Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

New Developments In The ‘Concealed Carry’ Debate

June 7, 2010 by  

New developments in the 'concealed carry' debateIn the midst of the intense debate about Americans’ right to carry a concealed weapon, both proponents and opponents of this measure can find many resources that can inform their views and decisions., a nonpartisan public charity dedicated to promoting critical thinking, created a website dedicated to this issue. It explores many of the arguments about the concealed carry debate and includes sources, images, videos, reader comments and a section of little known facts called "Did You Know?"

Supporters of concealed carry argue that criminals are less likely to attack if they believe the potential victim could be armed. They also cite the provisions of the Second Amendment and contend that most adults who legally carry a concealed handgun are law-abiding citizens.

Meanwhile, critics argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and that concealed handguns boost the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and increase the number of unintended gun injuries.

However, recent research conducted by David Burnett and Clayton Cramer, who track incidents of defensive gun use at, found that concealed guns may in fact save lives.

The stories they documented include senior citizens fighting off robbers and women defending themselves against attackers, proving that armed citizens may prevent violent crimes at restaurants, grocery stores, banks or coffee houses.

"We’ve documented 2,160 stories of self-defense with guns since May 2007," said Burnett. "When it comes to concealed carry permits, we have 153 documented cases across 26 states with at least 550 lives saved."ADNFCR-1961-ID-19814078-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “New Developments In The ‘Concealed Carry’ Debate”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • James

    Of course conceal carry saves lives. Law abiding citizens are not looking for a gun fight. They want to live peacefully.

    But gang bangers, rapist, and murders the common criminals that are found everywhere in our country. Have made it a requirement for good people who have common sense to arm themselves to defend what they own, and to defend their God give lives.

    The gun banners, I call them traitors because that is what they are. Want you to rely on the police or law enforcement to prevent violent crime. Well that is pure insanity!

    The US Supreme Court has ruled many times, that the police ARE NOT required to provide any citizen 24 hour protection.

    Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;

    Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection … this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen … a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.);

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on
    equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal
    footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal
    footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    The recent 2009 FBI crime statistics proves without a doubt that more guns equals less crime. In 2009 record guns sales occurred in the U.S., yet crime fell. I wonder why? End of story.

    • Al Sieber

      They never tell the other side of the story anyways. why does this even have to be a issue? why do we always have to fight for rights we already have? if we lose these rights, its all over.

      • Vicki

        The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance. We do not loose any (Creator given) right.

    • JC

      Dear Mr. C:

      Thank you for writing to express your opposition to the ratification of the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (CIFTA). I appreciate hearing from you on this topic and welcome the opportunity to respond.

      While I understand your concerns about the ratification of CIFTA, I strongly believe that the U.S. should act promptly to take up and ratify this convention. For many years, I have been concerned about the proliferation of firearms worldwide. From Afghanistan to Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Haiti, the proliferation of firearms and other weapons undermines peace, stability, economic growth, and harms U.S. national security interests.

      Specifically, the illicit trafficking of firearms from the U.S. has helped to exacerbate recent violence in Mexico. Recent congressional testimony provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms & Explosives (ATF) revealed that approximately 90 percent of confiscated firearms used by cartels were traced to the U.S. It is estimated that with 2,000 guns per day crossing the border from the U.S. into Mexico. Further, 6,000 people were killed in Mexico last year due to drug-related violence, with another 1,000 people killed in January 2009 alone. I believe that the ratification of CIFTA will help to combat the threat of narcotics trafficking and illegal arms transfers in Mexico and Central America, and provide an unequivocal statement that the U.S. is serious about stemming the tide of weapons flowing into the region.

      Again, thank you for writing. While we do not necessarily agree on this particular issue, your views are important to me, and I hope that you will continue to write on matters of importance to you. Should you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

      Sincerely yours,
      Dianne Feinstein
      United States Senator

      Note the total use of misinformation re: Mexico.
      Note that the “War on Drugs” is the sharp end of the wedge into subjugate us and our freedoms here in the US.
      Note the complete and utter arrogance of believing she has the right to conduct social engineering not only here but all over the world.

