Anti gunner? (extremist, terror, program, Arizona)

[Orlandochuck1]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

And how exactly can you tell from the photo that this "gang" do not have any licenses to carry their guns? That is quite an assumption to make from a photograph.

These people are wearing gang colors.... Blue bandanas.
Gangs usually don't play by the rules.
Many gang members have been busted before, which would disqualify them from getting a CCW.
It's really, not that big of an assumption.
I suppose you could ask your local gang task force how often do they run into gangs that have carry licenses, but you could use your common sense instead.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1

These people are wearing gang colors.... Blue bandanas.
Gangs usually don't play by the rules.
Many gang members have been busted before, which would disqualify them from getting a CCW.
It's really, not that big of an assumption.
I suppose you could ask your local gang task force how often do they run into gangs that have carry licenses, but you could use your common sense instead.

That is an assumption, you assume they are gang members because of what they are wearing in the photo, but that doesn't prove they are gang members. So without actually asking them for proof of their license, you are just assuming.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1

Which photo are you referring to? The gang, or the
bunch of rifle carriers?

I think Urban's point is that you can't prove from the photo that those guys are in a gang or that they have criminal records, even IF they are wearing gang colors. It's still an assumption on your part. Further evidence is needed.

No matter, one is a gang that would require background checks and CCW's.

How do you know they would require CCW's? Perhaps that photo was taken in VT, AZ, or AK where CCW's are not required? For that matter, we can't tell ( from that photo ) that they don't have CCW's/

And the other is a pic of rifle carriers that requires no licensing. It is safe
to say the gang have no licenses since that would be extremely unlikely and
unusual. The others require no license so no way they are breaking the law.

Urban's point is that we don't know just by the photo if they're breaking the law, or even if they're in a gang. I agree with him.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

I think Urban's point is that you can't prove from the photo that those guys are in a gang or that they have criminal records, even IF they are wearing gang colors. It's still an assumption on your part. Further evidence is needed.

How do you know they would require CCW's? Perhaps that photo was taken in VT, AZ, or AK where CCW's are not required? For that matter, we can't tell ( from that photo ) that they don't have CCW's/

Urban's point is that we don't know just by the photo if they're breaking the law, or even if they're in a gang. I agree with him.

I apparently can't rep you for this, but +1 for you. This is exactly what I am saying.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1

I'm sure these fine gentlemen all have licenses to carry these guns.



Actually I'm impressed that two of these guys are actually using proper finger discipline as taught in firearm safety classes.

Except for the guy with the shottie.

[Orlandochuck1]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

I think Urban's point is that you can't prove from the photo that those guys are in a gang or that they have criminal records, even IF they are wearing gang colors. It's still an assumption on your part. Further evidence is needed.

How do you know they would require CCW's? Perhaps that photo was taken in VT, AZ, or AK where CCW's are not required? For that matter, we can't tell ( from that photo ) that they don't have CCW's/

Urban's point is that we don't know just by the photo if they're breaking the law, or even if they're in a gang. I agree with him.

It is not the first time I've seen these photos. I know the background of both of these. One is from a group called "open carry Texas", obviously in Texas. Texas has no requirement for permits to carry rifles.
The other is from a gang called Hillside Locos Sur-13 in Tennessee, just outside of Nashville. Be real... these guys don't have CCWs.

These links are where this photo comes from and sheds a little light on the origin.

http://www.tennessean.com/includes/p...er/photos.html

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ml%3B900%3B604


Using common sense, do you think these gang members went through the following, and meet all of the requirements. It really would be quite unusual if they did.


Qualifications That Must Be Met Before Applying for a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit

• Effective July 1, 2005, all handgun permit applicants seeking a new permit must provide proof of U.S. Citizenship or Lawful Permanent Residency.
• Effective July 1, 2005, Tennessee handgun carry permit law will now allow certain applicants already exempt from complying with firing range provisions of the current statute to also be exempt from any classroom requirements. Those current exceptions are applicants who prove to the department that within five (5) years from the date of application for handgun permit, the applicant has:
  1. Been certified by the police officer's standards and training commission, or
  2. successfully completed training at the law enforcement training academy; or
  3. successfully completed the firearms training course required for armed security guards; or
  4. successfully completed all handgun training of not less than four (4) hours as required by any branch of the military.
• Applicants are required to be a resident of the State of Tennessee;
• Be at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
• Applicants shall not have been convicted of any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year;
• Applicants shall not currently be under indictment or information for any criminal offense punishable by a term exceeding one (1) year;
• Shall not be currently the subject of any order of protection;
• Shall not be a fugitive from justice;
• Shall not be an unlawful user of or addicted to alcohol or any controlled substance and the applicant has not been a patient in a rehabilitation program or hospitalized for alcohol or controlled substance abuse or addiction within ten (10) years from the date of application;
• The applicant has not been convicted of the offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant in this or any other State two (2) or more times within ten (10) years from the date of application and that none of such convictions has occurred within five (5) years from the date of application or renewal.
• Shall not have been adjudicated as mental defective; has not been committed to or hospitalized in a mental institution; has not had a court appoint a conservator for the applicant by reason of a mental defect; has not been judicially determined to be disabled by reason of a mental illness, development disability or other mental incapacity; and has not, within seven (7) years from the date of application, been found by a court to pose an immediate substantial likelihood of serious harm, as defined in Title 33, Chapter 6, Part 5, because of mental illness;
• Shall not be an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
• Shall not have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions (dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or a dismissal; Chapter 1340-2-4-.02 (5);
• Having been a citizen of the United States, applicants shall not have renounced their citizenship;
• Shall not have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined in 18 U.S.C.A. 921 (33);
• Shall not be receiving social security disability benefits by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability;
• Shall not have been convicted of the offense of stalking;

[urbanlife78]

See, now that is different. It is background on the photo. One thing I did notice, they are a suburban gang, not an urban gang. Those suburbs are getting dangerous.

But you are right, they are probably carrying illegally and should be arrested for carrying guns illegally.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

How do you know they would require CCW's? Perhaps that photo was taken in VT, AZ, or AK where CCW's are not required? For that matter, we can't tell ( from that photo ) that they don't have CCW's/

in arizona, you can carry concealed IF you are a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, without a permit in most places. the bold part being the key here, as if one has been convicted of a crime that would prevent one from carrying a firearm legally in the first place, they cannot carry concealed legally.

[arjay57]

The problem is, how do you tell which ones are law abiding and which ones are not?

If you see a guy sneak a gun into his waistband and head into a Walmart, you don't have time to do a bunch of research on the internet or figure out whether what he's wearing might or might not be associated with some kind of gang. You don't know whether he's got a permit, whether he's a hothead or somebody with a screw loose, a thug or a terrorist or a robber, whether he's had any training or if he's on drugs, or whether he's an idiot who doesn't bother to properly secure his weapon.

Are we supposed to just assume everything is hunky-dory? If so, on what basis?

[DCforever]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The problem is, how do you tell which ones are law abiding and which ones are not?

If you see a guy sneak a gun into his waistband and head into a Walmart, you don't have time to do a bunch of research on the internet or figure out whether what he's wearing might or might not be associated with some kind of gang. You don't know whether he's got a permit, whether he's a hothead or somebody with a screw loose, a thug or a terrorist or a robber, whether he's had any training or if he's on drugs, or whether he's an idiot who doesn't bother to properly secure his weapon.

Are we supposed to just assume everything is hunky-dory? If so, on what basis?

It would be best not to shop at WalMart.