In States With Open Carry Gun Laws

What would happen if you walked into an Airport with a Gun strapped to your leg or carrying an assault rifle?

What would happen if you walked into a school?

Into a Bank?

Into a Post Office?

Into a Police Station?

Into a Concert?

Into a Baseball Game?

Into a Daycare?

Into a Court Building?

Into a State or Local Government building?

I thought as much.

So WHY IN THE HELL ARE THESE IDIOTS ALLOWED TO OPEN CARRY GUNS TO PRESIDENTIAL EVENTS?

Is that what the anti-zealot elders taught you. :eyes:

That's why most of America supports the 2nd Amendment and CCW/open carry. And why the anti-zealots will never pass the fascist laws they dream of.

And they bring fascism closer all the time.

The gunnuts won't be happy until this country resembles Afghanistan.

You consider the Second Amendment idiotic? And dare call yourself a Democrat. Sickening.

"The gunnuts won't be happy until this country resembles Afghanistan." :rofl:

All I'm doing to trying to keep my rights. I don't care if you own or are even aware of guns. Why can't you give me the same respect? What do you gain from denying other people their rights? Does it make you feel "safer"? Did you approve of the patriot act too?

You call yourself a Texan?!?

;)

"Second-Amendment idiots"?

We could be clearer.

Racist, misogynist, right-wing, gun-militant thugs.

of the anti-gun zealots when they have no facts to support their point of view.

I called racist, misogynist, right-wing, gun-militant thugs "a name".

What would we all suggest I call racist, misogynist, right-wing, gun-militant thugs?

Alexander?

That's a name. Will it do?

"Racist, misogynist, right-wing, gun-militant thugs" isn't a name.

It's an accurate description of what they are.

I dont follow your logic?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

who owns firearms, I will once again speak up when firearms are used in the same sentence with dicks, penis, etc.. If one has a valid argument use it. Resorting to penis, dick allusions are unnecessary and add nothing to the discussion. I own firearms and neither have a penis of any size nor a desire to have one. Stereotyping isn't a progressive value.

Since THE majority of gun owners ARE male, and as has been proven so many many times in the past that their fear of the boogieman along with their determination to carry a fiucking gun everywhere pretty much proves they lack the confidence of men who have reproductive organs large enough or are just simply confident enough in themselves that needing a steel phallus is unthinkable.

one would see a progressive carrying an AR15 to a health care rally. Most people I know are progressives and they are also gun owners. It has nothing to do with confidence nor reproductive organs. These comparisons are junior high school type taunts.

We don't live in fear. And we'll continue to compare many of you to poorly short-armed militia.

Doesn't mean you know everyone, or everyone feels the same way you do.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2000_3222302

Ok, they were shotguns, not AR15s, but other than that......

It just makes you look like a jerk.

It is putting it in its proper perspective and saving society from the lunacy of more and more guns and ammo.

You seem convinced that "A Well Regulated Militia" means something other than what it really means.

let me just shatter that myth for ya:

A. The second amendment is a restriction on governmental power. Says so in the preamble to the bill of rights.

B. Heres what "well regulated militia" means, from Federalist 29:

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

I trust that you will cease the spewing such falsehoods now that your um...theory...has been demolished?

We ave no intention of 'wrecking' the 2nd amendment, but we will make changes so you gun huggers don't push your steel love down the throats of those of us who don't want any part of your paranoia.

And welcome to Du, I'm sure you'll make lots of new friends here.



:eyes:

Lucky you got your "welcome" in there while you could. ;)

"...we will make changes so you gun huggers don't push your steel love down the throats of those of us who don't want any part of your paranoia."

Are YOU paranoid? (Are you secretly desirous?)

for educating the rest of us what real men are supposed to be.

Your post is unbelievably sexist.

Basically your assertion is that anyone who feels the need for a tool to enhance their security is compensating for sexual inadequacy.

This is absurd.

Do you think police officers are just simply not confident enough because they have tiny penises, too?

There are many people in this world who realize that they have physical limitations and don't feel relying on their bodies for defense. To suggest that all of these people are just compensating for sexual inadequacy is absurd.

someone sinks to "penis baiting."

How original.

You have attempted to abstract and defend the "penis" approach to gun-control. It is one thing to throw around a load of crap psychology in a tavern; I can understand that if one is drunk. But it is quite another thing in the "light of day" and in front of others -- and presumably without mind-alteration -- to try the same thing.

It only show that you are prejudiced and hateful toward some 60,000,000 male gun-owners (leaving aside the roughly 20,000,000 female gun-owners). Sorry, your slap-dash "intellectual" approach doesn't mask a thing.

BTW, the vast majority of male gun owners do not advocate "carry a fucking gun everywhere..."

"Sigmund Freud helped us understand how people project sexual themes onto the world around them. A gun can be just a gun, but it can also be a phallic symbol, depending on who sees it or uses it. A gun is also a symbol of personal potency, and a good marksman would be a potent person, which would mean he had high self-esteem. On the other hand, someone with an inferiority complex could want to own and use a gun to feel more powerful. Like any other symbol, one can project many different images onto it, and these images can be reflections of unconscious issues as well as conscious ones. Someone who fears guns, for example, could have healthy reasons for wanting to avoid guns, or their fears could be a deeper phobic reaction to conflicts about sexuality and repressed anger."
-- James A. Swan, PhD.

Do you have "conflicts about sexuality and repressed anger"?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sort of like biting a Certs in the dark .

...gun owners believe their firearms are penis extensions? Could it perhaps be because you recognize your own inadequacy so you try to make yourself feel better by accusing others of overcompensating?

How do you explain WOMEN who carry?

Owning firearms as a substitute for a small weenie, or being someone who wants to take away another's sex organ?

dont agree witha subject? Misandrist!

Thats funny. I've never heard anyone say they thought they looked sexy - well, not anyone who doesn't have some weird sexual fascination with guns, like yourself.

