Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are Thugs

By Tom McHale

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are Thugs
Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are Thugs
Tom McHale headshot low-res square
Tom McHale

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- Listening to the nightly news, I’ve come to the conclusion that people with concealed carry permits must be thugs, murderers, and possibly the worst sort of nefarious individuals. Remember Boris Badenov? Yeah, he’s that evil mastermind from the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. I think CCW permit holders are way more villainous than he could ever hope to be.

Now you’re probably wondering, “How did this idiot come to that conclusion?” Well, let me tell you.

I’ve determined this based on the level of energy that the anti-gun politicians, led by our Lecturer in Chief, put into restricting the rights and activities of law-abiding concealed carry permit holders. Everybody knows that politicians know what’s best for us, so if they’re convinced that people like me are a danger to society, then I believe it. We must be dangerous and we need to be stopped!

Hey, don’t take my word for it, just consider these proof points. I’m confident that after reading these you’ll want to restrict yourself too, or at least voluntarily check into the nearest penitentiary.

Virginia Banned The Snot Out Of Concealed Carry Permit Holders.

A recent move by Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring, and certainly influenced by notorious anti-gun Governor Terry McAuliffe and his sugar daddy Little Napoleon Mikey Bloomberg excluded concealed carry permit holders from 25 states from using their carry permits while visiting, or traveling through, the state of Virginia. Of particular interest is the fact that Virginia is the state where Patrick Henry made his famous “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. Oh well, apparently that was a long time ago.

According to the Washington Post, “The move is in step with actions governors and attorneys general are taking to address gun violence without going through Republican-controlled legislatures.”

From all accounts, the move was made as a “reasonable first step” to make Virginia “safer.” Let’s see here. If I do the math on that statement, carry the one, and smoke a trashcan full of bad weed, I can follow the logic – I think:

If Virginia is now deemed “safer” because people with concealed carry permits can no longer legally carry guns there, then they must have been the very folks that made Virginia “un-safer” in the first place. By extension, the resulting theoretical reduction in crime means that the only possible explanation is that concealed carry holders were the ones causing all the crime in the first place. Ipso facto e pluribus unum, concealed carriers cause crime, therefore banning them will reduce crime. Got that?

That’s pretty ironic stuff from a state whose motto is “Sic Semper Tyrannis.” That translates to “Thus always I bring death to tyrants.”

Gun Free Zones: No Concealed Carry Allowed!

No, unfortunately I’m not talking about giveaways, I’m talking about the anti’s obsession with creating as many gun free zones as possible. Why gun free zones? Because they make places safer because people won’t carry guns there. You know, I’m talking about places like movie theaters and Wild Wings Cafes.

Again, the logic is clear. By preventing concealed carry, these places are effectively stopping concealed carriers from shooting up lotsa innocent folks. By concealed carriers, I’m talking about all the thugs that dutifully take classes, submit to background checks, turn in their fingerprints, and jump through all the legal hoops to gain the “privilege” of carrying a gun. In short, I’m talking about the dangerous criminal-minded people like you and me.

Granted, I’ve never once heard a single report of a single concealed carry permit holder committing a mass shooting crime, but they certainly could! It’s no matter though. As with the recent move in Virginia, I trust our politicians on this one too. They must have secret data that shows that mass murderers are almost always people with concealed carry permits. Do you need more proof than that? So let’s get on board, do this right, and create as many gun free zones as possible – for public safety of course.

Statistical Proof That Concealed Carriers Are Thugs?

Admittedly, the first two examples here are more on the subjective side. Rather than give the benefit of the doubt to the degree of wisdom on display from our political leaders, I decided to make sure that concealed carriers really are the root source of violent crime. For that, I looked up actual data, even though politicians make most decisions on hypothetical and fear-based “what if” scenarios.

As it turns out, some folks already have done the math on this. According to An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population by William E. Sturdevant, September 11, 1999

Concealed carry permit holders are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public.

Concealed Carry permit holders are 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public.

In the 2014 report from the Crime Prevention Research Center, the relative “lawfulness” of concealed carriers is also evaluated for the state of Florida and in comparison to active duty police officers.

“During over two decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida has issued permits to more than 2.64 million people, with the average person holding a permit for more than a decade. Few — 168 (about 0.006%) — have had their permits revoked for any type of firearms related violation, the most common being accidentally carrying a concealed handgun into a gun-free zone such as a school or an airport, not threats or acts of violence. It is an annual rate of 0.0002 percent.”

The same report also finds that active duty police officers commit crimes at a rate six times greater than concealed carry permit holders in Texas and ten times more in Florida.

Now we’ve got a serious dilemma. Our trusty politicians are making policy predicated on the belief that concealed carry permit holders create crime, yet actual data indicates the exact opposite – they’re about the most law abiding group of people out there.

Imagine that.

About

Tom McHale is the author of the Insanely Practical Guides book series that guides new and experienced shooters alike in a fun, approachable, and practical way. His books are available in print and eBook format on Amazon. You can also find him on Google+, Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest.

