Need a concealed carry permit to open carry?

[chevysoldier]

Holy crap, well here goes.....

yes i do have my chl

and i carry everywhere i can

I have had my CHL for 5 years and almost always carry

Everywhere except school (or on the way to or from).

Thank you.

Gotcha. It piqued my curiosity, since I understand that recording audio of someone without their consent is inadmissable in either prosecution or defense of someone. Now perhaps I am wrong on that, and if someone has the details, please let me know. Either way, it just kinda stuck out to me. No big deal. Thanks for answering my question very directly.

See my reply to Tom at the end of this post.

I guess my unsolicited $.02 would be that regardless what is currently on the books about inducing panic may help once you get to the courtroom, but in the court of public opinion, where Johnny and Jane Smith take their families out they aren't up-to-speed on that, nor are they accustomed to someone OC'ing all over the place. You just said yourself, "that I know a person OC'ing is not always a welcomed sight". So you know that as soon as you step foot out of your front door, someone is not going to get it right. Someone is going to either challenge you (hence the need for your voice recorder) or at the very minimum, you are going to get disapproving stares from other customers in the establishment. The reality is regardless of the laws on the books, folks are uncomfortable with other folks they don't know touting lethal hardware.

Actually most of the looks I get are more of curiosity, not disdain. Maybe that has something to do with where I carry. We all know that many people have a bad image of guns. But by avoiding or hiding the problem will not change anything. If guns were more common place and the public was more educated on the subject things would be much smoother.

And quite frankly, if you don't carry a badge John Q. Public does have the right to question whether or not you should be carrying a weapon in plain sight and close proxmimity of him and his family, and John Q. Manager has the same to do so for his establishment.

I whole heartedly agree. Knowledge is the key to the universe. Again, I welcome questions as to why I have a gun on me. But I don't go out flashing it around begging someone to challenge me.

I do agree with your sentiment that in the case of a store that sells weapons, one would expect him to be better versed on the laws at hand, but that doesn't make it a requirement. Hell, folks buy computers from jackoffs at Best Buy all the time, and I know the lion's share of the blue polo hardware jockeys know jack shit about PCs other than what's on sale.

Agreed. I shouldn't have assumed they would have been experts on the subject. I admit this as one of my mistakes and will not let it happen again.

Still, there seems to be the overwhelming contingent of gun owners who take offense at anyone taking the time to question why they are carrying a weapon somewhere, yet cannot seem to understand how someone who doesn't feel the need to pack heat to go get groceries wonders to themselves "he has a gun, what makes him/her uniquely qualified to carry one near me?".

Odd. I find the exact opposite. Most every person I know or have met that carries is very open and welcoming to questions concerning their firearm.

Chev, I know (for as much as our non-pr0n interwebz site can provide me with) you are a decent guy. You're a fellow vet, and by and large, that plenty enough for me to be comfortable with you carrying around me. And I figure that for the most part, you don't OC as if its your entry into a biggest dick contest.

I know I have the biggest dick so I don't feel the need to compete.

My guess is at worst one of your thoughts as you OC is the same as the marking on a poisonous creature in the wild. "I am potentially dangerous only if you fuck with me. Otherwise, we're good".

Yeah, maybe subconsciously. Never really thought about that. Good point

And as someone myself looking to acquire my CCL this year, I am good with folks who ask those that openly tout their firearms why they do so, and to a degree, even questions your answers as to whether or not they are fact. Just because you know you have read the laws, that doesn't make you the expert to the public.

I don't pretend to be an expert in anything, ever. There is too much info to ever be an expert. That why I posted this thread in the first place. I like feedback, I want to learn.

In your own mind and hear you know this, and that's good from the standpoint that it is the framwork by which you carry yourself, and your weapon. Think about this. We question law enforcement all the time. You do both as a motorcyclist with reference to traffic and vehicle laws, and as an armed citizen about weapons laws. In some cases, for very good reason and some mebers of law enforcement have proven to be behind on the latest laws, or in some very few cases simply abuse their authority. In the same vein, common citizens have the right to question why you are carrying. A citizen's right to bear arms does not supercede his or her fellow citizen's right to openly question that armed citizen's need to do so, or whether or not they are uniquely qualified to possess and brandish (bad word choice, I have never brandished a firearm. )a weapon.

I am of the opintion that right now, the Constitution has it wrong. It should not be a right to bear arms simply because you were born into this nation, but a privilege to those Americans that have proven themselves worthy of that responsibility. That amendment is dated, and refelctive of the nation at that particular time, and not the vastly different nation we find ourselves in right now.

I do not agree with this. Is a right guaranteed to me. I don't think I should need a permit to say "I think Obama is a major idiot" I have a right to free speech.

And before anyone gets going on the "well that won't stop the criminals from carrying..." angle, well, no shit. That isn't what we are talking about here. Think about this. Were it based on the privilege of carrying, you would then immediately reflect upon those around you that you have (or should have) met all the necessary criteria to posession of that weapon, and potentially far less of the questioning and disapproving stares from your fellow countrymen.

