**** the Law: Illegal Concealed Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
F**k the Law: Illegal Concealed Carry

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/gillespie/gillespie2.html


F**k the Law: Illegal Concealed Carry

by Mark Gillespie

I will admit openly that I carry weapons, both openly and concealed. I will also admit to having done this most of my life. Even as a child, I carried knives, sticks and even homemade nunchaku to defend myself. I grew up in a housing project in Kansas City , and while violence wasn’t necessarily more prevalent there, it happened often enough to warrant protecting myself.

More recently, I acquired my first firearm. As a new weapon owner, I didn’t even think twice about carrying it on my person. It was a matter-of-fact thing to me. I have never and will never ask anyone’s permission to do what is perfectly natural for me to do. However, most Libertarians and ignorant anarchists cheer when the state passes a concealed-carry law. “A boost for freedom-lovers everywhere,†“The state finally respecting the Second Amendment,†et cetera, is what I am hearing on a daily basis. Silly fools . . . .

In the last year, my home state of Missouri has become one of a group of states that has passed a concealed-carry law. On October 11, this law came into effect. Now, never mind the fact that there is no way to acquire a concealed-carry permit, and never mind that in the larger cities, people are already banding together (in violation of the law) to prevent you carrying anywhere other than inside your house. Let’s look at the idea of a concealed-carry law. The principal idea behind the concealed-carry law is that the State can determine what level of protection you are entitled to. After all, don’t they have their different security apparatuses like the police and the various alphabet soup agencies? Why does a “citizen†need to avail themselves of personal protection, is the question foremost on their minds. The idea of someone taking their protection in their own two hands either is anathema to them or something that they cannot comprehend. They also don’t realize that there could possibly be a deeper agenda to the whole gun control idea. So, they sheepishly continue to follow the gun control nuts to their doom, while criminals get bolder and bolder.

The fact is that, as an anarch, I don’t feel that any other individual or their chosen tool, the State, has the right to tell me how much protection and what form of it I may have. Sure, I could see everyone’s nervousness if I was nuclear armed, but a pistol? So, I say, f**k the law! Until the state can guarantee with 100 percent certainty that they can protect me from all harmful individuals (and they never will), I will carry, regardless of their “law.†It has always been possible to have your weapon stolen (confiscated) and your ??? locked up. However, you may find, like I did, that the police might be more on your side than you think. I have never been arrested or had my weapon confiscated. I attribute this to more luck than anything else, but it does prove a point. If the person on the frontlines of fighting crime feels safer with you carrying a weapon, then what the hell does your couch potato, 2.2 children-having, statist neighbors have to say about it?
 
More recently, I acquired my first firearm. As a new weapon owner, I didn’t even think twice about carrying it on my person.

The fact is that, as an anarch, I don’t feel that any other individual or their chosen tool, the State, has the right to tell me how much protection and what form of it I may have. Sure, I could see everyone’s nervousness if I was nuclear armed, but a pistol? So, I say, f**k the law!


I'm sure Mr. Gillespie will find many other people in prison who will agree with his viewpoint. One of them will probably make him his girlfriend.
 
I applaud his stance. If more people were like him, there would be no need for concealed carry laws because it would never have been made illegal in the first place.

Remember...concealed is concealed. How many people have have ever been physically searched for weapons? Relatively few. You have to do something else before you get searched (until we become a true police state, anyway).
 
The fact is that, as an anarch, I don’t feel that any other individual or their chosen tool, the State, has the right to tell me how much protection and what form of it I may have. Sure, I could see everyone’s nervousness if I was nuclear armed, but a pistol?
So, no one can tell him what weapon he can carry, except maybe they can?:rolleyes:
 
How many people have have ever been physically searched for weapons?

The trouble is that the police may search you (for “officer safety†reasons) whenever they feel like it. Perfectly “legal;†no probable cause needed.

What was that other amendment again?

~G. Fink
 
Good for Mr Gillespie.

Good to see that you support our common-sense gun laws, bounty hunter. After all, how could we protect the children if just anyone could carry a gun with getting gooberment permission first? :rolleyes:
 
Let me clear up a misconception about a shall-issue CCW system. You are NOT asking for permission to carry a gun when they cannot say "no", which they cannot unless you are prohibited by virtue of being a felon or mentally incompetent.
 
I applaud his stance. If more people were like him, there would be no need for concealed carry laws because it would never have been made illegal in the first place.

True, but the state laws that banned concealed carry were mostly enacted when open carry was normal and accepted practice, and concealed was mainly the purview of criminals, and ladies, two groups easily discounted, albiet for different reasons. And those in good public standing with a legitamate "need" to carry concealed (i.e. "Middle and upper class Whites" at least in in MO as one example :rolleyes: ) knew they need not fear that law as it would "never" be enforced against them. No one forsaw the day when gun-ownership and carry by the law abiding would be demonized to the extent it is today.

I'm not saying it's right, but the people who didn't fight CCW banning laws when they were first enacted just couldn't forsee when it would be used as a pretext by the states to ban most all public self defense.

True, in many states open-carry has been left on the books as legal, but it mostly serves hunters and the states as a "loophole" to create a de-facto carry ban, because they can point to "open carry" on the books, even though it's nearly impossible to practice other than in the wilderness and in certain locales in the south and western U.S.
 
I'm sure Mr. Gillespie will find many other people in prison who will agree with his viewpoint. One of them will probably make him his girlfriend.

How true. That is why there are not many people willing to give up all their freedoms (prison), so they can exercise one of them, including me.
 
Well, guys, if it were not invasive, I would start a poll to see which THR members would carry and which would not in a case where concealed carry was illegal but there was a definite danger...

Who would be sheep and who would be wolves?

It's easy to say that you wouldn't carry where it's illegal to do so since most people will never have a need for a weapon and most, even on THR, probably don't carry even if they live in a place that "allows" them to do so.

Without beating around the bush and saying something about avoiding dangerous places rather than carrying, how many are willing to give a definite answer to the question, "In an area of known danger, would you carry a concealed weapon even if it were illegal to do so?"

Would it matter to you just how illegal it was (i.e. misdemeanor, felony, shoot you on the spot, etc.)? Would the degree or type of danger matter (i.e. are you willing to get mugged but not killed, are you willing to be raped but not killed, etc.)? Would it matter if it were just you or if you had family along?
 
Rock jock - If you have to apply for and pay for a permit, you are being forced to get permission. It doesn't matter how lenient the criteria are that the state uses, the fact is that they are claiming the right to forbit you to carry if they don't want you to carry.

Harold - In answer to your question, I would.
 
The principal idea behind the concealed-carry law is that the State can determine what level of protection you are entitled to

That just makes me cringe.. we've already let the feds determine that we aren't entitled to protection on school grounds.... and other places..
 
the fact is that they are claiming the right to forbit you to carry if they don't want you to carry.
They cannot forbid you a license if you are not a prohibited person. They must give you a license if you file the paperwork even if they REALLY REALLY don't want to. You don't have to contribute to some politicians campaign or be a celebrity. You don't even have to be nice about it. Saying this constitutues permission is like saying you need permission to receive an inheritence. You don't. Your inheritence is yours, but the state will still require that you complete a few perfunctory steps like proving who you are and filing some paperwork.

BTW, the fee is simply to cover their costs so the blissninnies don't whine about using additional tax funds. Most states have provisions for the poor so money is not an issue.
 
Let me clear up a misconception about a shall-issue CCW system. You are NOT asking for permission to carry a gun when they cannot say "no", which they cannot unless you are prohibited by virtue of being a felon or mentally incompetent.

Sure they can...if you don't pass their required test.

Permit = Permission
 
Sure they can...if you don't pass their required test.
Forgot about that one. However, that is still not asking persmission. You are simply demonstrating the most basic proficiency at using a gun. And I mean BASIC, as in 12-inch groups at ten yards. Timed draws play no part. If someone can't do that, they have no business carrying a gun in the first place.
 
You are simply demonstrating the most basic proficiency at using a gun. And I mean BASIC, as in 12-inch groups at ten yards. Timed draws play no part. If someone can't do that, they have no business carrying a gun in the first place.
The problem is that my definition of basic proficiency and your definition may differ considerably. The Brady people may have another slightly differing definition. Although I support shall issue, it is still a control point that could be used to deny people their rights, and we need to remain vigilant and press forward politically. If we rest on our "protected' rights we will lose them.
 
How about this: anyone who wants to carry a weapon can, if one uses it in an inappropriate manner or is stopped by the police and is a felon or someone that the law has deemed “unfit†then a stiff penalty would be levied. Oops, sounds too much like a RIGHT! BAH!

I have lived in many states before coming to TN and receiving my “permission†license. I never felt unprotected. That’s all I’m going to say ‘bout that! :cool:
 
rock jock, getting a permit is asking for permission. If you don't have a permit you are not allowed to carry. If you ask for one and they give it to you, you now have permission to carrry. The fact that they have to give it you does not change the fact that you have to ask for it.
 
The fact that they have to give it you does not change the fact that you have to ask for it.
Well, that is one perspective. Another is that you are demanding it. The fact remains that "permission" implies the ability to say "no", which they cannot do.

is still a control point that could be used to deny people their rights
It could be, and yes, we must be.
 
rock jock

Let me clear up a misconception about a shall-issue CCW system. You are NOT asking for permission to carry a gun when they cannot say "no", which they cannot unless you are prohibited by virtue of being a felon or mentally incompetent

This doesn't really apply. I have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. How can the state infringe this right? If I am not asking their permission, why do I have to BUY the permit?


Anarchy is not the answer as it provides no solution.
Instead of **** the law, lets change it.
 
It does not matter to me that they cannot say no. What bothers me is that they have already said no by making it illegal to carry without a permit.

BTW, from dictionary.com.

permit- 1. Permission, especially in written form.

license- 1. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission.
2. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.
 
If a law is unconstitutional, it's null and void from the moment it is passed, and may be broken with impunity, according to law (that's from one SC case or another...). And if a law violates peoples' rights, one has no business enforcing it or obeying it.

Ignoring and disobeying may not be the safest thing to do, but it's undoubtedly the right thing to do.

Also, keep in mind that changing the law requires changing a lot of minds first (or having a lot of money). Brazenly and publicly ignoring the law is a good way to spread the idea of changing it. So, full steam ahead - **** the law! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top