If you've not seen one of those, see the front page of their website: http://www.kahr.com/
Some brunette stick insect holding the product, with the caption "THIN is SEXY." As a guy who's married to a "plus-sized" woman, that sort of thing annoys the living piss out of me.

Still, it's not like Kahr's losing a customer, since I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a gun off some Moonie.

I hate just about any advertisement that resorts to using a model to sell it.

I see this too often in trade publications, including firearm ones.

It makes me very uncomfortable to be thumbing through a gun mag in a store and then turn the page to some half-naked or otherwise suggestive female splayed on the pages. Suddenly I'm cocking my eyes to either side of me to see if there's some lady looking at me like I've picked up a porn mag.

And I'm no prude. I've been to my share of titty bars in my day and I don't mind looking at naked women.

I just don't want to tie sex into an advertisement for a gun, or a car, or...just about anything.

What would happen if you walked into an Airport with a Gun strapped to your leg or carrying an assault rifle?

Depending on the jurisdiction, this is perfectly legal to do in the non-secure parts of airports in open carry states. The states may pass laws to prohibit open carry in the non-secure parts as well (some have).

Incidentally, an "assault rifle" is capable of selective fire, and requires a federal firearms license, approval from local law enforcement, and an extensive background check to own. The guy in the news was carrying an AR-15, which is not an assault rifle but looks like one.

What would happen if you walked into a school?

Since most schools are "gun free zones", you would be arrested eventually. Unless your purpose was to shoot up the school, in which case history suggests you would kill a few dozen people and nobody would be able to stop you since nobody law-abiding would be armed.

Into a Bank?

Depends on the jurisdiction; it's legal in some states and illegal in others.

Into a Post Office?

I'm not sure about this but I think in states with open carry, it's allowed in Post Offices (ie, there's not a specific federal ban on open carry in post offices, though that is well within Congress's or USPS's power to declare).

Into a Police Station?

Again if it's open carry this is legal, although the station itself may have a policy requiring you to check the weapon.

Into a Concert?

Up to the owner of the venue. Many would require weapons to be checked.

Into a Baseball Game?

See above.

Into a Daycare?

See above. All these are private property.

Into a Court Building?

Like an airport, it's generally forbidden in the "secure" area and generally allowed outside that area.

Into a State or Local Government building?

Like the courthouse.

I thought as much.

No, you wrongly thought that these are all illegal places to carry guns. In the cases of private property, the owners may prohibit carrying, in which case the crime would be trespass.

So WHY IN THE HELL ARE THESE IDIOTS ALLOWED TO OPEN CARRY GUNS TO PRESIDENTIAL EVENTS?

Because that is a Constitutional right and no legislation has attempted to curtail that, although reasonable legislation along these lines could probably be written. But I don't think anyone is of the opinion that a gun law would stop a would-be assassin.

even on public property, then so should these assholes attending Presidential events. There's a damn good reason to hold their firearms in these events.

If their take on the security situation was that people standing around outside did not need to have their openly-carried weapons taken away, I'll trust them on that.

As I've said before, I guarantee you the Secret Service would prefer people carrying guns to carry them openly, rather than concealing them.

a presidential event, the SS may start acting. If a hundred such armed people showed up, it would be hard to know which were there to do harm and which were there just to demonstrate. This looks like where it's going; more and more people with guns at the events. The president of the NRA (LaPierre) said some months ago "whoever has the guns wins". The republican right wing wins that way: they shut down Obama's ability to be among the people.

They are up against a mish-mash of people we call Democrats. And the Democrats have nothing but proposals with regards health care.
The single most unifying issue the Democrats have had for the last 20 years has been universal health care. As yet, I have not seen a proposal which would accomplish that. How can anyone fight when they don't have anything to fight for?

If the president (or anyone) came up with a plan to fight for -- universal health care, public option (hell, it's extended Medicare) -- I'll show up at a rally and thumb my nose at each and every gun they can muster. I don't need to bring my own.

The Democrats have gotten used to the notion that they don't have to have clear, concise policies; hell, they don't see the need for a coherent philosophy. They have pasted together a bunch of interest groups and give them a "pocket full of mumbles, such are promises." The GOP has hard, easily-understood ideologies and platforms. They sell them successfully. And they know how to cow-down the opposition.

Consider this: put 100 people in a room and ask yourself What percentage is necessary to "take over?" Is it 50%? 30%? 25%? or is it the magic number, 20%?

They know how to work with 20%. The Democrats, being well-trained, run for cover.

Nobody is saying it is impossible to make carry at Presidential event illegal.

It just is currently legal.

I don't think any court would find that it is unconstitutional. Even in DC v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd doesn't prohibit banning weapons in "sensitive spaces". However if something isn't legal getting mad at someone for not breaking the law is kinda silly.
Don't like the law? Lobby to change it.

safety zone for POTUS

They were OUTSIDE presidential events, at a safe distance, and probably with at least two Secret Service snipers on them every minute they were there.

If they are attending the event. These people were not attending the event, they were well outside, and outside the secure area.

Had they attempted to enter the secure area, they would have been allowed in without handing said guns over to the SS...

People are making far too large a fuss over this.

No non-leo/security guns in Federal buildings. I believe that includes Post Offices.

I know I've worn a pistol into one before, but this was in a very small town in Mississippi during hunting season and I don't think anybody cared.

will anyway.

:rofl:

they don't understand the little words ...

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=%22sure+as+fuck%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&fp=6393c88910a58a95

Results 1 - 30 of about 43,400 for "sure as fuck".

Results 1 - 30 of about 591 from www.democraticunderground.com for "sure as fuck".

Oops. You seem to have missed a few.

Results 1 - 13 of 13 from www.democraticunderground.com for "sure as fuck" aikoaiko.

Or was that just your dad?

18 USC §930 gives a 'lawful use' exemption for 'federal facilities', but the code for Postal Service regulations, Title 39 CFR §232.1, supercedes it.

