FELONS WITH CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS?

imported post

In another post regarding a ‘National CCW permit’, there was a reference to a quote from Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He stated "There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits." He went on to say that Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits. There was no source given for these statements, so except for the Brady spokesman statement, I have no way of judging their validity.

I wonder if anyone has any factual knowledge regarding the statements, or if anyone knows how facts behind these statements can be researched?

imported post

1CITIZEN wrote:

In another post regarding a ‘National CCW permit’, there was a reference to a quote from Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He stated "There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits." He went on to say that Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits. There was no source given for these statements, so except for the Brady spokesman statement, I have no way of judging their validity.

I wonder if anyone has any factual knowledge regarding the statements, or if anyone knows how facts behind these statements can be researched?

Click to expand...

Well, being that it is illegal for felons to even possess firearms, I would find it very difficult to believe that a permit to carry wouldn't have been revoked in any state. EvenIf that was the case, it wouldn't matter whether they had a permit or not,it is a moot point. They couldn't purchase, use, or possess firearms per the GCA of 1968.

Additionally, it isn't necessary to have a permit at allto carry in Alaska and Vermont. But felons are still not legal to possess, so it's irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

imported post

How can you tell when someone from the Brady Bunch is lying?

Their lips are moving. :lol:

Seriously, I am guessing that he is screwing up his interpretation of the facts. It is probably just a case of someone who had Concealed Carry License ended up on death row.

I would very much doubt that they applied for the permit from death row.

If they didn't revoke it, then I say provide him a handgun and one bullet, save the taxpayers a lot of money.

imported post

I could see the case where they forgot to revoke the permit after they were convicted. But lets assume that them having the CHP still, if they even have a gun they are committing a crime. So them concealing IS a felony due to the fact THEY CAN'T HAVE A GUN!

Sure, let them have a CHP, doesn't mean they can carry a gun :banghead:

imported post

I've read that it's true (it may not be) that in some jurisdictions, background checks for permits are only performed for the initial awarding of one, not for renewals. In theory, someone could get a valid permit, commit some heinous crime, get it renewed, and end up in prison with the thing still listed as valid. However, nobody actually gets to death row in any hurry, so this is possibly just made up altogether - as you mentioned, they don't give a source for this tidbit. As I said in a post elsewhere, it really hardly matters if it is true, given that they aren't in a position to use a gun or permit if they're already incarcerated. So - not really a problem, even if true, given a moment of thought. This is just propaganda to inflame the impressionable. It sounds bad, therefore it is bad, apart from the patent absurdity of it all.

-ljp

imported post

While I basically agree with what the previous replies say, my question remains: what source can an individual access to get factual information on statements made by the Brady bunch or others like them. In other words, when they state 'this gun caused the death of lebenty-nine people', how can we obtain factual proof to refute their statements? Otherwise it ends up like two kids; 'that’s not true' - 'is too' - 'is not'!

There must be some way to access state and/or federal records to track down some of the alleged statements – isn’t there?

imported post

I've done a search on this claim by Hamm about Florida death row inmates with CCW permits and they all come back to his statement, no source.

However, when you consider that the Brady Bunch's outlook on statements is "we say it's true so thereforeit is" it's no surprise that they post no sources.

Peter Hamm's reputation for truth and facts aint exactly steller so dont take his word for anything. I sure dont.

http://www.saysuncle.com/index.php?s=peter+hamm

imported post

1CITIZEN wrote:

While I basically agree with what the previous replies say, my question remains: what source can an individual access to get factual information on statements made by the Brady bunch or others like them. In other words, when they state 'this gun caused the death of lebenty-nine people', how can we obtain factual proof to refute their statements? Otherwise it ends up like two kids; 'that’s not true' - 'is too' - 'is not'!

There must be some way to access state and/or federal records to track down some of the alleged statements – isn’t there?

Click to expand...

There are ways to check their facts, and it is generally the arduous task of taking what they say and comparing it to government published data tables.

An example would be when they say that 7230 children die each year from gun violence. (2005) This sounds terrible.

To check the facts yougo to the national death statistics to check it out. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm

You go to the final data for 2005 and then on the left hand column you chose list of tables and chose table 10, which contains data for all caused of death by age.This is the source of their data too as it is the only national source.

You find the following cause of death facts for guns;

Accidental discharge of firearm under 1 years 1, 1-4 years 22, 5-14 years 52 and 15-24 years 203.

Suicide under 1 years 0, 1-4 years 0, 5-14 years187 and 15-24 years 1962.

Assault under 1 years 6, 1-4 years 37, 5-14 years 52 and 15-24 years 4499.

Legal Intervention under 1 years 0, 1-4 years 0, 5-14 years 1 and 15-24 years 83.

Discharge of firearm unknown intent under 1 years 0, 1-4 years 3, 5-14 years12 and 15-24 years 77.

Several things are obvious from the above data;

1. The total deaths from the real group of children is 406. (ages 14 and under)

2.The15-24 group is reallyyouths and young adults and looking at the trend in data, most of the deaths in this group is probably from the young adults. This group totals 6824 deaths.

3. You can disregard Legal intervention (shot by cops), assaults (more guns have been shown to reduce assaults) and suicides (statistics show the suicidal will use means at hand), which leaves you with a total of 90.

Any death of a child is sad, but looking at the data shows the difference between what they use and what really needs to be addressed.

imported post

Just cause a person is convicted of a Felony, doesn't exclude them from owning firearms for life, it all depends on the type of charge the person is convicted of. and depends on how good the felons lawyer is.

But in some instances or cases, a convicted felon can petition the judge upon succesfully completing probation to have thier felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor with a not guily plea enter by the judge and ultimately dismissed under Penal code 1203.4

thus it basically restores the persons right to own and possess a firearm, and can also be eligible for a CCW permit.

so its possible the author is manipulating the facts to push his own agenda.

imported post

Even that's not always so simple - it varies considerably with jurisdiction. Some states do not permit expunction of felony convictions. Others limit it to nonviolent offenses. Even where those are permitted, you may only have partial restoration of civil rights - depends on the jurisdiction and the court's discretion oftentimes. They may specifically exclude gun ownership if they think it serves the needs of justice. That leaves pardons, gubernatorial or presidential (depending whether it was a state or federal charge), which may be partial as well. Anyone with a felony conviction of any kind who does not have his/her civil rights reinstated is barred forever from even possessing ammunition, let alone any firearms. They don't have to call in dedicated black powder guns on a NICS check, but even those are legally "firearms" and felons are prohibited from having them.

Anyone with a question about getting a record expunged is advised to call the clerk of courts office in the county you were convicted in. They can walk you through the process. I suggest NOT hiring a lawyer to perform this function for you. It only costs $50 to file pro se in Ohio, and a laywer will not affect the result, or even speed it up, but one will cost you an extra several hundred dollars above and beyond this.

As for vetting information from Brady Center or whoever - I don't know that it's possible to prove something wasn't ever said. You might find something fundamentally similar which was taken out of context or misquoted, but I suspect they deliberately skew information. Talking about "deaths by firearm" and including police shoots and suicides is grossly misleading, for example, but not literally false, necessarily.

-ljp

imported post

Legba wrote:

.....As for vetting information from Brady Center or whoever - I don't know that it's possible to prove something wasn't ever said. You might find something fundamentally similar which was taken out of context or misquoted, but I suspect they deliberately skew information. Talking about "deaths by firearm" and including police shoots and suicides is grossly misleading, for example, but not literally false, necessarily.

-ljp

Click to expand...

My point exactly

imported post

You could get a list, as available, from all jurisdictions in the U.S. that issue permits. Then run a background check on all persons that had permits issued to them Compare their criminal records against the date they were issued the permit to see if, in fact they were a felon when they received their permit.

imported post

Thought this was relevant, posted in another thread,

http://www.wisn.com/news/15934188/detail.html

"The 23-year-old clerk involved was convicted of a felony drug charge in 2004, according to the the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office"

wish we had more detials..

imported post

With the kinds of crimes considered felonies these days, the ban on possession and carrying of guns by felons is an ad hominem argument made into law.

Hell, you can be banned for life from carrying firearms for... illegally carrying a firearm.

imported post

I recently heard Paul Helmke(of the Brady Bunch) say on national TV something to the effect of "CHL holders shoot people everyday". I wouldn't believe anything they say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qJuqa-hQWE at 3:35 is where he says it.

imported post

And that's not such a bad thing if the shooting every day was a justifiable self defense shooting.

imported post

Peter Hamm must be taking a page out of Adolph's book.

A big lie is more easily believed than a small one.

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

1CITIZEN wrote:

In another post regarding a ‘National CCW permit’, there was a reference to a quote from Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He stated "There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits." He went on to say that Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits. There was no source given for these statements, so except for the Brady spokesman statement, I have no way of judging their validity.

I wonder if anyone has any factual knowledge regarding the statements, or if anyone knows how facts behind these statements can be researched?

Click to expand...

Well, being that it is illegal for felons to even possess firearms, I would find it very difficult to believe that a permit to carry wouldn't have been revoked in any state. EvenIf that was the case, it wouldn't matter whether they had a permit or not,it is a moot point. They couldn't purchase, use, or possess firearms per the GCA of 1968.

Additionally, it isn't necessary to have a permit at allto carry in Alaska and Vermont. But felons are still not legal to possess, so it's irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Click to expand...

Except Florida's permit is a "Concealed Weapon or Firearm License". There is a laundry list of weapons it lets you carry concealed besides just firearms.

Maybe he's concerned that the felons in jail can carry concealed sharpened-spoons legally. That'd be an interest argument with the jail guards....

'But I've got a concealed carry permit! You can't take it!'

imported post

*

imported post

The assertion by the BCPHGV is a trivial trick of rhetoric; make an unfounded universal statement, they cannot be proven false using common logic. 'All birds are white' requires that every bird be examined. If the statement is denied then they retort, "you missed such-and-so."

"All felon's CWPs have not been rescinded." requires that each felon's CWP be examined and that's not likely possible for any number of reasons.

Once upon a time such a statement here on OCDO would be challenged for an authoritative source.

It's kinda like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The only proper response is to ignore it.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEOXXX FOAD