Concealed Carry restrictions......Getting rid of them


PDA






fjolnirsson
December 7, 2005, 10:18 PM
Just thinking to myself today. My state is pretty good in regards to concealed carry. Not ideal, of course. I would love to have Vermont/Alaska type carry. But, other than that, pretty darn good. The only places I can't carry by state law are Jails and Courthouses. Bars, churches, you name it, I'm able to carry. No requirement to notify LEOs(though I would, as a courtesy), and the permit is good for four years. The training requirement is small, and not hard to satisfy.
Other than the aforementioned Vermont style carry, what one thing would you change about your state carry permit?
The two things that bug me are the lack of reciprocity and the requirement to carry the permit itself.
As far as reciprocity goes, I can get around that with any number of out of state permits. So, I guess my pick goes to the requirement that I keep the permit on my person when carrying. If I am cought carrying without it on my person, it's a felony. Even though it shows up in the database when my name is run. If it was a misdemeanor, not so bad. But a felony? :cuss: I'm constantly worried I'll lose it, and be gunless until my new permit arrives in the mail. And it's one more thing to bulk up my wallet, and remember to transfer to a secure place when bicycling/swimming/running/etc.
What would you change?

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed Carry restrictions......Getting rid of them" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Janitor
December 7, 2005, 10:48 PM
What bugs me most (this week) is that there are the costs involved. In Minnesota, it ends up costing about $200 on average. (~$100 training, $100 permit). For most of us, that's not too much. Look what we spend on the hardware that's piled up in the safe.

There are people who cannot afford $200. What do they do? Eat, or take training? I believe that up here there are at least a couple trainers that are accomidating people who can't swing the normal costs. Maybe more than a couple. But then these folks still have to come up with $100 for the permit. I know - $100 doesn't sound like much. But to say, an older, retired woman living of the remnants of her departed husbands social security...

Poor should not have to mean vulnerable.
-
PS - I also hate victim disarmament zones.
-

Standing Wolf
December 7, 2005, 11:04 PM
No American citizen should ever have to pay to exericse his civil rights. If government wants to "license" us, it should pick up the tab. If it wants to "check" our "qualifications," it should do so on its own dime, not ours.

Vermont-style carry should be the rule rather than the exception. It's not too soon for other states to follow the lead of Vermont and Alaska.

The idea was proposed in Colorado's legislature about a year ago; none of the courageous Republicans, however, were willing to propose it publicly. It'll come back. Eventually, it will amount to an actual bill. The leftist extremists, of course, will snivel and whine about "blood in the streets," the "wild, wild west," et cetera. Denver will have an hysterical fit.

Maybe Wyoming will do the right thing next. Maybe Montana. I can't predict—but more states will do more to recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

eastwood44mag
December 7, 2005, 11:17 PM
I would change the lack of right to carry in my state. Kick Daley out and let his supporters form their own screwed up state, while leaving us in safety.

neoncowboy
December 7, 2005, 11:45 PM
I get really indignant about:
a. having to apply for, pay for, be approved for and wait for a gov. issued permit to exercise a fundamental right. Can you imagine a worship permit? Or a reading permit? Or a travel permit?

b. being told by the gov a list of places I may not exercise the fundamental right to arms.

What part of 'shall not be infringed' is so confusing to those idiots who wind up in capitol buildings across this nation?

Standing Wolf
December 8, 2005, 02:05 AM
Can you imagine a worship permit? Or a reading permit? Or a travel permit?

Unfortunately, I can.

71Commander
December 8, 2005, 05:56 AM
My biggest beef is the "no carry in post office".:cuss: You're in violation if you drive into the parking lot.

neoncowboy
December 8, 2005, 08:12 AM
Unfortunately, I can.

Yup.

To be perfectly honest and frank, the possibility of such intrusion on the part of .gov into MY life, in MY lifetime, is one of the bigger reasons that I hold onto the 2nd amendment and my gun freedoms. This possibility is why I train and why I have an AR.

Trip20
December 8, 2005, 08:16 AM
Check out what the state of MA is proposing for it's permit holders. If this (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190518) doesn't make you sick... nothing will. :barf:

garyk/nm
December 8, 2005, 08:30 AM
In New Mexico, we are not allowed to carry anywhere that alcohol is sold. Period. No grocery stores, Wal-mart, C-stores.
That sucks. Not as bad as Trip20's link, but sucky nonetheless.

