[gtoric]

Originally Posted by drummer

GTORIC

The right to bear arms which is given in the Constitution is not infringed because states require "concealed permits". The permits only grant the ability to carry a firearm concealed it has nothing to do with any right to own or carry "openly" a firearm.

The right to carry a concealed weapon is infringed or controlled, and the Constitution does not differentiate between the concealed or exposed state of carrying. It merely grants the citizenship the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry on their person) without infringement (restriction). By requiring a permit for concealment, is that not an act of infringement by restricting how we can bear those arms? Isn't this an act simply and succinctly forbidden by the Constitution? It's the phrase,"...shall not be infringed...." with which I am having trouble coming to grips.

I realize that there have been several reasons put forth in favor of issuing conceal-to-carry permits. I previously gave the slightly paranoiac "government can keep track of those who own weapons in order to make it easier to confiscate those same weapons in time of insurrection" reason (National Socialist Germany during the mid-to-late 1930s comes readily to mind here). It has also been stated that this is a revenue-generator for local and State governments; no doubt. Actually, those first two reasons make a good argument for regular gun registration as well. Also, by making it illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a properly issued permit, this now becomes a controlling tool used by law enforcement to arrest, then by the judicial system to convict otherwise law-abiding citizens of a minor wrongdoing. An unintended consequence of prosecuting this otherwise victimless crime on its own is to clog our already overtaxed court systems with additional burdens and expenses. One other positive point, however; the requirement to participate in a gun safety course as part of obtaining a permit can not be faulted.

These permits are issued to insure that convicted felons and other criminals who choose to carry concealed firearms can be prosecuted in the courts.

In the case of an accused criminal's possession of a concealed weapon during the commission of a crime, a failure to produce a legal conceal permit would certainly serve to reinforce the prosecution and extend the conviction of any confluent crime. Sort of like icing on the cake, or an added insurance policy in order to obtain the conviction. Though I'm still not convinced of the constitutionality of this concealment restriction.

I was under the impression that the right to keep and bear arms was surrendered by convicted felons, who then were not allowed to be in legal possession of or carry any firearms, concealed or open. Additionally, can convicted felons legally be issued "conceal-to-carry" permits since their right to bear arms was rendered void by their conviction? Seems to me that the successful prosecution of a crime would be pretty much assured by the fact that a felon had used a weapon during the commission in the first place. Or, has our liberal criminal law system muddied-up that issue as well? I'm probably way naive in the methods of criminal prosecution and its nuanced conduct.

Making the possession of a concealed weapon without a permit illegal seems to me to be a tool of regulation aimed primarily at controlling the law-abiding citizenry, who by definition need not be regulated in this manner when not committing an infraction. However, when turning to crime, is the lawbreaker's reasoning significantly affected by having or not having a permit to carry? In other words, is having a permit to carry an effective crime deterrent? Laws only act as deterrents to law-abiding citizens. Professional criminals scoff at laws and only consider the consequences when caught. Maybe the conceal laws are not meant to prevent crimes.

How is it determined if an unlawful act was committed by an accused person using a concealed weapon? Isn't a weapon used in that act almost always unconcealed, at least in the commission of the act? How does law enforcement prove that a weapon was ever concealed prior to the act itself? If a perpetrator walks into a bank with his weapon already drawn and unconcealed, what good is a permit to conceal? Conceal-to-carry permits do not make us any safer from law-abiding citizens, because they do not use the concealment factor as an aid to commit crimes, and criminals don't care about permits because it's their mentality that they will not get caught in the first place.

I'm curious, what legally constitutes a concealed weapon? What are the various States' rulings concerning the display of a carried weapon? Can you duct-tape a .22 to your forehead, and not be prosecuted for unlawful possession? Does carrying a pistol in your hand, in open display, violate any laws? A drawn gun seems to me to portend bad things happening in the immediate future. Does the act of drawing a gun without cause in public result in prosecution? I'm guessing that there have been many rulings dictating exactly how a weapon is to be carried/displayed in public. Would these rulings be considered unconstitutional infringements as well? I would guess that since the person is allowed to legally bear that arm up to the point of overt brandishment, establishing laws governing how the weapon is to be controlled are constitutional and prudent on a state-by state basis.

I am all for citizens carrying concealed weapons to protect themselves or others, but I dont want the local crackhead to be able to and if he does I want law enforcement to have laws in place to aide them in removing them from the streets.

Isn't the local crackhead granted constitutional rights to bear arms? As long as he/she is a legal citizen, isn't a convicted felon, and isn't caught in the act of committing a crime that is. Restricting such a person from bearing a weapon before the fact is not possible. I don't like the fact that an unstable, desperate, and most likely under certain conditions, dangerous individual can legally own and carry a firearm, but how can the law constitutionally restrict such an individual? This sounds like an ACLU issue. It would not surprise me to learn that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and has upheld the constitutionality of conceal-to-carry permits. In which case, all of my arguments and conclusions here are just so much hot air.

The supreme court recently struck down Washington DC's ban on handguns and I agree with the decision, but to compare handgun bans to concealed permits isn't fair.

20 years law enforcement veteran

Perhaps comparing banning handguns and requiring permits to carry concealed is not fair, but in the end aren't both controlling measures, therefore aren't both conditions infringements of the Second Amendment? That's all I meant to convey.

What is the purpose of concealing a firearm? Is it to mask the fact that a person is in possession of a weapon? Or is it merely an act of convenience of transportation, as in a purse, a pocket, or on a shoulder holster?

In any event, the act of concealment removes the very powerful psychological advantage of letting the bad guys know that you are in control of the equalizing weapon. As Maj. Caudill so eloquently put it, I'd rather be persuaded by argument than by force. Possessing a sidearm, concealed or not, takes force out of the equation.

Drummer, I respect the special dedication and conviction that it takes to select police work as a profession. I also recognize the constant risk of personal danger that must be confronted once on the job. I have relatives and friends who serve the community as police officers, and I can't imagine the pressures you face daily. I thank God that you and your brothers and sisters in law enforcement are on the job and willing to serve. Law enforcement is not responsible for creating law, only enforcing the laws. I want it to be clear that I am questioning the law makers and the judicial system here, not the police. If we don't get a firm grip on the direction in which the progressive movement is taking this country, we may lose all of our constitutional rights in the blink of an eye, and then not realize how it happened so fast. And if I don't air my concerns, I would be shirking my responsibilities as a citizen of this great country. Don't take these queries and statements in the wrong light. I'm just trying to get people to think about our condition, and the right to bear and keep arms is at the center of our continued existence as a free peoples.

Thank you for your service.

[Brian Baker]

Drummer...try to carry a handgun in Maryland "openly" and see what happens.

[foxwolf321]

Originally Posted by lust4speed

Don't you realize that IT COULD BE YOUR JUDGMENT DAY? Possibly after witnessing your wife being raped and killed before you die.

This is true, and in this case would me having a gun have helped me in this situation? Perhaps, perhaps it helped lead to this situation?

My reasoning is that if the criminal has a gun, knife or whatever and is holding me (my family) up, then he feels in control of the situation and can ask for whatever he wants. More often then not this is going to be money, jewelry, valuables, my car whatever. I will gladly hand it over to him because they are material goods and these are replaceable.

Now, if i draw my gun, well, now, he is not in full control of the situation, BUT NEITHER AM I. I might still get shot and my wife stabbed and raped. Hell I might have just raised my chances of being shot, then what good am I to my family? I don't have anything more then a passing familiarization with criminals and the way they think. But from what i understand they usually want quick easy cash, not my life or even to physically hurt me as a rule. Some people are nuts and again, will me being armed as well as they scare them off or make them do something rash? Or make me do something rash? I do not begrudge anyone the right to defend themselves how they see fit, i choose a passive resistance. Call me a idiot if you choose, but i will not risk killing someone to save myself when another option may exist. Does that mean i am going to lay down and take it if my life or someone elses is in danger? no, of course not.

I should make note, I do not have a wife, i do not have children so maybe my thinking will change with a change in my circumstances, who knows. But at the moment i think possessing a gun will do myself more harm then it will save me from.

[lust4speed]

foxwolf321, I respect your viewpoint. With your beliefs, not carrying a firearm is the correct choice for you. You should probably carry a sufficient amount of cash so you do not upset the robber - you definitely don't want him venting his anger on you for not having enough money for his drug purchase.

I have the option to toss him my wallet, but there is a point of no return for him and me - and he will be in total control of his own destiny. No one should carry if they think that they are carrying to scare someone away, and no one should carry if they think they will be a hero and stop a robbery. Only one reason to possess a concealed firearm, and that is to protect your life or the life of a loved one. I'm not a LEO, and if I see another person being robbed I will feel sorry for them but nothing more. No calvary charge, and no heroics. As they say in the CCW class - your most important role is to be a good witness when the police arrive.