The sign on the wall referring to "Lawful carry" doesn't apply to non LEO's.

But no-one has had the money/will power to try running it through the courts yet.

If I ever win the Lotto...

carrying in the post office is legal. The administrative code opens up a large gray area.

It results because there is no law. The natural state is Open Carry, and the Supreme Court of this state affirmed that about 10 years ago when it found ordinances that prohibited open carry unconstitutional. I remember the day the Court handed down its decision I saw some Yahoo with a Super-Blackhawk strapped to his leg walking down the sidewalk in Morgantown. However that was the only one I've seen in town during the decade between then and now.

In this state (WV) open carry is the rule - and you rarely see anyone with a pistol that isn't a police officer but if you do its most frequently during hunting season (we have pistol seasons on some game). Bow hunters frequently carry handguns here too; Bears are the reason and in the center of the state wild boar can also present a danger to hunters.

Interestingly enough, and this is drilled into your when you take the training prior to the issue of a concealed carry permit, if a business has a sign on the door saying no firearms then you must honor it. That always seemed reasonable to me and the few stores that do have that sign are ones I simply do not use - there are plenty offering the same services without the sign.

On Edit: Government buildings and bars are off limits too.

So that we could dispatch a wounded buck.

Sometimes, you just gotta spit your diet coke.


Neanderthals with guns. Well, it wasn't me wot said it.

And they're, er, longing to be homo erectus ...


:rofl:

In Texas, I believe, you can carry concealed in an establishment serving alcohol as long as the establishment grosses 51% on non-alcoholic sales (hence, it is not a tavern). In any case, the establishment's owner can bar guns from his/her place.

It's prohibited under the Code of Federal Regulations for anyone to carry a firearm in a post office, unless that person carries that firearm as part of his official duties (e.g. postal inspectors, law enforcement officers, and the like).

Regarding police stations, it depends on the state. In Washington state, for example, it's illegal to carry a firearm in any place where you could gain access to persons detained for the purposes of the criminal justice system, and that includes police holding cells. Some police stations in WA allow carry up to the front desk, but not beyond; others prohibit carry on the premises entirely.

Depends on the location and the state. If this venue is not on the list of prohibited places for the state, then people can carry up to the security cordon.

(ie, in some states, you can't carry- open or concealed- within X feet for a school. So if the president visited there, there would be one ring around the president enforced by the secret service, then another ring enforced by local police.)

Bank, Concert, Baseball Game, Daycare.... private property depends on what the private property owner wants. They can ban or not ban guns it is their property.

Post Office ... federal law prohibits this
Airport ... depends on the state but in most you can carry in the non-secure section (outside TSA screening)
Police Station ... no problems with this in VA.
Court Building ... actually courthouse is prohibited location but lots of govt buildings are not.
School ... carry is legal just not for students.

So WHY IN THE HELL ARE THESE IDIOTS ALLOWED TO OPEN CARRY GUNS TO PRESIDENTIAL EVENTS?

This thing called laws. In the examples where carry is prohibited the law makes it prohibited. Pass a law saying carrying weapon within 500 ft of a Presidential event is illegal. In that case the Police would enforce the law and people would either not carry or they would be arrested.

Rule of law.... what a funny concept.

Private OR Public.

I love how gun-nuts quote "Rule of Law" when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Here's a good summary of AZ's laws..

http://handgunlaw.us/states/arizona.pdf

It really does vary by state- those of us who do (or plan to) carry learn the different laws in the states we plan to travel through.

Not only can you carry in those locations.... none of them "check a gun"

A bank of concert that prohibits guns doesn't have a gun check. Can you imagine the nightmare that would cause.

No they either prohibit guns = no guns period or they don't prohibit guns.

Lots of banks, schools, restaurants, concerts, ball parks don't prohibit firearms.

None, not a single one "checks guns".

You sir are the one who has "no idea what you are talking about".

My point was that it is permissible for the owner of private property to forbid guns on their property or require them to be checked (many hotels do that).

For one instance, one may O.C. in the New Hampshire State House.

Someone has already linked you to the Arizona laws (where I currently reside) but I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have on the details. In short, you can carry into many/most of the places you listed, unless posted (private property) or security is provided and the area is posted that you must check your weapons (public property).

Please stop the hysteria and read up a bit. Thanks!

If the law allows you to care, why not? I'm not scared by open-carry because criminals and pyschos don't broadcast about the fact they carrying weapons.

You are required to check your guns here. Why not at a Presidential event?

I wish we had a chance to vote for these concealed permit and open carry laws.

...

to "what kind of handgun is that?".

I believe that the Secret Service could make a place officially gun-free if they wanted (issues of national security), but then they would have to set up metal detectors and check people.

And it doesn't matter if it's private or public.

I welcome any documentation on gun checks.

You can carry in a bank, at a police station, into a concert, into a baseball game, into a concert, into a day care, into a court building, and into state or local government buildings. Unless the property owners specifically ban the practice, that is.

In the case of gun-boy, the event was held in a location where open carry was permitted, and he was on property where the owners gave consent for his presence with the firearm.

Federal laws prohibit carrying firearms on federal property because the federal government owns the land and has decided to NOT extend that permission. State laws prohibit carrying within a certain distance of schools because the feds twisted their arms to get that law into effect. In both cases, you're talking about fixed properties with no-carry rules.

When the president ventures beyond federal properties, he is subject to the same laws as anyone else on those properties. If open carry is legal, that means there may be some people with firearms.

The question you SHOULD be asking is this: Why did the Secret Service permit the President to visit a location where the presence of hostile, armed protesters was a real possibility? It's the Secret Services job to keep up on threats to the President and the security of the locations he visits. Why would they permit him to visit an uncontrolled civilian owned property in a state that allows ANYONE to carry a firearm openly, and that hosts a large population of people who are politically hostile to him? Gun-boy was following the law. What's the SS'es excuse for putting Obama in that position?

They should be. And they should be allowed to override local property owners for the sake of National Security since it is a temporary event.

No, they shouldn't be able to override local property owners without court action. That would be an illegal taking, per the Constitution and previous SC rulings. I'm not going to advocate violating the Constitution to protect one government leader, because that's one hell of a slippery slope.

If the SS doesn't want the president around open firearms, they should keep him away from areas where open firearms are permitted. That's the OPPOSITE of what you're proposing.

No Obama in New Hampshire. Ever. If the residents of New Hampshire want the president to visit them, they need to revisit their gun laws.

the security of the president supercedes anything else. that's real, not imagined, and it doesn't matter what laws are in place. and you truly advocate that this country's president only go to states that have no conceal carry permissions? that is whack....

I never really understood that until seeing your erudite post!
:D

"the security of the president supercedes anything else. that's real, not imagined, and it doesn't matter what laws are in place."

Careful, your fascism is showing.

The President is a citizen, subject to the same laws as any other citizen. More importantly, the President is a representative of the government. If you look at the Constitution, it was primarily drafted as a document that would constrain the powers of government. It was designed to stop a President from doing exactly what you're proposing.

The security of the president is important, but it is secondary to the preservation of the rights of American citizens. Free speech zones, no-gun zones (in otherwise legal areas), media blackout zones...these are all ideas that quash the rights of Americans, and they're as illegitimate under a Democratic president as they are under a rethuglican.

The President, being subject to the same laws as we are, has two choices. He may live with those laws willingly, accepting that they may at times introduce a bit of danger to his life, or he may avoid them by limiting his travels to areas that suit his risk tolerances. If he wants to visit areas where carrying guns openly is LEGAL, then he needs to accept the fact that he may be in proximity to some openly carried firearms. If he doesn't want to be around them, he can easily limit his travels to states where those behaviors are prohibited (which is most of the country).

The president doesn't just get to quash laws he doesn't like. Government doesn't just get to deprive us of our rights without a public hearing or trial. Use restrictions cannot be placed on any property, without hearing and compensation. At least, not in the America I grew up in. These are pretty fundamental concepts.

Even when we're talking about the safety of the President.

the security of the president supercedes anything else.

Think about what you just said.

You just said that the security of the president supersedes the US Constitution.

Do you really want to set that precedent? That any president can do anything they want in the name of their own personal security?

They have so far not seen the need to. Why are you second-guessing them?

Do you really think a potential assassin is going to carry his weapon openly?

Open carry or not, if they have armor piercing bullets in side, there's not much they are going to do about it.

So why not eliminate the risk of someone stupid enough to openly carry it?

Repeat after me:

Assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles.

Any bullet can pierce a tactical vest.

:shrug:

I have already lived through the JFK, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy assassinations, and attempts on at least two other presidents (all with guns). I don't want to see it happen yet again. Common sense dictates that one should not carry a gun to any place the president is appearing. People who lack common sense and show up with a gun in the vicinity of a president should expect to be arrested, taken away, and spend at least a week in jail being questioned.

Now. See how easy that was?

then your fears do not trump my Civil Rights.

Sorry 'bout that.

Many of us have lived through the JFK, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy assassinations (and Malcolm X and others as well). We don't want to see it happen yet again.

If you want to make a LAW, propose one. I do not wish to be governed by "common sense" or a regime which arrests, takes me away and throws me into a jail for a week. LAW provides due process. See how easy that IS?

Its not just limited to firearms either. The restriction is temporary, and the scope of what in the past they have considered a threat might surprise you.

Your "assault weapons" are semi-automatic carbines of medium power.

Any deer rifle is armor-piercing (as are some of the more powerful, easily-concealed handguns).

If you want to make a law, then propose it.

Since this is not a high crime area, I would have to disagree with your assertion that you can carry a gun into a courthouse building.

They control the property and can set their own rules. Even in open carry states, plenty of public and private groups ban firearms from their properties. Nothing wrong with that, in my book. Your land, your rules.

Again, though, gun-boy was in a state where open carry was legal, and had specific permission from the landowner to be there. Banning him from doing that would be a totally different issue, since you're instead talking about giving the government to OVERRIDE state laws AND the land owners permission. It's a completely different legal situation than your local county government deciding to ban pocketknives on county property.

with regularity for genealogical purposes. With, I think, 2 or possibly 3 exceptions the metal detector and the guard are just inside the door. You cannot go anywhere within the building unless you walk through the metal detector and the day I forgot that I had a box knife in my purse which at the time I used for opening boxes at work, another guard met me on the second floor and asked me where I wanted to go. IF I had been dumb enough to walk in there with a gun, I would have had to surrender it. No question about it.

Though obviously it's up to the state or county itself to set the rules.

nor in any location that serves alcohol, any school, or any bank.

To get into a court room you are in most cases sent through a metal detector and cannot bring any weapons.

For that matter, if a judge wanted to require you to wear a coat and tie, or a big red fez, that would be within his discretion too.

The courthouses I have been to had the metal detectors immediately at the door. If you wanted to walk around the courthouse lawn, you could but once you open the door you have to walk through the metal detector.

there is no federal law on he issue so it depends on the states laws and local enforcement.
Most people in VA are surprised to know you can carry into a town hall for example.

So state laws can vary wildly it is up to gun owners to know the laws of the state they are carrying in.

The jury notice says on it, "No guns, knives, knitting needles, or other dangerous weapons are allowed in the court building." I've always been impressed that we made the list.

Someone is hoping for an assassination. I couldn't believe it when they said all they did was question and then release (where were their brains?) the guy with the gun and the guy with the tree of liberty sign. Can you imagine them doing that when Bush was in office? I can't. Something is rotten.

We don't have concealed carry and I don't want to see it happen. The lady says he'll get back to me. Good.

are anti gun.

