Hand wringing over permitless concealed carry
There has been a movement in state legislatures to do away with concealed carry permits, CCW in the parlance. Some states, like West Virginia, have been successful in that endeavor. McClatchy reports that the gun control fascists are freaking out;
“We watch [the National Rifle Association] very closely, that’s what we do,” Peter Ambler, executive director of Americans for Responsible Solutions, said in a recent interview.
“What’s most important is that permitless carry does not become law,” Ambler said. “… You don’t want folks carrying around an incredibly dangerous consumer product like a firearm without knowing how to use it. That’s not only common sense but a part of the ethos of responsibility in this country that’s accompanied the traditions of gun ownership, that unfortunately the gun lobby is getting away from.”
[…]
[F]ormer Rep. Gary Pendleton, a Raleigh [North Carolina] Republican…describes himself as a hunter, gun collector and 43-year member of the NRA. But he strongly supports the current permitting system because it ensures people carrying concealed handguns are trained and their backgrounds checked out, which protects the public.
“I’m in favor of that,” Pendleton said Monday. “I don’t want to make it easier for criminals to conceal pistols.”
I don’t know how CCW permits make it harder for criminals to conceal weapons. They’re criminals, they don’t follow laws, they don’t apply for permits, they just carry a concealed weapon. It’s not like the gun on a criminal without a permit sends out a warning signal to potential victims and responding police officers.
In West Virginia, there is still an advantage to having a permit – CCW permit holders don’t have to go through background checks when they purchase a gun – they get a very thorough background check when they apply for the permit and they go through the process every five years. If they want to cross state lines with their gun, they’ll need a permit to do that. I’m sure both of those advantages would make the gun grabbers cringe anyway.
The West Virginia legislature had to over-ride the governor’s veto last year in order to get this win for West Virginians and believe it or not, our streets aren’t soaked in blood. I’m sure there are criminals roaming around West Virginia with guns tucked in their waistbands, but forcing a permit system on them won’t stop that. They were doing it before the permitless system started.
And, oh, by the way, if the people didn’t want permitless carry in their states, their legislatures wouldn’t pass it – NRA or no NRA.
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Works good in Vermont
As a native of The Green Mountain State I agree. We don’t have much of a problem and never have.
And we can carry in New Hampshire this summer.
Works good in Arizona too! These a.h.s just can’t stand to do away with any source of income , even if it means CCW permits!
I’m a Life Member of the NRA, and I’m not sure that “permit-less” carry is wise.
Unlike when my father grew up – or even when I grew up – many people are not taught the safe use of a firearm as children. Dad could take us to a bayou outside the city limits and teach us to shoot. Most of Houston cannot do that now.
The Texas LTC (License to Carry) at least provides a grounding in Texas carry law and safe gun handling procedures.
The Texas LTC also provide criminal background checks, so the LEOs know you don’t have a criminal record.
With the Texas LTC we don’t have to go through the background checks when we buy a new gun.
The latter two points are nice – letting the LEO know you are [most likely] a Good Guy with a gun, and avoiding that paperwork.
But the gun safety thing is a Yuuuuge thing, IMHO.
Of course, it may be “gun safety”, or “personal safety”, to know that the LEO knows you have had a background check before you started toting a gun around.
I have to say I’m with you on this one. I understand and mostly agree with the logic of the proponents of permitless carry, but I just can’t get behind this movement. I guess I’ve seen too many people who, while good intentioned, are irresponsible when handling firearms – particularly pistols – because they haven’t been properly trained. And you’re right, it’s because so few people these days have grown up without someone teaching them appropriate safety and usage of firearms. Heck, I don’t even think the Boy Scouts teach it much any more – and that used to be the highlight of summer camp!
Maybe if it were taught in school – kind of like civics classes should be. You know, like learning to be a responsible citizen of a republic? (I digress)
Well, speaking as a 25+ year volunteer with the BSA, in the Sam Houston Area Council camps at least they are still teaching the shooting sports at summer camp, and the Merit Badges – developed with the NRA – emphasize safety.
They are even incorporating pistol shooting for the older Boy Scouts and Venturers.
Unless they’ve changed, a Venturing Crew can even use center-fired rifles and go hunting.
The caveat is that any Council can decide to not offer the shooting sports at their summer camps. Therefore, YMMV.
I’m not happy with a lot of what BSA-National is doing, but as far as gun safety they’re still allowing it to be taught.
4H is still teaching it as well. There was a new item in our local rag about a 14-year-old young lady who is shooting at Masters’ level in – I believe – Sporting Clays. She is 4H taught.
Trail Life also encourages the shooting sports, I believe using NRA instructors. I believe American Heritage Girls does as well. Not sure on GS-USA, I’ve been out of the program too long.
That’s good to know that there are still some youth organizations holding the line. When I have occasion to talk to scouts here, it seems they are focusing less and less on fieldcraft and related skills. And: Good on you for volunteering with the BSA.
Is “keep and bear arms” a -right- or a -privilege-?
What you are in effect saying, is that in order to peacefully go about their business, walking around with a concealed weapon, they must first meet with your permission.
