midwest anti-gunners... why?

[another okie]

There are several theories about this. (By the way, you left out Kansas - no concealed carry whatsoever.)

One is that it's basically an accident - that many of these states passed a lot of progressive legislation early in this century and concealed carry laws were considered progressive at the time, and hardly any gun owners were paying attention.

Another theory is the large German influence in these states. Many German immigrants brought with them a tradition of socialism and deference to government, and a hostility to private action such as self-defense.

A third theory is the one mentioned above about gangsters in the 1920s, though many of the concealed hangun laws predate that era.

Another theory, which is really my own idea, is that these states have lots of hunters who see no need for handguns.

A related idea is that in most of these states there is a long tradition of police tolerating concealed carry by white men and using the laws as tools against blacks. Such a theory certainly fits with the fact that the first bans on concealed carry in the United States were the racist Black codes of the Reconstruction era, which applied only to former slaves.

Such tolerance of concealed carry by police was certainly the case in Oklahoma, which had no lawful concealed carry at all until the recent reforms, but the offense was an extremely minor misdemeanor. I knew many folks who routinely carried a pistol in their car and a few who routinely carried on their person and never heard of a policeman bothering any of them. Since the movers and shakers could carry, they saw no need to loosen the laws.

All of these theories can be true; they can co-exist, so you don't have to disagree with one to endorse another.

 

[sctman800]

Mayor Daley isa the key to eternal life, every Democrat in Chicago comes to life on election day to vote for him. Now how can you not love the guy? I read in todays paper that practly every Democrat in Champaign has endorsed Barack Obama D-Chicago for U. S. Senate, this is a big backer of the "Daley gun control package" of this spring. So, Champaign-Urbana is also pretty bad but the BIG problem is still Chicago. Another problem we have in Illinois in my area, Vermilion County, is unions. I am somewhat embarassed to admit it but I am a UAW member, and a union is needed where I work. Unions push Democrats, and a lot of union members don't even bother to learn who is running because they will vote Democrat if it is a child molester. I do vote for pro-gun canidates, first and last, and in Illinois that includes down state Democrats, without their help the Daley package would not have been defeated. Jim.

 

[JCPershing]

Nebraska

I can speak to why Nebraska hasn't passed a CCW during the past few years. Much of the underlying stuff that has been posted above can probably apply to Nebraska. Omaha and Lincoln are hands down the largest population centers. There is an old joke that was true for decades about Memorial stadium in Lincoln became the third largest city in the state during Husker home games. I think that has changed in the past couple years, but you sure get the idea.

Omaha, by the way, has one of the longest anti-gun traditions in the nation. It isn't difficult to own a gun (long or hand) in Omaha, but there is a handgun registration. Also Omaha has had concealed prohibition longer than almost anywhere else, though the exact year escapes me now. Late 1800s if memory serves.

Despite all that, CCW bills keep getting introduced with pretty solid support in the Unicameral (another unique Nebraska feature, a one house legislature) - this last year more than half the state Senators co-sponsored the bill. But it is always killed by one man. Sen. Chambers simply refuses to consider the idea, and blocks it at every turn. He uses valid techniques even if they are sometimes terribly frustrating. Introducing scores of amendments for example, some of which would change the effective date of the bill from 2001 (to take an old example) to 3001 - that's right, just pushing it back by a millennium. Almost happened this past year, but there just weren't the votes - by ONE I think - to override his threatened filibuster, so it died.

The real irony in this is that Chambers represents one of the most crime ridden districts in the state. The people he represents need a legal means of defending themselves, and quite badly. I mention this because personally I don't think this is a persuasive argument for CCW - it is a deeper moral issue. People shouldn't have to point to a high crime rate to gain the ability to defend themselves when they do happen to run into a criminal. But in this case, the people actually CAN point to a high (relative to the rest of the state) number of crimes. His constituents actually should be screaming for CCW. Why this hasn't happened yet is a mystery to me. Perhaps we'll be able to do something about this in the future.

Other than Chambers, there is simply a large amount of apathy, or perhaps lethargy, about getting out and doing something about the issue. Very few shooters went to the hearing about CCW this year, though I know a bunch at least knew about it.

Any Nebraska shooters out there? Hello? Anyone?

John

 

[jame]

As a guy tht's closely tied to the agrarian life, I can tell you with question it's not the gov't dependency on agricultural subsidies. We hate the shame of it all as badly as you (and me!) hate paying for it.
I'm a farmboy from Iowa. Most farms here are huge, and the population of folks that actually recieve ag subsidies is miniscule. (The true reason for those subsidies is so complex that it requires it's own forum. Ask ANY Econ professor. There are ZERO experts in the field of Ag-economics, and very few that are truly well spoken on the subject.)

I can tell you the anti-CCW thing cooks down to just a few things:

1. The upland bird theory is true. Most folks hunt pheasant or deer, and what you can't do with an 870 isn't worth doing.
2. A thin rural population base, mixed with a heavy metro population base means liberal voting practices. (2.5 million are metro, .5 million are rural)
3. The Chicago style gangland crime thing still remains a memory for many of the +70 group, and they still vote.
4. Crime here is incredibly low.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

4) Rural folks will carry any damn way they please and will not likely be harrassed for it. They could care less what the politicians in Columbus pass or not pass.

Can the same be said for Urban folks? I'm not just talking the gang-bangers -- they are going to carry regardless of the law. But if you know the bad guys in your neighborhood are carrying, is it not likely that you'll carry too if you have an interest in survival? Regardless of what the politicians say.

 

[Atticus]

ReadyontheRight: Absolutely...and that is my personal feeling on the subject BTW... but, the urban/suburban folks have a slightly greater risk of: 1) getting caught
2) getting caught by a cop that will actually arrest you and charge you with a felony.

I carried concealed quite a lot when I lived in Illinois "several" years ago - and that was with the encouragement of several local LEO's. It was illegal then too, but we allowed common sense to rule our lives back then (Lord forgive us)!!!