No permits required to carry?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Feb 15, 2010.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Since I'm at work I'll chime in on this later, but I just saw this out of Wyoming and Arizona is thinking about it. Vermont and Alaska already have laws in place that do not require permits to carry. It seems to be a new trend among Right to Carry states. Remember one thing before you post, it's already against Federal and ALL state laws for felons to possess and carry guns. What do you think about it?

    Bill To Allow Concealed Firearms Passes Wyo. House - cbs4denver.com

    ------
    Since no one has chimed in on this, and now that I have the time I'll go ahead and post my thoughts on this. I think this is a good idea because it takes away the hassle that the law abiding citizen has to go thru in order to obtain a permit. It's already illegal for criminals to carry and possess guns. It's almost as if the anti-gunners are saying "Well the criminals didn't carry when the permits were issued, now suddenly they will carry because law abiding people don't have to get permits". That logic holds no water because criminals will carry if there is a complete ban on carry or if there is complete freedom to carry.

    This is a huge step in the right to carry movement because it means that law abiding citizens no longer have to get "permission" to exercise a right of self defense. The law abiding wont change any just because they don't need a permit to carry. They will still be responsible, and criminals will still carry... but probably a lot less now since more people will be packing heat. The proof of this has been shown in Alaska and Vermont where permits have not been required to carry for years. Despite the "Wild West" claims of the anti-gunners... it simply didn't happen. The same will hold true in Wyoming and Arizona.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
    R1pperZ likes this.

  2. R1pperZ

    R1pperZ Registered Member

    I find that law to be negligent, carrying a concealed firearm is no small time issue. It's something that will concern the public and the public safety officers. If you want to hide a devise easily capable of taking peoples lives I think you should take the time to learn how to safely operate it and I think the state should ensure they are educated and keep track of them closely. How hard is it to pay $45, take a concealed course and file some paperwork?
     
    pro2A likes this.
  3. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Whats wrong with your argument is that after I have taken the class and payed the fee and filed the paperwork, I still have to play the waiting game before I am allowed to exercise my right and protect myself and my family out in public. If violent crime finds me before the 60 day wait is over... Too bad for me :shake:

    Many states, including yours and mine don't require shooting tests... and I'm yet to hear of multiple examples of CCL holders shooting people in public either on accident or on purpose. What I do hear however are criminals doing it.
    ------
    Explain how? Seriously... please explain to me how law abiding citizens not having a piece of plastic is going to change them into blood thirsty cop killers?
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
  4. R1pperZ

    R1pperZ Registered Member

    I'm not saying concealed weapons are wrong or dangerous. What I am saying is that I think the state should keep track of them, not all dangerous people have felony records and if the state keeps track of permit holders maybe they can flag them if certain things are reported like crimes not considered a felony but could raise question if they should be walking around with a Beretta.

    Once you decide to get one you will need to wait 10 days for a pistol and 60 days to get the permit in the mail but life is dangerous and someone threatening you while you don't have a gun to protect yourself is seriously the last thing on the list of worries for me.
     
  5. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    And that is my beef. The state has no right to restrict or monitor a right. Again, if it were such a bad thing, why didn't VT and AK implode?

    No I don't. "Shall not be infringed"

    The constitution was written the way it was written for a reason. I would like to throw out there something you may or may not be aware of... Open carry is legal without a permit in 30 states. There aren't "blood baths" in these states. Concealed carry should be no different.

    I'm not forcing you to get a gun and carry it, but in the same boat, don't force me and pass legislation that will restrict my right to do something you may not agree with, especially something that is protected in our Constitution.
     
  6. R1pperZ

    R1pperZ Registered Member

    Bottom line man you have to accept that the world has changed and when the constitution was written they couldn't imagine how society would change. The bigger a population the more a government will have to step in on some thing. Don't act like the people and the government can be black and white, "you stay on your side while I stay on my side"... No one likes it but the government has to calculate taxes for the people, laws for the people and change safety laws.

    I know the states who accept open cary and concealed carry with no permit aren't in chaos or with notably different crime shooting statistics but still the government has to make the people concerned with public safety happy as well and the people who look for self defense. I'm not on a particular side but I can understand the difficulties of making both sides happy.
     
  7. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Man you really need to read your Constitution. The Constitution was meant to limit the powers of the Federal Government while expanding the freedoms of the citizens. You have it ass backwards... you mean to tell me the founders were unable to see beyond 1776?

    This is my beef with this "living document" nonsense. It's amazing how people can believe that the Constitution is invalid, different or has new meaning because "times are different" with no regard for the amendment process. Then they use these new meanings to pass unconstitutional laws and restrictions. This is why we end up with cameras on every street corner, or little pieces of plastic to own or carry a gun... so big brother can monitor "criminal" activity without a warrant, or without probable cause. I mean after all there were no criminals in the 18th century :rolleyes: The founders certainly couldn't have foreseen to need to monitor them.

    This is not a Democracy. We are a Republic. There is a huge difference. Again the Government has no right to meddle in a right that is set forth in the Constitution.

    Are you concerned people just gonna go out and buy guns and finally kill the people they have wanted to for years because there are no permits required to carry? Murder is still just as illegal. What is the big deal people have with citizens carrying guns without permits? It works just fine for VT and AK, and they're not a bunch of gun slinging, murdering, crazy rednecks looking for their next victim.

    There are no knife permits.... Whats to stop someone from walking up to you in a crowded mall and sticking it in your side? Permits and licenses or whatever you want to call it is just another way the government controls our lives and if your OK living with that than good for you... but I'm not. I would rather everyone have the OPTION (Freedom, Liberty, Right) to be able to defend themselves not just people we "think" are fit to.

    Anything can become a weapon and there are plenty of things you can easily conceal... What makes a gun so special that you have to prove yourself to the Government? I think that's the issue here... This bill is retracting the power that the government has over reached.

    You are right though in one aspect, some people shouldn't own guns... but there are some people who shouldn't get paid as much as they do... there are some people who don't deserve to live or deserve more than they have but that's the way things are :mellow: Who are we to tell them that though? You can't save people from themselves or others... stop trying.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
  8. R1pperZ

    R1pperZ Registered Member

    Well if we are going to complain about intrusion of rights, why the hell did I have to take hunter safety to get a small game permit when I was 12? My dad was a marine with a background of gun training why didn't the government trust that he trained me well enough to hunt rabbit with a 22 and a 12 gauge in the middle of the desert?

    Well it doesn't hurt to be well trained and allot of people are too careless to give a shit that some other peoples lives are at stake when opperating a firearm in range of other citizens. Well requiring a permit and giving some basic training to legally practice your right to carry Isn't a for sure thing to save lives but it doesn't hurt, well unless you are those people that are too impatient to allow a system to monitor that activity. They just want to be able to walk around with a gun and tell everyone that there Isn't anything anybody can do about it.

    I don't really fall into that group of people that your referring to but I do think that letting everyone walk around with a gun in hand would cause problems. Some people should just not be able to put other peoples lives at risk and a felony record Isn't adequate enough to determine who should and who shouldn't.
     

Share This Page