I understand what you are saying but if I see someone who is openly carrying a gun I think to myself he has nothing to hide. He is probably okay. I will assess the person and situation but it will not throw up any red flags. Most bad guys want to surprise their target with a gun by hiding it.

If law enforcment asks you for proof, you show them your license, and be on your way.

Absolutely but they should have probable cause. Just having a gun is not PC.

But by having it as a right that is justifaibly debated now, and then subject to a variety of different laws from one place to another, one situation or another, we will continue to find ourselves mired in constant debate of which right it greater, who is right, and who is wrong, which only exacerbates the tension between gun activists, and anti-guners.

Most anti-gunners I have come into contact with are that way because they are misinformed or living in a fairy tale. They think "no gun" sign really keep bad guys away

I think that if you feel that where you are going is potentially unsafe, you have the right to be prepared to defend yourself. But there's also advice we all got from mo mand dad a long time ago. If its not someplace you feel you're safe, ya probably don't need to be going there in the first place. Just because the store is called Target doesn't mean it is filled with them.

It isn't because I don't feel safe somewhere I may go, but I know a safe place can become life threatening in a heartbeat. Church is supposed to be a safe haven. Heck our ROE in Iraq was to never fire on a mosque, no matter the circumstances. Tell the lady that was shot and killed leaving Sunday church that it is a 100% safe area.

[chevysoldier]

...

Damn, I never would have thought this subject would have been a topic with this much discussion on this board. I think its cool and find all the replies interesting.

Ditto

I think chevysoldier should open carry any time he feels like it but he should be better prepared for the confrontations.

Agreed

When he posts them I would hope he would be more sincere about expecting a confrontation and just state them as a matter of fact rather than can you believe what happened to me in a situation I created.

I apologize if that is how I came off. It was not my intention to say "hey look what I got myself into". I posted this up to get feedback from other people with different points of view. Just as you stated I should have been better prepared for a confrontation and not been thrown off my game. Two heads are always better than one.

The voice recorder is a very good idea to protect himself from LEO who would learn of the laws after they have abused their power by harassing him and possibly change their story to protect themselves.

Chevysolder is correct about no one being able to state for a fact about the tactical superiority of one method over the other. I open carry occasionally but only when I am by myself. If I am with family I don't want any extra attention on me or them until I can provide them with cover and concealment. When I am by myself I do think there are times when showing potential opposition would keep an undetermined bad guy from making a poor decision.

---------------

I don’t think one method is superior over another and it is a personal choice based on the sum of one’s life experiences and education up to that point.

Well put.

I don't think LEO has the right to check out anyone who is carrying a gun nor should they. If a dispatcher takes a call from someone about a man with a gun they should ask them if the gun is holstered or is the person doing anything illegal, if not it should be a non event and no one should be harassed. If a LEO wants to drive by and take a look I wouldn't take issue with that but if the person isn't doing anything illegal they should be left alone. Carrying a holstered weapon and brandishing one are two different scenarios and should be handled differently. No one should be subject to a challenge while going about their business in a perfectly legal manor weather you like what they are doing or not.

Agreed

Every person should have the right to protect them self by virtue of being born, period, regardless of where they are born. The manner in which they chose is not up to the rest of us as long as it doesn't put the rest of us at risk. We don't have the right to decide who is qualified to defend themselves unless they have caused others harm in doing so. I am disappointed in RVTPilots view on that subject and can't imagine someone thinking otherwise especially when they have sworn to uphold the constitution. Protecting me is not a privilege it is a right that no man can take away. While some subjects we discuss here I might be able to be swayed from my original stand this is one I am sure you cannot convince me that my self preservation is a privilege and not a right.

Agreed

[chevysoldier]

I think we are lost in translation somewhere, UP, though if we are not, I will respectfully agree to disagree. I would wholeheartedly agree that self preservation is a right. The means by which you chose to preserve yourself however should be graduated, and those with the most significant means of permanently altering ones life (and the understood means of self preservation) should not be granted simply because of citizenship. I didn't state that I think the defending ones self was a privilege. We are all born with the right to preserve and protect ourself.

I think I touched on this earlier in this reply.

But in this day and age, I am not of the opinion that it for one takes a handgun to do so,

It is better to have and not need than need and not have.

nor do I think because you have the right to defend yourself that it gives you the right to simply carry a gun without proving you have the mental stability to do so, or established yourself to some form of authority the proper judgement skills necessary to carry a firearm in a public setting.

Touched on but will add to carry a gun is a right but to "hide" a gun is a privilege (as the Ohio laws stands at this time) If a cop finds a gun hidden on your person, you'd better have a reason. That reason is a CHL.

Some of this has to do with the ambiguity that currently exists with our gun laws, some of it has to do with our species and its current sociologial state with regard to firearms.

All these fricken laws about you can here, you can't there, yada yada, drives me nuts.

You and I both know that the moment you were in a position to discharge a firearm in a public setting because you understood your life to be in imminent danger that your life, as well as everyond around that situation would be changed permanently, regardless of the level of significance for each person. That shot fired is a bell you cannot unring. Regardless of where that bullet would land, or the harm done, that is a situation that I would want the person posessing and discharging that weapon to be certified and recognized beyond a reasonable doubt to be capable of understanding the responsibility that comes with that decision. You and I both know as well that not every person born unto this nation is capable of understanding and respecting the gravity of said descision. It is within those parameters that I find the right to self preservation becomes dependent on the privilege of how it is executed.

Be certified beyond a reasonable doubt? Even you said we have bad cops who abuse their authority. That motorcyclist should never have been shot in the back. Their are CHL holders that abuse what they have. I don't think it is justified to make everyone certified to openly carry a gun.

Your right to self preservation also allows you the ability to not engage in activity that is potentially threatening. Are we aware of every single threat out there when we step outside the confines of our homes, of course not. Is it necessary to then take the steps to deal with a worst-case scenario each and every time we leave? Not really. Each moment is a judgement call, and therein lies the most significant aspect of self preservation: discretion.

Again I feel it is better to have and not need than need and not have.

And unfortunately, ever single born American does not come equipped with the discretion necessary to carry a firearm. Therefore I feel the ability to do so should be extended as a privilege to those who have satisfied an established set of requirements, and be able to maintain one's standing within those parameters rather than simply being born under the Constitution of The United States of American and co-signed with their birth certificate.

I will add that part of this is due to so many antigunners pass their views to the kids that we. I think if kids were brought up to understand and respect firearms half the issues we have now would be nonexistent. I remember being young and my dad telling me where the guns and ammo was when I was left home alone. But he taught me to have a respect for firearms. My daughter is 3. At about 2 she and I started talking about guns. Nothing major but she has seen what a bullet will do and knows they are not toys, they can hurt you. She will not touch them.

And as you recognized me as someone sworn to defend that Constitution, I did so, and would do so once again with these views. I know that my POV is one of desired perfection for this case, I know that its not always wise to allow perfection to interfere with simply making things better. With what wisdom and experience that I have acquired in the 19 years since I took that oath, I would have done it all over again, and would today, were it not for the fact my body isn't much more than a one-time protective device for the Marine standing behind me. Hell, I served the majority of my service under Bill Clinton, and I loathe the idea he was ever leader of the free world. He shit on us when we were in, and showed little respect for the veterans while he served his watch. But I would have then, and would now for the current President take a bullet for them. Not because of the person they are, but what they represent. So if I am willing to take one for freaking Bill Clinton, I would die on any soil to preserve the rights and freedoms of my fellow Americans. Even if I don't agree to the degree of liberty that they provide.

Very much so.

Very much so.

Note: As far as I know, recording other people's voice without permission is a violation of Federal wiretapping laws, and is prosecuted. If recording, the first thing you should say, when spoken to, is "I'm recording" or something similar. So that it is very clear. Then you're safe, and it goes from there.

No, I don't think people wandering through your home movies w/voice in the park can prosecute. Not that people haven't tried... In those cases it is obvious. That doesn't count. It is recording without knowledge that isn't allowed.

Oddly, that isn't the case with law enforcement. They record all the time, and nothing is said about it.

Found this:

Ohio Wiretapping Law

Ohio's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. Ohio law makes it a crime to intercept or record any "wire, oral, or electronic communication" unless one party to the conversation consents. Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52. Thus, if you operate in Ohio, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties.

Additionally, consent is not required for oral communications (e.g., in-person conversations) where the speakers does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51. This means that you are free to record a conversation happening between two people in a public place such as a street or a restaurant, so long as you are not using sensitive recording equipment to pick up what you otherwise would not hear.

In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the Ohio wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party.

Consult the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's Can We Tape?: Ohio for more information on Ohio wiretapping law.

Dang 10,000 character limits.

[kawi kid]

holy hell this is alot of reading

[chevysoldier]

holy hell this is alot of reading

No kidding. It took me three tries of cutting and pasting to get it all posted up. Originally had it at like 19,000 character on a 10,000 character limit.

[ReconRat]

got it, I've been wrong about that. Maybe the federal is different in some way. But you're right, it's meant to prevent a 3rd party from wire tapping.

[chevysoldier]

got it, I've been wrong about that. Maybe the federal is different in some way. But you're right, it's meant to prevent a 3rd party from wire tapping.

Of course it will vary from state to state. I have no idea if there is a federal law or what it states. I wouldn't go to Oregon with a camcorder strapped on my helmet though.

[MidgetTodd]

I know I have the biggest dick so I don't feel the need to compete.

Game on then, whip the lil feller out and lets have look see peewee.

[chevysoldier]

Game on then, whip the lil feller out and lets have look see peewee.

