Why does the Midwest have such bad CCW laws?


PDA






MatthewVanitas
July 9, 2004, 01:17 PM
Greetings. Looking at the overall map of may-issue and non-issue states, I'm somewhat puzzled by the may-issue Iowa laws and non-issue Nebraska, Kansas, and Wisconsin laws.

Why are these states so restrictive? Particularly since, in many cases, they have neighbors with perfectly reasonable gun laws and a comparable culture.

Who's behind these laws? Is it the urban "Great Northern Liberal" of Garrison Keillor fame? Is it puritan farmers trying to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous North Omaha minorities? Is it "the 2nd Amendment is about hunting" whitetail/pheasant hunters?

My cowboy-worshipping friend, a Marine officer hailing from Kansas, is most perplexed by his state's failings. So I thought I'd appeal to the knowledge of the midwesterners on the board: what's the story?

Thanks for any ponderings, -MV

If you enjoyed reading about "Why does the Midwest have such bad CCW laws?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
buy guns
July 9, 2004, 01:22 PM
i think it is because midwestern states feel safer than the rest of the country. if someone was to attack us they would hit either the west or east coast. if they were to invade on foot they would come from canada or mexico so the border states would get hit the worst.

but then you would think that cali, ny, and dc would have the most lax gun laws.


eh who knows, sometimes this country is one hell of a mystery to me.

Rembrandt
July 9, 2004, 01:51 PM
Speaking for Iowa, we're stuck with a (D) Governor who will veto any CCW law that passes his desk....

Prior to his current position he served on a city council where a disgruntled citizen walked into a council meeting, pulled a gun and shot the mayor dead.

Andrew Rothman
July 9, 2004, 01:58 PM
Well, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio had the same BS restrictive laws just a couple years ago.

And Wisconsin missed getting a MN-style shall-issue law by one traitorous vote last session. The smart money says it'll pass next session.

Give us some time -- Rome wasn't armed in a day! :)

El Tejon
July 9, 2004, 02:10 PM
What bad CCW laws?:D

These laws were instituted to the "gang" violence of the '20s and '30s during Prohibition. Considering the time and the area where these men came from, they were serious dudes used to fighting and violence. Why the state legislatures believed the NRA that disarming everyone would help the good people, I cannot answer.

fissionproducts
July 9, 2004, 02:16 PM
In Nebraska we have a state Senator named Ernie Chambers who filibusters like a madman everytime CCW comes up for a vote. I guess he is worried about his North Omaha constituents being on the receiving end of a righteous shooting.

natedog
July 9, 2004, 02:39 PM
Most Mid-Western states are conservative, but many have one large city (read: liberal center....Chicago, for example) that dictates legislation for the rest of the state.

California is the same way...without San Fransisco, LA, San Diego, and Sacramento, we'd probably have very loose gun laws. Take a look at the Bush-Gore election map that shows the results based on county. You'll see what I mean.

GSB
July 9, 2004, 02:40 PM
The Midwest is an interesting place. You need to look at it historically. One is inclined to think of the Midwest as salt-of-the-earth conservative because it's rural, but that misses a big part of the complexity. First, remember that the population of the midwest is concentrated in cities that experienced a tremendous influx of minority labor from the South during the early part of the Twentieth Century. Also realize that even the agricultural population had its flirtations with the far left during roughly the same period (the history of farms and farm labor in this country during that period is very interesting), and some of that residue probably still lingers.

There are other factors as well but I'd need some research time to do them justice.

Zundfolge
July 9, 2004, 05:46 PM
Having been born and raised in Kansas (only recently escaping to the rarefied air of the Rocky Mountains and freedom) I have some thoughts on this.


1. The "conservatives" in the mid west tend to be pro-authoritarian types of conservatives (not the pro-liberty conservatives you hear on talk radio and read their columns on the internet). Often all they have in common with conservatives outside of the midwest is that they tend to be Christian, and they tend to be Pro-Life.

2. Many people in rural areas are just as dependent on the tit of mama government as any ghetto rat in the inner city ... many farmers are completely incompetent as both farmers and businessmen and are kept afloat by government largess.

3. Midwestern Democrats, Liberals, "antis" and 'progressives" generally have grown up in the area and know how to sound much more conservative then they are ... thus they get elected (another thing they do is join the Republican party ... I have often referred to Kansas as The Home of the Free range RINO).

4. Many of the older generations in the Mid West where devotees of FDR and believe he saved them from the depression and the dust bowl. Anyone sounding like FDR will get their vote (and frankly, Lenin and Stalin sound a lot like FDR)

IAJack
July 9, 2004, 06:19 PM
One word answer..

METHODISTS!

Actually kidding on that one, but there is a bit of truth to it. We are in the bible belt here and that helped shape alot of turn the other cheeck and pacifism in lawmaking, lawshaping and attitude over the years.

We really need help here in Iowa on CCW laws as they are about as unfair as you can get. We are to ofter forgotten as is since we are "may issue" It is assumed that this is a fair system when not.

Monkeyleg
July 9, 2004, 06:30 PM
Natedog, GSB and Zundfolge pretty much nailed it.

Here in Wisconsin, state politics are dominated by two or three cities: Milwaukee, Madison and Racine. Milwaukee is the sixth poorest city in the country, which means lots of liberal-leaning welfare recipients, lots of ultra-liberal "community activist" groups (who are paid through government grants), and the bureaucracy necessary to sustain all this. Milwaukee alone accounts for 20% of the state's population, and thus 20% of its elected officials.

One out of every seven hunters in WI is an NRA member, versus one out of every fifteen to twenty in other states. Yet a rabidly anti-gun candidate was elected governor in 2002 by a margin of just a few points.

We have some of the most conservative elected officials in the nation along with some of the most liberal. One of our state senators is none other than Russ Feingold. Conversely, Senator McCarthy was from Wisconsin.

The shortest answer to the question might just be this: midwestern states are schizophrenic.

Zundfolge
July 9, 2004, 06:47 PM
Something else to keep in mind, but at a time when there was no gun control in New York City there was extremely strict gun control in Dodge City Kansas. You came into town in the 1880s you had to check your firearms with the Sheriff ... this is long before the Sullivan Act of 1911 in NYC.

simmonsguns
July 9, 2004, 07:22 PM
all of the above on the why is it like that,plus it does not help when in bolth ks and mo that you have to deal with inner city gang problems,IE topeka and st. louis and kansas city mo.bolth have a strong anti gun anti gang history.and with the current governors,there is no way any ccw will pass,mo. has done the unthinkable and routed the veto,now the problem is that it is an unfunded program,they will be thying to sort this thing out for the next 5 years.as for kansas,our gov. would sell her soul to control the world,one problem though,she can't get her party to agree on much except gun control,part of it goes back to the crime system here,pendragast as ruler of all and paying off city officals to get stuff done.org. crime is still here,its smaller that it was but the new sticking point is more than half of the house and senate are anti gun.the other half must vote the way the governor wants them to inorder to get the funding that they need to keep there schools and roads open.there stuck and the only way to change it takes a long time,you make inroads in one area and than a nother closes up,there is not enough funding,nra or other to get a good running start when election time gets close.untill then its concealed carry illegal for allot of us.

El Guero
July 9, 2004, 07:31 PM
Whoever mentioned the midwestern liberal centers, that is exactly what Nebraska's problem is. Like fissionproducts mentioned, we have one senator who filibusters about anything and the rest of them are lefty enough to allow it. Lincoln is our liberal center and, lucky us it's the capitol too.

Nebraska had another problem in that a star college soccer player was killed at her home during and argument when some jack!#$ pulled out his illegaly concealed and possessed .32 and shot at some guy, only to have the bullet ricochet off his skull and hit Jenna Cooper, the soccer player, in the neck.

We have plenty of people who get the willies from guns here too. The local paper actually ran an article about a high school in the area that has a trap range on campus, and some lady wrote to the editor how she had to go see this for herself, and actually feared for her life when parents brought shotguns into the school building.:barf:

Shanghai McCoy
July 9, 2004, 07:43 PM
IAJack is not as far off base as you might think.The Methodist church is pretty anti 2nd Amendment and just about every town in KS has one of their churches.I had to move here from Oklahoma and the "Yankees" are different.Topeka,Wichita,Lawrence and KCK are where most of the people live and those are VERY liberal towns.Plus the state rifle association is no where near as active for CCW as the ORA has been.I miss Oklahoma.....

Standing Wolf
July 9, 2004, 08:54 PM
The Democratic (sic) party has bought millions of votes throughout the middle west with agricultural subsidies.

jacketch
July 9, 2004, 09:22 PM
In these midwestern states, the original settlers were farmers or cattle people. Later the third group came, the sheeple herders, sometimes also known as liberal politicos or media types. The sheeple herders were gentle types who cared a great deal for their flocks of sheeple. Unfortunately, the independent cattle and farm types didn't care for the sheeple as they poluted their pristine country with lots of sheeple dung and stripped the land bare causing everyone else to abandon the area for more productive grazing and planting land.

