Civil Disobedience? - Page 2

Civil Disobedience?

This is a discussion on Civil Disobedience? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I believe even our founding fathers (if they were still alive today) would agree that felons and the mentally disturbed shouldn't be allowed to keep ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Civil Disobedience?

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array SubNine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    1,972
    I believe even our founding fathers (if they were still alive today) would agree that felons and the mentally disturbed shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms, due to the obvious fact that they would be a danger to themselves and society. To infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens is simply wrong (I think we can all agree there though).
    USMC rule # 23 of gunfighting: Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

    I am the God fearing, gun toting, flag waving conservative you were warned about!


  2. #17
    Member Array General Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    354
    Do you think felons should be able keep and bear arms?
    Felons should be locked up. They shouldn't be let back into society unless they can be trusted with a gun. Isn't that the point of "rehabilitation?"
    Discretion is the better part of valour; and a virtue beyond reproach.
    Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association

  3. #18
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by spyderdude View Post
    I believe even our founding fathers (if they were still alive today) would agree that felons and the mentally disturbed shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms, due to the obvious fact that they would be a danger to themselves and society. To infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens is simply wrong (I think we can all agree there though).
    The mentally disturbed might very well be law abiding citizens.

    The problem is that we cannot nor should not simply say that any restriction is an infringment. As you say, if someone is a danger to society then the people not only have a right, but a responsibility to protect society.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array dunndw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    1,123
    Restrictions are not the same thing as infringement.

    ???
    Restrictions are infringements. By restricting your ability to do something I"m infringing on your right to do so. Aren't felons and the rights they lose after conviction covered under another amendment?
    "If I was an extremist, our founding fathers would all be extremists," he said. "Without them, we wouldn't have our independence. We'd be a disarmed British system of feudal subjectivity."

  5. #20
    Distinguished Member Array SubNine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    1,972
    Some people diagnosed with mental illnesses very well may not have committed any acts of violence towards themselves and/or society. There's no sure way to tell who's mentally ill and who's not, as our justice system is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." As for convicted felons, I think it may depend on the seriousness of the crime committed. If it wasn't a violent crime, then yes you should be able to keep and bear arms, but if you commit rape, murder, or any other violent act against another human being, then you can kiss your 2nd Amendment right goodbye.
    USMC rule # 23 of gunfighting: Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

    I am the God fearing, gun toting, flag waving conservative you were warned about!

  6. #21
    Member Array phaed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fort Huachuca, AZ
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No, it does not say that at all. The 1st Amendment specifically states that "Congress shall make no law..." The Second Amendment is quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is obviously not the same as "Congress shall make no law.."

    Restrictions are not the same thing as infringement. Do you think felons should be able keep and bear arms? Do you think the mentally disturbed should not have their rights restricted?

    Just as you cannot slander someone, you can not wave a firearm around in public. Restrictions are not necessarily infringement.
    i would argue the other way. there are many other entities that can make laws besides federal congress.

    the problem is that our legal system is completely screwed up. we've got too many BS laws clogging up the system (victimless crimes). if it weren't so overtaxed, it could do it's job and rehabilitate or keep seperation instead of just punishing and releasing.

    so, you are right. cons present a bigger danger after release than before under the present system. however, we are talking ideals here.

    the founding fathers would not supported prohibition or any other vice laws. they've done nothing but create organized crime, a bigger threat to police, and to civilians. drugs and alcohol are self regulating until the government steps in and tries to make money off of them...then they become the huge problem you see today.

    Do you think felons should be able keep and bear arms? Do you think the mentally disturbed should not have their rights restricted?
    i suppose you can guarantee with your "system" that none of these people have access to kitchen knives or hammers as well.
    War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill

  7. #22
    Distinguished Member Array SonofASniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,249
    While I am not pleased about many of the non-sensible and conflicting laws that do exist, Kavity, I do believe that we should do our best to follow them.

    You hear some people shout "out of my cold, dead hands", however we are not at that point. Hopefully we never will be.

    In your area, there are provisions for you to stay armed at virtually all times. You may not like some of those provisions, but at least you have provisions that other members here would probably be jealous of because they are completely restricted. My best suggestion is for you to exercise your legal priveledges to the fullest extent. The other is to get in contact with your representatives and help to change laws in the area so that you have an even broader range of carry options.

    Good luck, stay armed.
    I will support gun control when you can guarantee all guns are removed from this planet. That includes military and law enforcement. When you can accomplish that, then I will be the last person to lay down my gun. Then I will carry the weapon that replaces the gun.

  8. #23
    Senior Member Array jofrdo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    709
    I understand the problem and deal with it daily. I like to pocket carry my Kel-Tec PF-9. But if there is a chance of me later entering an alcohol serving restaurant, I make sure I have a paddle holster in the car; then I just slip the gun from the pocket holster and into the paddle. The paddle slips into the pants without having to unbuckle the belt. Presto chango, within a minute, I'm open carrying.

    Other times I carry the K-T or my larger Glock 23 in an IWB tuckable holster. Then I simply tuck the cover shirt inside the gun, and within five seconds, I'm open carrying.

    The problem is that all of my dining companions, as well as a business full of strangers, now know about the gun. Well, the law is not perfect, and we'd all like to change it, but there are certainly ways to live with it without disarming.

  9. #24
    Member Array dls56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    132
    Better open carry than no carry. Obey the law and work to change them for the better.
    Not all of us old timers have discriminatory thought toward young people, I find good and bad in folks of all ages, races, and gender.

  10. #25
    Member Array sailormnop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Tidewater, VA, USA
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by General Geoff View Post
    Felons should be locked up. They shouldn't be let back into society unless they can be trusted with a gun.
    +1

    If we can't trust someone with a gun, how can we trust them with a car, rat poison, a chainsaw, or even a ball point pen (anyone seen Grosse Point Blank)? If a person cannot be trusted, then we shouldn't be forced by a lenient legal system to trust them every day with access to all of the common implements (tools) that make living as a free person possible.

    If a person really is mentally disturbed to the point that he/she can't be trusted because he/she is a danger to self and others, that person should be separated from society. There are too many ways to cause harm.

    Any law that infringes on the constitutional rights of a free person, while it may be good-intentioned, is misguided and unconstitutional. It's just an attempt to put a bandaid on the fact that they are putting too many people in prison for victimless crimes with minimum mandatory sentences, like smoking marijuana, while paroling the really evil ones who rape and murder. Prison should be for real, dangerous criminals.
    Check out the Free State Project

    How does the economy really work? Mises Institute

    Laissez Faire Books offers an extensive collection of books on liberty, free markets, philosophy, economics, politics and history.

  11. #26
    Senior Member Array kavity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by spyderdude View Post
    I'm 22 years old, and when I go into some gun shops, I'm either ignored or I have to stand there for a good 10-15 minutes before someone finally breaks down and helps me.
    The same thing happens to me and when they do help me its with an air of discontent and superiority. The ONLY gun store I have been to where this didn't happen was Virginia Arms in manassas. ALL of the guys there were incredibly helpful and respectful.

    It REALLY irritates me that I get treated differently because I am younger. It happens at restaurants, banks, gun stores, ect.

    That said, I hope everyone can understand my not wanting to open carry in restaurants. First, ignorant managers would probably make a fuss about it and I just don't want to deal with that. I also don't want everyone and their brother (from campus) knowing that I carry.

    As for those of you that disagree with civil disobedience when it comes to guns: Why? Why is it acceptable to sit back and deal with irrational, ineffective, dangerous laws?

    I can agree that law breaking cc holders don't do anything to help the cause, but if you are truly practicing "civil" disobedience then I don't see that it would be a big issue. This is one of the biggest cons to hypothetically cc-ing in a restaurant. I truly believe that if one was hypothetically caught cc-ing in a restaurant a police officer would let them go with a warning (if they weren't drink/doing something stupid).


    One thing that irks me about this whole issue is that THEY ALLOW GUNS IN RESTAURANTS. What does it really matter if they are concealed or open?? They basically decided that "hey, its okay to have a gun in an establishment that serves alcohol." Why did they put the "open carry" caveat in the legislation?? Does it really make a difference if there is a millimeter of clothing covering your gun???

    IMO if i have a permit for it I should be able to do it ANYWHERE.

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,364
    Quote Originally Posted by SonofASniper View Post
    While I am not pleased about many of the non-sensible and conflicting laws that do exist, Kavity, I do believe that we should do our best to follow them.

    You hear some people shout "out of my cold, dead hands", however we are not at that point. Hopefully we never will be.

    In your area, there are provisions for you to stay armed at virtually all times. You may not like some of those provisions, but at least you have provisions that other members here would probably be jealous of because they are completely restricted. My best suggestion is for you to exercise your legal priveledges to the fullest extent. The other is to get in contact with your representatives and help to change laws in the area so that you have an even broader range of carry options.

    Good luck, stay armed.
    Right you are...we're not at that point.. and probably won't ever get there. Why, you ask? Because we are the proverbial frogs in the pot and the burner is on low! Every few years they just crank the heat the tiniest bit in the hopes that we won't complain. So far, they've succeeded. Discouraging .
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  13. #28
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,359
    Quote Originally Posted by kavity View Post

    One thing that irks me about this whole issue is that THEY ALLOW GUNS IN RESTAURANTS. What does it really matter if they are concealed or open?? They basically decided that "hey, its okay to have a gun in an establishment that serves alcohol." Why did they put the "open carry" caveat in the legislation?? Does it really make a difference if there is a millimeter of clothing covering your gun???

    IMO if i have a permit for it I should be able to do it ANYWHERE.

    This isn't so much that the law says you that you can open carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, it's that the law say's:
    14 VAC 5-30-10 to 5-30-400 (Law. Coop. 1996).
    21995 Op. Va. Att’y Gen. 118, 119 (concluding that person who possesses concealed weapons permit is still prohibited from carrying concealed handgun into business that serves alcoholic beverages on premises).

    Sounds to me like a loop hole that has been exploited, similar to open carry here in PA there is no real law against it, hence it is legal.

    The law doesn't state that you can OC in such an establishment, but it doesn't say you can't either.

    The issue with the hypothetical "civil disobedience" is that it's still breaking the law. I don't see how we can have 3 VA related threads where in 2 we hear about armed citizens NOT BREAKING the law and catching a hard time. So how do you think the police will treat you for being armed and BREAKING the law? Hopefully it never comes to that, but it's something to think about.

    And judging from some of these other threads, if the VCDL isn't careful, they're going to have to win another fight soon enough to keep OC legal at the state level. Thankfully VA and PA are similar enough that the majority of the state won't go for such a change.

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,244
    History is often unkind to those who rush it.

    But then, nothing happens via nothing being done.

    So, I choose to be vocal, be a member of my lying-politician / arm-twisting leagues of choice, and ensure I keep my eyes and ears open to things my elected representatives need to know about.

    The reality is, it is the unwarranted, Chicken Little-style fears that prompt those hired to positions of administrative authority to abuse their power in the name of the common good, irrespective of whether (and sometimes even in spite of) such actions are patently unconstitutional or against state law. They get a little taste of the power and it goes to their heads. Sux to be them, I suppose. But it ends up being a never-ending fight against the self-righteous who get a little taste of power over their peer citizens. Has always been so. Will always be so. Thus, we must keep up our guard and constantly help such idiots (even forcibly via lawsuit or other methods) to educate themselves as to the just and lawful route to public order.

    Fortunately, in Oregon there are very few laws against the legitimate carry of firearms for self-defense by citizens. It's emblazoned in the state's constitution and preemption laws, and there's a huge gun culture here that's fairly open to such defensive tools and action. That helps.

    Back on-topic to the original problem: feelings of helplessness when going to restaurants that happen to serve alcohol and where concealed carry is verboten. My route: plan out a collection of allowable establishments, in advance, ones at which concealed-carry is allowed. Of course, in your state that will mean the ones that don't serve alcohol, but there must be plenty of those around. Such pre-planning doesn't mean you can't enjoy life. It simply means that, in light of the alternative of being tossed face-down to the gutter for your infractions, entertaining yourselves at allowable restaurants can be a refreshing alternative. In the end, that keeps you safer, since your party will be armed and protected for the duration. Seems a bit of a pain, initially. But what's the goal, here? To get a beer while outside your home, or to protect your family? Think about it.
    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.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,364
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    This isn't so much that the law says you that you can open carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, it's that the law say's:



    Sounds to me like a loop hole that has been exploited, similar to open carry here in PA there is no real law against it, hence it is legal.

    The law doesn't state that you can OC in such an establishment, but it doesn't say you can't either.

    The issue with the hypothetical "civil disobedience" is that it's still breaking the law. I don't see how we can have 3 VA related threads where in 2 we hear about armed citizens NOT BREAKING the law and catching a hard time. So how do you think the police will treat you for being armed and BREAKING the law? Hopefully it never comes to that, but it's something to think about.

    And judging from some of these other threads, if the VCDL isn't careful, they're going to have to win another fight soon enough to keep OC legal at the state level. Thankfully VA and PA are similar enough that the majority of the state won't go for such a change.
    I'm using a keyboard to type and I can find no law against it, meaning it's legal. Does that mean that I exploited a "loophole"?
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored 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. Civil suit?
    By kspilot536 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: November 13th, 2009, 04:23 PM
  2. Civil liability
    By 390beretta in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: December 12th, 2008, 09:56 PM
  3. Civil War Musket help
    By Stranger in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 29th, 2008, 11:51 PM
  4. Civil Liability In PA?
    By jcheinaman in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 4th, 2008, 03:32 PM
  5. Civil war
    By Pro2A in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: February 15th, 2008, 10:05 AM

Search tags for this page

civil disobedience chickens tennessee

,

civil disobedience concealed carry

,
civil disobedience with concealed carry
,
concealed weapons civil disobedience
Click on a term to search for related topics.