When this politician claims to be a straight shooter, believe her:
SANTA FE - New Mexico's pistol-packin' governor is a sure shot.
Gov. Susana Martinez received perfect scores on recertification for her concealed-carry permit over the weekend in Las Cruces. She scored 100 percent with both .38- and .45-caliber handguns, her staff said.
Martinez's permit to carry a concealed handgun, originally obtained in 2009, was extended for another two years.
Move over, Rick Perry, there's a new sheriff in town. Coyote shooter? Piffle. Maybe Susanna and Sarah could give the other governors shooting lessons. The story notes that Martiniz, a former prosecutor, which involved "a career of taking out dangerous criminals," has a security detail as governor but still chooses to carry her own weapon.
In other "chicks with guns" news, a woman named Michelle Bahus wants to carry a gun when taking her grandchildren to the park is suing the city of Hammond for refusing to repeal a ban on weapons in city buildings and parks, even though it contradicts a new state law.
Bahus has a state license to carry a gun, but is prohibited by city code from taking a gun to the park, the attorney said.
The Indiana General Assembly passed a law in the spring allowing registered firearm owners to carry guns inside public buildings that do not hold a court.
But the Hammond City Council turned down a proposal earlier this month that would have allowed firearms in city buildings other than City Hall.
However, Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. has said the city doesn't have to repeal the ordinance, but doesn't plan to enforce it.
Yeah, letting them keep a superseded law on the books and trusting a city official who says it won't be enforced is always a good idea. You go, Granny. I must say, though, that when I read stories like this, I do wish Indiana were one of the states, like Texas and like New Mexico, that required permit holders to demonstrate some level of gun proficiency, or at least basic competence.
Comments
A couple of years ago, the definition of "drunk" for purposes of DUI was changed in most states from 0.10% blood alcohol level to 0.08%.
You don't need to be drunk in order to have bad aim, though. Should there be a regulation against "concealed carry under the influence"? I'm sure that the 0.08% level or even the 0.10% level is satisfactory when it comes to drawing a weapon that a sober person would not draw, but if someone has a 0.04% blood alcohol, he might fire his weapon and miss.
If there was competency testing, one could assert that a little buzz actually steadies one, making his aim better - and prove it on the firing range, earning him an endorsement on the permit that allows him to carry at 0.04%, whereas endorsement or not, everyone would be prohibited from carrying at 0.08% or 0.10% levels.
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss." - Robert A. Heinlein
Leo, "I do wish Indiana were one of the states, like Texas and like New Mexico, that required permit holders to demonstrate some level of gun proficiency, or at least basic competence."
Just curious, why? Has there been a history of licensed concealed carry permit holders in Indiana accidentally discharging their firearms and generally causing careless mayhem you are aware of?
I know of a few instances each year where some dumba** does something stupid with a firearm, that always makes the news, but I don't recall that being a problem with licensed permit holders.
Generally, if you are willing to go to a gun store, pay a couple hundred bucks or more, submit to a criminal background check, wait for 7 days, then go back to the gunstore, then go to your bank to obtain a money order or cashiers check, take that check and appear in person at your local sheriffs department or city police department, fill out the application by hand in person, while being filmed, then be fingerprinted, then wait for your sheriff or police chief to ok it and submit the application to the state police, and then wait for 30 days for another backgound check until it shows up in the mail, you're probably already pretty familiar with guns and how to handle them.
My point is, why create yet another law/rule/regulation to solve a problem that does not exist. It takes a certain level of responsibility and commitment to go through the process. Gang bangers, bank robbers, rapists, ditzy housewives, scorned lovers, etc do not go through the process to obtain a personal protection permits, rather, responsible citizens endowed with certain inalienable rights do.
My experience with the gun competency class that most states require is that they are run by the NRA. Very little gun safety is taught and virtually no marksmanship.
What they do do is rail against Democrats and "gun-grabbers."
The NRA (I'm a former member) has become less of a gun safety and proficiency group and more a simple extension of the Republican Party.
The class I took for my WV license taught me nothing I didn't already know. But it forced me to grit my teeth while having political opinions, some of them factually wrong, forced down my throat.