[P95Carry]

We keep hearing about some extremes with CCW issue - where folks have high risk jobs or situations, only to be denied.

I am imaging (here is the flippancy!) - that legitimate requests that are turned down be followed up by having the Sheriff responsible being signatory to a document of responsibility.

He must sign to the effect that having disallowed a fair request for personal protection he and his department will guarantee the person's safety. If they fail, then said department will pay compensation to the the remaining members of the guy's family should he be injured or killed by a criminal act - one where it could reasonably be assumed he might have survived if armed.

OK - pie-in-sky I know! But makes me think what a very different complexion it might put on decisions.!

 

[Wayne]

I don't think that it will hold up in court even if he/she signs the form and I don't think that it would make it to court if you sued if they refused to sign.

Great idea though.

Wayne

 

[P95Carry]

As I said Wayne - I know it'd never fly but sure would like to see these people who refuse permits so easily, have to face up to some degree of responsibility - to the applicant and also too if truth known to the second amendment!

 

[oregonshooter]

"Am I my brother's keeper?" uh, nope.

 

[P95Carry]

Point taken OS - and remember I am being very flippant!!

No we are not our brother's keeper but when a guy could better secure his safety himself - self responsibility and self determination - is deprived of that, his right - then it seems sorta fair to see if the person denying should maybe have some reponsibility - be answerable if you will - for any later disasters!

The guy who wants a legit' CCW is in fact deciding not to have his brother as a keeper - get my drift! He wants to look after himself. I just think some denials might be made with such casualness that the Sheriff's maybe do not think beyond their simple stroke of pen! They do not replace the applicant's lost freedom to protect himself, with any substitute - more a case of ''tough luck fella'' - do the best ya can!

 

[4my sons]

Sad but true

Chris,

I agree 100% on this. especially because they are as you said, limiting a person's ability to protect themselves. One even worse than not allowing a CCW, is not even allowing or so severially resticting the pure ownership and possesion of guns for protection.


Case in point, and the courts make it very clear:aargh4:

Warren v. District of Columbia. It's my sig for a reason.

The police showed up, failed to recoganize the situation and left.
Three women were violated for 14 hours, and the police were not liable at all. :rant:

Their case against the PD was struck down in district court, and after some other court battles, ultimatley the SUPREME COURT backed up the lower court.:rant:

That is if you ask me is the al mighty of CYA if I ever heard or saw it.

I think it worth mentioning,
I am all for LE and greatly appreciate the job they do. But, ultimatly, your saftey is YOUR responsibility.:yup:

Sorry dude, I think that is wishful thinking to the max.

But we can all dream, ...... Right.:yup:

Sorry if I stole your thread. But this is my main reason for CCW.:yup:

 

[RSSZ]

I see where you're comein' from P95,and I agree. but hasn't it already been hashed out in the courts of the land,that the police ARE NOT responsible for our safety. They ARE NOT here to protect the individual(???). their cars say,"to protect and to serve",but do they. Or do they show up after the fact to make out the paperwork. Hey,in general,I like LEO's,....BUT....these are the very hard truths aren't they ??? ------

 

[oregonshooter]

It's a crazy world. You are right, it's wrong.

Here's another for ya...

"...they will call evil good, and good evil..."

and

as the great philosopher Spike Lee once said...

"do the right thing!"

OK, I'm done. Sorry, but there is not that can be said here... You are preaching to the choir Brother!

 

[madmike]

I know that the words "logic" and "legal" do not belong in the same sentence, but I think there should be some loud, public pursuit of a justification for anyone being denied the right to defend themselves with force of arms, especially when those doing the denying can hide behind a ruling that says they cannot be held responsible for not defending a citizen.

It is the lack of "logic" in that "legal" finding that should be displayed in the harsh light of public scrutiny.

"I am NOT responsible for your personal safety, but I CAN refuse to you the ability to defend YOURSELF."

That is what they are telling us.

"Get a rope!" would be my impulse reply. . . :rant:

mm

 

[P95Carry]

"I am NOT responsible for your personal safety, but I CAN refuse to you the ability to defend YOURSELF."

That is pretty much it in a nutshell Mike - I guess I just needed another rant today :wink:

 

[KC135]

"I am NOT responsible for your personal safety, but I CAN refuse to you the ability to defend YOURSELF."

mm

Sorry, can't agree. You still have the ability, and if you have the desire, you will defend yourself. The right of self defense is a natural right.

You have to make the decision to exercise this natural right.

I will do my best to do everything in a lawful manner, but my first responsibility is to me and mine.

Just my opinion.

 

[rocky]

It's a shame we have to pay, wait and jump thru hoops to just get our 2nd ammend. rights back IMO.

 

[P95Carry]

Sorry, can't agree. You still have the ability, and if you have the desire, you will defend yourself. The right of self defense is a natural right.

No one has said KC that a person is being actually and totally deprived of all right to self defence - it is just that not everyone is gonna win a one sided gun battle - however good they are. One's defensive abilities do increase most usefully if armed, when against a BG's gun.

 

[Rock and Glock]

That is pretty much it in a nutshell Mike - I guess I just needed another rant today :wink:

Quality rant, and quality responses! I was speaking to a retired LEO this winter. He is the full-time "Lobby Cruiser" at a bank I had done a lot of work for. I had admired his 1911 and we started chatting about guns. I volunteered that my wife and I shot handguns. He then recommended we obtain our CHL's (we already had, and told him). His reasoning was that police response times are now so slow that citizens must take personal responsibility for their own safety.

As an aside, this was my first visit to the bank subsequent to receiving my CHL. I did not CC that day because I knew they had the retired LEO as security, and because I had not discussed it with him or the bank owner (even though they had no posted prohibition against CC). He recommended that on further visits, I discuss it with the president because he (the retired LEO) welcomed "additional guns" around.

As a further note, due to my evolving opinion, I would not even ask - no posted prohibition - I CC. :image035:

The reason I share this story is to show that some LEO types even agree with the absolute need to protect yourself and know the reason why people need to carry. So - great point made P95Carry, as well as the other posters, but in our legal environment, nobody will agree to anything that isn't not legally required to be agreed to.

 

[HotGuns]

The reason I share this story is to show that some LEO types even agree with the absolute need to protect yourself and know the reason why people need to carry.

Believe it or not...in my neck of the woods the LEO's very much support Concealed Carry.
Our Sherrif,Prosectuing Attorney, Assistants, and even our Judges have taught the LAW part of the CCW class. I can even use our Conference room at the Sherrifs Office and have done so on a few occasions.

It must be hard to believe for a big city slicker...:image035:

Its important to remember that not ALL of the cops are anti !:blink:

 

[KC135]

No one has said KC that a person is being actually and totally deprived of all right to self defence - it is just that not everyone is gonna win a one sided gun battle - however good they are. One's defensive abilities do increase most usefully if armed, when against a BG's gun.

P95, please note: PERSONAL DECISION.

 

[Rock and Glock]

It must be hard to believe for a big city slicker...:image035:

Yes, Sir! 10,00 in this here "city". :wave:

 

[4my sons]

Sorry, can't agree. You still have the ability, and if you have the desire, you will defend yourself. The right of self defense is a natural right.

You have to make the decision to exercise this natural right.

I will do my best to do everything in a lawful manner, but my first responsibility is to me and mine.

Just my opinion.

========================================

KC,

I understand what you are saying, I don’t believe that anyone here will just lay down and die if confronted by a BG because we don't have a gun to protect ourselves. But what chance does a 110 lbs woman with no real self defense training have against one or more 200+ lbs BG's with knives or guns or just bare hands.

I don't like to use cliché’s much, But I think this one fits the discussion.



God created Man, Sam Colt made them equal.

 

[madmike]

KC135,

I do understand what you are saying, and to a degree, I agree with you.

But the reality is, society can deny what is called a "God-given right."

When God says "Yes" and society says "No," you will have to live with society's judgement of your actions, in the here-and-now.

Your vindication will come in the next life perhaps, but while you're still living in this world, you will suffer the consequences of violating the laws of Man.

Maybe it isn't right, but it is so.

mm

 

[XD40]

It may not hold up legally but around here the Sheriff is an elected official. Perhpas documentation such as that and or a statistic about refused CCW would be beneficial to the opponent.