Firethorn
December 8, 2005, 09:57 AM
I'd like to see a loosening of the banned locations in my state.

I really object to these parts:
62.1-02-04. Places that serve Alcohol and Gaming Sites.
62.1-02-05.A person who possesses a firearm at a public gathering is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. For the purpose of this section, "public gathering" includes athletic or sporting events, schools or school functions, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, musical concerts, and individuals in publicly owned parks where hunting is not allowed by proclamation and publicly owned or operated buildings.

Of course, I notice that carry in government buildings isn't banned. I still don't get the 'public park' part. Unless they think I'm going to be hunting with my 9mm.

Henry Bowman
December 8, 2005, 10:20 AM
Ohio's relatively new law is a mess. But the biggest problem is car carry. In a motor vehicle, you must carry either (1) in a holster on your person in plain sight (not concealed); (2) locked in the glove box; or (3) in a locked container that is in plain sight. There is no car carry w/o a permit (except locked/unloaded/ammo separate/out of reach.

Second is that carry in/on a posted property is a crime. There is no requirement that you have to refuse to leave when asked.

Z_Infidel
December 8, 2005, 10:34 AM
What Henry Bowman said regarding Ohio.

Plus, the list of restricted areas is pretty large. Oh, and the city of Toledo has already thumbed their noses at the preemption section of the state CCW law. Section 9 specifically states that municipalities cannot pass ordinances that contradict the state law, and yet Toledo passed a law banning carry in city parks. A man who did just that in order to prove a point was arrested, tried, and found guilty of breaking the local law -- the state law was entirely ignored and a judge upheld the conviction. He should win on appeal... even according to the State Attorney General.

Yep, the Ohio CCW law is a good start but it's a real mess that pretty much makes it not worth while to even get a permit. Legislature has been introduced in an effort to improve the law but I'd say it will be an uphill battle. Yet there is hope.

dangit
December 8, 2005, 12:18 PM
What bugs me most (this week) is that there are the costs involved. In Minnesota, it ends up costing about $200 on average. (~$100 training, $100 permit). For most of us, that's not too much. Look what we spend on the hardware that's piled up in the safe.
-

$200 :what:

Mine cost $10.00, the gas it took to drive down to the sheriffs office, and the 15 min it took to do a background check. No training requirements. No off limits areas exept for post offices (that's a fed law), schools (again fed law) and "any demonstration being held at a public place". Whatever that is. Although the police must first inform you that a demonstration is taking place and give you the opportunity to remove yourself from the area, if I'm reading the law correctly:

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a law enforcement officer as defined in subsection (a) of this section, to have in his or her possession or about his or her person or in any vehicle at a point within 1,000 feet of a demonstration at a public place, any firearm after having first been advised by a law enforcement officer that a demonstration was taking place at a public place and after having been ordered by such officer to remove himself or herself from the prescribed area until such time as he or she no longer was in possession of any firearm.

Azrael256
December 8, 2005, 02:50 PM
I would like to see two things in Texas. Keep in mind these are incremental steps. What I really want is proper recognition of the 2A, changing the term from "Vermont style" to "American style."

First, I want open carry in Texas. I know we likely won't get to unlicensed CCW anytime soon, but I think unrestricted open carry is a good start. It seems to work just fine in other states, and it would be nice, mostly from a convenience standpoint, not to have to conceal if I don't want to. Of course, I would maintain my CHL for when I want to be discreet.

Second, I would do away with all of the "weapon" definitions in the law. Texas prohibits metal knuckles, saps/blackjacks, clubs, and other such weapons to one degree or another. This is somewhere between silly and asinine. Furthermore, Texas prohibits the regulary carry of "Bowie knives." I think we're all students of history here, so we all see the bitter irony of that one.

Janitor
December 8, 2005, 03:25 PM
but I think unrestricted open carry is a good start.
Well ... we have that here, and I've not noticed any blood flowing in the streets.

Even if you don't want to carry open, it's nice to know that if you tuck your shirt in funny leaving the bif that you're guilty of nothing more serious than a fashion faupax.
-

Morgan
December 8, 2005, 07:30 PM
Standing Wolf sez:If government wants to "license" us, it should pick up the tab. If it wants to "check" our "qualifications," it should do so on its own dime, not ours...

