Why I Do NOT support CCW

D

dog3

New member
I've been taken to task over this off list by more than just a few folks over time. So I thought I'd run this flag up and see if anyon e else salutes it.


Under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, I, as a citizen, am affirmed in my natural right to keep and bear arms. This is a right, a right that exists outside the law, and is enumerated in, not granted by the Bill of Rights.

No Federal Government, No State, No County, No City, No form of government has the right to deny this or any other essential freedom.

In states that have CCW programs, to carry without participating is a crime, usually a felony. This makes the bearing of arms not a right, but a privilege granted by the state.
To participate in such a program is in fact an endorsement of the state's authority to grant this "privilege".

At such a time when it can be shown that a registration process is without prejudice and without taxes or fees, or any other even remotely defined form of infringement, then I will glady comply.

I do not mind registering to vote and I do not mind paying taxes. I gladly comply with "the law" up to sitting at red lights for no other reason than it is unlawful to proceed (in my state anyway) even when there is no traffic anywhere close. (but I had to be "trained" :). Were there a program for the government to get a good idea what their militia manpower capabilities were, I would certainly participate in such a form of registration, keep the government in the form of a local magistrate appraised of my ability to bear arms should the need arise for a general call to arms. To my knowlege, no such registration system exists. Nor does any other form of registration exist that I can find that even remotely keeps the amendments of the bill of rights in mind. As near as I can tell, ALL GUN LAWS ARE CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND MUST BE REPEALED. By refusing to do this rightful and honorable thing, the lawmakers instill contempt for the law in the hearts of the common person and this can do nothing but harm. No good can come from having laws that are not in total compliance with the Constitution.

Thaz all.

take care
me
 
Dog3...Wooof! Wooof! Wooof!

Three BIG Wooofs from me sir! Absolutely, positively AGREE with your position. Can't even add anything to it. Only wish more gun owners held the same position.
 
Dog3,

You have a choice to live within or outside the law. You appear: a) to
know the difference; b) able to evaluate the risks involved; and, c) if
necessary, willing to suffer the consequences. As I extend your right to
make your own decisions, you must extend the similar right to me.

I choose, at this point, to operate within the law. Note that we disagree
only as a matter of practical implementation of our personal beliefs which
appear to be congruent.

Your premise that "all gun laws are contrary to the Constitution and must
be repealed" is, in my opinion, 100% correct. However, it will not happen.
Voters choose to vote for gun control by supporting the pre-selected
candidates of the Democrat and Republican Parties. The only Republocrat candidate I can think of at the moment who supports the Constitution is Dr. Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes, my favorite current Republican candidate, has little chance of
being elected.

- He's black. Too many Americans will let that stand in the way of what is
right and honorable about this capable man.

- His rhetoric inspires self-examination of values. Most Americans will
shun self-examination. It frightens them, challenges them, and induces
thoughtful consideration which they are unwilling or unable to perform.

- His views require vigorous, personal responsibility which most Americans
will shun.

- He believes the Second Amendment means what it clearly says.
Therefore he stands in the way of Big Government, statists, elitists, and
the United States becoming subordinate to the United Nations.

- Put simply, Alan Keyes is a man! He's not "mainstream" Republican so
he's not supported vigorously by the Republican leaders.

The Libertarian Party is the only party I have found which agrees with our
views; but too few Americans have the cajones to vote for what is right
rather than what is "customary".

So, rather than vote for major gun control from the Democrats, they will
vote for comparatively less gun control from the Republicans. Then,
humorously and tragically, they will wonder why their gun Rights are
under constant assault!

Quite simply, we are voting away our own gun rights because we, as a
nation, do not have the moral fiber, the integrity, to do what is right. We
elect representatives who do not believe in the nation-state or the value of
the common man. And then the increasingly subordinated populace
marvels at, and complains about, the increasing governmental intrusion
into, and control over, our private lives.

Were the impending death of liberty not so tragic, the process would be
laughable.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!



[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited December 16, 1999).]
 
Great rhetoric but I disagree. I posted
about this on rec.guns
(search on deja for "definitive") and here IIRC.

Not to repeat myself but I encourage all
to get CCW permits or CHLs.

Two short reasons from my bigger piece:

1. I want people to be safe and thus
I encourage those who need guns to
get them legally. Many folks won't
break the law. By giving them an
anti-CCW speech serves them ill.

2. I regard everyone who gets a CCW as
making a statement that they are legal
gunowners who feel the need to own
a gun. I might fear confiscation and
the UN coming for me but if all
gun owners had CCW permits rather than
the 2-4% that have them now, it would
be a politically statment with
much more power than 2nd Amend howls of
rage to the choir on TFL.

If one wants to carry illegally it is your choice. I really don't regard it as legitimate civil disobedience. One slinks
around and doesn't get caught. How do you
advance the cause? When African-Americans
fought against segregation they actively
had sit-ins and protests. The power of
their cause moved the country to support them.

They did not slink to the water fountain when
no one was looking.

I personally feel that by being a public gun
owner and getting a permit, I tell the world
now why the RKBA should be respected.

I write my congresspeople, I am a member of
appropriate organizations. I even wrote an
article for the TSRA publication. I am clearly identified to the UN as a gun owner.

I would feel that those who oppose permits
should not just slink around but make the
active case of civil disobedience based on
the 2nd Amend. Open carry to your state house. In the past, I marched for causes.
That I choose to have a permit is a statement.

The shall carry rules are the only real progress for gun owners in years. Defensive
actions only lead to defeat.

I can understand your feelings but I regard
them unconvincing in the real world of fighting for gun rights.

Don't consider this a flame. 50% of the households in the USA supposedly have firearms. If 50% of the adults in the USA
had permits in shall issue states and 50%
clamoured for them in those that didn't -
every candidate, Republican and Democrat
would be shouting the RKBA slogans.
 
What was once referred to as "Uncle Sam" is now referred to as "Big Brother".

We need to remember that Rights cannot be licensed, permitted, bargained for, or annointed upon us. These are "unalienable" Rights GUARANTEED by our Constitution, ones that do NOT require a permission slip from Big Brother. Permits, licenses, CCW, CHL, or whatever they may be locally called, are all INFRINGEMENTS to your RKBA. Being a "free" American should not and DOES NOT require one to get permission to carry out unalienable Rights that are GUARANTEED.

Gun laws violate these basic Rights, as well as Constitutional Rights. Concealed Carry laws are no different. For permit holders, Big Brother knows you're carrying, knows you own firearms, in many States even has your fingerprint, and that should NOT be ANY of his business!

Breaking laws that are Constitutionally legal or align with the Ten Commandments, is one thing. But no law is broken, if the law (in question) itself breaks the law of the land. The so-called "law" thereby becomes null and void.

It's not about civil disobedience, it's about being FREE!
 
Carrying concealed outside of the law has been described as "slinking." In fact, when you compare Arizona which is an open-carry state with those states that require any gun which is carried to be carried concealed...carrying concealed is slinking, with or without a permit. How can you advance your cause by slinking, you ask? By defending yourself in the event of a crime. The problem is that wiht the current case law on vehicle searches, those carrying outside the law (such as Missouri, Kansas, Illinios, or Ohio) must risk contact with police while those who do not carry must risk contact with criminals. Perhaps they are one in the same.

Worse is the view that I hear from many gunnies, even here in Arizona, but who tend to be from elswhere. They feel that Arizona should abandon its law which allows open carry without a permit, and insist on concealed carry with a permit.

Surely this man is not a fan of Vermont carry. In fact, he is little better than the gun phobe who mandates that we all be registered so as to facilitate later confiscation.

Your CCW permit is defacto registration, as you well know.

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
CCW is "defacto registration", and so is the "NICS", as is filling out the BATF form "4473". All means for the federal bureacracy to track your personal and private business and property, which BTW, is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!

Goldie Locks left a trail of crumbs to find her way home. You're leaving a paper trail so "they" can get to your home. 96 the paper trail, and sleep soundly at night.

In the movie, "Enemy of the State" Will Smith's character was being accused of wrong doing by his employers (law partners). They were asking him personal questions, one of which was about his former lover. Will's response to one of the partners was, "Jerry, do you jerk-off in the shower?" The other partner said, "That's none of...". Will Smith responded, "Exactly, its none of my damn business."

Your personal business and personal property is "none of their damn business"! Until you go out and commit a felonious crime with your gun, or your baseball bat, or tire iron, or butcher knife, or your own two hands, they have absolutely NO business knowing what you do in your personal time with your own personal private property. PERIOD!
 
I am a big fan of Vermont style carry law. I think there is an actual possibility it can still occur in my state. Call me a dreamer. I agree with all on principle that a permission slip from a beauracrat to excersise a fundamental right is an injustice. I realize that the constitution of our republic should not be ignored by any state. My state's constitution guarantees the right to keep arms without any permission, but has a clause which specifically allows regulation of the carrying of weapons. I would like to see this changed via an amendment. I think that if a large number of law abiding gun carriers go "on record" as demanding and acknowledging the importance this right, the proper interpretation of our nation's constitution may gain momentum. The last thing I fear is being first on a list. Put me at the top. I agree too that it is hard to balance the principle with the practical, whether politics or personal safety. I judge none of your choices on a moral basis. We all want and deserve the same thing. I won't apologize for being legal either.
 
I disagree with CCW for this reason. I don't want the goverment to even know what I own. They have no right to even know this. The gvt. is corrupt, unlawful and does not stand for the best interests of the people. I firmly believe that whoever is registered for CCW, or has registered their firarms in any capacity will be the first people the govt. will come looking for on the fateful day. I personally believe in owning guns that really don't even exist. I refuse to buy a handgun from a gunstore for that reason. I buy from individuals I know and trust, or from garage sales, from those old grandmothers who don't really even know what it is they have. I know of people who have guns from the Vietnam era, that were brought back by people and stashed in the attic. I won't give the govt. a chance to evaluate my danger to them. Let 'em guess, for all I care. Everyone needs to have an invisible, non-existant weapon, preferably a handgun that no one knows about. It only makes sense.

------------------
"Stop forest fires--ban matches."


[This message has been edited by antenna (edited December 16, 1999).]
 
I believe a CCL should be a neatly folded, well-worn-from-reading copy of the Consitution in my back pocket. However, my idealistic world does not exist. Georgia is a shall-issue state and issued me a CCL. On one level, the CCL validates my law-abiding nature because I don't want to carry illegally. On another level, though, I detested my friend and colleague having to run a background check on me. We both knew the score, both abide by the law, and, thus, grudgingly performed/complied to the check. When I received my Glock, I filled out the same form again just in case any information had changed. Then I had to give the same information a third time at the probate court in order to get the CCL. I was fingerprinted. That is the second time in two and a half years that I have been fingerprinted, and I detest it. The first instance was upon signing my contract the first year I taught high school. Always have I associated the act of fingerprinting as the natural result of having been read Miranda Rights; I have never so much as gotten a moving violation, yet suffered through inked fingers and print cards in order to (1) serve my community as a teacher and (2) carry a firearm I am guaranteed a right to carry by virture of the 2nd Amendment.

dog3, I agree with you, yet I wrestle with my own ambivalence each day. I bite my tongue and work within the system. Something in me does not like my government. Let me emphasize--MY GOVERNMENT. It is supposed to be a function of my will.

It is supposed to be a function of your will, dog3.

And yours, Paul Revere.

And yours, Dennis.

And Glenn E. Meyer.

And Rick D.

And all the other TFL members and all other individuals in this nation.

We are quietly choosing to let the Pharisees burden us with the law whether we want to admit it or not.
 
antenna, you just blew your friends "throw down" THEY will be over pulling out your fingernails trying to figure out the deal on the 1911 and how it came home shortly!

Most of you have read my post on what I think about carry permits of any type. Open carry is great especially in a small community where everyone knows who can use what they carry. Concealed carry is sneaky!

Yes, I have a CCP. I don't like it but that is the law these days. Other laws in this state say that a pistol in the glove box of a car is ok without a permit no matter if the driver of the car is 16 years old! Go figure.
Hank
Gotta go now, need to figure if I want to take my 7x61 Sharpe & Hart "crew served" or another rifle hunting tommorrow!
 
Thank you to Dog3, Paul Revere, et al. You are among my favorite posters.

Dennis: By now I know your position well and could probably recite it as succintly as you do (as I'm sure you could mine ;) ).

I agree with your points on the success of Libertarian and other non-"mainstream" canidates. There appears to be a catch-22 where no one wants to vote for them because they won't win-- yet they won't win because we won't vote for them.

Your same point works just as well for the ignoring of illegal gun laws. Even those who know better endorse these laws- breathing life into their despicable words- because they are unwilling to take the risk of ignoring them -- yet it won't be until we ALL ignore them that it ceases to be risky.

What are laws that no one recognizes? Nothing. Who are "authorities" that no on obeys? Nothing.

