Mind_Storm

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/gil...illespie2.html


F**k the Law: Illegal Concealed Carry

by Mark Gillespie

I will admit openly that I carry weapons, both openly and concealed. I will also admit to having done this most of my life. Even as a child, I carried knives, sticks and even homemade nunchaku to defend myself. I grew up in a housing project in Kansas City , and while violence wasn’t necessarily more prevalent there, it happened often enough to warrant protecting myself.

More recently, I acquired my first firearm. As a new weapon owner, I didn’t even think twice about carrying it on my person. It was a matter-of-fact thing to me. I have never and will never ask anyone’s permission to do what is perfectly natural for me to do. However, most Libertarians and ignorant anarchists cheer when the state passes a concealed-carry law. “A boost for freedom-lovers everywhere,” “The state finally respecting the Second Amendment,” et cetera, is what I am hearing on a daily basis. Silly fools . . . .

In the last year, my home state of Missouri has become one of a group of states that has passed a concealed-carry law. On October 11, this law came into effect. Now, never mind the fact that there is no way to acquire a concealed-carry permit, and never mind that in the larger cities, people are already banding together (in violation of the law) to prevent you carrying anywhere other than inside your house. Let’s look at the idea of a concealed-carry law. The principal idea behind the concealed-carry law is that the State can determine what level of protection you are entitled to. After all, don’t they have their different security apparatuses like the police and the various alphabet soup agencies? Why does a “citizen” need to avail themselves of personal protection, is the question foremost on their minds. The idea of someone taking their protection in their own two hands either is anathema to them or something that they cannot comprehend. They also don’t realize that there could possibly be a deeper agenda to the whole gun control idea. So, they sheepishly continue to follow the gun control nuts to their doom, while criminals get bolder and bolder.

The fact is that, as an anarch, I don’t feel that any other individual or their chosen tool, the State, has the right to tell me how much protection and what form of it I may have. Sure, I could see everyone’s nervousness if I was nuclear armed, but a pistol? So, I say, f**k the law! Until the state can guarantee with 100 percent certainty that they can protect me from all harmful individuals (and they never will), I will carry, regardless of their “law.” It has always been possible to have your weapon stolen (confiscated) and your ass locked up. However, you may find, like I did, that the police might be more on your side than you think. I have never been arrested or had my weapon confiscated. I attribute this to more luck than anything else, but it does prove a point. If the person on the frontlines of fighting crime feels safer with you carrying a weapon, then what the hell does your couch potato, 2.2 children-having, statist neighbors have to say about it?

propaganda

Thats a pretty intense read man but i dont have a definite position on this subject. it depends on what side your on and how your looking at it

Aesik

While those are some interesting points, the main problem I see with that point of view is that is 'being a rebel' may do alot more harm than good. If too many people ignore or openly taunt the law, those that are in the middle of the road on the debate just may turn to the gun control side.

I believe in the second ammendment but I also believe there are right and wrong ways to go about protecting it.

im2smrt4u

I know that the government doesn't give a fuck about my well being or safety, and if I want to be safe, it's my responsibility. No one is watching my back but myself.

Personally, I would hope I could protect myself legally, but if not...

__________________
Starkizzer Fan Club - President & Founder

TWISTEDBADGER

He has a point, but....... The "STATE" has no obligation to protect an individual. But does have an obligation to afford protection to the public. The key word here being "public". That obligation extends to protecting the ideals and ethics of the majority. Our society is based on the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group.
Welcome to Democracy.

thejoker130

In all actuality there is no contitutional guarantee of the right to own a gun. Th second amendment is kinda vague but it doesnt say that all citizens have a right to carry a weapon. It says that state militia members(national gaurd if you will) can own weapons according to the exact wording. Most people just interpret the second amendment to include all citizens.

__________________
WHAT MORE CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?
-------------------------------------
I like you. When the world is mine your death will be quick and painless.

