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.
Not to own but to carry (bear) you do. Only two states allow the unrestricted carry of a handgun, Alaska & Vermont. Many others allow open carry in theory but few in practice.
That's true. And even worse. There are some states like Virginia (in 1997, I don't know if they changed anything there) open carry was legal, but because the populace and the police are so ignorant of the law, not too many people knew it. Some Virginians who did know and decided to exercise that right ... got arrested by police who didn't know it was legal.
I think it was California (recently) that people called the police when they saw a couple of guys carrying their holstered weapons ... not realizing it was perfectly legal (the gun has to be unloaded to carry), and when police arrived and stopped these guys .... people actually cheered!!! Then, they were shocked when the police handed the weapons back after they checked that they were not loaded. Disappointment? Our moronic fellow citizens were disappointed that these Americans were not hauled off to the pokey for exercising their rights.
This is the sad state of ignorance that seems to prevail among a large segment of this frightened, cowardly and subservient public.
They have no clue as to the supreme importance of maintaining the public's right to keep and bear arms, as it directly applies to the ability of the people to remain free.
That's true. And even worse. There are some states like Virginia (in 1997, I don't know if they changed anything there) open carry was legal, but because the populace and the police are so ignorant of the law, not too many people knew it. Some Virginians who did know and decided to exercise that right ... got arrested by police who didn't know it was legal.
I think it was California (recently) that people called the police when they saw a couple of guys carrying their holstered weapons ... not realizing it was perfectly legal (the gun has to be unloaded to carry), and when police arrived and stopped these guys .... people actually cheered!!! Then, they were shocked when the police handed the weapons back after they checked that they were not loaded. Disappointment? Our moronic fellow citizens were disappointed that these Americans were not hauled off to the pokey for exercising their rights.
This is the sad state of ignorance that seems to prevail among a large segment of this frightened, cowardly and subservient public.
They have no clue as to the supreme importance of maintaining the public's right to keep and bear arms, as it directly applies to the ability of the people to remain free.
Things have gotten better in several of those open carry states but there are still incidents. Luckily, the courts have been ruling against the police with few exceptions when the police are sued.
That's true. And even worse. There are some states like Virginia (in 1997, I don't know if they changed anything there) open carry was legal, but because the populace and the police are so ignorant of the law, not too many people knew it. Some Virginians who did know and decided to exercise that right ... got arrested by police who didn't know it was legal.
I think it was California (recently) that people called the police when they saw a couple of guys carrying their holstered weapons ... not realizing it was perfectly legal (the gun has to be unloaded to carry), and when police arrived and stopped these guys .... people actually cheered!!! Then, they were shocked when the police handed the weapons back after they checked that they were not loaded. Disappointment? Our moronic fellow citizens were disappointed that these Americans were not hauled off to the pokey for exercising their rights.
This is the sad state of ignorance that seems to prevail among a large segment of this frightened, cowardly and subservient public.
They have no clue as to the supreme importance of maintaining the public's right to keep and bear arms, as it directly applies to the ability of the people to remain free.
A similar thing is playing out here in CT.
Our carry permit is simply a carry permit, no need to conceal it. But for generations people have concealed & it became the common belief that open carry was illegal. When I got my permit I was told even printing would cause big problems. A couple people got arrested & won, now the cats out of the bag and a few more tested the waters and got charges dropped. The state had to change wording on some literature & very recently every LE body in the state recieved a memo from the state police that open carry is not an offense as well as clarifications regarding the permit process. Many local authorities had for decades been placing illegal requirements on aplicants above & beyond what was required by statute.
I still generally conceal my gun but no longer worry about soccer moms & other busy bodies.
It is a right, not just because of the 2nd amendment but also reiterated in almost each states founding documents. Those who do not like it do not like freedom.
No right is absolute. We have restrictions on their exercise to make them practicable. That's why, for instance, my right to free speech doesn't entitle me to stand outside your bedroom window and shout at you with a bullhorn at 3 in the morning, or why my right to freely practice my religion does not allow me to sacrifice your virgin daughter.
Whats your point? Until do one of those things your rights are respected. Its not until AFTER do one of the mentioned things that you are molested.
Nobodies saying it should be legal to shoot outside someones window or shoot their daughter. Until a person commits a crime he is well within his rights to carry a gun wherever he chooses to just as you can walk by a young virgin with your penis or my house with both your mouth & a bullhorn. Its not what you have, its what you do with it.
We are currently working on the gun free zone laws to have them modified but within the realm of common sense. Bottom line, the antis will never get the support to ban all guns in this country nor will the constitutional absolutists get the ability to carry anything, anywhere at any time. Meanwhile reasonable restrictions are here to stay. The only question is what is reasonable and responsible that best serves the interests of society and the constitution. I and others fight for our rights every day in the venues that matter. You on the other hand bluster on about your interpretation of the constitution as if it belong solely to you. It belongs to all the people.
FYI, encapsulating the entire discussion in a quote makes it extremely cumbersome to respond point by point, without cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste, in any case, I'll endeavor to navigate. As for my "blustering", I contend that it is your attempt to "find" wiggle room in a law that allows none goes beyond bluster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
You have made a big leap with the above statement. I've never implied that guns should be outlawed only that there are some reasonable restrictions and responsibilities inherint with gun ownership. As usual there is no middle ground with people like you only absolutes. You've taken my reasonable caution concerning strangers with guns on my property and twisted it into "outlawing guns".
No, you make the big leap here, implying that the government would be "reasonable" with any restrictions. This logic ignores the 1500 UNREASONABLE restrictions that are currently being applied under "color of law" across this nation today, along with a powerful left wing lobby that ... if they had their way ... they would ban guns altogether. Your agreeable-ness with SOME REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS opens the door to THEIR UNREASONABLE ONES.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
The law is exactly what we gun rights advocates continually work with state, local and federal agencies to interpret to the benefit of society as a whole, keeping in mind that gun ownership is a right and not a privilige.
Under certain conditions society, through the use of legislation can and does limit or remove those rights for the benefit of the people. We work with the legislators to insure that the process is justifiable and remove those laws that are not. This is where you and I part ways. You speak as a "constitutional absolutist" but it is only your interpretation that furthers your own agenda. My interpretation of the constitution is "what is the greatest benefit to society as a whole."
Seems to me that the issue here is your confusion about what "Rights" are, as opposed to "Privileges". Rights are not subject to your interpretation of what is good or not good for society. My freedom of speech is not subject to what you decide is reasonable to "say" anymore than might right to keep and bear arms are subject to qualifications you think are "reasonable".
This confusion you have (and it's very dangerous to ALL of our rights) is perfectly demonstrated in the above statement ".... through the use of legislation can and does limit or remove those rights for the benefit of the people". I specifically highlighted the "limit or remove" portion because these terms are so closely related ... their differences are only measured in degrees ... allowing one the ability to limit something to the point that it is effectively denied altogether. This is why "Rights" are absolute, while "privileges" can be subject to restrictions. You have the "privilege" to engage in commercial activities so long as you abide by the rules and regulations established which govern commercial activity (Uniform Commercial Code). You have a "Right" to trial by Jury which is not subject to interpretations or restrictions no matter how egregious the crime or how much evidence exists against you. Rights cannot be restricted ... the moment they are ... they automatically become "privileges".
As for guns, there are already "reasonable restrictions" which are included in all existing criminal laws. Your right to keep and bear arms is restricted to exercising that right responsibly. You do not have a right to threaten someone with a gun (or any other weapon), which is felony. You do not have a right to use that gun for any other purpose other than lawful activities, including defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
Where in the constitution does it say children are not people? Or is it "your" implication?
There are a number of children's rights organizations and advocates who have and continue to propose constitutional amendments to include "children's" rights which are glaringly absent from the constitution. This would imply that "the people" is not synonymous with "children". And the constitution, being a document of "intent" specifically implies, in numerous areas, that it addresses only the rights of adults, and not children. This is true of voting "rights" for example ... which specifies in the 26th amendment, that this right applies to those who have reached the age of 18 years. This is not MY "implication" but the Constitution's implication clearly stating that the right to vote applies to adults, defined by the constitution as 18 or older.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
Then the system needs to be changed. Not abandoned completely. Are you suggesting that we should abandon the NICS check, Form 4473?
In the STRONGEST LANGUAGE AVAILABLE ... that would be an ABSOLUTE YES, I DO. The NICS system is an illegal violation of privacy by the federal government, established by the equally illegal "Brady Bill" that provides the doorway for several violations of rights, none the least of which is privacy. And firearms sales have been denied for even "punctuation" errors on these background check forms!
Furthermore, the push is on to include anyone on the TSA's watch and no-fly lists to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. These lists have already been abused to tremendous degrees ... to include journalists, politicians, and others who are in no way shape or form, terrorists or potential terrorists. There is no published criteria for how people get on such lists, and no laws applied to how someone erroneously put on one, can get off of it. As the debate rages about this contentious topic, others want to use it for their agenda of disarming the public, piece meal.