Why do I espouse this approach over the conventional "elect-all-the-right-people-and-cross-your-fingers" approach? Because the kind of 180 degree change of course that I'm talking about could happen LITERALLY overnight! To accomplish that kind of change the other way you're looking at *at least* GENERATIONS! I don't have generations. (and if you think it's even possible to turn this tide through the ballot box, you're kidding yourself in the cruelest way).

You're damn right, Paul Revere, it's got NOTHING to do with civil disobedience-- it's about not living on your knees.
 
There really is a basic principle involved in this discussion. Do you believe that you have the right to keep and bear arms? That's it! If you do, everything else is not only unnecessary, it is tyranny.
It is like saying that you know that you are right, but you will go along to get along. And meanwhile someone else is eating your lunch.
Not my way.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
I want to thank everyone who took their time to comment or offer rebuttal to my post. I salute you all.

Brother Dennis;
I too am an admirer of Dr. Alan Keyes and the libertarian party.

In the days before shall-issue ccw, there was some kind of subtle understanding that I experienced numerous time in my life. I have been involved in a few "armed citizen" encounters over the years, never a shot fired. An armed citizen is so often enough. Twice these incidents involved the police, and both times there was no hostility whatsoever though my carry was in fact unlawful. In one case, the fellow writing the report asked for id, I handed over my dl, he asked if I had other id, I said no, he went and fetched his radio and had his captain come out, who also asked if I had any other id, I again told him the truth, with a knowing smile, he told me not to worry, no one would pry and to keep up the good work. In short, I have been armed in the presence of uniformed LEOs who knew I was armed, and despite my pony tail and beard, it "appeared" to be assumed that I was also LE. I suspect it makes it easier on everyone that way.

Please note that I have never lived in a place in the continental US that was overtly hostile towards citizens, though I have worked in D.C. where my weapon of choice was a Mossberg 500 with the Pachmeyer grip set. Only DC cop who ever saw it told me not to carry it anymore.

LE has less descretion now than they once may have had, and maybe this is a good thing, maybe not. Prosecutors get to overrule judges on sentencing, the feds get to set sentencing guidelines, which are hardly guidelines, but rather mandates. Maybe this is good, maybe not. But I do feel that ccw has greatly complicated the issue.

As Brother Glenn Meyer pointed out so succinctly, this is all rhetoric. I am a childless, unmarried male in his 40s. I do in fact have much less to loose than a lot of my fellow citizens. I do not live in a high crime area. I promise you that when I was living in south florida a few years back my resolve weakened considerably. :) I am no saint by any means. I certainly understand and wholehearted support INDIVIDUALS who do what they must do, but as i said, I am no friend of asking permission for what is rightfully mine and all of ours.

I visited Vermont for the first time in my life last year. A dear and old friend whom I had not seen in over 20 years had settled there about 10 years back, we became re aquainted via the internet and he and his wife invited me and an friend up for a few days. They are old hippies both, 1st generation native born of Russian Jew emigrants escaping the Stalinist slaughter.
His pony tail and beard have gone snow white now, and guess who is the local constable.
Was a lot of fun arguing about the statist
vermont government and other faults of the local system. A lot of fun in full knowledge of being in a free state that recognises the supremacy of US Constitution. What peace to travel in a place where carry is ASSUMED of ALL citizens ALL the time. No, it is not perfect, far from it, but dang, it sure felt safe there. But that is only because it is.


I belive that a full on show of civil disobedence in form of an open carry rally in DC and all state capitals would make a difference. However, the anti's know this, so we have ccw to appease us.

Bless you all and take care

thanks for your time
 
Lets say that we need some gun-laws. (For example purposes only.) What good does having a concealed carry permit do? Do criminals apply for one so that they can legally carry there pistol to mug an old lady in the street? This only prevents law-abiding citizens that don't want to register with the government from carrying. Silly, ain't it?

------------------
"Those that give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
Anthony:

"...prevents law-abiding citizens WHO DON'T WANT TO REGISTER WITH THE GOVERNMENT from carrying. Silly, ain't it?"

Silly or sinister? This a brilliant plan to filter out and criminalize that very group.

They are the real threat-- The gummint figures that the gun owners who've given an inch today will likely give a mile tomorrow. So, sure, tuck them away in a database and forget about them till later. Then they can focus better on their real chore... the non-cooperative ones.
 
Gentlemen, The government already knows the following about you now: Your income, medical history, taxable personal property, spending habits, political affiliation, banking transactions, ect... Your lack of a "paper trail" due to avoidance of government snooping will not be much comfort in a genuine confiscation. I may be first in line (so be it) but you folks will not be spared in that event anyway. Time to adjust won't matter. You will have no rights. Even your neighbor who never thought of owning a weapon will be in the same boat as yourself. Sunk.
 
Why ask permission to exercise a right? Once we do, we admit that it is not a right but a privelege, to be granted or withdrawn at the gummint's whim. Let's take a look at the effects of obtaining a CCW permit.

First, once we have begged, pleaded and cajoled govermment for permission to defend our lives, we offer our privacy rights as collateral, all the way down to our fingerprints, the better to keep track of you, my dear. We can't have any of our armed subjects incognito, can we?

Next, we must pay our masters for the privelege of sacrificing our rights at the alter of authoritarianism, pay them out of what little of our earnings they allow us to keep, thanks to another nifty infringement of our basic human rights, ie, taxes. This clever fee arrangement keeps "the wrong type of person" from being able to afford government permission. Cynical people call this, "bigotry".

On top of it all once we have performed like circus dogs leaping through flaming hoops we aren't "allowed" to carry our newly licensed and dutifully registered weapon into certain areas. In some states, banks, gov't buildings, mass transit and any business which sells alcohol are off limits to the hoop-jumpers who have ceded their rights for the grudging permission to carry some weapons in some places. Of course, the type of person who values their CCW wouldn't wish to anger the gummint which "permits" them to occasionally exercise their most basic rights, so they will not carry in these forbidden zones, which in turn creates gun-free zones for our criminals.

Is it surprising, then, that a few of us will "slink" around, armed to the teeth, with our rights and dignity intact, while others stand in line to be fingerprinted, stand in line to register their firearms, stand in line to pay for restrictions on their behavior, stand in line to "qualify" as suitably proficient with their weapon; in short, they stand in every line which the gov't requires yet they eventually proclaim themselves "free!" Keep in mind, however, that criminals are not legally required to obtain a permit, as that would be self-incrimination and a violation of their rights guaranteed by the 5th amendment.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I carry to defend my life, and the lives of my family and friends, not for "civil disobedience" or to reduce crime in general. If my carrying without a permit achieves the admirable goals of civil disobedience and reducing crime, then "Bonus!" If not, I lose nothing.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine



------------------
"In many ways we are treated quite like men." Erich Maria Remarque
 
Ipecac, I continue to post on this thread not to argue, but simply to learn something. You eloquently frame a principled argument. Do you pay taxes? Is the fruit of your labor yours first or a property of your rulers? I can provide you with equal logic that if you do pay taxes, you are supporting your own slavery. If you have found a method of existing outside the realm of government encroachment, I applaud you. If you are not 100% outside the box I must question your resolve because otherwise you cannot escape nor fully engage the enemy. Guns are only a headline for the force that wishes to consume you. If you are caught outside the law, as bad as the law is written, we lose you. I don't want to lose you. I want gun owners to be recognized as those that value the law. Again, I do not judge anyones choices. You and your families protection is paramount. Please do not catagorize us who play by the rules as the enemy.
 
G-Freeman,
It certainly was not my intent to categorize CCW permit holders as the enemy, it is my intent to point out the flaws in the permit system, both in principle and in practice. Many of my closest friends are permit holders, we simply disagree on this issue, or they choose to "play by the rules" to avoid legal conflict. And I do appreciate your concern for my prison-free status.

As to taxes, I need no convincing to understand that in paying taxes I purchase the chains that bind me. I've found the cost/benefit of non-payment of taxes to be quite high as the IRS can easily notice a sudden change in tax status, as opposed to the concealed carry issue, where it is obviously difficult for "the authorities" to know whether or not I am currently carrying short of searching me. Further, due to my playing by the tax rules in the past, there is a huge paper trail for the IRS to follow. If I had a time machine... :)

My main concern is that the pro-gun folks are getting to used to "compromising" our rights away, whether it's CCW or trigger locks or one-gun-a-month, etc. Why not ask for "Vermont carry"? It works in Vermont. Playing by the rules might keep you out of the penalty box, but it doesn't necassarily win the game.


------------------
"In many ways we are treated quite like men." Erich Maria Remarque
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top