Note, they pose exactly -zero- risk to -anyone- carrying a concealed firearm. None.
-Carrying-
-concealed-
Not “taking it out and using it”.
Just walking around.
Are you -projecting- fears of what they -might- do, upon people who do -nothing-, but -walk around-?
It does not even compare with driving. Drivers are actively operating their vehicles. People carrying a firearm are doing -nothing- with that firearm.
..
Ok. How much formal/government training did you take before you started walking around with your first pocketknife? Do we mandate such training for -carrying- a bow? A slingshot?
Carrying.
Not -shooting- in public.
“Well they -might….”. What? Go on a rampage? Isn’t that what the no-self-defense types say? “Well they -might-…”
Fish or cut bait. Is it a -right-, or a privilege? if the latter, then why are the “control” folks wrong about fascist-level control? They fear -you-. Why do you get to restrict others for your fears, but they cant restrict you for their fears?
Because -you- would be inconvenienced? But on -them- is OK?
Just walking around, peacefully minding their own business.
-Right- or privilege?
“But the -wrong- people might have them!”
“People might misuse them!”
“They might go nuts!”
“They might be too stupid!”
“Control!!!”
Wow. That sounds familiar.
-Right- or privilege?
Do we hold folks accountable for their bad actions, or try to pre-control them?
Isnt Liberty -inherently- risky that someone might do wrong?
Isn’t it -worth- that risk, to be Free?
Rights? Or -control-?
OK, 11B-mailclerk, I’ll ask you these same questions:
Do you believe it is acceptable, or unacceptable, to deny convicted felons the right to possess a firearm?
Do you believe it is acceptable, or unacceptable, to deny convicted child molesters the right to live next to a playground or school?
Do you believe it is acceptable, or unacceptable, to deny an individual the right to engage in child sacrifice to Molech?
Do you believe it is acceptable, or unacceptable, to deny an uncontrolled epileptic the right to drive a vehicle?
I’ll take a crack
1) Acceptable. If a person serves his/her sentence and is not a risk to society then all rights including the right to vote should be restored
2) Acceptable. See above. Personally, I’d put the sick shit to death and be done with it
3)Unacceptable. Murder, you can’t seriously be asking this?
4) Unacceptable. There is no “right” to drive a vehicle
I get your argument, but have to ask: In your view, should there be any limitations on the right to keep and bear arms? It’s a dilemma. If there are no limitations, then it’s permissible for my neighbor to keep some NBC in the shed out back “just in case.” If there are limitations, then we’re not “free” because the state can control us.
Our solution to this dilemma has been to allow “reasonable” restrictions on constitutional rights – and that is where our arguments and efforts should lie with the 2nd Amendment: pushing back against unreasonable restrictions.
So, that begs the question: Is it unreasonable to require someone who wants to carry a concealed deadly weapon in public, presumably to be used for the lawful defense of self and others, to make a minimal investment in time, money and effort to become familiar with his/her firearm and applicable laws?
In the standard legal view, every right has a limitation.
Off the top of my head I cannot remember which legal theorist (I think in the 1700’s) articulated the fact that for every right there is a no-right. I believe the illustration of “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” is fairly common in the fundamentals of law classes.
To illustrate from the right of Freedom of Religion/Freedom to Worship perspective: that we do not allow human sacrifice – something that has been practiced for millennia – is a limitation that could have implications for how I as a Christian worship. Clearly articulating why we do not allow human sacrifice – other than “we don’t like that” – is essential to continue enjoying our rights as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims to worship without interference.
So with our right to keep and bear arms. We need to clearly articulate what and where the “no-right” is in order to protect our freedom to keep and bear arms.
If one were to claim that the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited, then one would need to clearly articulate why this right is not like other rights.
I think the thing we must do as “Gun Nutzzz” (to use Ex-PH2’s appellation) is to clearly define what the parameters are to this right. What does constitute the “no-right” and how is that delimited?
It is not something that can be ignored, lest we in our extremist positions find ourselves in a morally indefensible position: defending gun ownership by those who in ignorance or carelessness kill innocents by their failure to know how to use a firearm.
I think your closing question is worthy of considered discussion. If we can build a general consensus among reasonable people around an answer to that question, we may find that we have defended the 2nd Amendment for our children and grandchildren after us.
I think we see the issue much the same way.
How does the carrier of a concealed firearm, doing nothing else but walking around, violate your rights or endanger your safety?
How does ensuring that the said carrier of a concealed firearm knows how to safely use that firearm impinge upon his right to carry?
The question is not “does (s)he have the right to carry?” – I freely grant that it is a right. The question is “does (s)he know how to safely use the carried firearm?” Someone who does not know how to safely use a firearm does endanger the safety of all around them.
Really, do you want someone of the “spray and pray” school of combat shooting in your AO?
If you require them to have your permission, you are calling it a privilege.
No one is “spraying” by walking around with a sidearm concealed.
You are imagining a boogieman,and demanding prior restraint based on it.
Will you next demand training prior to possession of books you think might inspire misdeeds?
If your position was valid, woudl you have to imagine a potential harm, or just point and say “that one there”?
You still haven’t even addressed an actual threat.
GB, I usually agree with you, but not on this one. To work with your examples,
1.a felon has proven they cannot abide by the rules of decent society, and therefore, through their own actions have lost their right, the same as they lost their right to walk free for a specific period of time.
2.As for the human sacrifice, that quite obviously violates another law, and deprives another individual of their right to life.
3. A person walking around with a concealed firearm has done absolutely nothing to violate any other laws, or the rights of any other person. If they brandish it, or use it inappropriately, that’s a different matter, but just carrying it?
As 11B put it, is it a right, or a privilege? And if we can start putting restrictions on it, where does it stop, and who gets to decide what’s “reasonable” We’ve gotten to where we are with everything to do with firearms exactly because we have allowed this infringement of our rights… to put it in other terms, give the banners an inch, they’ll take a mile…
Madison talked about the very fact that no right is “absolute.” When one joins or is a member of society, there are limits to rights.
While Greybeard talks about limits in Freedom of Religion, there are also limits to free speech (same amendment.) For example, the government can have time, place and manner restrictions that limit speech. (If you don’t believe they exist, try going to a courtroom and interrupting a trial or hearing and claim “first amendment.” Try claiming libel and slander are protected speech as well.)
We all talk about the government protecting the rights of people, but one of the most basic rights is the right to life. (liberty and happiness.)
Is there anyone here claiming that a trained gun owner is more of a threat to others when it comes to the safe handling of weapons? Is it not more likely that a person trained in the handling of weapons poses less of a threat to the life of the owner as well as the lives of those around them?
I have no issues with those who wish to carry a concealed weapon but it is not unreasonable to expect those that do so have basic knowledge of safety and have demonstrated that knowledge.
Why not? If your a criminal your going to carry regardless. Everyone should be on the same footing. Only the ones that follow the law now are unarmed victims.
I’ve often wondered how states can add so many stipulations to a constitutional right.
I believe the legal doctrine involved is that no right is absolute. The usual illustration is “Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.”
Most of us are ok with felons losing their right to possess firearms, or pedophiles losing their right to live next to school playgrounds.
I don’t see a Constitutional impediment to ensuring that one is competent with a tool that can, if misused, cost an innocent their life.
How does the carrier of a concealed firearm, doing nothing else but walking around, violate your rights or endanger your safety?
Quite simply, because if those in power decide (see Chicago, etc.) that no-one is competent to carry a firearm, they can deny it to all.. remember, power (to deny a constitutional right) corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…
“In West Virginia, there is still an advantage to having a permit – CCW permit holders don’t have to go through background checks when they purchase a gun”
Same here in NC, very convenient. Open carry here is already legal and has been for years. I think concealed carry is just better overall for numerous reasons tactically and socially.
They’re also trying to go permitless here. So far, it’s been going through pretty easily.
I do know a few instructors that have money at stake if it finally passes. 🙂
Then again, some of us like to stay current, for good and prudent reasons. And will spend good cash money on it.
If one offers a -real- value, one does not need the State to force people to buy one’s services, One just lets folks know one is on the market.
What? “Rent-seeking” from the -right-? That never happens! 8 – )
There are some states that require CCW licenses whether you live there or just visit. And not all states share reciprocity regarding that issue.
In regard to the whimpering and fear-filled angst of the dimbulbs in politics over this issue, GROW UP, WILL YOU??? Idiots afraid of their own shadows, they are.
I think if they don’t want a permit system, the very least they should do is require a proficiancy test at a local range. My father taught us how to use a gun every time we went fishing. When we were done fishing, he would get out the pistol and each of us would fire the 9 rounds it held at a proper target, usually a beer can! But we were trained at a very early age how to safely use a firearm! I believe in the back ground checks as well. Everyone should be required to show they can safely handle a firearm? I don’t want stupid people like Lars carrying a firearm!!
While I agree with you in theory WW, suppose an anti-gun leftist govt rules your region / state, so they decide that an appropriate “proficiency” test is the ability to hit a 4 in target at 100 yds, with 10 out of 10 shots, offhand with a pistol…If that’s the rules they want, how can you argue, once you’ve given them the power to make the rules…
Like I said, I completely agree that anyone who wants to carry should practice, and be skilled in their use, but giving the govt the power to decide is a dangerous proposition, as evidenced by all the stupid gun laws on the books currently
I think the law requiring a Concealed Weapons License is stupid, and an unconstitutional infringement on inalienabIe rights of the individual citizen.
Really, the law makes no sense, requiring a license for something no one can see, while not requiring a license for something everybody can see.
Also, the fees and related expenses present an unnecessary hardship on individuals with little or no financial wherewithal.
I try to keep my revolver concealed whenever I wear it, and I generally wear it every place I go.
After all, if it’s concealed, know one knows I’ve got it, right?
If ever I am forced to actually use my weapon, while waiting for law enforcement to arrive, I simply lift my shirt or open my jacket to reveal the properly holstered weapon in plain view, in compliance with the law.
I’m an “ENDOWMENT” member of the National Rifle Association.
I’m just plain endowed.
When I lived in Idaho and in Mississippi, those states did not require any training if you were a military veteran and/or a former peace officer.
Florida does the same. I walked in, showed my ID, filled out my app, had fingereprints taken and was out the door in 10 minutes.
Same same Maine.
JRM:
Do you believe it is acceptable, or unacceptable, to deny convicted felons the right to possess a firearm?
Do you believe it is acceptable, or unacceptable, to deny convicted child molesters the right to live next to a playground or school?
Do you believe it is acceptable, or unacceptable, to deny an individual the right to engage in child sacrifice to Molech?
Do you believe it is acceptable, or unacceptable, to deny an uncontrolled epileptic the right to drive a vehicle?
Criminals, who did something to harm others, have forfeited rights based on -actual- harm, not imaginary risks.
Ditto the human sacrifice argument. presumed non-consensual, and even if so, we generally prohibit voluntary termination, self or assisted. (An argument for another day.)
The medically disabled present a special case. Do they present an imminent danger, actual, probable,and reasonable? Note that this case of “epileptic driver” is -not- compatible to concealed carry, or open. The driver is -actively- utilizing a device in aand amoung others. The person carrying a firearm is -not- using it,and if they fell down convulsing would do …. no harm to anyone else.
So you are in effect conflating -active- do-er cases with -inactive/passive carrying.
And the arguments you seem to be making are the same for the “no defense” crowd, just not to the extreme same magnitude. You agree it is a privilege subject to assent of State and strangers, and subject to imagined fears of -might- happen. You just want it to infringe in a direction pleasing to yourself, not against you.
OK, then, you have conceded my point. Rights are not unlimited. There are cases where we limit the rights of others: Freedom to bear arms from Felons – because of proven criminal behavior. Freedom of religion from those who offer child sacrifices – because we disagree with how they worship. Freedom of association and freedom from government control from pedophiles – again because of proven criminal behavior. The freedom to drive a car from uncontrolled epileptics (and I was very specific in that statement) – because statistically an uncontrolled epileptic is likely to have an episode while driving that results in loss of life or property. The point I am trying to make – and which you have conceded – is that rights are not unlimited. There are times and circumstances when the exercise of a right is constrained. Now let us turn to concealed carry or, as it is in Texas, open or concealed carry. What, we might ask, is the purpose behind carrying a handgun? What one theme is found in all the arguments? The right and possible need to defend oneself from harm by a criminal. That is, the purpose of carrying a handgun is to have one ready in case one is put in a position where one needs to defend oneself or others from harm by a criminal. What is the nature of a firearm? It is something that projects a bullet at a high rate of speed over a distance. More bluntly put – it can kill at a distance. It is not considered an infringement of our right to move about freely to insist that those who desire to facilitate that movement with the use of an automobile be skilled in the use of the automobile, so that they do not inadvertently infringe upon another’s right to life. It ought not be considered an infringement of our right to keep and bear arms to insist that those who desire to exercise that right do so in a way that does not endanger others; that is, in a manner which does not infringe upon… Read more »
sigh – forgive me for not getting the end-italic command in the right place.
Nope. Not conceding your point that gun control is either moral or works.
You are arguing you get to limit the rights of people who have done -nothing- to harm -anyone-.
They have -not- put anyone at risk.
You cite people who have actively done something, in the classic “control” straw man.
You fear they -might-, therefore you deny any -right-.
The Founders did not call “keep an bear arms” a limited privilege, subject to restrictions some percentage of the population call “reasonable” did they?
Your straw-man is not applicable.
If we are to discuss questions, how about this:
How does the carrier of a concealed firearm, doing nothing else but walking around, violate your rights or endanger your safety?
-Actual- harm, not hypotheticals or what-ifs. One does not deny a right based on a hypothetical harm or an imagined fear.
..
The answer is -none-.
Thus, it is not subject to your veto, or restriction.
Actually, Graybeard, he hasn’t conceded your point. You apparently fail to recognize that there are different categories of rights. While none of an individuals rights are unconditionally absolute, legally there are indeed different categories of rights. Rights specifically guaranteed by the Constitution are held to a much higher standard vis-a-vis their infringement than are other rights. Rights specifically guaranteed by the Constitution (plus a few others deemed important enough by Federal courts) are considered fundamental rights under US law. Fundamental rights may in fact be limited – but doing so requires the application of legal strict scrutiny. Rights not considered fundamental do not require the same level of legal scrutiny; the state has more leeway in how it may limit non-fundamental rights. Specifically, in order to pass strict scrutiny a proposed restriction must serve a compelling governmental interest; the proposed restriction must be narrowly tailored; and only the least restrictive measures feasible can be used. Fail any of those three tests, and the restriction is unlawful under the Constitution. Rights not considered fundamental may be limited more severely, using a less exacting legal standard (intermediate scrutiny or rational basis). The limitation of non-fundamental rights may not necessarily be by the least restrictive means possible. Indeed, under the 10th Amendment a state may restrict or prohibit behaviors that most people would consider “rights” – such as the operation of a motor vehicle (requiring a license) or how a particular piece of property owned by an individual may be used (zoning). To address your four examples above: the right to live in a specific neighborhood or location is not guaranteed by the Constitution, nor to my knowledge have the Federal courts held that to be a fundamental right. Post conviction restrictions in that case do not violate a fundamental right and thus do not require strict scrutiny. Due process was provided in the original criminal trial; and the restriction passes the rational basis standard. Thus, the restriction is permissible. The Federal statutory ban on felons possessing firearms does restrict a fundamental right. However, that restriction has been considered by the SCOTUS. It… Read more »
Thank you, Hondo, for the more rigorous analysis. Trying to type up my response (above) while at work (and really doing work at the same time) I was not able to be as rigorous as I would like to be. We could argue that the fundamental right of personal liberty (Article V “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”) would, in the modern world, be construed as including the use of motor vehicles to exercise one’s liberty. But that’s another day. If I may point out, I chose the (admittedly extreme) example of human sacrifice just because the right of Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the First Amendment, just as the right to Keep and Bear Arms is enshrined in the Second. More precisely, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” [emphasis added]. But we do, ipso facto, prohibit the free exercise of any religion that involves human sacrifice. The right to life supersedes the right to freely exercise those religions. As you observe, these are both recognized as “fundamental rights”. I will concur that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Any restrictions on that right must, I would insist, be able to meet the “due process” tests that would presumably pass scrutiny by SCOTUS. The point I was trying to make – however poorly stated – is that this right, like all other rights, is not absolute; it is not a right before which all other rights must give way. I believe you agreed with that. The question then becomes – does the government (Federal or State) have a compelling interest in ensuring that those exercising this fundamental right do so in such a manner that the equally fundamental right to life is not unnecessarily endangered? There is an argument to be made, which ought to be considered without knee-jerk reactions of “gun control!”, that, given the nature of firearms and the inherent danger they present, a standard of safe usage can be developed and those exercising… Read more »
My Utah CCW is recognized in 30-some states*, and required a fairly extensive classroom course of instruction, but no practical range time. The course was a solid six hours, and covered basic handgun safety and Utah laws. Not bad for a noob, but I was there just to check the box.
*Except, of course, the PDRofMD, where I work and reside. The one dictates the other.
In SC the State House passed Constitutional Carry and it sits with the State Senate at the moment. SC does not share reciprocity as liberally as many states do. Own property or apply for special circumstances permit.
In VA as a Private Investigator I have to qualify with each specific caliber I am going to carry. Of course there is a separate fee for each. I can only kill someone legally with 9mm, 40, and 45 cal. If I kill a terrorist trying to knife a bunch of prancing man buns with my .357, I am probably in deep shit.
Indiana has a “carry” permit. Concealed or open, it doesn’t matter. Weird rules, can’t deer hunt with many rifles but perfectly legal to squirrel hunt with a .50 BMG.
I would hope that most Americans who decide to carry in public take some training classes. Waiting to hear about some Grandmother that sprays down the Piggly Wiggly with lead because she thought the bagger was stealing from her.
Sadly, in states that don’t require training…most people who carry do not take a class. No matter what any of you decide to do remember to leave your weapon in the vehicle when you enter the Post Office and:
Please Kill Responsibly
You -do- have a way with words…..
“leave your weapon in the vehicle when you enter the Post Office”
Only if parked on the street. If the PO owns the parking lot you are a no go.
Oh No, I may or may not have done that. Who gets mail anymore…really, that is so 90’s.
I got a letter from HONDO today and another stolen valor tip came in the mail.
Hmm…the only thing I get from him is a hard time, but that is apropos.
You still have a phone wired to the wall as well. That’s so 80’s.
When the wife has some box or large envelope to mail, we go to the post office. The upside is, she has to take the stuff inside, I point out to her that I can go no closer than the sidewalk.
Whenever we go to the post office my wife and I have to play rock, paper, scissors to decide who has to remove their firearm and go inside.
I’m told that the USPS no longer owns many of the facilities in which their Post Offices are located. They lease them instead, so having your firearm in your vehicle in the parking lot is legal.
The NRA had an article in American Rifleman magazine within the past year.
It was under the ILA news heading and described the case that was overturned by the ninth cicuit addressing this issue. Unless you reside in the ninth circuit I have been advised to not worry about it.
I worry about it because the feds own the lot I use. Ninth circuit or not.
Best to find out who owns what as you
stated the current situation.
“If I kill a terrorist trying to knife a bunch of prancing man buns with my .357, I am probably in deep shit.”
Why on Earth would you do that? Make hay while the sun shines, I say. The fewer PMBs, the better.
*grin*
Prancing man buns? That is just classic! I’m using that! Made my day, folks.
Carry concealed and keep it that way.
Nobody cares if nobody knows.
And get some liability insurance because you’re gonna get sued if you use it or even display it.
That has pretty much been SOP in Texas for decades.
I have friends who are routinely stopped at the Canadian border because of their Texas plates. The Canadian border guys tear up their cars looking for the guns
…
which they left with their daughter in another car.
Same with Alaska plates
How many folks with the latest and greatest carry guns, with plenty of range time,
Cannot remember to replace the batteries in smoke detectors every six months?
By the way, the -detectors- go bad eventually. 10 years is about the max. Has to do what the half-life of the isotope used. I seldom hear -that- topic anywhere, except with pro firefighter people.
You -do- smoke-test your smoke detectors, right? Not just use the test button?
I helped someone replace their ~20 year old detectors. The test buttons worked. But they failed every smoke test.
My wife manages at least a few recipes annually which result in testing the detectors satisfactorily. Ya don’t necessarily know what’ll smoke till you do it.
Less than five bucks for a new one at Wally World so I just replace the whole unit when it needs a battery.
We re-season the cast iron every so often (a couple of times per year, at least). THAT will test the smoke detectors!
An armed society is a polite society.
As Robert Heinlein reminds us.
I object to paying a fee and gaining state/county approval to exercise my Second Amendment and God Given right of self protection & preservation of life.
When will the state and federal government place a fee and approval on the rest of my so called rights that everyone wishes to limit?
Frankly, I’d trade permitless carry for a permit good in all 50 states.
Suck that, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, and California.
It does beg the question of why marriage licenses and driver’s licenses are valid nationwide – but CC permits are not. Seems to me that the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution would have something to say about that.
I didn’t see one word about our education systems failure to teach any of the fundamentals of firearm safety or the consequences of failing to handle firearms safely and that system costs us how much? NRA offers the Eddie Eagle program to any school system that is interested at zero cost. How many take advantage of that? At 68 years of age and being around firearms virtualy all of my life I still have room to learn but I know the fundamentals of firearm safety and practice them religiously. Anyone would be a fool to possess a gun they didn’t know how to use. There are free or low cost oportunities to learn safe firearm handling available to anyone interested offered by 4-H , the local Fish and Game club and the various military services. Military services will cost you a comitment of time but chow is provided. Beyond that there are several specialized schools that focus on concealed carry. It is not right that states can blockade my right to bear arms such as N.Y and Mass.
Sadly, serving in the military doesn’t guarantee that you’ll gain proficiency with a firearm. BTDT.
You’re absolutely right Steve.
The problems we have with guns now is a direct result of us conservatives not putting our feet down against the liberalization of our educational system.
The tales of kids getting tossed from school for the Pop Tart gun, saying bang bang, making a gun with a finger & thumb is a direct result of that failure.
Left to their own devices we end up with clowns like larsy-boi, Mr./Ms/I give the fuck up, man/woman/it/bun himself running our schools.
And that, my friends can lead nowhere but complete failure of every mission expected of any educational system…
Oh, and I am surprised as hell that larsy-boi even got out of mom’s basement today after seeing his party get their ossesoff handeled back to them in Georgia 6 and South Carolina yesterday !!!
President Trump was in Cedar Rapids tonight and gave another of his barn burner speeches. As usual, he referenced our God Given Right to keep and bear arms and how his pick of his first SCOTUS Justice will back our Second Amendment up for at least another thirty to forty years !!!
Hey lars, GO OSSOFF YOURSELF !!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!
Some of you seem to think that the right to bear arms is in the constitution so you can defend yourself and family from criminals.
Nope.
Some think it is so you can hunt and feed yourself and family.
Nope.
The constitution is a contract between individuals, states, and the US government. It establishes the powers of each, the limits of those powers, and checks and balances to prevent an abuse of those powers.
The right to bear arms is a check and balance on the power of government over it’s people.
The constitution was drafted and signed by revolutionaries.
Puts the whole “only the left commits political violence” thing in perspective.
So why are you so concerned about the government taking your guns if conservatives never commit political violence anyway?
It is a little like a post op male to female transsexual worrying about the government denying her a penis.
You certainly seem to be fixated on who has and doesn’t have penises(Penii?). Why is that Commissar?
I truly do not give a crap as long as the conceal carry it.
Isn’t your side the one fixated on checking for penises at the entrance to public restrooms?
Your side is the one that keeps bringing it up. Y’all have a real obsession with other folks junk.
Transgendered folk, using the restroom, are just about unnoticeable if they use the stall. No one cared until a bunch of “everything is political!” types went apeshit rubbing everyone else’s nose in someone else’s junk.
Not. Helping. You assholes.
I work with several people who are not cis-hetero-(whatever the -political- slang is this week). 100% meh. Could not care less. No one at work bothers each other’s junk unless they are married or carrying on like it.
Does. Not. Matter.
Stay out of my bathroom, dickhead. You creep everyone out with that shit.
Hey, since you brought it up….
Why the heck do you sick fucks keep bringing up peoples “junk” when talking about firearms? I hardly ever hear anyone say that except sickos on the left, who seem to want to talk about it endlessly, but always in the context of removing them.
You just cant stop talking that perv stuff, can you?
Sicko.
11B-mailclerk, it’s in an old John Lennon song: Happiness is s warm gun, bang-bang, shoot-shoot. I did do an article a while back on the feminist’s objections to the phallic symbology of artillery equipment, which you may remember. http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=71209
I consider it a sign of what Psychiatric Professionals refer to as “Projection ” defined by Sigmund Freud as when one is so afraid of or intimidated by their own thoughts that they “Project” them onto others much like an armed robber in custody accusing his Lawyer of wanting to do the same. Babbles McButthead repeatedly comes here mentioning things like transgender issues thus I assume he’s projecting much like a non-CPO has done in the past.
Reminds me of the people who claim motorcycles are just an extension of the riders penis.
Not sure about the ladies.
My post was not about transgender. It was about how full of shit the “only liberals commit political violence” narrative is on this board.
I expected you to understand what an analogy was. I expected you to barely understand but understand nonetheless. Dissapointed. But I think you were the one that thought the unclassified White House leaks were illegal and used your complete lack of understanding of the leaks attack my position.
So you walk the line between being respectably knowledgeable and in the dipshit squad with Ex and Infidel
I honestly think you’re “Projecting” Babbles McButthead, see my post up above.
No larsy-boi, liberals are the only ones that commit political violence. They are also the ones that go off their nuts and pull mass shootings.
Without fail, every stinking last one of the mass shooters have been died in the wool libidiots filled with all the shit you pukes pour out on a daily basis.
You bring the conversation down to your level with your reference to your dick or lack thereof, so don’t blame any of us for doing it.
You’re a liar, a hypocrite, a cheat, a thief and no doubt some sort of pervert that sits in your moms basement hating himself everyday because you thinks the world should turn to your wants and needs instead of you adjusting your stupid attitude to the rest of the world’s…
Go ossoff somewhere else, you’re a failure pukegoblin…
“Go ossoff”
The list of synonyms is endless.
But ya just had to drag dicks into a discussion about guns, didn’t ya?
Actually, “Commissar”, I think the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment differently than you do.
To help you out, I’ve provided the link to Justice Scalia’s opinion of the matter after “D.C. vs. Heller”. If you read it carefully, you might catch on.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html
We have it in MS, as well as legal open carry. I still prefer to have a permit for the protection it offers in other states.
Not sure what penises has to do with this discussion. I don’t recall gender even having anything to do with constitutional rights. I don’t care what gender a person is that might cause me to defend myself or my family with a firearm. I doubt that the piece or the ammo would care either.
It really sounds sick, they way certain folks on the left keep bringing that sick crap up, eh? Creeps gotta creep, I guess.
Commissar is the one who keeps bringing up this idiotic subject. It’s obvious that he has underdeveloped genitals. He has to cozy up to the urinals so that no one can look at IT, because he can barely find IT himself with a magnifying glass, a box of pepper, and a pair of tweezers.
Apparently you do not understand analogies and think my post was about penises.
Because you are a moron.
I still think you have sexy eyes. I like it when you talk dirty.
Who brought up the topic? That was you.
Keep your -creepy- kink out of the adult conversations of non-related topics.
Moron? MOI???? (Falls down laughing and pointing)
Commissar is such a MORON he can’t tell when he’s being insulted.
Go back and look at your own post, IMBECILE!! YOU brought up this issue. WE DID NOT.
It’s too early for this crap, and I duly notice that Commissar waits until he thinks people have retired for the night to repeat and make an ass of himself in public.
Has Lars been suggesting another penis comparing event, again, for the umpteenth time? That is just one of many reasons why the only reason I read his froth is by accident. Almost impossible to do since he spews so prolifically.
Perhaps one of the first principles of life Lars needs to learn is that repetition and increasing volume tend to lessen ones argument instead of enhancing it.
The more I see of Lars aka Babbles McButthead’s posts the more convinced I am that he’s transgendered and “Projecting”.
Or he’s taking cues from his Antifa “brothers” and “sisters”
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/antifa-website-promotes-all-manner-of-physical-violence-against-trump-supporters-and-capitalists/
Well, to be clear, there was NO analogy by Commissar. He posted his comment about penises for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble. Any other subject could have been an acceptable analogy, but no, he had to go and use sex and sex-related quibbles because he has nothing else to say.
Furthermore, there is NO constitutional right to use any public bathroom at all. Those are provided as a courtesy to customers by stores, restaurants and gas stations. Nor is there any constitutional right to expect taxpayers to cough up money to pay for someone else’s mental issues, including the TG demands for surgery and gender reassignment. Those are choices, made by the individuals in question.
Common decency and good manners are things that escape LARST TAYLOR and the lunatic fringe toward which COMMISSAR Commissar is rapidly drifting.
In the “perfect world” of one COMMISSAR Commissar, the Constitution is a minor pothole in the road to a “perfect” socialist utopia.
Hey Ex, he also threw in a gratuitous slap at me for calling him out on his moral equivalence defense.
And Lars, when the discussion starts off with our resident distaff member disparaging the size of your genitals, you’re not having a good day, boy.
Spew warning, girl, spew warning!
Sorry, Eden – back spasm took my attention.
Ok, I go off to work and come back home and see that someone set fire to Lars’ tampon and got him all wee-wee’d up… which one of you did it?
Did he question any of you about being a veteran?
Does it even require a drop of effort to make him shit flaming squirrels?
API, I am SO borrowing that!
Question any of us about being vets? I think that was naught but three days past, Senior Chief.
He can’t see to win an argument, so he has to resort to calling some of us non-vets. just like a 7 year old that can’t win an argument with his/her friends, so they resort to calling their friends liars or some other stuff.
Lars just can’t face the facts that his SJW ways may work at Bezerkely/Oaklandistan, but not in other places.
I can think of few reasons in favor of permits. I don’t know if they are good enough reasons but they are there.
– Permits provide a degree of separation between those allowed to carry and those not allowed to carry. If a person is allowed to carry then getting a permit provides proof at time of issue that they are not a prohibited person. This helps the police for example bit when making a Terry Frisk. Years ago the RKBA community was friendly with the local police. I guess not so much anymore (depending upon where you are) even though police overwhelmingly support concealed carry.
– In states with a minimum training requirement carriers do learn the rules of gun safety and a little bit about liability.
– Some states waive NCICs if you have a current CHL.
My standing question remains: why should one require a permit from any State to exercise a right guaranteed by the US Constitution?
Might it not be a matter like voting? The States are in a better position to administer the mechanics of the process to ensure the valid exercise of the right, within the parameters of what is acceptable established by the Federal government?
States are involved in Federal elections because the US Constitution specifically grants the States authority to set voting eligibility requirements for Federal elective offices (see Article I, Section 2 [House] and Amendment 17 [Senate]). Other Amendments (15, 19, 24, and 26) add additional restrictions on the States’ ability to set voting qualifications – but Constitution explicitly gives the States authority to determine who is and is not qualified to vote provided the States observe those additional restrictions. That is why States are involved in Federal elections.
Regarding the POTUS: an individual has no Constitutional right to vote for POTUS. While all states today use a popular vote for POTUS to apportion their electoral votes, that is not required under the US Constitution. Under the Constitution, states are free to select those electors and instruct them on how they will vote as they see fit (Article II, Section 1.2).
Bottom line: States are involved in Federal elections and in determining voter eligibility because the Constitution explicitly grants them that authority. The situation is far different from that of firearms ownership, which is specifically identified as an individual right by the 2nd Amendment. That last point was settled definitively between 2008 and 2010 in the SCOTUS Cases Heller v. DC and Chicago v. McDonald.
What has not yet been determined definitively is the precise meaning of the term “and bear” in the 2nd Amendment’s clause stating that “the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be abridged” with respect to privately owned firearms. However, since the practice of carrying weapons by individuals – both open and concealed – in what later was to become the USA predates the American Revolution, unless the SCOTUS completely ignores the intent of the Constitution’s writers the SCOTUS should affirm that as a right guaranteed by the Constitution as well.
Point. More speculation than anything.
Did you see my reply to your post of 8:22 yesterday evening?
Yes. And to address the human sacrifice issue, the SCOTUS has already considered that point – and ruled that it may in fact be prohibited (along with a slew of other acts considered to be “religious obligations”) if those obligations violate secular law.
In the arguments for Reynolds v. US (1878), the issue of possible use of religion to justify human sacrifice was considered (the actual subject of the case was polygamy). The SCOTUS held in that case that a claim of “religious obligation” is not a bar to criminal indictment for violation of the law.
The case predates the “strict scrutiny” standard. But prohibiting human sacrifice would IMO be a “no brainer” permissible restriction on religious liberty under strict scrutiny – particularly given the SCOTUS ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where the SCOTUS upheld Oregon sanctions associated with the “required” religious use of peyote. Religious freedom is another fundamental right, and cases involving religious freedom receive strict scrutiny.
And the application of that to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms?
I addressed that previously. While the SCOTUS may rule otherwise, IMO it fails the strict scrutiny test.
Specifically, IMO it fails at a minimum the third part of the strict scrutiny standard (least restrictive means possible) – and quite possibly all three parts of strict scrutiny. The fact that it fails the third part of the test has been demonstrated by the fact that no-permit concealed carry works perfectly well in the several states in which no-permit concealed carry is legal. That failure alone means it is an impermissible restriction on a fundamental right.
Whoops, I must have missed that part. I understand your response better now. Thank you.
I do think you have sufficiently addressed my concerns.
I do think that we should encourage anyone who is carrying to take a gun safety course, but now agree with you that a state-issued permit ought not to be required to carry.
All this gun talk and no shot fired. Damn.
You poor thing. I pander to your demands and you still aren’t happy. Here’s 10++ minutes of gunfire.
Now that’s a bedtime story^^^^
I know. It’s hard to get to the range when you have to earn a paycheck.
luckily, I live in the boonies and can shoot whenever I wish to on my own property.
I do, too, and even have a nice gully where we have a little 75′ range set up. I try to get to it once a week to bust a few caps – usually on Saturdays after mowing the yard.
Excellent!
Yes, but would they scare the jihadi?
Are there guns in the video??? I don’t see any guns!
I see a whole lotta booty and boobehs, but no guns 🙂