I would hate "Gun Free" zones less if...

[Embalmo]

Guys,

I wouldn't mind gun free zones like court houses, bars, and schools as much if they let CHLers check their weapons at the door in a locker like they do with cell phones at precinct 3 in Tarrytown. The main reason that I carry is the vulnerable stage of getting to and from my car; that's why I've never understood the concept of, "I carry a gun in the truck when I'm traveling." When I'm going 65 MPH in my Dodge van, I'm feeling pretty safe.

Embalmo

[shootthesheet]

I agree but "School Zones" are not the problem. We can legally carry in a school zone just not to an "event" or inside a school building. That means little when we have to go in to pick up a child or visit a class or go to a sporting event. It is dumb that I can carry into a mall, where more kids are on many Saturdays, than I can at our small school. These kinds of restrictions are about fear of being blamed because a politician supported school carry and nothing more. Why would a person who has gone to such a hassle and paid that much in money in time just to do something they can do without getting a CHL?

[blue]

(on soapbox)
Strange how we can be good lawbiding citizens EXCEPT when we move a few feet over a "line", then we is E-villll !!!!,, ...step back a few feet and back to good law biding citizen again, even with wife and kids along.

Also how a high school principal "could authorize" us to go into the school, but a Sheriff, Mayor, Judge, State of Texas Officals, etc., etc. - powerless?!

Remembering the Russian school takening by terrorists a few years ago, and the several nut cases in U.S. schools, Luby's, etc., seems like ANY restrictions on CHL are dangerous in these times.

(off soapbox)

[C-dub]

When I'm going 65 MPH in my Dodge van, I'm feeling pretty safe.

You might be relatively safe, but you gotta stop sometime.

[ELB]

Guys,

I wouldn't mind gun free zones like court houses, bars, and schools as much if they let CHLers check their weapons at the door in a locker like they do with cell phones at precinct 3 in Tarrytown. ...

Embalmo

I would mind them just as much -- if the excitement kicks off when your gun is stored in the locker, chances are you might as well have left it at home. Court houses at least sometimes have police standing by (altho I am not overly impressed with the actual security provided in many instances). Schools and bars and sporting events and posted hospitals and any other similar venues are just deliberate "get-your-defenseless-victim-by-the-dozen" zones, and having your gun stuffed in a locker will not help. In fact, it gives a nice killing field if you just station an attacker at the lockers to shoot all the guys who come running to get their guns.

[Embalmo]

C-dud,

That's my point exactly. Those who keep a "gun in the truck" leave that gun in the truck when they stop and get out. They treat their guns like there's a cord attached ala old cell phones that couldn't be removed from their vehicles. And as I mentioned in my "Bone-head argument" thread, a gun won't be taken from until I've emptied it, but I feel real uncomfortable locking my gun(s) in my van behind "safety glass". I just realized how funny it is that anti-gunners think it's safer for a loaded gun to be locked behind candy glass that can be broken with a sponge than in the pocket of a competent gun owner.

Embalmo

[C-dub]

C-dud,

That's my point exactly. Those who keep a "gun in the truck" leave that gun in the truck when they stop and get out. They treat their guns like there's a cord attached ala old cell phones that couldn't be removed from their vehicles. And as I mentioned in my "Bone-head argument" thread, a gun won't be taken from until I've emptied it, but I feel real uncomfortable locking my gun(s) in my van behind "safety glass". I just realized how funny it is that anti-gunners think it's safer for a loaded gun to be locked behind candy glass that can be broken with a sponge than in the pocket of a competent gun owner.

Embalmo

So, does this mean you think those who would carry under the MPA are only fooling themselves?

