How would react to this kind of a law?

How would react to this kind of a law?

This is a discussion on How would react to this kind of a law? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I've been getting more and more frustrated the last few days with "gunbuster" signs in the stupidest places. I mean, McDonald's? Really people? So I ...

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 127
Like Tree122Likes

Thread: How would react to this kind of a law?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748

    How would react to this kind of a law?

    I've been getting more and more frustrated the last few days with "gunbuster" signs in the stupidest places. I mean, McDonald's? Really people?

    So I was thinking about the law here (in Arizona, it has the force of law) and wondered how this type of thing would work:

    Keep Constitutional carry and normal CCL as it is.

    Then, offer an advanced CCL license that incorporates tight shooting quals, mandatory continued training (defensive handgun, combat handgun, low-light etc.) and a declaration of range time, and last, a year with a CCL. The upside to an advanced CCL, is that it would allow you to ignore all "gunbuster" signs posted by businesses and services, except those posted by the federal government or state government.

    In other words, those who prove that they are willing to go the extra mile to handle their weapon appropriately at all times, are rewarded with a greater amount of trust to do so, whereas those who are not, still keep their constitutional right to bear arms. Since the government has been involved in private but public space already (restaurants, etc), there's no expanding of government authority or reach.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    You lost me at mandatory.
    "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
    "Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,027
    You mean, How much infringement and intrusiveness would I accept to qualify my right to be armed?

    You mean, How would continued and expanded distrust of citizens and failure to strictly hold criminals liable for criminal misuse/abuse of the tool work? Badly, I'd say.

    In other words, those who prove that they are willing to go the extra mile to handle their weapon appropriately at all times, are rewarded with a greater amount of trust to do so

    ... whereas those who are not, still keep their constitutional right to bear arms.
    Extreme disconnect, right there. Rewarding constitutional rights only if??


    Q: How would I react to such an unjust, unconstitutional law?
    A: I could tell you how I really felt, but then I'd have to "keeeeel" you. (Said in your best Peter Lorre voice.)
    blitzburgh, GH, msgt/ret and 5 others like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Why should more training allow you more rights?

    Everyone in the US is allowed the same First Amendment right and they dont even have to graduate school.

    Some of you seem to think that carrying a gun makes you special or something. Separates you from the herd, makes you the sheepdog and not the sheep.

    Which IMO is why some of you feel that you have to inform people when you enter their homes that you are legally carrying a gun...just out of the blue, whether they want to know or care or not.

    The 2nd Amendment is a right that ALL Americans share. The fact that some people are restricted, like felons, or that the govt has indeed made some restrictions, doesnt mean that's right.

    I'd resent having to prove that I can be 'trusted' just like I resent people implying I'm wrong or disrespectful to carry a gun and not tell every property owner.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array Richard58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Charlotte area of North Carolina
    Posts
    2,106
    If a company has a no gun sign up I just go elsewhere to do my business. I respect owners property wishes. Makes like easier in the long run.
    The police are not there to protect you from crime, they are there to arrest the guy after the crime has been committed, assuming they find him. It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Wow.

    Alright. Primer for those of you NOT in Arizona. Currently, all signs have the force of law. Thus, there is NO right to carry in any restaurant that has a gun buster sign. So, you're all telling me, you'd rather stick to NO rights to carry on business private property? Because in essence, THAT is what I'm asking:

    would you be for a law that negates private business's ability to determine whether you can carry on their property, with the caveat that you must first take extra training and have a CCL for a year.

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,027
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    The 2nd Amendment is a right that ALL Americans share. The fact that some people are restricted, like felons, or that the govt has indeed made some restrictions, doesnt mean that's right.

    I'd resent having to prove that I can be 'trusted' just like I resent people implying I'm wrong or disrespectful to carry a gun and not tell every property owner.
    Exactly so.

    Keep your infringements and wad 'em up into a tight ball. Got a match, here, if you need one.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    Wow.

    Alright. Primer for those of you NOT in Arizona. Currently, all signs have the force of law. Thus, there is NO right to carry in any restaurant that has a gun buster sign. So, you're all telling me, you'd rather stick to NO rights to carry on business private property? Because in essence, THAT is what I'm asking:

    would you be for a law that negates private business's ability to determine whether you can carry on their property, with the caveat that you must first take extra training and have a CCL for a year.
    To me, must = mandatory, so once again you lost me.
    darbo, Ghost1958 and 84160 like this.
    "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
    "Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Why should more training allow you more rights?

    Everyone in the US is allowed the same First Amendment right and they dont even have to graduate school.

    Some of you seem to think that carrying a gun makes you special or something. Separates you from the herd, makes you the sheepdog and not the sheep.

    Which IMO is why some of you feel that you have to inform people when you enter their homes that you are legally carrying a gun...just out of the blue, whether they want to know or care or not.

    The 2nd Amendment is a right that ALL Americans share. The fact that some people are restricted, like felons, or that the govt has indeed made some restrictions, doesnt mean that's right.

    I'd resent having to prove that I can be 'trusted' just like I resent people implying I'm wrong or disrespectful to carry a gun and not tell every property owner.
    First, go ahead and direct it at me instead of "some of you," since you are calling me out.

    Second, either you didn't read my post, or your ignoring it, since currently there IS NO RIGHT to carry on business private property if they have a sign, since they are the force of law. I'm really surprised that you, of all people, would want to give up the right to carry in a restaurant, or at the very least, leave it up to the owners discretion in a public place.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by blitzburgh View Post
    To me, must = mandatory, so once again you lost me.
    Wait, so instead, you'd be willing to undergo mandatory disarming before entering the restaurant?

    (BTW - what do you think about what we did with J. Harrison?)

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    Wait, so instead, you'd be willing to undergo mandatory disarming before entering the restaurant?

    (BTW - what do you think about what we did with J. Harrison?)
    I'm still waking up so give me a minute to reply to the heart of your post but for now, I think it's a damn shame what we did with Harrison (he's real pro 2A by the way)!!!!!! Also, sucks about Wallace, man I could go on forever but I won't.
    "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
    "Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the gist of your post is that people who undergo additional/advanced training would therefore be allowed to carry in previously restricted areas?
    "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
    "Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    First, go ahead and direct it at me instead of "some of you," since you are calling me out.

    Second, either you didn't read my post, or your ignoring it, since currently there IS NO RIGHT to carry on business private property if they have a sign, since they are the force of law. I'm really surprised that you, of all people, would want to give up the right to carry in a restaurant, or at the very least, leave it up to the owners discretion in a public place.
    My position on carrying on private business property is different from carrying on private homeowners property.

    And when YOU in particular feel that people should expose their carrying firearms all the time to any private property owner *because it's <fill in your reason that it is so important to you because I still dont understand it> what makes you think that all the training in the world will change many business owner's mind? Not to mention that some of that is driven by their franchise or insurance company, and not personal feelings.

    Some people dont even want armed (obviously trained) cops in schools, that's how fearful they are of guns.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by blitzburgh View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the gist of your post is that people who undergo additional/advanced training would therefore be allowed to carry in previously restricted areas?
    Yeah seems like it.

    I see zero point in it. We recently had a couple of threads on the fact that there is NO data that shows mandatory training has any affect at all on gun-related accidents or incidents (not crime).

    Actually there is one study comparing OR and WA states where OR requires training and WA does not and WA has a larger population and less gun-related incidents.

    I think it's even more irrelevant when you consider how rarely cc'ers end up drawing and using their weapons. Now narrow that down to specific 'special' places and specific 'special' training and see how worthwhile it is?

    There is no doubt more training has value...but for the purpose the OP describes??? I wish he could articulate better his unusual views on firearms.They do not seem based on actual need. (And I can articulate that specifically but dont want to pull the thread off topic)
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Yeah seems like it.

    I see zero point in it. We recently had a couple of threads on the fact that there is NO data that shows mandatory training has any affect at all on gun-related accidents or incidents (not crime).

    Actually there is one study comparing OR and WA states where OR requires training and WA does not and WA has a larger population and less gun-related incidents.

    I think it's even more irrelevant when you consider how rarely cc'ers end up drawing and using their weapons. Now narrow that down to specific 'special' places and specific 'special' training and see how worthwhile it is?

    There is no doubt more training has value...but for the purpose the OP describes??? I wish he could articulate better his unusual views on firearms.They do not seem based on actual need. (And I can articulate that specifically but dont want to pull the thread off topic)
    You presented this better than I can at the moment but this is exactly how I feel about it.

    I'm not for mandatory anything, whether it be gun ownership, training, registration etc.
    "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
    "Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... 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
  •  

Search tags for this page

ars 4-229 violation

,

ccw badge round/star

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors