my Archbishop, Emmanuel Kolini, a Tutsi who had to leave Rwanda to avoid getting chopped to death by the Hutus.
That is some fine-grained racism. I admit to a bit of that m'self, in that I agree with the Derb that Wogs really do begin at Calais. I know I have annoyed some Nazis with that sentiment. Sorry, Marko, I agree with Erskine Childers and Alvin York: Germans are dangerous even when they are not being Nazis.
Jtg, entirely descended from people from the Right Little Tight Little Island, and who let all you other people in?
I posted as Anonymous at 0157. I did not intend to do so. I am Justthisguy. Lemme see if I can fix that.
Tam, I left two quite reasonable and amusing comments here in the last quarter of an hour. Both of them showed up momentarily, and then disappeared. Tam, you are a SWPL
I will continue to try to engage you, and make you see sense, unless you make it plain that you are not willing to put up with my doing that. In which case, it was nice knowing ya, we had some good times.
JustThisGuy,
"Tam, I left two quite reasonable and amusing comments here in the last quarter of an hour. Both of them showed up momentarily, and then disappeared. Tam, you are a SWPL"
And you are a drunken, self-centered boor to assume that I have nothing better to do than stay awake at all hours of the morning, monitoring this blog for your posts.
For your information, I (like all decent people) was in bed by 2230 last night, and I awoke this morning to find my spam filter full of this shit. Your infantile sense of entitlement to my time is un-fricking-believable.
If this "SWPL" nonsense is to be your new catch phrase, feel free to fuck right off and fill your diaper elsewhere.
Wow, not sure how SWPL even fits here (or how a person can be "a SWPL" for that matter), but I think I just got whiplash from the 180 these comments have turned.
Wow, just wow. Tam censors ms from time to time because she does not like my post, finds it repetitive or just feels like it. Who cares. This is her blog written for her amusement and that of her friends. Most of us are just guests.
Justthisguy- you have no First Amendment Right to post here, and the owner is sick of your bs. Go troll elsewhere.
Sorry, folks. I did show my ass. Google did turn me into a newt for a while when they changed Blogger yet again, but I got better.
On the drunkenness, and wittiness (or lack thereof), XKCD has an excellent graph on that topic.
SWPL means bien-pensant. I think Tam is too smart to be one of those, but dang she sure writes like one at times.
I note that Ken O has a blogger ID, but no actual blog. I do have an actual blog. Hardly anybody reads it, but all are welcome to load it and complain about me in the comments.
Being neither a leftist nor a feminist, I never delete comments unless I'm pretty sure they are actual spam. Have at it!
Outside of commercial spammers, there are precisely three people who have ever had comments deleted here. (Ken O is not, to the best of my knowledge, one of them.) Considering that this blog is coming up on almost seven years old and has over 120k comments, that's not too shabby.
Quit cruising to make it four.
Ok, Tam. I will play nice. I value your virtual company too much to get very-much crossways with you.
I will try to stick to the technical gun-nerd stuff.
The offer to complain and bitch about me in the comments on my own blog is still open. I will try to confine statements of mine which might unreasonably annoy other people to said blog.
P.s. Can I still be a 7mm crank here?
Post a Comment