      • Jon R

        I believe that the senator from CA is incorrect in her assessment of the issues. First is the basic personal liberty granted by the constitution to bare arms to prevent any power, foreign or domestic, from supressing citizens of the united states. But equally important is to real look at the situation defined. Drugs are not flowing into Mexico from the US but the other direction. To believe that you would curb violence in Mexico by inhibiting arms transfer from the US is nearsided. These individuals find weapons from several sources, not just the US, and will surely arrange to get them from a non-US source to continue their killing in Mexico and trafficing of illegal drugs into the US. The bigger issue is our inadequately secure boarders that allow drugs and a variety of other things to flow between Mexico and the US. Perhaps the senator should work on legislation to ensure the boarders are secure to inhibit gun running, drugs and human trafficing between our two countries rather then disarming Americans specifically. I to wish that we could live in a world without guns but it’s not going to happpen. Wake up and get real!

        • JC

          Agreed Jon. The Border is the real issue in the Mexican drug war…theory. And I personally believe she is guilty of sedition when she feels she can hand American rights over to a global body we didn’t elect. In fact no one elected them.

      • 45caliber

        Incidently, did any of you know that this Senator carries a gun at all times? She was asked if she was going to give up her gun if/when she got them banned. She said, “No, of course not. There are people out there who don’t like me. I’ve got the right to defend myself.”

        • SSG_Prasuhn

          Now why doesn’t that surprise me that the esteemed(?) Senator (Feinstein) from CA stated she wouldn’t give up her gun(s) should a total gun ban be enacted and enforced. Hmmm?!?! Sounds ‘typical’ of her ilk. What a sorry excuse of an American(?) they are.

  • James Colglazier

    Bravo ! The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld and remain to be interperted as the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. This is essential to our FREEDOM !

    • Vicki

      Interesting to note is that the 2nd amendment is a prohibition against all government interference with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

      Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.”

      Note that the Constitution is listed first, then our Laws, then treaties. So any treaty that conflicts with our Constitutional limitations on government are invalid.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Those unwilling to defend their rights deserve NONE!!!

  • Howard Jones

    While listing a bunch of stories about CCW holders defending themselves is fine, if you want the best source of data read John Lott’s third edition of “More Guns, Less Crime”. It has become the standard for proving our point.

  • Al Sieber

    We need to vote these “Marxists” out this Nov.. pardon the pun, we need to give it our “best shot”, it’ the only chance we have.

  • Jaytex

    If you were a criminal, would you want to face an armed citizen or an unarmed citizen? Common sense should tell you the answer.

  • herbert emerson


  • JC
  • 45caliber

    The fact that the areas with guns has less crime has been known since about 1970. Readers Digest commissioned a study to prove that guns equal crime but the group studying it found it was the exact opposite.

    Areas with least guns per population? Inner city areas, particularly government assisted housing.

    The areas with the most crime? Inner city areas, particularly government assisted housing.

    Area with the most guns per population? The Ozark Mountains in Arkansas – 2.5 guns per person.

    Area with the least crime? The Ozark Mountains in Arkansas – where most people didn’t even have locks on their doors.

    And of course the government and the anti-gun people ignored it.

  • Randy

    People who think those that carry a concealed weapon are dangerous are completely wrong.The only ones they pose a danger to are the criminal element. Why do you think Russia never fired a nuke at our country? Because they couldn’t! Hell no it was because we would fire back. The same thing goes for the criminals, gang bangers, murders, rapist. If they think you will shot their ass off if they act stupid they tend to get intelligent really quick. It’s our right yes RIGHT to Own And Bear Arms in our defense of our person and property. The founding fathers were very smart when they drafted the Constitution and Bill Of Rights.

  • ESA

    It never ceases to amaze me that CC critics lead with arguments that have been dis-proven time and time again. While it’s true one can juggle statistical analysis numbers, the facts of this issue remain consistent. Crime stats and information such as is found in writers like John Lott is treated as if it doesn’t exist yet the emotional suppositions put forth by the critics are treated as gospel.

    Along these lines, I would submit the US government has been taken over by mega business concerns and no longer represents the people of the country. Terms such as “national interest” and “fight for our freedom” are not in the interest of the population of the US as a whole but are business terms designed for the protection of mega business profits throughout the world.

    There are many guns in the hands of citizens of the US and a major part of the population realizes the need for personal and family protection. Goblins are everywhere. One cannot protect their family away from home without the means of protection immediately available.

    You can bet the mega business types have a means of personal protection without a question. The wealthy elite of the nation make sure they don’t go without anything and care little of the rest of the population. Again, this elite group has become the us government [sic].

    Remember the “quaint” document that states; “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” It’s in the preamble.

    For those who may be predisposed to dismiss this as ranting, ask yourself why the US Coast Guard and police are being ordered by BP to keep US citizens off the southern beaches and prevented from taking photographs which could, by the way, be presented in court. Does it strike anyone at all that this puts the entire population of the US as subservient to a mega business? Remember, those orders were being followed.

