New, 'No Permit Necessary' laws

This is a discussion on New, 'No Permit Necessary' laws within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Fitch There is a lot to like about that. What I like the most is that someone who is in danger, or ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: New, 'No Permit Necessary' laws

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    There is a lot to like about that. What I like the most is that someone who is in danger, or being persued by a stalker of an ex husband/boyfriend/girl friend/<whatever> can buy a carry gun and have some protection immediately. They don't get reciprocity, but they don't need it. They are looking for something better than a useless restraining order for near term survival.

    There are no long term benefits of training that are better for someone in immediate danger for loss of life than having access to a gun if they need it. Long term benefits require long term survival.

    Last year, or maybe the year before, there was a 911 tape by a lady hiding in a closet waiting terrified with a borrowed gun in her hand while an ex of some sort with a violent history broke into the house, broke into the bedroom, opened the closet and grabbed her. She had no escape, the sounds of him coming were plain on the tape. She shot him and survived. Someone loaned her the gun. She didn't have a day of training, she had a gun when she needed it and survived.

    Folks who want reciprocity to work for them have the option to get a permit, take training, etc. I think that's just fine. But nobody should have to go through training to have the right to defend them selves. That's just wrong.

    Training is optional. Survival isn't.

    Fitch
    Very well put....That about sums it up..
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NW Oregon
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    However, I think it will be much more difficult and dangerous for officers who make a stop to know if they are dealing with a good guy or a bad guy. For no reason other than officer safety, so called "constitutional carry" by itself is not all that good an idea. In fact, for officer safety reasons alone, it stinks.
    It has always been dangerous for officers to make stops. The difference is, now more good guys and gals will be able to protect themselves. The simple act of carrying a gun does not make an honest law abiding person go bad, although that is what the Brady Bunch would have us believe. Criminals have never needed a permit to carry, they just carry. Why not allow honest citizens the same level of self preservation? Our rights and freedoms are not to be sacrificed in order to make traffic stops easier or safer for police officers.
    Sui juris
    U.S. Navy Veteran '65-'69
    Retired Police Detective '71 - '01
    LEOSA Certified
    NRA Life Member / SAF Member
    U.S. Constitution (c) 1791, All Rights Reserved.

  4. #18
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by past60 View Post
    This may have been covered already, but I couldn't find anything with a quick search so pardon me if I'm beating a dead horse.

    With so many states now passing laws to allow concealed carry without permits, what will all this do to reciprocity? When I look at the map on Handgunlaw, Vermonters are only allowed to carry in Arizona and that certainly doesn't sound like it makes it possible to travel much outside of one's own state. Are we going to see two separate divisions of where you can carry....the 'haves' and the 'have nots'? It seems like a resident of Wyoming for instance will no longer be able to carry in Indiana for instance if he no longer has a 'permit'

    I suppose this is an example of why a national carry law would be helpful, but I find it puzzling that gang members can apparently now carry legally in states that used to require training, background checks, and a permit.

    What am I missing here?
    Regardless if they are gang members, they are still US Citizens and if they haven't broken any laws which would not allow them to own a firearm then they have the same rights as you and I. Of course the commission of crimes with the firearm on you such as ingesting drugs and alcohol, thievery, or other crimes is illegal and once they do that they are breaking the law. However we live in a country where we are innocent until proven guilty and that covers ALL citizens not just the ones we feel necessary so we cannot judge or isolate groups of people due to our own prejudices or values. I would also like to point out that gang members were still carrying long before these laws went into effect. Just my opinion here.

  5. #19
    Member Array 3dfxMM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    177
    To add to what Hopyard said, in Texas, the Motorist Protection Act (car carry) specifically excludes gang members along with anyone committing a crime other than a minor traffic violation.

  6. #20
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    I also want to point out that AZs constitutional carry law requires you to inform any law enforcement officer that you are carrying upon any form of contact with said officer. That being said if you are a bad guy or prohibited possessor you are not going to say anything anyway which means business as usual before the law.... now if you are a law abiding citizen permit or not, you now will inform the officer legally.... that is the only change besides the carry portion without a permit. The bad guys aren't going to inform LEO much like they havent in the past. They aren't going.... wow I can carry legally now, so now I am going to carry.... they have been carrying all along.

  7. #21
    Distinguished Member Array Brady's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,380
    +1
    The Constitution says nothing about a background check and you're never going to stop criminals bent on mischief from carrying.