You know the urinals that go all the way to the floor? I have to use those but they only work when it's cold out.

[MidgetTodd]

Have you met Pringle.

[Rod38um]

This is where OC bothers me! First off, I have a CCW and carry daily. I dont open carry, I'm not totally opposed to it and wish it was more widely accepted. However, you found a place where the manager does not know the law and he obviously didnt like you OCing in there. Now you want to go back and do it again!!! this will likely cause a no guns sign to go up and make it a pain for all the rest of us to CC. You already have your CCW, why not just cover up when in the store........ no grief and no new signs.

[RVTPilot]

Holy crap, well here goes......

I think the above line is the only consistently agreed upon statement in this entire thread.

Rather than try and go go spot for spot and reply (as that might induce a seizure on my part) I will do my best to respond to the highlighted comments you provided. And again, I appreciate a spirited and intelligent debate.

First, in my mind, I see carrying a weapon as falling under the same privilege, or right on the other side of an arguement. IMHO, I am looking at it being a privilege to carry any firearm into a public setting that it is otherwise unnecessary to do so. (I'm going to the range, goin' hunting with the boys, my teenage daughter is pregnant; these are all justified reasons to leave the house loaded for bear.) To a degree, OC vs. CC is semantics.

I understand your perspective on having it and not needing it, like life insurance I guess. Just seems like a drastic measure for everyday comings and goings, but to each his own. And you are correct that ordinarily mundane situations can turn violent out of nowhere, but I wouldn't consider even having a weapon to be the answer in all of them, and perhaps it being a negative component of the situation potentially.

With the laws, I too feel that there are: a) too many, b) too ambiguous, c) should be consitent from state to state. Like health care now, the right to bear arms is provided by the federal government. It should be up to them to control and maintain the systems and standards by which that is done. This would be beneficial to both the gun toting public, and those opposed to it in having clear, concise information for each side.

You and I probably come from simialr backgrounds, and have passed the respect for guns down to out children. I have a 9 year old son and a 6 year old daughter. Both know there are guns in the house, neither of them know where they are right now. They have both been exposed to them, and will get more as they get older. (My son has shot a .22 and the one I hve in my home now is intended for his use as he is getting older. His grandfathers and I have been training him on the proper use and respect of guns with this rifle.) I agree that there is a strong amount of anti-gun sentiment within the U.S., and a lot is based on a lack of or misinformation by the uneducated public. Some is based on the involvement of guns in repeated negative and horrific unncessary situations (boy finds gun, accidentally shoot own brother, postal workers, etc.) The common denominator in those situations is the gun, while the other equally or even more significant (i.e. human mental instability) factors existed. That is an uphil battle gun activists will continue to fight until humans are no longer made out of people.

I understand your point as well in that those that OC rarely have anything to hide, but seem to have a point to make. You, by your comments here, simply carry because you chose to, not to drive home any particlar point. But there are just as many gun activists using OC as marketing for their agenda as there are anti-gunners with megaphones and signs. As long as there are sides to be taken, there will be radicals on each side. When it regards a volatile subject such as carrying a gun in public, those who are radically for that idea can be extremely polarizing to the other side, sometimes to the point of actually doing a disservice to their own cause. I am figuring on you not being that radical, and also appreciate your feedback in that most of your looks and inquiries from the non-gun carryig public are more of curiosity and not of disdain. That no doubt benefits the pro-gun ideology, and will perhaps begin to sway the tide of negative gun perception in our country.

I think the biggest disagreement we might have is your comaprison to free speech and the right to carry a weapon. You have never accidentally said "Obama is an idiot" and paralysed someone from the waist down, or shot yourself in the leg. Yes our words carry weight, and we are entitled to them. But no one has had to carry a casket because their mouth accidentally went off in Wal Mart. All men are created equal. All rights do not carry the same weight and gravity when exercised. (FWIW, no one has ever said "Obama is an idiot" by accident. It is always on purpose, and quite often correct.) You and I are both aware of the consequences that come with exercising ones liberties, having been places where they are not nearly as wide ranging as the ones we enjoy (and some take for granted) here in America.

And with regard to the the "expert" commentary that I gave birth to, that was relatively speaking. Even our difference of opinion notwithstanding, because of this conversation your words carry with them a great deal of weight as you have admitted looking to learn more about ths subject, and cite facts that you are aware of. I too look tobe more informed about the subject, and hope that in doing so, the differences that lie scattered amongst this subject decrease and there is a means to getting everyone in the conversation equally informed. We may never completely agree, but if we can base our opinions on understood facts all around, it makes for a better debate.

And FWIW, don't get me wrong. I am far from anti-gun. I am pro gun, as a matter of fact. But I am a HUGE proponent of responsible gun ownership, to the point that if its necessary for me to sacrafice my right down to a privilege to make it better for the masses, then I will do so. I know asking fellow gun owners to do so is like asking Ricky Lake to lay off the cake. And as we have often referenced our sworn duty to defend the Constitution and those subject to it, I am also responsible to those who have views that differ from my own, and when presented tactfully, I respectfully defend them. I think if I would take a bullet for Slick Willie C, I can agree with a thing or two Ms. Mary Nogun has to say.

