I dont need no stinking CCW!


PDA






Tropical Z
August 9, 2005, 11:36 PM
Thats a friends opinion in Colorado.I inquired as to whether or not he planned on getting a CCW since Colorado is now a "shall issue" state.His reply ( and I kind of agree with him)was that he didnt need a "government permission slip" to defend himself and his family.That's kind of the way i've always believed.He's a tough ex-marine and a good guy-a real patriot! What's your take on this issue?

If you enjoyed reading about "I dont need no stinking CCW!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.H. Lee
August 9, 2005, 11:41 PM
I agree with him, but with an eye on the consequences. Here in CA, it's a misdemeanor if the handgun is 'registered' to you, otherwise it's a felony. :uhoh:

Taurus 66
August 9, 2005, 11:52 PM
Morally he's doing the right thing. Legally he isn't. But one common-sensical act of survival trumps all the silly gun control laws a government could possibly muster.

Standing Wolf
August 9, 2005, 11:59 PM
Your friend is absolutely right in principle. The Second Amendment doesn't refer to the "...right of government-approved people to keep and bear arms."

In Colorado—Denver excepted, of course, and possibly Boulder, as well—no permit is required to carry openly.

dustind
August 10, 2005, 12:04 AM
I agree with your friend, but you do have to be careful. What is right and what is legal or convenient are not always the same thing. I still have not gotten a permit yet, but I plan to before it gets cold enough for me to carry on a regular basis again.

If I had to defend myself and did not have a permit it could make me look like the bad guy. Given how the legal system works I really don't need anything else going against me after I shoot someone. Plus it would increase the odds of me spending a night in jail even though unlicensed carry is only a gross misdemeanor.

The only time in my life I have ever been searched or patted down was when I told an officer that I was heading to a shooting range after he asked where I was headed. He had stopped me for riding a motorcycle with my helmet's visor up (I was only going a few mph up to a stop sign). He then asked if I had a CCW permit, which I replied not yet, he then asked if I had any weapons on me. Luckily I had just met some THR members a bit earlier and one of them had put my rather heavy backpack in his car so I was legal at that moment. That could of been bad, it also could have been completely avoided had I either obeyed the silly traffic rule that should not apply at low speeds, or had not said anything incriminating.

Sorry for rambling, anyway. If you are careful or do not carry often in my opinion you do not really need one if you look at it from a practical sense. You could also argue that the more people we have with permits out there the better it makes our side look.

Technosavant
August 10, 2005, 12:05 AM
In principle, I agree with him.

In reality, it is impossible to guard your loved ones from the inside of a concrete cell.

I would suggest that he, rather than bluster about his superior principles, work to get Vermont/Alaska style CCW laws passed. Then he can carry without fear of running afoul of the law.

Zach S
August 10, 2005, 10:14 AM
ex-marine
No such thing.

Anyway, I have mixed emotions on the subject. While I dont feel that one should have to get a permission slip, I dont want to hear about a good person getting locked up for not having a simple piece of paper (or plastic) that they could have easily gotten.

Since CO is shall-issue, and he has the option of being legally armed, he should arm himself legally. JMO.

1911 guy
August 10, 2005, 10:20 AM
The Constitution provides us the right to keep and bear arms, but like so much else of our freedoms, that has been eroded to the point of getting a note from mother to exercise those freedoms. While I wholeheartedly agree in principle with the fellow from Colorado, I agree that with the ability to stay within the law, even though it stinks, he should get the permit.

Harve Curry
August 10, 2005, 11:02 AM
A PERMIT to exercise our Rights never has sit well with me.
It is a combination of self inflicted citizen & firearms registration, that we would not have approved of if we were'nt doing it to ourselves. :banghead:

At a public meetimg, when CCW's were first beginning I asked the NRA's Tanya Metaska about this and her reply to me was
"Well Mr.______ some of us wanted to be able to carry in our lifetimes and waiting for Vermont style carry laws was not do able".

The gun control advocates and the LEO organizations got us to do to ourselves, much easier then passing guncontrol/registration laws.

logical
August 10, 2005, 11:23 AM
Personally, I have no problem with limiting the right to carry to non-felons who have at least minimal training in using a firearm. If a states shall-issue law stays within those bounds....fine by me and I'll gladly stop by every 5 years and pick up my permission slip.

Sindawe
August 10, 2005, 12:45 PM
Personally, I have no problem with limiting the right to carry to non-felons who have at least minimal training in using a firearm. If a states shall-issue law stays within those bounds....fine by me and I'll gladly stop by every 5 years and pick up my permission slip. I do hope you remembered to renew your "Free Speech" license, along with your "Religion of your choice" license when they came due. :banghead:

Moral/ethical correctness and legal are often complete strangers, sadly.

WT
August 10, 2005, 12:45 PM
I agree with him. Obviously he is a true believer when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. That is very rare.

yorec
August 10, 2005, 01:01 PM
Right is right afterall.... Not.

Morally he is correct, legally he'll end up in jail.
Fact is that what he proposes to do is illegal.
Fact is it shouldn't be.
Fact is my family needs my butt outside the graybar hotel.
I'll keep carrying my permission slip, distasteful as it is.

tyme
August 10, 2005, 01:07 PM
Many older ccw holders used to carry when it was illegal. They don't want to have to defend themselves in court if they get caught, so they pay (bribe?) the government to let them go if they're ever caught with a gun.

If he wants to carry in violation of the unconstitutional (and thus theoretically invalid) state law requiring licensure, fine. He's doing the right thing by carrying a gun to begin with, and he has the moral high ground. He may get stomped, but that's beside the point.