[Stuckinda60s]

Our preacher, from the pulpit on a Sunday morning. "I know there are a couple of guys in here who are carrying. I've gotta tell you, that's comforting."

Foxwolf: I found myself in a lot of situations before I was married. There were a couple of times when, if I'd been carrying, I would have pulled it out. The situations worked out, but they still happened and might not have. I've been threatened with rocks, guns, knives and clubs. Several times I was walking down the street and got in a situation, with a stranger, out of a clear blue sky. The guys were drunk or just plain nuts. I never been confrontational and didn't initiate the problem. Some times they got physical and some times I managed to talk my way out of it. Once I even had a gun pulled on me in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, of all places. That one got physical, and I'm still here. I could handle myself, pretty well, and never considered carrying.

When I got married, and knowing where I traveled and my history, I decided to get a permit. If you're a responsible person, your thinking changes. I now had my wife, and later my daughter, to think about.

I've since had a permit for 35-years, and carry most of the time. I don't drink or go to bars, so that's not a problem, although it's legal to carry in a bar in PA. As Sixgunsblazing stated, concealed carry means concealed. If you pull it out or have it in the open, it can be considered brandishing. I'm very, very, careful to keep it concealed. That also means in the car.

As a side note, I haven't had any problems since before I was married. I have had peace of mind when I've been in questionable areas, though. At the very least, that makes it worth it.

[foxwolf321]

i thank you for understanding my viewpoint. But when i see comments of I wish i had shot him in the head instead of the gut, is that joking or real? I think with the power of a firearm it can be too easy for that thought to become real action. I am not saying every gun toting guy is going around shooting criminals just because he can. But i think it takes true will power to not try and be the hero of the day. I would have a hard time of it and that's why i can not endorse firearms. Too easy to get out of control with it in the name of justice.

EDIT: I can fully understand why you would carry a gun, not to protect your self, but your loved ones. I can fully understand and respect that. But i think having a nation full of people with a concealed weapon and many with no true reason to have one would just be regretful.

[Stuckinda60s]

The Sheriff gave me a little psych test when I went for my permit. He asked me why I wanted it, what would I do if I felt threatened, if I pointed at someone would I use it and what would I do if the guy took off. I told him "For protection, I often went to bad areas; If I thought the there was a threat I'd pull my pistol; if I pulled it I would use it, otherwise I wouldn't have pulled it; and if the guy took off I'd put it away." Obviously I gave the right answers, PA was not a "Shall issue" state, then.

I can understand someone who's put through the wringer after they've shot some low-life, regretting they were still alive to cause them grief. But if it happened, again, they would probably have handled it the same way.

[Tom Vaught]

Put enough rounds in the threat to eliminate the threat and you have done your job.

If the threat is there, you will know it.

Tom Vaught

[sevent2gto]

Getting a HCP carries great responsibility. Understanding use of force and deadly force requirements is a must when getting a HCP. There are people out there that have a HCP that really shouldn't even be allowed to own a gun (IMO), because they are not safe. One of the key things that is stressed in the TN HCP class is that you are responsible for the bullet once it leaves the barrel of the gun. You can't get it back so you had better be damn sure when you squeeze the trigger. I carry my handgun all the time and I follow all laws regarding where and when I can carry. I have the advantage of many years of military training and being a military small arms instructor and a NRA pistol instructor.
Here in TN, the crime rate has dropped and this is attributed to the number of people getting their HCP.
I am all for people getting a HCP if their state allows it, but, I think that people should get more training than just the HCP class before they start to carry. The training should come from a certified instructor and not just "my buddy that shoots".

[mike nixon]

The following was taught to me as a youngster. I've been hunting since I was able to safely handle a gun, a CCP holder for a lot of yrs as stated before.

The following was taught to me when I started hunting, it holds true for carrying.

If you pull a gun up be prepared to use it.

Know where the slug will travel, it's your responsibility. You wrote that check when you pulled the trigger you'll pay for it when it comes to rest.

If you pull it, shoot to kill cleanly, a sloppy shot causes suffering. If you can't make a clean kill you've got no reason to pick up a gun, if you can't handle the thought of killing something don't pick up the gun.

When you carry be subtle about it, no one else needs to know what you're about. I will add that game will run from a gun, idiots will run towards one to make a scene.


