Concealed Carry (free speech, felony, Illinois, money)

[melinuxfool]

Originally Posted by swagger

No.

Until you recognize that the imposition of a CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT (emphasis yours) is an unconstitutional requirement, there's no point in reading any further into your response than that first sentence.

You're trying to make a distinction between ownership of a firearm and the carrying of it, as the 2nd Amendment relates to it. There isn't any. "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward. Requiring someone that can legally own a gun to obtain a special permit in order to carry that gun - whether open or concealed - is infringement, plain and simple. Until you "get" that, there's no point in continuing to try to converse with you about it.

Well, I don't know where you live, but here in Maine the conceal carry permit is only necessary if you want the gun hidden. In fact, I believe in most states, except the usual anti-liberty states, you only need the conceal carry permit if you want to hide it. But out in the open, in a holster, there is no need for state permission. Open carry is the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

If you're worried about it being stolen, get a retention holster. Any place that passes a law require a permit for open carry is in blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment. Check out OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost! for more information.

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by Thaskateguy

If a person commits a crime, and pays what ever price society deems reasonable, then why is that not enough punishment? If there is no end to the term of punishment, then we are basically giving them a "Life Sentence" for a simple felony, such as stealing a car.

As far as the permit for a concealed carry. I feel it is unfair to discriminate, and say "One can defend themselves, and their Home, and family, if you Pay a fee. but if you don't have the money, sorry, to bad for you and your Family".---In actuality, how does the Money part even equate to a Person's "inalienable right to self defense"? When did freedom require a price tag.

Why would you need a concealed carry permit to defend your home and family?

[ovcatto]

Here's my one cent.

When I lived in Florida, in order to obtain a concealed weapons permit a person had to take an 8 hour course, and demonstrate proficiency. However, if you were prior military you were exempted from having to take the course. I am prior military but chose to take the course anyway. For me, to sit through a class with a former prosecutor who explained the legal aspects of carrying a firearm and what constituted used of deadly force, and more importantly, what did not, was well worth the price of admission. As for the proficiency portion of the class, I got waived through after the first stage but I can't say that for most of my classmates, many of whom couldn't hit the broadside of a battleship.

Sorry folks, there is more to carrying a concealed firearm that quoting the Constitution.

You need to KNOW what is the law in your area regarding the use of deadly force.

You need to KNOW how to deliver rounds on target.

Now that I live in Pennsylvania where there are absolutely no requirements other than showing up at the local constable (their phrase) I find the Pennsylvania law a travesty both for the public and those who applied for a permit. By just issuing permits, good law abiding folks are strapping a firearm to their hip and walking around without the slightest clue of what the law is, or how to effectively use their weapon if and when they need to.

We don't let service personnel out of book camp without know how to use their weapon. We don't let cops walk a beat without some level of proficiency, it is just as irresponsible to issuing agencies to allow folks to walk around armed in a far more complex environment than a battlefield or a crime scene without knowing the law or the proper use of their weapon.

That is why I am all in favor of training requirements and licensing.

[Robert_J]

Originally Posted by Thaskateguy

Most Texans ar taught all about firearms as Children, just like we learn about cars, and crescent wrenches. It's all part of our everyday education.

EXACTLY! Gun safety was taught from day 1. I was in 2nd grade when I learned exactly what a .30-30 Marlin would do to flesh. I'm 41 and still have vivid memories of going with my father on my first deer hunting trip.

When I decided to get my carry permit, I studied the law here as well as neighboring states where I travel.

[Thaskateguy]

For those that have not been given fire arms instruction their entire life, will not be brought up to speed, with some 8 hour crash course. Skills must be practiced for years, until they become reflexes. All this thinking that one has the time to stop and figure things out, and to then decide if something is legal or not, is not truly under attack. When under attack, nothing but reflexes come into play. That is why so many have their guns taken away from them in a confrontation. their minds freeze up on them, from lack of experience.

[007.5]

Originally Posted by swagger

Mississippi Concealed Carry Permit Information

C'mon... You couldn't do that much on your own?!

Mississippi should be ashamed of themselves for not mandating a formal course of training in order to have a concealed weapon. That is lax and irresponsible ; Im sure theres been ramifications galore from people not being properly trained on how their handgun works, how to safely use it , how to clean it , how to store it, where to store it, how to hold the handgun so it doesnt accidentally go off, where not to point it, how to safely retrieve it from a holster, how to aim, breathe control, loading and unloading, et al... Unless one is proficient in all of these, it is nothing but an accident waiting to happen to oneself or an innocent party nearby.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by 007.5

Mississippi should be ashamed of themselves for not mandating a formal course of training in order to have a concealed weapon. That is lax and irresponsible ; Im sure theres been ramifications galore from people not being properly trained on how their handgun works, how to safely use it , how to clean it , how to store it, where to store it, how to hold the handgun so it doesnt accidentally go off, where not to point it, how to safely retrieve it from a holster, how to aim, breathe control, loading and unloading, et al... Unless one is proficient in all of these, it is nothing but an accident waiting to happen to oneself or an innocent party nearby.

Do you believe that most (or any) states require a course that covers all those things in order to obtain a CCW?

[ogre]

Originally Posted by Thaskateguy

Most Texans ar taught all about firearms as Children, just like we learn about cars, and crescent wrenches. It's all part of our everyday education. We put food on the table with firearms. and keep critters away from the Hen house with them. --It's hard for me to see how an adult would need "Lessons" on how to operate a pistol. And to need to take a class on when to shoot someone, is ridicules. Believe me, when the time comes, you will know. And if you have to stop and think about it for one second, it will often be you that gets shot. Some it seems, have reverted back to wimps, rather than Chimps.

The point Thaskateguy makes here about the number of adults who are already knowledgeable about the use of firearms is one reason that I have a problem with the requirement for a firearms safety class. Many gun owners have learned about guns from a young age. Many could probably effectively TEACH a class on proper handling of firearms. Thus in many cases it requires unnecessary time and expense to obtain a CCW permit. So there is a practical argument against this requirement. I also have a certain philosophical view against such a requirement, as I feel that there are such serious potential consequences both to owning/carrying and not owning/carrying a gun that such decisions need to be left up to individuals, who are in the best position to assess their own situations and needs, rather than have government-imposed blanket requirements for everyone, which cannot possibly take into account all the variants in each individual's circumstances.

As for convicted felons owning guns, this is tricky. I can see an argument for allowing those whose crimes did not involve violence, or any direct threat to persons, to possess firearms. On the other hand, while I disagree with LaoTMF's assertion that bad credit is always a sign of a character flaw serious enough to prohibit someone with bad credit from owning a gun, it is certainly possible that a case could be made for the idea that one who commits a felony has demonstrated a lack of character severe enough that it would be irresponsible to allow this person to lawfully use firearms.

It's a complicated issue. Generally, though, I think that it's best for the government to leave people alone to evaluate their own circumstances with regard to the need, or not, of owning or carrying firearms.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by 007.5

What state do you live in that allowed no mandatory class be taken to carry concealed , as Id like to verify that .? To own and carry a concealed gun without any training is the height of irresponsibility both for the State and owner of the deadly weapon.

I took my class recently here in Florida, and , there was not one mention of WHEN it is justified to use deadly force nor any scenarios discussed. There should be otherwise the Owner of the Handgun stands to go to prison for a very long time if he kills a Perpetrator who wasnt life threatening. These types of flaws in the system need to be rectified immediately for each and every State.

Actually, there are a number of states which do not require a firearms safety class for a CCW permit. In fact, there are two states, Vermont and Alaska, which do not require a permit for concealed carry. An interesting point about these two states is that they are different in terms of overall crime rate--Alaska's crime rate is above average, while Vermont has one of the very lowest crime rates--yet in both states, out of all murders, manslaughters, etc., the percentage committed with firearms is below the national average.

This page shows a comparison between Alaska and the overall U.S. statistics regarding percentage of crimes which involve firearms: Firearms Use in Violent Crime in Alaska and the U.S..

The tables on the page linked to above show that Alaska's two years with the highest percentage of murders committed with firearms are above the national average, but generally a lower percentage of murders in Alaska are committed with firearms than is the case for the nation as a whole.

Compare the U.S. crime rates shown in the above link to the following stats on Vermont's crime rate: Vermont Crime Rates 1960 - 2008. A comparison shows that the nation as a whole has a higher rate of murders committed with firearms than Vermont's overall rate of murder, with or without firearms. Obviously it follows from this that Vermont has a lower rate than the national rate of murders committed with firearms.

So, in Alaska, a state with a somewhat higher than average crime rate, of the murders committed, a smaller percentage are committed with firearms than the percentage of murders committed with firearms for the nation overall. Vermont has such a low crime rate that the rate of all murders is lower than the national rate of murders committed with firearms. While this is only one example of stats for one general category of crimes, the fact that in the two states that not only do not require firearms safety training for concealed carry but do not even require a CCW permit one is less likely to be murdered with a gun than in the U.S. as a whole is one more bit of factual information--not suppostion, not well it seems to me that it should be that such and such, but factual information--tending to allay fears that concealed carry without heavy government regulation will lead to a rash of shootings. Anti-gun people keep sounding the alarm that loosening regulations on firearms use will lead to a stack of dead bodies, but the FACTS say otherwise.

[Thaskateguy]

Unless the Gubment plans to assume the responsibility of assuring everyone's safety, then they should just butt out, and allow People to protect themselves. And not make it even harder, with fees and permits and the like. How does paying a fee make one safer at handling a fire arm? Just more money in somebodies pocket. Seems no matter what we do, from fishing to selling Pot. as long as the Gubment gets their cut, it's just fine and dandy. Just seems somehow Un-Americana to me.