CC Permit-Do you Use it?
 

I was wondering how many of you, and how often, are you asked to produce your concealed carry permit? I live in a CC state, I carry sometimes...but do not have a permit. Then again, I do not put myself into situations that require I produce a permit. I also live in a rural area. So I was wondering about the average person, ...Do you really NEED that permit? Do you USE it?

I live in rural Southern Oregon. In Oregon carrying a concealed firearm w/o a Concealed Handgun License is a Class A misdemeanor,a relatively serious crime. A permit is under $100. How much do you think it's gonna cost me if I get caught w/o the permit? The permit is cheap. It's not a risk I would even consider taking. Oregon law allows for open carry almost everywhere (Beaverton, Portland, and Government buildings excluded) w/o a permit.

I have been pulled over for minor traffic violations a couple of time since I have had my permit, I always hand the officer my permit w/ my license. I have found that the officer calms down considerably when I volunteer this info, rather than freaking the fuck out when he sees my .45 in the center console of my truck. it seriously makes the stop go much smoother.

Only voluntarily produced it once during a traffic stop. But I would never carry without a permit--not worth the potential criminal consequences.

I have never been asked to produce my CC permit in the 7 years that I have had one. I have been legally obligated to produce it more than once. My state (and most that I know of) require a person to immediately inform a law enforcement official if they are carrying a concealed firearm whenever they are interacting in some kind of official capacity (ie: a traffic stop). Most people do this by handing over their CCP along with your drivers license when asked for ID.

Forget about the traffic stops, etc. If you ever have to use that concealed firearm you sometimes carry, you can be damn sure that the cops will ask to see your permit.

Dude. If your state's laws require that you have a CC permit to carry a concealed firearm....then you need to have that permit to carry a concealed firearm. It's part of that whole "responsible gun ownership" thing.

Most states do, but Oregon does not require me to inform law enforcement that I am carrying. I am required to notify them only if asked. I inform them without being asked because I don't want them being surprised by it when they see a spare magazine in my glove box or see my gun when I reach for my wallet, or any other reason. Surprises like that are not a good thing.



That is exactly why you NEED that permit if your going to carry concealed.

In ohio you are required to inform a law enforcement officer you have a permit only if you are actually carrying. You are not required to inform him if you aren't carrying. As far as needing a permit, I think it is a very good idea since it requires basic firearm safety and demonstratable skill to obtain.

Thanks for the answers. Call me paranoid but I have never registered a gun, nor filed for a permit. I do not have a NRA or any right-wing bumper sticker on my vehicle. I don't hunt with or show off any of my weapons. Nobody knows I have them. Thats the way I plan to keep it. I value my privacy more than the risk.

deleted

I echo Walt's sentiment but not his choice of words.

I consider it a simple question of cost/benefit analysis.

How likely do you think it is that the information that you own gun(s) will be used against you?

How likely do you think it is that you will at some point be found in possession of a gun in a carry situation for which you do not have a permit?

If you truly believe the former is more likely than the latter, I'd have to agree with you. But I don't think most rational observers agree.

Are you sure? Read this again. On the internet. In a public gun forum.

Dude, thought we were trying to have a conversation...why the name calling?

You are acting irresponsibly, in a way that could reflect poorly on all responsible gun owners if you were ever involved in an incident that made the news, and do not appear to be fully considering the potential consequences of your actions. Is that better?

This is exactly the same as a thread asking if people use their driver's license, or just drive without them so The Man doesn't have their address.

You're right. I apologize for going that route. Allow me to rephrase and restate:

1) You have stated that you live in a CC state, though often carry a concealed weapon without a permit. I assume you are like me, in that you carry because you acknowledge the fact that you might someday need to defend yourself with deadly force. If you are preparing for that possibility, you need to be aware that you will have to produce a CC permit should you every have to draw your weapon.

Even if you don't ever have to use your weapon, illegally carrying a concealed weapon is an unnecessary risk when your state issues CC permits. You may not agree with laws requiring you to obtain a permit to carry concealed. If thats the case, I would advise you take it up with your elected officials. Your objections to current laws or concerns about "privacy" will do nothing to protect you from legal repercussions.

Long story short: for whatever reason, you are in violation of the law by carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. If you get caught, you can expect to be charged with "possession of a deadly weapon." The penalties vary by state. Some treat it as a Class 1-2 misdemeanor. Others treat it as a felony. A conviction usually brings a sentence of anywhere from 6 months to 3 years. If you get get convicted of a felony, you forfeit your right to own a firearm.

2) When you say you own unregistered firearms, I am assuming that you are legally permitted to own an firearm and that said firearms were obtained through a private sale. No worries there, though you should check out your local laws to make sure.

3) Your statement that "nobody knows I have firearms and illegally carry them concealed" needs to be re-evaluated. Your anonymity is an illusion. You admitted to violating the law in an online public form in a post-Patriot Act world. My only advice is that you make an immediate effort to ensure your actions and your firearms are in full compliance with local, state and federal laws.

