Your ideal CCW mandate? - Page 2

Your ideal CCW mandate?

This is a discussion on Your ideal CCW mandate? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I don't think there should be required training. I can open carry on foot with no permit and no training. All of a sudden I ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44
  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,050
    I don't think there should be required training. I can open carry on foot with no permit and no training. All of a sudden I want to conceal it and now there are more rules and BS I have to go by? Now I have to waste money to learn a right? I make $5.15 an hour and I had to come up with $105 for my permit and $100 for the state-mandated training, even though I learned all this crap in cop school. I make $550 a month with bills running $475-500 not including gas. I go through little less than 1/4 tank ('bout 3.5-3.8 gal) per day. At about $2.43 right now, that adds up. Remember Murphy v. PA? "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore." SCOTUS 1943. Were did we go wrong?

    And I have to pay the State so I can protect myself because only I am responsible for my safety and their duty is to the general public? Seems like I am my own bodyguard. Maybe I should deduct my permit cost, , weapon, training, ammo, holster, gunbelt, extra mags, ear muffs, eye protection, cleaning kit, targets, & target stand from my taxes, seeing as how I am self-employed.

    Thankfully this is the last permit I will have to buy. When I am a cop, I won't need any stinking permit. That is the way it should be. Only AK and VT have it right.

    The persons already disallowed to own/possess firearms should stay the same. I would add pardons don't count. If you have a misd. DV conviction from 20 years back and your brother in law gets elected as governor and pardons you so you can go deer hunting again. Nope. Not buying it. No guns for you. You couldn't control yourself 20 years ago and all of a sudden you have seen the light and you are all better. BS.

    You get convicted of rape and 20 years later it comes about that some other guy did it and you were totally 100% innocent and were imprisioned as a result of the mis-judgement, that is another thing. You still have gun rights because you didn't do the crime you were found guilty of doing. Infortunately, this "oops we messed up, sorry" stuff is becoming more common with DNA testing and sickens me to no end. I wouldn't turn my nose up at giving them $1 mil a year for every year they were incarcerated unjustly. Dude that got released recently after 16 years and found innocent because some other guy did it, Dude gets $16 mil NO TAXES. Wouldn't have a problem with it at all. I would be glad my tax money went for that cause rather than researching the mating patterns of the wombat.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006


  2. #17
    Member Array 500Mag's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    West Chester, PA
    Posts
    418
    I think Vermont got it right.

    "It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man."

    Along with that I would have no "gun free zones". Oh they sound so peaceful but what about the BG waiting outside for you with a gun...he knows you ain't got one.

    If you can legally possess a firearm then you can legally carry.
    "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."

  3. #18
    Member Array Rumble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    17
    Euclidean's rules seem doable to me (altered only to accommodate legal immigrants and permanent residents). Training...I like the idea, but I don't like the fact that it's a restriction. I could go either way.

    Regardless, the application and any training required must be absolutely free to the applicant. Somebody (maybe this forum) pointed out that the costs of obtaining a CCW in some states can be prohibitive, and thereby back-handedly remove a right from people with lower incomes (granted, the cost of a gun can also be prohibitive, but work with me here...).

    Actually...maybe we could mandate that everyone who may legally own a gun must own a gun. If they cannot purchase a gun, one will be provided for them. A good one.

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array Euclidean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,213
    It seems that in one case you would like to limit someone's 2A rights based on a judge setting the standards for issuing a restraining order, while, at the same time not wanting to limit the 2A rights because someone might set a standard.
    This is illogical. The purpose of the 2A is to allow one to assert their natural rights. Can we all not agree that your rights end where someone else's begin?

    What you're essenitally implying here is that it's hypocrisy to allow say a prison inmate to be deprived of the right to bear arms. A restraining order is not a "standard". It is a legal means of protection for someone who can prove they're being threatened.

    My aunt for instance, the one who I talk about a lot on this board because of her CCW interest, her ex husband has hit her, damaged her property, harassed her at work, etc.

    This man has the right to be armed in her presence? He has no respect for her right to live without being assaulted harassed or vandalized. It's the same as when someone pulls a knife on you in an alley and tries to kill you; by committing an act of aggression they have broken the social contract (not to mention acted immorally). Why should we worry about the rights of people who want to hurt others? (We do that too much already actually.)

    A restraining order is a means of correcting an undesirable behavior, much like imprisonment or parole. Its utility is dubious perhaps, but it serves that purpose.

    Perhaps a better solution is to allow for a stipulation that a person under the effects of such an order should be arrested if discovered armed within so many feet of them.

  5. #20
    Member Array ibex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NRW, Germany
    Posts
    277
    her ex husband has hit her, damaged her property, harassed her at work, etc.

    This man has the right to be armed in her presence?
    No. Instead, he has the right to be armed whereever he goes. He just is not allowed to go near your aunt, packing or not.
    "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
    - Senator Padmé Amidala, "Revenge of the Sith"

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,050
    [QUOTE=Euclidean]
    Why should we worry about the rights of people who want to hurt others?
    QUOTE]


    Because of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14 Amendments. Because they are human. It doesn't matter what they have done. They could have committed the sickest crime imaginable, but we still have to treat them as humans and they get the same rights when they get arrested for this unspeakable act as you do when you get pulled over for speeding. It doesn't matter what the act is, an unlawful act is an unlawful act in the eyes of the Constitution. Due process of law and rights of the accused apply to murderers and rapists as much as they do to speeders and drunks and potheads. This is the equality in the Constitution. We don't pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array Euclidean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,213
    True enough but we have due process to decide who should be legally punished and who should not.

    The courts have the right to punish you provided due process is followed. Now if due process isn't being followed, that's another issue entirely.

    Your rights insure you get a fair trial and aren't punished in a severe or bizarre way. Having rights isn't a get out of jail free card that you aren't responsible for your actions.

    I think Ibex has it right though, because of the way he phrased the argument. The stipulation should ideally be that the subject of the restraining order should not be within so many feet of the designated party and then whether he's armed or not doesn't matter. I'll amend my personal stance to reflect that change, because it's more logical and more minimalist. Basically we could scratch that off the list and worry about enforcing the restraining order. That makes more sense.

  8. #23
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Got to catch up on this thread - lots of posts!!

    To answer Ibex tho - yes I am a U.S. Citizen now but during all the time I had my green card I was both aquiring guns and carrying. I would have felt very disadvantaged as a legal alien, married to a U.S. Citizen, to have not had the same rights in that respect.

    With all the time, cost, hoops and hurdles - required to gain legal immigrant status - it would have seemed unfair to have been left out in the cold. I was sure glad that was not the case.

    I also consider things way different regarding illegal immigration - in some respects the rights have not been legally earned.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  9. #24
    Member Array grnzbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by Euclidean
    This is illogical. The purpose of the 2A is to allow one to assert their natural rights. Can we all not agree that your rights end where someone else's begin?
    Sure it's logical. In your aunt's case, the threat was all too real. However, the restraining order could be issued if a woman merely claims to feel threatened. Quite frankly, I'm quite surprised that Sara and her Million Toadies haven't hit on this as a form of gun control; have ex-wives/girlfriends of shooters file for restraining orders in order to have them disqualified to own firearms.

    I agree with the suggestion that the restraining order only prohibit him from being armed near her, but that's not how it works. I hate quoting LBJ, but "a law shouldn't be considered in terms of the good it can do if administered properly, but rather, it should be considered in terms of the harm it could do if administered improperly".
    There's a reason The Sopranos is set in New Jersey.
    Basic Pistol

  10. #25
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    One good example of a PFA (protection from abuse) was here in PA - it was absurd. A buddy's son has been going thru a messy divorce from ''the woman from hell'' and she made up some crazy story that her hot water heater had been maliciously set to something like 250º - crazy because we know water boils at 212º anyways.

    It was blatent scam by her and yet no judge analized the case for ''fairness'' - no - the guy just had the order slapped on him and so - gun problems. He was no threat and in fact could hardly keep enough distance from this nasty woman.

    If a PFA type deal is true and fair then things can be different but - I agree it is only necessary to adopt punitive measures if an armed person encroaches on the forbidden space. To adopt a blanket policy of ''hand in your guns'' is excessive in the extreme. Hell - if a person is determined enough to ''do in'' the other party - they'll do it - by any means imaginable, and that could include ''aquiring'' a gun!
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  11. #26
    Member Array ibex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NRW, Germany
    Posts
    277
    Congratulations on your citizenship, Chris!
    "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
    - Senator Padmé Amidala, "Revenge of the Sith"

  12. #27
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Thx Ibex - it was good on Sept 28 last to finalize the whole deal - long process, costly and time consuming.

    Funny thing is from day one when I moved over in Sept 2000, I felt an American thru and thru. I can now tho state with some semblance of pride - that I am indeed a ''Proud American"

    I may be gettin' old too but I would lay down my life for this country - that's a fact.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  13. #28
    Senior Member Array madmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spring Hill, FL
    Posts
    750
    "I may be gettin' old too but I would lay down my life for this country - that's a fact."

    I well understand and greatly appreciate what you are saying!

    But, uh. . . Don't do that, if you can avoid it. A dead soldier isn't very usefull, they don't even make much of a "bullet stop."

    Stay on this side of the dirt! Anyone would make fairly good fertilizer, but living, thinking people make the best Defenders.

    mm
    Political Correctness has now "evolved" into Political Cowardice.

  14. #29
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    I hear ya Mike and thank you Sir
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  15. #30
    Member Array ibex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NRW, Germany
    Posts
    277
    Besides, you don't defend your country by dying for your country - you make the other guy die for his country.
    "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
    - Senator Padmé Amidala, "Revenge of the Sith"

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. Typo in Law Establishes Mandate to Lock Gun-Toting Train Passengers in Boxes
    By miklcolt45 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2009, 10:20 AM
  2. Mandate qualifing w/carry gun?
    By 1911luver in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: August 30th, 2009, 11:36 PM
  3. Mandate Training Thread... Another go around...
    By GoldenSaber in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 30th, 2009, 12:02 AM
  4. Round 2: We can't legislate it, we'll mandate it
    By Rob72 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2008, 03:22 PM
  5. I mandate this for all anti's.
    By P95Carry in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 6th, 2007, 12:42 AM

Search tags for this page

carrying ccw on seminary
,

ideal ccw

,
permanent rules for ccw wi ncis
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors