Concealed Carry
- Thread starter Caeca Invidia Es
- Start date
- Status
Paul Revere
New member
To fully and legally, exercise one's Right to "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS", one does not NEED a permission slip, license, permit, or any other type of government stamp of approval.
Carry a copy of the Second Amendment in your wallet. THAT is your permit!
Carry a copy of the Second Amendment in your wallet. THAT is your permit!
jeff and LawDog, Good point and point well taken. I never gave that angle a thought. I never go into any area with my family that I know that you really don't go there,But there are places that are a little more apt for crime than others. I don't alwys have one on me but I do have one at hand.
An armed man is always a gentlemen.
------------------
gun control is people control
An armed man is always a gentlemen.
------------------
gun control is people control
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I wrote this for somewhere else but after
reading some response, thought I would share:
Quite often, people ask the group how they can get a CHL or CCW/permit in a given location. Sometimes they ask if they should get one at all.
Usually the group supplies the appropriate info or links for the question.
However, there are usually a wave of negative responses that go like this:
1. If you get such, you will be on the Government list and when
the time comes, the UN, black heliocopters, etc. will come for you and your gun.
2. You are some sort of liberal, commie coward. GAWD ALMIGHY and the Second Amendment give you the right to carry a gun.
Only a wussy-ass wimp would bother to get a permit. You are giving up your RIGHTS.
3. Hermeneutic analyses by me (the poster) or by a team of Talmudic scholars has determined that despite the opinion of everyone else
in the state and the recommendations of LEOs, AGs, instructors, etc.,some nuance in state law gives you the right to carry. We
have recently seen a thread with this particular idiocy (comment here is about another list - GM).
This is combined with the listers suggestion that you be the one to use his or her brilliant but amateur analysis in court.
To be rather blunt: These reasons are well-intentioned but misguided or
malacious bull****.
Here's why you should get a permit or CHL.
1. You can carry legally. While some states have certain restrictions,you are certainly more legal than those who carry illegally.
a. This reduces the chance of arrest. Jail, expense, a record, losing
gun rights for the future.
b. This reduces the chance of going through a felony stop. Most
police think people who carry illegally are bad. The police are not going to give you a donut and yell - Three Cheers for the RKBA. They might treat you badly.
c. When challenged by the police, there are suggested routines for the licensed carrier to do, to avoid conflict. As unlicensed, you can't. As a CHL holder, I can tell the officer that I have a gun
in the glove compartment. Most everyone I know in TX has found that most officers are polite and deal well with the CHL. If I don't have the CHL and I tell the officer I have a gun - expect handcuffs at the
minimum. In the worst case scenarios, guns are draw on you when the gun is
discovered. You might get hurt or dead.
d. When you are arrested for illegal carry, you become an official gun nut. Does this influence your job? It might. You have to report such on some job applications. For some professions, you might get the boot.
Hey - DON'T BE A WUSSY - ! Fight it! I'm sure a post to the group will bring LOT'S O CASH for your defense fund! Sure.
2. The Government is coming for you.
There are guy is Texas who everything they see the Good Humour ice cream
truck post to TX.guns that the UN is in Bastrop and are coming for your guns.
I agree that gun registration is a tool that might be used to seize guns and that precedents exist for this action.
However, most of us are probably on the lists already.
Are you a member of a major gun related organization?
Did you ever subscribe to a gun periodical?
Get a hunting license?
Buy a related product with a credit card?
Post on the Internet about firearms.
They gotcha - big boy.
If the confiscation order comes down, will you neighbors and co-workers turn you in? I could name several people who would do that, either as they are anti-gun, would want a reward or are malacious. I've been there on this one. I once knew pretty well a major figure in a world class scandal. Even though, it was several years before said person engaged in the behavior, several
idiots at work called the local press to tell them I knew the person and I had to fend off the press for awhile. I'm sure lots of folks would turn you in given the right circumstances.
If the list is real big - maybe they won't come for everyone on the list.
3. Breaking the law is a bad role model. How can you argue for law and order if you argue to break it? You say you are justified by the RKBA mission given to you by GAWD ALMIGHTY.
Never criticize those who commit illegal actions pro or con abortion, marijuana, the Viet Nam war, cocaine, pornography or the like.
If HCI surrounds the gun store and pelts you with eggs when you exit, don't bother to call the police - they were following a high moral
cause.
Are there some higher moral causes that lead one to break the law as the Freedom Riders did in the South in the fight against
segregation?
Be sure you are OK with this before you go the route of civil disobedience.
If you do, shouldn't you have a public display of your civil disobedience
or do you just slink around with your gun hidden?
