"I'd rather be caught with it than caught without it."

While i wont advocate breaking this law , I do understand the described fella's choice , and ill note that if your already a felon of any sort there is little incentive for you not to carry and protect yourself or your family . If i liked the fella he would stay my friend .... but i sure would not sell him a pistol lol .
 
The law is the law, and your buddy is breaking it. Like you, I don't know if your friend is legally allowed to even possess a handgun, but he certainly shouldn't be carrying concealed.

You do realize that people who break gun laws are the ones who provoke more strict ones!
 
Musketeer said:
3. You have no RIGHT to carry. You think you do but the SCOTUS does not and their answer goes with regards to the COTUS no matter how we feel on the matter. The law is clear on the matter and your refusing to acknowledge the facts of the matter are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The government doesn't grant rights, they are granted to men by God. The government can only unjustly remove them.
 
The government doesn't grant rights, they are granted to men by God.
Click to expand...

Pshaw. There is no God and thus there are no God given rights. Time to move this one to Law and Civil Rights if you want to discuss social contracts and the nature of government.

WildimnotantigunimantifelonAlaska ™
 
WildAlaska said:
Pshaw. There is no God and thus there are no God given rights. Time to move this one to Law and Civil Rights if you want to discuss social contracts and the nature of government.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're totally right. John Locke was a dumbass :rolleyes:. So was Thomas Jefferson. In fact anyone who was influenced by him is, too (Founding Fathers). Oh hell, why do we need a constitution or a bill of rights, since the ones who made it were total idiots? :rolleyes:

BuckauthoritariansneedtomovetochinaoranothercommunistcountrycanyoureadthisprobablynotsinceitsallbunchedtogetherwhatsthepointofthisHammer
 
Last edited:
I would agree with the poster who suggests that there are no God given rights. There are those rights that Americans (and others) have acknowledged belong to all men, prompted by their inclusion in the constitution. They include the right to free expression, self-protection, freedom from self incrimination, search and seizure by the government, right to counsel, women's suffrage, equal protection etc. These rights are interpreted by the judicial branch, and influenced by statutes passed by the people's representatives.

One of the more influential statutes in this argument is the law that says felons can't possess firearms. I think that is a perfectly sound restriction, pretty much in the same way that I think that convicted sex offenders should register their whereabouts so that the public can keep track of them and drivers ought to have valid licenses that demonstrate their awareness of the rules of the road.

IMHO, if a felon or a dv misdemeanant chooses to carry a gun, despite legal prohibition, he DESERVES to go to jail. Those with knowledge that he is breaking the law can look the other way, but no one should wring their hands or complain if he gets caught and goes to prison. Its no different than driving under the influence or on a suspended license. Free will affords irresponsible men little comfort if they are caught breaking the law.

I don't like gun criminals. I don't much care if they are "good guys" "family men", or "teenage thugs" like Klebold and Harris. If the majority of people of this country abide by its laws wait til they can legally own guns and don't get convicted of crimes that would bar them from firearms ownership, I don't have much sympathy for those who have broken the law and are now convicted felons. Regardless of their motivation, crooks shouldn't own guns, unless and until their civil rights are restored.
 
Dresden2001 said:
I would agree with the poster who suggests that there are no God given rights. There are those rights that Americans (and others) have acknowledged belong to all men, prompted by their inclusion in the constitution.
Click to expand...
Basically, you have taken the God out of "God given rights", which is fine if that is your thing, because this is America, but it means the same thing.

Dresden2001 said:
IMHO, if a felon or a dv misdemeanant chooses to carry a gun, despite legal prohibition, he DESERVES to go to jail. Those with knowledge that he is breaking the law can look the other way, but no one should wring their hands or complain if he gets caught and goes to prison. Its no different than driving under the influence or on a suspended license. Free will affords irresponsible men little comfort if they are caught breaking the law.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, but it's worth noting that anything that the prevention of his gun ownership prevents is illegal anyway. Overlapping laws are annoying, overcomplicated, and repetitive. Also, if we're talking about hardcore criminals who "deserve to go to jail", if they want a gun, they're going to get one, legal or not. The government and law enforcement might as benefit from the tax revenue generated in the transaction.
 
Dresden2001 said:
They include the right to free expression, self-protection, freedom from self incrimination, search and seizure by the government, right to counsel, women's suffrage, equal protection etc.
Click to expand...

Funny you should forget the right to keep and bare arms...

I don't have much sympathy for those who have broken the law and are now convicted felons.
Click to expand...

Of course you dnt. Not until its your attorney who screws the pooch and you're the one with the bogus felony charge on your record
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree, but it's worth noting that anything that the prevention of his gun ownership prevents is illegal anyway. Overlapping laws are annoying, overcomplicated, and repetitive. Also, if we're talking about hardcore criminals who "deserve to go to jail", if they want a gun, they're going to get one, legal or not.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with your first point regarding redundant, ill-conceived laws. It would be a much better world if the legislature would have to repeal one law for every new one enacted. Nonetheless, there is a value in restricting the right of an impulsive, anti-social citizen (read felon in my view) to own a deadly weapon.

Funny you should forget the right to keep and bare arms...
Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't. It's the right to self protection. The framers were clear that the RKBA was enumerated to prevent governments, and vicious citizens from usurping the rights of free men in the Republic.

Buckhammer's second point is much more nuanced. Seems to me that the friend of OP who has a gun, despite a legal prohibition is a hard core criminal. Every day he carries illegally, he is breaking the law and commits a new offense every time he is in possession of a firearm. Law abiding citizens who don't break the law ought to hope he is caught and punished. If he does it again, I hope he is caught receives more time.

I don't much care if a criminal has commited a non violent felony like theft by receiving over the felony amount, or aggravated assault. Most of us in the US have avoided behavior that would lead to conviction and restriction of our civil rights. I know that sounds callous and haughty, but I have been able to avoid getting arrested despite having done some really dumb things in my lifetime, some that might even have subjected me to arrest and prosecution had the ball bounced a little differently. I know that this may sound incredibly arrogant, but thems that haven't been able to avoid getting convicted of a felony or a crime involving domestic violence are different than thems that have.
 
Last edited:
Quote
You do realize that people who break gun laws are the ones who provoke more strict ones!

Yeah, gun grabbing liberals will leave the rest of us alone and quit passing laws if we will just comply with this ONE MORE LAW. In california these "elected" persons pass an average of 1000 new laws every session. We can't burn a freaking fire in our fire places unless we call a freaking phone number to find out if it's OK. It will never be enough with these freaks.

Sure, we just need the judges and lawyers to tell us who is ok to own a gun, and who isn't. In my state you have committed a felony if you carry your medication in one of those mtwtfss boxes and leave the house with it.

We need less restrictions not more. I say let the felons carry. They are going to anyway. But maybe instead of restricting those of us who actually follow these stupid laws, they could free us up a little. Like make it year long open season on violent felons. Note, I said "violent".

"Don't make it illegal to burn the flag, just make it legal for the rest of us to beat the (tar) out of the flag burners."

I do agree however, if you need to pull your gun that often, you need to change something. Your location, your habits, your ways, your judgment. Most people here would probably agree, showing a little better judgment on your friends part would put everyone a little more at ease with him having a gun. Even if they don't agree on the legality.

G-manisitrealythatviolentinalaska26
 
Oops, more info is required.

I am in the Army at Ft. Wainwright and this man is not up here. Fairbanks is not really a tough community. At least not as far as senseless violence is concerned. He is an old friend from California. He is of mixed ethnicity and looks really white but he lives on the edge of the proverbial "ghetto" leading to all kinds of idiotic problems just living and working where he does. He is also a small dude who has a bit of pride. He does not get along with the "kids" in the neighborhood. Apparently having some very bad stuff go down and then obtaining an incompetent lawyer will doom you to a life of few choices. Apparently.

I know it sounds ridiculous and if it was as simple as a loser packing a pistol around the 'hood then I would not have even brought this topic up. But hey, I like hearing people ideas and opinions.

Thanks,

Dan
 
Before this completely devolves into a debate in the unalienable rights of man versus the creeping totalitarianism of the State, we need to remember this:

The OP's friend is making a conscious, informed decision that he will break the law every time he CC's. There is no debate about that. I understand his desire to protect himself, but I also cannot argue for the notion that he is being abused by the law. He, at some point in time, must live with the consequences of his actions all those years ago. He may well be a special case, but the law is clear - no felons may carry a firearm. It's a good law, in general, and if there's been some miscarriage of justice, then he needs to address that in the proper fashion. There is a clear line between his special case, and the laws of Illinois and Wisconsin that wholly proscribe CC. That is a gross abuse of a citizen's 2A rights...the OP's friend's case is not.

As one of the posters wrote regarding the apparent danger of the man's neighborhood: "He needs a Ryder, not a Ruger."
 
G-man 26: You totally missed my point. My point is that legislators propose new and/or more strict gun laws to combat gun crime. Though, you, I and every lawful gun owner in America are not the problem. Criminals are criminals are criminals, who will continue to ignore any new laws as much as they do the old ones. New laws do nothing to deter those who already freely break existing ones. So basically, us law abiding folks are the ones who pay for those crimes committed by the scum of the earth, in the form of more strict laws/regs reguarding firearms and their use.
 
