Why a CCW permit?

Status
Not open for further replies.
chris in va said:
Sans, c'mon now. If everyone lived by that line of thinking we'd have anarchy. Judging by your screenname, perhaps that is what you want.

Rules are there for a reason. Some are good, some aren't. We *must* have rules to live by. We just have to make sure .gov doesn't get too big for it's britches.

We do have rules to live by.

Murder and assault are illegal and have been for a few years now. Voila, anarchy averted.

Laws regulating non-active things like possession serve no useful purpose. They certainly don't keep criminals from carrying.

When government has lists and forms dealing with gun ownership and possession, their britches are about to burst.
 
Groups aren't prohibited. However, your right to free speech only extends so far. Consider the old "you don't have the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre just because you want to" argument

Yeah, except that a "prohibited person" can still go into a theater with his tongue attached and can sill CHOOSE whether or not to abuse his right to free speech. You may not have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, but you still have the ability. The same cannot be said of the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Just curious ... which groups of people are prohibited from excercising free speech, and where does one apply for a permit to voice his/her opinion...?

Groups aren't prohibited. However, your right to free speech only extends so far. Consider the old "you don't have the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre just because you want to" argument

So then how come folks aren't gagged before being allowed into a theater ??? :rolleyes:


You're comparing bananas and bowling balls. A more logical comparison would be restrictions against discharging a firearm inside city limits except in cases of dire neccessity. Owning and carrying (concealed or otherwise) harms no one.

I understand the decision of most to obey an onerous and ridiculous law in order to avoid trouble, but please don't make that silly "yelling fire in a theater" comparison. :(
 
Which groups of people are prohibited from exercising free speech?

Off the top of my head there are quite a few. Religious groups are if they want to keep their tax exempt status is the first that comes to mind.

PACs/Political Action Committees have numerous rules regulating what they can say and how they spend their money on advertising.

The FCC regulates broadcasters in the area of politics. Here's a taste:
__________

Section 73.1941 [47 CFR §73.1941] Equal Opportunities.



(a) General requirements. Except as other-wise indicated in § 73.1944, no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any:



(1) Bona fide newscast;



(2) Bona fide news interview;



(3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or



(4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of broadcasting station. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.)



(b) Uses. As used in this section and § 73.1942, the term "use" means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 73.1941 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.



(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.



(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.



(e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

[57 FR 208, Jan. 3, 1992; 59 FR 14568, March 29, 1994]
_____________

Need I continue?

So back to why have a carry permit. Because it'll keep you out of trouble with the law. Simple, no?

John
 
Don't you love google.

"In 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life, a pro-life organization, produced several television ads appealing to Wisconsin residents to ask their senators not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. One of those senators, Russell Feingold, was running for re-election in 2004, which meant—under the McCain-Feingold law, co-sponsored by Feingold himself—that airing the ads would have been illegal.

The same year, the ACLU sponsored radio ads opposing parts of a homeland security bill that affected immigrants. If those ads had been run in Wisconsin and had mentioned Feingold, they too would have been illegal.

How could this be? In 2002, McCain-Feingold stipulated that broadcast ads that mentioned a candidate for federal office less than two months before a general election were subject to federal campaign finance law.

Though they retained some First Amendment rights, labor unions and corporations have been prohibited for some time from contributing directly to candidates for federal office. Until 2002, they like everyone else had a right to sponsor ads concerning public issues and run them at a time of their choosing. Not surprisingly, they ran many of their ads near election day."

- NY Times

What groups indeed. It's widespread.

John
 
Well, a state can impose additional gun control. I personally have come to the conclusion that is why the state has ccw permits to make more prohibited persons. For example some states have restrictions against having people diagnosed with certain mental illnesses having a ccw permit. Just my opinion on the matter.

I am against ccw permits. Owning and carrying a firearm hurts no one. Besides, I figure if a person is dangerous enough to not have a firearm then he/she should be locked up for the safety of others. He/she could use another way to harm innocents.
 
Last edited:
Luku wrote:
I am against ccw permits. Owning and carrying a firearm hurts no one. Besides, I figure if a person is dangerous enough to not have a firearm then he/she should be locked up for the safety of others. He/she could use another way to harm innocents.

Exactly. Punish criminals, not potential criminals.

-Sans Authoritas
 
On a more practical level, I don't know of a single state or government agency that grants licenses for protection. There is no "license to protect myself." It is a license to carry a gun.

On the paperwork for my MA License to Carry,the nice woman at the police department wrote on the line for reason of issuance/denial: "for protection of self and property":D
 
Were we required to tolerate slavery because society tolerated it? Were we required to turn in Jews in Germany because society required it? Were we required to support the government putting people of Japanese descent in concentration camps in WWII because society accepted it?

No. You have every moral right on the face of God's earth to protect your God-given right with the abilities and tools God has made possible, anywhere ON the face of God's green earth. Anyone who wants to infringe this right does so not because it is morally justified, (it is, in fact, a most abominable crime against basic human freedom and rights) but because he has the power to do so. Period.

-Sans Authoritas
Can you provide evidence that "society" approved of slavery or of Japanese’s concentration camps?
 
Sans Authoritas wrote:
Were we required to tolerate slavery because society tolerated it? Were we required to turn in Jews in Germany because society required it? Were we required to support the government putting people of Japanese descent in concentration camps in WWII because society accepted it?

No. You have every moral right on the face of God's earth to protect your God-given right with the abilities and tools God has made possible, anywhere ON the face of God's green earth. Anyone who wants to infringe this right does so not because it is morally justified, (it is, in fact, a most abominable crime against basic human freedom and rights) but because he has the power to do so. Period.
-Sans Authoritas

Service Soon wrote:

Can you provide evidence that "society" approved of slavery or of Japanese’s concentration camps?

Here's one representative of society, and I hear the same thing being spoken today about "Them illegals" by people all over: "They're takin' American jobs."

From Wikipedia: (which cites the Saturday Evening Post) Internment was popular among many white farmers who resented the Japanese American farmers. These individuals saw internment as a convenient means of uprooting their Japanese American competitors. Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, told the Saturday Evening Post in 1942: "We're charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for selfish reasons. We do. It's a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men… If all the Japs were removed tomorrow, we had never miss them in two weeks, because the white farmers can take over and produce everything the Jap grows. And we do not want them back when the war ends, either."

The Saturday Evening Post was a very respected, well-to-do magazine. Whether the magazine agreed with this man's opinion or not, there is no doubt that, despite some opposition, there were enough people who worshiped the great savior F.D.R. (and still do) enough to go along with everything he decreed, rather than be branded as a "traitor" and "hater of America," as many are today, for opposing having U.S. military bases in over 100 countries around the world, and for opposing the invasion and occupation of certain countries, be they Somalia and Bosnia (as McCain opposed) or Iraq, (as McCain now supports.)

According to this researched article, the majority of newspaper Editorials and letters to the editor supported the corraling of Japanese in concentration camps. About two-thirds, to be exact. Letters to the editors were filled with racist virulence, and still allowed to be published. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_200204/ai_n9037368
As we all know, the news media may tend to be, well, "liberal," but perhaps in this case, they reflected a somewhat unbiased cross-section of society? In reading many of the comments, I hear a frightening, not-so-distant echo of what I am hearing today, concerning all Muslims, all Arabs, and anyone who doesn't support each and every policy of the God-created, red white and true blue United States Government.

Beginning in 1941, people on the West Coast were terrified by the prospect of the Japanese hordes swarming ashore, destroying their American, democratic way of life. Irrational fears? Certainly: but government propaganda certainly didn't lift a finger to allay their irrational thinking. On the contrary: those saboteurs and spies were everywhere, just like the terrorists of today. And just like the terrorists of today, people don't mind if they're thrown into prison and forgotten. People want to feel safe, and if "feeling safe" requires torturing people from Afghanistan who were garnered in a "turn in your neighbor as a terrorist" bounty program, they don't care. I call that support. How about you? Such barbarities (though not currently recognized as barbarities by the majority) are being inflicted and touted again as "military necessity." Hopefully, in 50 years, people will wake up and recognize what bestial behavior they supported.

I might as well have said that during WWII, the U.S. society supported the incineration of tens of thousands of innocent people in Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden and Hamburg. They did, and most Americans still believe the "bright, shining lie" that these acts of mass murder were of "military necessity," despite what MacArthur, Nimitz, Halsey, "Hap" Arnold, Eisenhower, and other war leaders said about it.

-Sans Authoritas
 
Last edited:
The Government has no right to make preemptive laws. Requiring CCW permits basically says, "you might be a criminal and we are going to treat you like one until you prove you're not." Requiring a permit to buy, own, or carry a gun is in complete opposition to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

Another important point is that one of the primary reasons our Right to Keep and Bear Arms was established is to keep the Government in check. How are we supposed to keep the Government in check if they get to decide when and how we can exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~ George Washington

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson
 
I am a CCW permit holder, and I recently became a reserve deputy in the county I live in. I will do what ever I can to provide me and my family the security they deserve. One perk on the resevre deputy thing is that I no longer have to leave my pistol in the car when I make a deposit at the bank or go into the school down the street to vote :)
 
Why do I have to have license to protect myself?

You don't.

You do need a permit to carry handgun concealed in Tennesee.

The citizens of the state of Tennessee have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the General Assembly has the power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Any resident of Tennessee who has reached twenty-one (21) years of age may apply to the Department of Safety for a handgun permit. If the applicant is not prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm in this state pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-316 or 39-17-1307(b), 18 U.S.C. 9 (g) or any other state or federal law and the applicant otherwise meets all of the requirements, the Department of Safety shall issue a permit to the applicant.

Permit will be valid for four (4) years from date of issue.
The permit shall entitle the permittee to carry any handgun - which the permittee legally owns or possesses.
The permittee shall have the permit in their immediate possession at all times when carrying a handgun and shall display the permit on demand of a law enforcement officer.
Applications for a new handgun carry permit may be picked up at any Driver License Center.
Go here to learn more.

If you want to carry a handgun concealed in Tennesee, obtain a permit. Tennesee is a "shall issue" state.

At The High Road, we do not advocate breaking the law, whether you believe the law is just or not. If you do not like the laws, work towards changing them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top