National concealed carry during time of war

[LSMITH]

A license to carry any darn way I please is too much, there should be NO LICENSING PERIOD!!!! War or no war, that should not matter even the slightest bit.



That said I am glad more states are passing CC laws.

 

[mdlowry]

Originally posted by Deezul1

I believe there are 38 states with "Right to Carry " permit laws on the books. The rest would prefer that you dont hurt their criminals.

You have the right to carry in all states (according to the US Constitution). Vermont does recognize this right.



I believe the law your talking about is known as the "Privilege to Carry" law, in which the state has violated the constitution and restricted you right to bear arms (and protect your life).

 

[sdalton]

Re: CHLs need more scrutiny???

Originally posted by Hale on wheels

Sorry sdalton, but what you described was one isolated incident. I feel your statement was very pompous, and all too common among "the elite. " So I presume there have never been any LEOs that were involved in felonious wrongdoing? Well that would be great, but according to your standard, if there ever were any, perhaps we should inquire as to whether persons in your occupation should be allowed to carry a firearm.

I wish it were one isolated incident, but i have run into a few others as well. I am all for anyone being able to carry a weapon, but some people have shown they shouldnt. I just want a stricter background check and some unscrupulous types excluded. I am not one of the "Eite" you so dislike. As for you questioning whether police should be allowed, well, go live in England. See what their crime rate is like. Do you have a propblem with keeping guns out of the hands of those involved in "felonious wrongdoings. " If so, why??

 

[JSmith]

Anyone without a felony conviction,or mental problems should be able to carry.

 

[Deezul1]

Here in Texas you have to have an unblemished record to get a carry permit. The FBI does a background check and if you pass you are in pretty good shape.

 

[Silver]

"I wish it were one isolated incident, but I have run into others as well"



Were they all carrying gold plated 44 mags?



Just kiddin man. I've had guns pulled on me four times and been shot at once. None of those guys were carrying legally. So now I don't care what the law says... As long as got mine!

 

[Sled Puller]

Re: Re: CHLs need more scrutiny???

Originally posted by sdalton

I. I just want a stricter background check and some unscrupulous types excluded.

Hmmm..... How would this go if a Honda driver who just got smoked by a Cummins is sitting on the board to distinguish, who is an "unscrupulous types"?? and she recognizes you as the driver?



I little gun control is a good thing, so a little more is better, and a little more, and a little more... ..... better off to arm everybody.



It does not matter if that pimp has a permit or not, he is going carry, regardless.



Enforce the laws we have now.

 

[Mike Ellis]

I will ask again, is 199 times more law-abiding than the general public good enough? If not, how much more scrutiny overall is needed?



Anybody know of a site that tracks conviction rates of police officers? I will be surprised if they did as well as the CHL holders here in Texas, we have proven to be a pretty darned law-abiding bunch. Except for the titanium-nitride (gold) plated Desert Eagle pimp segment, of course...

 

[FATCAT]

Once licenced ....

Once a Right is licensed/permitted, that Right ceases to exist and becomes a privilege.



We are beginning to see this now with the CFR (Campaign Finance Reform) bill being passed suppressing free speech during campaigns ... what will be next, a permit to practice religion.



See how these licensing/permitting processes play out to their logical (or illogical) end ... it happens all the time, give 'em an inch and they take a mile.

 

[The patriot]

If I had my way.....

Pick an age, 18 21, I kinnd of lean towards 21 myself.

Three things major happen at that age.

1 You get the right to vote.

2 You get the right to buy and consume alcohol.

3 Youre given a basic firearms safety course (for the CCW part),background check, and a physical and mental exam.

4 Youre eligable for the draft if you pass all the above.

After the 4 above items have been sucessfully completed, youre issued a card.

Everyone does all the above, and everyone gets the card that says youre checked off on all the needed 21 year old stuff. Youre not forced to use it.

There is no tracking or database of the cards, in fact the database will be of the persons NOT eligable (mental, physical, been in trouble with the law types) to participate in the above activities.



Vote for me!



Eric

 

[Morphious]

I have a problem with that, by the time I was 21 years of age, I had already served 3 years in the military during the desert storm/shield time frame, and voted against clinton in his election. I've been shooting guns since I was big enough to pull a trigger, from BB guns, I graduated to . 22's and . 410's, then on the the bigger toys, till I hunted with a . 30-06 and by the time I was 18, was fully qualified on M-16, . 9mm and . 50 cal machine gun. I refuse to participate in the "license" to carry as my constitution gives me the right to keep and bear arms. I do agree, that the only list that should be kept is the people who are unable to carry them, meaning criminals or mental cases. As for SDalton wanting stricter laws on who has that right, he has the typical cop mentality of "arrogance" in that "he" is the Law. I don't have a problem with Cops, other than I think they speed too much time trying to catch people breaking petty crimes (ie: speeding, etc. ), instead of investigating real crime like theft, murder, etc. It's been six months and they still have not caught or apprehended the thiefs that stole my truck and four wheeler, supposedly they collected finger prints off of my truck, hell they don't even have any suspects.



Morph.

 

[Hale on wheels]

I certainly don't recommend disarming the police, and I have more respect for them than a lot of people. Sorry if I jumped on you, but I am just tired of seeing the FOP advocate UN type gun control... "we (the elite members of the FOP) and the military should have guns and no one else. " And the Richardson and Plano police departments.



Of course, I don't think you feel that way. But what solution do you propose to have a more stringent background check? I had to send my fingerprints to the FBI and TxDPS. They both ran checks on my (nonexistant) criminal record. What more can they check out? No system we could ever come up with would be perfect. And as someone else said, gold plated pimp daddy would carry if he had a license or not.



