This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Myracle on 27 June 2011 - 16:06
Unless the 2nd Amendment contains the only other grammatical error in the US Constitution [the first being found in the Preamble], the sole intended purpose of firearm ownership in the United States is to protect citizens from tyranny at the hands of their own government.
Concealed firearms aren't necessary to achieve that end, and therefore aren't a right explicitely provided by the US Constitution. Some states have granted that additional right to their citizens, some have not.
However, I believe the spirit of the Constitution and the principles of our Republic provide for Concealed Carry as a right of all citizens.
I support a Federal law standardizing Concealed Carry in all 50 states, PROVIDED that it was not accompanied by a mandated registry of gun owners. Federalize the standard, leave the administration up to the individual states. The precedent already exists for Peace Officers [unless I am mistaken; MPs were never afforded the right to carry off-duty, so I am admittedly under-informed as to the particulars], so it is demonstrably practical.
One of the biggest barriers to such implementation would be the definitions of crimes as they vary from state to state.
This is a barrier that the Military often encounters during recruit accesssions. What one state considers felony assault, for example, may only be misdemeanour assault in another. This is how, for example, my step-son with a felony conviction was able to serve in the US Army. His conviction is only considered a felony in the state of Washington. In nearly every other state in the Union, it's a misdemeanour.
And, to add my own personal rant...
If Military Service is a path to citizenship, I personally believe that Military service should also be a path to pardon for past criminal convictions.
If the crime was so slight that the Military didn't consider it a bar to Service, the person served a full term of Service, to include multiple combat tours, and was discharged Honorably and continues to live life as a productive citizen, why shouldn't that person have the full rights of Citizenship restored to him or her?
But no. My stepson can never own firearms, despite the fact that he lawfully and honorably carried one in defense of his Country for two combat tours in Iraq, because of a single mistake he made prior to enlistment. A person who was not a citizen would have been granted the right not only to bear arms, but to vote and seek employment without prejudice, following their service.
Concealed firearms aren't necessary to achieve that end, and therefore aren't a right explicitely provided by the US Constitution. Some states have granted that additional right to their citizens, some have not.
However, I believe the spirit of the Constitution and the principles of our Republic provide for Concealed Carry as a right of all citizens.
I support a Federal law standardizing Concealed Carry in all 50 states, PROVIDED that it was not accompanied by a mandated registry of gun owners. Federalize the standard, leave the administration up to the individual states. The precedent already exists for Peace Officers [unless I am mistaken; MPs were never afforded the right to carry off-duty, so I am admittedly under-informed as to the particulars], so it is demonstrably practical.
One of the biggest barriers to such implementation would be the definitions of crimes as they vary from state to state.
This is a barrier that the Military often encounters during recruit accesssions. What one state considers felony assault, for example, may only be misdemeanour assault in another. This is how, for example, my step-son with a felony conviction was able to serve in the US Army. His conviction is only considered a felony in the state of Washington. In nearly every other state in the Union, it's a misdemeanour.
And, to add my own personal rant...
If Military Service is a path to citizenship, I personally believe that Military service should also be a path to pardon for past criminal convictions.
If the crime was so slight that the Military didn't consider it a bar to Service, the person served a full term of Service, to include multiple combat tours, and was discharged Honorably and continues to live life as a productive citizen, why shouldn't that person have the full rights of Citizenship restored to him or her?
But no. My stepson can never own firearms, despite the fact that he lawfully and honorably carried one in defense of his Country for two combat tours in Iraq, because of a single mistake he made prior to enlistment. A person who was not a citizen would have been granted the right not only to bear arms, but to vote and seek employment without prejudice, following their service.
by zdog on 28 June 2011 - 01:06
WI just passed and signed into law Concealed Carry. Previously they had been a open carry only state, now CC is now law. Permits are needed and there are some courts and places like that they aren't allowed, but not many restrictions. Private business may post signs not allowing them. But that is fine with me, it's a private business and they should be able to do what they want, Just like they should be able to allow or not allow smoking, but that's another debate :)
It just passed, so not up on all the details.
It just passed, so not up on all the details.
by alboe2009 on 28 June 2011 - 02:06
BabyEagle4U,
Very good!
Very good!
by GSDNewbie on 28 June 2011 - 15:06
I support the right to protect myself and my family by any means nessecery. I have a concealed weapon permit as does my husband and we go to the range regularly for practice. I feel that anyone interested in such should take a class, be well versed in the use and care of guns, make the determination that they will use lethal force and are ok with that in their mind before even beginning this path, and practice regualrly with carry drills and shooting practice. If anyone decides to treat it with any less respect then this is not for them. I am signing my youngest up for krav lessons in a couple months. Are we paranoid people? I do not feel we are as it has already saved one of our lives and that is worth it and more. Police are for after the fact and we are not willing to be sheep waiting for the predetors. I will not live in any state that does not allow carry permits. It is not for everyone, but it is for us and I will support the right to be able to do so.
by Mindhunt on 28 June 2011 - 21:06
Florida adopted the "castle doctrine" which if I understand how this works in Florida (admittedly, I am still trying to locate the actual bill), I no longer have the duty to retreat if someone breaks into my house, I am allowed to defend myself with my legal handgun. This also applies to my place of business. Again, I am still trying to find the actual bill. Florida also has reciprocity with other states that have CCW laws. I actually had an interesting conversation with a gang member we were transporting and this is what he said.
When the gang has someone "jumping in", one of the things they have to do first is rob a house. If we want them to be successful, we tell them look for any bumper stickers on the cars that are against handgun violence or owning guns. We also tell them look for outside signs of dogs such as bowls, toys, dog poop (to see how big the dog is), and dead grass where the dog runs. We also tell them look for Volvos and Subarus (it was years ago) because those people usually are aniti-gun and don't have guns. We tell them avoid pickup trucks and SUVs that look like they are well used. Avoid any FOP, PD or FD stickers. No muscle cars or Harleys because they are not afraid to shoot you. Anyway, that is what this gang member said. He also pointed out that most women are easy targets because they hesitate before doing anything because they are scared of making a mistake and overreacting (again, this was years ago), he said women are always too late with the self-defense becasue they let a guy get close to them and asking them to help find some address or something allows a guy to get in close, then it's too late.
Made me think
When the gang has someone "jumping in", one of the things they have to do first is rob a house. If we want them to be successful, we tell them look for any bumper stickers on the cars that are against handgun violence or owning guns. We also tell them look for outside signs of dogs such as bowls, toys, dog poop (to see how big the dog is), and dead grass where the dog runs. We also tell them look for Volvos and Subarus (it was years ago) because those people usually are aniti-gun and don't have guns. We tell them avoid pickup trucks and SUVs that look like they are well used. Avoid any FOP, PD or FD stickers. No muscle cars or Harleys because they are not afraid to shoot you. Anyway, that is what this gang member said. He also pointed out that most women are easy targets because they hesitate before doing anything because they are scared of making a mistake and overreacting (again, this was years ago), he said women are always too late with the self-defense becasue they let a guy get close to them and asking them to help find some address or something allows a guy to get in close, then it's too late.
Made me think
by Mystere on 28 June 2011 - 23:06
Mindhunt,
Funny, but I heard similar things from the "other side" !
In fact, I used to ask how they picked victims, targeted houses, etc. and was told very much the same thing...except, that women would generally be slower to react. (Maybe they didn't want to say that to a woman?) The other thing they looked at was expensive cars in lower income areas--the assumption was that those car owners would shoot first and foremost to protect their "baby" because they were either sacrificing to own that vehicle...or they were criminals . Either way, their rides were off limits. 
Funny, but I heard similar things from the "other side" !
In fact, I used to ask how they picked victims, targeted houses, etc. and was told very much the same thing...except, that women would generally be slower to react. (Maybe they didn't want to say that to a woman?) The other thing they looked at was expensive cars in lower income areas--the assumption was that those car owners would shoot first and foremost to protect their "baby" because they were either sacrificing to own that vehicle...or they were criminals . Either way, their rides were off limits. Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top