Thank you telekinetic for your response, yes I believe that is better than 'retard'. I'm not sure that one could compare a drivers license to a concealed permit....thats apples to oranges in my book. Listen, I appreciate all the responses, but they all go to prove my point.....We have different fears. You fear the consequences of being caught without one....I fear the consequences of having one.

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

To Walt 1) yes I know 2) yes again 3) yes count on it......thanks for your response. Apology accepted.

There is a difference between fearing the consequences, and respecting the law.

I totally support your decision to carry without a permit.

I have my permit but never produce it. The must "notify policy" during a traffic stop is the most retarded and dangerous thing in my opinion. This does nothing but create an awkward situation for both the cop and the person being pulled over.

What about this makes sense? Put the paranoia aside for a moment here, and think this through.

Any time you are required to use a weapon in public, you're going to be expected to produce your permit, according to Walt and also common sense. So that means that either:

A) the first time you need your weapon they're going to throw you in jail, and then they'll know everything about you down to your rectal diameter, or

B) You never use the weapon even in cases where it's warranted for fear of A coming to pass, in which case you might as well not have it to begin with.

Here's a crazy thought: if you don't agree with having to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, don't carry a concealed weapon. It's not like it's going to do you any good if you ever need it anyway.

Markd4life, it seems like you're ready and willing to get jacked up for a concealed weapon violation. Let me assure you that if you're carrying at the wrong place or time, any decent patrol cop with a few years under his belt is likely to notice. Let me also assure you that they'll give you two options when you stand up in court: take the charge or give up your gun. Just think about that, chief. You want the gun to be safe from bad guys... but you need the permit to be safe with the law. Please respect the law. It's not so bad. Some of us even think it helps maintain order.

It's not like having a ccw permit somehow gets you out of trouble if you have to use your weapon. The whole system is against you if you are a law abiding citizen trying to defend yourself. If you carry a gun then you have to accept the fact that you could see serious jail time, regardless of permit status.

If he's willing to face the consequences of carrying without a permit what's the big deal honestly?

Can't we all admit how ridiculous a permit to carry is? The bad guys will carry a gun anyway and the good guys have to pay fees to be 'legal' and have to put up with harassment from cops and society in general to just exercise the right to defend themselves.

People in this thread are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Horsepuckey.

Bullshit. And I could say your flagrant disregard for the law is the reason why we have concealed carry laws in the first place.

See what I'm getting at?

Of course having a CCW permit doesn't get you out of trouble. Shooting someone, whether right or wrong in the end, will always equate to you having your gun confiscated, the cops perceiving you as a threat (you did just shoot someone), you getting cuffed and taken down town so they can sort the incident out. That's how it works. You can't just bust a cap in someone and expect law enforcement to show up, buy your side of the story, and go on their way. They have a job to do. Consider a CCW permit as a kind of superficial character witness; you had to be X type of "good" person to get it.

Uh... logic? "If Richard Ramirez was willing to face the consequences of being a serial killer, what's the big deal honestly?"

The problem of him being a willing dumbass is that it looks bad for the rest of us. He becomes a part of the statistics that people use to say gun owners are dangerous. I'm only speaking to the concealed carry violation part. If he lives in a locale where he can legally conceal a gun in his vehicle or he engages in open carry, that's fine. But when he violates a law because he thinks its wrong, he's doing a disservice to all gun owners.

As much as I dislike the CCW permit concept, I see how it works. The idea is that only law-abiding citizens will actually go and seek one out and thus those with said permits are generally more trustworthy than any old gangsta douchebag that tucks a Glock in the waistband of his sweatpants "just in case." I've never run into a CCW permit holder that acted like a dumbass with a firearm. I've met plenty of idiots who own handguns, though.

...

Bro, I wish we lived in a world where there were only good people and no gun laws... but then we wouldn't need defensive firearms.

Having a CCW permit is what differentiates you from the criminals you are trying to protect yourself against. Throwing up the finger at the "man" by not having one is just stupid. CCW laws are a great thing imo because it proves you aren't a criminal and demonstrates you are trained in both gun safety as well as shooting skills. People who carry and have no idea what the hell they are doing is a very dangerous thing. Not saying that you don't just that you haven't proved it.

I don't know about all the CCW tests in all the states, but Ohio's qualification is equal to the basic patrolmans, safety and shooting wise.

Totally anecdotal, but that's my experience as well.

Ok, now I'm scared.

Ditto. Think I'll avoid Ohio.

I use a CC permit mostly as a form of insurance. I open carry more often than not, and think it 103% Stupid that I "must" get permission to exercise a human, civil, unalienable and Constitutional right. However, I also recognize that unless I want to either get into a firefight with the cops or go to jail, I need to have certain bases covered. Given the state in which I travel and do business (armed, heavily) and the fact that I have my family to consider and not just myself in regards to the legal consequences of my actions, I held my nose and got the permit.

Now, as for the necessity of the permitting system and the idea that CCW holders don't do dumb things...come work in a gunshop for a week. Passing the CCW class can no more de-activate the Flaming Dumbass gene than I can with a Louisville Slugger. CCW holders can be just as moronic as anyone else.

I have no difficulty with "Vermont Carry." I regard it as the ideal. No permits, no background checks, no waiting periods, no begging your Top Cop for his signature...and one of the lowest crime rates in the country. This, combined with the fact that Police are -vastly- more inclined towards shooting themselves, partners, suspects, and bystanders than are civilian carriers, leads me to believe that I have more to worry about from an armed policeman than from an armed civilian, however they came by their arms.

Agreed. My classmates at my Florida CCW class couldn't hit a human sized target at 15.' Fifteen feet. AND THEY COULDN'T GET ON PAPER. But I suppose since most shootings take place under 15' and at contact distances I'd suppose it doesn't matter.

A CCW is a good idea if your state requires it. Helps cops differentiate between 'criminals' and non-criminals.

I don't understand how florida could issue a permit to someone who couldn't hit a target at 15 feet. My class failed 3 people who couldn't get 7 shots inside the kill zone at 20 feet. This is a prime example of why permits are needed. Dipshits who can't shoot have no business carrying in the first place.

Fine, start with disarming the cops. I see more, and more egregious, safety violations combined with less-skillful shooting from LEOs than from any other sector of society of occupational niche. I am -vastly- more afraid of a cop with a gun than the average civilian carrier.

No, it's a prime example of why people need to take -full- responsibility for their personal defense, not just buying a gun but getting training for it. The idea that I, you, or anyone else must ask Massa's permission before carrying a weapon to defend our lives is offensive, ridiculous, and runs counter to everything the Bill Of Rights (all of it, not just the 2A) is about. I held my nose and got the damned thing just in order to cover my family's ass. The right of armed self-defense is universal, absolute, unalienable and irreducable. Any person; man or woman, young or old, sick or well, gay or straight, has the right to carry the weapon of their choice anywhere in public spaces (as distinct from on private property) without asking anyones permission. The abrogation of this right has been a major symptom of the erosion of liberty in this country ever since the "Remington & Colt Pistol Act" was passed to disarm freed Blacks and ensure a safe working environment for the Pennyrollers and Ku Kluxers.

America: Full of Rebels on the Streets and Pussies in the Courtroom.

Interesting history lesson and rabid personal opinions aside... follow the law and work to change it.

To use a stupid quote: If you're not a part of the [CCW] solution, you're a part of the [CCW] problem.

You don't have to sell your argument to me, you have to sell it to antigunners and nervous soccer moms.

I have to disagree with this because if there weren't ccw laws then what incentive would people have to get training? You can say personal responsibility all you want but there's no way to enforce it without having laws in place.

Alot of people I know are ignorant of the fact they need training. They have a gun for home protection and figure they don't need training, all they need to know is that if you put these shiny brass thingies in the barrell and pull the trigger the gun goes bang.

Stopping the BG without blowing their foot off, improving their skills, personal enjoyment....what, you think all those people go to Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, LFI...because they -have- to? At thousands of dollars per class? I doubt it.

The Law Of Natural Selection is -always- in force, and there are no appeals. It is not the job of the State to force anyone to do anything, whether that "thing" is getting a permit, buying health insurance, or joining the Marines. The job of the State is to -stop- people, under certain circumstances, from doing things which concretely harm others. Until a random moron hurts someone else, his idiocy is nobody's problem but his own. If he only hurts himself, or just looks stupid in front of his friends, that's his problem and nobody else's.

The problem with a permit is that it is, purely and simply, a permission slip. Permission can be denied just as easily as it can be granted, and "Shall Issue" States could become "May/Shan't Issue" with one change of the legislature. In a State like California it's perfectly legal for the Sherriff to refuse a person a CCW because "Niggers don't need guns, boy" or "Guns are for men, little lady, now run home and do the washing." If you must demonstrate a "need" or "proficiency" before exercising a human right, all that someone who wishes to deny or repress that right has to do is simply decide that your "need" isn't great enough or you aren't -actually- "proficient enough" to exercise that right...and hey-presto, instant victim. So what if the Sherriff is your abusive ex-husband's cousin and best friend? Sherriff said "no gun" so it's "no gun." So what if you're black and the Sherriff has a bedsheet hung in his closet? Sherriff said "no gun" so it's "no gun." And if you don't know there are -plenty- of LEOs out there who would dearly love to disarm every female, black, hispanic, muslim, catholic, and jew they see...you a'int been payin' attention.