The_Dunedan

Actually, Joker, that's exactly what is -does- say, especially if read in context with the Militia Act.
The Militia Act defines as "Militia" all males between 17 and 45. In 1789, this basically meant anyone who was capable of serving in a combat capacity in the military. This could be extrapolated to include all persons over 17 today. The Militia, therefore, means everyone.
The Militia Act was amended with the passage of the National Gaurd Act in 1913. The Nat'l Gaurd Act defined the Militia as:
A: The Nat'l Gaurds themselves ( the Organized Militia ) AND
B: Everyone Else ( The Unorganized Militia ).
So, both the Consitiution itself and Federal Law define the 2nd as an Individual Right. Furthermore, the writings of the Founders ( letters, diaries, etc etc ) make it ABUNDENTLY clear that they meant for the 2nd, like the other first 8 Amendments, to apply to individuals. If you are, according to the Militia Act and Nat'l Gaurd Act, a member of the Militia ( I am, and so is everyone else over age 17 ) then yes, you have the right to own firearms. Of whatever type you like; statist nonsense like NFA34, GCA68, Brady, AWB etc etc notwithstanding.
The phrase "well regulated" comes up for debate alot; many people interpret it as meaning "well controlled." In 1798, however, the word "regulated" simply meant "functioning in proper order." In some circles it still does; a clock which is Regulated has been certified to keep accurate time, for instance. In modern language, the 2nd could be translated as;
"A properly functioning militia ( as defined above ) being nessesary..."
The final arguement is this; the words "the People" have, in the case of every other amendment, been universally acknowledged as meaning individuals; you, me, Joe Blow on the street. So how is it that when the same words ( the People ) are used in the 2nd Amendement, they suddenly, magically, mean "the States" instead of "the People?"

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

captain

Yes the 2nd Amendment does say we can all own guns. The gun control lobby has been searching for a good court case to take to the top but so far they drop the appeal before it gets to the Supreme Court.

I don't think this court will allow the denial of gun rights.

I am concerned that we will be required to register all firearms. I don't think Uncle Sam needs to know that I own a shotgun or a pistol. At the risk of sounding conspiratorial The first thing that both the Communists in Russia in1917 and and the National Socialist party in 1934? was confiscate all privately owned weapons.

We should not take the chance here. Our cops are the best but they can't do it all. I can take care of me and my family.

__________________
captain

skyscan

So, is he complaining that they made right to conceal guns is legal now?

I know it turned rant-like but I am really trying to find the main idea. Regardless, I live in the same state.

The thing I find amazing about the Missouri situation is this, this EXACT same issue was taken to the voters, not once but twice. The voters decided that Missouri was not going to allow people to conceal weapons. So, our ellected officials (hey they know best right?) decided that no voting by the people was needed the third time, they would pass it themselves.

My main concern is getting pulled over, having the officer come to my car while I'm grabbing for my insurance, and him thinking that I'm grabbing my gun. He fires. I get shot for nothing. He gets my medical bills. etc.

Now, before you accuse me of being anti-gun let me say this, I fire my sks at a firing range often and have already picked up my permits for deer hunting this year.

__________________
Media Stew

Moonduck

Many people? Including Harvard Law professors? Supreme Court Judges? The Framers of the Constitution? The 2nd amendmant says nothing about a "state" militia. Additionally, all of the basic rights recognized in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. Why in the world would the framers, many of whom were lawyers and scholars of high order, include a non-individually based right smack in the midst of a large number of individual rights without making a solid definition?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's from memory so it might not be exact. That "right of the people" part seems pretty strong to me.

That said, back on the subject of the original post, if you want to carry illegally, go ahead. Just make sure that you are willing to pay the price for your legals misstep, and make doubly sure that you are safe with your carry piece. It may be some anarcho statement to say that the state has no right to dictate what level of protection you have, but politics are BS in the face of being a responsible gun-owner.

I went through the necessary steps to obtain my CCW, and I don't think I've carried concealed but a handful of times since then. I only carry when I feel like I will travelling in an area or circumstance where my safety is debatable. Yes, I can avoid those areas if I want to feel safe, but, in my case, my job is such that I sometimes have to go to the "bad side" of town. When that occurs, I am a tad more likely to come home with my legally carried weapon.

shakran

The_Dunedan:



"B: Everyone Else ( The Unorganized Militia )."

"A WELL REGULATED militia"

See the trouble here?

An unorganized militia is not a well regulated one. Therefore, by your argument, the 2nd applies only to option A, the national guard.


The simple truth is that, no matter how much it may piss the NRA off, the 2nd IS vague. It's not clearly worded. It's open for a LOT of interpretation, and that interpretation could frankly go either way, although the stronger argument is that the 2nd was intended to arm a militia and not the entire populace.


You also have to remember that the constitiution and the bill of rights, is mainly a document that refers to how the FEDERAL government must act. In other words, the 2nd is basically saying that the federal government can't march in and tell state militias to give up their guns, which would make the federal military overly powerful.

The_Dunedan

You apparently missed the part where I provided the pertinent ( read; 1789 ) definition of "well regulated." As long as the Militia ( as defined by the Militia Act and National Gaurd Act ) is functioning in proper order, it is, by definition, 'well regulated.'
The 2nd Amendment is no more vauge than any other; when it says "the People" it means The People: when other Amendments address the States ( 9, 10, etc ) they specify 'the States.'
How can you say that the "collective right" is the stronger, when the letters and diaries of the Founders make it abundently clear that they regarded the right to bear arms as a fundamentally individual one? Youir position is illogical and does not square with the facts; Federal Law provides for this, as does the Constitution and the words of the drafters therof.

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

shakran

Exactly how is a bunch of random people who never get together and who certainly never do anything together "functioning in proper order?"

There IS no order, and there IS no functioning in proper order because there IS no militia TO function in proper order.

I'm not for banning guns, but there are a lot of arguments for keeping them around that are a lot stronger than pulling out the tired old 2nd ammendment line.



As to how I can say the collective right is stronger, study the grammar. It says "The right of THE PEOPLE. . ." not "The right of THE INDIVIDUAL."

It specifically refers to a collective. People.

uh_clem

The fact is that anyone with an eighth grade education could know what THEY meant when they wrote THAT. Isn't that what matters?

Virtually all of the men who we refer to as the 'Founding Fathers' wrote PLENTY of other stuff. Some referring to general feelings on general subjects from which we can discern their general leanings, and some discussions with each other ABOUT WHAT THEY MEANT TO SAY AND WHY.

It seems to me that most people on both sides of the argument just WANT to argue about it.

If you care, go to the library. If you just wanted to argue then pardon my intrusion.

Moonduck

Federalist Papers, personal diaries, letters to the editor, public speeches, letters to other Framers, etc all show the same thing about the 2nd Amendmant. The Founding Fathers, with direct and purposeful intent, meant the 2nd Amendmant specifically to keep the governement from confiscating the arms of the individual citizen of this great nation.

I live about 40 minutes away from Williamsburg in Virginia. Yorktown Battleground is about as far away. Monticello is a few hours away, and DC is within 3 hours. A HELL of a lot of early American history happened in my locale and you can't swing a dead cat without hitting some doyenne that will recount some obscura about the War of Independence. I can drive down to Colonial Williamsburg right now and see the armoury of the colonial capitol and see the spot where the colonial Governor stored the confiscated arms of local Virginians. I can also see the building that those Virginians raided to get their legal property back, in one of the early blows of the Revolution.

Many of the Framers were Virginians, and a number were affected by that moment of confiscation. Quite a number wrote about it and used it as an example of sheer governmental tyranny. They recognized that an unarmed populace was a collection of victims waiting to be oppressed. This is where the 2nd Amendmant came from, not some vague desire to provide protection for militia. The logic is even more evident when you realize, as was mentioned before, what the definition of the militia was back then.

The 2nd, like every other right, is an individual right. Understand the consistency of the document.

sanscritt

If I should get pulled over (haven't in a while, knock on wood) I will get my license/registration ready and be waiting for the officer with left wrist crossed over right on the steering wheel. That way he can see that I can't do anything quickly enough to be a threat.

Just don't make alot of sudden moves

sanscritt

sanscritt

I respect everyone's opinion and I can understand what you are saying, but how do you know that when you leave the house without your firearm that this time you won't need it?

I have had my CCW for 3 years and carry every time I leave the house (at least in the car, can't carry at work). I live in a small, relatively safe, town. I carry every day so I feel comfortable carrying, comfortable drawing, and don't keep hitching or shifting a large frame weapon.
Now I feel naked without it.

Just my .02
sanscritt

Journeyman

I remember reading some years ago about the Hell's Angels groups in California getting busted every so often for concealing hand guns. They all ended up buying holsters, and carry them out in the open now. Don't quote me on that.

Moonduck

Very few cops would be that jumpy. Also, one of the first things that you are taught in any good CCW course is how to deal with cops if you are pulled over or questioned. The first thing that you do is clearly inform them, with your hands in plain sight, that you are currently armed and a CCW permit holder. The cop will then give you whatever instructions he is trained to give in those cases. Honestly though, most cops I know relax just a bit when they realize they're dealing with a CCW holder.

You see, us CCW holders are a law-abiding bunch.

uh_clem

Exactly.

Moonduck

Well, there is no way to know, of course, but there are times when I know NOT to take the gun. Examples being taking my Mother onto the local Army base so she can go the doctor, or if I know that I am going to a bar.

My situation is a bit odd in that I drive quite a bit, and range over a wide area through various types of areas including urban, suburban, rural, industrial, and all levels of danger that you see in my locale. If I am going solely to an industrial site, I really doubt that I'll have any real need for the piece. If I am going to a neighbourhood with higher-than-average incidence of crime, I had better carry.

In general, I don't carry. This means that I don't have the weapon on my person. My job (insurance adjuster and estimator) is such that I have to crawl under vehicles, over obstacles, and various other physical maneuvers that make concealed carry problematic. Thus the gun is not on me. It is, however, in the vehicle at all times (well, it's locked up at night, of course). So perhaps I was being too precise in saying I don't usually carry.

Make more sense?

pocon1

There is a reason the second amendment is in the place it is in. the first deals with the right to protest the government. The second insures that that right can be activated. I mean, it is the 2nd right that is granted, not the 5th, 7th or 10th. How many people even know what the ninth amandment is?

John Falcon

My state is nice (PA), when you apply for a permit they have to find a reason NOT to give it to you. (felon, mental patient, etc.)

It's good anywhere in the state except for in a "City of the first class"...also known as Philly.

Only the crooks are allowed them there.

skinbag

I'm in Wisconsin, and a CCW bill is about to be vetoed by the Gov. , but may get pushed through by majority.( Although polls put most citizens against it.) That got me thinking...There's a good chance we'll have gay marriage rights and the right to carry handguns in the same state. Both are cases of the freedom of individuals or small groups being upheld as a matter of principle by the majority. I love Wisconsin!! (And they say cheeseheads are hicks!)

Sion

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

many of those who hold that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the individual right to firearms tend to focus on the semantics, specifically the meaning of "well-regulated militia." the problem with that tactic is that it ignores the construction of the sentence. the militia phrase ocurrs in the SUBORDINATE CLAUSE of the sentence, which means that what is expressed therein is ancilliary to the main point.

the main point is: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." this part of the sentence can stand alone and carry its meaning. the subordinate clause cannot.

that is the ONLY part of the sentence that is of any importance. the meaning "a well-regulated militia" is irrelevant to the guarantee.

note that the sentence does NOT say "In order to guarantee the security of a free state, the right of a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IF that were the wording, then the meaning of militia would come to bear. it is not and therefore does not.

elsewhere, there is debate over the use of the plural term "the people." essentially, what this arguement boils down to is that if two individuals standing together have guns, they are "the people" but if only one person is standing there, he is not "the people" and therefore not entitled to the guarantee. this is absurdity in the extreme.


the 2nd amendment DOES guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms. it really is that simple.

__________________
He's the best, of course, of all the worst.
Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz

I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

opey99

exactly what I was thinking when I read that, same thing I was told by the instructor for the safety course required by law here, hands in plain sight, so the officer can see.

it can make cops nervous if somebody is grabbing for stuff when they are on their way to the car, who knows what they've got, is it the license, or a pistol, or a knife, drugs, etc.

__________________
name's Bramage, Dain Bramage

basmoq

hum dee dum, interesting conversation ya'll. I think I'll just keep my pistol, pay my NRA dues, and get my conceal and carry permit. I really don't care if the gov. wants to try and regulate my guns, cause they will never know the full extent of my collection without one hell of a thorough search of my house. For that matter, the current Supreme Court does not seem to be interested in going any further than that Damned Brady Bill. With any luck, my kids will be able to cary guns. If not, I'll move to Canada (it aint far).

Moonduck

Canada ain't all that gun-friendly, y'know.

Dwarf020

now i dont pretend to know much, but dosent this belong in the politics forum instead of the weaponry forum? I'm pretty sure it's spelled out and such right in the rules for the forum.

MrFuzzy469

Well Mind_Storm,

You make some good points, but I don't care what you think, you get caught with that gun on you in public without a permit (or whatever your state requires) you will go to prison. Were I live it’s a felony....that's hard time!!!

blockmaan2000

Don't like the laws where you live....LEAVE.. Real simple. I know I could never live in Kalifornia due to their stupid gun laws. Ok, Ok Joe Schmoe can't have a concealed carry license, but Rosie O's bodyguard can?? Who's more likely to get mugged? Talk about inequalities....sheesh.




block