At a public meetimg, when CCW's were first beginning I asked the NRA's Tanya Metaska about this and her reply to me was
"Well Mr.______ some of us wanted to be able to carry in our lifetimes and waiting for Vermont style carry laws was not do able".
And you told her that if she truly believed in self defense, she would be carrying anyway?

gunner03
August 10, 2005, 01:18 PM
I agree we should not have to ask.I also think being picked-up with no permit can and usually is used to make gun owners look criminal.The more permits issued the more THEY get the idea we count.

RavenVT100
August 10, 2005, 01:25 PM
Your friend is entitled to believe what he does, but he should get the permit if he wishes to stay legal.

Let's face it, if you end up in a shooting incident you are going to have to answer to everything about your personal life--your membership in the NRA, your posting of political opinions on this message board, the fact you owned "more than one gun" (OMG) and so on and so forth. Not doing anything illegal will not save you from an enormous attack on your character and person that will come along with an attempt to prosecute you and make you look like a reckless, gun happy lunatic.

dolanp
August 10, 2005, 01:45 PM
I would call it civil disobedience, and that has consequences even though we feel it is the right thing.

scottgun
August 10, 2005, 01:46 PM
In a perfect world, your friend is right. In Colorado, he is wrong.

It has come down to having a certain amount of procedures and paperwork to seperate the good guys from the bad guys. If he were ever to get into an incident he would be seen as a bad guy for not playing by the rules.

I agree with him in principle, but disagree in practice.

Hawk
August 10, 2005, 02:31 PM
I have a different take. Although everybody is right about what "should be" vs. what "is", getting the CHL has a small advantage in addition to the ones already mentioned.

It swells "the list" by one.

The "list" being a state run census of votes that any anti-gun politician KNOWS he can't get. Whaddya suppose would happen if the number of licensees exceeded half of the usual voter turnout? You could turn over every rock in the state and not find a single "anti" running for office.

The "cause" benefits a little from every CHL issued.

Correia
August 10, 2005, 02:32 PM
As a good lawyer friend of mine once said about stuff like this:

"Guys like me start at $250 bucks an hour. Pony up activist boy."

Nitram68
August 10, 2005, 02:39 PM
Interesting point, Hawk.

Mark in California
August 10, 2005, 03:02 PM
I truly beleave that getting a CCW is not required. Having said that, I truly do not wish to go or be in jail/prison. I turned my efforts to getting a CCW and have had one for the last twenty-three years.

Like I said above I do not beleave in the legality of the gun laws (ALL GUN LAWS), but I comply with them. My brother in law, however, DOES beleave in the gun laws, but breaks them whenever he pleases and feels he is a exception to the rule. So who is the crazy one?

I just got a permit and got on with life.

logical
August 10, 2005, 03:13 PM
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying? After all, that wasn't mentioned in the 2nd.

carry without a CCW when they are readily available??? There is civil disobedience with a purpose...and then there is just plain obstinate behavior.

Sindawe
August 10, 2005, 04:04 PM
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying? After all, that wasn't mentioned in the 2nd. While I can not speak for others, THIS purist is. If a person is judged to be safe enough to roam free after serving their time, then IMHO they are safe enough to have all their rights restored apon release. 'Specially if those felonies were not of a violent nature, like say growing weed for your own consumption in your basement. Violent offenses against others should never get out.

WT
August 10, 2005, 04:17 PM
Maybe another question is how many on this board would convict this former-Marine and put him in jail?

For a simple carry without a permit, I sure wouldn't.

The Drew
August 10, 2005, 04:23 PM
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying? After all, that wasn't mentioned in the 2nd.

Laws against felons carrying doesn't make one whit of difference whether they will carry or not...

It is a useless law that does nothing, except line the pockets of law enforcement when someone is "caught" and has to pay a fine(bribe) to get free again...

Weapons charges that aren't in conjunction with a violent offense go relatively unpunished... To me that means that they're useless.

Seminole
August 10, 2005, 04:30 PM
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying? After all, that wasn't mentioned in the 2nd.

You correctly point out that carrying after having been released from prison is not mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment. But it is precisely the lack of that mention that ought to ensure its legality. Since the Bill of Rights limits Government's abilities to do things, not the citizen's, the lack of such a mention means that convicted felons have precisely such a right.

In other words, if the Second Ammendment read, "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, except that convicted felons may be deprived of this right for life," then the government would have the constitutional authority to deny them. Otherwise, the government cannot consitutionally do so.

TallPine
August 10, 2005, 04:30 PM
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying?
Depends on the conditions of release... is it "time served in full" or probation/parole ...?

In the latter case of course there may be numerous restrictions on the individual's behavior: where to live, reporting to parole officer, no guns, etc. Really, they are still serving their sentence, just in a different manner than "inside."

Otherwise, I don't care. If a person is going to do wrong, he/she can get ahold of a gun to do it with regardless of any "prohibition" laws - all of which merely constrain the law abiding citizen. (by "prohibition" I mean laws against possesion of X rather than crimes against persons and property)

Now... I often wonder how many instances there are of otherwise upstanding citizens being busted for CCW...? My guess is that most CCW "convictions" are plea-downs from some greater offense like felony assault, but I could be wrong. :confused:

Tropical Z
August 10, 2005, 06:35 PM
So now that Colorado is a shall issue state,is open carry still a viable and legal option? Some states prohibit it after they become "shall issue".

fjolnirsson
August 10, 2005, 07:15 PM
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying? After all, that wasn't mentioned in the 2nd.

Yep. If they served their full sentence, why not? The ones who want guns for criminal purposes have them anyway, I can assure you. Infact, they obtain them with far less difficulty than many non felons. If a man is not trustworthy enough to carry a gun, he shouldn't be walking around in public. I hanve known several convicted felons who I'd rather have at my back than many non felons.
By advocating felon disarmament, we create a second class of citizens, and set the stage for our own loss of freedom. Ever notice that the list of things for which you can be denied a gun keeps getting longer?

wheelgunslinger
August 11, 2005, 01:57 AM
Here in NC, lots of guys carry without a CHL because getting caught is a misdemeanor versus carrying it into the wrong place being a felony. And, I see that logic.

As far as felons, I think that once they've served their time and stamped paid to their debt to society, they should have all of their rights restored. Including 2nd amendment. After all, we don't mind them paying taxes, do we?

As for the Marine who ispired this thread, he should do what he wants.

rock jock
August 11, 2005, 02:01 AM
I really don't consider "Shall-Issue" type programs much of a restriction since the state has no choice but to issue you a license.

Zach S
August 11, 2005, 10:06 AM
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying?
Depends, if the convicted felon is still serving his/her sentance, of course I dont think they should be armed.

They should be able to leave the prison and apply for a CCW. They served their time, and their debt to society has been paid. If they cant be trusted with a weapon, why are they being let out?

I really don't consider "Shall-Issue" type programs much of a restriction since the state has no choice but to issue you a license.
That reminds me of the sheriff that somehow noted on every permit that he signed it under protest.

ETA link: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=84713&highlight=Sheriff+protest

JohnBT
August 11, 2005, 11:41 AM
"They served their time, and their debt to society has been paid."

Really? Have they reimbursed the victim or victims for their loss or losses? Have they completed their parole or probation? Have they even said they're sorry?

John

Old Dog
August 11, 2005, 11:58 AM
must ... resist ... posting ... to ... this ... thread ... Oh, what the heck ...
If they cant be trusted with a weapon, why are they being let out? Uh, gee, I've encountered a lot of folks who've never committed a crime, probably never will, but I still wouldn't trust them with a weapon ...

But it is precisely the lack of that mention that ought to ensure its legality While we can argue 'til the cows come home the intent of the framers and the correct interpretation of Constitutional issues, the fact remains that just occasionally, society collectively needs to act in a manner consistent with the best interests of the majority of the citizens ... stripping violent criminals of their weapons is something that's been done in every culture since man first walked upright and took up rocks and sticks .... It was certainly happening in colonial America. It is only common sense to at least try to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms. "Paid their debt to society?" Please. One needs only look at the recidivism rates among violent offenders in this country ...
By advocating felon disarmament, we create a second class of citizens, and set the stage for our own loss of freedom. Please enlighten us on how this is happening.
Ever notice that the list of things for which you can be denied a gun keeps getting longer? Hmm. Not where I live (at least since Lautenberg), but I wouldn't argue that ...

Vang
August 11, 2005, 01:17 PM
Old Dog, it's not exactly difficult to end up a felon. Look at Jim March; he's at risk for becoming a felon because he wanted to observe an election. If you ever defend yourself, you are at risk for becoming a felon.

Allowing this idea that felons must be disarmed when they are released from prison to exist is a danger to law-abiding citizens.

Sindawe
August 11, 2005, 01:19 PM
Really? Have they reimbursed the victim or victims for their loss or losses? Seperate issue. I'd rather see those whof injure others make direct compensation to those they've injured rather than serve time in prison, but thats not the way our crimminal justice system works. society collectively needs to act in a manner consistent with the best interests of the majority of the citizens I'm sure that the intentions are good there, but I think we all know what highway is paved with those. :scrutiny:

Old Dog
August 11, 2005, 01:41 PM
it's not exactly difficult to end up a felon. Look at Jim March; he's at risk for becoming a felon because he wanted to observe an election. If you ever defend yourself, you are at risk for becoming a felon.
Excuse me, are you advocating against felon dis-armament because law-abiding citizens may become felons? That's rather a specious argument ...

Look, I'll never argue that everyone convicted of a felony should permanently lose their rights to bear arms. I believe that there should exist a process (with a minimum of bureaucratic requirements and monetary outlay on the part of the petitioner) allowing certain persons who've once been convicted of a felony to have their firearms ownership rights restored. Excepting, of course, those who'd used firearms in the commission of a crime and those convicted of violent crimes ... Convicted criminals losing the right to own firearms does not impact my right as a citizen to own and bear arms.

Allowing this idea that felons must be disarmed when they are released from prison to exist is a danger to law-abiding citizens. Again, I ask: tell us how? Because, I, a life-long law-abiding citizen might accidently commit a felony?

Sindawe
August 11, 2005, 01:54 PM
Because, I, a life-long law-abiding citizen might accidently commit a felony? That is all too easy. Dump some fill on a low spot in your lawn? Opps, FELON, you've destroyed a wetlands. Have some kids plant C. sativa in your corn field unbeknownst to you? Opps, FELON, you've been conspiring to manufacture and distribute a class I controlled substance.

wheelgunslinger
August 11, 2005, 02:11 PM
JohnBT,
Allowing felons their basic rights returned in full after the proper recompense is made only creates closure for the idea that they were criminals.
What's proper recompense? That usually consists of restitution, time served, probation/parole finished without incident.

Felons need to be allowed to get on with their lives as citizens after they've paid the price for their crime(s). Condemnation without a chance for redemption is just plain wrong.
Stats for recidivism notwithstanding, I'm speaking of a shift in the way we look at criminal rehabilitation, I suppose. If you can take away someone's rights for a criminal act, why not give them back when they've paid the price.
You honestly want to continue to tell people that because they committed a crime once that they will never vote or own a legal firearm, but they get to keep paying taxes?

Of course, we could continue to do things the way they are. Then, the guys at the range who have wet dreams about "a felon in a dark alleyway" could keep on keeping on with their shooting range fantasies and gun shop justifications. (we all know that guy...) And, we get the bonus of people spending the rest of their lives with what they feel is a scarlet letter sewn to their face for the whole world to see.

No, I'm not a convicted felon, either.

Vang
August 11, 2005, 02:18 PM
I think you do not understand how easy it is to be at risk to be charged with a felony.

dolanp
August 11, 2005, 02:48 PM
I'll bet those of you who wouldn't mind felons getting guns back wouldn't want one living next door to you. Especially if they were a sex offender.

Control Group
August 11, 2005, 03:11 PM
I'll bet those of you who wouldn't mind felons getting guns back wouldn't want one living next door to you. Especially if they were a sex offender.
Begging the question and/or missing the point.

The felons I don't want to see get guns are the very ones who will get guns regardless of laws that say they shouldn't. This is exactly the same reason that gun control laws, in general, don't work: they only inhibit the law-abiding. If the felon is the sort who won't own guns because the law says he can't, then he's the sort that I fully trust with guns. You're assuming that having laws saying felons can't own guns will mean that felons don't have guns. Since the laws that say felons can't rape, murder, burgle, or thieve don't work, what makes you think the one that says they can't have guns will work?

And that's not even counting the number of felons who I'd trust with firearms while they were still on parole, even. The guy who got busted with just over an ounce of weed, and therefore got nailed with "intent to sell." The one who embezzled fifty grand from his employer to cover gambling debts. The CCW holder who forgot to leave his piece in the car when he went into a courthouse.

And that's not even counting the number of felons who were wrongfully convicted.

Incidentally, your "especially a sex offender" comment doesn't carry much water for me, since I, personally, know a guy who's eight years into a twenty year sentence for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 19. When they broke up, she got her revenge by accusing him of date rape. Her word against his, and now he'll never get to vote in a presidential election or legally own a firearm. Not to mention that he's in the sex offender registry, and he'll be tagged with that for the rest of his life.

So don't go betting on my opinions of felons and firearms, 'cause I'm pretty sure you'll lose.

Tropical Z
August 11, 2005, 05:06 PM
Here in NC, lots of guys carry without a CHL because getting caught is a misdemeanor versus carrying it into the wrong place being a felony. And, I see that logic.
WOW I never thought about that aspect of the whole equation.I better head over to www.packing.org and see what they say.

wheelgunslinger
August 11, 2005, 05:13 PM
Control Group makes some very good points.

Not every felon resembles the guy in the hoodie on those targets you shoot at when you're at the range.

Sex offenders? If they've done their time, have registered with the cops, keep their info up to date, and have been released into society, then I'm OK with it. Why? Because we have an entire legal system devoted to controlling, apprehending, punishing, and generally dealing with crime. In short, that's what jail is for. And, when jail is done and the requirements that WE as a society have agreed upon have been met, they should have their rights returned.

I know former felons. I work closely with them on occasion in a professional capacity. This includes at least one man who committed multiple armed robberies and did his time in federal prison.
I sure wish I could see the world in black and white like some of you guys though. My life would be much easier. Unfortunately, I tend to put myself in their position.

Sam Adams
August 11, 2005, 05:40 PM
Anyway, I have mixed emotions on the subject. While I dont feel that one should have to get a permission slip, I dont want to hear about a good person getting locked up for not having a simple piece of paper (or plastic) that they could have easily gotten.

Since CO is shall-issue, and he has the option of being legally armed, he should arm himself legally. JMO.

+1. I, like most on THR, rail against the injustice of having to apply and pay for permission to do that which the Constitution explicitly forbids the gov't to regulate or prohibit, but one must sometimes be practical and bow to reality. Many great theories don't work in practice, and this is probably one of them. The world we're in is almostly hopelessly biased against guns and gun owners (though we're making some progress of late), so I think it best to comply with the law. The simple fact is that in most states, carrying w/o a license is a felony; that'll get you jail time, big legal bills, eliminate your ability to maintain or obtain many jobs, and will prevent you from legally buying or owning guns anywhere in the country. To me, it just isn't worth it if there's an easy alternative like taking a class and sending a few bucks in with an application. The guy who's the subject of this thread is my kind of guy, and I'd hate to see him in jail and forbidden to own guns forever because of his bravado.

That being said, I definitely subscribe to the "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" rule. IF there is no other choice (i.e. an easily-obtained license), or IF I (having a CHL) think that my life or my families' lives are in danger, then I don't care about what the man-made bureaucratic law says about whether I can carry or where. I only care about the 0th Commandment - "Thou Shalt Survive, And Worry About The Consequences Later." Fortunately for me, I've never had to make that choice.

The guy in the thread has the option of saving himself from a world of potential trouble, and he should use all of his brain cells and get himself a carry license.

Zundfolge
August 11, 2005, 05:48 PM
Back to the original issue.

If your friend wants to CCW sans permit here in Colorado, he's in a good place to do it ... if he gets caught (and the particular officer wants to make an issue of it) then its only a misdemeanor.

Additionally, if he CCWs on his own property and/or in his own vehicle then he can do so legally without a permit (however as soon as he gets out of his car any place but his own property he's breaking the law).


I would never recommend that anyone break the law and getting a permit in Colorado isn't that bad (especially in El Paso County ... too me two weeks from the time I had my picture taken and paid my fees for my permit to arrive in the mail). But I can't exactly criticize him since I ccw'd in Wichita Kansas for years before moving to Free America in the Rockys.

Vern Humphrey
August 11, 2005, 06:03 PM
There's theory, and then there's practice.

