Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Like it or not, we're coming with our guns

The NRA and its' minions are bullies. They love to have their guns in every public place and they will do anything to get them there. Never mind that most people don't want them around where they work and play. In fact only 2-3% of eligible Americans are gun permit holders. You may remember my last post in which I wrote about 4 shootings involving these legal gun permit holders. And that was just in a few short weeks' time. More guns in public places have not made us safer. But never mind, the NRA knows better. They don't really need their guns in public, they WANT them. They would love to normalize the carrying of guns so the rest of us think it's just fine. In some states there is open carrying of guns. Very few people ever do this because I am betting they know the public doesn't care for the idea. I mean, when you are with your family at the State Fair as I will be in a short while, who needs someone with a gun in that busy venue where crowds are dense and people are jostling each other? What about the grocery store? You must remember when I wrote this post. Guns are used so infrequently in public places for self defense that it begs credulity to hear the gun guys try to sell legislators on the idea that that is how their guns will be used. The silly thing is, legislatures all over the county have bought the idea. What is wrong with them?

Actually that's a simple question to answer. The NRA has managed very nicely to intimidate elected leaders. They have worked hard at it for the last 30 years or so. And they have persuaded politicians that there will be dire consequences if they don't vote their way. And so, we have conceal and carry laws in all but one state ( Illinois) and Stand Your Ground Laws in 18 states. We have guns in National Parks. We have guns on Amtrak trains. We let the Assault Weapons Ban sunset in 2004. We have attempts to allow ( er ah) force college campuses to allow permit holders to carry on campus. These laws have not worked out so well and legislatures, even those who are subsidiaries of the NRA, have not managed to pass the bills. Colorado has some interesting gun laws. When the issue went to the voters in 2000, they voted in favor of a background check law for all gun sales at gun shows. But when it is up to conservative legislators and scared Democratic legislators, stupid and dangerous gun laws pass. So now that Colorado passed the law to force state colleges to let permit holders carry guns, against the will of the campus presidents and campus officials ( and most likely parents) on campus, the college officials are making their safety rules. Here is an article that describes the new rules:
The University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs are amending their student housing contracts, segregating students who possess a valid concealed-weapons carry permit.
The university said Thursday that both campuses will establish a residential area for students over the age of 21 with permits. In all other dormitories, guns will be banned, the new policy states.
"The main dorms on the main campus will not allow any concealed-carry weapons," CU-Boulder spokesman Bronson Hilliard said.
In addition, attendees at ticketed athletic and cultural events, such as football games and theater, on both campuses will not be permitted to bring their guns, officials said.
"We are treating that ticket purchase as a contractual agreement that you won't bring your weapon to the venue," Hilliard said.
Less than 1 percent of the student-body population of each campus is believed to have a concealed-carry permit, school officials said.
Does anyone remember that the Aurora theater shooter had attended a University of Colorado campus? Surely we don't mean people like him. Except, he was not a prohibited purchaser so yes, that means people like him. Great idea, I say.

Of course, the gun guys hate it when anyone tells them they don't like having their guns around in their place of business or place of learning or healing, or wherever those who are paranoid feel paranoid. Take libraries, for instance. I know I'm always spooked out about who could be hiding behind the fiction Aa-Br shelf. In Virginia, the gun guys are all in a lather because the good folks in the Richmond library don't really care for their loaded guns inside of the quiet place of reading and learning.
More than 30 gun owners sporting side arms and orange stickers that said "Guns save lives" filled tables Wednesday at the Richmond Public Library's main branch on East Franklin Street as part of a "read-in" organized by the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League.
The demonstration was held to protest the wording of a library regulation concerning carrying concealed weapons that drew the attention of the 5,000-member gun-rights group. The regulation says carrying concealed weapons is prohibited, "except as permitted by law." A version of the regulation on the library website, since amended, formerly said carrying concealed weapons in the library was prohibited.
Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave and other gun-rights advocates who showed up for the demonstration called on city officials to get rid of the policy, because holders of concealed-firearms permits are legally allowed to carry inside the library.
It wasn't good enough for these guys when the library director said she would change the signs to reflect current law. They had to show up anyway to make a point and be right in people's faces:
Elizabeth Triplett, acting library director, said the library had changed its regulations to reflect the right of concealed-carry permit holders to lawfully carry their firearms but had not updated the website. An updated list of regulations was reviewed by the city attorney in February. The inconsistency was noticed last week when the group pointed it out, she said.
"It was our oversight that we didn't have the current one on the website," she said.
Triplett, who has worked for the library for 33 years, said she had never heard of an instance in which a gun owner's right to carry inside the library — either openly or concealed — was restricted.
She added that the library's policies, which were developed by the staff with help from the city attorney's office, exist "to help us make our spaces inviting places to visit … inviting and safe."
"We welcome everybody into the library," she said. "We know that is the law, and we'll comply with the law."
Quietly perusing titles that ranged from "Armed America" to "My Life With Charlie Brown," by comic strip artist Charles M. Schulz, the gun owners included older couples and at least one family with young children, with a man wearing a shoulder-holstered semi-automatic tending to a toddler.
Many library patrons did not like the idea, as you can imagine. Seeing someone with a semi-automatic on his shoulder makes you wonder what in the world he is thinking. And he was tending to a toddler! This is the NRA's version of America. Most people do not agree:
The presence of so many armed people stunned some library regulars.
"I was just kind of astounded," said Lamont Burrell, 39, of Richmond. "I didn't know what was going on."
Several said the demonstration made them uncomfortable.
Katrina Riley, a 33-year-old mother from Richmond, said the library is among her 9-year-old son's favorite places.
"I don't really agree with it," she said, adding that a library wasn't a place for guns. "I was definitely caught off guard by it. I won't even have a weapon in my home."
Riley said she was in favor of "more stipulations" in gun laws.
"Just because you have a paper that says you can tote a gun … a whole bunch of those people shouldn't be allowed to have weapons," she said.
Timothy Wilson, 44, wasn't sure whether armed citizens made a place like the library safer or more dangerous, given the recent mass shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin.
"With things going on today, it's hard to say," he said. "I've never seen a need for anyone to bring a gun in here."
Van Cleave said many of his group's members, including him, carry their guns openly all the time, citing the unpredictability of events such as the Aurora, Colo., theater massacre.
"You never know when a criminal's going to strike," he said, rejecting the notion that some public places should be firearm-free. "Who needs a gun in a movie theater? Well, they found out."
The last quote from the article: " "Everyone has their rights," she said. "It's just odd."" Odd indeed. Someone with common sense understands what this is all about. Van Cleave tries to make us all believe that someone in the Aurora movie theater with a gun could have changed the outcome. He has absolutely no standing to say that. It hasn't worked so far in a mass shooting. In point of fact, many of the mass shooters are law abiding people with guns until suddenly, they are not. That was true in Aurora. That was true in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. That was true in College Station, Texas. How do these guys continue to get away with saying stuff like this? If you want to see a great back and forth about whether some of the mass shooters and the shooters in examples I gave in my last blog are, indeed, law abiding, check it out for yourself. We do not need guns in libraries and on college campuses. There is no reason for people to have them there. Gun free zones do not invite criminals with guns to shoot people. Those folks intent on doing harm shoot people anywhere. The idea that a criminal or law abiding citizen thinks ahead of time about whether someone inside of a place will have a gun is just a specious argument. The best example of this is people who attack and/or shoot police officers knowing that they are armed. It happens almost every day in America. I counted 4 officer shootings in the past few days but you can read more here. Even officers with guns can't defend themselves against an armed individual.

The pro gun side just hates it when law abiding gun owners shoot innocent people. Their arguments that only criminals shoot people are ridiculous and unfounded, of course. But never mind. They still try to claim otherwise. If they have to admit that law abiding gun owners are only criminals after they have shot someone, then their whole thesis about the reason for carrying guns in public places just doesn't work. If someone has passed a background check and/or gets a legal permit to carry, they are law abiding. Or at least we can hope so. There are many people who shouldn't have gotten permits and should be on the prohibited purchasers FBI list. They are not because of our loose gun laws. You can check out this map to see how many records of dangerously mentally ill people are NOT sent to the NICS date base. This is bad news, everyone. Way too many people who shouldn't be are allowed to carry guns around in public. In addition, law abiding people make mistakes or get angry or drunk and shoot people in public places or at home. It happens. To deny it is stupid and dangerous. That is what has led to way too many victims of shootings in America.

Aren't we better than this?


It turns out, just as I wrote above, that most Americans do NOT want loaded guns around in public places. This new polling shows that the people who do favor guns in churches and other public places are people are labeled as tea partiers. Why should we be surprised? From the article:
"Although the issue of gun control tends to divide Americans by party, gender, region and race, there is broad agreement among the public that there are some places where concealed weapons should be off limits," said PRRI Research Director Daniel Cox in a statement.
The poll was conducted between Aug. 8 and 12, with a sample space of 1,006 adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.
According to the PRRI poll, overall roughly three-quarters of Americans oppose concealed carry of guns into various facilities, with 76 percent opposing them in worship facilities, 73 percent opposing them in government facilities, and 77 percent opposing them on college campuses.
Other findings from the poll included 52 percent of Americans favoring tougher gun laws and 68 percent of Americans believing that the constitutional right to own a gun is as important as other rights.


And, of course, we have the expected reaction from the NRA regarding guns on the University of Colorado campuses. From this article in Media Matters, we learn that, as usual, the NRA is trying to find excuses for why they are the poor picked on folks and even discriminated against for their views on guns. The following excerpt is from an exchange between Cam Edwards, NRA radio show host and an attorney who helped overturn the ruling against guns on Colorado campuses:
"CAM EDWARDS, HOST: The ban was struck down and today the University of Colorado announced what they are going to do with concealed carry holders who want to live on campus. Basically they are not going to be able to live in the regular dorms; instead the campus is going to push them off to a number of family housing units. Right?
JIM MANLEY, MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION: Right. It's sort of a policy of "separate but equal." If you want to exercise your Second Amendment rights you have to live in a segregated dorm essentially."
Nice try. But it just doesn't compare. The University President has stated the reasons quite clearly for keeping those very few students ( less than 1%) from the other students, most of whom are too young to apply for a carry permit) in separate housing:
"School officials believe this new policy will prevent potentially dangerous living situations on-campus because many students who live in the dorms are under the age of 21 and can't legally carry a gun.
"With the potential of having a roommate that may appropriately have a concealed carry permit and then the gun being mishandled by another student or friend or something like that," said [Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Deb] Coffin."  
Do you think? And further, from the article:
"The approach would only affect, potentially, a very small number of individuals. An analysis by the University of Colorado shows that 0.6 percent of the faculty, staff and students on campus possess a CCP [Concealed Carry Permit]. A full 96 percent of CU-Boulder undergraduate students living in the residence halls are under the age of 21, and are thus ineligible to have a CCP. Of the 4 percent of eligible students, about half living on campus are CU Resident Advisers, or "RAs," who as CU employees would not be permitted to live in undergraduate halls and possess a CCP. "


They just keep coming. That's because it is inevitable that "law abiding" gun owners are getting bolder or maybe it's just because there are more of them so naturally the pool is going to include idiots. The difference with having idiots who claim that women who are raped can't get pregnant, as did Republican Representative and Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin, is that idiots with guns are potentially dangerous to innocent people. Such was this Connecticut man who threatened some innocent people, including children, by pointing his AR-15 out of his car window. Just great. From the article:
Kevin Kovalik said Monday he was among the group that Richmond threatened around 5:20 p.m. Sunday. Kovalik said he was pulling out of his mother's driveway and was almost sideswiped by Richmond's white Cadillac at the intersection of Shewville Road and Whitford Road after Richmond drove through a stop sign. An argument ensued, Kovalik said, before Richmond drove away. Kovalik said at the time, a large group, including his three children, were in the front yard of his mother's house, next to the intersection. Kovalik said he called police because of Richmond's erratic driving.
According to a prosecutor's report, Richmond returned to the scene a short time later and pointed the gun out the window as he drove by the house.
"Several children were present and saw the barrel of the rifle pointed at them," Officer Rick McSwain wrote in his report.
As with the 2 guys at the Rite Aid store who got into it over taking cuts in line, this guy was mad because someone questioned his dangerous driving behavior. When people with guns get angry, they might just use that gun. I wonder if this guy was a "law abiding" gun owner. I am guessing at "yes."

