[jakemccoy]

Moving to a "shall issue" state is really not the answer. In fact, gun owners in those states have a bigger problem. The problem is overall attitude.

Folks from “shall issue” states talk about moving to a different state when the gun laws aren't the way they want them. They aren't accustomed to thinking about what to do if the trash really hits the fan. What are they going to do if their rights are suddenly “revoked”? It sounds like the response is to run to greener pastures. Are they really ready?

While we're all being macho about what we'd do in a VT situation, it sounds like many folks will run and hide when the lawmakers sign the dotted line and “take” their rights. Please don't tell me how you’d risk your life in a VT situation and then in the next sentence tell me how you’d run from your state when the lawmakers don’t give you permission to have a gun.

Be aware of what happened to the gun rights of folks during Katrina. One day, the rights were there. The next day, the rights were gone when the rights mattered most...just like that. The state governments of the South did that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Would you hand over your gun? How would you handle such a situation? What’s the alternative in such a situation?

It doesn't matter where the gun rights are being taken. No matter where it is, it's still your problem, as nobody is immune.

[fletcher]

No offense meant, but what in the world are you talking about?

Shall-issue vs. May-Issue has nothing to do with confiscations. Also, the New Orleans area government is as representative of the south as New York City is of all of the north.

That being said, the best option in a situation like that is to avoid it if at all possible. If someone was knocking at my door, I would not answer until I could confirm who it was without being seen. If it's police, I'd either escape with my firearms or hide them and lie (if they ask if any are there). There are just too many variables in an extreme situation such as that to warrant a quick would-or-would-not-shoot decision.

Also, remember that it was California police in NO that were responsible for a large amount of the confiscations.

[jakemccoy]

fletcher wrote:
"Shall-issue vs. May-Issue has nothing to do with confiscations."

=====

Huh? CCW permits have everything to do with confiscations. We get CCW permits so that our guns are not confiscated. The states control those permits through "shall issue" or "may issue" laws. If you're generally not accustomed to thinking about what to do if your state suddenly bans all guns, you're living outside of modern reality.

[Technosavant]

Most of the shall-issue laws are relatively recently passed. Most within the past decade or so. It would be an uphill fight for opponents to repeal those laws- not only would it be an uphill fight against an already successful RKBA community, but without a clear public danger (permitholders running amok in the streets), it's not too easy to remove such abilities.

The thing is, most of the states with may-issue or no-issue CCW have governments that are rabidly anti-gun and constantly getting worse- there's a couple exceptions, but generally that's the rule. The states with shall-issue tend to be moderate or friendly to RKBA interests, and are often getting even better (my native MO is one of those).

People talk about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and that is certainly the way things are with RKBA at the moment. The haves are getting more, and the have nots are continually losing more. Moving isn't usually a reasonable way to handle things, but if a person living just across the Mississippi River from St. Louis (IL resident) wants CCW and good gun laws, they'd be far better off changing residents than sitting and wishing.

I endorse trying to change things, but it just isn't likely that NY, CA, NJ, and IL are ever going to change.

[shadowalker]

Shall issue also tends to show a higher overall support of gun ownership within the state, meaning the residents of those states WILL fight harder to maintain their gun ownership, they already have by getting shall issue passed.

If there is no chance of getting sane gun laws passed moving to shall issue can be a good idea because the population and authorities are more likely to support you in a situation where you have to use deadly force. Prosecutors listen to the media and the outrage of the people, if people don't think you should be armed they will demand you be prosecuted even if you were in the right, look at what happened to the lacrosse team members because of the eagerness of the prosecutor to pander to a group of people.

Self defense situations are viewed differently in states like Alaska, Idaho, Montana, than in states where you have to ask the government permission to buy or own a weapon. The problem with moving to a shall issue state is that you further dilute the support for gun rights in your original state, personal call but I will not live in a state that doesn't support my rights to defend myself and if necessary I would move. Thankfully I'm from Alaska and live in Idaho so for now at least I'm pretty safe in that regard.

In a situation like Katrina even if they try to confiscate firearms I doubt you are going to have to worry about your firearm being confiscated unless you are walking around with it in plain sight causing trouble. They are going to be so busy with other things that walking door to door confiscating people's firearms from their houses or tracking down CCW holders will be on the very bottom of their list. This is a huge benefit of having a concealable handgun as well, in a situation such as this you don't particularly want the bad guys or the authorities knowing you are armed while you are moving around in the open. A guy with an AR15 on his back / side is going to get a lot more attention from both sides than someone with a concealed handgun.

In a situation where an armed law enforcement person is asking for your weapon there isn't a whole lot you can do, #1 try to reason with them and talk them out of it, #2 run away and if you can do so safely and he/she doesn't know where to find you, #3 give it to them, #4 get in a fire fight with a LE in which case you better hope it is a true extended SHTF scenario not 1 or 2 week long one like Katrina.

