**** the Law: Illegal Concealed Carry

[Art Eatman]

A couple of years after the Texas CHL law took effect, the Department of Public Safety polled the licensees. It seems that some 80% or more HAD NOT purchased a new pistol for carry purposes.

, Art

 

[Andrew Rothman]

I think oldfart is eloquent and persuasive, but I don't think our frogs have been boiled yet.

And remember, old folks have been decrying the decline of civilization in their time since, well, the start of civilization.

I'm a bit more optimistic.

In the "good old days" of gun freedom he mentioned, blacks couldn't eat at the same lunch counters, drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools as whites.

I'd say our society has come a long way.

I think that the gun rights thing is cyclical, and I also think the pendulum is swinging back toward rights, as evidenced by the explosion of shall-issue states. No, it's not perfect, but it IS improving.

 

[tyme]

Yeah, we've come a long way with respect to civil rights. Civil liberties, on the other hand, have been spotted fleeing the country in droves. And that's not even mentioning the extreme rate of expansion of government since 1937.

I suppose now that whites, blacks, purples, and greens (and women, and the disabled) are all equal, we don't need any of those pesky liberties - speech? What is there to talk about? Firearms? No way, you might shoot a minority. Search and seizure limits? Nope; everyone's equally subject to abuse of the police power in the fight against drugs and, err, well, "terror."

 

[atek3]

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.

Based on the picture above, I think if he went to jail he might have his own girlfriend

atek3

 

[fjolnirsson]

Atek,
You're a sick man.
How long did it take you to dig up this thread?

 

[crewchief]

I for one am glad that he dug it up for I will no longer live my life in shame and fear based on some of the views ewpressed here.

 

[sturmruger]

When I was 18 I worked at a small store here in the Midwest. The state that I was working in did not allow 18 year olds to carry, or even apply for a permit. I had a couple of local drug dealers come into the store wanting to sign up for a product that we sold. They had crappy credit and would need to put down large deposit if they were hoping to be able to use our product. Needless to say they were not at all happy about the deposit and threatened me when I told them I couldn't change anything.


This had me a little worried. My only option to protect myself was to carry a gun illegally. I can tell you no matter what your political beliefs are carrying when you are not supposed to is scary!!! I was more nervous about the cops pulling me over and doing a vehicle search then I was about those stupid punks. In the end I decided they weren't going to try anything and I just kept my gun at work with me. Still in violation of the law, but a very miniscule chance of it ever being found out.

There are times when you have to go outside the laws to protect yourself, but to me the risk of getting caught was just too much. If you want to take the chance of becoming a felon in your home state that is your call. As much as I disagree with the constitutionality of allot of our gun laws I still follow them when possible. I like my life and my gun collection and will not do anything to jeopardize them.

 

[R.H. Lee]

rock jock said"

, I send in some paperwork, pay what equates to $35/year, and get a little card that keeps me out of jail, entirely outside the discretion of the dreaded big brother "police state". I don't have to worry about getting thrown in jail

Until the agency that "granted" you that favor revokes it. The notion that "the state granteth" is NOT a concept of liberty.

 

[mercedesrules]

(Matt Payne) In the "good old days" of gun freedom he mentioned, blacks couldn't eat at the same lunch counters, drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools as whites.

In the case of private businesses, forcing them to accept blacks, or anyone else, is not more liberty; it is less.

MR

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

I know a lot of folks who simply cannot afford to provide for their families and pay the seemingly exhorbitant fees to also provide them with protection. A co-worker in particular who has five young daughters and a wife that recently became mentally and physically incapacitated through an unfortunate vehicle accident, has all but given up the idea of CCW. He also expressed fears of civil suits and legal fees to defend himself in the court room should the situation arise. This man is a stellar individual and would never entertain the thought of breaking the "law". I feel sorry for his situation.

 

[Treylis]

"

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.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
--Marbury vs. Madison

I completely agree with Gillespie.

If I saw or knew someone was carrying concealed illegally, I wouldn't turn them in. People have a right to self-defense, regardless of what the laws may say. Just consider it "pre-emptive jury nullification". ;-)

 

[Zundfolge]

I was born and raised in Wichita Kansas where I lived from August 1969 to August 2002.

Back in October of 1993 a friend and I where robbed at gunpoint by a "disadvantaged minority youth" in the parking lot of my friend's apartment complex (unrelated side note: years later this apartment complex is the home to the Carr brothers).

Anyway, I told the police officer that was interviewing my friend and I; "Damn, it makes me want to start carrying a gun!". To which this particular member of Wichita's Finest replied "You should!".


I have been carrying concealed for about the last 4 years (y'all do the math ). Frankly I'd have started carrying earlier but I didn't have the disposable income for a handgun.


Thankfully I now live where one can get a permit to carry ... and as for the "illegal carry could make you into Bubba's girlfriend", keep in mind that in KS, concealed carry is only a misdemeanor (and in some areas of the state the local constabulary will look the other way as long as you are one of the "good guys").

 

[Michigander]

In the Colorado Constitution, concealed weapons are specifically mentioned in a way that (appears to me) reserves the power of determining who may or may not carry concealed weopons to the government of Colorado (state, countie, city, village, township?).

Article II, Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

 

[RealGun]

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

To me, legal amateur that I am but able to read, that wording allows open carry as a right of a Colorado citizen.

I believe that State Constitutions that are inconsistent with the US Constitution are in violation of the 14th amendment of the COTUS, which has yet to be tested in regard to the 2nd Amendment. In any case, I see this as reserving the State's authority to require and issue CCW licenses and collect a fee for doing so.

Actually Colorado is to be commended in the sense that they do not ignore their own Constitution as many other States do, having no such qualification in their State Constitution. I think Colorado would be ignoring it, if there was a problem with unrestricted open carry. These laws should mean what they say, not what someone wants it to say by whatever logic suits their purpose.

 

[RealGun]

In the case of private businesses, forcing them to accept blacks, or anyone else, is not more liberty; it is less. - mercedesrules

A bigot would say that. One who was excluded would not likely have that opinion. A legal distinction is made for one's personal dwelling and surrounding property.

A business "open to the public" makes concessions to civil rights, including the right to enter carrying a weapon of self defense.

 

[Zundfolge]

In the case of private businesses, forcing them to accept blacks, or anyone else, is not more liberty; it is less. - mercedesrules

A bigot would say that.

ANY government control (regardless of how well intentioned) is still LESS freedom.

At this point, who do you think would be harmed more by a business that didn't allow blacks, the local blacks or the business itself?

 

[RealGun]

At this point, who do you think would be harmed more by a business that didn't allow blacks, the local blacks or the business itself? - Zundfolge

A bigot would ask that question.

ANY government control (regardless of how well intentioned) is still LESS freedom

Where did you learn this mantra? I don't regard it as a truism at all, and I own a business, carry a gun, and have done my homework on government and politics? Are you advocating anarchy?

 

[Zundfolge]

A bigot would ask that question.

Why are you bating people and trying to cause conflict and flame war by calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot? The generally accepted definition of one who goes online and does what you're doing is troll.

Where did you learn this mantra? I don't regard it as a truism ...

I learned this "mantra" by watching the last few thousand years of history.

Forcing businesses to subscribe to your particular ideals concerning race doesn't make you, me or the black many any more free ... all it does is give government more power to shove other people's beliefs down your, my and the black mans' throats.

The market is much better suited to make these decisions then dictates from the ruling class made at their whim.

 

[mercedesrules]

Realgun) A bigot would say that.

Fallacy: guilt by association. Just because a bigot might say what I said, doesn't prove it's wrong.

One who was excluded would not likely have that opinion.

Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem. A black person excluded from a restaurant could either agree or disagree with me depending on his philosophy.

A business "open to the public" makes concessions to civil rights, including the right to enter carrying a weapon of self defense.

Clearly false - even now. Many businesses are (rightfully) allowed to exclude gunmen.

I own a business,

Since you brought it up, what if government forced you to either lower or raise your prices by 1000%? What if they forbid you from selling to or serving Mexicans? What if they made you wear a TUTU to work?

The point I'm making, RG, is that when government regulates the economy, it makes the market less free. Period.

MR

 

[Treylis]

Business owners should be allowed to exclude customers on ANY basis, including race or gender. It's a violation of property rights to have it otherwise.

Government, on the other hand, absolutely should NOT be allowed to make any such discriminatory decisions.

 

[Mr. Clark]

It's also important to remember that a lot of those lunch counters and restrooms were segregated in the south because by law they had to be. Making black people ride in the back of the bus was not a custom, it was the law. Those laws were enforced by klansmen who had the power of government behind them; some of them were the government (sheriffs, judges, etc.). If government hadn't had the power to regulate such things I doubt there would have been as many segregated services as there were and they would have slowly gone out of business or changed with the growing black population and changing white attitudes.

It is just as much a violation of property rights to keep someone from excluding a certain group as it is to force them to exclude that group. Besides, whoever would do it wouldn’t stay in business long. They would either go broke because everyone (even those not specifically exlcuded) would refuse to spend their money there or they would go broke because their margins are too tight to exclude that many people and still be profitable. Racists are stupid, but they still have to eat.

 

[Frohickey]

Author makes a good point about principle, and following through with it.
If only there were enough people like him, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. And crime would probably be down as well. Boohoo, we wouldn't need as many cops though.

 

[longrifleman]

A business "open to the public" makes concessions to civil rights, including the right to enter carrying a weapon of self defense.

The "public accommodation doctrine" you site is the current mainstream opinion certainly, but is also an intentional attack on the whole idea of individual property rights. If a business owner can't control his property he doesn't really own it. The more accurate description of the system we have today is fascism. Private "ownership" but government control. Even if the motives of the people advocating this are good the outcome is still fascism.

There is also the problem of the expansion of control to achieve complete "equality" or whatever the current buzzword is. Since the world will never be a perfect place there will always be some problem for those seeking power to point to and say "See, bad stuff. Give us power and we will save you." And if I choose not to be "saved" I will likely end up with a bullet in the head in a shallow grave.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

Yeah, try that if you get caught with a firearm your betters don't want you to have. I'll start the thread for your legal defense fund. And another one to help your family for the next 20 years.

Now, back on topic.

Better tried by twelve than carried by six.

 

[RealGun]

No troll here.

If someone states something that strikes me as nonsense, I will challenge it rather than be guilty of tacit approval. I really don't have any more to offer, because we should not be digressing into a discussion of racial discrimination.

However, if someone can substantiate their claims about property rights of a business "open to the public" and explain who "the public" includes, I would be very interested.

In looking for supporting information, I found this interesting quote:

"The Smart Growth movement shouldn't be deterred, because it has history and common sense on its side. The nation rejected the property rights arguments of southern plantation owners in emancipating slaves during the Civil War. At the turn of the century, industrialists argued that property rights gave them the authority to block new government rules forbidding children to work long hours in their stifling factories.

Southern segregationists in the 1960s cited property rights as the reason they refused to serve blacks at lunch counters. Property rights, in other words, has often represented the very worst impulses in our society. "


Full context

 

[Treylis]

Points taken, Mr. Clark. That's why I specifically mentioned that governmental discrimination is verboten.

"The Smart Growth movement shouldn't be deterred, because it has history and common sense on its side. The nation rejected the property rights arguments of southern plantation owners in emancipating slaves during the Civil War. At the turn of the century, industrialists argued that property rights gave them the authority to block new government rules forbidding children to work long hours in their stifling factories.

That's because those southern plantation owners were attempting to claim a "right" to violate the rights of others. There's no such thing. And if you really want to talk about people being "overworked" in that fashion, I highly suggest that you read "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children", by Robert Hessen.

Southern segregationists in the 1960s cited property rights as the reason they refused to serve blacks at lunch counters. Property rights, in other words, has often represented the very worst impulses in our society. "

Property rights are the very foundation of a free society.