    Is it really any wonder why the rich and powerful have prevented CC in most states?

    Can you say “Police State?” I knew that you could…

    • 45caliber

      I wouldn’t say that the rich has suceeded in limiting CC in “most” states. The last I heard 36 states had it.

      • JC

        I can’t recall if it’s 17 or 27 states that recognize each others right to carry permits now too.

        • Jim H.

          JC, My Utah permit allows me to carry in 29 states, but not mine.

          • JC

            Right, and if I recall you’re in Illinois?
            Hopefully the Supremes rule as they should in the
            McDonald V. City of Chicago case.

          • Jim H.

            Go Black Hawks.

  • Robin, Arcadia, IN

    America beware. This administration’s agenda is all about taking away rights. We must not let this happen. We must vote those out that think our rights are no longer viable. Educate those around you! Everyone should know the truth, and it is not what the main stream media tells you!

    • 45caliber

      You are correct. Let’s hope that voting them out is all we need to worry about.

  • s c

    CC laws will insure that America always has a functioning 2nd Amendment. A public that is protected by concealed carry laws will always be safer than one that pays lip service to ‘safety’ but does nothing to guarantee that we have it.
    CC laws make predators look over their shoulders, and think hesitate before they dare to exhibit their hardcore, progressive intentions.
    Based on what passes for leadership in the last 100+ years, America will be safer if CC laws spread across the nation. Practical safety and instant ‘social justice’ are worth their weight in gold, people.
    It’s time for America’s two-legged predators to know that they and their friends are now the prey.
    Safety means nothing if we can only talk about it.
    Either we have it, or we don’t.

  • George Halepis

    What? No “liberal” comments? Maybe they all dried up and blew away? I wish!

    • JC

      Its an argument they can’t win.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        god willing and the creek don’t rise, I’ll statr CC classes in two weeks!! Ohio says you have to take the classes!

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Capitalize that G in God please1 I’m having trouble with my timing on that!

        • JC

          Right on Joe, exercise your rights.

    • libertytrain

      probably were all in a pep rally down in the basement office at the WH

      • JC

        Goose stepping around with one arm extended or singing cumbaya? ;)

        • libertytrain

          Of course.

  • 45caliber

    Take over of the U.S.

    Back in 1968 the Air Force Academy published the “3 Rules for Takeover of the U.S.” as put out by the American Communist Party. The Air Force had checked and were told by the Communist Party that these rules were still in force in 1968.

    1) Destroy the ruggedness of the American people by concentrating their attention of spectator sports and sex. (What do you normally watch on TV?)

    2) Gain control of the news media and use it to prevent the people from knowing what is going on in their legislative halls (state and country) and to tear down the image of any natural leader the people might want to follow. (When was the last time you knew more than one or two bills the legislature was working on? Did you know any details? And what about Palin?)

    3) Disarm the population through gun control.

    That’s it, Folks. Nice and simply. And it seems to me that someone is trying very hard on the first two and probably has already succeeded on No. 2. They are working hard on No. 3.

    Incidently the American Communist Party shut its doors about 1984. The reason? Every one of their platform items had been adopted by BOTH the GOP and the Dems.

  • chuck b

    45 caliber

    it looks like you’ve hit the nail on the head. i most certainly agree the communist movement in this country has used music and sports to distract our young ones from filling that space between their ears.
    at the same time they have gone all out to dis-arm this nation. in 1968 the john birch society promoted a movie called the “pied piper” they showed the movie at a local high school. the subject was how music is being used to tear down the morality of children and leading to drugs. they sure prophesied the future of our country correctly. between sports and music they have replaced the values of our society. i quit watching baseball and football when the media started idolizing players who showed their disdain for our country and looking like something out of a freak show.
    we watch some high school sports and college baseball,basketball, but, not as much anymore. it seems the college level is more interested in affirmative action and a lot of students who carry good grades set on the bench. this is in a way what has happened to the country. we are having our rights taken away one at a time and now they have their sight on our guns, it may be time to put our sights on them. we have the communist party running our government.

  • Jim H.

    The people who apply for the Utah CCW are finger printed and go through a criminal background check. They also take a class given by certified instructors. These people are not the ones we have to worry about.

  • UglyFool

    Care must be taken in voting the bums out – we might get someone much worse…

    • independant thinker

      That is true. In Arkansas Lincoln came close to losing to Halter. While I am not a big Lincoln fan she is light years better than Halter. Fortunately she did defeat him in the runoff.

  • FreedomFighter

    CCW save lives, stats are in.

    Good people armed give the bad person pause–”is that mark armed or not?, that is the question.”

    Letter to knife wielding would be thief,

    Dear Thief,

    Im sorry my 45 cal pointed at your chest made you wet your pants, scream like a child and run away. Im sorry, you didnt get to rob me like all the other people you have probably robbed (not really), and for the nasty fall you took running from me, hope you have Obama care.


    • http://?? Joe H.

      PS, next time I might not be so agreeable!!!

  • Artie

    The day that i got my CW permit and strapped on my .357 magnum, I found myself with a feeling of awe. I knew that I had the power of life and death strapped to my hip. At first, it was a frightening feeling but then I came down to earth. When I received my permit, I was not told to go to a training class and I was not told anything about the rules pertaining to concealed carry and the use of deadly force. So, I went to my public library, pre-internet days, and read all of the state laws regarding when and how to use deadly force, and when it is permissable and when it is not. You see, I took my responsibility very seriously. To date, I have never had to draw my weapon even one time. But, because I suffered a reaction to two antidepressant meds, this wss after my CCW ran out and I hadn’t renewed it, I tried to OD five times and was involuntarily put into a psych ward. After I was released, my doctor told me that what I had done was NOT my fault because it was the drugs effecting my mind. So, lately, because of the way the world is getting, I decided to apply for a new permit to carry and found out that I could not own a weapon or carry a weapon because i was involuntarily committed back in 1996. This law says that I can NEVER, FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, own or carry a firearm!!! Now I have to go to a court of appeals and try to ‘win back’ my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

  • Bob

    This liberal agenda of our government has been insistent upon not punishing criminals, and allowing them to victimize honest, hard-working, tax-paying citizens. If the government is going to turn our cities over to thugs, gangs, criminals, etc., I’m going to carry a weapon. I have a permit to carry, and have “jumped through all their hoops,” paid the administrative fees and such. If they take my right to carry away, I’ll just have to carry illegally. I’m not going to be a “sitting duck” for criminals to victimize.

  • Redeyefredeye

    I got my ccp due to my papaw gave me a very old mint condition model 12 pump shotgun and told me to guard it with my life. I simply am not willing to lose my shot gun while going dove hunting because my shot vest may be laying on it or something. I would not have got the ccp if not for this purpose and would still continue to carry my guns anywhere in the USA that i want, when i want.They just want all of you to beleive that you no longer have a right to bear arms? You better protect your rights with your life because your life is next in line.

  • Al

    I have a CCL but think that this is a law that is not needed but used by politicians to keep track of law abiding citizens. Actually, any law abiding citizen should be able to carry a fire arm without anyone’s permission.

    • SSG_Prasuhn

      The ‘requirement’ to possess a CCW permit (by law), in effect, is nothing more than governments attempt to make it a ‘privilege’ rather than a ‘RIGHT’ (under the Constitution) to ‘Keep and Bear Arms’.

      If it is a ‘God-given Right’ to defend oneself, family, property and/or neighbors, how then can the government take that ‘right’ away and make it a ‘privilege’ instead? This is exactly what the ‘privilege’ of possessing a CCW permit does. If the issuing Sheriff declines you the ‘privilege’ of obtaining a CCW permit, and you carry a weapon despite this, it then makes YOU a criminal as you are NOT ‘authorized’ to do so, even thought you have that ‘Right’ as guaranteed by the Constitution. What kind of a CATCH-22 is this, anyway?

      If we stick to the (original) ‘wording’ of the Constitution (as our Forefathers had written it and intended for it to be followed) there shouldn’t be any need whatsoever for anyone to ‘have’ to obtain a CCW permit. All this does (as does a driver’s license — also a ‘permit’ or ‘privilege’ to operate a motor vehicle) is ‘grant’ you (us) the ‘Right’ to carry a concealed weapon and construct a ‘paper trail’ of who has a weapon and where that weapon (or weapons) may be for ‘easy confiscation’ when the (their) time comes to conduct such confiscation.

      The government shouldn’t have any more need to know who is or isn’t ‘armed’ than the criminal intent on doing a number on you does.

      The only ones the government should worry about being armed (unlawfully, of course) are the criminals themselves. Gun prohibition laws against the ‘law-abiding’ citizenry does nothing more than make criminals out of them, where this should NOT be the case.

      If only we could bring our ‘Forefathers’ back to take over the current ‘regime’. Now, THAT would ‘make my day’!!

  • Al

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.