I would have to admit that I would carry illegally. Lets forget all this God given right stuff since our laws were created by man. Our forefathers had the wisdom to protect our right to bear arms in the constitution.

Lets talk about practicality. Are you going to give up ability to protect yourself because of a mistake you made years ago? Lets assume that the need to protect himself is real and that he was innocent. I find it hard to believe that nobody believes that innocent people are occasionally found guilty.

I am almost positive that the main reason for the flack is the fact you mentioned he has drawn his gun 10 times already. Many police officers go their entire careers without ever having to draw their guns on a suspect. Lets say you are a hard working individual with NO criminal history living in a anti-gun state such as New York or Illinois? Those who are from there or have been there know there are more than a few rough areas. Criminals could care less about gun laws and will just prey on the unarmed sheep. Do you go like a lamb to the slaughter or do you follow the judged by 12 rather than carried by 6? As long as there is a true threat and no other way out, you need to do what you need to do in order to protect yourself and your family.
 
if i ran into that much trouble where i had to pull a gun out, i'd get up and move outta there tomorrow. theres 49 other states with plenty of cities in them. at least one of them has a safer spot to move to.

sounds like shorty has a bit of an anger issue. but maybe i'm reading into your post a little too much.

BuckHammer:
Buckauthoritariansneedtomovetochinaoranothercommunistcountry...
canyoureadthisprobablynotsinceitsallbunchedtogetherwhatsthepointofthisHammer
Click to expand...

i don't know if you meant that to be funny, but i was laughing pretty good at it. i find the faster you try to read it, the easier it is.
 
i believe it is ok for him to have a weapon at his house for HD and to protect his family incase something happens. Carrying illegally while driving is taking a big risk, since if he gets pulled over...he's pretty much done. He should look over the consequences and if he decides to carry even though he is not suppose to its his decision. He'll regret it though if he gets caught with it..then without it..:confused:
 
I'd like to know more details about the 10 situations this guy has been in that made him draw his weapon.
At face value, it sounds to me like he brandishes his weapon whenever he wants to boost his ego. You've already told us he has had problems with the law, so its guaranteed he is not reporting to the police these ten times he claims to have feared for his life or safety, and if the people he has drawn down on havent reported it to the police, that proves those people are representing the criminal element. What is this guy doing around so many thugs? Unless he is one himself.
 
Let's see. My Italian-american communist, literally, uncle was mugged, living in Fruitvale. With no weapon, and advanced age, he was a target.

He moved into the valley, retired, and died.

His family lives in a not so nice part of Oakland, and, due to their Spanish ancestory, appear to have no problems, yet, despite that, I've been checked out a couple times there, loading and unloading around Christmas. I was not oblivious, and, suffice to say, I was NOT going to be mugged on Christmas Eve. Minding my own business, bringing presents in, yet about 3 folks decided they wanted to get into our business. I avoided the situation, and, the three got to enjoy their own Christmas.

I know two white guys that live in West Oakland. A legal carry permit for a 9mm is out of the question. They carry Beretta 92's, all the time. Everyone knows it, and, they have never been hassled, by police or local gang guys.

When legal citizens with clean records, can't get permission from their government to protect themselves, or their families, the question you present is impossible to
answer, in this forum that advocates following the law. The only legal solution is to remove yourself from this area. In other words, you have effectively lost your right to live where you want, and go where you want, since the government will not allow you to protect yourself, or, protect you, which, by the way, many SC cases will tell you they have no duty to do.

All I can say is know your police force, know your DA, and know what you are getting yourself in for. Also, know the Kali laws in the area you live in.

His 10 brandishings is REALLY a concern, since in Kali, you are more then likely going to have to have clear evidence that your life was threatened. That means something like the 10 stiches in my head from the butt of a Walther PPK/S, being knifed, or stabbed.

It never ceases to amaze me, but, criminals will call police, when they were actually considering a crime, and complain that the defendant brandished. The police are supposed to investigate.

A friend with one of the few CCW's in Contra Costa County came out one day to find a couple guys starting to steal the transmission out of the truck he owned. Tools out, starting to go to work. He pulled his Glock, pointed it only at the ground, and said that they should be on their way.
They called the police, and, they came out. They of course said he pointed the gun at them, and made a bunch of stuff up. He never admitted anything, but, it became an issue when they evaluated his application for a CCW, many years later.

Please draw your own conclusion about what I think of this stuff, and, I would recommend your friend get a GOOD lawyer, and see if he can clear his record. Why, I don't know, because even those with perfect records aren't going to get legal CCW's in Kali, in some areas.
 
I will say only that I lived and owned a business in California for 20 years. I often carried large sums of cash and very often complete multi-computer systems. I have carried every day for over 50 years.

Pops
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top