Don't forget the pesky little detail of the government's dime coming from our pockets.

I completely disagree with licensing, but if it is done the fees should be paid by the user, and they shouldn't be exorbitant.

Standing Wolf
December 8, 2005, 08:57 PM
Don't forget the pesky little detail of the government's dime coming from our pockets.

I'd not forgotten that for a moment. It's just that if government has to pick up the tab, it will suddenly find ways to reduce the size of the tab.

Scott F
December 8, 2005, 09:41 PM
We are truly fortunate to live in Oregon. Our permits are easy to get and most counties cooperate. We can carry almost anywhere not restricted by the federal government. I can and do carry in schools for instance. We are an open carry state which protects us if we inadvertently let our concealed handgun show.

The only restriction as far as I can see is that we must have our permit with us at all time when we are carrying. That would be a good requirement to see go away but considering the restrictions from most states we have no complaints.

Check out:
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/

http://oregonconcealedcarry.com/

SMMAssociates
December 8, 2005, 11:15 PM
Here in OH,

Vehicular Carry was a poison pill, if not a way to force us to kill ourselves and our friends & family with un-necessary handling of our firearms. It's also a good way to get arrested for just being there....

Restaurant Carry is a blissninny solution to a non-problem.

But what really cranks me off is that I can't carry in places that I paid for!.... :fire: :fire:

I would understand (and reluctantly accept metal detectors & armed security), but to assume that I'm going to be safe because there's a sign on the front door....

I was going to say "there ought to be a law", but there is one. The Second Amendment. Too bad the anti's in Columbus can't read....

Morgan
December 8, 2005, 11:16 PM
I'd not forgotten that for a moment. It's just that if government has to pick up the tab, it will suddenly find ways to reduce the size of the tab.

Perhaps. More likely they'll just find a way to get more of our dimes.

Standing Wolf
December 8, 2005, 11:45 PM
More likely they'll just find a way to get more of our dimes.

One way or another, government will help itself to more of our hard-earned money.

I just bought another Python this afternoon. I had to wait half an hour for the "approval" to go through, but wasn't required to fork over any extra money. Colorado demands "approval," and therefore conducts the "approval" process at its own expense rather than demanding that we who buy firearms pay an extra fee.

To be sure, the costs of running the "approval" operation come out of the state's budget, but I'd guess the costs are much lower than those in the People's Republic of California, for example, whose subjects are required to pay for government "approval."

Ultimately, I've to say none of that's extremely important. My primary objection is this: we, the people are presumed guilty, and therefore disqualified from keeping and bearing arms until, one way or another, we pay government to concede it can't prove we're guilty.

It should be up to government to prove individuals are guilty rather than individuals to prove we're not. That's all the difference in the world. The purported "simple background check" of today will inevitably lead to much, much more horrendous intrustions in due time—and when they do, they'll cost us even more money, of course.

jnojr
December 9, 2005, 05:49 PM
Other than the aforementioned Vermont style carry, what one thing would you change about your state carry permit?

Being able to get one in the first place.

Valkman
December 9, 2005, 06:11 PM
NV is good, could be alot better. We have shall issue and anyone can carry any loaded gun in their vehicles so that's the good part. Also state law forbids localities passing their own restrictive laws, although some are already in place. Can carry in casinos - as a rule they do not bar CCW holders but you do not want them to see you're carrying. I've not had a problem yet.

The bad - no reprocity with any state. Luckily some state recognize our permit even though we don't recognize theirs.

Takes forever to get the permit - they took longer than the law allowed on mine. They don't care.

Cost $60 for the class and $105 for the background check and permit.

Must test with each gun listed on permit - I had to pay $25 to add my 2 Kimbers plus pay to test with them.

Can only carry guns listed on permit - I really hate that one.

So we have a ways to go, but after living in CA most of my life it's still pretty good.

JJpdxpinkpistols
December 9, 2005, 06:23 PM
We are truly fortunate to live in Oregon. Our permits are easy to get and most counties cooperate.

Just curious...what county *isn't* cooperating? I had zero trouble in Multnomah, the "liberal" county in our fair, green (and currently chilly) state.

I did have to either do an NRA course or the county "Safety" course for 20$, but I didn't find that to be too onerous.

