Local radio host carries without permit...

E

EVOIXGSR

New member
I was listening to a local talk radio host talk about 2A rights the other day, and he said on air that he carries all the time, and does not have a permit to do so. He said his reason why is that he shouldn't have to ask permission for an unalienable(sp) right granted by the Bill of Rights. I was curious to hear your thoughts on the topic.

p.s. I am on the verge of moving to P.A. myself to get a CCW and for the lower cost of living as well.
 
Some people don't pay their taxes either... Sometimes they're lucky, most of the time they're not. I feel that if you want to "stay off the grid" then just move to a state that does not require a permit. Problem solved.
 
My personal two cents on this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Right of the people, does indeed mean you and me, as we've all maintained. It doesn't mean just the police, it doesn't mean just the National guard.

That being said, there is that persnickety wording "Well regulated." To me, that means that "the Militia" Being you and me, have to meet minimal guidelines of fitness in order to be allowed the right to bear arms. That means we can't be violent felons, (Those who cannot be trusted with weaponry) Mentally disturbed (Those who can't handle the responsibility of weaponry) and those who are pacifist in nature (We can't force people to carry, who don't want to.)

CCWs aren't inherently unconstitutional, until a state makes it where you can't get one even if you qualify ("May issue" states) or where the state or city makes the issuance of such a license punitive in order to discourage people from obtaining one (That is certainly arguable, seeing the cost associated with obtaining a CCW, plus the confusing reqs put on by certain locations.)

A fully constitutional CCW system would be Affordable, simple, and quick to issue once your background cleared, (No felony convictions, or known mental defects) and you proved that you had obtained basic fire arms instruction (Gun safety class).

Please note that lack of a CCW does not prohibit you from owning nor should it prevent you from carrying weapons. It just means that you can't carry them concealed.

In my perfectly constitutional fantasy Utopia, you'd be able to wander town with a rifle on your back, or a pistol prominently perched on your hip, looking weird if you wanted to. If the local businesses refused to serve customers with rifles and shotguns slung, then thats their business. They can live or die by their business decisions. if enough potential customers carried openly, they'd suffer for their decisions. If every cop in town decided to chat you up on the way to work, but promptly let you go about your business once they found you weren't breaking any laws or harboring any cruel intent, then that would be perfectly fine, and the minor irritation of having to stop and chat with every law enforcement officer in town would be just that. A minor irritation.

In short, the current system is not perfect, nor is it perfectly in line with the Constitution. But be that as it may, it is workable in most of the USA. There is currently no valid reason not to get a Concealed Carry permit if you want to carry concealed, and you don't live in some bassakward place like New York or California.
If you live in one of those bassawkward spaces, your stuck, or screwed, or however you may look at it. I suggest considering a move to a different state. If you don't qualify because you have a violent past, then sucks to be you.
If you don't qualify because you got judged mentally deficient, then I'm sorry about that.
If you don't qualify because some judge or attorney or exwife/girlfriend screwed you over in court, then I'm still sorry, but it still sucks to be you.
If you qualify, but can't afford a gun and CCW, then I suggest you save your pennies, look at some cheaper guns, and shop for a cheaper training class. It sucks the system is so expensive, but thats just the way it is right now.

No system is perfect, innocent people will get hosed. People looking for the help they need, will unfortunately get hosed. People who were once stupid, stay hosed, no matter how much they've changed and improved since then. Poor folks have always gotten hosed, and we'll probably always get hosed. Life ain't fair. The Federal government, the state and local governments, and even me myself are even less fair.
 
lol, thats like the people who purchase illegal MGs, then later go to court arguing about 2nd amendment rights only to lose horribly.
 
I was listening to a local talk radio host talk about 2A rights the other day, and he said on air that he carries all the time, and does not have a permit to do so.
Click to expand...

If that Radio program is located in the state of New York, then that talk show host is either extremely brave, or extremely stupid.

.
 
I don't agree with the CCW law permit process either, but its part of the game if you want to carry legally. I carry legally.

However, carrying regardless of innate right or not, illegal or legal, I chose not to broadcast it that I carry. A concealed weapon is a private matter in my opinion. Telling everyone that I have one concealed by notice no longer makes it such.

Not the broadcasters best move in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
i totally agree with the radio host. I saw a show where ted nugent was talking and he said basically "i dont have to have a permit to exercise my right to freedom of speech, i dont have to have a permit to exercise my other amendments, why do i need one to exercise the 2nd". I carried for years with and without a permit, but im back legal again just to cut down on possible legal problems and hassles.
 
There is only one gun law in this country, the 2nd Amendment. All else is bureaucratic nonsense that I choose to comply with or not at my discretion.

I do have a carry permit, I do pay my income tax, and I am usually polite to rude people and ignore gestures by road-rage idiots. You have to pick your battles.
 
Well this isn't 1933, its 2008, and a car does not have the express purpose of killing people like a Machine Gun has.

The MG regulations won't be going away anytime soon, even the SC decision said laws pertaining to MGs will not be called into question.
 
S832 - You have some pretty strange logic, dude. When I buy a gun, and I don't care if it's a large caliber semi-auto pistol, military type rifle, shotgun, etc. I never think "Oh boy, what a super killing device this is." Instead, I always think how much enjoyment and FUN I will have shooting holes in PAPER TARGETS. Perhaps you should seek professional help.
 
The purpose of a fire-arm is to kill, that is what it was designed to do. In certain circumstances killing is all right but to say guns aren't designed to kill is like saying swords aren't meant to kill either.
 
We're a nation of laws, and no one gets to pick and choose which ones they will obey, at least without a consequence. either obey them or change them but ignoring them just makes you a criminal regardless of what *you* think that Constitution means. If you're really that sure that you're right, challenge the law by getting yourself arrested and becoming the test case.

I didn't think you were that sure.

As for the babble about "before 1934, we could buy machine guns..."

Blah, blah, blah. It's not 1934 any more. You weren't around in 1934. All that blather about taxes is just tripe. It means less than nothing. Yes, there's a tax on machine guns now. I've paid it several times personally and I own some fine firearms. But I don't care for the idea of anyone who wants one walking into Wal-Mart and buying some of the things that I have without passing a background check and going through a control process so that the government--the representatives of the other people in the community--know where those items are. You want to know why there have been so few crimes committed by legally-owned machine guns over the last few decades? It's because scumbags and headcases generally can't get them. However nothing stops decent people (with a little money at hand) from getting as many as they want, unless they live in a state where the state legislatures have banned them.

Oh, and BTW, Randy Weaver's wife died because Weaver refused to act honorably as a citizen and show up in court after posting bond and promising to do so. He was a coward and he ran, and then publicly dared the authorities to come get him. They did. And they may have done a few things wrong, but he's the one who created the situation, he's the one who refused to surrender when they did show up, and he's the one who put his family in the line of fire, because making his stand was more important TO HIM than their lives were.

The only real tragedy is that Weaver himself was not shot in the face. But he's to blame for his wife's death, and she's partly to blame for going along with him. And using those losers as a retort in any discussion about gun laws makes sense only if you have no valid argument and only want to pull other extremists reflexively to your side with an emotional appeal instead of a rational, logical or intellectual one.
 
Yes, they can be used for killing, but I don't think that is why most people buy them, perhaps with the exception of hunting rifles. At least that's true for the people I know. It's more about the enjoyment of the sport. It's something every American has a right to enjoy.

You seem to be pretty anti-gun, but yet you are on a gun forum. Did you experience a tragedy growing up, or more recently?
 
Gentlemen

Yes the law is a bad law. Breaking it ,getting caught, going to jail, paying huge legal fees, and fines becoming a felon, losing your right to vote, and own a firearm only feeds the monster.
We should all work to change the law write your congressman,vote, vote in every election, all politics are local so LBJ used to say. Before you vote learn what the candidates stand for. They often are very good at hiding who they really are but you must find out and you must vote. Even the dog catcher needs to be on your side. Next the people in office need to hear from you they need to know how you feel and what you expect them to do and that you are watching and that you know what bills are out there and you know how they voted. There are people in office that don't want to hold criminals accountable for their actions they don't want them locked up they would rather control them by keeping all sharp objects away from them so to speak. Yea we all know that won't work. We need to expose these politicians and vote them out of office. And vote in good ones and hold them accountable.
Buzzard Bait
 
This has absolutely nothing to do with 2A, enumerated rights, taxes or boasting. This is one of those issues where I can almost feel myself begin to be booed or flamed for teaching a 'life lesson.' And here it comes.

First, the postulate. His local LEOs already know he carries.

Now before you pound you keyboard into dust, let me show you the life lesson.

Before we moved, my wife and I lived next door to a local female police officer. Her partner worked the night shift, with her taking the opposite time(s). They met briefly for coffee every morning at her house as he came off and she went on. I got to know him quite well.

We moved a bit later, and I did not see her partner until later after he retired. He had just hit it big at the local casino, and I met him in the grocery store where he was buying a whole cart full of choice meat. We decided to go to the local break area inside the store and share a cuppa and talk.

He asked me if I had made any recent purchases, and I told him I had just received an SW 342. I told him, "It's so light I forget I have it..."

Realizing who I was talking to, I added, "...but that would be wrong."

He smirked, took a sip and said, "Chico, we all know you carry."

And that's the life lesson. You local cops aren't stupid. They buy at the same shops you do. They know who buys what, who brags about what, who 'prints' on a winter parka, who practices, on what range and where you buy your reloading supplies or ammunition.

Heck I cannot tell you how many times our area sqaud-rod drove by my place when I was casting over the years.

If you're a good guy, and you "barefoot" now and then, or even carry under a CCW provision, your local cop knows!

Computers just make the system faster. I used to lift weights with the local FBI special agent, Dick Schuler, before he retired. Because I rode in a club, I have FBI records and notes from a gang task force. If you believe in "end of the world" scenarios and you head out for a cave, your local beat cop will be there waiting with your mail...
 
+1 to Buzzard Bait. He gets it.

For every person who values their gun rights, there's someone else out there who wants them gone. So whoever does the best job convincing (or replacing) the legislators is going to win.
 
Well this isn't 1933, its 2008, and a car does not have the express purpose of killing people like a Machine Gun has.
Click to expand...

People like Feinstein make exactly the same statements about ARs. I own an AR. It's not a military weapon, and MY AR isn't designed with the singular purpose of killing people. Your argument is as absurd as if it'd come from Feinstein's mouth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top