[chevysoldier]

This is where OC bothers me! First off, I have a CCW and carry daily. I dont open carry, I'm not totally opposed to it and wish it was more widely accepted. However, you found a place where the manager does not know the law and he obviously didnt like you OCing in there. Now you want to go back and do it again!!! this will likely cause a no guns sign to go up and make it a pain for all the rest of us to CC. You already have your CCW, why not just cover up when in the store........ no grief and no new signs.

He didn't have a problem with me openly carrying there. He just thought I was required to be either LE or have a CHL to OC. If a no gun sign goes up, they lose business. And how does a place that sell guns post a no guns sign?

[RVTPilot]

You know the urinals that go all the way to the floor? I have to use those but they only work when it's cold out.

I don't think a man with a fuzzy green sports mascot as his avatar needs to be singing the virtues of his manhood.

[chevysoldier]

I think the above line is the only consistently agreed upon statement in this entire thread.

....

I understand what you are saying, for the most part.

You are correct that the amendments do not carry the same weight. But I feel the second protects the rest of them IMHO and therefore carries more weight. I cannot find justification in meeting a requirement to enjoy one amendment and not another.

And what do you have against stinger? lol, he was at the parade on Saturday. Saw me taking a picture and posed for it.

[jporter12]

And what do you have against stinger? lol, he was at the parade on Saturday. Saw me taking a picture and posed for it.

BLUEjackets... GREEN bee as a mascot...

[Lost]

See how far you get into nationwide arena with your open carry.

I believe that gander used to require all fire arms being brought into the store to be checked and wire tied open at the customer service counter.

[chevysoldier]

See how far you get into nationwide arena with your open carry.

I believe that gander used to require all fire arms being brought into the store to be checked and wire tied open at the customer service counter.

Nationwide Arena sells liquor for consumption on the premise. Can't carry there at all anyway.

[jbot]

it's pointless, since it's already clear that privately owned establishments can set just about any rules they want minus discrimination.

the internets is srs business. let's stick to things that are actually in contention.

[Uncle Punk]

I think we are lost in translation somewhere, UP, though if we are not, I will respectfully agree to disagree. I would wholeheartedly agree that self preservation is a right. The means by which you chose to preserve yourself however should be graduated, and those with the most significant means of permanently altering ones life (and the understood means of self preservation) should not be granted simply because of citizenship. I didn't state that I think the defending ones self was a privilege. We are all born with the right to preserve and protect ourself. But in this day and age, I am not of the opinion that it for one takes a handgun to do so, nor do I think because you have the right to defend yourself that it gives you the right to simply carry a gun without proving you have the mental stability to do so, or established yourself to some form of authority the proper judgement skills necessary to carry a firearm in a public setting. Some of this has to do with the ambiguity that currently exists with our gun laws, some of it has to do with our species and its current sociologial state with regard to firearms. You and I both know that the moment you were in a position to discharge a firearm in a public setting because you understood your life to be in imminent danger that your life, as well as everyond around that situation would be changed permanently, regardless of the level of significance for each person. That shot fired is a bell you cannot unring. Regardless of where that bullet would land, or the harm done, that is a situation that I would want the person posessing and discharging that weapon to be certified and recognized beyond a reasonable doubt to be capable of understanding the responsibility that comes with that decision. You and I both know as well that not every person born unto this nation is capable of understanding and respecting the gravity of said descision. It is within those parameters that I find the right to self preservation becomes dependent on the privilege of how it is executed. Your right to self preservation also allows you the ability to not engage in activity that is potentially threatening. Are we aware of every single threat out there when we step outside the confines of our homes, of course not. Is it necessary to then take the steps to deal with a worst-case scenario each and every time we leave? Not really. Each moment is a judgement call, and therein lies the most significant aspect of self preservation: discretion. And unfortunately, ever single born American does not come equipped with the discretion necessary to carry a firearm. Therefore I feel the ability to do so should be extended as a privilege to those who have satisfied an established set of requirements, and be able to maintain one's standing within those parameters rather than simply being born under the Constitution of The United States of American and co-signed with their birth certificate.

And as you recognized me as someone sworn to defend that Constitution, I did so, and would do so once again with these views. I know that my POV is one of desired perfection for this case, I know that its not always wise to allow perfection to interfere with simply making things better. With what wisdom and experience that I have acquired in the 19 years since I took that oath, I would have done it all over again, and would today, were it not for the fact my body isn't much more than a one-time protective device for the Marine standing behind me. Hell, I served the majority of my service under Bill Clinton, and I loathe the idea he was ever leader of the free world. He shit on us when we were in, and showed little respect for the veterans while he served his watch. But I would have then, and would now for the current President take a bullet for them. Not because of the person they are, but what they represent. So if I am willing to take one for freaking Bill Clinton, I would die on any soil to preserve the rights and freedoms of my fellow Americans. Even if I don't agree to the degree of liberty that they provide.

I am the authority in the means to which I choose to protect myself. My mental state is not your concern until I have done something wrong to cause harm to others. Denying someone the opportunity to defend their life because they have the potential to cause others harm is too restrictive and fraught with the potential for abuse. Racially, socially and culturally are just a few with many, many more, I don’t want a higher authority to judge anyone on their potential to do wrong; I want it to be for actually doing something wrong.

I could just as well use a hammer to abuse another if I were so inclined so the tool I choose to use makes little difference. I do hate any of the gun laws we have but I don’t find them to be ambiguous. I know when I am carrying legally and illegally, adding another layer of bureaucracy won’t help to make the laws easier to understand or make us safer from those who would abuse a firearm. The possession of a firearm doesn’t turn anyone into a social degenerate, by percentages we have few gun related deaths compared to ownership, I hate to use this as an argument though because to tries to place the gun at blame which it clearly is not. I find it very hard to swallow your statement that our species and sociological state is such that we don’t have the capacity to responsibly own firearms. Law enforcement carry them along with millions of other people, I carry one and you are not any safer from me causing you harm because I have gone through higher authority to do so and I am sure that standard applies to the millions of others who carry.

You are trying to make my head explode by saying there is someone who knows better than me how aggressive I am to defend myself. I like to be prepared for situations and in most cases I am over prepared, this doesn’t mean I need to use the full capacity of how I am prepared. I don’t pull off a perfectly good tire just because I have a spare; I won’t shoot fifteen times when three will do. My ability to apply discretion is immeasurable along with anyone else’s, again find fault if they have abused it don’t try to define it. Judging someone not capable is arbitrary, punitive and is not the place of government as a preemptive strike for their potential to cause harm. We are all capable of that and no man can determine what is in our hearts.

I wasn’t calling out your patriotism when I made that statement and regret you took it as such. I find the constitution to be a wise document with much foresight that I don’t take exception to, so defending it wasn’t a conflict for me. I believe in the people it protects more so than the instrument of a government, so my inclination is to trust them to do the right thing with their freedoms and punish them if they are abused not to regulate them to my comfort level.

[RVTPilot]

I am the authority in the means to which I choose to protect myself. My mental state is not your concern until I have done something wrong to cause harm to others. Denying someone the opportunity to defend their life because they have the potential to cause others harm is too restrictive and fraught with the potential for abuse. Racially, socially and culturally are just a few with many, many more, I don’t want a higher authority to judge anyone on their potential to do wrong; I want it to be for actually doing something wrong.

I understand your point here, but still feel that in order to carry a firearm into a public setting, you should have to maintain a certain level of competency. I do understand that instituting an unbiased system to qualify someone would be difficult, and you mention some reasons that I will get to later for their effect on this issue. For me however, its difficult to get past the idea of someone who clearly has no business OC'ing, or even CC'ing for whatever reason, and then punishing him after he has done irreparable damage to an otherwise innocent family. I don't want to come off as posing this person and guilty until proven innocent, but the damage done when that mistake takes place would very likely outweigh the liberties compromised for him.

I could just as well use a hammer to abuse another if I were so inclined so the tool I choose to use makes little difference. I do hate any of the gun laws we have but I don’t find them to be ambiguous. I know when I am carrying legally and illegally, adding another layer of bureaucracy won’t help to make the laws easier to understand or make us safer from those who would abuse a firearm. The possession of a firearm doesn’t turn anyone into a social degenerate, by percentages we have few gun related deaths compared to ownership, I hate to use this as an argument though because to tries to place the gun at blame which it clearly is not. I find it very hard to swallow your statement that our species and sociological state is such that we don’t have the capacity to responsibly own firearms. Law enforcement carry them along with millions of other people, I carry one and you are not any safer from me causing you harm because I have gone through higher authority to do so and I am sure that standard applies to the millions of others who carry.

You don't find them ambiguous because you are smarter than the average bear. You have taken it upon yourself to educate yourself on them in order to have the ability to CC. But if we have both gun owners and law enforcement questioning them and having difficulty understanding the aspects of them, then there is obvioulsy some problems there. I am sure a good bit of it comes down to education, be it John Q. Gunowner taking the time to catch up on them, or law enforcement being properly trained. When it comes to the laws, I am not saying the answer is more laws, but simply more concise language so that the understanding is easier for all.

And I will go back and check my context, but I did not intend to imply nor do I think I said owning a gun makes one a social degenerate. In fact, I think that somewhere in my dialogue, I mentioned that while a gun is often the common denominator in an unfortunate event, its often not the single greatest factor in said event. And I did not say we don't have the capacity to own a firearm, but we are not born with the understanding of that responsibility of owning them, and simply giving someone the right to do so without any formal training is irresponsible citizenship. Law enforcement carries them and has had necessary training. You and I received training thanks to Uncle Sam, and you have continued yours in order to acquire your CCW permit. However, if I am not any safer from you for any reason while you carry then you would have no business carrying a weapon in public. What makes me safer, carrying a gun of my own? Only if I shoot you preemptively. Even if your weapon of choice is anything other than your gun, to arbitrarily attack someone is proof enough that you would have no business carrying something with the effective lethal capabilities of a firearm. And I know that one of the reasons you carry one is in the event that you would encounter someone in public acting out in that fashion, and if he's armed with anything less than a gun, one of the first "things you would think is "damn, I'm glad he didn't have a gun!"

You are trying to make my head explode by saying there is someone who knows better than me how aggressive I am to defend myself. I like to be prepared for situations and in most cases I am over prepared, this doesn’t mean I need to use the full capacity of how I am prepared. I don’t pull off a perfectly good tire just because I have a spare; I won’t shoot fifteen times when three will do. My ability to apply discretion is immeasurable along with anyone else’s, again find fault if they have abused it don’t try to define it. Judging someone not capable is arbitrary, punitive and is not the place of government as a preemptive strike for their potential to cause harm. We are all capable of that and no man can determine what is in our hearts.

I don't want your head exploding, especially if you have an LCD monitor. They need to be cleaned carefully. Again, you are not a good example here, because you have exercised proper judgement and have acquired significant enough training to justify carrying. But I don't think the ability to do so should just be handed out to anyone because the feel the need to defend themselves as an American. My father has a friend who is a paranoid schizophrenic. A loving soul and not unintellignet, yet completely terrified of his own shadow. Yet by being an American, he's entitled to carry a gun? Maybe the gun makes him feel safer from the shadows, but what happens when he decided to shoot up the shadows and hurts or kills an innocent bystandard? So that man's right to carry a gun to potentially defend himself has now cost someone their life, or drastically altered it at least, when its preventable by not allowing him to becom armed to that degree. Sure this might be a radical example, but how far is it from the point you are making with regard to not knowing what is truly in one's heart?

And I can smell the comments coming about someone being able to kill with a hammer or crowbar...yada yada yada. True. But the maximum effective range of that device it usually arms length, maybe a few feet if the crackpot can throw it with any sort of accuracy. But a hammer does not have maximum effective range of 50 yards and travel with enough kinetic energy to explode a watermelon.

I wasn’t calling out your patriotism when I made that statement and regret you took it as such. I find the constitution to be a wise document with much foresight that I don’t take exception to, so defending it wasn’t a conflict for me. I believe in the people it protects more so than the instrument of a government, so my inclination is to trust them to do the right thing with their freedoms and punish them if they are abused not to regulate them to my comfort level.

I didn't feel as if you called my patriotism into question, but more to elaborate on the point you touched on, and there wasn't any offense taken. I think the Constituion is still a viable document and very necessary, but as our nation and society evolves, it must as well. Proof of this is the right to vote being extended to women and minorities, which at that time was long overdue. There wasn't conflict for me with the document in as much as I knew that I would be defending the right of Americans to abuse those liberties, and that was disheartening to say the least. You and I took up the fight to allow Americans to burn their own flag, or to demonstrate that a race can promote themselves greater than the race of a fellow American. Those things sadden me, but to put the kaibosh on them then inhibits the rigts and privileges of others.

[Uncle Punk]

I understand your point here, but still feel that in order to carry a firearm into a public setting; you should have to maintain a certain level of competency. I do understand that instituting an unbiased system to qualify someone would be difficult, and you mention some reasons that I will get to later for their effect on this issue. For me however, it’s difficult to get past the idea of someone who clearly has no business OC'ing, or even CC'ing for whatever reason, and then punishing him after he has done irreparable damage to an otherwise innocent family. I don't want to come off as posing this person and guilty until proven innocent, but the damage done when that mistake takes place would very likely outweigh the liberties compromised for him.

My point about maintaining a minimal level of competency is whose level do we use? We license people to drive a motor vehicle and yet thousands of people are killed by people who have passed a test. We as a society have chosen to accept the risks that others are not competent because of the benefits we receive from motor vehicles. I can think of no greater convenience in my life than my own self preservation. Testing me or others will not make us safer as a whole; my liberty to use a firearm for protection should not be subject to others discretion. Let’s say that I might be able to ride a motorcycle with a larger safety margin than you, should my skill level be used as a means to test you if your skills are not equal. We cannot make all people equal by educating them or testing them.

You don't find them ambiguous because you are smarter than the average bear. You have taken it upon yourself to educate yourself on them in order to have the ability to CC. But if we have both gun owners and law enforcement questioning them and having difficulty understanding the aspects of them, then there is obviously some problems there. I am sure a good bit of it comes down to education, be it John Q. Gun owner taking the time to catch up on them, or law enforcement being properly trained. When it comes to the laws, I am not saying the answer is more laws, but simply more concise language so that the understanding is easier for all.

My ability to understand or ignore laws does not mean my life has a greater value and deserves to be protected over anyone else’s. Alaska and Vermont have no restrictions on CC or OC other than federal regulations and there is not blood in the streets. I know we could go to those same laws without any additional or unique issues. Why you think the people of our state are not capable to defend themselves without additional regulations is beyond me especially when people from other states have the capacity to do so without testing. I carried before the cc laws were passed and no one was in danger of me causing them harm unless it was their intent to cause me harm first. How simple could it be no restrictions for law enforcement or a citizen to adhere to so all ambiguity is gone and no negative side effects because it has been done successfully. I don’t know where you are getting why you think it is necessary to regulate people because in my observations it hasn’t worked in fact it is quite the opposite.

And I will go back and check my context, but I did not intend to imply nor do I think I said owning a gun makes one a social degenerate. In fact, I think that somewhere in my dialogue, I mentioned that while a gun is often the common denominator in an unfortunate event, it’s often not the single greatest factor in said event. And I did not say we don't have the capacity to own a firearm, but we are not born with the understanding of that responsibility of owning them, and simply giving someone the right to do so without any formal training is irresponsible citizenship. Law enforcement carries them and has had necessary training. You and I received training thanks to Uncle Sam, and you have continued yours in order to acquire your CCW permit. However, if I am not any safer from you for any reason while you carry then you would have no business carrying a weapon in public. What makes me safer, carrying a gun of my own? Only if I shoot you preemptively. Even if your weapon of choice is anything other than your gun, to arbitrarily attack someone is proof enough that you would have no business carrying something with the effective lethal capabilities of a firearm. And I know that one of the reasons you carry one is in the event that you would encounter someone in public acting out in that fashion, and if he's armed with anything less than a gun, one of the first "things you would think is "damn, I'm glad he didn't have a gun!"

My statement about you not being any safer because I have a permit meant I was never a threat to you or anyone else with or without one. You did allude to thinking that as a species we are inherently violent or capable of causing harm to each other without knowing the consequences. I think this is incorrect not that it’s not true in some cases but as a whole people know what is required to get along in a civilized society. Again, Alaska and Vermont have proven that point and hopefully Arizona is close behind.

I don't want your head exploding, especially if you have an LCD monitor. They need to be cleaned carefully. Again, you are not a good example here, because you have exercised proper judgment and have acquired significant enough training to justify carrying. But I don't think the ability to do so should just be handed out to anyone because they feel the need to defend themselves as an American. My father has a friend who is a paranoid schizophrenic. A loving soul and not unintelligent, yet completely terrified of his own shadow. Yet by being an American, he's entitled to carry a gun? Maybe the gun makes him feel safer from the shadows, but what happens when he decided to shoot up the shadows and hurts or kills an innocent bystander? So that man's right to carry a gun to potentially defend himself has now cost someone their life, or drastically altered it at least, when its preventable by not allowing him to become armed to that degree. Sure this might be a radical example, but how far is it from the point you are making with regard to not knowing what is truly in one's heart?

My point is we shouldn’t judge someone based on what we think their capacity to do wrong is because we all have the potential to cause others harm, actions should be how we judge someone not our fear of them.

And I can smell the comments coming about someone being able to kill with a hammer or crowbar...yada yada yada. True. But the maximum effective range of that device it usually arms length, maybe a few feet if the crackpot can throw it with any sort of accuracy. But a hammer does not have maximum effective range of 50 yards and travel with enough kinetic energy to explode a watermelon.

Which is why I choose a firearm as a means or protection, I want to keep harm as far away from me as possible.

I didn't feel as if you called my patriotism into question, but more to elaborate on the point you touched on, and there wasn't any offense taken. I think the Constitution is still a viable document and very necessary, but as our nation and society evolves, it must as well. Proof of this is the right to vote being extended to women and minorities, which at that time was long overdue. There wasn't conflict for me with the document in as much as I knew that I would be defending the right of Americans to abuse those liberties, and that was disheartening to say the least. You and I took up the fight to allow Americans to burn their own flag or to demonstrate that a race can promote them greater than the race of a fellow American. Those things sadden me, but to put the kibosh on them then inhibits the rights and privileges of others.

I do think the constitution is a living document that can be added to for protecting its people from the government but I trust what is already there and don’t find any wisdom in taking away rights that are already in it.

[jmwildi]

I do think the constitution is a living document that can be added to for protecting its people from the government but I trust what is already there and don’t find any wisdom in taking away rights that are already in it.

[Uncle Punk]

Hey Chevysoldier, don't ever start a thread again with this much typing involved or I am going to smack you when I finally meet you.

[chevysoldier]

Hey Chevysoldier, don't ever start a thread again with this much typing involved or I am going to smack you when I finally meet you.

Believe me, I didn't expect it to go this far either. But I have thoroughly enjoyed it.