We are an open carry state which protects us if we inadvertently let our concealed handgun show.

Actually, that isn't *quite* true. Depends on the community. If you were to open carry, say, in Pioneer Courthouse Square a.k.a. Portland's Living Room, there could be a stir, and you could be charged with "Creating a Public Nuisance" or "Disturbing the Peace". But it isn't technically illegal...just unusual, and some bliss-ninnies don't see any distinction between CHL's and mafia hitmen. To them, its not just an inert piece of metal, its a device with mythical properties, and an uncanny ability to aim, arm, and fire itself at will.

The only restriction as far as I can see is that we must have our permit with us at all time when we are carrying.

You know...aside from that pesky "...shall not be infringed" stuff in the consitution :rolleyes: that really isn't so repulsive. At least the cops that do ask us for ID know that we aren't some random nutball thats just out there. Unless I am mistaken, we have had a more thorough vetting than the teachers around here, backgroundwise. WE aren't the problem. The last tiem a CHL holder was involved in a shooting outside his or her home, it was in defence of a neighbor...this was years ago, IMS.

Check out:
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/

Mr. Starret is GREAT. He did a homeschoolers gun safety course several months back, and was incredibly patient and very kind to all the kids. He didn't even charge us folks. Go there...give them money. He and his group do great work.

neoncowboy
December 9, 2005, 09:33 PM
The idea that the law can force me to have a permit in order to exercise this right:cuss:is so disgusting to me, I don't think I'm even going to renew my permit when it expires.

wdlsguy
December 9, 2005, 10:58 PM
We are truly fortunate to live in Oregon. Our permits are easy to get and most counties cooperate.

It would be nice if Oregon would honor other state permits, or at least issue nonresident permits on a shall-issue basis. The way things stand right now, there is no way for me to legally carry in Oregon, since I don't live in WA / ID / NV / CA.

JJpdxpinkpistols
December 10, 2005, 01:42 AM
It would be nice if Oregon would honor other state permits, or at least issue nonresident permits on a shall-issue basis. The way things stand right now, there is no way for me to legally carry in Oregon, since I don't live in WA / ID / NV / CA.

I agree. I would really like to see national reciprocity under full faith and credit...whats that? Oh, marriage isn't even given full faith and credit any longer?

well, phooey. :rolleyes:

neoncowboy
December 10, 2005, 09:04 AM
Oh, marriage isn't even given full faith and credit any longer?

Um, that's a little disingenuous to call what you're speaking of 'marriage'.

Not that that has anything to do with guns or anything...

Jadecristal
December 10, 2005, 12:09 PM
Um, that's a little disingenuous to call what you're speaking of 'marriage'.

Not that that has anything to do with guns or anything...

It has more to do with what states can do, and things. If states have all the powers that the Constitution says they do, they can make it legal for two males to "marry," or even a male and a horse to "marry."

The Constitution requires that states give "full faith and credit" to other states "things," and that should nicely include everything. Carry permits and "marriage," whether you like it or not. If your state had to accept that two men were "married," and NYC had to accept your carry permit, would it be worth it to you? Noting, BTW, that as I read it, they already should have to, but hey... it's just an old "living" document anyway, right?

neoncowboy
December 11, 2005, 02:18 PM
If states have all the powers that the Constitution says they do, they can make it legal for two males to "marry," or even a male and a horse to "marry."

No they can't! Laws don't redefine reality or justice. The states can't make men eligible for marriage with one another any more than they can legislate blacks (or any other race of people) into being second class citizens...drinking out of separate water fountains and such.

It's because law depends on morality to have any authority. The writings of the founders are full of that premise.

mbs357
December 11, 2005, 05:25 PM
what one thing would you change about your state carry permit?
First thing that comes to mind is to lower the age limit to 18.
Other than that...carry in churches, courthouses, schools, you name it.
Not sure what area limits are in place now, but I'm certain about school and court, probably allowed in church. Not sure about bars, I have no interest in them, but that doesn't mean I don't want the right.

Stickjockey
December 11, 2005, 06:13 PM
As we hail from the same state, I'd haver to say you hit the nail on the head. I'd love to see OR have more reciprocity, and I'd like to not have to worry about whether I'd lost the thing.

carebear
December 11, 2005, 09:08 PM
Well, the best way way to achieve your goals will be to stake out an absolutist Vermont-carry or nothing position. See if you can force a vote so you know who the pseudo-pro gun legislators are and work to defeat them. Also, bad mouth others who are ostensibly on the same side as you but don't adhere to your absolute beliefs.

That should work. :rolleyes:

JJpdxpinkpistols
December 12, 2005, 01:48 PM
Well, the best way way to achieve your goals will be to stake out an absolutist Vermont-carry or nothing position. See if you can force a vote so you know who the pseudo-pro gun legislators are and work to defeat them. Also, bad mouth others who are ostensibly on the same side as you but don't adhere to your absolute beliefs.

That should work. :rolleyes:

Actually, here in Oregon, after the next election, that Might Just Work. Our big anti is named Ginny Burdick and she is about to get trounced in her bid for city council, and I believe she is no longer going to be in our state legislature, either. With her gone, the Anti's will lose their figurehead and be very disorganized. That is a good thing.

carebear
December 13, 2005, 11:29 PM
Don't say that, you'll encourage a gentleman in WI. :evil:

Andiceman
December 14, 2005, 03:36 PM
My biggest beef is the "no carry in post office".:cuss: You're in violation if you drive into the parking lot.


TennTucker--read the article at this link:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html

This fellow makes a pretty good case that "no carry in post office" is BS.

Of course, I never go the post office, so I don't really have to worry about it.

Stickjockey
December 14, 2005, 06:36 PM
...she is about to get trounced in her bid for city council, and I believe she is no longer going to be in our state legislature, either.

City council, where? And what are the indications she'll be ousted from the legislature? I must have missed something.

Dare I hope?

ziadel
December 14, 2005, 11:36 PM
I tell you what burns me, the stupid restrictions.

I can go out, buy a 2" J-Frame .38, put in for a CCW, and get one marked "HUNTING AND TARGET ONLY" who in the right freakin mind hunts or target shoots with a 2" J-Frame? I mean, come on, our Judge is a coward, thats why it happens, he wants to be able to tell the sissies, "I don't let anyone run around with guns in MY county" and he wants to be able to tell the 2nd amendment conscious, "My county is one of the few counties in new york with a 'shall issue' mentality"

I've been told if you give the judge a good reason, he'll remove the restrictions.

now I just gotta make up a good reason :fire:

freaking hogwash.

ziadel
December 14, 2005, 11:41 PM
No they can't! Laws don't redefine reality or justice. The states can't make men eligible for marriage with one another any more than they can legislate blacks (or any other race of people) into being second class citizens...drinking out of separate water fountains and such.

It's because law depends on morality to have any authority. The writings of the founders are full of that premise.



that's laughable.

Reddog1
December 15, 2005, 12:44 AM
I can live with the restrictions here, but would like to see a lot of them changed. I would like to see a photo on our permit though, here in Ga. there
isin't any and if it is lost or takin by a BG, it could be bad. Do any other states have photos on their permits? All we have is a finger print.

Jim

SMMAssociates
December 15, 2005, 01:46 AM
TennTucker--read the article at this link:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html

This fellow makes a pretty good case that "no carry in post office" is BS.

Of course, I never go the post office, so I don't really have to worry about it.Our good friends in Columbus (OH) were kind enough to write the Post Office into the enumerated CPZ list, so no carry....

However, at least out here in "my" burb, it's in a strip plaza so the parking lots are not a problem unless the plaza owner posts the property (which he can do!).

They've set up the Post Office out here so that it's basically an inner room where the clerks are and a "lobby" where the P.O. Boxes, stamp machine, and drop boxes are located. The latter is not posted, and is open 24/7. The inner room is posted. I take that to mean it's OK to carry in the lobby....

(One of the less sensible things about our approach to CPZ's is that the property owner can post his parking lot. The criminals we're protecting that way really appreciate it, but they're said to be a little upset about not being able to mine our cars for weapons, which they can do at other CPZ's....)

Regards,

Zedicus
December 15, 2005, 02:54 AM
It would be nice if Oregon would honor other state permits, or at least issue nonresident permits on a shall-issue basis. The way things stand right now, there is no way for me to legally carry in Oregon, since I don't live in WA / ID / NV / CA.

Actualy, Oregon doesn't Honor Idaho CCW Permits, and Idaho itself is now requiring the moronic "training" certificate to be able to get the permit :banghead:
(didnt before I moved here)

then again us here in Idaho seem to be seeing a few libtards moving in and getting jobs in local & state goverment and trying to turn the state into another ***********.:barf:

The locals are anything but pleased about it to say the least....:cuss:

dlouque
December 15, 2005, 03:49 AM
And anyone trained can carry anyway he feels like it. We shouldn't have to pay the government for our 2A privilege, and anyone how commits a crime has the right to be shot like the criminal he is whether commiting the crime or fleeing.
Also IPSC or IDPA matches should be a requirement for all LEO's who carry a gun and should be done quarterly at minimum. Reloads are cheap compaired to civil liability if they injure a bystander.

SMMAssociates
December 15, 2005, 04:03 AM
Dlouque:

I think anyone who carries a gun in public should be trained. And anyone trained can carry anyway he feels like it.

I agree, however, the problem with letting the Federal Government define the training is that a Hilary can come along and require that everybody who wishes to carry go through the FBI National Academy.... :fire:

Might be fun, but I'm too old, and anyway give 'em a call and see how easy it is to get in....

Regards,

Henry Bowman
December 15, 2005, 11:12 AM
Hilary can come along and require that Or Sarah Brady. Like to go to the VPC training program? This is why I (unsuccessfully) opposed a training requirement in Ohio. I had the experience of living in WA where no training is required. I like asking the Ohio antis, "Have you ever been to Indiana or Pennsylvania? Yeah? They've had CCW for decades and don't require any training. Did you get shot at there? No? Why not?"

JJpdxpinkpistols
December 15, 2005, 11:49 AM
I think anyone who carries a gun in public should be trained. And anyone trained can carry anyway he feels like it. We shouldn't have to pay the government for our 2A privilege...

I don't think what you are asking for is "training"...Lets call it what it is: "Certification" by someone who has an idea of what people should and should not do. I can guarantee you that this "Certification" would not be free. Somebody will be making money on this.

I assume that you are watching out or the children, and bystanders. The assumption is tha with that "Certified" stamp comes a higher level of competence. I won't dispute that precept. I think it has *some* merit.

Let me just as the following questions:

1. When can we start certification on printers and engravers? I mean, they could EASILY photocopy dollar bills and destabilize our economy*. I think a new "Certification of Compliance" should be on *any* newspaper, handbill and photocopy machine. Otherwise, we would have folks out there doing horrible things.

2. Which religions are allowed by the state? Can we just have Presbyterians go to the same Board of Certification as the Reform Jews, or do they have to wait in line with the Odinists (Careful with that hammer, Thor!)? Also, the gentleman from Seattle wants to know if the Dalai Lama can file supporting evidence for his New Age Certification. Is cross-religion documentation allowed?

3. Are these Certifications given full faith and credit, or do i have to get a seperate Certification for every state I go to?

4. Mr. Jones is a careful law abiding citizen. He has already gotten his "Literature Certification" for the leaflets he hands out encouraging donations to his cause, and he is a "Certified Southern Baptist". Mr. Jones falls into a lower income bracket, and would like to know if he can get part of his "Certification" fee waived so that he can protect his family in the slum he lives in.

In all seriousness...I have never attended more than a basic safety course.If a lack of "Certification" makes a gun-handler dangerous, then I must be doing something wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
*this is satire, pure and simple. Any resemblance to Druids, the trees they worship in front of, the paper that comes from those trees, and the resulting HIGHLY ILLEGAL photocopies of dollar bills that spit from those machines is in your own imagination. Do not shake, stir, or agitate the Secret Service.

JJpdxpinkpistols
December 15, 2005, 12:00 PM
City council, where? And what are the indications she'll be ousted from the legislature? I must have missed something.

Dare I hope?

Our dear friend Ginny Burdick is running against Erik Sten for Portland City Council.

Ms. Burdick was the major force behind almost all of the anti bills in the last 3 sessions (possibly more...thats just when I started paying attention).

I haven't been able to read anything conclusive, but everyone I talk to says that Ginny will either have to re-run for her seat or run for City Council, as her seat will expire normally. Theorhetically, she could run for both, but she won't--that means loosing two seats in all probability.

With Ginny gone, that would leave Kate Brown, Avel Gordly and a couple other anti's but the truth is, these folks are focused on other things, and were always having to give Ginny the votes in order to wheel and deal. I don't think they will do much on their own on this issue. I am working on Kate (she is my district), and on the Dem Party as a whole. I think they are starting to see the light, believe it or not.

Then there is the Guv. It looks like Kitz is gonna run again...and he isn't our worst enemy, but he is no wear near a big 2a supporter either. My guess is it will be Kitz vs. Mannix, without Cox in the mix (he switched over to Repubs). Kitz will win in that matchup.

So its not all roses and jasmine rice, but neither is it lumps-of-coal-in-stockings time.

Werewolf
December 15, 2005, 12:22 PM
Other than the aforementioned Vermont style carry, what one thing would you change about your state carry permit?Wellllll...
Actually - there's more than one thing I'd change:

On the front of my permit in big black letters at the top it says: CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSE. It's not really that. What it really is is a concealed handgun license as OK law severely restricts the carry of just about any weapon. Legally most knives are a no-no though that's not enforced. Brass knuckles, clubs, etc - big no-no. If they're gonna issue a CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSE then it ought to be a CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSE.

Caliber size is limited to no larger than .45. Now I'm not one who'd carry a Desert Eagle 50 but hey I'm just 5' 7". I can imagine some 6' 8" 400 lb guy wanting to.

The list of places one cannot carry includes government property open to the public, sporting events, bars and any other place that gets >50% of its revenue from the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. Not bad I guess but it ought'a be OK to carry anywhere - afterall the check done to certify me a good guy covered the city, county, state and Feds. Geez Louise - if they all say I'm a good guy what are the odds I'm gonna go into a courthouse or city council meeting and blow away some slimy politician (which is why the restrictions exist really - the bastards don't trust us and think making it illegal to carry at one of their meetings is gonna protect them - hey - since when do politiicians actually think about what laws they pass?).

Stupid No Firearms Allowed signs ought to be banned. Not that they really mean much in OK - tresspassing is about all you can be charged with and then only if the business asks you to leave and you don't (how stupid would that be to not leave if asked?) I don't give a hoot about the property rights of those who run businesses that invite the public in. They invited me in. As far as I am concerned that means my 2nd Amendment rights trump their property rights. Don't like it? Then don't run a business that depends on public access.

Vermont/Alaska style carry in OK would be nice but it's never gonna happen for two reasons. The little reason is the state legislature is essentially controlled by the demonrats (they'd be republicans just about anywhere else but they're demonrats here in OK). The main reason though is that IMO OK has the 2nd most crooked politicians in the country. They're crooks and the idea of letting every single Tom, Dick and Harriet out there carry who might hold a grudge against them is - well - in their minds just asking for trouble.

OK CCW isn't perfect - it could be better but compared to some places we all know of it is liberty in action.

fjolnirsson
December 15, 2005, 12:49 PM
So its not all roses and jasmine rice, but neither is it lumps-of-coal-in-stockings time.

And, look on the bright side. With Burdick gone, I have a feeling the Oregon Firearms Federation is gonna be pushing hard for some reforms. She has been their biggest obstacle, IIRC.

Stickjockey
December 15, 2005, 06:42 PM
jjpdx-

I knew about the "major force" deal; oh, don't I know it! I didn't know, though, that she was considering a Portland City Council run. Guess I know where my vote goes on that race.

I haven't been able to read anything conclusive, but everyone I talk to says that Ginny will either have to re-run for her seat or run for City Council, as her seat will expire normally. Theorhetically, she could run for both, but she won't--that means loosing two seats in all probability.

And

With Burdick gone, I have a feeling the Oregon Firearms Federation is gonna be pushing hard for some reforms. She has been their biggest obstacle, IIRC.

You two just made my freakin' week! Gonna have to get in on some of that action.:evil:

JJpdxpinkpistols
December 15, 2005, 07:33 PM
I knew about the "major force" deal; oh, don't I know it! I didn't know, though, that she was considering a Portland City Council run. Guess I know where my vote goes on that race.


Sorry, Stickjockey...I kinda broke it down a bit. I was unsure how much you knew of local politics. My apologies if it came of condescending. It was not intended as such.