[jakemccoy]

shadowalker wrote: "In a situation where an armed law enforcement person is asking for your weapon there isn't a whole lot you can do, #1 try to reason with them and talk them out of it, #2 give it to them, #3 get in a fire fight with a LE in which case you better hope it is a true extended SHTF scenario not 1 or 2 week long one like Katrina."

=====

...Or you can not answer the question of whether you have guns. In the Youtube video, it seems like law enforcement "asked" the gun owners if they had guns. The gun owners responded affirmatively thinking that law enforcement may have been on their side in that time of crisis. The gun owners were wrong.

[fletcher]

We get CCW permits so that our guns are not confiscated.

As far as I know, my CCW permit doesn't guarantee anything against confiscation. It guarantees that I can legally carry a firearm concealed.


The states control those permits through "shall issue" or "may issue" laws.

Correct, but any modification must be done through the legislature.


If you're generally not accustomed to thinking about what to do if your state suddenly bans all guns, you're living outside of modern reality.

I believe this thought has crossed everyone on this board's mind at least once. But, worrying about my state (NC) banning guns suddenly is like worrying that I'll get attacked by a shark in a local lake. It's just not going to happen here anytime soon. Infringments will happen, as they always have, but an outright ban is a looooooooooong way off.

This isn't true for all places, but waking up to see "North Carolina Bans All Firearms" in the paper is very far outside modern reality.

[scurtis_34471]

If a Katrina situation happened here and the police came to my house and asked for my guns, I would refuse to comply based on it being an unlawful order. If the police forceably entered my home based on that refusal, I would shoot them and be completely within my legal rights to do so. Florida law explicitly states that the government cannot confiscate weapons based on a "state of emergency."

[shadowalker]

Unless you have a sign that says "I have 200 guns and 50,000 rounds of ammo" on your house and randomly shoot at people the police aren't going to come get them in an emergency. They aren't going to have the communication, manpower, or desire to bother citizens that aren't part of the problem when the scum bags are looting, burning, pillaging the innocent and shooting at the police.

Plus most law enforcement officers don't want to provoke gun fights with otherwise good, decent (and often well armed) citizens that likely would be aiding them in a very difficult time. There have been thousands of disasters where police haven't confiscated weapons and a few in backwards corrupt cities where they have which is another reason to live in an area that supports your rights to firearms and self defense.

I live in a pro gun state, our police by and large like armed citizens. It is also why I have more than one firearm, a situation where they are demanding all my firearms is a lot different than asking for the particular one on me that they discovered. If I'm in a situation where a LEO wants my weapon I might not be happy about it, I will complain, sue, and have them fired but unless it means immediate and grave danger I will not attack them.

Gun ownership is high enough, political activeness is increasing among gun owners, and even general non gun owner support of trained, and licensed civilians carrying guns is increasing dramatically. Even the anti gun people acknowledge passing gun laws is extremely difficult because the gun ownership population is VERY strong in supporting their rights and VERY active in punishing those politicians that try to take them away.

People will be pro gun control for a month after an event, gun owners tend to be pro gun their entire life and vote based on it.

[El Tejon]

jake, not really certain what you are concerned about? Can you name a "shall issue" state where the carry laws have become more restrictive or carrying has been "revoked"? I cannot.

In New Orleans the law did not change, rogue government was the problem. I have been in similar situations, Chicago and D.C.

I did not comply. I will not comply. Civil disobedience is my response. However, the best response is to get involved and get organized. If you are worried send another check to GOA or NRA-ILA.:)

[Black Adder LXX]

"Guns? I don't have any guns, officer..." :neener:

[TestPilot]

Moving to a "shall issue" state is really not the answer. In fact, gun owners in those states have a bigger problem. The problem is overall attitude.

How do people in shall-issue states have a bigger problem?
Be aware of what happened to the gun rights of folks during Katrina. One day, the rights were there. The next day, the rights were gone when the rights mattered most...just like that.
Wrong.
The rights were never gone. That's why federal court ordered the criminal mayor of New Orleans to stop confiscating guns.

What you are claiming is just as same as claiming you have no right to own a property because someone robbed you.

In any case, what makes you think shall issue and less anti-gun attitude in a state that has such law makes infringement of gun rights more likely?

[AF_INT1N0]

Actually I think maybe, moving to pro-gun states is the answer.

By moving to a pro-gun/ shall issue state you increase the population of that state. You encourage the pro-gun legislators to keep doing what they are doing, your taxes go to support the pro gun state, and their progun rules. If you are a business owner you create pro-gun jobs, and eat pro-gun food. You help the pro-gun economy. If all the pro-gunners in Orange County moved from the PRKalifornia to say.... Arizona how much money would be go with them? What about all the gunners in all the progun counties in Kali? How much money would Kali loose and Arizona win?? If enough people moved, Arizona would eventually gain a couple of seats in the house, (California would loose those seats).

By moving out of an anti gun craptopia (and taking your money with you) you take a small bite out of that states budget (like defunding the $$#@ heads in office just a little) you get to raise your children in a pro-gun non-nanny state, they get to learn to wipe their own butts, (and grow up with those that do the same).