State travel tourism Boycott?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I have a couple problems with the OP premise.
My work related travel is not "optional." So, for me that part is non sequitur.

And, for a number of reasons, I was never raised in this 'tradition" of a two week vacation "thing." That's a mix of poverty and also of Unc' Sam dictating what I did "on vacation" (and where/when). So, again, non sequitur.

For those do do have that vacation tradition, I've noticed that they generally fall into two 'camps'--they either go to only the one place, or one a few place; or they never repeat a place to visit. So, neither of those groups would seem to benefit from (or be able to participate in) that sort of a boycott.

As an action of political expression, I'm not sure this would even begin to rise to political attention. And, what is the point of a boycott if it does not get political attention?
 
If I can't carry, I don't go to that state, period! I take security of my family and myself serious. Maybe more serious than others. And that is fine that you choose your way and I choose my way! Not that you take your security less serious. But we all choose the best methods we deem appropriate!
 
If I can't carry, I don't go to that state, period! I take security of my family and myself serious. Maybe more serious than others. And that is fine that you choose your way and I choose my way! Not that you take your security less serious. But we all choose the best methods we deem appropriate!
No disrespect intended to this gentleman, but I'm quoting his remarks as illustrating a certain mindset trap that some tend to fall into. While I would much prefer to carry than not anywhere I travel, not carrying a firearms does not in any way, shape or form mean that I don't take security of my family and myself seriously. Falling into the trap of believing that one can only effectively defend one's self (and family) with a firearm absolutely lulls one into a quite false sense of security.

I've spent time in a number of foreign countries (and some of the larger metro areas in this country: Chicago, NYC, Miami, LA, Baltimore/D.C., etc.) and I haven't always been armed, yet have not felt fear because of that.

In urban areas, and most foreign countries (excluding perhaps Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, et al.), many, if not most of the common scenarios in which one needs to physically defend one's self against can be handled without a gun.

I've availed myself of the "Nike Self-defense system" a couple times as well (disengage and run like hell the other way). Common sense, mindset, physical fitness, knowledge/research, avoidance, are way more important than carrying a gun. Even without a gun, I carry a robust all metal ball-point pen, a folding knife and try to remain aware of items in my immediate surroundings that can be used as impact weapons or used to defend against strikes or edged weapons. OC canisters, a collapsible baton, and the best weapon of all-- a motor vehicle can come in handy.

Frankly, if you feel you absolutely have to be in possession of a handgun carried on your person to be truly safe, you simply do not see the big picture. There are way more threats to my family and me that a handgun carried concealed cannot counter.

Love all the exclamation marks.
 
No disrespect intended to this gentleman, but I'm quoting his remarks as illustrating a certain mindset trap that some tend to fall into. While I would much prefer to carry than not anywhere I travel, not carrying a firearms does not in any way, shape or form mean that I don't take security of my family and myself seriously. Falling into the trap of believing that one can only effectively defend one's self (and family) with a firearm absolutely lulls one into a quite false sense of security.

I've spent time in a number of foreign countries (and some of the larger metro areas in this country: Chicago, NYC, Miami, LA, Baltimore/D.C., etc.) and I haven't always been armed, yet have not felt fear because of that.

In urban areas, and most foreign countries (excluding perhaps Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, et al.), many, if not most of the common scenarios in which one needs to physically defend one's self against can be handled without a gun.

I've availed myself of the "Nike Self-defense system" a couple times as well (disengage and run like hell the other way). Common sense, mindset, physical fitness, knowledge/research, avoidance, are way more important than carrying a gun. Even without a gun, I carry a robust all metal ball-point pen, a folding knife and try to remain aware of items in my immediate surroundings that can be used as impact weapons or used to defend against strikes or edged weapons. OC canisters, a collapsible baton, and the best weapon of all-- a motor vehicle can come in handy.

Frankly, if you feel you absolutely have to be in possession of a handgun carried on your person to be truly safe, you simply do not see the big picture. There are way more threats to my family and me that a handgun carried concealed cannot counter.

Love all the exclamation marks.

Hence why I said in the last part of my post that a gun is not the be end all security and everyone can do what they want.
 
Boycott is too strong a word. I generally don’t have a lot of interest in visiting most of the places that don’t recognize my permit, but there are certainly times I have left my gun at home because it would have been impossible to go somewhere with it. I hope to visit Hawaii in the next few years and not being able to bring a gun won’t make me stay home.

I really have no desire to visit any of the northeastern anti-gun states again except perhaps to pass through on the way to somewhere else. The last couple of times I’ve driven across I64 I stopped right before the IL state line and put my gun in the trunk, then drove nonstop until I crossed the Mississippi River.
 
My last trip out of state wasn't a boycott as I went. However, I stayed across the border in Indiana and only paid 6.35 in tolls to attend a wedding in Chicago. Then I went back to my room in Indiana and back home in the morning.
 
Well, I can't figure out how to copy the quotes from your post, but....

In Oklahoma, it's illegal to carry a loaded (round in chamber) rifle or shotgun inside a passenger compartment, UNLESS one has a concealed carry permit.
Loaded handgun is legal, unless one is denied such because of certain convictions or other judicial proceedings.
So, unless provided by law, it is illegal.

As for the non-carry in certain buildings; Oklahoma, nor any State, has jurisdiction over Federal buildings, thus the carve out for them.
To pass the so-called "permitless carry", one of the trade-offs was allowing the various County and Municipal govts to take their own decision about carry in buildings inside their jurisdictions.
AFAIK, every jurisdiction disallowed carry.

I'm not sure what the "Hmmm" was about, but it came across snarky.
 
I think part of that is true, about buildings, but that is certainly not true anymore of public roads. I would find that hard to believe since Oklahoma is now a constitutional carry state...


21 O.S. § 1289.7 Firearms in Vehicles
A. Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm may transport in a motor
vehicle a pistol or handgun, loaded or unloaded, at any time.
B. Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm may transport in a motor vehicle a rifle or shotgun open or concealed, provided the rifle or shotgun is transported pursuant to the requirements of Section 1289.13 of this title.
C. Any person who is the operator of a motor vehicle or is a passenger in any motor vehicle wherein another person who is licensed pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act or is otherwise permitted by law to carry a handgun, concealed or unconcealed, and is carrying a handgun or has the handgun in such vehicle, shall not be deemed in violation of the provisions of this section provided the licensee or person permitted by law is in or near the motor vehicle.
D. It shall be unlawful for any person transporting a firearm in a motor vehicle to fail or refuse to identify that the person is in actual possession of a firearm when asked to do so by a law enforcement officer of this state during any arrest, detainment or routine traffic stop. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).
 
Last edited:
My son and daughter-in-law went on vacation and intended to visit the Christmas Story House in Ohio, Niagra Falls, and spend some time in Canada.

I advised them to rent a vehicle. If police run a Tennessee tag number, they get back the TDL of the registered owner with carry permit status.
So in certain jurisdictions, police would approach their vehicle poised for shootout. They took a rental car and had a great time, especially in Canada.

New York politicians have told their constituencies they regard NRA members as anti-government extremists and domestic terrorists.
Biden has joked about dropping Hellfire missiles from F15s on AR owners who don't comply with his proposed AWB.
I have no interest in visiting New York or Delaware.

Why Delaware? I looked over their laws, and while not the greatest. They do recognize Texas LTC and with the permit allows me to carry where I am mostly like to go. (Outdoors)
 
My last trip out of state wasn't a boycott as I went. However, I stayed across the border in Indiana and only paid 6.35 in tolls to attend a wedding in Chicago. Then I went back to my room in Indiana and back home in the morning.

Sometimes we have to do what we have to do for certain family or friends!
If I had family or friends that I needed to see In those states I mentioned, then I would obviously have to bite the bullet to go sadly.
 
Well, I have a couple problems with the OP premise.
My work related travel is not "optional." So, for me that part is non sequitur.

And, for a number of reasons, I was never raised in this 'tradition" of a two week vacation "thing." That's a mix of poverty and also of Unc' Sam dictating what I did "on vacation" (and where/when). So, again, non sequitur.

For those do do have that vacation tradition, I've noticed that they generally fall into two 'camps'--they either go to only the one place, or one a few place; or they never repeat a place to visit. So, neither of those groups would seem to benefit from (or be able to participate in) that sort of a boycott.

As an action of political expression, I'm not sure this would even begin to rise to political attention. And, what is the point of a boycott if it does not get political attention?

First off I would like to say thank you for your service, it is much appreciated. I would like to thank your family as well, because they have sacrificed for our country as well. So I appreciate them for supporting you as well.

Well like I said if you read my further replies... my boycott isn’t much of a political statement, because I ended the original post asking or wondering if enough people were doing it that it had an effect on tourism dollars. Which obviously it doesn’t to the scale needed for anyone to care. My tourism dollars that I spend by themselves don’t make A hill of beans difference. That much I do know. Even if an official all out boycott were being done by every gun owner.

Being that my dad was a career Army officer of 25yrs, retired as Colonel, and being a military brat, I know where your coming from. As far as all the trips we took as a family and even as an adult as a family. Except for one place (Moab, Utah... for major off roading 4x4 events) we very rarely hit the same place twice on a trip. Although honestly I have had to personally go a few places I have been before, because my current significant other has never been there, and I wish to take her to places. It doesn’t help either that many places I have been I was younger and went with my parents! Been around the world twice, literally.
Europe, Asia, Africa, Middle East, South America, still have to get to Australia, and to Antarctica (Bucket list visit all 7 continents) but I do have my trips planned, if COVID will ever end.

Having been a military brat, I do understand your Predicament, that you Have to go where Uncle Sam tells you, when he tells you. However, you do have one advantage being in the Military. The vast majority of all the states, and I even think all of the states I have mentioned with the exception of maybe HI, will allow active duty Military to get a non-resident license in the state that they are currently deployed. Some states, even consider an active duty person stationed and deployed in their state as a resident for purposes of getting an LTC. So you do have one advantage over civilians such as myself, IF you did wish to carry.

Even for some people in the civilian world, because of work, their jobs, family and friends are required to travel to places that they would rather not have to travel if they didn’t have too. We all do things for family and friends sometimes we don’t always want to do, and sometimes even more so for the security of jobs!

All of which I can respect!
 
If you drew a line from Florida to Alaska, I've been to all the states on the south side of the line including FL and AK.... traveling by car or motorhome. Other states too by flying like MA to NH area.

While I've seen a lot.... I feel there is still a whole world inside the USA I'd still like to see.




I watch where I go but it's not based on the gun laws.

If I didn't feel I would be reasonably safe unless I had a gun, I wouldn't go even if I had a gun.

Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner!
 
No disrespect intended to this gentleman, but I'm quoting his remarks as illustrating a certain mindset trap that some tend to fall into. While I would much prefer to carry than not anywhere I travel, not carrying a firearms does not in any way, shape or form mean that I don't take security of my family and myself seriously. Falling into the trap of believing that one can only effectively defend one's self (and family) with a firearm absolutely lulls one into a quite false sense of security.

I've spent time in a number of foreign countries (and some of the larger metro areas in this country: Chicago, NYC, Miami, LA, Baltimore/D.C., etc.) and I haven't always been armed, yet have not felt fear because of that.

In urban areas, and most foreign countries (excluding perhaps Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, et al.), many, if not most of the common scenarios in which one needs to physically defend one's self against can be handled without a gun.

I've availed myself of the "Nike Self-defense system" a couple times as well (disengage and run like hell the other way). Common sense, mindset, physical fitness, knowledge/research, avoidance, are way more important than carrying a gun. Even without a gun, I carry a robust all metal ball-point pen, a folding knife and try to remain aware of items in my immediate surroundings that can be used as impact weapons or used to defend against strikes or edged weapons. OC canisters, a collapsible baton, and the best weapon of all-- a motor vehicle can come in handy.

Frankly, if you feel you absolutely have to be in possession of a handgun carried on your person to be truly safe, you simply do not see the big picture. There are way more threats to my family and me that a handgun carried concealed cannot counter.

Love all the exclamation marks.

I absolutely without any doubt whatsoever ever agree there are instances of protecting ones safety that having a gun will be of little to no benefit.

I also agree without any doubt that one should use every possible means to diffuse the situation if possible. Even in states or instances where you have no “duty to retreat” sometimes it is best to retreat. Each circumstance and situation is different and this you could “what if” things to death. Sometimes there are better weapons to use.

I also agree that one needs to learn to become “ Situationally aware“ of their surroundings at all times. That can save your life and of those around you more then anything at all.

However with all that being said, each person and their family have different needs and come into situations differently then anyone else. What works for you may or may not work for me and vice versa.

Like I said in a previous post as an example. My family and I spend a lot of time in the back country, primitive camp sites, 4x4 etc... hiking and camping. We have come across numerous bears and other dangerous animals, & as of yet never found a need to fire our guns. Doesn’t mean we weren’t ready, or prepared.

Our family believes in a simple motto, for many items, not just guns. It’s better to have and not need then to need and not have. We apply that rule to many things not just guns.

I can and do fully respect the decision everyone choose for themselves in if they decide to carry, what they carry, and how they carry, and where they choose to carry.

I do love hearing people’s opinions and thoughts! You have made very valid points that I think everyone who leaves their house should consider and think about.
 
If I want to go somewhere I go there. I would prefer to be able to carry, but I don’t let it dictate if I go. Life is too short to hold political grudges with whole states.
 
Well, I can't figure out how to copy the quotes from your post, but....

In Oklahoma, it's illegal to carry a loaded (round in chamber) rifle or shotgun inside a passenger compartment, UNLESS one has a concealed carry permit.
Loaded handgun is legal, unless one is denied such because of certain convictions or other judicial proceedings.
So, unless provided by law, it is illegal.

As for the non-carry in certain buildings; Oklahoma, nor any State, has jurisdiction over Federal buildings, thus the carve out for them.
To pass the so-called "permitless carry", one of the trade-offs was allowing the various County and Municipal govts to take their own decision about carry in buildings inside their jurisdictions.
AFAIK, every jurisdiction disallowed carry.

I'm not sure what the "Hmmm" was about, but it came across snarky.

per current Oklahoma law...

21 O.S. § 1289.7 Firearms in Vehicles
A. Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm may transport in a motor
vehicle a pistol or handgun, loaded or unloaded, at any time.
B. Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm may transport in a motor vehicle a rifle or shotgun open or concealed, provided the rifle or shotgun is transported pursuant to the requirements of Section 1289.13 of this title.
C. Any person who is the operator of a motor vehicle or is a passenger in any motor vehicle wherein another person who is licensed pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act or is otherwise permitted by law to carry a handgun, concealed or unconcealed, and is carrying a handgun or has the handgun in such vehicle, shall not be deemed in violation of the provisions of this section provided the licensee or person permitted by law is in or near the motor vehicle.
D. It shall be unlawful for any person transporting a firearm in a motor vehicle to fail or refuse to identify that the person is in actual possession of a firearm when asked to do so by a law enforcement officer of this state during any arrest, detainment or routine traffic stop. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).
 
Southern end of the state is utterly different from northern, and well fitting the appellation of "Garden State."

That is where I was brought up, I'm a Piny all the way. But in the past thirty years I wonder how much has changed for the worse.
 
B. Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm may transport in a motor vehicle a rifle or shotgun open or concealed, provided the rifle or shotgun is transported pursuant to the requirements of Section 1289.13 of this title.


Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
§21-1289.13. Transporting a loaded firearm.

Universal Citation: 21 OK Stat § 21-1289.13 (2014)
TRANSPORTING A LOADED FIREARM

Except as otherwise provided by the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act or another provision of law, it shall be unlawful to transport a loaded pistol, rifle or shotgun in a landborne motor vehicle over a public highway or roadway. However, a rifle or shotgun may be transported clip or magazine loaded and not chamber loaded when transported in an exterior locked compartment of the vehicle or trunk of the vehicle or in the interior compartment of the vehicle notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1289.7 of this title when the person is in possession of a valid handgun license pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act.

Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1289.15 of this title.

Any person who is the operator of a vehicle or is a passenger in any vehicle wherein another person who is licensed pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act to carry a handgun, concealed or unconcealed, and is carrying a handgun or has a handgun or rifle or shotgun in such vehicle shall not be deemed in violation of the provisions of this section provided the licensee is in or near the vehicle.
 
I am just wondering out of curiosity if anyone here actively for themselves and their family “boycotts” various states by refusing to take trips...

...because those states won’t recognize your states LTC/CHL and/or won’t allow you to get a non-resident LTC/chl with their state

I agree in principle, but application is a lot more different. Going west I just about must go through IL. I will not fly to HI for vacation, if they wish to remain an island (re: of anti-2a) let them have it. I will not go to CA. Etc. That said, I was actually contemplating a reverse idea as a thread topic, where is it exactly in the USA where I can support that state? Local area? Where they are 100% gun friendly...
So, I cannot go to X grocery store or Z restaurant, or, buy a smartphone from UY, or watch XC sports, all them have anti-2A agendas. If that is a ''so be it, so say we all'' then the we all will save a lot of $ and lose weight from not grocery shopping or eating out LoL!

So by comparison, figuring which state to go on vacation is an easy lift IMHO
 
I do not intentionally travel to/through Maryland if I can avoid it. And that's only a concern because I work in the Norfolk, VA area and one of my older brothers and his wife used to live/work in the Manassas/DC area. If I have to travel through MD, I take appropriate precautions with respect to the federal law and don't stop unless I absolutely have to.

Other places/states...well, it's a balance act. We're come up on our 25th wedding anniversary in a few months, and Hawaii is the planned destination (COVID stuff permitting). Sorry, folks, but that's an instance where I'll make the sacrifice.

Same with a trip overseas, like to Ireland, that my wife wants to visit some day.

I here ya Brother. I do my best to stay the Heck out of DC, Baltimore area.
 
As a resident of one of the states you mentioned in your boycott question, I will share a few points.
The anti 2nd amendment view is not the view of many residents in this state, especially the rural areas. Our state has one very, very large city and over 50% of our state legislature comes from this large city and the area around it. THIS CITY CONTROLS THE ENTIRE STATE.
Many of you would say - I am an idiot for living here and should just simply move to another state. Easy to say, not always easy to do. I have an aged mother with Alzheimers. She is in a faciltiy close to our home. She is my responsibility and even though she is in a facility, she still requires my attention every week.
Many of the rural businesses in this state are strong 2nd amendment supporters.
 
Back in the 70’s and 80’s you couldn’t hardly concealed carry anywhere. Big world out there. I just Thank God most of my vacation areas are gun friendly. The big cities suck especially now with the virus running it course.
 
Post #50 BFFGColorado:
"Biden has joked about dropping Hellfire missiles from F15s on AR owners who don't comply with his proposed AWB."
Pretty funny and not true. Hellfire is carried primary by Apaches and UAVs..not even the F-15E..ahh, the internet..if it's on the internet it MUST be true.

Biden has a thing about F15s with Hellfire missiles.

As early as Oct 2015 Biden's line was: "The Second Amendment doesn’t say you can own a bazooka or an F-15 with hellfire missiles. There is ability of government to limit the type of weapon available."

Joe Biden at a campaign event in Somersworth, N.H. 5 Feb 2020 on AWB refuseniks who wouldn't surrender their ARs: “Those who say ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots’—a great line, well guess what: The fact is, if you’re going to take on the government you need an F-15 with Hellfire Missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you if you’re worried about the government knocking down your door."

So it is true that Biden believes F15s carry Hellfire missiles.

Maybe it's not true that he was joking.

As far as dropping missiles out of the sky on perceived enemies, 14 Oct 2011 Joe Biden was VP in the administration that dropped a missile from a drone to kill an alQaeda leader (Ibrahim al-Banna) in Yemen, hitting a restaurant killing 7 or 9 people (depending on sources) none of whom was the target but who included a sixteen year old American citizen with no personal history of terrorist activity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top