Before you vote for ABG (Anything BUT Ginny), consider her opponent. Erik Sten. Not exactly pro-2a, *BUT* he seems pretty apathetic about it guns in general, and seems recognize this issue as a deal-killer: vote for brady-style bills, and get booted. I don't forsee him being any problem.

I *AM* leaving out other issues that Sten has...suffice to say that this will come up more as an "Public" vs "Private" owned, PGE vs. Enron issue. I expect firearms issues to be of zero consequence in this election.

I am afraid the citizens of Portland won't have much to cheer about in that electoral race.

Camp David
December 15, 2005, 07:59 PM
What would you change?
I just cited this in another thread... Concealed Carry Licences seem to be an affront to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment... why should I apply for a right guaranteed?

wdlsguy
December 15, 2005, 09:44 PM
Actualy, Oregon doesn't Honor Idaho CCW Permits

Correct. Oregon is shall-issue for residents; may-issue for residents of Washington, Idaho, Nevada and California; no-issue for everyone else.

SMMAssociates
December 15, 2005, 10:10 PM
Camp David:

I just cited this in another thread... Concealed Carry Licences seem to be an affront to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment... why should I apply for a right guaranteed?

While I pretty much hold with the "Vermont/Alaska" situation (or even Pennsylvania), I think there's another consideration.

Time was that little Johnny didn't touch the family blunderbuss (or stick something in his belt) until Grandpa or Dad certified him. As families spread out, and being able to shoot in the back yard went away, this largely was delegated to the military or school rifle clubs. That too has kind of wandered off in more urban areas.

The result is that you go buy a gun, bring it home, load it, and stick it in your belt or whatever holster the friendly counterfolk at the store talked you into.... (I don't think any state requires any sort of training to buy a gun, although FOID-style restrictions exist in many of them.)

If you're in Vermont or Alaska you can get away with this. In PA you need to pay somebody $20.... I don't like that....

I consider carrying a firearm (or other defensive tools) a right. Same for driving a car....

However, as with a car, I think that at least some proficiency needs to be demonstrated before you can take full advantage of that right.

(What/how/why/if you carry on your own property is your own business. Most states will let you drive a car out on the South Forty without a license....)

What bothers me (as I mentioned before) is that the anti's would love to define certification in ways that would make it impossible for the average person to get it. Given a course like the NRA "Basic Pistol", which is pretty much "don't kill the guy beside you", I don't think anybody'd object - you can always take more education on your own. Giving the anti's the chance to demand better training, though, probably would be a disaster....

For the moment, OH's CHL program has a very simple certification requirement. Changing it could be difficult, but not impossible. Making it worse wouldn't be difficult either. The only thing we can say is that in about 18 months, blood hasn't run in the streets, and there aren't any more shootouts at WalMart. The "undesireable" areas are still being shot up regularly by folks who'd never bother trying to get a CHL anyway. The anti's haven't found a way to blame us for that yet....

I would like to see my CHL accepted in all other states. They'll accept my driver's license....

Regards,

drinks
December 15, 2005, 10:36 PM
Were wolf;
I think you are rating your pols much too high.
Consider, Ney Yurk, New Joisy, Ill[urp],Kalifcornya, Louseiana and TexdeLay
all beat pore ole OKhomely by a long shot.
I bet you do not have even 2% of the convicted pols in Fed prisons now.
Yes ,I know about the camoflauge, Texas had Democrats in power for 100 years, over night they all became the Republicans they were at heart, all along.
I really have very little hope, too many people are willing to be lead off like the little lemmings they are.
Sic transit gloria mundi, and our constitutional republic, as we degenerate into a democratic dictatorship of the majority.:fire: :barf:

fjolnirsson
December 16, 2005, 12:27 AM
Concealed Carry Licences seem to be an affront to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment... why should I apply for a right guaranteed?

Well, I'd have to say you are correct, sir. However, it took years to lose recognition of our rights, it will take years to get them back. Alaska has made a precedent in licensed carry leading to unlicensed carry, and I feel it's the best way, at this time, for other states to proceed. Incrementalism.
Now, if I were to proceed according to my ideals, I would simply carry without license. However, I have my bread and circuses to keep me happy. I have my wife and daughter, and the only money I owe on my home is the King's Taxes. So, I pay the small fee every 4 years.
We all choose our battles.

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed Carry restrictions......Getting rid of them" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!