Just didn't think it'd be this soon.
I'm not going to comment further. Not here, at any rate.
H/T to Tam.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
WANT!
The image at the left is from the Kel-Tec Owner's Group bulletin board. Those who hang out with me know that I've been drooling over this for a while now. However, I've gotten just a teensy bit more rabidly obsessed over the last month or so ever since KT announced that these would be shipping sometime this month. I'm not exactly certain why I want this particular rifle over a tried-and-proven design like the FAL which I could get for around the same price point.
I guess it just turns me on.
HB1237 In Senate Judiciary Committee
HB1237, the bill to remove churches from the list of prohibited places under Arkansas' concealed handgun licensing law, has passed the House and is now sitting in the Senate Judiciary committee. I read somewhere that Governor Beebe has stated that he will sign the bill if it makes it to his desk. Unfortunately, I'm now coming up with a blank as to where I saw that bit of info.
Additionally, Robb as Sharp as a Marble has a nice rebuttal to some of the uninformed hysteria that has arisen concerning this bill. The only thing that I would add to his reply is to the "ministers" who are making the local media with their opposition to this bill. From what I have seen, every one of you represents a denomination that holds as one of its beliefs that the church is the people, not the building. It's the people who gather together that are holy, not the place where they sometimes gather together. Yet all I'm seeing is talk of "preserving the sanctity of the church" and "the church is a place of peace". If it's wrong in God's sight for a Christian to carry a gun into "church", then it's wrong for them to carry at all, seeing as how they are an integral part of the church!
Y'know, it really makes me wonder if you've put any thought or study into this subject at all or are just reacting at a gut level. I'd suggest you take a look at 2 Samuel, particularly the story of Uzzah, as to how God responds to his people reacting at a gut level without thinking things through.
Additionally, Robb as Sharp as a Marble has a nice rebuttal to some of the uninformed hysteria that has arisen concerning this bill. The only thing that I would add to his reply is to the "ministers" who are making the local media with their opposition to this bill. From what I have seen, every one of you represents a denomination that holds as one of its beliefs that the church is the people, not the building. It's the people who gather together that are holy, not the place where they sometimes gather together. Yet all I'm seeing is talk of "preserving the sanctity of the church" and "the church is a place of peace". If it's wrong in God's sight for a Christian to carry a gun into "church", then it's wrong for them to carry at all, seeing as how they are an integral part of the church!
Y'know, it really makes me wonder if you've put any thought or study into this subject at all or are just reacting at a gut level. I'd suggest you take a look at 2 Samuel, particularly the story of Uzzah, as to how God responds to his people reacting at a gut level without thinking things through.
Monday, February 9, 2009
I Just Don't Understand. And Neither Do They, I Think.
"For someone who carries a gun, you sure are awful concerned about not breaking the law."
This (or something reasonably close to it) was said to me today by a co-worker. The only thing that I can think in regards to why he should say this is that he believes that if I were caught breaking a law, I could shoot my way out of the situation. This is not the first time that others have implied that they think I should have a more cavalier attitude toward certain things simply because I carry a pistol. I believe it's not likely it'll be the last time I hear that opinion, either.
What puzzles me is why someone would think that carrying a pistol entitles a person to behave more recklessly. At best, such behavior would be punished by a fine or imprisonment and the loss of the right to own a firearm. At worst, it would result in someone's needless death.
I can only assume that most people who offer these opinions are either joking or simply haven't thought things all the way through. Whichever the case, it's really rather unnerving to hear people talk like that.
Coworker: "You don't have a rebel bone in your body."
Me: "I've got a pretty good idea under what circumstances I would be willing to break a law."
Coworker: "I'd like to see that!"
Me: "No. You wouldn't."
This is another example of things I don't understand. As stated above, I have a respect for the law that some others find to be a little on the extreme side. As such, I would think it obvious that I am also fervently opposed to anyone attempting to circumvent or corrupt the law. I have absolutely no qualms about ignoring or breaking an illegal law. This does not mean that I will flagrantly flout the law. So long as I find such a law bearable, I will tolerate it. However, once it becomes unbearable, it becomes of no concern to me.
The reason that I told my coworker that he would not want to see me break a law is because I am usually an easy-going fellow. It takes quite a bit before I decide that something is unbearable. And, usually, once I get to that point, things have already gotten rough for everyone involved.
This (or something reasonably close to it) was said to me today by a co-worker. The only thing that I can think in regards to why he should say this is that he believes that if I were caught breaking a law, I could shoot my way out of the situation. This is not the first time that others have implied that they think I should have a more cavalier attitude toward certain things simply because I carry a pistol. I believe it's not likely it'll be the last time I hear that opinion, either.
What puzzles me is why someone would think that carrying a pistol entitles a person to behave more recklessly. At best, such behavior would be punished by a fine or imprisonment and the loss of the right to own a firearm. At worst, it would result in someone's needless death.
I can only assume that most people who offer these opinions are either joking or simply haven't thought things all the way through. Whichever the case, it's really rather unnerving to hear people talk like that.
* * *
Coworker: "You don't have a rebel bone in your body."
Me: "I've got a pretty good idea under what circumstances I would be willing to break a law."
Coworker: "I'd like to see that!"
Me: "No. You wouldn't."
This is another example of things I don't understand. As stated above, I have a respect for the law that some others find to be a little on the extreme side. As such, I would think it obvious that I am also fervently opposed to anyone attempting to circumvent or corrupt the law. I have absolutely no qualms about ignoring or breaking an illegal law. This does not mean that I will flagrantly flout the law. So long as I find such a law bearable, I will tolerate it. However, once it becomes unbearable, it becomes of no concern to me.
The reason that I told my coworker that he would not want to see me break a law is because I am usually an easy-going fellow. It takes quite a bit before I decide that something is unbearable. And, usually, once I get to that point, things have already gotten rough for everyone involved.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
HR1237 Passes!
According to the House Legislative Journal, HR1237 has passed the Judiciary Committee. It stated that there was no roll call but the vote was not unanimous. Of course, it's not law yet, but it's one step further...
Monday, February 2, 2009
ARCCA
I've become a member of the Arkansas Concealed Carry Association. I highly suggest fellow Arkansans do the same.
Nice Of Them To Let Us Know...
It seems that the Arkansas State Police have decided to add extra legal burdens on CHL holders. Under Rule 3.2 of the DEPARTMENT OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE, ARKANSAS CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE RULES which was put into effect on January 1, 2009, if a concealed handgun license holder interacts with a law enforcement officer in an official manner, the licensee now has the responsibility to present the officer with their CHL if the officer requests identification and the licensee is in possession of a handgun.
Based upon emails with the ASP by one of the posters on THR, this rule does not carry the weight of law and there are no penalties that can be invoked for not following the rule. However, as this document is provided to officers and CHL instructors as being in compliance with AR law, there are two distinctly unsavory possibilities: 1) An officer believes that there is a legal duty to inform and arrests a CHL holder for not informing and 2) CHL instructors will promulgate this information as having the weight of law, further muddying the waters for those licensees/prospective licensees who are less informed.
Also included in the THR thread was the fact that the ASP apparently posted, in both newspapers and on their website, a public hearing regarding these rules. I did not see either of these notices and I am fairly certain that my CHL-holding friends did not see them, either. Therefore, I will, from now on, do my best to check ASP's website on a regular basis in an attempt to catch further rule-making hearings. I will post any activity in that area on this website.
On a more positive note, HB1237 (allowing CHL holders to carry in churches/places of worship) and HB1097 (allowing allowing CHL holders to carry in schools) are scheduled to go before the Judiciary Committee, HB1237 as early as tomorrow morning. Three of the members of this committee are co-sponsors of HB1237.
ETA: HB1097 evidently is only concerned with allowing the CHL holder to keep the firearm in their vehicle. It's still a step in the right direction, just not as big a step as I'd previously thought.
Based upon emails with the ASP by one of the posters on THR, this rule does not carry the weight of law and there are no penalties that can be invoked for not following the rule. However, as this document is provided to officers and CHL instructors as being in compliance with AR law, there are two distinctly unsavory possibilities: 1) An officer believes that there is a legal duty to inform and arrests a CHL holder for not informing and 2) CHL instructors will promulgate this information as having the weight of law, further muddying the waters for those licensees/prospective licensees who are less informed.
Also included in the THR thread was the fact that the ASP apparently posted, in both newspapers and on their website, a public hearing regarding these rules. I did not see either of these notices and I am fairly certain that my CHL-holding friends did not see them, either. Therefore, I will, from now on, do my best to check ASP's website on a regular basis in an attempt to catch further rule-making hearings. I will post any activity in that area on this website.
On a more positive note, HB1237 (allowing CHL holders to carry in churches/places of worship) and HB1097 (allowing allowing CHL holders to carry in schools) are scheduled to go before the Judiciary Committee, HB1237 as early as tomorrow morning. Three of the members of this committee are co-sponsors of HB1237.
ETA: HB1097 evidently is only concerned with allowing the CHL holder to keep the firearm in their vehicle. It's still a step in the right direction, just not as big a step as I'd previously thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