4. Getting a CHL increases the probability you will carry and increases your
safety. Despite the blowhard friends of GAWD ALMIGHTY who claim that they break the law - I doubt it. Being illegal would give you pause.
Be legal and carrying is no longer fearful and becomes second nature.
Given the success rate of gun armed self defense - you make yourself safer.
When some 'Vermont only' activist argues against CHL laws - think about
this. We want people to carry to be safe. Lott says 4000 women a year prevent rape with handguns. Thus, we need the RKBA to be able to have guns to prevent crimes like rape. If you don't allow carry you allow rape.
The "Vermont only" or "2 Amend. gives us the right..." crowd would argue against passage of CHL laws. This will decrease the number of
people who will carry. It will keep in force anticarry laws. More women will get raped while you wait for GAWD ALMIGHTY or the next
revolution to turn the USA into Vermont.
5. The Benefits of CHL for the RKBA outweigh the confiscation list risk.
a. Take a stand and show the world that Americans wish to carry arms
to defend themselves. If every gun owner that could, would get a CHL - such numbers would convince politicians that this is a mass movement and opinion to be reckoned with.
Gun folks are being marginalized as right wing loons, animal blasters and other low lifes who slink around in the dark, wearing Nazi shirts. Appeals to break the law, just reinforce this.
I read a similar analysis by several other folks in various editiorial sources, like Mike Venturino.
I suppose I take a risk in being legally licensed. The UN might come for me. But, I take that chance. I demonstrate that I want
and need to possess a firearm.
In other situations when discriminatory laws and propositions were put on state ballots, I joined with other psychologists in signing
ads that were put in the major newspapers. Some people said aren't you scared that loonies might come for you? You take your chances.
In Denmark, the King put on a yellow Star of David and defied the Nazis. You can slink around without a CHL and wait for the UN
or you can say that you are a legal gunowner, want to carry and not be scared to let the world know it.
b. CHLs stop crime. This is convincingly demonstrated by Kleck and Lott.
This is the only argument that convinces centrist folks who may be convinced to be anti-RKBA.
Reading survey work, some survey work I've done and talking to non-gun folk lead me to believe that the center is starting to believe that guns are a priori dangerous and removing them will make them safer.
They DON'T CARE about 2nd Amend. arguments. The Bill of Rights was written by people and not by God. The authors thought such rights made for a better society. They can be changed if the US populace want it to happen. Another series of loonies shooting up the church and school and you could easily see suggestions to do away with the 2nd. This could happen if you lose the political center. The political center thinks that the argument that we need guns to fight a possible government tyranny is so farfetched that they laugh at it.
While we have hideous examples of Nazi German and Bosnia around, most Americans don't think that we will come to this and have to fight our government. Given most of the Nazi stuff is on sale at gun shows - it's kind of a hard argument to make.
THE SAFETY ARGUMENT SELLS. CHLs are part of it. It sells to women.
6. To follow up on the last sentence. WOMEN are the future of the RKBA.
Unless the centrist women are convinced that guns will make them and their families safer, they will support increasing numbers of gun control laws.
The left-over sexist attitudes and correlation of the RKBA with extremist causes turn off this population. Black heliocopter, UN phobia and preparing to fight the government just turns them off. The argument that makes sense is the CHL for self-defense. An argument to carry illegally will go nowhere. They fear lawbreakers - so you are arguing that folks should break the law and carry deadly weapons?
That's brillant.
7. SHALL CARRY LAWS ARE THE ONLY
RECENT PROACTICE SUCCESS FOR THE RKBA.
Defensive actions of holding off some worse gun laws are fine but if you are only on the defense you lose. The CHL laws are an
undeniable success. Shove that in the face of your opponents rather than arguing that we should be lawbreakers.
** The Ultimate Question**
To conclude this little exercise, I want to know if the folks who argue against permit laws and who tell folks to carry illegally
actually do. Every damn day, do you put on an IWB and cocked and locked 1911 and interact with friends, coworkers and police?
Does your significant other do it also? Do you do it in large urban environments like Dallas or just in the outdoors?
Do you do it in the supermarket? Do you take this risk?
Do you also verbally expouse this behavior in a medium other than the anonymity of the Internet? I can tell folks that I carry a gun
for protection and that I have gone through appropriate training and checks. I can tell them why it is a good idea for them to do it.
Can you tell everybody that you are a lawbreaker? So where is your responsible and not bull**** portrayal of the RKBA?
Flame on!
reading some response, thought I would share:
Quite often, people ask the group how they can get a CHL or CCW/permit in a given location. Sometimes they ask if they should get one at all.