Realizing the obvious, criminals from my state (Florida) may decide that the environment for their enterprises is much more favorable in Illinois. Therefore, they may leave and journey to your state where they can rape, rob and pillage with relative safety.

Hell, I would even be willing for my tax dollars to pay for their move.

(I should point out that Florida has really criminal unfriendly gun laws. We can have loaded firearms in our cars without a license as long as they are securely encased, like in a snap holster. We can have loaded firearms in our homes. We have a strong castle defense or "make my day" law. With a license, citizens of our state or tourists from states that have reciprocity with us can carry concealed.)

If I was a criminal, I would pick states like Illinois to live in based on their rating from the Brady Campaign.

But seriously you guys in Illinois need to work harder. Your state only just makes the top 10 on the Brady Campaign's rating system. Surely you can improve on that!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/scorecard/2008/2008_scorecard_rankings.pdf

And the reply was exactly why I don't support concealed carry........attitudes!
They have no business with a loaded gun.

When thugs invade your home and you are at their mercy, remember this thread. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

...

I'm interested.

I will admit that I'm sarcastic. (Perhaps, I should have included the sarcasm thingy.) Does being sarcastic provide a reason for one to not be allowed to carry concealed?

I could mention that the attitude and the anger of some who oppose firearms here on DU have convinced me that they definitely should not own firearms and most definitely should never consider carrying concealed.

Did I threaten anyone? Was I confrontational or insulting? Was I disrespectful?

I actually congratulated you on the fact that your state was anti-gun. To top that off, I suggested that you work harder to get a higher Brady rating. Surely you agree with that. It's your state. You do whatever the hell you want.

In fact, I would suggest that you post signs at your state borders that say, "Illinois is Proud to Forbid Concealed Carry...You Can Feel Safe in our State." At the Chicago city limits post signs that say, "No Handguns Allowed, Chicago is a Crime Free Zone." (The Brady Campaign posted signs at the Florida Border warning tourists that Floridians were armed. The best thing the Brady Campaign has done in years.)



(You might notice that this prediction didn't come true and I believe the signs have come down.)

Okay, I have an ulterior motive. I seriously believe that that bad guys might leave my state and move to states like yours. If I was a bad guy, I would. Research has shown that criminals fear armed citizens far more than police. Police take time to arrive. Armed citizens can ruin your entire day if you are a bad guy.

Yes, I have a concealed carry license and I carry. The last thing in the world I ever want to do is use my weapon in self defense. I want to live in a peaceful society. I believe firearm ownership and concealed carry make my state safer. You think concealed carry makes your state less safe. That's fine with me. I would never move there, and I'm sure that you would never move to Florida.

I've managed to make it to 63 years old without any serious problems with the law. I had four traffic tickets in my life, my total negative experience with the law. Two for speeding, One for following a cop's instruction when waved through a stop sign at an accident and one for an expired license tag.

I, like most other concealed permit holders, avoid confrontation. I will walk away from a fight, even if it makes me look like a coward. What others think of me is unimportant. Homey don't play Rambo.

Realize this. I have no problem with your opposition to concealed carry in your state. In my opinion it's foolish. But I could be wrong, you might be right. Maybe the real solution to the problems with criminal violence we face in our society to is do away with legal concealed carry and all the requirements for firearm ownership that we see in Illinois. If it works, such laws are far cheaper than hiring police to actually enforce existing laws, the cost of the legal system and the cost of imprisoning criminals. Maybe I'm totally wrong and cheap "feel good" laws actually work.

So far, the idea of allowing licensed citizens to carry concealed has worked out well in Florida. No, it's not the end all solution to our criminal problems. It does, however, protect many people if attacked and in my opinion is a deterrent to criminal attack. Criminals don't attack people who have the ability to resist. When they can't tell who is armed and who is not armed, they often change their modus operandi. They don't pull as many home invasions or street muggings.

Is Florida crime free? Hell no. But If I confront a criminal with the intend to kill or seriously injure me or those in my family on the street or in my home, I would much rather live in Florida than Illinois, especially Chicago.

A spokesman for the Brady Group said the new law may lead to the reckless use of guns on the streets. They are actually handing out fliers that say people face a greater risk of bodily harm in Florida.

Spin says;
(You might notice that this prediction didn't come true.)
&
“So far, the idea of allowing licensed citizens to carry concealed has worked out well in Florida.”

2005 was the year the “make my day law” went into effect in Fl.. Coincidentally,? murder by firearm in Florida went from 2005 (521) to 2008 (780) an increase of almost 50%. Wow 50%! Whoops, that’s only 49.7%, wouldn’t want to exaggerate.

Spin continues; “Is Florida crime free? Hell no. But If I confront a criminal with the intend to kill or seriously injure me or those in my family on the street or in my home, I would much rather live in Florida than Illinois, especially Chicago.”

Comparisons of death by firearm would indicate Floridians, (not you necessarily) clearly are more at risk of dying by firearm, or being a victim of violent crime in Florida than Illinois.

Miami and Orlando each have higher murder rates (the crime most related to firearms deaths) than Chicago.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_08.html (2007 figures)

Illinois is ranked pretty low at 8.1 per 100,000 (2006 data) for deaths by firearms. That’s below the national average(10.3)
2006 Florida deaths by firearm @ 11.5 is over 40% higher than Illinois’ 8.1

Florida’s violent crime rate (although less closely related to firearms than murder) is more than 150% of the national average. (2007)

FYI


Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.

It is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics.

Both;quotes George Bernard Shaw

But Chicago passed a uniform ban without regards "attitude." Am I wrong about this, or does the Chicago government actually do psychological background tests to weed-out this "attitude" you are concerned about? If it were the latter, at least some folks could own firearms because they didn't have that "attitude." But it doesn't appear to be the case.

If people are traveling from Florida to Illinois to commit crimes, there should be evidence for it. Newspaper reports often list the residence of people who have been arrested or convicted. Are a disproportionate number of Floridians committing crimes in Illinois? You'll have to do better than a plausibility argument for this one.

I wasn't suggesting that the criminals would travel all that distance to commit crimes as tourists. If they had changed residence from Florida to Illinois, the newspaper would report them as Illinois residents.

But criminals are not the brightest light bulbs in our society. Moving to another city to pursue your chosen criminal career might piss off the locals.

However, it would be my hope that the bad boys in Florida would consider moving elsewhere.

into DU.

.. and don't participate in your emotional flailing? Sure, I'll jump right in.

Fling some more codswallop, it looks pretty, stuck against the wall like that.

You didn't say people SHOULDN'T be able to carry in the above locations.

You stated as FACT that they CAN'T which is wrong. It depends on state law (no federal law covers all of those locations).
Some states allow some of those location.

You were wrong and didn't know it. Rather than admit you were passing info as fact that you were misinformed you want to attack the NRA.

Sad.

I suggested that it is highly unlikely these people would be likely to continue to carry their guns in these places. I live in an Open Carry state, so I know that common sense prevails here and people aren't totally stupid about gun rights.

I know very well the law. But what people are missing is common sense. It's common sense that the SS can't do a damn thing if a person outside a Presidential event carrying an assualt rifle can't be stopped. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to have these guns in these places when the President is there. Likewise, anyone carrying a gun into a school, a daycare, a government building or a public event is going to be asked to hand over their weapon or leave.

The only sad thing here is you who thinks you know what you are talking about or what my intent is.

Also you said a little more than that.
You can't tell the difference can you? In all of these places you must check your gun Private OR Public.

This is completely false. First of all you can't make a claim on "all places" because carry laws vary by state. You might be able to say you can't carry in all of your listed places in your state but even then I doubt that.

All states allow some private property exception. I am allowed to carry on private property with the permission (either expressed or implied) of the property owner.

However even that misses the question (even though I am interested in the state you live in to lookup actual not gun laws). In this instance the gun laws of AZ would apply.

Best as I can tell the following are prohibited locations:

* Hydroelectric or nuclear power generating stations
* Polling places on election day
* Secured areas of airports
* School grounds. However, this does not apply to:
* Firearms for use on the school grounds in a program approved by the school
* Unloaded firearms carried inside a means of transportation and under the control of an adult, provided that if the adult leaves the means of transportation, it's locked and the firearms are not visible from the outside

* Establishments licensed to serve alcohol for on-premises consumption, except for:
* The licensee of such an establishment or an employee of the licensee acting with the permission of the licensee
* A person who is on the premises for a limited time to seek emergency aid, if such person does not buy, receive, consume, or possess alcohol while there

* Game refuges.

So of your prohibited locations:
banks, concerts, ball parks, day care center - NOT prohibited locations of course the property owner has the right to prohibt firearms on any personal property.
Police Stations - not prohibited
Post Office - prohibited by federal law
Airports - only the secure area (past TSA) is prohibited
Schools - not prohibited in a car (but open carry would be prohibited).

President of the U.S. is attending. You have your precious gun rights. You won't lose the darling little fuckers just because we are concerned about keeping the president safe.

That's why they are there toting guns. They want you to start up a new gun-control debate (always a sure-winner), cause a ruckus, and bring more attention to the disruptions, bring more people in, etc. Perfect (for them) frame of what the debate is about: GOP traditional values - vs - liberal gun-grabbers -- at a health-care debate!

The GOP is working this like a champ. The question is what Democrats will do. You should be asking yourself this: what am I fighting for? Can I get together a big group of people to challenge the far-right? How? Where? What for? Don't get suckered in -- it's part of their plan.

I'm all for keeping this president safe and sound. And if the Secret Service or the President himself says these people are dangerous then I will defer to them. But until then, let law abiding folks be law abiding folks.

I'll stand with the LEO and SS on what is legal, dangerous and permissible and not the with fear mongers who rant and rave.

For the record, I and most people defending the RKBA also want to the President to unharmed and unthreatened. But I'll leave those assessments to those on the ground who are charged with his protection. And if they say these guys are lawful and do not pose enough of a threat to be banned or detained, then I won't presume to know better. You, maybe you think you know better than the SS.

Stroke that reality check.

Do you? There's a lot more at play here, than the president's safety or your precious gun rights.

Smoke on that awhile and see what you come up with.

you're post to mine said that you were "concerned about keeping the president safe." And now there is some larger issue.

So let's hear it.

Have you had enough time to think something up?

if I can turn your light on.

Tell you what, though: I'll throw you a bone. Why do you think that the White House has been walking on eggshells with this issue? Think about that for awhile.

If you mean people carrying guns while protesting outside town hall meetings, I didn't realize they were walking on eggshells. I haven't heard the White House say anything about the issue.


If you mean reducing the effective right to keep and bear arms by increasing gun control, then yes I do know why they have backed off. They are afraid of losing the seats in the house (possibly even another Repub taken over a la 1994) and losing the White House.

After all, we must protect the President from people who don't agree with him 100% of the time! Common sense my ass. You and your ilk are equally as ignorant as the damned freepers we had to deal with for 8 years.

:toast:

to be vigilant to attempts to infringe on civil rights to "make us safer.". The fact that your grasp of the actual facts is lacking didn't help either - an emotional appeal to security sounds too much like the "terra terra terra" nonsense we had to live with post-911.

They tend to stand back from the real gun militant thuggery.

You have to go looking for things like "Ohio Open Carry" and "Georgia Open Carry" and the like, to see the trend. Oh, and the guns-on-campus crowds. The Republican Party openly organizes those ones.

One restaurant at a time, one municipal bike trail at a time, one kid's soccer field at a time, one university at a time ... one presidential appearance at a time ... and eventually, there they are, squatting like, well, trolls on all the public spaces of your society. Your public spaces belong to them - the racist, misogynist, right-wing thugs - and not to you.

