TW200 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 98 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,142 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
Bad guys and law breakers are already armed, Allowing honest clean record non law breakers to carry when and where they want will not cause more issues and only serve as warning to those who use them for ill conceived purposes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,773 Posts
I have concealed carry. It is my right as a citizen of the USA and have been checked out by the feds. Being that I do carry when not at home and for the most part it is not an issue. Thing is, when you need to reach and not prepared, it can be the shxts. One night a while back there was a break in in camp. A fellow came to me and asked for help. Not an issue. Picked up some iron and confronted the perpetrator and sent him on the way. You never know what may come your way, be prepared to deal with it. I am a fairly sized fellow, but when it comes to life and dxxxxx, when you ask a person if he/she wants to see the sun come up, it gets they're attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Personally, I'm all for a National Concealed Carry law and the right of any responsible, law abiding, citizen to exercise it...... I have had one here in WA. state for going on 39 years now. I make the choice daily, to choose between Kimber, S&W, Ruger or Glock. :D;)

That does not mean I would want to make it a requirement for every adult American to own and carry a gun against their wishes, rather an option for those who wish to do so...

I guess you could equate it as a "choice" to have a motorcycle endorsement if you choose to ride a motorcycle, in any state you may ride in or pass thru...... But not requiring it for those who choose not to ride a motorized bike.... It's called "choices" and we all have the right to make our own. Especially, when considering the safety of ourselves and our families.

Did you miss the part where the TV interviewer failed to mention the number of Americans here in the US killed by licensed automobile drivers every day when compared to the number of shooting related deaths by a like number of people who legally carry concealed ?

I missed that part also.:nono: But then I herd no mention either, of the lives saved each year by the simple display or in worst case senerio, the actual use by a person with or without a license where their or theirs families lives were at stake.

BTW, those driver licenses are recognized in every state. However, drivers continue to drive distracted, on cell phones, and under the influence, regardless of the laws prohibiting them from doing so....... But I have never heard of anyone wanting to take away the right of interstate travel by US citizens with valid drivers license.

excalibur
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,479 Posts
The driver's license is a poor analogy for there are no US states where the citizens are denied drivers licenses. If there were then one could discuss visitors from other sites who are permitted to drive. But there aren't so it is a inappropriate comparison.

However I do support the reciprocity act, proponents should just choose a better arguement.
That law enforcement is opposed is understandable, they respond to incidents and the presence of a firearm under the presumption of guilt, not the presumption of innocence ( that is right only applicable once one enters the judicial system). As such anyone with a firearm needs to be taken down immediately and any innocence determined later once they are in control of the situation. This a real risk run by innocent folks carrying in public. So passing the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act will cause some urban police forces to revise training to insert a another good guy/bad guy evaluation before reacting. Don't want to get sued or fired for putting Joe Innocent's face down on the concrete with the Missus and kids watching just because he was carrying. Police in Arizona and Texas have been trained to co-exist with an armed community, so should L.A. and N.Y.City . I think Concealed Carry should be a nationwide right we should reclaim. Existing regulations are an infringement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,405 Posts
I actually do not support this bill at all in its current form. Being a very pro-2A person and a daily carrier of a concealed weapon some find my stance odd but there is a reason for it. As it sits it does nothing to keep states from making new and ever more oppressing firearm laws. I don't think its too far fetched for states like NY, NJ, MD, CT, MA, CA, and all the other firearm unfriendly states from passing new laws to make it even harder to posses a firearm lawfully.

Here is an example. Here in Mass we have 10rd limits on any firearm built after 1994 and a roster of "approved" firearms. If someone from say Maine came to Mass with their legally owned Glock 19 gen5 and its standard magazine they are instantly breaking the law based off that magazine alone and subject to arrest if caught. Same if the firearm was not on the "approved" roster which sometimes takes an extended period for newly released products. If this new law passes i can see states like mass putting even more and tougher restrictions on firearms to make it damn near impossible to carry in these states especially for those coming from out of state.

In my opinion this bill as written serves red states that dont have oppressive laws very well but will be an unintended disaster in states that already infringe on our rights. It only serves to make those states a lot worse, the one i live in included and especially NY and CA. In my opinion even a national gun law that takes away the states abilities to regulate firearms fixes nothing unless the supreme court backs it, the next time the D(bags) are in power they will just reverse it. To date they have taken the stance that the 2A is not an unlimited right and that regulation is acceptable. Until they say its an absolute right and cannot be regulated by anyone this will never get better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,451 Posts
What can I say. Criminals will continue to buy or steal the guns they want with no regard for state laws. They will use those weapons in whatever manner they choose and on whomever they choose. Maybe I will be an intended victim someday and maybe I won't. I will never be an easy victim though. The part of all of this that really pisses me off is that our elected officials do not take gun crimes seriously! They will jail a citizen from another state who innocently crossed a state line and sought out the police to figure out what options were available under the circumstance. Meanwhile they will plea down a career criminal who used a gun in the commission of a crime and 6 months later they will be back on the street doing what they do.

I have zero fear of the people who legally obtain a carry conceal permit. I am terrified of the politicians who promise public safety by removing my ability to protect myself and my loved ones.



Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,479 Posts
Certainly the punishment for minor state law weapon violations seem disproportionally high compared to Dryden-Tdub's good example. One can only hope there is discretionary and judicious application of existing laws by reasonable law enforcement officers.
For example while riding with admiral this summer high on a remote California mountain range he carried his .357 hogleg in a saddle horn suspended holster in blatant violation of California's open carry prohibition. There was no one around to have been offended. Had an Sheriff come buy out there I doubt a word would have been said. Had same sheriff encountered us back in town, or had we spoken with California Highway Patrol on the highway then likely a different story. We would have had to pool our money for his bail after sweet talking officer to not tow his bike to an impound lot 50 miles away. Setencing hearings would be just about concluded about now...
So that is an analogy to this whole debate; what seems reasonable to many in the rural west is seen as a path to disaster in more urban areas, especially those with existing firearm related crime problems.
It is a dilemma. I have learned that there are different realities for different people. I do not accept absolutes. Your valid truth may not match my truth and that is OK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,451 Posts
Certainly the punishment for minor state law weapon violations seem disproportionally high compared to Dryden-Tdub's good example. One can only hope there is discretionary and judicious application of existing laws by reasonable law enforcement officers.
For example while riding with admiral this summer high on a remote California mountain range he carried his .357 hogleg in a saddle horn suspended holster in blatant violation of California's open carry prohibition. There was no one around to have been offended. Had an Sheriff come buy out there I doubt a word would have been said. Had same sheriff encountered us back in town, or had we spoken with California Highway Patrol on the highway then likely a different story. We would have had to pool our money for his bail after sweet talking officer to not tow his bike to an impound lot 50 miles away. Setencing hearings would be just about concluded about now...
So that is an analogy to this whole debate; what seems reasonable to many in the rural west is seen as a path to disaster in more urban areas, especially those with existing firearm related crime problems.
It is a dilemma. I have learned that there are different realities for different people. I do not accept absolutes. Your valid truth may not match my truth and that is OK.

Lately I have been hearing the phrase "My truth" a lot. Fred, since you have shown throughout your many posts that you are a well educated individual could you explain it to me? Seriously. In my world the word truth is pretty cut and dry. Something is either true or it is not. Someone enlighten me. Please!



Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,295 Posts
I haven't read through all of the posts as I have to bet some sleep.

BUT! Just so you all know.

ANYONE who wants a gun in a major city can just go and get one. Only law abiding people obey laws.
Criminals already have guns. The law abiding people are KNOWN to not carry. That makes them targets.

You can choose to carry or not.
I choose to not be a target.

OK OK, so I stayed up and read through the posts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
A weapon not available when you need it is worthless. Having a gun without some real world tactical training, not just shooting at the range, is nearly as bad as not having the weapon. Open carry has added risks due to the bad guy now knows you have a weapon and will most likely not play fair. Plus it freaks out the public and adds to the fear of guns people have. The most valuable skill to have is situational awareness. With that you may avoid the need to have a weapon. But sometimes no matter what you do you may find yourself in a situation where there is no other option. When that happens, even if you are involved in a justified self defense situation, you will most likely need to employee the services of an attorney to defend yourself from the civil lawsuit which occurs quite often. I can’t remember the statistics on how expensive the average self defense shooting costs. But it’s expensive. Some states like Utah protect the individual when they are involved in a legally justified shooting. My state is very liberal and would do nothing to defend you. It’s best to run like hell if you have the chance and the law looks to see if you had that option. Being a hero can get expensive.
The best plan is to always carry, let no one know you have it, and train with real world scenarios. If you need it to save your life or someone else’s you have to decide if it justifies the risk of getting jammed up because of some liberal “guidelines”.

Just my thoughts. A very controversial subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,172 Posts
I agree with the right to carry but I also know there are a lot of stupid individuals out there that shouldn’t own a gun much less carry one. Its down right scary sometimes to think about those people, and I know all of you know one or two of those individuals.
I’m for National gun training certifications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,451 Posts
I agree with the right to carry but I also know there are a lot of stupid individuals out there that shouldn’t own a gun much less carry one. Its down right scary sometimes to think about those people, and I know all of you know one or two of those individuals.
I’m for a National training course before individuals are qualified to carry a firearm.
I think carrying a firearm in public comes with great responsibility and should never be taken lightly. I agree that some people are simply not cut out for it but who gets to decide who is and who is not? I am a huge supporter of training classes for those of us who choose to carry but have my concerns about how that would be legislated. I see a scenario where classes would be limited in their availability and too expensive for people early in their working lives. Heck that is the ONLY scenario I see based on this governments long track record! I do think that training should be mandatory though but it should also be easily affordable to all who want it. All of this is a moot point though until national reciprocity is passed. The simple truth is that almost every state already has citizens legally carrying concealed weapons and those citizens are not currently a problem. I dont see how legally allowing them to cross state lines is going to endanger anyone new.


Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,172 Posts
Tom I’ve been around guns my whole life and it wasn’t until the late 80s when I bought my first handgun (Ruger .357) I just didn’t see the need for one but I did drop 4 deer with it. I’m a hunter
I’ve never taken a self defense course which I feel is important for anyone who plans to carry. I do have a Florida Conceal carry license but since I live in MD it’s pretty much useless.
Having a Florida License and the ability to carry across state lines may make it legal for me to carry in MD. What I’m saying is if this bill passes a lot of individuals may find themselves legally able to carry a gun and they have no clue how to use it.

If I was legally able to carry a handgun in MD I would take a self defense course and buy self defense insurance in the event I had to defend myself.



[video]https://highmarkblog.com/coverage-self-defense-shooting/[/video]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smitty Blackstone

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Not trying to steal Fred's thunder. Something LEO's deal with all the time.
Lately I have been hearing the phrase "My truth" a lot. Fred, since you have shown throughout your many posts that you are a well educated individual could you explain it to me? Seriously. In my world the word truth is pretty cut and dry. Something is either true or it is not. Someone enlighten me. Please!

Tom
Not my words: Truth is an instance of quoting one or many of the facts while describing or discussing the subject. The difference between truth and fact is that fact is something that cannot be combated with reasoning, for it is logic itself. But truth is something which depends on a person's perspective and experience.

Hope that helps!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,667 Posts
I actually do not support this bill at all in its current form. Being a very pro-2A person and a daily carrier of a concealed weapon some find my stance odd but there is a reason for it. As it sits it does nothing to keep states from making new and ever more oppressing firearm laws. I don't think its too far fetched for states like NY, NJ, MD, CT, MA, CA, and all the other firearm unfriendly states from passing new laws to make it even harder to posses a firearm lawfully.

Here is an example. Here in Mass we have 10rd limits on any firearm built after 1994 and a roster of "approved" firearms. If someone from say Maine came to Mass with their legally owned Glock 19 gen5 and its standard magazine they are instantly breaking the law based off that magazine alone and subject to arrest if caught. Same if the firearm was not on the "approved" roster which sometimes takes an extended period for newly released products. If this new law passes i can see states like mass putting even more and tougher restrictions on firearms to make it damn near impossible to carry in these states especially for those coming from out of state.

In my opinion this bill as written serves red states that dont have oppressive laws very well but will be an unintended disaster in states that already infringe on our rights. It only serves to make those states a lot worse, the one i live in included and especially NY and CA. In my opinion even a national gun law that takes away the states abilities to regulate firearms fixes nothing unless the supreme court backs it, the next time the D(bags) are in power they will just reverse it. To date they have taken the stance that the 2A is not an unlimited right and that regulation is acceptable. Until they say its an absolute right and cannot be regulated by anyone this will never get better.
i agree, the blue states would tighten the laws so much if this passed...until they take away the right for the states to regulate firearms over federal regulations this will do nothing...i live in MA and i would like to be able to carry in all of new england...as these are the states i am in most of the time...NH, VT and ME have permitless carry...but i'm in RI (work) more than in MA and good luck getting an out of state permit in RI...i wouldn't mind having one in CT as well but i'm not there that often to want to go through the process and pay for it...i shouldn't have to do that

A weapon not available when you need it is worthless. Having a gun without some real world tactical training, not just shooting at the range, is nearly as bad as not having the weapon. Open carry has added risks due to the bad guy now knows you have a weapon and will most likely not play fair. Plus it freaks out the public and adds to the fear of guns people have. The most valuable skill to have is situational awareness. With that you may avoid the need to have a weapon. But sometimes no matter what you do you may find yourself in a situation where there is no other option. When that happens, even if you are involved in a justified self defense situation, you will most likely need to employee the services of an attorney to defend yourself from the civil lawsuit which occurs quite often. I can’t remember the statistics on how expensive the average self defense shooting costs. But it’s expensive. Some states like Utah protect the individual when they are involved in a legally justified shooting. My state is very liberal and would do nothing to defend you. It’s best to run like hell if you have the chance and the law looks to see if you had that option. Being a hero can get expensive.
The best plan is to always carry, let no one know you have it, and train with real world scenarios. If you need it to save your life or someone else’s you have to decide if it justifies the risk of getting jammed up because of some liberal “guidelines”.

Just my thoughts. A very controversial subject.
i agree...knowing the laws in each state where you do carry could be quite a process...for example if you're in MA you have to "fear for your life" to be justified...like said above in MA you're better off running away...so say there is a shooting at a store in MA and i am carrying...but i have the ability to easily get out through a close by door then i'm leaving...it may be cowardly but say i was able to shoot the shooter and stop the threat then you're automatically in court and paying through the nose for it...that's also to assume i am able to hit the shooter in a high stress situation and not miss and hit someone else...something a good amount of police officers can't even do...too many things to go wrong...unless the shooter is coming after me or my family directly then i'm out...the state laws discourage self help
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,479 Posts
The issue can become that facts can be combated with other facts. Sometimes it just takes a better publicist. For example how many of you know for a fact the the Wright Brothers had the first powered flight, never mind they were launched by a catapult? What about the fact that Henri Giffard was flying around steam powered in 1852? ballon.jpg

Or that for years Santos Demont regularity flew around Paris going to cafes for lunch and as in this 1901 photograph powering around the Eiffel Tower? He wasn't a frenchman so the French by and large ignored him. Thee fact of his deeds languished in the history books for lack of publicity.
 
1 - 20 of 98 Posts
Top