Would you support multi-level CCW permits - Page 5

Would you support multi-level CCW permits

This is a discussion on Would you support multi-level CCW permits within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; In my state the only places I can't carry a firearm are the same places that LEO can't. I can't imagine any legal change to ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 86
Like Tree85Likes

Thread: Would you support multi-level CCW permits

  1. #61
    Member Array gobbly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    122
    In my state the only places I can't carry a firearm are the same places that LEO can't. I can't imagine any legal change to allow me to carry in places even LEO can't... And frankly, those places I am restricted are heavily secured areas, places where I am fairly confident I don't need a gun...

    Edit: I am speaking for state law. The feds place added restrictions that I believe are problematic. I can't carry on post office property, and post offices are by no means secure facilities, not even in the least. Perhaps the feds could start issuing their own CCP's that would be valid on federal property? But yeah, as far as state law, I've always been pretty happy with the way Utah does it.


  2. #62
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,176
    I can't carry into any public buildings, as far as I know in GA. That means the planning dept, the utility dept, post offices, public libraries, environmental health dept, and many more. I wouldn't call any of these places "secure" facilities in the least bit. It is absurd that I can't carry into these places, legally - and I have to visit them routinely because of my occupation. This means I have to park, disarm, enter the building, leave, and re-arm. I always handle my firearm safely, but unnecessary handling leads to an increased risk of a negligent discharge.

    ...Are you sure that you're happy with the way that Utah does it? Or do you just not visit public buildings very often?

    Edit: I also stumbled across this thread right after closing this one. I'm not trying to steer this thread off topic, so if you want to reply to this issue, I recommend posting in this thread. Apparently, you can't defend yourself in Utah if you have any alcohol in your system. Even in your own home. This is one instance where I am glad my state has done it right. Note, I am not condoning drinking and firing a weapon. This has been discussed in numerous threads. I'm just bringing an issue to light.
    Utah Law regarding alcohol at home.

  3. #63
    Member Array gobbly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post
    ...Are you sure that you're happy with the way that Utah does it? Or do you just not visit public buildings very often?
    not sure what you're getting at. I visit public buildings all the time. I go armed every time. Our state law not only allows it, it makes it illegal for them to enact any policy or law preventing me from accessing those buildings as armed as I would like to be. Heck, I can walk into any police station in the state, rifle on each shoulder, my belt lined with holstered handguns, glocks on each ankle, and dual shoulder hoslters, the whole display in condition 1 (since I have a permit), walk up to the counter and ask for directions, and I am well within the law. So yeah, your question looks rather silly and uniformed.

    I'll explain the alcohol thing to you in that thread, but I think you are misunderstanding the discussion in there, and I guarantee you do not understand Utah law.

    I am sure I am quite happy with my state's firearms laws, and I am also sure I would be quite unhappy with the laws you are saying you have to deal with in GA...

    Edit: and for the record, the places I am not able to enter armed are Court buildings, secure areas in jails, and secure areas in mental institutions. In other words, as I was trying to say in my previous post, there's not many levels that could be increased here. The only extra privileges I might get if we had a leveled permit system would be to be able to enter the above locations, and frankly, those are not places I think we need to be armed. If purely for the fact that they are properly secured facilities, with trained (and likely armed) guards everywhere, who are fairly empowered to defend me.

    I didn't address federal places like post offices, or the secure section of the airport because those are federal, and no permit from the state is going to change anything there. That's why I think it'd be great if there was an option for me to get a federal permit :)
    Last edited by gobbly; May 29th, 2012 at 04:45 AM.

  4. #64
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    While watching a video on crime in Detroit and the arguments of both pro and anti an interesting comment was made by the pro gun guy. He mentioned That got me to thinking, which admittedly gets me into trouble more often than not.

    The thread More On Detroit

    Would you support a multi level permit system if it allowed for carry in areas we are currently prohibited? Say a more comprehensive understanding of the laws, penalties for violating them, psychological evaluation and a min standard on the range to qualify. just as an example.

    Being able to qualify to carry into a school to pick up your child is first to come to my mind as I have to disarm every afternoon I pick up my son from after-school care because it's located in a school. I'm not figuring it would ever allow us past security in the airport or the courtroom, but maybe allow us to avoid those "no guns" signs that LEO's don't have to acknowledge.

    Might even be a way for a few that really want to prove we are law abiding citizens to do just that.

    Your thoughts?
    Here in WA, we can do that already:

    RCW 9.41.280: Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities
    RCW 9.41.280(3)(e): Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;
    I suggest that rather than a tiered system, expand the law so that anyone allowed to carry a concealed firearm should be able to carry anywhere except in a court of law.
    Last edited by livewire; June 4th, 2012 at 02:32 PM. Reason: Clean up RCW reference
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  5. #65
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    I suggest that rather than a tiered system, expand the law so that anyone allowed to carry a concealed firearm should be able to carry anywhere except in a court of law.
    I'll take it a step further and say that one should be able to carry EVEN in a court of law.

    It would be ideal to have the laws expanded and to have constitutional carry but for the old saying, "wish in one hand..."


    Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array Gene83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Being ex-military in no way ensures one is proficient at marksmanship. Some of the lousiest shots I have ever known were in the reserve transportation unit I joined for a year after I ets'ed from an infantry unit.
    We get from here to there by electing officials who represent our interests instead of ones who question our right to bear arms.
    But, but, but, but, I've still got the marksmanship badges Mike. One for rifle and one for pistol.
    baren likes this.
    "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius

  7. #67
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by EeyoreCC View Post
    Mississippi recently switched to a 2-tiered system. There is no training or competency requirement to get a permit there. With the specified training (though the exact training and who can do it are somewhat vague and arbitrary) you can get an "enhanced" permit which allows you to carry in several places that are off-limits to unenhanced permit holders, such as church, polling places, etc. If you accept the premise that concealed carry is a privilege not a right, I don't think this is unreasonable (unlike some of Mississippi's other gun laws). CC-specific training is prudent to ensure you are aware of and don't run afoul of local laws, but the basic permit is minimally invasive, so you have a choice. A decent balance, IMHO. Now if we could just get them to define "concealed" in a reasonable way....
    How about the way AZ does it? No permit required for CC, but if you get a CWP, you can carry in places normally off limits to the 'constitutional carriers'. Of course, being prohibited from carrying in a church by law is really weird to me. That should be up to your church, not your legislator.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    I'll take it a step further and say that one should be able to carry EVEN in a court of law.

    It would be ideal to have the laws expanded and to have constitutional carry but for the old saying, "wish in one hand..."


    Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk
    I dunno about the court of law thing... sometimes I think it should be allowed, but you are in a place where people are being accused of a crime and are likely guilty. All it would take would be one gangbanger to come in to break out his homie for that idea to collapse.

    On the other hand, I think all judges should be armed, and there should be armed security at the door to anywhere that firearms are prohibited by law. in other words, if I legally can't be responsible for my safety, than someone else should be. If that were the case, stupid laws about prohibiting firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol and in churches would be shut down right away... after all, how many dive bars can afford armed security and metal detectors?
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  9. #69
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,885
    At first, I was going to say something with regards to courts and perhaps special processing, but then I came back to the whole "sensitive" places definition.

    I am also of the mind set that if I can't be armed in a courthouse than neither should a judge, sorry no pedestal for them.

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    At first, I was going to say something with regards to courts and perhaps special processing, but then I came back to the whole "sensitive" places definition.

    I am also of the mind set that if I can't be armed in a courthouse than neither should a judge, sorry no pedestal for them.

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk
    Really, there are only two places where I support a prohibition on carry.

    1) Courthouses: where an accused person may be subject to incarceration or execution
    2) Places where people are involuntarily held: jails, prisons, asylums, etc.

    I believe that adult CCW permit holders should be able to carry in banks, churches (they can here in WA), or in schools of any kind. I don't believe that private businesses should be able to post signs prohibiting the legal carry of firearms unless they are private clubs not open to the general public.

    Of course, I think the 2nd Amendment says that any permit should be shall-issue and cheap enough that anyone can afford it, and that if a permit system doesn't meet those simple requirements it should be deemed unconstitutional and permitless carry should be the default in the absence of a valid shall-issue permit system. I abhor the idea of a class requirement to get a CCW permit, though I believe that the classes should be heavily encouraged by both the firearms community and gun shops. I also believe that Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution says that if you're legal to carry in one state, then you're legal in all 50.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  11. #71
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,885

    Would you support multi-level CCW permits

    Livewire, I would almost entirely agree with your post, except item 1, which I am sure we could reach some form of agreement on. I understand your reasoning on 1, but am against allowing a 'special' status to leo, lawyers, and judges. They can leave their guns at the door too, along with the defendants. The same goes for institutions, etc: guns stay at tje door for everyone.

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    Livewire, I would almost entirely agree with your post, except item 1, which I am sure we could reach some form of agreement on. I understand your reasoning on 1, but am against allowing a 'special' status to leo, lawyers, and judges. They can leave their guns at the door too, along with the defendants.

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk
    Well, the bailiff is generally an LEO assigned to the court, isn't it? And really, judges do kinda have 'special' status when they're in the courtroom. I don't think we ought to give it to them in public, but why not in the courtroom and their chambers when they're deciding matters of legal importance? They're elected or appointed to perform certain duties simultaneously put them at high risk and high significance in their jurisdiction.

    I agree with you on LEOs not assigned to the court, as they're typically in the court as an accuser or witness to a defendant, and as such their normal LEO duties are suspended. I also agree with you that the lawyers should not be armed inside the courtroom. Bailiffs should be armed, at the discretion of the judge, and any boundary to a 'no guns' zone I feel should be protected by metal detectors and armed security of some type, especially courtrooms where emotions are high and fates are being decided.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  13. #73
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    but why not in the courtroom and their chambers when they're deciding matters of legal importance? They're elected or appointed to perform certain duties simultaneously put them at high risk and high significance in their jurisdiction.
    I would answer from a practical perspective, why should they need them, with everyone else disarmed? With regards to them having "privileged" status, there are some things that are probably best not discussed openly in public.

  14. #74
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    I would answer from a practical perspective, why should they need them, with everyone else disarmed? With regards to them having "privileged" status, there are some things that are probably best not discussed openly in public.
    With everyone else disarmed, and proper security at the entrances, I suppose you're right. If I were a judge, I'd certainly be armed to the teeth everywhere else though. I completely agree that when they're outside without their judge's robes on, they're no different than any other citizen. I feel the same way about LEOs,and anyone else involved in the 'legal system chain' as it were.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  15. #75
    Member Array gobbly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    At first, I was going to say something with regards to courts and perhaps special processing, but then I came back to the whole "sensitive" places definition.

    I am also of the mind set that if I can't be armed in a courthouse than neither should a judge, sorry no pedestal for them.

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk
    I dunno. I support no firearms in courts. Then again every court I've been in I have been satisfied that the security procedures are enough to keep unwanted guns out. So satisfied that I personally don't feel the need to be armed.

    As far as judges, I can't agree with you. Bailiffs are armed, so is the LEO security, and I actually trust the judgement of a judge more than the LEO. I also accept that more than anyone in the building, the judges are the biggest target, and I'm well aware that throughout history many judges have been assaulted because they are the ones who are either passing judgement, or are the symbol of the judgement passed upon the criminals. I also am aware that judges take this responsibility seriously. This is why you have weapons like the Taurus Judge, which can be loaded with .410 shot shells, specifically for use in a courtroom where there is a very real possibility of collateral damage.

    Not saying you're wrong, I just have a different opinion on the matter :)

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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

ccw permit levels

,

do i need a ccw if exmilitary in ga

,

multi level carry permits

,

multi level ccw

,

what level for ccw

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors