Unlicensed Concealed Carry

[airforceteacher]

This thread, and the concept of "who is likely to actually commit a crime with a gun" just reminds me of one of my favorite conundrums.

I am a commissioned officer in the military.
I am entrusted to care for secrets and defend my country.
I have weapons training.
I cannot even bring a firearm on base locked in the trunk of my car, let alone care it open or concealed.

(I bought it at the BX and had to sign a form stating I was aware of the policy that I needed to take it off the installation immediately - I couldn't even leave it in my car while I went back to work.)

 

[Tom Servo]

Easy, there. Don't get me wrong. I think EVERYBODY (law-abiding) should carry, and they should also carry the weight of the responsibility that goes with it.

Good point. Freedom has responsibilities. Theoretically, I'm free to march down Main Street in a tinfoil hat proclaiming that the invisible spiders are coming for us (and that it's all W's fault) out of a bullhorn.

But that's not the way responsible people act. There has to be a balance, but I don't like the idea of the government deciding what it should be.

That said, I've got a good way to mandate training for carry permits without trampling anybody's rights.

Pass a law requiring a one-semester non-elective firearms safety course for high-school graduation.

<insert sound of Sarah Brady choking on her coffee>

Problem solved.

It's been awhile since I was there, but aren't there still ROTC instructors who could teach this? There's alot more to shooting than just physical manipulation of a machine; I'd be willing to bet more than a few thugs/hippies/emo kids would come out with a different sense of things after taking the class.

Heck, I'm willing to bet there's a direct connection between increased traffic fatalities among teenagers and the lack of drivers' ed classes in high school.

 

[BrianB]

firearms safety course for high-school graduation.

Winner!

 

[LongRider]

2A is a RIGHT not a Privilege

ZombieHunter

In VT and AL anyone who owns a gun can drop it in their pocket, that's cool, you've demonstrated that you meet the requirements to own a gun. To me that's different than carrying it around all day everyday.

This make no sense do you have reason to believe that those in VT and AL do not carry all day every day since that is in fact what their states allow? If not what is the point of your statement?

BrianB

Easy, there. Don't get me wrong. I think EVERYBODY (law-abiding) should carry, and they should also carry the weight of the responsibility that goes with it.

Agreed, no training, licensing, certification, registration or permit required. There are laws in place for all those who abuse guns so no training, licensing, certification, registration or permit required to assure those that abuse their right suffer appropriate consequences.

BrianB

I don't mind getting on the road with folks who have had SOME level of education about the rules of the road, and I don't mind asking my neophyte neighbor to learn which end of the barrel is the dangerous end.

A) Driving is a privilege, bearing arms is a right, Two very different things requiring two very different set of standards
B) Asking and demanding are two different things

ar10

I've been carrying since Ohio law allowed it in 2004. I also think that carrying a concealed weapon is just like the driver license its a privilege not a right.

I have been carrying in Washington, South Dakota, Utah, Oregon and Idaho off and on since 1975 maybe that extra twenty nine years of carrying, experience and having an active awareness my Constitutional Rights have taught me something. If so they have they have taught me that what you think is ABSOLUTELY WRONG The RIGHT to bear arms is a RIGHT not a privilege. That is why it is called a RIGHT not a privilege. Why is it that gun owners of all people believe and support the Brady Bunches moronic pile of non sensical propaganda? What is so hard to understand about The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Please note the word RIGHT not privilege is used. Our founding father wrote exactly what they intended. It is there for a reason. It affirms an inalienable GOD (or nature if you prefer) given right for all living beings to live and to defend that life. Who do the antis and the Brady Bunch think they are, that they think they can over ride God? There is nothing in the Second Amendment requiring training certification registration or permission or about how your arms are to be carried. It does not say except for concealed weapons or except for semi autos. There are no exceptions to that RIGHT that Shall Not Be Infringed. Making fear based decisions to bow down to appease the antis is what has gotten us into this dilemma where the public apparently including concealed weapons owners no longer understand the meaning of what a RIGHT is or what Not To Be Infringed upon means. We need to stop kowtowing to the lunatic fringe and stand up for our rights as they were written and intended. Please if you are uncertain or confused get a dictionary read the Constitution and accept that our Founding Fathers wrote EXACTLY what they intended. Please do not aid the antis and sell out our rights. Please, don't support them by parroting their propaganda. There are places to compromise this is not one of them. Compromising with the lunatic fringe is the path to subjugation & slavery.

Regarding the argument that training reduces accidents bad shoots or ND. It has been said and asked repeatedly please supply some evidence that that is in fact the case. So far not one person has been able to supply any facts to support that argument. Again please do not diminish yourself by resorting to the antis Brady Bunch reasoning. That because you "feel" training reduces ND's or bad shoots it must be so. Wrong. Feelings are not facts. Never have been, never will be. Just because something makes you feel better is not justification to infringing upon my right to live or defend my life. Offer some verifiable evidence that your feelings are based upon fact, than maybe we have grounds to discuss why my rights need to be infringed upon, until than please do not expect me to willingly endanger my life or the lives of those I love so that some people will feel better. Our lives trumps anyones feelings.

The other argument that openly carried guns are somehow less dangerous than concealed guns is so far out there I can not even begin to address that. Do openly carried guns not go boom when you push the boom button? Or do they have less lethal bullets? I don't think even Sarah Brady, Obama or Hillary would go there. I of course could be wrong as those folks come up with pretty insane trash like claiming a right means a privilege.

Erik F

Pass a law requiring a one-semester non-elective firearms safety course for high-school graduation.

Agreed I am all for requiring gun safety training in order to graduate high school. Of course I am one of those folks who believe that being able to speak write and understand english should also be a requirement for graduation.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

In 1977 I was employed at a news/talk/sports radio station. The sports director was a name you'd recognize so I won't mention it directly. We were scheduled to do the announcing for the local Golden Gloves right across the street from the station.

As we walked over, he handed me a brown paper bag and said "hold this a while my arm is hurting me." We walked in, got to our assigned ring side seats and he asked for the bag back. Inside, what I thought was a thermos and a sandwich, was a .357! I said "Damn, why'd you give me that to carry." The guy had no valid excuse but said he was mugged inside Busch Stadium's parking garage in St. Louis years ago and had carried ever since. He and his announcer family are synonymous with the Cardinal organization. Remember, this was 31 years ago..way before Texas had CHL.

I dismissed the event as a paranoid creep not willing to carry a concealed weapon into a sporting event himself and left me "holding the bag." He and I never said another word to each other. About 2 years later, after he had left and gone to a big St. Louis sports radio station on his uncle's coat tails, I was mugged and started to carry a .38.

I exercised my Right to carry for years before Texas instituted the CHL. I doubt I was alone.

Carrying without a CHL wasn't unique to myself.

 

[searcher451]

The right to keep and bear arms is a right, all right, but there are a whole bunch of people out there who I would rather not see exercise this right -- from career criminals to wannabe gangsters to ... certain politicians. Some regulation can be a good thing; put another way, all regulation is not necessarily bad. I think it's a mistake to equate this situation to obtaining a driver's license. Instead, equate it to what actually takes place on the road. If everyone did everything they wanted to on the highway -- from which lanes to use to how fast you choose to drive to how to execute a turn -- chaos would reign and accidents and death would be the norm. Highway safety is a set of regulations that work for everyone's benefit. If we transfer that logic to the gun world and toss it all out the window, the resulting chaos would not only make the Brady Bunch relevant but would provide them (and others like them) with far more power than they have today. And that's something we do not need.

 

[Janitor]

... If we transfer that logic to the gun world and toss it all out the window, the resulting chaos would not only make the Brady Bunch relevant but would provide them (and others like them) with far more power than they have today. And that's something we do not need.

From your argument, I'm guessing you've seen statistics that Alaska & Vermont have seen a lot of problems due to the lack of required permit?

 

[Soybomb]

The right to keep and bear arms is a right, all right, but there are a whole bunch of people out there who I would rather not see exercise this right -- from career criminals to wannabe gangsters to ... certain politicians. Some regulation can be a good thing; put another way, all regulation is not necessarily bad. I think it's a mistake to equate this situation to obtaining a driver's license. Instead, equate it to what actually takes place on the road. If everyone did everything they wanted to on the highway -- from which lanes to use to how fast you choose to drive to how to execute a turn -- chaos would reign and accidents and death would be the norm. Highway safety is a set of regulations that work for everyone's benefit. If we transfer that logic to the gun world and toss it all out the window, the resulting chaos would not only make the Brady Bunch relevant but would provide them (and others like them) with far more power than they have today. And that's something we do not need.

I'm not sure what parallel you're trying to show here. You can still have laws regarding gun use without mandatory training and licensing. I don't think anyone has suggested laws about murder, assault, intimidation, etc with firearms be revoked.

 

[JesseL]

Nobody is suggesting letting everybody do whatever they want with firearms. We have the rights to keep and bear arms, not empty a magazine into the sky to celebrate the 4th of July.

Regardless of licensing, I don't see anyone here suggesting that all regulation of firearm use be thrown out the window. Everything from inappropriate brandishing of a firearm to murder will remain illegal, regardless of whether a permit is required to simply carry a gun.

 

[Lashlarue]

I carried for thirty years before Texas passed a CHL law.End of story!

 

[Tom Servo]

Agreed I am all for requiring gun safety training in order to graduate high school. Of course I am one of those folks who believe that being able to speak write and understand english should also be a requirement for graduation.

As a naturalized citizen of this country, I agree wholeheartedly. Heck, even kids born and raised here can't speak anything remotely recognizable as English.

Nobody is suggesting letting everybody do whatever they want with firearms. We have the rights to keep and bear arms, not empty a magazine into the sky to celebrate the 4th of July.

Exactly. There are already laws to punish that. If I use my gun as a firecracker, I could be charged with

• disturbing the peace
• reckless endangerment
• assault with a deadly weapon (if the bullets hurt someone on the way down)
• vandalism (see above)
• and a local ordnance prohibiting discharge of firearms over a county road

There's no need for laws restricting our right to keep and bear arms. There are plenty of ways to punish those who abuse freedoms.

 

[Janitor]

There's no need for laws restricting our right to keep and bear arms. There are plenty of ways to punish those who abuse freedoms.

Bingo.

Not requiring a permit to carry concealed doesn't mean murder has just become legal.

 

[jakemccoy]

According to the courts, driving is a right, not a privilege:

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/DrivingRight.html

I personally think driving is a privilege.

 

[ar10]

I have never argued the Right to keep and Bear Arms is not a privilege but a right. Some cities attempt to legislate individual rights and it's been happening since the late 60's early 70's. This simply means we have nearly 40 yrs of city codes that are suddenly being struck down thru State legislatures.
Keeping and bearing arms is one of those terms that are vague to say the least. In 1776 there was no reason to carry a concealed weapon and you had the right to protect yourself. We have that same right now. With the exception of CA and DC you can keep firearms in your house/business. I'm not sure but I don't believe any state prohibits outside plain view carry. I will say that in many cases doing so will make you stand out particularly with the local LEO's.
Carrying a gun concealed is not defined in the 2nd Amendment. At least I haven't read it. I have seen a lot of interpetations mostly via the internet but nothing is stated in the 2nd. That's what Courts are for, so to me CCW is a privilege just like a driver's license. And if you violate that privilege whether it's driving OVI or misusing a gun or any of the State laws pertaining to it. You loose the privilege.

 

[Defensory]

I support Vermont/Alaska style carry, with a few common sense exceptions of course.

1. Persons convicted of one violent felony, as well as those convicted of two misdemeanors of a violent or gun-related nature, would not be allowed to carry concealed.

2. Private property rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. That means if a private business doesn't want firearms on their premises, that's their right. They would be required to post a sign giving notice that they don't allow them.

The business owner would NOT be allowed by law to have a person arrested merely for carrying on their property. It would be appropriately handled under trespass laws. Businessman asks gun owner to leave, gun owner refuses, businessman would call police and have gun owner escorted from the premises.

Any gun owner who has a problem with not being allowed to carry in a private business, can exercise their own rights and refuse to buy anything from them, and even organize a boycott of that business.

3. There are common sense restrictions even in Vermont and Alaska, such as no carry in courthouses, jails etc. These restrictions would remain in place, as determined by state law.

 

[TAB]

The business owner would NOT be allowed by law to have a person arrested merely for carrying on their property. It would be appropriately handled under trespass laws. Businessman asks gun owner to leave, gun owner refuses, businessman would call police and have gun owner escorted from the premises

thats not even a slap on the wirst, it needs to at the very least be an infraction ( ticket)

 

[JesseL]

thats not even a slap on the wirst, it needs to at the very least be an infraction ( ticket)

Isn't it felony trespass when someone refuses to leave private property and has to be forcibly removed by the police?

 

[TAB]

not everywhere. besides most people are smart enough to leave when the police tell them too.
( yeah there are plenty of "smart" people that don't)

 

[blackcash88]

With the exception of CA and DC you can keep firearms in your house/business.

Huh? Not sure about businesses, but firearms are perfectly legal to be kept at home in CA and DC. DC has a ban (for now) on hand guns, but long guns are OK even if they do have some funky storage requirements. No hand gun ban in CA (even in Los Angeles and San Fagsicko) and many areas in CA will issue a carry permit, too.

 

[Defensory]

In virtually all fifty states now, trespass laws are pretty much the same, with very few exceptions.

If you refuse to leave and the police are summoned, the police will instruct you to leave, and will escort you off the premises.

If you refuse police instructions to depart, they will place you under arrest for criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor.

Just about the only way you can be charged with felony trespass is if you commit significant property damage, usually $1000.00 or more.

 

[H088]

Concealed Carry is Concealed Carry, if your good at it no one will know, so it won't matter where you go.........

 

[TAB]

Concealed Carry is Concealed Carry, if your good at it no one will know, so it won't matter where you go.........

so you like breaking the law?


in many states carrying where prohibated is a felony.

 

[H088]

so you like breaking the law?


in many states carrying where prohibated is a felony.

If somone has a public business and CC is legal in the state that business has no grounds to prevent somone from entering. If they do prevent you from entering you should be able to sue for discrimination.

If they found out that you were carrying, the only thing that will happen to you is you will be asked to leave, at least in my state. I didn't know self protection should be considered a crime.

 

[TAB]

what about bear feet, or no shirt?

if you were not allowed to enter some place becuase of that it would be discrimantion, and you should be able to sue. or I know, not leting some one into your store becuase that where in KKK dress... free speach is just as much of a right as carrying... if you kicked them out could they sue?

 

[H088]

Concealed Carry is Concealed, I will give you an example, should someone be able to be kicked out of a store if they have KKK tattooed on there back, but it wasn't visible and no one could see it?

Of course not, CC is the same concept.