These systems are laying out an electronic control grid ... national ID, National databases and watch lists to collect and develop a vast amount of private data reminiscent of East Germany's systematic implementation of dossier type control system for it's "captive citizens". Only today, the technology is far more advanced, allowing for greatly enhanced abuses of such anti-Aemerican practices.
Groups like yours that don't possess the intellect to understand the consequences of their own misguided actions, make these abuses a reality waiting to happen, and pose a clear and present danger to liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
I make no excuses for the government violating the law. I, and others work within the existing legislative system to bring common sense and responsibility to current gun laws and remove those that don't. You, on the other hand would be thrown out on your ear by those that make the law, with your rhetoric.
Yes you do ... that is all you have been doing. Every single statement you make regarding this subject is making excuses for government violating the law, and brings into question any semblance of common sense on your part. Whatever jurisdiction, or legislative authority you are so "active" working with on these "reasonable restrictions" are violating the law ... not making law. The law has already been MADE. You want to change that law, there is only ONE lawful way of doing it. That is a constitutional amendment, attaching these reasonable restrictions to the language of that 2nd amendment. And hopefully, there aren't 1/4 of the states who would demonstrate the lack of common sense to go along. The one's who should be thrown out on their "ears" are the supposed "law makers" violating the F'ing law, and those supporting their criminal conduct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
Credibility is more important than dogma in the current gun rights debate on state and local levels. In the last year we have gotten CCW in establishments that serve alcohol and we have an approved bill allowing CCW without a permit in Arizona just waiting for the governor's signature.
You have not demonstrated an ounce of credibility with your arguments, in my view. Additionally, CCW is one of the primary examples of the insanity of some "alleged" gun rights advocates. I'm totally against CCW for a number of reasons. First, historically, it was the scoundrel that concealed a weapon, while an honest man openly displayed his weapon. Open carry is safer for everyone, including law enforcement. Concealed weapons should automatically be viewed as an indication of nefarious intent, and should be restricted to undercover law enforcement activities only. You want to carry a weapon? Fine. Do so. But do so in an honest manner. Do you realize that the advent of the "handshake" was to present yourself to the other, showing that you were not concealing a weapon to do him harm?
This is just one of those examples of backward thinking and political correctness run amuck. God forbid we actually display a firearm in public, else masses of people wet their pants in fear, rather than embrace the idea that they are safer knowing that someone else other than a criminal may be armed and capable of protecting their unarmed arses.
And I certainly see no common sense in expanding the concealed carry to establishments that serve alcohol ???? You sir, are OUT OF YOUR MIND. If I'm in an establishment serving alcohol, and I see a drunk behaving in an aggressive and anti-social manner, (something that happens to some people regularly when drinking too much) I'd like to know if this nut has a firearm.
The absence of common sense and the level of ignorance here is beyond comprehension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
It is a tough battle. We not only have to battle the hysterical rantings of the anti-gun crowd and the Brady bunch but we are percieved as enemies by the constitutional absolutists who provide no forum for solutions, only rants of their interpretation of the constitution. You and your ilk will never be credible in the arena that really matters and that can bring real positive change for gun rights in America.
Yes it is a tough battle ... we have a gun grabbing element within the government that, make no mistake ... have dreams at night about the glorious day they can completely disarm the populace. And we have a group of "useful idiots" that are assisting them in their efforts under the misguided idea that "reasonable restrictions" won't become unreasonable, once the precedent is set that restriction is both acceptable and lawful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
If you think you can do better, I suggest you take your half baked, all or nothing stance and present it to those who actually make the laws and see how far you get. You are about the 20th person who has parroted the same constitutional rant and none, not one, has effected any positive change for the gun rights community. Get a clue. You work within the system or be ineffective. That's your choice.
I got news for you, pal, there are far more than 20 who recognize your half baked ideas about what our rights are. And thank goodness for that. I have no illusions about what YOUR ideas and efforts will provide us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
The Supreme Court did and they are the law of the land. You certainly won't change anything to our benefit with your all or nothing attitude. Now I'm suddenly a traitor for trying to effect positive change for our cause? What have you done lately, except rant on the internet?
No, the Supreme Court is NOT the law of the land ... the Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court is chartered with upholding the laws of the land. By your very statement, you demonstrate the "supreme" error of your logic ... according to you ... 9 men hold the status of Supreme Dictator by committee of 5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
"What is Reasonable" is the battle we fight right now. You'll be suprised to hear that the majority of society do not believe that there is a tyrant around every corner. We acknowledge that there are some misguided legislators, but tyrants?....no.
What, you got a mouse in your pocket? We acknowledge...? I'm happy to be excluded from a "majority" so naive. You might be surprised to learn that your majority possess the collective intellect of a house plant, when it comes to common sense, as well as historic precedents. That even a small minority would view the current criminals holding high office in this country as basically benevolent and truly concerned with the best interests of the citizenry, save for a few here and there misguided, would be laughable, if it weren't so distressing and dangerous. That there is a "majority" according to you, who feel this way doesn't bode well for our collective futures. And I sincerely hope you are as wrong about that as you are about the rest of this nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
You have proven my entire first post on the subject with this statement. Reasonable, agreeable restrictions are necessary for the common good. What is reasonable is the crux of the whole argument and is the battle our gun rights organizations fight on a daily basis.
So what is reasonable to one, may not be reasonable to society as a whole.
Hey pal, I'm not the one advocating and working tirelessly to extend the rights for "liquored up" idiots to conceal firearms in bars!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
I agree as do most, gun laws against law abiding citizens do not deter criminals.
Is this your veiled attempt to present yourself as a gun rights champion? Or just another example of this cognitive dissonance you suffer?
A similar thing is playing out here in CT.
Our carry permit is simply a carry permit, no need to conceal it. But for generations people have concealed & it became the common belief that open carry was illegal. When I got my permit I was told even printing would cause big problems. A couple people got arrested & won, now the cats out of the bag and a few more tested the waters and got charges dropped. The state had to change wording on some literature & very recently every LE body in the state recieved a memo from the state police that open carry is not an offense as well as clarifications regarding the permit process. Many local authorities had for decades been placing illegal requirements on aplicants above & beyond what was required by statute.
I still generally conceal my gun but no longer worry about soccer moms & other busy bodies.
It is a right, not just because of the 2nd amendment but also reiterated in almost each states founding documents. Those who do not like it do not like freedom.
All of this is symptomatic of the brainwashing that has taken place about firearms, along with the plethora of gun laws .. to which every single one is unlawful.
I'm personally against concealed carry .. not to the extent that I would advocate making it against the law (that too could be abused, such as being harassed for having the weapon inadvertently concealed or partially concealed by clothing).
I work in the ATM Cash Machine business, and though I could easily get a CCW in Texas, and I really should, I refuse to on two basic principles 1) I don't agree with asking for permission in the form of a license to do something that is already permitted by "real law", which would only grant legitimacy for such illegitimate licensing, and 2) I would prefer open carry, so that any potential crook would simply decide that it's not worth the risk to confront and rob me since they could readily see that 45 on my hip. I have no desire to shoot anyone, and believe that old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, especially in the case of firearms. The very presence of open carry firearms could prevent more crime than is reasonably prevented by police ... who more often than not are responding to a crime already committed, rather than preventing a crime from occurring.
I've been approached by local police in my regular course of activities, asking me if I'm "packing", to which I reply no. You might be surprised to know that each and every time the response is ... "Are you crazy? I wouldn't do that without a gun". Once I explain to them my above stated feelings on the matter, every single one agrees entirely with my views. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Contrary to popular myth ... at least in my experience ... police officers, by and large, are 2nd amendment advocates, and guess what ... most of them would advocate open carry over concealed carry, for obvious reasons. They are generally sympathetic to the restrictions placed on law abiding citizens, but are required to uphold the laws established in their jurisdictions. I have personally never met or spoken with a police officer that agrees with gun restrictions for law abiding citizens.
In Arizona, where I live, even the criminally isane can strap on a gun and walk around with it.
Not exactly. If a person has been adjudicated "criminally insane" - insane, they they are not allowed to own or possess or carry a firearm. Enforcement of the statute is another matter though
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa
The gun control laws set a minimum number you need to carry.
I honestly do not understand the above. Would you please clarify?
The Second Amendment gives us this right and no license should be required. Do you need a license to utilize your First Amendment rights? NO. ANY other right? NO! Why should the Second be any different.
Actually, you do need a permit to utilize first amendment rights at times, when there is a chance of you being a nuisance. Also look at voter registration. Bad idea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
Not exactly. If a person has been adjudicated "criminally insane" - insane, they they are not allowed to own or possess or carry a firearm. Enforcement of the statute is another matter though
And how exactly do you plan on this enforcement without registration/background check requirements? And, speaking of the criminally insane, where in the constitution does it say who can or cannot own a gun?
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.
Those who do not like it do not like freedom.
