careful who you ask questions

[abaddon]

I wouldn't blame the cops so much - the fault lies in our uber-complicated legal system. We have so many laws that no one can get them all straight. Sure, a cop who's interested in 2nd A stuff could be expected to know the laws of his state and region, but people's interests vary. How knowledgeable are you about the eviction laws of your state for example? The fact is ones knowledge of the law is dictated by ones interests. I learned in Kindergarten not to expect everyone to have the same interests I do. We have too many laws for any one person to keep them all straight.

 

[Riverrat66]

If police aren't qualified to advise people on the law, how can they be qualified to arrest people in the name of the law?
If police can't be expected to understand the laws that they're trying to enforce, how can we be expected to?

That's a very good question. How are we supposed to know what the law is if the law doesn't know what the law is?
I posted the statement below and got accused of being in favor of more gun control and that's not at all what I meant. What I meant was, they should get their act together so we as gun owners know what our rights are. There are too many gun laws now that don't work. We don't need anymore.

There are so many "grey" areas when it come to firearms, especially handguns and concealed carry, that it's almost a joke! Every state and county has it's own rules. And even the people who enforce those rules are not sure of them. Everyone needs to get on the same page.

So what is the answer? A national law. A nation wide CCW permit? How can that work when some states don't even require a permit and some states don't even allow concealed carry. Who has the right answer? I think having to ask permission to carry a firearm is bullsh*t, plain and simple.

 

[Dave R]

Tis easier to get forgiveness than permission.

If you ask forgiveness for a felony, such as purchasing a firearms in another state, or carrying illegally, I doubt you'll get forgiveness.

Permission is better in that regard.

The poster has the right idea. Do your homework and obey the law.

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

A Tip About Traveling

When I travel by air or vehicle and I'm going to another state, in addition to my 4 carry permits (CA/NV/UT/FL) I also take a download print-out from packing.org's appropriate page.

I am always very courteous to LEOs and if I were to meet up with Officer #1 in your scenario I would politely say "Perhaps you're not aware of the standing mutual reciprocity agreement that's been in effect since (Date) concerning CCW permit holders of Florida and (Your State). Here, let me update you."

My experience with LEOs has by and large been positive. For one thing, I always make a point of thanking them "for being out here. We really appreciate it". Somewhere in the conversation, we usually discuss their duty gun and compare notes concerning my experience with my Kimber CDP II 1911. I also encourage the officers to come out to their local IDPA and IPSC matches to keep their skills sharpened and tell them what a great group of people they'll meet.

Most officers appreciate those who appreciate them, and because they spend much of their on-duty shift time dealing with jerks who are the scum of society or who show disrepsect, law-abiding certified good guys who are polite, respectful and who carry come across in a positive way.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[Riverrat66]

If you ask forgiveness for a felony, I doubt you'll get forgiveness.

If you're a convicted felon , don't even bother to apply for a pistol permit of any kind in New York State. Forget about it! You won't get it, period! In fact, a convicted felon can't even own a shotgun for hunting purposes. A convicted felon can't even live in a house where there are firearms present, even if those firearms are owned by a relative. I had a distance relative who did time in Attica and when he was released he went home to live and his brother had to get rid of his shotgun he used for deer hunting before he was allow to move in. And his parole officer came and searched the house to make sure there were no firearms present.

 

[DMK]

If police aren't qualified to advise people on the law, how can they be qualified to arrest people in the name of the law?

If police can't be expected to understand the laws that they're trying to enforce, how can we be expected to?

I wasn't trying to make a slam on LEOs. It's just an unfortunate fact. They make arrests based on laws they know. Most arrests are the basic and obvious stuff. They aren't trained to know every law and most importantly, they aren't "kept in the loop" when laws change. Case in point, we had a state law change in NC over the summer that allows purchasing handguns with a CCW permit (instead of requiring a handgun purchase permit). The local Sheriff's dept still did not know about the change just a couple months ago.

The laws are too complicated for anyone to know them all. It's a conviluted, beaurocratic system that is out of control. LEOs do the best they can with it. I'm sure they are even more frustrated by it than we are at times.

 

[Tory]

Reality check

"If you're a convicted felon , don't even bother to apply for a pistol permit of any kind in New York State."

Or anywhere else. If you think it's a matter of state law or handguns only, you are woefully misinformed.

A conviction resulting in ANY diminution of firearms rights under state law (long-arms only being the usual situation) triggers the FEDERAL prohibition against ANY firearms use or posssession. See 18 USC 922(g).

It does not matter WHERE in the US you live. Alaska and Vermont would be the same as New York and California.

 

[Riverrat66]

If you think it's a matter of state law or handguns only, you are woefully misinformed.

Sorry Troy,

But I am not woefully misinformed, you must not have read my entire message. I did not say it was a matter of handguns only. And I did not say it was a matter of state law only either, I am not familiar with the laws of other states so I did not comment on them. Read it one more time.

in New York State a convicted felon can't even own a shotgun for hunting purposes. A convicted felon can't even live in a house where there are firearms present, even if those firearms are owned by a relative.

Troy says: It does not matter WHERE in the US you live. Alaska and Vermont would be the same as New York and California.

Good, I think that's the way it should be.

 

[Tory]

An exercise in reading comprehension

Riverrat66 stated the following:

"If you're a convicted felon , don't even bother to apply for a [1] pistol permit of any kind in [2] New York State."

For those who missed it, the above contained two express limitations:

1. PISTOL permit - implying that long arms would be permissible; and

2. New York state - implying that ownership would be legal in other states.

Both implications are wrong. Once again:

A conviction resulting in ANY diminution of firearms rights under state law (long-arms only being the usual situation) triggers the FEDERAL prohibition against ANY firearms use or posssession. See 18 USC 922(g).

Got that, Riverrat?

1. ANY firearms;

2. ANYWHERE US Federal law is applicable.

As for the excuse that ".. I am not familiar with the laws of other states so I did not comment on them. Read it one more time."

I did; you didn't. Read THIS one more time: STATE law is irrelevant; FEDERAL law controls. And its prohibition is absolute.

But then, you couldn't even spell Tory correctly, so legal analysis may be outside your skill set.

 

[Riverrat66]

Tory,

Why must you be so sarcastic? Are you looking for a debate? Sorry, but you won't get one here. So I misspelled your name. It was a typo. What's the big deal? I suppose you've never done that?

Would it have made you feel better if I had said "a convicted felon should not bother to apply for a pistol permit anywhere in the United States?" I did not know that for a fact and I don't make statements that I'm not sure are correct. All I did was state what I know to be law in New York State. If you want to want to recite Federal law chapter and verse, be my guest. If it makes you feel important, then I'm happy for you.

Have a nice day, Troy.

 

[DMF]

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Quote:
Well I guess that means you're in favor of the federal government coming into control how the issue of firearms ownership, and concealed carry are handled. Hey I guess it's your right to want more control to go to the feds and oppose states rights and sovereignty, but it probably won't make you popular with many THR members.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Hey buddy,

That's not what I said so don't put your spin on it! All I meant was a person could not tell how any given jurisdiction would react to them carrying a concealed firearm especially when the law enforcement people don't even know their own laws. I'm not in favor of any more gun control. In fact, what gun control we already have does not work! Sounds to me like you're a real trouble maker. But I guess it's your right to speak your mind, no matter how stupid it may sound.

Hey "buddy,"

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. The only way for everyone to get on the same page is to have state sovereignty trumped by federal law. Until that happens the various, cities, counties, and states can continue to do whatever they like. You know that whole states rights concept. Which I tend to favor, even as an employee of the federal government, but clearly your suggestion does not. So I am not the "statist" or "trouble maker" because I was not the one who suggested interfering with state sovereignty.

So if you want everyone on the same page, the only way that can happen is the federal government regulates the issue. Until then you'll have to deal with the variations from location to location.

"Stupidity," and "trouble maker," are a matter of opinion. Based on the posts of yours, that followed mine, I'd say you need to look no farther than any reflective surface to find either one.

 

[Riverrat66]

Civility

I didn't make this statement someone else did, so your reputation precedes you.

Fascinating how DMF comes up with such a statist comment. On second thought, I suppose it was entirely predictable.

The only way for everyone to get on the same page is to have state sovereignty trumped by federal law.

No where did I even mention that the federal government should have sovereignty over the states. What I said was it would be nice if us firearms owners were protected, so we could carry our concealed weapons where ever we wanted without the fear of going to jail because some LEO did not know the laws of his state.

I've been carrying concealed for over 35 years and it rubs me the wrong way that I have to ask anyone's permission to do so. There are still four states in this country that one can not carry concealed, period! (Kansas, Illinois, Wisconsin and Nebraska) I think that's outrageous!

I'm a combat veteran, awarded the Bronze Star, 2 Purple Hearts and the CIB and my freedoms are very important to me, especially the 1st. & 2nd. I don't want any government interference in my life at all! If you don't agree with me fine but don't read between the lines and start drawing conclusions. Especially when you don't completely understand what I'm talking about. Be a gentleman and ask me, I'd be glad to explain and have a civil conservation with anyone.

One other question. Why is it that all the "experts" on this forum are always anonymous? Oops! I'm sinking to their level and drawing a conclusion.

 

[BluesBear]

Gee whiz, shouldn't this urination competition be over in Legal and Political?

They have plenty of cheese to go with all of the whine.

 

[Riverrat66]

Gee whiz, shouldn't this urination competition be over in Legal and Political?

Another expert! With almost 5,000 posts in less then 2 years and this is all you can come up with?

They have plenty of cheese to go with all of the whine.

Who's doing the whining now?

And what earth shattering contributions have you made to this world? What branch of the military did you serve in?

Mr. Bear says:

Out of hell and finally in a nice little house, near the beach,

Just exactly where was your idea of "Hell"? Clue us in.

 

[psyopspec]

It's sad to see WildAlaska proven right in this regard.

 

[DMF]

Hey RR66, what branch of military you, I, BluesBear, or anyone, did or did not serve in, is irrelevant to this discussion. You can quote stats on people's posts, you can spout off your military resume, but it's NOT RELEVANT to the discussion at hand, and military service does NOT give your opinion any more weight on this subject, than anyone else.

What is relevant is, you think, "it would be nice if us firearms owners were protected . . .," and that "Every state and county has it's own rules. And even the people who enforce those rules are not sure of them. Everyone needs to get on the same page." As I have pointed out the ONLY way to get you "protected," and everyone "on the same page" is to have the federal government regulate the issue, otherwise the states will be able to do whatever the hell they want, and you will still not have everyone on the same page.

So you don't want the feds running the show, fine I agree it may not be the best plan. However, can you tell me how what YOUR plan is to get everyone on the same page, in "every state and county?" And can you manage to answer that question without questioning my military service (which is extensive) or spouting off more of your military resume?

Thanks "buddy."

 

[artherd]

If police aren't qualified to advise people on the law, how can they be qualified to arrest people in the name of the law?

If police can't be expected to understand the laws that they're trying to enforce, how can we be expected to?

+1000.

It very much IS their job to know the law.

If there are so many laws in a society that they are unknowable by an ordinary person (much less the person charged with DEALING WITH THEM EXCLUSIVELY ON A DAILY BASIS), then they are unreasonable and should be stricken.

Perioid.

 

[BluesBear]

Even if the other person is absolutely and completely WRONG, they've usually got a decently thought-out argument to back up their clueless posts (M.Irwin TFL 07-12-2001)

Then there are those who are determined to be the exception.



__________________

It is my pleasure to help the helpless.​

It is my duty to offer hope to the hopeless.​

But it is not my job to clue the clueless.​

 

[Preacherman]

Enough of this nonsense. Some of you need to get a life!