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.
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.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.
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.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!
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 thatI 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...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 helpA 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.