Movement to ban concealed carry during the conventions [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Movement to ban concealed carry during the conventions


humanguerrilla
04-27-2012, 10:12
Nonsense. We'll see where folks stand real quickly. In the wake of zimmerman they are calling for governors orders to deny concealed carry/ gun rights during the conventions.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/27/4447198/protester-at-party-conventions.html

Naelbis
04-27-2012, 10:41
The Governor doesn't have the power to unilaterally overturn state law...but that won't matter...gotta keep the serfs in line while the ruling class selects their new leaders...

callihan_44
04-27-2012, 21:01
how about we also ban free speech while we're at it, dont want anyones feelings hurt now do we?

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 21:06
Whoa there Nelly.

You want to show up to a protest, outside the convention with your CCW. WTF, there should be no problem there. Now if you start doing something bad, and I mean really bad, I'm OK with the guy carrying the sign next to you puts you down.

Armed people really do need to be very polite, and understand that DE-escalation is the best way to go, if you don't want to get into a gun fight.

I'm completely against anyone attempting tyranny, from the Paul or the Republican camps equally.

Bruce H
04-27-2012, 22:22
Only it they leave their protection detail at home.

holesinpaper
04-27-2012, 23:31
Open Carry will prevent this (in free states).

stevelyn
04-27-2012, 23:54
Double tap.

stevelyn
04-27-2012, 23:59
Heard about this on Armed American Radio last weekend. What they're asking would require legislation to change their preemption law. A governor just can't issue an imperial decree because some a-hole mayor and city govt requests it.

G29Reload
04-28-2012, 04:50
Lived in Tampa for awhile and always carried, plus a BUG. Wouldn't feel safe without it. ESPECIALLY if I were there during a convention when every miscreant from every corner of the country will arrive to cause trouble. I can see muggings, D&D and assault skyrocketing especially down by Channelside.

Brucev
04-28-2012, 06:15
Nonsense. We'll see where folks stand real quickly. In the wake of zimmerman they are calling for governors orders to deny concealed carry/ gun rights during the conventions.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/27/4447198/protester-at-party-conventions.html

This takes the cake. Normally I default to extending the right to carry. Normally unless there is some very good reason to do otherwise, that is the best position to take. This is not one of those cases. This is stupid. Like it or not, no one has any business carrying a concealed weapon at a political convention... any more than they have any business carrying a concealed weapon onto a airplane, etc. Why? Because it's not a matter of someone's precious emotional principle. It is a matter of common sense. No rational reasonable man would expect to carry a concealed weapon into a political convention.

eracer
04-28-2012, 07:42
This takes the cake. Normally I default to extending the right to carry. Normally unless there is some very good reason to do otherwise, that is the best position to take. This is not one of those cases. This is stupid. Like it or not, no one has any business carrying a concealed weapon at a political convention... any more than they have any business carrying a concealed weapon onto a airplane, etc. Why? Because it's not a matter of someone's precious emotional principle. It is a matter of common sense. No rational reasonable man would expect to carry a concealed weapon into a political convention.
Are you ignorant, or simply trolling?

The proposed rule change has NOTHING to do with the federal law that already prohibits carry wherever Homeland Security has jurisdiction - like INSIDE a national political convention building.

What the idiots here want to do is suspend my right to carry on a public street that happens to be within a certain distance of said building.

Brucev
04-28-2012, 14:02
Are you ignorant, or simply trolling?

The proposed rule change has NOTHING to do with the federal law that already prohibits carry wherever Homeland Security has jurisdiction - like INSIDE a national political convention building.

What the idiots here want to do is suspend my right to carry on a public street that happens to be within a certain distance of said building.

I skimmed through the couple of paragraphs. It seemed to be foolishness. So I did not read the rest.

Idiots abound, both inside convention halls and in city administrations... courtrooms... and legislatures. Can't really see any need for anyone to be carrying a weapon in the middle of a political meeting... inside the building or outside on the streets. Such meetings are infrequent. If your need to go somewhere necessitates your walking through such an area, then you can always find another route or just leave your pistol at home. I've been in the middle of a couple of such conventions. I've not ever seen any reason why anyone would need a concealed weapon at such a meeting. Of course those with an overly inflated sense of impending doom will object.

71Commander
04-29-2012, 03:59
The article refers to protests at both the Republican and democrat conventions. What it failed to point out was that both conventions were being protested by the same group of radical moonbats from the democrat party.

The DU faction hate obama because they believe that he isn't liberal enough.

eracer
04-29-2012, 04:12
I skimmed through the couple of paragraphs. It seemed to be foolishness. So I did not read the rest.

Idiots abound, both inside convention halls and in city administrations... courtrooms... and legislatures. Can't really see any need for anyone to be carrying a weapon in the middle of a political meeting... inside the building or outside on the streets. Such meetings are infrequent. If your need to go somewhere necessitates your walking through such an area, then you can always find another route or just leave your pistol at home. I've been in the middle of a couple of such conventions. I've not ever seen any reason why anyone would need a concealed weapon at such a meeting. Of course those with an overly inflated sense of impending doom will object.Again, we need to differentiate between buildings inside of which it is already illegal for me to carry, and public streets, where state law protects my right to do so.

You think I shouldn't be allowed to carry on a street that is near a political convention? What about a rally? What about when a politician shows up at a coffee shop for an ad hoc stumping opportunity? I have a video on my Youtube channel in which I'm 10 feet away from Mitt Romney as he speaks in the parking lot across the street from my office. I had a pistol in my pocket. Should it have been illegal for me to have had it? Why?

What other times and places do you think my right to carry should be taken away?

Bren
04-29-2012, 05:03
Open Carry will prevent this (in free states).

I'm not sure how presenting a negative image on the news, and accomplishing nothing else, will prevent anything. It might help get your state's open carry law changed, like it did in California, but I'd as soon have OC stay legal for the rare occasion when a non-nutjob needs to do it.

Gary W Trott
04-29-2012, 05:29
Can't really see any need for anyone to be carrying a weapon in the middle of a political meeting... inside the building or outside on the streets.
With all the security there has been at recent presidential conventions due to worries about potential threats, including the "free speech zones" for demonstrators, it seems to me that the conventions are places where a person very well may need to be armed if he or she so chooses.

Brucev
04-29-2012, 07:13
[QUOTE=eracer;18905260]Again, we need to differentiate between buildings inside of which it is already illegal for me to carry, and public streets, where state law protects my right to do so. No, we do not. A political convention is not a trip to the rifle range. Nor is it a walk through the ghetto. The streets outside a political convention are in every since of the word an extension of what occurs within the building. Guns have no place on the hips or in the pockets of anyone in such a setting beyond authorized police, etc.

You think I shouldn't be allowed to carry on a street that is near a political convention? What about a rally? What about when a politician shows up at a coffee shop for an ad hoc stumping opportunity? I have a video on my Youtube channel in which I'm 10 feet away from Mitt Romney as he speaks in the parking lot across the street from my office. I had a pistol in my pocket. Should it have been illegal for me to have had it? Why? I do not think anyone has a legitimate reason to OC/CC at a political rally... etc. Why. Not so hard to figure out.

What other times and places do you think my right to carry should be taken away? Your "right" is not unlimited. And furthermore, "your" right is not superior to that of others. Your expectation of how you exercise your right is not the standard. If you don't like it, you will need to turn to the courts. While in general I am supportive of oc/cc, I do not consider it a unrestricted personal right to be exercised regardless of how it may impact other people. I support those politicians who support oc/cc due to my larger 2nd Amendment concerns. But I am not particularly persuaded by what I consider the Chicken Little mentality/rational offered by those who want to pretend that everywhere danger is lurking, that we live in a jungle where only the strong survive, that want to justify such a mentality by quick quoting the latest report they've been able to find on YouTube of the latest crime reported wherever by whoever.

Brucev
04-29-2012, 07:14
With all the security there has been at recent presidential conventions due to worries about potential threats, including the "free speech zones" for demonstrators, it seems to me that the conventions are places where a person very well may need to be armed if he or she so chooses.

Why would that be the case?

barbedwiresmile
04-29-2012, 07:25
I do not think anyone has a legitimate reason to...

This is the default position of the overwhelming majority of Americans and succinctly capsulizes the reason why we have the overreaching state we have today: the largest and most expensive government in history.

This is the source from which flows the continued assault on individual liberty in favor of a collectivized safety-state that produces voluminous code, compounding year after year after year.

Look no further, we have seen the enemy. And he is us. Without absolving the state and the enforcement class, it must be noted that we sacrificed our sovereignty and our manhood to Leviathan voluntarily.

Gary W Trott
04-29-2012, 07:25
Why would that be the case?
Because the whole reason for the talk against concealed carry at these events is based upon the possiblity of violence at the conventions. So...if there is a possibility of violence...people would do well to arm themselves for protection should violence break out.

Brucev
04-29-2012, 12:02
Because the whole reason for the talk against concealed carry at these events is based upon the possiblity of violence at the conventions. So...if there is a possibility of violence...people would do well to arm themselves for protection should violence break out.

It boils down the trust. And that is something that is entirely dependent on the individual. Not all persons who attend such meetings are worthy of trust. The cc advocates want to cc as they don't trust. Those who oppose such cc do so because they also do not trust.

For the record, I am not aware of any political convention where there has been any incident that would justify conventioneers needing a cc weapon.

QNman
04-29-2012, 16:01
This is the default position of the overwhelming majority of Americans and succinctly capsulizes the reason why we have the overreaching state we have today: the largest and most expensive government in history.

This is the source from which flows the continued assault on individual liberty in favor of a collectivized safety-state that produces voluminous code, compounding year after year after year.

Look no further, we have seen the enemy. And he is us. Without absolving the state and the enforcement class, it must be noted that we sacrificed our sovereignty and our manhood to Leviathan voluntarily.

This.

RIGHTS are not the same as PRIVELEDGES. I fail to see how my concealed carry affects anyone's rights but my own to self defense if and when and where the need should arise. Whether or not someone considers me paranoid or a conspiracy nut should not determine whether or not my rights can or shall be infringed. If I am carrying lawfully, there is no affect on the rights of others.

QNman
04-29-2012, 16:05
It boils down the trust. And that is something that is entirely dependent on the individual. Not all persons who attend such meetings are worthy of trust. The cc advocates want to cc as they don't trust. Those who oppose such cc do so because they also do not trust.

For the record, I am not aware of any political convention where there has been any incident that would justify conventioneers needing a cc weapon.

That's the problem. One neednt rely on historical data to justify carrying a weapon, which is a right. As long as there is no rights of others being violated, why not? We all know that the legal carriers are not the threat. We also know a rule against cc will not deter someone with murder on their mind. So what's the point?

callihan_44
04-29-2012, 16:59
so if some 99%ers decide to storm the convention with ak's or a IED would it bother them if some law abiding carrying john q public dropped them in their tracks and save lives? I say carry anywhere anytime

Brucev
04-29-2012, 18:46
This.

RIGHTS are not the same as PRIVELEDGES. I fail to see how my concealed carry affects anyone's rights but my own to self defense if and when and where the need should arise. Whether or not someone considers me paranoid or a conspiracy nut should not determine whether or not my rights can or shall be infringed. If I am carrying lawfully, there is no affect on the rights of others.

No one is equating a right with a privilege. That is your wild goose chase. The right to self-defense is not at issue. The carrying of a cw in a political convention is at issue. You can if needed exercise your right to self-defense. Your carrying a cw in such as setting is rightly debatable. Given the record of men and women shot and wounded/killed by extremists at political rallies, etc., caution is very well warranted. As with the right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms... as in oc/cc, is not unrestricted. This is one instance where it is better that no one other than a police man be armed. No one has any business being anywhere near a candidate, etc. with a weapon. The supposed risk of crime is just hot air.

Brucev
04-29-2012, 18:51
That's the problem. One neednt rely on historical data to justify carrying a weapon, which is a right. As long as there is no rights of others being violated, why not? We all know that the legal carriers are not the threat. We also know a rule against cc will not deter someone with murder on their mind. So what's the point?

To put it as bluntly and sharply as possible, if someone wants to cc/oc while buying groceries, gas, mowing the yard, etc. let the go right ahead. If according to the law they want to go to a restaurant, etc. while cc/oc, let them do so to their hearts content. Let them knock themselves out doing so. But, at a political convention... rally... meeting, etc., no one other than a policeman has any business with a weapon. If that fries someone's grits, to bad. All the smoke and mirrors about threats, etc. is just that, smoke and mirrors. A small minority of cc/oc devotes do not make the rules for the broad society, nor should they.

Brucev
04-29-2012, 18:52
so if some 99%ers decide to storm the convention with ak's or a IED would it bother them if some law abiding carrying john q public dropped them in their tracks and save lives? I say carry anywhere anytime

Why are you afraid of them? Do you have grounds for such fear? Or are you simply making noise?

QNman
04-29-2012, 19:26
To put it as bluntly and sharply as possible, if someone wants to cc/oc while buying groceries, gas, mowing the yard, etc. let the go right ahead. If according to the law they want to go to a restaurant, etc. while cc/oc, let them do so to their hearts content. Let them knock themselves out doing so. But, at a political convention... rally... meeting, etc., no one other than a policeman has any business with a weapon. If that fries someone's grits, to bad. All the smoke and mirrors about threats, etc. is just that, smoke and mirrors. A small minority of cc/oc devotes do not make the rules for the broad society, nor should they.

You haven't answered the basic question - why?

Allow me to reiterate - it is not those who are carrying legally we must be concerned for. Those who are committed to malice will not be deterred by someone telling them they can't carry concealed "legally". The rules only disarm the law-abiding.

QNman
04-29-2012, 19:32
Why are you afraid of them? Do you have grounds for such fear? Or are you simply making noise?

Why are you afraid of the law-abiding? Didn't you say:

...Given the record of men and women shot and wounded/killed by extremists at political rallies, etc., caution is very well warranted...

Six were killed by Jared Lee Loughner. Are their lives less important than the pols?

G17Jake
04-29-2012, 20:08
The Governor doesn't have the power to unilaterally overturn state law...but that won't matter...gotta keep the serfs in line while the ruling class selects their new leaders...

Who do the elite rulers use to keep us serfs in line? :wavey:

callihan_44
04-29-2012, 20:23
Why are you afraid of them? Do you have grounds for such fear? Or are you simply making noise?

are you trying to make the case that there is no danger therefore no need for concealed carry or guns at all? because you sound like an anti gunner...

Ruble Noon
04-29-2012, 20:44
are you trying to make the case that there is no danger therefore no need for concealed carry or guns at all? because you sound like an anti gunner...

He's just another statist.

QNman
04-29-2012, 20:52
Every single time we carry, we do so to prepare for unforeseen danger. At work, at the grocery store, at the movies... Even though there is no statistical data to support the fact that there may be danger there. Because you just never know the time or place.

Near a political convention is no different.

We should not fear the law-abiding.

Ruble Noon
04-29-2012, 21:06
Every single time we carry, we do so to prepare for unforeseen danger. At work, at the grocery store, at the movies... Even though there is no statistical data to support the fact that there may be danger there. Because you just never know the time or place.

Near a political convention is no different.

We should not fear the law-abiding.

Yep, I don't have a crystal ball to tell me when or where I am going to be in danger so I carry everywhere I legally can.

snerd
04-29-2012, 23:34
It's amazing how big brother barks and we roll over. Barbed is right, we have given up so many of our rights, voluntarily. And each generation is more willing to go along to get along.... they're taught it from pre k thru college. Compromise, that's where it's at, man!

Sendarr
04-30-2012, 00:12
Edited.

eracer
04-30-2012, 06:15
Your "right" is not unlimited. And furthermore, "your" right is not superior to that of others. It's already limited. I abide my those limitations. But those who claim that rights can and should be infringed based on situation, and not circumstance, are the most dangerous kind of neo-fascists. They would turn martial law into a broad paintbrush, subject to use according to the whims of any politician who can muster enough support from fearful constituents.

And it sounds like you support limiting the rights of the law-abiding, while failing to acknowledge the lawlessness of those who would commit criminal acts.

HexHead
04-30-2012, 06:26
[QUOTE=eracer;18905260]Again, we need to differentiate between buildings inside of which it is already illegal for me to carry, and public streets, where state law protects my right to do so. No, we do not. A political convention is not a trip to the rifle range. Nor is it a walk through the ghetto. The streets outside a political convention are in every since of the word an extension of what occurs within the building. Guns have no place on the hips or in the pockets of anyone in such a setting beyond authorized police, etc.

You think I shouldn't be allowed to carry on a street that is near a political convention? What about a rally? What about when a politician shows up at a coffee shop for an ad hoc stumping opportunity? I have a video on my Youtube channel in which I'm 10 feet away from Mitt Romney as he speaks in the parking lot across the street from my office. I had a pistol in my pocket. Should it have been illegal for me to have had it? Why? I do not think anyone has a legitimate reason to OC/CC at a political rally... etc. Why. Not so hard to figure out.

What other times and places do you think my right to carry should be taken away? Your "right" is not unlimited. And furthermore, "your" right is not superior to that of others. Your expectation of how you exercise your right is not the standard. If you don't like it, you will need to turn to the courts. While in general I am supportive of oc/cc, I do not consider it a unrestricted personal right to be exercised regardless of how it may impact other people. I support those politicians who support oc/cc due to my larger 2nd Amendment concerns. But I am not particularly persuaded by what I consider the Chicken Little mentality/rational offered by those who want to pretend that everywhere danger is lurking, that we live in a jungle where only the strong survive, that want to justify such a mentality by quick quoting the latest report they've been able to find on YouTube of the latest crime reported wherever by whoever.

You should consider joining the Brady Campaign.