GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-23-2013, 17:20   #1
Jdog
Senior Member
 
Jdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wasatch range
Posts: 1,247
Utah soon legal to carry w/out a permit

I can't wait
this is what every state in the nation should do

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=757...cid=featured-3
Jdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 17:27   #2
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdog View Post
I can't wait
this is what every state in the nation should do

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=757...cid=featured-3
I'm a big 2nd amendment supporter and favor almost no limits, but I do feel that most people who carry concealed are under trained and am torn. There is part of me that feels that there should be substantially more training and more stringent shooting/qualifying before a person should be allowed to carry concealed.

Last edited by tnedator; 01-23-2013 at 17:29..
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 17:46   #3
Jdog
Senior Member
 
Jdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wasatch range
Posts: 1,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I'm a big 2nd amendment supporter and favor almost no limits, but I do feel that most people who carry concealed are under trained and am torn. There is part of me that feels that there should be substantially more training and more stringent shooting/qualifying before a person should be allowed to carry concealed.

Right now any law abiding citizen can legally go to a store and walk out with any new firearm within about 20 minutes after paperwork approval.
Any used firearm can be legally bought even quicker than that with zero paperwork

So why would you have to do an accuracy test to cover that gun up with your shirt?

Currently you don't have to do any sort of shooting test to get your Utah CCW.
Jdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 21:51   #4
TheNinja
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: San Jose, Commiefornia
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdog View Post
Currently you don't have to do any sort of shooting test to get your Utah CCW.
Yep. That's true. Just got my Utah CCW permit in the mail. Filled out the paperwork, sent it in with the $$$, two months later, I have it in hand. I live in Commiefornia.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Front Sight Ambassador Member
TheNinja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 18:32   #5
Kelo6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I'm a big 2nd amendment supporter and favor almost no limits, but I do feel that most people who carry concealed are under trained and am torn. There is part of me that feels that there should be substantially more training and more stringent shooting/qualifying before a person should be allowed to carry concealed.
I can understand your position, and held it for a long time, but came to the following conclusion.


To me, carry permits give the criminals an unfair advantage. Criminals carry their weapons without the cost and restrictions of a permit.


If I want to be "law abiding" just so I can have an option to defend myself if need be, then I have to buy my weapon, take a class from the local sheriff (or other certified provider), then pay for my license which has to be renewed every 4yrs or so. In Oregon we're not required to fire a weapon in this class. The blood isn't running in the streets here yet.


All tolled, it costs me around $115 just in fees.


The criminals carry their gun regardless, and their weapon is probably stolen. Or bought off the street.

Using a weapon in the commission of a crime is already illegal. Even if a CHL holder uses their weapon in a criminal manner, and is convicted they are a criminal. This is proven by the many dolts with Carry permits that commit crimes (including at least one here in Oregon in the last year), who are then convicted and their license is revoked.


Licensing is a feel-good measure. It helps people "feel safe" that we have "proven" that we are law-abiding citizens.


We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not have to prove our innocence and law-abiding stance before being able to execute our right to self-defense.



The bad guys carry their guns without a permit. So why can't I? The only difference between us and them is commission of crimes. Where there again, we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming don't require permits, and the blood isn't running in the streets.

The reason for this is that the law abiding citizens aren't out to kill. They're out to defend themselves. The presence of a permit isn't a determining factor. The good guys have their guns, and the bad guys have theirs.

Just my $.02

Last edited by Kelo6; 01-23-2013 at 18:36..
Kelo6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 19:23   #6
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelo6 View Post
I can understand your position, and held it for a long time, but came to the following conclusion.


To me, carry permits give the criminals an unfair advantage. Criminals carry their weapons without the cost and restrictions of a permit.


If I want to be "law abiding" just so I can have an option to defend myself if need be, then I have to buy my weapon, take a class from the local sheriff (or other certified provider), then pay for my license which has to be renewed every 4yrs or so. In Oregon we're not required to fire a weapon in this class. The blood isn't running in the streets here yet.


All tolled, it costs me around $115 just in fees.


The criminals carry their gun regardless, and their weapon is probably stolen. Or bought off the street.

Using a weapon in the commission of a crime is already illegal. Even if a CHL holder uses their weapon in a criminal manner, and is convicted they are a criminal. This is proven by the many dolts with Carry permits that commit crimes (including at least one here in Oregon in the last year), who are then convicted and their license is revoked.


Licensing is a feel-good measure. It helps people "feel safe" that we have "proven" that we are law-abiding citizens.


We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not have to prove our innocence and law-abiding stance before being able to execute our right to self-defense.



The bad guys carry their guns without a permit. So why can't I? The only difference between us and them is commission of crimes. Where there again, we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming don't require permits, and the blood isn't running in the streets.

The reason for this is that the law abiding citizens aren't out to kill. They're out to defend themselves. The presence of a permit isn't a determining factor. The good guys have their guns, and the bad guys have theirs.

Just my $.02
It's not about the need for licensing, hence the reason I'm torn. Part of me hates any additional licensing/restrictions. While the map of handgun permits in NY recently made news, a number of leftist newspapers have published names and addresses of CCL holders in the past. There are lots of downsides to licensing of any kind.

That said, both people I have met in person, and lots of the posts on GT, lead me to believe that a lot of CCL holders are pretty ignorant of the use of force and other issues related to concealed carry, and based on my experience with the Arkansas CCL process (I've renewed mine three times with three different instructors), my belief is that the testing isn't high enough.

If we are purely looking at it from the standpoint of the 2nd amendment, there is ZERO doubt that the intention was for us to be armed, with military style weapons, to be part of the militia, which was every able bodied male between the age or 18 and 45 (sorry women, your not covered...). It's more open for debate whether it actually intends to give us the right to carry handguns for self defense.

Regardless, I'm in favor of a national concealed carry law, but at the same time, there are plenty of people with concealed carry permits that have had little or no training. That puts them and bystanders at risk.

So, as I said, on the one hand I don't like further restrictions (especially because with the libs/anti-gun lobby, you give them an inch, they will take 200 miles), but if it wasn't for fear of escalating restrictions, I would be completely in favor of a Mas Ayoob style training course (his MAG 40 shortened and crammed into two days) being a requirement for any person carrying concealed, but then that person can carry nationwide, with far fewer BS restrictions on 'where' we can carry than we now have.

P.S. It isn't about proving we are law abiding citizens, it's about being properly trained to use a deadly weapon in a public setting where other people's lives are at risk. Hence a qualification of some kind, proving proficiency, not much different than a driving test (yes, I know driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right, but using it as an example of proving proficiency).

Last edited by tnedator; 01-23-2013 at 19:25..
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 19:48   #7
Kelo6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
P.S. It isn't about proving we are law abiding citizens, it's about being properly trained to use a deadly weapon in a public setting where other people's lives are at risk. Hence a qualification of some kind, proving proficiency, not much different than a driving test (yes, I know driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right, but using it as an example of proving proficiency).
And here we'll have to disagree. There are plenty of officers out there who can't shoot worth crap. There are officers here in Portland who only carry a gun because they have to. They qualify as required, but are anti-gun. It's just a requirement.

Then there are those who seek training, even on their own dime to make sure they are proficient with their weapons.

Citizens are the same way.


And I hate it when people use the driving example. Not because of the difference between "privileged vs constitutional right" but because licensing drivers doesn't really work either.


As someone involved in LE, I see people with expired registration, expired insurance, and suspended licenses all the time. The licensing process doesn't deter them from driving their vehicle. The licensing process only gives the DA the ability to prosecute on a higher level.

Now if it was about vehicle safety, then keep the regulations and insurance, but licensing the driver? Why? So we know they drive safely?

How about all those people who have a valid driver's license but still speed?

How about all those people who have a valid DL and run lights? Roll stop-signs? Change lanes without signaling? Follow too closely? Text and drive? Talk and drive?

Licensing doesn't stop these problems. Officers doing traffic stops do. They see the violation and initiate the stop and enforce the law. Then they have their day in court to challenge if desired.

The only thing a license does is say "this person did this, and we can attach this incident to their name and number". It's a national ID system to assign responsibility. So why can't we do that with our SSN? Why do we need another ID card?


The only real stat shows that kids who drive under the age of 18 are more reckless, particularly males. Yet we issue them licenses anyway. If it was about safety, we wouldn't issue until 18 or later.


But honestly? Show me a case where a citizen with a CHL could actually get on target and shoot and we'll have a discussion about required training. Those cases are few and far between. Most shootings are stopped/countered by off-duty LE. (there's a thread on this in Cop Talk. Very interesting)

LE tend to be (not always, as stated earlier) Those with training for high-stress scenarios. Those with stress-induced training. Those trained for knowledge of use of force. Those trained to fight instead of just defend themselves.


Not lambasting CHL holders. Many choose to carry to defend themselves, and that is their right to do so. This automatically reduces the number of bullets flying. There are those who will turn and run if not directly threatened.

I believe the one case of a CHL holder engaging an active shooter was at the SouthCenter Mall shooting in Washington. That CHL holder drew down but couldn't shoot fast enough. He was shot 8 times (I believe) by the bad guy shooter.



In any case, DC vs Heller already established that the 2nd Amendment provides Citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self defense. So that decision is moot.


Even the type of training you are suggesting doesn't do force-on-force training. Give them that adrenaline dump that gets them used to being shot at. And we can all agree that two days worth of training won't be enough. We all know that more training and practice is required. But unless we're going to require citizens to show up and qualify once a month or once a quarter, how do we keep track of that?

I think most CHL holders seek their own training. Not all, but there are many. A lot of states don't require a proficiency test (Mine included), and blood isn't running in the streets. There aren't a lot of shoot-outs happening and a lot of accidental deaths at the hands of CHL holders acting in self defense.


I guess with all of these ideas, the question because "So what?"

Do we get to set limits on the rights of fellow citizens because we don't think they can shoot good enough? Because we're scared of their abilities (or lack thereof)? That's what led to licensing in the first place. People scared of others and scared of firearms in the hands of people they don't trust.


If that's the case, there are officers who scare me. Including the famed DEA agent. And they're "certified".



The whole conversation is a slippery slope. Where do the regulations and requirements end?


-Kelo6

Last edited by Kelo6; 01-23-2013 at 19:59..
Kelo6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 20:12   #8
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelo6 View Post
Do we get to set limits on the rights of fellow citizens because we don't think they can shoot good enough? Because we're scared of their abilities (or lack thereof)? That's what led to licensing in the first place. People scared of others and scared of firearms in the hands of people they don't trust.


If that's the case, there are officers who scare me. Including the famed DEA agent. And they're "certified".



The whole conversation is a slippery slope. Where do the regulations and requirements end?


-Kelo6
I here what you are saying and as I indicated, I'm torn myself. With the exception of a VERY small number of citizens, most will never get force on force or attend intense self defense orientated training, and more importantly, do it on a continuing basis.

I also understand and agree with what you are saying about LEO's and many rarely firing their guns.

As to Heller, if Scalia or Kennedy go down in the next for years (or another conservative) see how quickly Heller becomes old precedent when the activist liberal justices rule exactly the opposite.

Anyway, back to the car analogy, it at least shows a reasonable level of proficiency at the time you begin driving. Lets face it, we ALL know that a lot of people carrying concealed don't even have a basic level of proficiency in firing their weapon, not to mention proper safety (muzzle direction, finger off trigger, etc). It seams reasonable that if they are going to be carrying a weapon out of their home, they should at least begin with some basics.

Anyway, I knew this opinion would not be popular, and it's a sticky situation. On the one hand, we have a right that shouldn't be infringed, on the other hand, we have untrained, careless idiots walking around with guns. I'm not giving you the liberal, the streets will run red with blood if we allow concealed carry, as we have decades of proof that isn't the case. However, that doesn't mean we can't do better.

I've had my CCL since the first year Arkansas issued them. I fully support CCL and wish Arkansas had more friendly CCL laws, such as signs not having the force of law and stuff like that.

I would love to see a national CCL, but also understand where some states have virtually no requirements (a friend walked into his Alabama Sherrif's office, made a $20 donation, and walked out with a hand written permit) for issuing CCL's, while others have at least some basic training.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 19:52   #9
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
It's not about the need for licensing, hence the reason I'm torn. Part of me hates any additional licensing/restrictions. While the map of handgun permits in NY recently made news, a number of leftist newspapers have published names and addresses of CCL holders in the past. There are lots of downsides to licensing of any kind.

That said, both people I have met in person, and lots of the posts on GT, lead me to believe that a lot of CCL holders are pretty ignorant of the use of force and other issues related to concealed carry, and based on my experience with the Arkansas CCL process (I've renewed mine three times with three different instructors), my belief is that the testing isn't high enough.

If we are purely looking at it from the standpoint of the 2nd amendment, there is ZERO doubt that the intention was for us to be armed, with military style weapons, to be part of the militia, which was every able bodied male between the age or 18 and 45 (sorry women, your not covered...). It's more open for debate whether it actually intends to give us the right to carry handguns for self defense.

Regardless, I'm in favor of a national concealed carry law, but at the same time, there are plenty of people with concealed carry permits that have had little or no training. That puts them and bystanders at risk.

So, as I said, on the one hand I don't like further restrictions (especially because with the libs/anti-gun lobby, you give them an inch, they will take 200 miles), but if it wasn't for fear of escalating restrictions, I would be completely in favor of a Mas Ayoob style training course (his MAG 40 shortened and crammed into two days) being a requirement for any person carrying concealed, but then that person can carry nationwide, with far fewer BS restrictions on 'where' we can carry than we now have.

P.S. It isn't about proving we are law abiding citizens, it's about being properly trained to use a deadly weapon in a public setting where other people's lives are at risk. Hence a qualification of some kind, proving proficiency, not much different than a driving test (yes, I know driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right, but using it as an example of proving proficiency).
You're just an elitist. A right is for everyone, without having to pass tests, pay fees or asking permission. And just what the hell do you think "bear" means?
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 20:00   #10
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
You're just an elitist. A right is for everyone, without having to pass tests, pay fees or asking permission. And just what the hell do you think "bear" means?
I don't know, something that craps in the woods???

When you grow up and can have a civil discussion, come back and I'm game.

Last edited by tnedator; 01-23-2013 at 20:01..
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 02:45   #11
HerrGlock
CLM Number 2
Scouts Out
 
HerrGlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 64,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I'm a big 2nd amendment supporter and favor almost no limits, but I do feel that most people who carry concealed are under trained and am torn. There is part of me that feels that there should be substantially more training and more stringent shooting/qualifying before a person should be allowed to carry concealed.
Tell you what, there are at least 19 states that require zero shooting test prior to issuing a CCW permit.
There are only slightly fewer states that require ZERO training at all (WA, AL, PA, DE, come to mind immediately) and more than that where a hunting safety course is all that is required before issuing a CCW permit.

If you can prove, by actual numbers from the state sites, that the states that require training have fewer bad shootings and/or fewer innocents shot, you may have a point.

Hell, I challenge you to tell which states require what kind or lack of training strictly by bad and/or illegal use of firearms by CCW holders.

I'm betting you've never really looked into it that far, you're just going on what you believe and feel is true. Problem is, your beliefs and feelings have no basis in reality. I'm serious, look it up for yourself and see if you can show anyone that CCW holders in any state have so many bad shoots that there is a good argument for more training required.
__________________
Sent from my rotary phone
"The way I see it as soon as a baby is born, he should be issued a banjo!"- Linus Van Pelt
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins any more
HerrGlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:30   #12
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerrGlock View Post
Tell you what, there are at least 19 states that require zero shooting test prior to issuing a CCW permit.
There are only slightly fewer states that require ZERO training at all (WA, AL, PA, DE, come to mind immediately) and more than that where a hunting safety course is all that is required before issuing a CCW permit.

If you can prove, by actual numbers from the state sites, that the states that require training have fewer bad shootings and/or fewer innocents shot, you may have a point.

Hell, I challenge you to tell which states require what kind or lack of training strictly by bad and/or illegal use of firearms by CCW holders.

I'm betting you've never really looked into it that far, you're just going on what you believe and feel is true. Problem is, your beliefs and feelings have no basis in reality. I'm serious, look it up for yourself and see if you can show anyone that CCW holders in any state have so many bad shoots that there is a good argument for more training required.
First, I made it very clear this is the way I "feel" because I and you and every gun owner has seen other gun owners that just make us cringe with their lack of safety, knowledge, etc.

Second, it's extremely difficult to get good, reliable numbers of gun related deaths (cause, type of weapon, etc.), and as you VERY WELL KNOW, it's just about impossible to get reliable accidental shooting/bad shooting information by state.

So, what you ask, as I believe you very well know, isn't possible to do.

What we do know is that a recent (a few years back) study showed that overall CCL holders commit gun crimes at the same rate as police, but beyond that, we don't know much, certainly not about accidents or good shoots/bad shoots.

While the other side (ant-gun/liberals) are completely unreasonable with their fear of guns and desire to ban them all, even if it takes a "path to single payer" approach, a lot of people on our side are not much better in their refusal to have any meaningful discussions.

On the one hand, we tout Heller as declaring the 2nd amendent guarantees the right to use a gun for self defense, which I am very glad about. However, we tend to ignore McDonald & Heller also declared that reasonable limits are acceptable. Some states have age limits, where you have to be 21 to get a CCL, as an example.