Usually the group supplies the appropriate info or links for the question.
However, there are usually a wave of negative responses that go like this:
1. If you get such, you will be on the Government list and when
the time comes, the UN, black heliocopters, etc. will come for you and your gun.
2. You are some sort of liberal, commie coward. GAWD ALMIGHY and the Second Amendment give you the right to carry a gun.
Only a wussy-ass wimp would bother to get a permit. You are giving up your RIGHTS.
3. Hermeneutic analyses by me (the poster) or by a team of Talmudic scholars has determined that despite the opinion of everyone else
in the state and the recommendations of LEOs, AGs, instructors, etc.,some nuance in state law gives you the right to carry. We
have recently seen a thread with this particular idiocy (comment here is about another list - GM).
This is combined with the listers suggestion that you be the one to use his or her brilliant but amateur analysis in court.
To be rather blunt: These reasons are well-intentioned but misguided or
malacious bull****.
Here's why you should get a permit or CHL.
1. You can carry legally. While some states have certain restrictions,you are certainly more legal than those who carry illegally.
a. This reduces the chance of arrest. Jail, expense, a record, losing
gun rights for the future.
b. This reduces the chance of going through a felony stop. Most
police think people who carry illegally are bad. The police are not going to give you a donut and yell - Three Cheers for the RKBA. They might treat you badly.
c. When challenged by the police, there are suggested routines for the licensed carrier to do, to avoid conflict. As unlicensed, you can't. As a CHL holder, I can tell the officer that I have a gun
in the glove compartment. Most everyone I know in TX has found that most officers are polite and deal well with the CHL. If I don't have the CHL and I tell the officer I have a gun - expect handcuffs at the
minimum. In the worst case scenarios, guns are draw on you when the gun is
discovered. You might get hurt or dead.
d. When you are arrested for illegal carry, you become an official gun nut. Does this influence your job? It might. You have to report such on some job applications. For some professions, you might get the boot.
Hey - DON'T BE A WUSSY - ! Fight it! I'm sure a post to the group will bring LOT'S O CASH for your defense fund! Sure.
2. The Government is coming for you.
There are guy is Texas who everything they see the Good Humour ice cream
truck post to TX.guns that the UN is in Bastrop and are coming for your guns.
I agree that gun registration is a tool that might be used to seize guns and that precedents exist for this action.
However, most of us are probably on the lists already.
Are you a member of a major gun related organization?
Did you ever subscribe to a gun periodical?
Get a hunting license?
Buy a related product with a credit card?
Post on the Internet about firearms.
They gotcha - big boy.
If the confiscation order comes down, will you neighbors and co-workers turn you in? I could name several people who would do that, either as they are anti-gun, would want a reward or are malacious. I've been there on this one. I once knew pretty well a major figure in a world class scandal. Even though, it was several years before said person engaged in the behavior, several
idiots at work called the local press to tell them I knew the person and I had to fend off the press for awhile. I'm sure lots of folks would turn you in given the right circumstances.
If the list is real big - maybe they won't come for everyone on the list.
3. Breaking the law is a bad role model. How can you argue for law and order if you argue to break it? You say you are justified by the RKBA mission given to you by GAWD ALMIGHTY.
Never criticize those who commit illegal actions pro or con abortion, marijuana, the Viet Nam war, cocaine, pornography or the like.
If HCI surrounds the gun store and pelts you with eggs when you exit, don't bother to call the police - they were following a high moral
cause.
Are there some higher moral causes that lead one to break the law as the Freedom Riders did in the South in the fight against
segregation?
Be sure you are OK with this before you go the route of civil disobedience.
If you do, shouldn't you have a public display of your civil disobedience
or do you just slink around with your gun hidden?
4. Getting a CHL increases the probability you will carry and increases your
safety. Despite the blowhard friends of GAWD ALMIGHTY who claim that they break the law - I doubt it. Being illegal would give you pause.
Be legal and carrying is no longer fearful and becomes second nature.
Given the success rate of gun armed self defense - you make yourself safer.
When some 'Vermont only' activist argues against CHL laws - think about
this. We want people to carry to be safe. Lott says 4000 women a year prevent rape with handguns. Thus, we need the RKBA to be able to have guns to prevent crimes like rape. If you don't allow carry you allow rape.
The "Vermont only" or "2 Amend. gives us the right..." crowd would argue against passage of CHL laws. This will decrease the number of
people who will carry. It will keep in force anticarry laws. More women will get raped while you wait for GAWD ALMIGHTY or the next
revolution to turn the USA into Vermont.
5. The Benefits of CHL for the RKBA outweigh the confiscation list risk.
a. Take a stand and show the world that Americans wish to carry arms
to defend themselves. If every gun owner that could, would get a CHL - such numbers would convince politicians that this is a mass movement and opinion to be reckoned with.
Gun folks are being marginalized as right wing loons, animal blasters and other low lifes who slink around in the dark, wearing Nazi shirts. Appeals to break the law, just reinforce this.
I read a similar analysis by several other folks in various editiorial sources, like Mike Venturino.
I suppose I take a risk in being legally licensed. The UN might come for me. But, I take that chance. I demonstrate that I want
and need to possess a firearm.
In other situations when discriminatory laws and propositions were put on state ballots, I joined with other psychologists in signing
ads that were put in the major newspapers. Some people said aren't you scared that loonies might come for you? You take your chances.
In Denmark, the King put on a yellow Star of David and defied the Nazis. You can slink around without a CHL and wait for the UN
or you can say that you are a legal gunowner, want to carry and not be scared to let the world know it.
b. CHLs stop crime. This is convincingly demonstrated by Kleck and Lott.
This is the only argument that convinces centrist folks who may be convinced to be anti-RKBA.
Reading survey work, some survey work I've done and talking to non-gun folk lead me to believe that the center is starting to believe that guns are a priori dangerous and removing them will make them safer.
They DON'T CARE about 2nd Amend. arguments. The Bill of Rights was written by people and not by God. The authors thought such rights made for a better society. They can be changed if the US populace want it to happen. Another series of loonies shooting up the church and school and you could easily see suggestions to do away with the 2nd. This could happen if you lose the political center. The political center thinks that the argument that we need guns to fight a possible government tyranny is so farfetched that they laugh at it.
While we have hideous examples of Nazi German and Bosnia around, most Americans don't think that we will come to this and have to fight our government. Given most of the Nazi stuff is on sale at gun shows - it's kind of a hard argument to make.
THE SAFETY ARGUMENT SELLS. CHLs are part of it. It sells to women.
6. To follow up on the last sentence. WOMEN are the future of the RKBA.
Unless the centrist women are convinced that guns will make them and their families safer, they will support increasing numbers of gun control laws.
The left-over sexist attitudes and correlation of the RKBA with extremist causes turn off this population. Black heliocopter, UN phobia and preparing to fight the government just turns them off. The argument that makes sense is the CHL for self-defense. An argument to carry illegally will go nowhere. They fear lawbreakers - so you are arguing that folks should break the law and carry deadly weapons?
That's brillant.
7. SHALL CARRY LAWS ARE THE ONLY
RECENT PROACTICE SUCCESS FOR THE RKBA.
Defensive actions of holding off some worse gun laws are fine but if you are only on the defense you lose. The CHL laws are an
undeniable success. Shove that in the face of your opponents rather than arguing that we should be lawbreakers.
** The Ultimate Question**
To conclude this little exercise, I want to know if the folks who argue against permit laws and who tell folks to carry illegally
actually do. Every damn day, do you put on an IWB and cocked and locked 1911 and interact with friends, coworkers and police?
Does your significant other do it also? Do you do it in large urban environments like Dallas or just in the outdoors?
Do you do it in the supermarket? Do you take this risk?
Do you also verbally expouse this behavior in a medium other than the anonymity of the Internet? I can tell folks that I carry a gun
for protection and that I have gone through appropriate training and checks. I can tell them why it is a good idea for them to do it.
Can you tell everybody that you are a lawbreaker? So where is your responsible and not bull**** portrayal of the RKBA?
Flame on!
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Follow up - sorry for the crappy
wrapping - didn't look that way when
I sent it.
wrapping - didn't look that way when
I sent it.
Okey dokey, Glenn (Popping knuckles and stretching the fingers over the keyboard)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>1. If you get such, you will be on the Government list and when the time comes, the UN, black heliocopters, etc. will come for you and your gun.
As you have pointed out, the majority of us are most likely on some sort of list. That does not frighten me.
<LI>2. You are some sort of liberal, commie coward. GAWD ALMIGHY and the Second Amendment give you the right to carry a gun. Only a wussy-ass wimp would bother to get a permit. You are giving up your RIGHTS.
I don't recall those exact words, nor an inuendo to such. I commented that if you could afford to do so, practice civil disobedience.
<LI>3. Breaking the law is a bad role model. How can you argue for law and order if you argue to break it? You say you are justified by the RKBA mission given to you by GAWD ALMIGHTY.
When the laws contradict each other, how is one to reconcile the difference? Would not following the higher law (assuming personal responsibility was present) be the right course?
<LI>Never criticize those who commit illegal actions pro or con abortion, marijuana, the Viet Nam war, cocaine, pornography or the like. If HCI surrounds the gun store and pelts you with eggs when you exit, don't bother to call the police - they were following a high moral cause.
This sounds like an argument for situational ethics. And there is no such thing. It's an oxymoron.
<LI>5. The Benefits of CHL for the RKBA outweigh the confiscation list risk.
a. Take a stand and show the world that Americans wish to carry arms to defend themselves.
This was already done in the Bill of Rights.
If every gun owner that could, would get a CHL - such numbers would convince politicians that this is a mass movement and opinion to be reckoned with.
This would be a good idea if the thought of recognizing the lie of government that our right to carry is really a priviledge, didn't exist.
Gun folks are being marginalized as right wing loons, animal blasters and other low lifes who slink around in the dark, wearing Nazi shirts.
This is true.
Appeals to break the law, just reinforce this.
Only because the polititians have made breaking the law the normal or inescapeable thing to do. Maybe we are the only ones that recognize that we are actually keeping the laws (pertaining to RKBA) as it was originally intended. It seems to be a matter of perspective and situational ethics again. E.g.: "What is the meaning of 'is'?"
<LI>b. CHLs stop crime.
No. The presence of a firearm who's owner knows how to use it stops crime. I've never heard of someone flashing their card and the perp wet himself in terror.
<LI>THE SAFETY ARGUMENT SELLS. CHLs are part of it. It sells to women.
Yes. CHL's are a part of it, to the ignorant. It's a feel good measure that is still an infringment.
<LI>To conclude this little exercise, I want to know if the folks who argue against permit laws and who tell folks to carry illegally actually do.
Yes.
Every damn day, do you put on an IWB and cocked and locked 1911 and interact with friends, coworkers and police?
Not a 1911, but yes.
...Do you do it in large urban environments like Dallas or just in the outdoors?
Is the Phoenix valley large enough for you? Or maybe LA, when I have to go to that moral sink-hole? AND the outdoors.
Do you do it in the supermarket? Do you take this risk?
Yes.
Do you also verbally expouse this behavior in a medium other than the anonymity of the Internet?
Yes. Person to person.
I can tell folks that I carry a gun for protection and that I have gone through appropriate training and checks.
I can tell them this too because I take personal responsibility for my actions.
I can tell them why it is a good idea for them to do it.
So can I, for both CCL and CD (Civil Disobedience).
Can you tell everybody that you are a lawbreaker?
No, but I can tell them that I do not violate the rights of others, and that I support their moral pursuit of happiness and responsible free-speech.
So where is your responsible and not bull**** portrayal of the RKBA?
It's in the letters I write to my congressmen. It's in the way I teach my children about firearm safety and how to treat others. It's in the sadness that I feel as I see the necessity of many laws that we could do without if we, as citizens of the USA, would exercise personal responsibility and moral rectitude.
</UL>
My advocacy of CD does not extend to everyone, just those who feel that the benifits or the statement outweigh the risk.
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited December 03, 1999).]
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>1. If you get such, you will be on the Government list and when the time comes, the UN, black heliocopters, etc. will come for you and your gun.
As you have pointed out, the majority of us are most likely on some sort of list. That does not frighten me.
<LI>2. You are some sort of liberal, commie coward. GAWD ALMIGHY and the Second Amendment give you the right to carry a gun. Only a wussy-ass wimp would bother to get a permit. You are giving up your RIGHTS.
I don't recall those exact words, nor an inuendo to such. I commented that if you could afford to do so, practice civil disobedience.
<LI>3. Breaking the law is a bad role model. How can you argue for law and order if you argue to break it? You say you are justified by the RKBA mission given to you by GAWD ALMIGHTY.
When the laws contradict each other, how is one to reconcile the difference? Would not following the higher law (assuming personal responsibility was present) be the right course?
<LI>Never criticize those who commit illegal actions pro or con abortion, marijuana, the Viet Nam war, cocaine, pornography or the like. If HCI surrounds the gun store and pelts you with eggs when you exit, don't bother to call the police - they were following a high moral cause.
This sounds like an argument for situational ethics. And there is no such thing. It's an oxymoron.
<LI>5. The Benefits of CHL for the RKBA outweigh the confiscation list risk.
a. Take a stand and show the world that Americans wish to carry arms to defend themselves.
This was already done in the Bill of Rights.
If every gun owner that could, would get a CHL - such numbers would convince politicians that this is a mass movement and opinion to be reckoned with.
This would be a good idea if the thought of recognizing the lie of government that our right to carry is really a priviledge, didn't exist.
Gun folks are being marginalized as right wing loons, animal blasters and other low lifes who slink around in the dark, wearing Nazi shirts.
This is true.
Appeals to break the law, just reinforce this.
Only because the polititians have made breaking the law the normal or inescapeable thing to do. Maybe we are the only ones that recognize that we are actually keeping the laws (pertaining to RKBA) as it was originally intended. It seems to be a matter of perspective and situational ethics again. E.g.: "What is the meaning of 'is'?"
<LI>b. CHLs stop crime.
No. The presence of a firearm who's owner knows how to use it stops crime. I've never heard of someone flashing their card and the perp wet himself in terror.
<LI>THE SAFETY ARGUMENT SELLS. CHLs are part of it. It sells to women.
Yes. CHL's are a part of it, to the ignorant. It's a feel good measure that is still an infringment.
<LI>To conclude this little exercise, I want to know if the folks who argue against permit laws and who tell folks to carry illegally actually do.
Yes.
Every damn day, do you put on an IWB and cocked and locked 1911 and interact with friends, coworkers and police?
Not a 1911, but yes.
...Do you do it in large urban environments like Dallas or just in the outdoors?
Is the Phoenix valley large enough for you? Or maybe LA, when I have to go to that moral sink-hole? AND the outdoors.
Do you do it in the supermarket? Do you take this risk?
Yes.
Do you also verbally expouse this behavior in a medium other than the anonymity of the Internet?
Yes. Person to person.
I can tell folks that I carry a gun for protection and that I have gone through appropriate training and checks.
I can tell them this too because I take personal responsibility for my actions.
I can tell them why it is a good idea for them to do it.
So can I, for both CCL and CD (Civil Disobedience).
Can you tell everybody that you are a lawbreaker?
No, but I can tell them that I do not violate the rights of others, and that I support their moral pursuit of happiness and responsible free-speech.
So where is your responsible and not bull**** portrayal of the RKBA?
It's in the letters I write to my congressmen. It's in the way I teach my children about firearm safety and how to treat others. It's in the sadness that I feel as I see the necessity of many laws that we could do without if we, as citizens of the USA, would exercise personal responsibility and moral rectitude.
</UL>
My advocacy of CD does not extend to everyone, just those who feel that the benifits or the statement outweigh the risk.
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited December 03, 1999).]
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
John, I wasn't specifically talking to you.
I wrote this for elsewhere but after seeing
Paul Revere's comment, decided to zap it over
here.
If you practice civil disobedience and preach
such - you past my test. More power to you
and your convictions.
I would hope that you would not dissuade
someone from getting a permit or argue
against such a law in your state - assuming
that you lived in such a state. Ayoob
states that such efforts sunk the original
CCW bill in MO that would have passed. Later
the referendum failed - killed by the big
city vote. Do you think a 2nd Amend. argument
would have changed that population's mind.
Crime prevention might have.
After far as CHLs not preventing crime, of
course not. In TX, sometimes those who
have CHLs are called that for short.
Pardon my localism.
Lawdog - thanks.
I prefer to make progress in getting
people to protect themselves and increase
the gun owner base. I think it is a more
productive strategy than just yelling
RKBA.
bye
I wrote this for elsewhere but after seeing
Paul Revere's comment, decided to zap it over
here.
If you practice civil disobedience and preach
such - you past my test. More power to you
and your convictions.
I would hope that you would not dissuade
someone from getting a permit or argue
against such a law in your state - assuming
that you lived in such a state. Ayoob
states that such efforts sunk the original
CCW bill in MO that would have passed. Later
the referendum failed - killed by the big
city vote. Do you think a 2nd Amend. argument
would have changed that population's mind.
Crime prevention might have.
After far as CHLs not preventing crime, of
course not. In TX, sometimes those who
have CHLs are called that for short.
Pardon my localism.
Lawdog - thanks.
I prefer to make progress in getting
people to protect themselves and increase
the gun owner base. I think it is a more
productive strategy than just yelling
RKBA.
bye
Glenn,
Thanks for your response.
I heartily agree that bringing the RKBA issue down to a personal level is the way to go. Issues become so much more important when there is a personal stake in the matter.
I have learned this (and continue to do so) through hard experience.
I have never tried to talk someone out of getting a CCL. I try to present to them as much factual information as I can at their level of understanding. For many, it seems to be a fairly low common denominator.
We are in this fight together, and I am glad of it for I would hate to be fighting alone!
Regards,
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited December 03, 1999).]
Thanks for your response.
I heartily agree that bringing the RKBA issue down to a personal level is the way to go. Issues become so much more important when there is a personal stake in the matter.
I have learned this (and continue to do so) through hard experience.
I have never tried to talk someone out of getting a CCL. I try to present to them as much factual information as I can at their level of understanding. For many, it seems to be a fairly low common denominator.
We are in this fight together, and I am glad of it for I would hate to be fighting alone!
Regards,
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited December 03, 1999).]
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Well said.
You know, some people say the Internet
isolates folks. I find it a liberating
medium as we can discuss things with
folks we probably would have never met.
regards and going to the gun show
tomorrow.
Glenn
You know, some people say the Internet
isolates folks. I find it a liberating
medium as we can discuss things with
folks we probably would have never met.
regards and going to the gun show
tomorrow.
Glenn
Caeca Invidia Es
Staff Alumnus
The gun I have right now is George's HK =o) Which is very noticable on me unless I'm wearing a thick sweater or a coat. So if I do carry it, chances are someone is going to notice. Do you all think I should look for something a little smaller? Or just let the world know that I'm carrying?
------------------
I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.
------------------
I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.
Caeca Invidia Es
Staff Alumnus
Jordan,
Sorry, I seemed to have missed your little post in there. In my mind I think I am very willing to live up to my sig, but until I am actually put in the situation I'll never really know. I'm just hoping I never have to find out.
------------------
I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.
Sorry, I seemed to have missed your little post in there. In my mind I think I am very willing to live up to my sig, but until I am actually put in the situation I'll never really know. I'm just hoping I never have to find out.
------------------
I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.
Caeca, most people are stunningly unobservant, living their lives in Condition White. I carry a G20 on my hip; this is a BIG gun, about the size of a Gummint. When I throw on a sport coat, it looks obvious to me that I'm carrying (or that I have a colostomy bag), but no one else has ever said anything.
I did get a funny look from a guy with a fannypack once, though.
FWIW, I'm with John/AZ2 100%. I practice CD and my lawyer knows it. He doesn't like it, but he'll argue the point for me if necessary.
I've made up a little wallet-sized card with the 2nd and Colorado's RKBA law. I consider that my permit. You can see it at http://www.users.uswest.net/~coinneach/ccpermit.jpg . I printed and laminated it, and keep it right behind my Libertarian Party card.
------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property,
or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question.."
Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.
I did get a funny look from a guy with a fannypack once, though.
FWIW, I'm with John/AZ2 100%. I practice CD and my lawyer knows it. He doesn't like it, but he'll argue the point for me if necessary.
I've made up a little wallet-sized card with the 2nd and Colorado's RKBA law. I consider that my permit. You can see it at http://www.users.uswest.net/~coinneach/ccpermit.jpg . I printed and laminated it, and keep it right behind my Libertarian Party card.
------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property,
or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question.."
Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.
Caeca Invidia Es
Staff Alumnus
Coinneach, I really like that card, I think I'll have to print me one up as well. As for the gun I think I'll carry it around a little and see what kind of attention it gets me. If all else fails I'll go pick up that MK40 I've had my eye on.
Thanks to everyone who gave me advice.
------------------
I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.
Thanks to everyone who gave me advice.
------------------
I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.
Has anyone actually been made? were you charged? I carry whenever possible, everywhere possible, but there are times I do not because of the odds of being made. I cannot afford a lengthy legal battle, and would be railroaded and processed right to prison. I would get a permit, but I will not compromise my beliefs, and refuse to pay for the priviledge.
If you can pass a NICS to buy a gun, you should be able to carry it. I would get a permit immediately if that was the case, out of respect for the public safety. I don't want a bunch of armed nuts running around either. I would gladly participate in that sort of licensing, to be able to identify myself as some one capable of lawfully possesing a gun to the police. I might even agrre to standardized training.
But the current system of giving permits to those who can pay large fees, or know the "good old boys", is unacceptable. Even in "shall issue" states, This is how it works.
If you can pass a NICS to buy a gun, you should be able to carry it. I would get a permit immediately if that was the case, out of respect for the public safety. I don't want a bunch of armed nuts running around either. I would gladly participate in that sort of licensing, to be able to identify myself as some one capable of lawfully possesing a gun to the police. I might even agrre to standardized training.
But the current system of giving permits to those who can pay large fees, or know the "good old boys", is unacceptable. Even in "shall issue" states, This is how it works.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Dave, it depends on your state and what
you think is expensive.
In many shall issue states, you take
a class. In TX, you can take the class
for a variety of prices but you
can probably get one for about $80.
The CHL is more expensive ($140 for 4 years) if you just consider it as a one shot expense
but it is nothing compared to my state mandated car insurance or medical insurance
costs. You don't have to know anyone
special in the shall issue states.
Money well spent. TX even has a provision
for those of limited means. Other states
are cheaper. Going to jail is much more
expensive.
I easily spend this much on pizza each year.
Sometimes people look for excuses not to
get a CHL or CCW permit. I understand the
RKBA outrage you feel but as I posted before
the benefits far outweigh the negatives.
you think is expensive.
In many shall issue states, you take
a class. In TX, you can take the class
for a variety of prices but you
can probably get one for about $80.
The CHL is more expensive ($140 for 4 years) if you just consider it as a one shot expense
but it is nothing compared to my state mandated car insurance or medical insurance
costs. You don't have to know anyone
special in the shall issue states.
Money well spent. TX even has a provision
for those of limited means. Other states
are cheaper. Going to jail is much more
expensive.
I easily spend this much on pizza each year.
Sometimes people look for excuses not to
get a CHL or CCW permit. I understand the
RKBA outrage you feel but as I posted before
the benefits far outweigh the negatives.
What I have a problem with is fees beyond what is required to fund the process.
That reeks of exlusivism. Charging me $39 for fingerprinting, when my prints are already on file WITH THAT DEPT. is silly. Charging me another couple $100 for a NICS is equally silly.
Oh, I'm in NV
[This message has been edited by Dave AA (edited December 05, 1999).]
That reeks of exlusivism. Charging me $39 for fingerprinting, when my prints are already on file WITH THAT DEPT. is silly. Charging me another couple $100 for a NICS is equally silly.
Oh, I'm in NV
[This message has been edited by Dave AA (edited December 05, 1999).]
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
IIRC, the money in TX is to fund
the process.
I don't want to beat the same drum
but Shall Issue permits are the only
positive action on the RKBA in years.
Defensive actions are nice but not progress.
It is worth the money to join lawabiding
citizens making the statement that
they think firearms are crucial to
the public for self-protection.
Not critcizing anyone particular here,
but most of these arguments against
just don't cut it. DO IT!
the process.
I don't want to beat the same drum
but Shall Issue permits are the only
positive action on the RKBA in years.
Defensive actions are nice but not progress.
It is worth the money to join lawabiding
citizens making the statement that
they think firearms are crucial to
the public for self-protection.
Not critcizing anyone particular here,
but most of these arguments against
just don't cut it. DO IT!
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
My hat is off to all of those who posted to this thread and kept it civil. It reflects well upon all gun owners, and TFL in particular, that the postings from Glenn and John didn't turn into a flame war. To the credit of both of you, I have come, learned, and leave, smarter for the experience.
Someone mentioned NICS above. This exists, arguably, to keep the wrong people from owning guns (Violent Felons, Mentally Unstable, etc.). My question is, then, do we need to have another test to license people to carry these guns that they already can or can't have? Isn't this just another facet of defining (profiling) American citizens?
One group can not own a gun, one group can. Of this group, some may carry concealed and others may not. Some may own full-auto, some may not. Some may own a pistol, or an "assault rifle," some may not. It already sounds like the BMV with different kinds of licenses for different kinds of folks.
My two cents is that if we agree that NICS can (marginally) keep guns from the wrong hands; isn't CCW licensing just another safety check? A necessary redundant system if you will. I have met many people who own guns, and some of them are very safe and use their tools well. Others scare the hell out of me. It is this scary group of people for which testing and licensing are necessary. I can think of a few gun owners that I wouldn't want carrying while around me or my family.
------------------
RKBA!
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security -Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Ohio does not allow concealed carry.
http://www.ofcc.net
Someone mentioned NICS above. This exists, arguably, to keep the wrong people from owning guns (Violent Felons, Mentally Unstable, etc.). My question is, then, do we need to have another test to license people to carry these guns that they already can or can't have? Isn't this just another facet of defining (profiling) American citizens?
One group can not own a gun, one group can. Of this group, some may carry concealed and others may not. Some may own full-auto, some may not. Some may own a pistol, or an "assault rifle," some may not. It already sounds like the BMV with different kinds of licenses for different kinds of folks.
My two cents is that if we agree that NICS can (marginally) keep guns from the wrong hands; isn't CCW licensing just another safety check? A necessary redundant system if you will. I have met many people who own guns, and some of them are very safe and use their tools well. Others scare the hell out of me. It is this scary group of people for which testing and licensing are necessary. I can think of a few gun owners that I wouldn't want carrying while around me or my family.
------------------
RKBA!
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security -Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Ohio does not allow concealed carry.
http://www.ofcc.net
- Status