Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh come on... in upstate NY, or in NH, it is cake to get a carry permit. I even had one in MA (though I went through hell to get that one).
There is only a small handful of places I can't have a carry permit. (like DC, NYC and a few others, such as places in Kalifornia).
If you follow the rules, then you don't get in trouble. That was taught in about 3rd grade.
Back when I lived in NH, it took about 3 days, and a solid $10.
Hey I'm not arguing about whether it's difficult or easy, just that the two situations are identical in circumstance, the only difference being a firearm for one, and a baseball bat in the other.
However if you commit justifiable homicide with a BB Bat when off your property, you don't have to prove you have legal permission carry that baseball bat when you've previously been using it for legitimate purpose (practice) and are returning home. However suppose you're in the same situation but returning home with your range gun, and no Permit, how would you rate your chances of justifiable homicide if you used your range gun?
If your answer is "the same" for both situations, then there's nothing to worry about or discuss (other than I'll believe it when I see it), if your answer is "I can see you may have a point" then that's a point of discussion, it highlights a discrepancy, it's not really a part of this topic, I don't even really want to know your response, but it's worth 5 minutes of your consideration. If there is a difference why do you think there's a difference, more pertinently as you mention, why are the "rules" different for a firearm than any other deadly weapon?
Hey I'm not arguing about whether it's difficult or easy, just that the two situations are identical in circumstance, the only difference being a firearm for one, and a baseball bat in the other.
However if you commit justifiable homicide with a BB Bat when off your property, you don't have to prove you have legal permission carry that baseball bat when you've previously been using it for legitimate purpose (practice) and are returning home.
True, but it is still going to take a lot of court time and personal money to finish the whole thing.
However suppose you're in the same situation but returning home with your range gun, and no Permit, how would you rate your chances of justifiable homicide if you used your range gun?
Whereas it is only one (awful) state I have been exposed to, MA, you can't take your range handgun to the range (i.e. in a car), without a permit (target and hunting or better), or you go to jail. You would need a license for 'all lawful purposes', in a situation of personal defense while driving around. Other states I have been in are much more lenient.
I don't make the rules, I don't like the rules, I just follow them.
If your answer is "the same" for both situations, then there's nothing to worry about or discuss (other than I'll believe it when I see it), if your answer is "I can see you may have a point" then that's a point of discussion, it highlights a discrepancy, it's not really a part of this topic, I don't even really want to know your response, but it's worth 5 minutes of your consideration. If there is a difference why do you think there's a difference, more pertinently as you mention, why are the "rules" different for a firearm than any other deadly weapon?
I do see your point. But it is no different than being required to carry a $100K liability bond (in some places) if you have a pit bull (whatever that definition is). Some things require licenses. Don't need one for a crossbow, longbow, fixed-breech cannon (even the really big ones), catapult, trebuchet, chain saw, nail gun, etc.
Haven't lived in a state yet that didn't require a CCW permit (of course in some you could carry open without them... but think what that would do for people seeing you walk down mainstreet with a .45 on your belt? I think the term is 'inviting trouble'.
I don't like all the restrictions and 'rules' any more than you do. But I am a nerd, I read the rules, and I follow them, so I don't get in trouble. Personally, I cannot change the rules. Collectively (with enough people) we, in theory, can, though I am not banking on it happening anytime soon.
Haven't lived in a state yet that didn't require a CCW permit (of course in some you could carry open without them... but think what that would do for people seeing you walk down mainstreet with a .45 on your belt? I think the term is 'inviting trouble'.
I don't like all the restrictions and 'rules' any more than you do. But I am a nerd, I read the rules, and I follow them, so I don't get in trouble. Personally, I cannot change the rules. Collectively (with enough people) we, in theory, can, though I am not banking on it happening anytime soon.
Come on up to Wyoming. We have open carry and I see it and have done it numerous times. I have went shopping down town with a locked and loaded .45 on my hip, never received a bad look and nobody questioned me.
Also, there is no permit or license required to carry concealed.
Alaska doesn't require ccw permit, just assume that everyone is armed, it keeps people civil for the most part never know what the next guy is packing.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,779,335 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter
Come on up to Wyoming. We have open carry and I see it and have done it numerous times. I have went shopping down town with a locked and loaded .45 on my hip, never received a bad look and nobody questioned me.
Also, there is no permit or license required to carry concealed.
I've bought oil & gas leases from landowners in Wyoming before. It's a bit strange to sit at the dinner table with mom and pop when they both have 1911's on their belts.
Come on up to Wyoming. We have open carry and I see it and have done it numerous times. I have went shopping down town with a locked and loaded .45 on my hip, never received a bad look and nobody questioned me.
Also, there is no permit or license required to carry concealed.
also, go to VT, the 1st no permit needed to carry concealed. no ccw needed it also called Vermont carry.
I do see your point. But it is no different than being required to carry a $100K liability bond (in some places) if you have a pit bull (whatever that definition is). Some things require licenses. Don't need one for a crossbow, longbow, fixed-breech cannon (even the really big ones), catapult, trebuchet, chain saw, nail gun, etc.
If you could point me at the clause of the constitution that explicitly states your right to own and have in public chain saws, nail guns, and pit bulls, I'd be most appreciative. Most of the stuff you mentioned should be covered already by the 2nd, certainly cannon was considered covered, you're not getting far as a privateer on a letter of Marque without at least one cannon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSparkle928
Haven't lived in a state yet that didn't require a CCW permit (of course in some you could carry open without them... but think what that would do for people seeing you walk down mainstreet with a .45 on your belt? I think the term is 'inviting trouble'.
Open Carry without a permit needs people to do it and others to see it, otherwise if the PTB choose to ban it, there's no one going to question it, the ban will just slide right in there since it's "not really affecting anyone anyway".
When I lived in Washington, my neighbor was away on vacation, I was home and heard some bumping and thumping next door, so I check the window and the front door was open, no car in the driveway either, so I just grabbed my belt holster and gun, and walked over there to check the place out with it on my hip. The neighbors had come home early, and we stood and chatted for about 30 minutes before they even saw the gun. Wasn't like it was some pee wee herman job either, it was a full sized.
Up here in AK I've been known to OC a Ruger Redhawk 454 Casull, it's pretty much unconcealable, I've not seen anyone freak out or been given any treatment that resembles "Asking for trouble"
Of course now, as NorthwestRepublic states I don't need a permit to carry concealed or otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSparkle928
I don't like all the restrictions and 'rules' any more than you do. But I am a nerd, I read the rules, and I follow them, so I don't get in trouble. Personally, I cannot change the rules. Collectively (with enough people) we, in theory, can, though I'm not banking on it happening anytime soon.
Same here, the problem is with rules is what initially seems to be unacceptable, when you follow them they quickly becomes normal, and when things become normal then people begin to question why the rules need changing in the first place, because they're minor inconveniences. When people say things like, its only $10 for a CCP and it takes 3 days, well what's the motivation to change it? As you state collectively we could change it, but when people are comfortable with the rules (no matter how heinous they may be) not only isn't there a motivation to change them, but there's also a strong concern that changing them might unleash some danger that the rule was preventing. I'm not even going to get into the implicit sociological elitist factor people who are given something that's restricted can experience, and want to retain.
Here's an example, as gun owners we all argue that stronger restrictions on gun ownership will not stop felons from getting firearms, its the first thing out of our collective mouths and mouthpieces every time there's something new even rumored in DC, since if felons want one, they'll get them through illegal channels. Yet we collectively think that the current system with a NICS check is a good way to keep guns out of the hands of felons. Do you see the logical contradiction in those positions? Now it can be argued that NICS keeps guns out of the hands of "casual" criminals, but is that adding much if anything to public safety? After all it's not the people who made a single mistake and were punished for it we need to worry about it, it's the career criminals we do. And if it does, then wouldn't stronger restrictions raise the bar on those so prevented? Pushing gun ownership by criminals to only the most hardened?
If you could point me at the clause of the constitution that explicitly states your right to own and have in public chain saws, nail guns, and pit bulls, I'd be most appreciative. Most of the stuff you mentioned should be covered already by the 2nd, certainly cannon was considered covered, you're not getting far as a privateer on a letter of Marque without at least one cannon.
Umm... you can own almost anything you want. I think you misunderstood my statement. The constitution/BOR limits very, very little of what we can own. The states are clamping down on it...
(BTW, My pair of M1841's look really pretty in the front yard. )
Something makes me think we are in violent agreement.
Open Carry without a permit needs people to do it and others to see it, otherwise if the PTB choose to ban it, there's no one going to question it, the ban will just slide right in there since it's "not really affecting anyone anyway".
When I lived in Washington, my neighbor was away on vacation, I was home and heard some bumping and thumping next door, so I check the window and the front door was open, no car in the driveway either, so I just grabbed my belt holster and gun, and walked over there to check the place out with it on my hip. The neighbors had come home early, and we stood and chatted for about 30 minutes before they even saw the gun. Wasn't like it was some pee wee herman job either, it was a full sized.
Up here in AK I've been known to OC a Ruger Redhawk 454 Casull, it's pretty much unconcealable, I've not seen anyone freak out or been given any treatment that resembles "Asking for trouble"
You are in AK, the state that has 40% higher (per capita) violent crime rate than the lower 48, on average, I think carrying a gun would be a good idea. As for the .454, I find that humorous to carry. I have the S&W .500, and would never even consider it (for self protection against people, and a polar bear will still get you even with that). In the choppers in AK (meat wagons, i.e. med copters), we carried high-powered rifles for the polar bears, and you had to hit them right in the head.
For protection against intruders/assaults, all I need is a DE Micro in 0.380. Holds enough, slips right into my pocket unseen... We aren't playing Rambo here.
Of course now, as NorthwestRepublic states I don't need a permit to carry concealed or otherwise.
Same here, the problem is with rules is what initially seems to be unacceptable, when you follow them they quickly becomes normal, and when things become normal then people begin to question why the rules need changing in the first place, because they're minor inconveniences. When people say things like, its only $10 for a CCP and it takes 3 days, well what's the motivation to change it?
Well, I guess it is based on experiences from where people have lived. Having moved from a state that thought people were the devil-incarnate for even thinking about having a gun, to one that really couldn't care less, I find it is all relative.
As you state collectively we could change it, but when people are comfortable with the rules (no matter how heinous they may be) not only isn't there a motivation to change them, but there's also a strong concern that changing them might unleash some danger that the rule was preventing. I'm not even going to get into the implicit sociological elitist factor people who are given something that's restricted can experience, and want to retain.
My ultra-liberal relatives think I am Satan for what I own, yet I donate my time to the local animal shelter, put heaters in the bird baths I have at home in the winter. I don't have a mean bone in my body (well, unless someone tries to hurt me or my family, but that is natural).
Here's an example, as gun owners we all argue that stronger restrictions on gun ownership will not stop felons from getting firearms, its the first thing out of our collective mouths and mouthpieces every time there's something new even rumored in DC, since if felons want one, they'll get them through illegal channels. Yet we collectively think that the current system with a NICS check is a good way to keep guns out of the hands of felons.
Personally, I think NICS is sort of a waste of time/money, but at least they tried, and only adds 5 minutes to me buying lots of stuff, though I am not too thrilled having anyone know what I own, other than myself and my family members.
The Federal rules take a lot more time for the really fun toys, but I tend to understand why they don't want everyone running down the street with AK's (well, something better like MP5's). (Even though I can )
Do you see the logical contradiction in those positions? Now it can be argued that NICS keeps guns out of the hands of "casual" criminals, but is that adding much if anything to public safety? After all it's not the people who made a single mistake and were punished for it we need to worry about it, it's the career criminals we do. And if it does, then wouldn't stronger restrictions raise the bar on those so prevented? Pushing gun ownership by criminals to only the most hardened?
I totally understand your point.
(Not to digress too much)
One of my concerns, if that it is made harder and harder to get a firearm by anyone, it sort of works like making stricter and stricter penalties on a criminal for what he does...
While I believe that penalties should be strict for those breaking the law, the other side of the coin is that, knowing the penalties, a criminal is going to be more desperate/willing to take risks because he knows what happens if he gets caught. But that has nothing to do with firearms control.
Something makes me think we are in violent agreement.
We are, I'm just pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies, and just using your replies as a conduit and you've been nice enough to provide me with the ability to argue my inconsistencies and fallacies.
The Constitution states there will be no restrictions, yet we have allowed our government to put any restrictions they want on us. Wait until Obama is re-elected, we will be lucky to still have guns when he gets done with American.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of the stuff you mentioned should be covered already by the 2nd, certainly cannon was considered covered, you're not getting far as a privateer on a letter of Marque without at least one cannon.
)