Attitude and outlook changes when you have someone else's safety to consider.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by foxwolf321

This is true, and in this case would me having a gun have helped me in this situation? Perhaps, perhaps it helped lead to this situation?

My reasoning is that if the criminal has a gun, knife or whatever and is holding me (my family) up, then he feels in control of the situation and can ask for whatever he wants. More often then not this is going to be money, jewelry, valuables, my car whatever. I will gladly hand it over to him because they are material goods and these are replaceable.

Now, if i draw my gun, well, now, he is not in full control of the situation, BUT NEITHER AM I. I might still get shot and my wife stabbed and raped. Hell I might have just raised my chances of being shot, then what good am I to my family? I don't have anything more then a passing familiarization with criminals and the way they think. But from what i understand they usually want quick easy cash, not my life or even to physically hurt me as a rule. Some people are nuts and again, will me being armed as well as they scare them off or make them do something rash? Or make me do something rash? I do not begrudge anyone the right to defend themselves how they see fit, i choose a passive resistance. Call me a idiot if you choose, but i will not risk killing someone to save myself when another option may exist. Does that mean i am going to lay down and take it if my life or someone elses is in danger? no, of course not.

I should make note, I do not have a wife, i do not have children so maybe my thinking will change with a change in my circumstances, who knows. But at the moment i think possessing a gun will do myself more harm then it will save me from.

Your logic and reasoning befuddles me. You have no idea what the criminals true intent is. Yes, the criminals intent may only be to take your property, but it may be more. Unless you're a mind reader, you simply cannot know.

"Passive resistance" is an oxymoron. Firearms, since their invention, have and always will be the best equalizer when it comes to self defense. If you're willing to relinquish control of your personal safety and life to a criminal, you should probably just take your own life right now...if you don't value the life God gave you enough to preserve it by any means possible when confronted with unprovoked harm, just end it and get off the planet now...this place is crowded enough as it is.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by foxwolf321

i thank you for understanding my viewpoint. But when i see comments of I wish i had shot him in the head instead of the gut, is that joking or real? I think with the power of a firearm it can be too easy for that thought to become real action. I am not saying every gun toting guy is going around shooting criminals just because he can. But i think it takes true will power to not try and be the hero of the day. I would have a hard time of it and that's why i can not endorse firearms. Too easy to get out of control with it in the name of justice.

EDIT: I can fully understand why you would carry a gun, not to protect your self, but your loved ones. I can fully understand and respect that. But i think having a nation full of people with a concealed weapon and many with no true reason to have one would just be regretful.

May I suggest that you read the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by Prof. John Lott? In a nutshell, your assumption that a nation full of concealed carry permit holders would be regretful is dead wrong, and Lott demonstrates why in his book, using FBI statistical data.

[Jim Scites]

I have had a permit for about 12 years now. When I first got the permit I didn't carry at all, I wanted it mostly to carry between my home and the range without being so concerned about an overzealous LEO that saw my guns in cases and not out in the open. I now have a house in the country that belongs to my parents that I check on as often as I get by there. When I visit the house I am almost always armed, I never know if someone might have broken in and with all the snow I'm afraid someone might have broken in to get warm, if I walk up on a stranger in the house I feel it's better to be safe them sorry.
When I took my CCW class I was told that you do not shoot to kill or shoot to wound, you shoot to STOP. Whatever they are doing to make you shoot them, you keep shooting them until they stop whatever they were doing. If they are charging you with a knife, or are holding a broken bottle to your wife's throat you shoot them until they stop. When our Pontiac brother gut shot the guy he stopped holding the bottle to his wife's throat so he stopped shooting, job well done IMHO.
I'm not allowed to carry on duty at work so I never bring a weapon to work with me, I work in DC and it's illegal for me to carry open or concealed so I trust my instincts and try to stay away from dangerous situations. I have run into homeless people that I tried to stay away from but they forced the situation, and I'm sure the only thing that saved me was my physical size.
I feel that anyone, except for someone found guilty of a felony or someone found insane should be able to carry a concealed weapon. I also feel that our government should not be as intrusive into our daily lives as they always seem to be. CCW permits are just ways to control the masses, a way to gather up guns if they ever decide they want to gather them up and another TAX to gather revenue, more money for them to waste.

[johnsma22]

Originally Posted by foxwolf321

i thank you for understanding my viewpoint. But when i see comments of I wish i had shot him in the head instead of the gut, is that joking or real?

It's part real, part hyperbole I guess. I can't say that I wish I had killed the guy. In fact, I'm glad I didn't, but that's only for selfish reasons. He was screaming to anyone who would listen at the scene that I shot him for no reason. I remember thinking that he wouldn't be doing that had I shot him in the head. My instinct and training said "center mass" though. Had I killed him he wouldn't have carjacked a family at gunpoint several years later, after serving time for the crimes against my wife and I. Me putting that POS out of his misery would have protected another family that I didn't even know. He's doing 20 years, so I hope he's enjoying his stay.

[SRR]

I was in a situation once where a gun was involved. I was 17 at the time working for my uncle who had a home heating service business in Mass. that required us to go into some bad neighborhoods and very dark basements. While we were servicing the boiler in a large apartment building a guy appears out of no where and asks my uncle for a cigarette, my uncle says sure hands him one and then the guy says while showing us a large knife attached to his belt: I think I'll take the whole pack. My uncle then pulls a LARGE hand gun and says do you want me to light that MF for you too? Then guy then left very quickly then for some reason.

[Cobrabill]

Indisputable fact:An armed society is a POLITE society.

Like Brian said,if you are not willing to use deadly force to defend the life of your family and/or you-You are not a man.

[hurryinhoosier62]

I'm in the process of getting my CCP reissued after having to surrender it while I lived in
Wisconsin(DAMNED JERK-OFF JIM!!). My grandfather and father both had CCPs. Grandpa
Ernest actually killed two men in self-defense. Dad never had to draw his weapon,but Uncle Bill had to a couple of years ago when some jerk-off pulled a shotgun on him in a case of "road-rage". T A 70, I can't speak for the rest of the state but in this part of
Indiana, most county prosecutors won't pursue charges against CCP holders UNLESS
there was no probable cause for the discharge.

[400 4spd.]

Eric, very well put!

[Nomadac]

Very interesting topic and posts. Some random comments to some of the posts.

Quote Sporter
Most states will honor a carry permit so it is helpful if you travel on the interstates. I never travel unarmed.
I would you check for Reciprocity by State what States CCW's or PPW they honor, as not every State honors everyother States CCW's.

GTORIC question:
Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing “any firearm or ammunition." Specifically a person "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for felon gun possession is up to 10 years in prison.

In response to foxwolf321
But at the moment I think possessing a gun will do myself more harm then it will save me from.

IMO no one should carry a firearm if they are not willing or have training in gun safety/handling, competent in marksmanship and the mindset to use the firearm if your life is threatened, which could result in killing someone, if needed to stop the threat.

That is a decision each individual should decide and may have to live with the results. To carry a concealed weapon you should be trained on it's use and know the law as to when, where and how you can use it legally. Taking a Hunter Safety couse is also helpful. IMO anyone carrying a firearm concealed should have adequate liability insurance, such as an Umbrella Policy to protect them for liability. Like someone posted once a bullet is fired it cannot be recalled and you are liable for what it hits. Always know what is behind what you might be shooting at.

When I lived in Southern Calif. during the 90's the requirement to obtain a CCW was a very involved process. You had to go to your local PD or Sherrif's Dept. to apply, then you were interviewed as to why you wanted a CCW. Then you were required to take a 15-17 hr. training course, which happened to the same curriculum for an Armed Security Gurard in CA. This included both classroom(included many senarios, legal issues, etc.) and qualifying with the firearm(s) you wished to carry to demonstrate safe gun handling. If you passed all of the requirements which includes proof of Liability Insurance for a min. or $500K, you are issued a CCW good at the time for one year. After I left the State they increased it to two years. Each year for renewal you were required to complete the qualification course. It was not unusual for the complete process to take 6 months from the time you applied. The course I attended was conducted by a retired firearms instructor from LAPD, that was one great pistol shot. Many of the tng. videos he used were from LAPD training. This was a very interesting experience.


There are many excellent books on the subject, many that you can find at NRA website or the web.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Nomadac,

I believe you'll find the CCP process here in Indiana a little more "user friendly"!! I agree
with you concerning marksmanship. If you chose to carry a firearm, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you are as proficient as possible. Too many people buy a
pistol, get their permit and NEVER step foot on a firing range. Marksmanship is a LEARNED skill. It requires practice. One of my favorite memories is sitting Dad and Grandpa Ernest while they both taught me the proper and SAFE handling of any firearm.
I couldn't have been more than 5 yrs old.