The sheeple herders were soon whining that the cattle and farm people had destroyed the land and were leaving and going off to areas that excluded the poor sheeple herders and their flocks. Wolves roamed the land, attacking the sheeple and causing much panic. They demanded that the government force the cattle and farm people to allow the sheeple into their areas too and to pay the sheeple for the damage that was really caused by sheeple overgrazing or by wolf predation. The cattle and farm people said a few not too nice things about that and the relationship was forever damaged.

Because of this the sheeple herders have made a point of keeping any weapons out of the hands of the fiercely independent cattle and farm folks. They are protecting the sheeple from the cattle and farm people and allowing the government to protect all the residents equally from the misunderstood but still deadly wolf.

another okie
July 9, 2004, 10:20 PM
Germanic and Scandanavian heritage of trust in government and fear that excessive individualism will lead to chaos.

Shanghai McCoy
July 9, 2004, 10:30 PM
HMMM,must be that pesky 1/4 of Portagee heritage that makes me distrust the guvarmint then...:scrutiny:

rbrowning
July 9, 2004, 11:19 PM
A lot of the anti- CCW goes back to the late 19th century when folks like the James' and the Daltons made their living with a pistol. That is a lot to live down. And just where did most of this occur? MO to MN, right up the middle of the midwest. This image was further entrenched with the gangsters and bootleggers just a few years later.

SodiumBenzoate
July 10, 2004, 12:34 AM
I assume that it's just that, while more people may support CCW than otherwise, those who oppose it are much more vocal, and there isn't a large enough vocal pro-gun side to counter it, as many people who own firearms may be of the "I just want mah huntin riffle!" varity.

Using Pennsylvania as an example, we have one liberal large city, Philadelphia, and one conservative medium-large city, Pittsburgh. The thing is, the pro-gun legislators have a rather firm hold - even though much of the state (Philadelphia, and the more liberal parts of its suburbs, which comprises around 2-2.5 million people) may be anti.

I suspect that while most midwest states are probably similar as far as the people's opinions go, the pro-gun legislators did not manage to get a powerful majority.

dave3006
July 10, 2004, 09:11 AM
The Methodist church is a big part of the problem. It is an evil apostate church that has completely turned it's back on the truth. It does not believe in biblical truth and supports homosexuality. Of course, it will be wrong on the RKBA.

Once you get rid of the real God, you have to get yourself another. The liberals (and Methodists) picked the "state" as their new god.

davec
July 10, 2004, 10:01 AM
The Democratic (sic) party has bought millions of votes throughout the middle west with agricultural subsidies.

The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act had its guts ripped out by a Republican Congress and the bill that killed it in May 2002 has George W. Bush's name on it.

The Democrats don't have the market corned on buying votes via agriculture handouts.



as to the topic at hand, original anti-gun measures in the mid-west were a result of the wild west lawlessness and people like Wyatt Earp making everybody turn in their guns at the city limits. That tradition resurfaced during the 30's and is with us till this day. At least, thats my answer :)

HSMITH
July 10, 2004, 11:52 AM
One BIG factor seems to have been missed so far: UNION MONEY!!!!

Unions are very prevalent in the midwest, and politically they are very powerful. They contribute greatly to the campaigns of the liberals that protect them, and also campaign strongly with the membership to keep them voting democrat. They convince the membership of the evils of conservatism, tell them their way of life isn't possible with conservative leadership and so on. THAT is a huge part of why we have miserable liberal democrats running the midwest.

Most rank and file union members are pro-2A and hunters etc, but they vote 180 degrees out from pro-2A, 180 degrees from a strong responsible economy and on and on. 100 years of BS propaganda and high wages are hard for a lot of people to see through to know what is really going on in the world.

Manufacturing is running from the midwest like roaches when the light is flipped on, the cost of doing business here is just too high. The economics of the midwestern cities are changing with the large top-middle class (union wages) fading fast as the jobs move out, and with these changes we will see a little more sanity in politics.

For the record, I am not anti-union. I am anti-sillyness, and that covers a lot of what goes in in union and non-union shops alike. I've worked in open and union shops daily for over 10 years and as an outsider not caught up in the internal politics of the workplace it is surprisingly easy to see good and bad in both systems.

I VERY MUCH begrudge the unions for not allowing the membership to determine where their dues money is spent in politics, everyone has a voice and value until it comes to politics and that burns me up. That is my only serious heartburn with unions.

Bullet
July 11, 2004, 01:51 AM
I live in Kansas and I don't know the answer to the thread. All I can tell you is the criminals here already carry guns just the law abiding people can't.

