https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/15/george-zimmerman-gun-conceal-carry I should have book marked a similar comment of another Liberal objecting to concealed carry licenses because more minorities would be shot, just as Trayvon Martin was shot. Those folks tend to forget Adric White that was shot while holding a Dollar store employee at gun point. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4323080
Currently, although open carry in general is good policy per say, in practice, not so much, lots of attention Hounds have caused trouble, just watch several open carry encounters on You Tube.
Of course, they leave out the part where minorities are more likely to commit a crime that leaves therm open to being shot..
Of course, when a White person shoots a Minority breaking into his home, suddenly, he was a great young man, a paragon of virtue, and his Pastor says he was a fixture at Church always giving generous tithes out of his winnings. They never present him as the raving beast he was on drugs. I say this pre-emptively as a Latino, before anyone accuses Me of White something. If someone gets shot while commiting crimes, it is reaping what one sows, the wages of sins are death not life. I think I am starting to see why Liberals want "The (good) People" Disarmed, so they can be killed off easier.
This! I fully support open carry. However, the few times I have carried openly it's hard not to notice how uncomfortable it makes people. I'm not the guy that will defend and educate the masses on open carry every time I go out...I wish I was, but I'm not. That is why I choose to conceal carry.
Open carry has one big avantage, it is not a crime if your sidearm is accidentally revealed. It is always good to get a CCW where available, even though concealed carry is a Right, It is good to have a hard document in your pocket to present to any LEO on demand.
I guess I should have mentioned the fact that I do have a CCW for Washington State, It would be nice if all the states could agree on Concealed carry licensing. As I am 15 mins from the Idaho border I plan to obtain one of they're CCW's as well because they enjoy reciprocity with many, many more states than Washington currently does.
I figured you had CCW when you spoke of concealed carry in such a sensible manner. Check out one of those non resident State permits with a slather of reciprical States, is it Utah that has the most States now ?
They are reluctant to get tough on violent crime because it would disproportionately incarcerate more minorities. They are equally against CCW because more minorities will get shot.
That depends largely on what state is being discussed. In some states a permit is not needed in order to legally carry a concealed firearm, with more adopting such an approach.
Wronggggggggggggggg,,,,,,,,,,, I don't need a permit to carry concealed in my state.Now i do have a ccp issued by my state,but that is for traveling purpose only.
i don't need a ccp in my state,but the state gave me permission to carry concealed with out a permit.
I think he was speaking Constitutionally. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but it wouldn't be against the Constitution to prohibit concealed carry, unless it is determined to be an "infringement".
Constitutional carry such as Vermont, anything else, as in requiring a permit is an Infringement of a Constitutional Right.
Carry is a Constitutional right. Concealed carry was never a right. Because carry is a right the few remaining states that did not allow it have been forced to allow it but how they allow it have been left up to the state. Some states like California try and make it as difficult as possible. They can allow open carry or conceal carry or both like my state.
I agree, "The Right of 'The People' to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed." There are NO stipulations of restrictions allowed, as to how those Arms are to be carried, openly or concealed.
First, I'm on your side. Don't get mad. Just a few years ago, the police used to arrest people and Mirandize them - it's where they said "you have a right to remain silent, if you give up the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you..." In discussing "rights" laymen often mean well, but say the wrong thing - AND, ultimately, buy into left wing philosophy. I'll give you some examples: You have a "right" to remain silent. I guess in an odd, lawyerly way, that is correct, but it would be more accurate to say you have the privilege to remain silent. The government thinks that somewhere along the way they got into the rights granting business. So, now you ask permission and the government calls it a "right". Now, let us talk Second Amendment: Linguists will tell you that the words inalienable and unalienable are synonyms. In law, nothing could be further from the truth. Add to that, the founding fathers had the discussion as to whether Rights were inalienable or unalienable. Unalienable Rights won out. The big LEGAL difference between an inalienable Right and an unalienable one is that YOU can give up an inalienable Right, but NOT an unalienable Right. I'm not going to try and tell you whether or not to get a permit. It has some minimal advantage, but it does not have any great advantage. The biggest disadvantage is that by applying for a permit, that serves as prima facie evidence that you understood and believed the government's position - you had to have their permission. So, while under the de jure / lawful constitutional Republic you were not required to get a permit AND unalienable Rights cannot be given up, you do and the illegal / de facto government is celebrating their usurpation of power because, in their eyes, you gave up an unalienable Right (of which you cannot do - that word unalienable has a meaning.) At some point in the future it is likely that the government will try and confiscate firearms. Those people who think they did the "safe" thing will find out they acted in ignorance. The government treats unalienable Rights as inalienable rights at best. And that's a best case scenario. But know this: Once you've given up your unalienable Rights you can never, ever, under any circumstances argue that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms. At best, the government can argue that inalienable Rights and unalienable Rights are the same thing and you must have known it and agreed... you obtained a permit. And then you had to worry that if you bent over and exposed your weapon, you violated the law????? Where I live you cannot have a concealed weapon in government buildings or at sporting events and political rallies. Most of the malls and stores have signs up saying No Weapons. They were trying to pass laws allowing firearms to be allowed in churches and pubs. I don't know if it passed. So, given that, having a permit seems to be a freaking hassle. If you go to a store or a restaurant and then find out they don't allow firearms, you either go back to the car and remove your weapon and make a second trip back to that store OR violate the law just as the guy without a permit. Where I live your car, boat, motor home, and place of business are all considered extensions of your house. No permit necessary. So, when one guy in the local mall has a permit and a concealed weapon while another guy has no permit and both are breaking the law... I'm challenging this notion that having the government's permission to do something is a good thing when it means giving up a God given Right.
WRONG. A provision of the Kentucky Constitution, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned," provided the occasion for perhaps the first state judicial opinion on the nature and source of the right to bear arms. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822). Defendant appealed his conviction for having worn a sword cane by asserting the unconstitutionality of an act prohibiting concealed weapons. The court held, "Whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution." Id. at 91-92. Observing that wearing concealed weapons was considered a legitimate practice when the constitutional provision was adopted, the court reasoned: "The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right, and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear when the constitution was adopted." And yet again another state court ruled on this and expanded the precedent: "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859) The first time a gun control law was overturned on Second Amendment grounds, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled: "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree" Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) Finally, the United States Supreme Court had this to say about the Right itself: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875) The right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that predates the Constitution. Some people try this disingenuous argument at this point about the 1689 English Bill of Rights guaranteeing a Right to keep and bear Arms, but prohibiting concealed carry. Then, there is total silence until 1897... Shall I point out that the oldest man to sign the Declaration of Independence was born in 1742 - a half century after that law was being relied on and that ALL of the founding fathers were dead long before 1897... What was the law between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution up to the death of the founders? BTW, see my earlier response to the Rights.