    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    ...I would also like to point out that gang members were still carrying long before these laws went into effect. Just my opinion here.
    ...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
    USN/VET; NRA; GOA, jpfo.org
    Life in a Jar: The Irena Sendler Project www.irenasendler.com

  8. #22
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    You aren't missing anything. The points you raise are valid. We have a few legislatures where they are not living in the real world. Constitutional carry is great in theory. Things that are great in theory don't always work out so well in a practical and real world. In fact, the reason permitting became necessary was because prior to widespread bans on concealed weapons and the institution of permitting, things didn't work out at all. E.g., Texans, until recently, and not at all consistent with what most folks tended to think, had rather severe limits on possession of hand guns. There were reasons those stringent laws passed.

    Now, things have loosened up and anyone who is not prohibited (felony conviction) can car carry. It will take time to determine if car carry by non-license holders is a public safety hazard or not. However, while by law we keep records of convictions of license holders, we don't have a mechanism for doing the same with unlicensed car carry. In short, we won't ever find out if unlicensed car carry has or has not lead to an increase in gun violence or illegal possession.

    Now, AZ, having a couple of large population centers, particularly Phoenix Metro region, IS a very very good laboratory to find out what happens when permits are abolished. It will take a few years, but then we will know how crime data changed or not. We will also know if officer mortality rates changed. The experiment is on, but we don't know what the result will be.

    The other states where "constitutional carry" is allowed are too sparsely populated and lack the large diverse cities to draw safety conclusions from.

    I thoroughly disagree with Hot Guns on the idea that training requirements are bad, or that they necessarily prevent lower income people from getting permits. It can happen, but the permitting processes and training requirements can be altered to alleviate those issues. E.g., deep discounts are offered to seniors here.

    I know that I learned a great deal in the licensing courses I took, and I think the benefit greatly outweighs the downside.

    Oh, I don't think gang members can legally carry now in "constitutional carry states." Gang members either will have convictions, will be underage, or be engaged in other unlawful activities which get enhanced charges if a gun is involved. By definition, being a gang member you are part of a group engaged in organized illegal activity and should not be in possession of a handgun or other gun.

    However, I think it will be much more difficult and dangerous for officers who make a stop to know if they are dealing with a good guy or a bad guy. For no reason other than officer safety, so called "constitutional carry" by itself is not all that good an idea. In fact, for officer safety reasons alone, it stinks.

    Hot Guns is an officer and he has strong feelings the other way, and maybe you will find AZ officers who also feel as he does. I just can't see it.

    Again, only time and practice and actual experience will inform us of the realities.
    I've become a fan of Constitutional Carry after having a position similar to your's.

    I've come to the realization that liberty isn't safe, and I would much rather have liberty over safety any day. Take the "Nanny State" and put it where the sun don't shine.

    Biker
    Katana likes this.

  9. #23
    74
    74 is offline
    Member Array 74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Hermit's Peak
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    I also want to point out that AZs constitutional carry law requires you to inform any law enforcement officer that you are carrying upon any form of contact with said officer.
    Would you provide a reference for this? I ask because on handgunlaw.us AZ is still listed as being "Must inform officer: NO". Which means that you only need to inform if the officer specifically asks about you being armed or in possession.

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,014
    Vermont is the only state with 'constitutional carry' that does not have a legacy permitting system in place. I don't know what Wyoming will do, but would guess they'll do the same, just as the other states that look like they're going to pass similar provisions.

    If this 'forced reciprocity' thing passes, I wonder if VT residents will get stiffed. I can see a lot of states no longer pursuing reciprocity agreements, as there won't be much of a point for them. Other state residents can just go get a permit if they need one for travel, but not VT residents.

  11. #25
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,627
    Let me make something perfectly clear here.

    To suppress the right of self protection because of OFFICER SAFETY is not only wrong, but it smacks of elitism. Lets not forget that for most of the history of this country, permits were not needed or even wanted by free thinking men.

    Fact of the matter is...an officer, any officer, is supposed to assume that anyone that he stops is armed. Using the argument of officer safety to suppress what we never should have given up is wrong.

    As for the background check..it proves only one thing. It proves that you were smart enough to not get caught if you did happen to do something wrong. It means that up until that point,you stayed below the radar.

    Passing it does not make you a "good guy" and it sure doesn't make a person any better than the next. Going through the system of fingerprints, background checks, or even required training to a state standard does not actually prevent anyone from doing anything and is flawed logic to assume that one that passes those controls are any better than someone who has not.

    There are people in this country that want to control every aspect of our lives. Controlling YOUR ability to defend yourself with a handgun is one of them. They can control the training, control the licensing fee's, control the amount of time until it is valid or not valid, they can control where they let you carry it or not carry it, it is nothing more than a control issue.

    Some people are finally waking up. A free man realizes that he doesn't need permission from another man to be able to protect himself or his family, that right is a natural right, it is ingrained in most of us, it is a right given to us by the Creator, and ANY thing that hinders that right is an infringement, one that the wise men that founded this country understood and practiced.

    Now that some states are waking up and realizing that very thing, the control freaks are sitting in a corner wringing their hands and crying "woe is me" because they have in fact lost some control. We are being bombarded by the news media about how terrible it is that a state legislature actually removes a hindrance, an infringement on a right to bear arms.We are being told that if we let this happen, if we let people carry a gun that haven't went through a background check to prove that they are innocent of wrongdoing, that if they haven't been fingerprinted like a common criminal or if they haven't had proper training then blood will run in the streets and things will return to the days like it was in the wild west where shoot outs happened every day at noon, which is yet another myth spread by Hollywood. We are told that society as we know it will cease to be. Its the same old crap spread by die hard liberals and stupid conservatives that don't know any better and they aren't even smart enough to come up with a different argument, they keep using the same one over and over.

    The founding fathers made it clear...painfully clear to those that can read and understand English. They didn't need lawyers to tell us what the Second Amendment really meant, because at that time, there was NO question as to the intent. It hadn't been muddled up by the control freaks with an agenda. Unlike today, those men were highly educated by institutions that actually taught things that mattered. These men could read and write well, they could actually use proper grammar and compose a composition and most of all, they could actually think...much unlike the those graduating today that can barely write or even read.

    I am in favor of removing government control and putting that freedom BACK in the hands of those that should have never given it up. It is a step in the right direction.
    Nanjing03, tkruf, Katana and 1 others like this.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,014
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Let me make something perfectly clear here.

  13. #27
    New Member Array Nanjing03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Beaufort, SC
    Posts
    4
    Greetings all. I am new to this forum because our state, South Carolina, is in the troughs of hammering out a constitutional carry reform intended to replace ... or augment ... the CWP law that we have had in place since 1996.

    As a veteran, former law enforcement officer, administrator, and firearms instructor, I am all for training, but at the same time, I'm a strict Constitutionalist who takes all of the Constitution, and in this case the 2nd Amendment, in its literal form. Right now the bill that would allow for constitutional carry is stuck in the General Assembly’s judicial committee. It is also under fire because it was watered down in a manner that it would not recognize out of state visitors right to keep and bear arms, even in the glove box of a vehicle or motel room, unless they had a CWP from their state, and even then there would have to be reciprocity between that state and South Carolina. Another problem is that 17 to 20 year old armed forces personnel would not be included. Finally, counties, municipalities and businesses could impose their own rules forbidding constitutional carry.

    Within a month, I went from being a strong supporter of this bill to being totally against it. Some of you from South Carolina might be familiar with it. I am worried that if the bill sits in the judicial committee too long, the issue will be dropped and nothing will happen. Perhaps it is better to have no bill now than get stuck with a bad law later.

  14. #28
    Senior Member
    Array Jeff F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Central Wyoming
    Posts
    635
    HotGuns, two words for you "Amen Brother"!!!
    "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" -Benjamin Franklin-
    __________________________________
    NRA Endowment Life Member

  15. #29
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,601
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Let me make something perfectly clear here.

    <snip great post>

    I am in favor of removing government control and putting that freedom BACK in the hands of those that should have never given it up. It is a step in the right direction.
    Right on!

    Fitch
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"Sigmund Freud

  16. #30
    Senior Member Array dV8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    734
    Quote Originally Posted by past60 View Post
    ... but I find it puzzling that gang members can apparently now carry legally in states that used to require training, background checks, and a permit.

    What am I missing here?
    The FACT that BadGuys will carry regardless if it is legal or not.
    LEARN something today so you can TEACH something tomorrow.
    Dominus Vobiscum <))>(
    Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?" T.S. Elliot

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Does a CW permit negate laws on blade length?
    By tooldawg99 in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2010, 08:13 PM
  2. NY laws / federal laws
    By sixsccw in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 14th, 2010, 10:25 AM
  3. Valid non-resident NH permit and expired TX permit
    By BenGoodLuck in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 8th, 2010, 01:50 PM
  4. Temp permit came Friday going to get the reg permit Monday
    By boradriver in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: February 9th, 2010, 10:23 PM
  5. NM laws vs. Arizona laws
    By TucAzRider in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 10th, 2009, 06:00 PM

Search tags for this page

indiana constitutional carry
,
motorist protection act age
,

motorist protection act texas

,

motorist protection act texas 2010

,
south carolina law abiding citizens protection act status
,

south carolina law-abiding citizens protection act

,

texas motorist protection act

,
texas motorist protection act age
,

the south carolina law-abiding citizens protection act

,
the south carolina law-abiding citizens protection act status
,
the south carolina law-abiding citizens protection act.
,

where can i get a concealed weapons permit in beaufort, sc

Click on a term to search for related topics.