Hal
July 11, 2004, 06:48 AM
100 years of BS propaganda and high wages are hard for a lot of people to see through to know what is really going on in the world. Bingo! ( @ least as far as Ohio goes)

I'm uttlerly amazed at the sheer number of people I know personally that are convinced US Steel will return to Lorain Ohio, the rubber companies will return here to Akron Ohio and J&L Steel will come back to life.

These people live in a fantasy world so far removed from reality is scarry. I interviewed a job candidate in 1987 that was a "chip sweeper" for Firestone for 30 years before Firestone pulled out of town. Under the "expected salary" part of the application, he put down (IIRC) something like $25.00 an hour. He was qualified for exactly zero positions we had. Nada. Zip. Zilch. He was appaled at the fact that there was no union to "protect him" and "protect his earnings". It was really sad. Here was a man n his early 50's, that had done nothing for 30 years but push a broom and sweep up rubber chips from around machinery. He honestly believed that @ $25 per hour he was a poor working man.
FWIW, he left in kind of a huff when the store manager offered him a position as a front end loader (the guy that helps put stuff in you vehicle at a Home Improvement Store) @ $4.70 an hour.

flatrock
July 11, 2004, 07:18 AM
Ohio is the land of the RINO. The Republican party here has no sense of fiscal responsibility, and no apparent desire to preserve or defend the rights of individuals. Why do we keep electing these idiots? Because the Democratic party is even worse, and there just aren't viable 3rd party choices.

There have been some efforts here to support what I consider the real Republicans in the party and push the RINOs out of control, but they haven't been very successful.

Our new CCW law has caused a significant number of people who ignored politics to take notice of how messed up our legislature is, and how little they respect the citizens they are supposed to represent. Is it enough people to effect a change? I don't know, but it's a step in the right direction.

jacketch
July 11, 2004, 07:45 AM
I VERY MUCH begrudge the unions for not allowing the membership to determine where their dues money is spent in politics, everyone has a voice and value until it comes to politics and that burns me up. That is my only serious heartburn with unions.

I have worked on the other side of the fence, dealing with the union reps from a company management position. If the pro-2nd amendment union guys knew how many times the union reps sold them down the river for personal gain, they would realize why the unions don't want them carrying. The union rank and file think the unions are protecting them from the evil management and they don't know that the union reps are sometimes worse.

Your point about union dues is all too true.

Mr. Kook
July 11, 2004, 11:44 AM
Just thought I'd chime in.

Kansas isn't as bad as it is being made out to be.

We are just way behind the curve on CCW.

It was stated earlier in this thread that over half of our house and senate are antis. Earlier this year when CCW was sent to Governor Sebelius's desk it had a veto proof majority in the senate and fell only six votes short of a veto proof majority in the house. Our CCW law failed only because our Governor (the better of two evils at the time) is an anti.

Kansas will have concealed carry, probably within one to two years. We are not a silent majority. We are a very vocal majority. The temperment of our state is changing.

However, we are quite schizophrenic. The last CCW bill was sponsored by a democrat from the KC area. A few years back CCW was vetoed by a republican governor.

NRA4LIFE
July 12, 2004, 02:35 PM
Democrats

ponyexpress
July 12, 2004, 03:02 PM
Having lived in the midwest my entire life I've thought about this on and off and I think it's much simpler than that. The reason people want CCW is so that they can defend themselves. In the midwest the crime rates are lower than the coasts so there is a lower perceived need to have the ability to defend ones self. I know there are areas that are the exception to this but they are just that, exceptions.

In addition, being largely rural, in the past if you felt the need to have a gun to defend yourself you just carried it openly. Missouri still has a law on the books that allows you to carry open unless it is specifically banned by the local municipality.

However, as the midwest population is shifting to urban areas I think you will see this change.

LoneStranger
July 12, 2004, 03:26 PM
Also remember that in a lot of the Midwest you have the same situation that prevailed in the South. If you weren't on the local oppressed minority list, pick it any way you want it, and you were caught with a concealed weapon that was as far as it would go. Nobody would proscecute you.

What has happened is that more and more the local LEO will arrest you and you will be proscecuted. So now the chains are starting to chafe and more people are realizing it.

molonlabe
July 12, 2004, 08:19 PM
In Wisconsin where I used to live, my wife and I were surprised to see the small towns that had 4th of July parades and people flying the flag. Until of course we found how liberal the state actually was. The people who live in rural areas have traditional conservative and patriotic values but for the most part the state was overwhelmingly liberal. Remember UW Madison was the site of Weathermen bombing (Mathematics building) in the 60's.

Most of the population and therefore political control is concentrated in the cities. Remember it went to Gore in the last election and is for the most part a democrat stronghold. I can't speak for the rest of the states but it narrowly shot down CCW this year.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why does the Midwest have such bad CCW laws?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!