Since I referenced the shooting at a Rite Aid store over taking cuts, I am going to add a story here of yet another "law abiding" gun permit holder going off in a store. This man got into an argument at an Oregon store and shot a man during the argument:
A Clackamas-area man has been arrested in the shooting of another customer Tuesday in the Clackamas Fred Meyer store. 
After reviewing surveillance video and interviewing witnesses, Clackamas County sheriff's deputies arrested Jerry Thomas Harryman, 66, accusing him of first-degree assault. He is scheduled to be arraigned today in Clackamas County Circuit Court. Meanwhile, he is being held in the Clackamas County Jail, with bail set at $250,000. 
Harryman had a concealed handgun license, which was revoked upon his arrest.
How many more????


  1. I agree with you that some of the gun guys tactics are extreme and unnecessary. In fact, I believe it may have been those extreme tactics that cost them the right to open carry in California. I don't support people open carrying for the sake of making a political point. I don't support people open carrying when they are aware that such action might cause fear or concern around others.

    Having said that, I do want us to return to an era where a student could go hunting or practice shooting sports before school, then stop off at school to get an education before heading home, without having SWAT and SERT teams descend on the school like it was under siege and initiate a half mile perimeter lockdown around the school because someone found out he had a locked rifle or pistol inside his locked car parked near the school. For a vocal minority of people today, guns are associated with evil even though they were present in the Olympic Games.

    I also support concealed carry in colleges for the following reasons. I've often considered taking night classes at Portland Community College. To get there, I would either ride my motorcycle or walk. Either way, from my home, that requires my path to go directly through some of the most violent and deadly areas of Portland. Even if I don't walk, my motorcycle could break down in that hostile territory (it's happened). What would I do with my gun once I parked my motorcycle on campus?

    I believe concealed carry is currently allowed at Oregon schools and libraries, so this isn't an issue for me, but there are anti-gun activists that try hard almost every year to take away this right from people like me. The NRA isn't interested in arming college students. They are trying to prevent citizens from being arrested if for some reason someone discovered that a student with a valid permit had a gun while on school property. College property can also include the public sidewalks that are adjacent to, or cross through, the campus.

    1. Migo- the days of allowing students to hunt before or after school and leaving their guns at school or in their cars are over for obvious reasons. Kids are not hunting like they used to. That is a change in our culture. That is precisely why the NRA has created new markets for guns by passing conceal and carry laws. Hunting is decreasing as an activity for kids.

      As to your taking classes and being scared of walking, I would suggest that you avoid problematic neighborhoods in the dark. That is one good way of keeping yourself safe from problems. Guns are not needed. Avoiding dangerous situations is a better idea. I know I don't walk around in dark neighborhoods alone in the dark. It's just a precaution that makes common sense.

  2. Sometimes I think you're right in the sense that shooting sports might be dying out in this generation. I've heard about studies that indicate that guns in the US could decrease in the future since every new generation appears to show less interest in them than previous generations. I've also seen studies that show that more Americans have guns in their homes today than ever before. The future is hard to predict.

    I'm not afraid when I'm walking Joan. Your advice to avoid is very sound and I practice it often, which is one reason I believe I may never use my gun. Avoidance is always better than a tragedy. Still, it's difficult to avoid some areas or predict which areas might be troublesome on any given night, and working all day means walking at night is my only option, especially in the winter. Fortunately, violent crime in America continue to decrease which is another reason to not be afraid.

    1. Great. Then you won't feel as if you need a gun everywhere you go. I don't.

  3. As you can see in the following article, guns are used in 54% of on-campus assaults, and assaults are up 35.6% since the 80's. This is also the age group most at risk for gun crime. Both are excellent reasons to reduce the availability of firearms on campus.

    In 2011, guns were allowed on state college campuses here in Oregon, overturning decades of policy against them. The extremist Oregon Firearms Federation had sued to make this so, based on a single case of a man who had been caught with a gun on campus (even though he was forgiven for the incident). This was against the wishes of the vast majority of students, staff, faculty, and administrators. Once again, the wishes of a tiny fringe minority got their way.

    Then, this year, the colleges were able to reinstate it, in part, by banning them in college buildings and events, or carried by any students or employees who are contracted with the universities. Thus, the only thing gun owners won was the right for non-students/faculty to carry them on school grounds without entering buildings. Even the campus security at the University of Oregon don't use guns (and haven't needed them -- ever).

  4. By definition, an assault is a criminal act. So we could pass countless laws against guns being used on-campus in assaults and the assaults would, of course, continue as long as illegal guns are available to criminals, because criminals don't obey laws. We would have to turn campuses into airports and have DHS agents secure the entrances to stop illegal gun use on campus.

    I support stopping illegal gun use, but I don't support forcing those with concealed carry licenses to have to leave their guns in an unsecured car while they have to enter a school building on business. The gun is much more secure hidden on their body than it is in a parked car or a school locker. In fact, forcing someone to remove their firearm before entering a school building and leaving it in a car is more dangerous than just leaving it in the holster on his body. The chances of theft or negligent discharge increase significantly. It is not common sense to force someone to handle their gun in a public area. Once a gun is inserted into its holster in a safe area and attached to the belt, it should never be touched again unless it's needed for self defense or removed in another safe area. Parked cars in public areas, like school parking lots, are not safe areas for handling guns.

    It looks like Oregon schools have enacted the same rules used by countless other places in Oregon, like malls and theaters, that are not enforceable by law. So a person caught with a gun can only be asked to leave, and not arrested, unless the person refuses to leave. I have heard among other gun owners that those rules are seldom obeyed because a properly concealed gun is difficult to detect.

    BTW Baldr. Congrats on the gun turn in event at the Memorial Coliseum. I support people getting rid of guns they won't use anymore. I believe an unattended gun at home, or in a dorm room, invites tragedy either through misuse or theft.

    1. The unfortunate thing Migo, is that many of the "assaults" you are talking about are shootings that are committed by law abiding gun owners. Cho was law abiding because he was not prohibited. There are so many other recommendations for safety of students on campus that don't involve guns. Most students are under 21 anyway. Are you suggesting that the very few permit holders on campus- like 1%- could be available for every assault? That's not possible? 18 year olds can't carry guns. Your solutions are not based in reality. And guns are found in cars all the time by little children especially who shoot themselves and others accidentally. I wouldn't say a gun is much safer on the person. Check out my examples. It is just not working out the way you claim it will or want it to.

    2. We have different definitions for law abiding. You are law abiding because you have never done the things that Cho did and will never do the things that Cho did. We can't predict the future, but I think it's a safe bet that you would never do anything like Cho even if you owned a gun. A gun is not going to make you evil.

      Most people with concealed carry permits are like you and not like Cho.

      I'm not suggesting permit holders on school grounds would be available for any assault. Permit holders are not policeman. They are not there to protect others. Someone with a permit might not even be able to intervene in a Cho like massacre depending on conditions and their training. A permit holder has simply made the decision to protect themselves with a gun. Those without guns who have been assaulted or raped on school campuses either couldn't get a permit for a gun, were forbidden to have a gun on campus, decided to protect themselves with non-gun methods, or decided the risk was not large enough to do anything about it. We always hear about them, the injured and the murdered, but we never hear about the assaults that never happened because someone pulled out a gun and the attacker fled.

      And guns are found in cars all the time... Exactly. Guns don't belong inside cars. They don't belong in closets or dresser drawers. They should be on the person where they can be defended, locked up in a safe, or properly disposed of.

      What we don't want is someone walking up to a "No Guns Allowed" building and then having to go back to their car and fiddle with their gun where someone can be inadvertently shot. You've posted many examples of people fiddling with their guns in public places with very bad consequences. It is much safer to not touch the gun and enter the "No Guns Allowed" building than it is to fiddle with the gun outside the building.

    3. It doesn't matter whether the building says no guns allowed or guns allowed, you will be very unlikely to stop a shooting or use your gun to save the day. People fiddle with their guns just as much inside of buildings as outside of buildings. My posts show that very clearly. The also shoot each other inside of guns allowed buildings as well as guns not allowed buildings. Take the Rite Aid shooting or the shooting at the Oregon store. Those guys didn't give a second thought to whether their guns were allowed or not allowed. They got mad at something stupid and trivial and pulled out their guns and shot someone. That happens more often than people using their guns in self defense in buildings of any kind.

      Cho was law abiding, need I remind you again. He had nothing wrong before the shootings at Virginia Tech. His guns were purchased legally. His name was not on a prohibited purchaser list. It should have been. He was dangerously mentally ill but not an illegal purchaser of a gun. Even if his name had been on the list and he was denied by a FFL, he could go to a gun show anywhere and purchase from a private seller who wouldn't give 2 hoots about whether the man was mentally ill because a sale will be made.

    4. I'm not interested in saving the day, just myself. My experience says it's possible.

      Yes, some people fiddle with their guns. Some people kill in anger. Some people massacre others, but they are a small minority. A modern gun won't fire if it's dropped. A modern holster that covers the trigger blocks fiddling with the trigger, prevents the gun from falling, and makes it difficult for everyone except the owner to remove the gun from the holster. Requiring concealed carry permit holders to use modern guns and holsters might address many of the negligent discharge posts you've written about. I remember you writing about a man who had a loaded gun in his pocket inside a restaurant most likely without a proper holster that covered the trigger. That's stupid and most permit holders are not like that.

      Finally, what gun ownership qualification test could you have given your husband and brother-in-law 25 years ago that would have passed your husband, but failed your brother-in-law? I ask this question respectfully. I don't know of any test that can accurately predict future violence. Do you? Does your test compensate for the fact that people change over time?

    5. Not sure what you are getting at in your last statement Migo so I am not going to answer it. You are wrong about guns discharging. They do so often and I write about it. The proof is in the incidents of guns discharging accidentally on a fairly frequent basis. Guns fall out of holsters or pants pockets. I didn't make this stuff up.
      I think you should work on that one- requiring the use of modern weapons. That would most likely be met with as strong resistance as most other suggested safety measures for guns and the people who carry them.

    6. I'm respectfully pointing out that if you could have known 25 years ago what your brother-in-law would do in 5 years time, you would have kept guns away from him. If you knew of a way to determine that, you should also have been able to apply that same test to your husband, who, I'll assume, has never misused a firearm, and he would have passed that test. My point is that I don't know of any test we can give a law abiding citizen today that can accurately predict any horrors that might happen 5 years from now. Even tests for depression are not that accurate because therapy can help someone within 1 year.

    7. We can keep them from carrying their guns around in public places for just one. We can work on the gun culture in our country by passing laws that send the message that we are a country that does not tolerate shootings. We can make sure families understand the dangers of guns in the home during times of stress. We can make sure guns are locked and stored properly. That won't stop all shootings. But it would be a good start so my grandchildren have a chance of having a less violent country.

    8. Most grade schools in Oregon have policies in place to prohibit guns, but Migo is right -- those who break that rule can only be told to leave or be charged with trespassing. The gun lobby here (Oregon Firearms Federation, which considers the NRA to be too compromising!) is actively telling its members to ignore the school and university policies (so much for "law abiding"). We are hoping to make it a law to prohibit guns on campus, so those who break it will be charged and punished for putting our kids at risk instead of just being asked to leave.

  5. The reality is that the definition applied of 'law abiding' gun owners is very loose. It might mean the bought a firearm legally, but are not really all that law abiding. Most of the time it means they don't have a felony conviction but often have misdemeanor convictions and arrests.

    May I point out this sentence about the stability and reliability (or more precisely instability and unreliability) of gun owners, from the article that appeared in the press about gun violence as a public health issue:

    "One study found firearm owners were more likely than those with no guns at home to binge drink or to drink and drive."

    Really? Given that alcohol consumption reduces important inhibitions, and in some people results in serious anger issue problems, NO, not everyone who is so coming under cover of that termm legal is a desirable gun owner, or all that 'legal' in their conduct.

    I would love to see people convicted of drunk driving, or open bottle laws violations, lose not only their drivers license but their gun permits and have their guns confiscated.

  6. drunk driving is a felony. people convicted of dwi are felons. Felons cannot legally own or possess a firearm much less get a concealed carry permit.