I for one am glad that the conceal and carry law has been repealed. I personally don't think that it should be so easy to attain a gun. Of course it is your right to own arms, but if you really feel the need to own one, then you should comply with a security check and waiting period.

I personally feel that the conceal and carry was 'forced' (as the media here has been saying) down a lot of people's throats. Perhaps we should create a referendum or forum and see what the public thinks, and not just our public officials.

I'd like to link this to our country's preoccupation with terrorism as of late, and ask if you think allowing easier access to firearms is a good way to help prevent terror?

Exactly why is it a good thing that peope be allowed to carry concealed weapons?

Seriously, what's the point of this? Do they need guns to make them feel secure?

Nor do I even own a gun at the moment, but:

1) Statistics (in the state of Utah, at least) show that those who have concealed carry permits are much less likely to be involved in a gun crime.

2) There are people who have reason to fear for their life and have a reason to carry. Maybe a firearm won't do much good when it comes down to the confrontation, but it will help make them feel more secure.

3) There are people that must travel to insecure locations for work reasons, and feel the need to protect themselves in areas where police are unable to aid quickly or unwilling to lend aid.

The people that scare me the most are people who pack without any formal handgun training. If you want a permit to carry concealed, you should prove your ability to handle a firearm (accurate shooting, reloading, etc.) before one is issued. A friend of mine used to do certs in this and a lot of the people who came to him were incapable of loading their pistol and much less capable of hitting anything at a decent range with it. If it became necessary for them to use force, they're much more likely to hit a bystander.

Uh.. Does anyone remember the constitution?

There is a lot of evidence to show that concealed carry does lower violent crime (the states that have some sort of concealed carry law had their violent crime drop more than other states, and in countries such as UK that have very strict gun bans all together, violent crime is in fact going up). As most know, I am pro gun and pro concealed carry.

Now the problem with this law was they way it was passed. Basically there was a DNR bill that had full support of lawmakers, so they added the concealed carry part on to it and pretty much snuck it in. If the people of MN want to have a concealed carry law, they need to have it done by the books, and preferably by popular vote.

Summary: I"m pro gun, but I'm also pro responsible politics ;)

For the record I do not own a handgun, nor do I have any reason other than my right as a citizen to own one. I did not apply for the CC permit. I’m not against the idea of personally owning a handgun, but have never had a reason to purchase one. I do however support your right to purchase one if you meet the legal requirements. If your state has a CC law then I support that you have the right to walk about armed, so long as you follow the rules. In MN the rules were quite strict in comparison with most states regarding CC. The Legislature mandated that applicants had to pass courses taught by authorized instructors, pass additional background checks and largely the measure took the deciding factor out of the hands of a few individuals and put it in the hands of the people. Prior to this in order to legally carry you had to make an application to the local sheriff and it was that one person who decided whether or not you got it based on nothing more than personal opinion.

Basically this judge was hand-picked by the plaintiffs, as he was known as a liberal who was openly biased against the carry law.

He states: "Attaching this amendment to an unrelated issue... prevented the public from having any input. There were no legislative hearings in either the House or Senate in which the attached provision... could be debated. A debate with committee hearings on the single issue of conceal and carry would have very possibly resulted in a properly drafted bill that would prevent the inherent problems that have been raised by the plaintiffs..."

This was hotly debated both in the legislature and amongst the public. There were several editorials for and against it in the papers, rallies/protests on the capitol grounds.

The state Legislature does this all the time; in past rulings the MN Supreme Court has granted wide latitude to the Legislature when it comes to the "single subject" provision. The intent was that provisions weren't snuck into other bills such that the public or lawmakers wouldn't notice or be able to comment on them. It’s obvious that everyone knew about this one. The enduring weeks and months of decrying “what about the children!!??” and “they’ll be shooting people in bars over imagined slights!!” seemed never-ending. Yet has any of this happened? No. The state’s very own Bureau of Criminal Apprehension released a report shortly before this case came to be heard stating that no violent or gun-related crimes have been committed by those carrying concealed weapons legally. Furthermore it is the legal right granted every citizen to own them.

More to the point is the can of worms this ruling opens up. Every state Legislature passes bills with riders attached. State Depts. of Transportation frequently attach bills to the larger issue in order to pass them more easily. For example, lowering the legal blood alcohol level, seat-belt laws etc. drinking ages etc.

What this ruling does if it is allowed to stand is to open the gates for ANYONE who disagrees with a given law. Didn’t get what you wanted in the last session? File a suit and say it was improperly passed when it wasn’t and find a judge with an ax to grind who is looking to make political points. I think I may go out tomorrow and file a suit against the new law attached to the DOT bill last session that allows the state to force you to provide a written letter from your insurance company on their letterhead as a means of showing proof of insurance, up to YEARS after an accident. Please ignore the fact that in MN you are already required to carry proof of insurance at all times while driving.

It isn’t his job to write the law, it’s his job to interpret. Give the VAST precedence on single provision interpretations from courts higher than his own he clearly stepped beyond his means.

The "Personal Protection Act" wasn't a new law, but merely amended the existing statute that dealt with carry permits.

As for being your statement that it is easy to obtain a gun you obviously didn’t read any of the supporting links and are simply parroting what little you’ve heard without considering both sides. It isn’t easy to obtain a handgun in this or in most states. You have to be eligible, pass a background check, not have a felony record etc. As for obtaining a carry permit you have to go to special classes, show proficiency with handguns and still you have to pass yet another background check.

Additional supporting statements from some of the state's sheriff's
[link]

I'd like to link this to our country's preoccupation with terrorism as of late, and ask if you think allowing easier access to firearms is a good way to help prevent terror?

Do you think terrorists will try to obtain permits for their weapons? Or do you think people who choose to carry weapons are prone to becoming terrorists?

I don't understand why so many people want to own a pistol, when pepper spray and other alternatives have been clearly shown to be superior: [link]

[link] : "And it is generally accepted in the shooting community that combat pistol accuracy is only around 20%."
This coincides with what a police officer once told me about handgun accuracy among police officers in combat situations being only about 30%. I'd argue that most pistol owners don't have the same level of training as police officers.

And if you're a complete idiot, wouldn't you rather accidentally spray your clothes full of pepper spray than shoot yourself in the foot?

So yes it does make them feel more secure.

If NJ allowed people to carry I would. Bad shit happens and the cops can't always get there in time. States that allow carry permits also have lower crime rates. Would you mug someone in a state that allows people to carry?

Well, a simple answer to your question is this:

If you pull pepper spray on a potential mugger, if they have a gun or knife, there is a real good chance that they will try to use it before you spray them. If you pull a gun, even if they also have one, they will be less likely to try to do something to you, even if they also have a gun.

You may want to note, your link is for a company that sells pepper spray, so of course they are going to tell you that it is more effective than guns, knives, stunguns, etc.

As for the complete idiot part, I suppose getting sprayed with pepper spray by accident is better than shooting oneself, but this is where the required training to carry a concealed weapon (I believe most states make you take a class on responsible use and also require you to pass a shooting test to make sure you can hit your target).

Your statistics are correct that combat pistol accuracy is only %20, I believe from a police training course I took, its not any better for police officers. The big difference is in %99 of cases, simply pulling out a gun will defuse a situation. Most criminals are stupid, but chances are they will not try to charge someone who has a gun.

Actually a lot of it has to do with not freaking out the pussy liberals by seeing a gun carried in plain sight.

They are helping to keep you useless gits happy and oblivious to the fact that people own guns and carry them in a proper manner.

Concealed carry allows people to bear their arms as they want without having to deal with whiners bitching about people packing and scaring granny or the kiddies. However a whole new set of whiners is here bitching about concealed carrying.

Let me ask you this. Would you rather have people walking around and seeing the guns or would you rather they hid them?

many people walk our streets with concealed weapons already,they have for years and will continue to due so.these people are criminals and they would love the antigun politicians to win. when guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have them.just like the rest of the world.

Understandably, pulling out a gun is more likely to detract potential attackers from trying anything. However, if the assailant has a gun or a knife, he/she simply won't be able to even see you to try to use his/her weapon in the first place if you have pepper spray, or if you completely immobilize him/her with a taser. That's the big thing for me--even if you do shoot your opponent, unless you use a large caliber pistol, there's a definite chance of them still trying to attack you. Not so much with a knife, but definitely a possibility with a pistol.

Naturally, pepper spray and tasers have the problem of short range, but most situations occur at very short range anyway.

I wish I could say I stand one way or another on the issue, but statistics in different areas seem to convincingly argue their cases both ways. It seems to me the problem doesn't lie with the guns, but, perhaps as Michael Moore suggested, the culture they're used in. That movie made me damn near move to Canada, if it wasn't so awfully cold there.

yup.