Pistol-packing politicians like added firepower

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Pistol-packing politicians like added firepower

Post by Glocksman »

Indiana Legislators carry guns in the Statehouse
One in six Indiana lawmakers has a permit to carry a firearm, and some even pack their guns when they saunter onto the floor of the Indiana House and Senate, The Journal Gazette in Fort Wayne reported Sunday.

These pistol-packing politicians have no problem with the availability of weapons in the Statehouse, and some even welcome the guns given the lax security at the state Capitol.

"If someone opens fire from the balcony, I want all the guns I can shooting back. Unless, of course, there are school kids up there," said Rep. Matthew Whetstone, whose small .22-caliber pistol weighs no more than a set of keys in his pants pocket.

Whetstone, R-Brownsburg, is one of 25 House and Senate members with valid permits to carry firearms, according to a review of the Indiana State Police firearms database by the newspaper.

That is about 17 percent of the General Assembly, compared with about 7 percent of the eligible state population with permits.
Can you just imagine the blissninnies in California or the PRNJ packing heat on the Statehouse floor? :twisted:

All kidding aside, it is their right to carry a gun under the Indiana Constitution (because of that right, Indiana's permit law is a 'shall issue' law) and I applaud those who are exercising that right.

Of course, the Journal-Gazette article laid the groundwork for an editorial in that paper denouncing the practice.

Editorial
Pistol-packing Indiana lawmakers should take note of the shooting death of a New York City councilman last month: A loaded gun couldn't save James Davis' life.
If legislators truly are concerned for their personal safety, their first effort should be to ban guns from their own aisles. The very symbol of state government is no place for a vestige of frontier justice
A gun is not a 'vestige of frontier justice'. It's a tool. And like any other tool, it can be misused. And as a matter of record, there hasn't been any shootings by legislators in the Statehouse since the current CCW system was put into place in 1935.

That phrase is more revealing of the mindset of the editor than anything to do with the state of gun laws in Indiana.

What killed James Davis was his sense of noblesse oblige in waving the man that killed him through security without any checks on him at all. His killer was violating NYC law by merely possessing the pistol, much less wearing it concealed and carrying it into City Hall.

This says it best:
"There have been people in both the House and Senate who have worn weapons for years and there has never been an issue of them being angry and pulling it," said Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, who has a permit but does not carry a weapon in the Statehouse.

Torr said, "There is not a single person in that chamber that I worry about in terms of them pulling a gun on each other."
If you don't trust your fellow legislators to not pull guns on you, then perhaps you should reconsider your job. :P


Christ, I'm the most hotheaded person I know, but I've never even considered pulling a gun on someone I'm merely angry at.
To get me to draw my weapon on you, you have to be posing a credible threat of death or serious bodily injury to me or a third party.

Banning guns in the Statehouse wouldn't accomplish anything other than making a few blissninnies feel good about themselves.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
User avatar
SPOOFE
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3174
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:34pm
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Contact:

Post by SPOOFE »

As a huge gun-rights advocate (which is to say, I am both greatly in favor of responsible gun ownership, as well as being large in stature), I'm not quite sure what to make of this. In my opinion, it is foolhardy to go around bragging about carrying a gun to work, especially if one is a politician. Firearms are to be treated with respect, not callously tossed about as a means of making one's balls feel bigger (I'm referring to the "I want all the guns I can shooting back" quote, incidently. I feel it's a very Yippee-kai-yay thing to say).
The Great and Malignant
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Post by Glocksman »

In my opinion, it is foolhardy to go around bragging about carrying a gun to work, especially if one is a politician.
That's why a lot of the permit holder legislators the paper contacted refused comment. I'll bet a few of them that said they don't carry actually do, but they just don't discuss it.

As far as Whetstone goes, I'll bet his district is heavily rural and conservative, and he figured his remarks would score points for him come election time. He probably doesn't care how inane it sounds to those outside his district.

He's a politician, and politicians try to please (or at least impress) their constituents.

I have a permit as well. About 7% of all adults in the state do.
However, I rarely ever carry a gun. The permit is mainly so I don't have to follow any waiting period or worry about the NICS being down when I buy a gun, as I already have been investigated in order to get the permit.

Though I did carry when I worked 3rd shift at a 7-11 type store here locally.

For the record, Indiana is a 'shall issue' state. This means as long as you are over 18 and have a clean record, the state police have to issue you the permit.

It's only $25 and is good for 4 years.

What I do have a problem with regarding the article is the database of permit holders being public information. It's no one else's business that I have a permit unless I choose to share that information.

A newspaper shouldn't be able to get that database and call up a permit holder and ask them about their carry habits. whether we're talking about a politician or some Joe Shmoe such as myself.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
User avatar
SPOOFE
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3174
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:34pm
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Contact:

Post by SPOOFE »

For the record, Indiana is a 'shall issue' state. This means as long as you are over 18 and have a clean record, the state police have to issue you the permit.
I sure wish California were like that. I see no reason why the State should interfere with my business as long as I'm acting responsible and not hurting anyone.
What I do have a problem with regarding the article is the database of permit holders being public information. It's no one else's business that I have a permit unless I choose to share that information.
I couldn't agree more, but then, a public database of permit holders is just one of many private bits of information that just about anyone could find out legally, if they know where to look.
The Great and Malignant
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Post by Sea Skimmer »

I've now got images of a couple state senators stepping out for a duel during someone speech stuck in my heads. Along with easier to obtain weapons permits this country desperately dueling. Just think about the billions that would be saved in nuisance lawsuits and the corresponding reducing in lawyer levels?
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5835
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Post by J »

It's been a couple years since I've studied law, but I do remember reading that dueling is still allowed in Oregon. However there were some conditions which had to be met and both parties had to sign papers before the duel to make it kosher.
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
User avatar
Jadeite
Racist Pig Fucker
Posts: 2999
Joined: 2002-08-04 02:13pm
Location: Cardona, People's Republic of Vernii
Contact:

Post by Jadeite »

Hmm, finally something good about my state. And I agree with Sea Skimmer, we need dueling back, itd solve a lot of problems.
Image
User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Post by RedImperator »

Dueling: now there's a reality TV show I'd watch. I wonder why they outlawed it--if both parties are willing to accept the possibility they'll be killed, I say let them go for it.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
User avatar
Wicked Pilot
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 8972
Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm

Post by Wicked Pilot »

RedImperator wrote:I wonder why they outlawed it--if both parties are willing to accept the possibility they'll be killed, I say let them go for it.
Not to bring this very reasonable thread off topic, but probably the same reason they outlawed alcohol and other mind altering drugs.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
User avatar
SPOOFE
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3174
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:34pm
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Contact:

Post by SPOOFE »

but probably the same reason they outlawed alcohol
Outlawing alcohol resulted in more murders than it prevented.
The Great and Malignant
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Not to bring this very reasonable thread off topic, but probably the same reason they outlawed alcohol and other mind altering drugs.
However bans on dueling where all individual state laws, rather then federal in the case of alcohol and drugs.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Wicked Pilot
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 8972
Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm

Post by Wicked Pilot »

Not to further drag this thread off topic, but I'm trying to compare the logic behind "protecting adults from themselves" as a reason for the bannings. The methods and results of the bannings are not what I'm trying to compare.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
Post Reply