And for every guy that goes to Thunder Ranch... there are ten that accidentally shoot the TeeVee by failing to clear their pistol.

This entire discussions is either philosophical or anecdotal. I'm just suggesting we follow the law until we can change it for the better.

I reckon I'm younger and grew up in a more racially integrated area of the country. In fact, whites are probably a minority at my international student body university. I don't see all the racism you're getting at here. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I certainly don't think the race card is big enough to cover the issues why a concealed carry permit is stepping on our collective dick. I'm all for showing how whitey fucked up 400 years ago, but it's not directly pertinent to the OP issue.

Let me suggest that we're all speaking from the "responsible, well-trained gun owner with a permit" perspective. Except for the OP, of course.

I don't see it as being nearly as pervasive as it once was, but it's still there. A buddy of mine, DSGT A. Rios (US Army), once spent the better part of 2HRS securing his Pistol Purchase Permit because the dumb bitch as the Watauga Cty. Sherriff's Office simply refused to believe that a Messikan (actually a 3rd-generation US Citizen of Bolvian extraction) could POSSIBLY be legally in the US -and- not be a criminal. "He's big, brown, and has a Messikan name...he's gotta be a wetback, a drug dealer, or a pimp. Gotta be." He showed up in his dress uniform, with assorted military papers/orders, his military ID, birth certificate, passport -and- NC Driver's License...she demanded to see his Green Card. He showed her his BC...and she demanded his Green Card. Even after repeated proofs of his status not only as a Citizen but a Natural-borne one at that...she still demanded his Green Card. When he couldn't produce one (because he didn't have one) she threatened to have him arrested for, among other things, impersonating US Army personnel and attempting to purchase a firearm as an illegal alien! I had to call down there from 2 Counties over and explain to the Deputy who answered the phone what had transpired. He put me on the phone to Permit Bitch, whom it took 20mins to convince that DSGT Rios was, in fact, a Drill Seargent in the US Army, a native-borne US Citizen, and fully legal to purchase a firearm.

-THEN- she ran his background check and gave him the permit...but ONLY after "he'd been vouched for by an upstanding White citizen."

People like that, and there are lots of them out there, are the biggest single part of why I do not, cannot, and will not support permitting systems.

That sucks. That seems more like an issue with the operators of the system than the system itself.

Replace your slack-jawed crackers with someone who's a team player and things will improve.

"well regulated"

just saying.....

I guess it's a question of responsible ownership, isn't it? People demand that they have the right to bear arms, and they have it. But that's not enough; they feel the need to "cowboy" it up and disregard the regulations that make responsible ownership possible.

You might wanna look up what "well regulated" meant in context, as well as its' specific context as it relates to matters martial. Then rejoin the discussion.

Ballocks. They have the privilege of bearing some arms some of the time in approved places, all subject to several layers of official scrutiny and censure, and dependent upon their willingness to permit strangers to access private records and make a sight-unseen determination of their worthiness to posses effective means to defend their sweet life.

Responsible ownership is made possible by responsible ownership. Irresponsible ownership (criminal violence, negligence) is made possible by irresponsible ownership. Either is made possible, and reality, by the responsible or irresponsible -user-. Regulations have absolutely nothing to do with this.

I know what well regulated means in context. It's still a limitation to what you're calling a limitless right

Yeah, I'm not for arming morons. Spin that however you like.

Then why have laws of any kind? Why outlaw murder? Why outlaw stealing? Why have punishments for breaking those laws?

I don't want to get off topic, but without regulations you have anarchy. Personal responsibility is bullshit, there's no incentive or consequence when it comes to personal responsibility.

If you want to carry concealed without a permit, just move to Arizona in the next 90 days, assuming Gov Brewer doesn't veto it (very unlikely, based on her track record!)

My father 'bought' me a CCW class for Xmas, but we've been having a hard time scheduling it...Guess I can spend that money on a nice holster setup instead!

In order to ensure that everyone knows "the rules of the game" and has no excuse for breaking them.

Because they unprovokedly harm others without their consent, which is breaking the rules.

In order to;
1: Remove serious threats from society (long term imprisonment, exile, outlawry, execution) either permanently or until they accomplish
2: Rehabilitation where possible.

Bullshit. Do you need regulations telling you not to murder people? No, because you're a normal, functional human being. The more people there are like you out there (and the more heavily they are armed and trained), the less there will be of the far more dangerous type which is inclined towards murder and rape and violence and violation of all types, laws and regulations be damned. Regulations have never stopped those who simply didn't care about them.

There is when certain types of irresponsibility will get you sued or ostracized, others will get you imprisoned, and the most serious varieties will get your face shot off. I dunno about you, but I have (all other considerations aside) a purely selfish attachment to my money, my freedom, and my supraorbital taurii. I'd like to keep all three, if possible; so would most people. And while I may feel for the families of those who shoot themselves accidentally, and for the memories and tortured souls of those who likewise end the lives of others, I have never had any luck summoning up any pity for those who by idiocy end their own lives with a firearm. Likewise those shot in self-defense by their intended victims.

Your entire argument here comes down to saying that the only reason people don't rampantly murder, rape, and rob one another in a Cthulian orgy of looting and rapine is that we have laws against it. This is to say that the only thing preventing -you- from acting in such a way is said laws. I think we both know this is crap, because we both know you'd do no such thing unless you're one of those brain-fucked few who make life miserable for the rest of us. I don't know you, so I'm giving you benefit of the doubt by virtue of the fact that the vast majority of humanity is not represented by my neighbors. However, I'm willing to lay fairly heavy odds to my being right.

Social contract theory?

Dunedan, I understand what you are trying to say, but it's just not how it works in the real world. If it did there would be no morons doing stupid things, but alas there are so regulations are needed. If even a single life was saved by requiring people to undergo a basic firearms safety class in order to obtain a ccw then it's worth it. I don't/didn't see the harm in attending the class, and I feel alot better knowing that if someone has a ccw, they have atleast some basic training.

And since when have regulations stopped morons from doing stupid shit? Trust me, I sell guns for a living; they haven't. They never will. Morons will always be morons, and they will -always- think that the laws of natural selection don't apply to them. They will always be wrong.

I absolutely disagree. Without mandatory training in order to obtain a ccw(in most states)there would probably be alot more accidental discharges as well as a lot more brandishing charges. Since it is impossible to actually prove how many lives have been saved by mandatory training, I can only assume that it is working the way it was intended. Natural selection is kinda irrelevant here because we are talking about people who may not actually realise they need training.

Any evidence to support this? Like, say, a greater incidence of negligent discharge or brandishing in Vermont and Alaska vs other CCW states? No? Didn't think so.

So you're dead sure that requiring formal training saves lives, despite the fact that you admit having no evidence for this, and admitting that your position is based upon an assumption which you acknowledge as not only unsupportED but unsupportABLE with evidence. This -in addition- to the fact that the Police (trained and rated, every one of them, with the taxpayers paying for training, range time, and ammo) negligently shoot themselves, their co-workers, suspects and bystanders at rates which -far- exceed those of civilian carriers.

Ballocks. Natural selection is never irrelevant, under any circumstances. Just ask anyone who's ever lost an argument with a train, or that DEA agent who shot himself in front of a classroom of grade-schoolers. Natural selection is always in play, whether a person is a genius or an ignoramus.

Edited to add: All this aside, I wonder how well it would go over if people were required to take formal training and purchase a license in order to "qualify" to write a book or sign a petition?

i'd say training is required by the constitution (well regulated militia), but you can continue to ignore that point (since it goes against your assertions that the 2nd amendment is a limitless right)

If you were referring to training with militia arms (full-auto shoulder arms, field artillery, ATGMs, etc) you would be half-right; the Constitution calls for Congress to provide for the training of the militia. However, nowhere does the Constitution say that such training is or should be mandatory (although the Militia Act gets close), that it has any bearing upon the right of the people to keep and bear non-militia arms, or that any presence or lack of training has any bearing on the ability of a person to exercise their rights. Again, imagine having to get "proper training" before you could write or read a book.

I do not ignore it, I discount as incorrect, invalid, and formed from within a paradigm of culturally-imperialist leftism which holds that all Rights are subject to popular fiat and State approval, and that the rights of some groups are more important that identical rights for other groups. All of the aforementioned I regard as, at best: dangerous, poorly thought-out, and prone towards every variety of the same totalitarian excesses produced by the Statist right. The recent calls from various leftist commentators (HuffPo, the Tea Party Crashers (infiltrators) etc.) calling for the imprisonment, extraordinary rendition, torture and disenfranchisement of their political opponents is proof of this.

so the fact that the Constitution doesn't make any mention of non-militia rights has no bearing on your thinking?

The Constitution also does not tie arms-related rights to the militia. An appreciation for the finer workings of English grammar is in order here, but he's some help from a kind professor at UCLA:

The Commonplace Second Amendment

And the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/op...6freedman.html

And for some help with the finer points:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Bottom line: the first part of the Amendment, from a linguistic and grammatical standpoint, is meaningless. The second part, that bit that comes after the comma, is the only bit that matters. This is part of why it helps to study not only the historical, but also the cultural, legal, and linguistic contexts and commentaries in question.

Clearly when reading the amendment they thought enough to include the militia (well regulated) AND the people (right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). Now if it was just to refer to the militia why would they include 'the people' as they did in the other amendments?

Furthermore if you read the 9th amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." When reading this I think you have to conclude that if the 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms to the militia, it still cannot be used to deny the right to bear arms to the people.

Perpetual'd!

...

I would encourage all gun owners to apply for a permit. The action of many speaks louder than the words of the few.

Flood the offices of those issuing permits with legit requests to exercise your right and see the issue promote itself.

Word, brother. It would seem to me that in the murky light of a constitutional amendment with sloppy writing, it would make sense as a gun owner to get one of these permits, follow the rules, and happily carry your fucking weapon.

There's idealism, and then there's pragmatism.

Writing a book or signing a petition is a far cry from having the ability to kill someone with great ease.

I'm not arguing against guns here, I've been a life member of the NRA for 27 years. And I own several weapons. But I am for mandatory training. You can train an idiot to be a little safer.

Mssrs. Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Amin and Duvalier would dispute this. Likewise Mssrs. Marat, Danton, and Robespierre. Their writings can arguably be said to have contributed to the very easy (for the authors) deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

This aside, the right to read/write/speak/worship is, just like the right to keep and bear arms, enumerated within the Bill Of Rights. If permission may be required to exercise -one- aspect of -one- right, permission may perforce be expanded to cover -all- aspects of -all- rights. This is, even now as we write, transpiring: an unfortunate state of affairs which has been ongoing for most of the past century, and was an on/off affair for most of the preceding time.

Given that the NRA functions as the US's largest, best-funded, and most effective gun-grabbing organization, your membership therein carries less water than a spagetti strainer.

I also own several cats. This no more makes me an expert on lions and the legality of their ownership, much less the risks involved and the likelihood of those risks transpiring, than does your ownership of firearms. Numerous rancid gun-grabbers have, quite embarrassingly, outed themselves are gun-owners over the years. Your protestation simply places you in the company of Diane Feinstein, Sean Penn, R. C. Soles, and Michael Moore.

Despite the fact that, as you admit above, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your position. I could as easily, and with as much authority, advocate a law requiring everyone to wear pink tutus because I feel like it'll cut down on drunken driving.

You obviously haven't encountered many idiots. Idiots are dangerous because they'r idiots; morons, ignoramii, dumbasses, dipshits...they can no more be cured than a psychopath. The ignorant can be educated and their ignorance removed, stupid goes clean down to the bones.
Furthermore, punishing the competent many for the mistakes of the incompetent few (aka collective punishment) is antithetical to the spirit of both the Constitution in general and Bill Of Rights in particular.

Enough of the circular argument/circle jerk going on in this thread.

If you are carrying a firearm, in public, without the proper permit (i.e., illegally), and I am aware of it and happen to be sharing that public space, I will call 5-0 on your cowboy ass, and you can argue constitutional law with the judge.

Because circumventing the law is not responsible ownership, no matter how you spin it.

An informer. Aha. So tell me, since someone need not actually -harm- anyone for you to "drop a dime" on them...what other victimless, nonviolent acts will you inform for? Medicinal cannabis use? Taking TEFL courses overseas on a Tourist visa? Sedition?

And enforcing, obeying, or giving assent to immoral, unworkable, and blatantly unconstitutional laws is not good citizenship, no matter how you, or the Stukachi and Ustasi in Gov't and media, spin it.

"The law is the law is the law!" Is ever the excuse of those who find it more convenient to oppress others than to uplift themselves.

You don't decide constitutionality, Dunedan; that responsibility belongs to SCOTUS, as outlined by Article 3 of the Constitution. So, yes, I would turn your illegal, criminal, dare I say treasonous, ass in.

1: How would you know if I was carrying illegally? NC is an open-carry State; try to have me arrested for doing something legal and I'll sue your balls/tits off for everything I can think of. If I was illegally concealing a weapon, how would you know? Unless I walked right up to you and said "Hi, I'm Dunedan, and I'm illegally carrying a concealed weapon without a permit," you'd have no way of knowing. So your bluster about "calling 5-0" is nothing but meaningless mental masturbation. Some people carry outsized handguns as their form of compensation; methinks we've found yours: threatening people with the cops.

2: As regards treason: are you aware of the Constitutional definition of Treason? If so, how do you square anything I've said or advocated with Treason? Unless I've waged open war against the US, adhered to the enemies of the US during a declared war, or given material "aid and comfort" to said enemy in said declared war, no Treason appertains.

3: You still have not answered my question. What other victimless, non-violent crimes will you inform on? Do you just have a hard-on for gun owners, or are other undesirable groups in your sights as well?

Well I've clearly hit a brick wall here, so I'll finish up with this. You have in no way demonstrated that ccw laws are some how detrimental. Speaking strictly for myself, I feel much better knowing that a good law abiding citizen who is armed, has passed atleast a basic firearms safety and proficiency class.

I totally dismiss all slippery slope arguments because they are "what if" arguments that hold little to no water.

I agree to disagree

/thread jack

Yeah, too bad the "Don't tread on me!" line doesn't hold up very well in court.

How do you guys feel about driver's licenses? Hunting licenses? Those bad too?

...

We're all pro-gun here.

This is so absurd...

Glad you're not my neighbor when the date expires on the plate of my THREE TON KILLING MACHINE KNOWN AS A CAR!!!! FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZEN TO DEADLY CRIMINAL IN NO TIME AT ALL!!!

I'm not in NC, so you carry a bazooka for your personal protection if you like, and I'll catch it on the news. If I was in NC, and happened to be in your vicinity, then yes, you damn well better keep your concealed weapon [edit: illegal; if you are carrying legally, carry away] very well concealed if you wouldn't want me to turn you in. It's illegal and dangerous, genius, and yeah, I'd be doing a public service. I don't care if you don't like it, it doesn't change the fact.
I'll retract "treasonous", although, if I'm not mistaken, I do remember you tip toeing the line of "armed dissent" a few months ago, and you shut up pretty quickly when you were asked exactly what you meant; I'm not going to bother to look it up, and if I attributed it to you in error, I apologize.
I'm not concerned about a stoner assaulting me with a hitter box because I cut him off at the bar while ordering a beer; the clown that carries his machismo on his hip is another matter though.

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

And thankfully the majority are representative of gun owners as a whole. IF the US ever decided to abolish the second amendment, you would have people like Dunedan to thank for it, not hippie picketers.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

Samcol, you advertise your ignorance with your avatar; your opinion is as valid as that of a pile of dog shit.

classy

Hey, enough of this. Personal politics (should) have very little to do with people following the law.

Do you "Concealed Carry without a permit is dangerous and shouldn't be legal" guys think training should be required for open carry?

Aaah, that's a paradox, though. If it's open carry and anybody can do it (by law), there are no credentials aside from not being a felon when the cops bust you up for carrying visibly and run your background for scaring soccer moms and the elderly.

If it's open carry and only trained individuals can do it when they have a credential, what's the point? Just carry concealed instead of being an attention whore in a society that loves guns on TeeVee and craps their pants when they see them in real life.

...

My dumbass idea? I think there should be a universal firearm carry credentialing system that allows me to carry however I want, wherever I want. Open, concealed, car, college, etc. Some of the same no-nos are the CCW permit, as long as they make sense. I go take some class, pay my silly fees, and I'm good to go. It couldn't be any more difficult than a police academy range (which is a joke).

I very much agree with this.

Too bad I'm a sellout liberal toolbag that wipes his ass with the Constitution though, right?

/Airborne!

Credentials are an unfortunate part of life today, I figure. They're an order maintenance function.

I like this. How stringent should requirements be, 9? I think it should mirror the requirements for becoming a police officer (background checks, familiarity with firearm regulations, hands on range/firearm training), if it is that liberal.

Are you guys serious or trolling? I really can't tell at this point...Next you're going to say we need to rerestrict magazine size, and take Ranger SXT's off the market for being cop killers.

It should be; you should be required to have training when you register a weapon (which, of course, gangbangers and "patriots" don't do.)

The "my guns ain't none yer bizness" crowd expect the public to trust them with their weapons; I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

I don't register my guns because it's not required in the state in which I live. Does that make me a gangbanger or a "patriot"?

I have open carried, and I will concealed carry without a permit when it becomes legal in a few months or sooner, does that make me a danger to you, and do you not trust me as far as you can throw me?

My guns indeed are none of your business, and the only time they will be your business are if you pose a threat to me and mine.

"don't break the law" is sentiment I can agree with.

"most gun owners are dangerous idiots" is not.

The only thing I take issue with is that your guns are none of my business(you being collectively not necessarily you personally). I have every right to fear those who are untrained. And if you are carrying without a ccw, then I have to assume that you don't have any training. Which scares me, and is very much my business if I'm in the vicinity of an untrained carrier.

I think we're clear on one thing: guns aren't dangerous, people are.

This may be a good way to look at the conversation.

If it's not required that you register your firearm, you're not breaking the law, and that doesn't apply to you, does it?

Possibly. Are you a nutjob? Because I don't know that, do I? You think I'm going to take your word for it that you're not?
Hmm. You're carrying a firearm, and it ain't for shooting squirrels. It is my business, whether you like it or not. See "nutjob" above.
I think I made it clear in an earlier post that most gun owners are responsible. Most is not all. If mandatory training/license will weed out that many more irresponsible gun owners, I couldn't care less about your inconvenience or hurt feelings; as a responsible gun owner, you should embrace it as well.

deleted

well each state is different. I can't speak for any other state but my own, but in ohio it is a bit more extensive. You have to pass a written exam on basic gun safety, then "qualify" on the range.

deleted

Well, I thought I'd inject this thought in to this discussion:

How many of you have taken basic gun courses at a shooting school? How many of you felt at least some improvement after taking the course, either in terms of legal knowledge or shooting ability?

I know I improved. Hence, I feel like courses are valueable in that regard.

I've taken multiple levels of training and I know it has helped me tremendously.

deleted

I applied for my concealed pistol license today. In Washington state the process is very simple, you sign some papers saying you're not a felon, they run a background check and finger print you, and then you get the permit in the mail in a couple of weeks.

The process took about 30 minutes, it would have been much faster if there was more one than one finger printing machine. If there was no one else in front of me in the line it likely would have taken about 15 minutes.

I agree with what some others have said in that there should absolutely not be any shooting tests to get a permit. There are already multiple police agencies in my area that actively try in the political arena to disarm citizens. Here is just a recent example of a police chief of a city that borders me to the south, who came out in support of a silly assault weapons ban:

Capitol packed for hearing on assault weapons ban | KOMO News - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Seattle, Washington | Local & Regional

If law enforcement officials such as this were given the power to force citizens to pass target shooting exams in order to get a permit (in Washington state you apply for your permit at the local sheriff or city police agency), I wouldn't be surprised if they designed tests with extremely high standards, likely ones that their own officers would have a hard time meeting. This is somewhat hypothetical, but I would prefer not giving them the power and therefore leaving the question unanswered.

The thing that bothered me the most however was the fingerprinting. It made me feel like a criminal just for wanting to protect myself and others. I know of at least a few people that have held off on getting a permit due to the fingerprinting because they "don't want to be in the system." Even though it bothered me, it was a sacrifice I was willing to make.

Whether I should even have to make that sacrifice is something I am still thinking about. For me, like some others have said, the benefits of not facing penalties for breaking the law, outweighed my desire for privacy.

Mmm, a story of Washington state. But just that state. In the state of Virginia, for example, you have to attend hours of classroom training from a state-certified instructor (topics include safety, carry laws, when you can shoot, what to do after a shooting), meet the minimum score on the range (shooting and reloading from standing and kneeling at a man-sized target at various ranges). The shooting portion is a similar test to that of police department firearms qualification and can hardly be called difficult. In fact, you could say that those who cannot complete such a basic test should not be allowed to carry a lethal weapon because they're too fumblefucked or too physically feeble. I don't want John Q. Citizen out there with a CCW and packing a .45 if he can't pass a test that some sweaty-palmed potbelly police recruit can manage to pass after a few goes with the remedial marksmanship training guy.

You should check out the requirements of other states. They're very reasonable. I'd even suggest that they're just as reasonable as taking a driving test at the DMV: to make sure you know what you're doing with a lethal weapon. Credentials don't mean dick unless some qualification is involved.

I'm curious, what tinfoil hat squad fears does fingerprinting evoke in you? You're young, white, and incredibly average, no?

Google has more information on you than the cops do. That doesn't stop people from using their search engine or browser or email.

...

Nice seg. The instructor-led "tactical" training I've taken has been extremely valuable. It allows you to practice performing under stress (ooo, other people are watching!) as well as introducing you to new techniques. I thought I was a decent shooter until I took a few pistol classes.

Oh, I'm just not a fan of handing over personal information over to other people. If you want to head down to your local PD and volunteer some biological information and see if they get any false positives be my guest :thumbsup:

-Young? Most on this board would say yes.
-White? I'm a mix of sugar and spice and everything nice.
-Incredibly average? Only in my pants :sad:

Also, I am not against classes. I am definitely going to take some, I just don't want my local government dictating any exams.

This is especially ironic if you know the turnaround time on the crime lab in my state. It takes 6 months to get DNA results back.

But why?

Just imagine the 6 months being like the weeks before Christmas as a kid, filled with anticipation over the magical gifts you might receive. Surprise! Your prints match a partial found at a Montana murder site! I think I saw something like that on 24 once, so it must be true. :confused:

Regarding your 'why' question, I have already stated my reasoning. It seems that we have philosophical differences, which is fine. I suppose that's why I live in Washington state and you live in whichever state you live in.

There are a few things I would like to examine in your post though. I don't believe comparing the DMV and driving tests to Police and shooting tests is completely accurate. While it is true that both cars and guns can be lethal weapons, the head of the DMV isn't out on a political crusade to get cars banned. Also, while you might approve of how Virgina handles their exams and application process, I would be willing to bet you might not have the same feelings as to how California decides on who gets permits. So the logic of 'because local exams work well in X state, they should be used in all states' doesn't really fly. Of course, the flip side of that argument is also true, just because the process stinks in California doesn't mean it stinks everywhere else. The thing is, I like (aside from my foil-hat fueled annoyance at the fingerprinting) the way my state's CCW process operates now and I adhere to the old slogan "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

Yeah, I was just messing around with you.

It's good to see logic in this thread.

I got me CC a fw months ago but I have only carries once. I guess right now I don't really need to carry, but I got it for the future when I would be runnign my own business and I may be carrying more cash on me after hours to the bank and such.