Anyway, I didn't expect my opinion on this to be popular, because most on our side are not interested in any open discussion about reasonable limits. Just look at the thread about the idiot CCL carrier in FL that got detained (maybe arrested) and it's a great example of the rage against the machine, cops suck, you can't infringe our rights single minded blindness that far too many of us have.

We should at least be open to discussions about how to make everyone safer, keep guns out of the hands (at least in public) of those that aren't qualified, discussing reasonable restrictions to try and make it more difficult for felons/criminals to get guns (I know that's not on topic for this thread, but an example of the things that are in OUR best interest, yet we don't want to talk about).
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 11:46   #13
IndyGunFreak
KO Windows
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 30,359
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
First, I made it very clear this is the way I "feel" because I and you and every gun owner has seen other gun owners that just make us cringe with their lack of safety, knowledge, etc.
I've seen way more newspaper articles, editorials, and posts on DU that make me cringe with disbelief at someone's lack of knowledge... than I have uninformed gun owners.

I don't advocate permits for free speech.
__________________
Quote:
Ronald Reagan
"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
"Man is not free unless Government is limited"
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 12:55   #14
Atomic Punk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,691
for all the other lib crazyness around. wa state only want some money before you get a permit. only $55.25.
Atomic Punk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 11:44   #15
IndyGunFreak
KO Windows
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 30,359
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by HerrGlock View Post
Tell you what, there are at least 19 states that require zero shooting test prior to issuing a CCW permit.
There are only slightly fewer states that require ZERO training at all (WA, AL, PA, DE, come to mind immediately) and more than that where a hunting safety course is all that is required before issuing a CCW permit.

If you can prove, by actual numbers from the state sites, that the states that require training have fewer bad shootings and/or fewer innocents shot, you may have a point.

Hell, I challenge you to tell which states require what kind or lack of training strictly by bad and/or illegal use of firearms by CCW holders.

I'm betting you've never really looked into it that far, you're just going on what you believe and feel is true. Problem is, your beliefs and feelings have no basis in reality. I'm serious, look it up for yourself and see if you can show anyone that CCW holders in any state have so many bad shoots that there is a good argument for more training required.
EXACTLY!

Indiana has had concealed carry for longer than most of the 50 states, no training, no classes.. and frankly, it's just not really an issue that even makes a blip on the news. I remember a few years ago a guy dropped a "derringer" in a restaurant and it went off, and hit him in the hip.

Been a while since I've read about a CCW'er having an ND.
__________________
Quote:
Ronald Reagan
"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
"Man is not free unless Government is limited"
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 09:39   #16
B.Reid
Senior Member
 
B.Reid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 2,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I'm a big 2nd amendment supporter and favor almost no limits, but I do feel that most people who carry concealed are under trained and am torn. There is part of me that feels that there should be substantially more training and more stringent shooting/qualifying before a person should be allowed to carry concealed.
Do you think you should have training to exercise your other rights? Get a clue. The right to keep and bear = own and carry.
__________________
Embrace the apocalypse!

Earth has always been a dangerous place to live. Be prepared!
B.Reid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 17:40   #17
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I'm a big 2nd amendment supporter and favor almost no limits, but I do feel that most people who carry concealed are under trained and am torn. There is part of me that feels that there should be substantially more training and more stringent shooting/qualifying before a person should be allowed to carry concealed.
I am sorry but that is suggesting that we ask the government for permission slips to exercise our rights. THe moment when we decided that a permit system would need to be in place is when we decided that the 2nd Amendment is not truly a natural right. And to that I quote the great Samuel Adams, as a permit system is nothing but a tax on our rights.

Quote:
Originally said by Samuel Adams:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 19:49   #18
Taphius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I'm a big 2nd amendment supporter and favor almost no limits, but I do feel that most people who carry concealed are under trained and am torn. There is part of me that feels that there should be substantially more training and more stringent shooting/qualifying before a person should be allowed to carry concealed.
I would say the same thing about the English language and writing on the internet.
Taphius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 18:47   #19
ca survivor
Senior Member
 
ca survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,670
and with out a permit, how can a LEO differentiate for a law abiding citizen and a criminal with a gun?
ca survivor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 18:55   #20
Kc.38
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca survivor View Post
and with out a permit, how can a LEO differentiate for a law abiding citizen and a criminal with a gun?
IF he is a felon or is committing a crime.
Kc.38 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:18.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,321
366 Members
955 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31