And so it goes at DU. At least here at DU most of them tend to be shortlived. A few go missing every month, replaced by others (?), of course. As long as ya say you once considered voting for the Democratic Party, or, like, are pro-choice, yer in like Flynn!

The driving force behind the campus-carry movement is the organization called "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus."
SCCC is not connected with the Republican party. Some college republican organizations have asked to include SCCC presentations within their meetings, but the organizations have no official connection.

Are there racist, mysogynist, right-wing thugs? Of course. Are there racist, mysogynist, right-wing thugs who support the carry movements and oppose gun-control? Yes. Are those who support the carry movements and/or oppose gun control racists, mysogynists, or right-wing thugs? Not neccessarily. The two groups are neither unified nor mutually exclusive. For example, I support the carry movements and oppose gun-control, but I deeply dislike racists, mysogynists, and right-wing thugs.

Please don't tie groups together simply because a few members are part of both groups. If you do, you might suddenly discover the ACLU and NRA are "the same!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x151185

http://www.gunowners.org/a062006.htm

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Do you know someone who is pro-gun, who likes working with college age kids, and who is in need of a full-time job in the fall?

Well if so, former Rep. Steve Stockman (R) has a deal for him.

Stockman is the Director of the Campus Leadership Program (CLP) in northern Virginia. The CLP is a project of the Leadership Institute, which trains conservative activists and places them in key level positions around the country -- both in government and the media.

The CLP project focuses specifically on college campuses, helping conservative students start independent groups that are fighting to reclaim the campus from decades of leftist abuses. The CLP has started 722 conservative clubs in schools in all 50 states.

But they have very few gun clubs, which is something they would like to change.

That's why this is a unique opportunity for someone who likes working with college-aged kids. They can help the pro-gun cause in the fall by starting a GOA gun club on campus or by working as a field representative. Every field rep who starts a gun group will be paid between $400-500. Kids can make as much as $1,000 a week.

But realize, it's not just about the money. It's about preserving our Second Amendment rights. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Poulos

Poulos serves as a national media liaison for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and is working with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) to overturn TCC's ruling.

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Brett_Poulos_(deleted_25_May_2008_at_10:14)

Brett Michael Poulos (born 1987) is an Ultraconservative Republican with an array of Political Knowledge. Poulos has had his Civil Liberties violated by a Public College in the State of Texas. ... He served on Presidential Candidate, Mike Huckabee's College Campain Team.

Got any more campfire stories?



And:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173197&mesg_id=173631

Damn, it's lucky nobody can read stuff that's been posted at DU over and over, eh?

Ad I said there:

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

"One restaurant at a time, one municipal bike trail at a time, one kid's soccer field at a time, one university at a time ... one presidential appearance at a time ... and eventually, there they are, squatting like, well, trolls on all the public spaces of your society. Your public spaces belong to them - the racist, misogynist, right-wing thugs - and not to you."


Yet oddly, crime rates overall continue a gradual DOWNWARD trend, while coincidently or causationaly, more and more people are able to and chose to carry firearms for self-defense.

If the crime stats take a turn upwards in a manner that can't be linked to the economy, I'll reconsider my options.

Bloody one-trick ponies.

My post said not word one about "crime rates".

My post was about right-wing thugs and their occupation of the public spaces of the United States.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Jeeezus.

how to answer your question. None of us ever know what you're talking about.

I thought not

outside the range of an assault weapons kill radius.

It's not just the range, but the fact that it distracts law enforcement from a potential real threat. Why is this so hard for gun-nuts to understand? They can't protect the President if idiots start showing up with guns.

Guarantee.

And a gun enthusiast. But I believe in common sense.

:eyes:

How's he doing?


Veni, vidi, vici.

:rofl:

That's just an iconic Canadian movie about disaffected youth ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobody_Waved_Good-bye

What branch of the military did you serve in? What did you shoot? You posts seem to suggest you are a wannabe that thinks they have the right to dictate to everyone else how they should live their life.

n/t

They are real hard asses about the safety of those they protect. In other threads, myself and others who have had direct personal experience have pointed that out. If they err, they err on the side of protecting POTUS, not the feelings of some goober with a gun. Its purportedly a multizone approach. What is allowed in an outer zone may not be allowed in a nearer one. Not just weapons, but cars, unscreened backpacks, and other things.

Since there are very very few assault weapons in this country, your question is as specious as the definition that some use, vice the correct technical definition for an assault rifle (medium caliber, selective fire). However, the max effective range for pistols is about 50 meters, with a max of about 1000m. Rifles depending on caliber etc can go a whole lot farther, regardless of method of operation (break open, bolt, lever, semi-auto, auto). I regularly shoot targets at 600m with what is considered a hunting rifle by most.

Go for it. I'm sure they want to hear your thoughts on the matter.

In the meantime, I do not have a civic or moral or legal duty to make their job "easier" by giving up my Civil Rights. If they need me to do certain things within their declared security zone, I'll be more than happy to oblige. Outside that, I am a free citizen and as long as I do not direct threats towards the President, I will go about my business.

I'm sorry you do not understand the issues here.

To determine what an appropriate secure zone is and to enforce it..

The obviously didn't see him as much of a threat so I assume he probably wasn't.

I'll take their assessment over your uninformed one all day long..

Well, if they are a male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, are part of the National Guard, Naval militia, they are part of the militia, according to federal law. (Personally, I think it is a bit out of date, as it does not give women equal status.)

Actually, it's any citizen--male or female--who's in the National Guard or naval militia.

All male citizens, or persons legally resident in the U.S. who have expressed intent to become citizens, aged 17-45 are automatically considered to be in the "unorganized militia." The militia consists of both the organized and the unorganized components. It's not exactly clear to me what an "unorganized militia" is supposed to do, but I think it's essentially meant to be a manpower pool for the organized militia in times of emergency, e.g. an invasion by the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

Is across the street from the building where the President will be considered being at a "Presidential Event?"

What about two blocks away?

Three?

Law enforcement excepted that is.

That Harvard professor might take issue with your love of cops.

within its effective range is going to be quickly stopped.

Consider the following scenario:
- POTUS is in the city and Susan is going to leave on a hunting trip...

If Susan lives outside of the any of the security zones, she will take her unloaded and secured weapons to car with the rest of her gear and drive away. HIgh power rifle and handgun, no risk to POTUS, no once cares.

If Susan lives in a high rise overlooking where POTUS is speaking, she may have been asked to leave her apartment and may not be allowed to driver her car in the area until the event is over. She probably left earlier or the day before with her high power rifle and handgun. If she tried to do it while POTUS is speaking, she would stopped and detained until the need for protection had passed.

Secret Service has a lot of discretion when it comes to protecting people and is not afraid to use it.

...just because of his choice of career?

A cop is no different than anybody else. In fact, they are actually less law abiding than your typical CCW holder. What possible mentality assigns them special privileges to do something that you would consider illegal if anyone else does it?

Cops, like politicians, are public servants. The idea that they somehow are elevated to special status is revolting to me. If I am prohibited from doing something, short of the powers granted specifically to government, then a government agent should be prohibited as well.

Merely carrying a gun is NOT a threat. That you're afraid of them is YOUR problem. I would also suggest you learn to accept and deal with that, because the anti-gun side is losing badly.

Won't anybody admire his wit?

:rofl:

They cried that no one should be allowed to carry a "Hidden and loaded gun" (their words) in public. Stop being a coward and wear it in the open, they screamed. So now that's what they're doing.

Shouldn't have any complaints.

You shall reap what you sow.

Unintended Consequences indeed...:evilgrin:

You can carry OUTSIDE the secure area, *near* a Presidential event but far enough away not to be a threat.

Just like you can carry *near* an airport.

*Near* a school.

*Near* a bank.

*Near* a post office.

*Near* a police station.

*Near* a concert.

*Near* a baseball game.

*Near* a daycare.

*Near* a court building.

*Near* a state or local government building.

The laws are the same.

So WHY IN THE HELL ARE THESE IDIOTS ALLOWED TO OPEN CARRY GUNS TO PRESIDENTIAL EVENTS?

Because open carry of weapons is legal, except where it is prohibited.

And in several of them, bringing a concealed pistol with you would not be illegal.


Presidental events happen anywhere. Often in public places, like parks and such.


Regardless, the Secret Service sets up a security perimeter around the President. The gun-carrying protesters are outside of this perimeter, as are any guns kept locked in a car trunk or in a closet in somebody's house.

In most open carry states, courts have ruled that openly carrying a handgun in a holster (specifically, one that covers the trigger guard) is not a violation of whatever laws concerning "brandishing," "dangerous exhibitions," etc. may be in force in that state. With long guns, the specific parameters have not been entirely set in many jurisdictions. For example, in Washington state the current case law is that carrying a long gun may count as a "dangerous exhibition" if it's carried unslung, or slung in a manner in which the bearer can keep his firing hand on the grip and bring the muzzle to bear rapidly, and if it's a firearm that accepts a detachable magazine, has the magazine locked in place. So if you're carrying a rifle with the magazine out, a chamber flag showing the chamber's clear, slung over your shoulder muzzle upwards, you might be okay, but since the case law is not entirely decided, "being okay" might entail being acquitted after standing trial.

What would happen if you walked into an Airport with a Gun strapped to your leg or carrying an assault rifle?

As long as you are not in a secure area of the airport, that is, past security, you can carry a firearm per the local laws and regulations.

What would happen if you walked into a school?

You can carry firearms onto some school campuses, subject to local laws and regulations.

Into a Bank?

There are no laws concerning carrying firearms in banks. Banks, being private property, may set rules concerning firearms on their premises.

Into a Post Office?

I'm not familiar with the laws for post offices.

Into a Police Station?

Nor police stations.

]Into a Concert?

No problem, unless the venue prohibits them.

Into a Baseball Game?

No problem, unless the venue prohibits them.

Into a Daycare?

No problem, unless the venue prohibits them.

Into a Court Building?

Into a State or Local Government building?

This is typically not allowed, as local government officials are too inviting a target, and preside over too controversial of issues for this to be allowed.

So WHY IN THE HELL ARE THESE IDIOTS ALLOWED TO OPEN CARRY GUNS TO PRESIDENTIAL EVENTS?

We don't. We do, however, allow people to carry them outside of such events, which is all that has happened.

as even in open carry states, there are prohibitions which vary from state to state.

In most states carrying into non-secured areas of the airport is perfectly legal. Same holds true for banks, and day cares. Depends upon state laws with regards to schools, concerts, police stations, state or government buildings. Most states prohibit firearms from buildings which house courts, at sporting events (unless one is competing in a shooting competition at said event.)

Into a Post Office? That's a big federal no-no unless one is an FFL and is shipping the firearm to a mfg or another FFL.

is that there is a group of activists who are relatively new to politics showing up at some of these events. They don't understand how to stay on message, choose inappropriate and counter-productive means of getting media attention, and really just want to shut down the dialogue completely. It's basically the anti-abortion crowd turned loose on the rest of society.

Some of them are embracing a revolutionary zeal, somehow thinking that they need to save the nation from itself and a President who isn't really legally allowed to hold office for a variety of reasons. Read the "Turner Diaries" some time if you want to see what these guys are into. Until one of them turns violent, they are just engaging in a kind of whacky political speech that makes no sense to most folks. These guys are staying just inside the limits of the law and they know it. It is inevitable that one of them will step over the line.

What do you think would have happened to a protester sporting an AR15 at a Bush/Cheney event? Since the Obama Administration isn't taking the bait, they'll have to up the ante before too long.