Is the world dangerous enough to justify carrying a weapon ? Yep!

Do I want to go out into the world unarmed? Nope.

Do I want to be arrested for doing what I consider necessary to be safe? Nope.

Do I think the Second Amendment Fairy is going to suddenly wave her magic wand and make all the scumbag anti-gun politicians disappear in my lifetime? Nope.

So I take the course, pass the background check and carry legally.

And in the process add my mite to the argument that when law-abiding citizens exercise their rights, nothing bad happens. In fact, crime goes down. And as time goes on, we win more and more skirmishes and may someday win the war for our rights.

Zundfolge
August 11, 2005, 06:12 PM
So I take the course, pass the background check and carry legally.
He's a tough ex-marine and a good guy-a real patriot!

Hell, if he's got proof of training from the military he doesn't have to take the course.

Old Dog
August 11, 2005, 06:13 PM
Vern, that's the best argument so far. We shall not win widespread acceptance of our cause by exercising our rights not in accordance with current law, nor shall we earn elimination of present restrictions by violating current laws ... If this is not your reality -- if you think you can carry illegally, consider that act "civil disobedience," and still believe that someday there will be no laws requiring "permission slips," well, your reality perhaps needs adjustment ...

Sleeping Dog
August 11, 2005, 06:22 PM
If it's a "shall-issue" state, why not get the stupid permit and be done with it? The consequences of getting caught are too steep. The consequences of getting caught a second or third time are probably worse.

I have the right to vote. The constitution mentions it. But I can't just walk into a booth and pull levers. The government severely restricts me, limiting me to a specific precinct, not letting me vote unless I register. Whazzup with that? Maybe a "shall-issue" ccw is something like that.

And I'm all for the required training. The more the better. Heck, we should have "ccw" as a required course in high school, sort of like "applied civics".

Regards.

Vern Humphrey
August 11, 2005, 06:22 PM
Good points.

I think I should point out that the "shall issue" movement started about 20 years ago (actually in Washington State, but Florida gets the credit in the popular mind) and now 3/4s of the states have "shall issue" laws. This is entirely due to two things -- responsible gunowners obeying the laws, and gunowners working within the political system.

Alaska just went to "Vermont Carry" (no permit needed) and there are rumblings that a couple of other states may do the same.

If we simply obey the laws, exercise our rights lawfully, and keep working within the political system, in another 20 years, who knows -- we may actually pump life back into the 2nd Amendment.

TallPine
August 11, 2005, 07:14 PM
I have the right to vote. The constitution mentions it. But I can't just walk into a booth and pull levers.
Not at all the same issue ... the only reason for having register to vote is to prevent a citizen from voting multiple times :rolleyes:

Now when are you going to get your RTS (Right To Speak) permit, and your GTC (Go To Church) permit, etc ....... :p :D

Old Dog
August 11, 2005, 07:27 PM
Now when are you going to get your RTS (Right To Speak) permit, and your GTC (Go To Church) permit, etc .....
Newspapers, radio and television stations must all be licensed by the government, not only for business and tax purposes, but the feds also control the airwaves ... We - the listeners/watchers/subscribers also pay in one form or another to have the right to a free press exercised. Churches must be registered with the government (among other things, as non-profit entities) as well ...
Let's face it, all of our Constitutional rights are regulated by some form of government in one way or another, and we all pay fees to the government in one way or another ...

CAPTAIN MIKE
August 11, 2005, 08:03 PM
I'm glad that Colorado is now a 'Shall-Issue' state, part of a growing trend. In fact, as of now over 2/3rds of the U.S. population resides in states that are Shall-Issue.

If your friend feels so strongly about not getting his CCW permit, he can just go with Open Carry if he's willing to carry copies of the state's laws on it and is willing to repeatedly 'educate the officers' as the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League had to do on the East Coast.

AirForceShooter
August 11, 2005, 08:51 PM
I'm one of the "old guys".
I carried for over 30 years in lovely New York City.
Certainly not a "shall issue" place.
Never got questioned or spotted.
I don't know what I would do now with the Subway searches going on.

No I don't need no stinking permit. All I had to do was keep my mouth shut.

Now I'm in Florida and I got the CCW.
I'm a vet it was easy as can be.

AFS

GunGoBoom
August 11, 2005, 08:55 PM
But what's the deal with Denver now though - do they still believe they can 'opt out' of the Colo. Const. and laws? I guess if there's shall-issue, then you can CCW in Denver. But can one legally open carry in Denver? And if it is legal, can you do so without being harassed by cops?

The Real Hawkeye
August 12, 2005, 12:22 AM
A business associate I met about a year ago was talking about guns. Eventually, the discussion got around to concealed carry, and the fact that I had a license (have had since 1980). I asked if he had one, and he said he didn't believe in them. "Uh oh," I thought to myself, "this guy must be some kind of antigun liberal." Then, after continuing the conversation a little more, I realized that he meant he didn't believe he needed one to carry (even though the law requires it), and didn't want to cooperate with a system that he thought was in violation of his rights. Apparently, he carries quite often without a license. Well, to each his own. Since then, I've met someone else who carries concealed without a license, and for similar reasons (or, so he says). I admire the principle, but since it is not very difficult in Florida for me to carry within the law, that's what I choose do. Don't mind jumping through a few hoops, so long as it doesn't get ridiculous.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 01:29 AM
I agree with him, but with an eye on the consequences. Here in CA, it's a misdemeanor if the handgun is 'registered' to you, otherwise it's a felony.

I've heard the second offense is a felony even if it's your gun.

Sawdust
August 12, 2005, 11:16 AM
I've heard the second offense is a felony even if it's your gun.

