Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 10:57 am
Looks like we were typing at the same time.txinvestigator wrote:EDIT: Sorry KB, I didn't read your response first.
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Looks like we were typing at the same time.txinvestigator wrote:EDIT: Sorry KB, I didn't read your response first.
I've no problem with a combo of concealed and open carry laws as long as both require a permit to be sure that only those who can pass a background check are allowed to do either. I would also prefer that the law simply state that a concealed carry permit allows you the choice of how you wish to carry so that one permit, class, and set of fees covers all options.Darwood wrote:I don't think anyone is saying replace concealed carry with open carry which is the only way that criminals would know without a doubt that if they can't see the firearm their victim isn't armed. If people were allowed to open carry a firearm criminals would know who's armed, and then they would know that anyone else could be armed. All in all more deterrence for criminals.wjmphoto wrote:Open carry simply lets criminals know who the victims are and are not! If you are a criminal are you going to try and rob the guy who is openly carrying a firearm or move on to the next guy who is not openly armed? Open carry does not equate to blood in the streets but it does equate to an open invitation to victimize those who do not choose to carry a weapon because they are readily discernable to the criminal. And yes, restricting a citizens right to carry does equate to blood in the street, the blood of unarmend victims who are disallowed by the government the right to defend themselves. That statement also does not in any way pander to the anti-gun lobby and is also proven by the events we have witnessed recently as well as the upsurge of crime in nations that do choose to take away their people's natural right of self-defense.
With open carry anyone could be armed, just some you would know some you wouldn't.
I am an open carry advocate, and I am not aware of any state that does not allow open carry because af any deterrence factor. I have read many arguments against open carry simiklar to your so called deterrence factor. Many individuals are against open carry because they imply that the BG will disarm you first. There have been no instances recorded that I can find of this happening.wjmphoto wrote:One of the main reasons that states do not opt for open carry is the deterence factor. If a state adopts open carry that makes it easy to pick out those who are carrying and those who are unarmed victims. It's kind of like the signs that they had in Jersey (I think) stating "This is a Gun Free Home" a few years back. Guess which houses got robbed and how fast those signs came down.
There's that word again. When we let the state allow us to exercise a right it becomes a privilege and the state can take it away.wjmphoto wrote:allowed to do either.
While it is a right, it is not one that is open, nor should it be open, to everyone. Convicted felons should not have the right to carry open or concealed or even own a firearm. Spousal abusers should not be allowed to carry or own a weapon either. People with serious mental illness and those with drug and alcohol addictions should not be allowed to carry. The only way to insure that law abising citizens are the only ones that carry a gun legally is to require background checks, like Texas. Granted it will not stop criminals from carrying because they don't worry about following the law in the first place, but it helps. I have no problem with presenting a permit to an officer if requested to show that I am a law abiding citizens and have gone through the process. The question is why would anyone have a problem with this except those who would be denied a permit in the first place because of background or disqualifying factors?jimlongley wrote:There's that word again. When we let the state allow us to exercise a right it becomes a privilege and the state can take it away.wjmphoto wrote:allowed to do either.
Vermont style carry.
BTW, you can open carry in NY City, if you have the permit. And I have open carried in NY City and New Jersey, in my Navy dungarees, while on active duty, while on official duty.
Using Arizona as an example is not the best choice. Arizona is currently the 3rd most dangerous state in the union behind Nevada and New Mexico (in that order). Vermont is the second safest behind North Dakota. Population density has a great deal to do with how safe a state or city is and statistics have historically proven this to be correct. The other consideration has nothing to do with population and everything to do with the cultural makeup of the state, city, county, etc.Darwood wrote:Phoenix, AZ has unlicensed open carry and is a city of 4 million people. They seem to be doing fine so I don't buy it that large metropolitan areas can't handle unlicensed open carry.
Wow, that all sounds "reasonable". And you know that lots of "reasonable" people believe you shouldn't be allowed to carry or own a firearm, either, right?wjmphoto wrote:While it is a right, it is not one that is open, nor should it be open, to everyone. Convicted felons should not have the right to carry open or concealed or even own a firearm. Spousal abusers should not be allowed to carry or own a weapon either. People with serious mental illness and those with drug and alcohol addictions should not be allowed to carry.
Are you seriously saying, simultaneously, that criminals can't be stopped from carrying guns, but that we can ensure anyone carrying a gun is doing so legally by having a background check?The only way to insure that law abising citizens are the only ones that carry a gun legally is to require background checks, like Texas. Granted it will not stop criminals from carrying because they don't worry about following the law in the first place, but it helps.
Slippery slope arguement there. You can't equate preventing criminals, people with mental health issues, those proven to be a danger to others, and people with chemical dependancy issues from being allowed to own firearms with preventing law abiding citizens with no such defects from owning a weapon. But I guess you are happy tha Cho and people like him are able to own guns because that is what YOU are implying.KBCraig wrote:Wow, that all sounds "reasonable". And you know that lots of "reasonable" people believe you shouldn't be allowed to carry or own a firearm, either, right?wjmphoto wrote:While it is a right, it is not one that is open, nor should it be open, to everyone. Convicted felons should not have the right to carry open or concealed or even own a firearm. Spousal abusers should not be allowed to carry or own a weapon either. People with serious mental illness and those with drug and alcohol addictions should not be allowed to carry.
Are you seriously arguing the point? Are you seriously going to imply that it is good governmental policy to allow convicted felons, people with mental health issues, and people who are in fact dangerous to others to walk in to a gun store and legally buy a firearm and then carry openly or concealed without any checks in place? Are you going to say with a straight face that requiring a background check is a bad thing in order for someone to get a permit to carry a gun?KBCraig wrote:Are you seriously saying, simultaneously, that criminals can't be stopped from carrying guns, but that we can ensure anyone carrying a gun is doing so legally by having a background check?wjmphoto wrote:The only way to insure that law abising citizens are the only ones that carry a gun legally is to require background checks, like Texas. Granted it will not stop criminals from carrying because they don't worry about following the law in the first place, but it helps.
Slippery slope and straw man arguments are certainly not a good starting point for your own debating career. You may want to read up on those logical fallacies yourself before you start poking a finger at others.KBCraig wrote:Don't take up debate for a hobby, okay?
In 38 years we have gone down the slippery slope from anyone being able to buy any revolver, semi-automatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun by U.S. mail, to making it onerously difficult in many places and totally illegal in some.wjmphoto wrote:Slippery slope and straw man arguments are certainly not a good starting point for your own debating career.
That is true, but you can make it more difficult and stop them from doing it legally. My issue is with allowing criminals, junkies, alcoholics and seriously mentally ill persons to buy weapons legally without any safeguards intact. I have no problem with going through training and being required to show proficiency before carrying a weapon on my person. I have no problem with background checks to make sure that I am not a felon and do not have psychological issues that would make allowing me to carry a concealed weapon a bad idea. These are not restrictions that keep the average populace and vast majority of people from being able to own or carry weapon legally. These are safeguards that do not deny anyone their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Just as there are limits to free speech, there must also be limits that are meant to keep people who should not have weapons on them in the first place from owning them. (That is the thing that anti's don't comprehend, that normal law abiding citizens are guaranteed the right to own a firearm and it is their natural right to be able to defend themselves with them as well)seamusTX wrote:In 38 years we have gone down the slippery slope from anyone being able to buy any revolver, semi-automatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun by U.S. mail, to making it onerously difficult in many places and totally illegal in some.wjmphoto wrote:Slippery slope and straw man arguments are certainly not a good starting point for your own debating career.
Is that not slippery enough?
You can't stop criminals and deranged people from obtaining weapons or carrying out evil deeds. It is impossible.
- Jim
In every case, in the United States, we have seen a progression from an unrestricted RKBA to the present situation, where you cannot legally possess a handgun in our nation's capital and other cities. It is always one more "reasonable" step to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.wjmphoto wrote:The simple fact remains that keeping a felon or mentally ill person from buying a firearm legally is vastly different from stopping all citizens from buying a firearm altogether. One does not rationally lead to or equate to the other.
You're using the same null arguments that are the anti-gun nuts' favorites. Convicted felons already don't have the right, but that doesn't stop them, Spousal Abusers hardly give the fact that they are violating many laws a thought and, as evidenced by Cho's rampage, the laws don't seem to have much effect on drunks, druggies, or nut cases. Yes, it is a right which should be available to a subset of "everyone" but the definition and regulation of the subset is where the problem lie. My feeling, and I know others feel the same, is that the subset should be defined by elimination, not qualification, that is; remove the criminals, etc, and the rest of us will take care of ourselves. Don't license the law abiding.wjmphoto wrote: While it is a right, it is not one that is open, nor should it be open, to everyone. Convicted felons should not have the right to carry open or concealed or even own a firearm. Spousal abusers should not be allowed to carry or own a weapon either. People with serious mental illness and those with drug and alcohol addictions should not be allowed to carry.
I don't see how your first sentence and second sentence even fit in the same paragraph. How does a background check ensure that only law abiding citizens are carrying? Your second sentence denies this. And then, if criminals will, by definition, disobey that law, how does it help?wjmphoto wrote:The only way to insure that law abising citizens are the only ones that carry a gun legally is to require background checks, like Texas. Granted it will not stop criminals from carrying because they don't worry about following the law in the first place, but it helps.
As long as the process exists, I don't have a problem with it either, but it sure reminds me of "May I see your papers please?" In Vermont and Alaska you are presumed to be a law abiding citizen unless you prove otherwise (innocent until proven guilty?) and only then are you prohibited from carrying a gun, and if you are caught the penalties are commensurately high. I would rather the process did not exist. (more on that later.)wjmphoto wrote:I have no problem with presenting a permit to an officer if requested to show that I am a law abiding citizens and have gone through the process. The question is why would anyone have a problem with this except those who would be denied a permit in the first place because of background or disqualifying factors?
I would argue with that too. The Constitution, as written, sees those rights it protects, in combination with the Bill of Rights and other Amendments as absolute, inviolate, applying to everyone, all people. Of course the Constitution had to be amended to make everyone a little more global than the everyone that was first written into the document to begin with, but that amendment only made the set broader, including women, people of color, non-property owners , and others who had found themselves disenfranchised by legal wrangling and interpretive spin.wjmphoto wrote:Yes, owning a gun is a constitutionally guaranteed right, but so is voting and the state government has a right to disqualify people from voting based on felony convictions as well. All rights are not absolute and do not apply to all people.
Sure it is, and it worked fine until people started insisting that governments should not "allow" people to have guns.wjmphoto wrote:Using Vermont style carry is not necessarily feasible in other parts of the nation.
I don't see how that's any different than what we have now, except that those of us who are preternaturally inclined to be law abiding will get the necessary license, that "allows" us to exercise a right, while the criminals will go ahead and carry regardless of the law. All the CHL "permission" does is give the government control over a right, turning it into a privilege, which they can modify as they see fit (as exemplified by regular changes to the CHL laws and rules)wjmphoto wrote:The idea of let everyone carry and sort out the bad guys caarrying guns after the fact just does not work in larger and more densely populated cities and parts of the country that inherently have higher crime rates than Vermont ever had in the first place.
And that does not make them right. The government only gets away with what we let it, and once we let them do something it's hard to make them stop. It's that old thing about not letting the camel's nose into the tent, the rest will inevitably follow.wjmphoto wrote:Let's face it, I disagree with the right of the government to deny due process to anyone, but a lot of people out there think that it is justified under certain circumstances.
Which also doesn't make them right. The first eight amendments are pretty specific about the rights that pre-exist the document and are meant to be guarded by them. Each is pretty much, by the definition contained in each, inviolate right from the start, and the meanings have once again only really changed with spin and fiat.wjmphoto wrote:A lot of people see the 2nd amendment as inviolate and think it should be applied to everyone without restriction, but fail to agree that the 5th amendment applies to everyone and is just as inviolate. Personally, the right to a fair trial is an absolute requirement of a free nation.
Pretty much my way of thinking, not quite the whole thing, see above, but close.wjmphoto wrote:Once you have had your fair trial and have been convicted, your other rights as a citizen, like the right to own a firearm can and should be restricted as you have been proven to be incapable of living by the rules of society.