Are We Better Off Gun Wise Than In Past Years?

[madmag]

Hint...hint...prohibited

No, not really.

Does anyone know of one documented case of an ordinary citizen convicted of concealed carry violation? I don't. Yes, they did use it as a tool to hassle know thugs.

You can look at the increase in states allowing CCW with a permit, as a good thing, but if you look back to when they took that right from us, how can you really be comfortable with having to get the state's permission, now that they have generously decided to grant it, under certain conditions, and for a fee?

That's really getting to the point. Yes, gun rights people pushed to get the CCW laws, and that by itself is a good thing. But they pushed to get CCW laws because they were really pushing back at those that wanted to limit them from doing what they had really been doing for years without any hassle...carrying concealed.

The real reason for CCW laws was that some tried to stop people from carrying concealed and the gun advocates fought back. CCW was not the beginning of concealed carry, it was just a re-verification that we could continue.

 

[Wildalaska]

No, not really.

OK what were the CCW laws in 1912 in South Carolina, pennsylvania and Texas?

Does anyone know of one documented case of an ordinary citizen convicted of concealed carry violation?

Well anyone convicted of unlawful CCW isnt an ordinary citizen is he?

O, my bad, only THUGS get prosecuted for unlawful carrying...not "decent" people.

WildsoiguessyoucantanswertheorignalquestioncanyouAlaska TM

 

[madmag]

OK what were the CCW laws in 1912 in South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas?

Who cares? First it started with 1934, now 1912. Next it will be 1863. Our gun rights have diminished not the other way around.

Well anyone convicted of unlawful CCW isn't an ordinary citizen is he?

Too funny to answer.

 

[Oldphart]

"OK what were the CCW laws in 1912 in South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas?"

Yeah, who cares? What we need to be concerned with now is what the laws are NOW. For the record and if no one has noticed yet, I'm no great fan of Concealed Carry Permits. A permit gives permission to do something normally illegal and, since it is granted by some governing authority, it can also be revoked by that same authority. We tell ourselves that it wouldn't happen except in very unusual circumstances and we're at least partially right. The question that comes to mind is 'who decides what criteria is to be used to define "unusual?"'

Let's have a show of hands here: How many of us really trusts big government to make that decision in favor of the gunowner?

Peter, meet Paul. While one hand of the government is busily stealing from your poor-box the other is 'donating' to another, similar poor-box -- minus the fees required for cab-fare. Take away full-auto, mail-order delivery and hi-cap mags and give permission to carry concealed after filling out these papers and paying a fee, of course. I suppose we could consider that permission a kiss from our benificent leaders after the scr**ing they've given us. It's a good thing they can't make us pregnant.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

A permit gives permission to do something normally illegal and, since it is granted by some governing authority, it can also be revoked by that same authority.

That point is moot if "shall issue" is understood compared to "may issue". Even if there's no "permits" to give out and your rights are restored, it doesn't mean that law abiding citizens are immune to future administrations that serve the public. Begrudgingly, I will pay for that "permit" to get my CCW compared to not having to lawfully CCW. Opinions on states "permitting" citizens to carry may be valid, but the fact of the matter is that our right to carry concealed is swinging our direction in over 40 states. To me, it beats the alternative.

 

[Oldphart]

"...but the fact of the matter is that our right to carry concealed is swinging our direction in over 40 states."

The problem here is that it isn't a RIGHT so long as you have to get a permit. No matter how easy it is to get or how many different guns you can carry, you're still asking "Massa" for permission and whatever Massa can give, Massa can take away... for whatever reason he wants.

 

[Wildalaska]

Too funny to answer

No whats funny is that when it suits your argument, people convicted of unlawful carrying of weapons are thugs, yet when it suits your argument, they are victimes of jackbooted government thugs

WildeatingthecaketooAlaska TM

 

[Forwardassist]

It really depends on where you live in the country. There are 7 high population states states where things are not good and down right scary in terms of freedoms. At least 1/3rd of the population of the US lives in those restrictive states. Which is not a good outlook for the future. Since gun ownership in those states is declining, gun owners are begin overwhelmed by the antis in the state houses. This could translate to those state becoming "gun free" in the not so distant future. At this time the high population blue states political clout in Washington is stronger than more rural gun states. On the other hand, the national population shift from more populated urban states, to the more rural states is a good sign for the future but that growth does not translate in more gun owners, actually quite the opposite since much of the growth in red states is people moving from blue states. As the populations grows in gun states their will be a more friction between the gun owners, and urbanites who want to create a lot more restrictive gun laws.

Anti-gun states:
New York
California
Massachusetts
Illinois
New Jersey
Hawaii
Maryland

Borderline anti states
Delaware
Connecticut
Rhode Island

 

[RDak]

Yes Wild, 1912 was a year where prohibitions against concealed carry was passed a few times IIRC. One I remember reading about when brousing the internet was Idaho. But there are more, maybe Chicago also?

WTF happened in 1912?

 

[Shane Tuttle]

The problem here is that it isn't a RIGHT so long as you have to get a permit. No matter how easy it is to get or how many different guns you can carry, you're still asking "Massa" for permission and whatever Massa can give, Massa can take away... for whatever reason he wants.

Technically speaking, I certainly agree with you. However, in a shall issue state when you apply they have to prove that you're unfit to carry, not the other way around. I have a clean nose, so no problem getting to the end result...CCW and protecting myself.

I do think you're right that it stinks we have to "ask permission". I do hate the red tape. But, if I have to choose between living in Illinois when I can't even get a CCW to living in Florida and getting a permit is just a few penstrokes away...

 

[44 AMP]

There are laws, and then there is enforcement

WTF happened in 1912?

The Titanic sank!

There are gun control laws, and then there is gun control law enforcement. John Ross gives and excellent explanation in once scene in his novel Unintended Consequences, in the part where young Henry Bowman learns that while his state passed laws against carrying weapons some time ago, they only enforced those laws against the "coloreds" for many years, and it wasn't until they began enforcing the laws against everybody equally that many people came to understand what a bad thing they actually were.

And so it has often been with the history of gun control. At first the laws (which technically applied to everyone) were often only enforced against the poor and minorities. Well to do (usually white) folks were usually left alone, or simply warned, where "lower classes" of society got rousted and jail for ding the same thing, carrying a gun where the "law" said they shouldn't. Nearly all the early gun control laws were put in place to be used as a tool for controlling minoritities. Blacks (former slaves), immigrants from Europe (people without a history of personal arms ownership) and all the others who did not make up the ruling class of society around the turn of the century. Interestingly it took them nearly a half a century or more to realize that they could control everyone with these kinds of laws. Or at least try.

What you grow up with is normal. It is right. It is correct, and the way the world ought to be. Even communist children in Russia beleived that.
What is added on during your life is Tyranny! And it is wrong. It is evil. It should not be tolerated! But if it stands, your children won't think it is tyranny. They'll think it is the way it ought to be.

Just look right here on this board. We've got people who were active gunowners and shooters before '68 (I think we've even got one from before '34!), and many more who began in the 80s and 90s, and some just starting out right now. And look at the differences in their attitudes about where we are when it comes to our "rights".

When it comes to guns, I don't think we are better off than we were in the past, and I fear we are better off than we will be in the future. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I wish it were otherwise.

 

[RDak]

I see, yes, I've read that initial prohbition laws were enforced against minorities, etc.

I'm almost old enough to have remembered that fact!

Are we better off firearms wise now than we were when I was a kid? No.