[karder]

The entire concept of "no-carry zones" is beyond me. Trying to look at it as objectively as possible, I can understand the arguments against courtrooms, airplanes, and a very limited number of places, but not places like schools, bars, sporting events. We all know that there already ARE people carrying unlicensed weapons in schools and bars and sporting events, so why does it make things safer, to disarm the people who have undergone the trouble, expense and background checks to get legally licensed? Of course those folks are going to give up their weapons, they obey the law! I know I am preaching to the choir, but I just don't understand the logic here. Asking the law abiding citizens to voluntarily give up their weapons when going in these places, but doing nothing to ensure security is outrageous. Seems like the majority of mass shootings of late have been at schools, and I don't remember any of the shooters having CHLs. Conversely, if the schools were not so "safe" that no one can arm themselves, those shootings would likely have not been nearly as deadly. It really offends me.

[C-dub]

How long has it been since any of you have been to a pro sports event? With the amount of drinking and obnoxious behavior they are remarkably similar to a bar. And what with a beer being in the $8-$10 range they might be getting close being able to post a legitimate 51% sign.

[TLE2]

...seems like ANY restrictions on CHL are dangerous in these times. - blue

I cannot see the need for any restrictions on legal carry. If, under the rarest of circumstances a CHL does go off the deep end, wouldn't you want some other, level headed, CHL'ers around to counter the situation.

We need Universal Unrestricted Right to Carry. Anytime, anywhere.

.. off the soapbox now...

I''m most at risk when I get in the truck in the morning... go to work... drop my g'son off at school... leave work... pick him up at school... get out of the truck at home...try to get the front door open.

What is gained by making my grandson and me vulnerable in these situations?

[shootthesheet]

I wouldn't say totally unrestricted would be good. Courtrooms, jails and such, and I think property owners should be able to deny entry if they want just to protect their rights as well. Of course I think it is an abomination that any Federal building or such is restricted except for maybe high security areas and correctional facilities. But, that is what we have to live with when we only are allowed the privilege of CHL and have no real recognized 2A rights.

...seems like ANY restrictions on CHL are dangerous in these times. - blue

I cannot see the need for any restrictions on legal carry. If, under the rarest of circumstances a CHL does go off the deep end, wouldn't you want some other, level headed, CHL'ers around to counter the situation.

We need Universal Unrestricted Right to Carry. Anytime, anywhere.

.. off the soapbox now...

I''m most at risk when I get in the truck in the morning... go to work... drop my g'son off at school... leave work... pick him up at school... get out of the truck at home...try to get the front door open.

What is gained by making my grandson and me vulnerable in these situations?

[chabouk]

So, does this mean you think those who would carry under the MPA are only fooling themselves?

I can't count the number of times I heard someone say, "I don't want to carry a gun all the time, I just want to be able to keep one in the car when I'm driving somewhere."

Yes, they're fooling themselves.

[KD5NRH]

So, does this mean you think those who would carry under the MPA are only fooling themselves?

I can't count the number of times I heard someone say, "I don't want to carry a gun all the time, I just want to be able to keep one in the car when I'm driving somewhere."

Yes, they're fooling themselves.

I put those people right up there with the ones that want a defense gun at home, but don't think anybody should carry one. If your home is the most dangerous place you ever go, move!

[C-dub]

Okay. Okay. Not to get into the reasons why a person would only carry in their vehicle under the MPA, but for someone that does I don't understand the negative attitude towards them. It may be inadequate most of time, but isn't it still better than not having anything at all. Isn't that the mantra of many here, "Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

I understand that it's not as good as the ability to carry outside of the vehicle with a CHL, but at least it can be loaded and within reach now and not just being transported and secured in the trunk or wherever.

[Drewthetexan]

So, does this mean you think those who would carry under the MPA are only fooling themselves?

I can't count the number of times I heard someone say, "I don't want to carry a gun all the time, I just want to be able to keep one in the car when I'm driving somewhere."

Yes, they're fooling themselves.

I put those people right up there with the ones that want a defense gun at home, but don't think anybody should carry one. If your home is the most dangerous place you ever go, move!

While I agree with you on principal, moving is not so easy for a number of folks.

Went to a Stars game this week. They've gone from running everyone through metal detectors to randomly wanding people as they enter. I left mine in the car, but anyone could easily have gotten past that swiss cheese they call security. Why bother?