Yes, it is also my understanding that the second time that you are caught with a concealed (registered) gun, it is a felony.

Sawdust

dustind
August 13, 2005, 03:26 AM
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying? Yes, see this thread for example. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=151340

beerslurpy
August 13, 2005, 03:36 AM
Because laws totally stop felons dead in their tracks *puts gun back in safe and puts up a "no crime allowed" sign isntead*.

It is just a feelgood thing. Saying that murderers cant have guns is like saying that they cant murder. Duh. They obviously arent taking the wishes of society into account when planning their actions.

If people are released into society, they should get all their rights back. If this is too soon, then dont release them so soon! The problem is the sentencing, not the rights that prisoners might abuse as freed citizens. We didnt murder anyone. Dont punish the citizenry, punish the people who break the laws. If the punishment isnt long enough or harsh enough, then make it longer or harsher. This isnt rocket science.

denfoote
August 13, 2005, 03:49 AM
First. How ya doing Tropical!!! :D

Second, I have always said that the CCW is nothing more than voluntary gun registration. The benevolent big brother might not know exactly WHAT you got, but if you have a CCW, then they know you got something!! That becomes useful, if and when, .gov decides to round up all the guns and people who know how to use them!! I also believe that the government's real definition of terrorist is anybody with a gun!! Hey, don't laugh!! That's how it is in England and Australia!!!!

Byron Quick
August 13, 2005, 06:30 AM
Friends,

I don't like getting government permission to exercise a right. Here in Georgia, you have to have a carry permit for open carry. Before CCW, you could open carry without permission.

But I've been there and done that. I've got the T shirt.

I was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in August, 1998. 1st offense in Georgia is a misdemeanor. Even so, I'm a registered nurse. I had no idea how the State Board of Nursing would view renewing my license with a weapons violation on my record. So I hired the very best criminal law firm in Augusta, Georgia. Expensive. Plea bargained the prosecution dropping the carry charge in exchange for a guilty plea on the traffic charges. Paid a whopping fine. Paid a whopping lawyer fee. Retained my nursing license. I went from the court to the probate judge in my home county and picked up my carry license. He had been holding it for me while waiting to see if the charges would be dropped. Second offense in Georgia is a felony. Total about $4K.

Hey, I just wouldn't ever let violent criminals out on the street again. I will make a prediction for all the staunch law and order fellows here who asks questions such as,"Would you want him living next to you? Especially if he's a sex offender?" My answer friend is that I don't want him living next to you...I want him to be killed by the girl he tried to rape. With the handgun that I trained her to use.

But my prediction is this: Just wait, the government will come up with a felony for you sooner or later. Then they'll take your firearms away for life. The felony bar to firearms ownership is a threat to law abiding gun owners. Just check out felony growth over the past fifty years.

Open carry without a license was legal for most of my life in Georgia. The 2nd offense of this once legal activity is now a felony and is aimed directly at you and your ownership of firearms. Happy?

Zundfolge
August 13, 2005, 01:39 PM
CCW is nothing more than voluntary gun registration. The benevolent big brother might not know exactly WHAT you got, but if you have a CCW, then they know you got something!! That becomes useful, if and when, .gov decides to round up all the guns and people who know how to use them!!

Yeah, like all those 4473s we've all filled out over the years aren't going to be used against us, and the server logs here and on a dozen other gun forums won't be used against us, like your credit card records (remember that one time you bought a box of .22lr with your credit card?) won't be used against us.

If you NEVER bought a gun through an FFL.
If you NEVER bought ammo and/or reloading supplies with anything but cash.
If you NEVER subscribed to a gun rag.
If you NEVER joined the NRA/GOA/JPFO or a local gun club.
If you NEVER posted on a gun related internet forum.

THEN you might have a point that getting a CCW might put you on the gun grabbing JBTs radar :p


To be honest, once America gets to the full on gun confiscation stage, I don't care if I die soon after because it won't be a free country again within my lifetime (if ever).

MechAg94
August 13, 2005, 02:35 PM
I find some interesting ideas earlier on this thread.

One side thinks felons should not own guns since they don't want violent felons owning guns. They think felony laws should be realistic and misdemeaners should not be turned into felonies. They are focused on serious felons, not all the minor crap.

The other sides thinks laws should be changed so released felons are given back their full rights after serving their time and minor felonies would not prevent gun ownership. They also mention violent felons shouldn't be released anyway, but they are focused on minor felonies.

Both sides have good points and actually agree in many ways, but both sides need the laws changed. The end result appears to be the same thing.


On the topic, live by your 2nd Amendment principles all you want, but just be prepared to accept the legal consequences if you get caught.

On an earlier post, I agree with the NRA representatives sentiment. You have to take what gun law improvements you can get NOW. If you wait around for perfection, you will be long dead before it happens. You may not like it, but that is reality. There are still too many people out there who have a look of horror on their faces when pure 2nd Amendment ideas are expressed to them. Give licensed CCL's a chance to sink in and allow those scared people to get more confortable with it and we can improve it. We can't lose sight of our end goals, but we have to understand that we can't have everything we want right now.

The Real Hawkeye
August 13, 2005, 02:52 PM
BeerSlurpy Said: If people are released into society, they should get all their rights back. If this is too soon, then dont release them so soon! The problem is the sentencing, not the rights that prisoners might abuse as freed citizens. We didnt murder anyone. Dont punish the citizenry, punish the people who break the laws. If the punishment isnt long enough or harsh enough, then make it longer or harsher. This isnt rocket science.That sums up my view pretty well too.

beerslurpy
August 13, 2005, 04:53 PM
Give licensed CCL's a chance to sink in and allow those scared people to get more confortable with it and we can improve it.

So many gun fearing people argue about the issue as if CCW isnt widespread. They are afraid of people carrying guns around. Then when you remind them that Florida has had CCW since the 80s and many of the people they deal with ever day are armed and theyre like whoa. Its very hard to stay afraid of guns when you realize they are all around you and not causing any harm. CCW is what makes this possible.

I think a lot of antis got completely shocked in the late 90s when people started trotting out the CCW statistics and the antis had nothign with which to rebut them. Comprehensive surveys like Lott's were never supposed have been possible because they would require the legal arming of a broad swath of the populace, something which many beleived to be impossible in the face of widespread fear of guns.

I dont worry about CCW causing the government to come for my guns. The government already knows something like 50 percent of the homes have a gun in them. They wouldnt have to wait long to start finding firearms once they declared a confiscation. I beleive many might come out of their homes bearing them and even demonstrating their use. The more likely scenario is that both sides will continue to try and slowly push American society in one direction or the other. All indications are that people are becoming more and more gun-tolerant and even gun-enjoying. I am working on some of my coworkers, getting them interested in going shooting, etc.

Also, since 9/11 and the other terrorist acts, people seem less inclined to base their political views on the acts of crazy people, so the old massacre newsreels dont really have the same lightning bolt effect they used to.

Vern Humphrey
August 13, 2005, 05:05 PM
Sometimes good things come from unexpected directions. In Virginia, for example, it is illegal to carry concealed in an establishment with an on-premises liquor license. That means you can't carry concealed in most restaurants. And attempts to correct this resulted in hysteric claims that people wanted to "carry guns in bars."

However, Virginia also has an open carry law -- which doesn't mention liquor licenses. So Virginians got to taking off the cover garment and openly carrying in restaurants.

The result was a "de-sensitizing" of the public. People soon saw how many were carrying, and how it was no big thing.

TallPine
August 13, 2005, 05:19 PM
Well, in MT persons with a CCW permit must report to the local sheriff(s) whenever they move - just like registered sex offenders :barf:

artherd
August 13, 2005, 05:29 PM
I agree with him in principle.

If he's got the time and money to make an effective fight against it, more power to him!

This is why the government hates the rich. People living paycheck to paycheck making $66k/yr on salary with 2 new cars just can't *afford* any civil disobediance!

The Real Hawkeye
August 13, 2005, 06:47 PM
Well, in MT persons with a CCW permit must report to the local sheriff(s) whenever they move - just like registered sex offenders.The same is true in NY, but not only do you have to report every move you make, and promptly, but even every time you change your job you have to report immediately to the police, and pay to fill out a modification to the records. I remember when I first realized this back in the early 1980s, I couldn't believe that just because I had a CCL I was being treated like some kind of dangerous criminal that the police needed to keep tight tabs on. They take this VERY seriously, and threaten you with legal troubles if you are slow to do it. So glad I moved out of that God forsaken place and to a state that recognizes that I'm not a potential threat to law and order because I want to carry a weapon for self defense.

Art Eatman
August 13, 2005, 08:52 PM
TRH, I don't know about other states, but Texas has ALWAYS wanted you to update your driver's license whenever you move to a different address. Just guessing, but I'd bet most other states are the same.

Got little or nothing to do with guns, particularly; other than the same view holds for any sort of official state or federal license. Probably holds for a business license for a small retail store; move, and update.

Art

Zundfolge
August 13, 2005, 09:05 PM
Texas has ALWAYS wanted you to update your driver's license whenever you move to a different address. Just guessing, but I'd bet most other states are the same.
Here in Colorado the would like you to update your drivers' license whenever you move, but as long as you write the new address on the back you're okay :D

As long as your insurance is up to date that's all they really seem to care about.

TallPine
August 13, 2005, 10:45 PM
TRH, I don't know about other states, but Texas has ALWAYS wanted you to update your driver's license whenever you move to a different address.
My MT DL address is my PO Box ;)

(which is also the address we use with all the :cuss: relatives that we don't want to find us)

When paying with a check at a store, I don't like displaying my home address, so it is not on either my checks or DL.

The Real Hawkeye
August 13, 2005, 10:54 PM
Art, my outrage had more to do with them wanting an update (at my expense, no less) on my job changes. I used to rack my brain trying to figure out why they would want to know that information just because I have a concealed handgun permit. Never have been able to figure it out, except that maybe they think they might want to revoke my permit at any given time (No shall issue in NY - instead it's at their pleasure), and they would like to be able to show up at the work place to confiscate my license, and escort me to my residence to turn in my weapons. It all seemed very 1984ish to me. Glad I'm out of there.

Art Eatman
August 14, 2005, 01:14 AM
Yeah, the job thing is indeed a bit much.

TallPine, Texas won't accept a PO Box anymore. They get all nervous when I try to explain about the absence of streets or street names where I live. A few people have named their own jeep trails, but nothing's formal.

I have a distance and compass direction from the post office on my DL. Then they moved the PO; there's a different mileage on my CHL. :) Regardless, good luck on finding my place without help. :D

Art

gunner03
August 14, 2005, 01:22 AM
I know thay would make a real mess of things at this point,but
as a constitutional right shoulden't the feds.be upholding the law nationwide?
I know the states reserved certian rights but didn't think they overruled the constitution!

Vern Humphrey
August 14, 2005, 01:46 PM
TRH, I don't know about other states, but Texas has ALWAYS wanted you to update your driver's license whenever you move to a different address. Just guessing, but I'd bet most other states are the same.


Same with Arkansas -- you are supposed to update your driver's license, nursing license, medical license, concealed handgun license, and so on when you move. Not that anyone really cares, but when you use a license and they ask to check your driver's license, they have to agree.

We had an address change due to adoption of enhanced 911 -- from a post-office-assigned box number, I went to a street address. I just waited until my Driver's license expired and updated everything at the same time.

The Real Hawkeye
August 14, 2005, 06:20 PM
gunner03 Said: I know thay would make a real mess of things at this point, but as a constitutional right shoulden't the feds be upholding the law nationwide?What law are you referring to? The only "law" I can think of that you might be referring to is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Since this was an amendment to the US Constitution, unless it states otherwise, it is presumed therefore to be a limitation on what the United States (i.e., Federal) Government can do, not on what the States can do.I know the states reserved certian rights but didn't think they overruled the constitution!The States reserved more than just a few "rights" (more correctly termed "powers"). In fact, whatever power is not delegated to the US Government via the US Constitution belongs to the States, and to the people of the States (See, e.g., the Tenth Amendment). As for overruling the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause to the US Constitution states only that where the Federal Government is given exclusive power over something, the States cannot make laws which conflict with Federal laws in that area. Since the Constitution gives the Federal Government authority over very little domestically, this should rarely ever become an issue. It should only be an issue if, for example, Maine declared war on Germany in 1939. That would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause because the US Constitution gives exclusive power to the US Congress to declare war.

Tropical Z
August 15, 2005, 06:17 PM
denfoote you are certifiable!
and.....uuhhh....by the way
HI-POINTS RULE!!!!!!!
:what:

jrpeterman
August 15, 2005, 06:32 PM
I think that Alaska and Vermont are on the right track as far as recognizing a citizen's 2nd Am. rights. The whole shall issue CCW for states has been just another way for the states to raise additional revenue with very little risk. If the states' budgets weren't in such dire straits, I don't think that the legislatures would be as apt to support CCW for the common law abiding Joes and Janes. Just my opinion.

RealGun
August 15, 2005, 08:18 PM
gunner03 Said: I know thay would make a real mess of things at this point, but as a constitutional right shoulden't the feds be upholding the law nationwide?
What law are you referring to? The only "law" I can think of that you might be referring to is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Since this was an amendment to the US Constitution, unless it states otherwise, it is presumed therefore to be a limitation on what the United States (i.e., Federal) Government can do, not on what the States can do.

Yes they should, and they should be citing the 14th Amendment. They won't currently until someone successfully gains the appeal ruling that the 14A applies to the States in every detail. It cites no exceptions. In the meantime, the Constitution DOES NOT mean what it says, because the feds (and the ACLU) don't want it to mean what it says, at least not when it comes to the 2A. I understand that there is substantial evidence of that and won't offer any research.

BTW the acronym for a license IS NOT CCW. Try CHL, Texas having the best term for a "concealed handgun license".

leo68
August 16, 2005, 05:06 PM
I live in New Hampshire, where a permit is not need to buy handguns and rifles, permit is only needed for ccw and requires no finger prints, no photographs, and no safety course, believe the cost to residents is $10.00 for 4 years and $20.00 for non- residents. New Hampshire it's a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, other states that don't should do same. The biggest supporters of gun control are criminals and mass murderers.

Control Group
August 17, 2005, 08:47 AM
The biggest supporters of gun control are criminals and mass murderers see quote below.


Quote: "This year will go down in history. For the first time,a civilized nation has full gun law registration. Our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

Adolf Hitler 1935
He didn't say that. (http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html)

And even if he had, that in itself doesn't make gun registration bad. Hitler also started an economic boom, laid the foundation for modern combined-arms warfare, and significantly decreased crime. That doesn't make a strong economy, modern tactics, or safer streets bad ideas. There are plenty of logically sound reasons to fight gun registration/control without a false appeal to authority.

(Sorry if it seems I'm jumping down your throat, I just hate seeing this quote thrown around; when it gets debunked by an anti, it loses us valuable credibility)

antarti
August 17, 2005, 02:36 PM
Probably 40% of those I know who carry don't bother with a CCW... to some it's perceived as onerous to their rights and they are making that statement, to others (the old timers) it's more a case of "I've been doing this before the licenses, and I'll be doing it after, do you really care what the law says when the criminals don't?"... IOW, I am going to do it, screw everybody, it's my business alone.

Personally, It's none of my business either way, and I condone carrying with or without, as your conscience guides you. If that knowlege (of others doing it) is itself a crime, so be it. The Marine is old enough to decide for himself what is best for himself.

Not at all the same issue ... the only reason for having register to vote is to prevent a citizen from voting multiple times

Yeah, that's why they started adding all kinds of crap like (paraphasing, but it's real) in there:

"The undersigned understands that this signature is also registering with Selective Service. If the undersigned is under 18 years of age, then this signature serves as their Selective Service signature when they turn 18"


How does signing something when you are a juvenile apply on your 18th birthday? Where is the check box for "consciencious objector status"?

DL and voter registrations are largely becoming offensive and inclusive of all kinds of other junk, and CCW's are defacto "owner registration". That said, I have one. I have gotten about 15 people to get into shooting and get them. However, I look forward to not needing one, and will keep fighting for "Vermont Carry" for everybody.

R.H. Lee
August 17, 2005, 02:49 PM
About the only time it will become an issue is if/when you have to shoot some goblin who attacked you. Some local DA might want to springboard the lack of a CCW permit into a criminal charge against you. I’d rather deal with that than get knifed, shot or beaten.

leo68
August 17, 2005, 02:57 PM
My belief a person should be allowed to carry without a permit if he/she is in good standings. Vermont you don't need a permit to carry, they tried in New Hampshire but it failed.

If you enjoyed reading about "I dont need no stinking CCW!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!