How about providing some balanced reports from NRA since you included the anti-Second Amendment wingnuts' unsubstantiated cites? Guns DO prevent crimes; thousands of times a year [see http://www.nraila.org/News/ for a few examples.]

In what ways were the Columbine guards "outgunned"? Those shooters had over-the-counter guns; did the guards have waterpistols? Pepper spray?

I am confused about the quality of data presented in this article. How do I read the chart for "Top 10 Counties for Permit Applications"? Are these applications or actual issued permits? Did the statewide number grow from 55,868 in 2006 to 195,251 in 2007? Are the top ten counties all in southeast Tennessee as shown in the listing? And, if so why is the second number shown for each county (presuming 2007) lower than the first number (presuming 2006)? If this is true than permit rates must have declined between 2006 and 2007.

Why are the only national organizations quoted in this article associated with gun control organizations?

I find it difficult to believe the accuracy of some elements in their reports. Ms. Rand with the VPC is quoted with regard to two armed guards "outgunned" at Columbine. In all the news and investigative reports I've ever researched on the subject I can find no referenced to any guards "armed" or otherwise at Columbine during or prior to the April 20, 1999 tragedy. A sheriff deputy did respond to the scene arriving within in about five minutes of the start of the shootings and did come under fire himself. The boys moved inside at that time and the deputy followed standard procedure in calling for backup. Is this defined as "Outgunned"?

Please provide clarity and depth when presenting "News"

When I read the first two paragraphs of the article, it sounded like there are people "carried firearms just about everywhere." That could be a concern.

But then later in the article, I read that "guns still are banned in businesses that serve alcohol, in airports, civic centers, SCHOOLS, public parks, playgrounds and other recreational buildings and grounds."

I personally think that "everywhere" is a bit misleading.

With all the break-in news on the rise, those who want to go to class to get trained may just want to, like Sgt.Haskins said, PROTECT their property or themselves!

It would be intersting to know what the relation is between the crime rate and the reliable "carry permit" approval numbers.

Paperwork, fees, and background checks to allow people to carry a side-arm? What kind of nonsense is this?

The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.

The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.

Our Constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.

In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!)

To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!"

Neil Evangelista
NRA Pistol & Personal Protection Instructor

Thank God for armed Americans. If you are going to run a story on a subject such as this, and add left wing half truths, at least give the other side a chance to correct it. It is stories like this that confuse the uninformed about guns and concealed carry. Law abiding Americans use guns in legal defense 2.5 - 3.0 million times a year. That is a FACT, but it is more of a dramatic story to say a life was taken by a firearm than to say a life was spared by a firearm. The News has become a business, and nothing sells better than fear and tragedy. It is websites like www.AmericanSheepdog.com that are formed everyday to inform Americans about the "whole truths" about guns and self defense. With so many anti-gun groups out there, organizations like the NRA are woking double overtime to debunk the spew of half truths and outright lies. The citizens of this great nation deserve the truth, not scare tactics and one-sided reports.

UGA
www.AmericanSheepdog.com

Mr. Crisp, Where did you obtain your figures? I'm having a hard time confirming the numbers that you included in your report. According to the annual reports from the TN Department of Safety website (http://www.state.tn.us/safety/factsandfi...), "the driver license field offices have processed 35,972 applications for Handgun Carry Permits, including duplicates, renewals and originals..." and "The Handgun Carry Permit Unit in Nashville reviewed and processed 34,735 applications" in the 2002-2003 fiscal year. In 2003-2004, the driver license offices received 31,392 applications, while the Handgun Carry Permit Unit saw 36,870 applications (48% were renewals). The sum of these figures well exceeds the 237 applications in 2003 as reported in the article.

There was an increase in applications in the 2006-2007 fiscal year when compared to 2002-2003. Specifically, 44,457 applications were made at the driver license offices. This number includes renewals and duplicates. At the Handgun Carry Permit Unit, 57,321 applications were received, of which 57% were renewals. Summing these numbers together yields 101,778 handgun applications, and at least 32,000 are renewal applications. So where do you get your numbers?

Perhaps you are confusing applications with actual licensees? I don't think so based on the numbers. January 2008 and April 2008 figures are posted on the Tennessee Department of Safety website. 191,208 concealed carry permits existed as of January 7, 2008. As of April 2, 2008, 193,030 permits are in Tennessee. Thus, you are claiming that the number of applications for a permit, which is valid for 4 years, exceeded the total number of permits that are possessed by the citizens of the state. This is an absurd claim, and cannot be factual.

“We feel, at the very least, local law enforcement should have the discretion in deciding who gets a concealed weapons permit,” said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign. “Laws like Tennessee’s just say that, if you pass a background check and any other requirements, you must be allowed to receive a permit.”

So you want to allow a police department power to be able to deny concealed/open carry permits on whims? Perhaps those that come in wearing a suit can get a license, but those that apply because they have been robbed ten times cannot?

The Brady campaign, when it started, was a good idea. They have done some really good work and quite a bit of it I agree with... but it seems lately that they are more interested in disarming the victims.

I'm not a victim. I have rights, and these folks are fine when they do not walk on mine, but when they cross that line, they endanger me and my family.

If you want your readers to trust you, then write articles that are balanced and thought out. Just as it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater, your paper is coming close to doing that by yelling fire to the general public with facts from a biased and unreliable source.

The first amendment is a wonderful thing, and I support that as well, in fact, the supreme court said, “The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different.” And they also said, ““The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction.” Commonwealth v. Blanding, 20 Mass. 304, 313–314. The reason that I say this is that I am not out to restrain your rights, but asking you to exercise them with restraint, common sense, and responsibility. I am asking you also to respect my rights as I exercise them with restraint, common sense, and responsibility.

Can I ask one more thing?

I am not a felon, drug dealer, or criminal. Please, when you write these articles, take into consideration that I am not the monster the Brady campaign seems to want to make me into. I was in Killeen the day that George Hennard drove his truck into Luby’s - and if someone there had carried a weapon illegally to lunch - 43 people would not have been killed and/or wounded that day. When I carry my weapon to lunch, Killeen may not enter into my mind. But if someone starts shooting, and I am there, Killeen may not happen again. That is a huge responsibility and one that every gun owner faces on a daily basis. Monster? Not on your life… literally.