Should State Legislators have passed the concealed weapons bill?

First Northern Bank of Wyoming
61% (249 votes)
35% (142 votes)
4% (16 votes)
Total votes: 407

not really the guns

I think, for many people, this really wasn't so much about concealed weapons as being tired of the constant erosion of our rights. It seems every time we turn around we see new laws that taken one at a time might be justifiable, but taken in total are becoming intolerable. Every time we turn around there is another law passed that takes just a tiny bit of our freedom away, or saddles us with ever more government. I think what a lot of people here are saying is that it's time to draw the line. We do not want national health care, national IDs, ridiculous fines for seat belts....the list goes on and on. Government at all levels needs to see that we are not subjects in this country we are citizens, and have had it with being dictated to by government at all levels.

Republican Caucus and convention this weekend

This offers a great opportunity for those registered republicans in the county to get involved in the process, and bring up our concerns to the party.

Event: Sheridan County Precinct Caucus and ConventionDate: Saturday, March 13, 2010Time: 8:00AM - lunch from 12 – 1 (candidates invited to speak)Location: Sheridan Inn, SheridanContact: Kathy Coleman | 307-673-5264 |

concealed weapons

Really was surprised to learn God guaranteed the right to carry a concealed weapon.

It's every mans God Given

It's every mans God Given Right to defend himself and family and his property.....Period!!

God Given Rights

Which "God" guaranteed that and where can you find it written in text that is understandable. I understand you have the right to defend yourself, family & property, again what does that have to do with packing a concealed weapon that you can get a permit for, unless of course you are a felon, or have domestic problems. Most everyone that owns guns in WY have gone thru the hunter education course, been in the military or had some sort of safety training. Just don't understand what the problem is with haveing a permit. Defending yourself, family & property also involves a little detail called reasonable force, just because some kid walks across your yard does not give you the right to take a shot at them. Trespassing, maybe, reasonable force, no. Again, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon so what is the problem. Period:

P.S. Show me one instance

Show me one instance where a kid was shot in Wyoming for walking across someones lawn? That's a lame arguement designed to scare people. Vermont has no Concealed Carry Law, if you live there and own a gun your allowed to carry it concealed if you wish. There's no one in Vermont going around shooting kids crossing there lawn and there isn't much crime in Vermont either. And even if something like that did happen the person doing the shooting or threating would go to jail. There are only 2 reasons you can shoot someone. You have to either prove you were in danger of grave bodily harm or your life was in danger, anything else will land you in jail and every gun owner knows this.
Oh yeah, I took the hunter safety course because my wife had to take it. My dad showed me how to shoot a gun and showed me how to be safe with it, I didn't need the givernment to teach me.

The Bible couldn't be

The Bible couldn't be clearer on the right – even the duty – we have as believers to self-defense.

Let's start in the Old Testament.

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him," we are told in Exodus 22:2. The next verse says, "If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

In other words, it was perfectly OK to kill a thief breaking into your house. That's the ultimate expression of self-defense. It doesn't matter whether the thief is threatening your life or not. You have the right to protect your home, your family and your property, the Bible says.

The Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. They didn't send in the Marines. The people defended themselves.

In 1 Samuel 25:13, we read: "And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword: and there went up after David about four hundred men; and two hundred abode by the stuff."

Every man had a sword and every man picked it up when it was required.

Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm: "They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?"

The answer to the rhetorical question is clear: No. The people had rebelled against God and put away their weapons of self-defense.

"Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight," David writes in Psalms 144:1.

Clearly, this is not a pacifist God we serve. It's God who teaches our hands to war and our fingers to fight. Over and over again throughout the Old Testament, His people are commanded to fight with the best weapons available to them at that time.

And what were those weapons? Swords.

They didn't have firearms, but they had sidearms. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus commanded His disciples to buy them and strap them on. Don't believe me? Check it out.

Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

I know. I know. You biblically literate skeptics are going to cite Matthew 26:52-54 – how Jesus responded when Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of a servant of the high priest: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"

Read those verses in context and they support my position. Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation – as well as undermining God's plan to allow Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection.

Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place – at his side. He didn't say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. What Jesus was saying was: "Peter, this is not the right time for a fight."

In the context of America's current battle – as we make plans to rebuild after the devastation of Sept. 11 and defend ourselves at the same time – we should recall Nehemiah, who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem.

"They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon," we're told in Nehemiah 4:17-18. "For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded."

Any more questions, skeptics?

God given rights were in the

God given rights were in the Decliration of Indipendance, not the Bill of Rights.

Concealed weapons

"God" did not write the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. A good bet that "God" would not have put a clause in that says you have the right to pack a weapon to harm others with.

All I can say is go to the

All I can say is go to the Wyoming Gun Owners Association's web site and make a list of all those who voted against this bill ( and against our constitutional rights ) and vote them out of office in November 2010.
The people of wyoming need to start protecting our Constitutional Rights and we can do that at the voting booth.

Concealed Gun Smoke

Once Again "OUR ELECTED OFFICAL" are blowing smoke up our A$$! This smells of the seat belt law that was put on the books to protect us from ourselves and is now used against us! Vote all the bums out from the local yokal to the bamboozelers in Washington! Vote on tax day!

Criminals are Lawless

Criminals don't abide by the law, so to them a concealed carry permit is merely nothing more than a piece of paper. So rather than give "Law-Abiding" citizens the right that is already guaranteed by God and the Constitution; we restrict the Law abiding citizens??? Sounds counter productive to me? Why not let the law abiding citizens carry concealed with out a permit/permission? The criminals don't ask for permission??? According to Wyoming state law it is already a legal right for anyone to open carry in the state of Wyoming with out a permit. What about those in the winter that want to put on a carhart and it covers their firearm, should that law abiding citizen be hauled off to jail because their coat conceals their firearm? I don't think so.
The only good not passing this law did was give the "upper-hand" to the criminals by restricting the Law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.
The 2nd amendment doesn't say you can carry a firearm if you pay $xxx amount of money for a permit, and that right should not be infringed. Some can't afford the cost of the permit and some simply refuse to get a concealed carry out of principal and open carry. I also know many who have a concealed carry but open carry as well.


Have you looked into the cost of a concealed carry permit? It cost $80 total. If you can afford a handgun, you can afford a permit.

Outrage not just about concealed carry

Honestly I would have liked to have seen this become law, but I can always open carry with no permit or permission if I so choose. The bigger outrage is that these three bozo's disregarded what the people they are supposed to represent asked them to do. Mr.Patton had over 1500 emails, and the question of the week shows 2/1 support for the bill. What these three have done is to tell the public their wishes did not matter, and please don't bother us be emailing or otherwise getting involved in the political process. I always encourage people to rite and call their representatives in all levels of government because I think it makes a difference, what these three have done is make a mockery of our the democratic process.

I'm glad they didn't pass

I'm glad they didn't pass this. What's wrong with having to pass a competency test in order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon??? I for one feel a little safer knowing that if someone is legally carrying a concealed firearm they at least know how to use it. Of course criminals are still going to carry guns without a permit, nothing is going to change that. I just don't want some law abiding idiot to feel like he can now carry a gun because it makes him feel cool without having any training at all.

Know the guidelines

Apparently you've never looked into getting a concealed weapon or else you would know that the competency test is rather uncomplicated. I took a hunter's safety course 20 years ago and was able to get my concealed permit. That is without ever shooting a handgun.

Its a right that we have according to the 2nd Amendment that we can carry a weapon. Plus, I can guarantee that the "thugs" out there aren't worried about their concealed weapons permit. Does that make you feel safer?

Our legislators ...

... simply don't trust the law-abiding citizens of the state whom they are supposed to serve. Let's think about that before voting next time.

The 2nd ammendment does not

The 2nd ammendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms, it prohibits the government from attempting to prohibit this pre-existing (God-given) natural right. It also establishes the DUTY of citizens to be armed (for the security of a free state)! Our founders were not perfect, but they were very smart men who had studied history and government enough to know that the only real national security lies in an armed populace, not in any governmental system or agency.

I don't know where you get

I don't know where you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the Right to Keep and bear Arms?

The 2nd Amendment says " The Right ( meaning you have the Right ) of the people ( that's us ) to keep ( Have in their possesion ) and Bear ( meaning "Carry", I just looked it up in the dictionary ) Arms shall not be infrindged.
Infrindged means encroach or trespass, so Shall not be infrindged would mean the government or anyone ( local, state or federal ) my not trespass or encroach on these Rights.

I think you are

I think you are misunderstanding Hank's post. The way I understand it: The right to arm oneself has always existed. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us that right; it prevents the government from taking it away.

concealed carry

Sheridan needs to find some representation that will represent the people for a change!

Concealed weapons give a

Concealed weapons give a criminal a moment of pause prior to him trying to rob someone.. He has to think about the risk of himself not walking away from a robbery for fear of being shot by a pullled concealed weapon. As it stands now, when a criminal does his deed, the only fear he has is the fact he MIGHT spend some time in jail... With our without the bill, people will continue to get shot.. This or any other bill will never solve all of our issues, but giving a criminal a split second of pause prior to his crime will save lives.. IMO

The United States

The United States Constitutions says:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ( Shall not meaning NEVER )

It Does Not say you have the right to keep and bear arms as long as your local, state or federal government will give you a premit.

Vermont doesn't require you to have a concealed carry permit in order to carry concealed. If you live in Vermont you can carry a loaded handgun concealed with no permit. They don't have people carrying guns all over and shooting people on accident and they don't have a lot of crime either.

Reguardless if you own a firearm or not doesn't matter. You have the right to own one should you choose to do so, our forefathers said this was one of our God Given Rights and wanted to make sure it was never taken away from us.
I have a friend who grew up not liking guns, now she wants to buy a gun and learn how to use it so she has asked her brother to show her how.

Personally I'm sick of our elected officals ( Local, State and federal ) thinking they can distroy our Constitution whenever they think it's for the greater good, it's not for them to decide. Our forefathers stated that these were "God Given Rights", not rights given to us by the people we elect.

Wyoming needs to stand up to the federal government and restore and preserve Wyomings Constitutional Rights. They owe the citizens of Wyoming that much.

Where exactly does it say in

Where exactly does it say in the Constitution that these are "God given rights"? It doesn't. Is it a "God given right" to own another human being? Many of the forefathers owned slaves. It was economically against their (the forefather's) interest to outlaw the ownership of another human being because they needed slaves to produce their income. So, be careful when you talk sanctimoniously about the forefathers -- they weren't exactly god-fearing individuals.

God given rights

The Declaration of Independence states that we have rights endowed by our creator and the Constitution then enumerates some of them in the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution makes no

The Constitution makes no mention of God-given rights but The Declaration of Independence does. Therefore it seems to me that the intent behind the Bill of Rights is to limit the government's ability to infringe on the rights that are "endowed by our creator."

Concealed Weapons

The Second Amendment is not nearly as clear cut as many gun rights advocates assume. Its language ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.")could certainly be interpreted to mean that the reason for allowing citizens to keep and bear arms is for the express purpose of maintaining a militia, perhaps with emphasis on "well regulated." Does this not imply that necessary and proper limitations on the "right" to bear arms are within the purview of government's authority, that citizens may not have an absolute right to carry any kind of weapons in any set of circumstances without restriction?

Furthermore, long and clearly established jurisprudence has ruled that none of the so-called "God given rights" in the Bill of Rights are absolute. All of these rights are essentially relative to the extent that reasonable limitations may be imposed on these rights. Freedom to freely exercise one's religious beliefs, for example, does not give someone the right to sacrifice another human being in the name of his/her religion, even though there might be those who genuinely believe that periodic sacrifices to the gods are demanded. I think most rational people would consider this to be a reasonable limitation on Freedom of Religion. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, so famously said, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

There are dozens and dozens of such examples where legal authority has ruled that basic freedoms are not absolute and may in exigent circumstances be limited. The Second Amendment, too, is not absolute and debates as to what, how and where arms might be limited should account for its relative nature.

None of the rights are absolute

You are correct that even though the constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed it has been ruled by judges and legislated by law makers that it and every other right we have may be restricted and infringed by every level of government.
The failure of those public officials to uphold the constitution merely shows that We The People have a never ending battle on our hands trying to maintain some level of freedom from the never ending push for control of would be tyrants.
As for your argument with regards to a "well regulated" militia the term "well regulated" means well equipped, it does not mean squashed by government red tape. All of our rights end where they infringe on anothers rights so your argument about a religious sacrifice is incorrect as well.

Some question as to what you're arguing

You quote the 2nd amendment, but appear to be using the argument that we should not have guns. Which is not the subject of this question. Wyoming law already allows open carry with certain exceptions. The non-permit law would have allowed anyone to carry concealed as they now can openly with the same exceptions.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court recently heard arguements on a handgun ban in Chicago. They had already ruled that the Federal Government can not ban handguns.

To the argument that gun owners and carriers know how to use their weapons, absolutely. If one should have to use their weapon they should be able to use it safely and accurately. It's a personal preference to me to use two hands and center of mass.

Well said! Besides, how many

Well said! Besides, how many criminals are going to choose not to carry concealed because there's a law saying they can't?