I do not believe felons have the right to carry anymore... they have proven they cannot handle lawful responsibility. And I actually don't have a problem with the training class Texas requires, I received a lot of good information during the class regarding Texas law. And the qualifying shoot was cake, so at least they aren't trying to weed people out of carrying by making the test so difficult that it would qualify you for the IDPA nationals!



Tha main problem I have with the license is the restrictions they place on me and other licensees. We have proven that we can control ourselves, so why would we all of a sudden go crazy and start shooting up a high school football game? Or, the main problem I have, is the bar restriction. I don't think anyone has any business drinking at a bar with a firearm, but when my wife bugs me enough that I break down and take her to the clubs, I don't drink, but I can't carry in there. And maybe I'm a big weenie, but I don't particularly like walking down Deep Ellum late at night going to our vehicle after I convince her it is time to go home. Luckily, we don't go but maybe once every two or three years or so, but I avoid it because I don't like going there anyway.



Oh well, sorry for finishing my novel on TDR bandwidth. Once again sdalton, I apologize for jumping on you, but I do believe we already jump through too many hoops to carry.

 

[The patriot]

Originally posted by Morphious

I have a problem with that, by the time I was 21 years of age, I had already served 3 years in the military during the desert storm/shield time frame, and voted against clinton in his election.



Morph.

Well, I myself wouldnt have a problem with 18, hell I was given a shotgun for my 7th birthday by my Dad. Still have it.

Problem is, we got to try to make something like this palletable (sp?) to the nation as a whole if it's to be nationwide.



Eric

 

[Morphious]

At the age of 18, you are old enough to vote and die for your country. I signed the paperwork to join when I was still 17, left for boot 6 days after I turned 18. My thought is, if your old enough to die for this country, then your old enough to be responsible for your actions.



Morph.

 

[The patriot]

Originally posted by Hale on wheels





No system we could ever come up with would be perfect. And as someone else said, gold plated pimp daddy would carry if he had a license or not.



>EXACTLY!!!

Eric

 

[The patriot]

Originally posted by Morphious

At the age of 18, you are old enough to vote and die for your country. I signed the paperwork to join when I was still 17, left for boot 6 days after I turned 18. My thought is, if your old enough to die for this country, then your old enough to be responsible for your actions.



Morph.

You'll get no arguement from me!!

Eric

 

[Sled Puller]

Yea, I always laughed at that.

Our government is so concerned with your safety, and well being, you can't drink until 21, but it is ok to draft you and turn you into cannon fodder at 18. Kind of ironic.

 

[sdalton]

Hey, Chill out. I am about as big of a gun advocate as can be found. I dont agree with the FOP and their stance. They are all paid off to say what they say. I dont know any Police officer that wants gun control. I dont. What we are talking about here is the right to carry a concealed gun, not whether you have the right to own one, or carry a rifle and shotgun in your truck. Arrogance has nothing to do with it. It is experience. Say some idiot has been arrested for dealing dope, or robbing people, but was able to get off on a techicallity. Well, under Texas law, he would be able to carry a concealed pistol. These are the people who should be excluded. I would hope you agree. If not, do you advocate any person carrying a pistol, even violent criminals and ex-felons?? I feel that felons should be stripped of a lot of freedoms that law abiding citizens get to enjoy. Even reformed felons. For those ex-felons who are on this site, I am sorry, but when you play, you pay. You cannot just expect to be treated the same as those who live thier lives clean. Also, dont try to Accuse police officers as being criminals, or involved in more felonious activities than the rest of society. We are held to a much higher standard than you or anyone else. When one of us messes up, he is usually prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. For a crime where you would get probation for, we might get several years. There are good cops, and bad cops. There are good citizens and bad ones. As far as cops speeding, well, so what. He who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[Hale on wheels]

I agree that it sucks when someone gets off on a technicality. But suppose the following scenario... you and your girlfriend or wife were breaking up, and to get in a cheap shot at you she falsely accused you of rape. If that happened, and you were still acquitted of all the charges after a trial and the evidence was all in your favor, then you would possibly fall under the category of being denied a LTC since you were technically charged with a crime. I would hope that no one would ever do anything that low, but unfortunately it does happen. How would we then be able to separate the above scenario from a truly guilty rapist who got off because the prosecution failed to give the defense a portion of the DNA sample used to prove the case? Someone would have to then decide who gets a license and who doesn't, which leads to a subjective system where one could be denied for the wrong reasons (i. e. New Jersey). I know you support gun rights, and once again I apologize for jumping on you. I'm just trying to share the possibilities of what could happen if we start sliding down the slope!

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by mdlowry

You have the right to carry in all states (according to the US Constitution). Vermont does recognize this right.



I believe the law your talking about is known as the "Privilege to Carry" law, in which the state has violated the constitution and restricted you right to bear arms (and protect your life).

I agree. The Bill of Rights is specific.



That being said, I got the CHL in part because I was stopped one night in route to the deer lease. All of my hunting stuff was in the cab of the truck. It was obvious to anyone what I was doing. On the floor underneath all of it was a Thompson Contender in a hard case. On top a scoped rifle in a soft case. I hunt primarily with the pistol. The Hico TX officer came very close (judging by the threats) to taking me to jail for having the pistol after he forced me to stand with my back towards him while he rummaged through my truck. He never asked to search the truck. He ordered me out and proceeded. In the end he gave me a warning ticket for having blue dot tail lights and sent me on my way. This was a little over a mile outside Hico city limits.



I do not agree with having to have a CHL but for me it is like "hassle insurance. "