  • 23 thoughts on “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are Thugs

    1. And here I thought it had been determined by the PC Police that the word “Thug” was racist and only used by bigots.. My oh my. I guess I R A Thug.

    2. We must be dangerous and we need to be stopped!
      A holes that make statements like that are what ,in part ,fuel the anti firearm a holes! You call yourself pro gun! Even in jest, those comments never make print. Especially by your own hand.

    3. If you don’t know it already 75% of Americans are like sheep they follow blindly. The 25% who ask ? Are conciderd lunatics. This is why politicians pay for poles. That is why I never read poles only who paid for them.

    4. We just can’t fix STUPID. It seems than when a sane, law-abiding individual gets elected to office, they somehow misplace that thing called COMMON SENSE. Where did it disappear to anyway? Why would any politician want to believe any statistic produced by the GOVERNMENT??!! Must be because “they” don’t trust them.

      Wow, imagine that; US not trusting these lying, cheating “elite idiots” who somehow think they know more than we do.. Amazing and disgusting. Both parties are to blame for America’s problems. Spend, spend and more spending is their “solution” to our current economic issues. They keep trying the same idiotic things, expecting a different outcome..

    5. Re the comment included above, “figures show…”, the following observation is applicable to “figures show”. While figures might not lie, liars figure”.

    6. “When Government takes away Citizen’s rights to bear arms, it becomes Citizen’s duty to take away Goverment’s right to govern.”

      George Washington.

    7. If so, I am proud to be this kind of thug! On the other hand, I have never committed a felony, and I have walked away from four potentially deadly situations where my pistol saved me. Also, four of my CCW trainees reported over a period of three decades that they had deployed their pistols to save themselves from harm. Yet, not single round was fired in any of these eight deadly confrontations. Isn’t that what we armed ‘thugs” always hope for?

    8. Fascism, tyranny, authoritarianism, whatever are ALWAYS on generation away. Ronald Reagan understood that, the Founding Fathers certainly understood that. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 offered us a republic; it was up to us to keep it
      ” A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” At least since the turn of the 20th Century the progressive, the fascist, the radical/collectivist has been at war with the Constitution and limits on government. The Second Amendment is just part if that Constitution the leftist hate. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Free Speech, Right to Assembly and worship a god other than government, private property are all anathema from Wilson 0n.

      So be vigilant.

    9. If that were the case then I would be proud to call myself a thug. It’s safe to say that gun owners are under attack right now.

    10. The question you must ask is why? Why do politicians want to demonize you and take your gun away? Why does Mr. Bloomberg want you to be unarmed? Why does our president make you think you are the problem?

      Well it is good you are thinking about it. It shows maturaty to be able to question ones views and try to understand someone else’s viewpoints. It shows you are a thinking and reasoning human being. I cannot say the same about the people who believe everything they are told without question. Those people don’t worry me as much as the people delivering the message. The danger is from the messengers as they know the truth and they continue to broadcast these stories.

      It is time to just say no! No to taking away my rights to serve your own agenda. No to your lies. Yes folks just call a lie a lie. They did not miss peak. They did not misunderstand. All lies to cover their agenda. There is no difference between a Nazi and these people. There is no difference between a terrorist and these people.

      There, it’s said! Truth is truth. I am tired of telling sweet things to thugs and liars. Our country is full of good, honest and decent people. They will win out, but I am tired of being called names. That makes them bullies. I kick bully but!

    11. I can remember how Black people used to be treated in this country. It is now us gun owners who are being mistreated. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. But, then again, progressive Democrats were the biggest racists and haters, and for my money, they still are.

    12. Attorney Degenerate Mark Herring is an asshole, noted and logged.

      Y’all come on over to Virginia anyway. Wanna piss off a gun-bigot Attorney Degenerate, when you get to the state line, JUST WHIP IT OUT! Open Carry is COMPLETELY LEGAL THROUGHOUT VIRGINIA, just stay off of school grounds, prisons, and out of courthouses and federal buildings. I recommend that you respect signs, where business owners have put them up, but it IS only a trespassing charge, and only that if they bother to ask you to leave, and you DON’T.

      Like I said, come on over to the Ole Dominion. Jes’ whip it out!

    13. Election day in VA will take these people out of the scene. They don’t know who they are messing with and that there are many more pro gun people in VA than they think.

    14. Note the author’s view that it is particularly interesting that Virginia is the state where Patrick Henry made his famous “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. Virginia is also the state where Patrick Henry introduced George Mason’s two-clause predecessor of the Second Amendment, found in Article 17 of what became the model for the United States Bill of Rights.

      “Art. 17. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
      [The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.459]

      Article 17 is based directly on Article 13 of Virginia’s earlier 1776 Declaration of Rights, (also written by George Mason) which was the first American state bill of rights. Henry, who introduced Mason’s model for the U.S. Bill of Rights in the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, and Mason himself, who wrote it, respectively described the purpose of Article 17’s state declaration of rights Article 13 predecessor language as intended to defend “against the state government” and as a provision “which the people, by their bill of rights, declared to be paramount to the power of the legislature.”
      [The Origin of the Second Amendment, pp.436-437]

      These historical facts indicate that the Second Amendment’s “well regulated militia” language had nothing whatever to do with protecting state power or control over the militia and most certainly was not understood as the equivalent of “government regulated militia”. Instead, well regulated militia was simply understood as a reference to an armed civil population capable of defending liberty against government tyranny.

    15. Pro gun people are a lot of the problem! In Florida a CCW permit holder is by law exempt from the call in/background check! F.S. 790.065 but when told this and shown in writing the “pro gun ” people were the only ones that wanted to argue about it , I’ve been told that it is still “store policy” and everyone has to have one. to “that’s wrong FDLE told us everyone has to have one” I have since contacted FDLE and have yet to get a response. Still other like to say that they have had CCW holders not pass the call in. The “call in” can keep someone from passing if their name is similar to someone else. The background check that a CCW holder goes through includes the fingerprint database, but you can’t tell these “pro gun” people that it is more accurate than the phone call. The funny thing is these are the people that tell you they are “going to have a fight on there hands if they try to take my guns from me or try to pass laws to get MY guns” REALLY???? THERE IS A LAWS ON THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW THAT IS PRO GUN AND YOU NOT ONLY WON”T STAND UP FOR IT YOU TELL EVERYONE THAT IT IS WRONG AND YOU VIOLATE IT DAILY!!!!!!

    16. @Doug. I found this pretty interesting, so I dug around a bit.

      I looked up F.S. 790.065 and found the section stating that a licensed FFL is required to obtain a background check and a fee not to exceed $8 for transfer or sale of a firearm to an individual, “[h]owever, if the person purchasing, or receiving delivery of, the firearm is a holder of a valid concealed weapons or firearms license pursuant to the provisions of s. 790.06 or holds an active certification from the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a “law enforcement officer,” a “correctional officer,” or a “correctional probation officer” as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), this subsection does not apply.” This does seem to indicate that one does not need to complete a background check if one is a CCW holder. (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790.html)

      FDLE’s web site contradicts the above and states that possession of a FL CCW does not exempt a purchaser from an ATF Form 4473. (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cms/FPP/FAQs7.aspx)

      I dug some more into the USC and found
      “18 U.S. Code § 922 – Unlawful acts
      (t)
      (1) Beginning on the date that is 30 days after the Attorney General notifies licensees under section 103(d) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that the national instant criminal background check system is established, a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless—
      (A) before the completion of the transfer, the licensee contacts the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of that Act;
      (B)
      (i) the system provides the licensee with a unique identification number; or
      (ii) 3 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) have elapsed since the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section; and
      (C) the transferor has verified the identity of the transferee by examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d) of this title) of the transferee containing a photograph of the transferee.
      (2) If receipt of a firearm would not violate subsection (g) or (n) or State law, the system shall—
      (A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer;
      (B) provide the licensee with the number; and
      (C) destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.
      (3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a firearm transfer between a licensee and another person if—
      (A)
      (i) such other person has presented to the licensee a permit that—
      (I) allows such other person to possess or acquire a firearm; and
      (II) was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and
      (ii) the law of the State provides that such a permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by such other person would be in violation of law;
      (B) the Attorney General has approved the transfer under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
      (C) on application of the transferor, the Attorney General has certified that compliance with paragraph (1)(A) is impracticable because—
      (i) the ratio of the number of law enforcement officers of the State in which the transfer is to occur to the number of square miles of land area of the State does not exceed 0.0025;
      (ii) the business premises of the licensee at which the transfer is to occur are extremely remote in relation to the chief law enforcement officer (as defined in subsection (s)(8)); and
      (iii) there is an absence of telecommunications facilities in the geographical area in which the business premises are located.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922)

      Notice paragraph (t)(3) above outlines an exception to the background check for persons allowed to “possess or acquire a firearm”, with a government issued ID, less than 5 years from issuance, BUT, the AG has to approve such a transfer IAW section 5812 of the I.R.C. of 1984.

      So, I looked at the I.R.C. and found that there remains a requirement to submit a background check, so apparently the Secretary of the Treasury and the AG have not issued such an approval for a transfer without a background check. (http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title26/subtitleE/chapter53&edition=prelim)

      It seems that there are some contradicting bits in the laws that can give all of us a headache. My estimation is that the federal law supersedes the state law WRT the background check, so even though F.S. 790.065 exempts certain persons from a background check, the federal requirement remains. Not that I am agreeing with it, just making a guess as to why your LGS still requires a 4473 on all transfers/sales.

    17. This has RICO written all over it. How can anyone be able to influence a government official to take away civil rights?
      42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights

      Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

    18. RICO

      (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.
      (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
      (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
      (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

      Sure seems Bloomberg is collecting on an unlawful debt to me!!!!

    19. I avoid so called” gun free zones”. To me it’s like a sign saying” there are sharks and wolves running loose in here. Enter at your own risk. On those rare occasions where I must enter, I make sure my pistol is well concealed. I don’t think a S.C. jury is going to be too hard on me if I’m the one who stops an active shooter or terrorist. –

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *