lloveless
Member
I could not legally carry a gun til ccw came along, it has been an opening wedge to OC, and constitutional carry. With more people carrying this has led to a drop in violent crimes.
ll
ll
I'll bet if you tried to convey that line of thinking to someone who lived 100 years ago, he'd think you were a scalawag, a ruffian, or a plain old assassian.
You all must appreciate the concept of the right to carry arms in the 1700's didn't apply to the right to concealed arms. Only bandits, robbers, and nare-do-wells hid their weapons from public view.
I'll bet if you tried to convey that line of thinking to someone who lived 100 years ago, he'd think you were a scalawag, a ruffian, or a plain old assassian.
You all must appreciate the concept of the right to carry arms in the 1700's didn't apply to the right to concealed arms. Only bandits, robbers, and nare-do-wells hid their weapons from public view.
I saw no post in this thread touting the benifit of a permit that wasn't a result of a right taken away or infringed, that is no good reason for a law and we should be outraged.
HOWEVER, if we had started by DEMANDING that we should be allowed to carry, open or concealed, anywhere we want, where would we be now?
In states that require a safety and State gun law course and a background check:What good do carry permits accomplish?
What we have is better than we've had before (at least in any of our lifetimes) and the improvement that began with FL's shall issue law is still continuing to spread. Not only is shall issue now the rule, rather than the exception, at least two states have now moved farther and have permitless carry.THAT is the point I am trying to make. And THAT is the reason I see as being in the mess we are in now. We have come to accept compromise as being good for us.
They're still positives even if they're not the ultimate goal.So why are we so willing to sit by and talk about all these "positives" that carry permits bring to us, when they are nothing less than the "separate but equal" situation that we were given as a "compromise" to having our rights taken away to begin with?
I will certainly agree that Constitutional Carry is the goal.
However, we have used the antis' own creeping incrementalism against them. We started with a few states going shall-issue. As that spread, and there were no negative consequences, more states looked more and more foolish for not doing it. This has led to several states being able to show that Constitutional Carry makes even more sense.
HOWEVER, if we had started by DEMANDING that we should be allowed to carry, open or concealed, anywhere we want, where would we be now?
There are a good many people here who speak of constitutional carry. Yet there are very few who know what the Constitutionalists spoke of when they considered the carrying of arms.
I assure you it was not universal, meaning whoever could carry whatever, whenever.
Even the briefest of glances through their intent would startle some today.
This is my opinion. I have a carry permit in my state, however I believe anyone from age 21 or older should be able to legally carry, concealed or not - with only a valid state ID or drivers license. I believe that is the way it is in Arizona, Vermont and Alaska.
I think my question was misunderstood, so I will try to clarify and re-ask it in a different way:
What advantage or good does the permit required to carry a gun in a state such as Oklahoma or Texas provide over being able to carry a gun in accordance with Constitution in a state such as Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, and for Wyoming residents in Wyoming?
One advantage listed was you don't have to pass the NICS check in some states if you have a permit. Well...let's see. To get my CPL in Washington, I have to pay $55 and get my fingerprints taken. To pass a NICS check costs me nothing, and is done via one form that I fill out at the gun store counter. (Washington does have one additional form, but is also no cost and no fingerprints). So, I must ask, really, which is of more benefit? Paying for the "card" and going through the hassle to get me out of the NICS check that would be free and one form and phone call anyway done at the gun store vice a separate trip to the cop shop.
So now we are to believe that the knives common to most of us today are to be frowned upon as well as concealed handguns.Well the Founders' idea's revolved around the open display of arms.
Even they felt the hidden dirk or dagger was the tool of the robber.
I happen to feel that Pennsylvania's weapons laws quite closely mimic the founder's intent.
Good people carried arms openly, in their eyes, only those with nefarious intent secreted dirks and daggers - which were the offensive weapons of the 1700s.
Dirks and daggers have almost no offensive use. One really couldn't fight with them. They were extremely close range weapons. And in their eyes, they were the tools use to finish an enemy on the battlefield once he was defeated. Because after all, that's exactly what they were designed to do.
Or the preferred weapons of criminals and assassins, once their prey was close and lulled into false security.
Honorable men wore their swords and rapiers openly. Swords and rapiers could be both offensive, and yet defensive weapons. But daggers and dirks were considered offensive weapons only, and in the eyes of the early Colonial only used to subdue an unarmed opponent, or deliver a finishing blow to an armored one, but not as a defensive tool. And when the BoR was penned, the sword and rapier was still the most affordable arm a man could own.
Even they frowned upon honorable men walking amongst other honorable men with hidden dirks and daggers. Interestingly, PA law still considers those weapons of offense, serving no defensive purpose.
__________________