• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How's this for an idea

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:
So if he donned the mask... 2-5 years. No CC Permit... <1 year. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony... Priceless!:lol:

I love it... Good job.

Why didn't I think of that!

I know a LEO that did lock up a guy for wearing a mask while entering a 7-11. Had it on outside... walked in... Removed it.

Keeping in mind it was cold as blazes that day..... A clerk call 911...

Guy could not bond out and was in jail several days before going to court. Feltbad for him since the officer did exercise any discretion.
 

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
savery wrote:
Nobody has been able to answer this with a concise answer.

What good does it serve to issue permits? Where is the wrong in letting someone that can otherwise buy/own/oc a gun carry it without having to go through permit BS?

Concise answers only, please

Since the dead horse has arrived I just can't help beating on it. You do NOT NEED A PERMIT TO CARRY A GUN IN VIRGINIA. You only need a permit to CONCEAL the weapon from COMMON OBSERVATION.

That said, the actual answer to your question would be that there is a presumption, that if you want to conceal the fact that you are armed, you MUST have some evil purpose. The Permit allows the authorities to check your background, to be certain that you do not have a criminal background, AND it generates revenue.

But in truth, the only practical purpose it serves to show anti-rights people that the legislature is doing all it can to harass people who want to carry a gun.

Regards

Why even allow people to hide it at all? Open carry is permitted and everyone can know your armed.

Either we are equal or we are not. Why should some people hide the fact that they are armed. This serves absolutely no justifiable purpose.

I say do away with CC permits and require all states to allow OC.

Anyone caught hiding a gun must be up to something evil in my opinion.

We all know that criminals do not OC. So someone needing to hide a gun must want to sneak up on his victim.
OC in all states would be great, until it gets cold out. Then it becomes almost as inconvenient as CC in hot weather. When the weather gets truly bitter, and my outer wear gets buttoned or zipped, my BUG (currently an Airweight Centennial) goes into my coat pocket. I guess I could walk around wearing a thigh rig, but I would feel pretty stupid.
 

roscoe13

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,134
Location
Catlett, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Why even allow people to hide it at all? Open carry is permitted and everyone can know your armed.

Because telling someone HOW they can exercise a right is BY DEFINITION an infringement of that right.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

glocknroll wrote:
OC in all states would be great, until it gets cold out. Then it becomes almost as inconvenient as CC in hot weather. When the weather gets truly bitter, and my outer wear gets buttoned or zipped, my BUG (currently an Airweight Centennial) goes into my coat pocket. I guess I could walk around wearing a thigh rig, but I would feel pretty stupid.
Not if everyone was weaing the same. ;)
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

glocknroll wrote:
...SNIP
OC in all states would be great, until it gets cold out. Then it becomes almost as inconvenient as CC in hot weather. When the weather gets truly bitter, and my outer wear gets buttoned or zipped,  my BUG (currently an Airweight Centennial) goes into my coat pocket. I guess I could walk around wearing a thigh rig, but I would feel pretty stupid.

Well this guy figured it out...

BillHickok1867-500.jpg
 

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:
glocknroll wrote:
...SNIP
OC in all states would be great, until it gets cold out. Then it becomes almost as inconvenient as CC in hot weather. When the weather gets truly bitter, and my outer wear gets buttoned or zipped, my BUG (currently an Airweight Centennial) goes into my coat pocket. I guess I could walk around wearing a thigh rig, but I would feel pretty stupid.

Well this guy figured it out...

BillHickok1867-500.jpg
I guess I could change my name to Hickock....
 

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
imported post

Many here lack the understanding that some people are just not innocent. A LEO works off experience and training to identify possible criminals. You may not like it.... but LEOs often times stop people that fit the criteria. It gets the job done and protects the public.
Many here probably lack the understanding that we do the very same thingand think that LEOs are PROFILING when in fact they're simply assembling a known set of criteria that statistically are associated with certain criminal acts.

If you see several light to medium complected persons toting machetes walkingyour way on the sidewalk, are you going to deliberately try to stroll right down the middle of them (by yourself)? Please don't answer that (in a public forum), it's a rhetorical question.

I do the same thing TO LEOs. For example, moto officers absolutelyHATE folks on sport bikes. For a long time, I thought it was a black thing, since I ride a black bike :Dbut I came to find out that it was the type of bike. They also tend to hate cruiser riders, but hate them less. It's more a "level of disdain" than outright hatred. Because of this, and my parental input, I make it my mission to drive those guys nuts with kindness and courtesy. They get all red faced with veins popping, but I take that as an indication that it's working.

Ya know what else they don't like,

"Hey, can you ride awheelie on a bike that heavy?"
"Can it break the speed limit...In first gear?"
"You'll have to speak up, I can't hear you over the no baffle mufflers you have"

Seriously though, LEO229 is right on about picking up on potential problems.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

roscoe13 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Why even allow people to hide it at all? Open carry is permitted and everyone can know your armed.

Because telling someone HOW they can exercise a right is BY DEFINITION an infringement of that right.

Red Alert!!! You not getting it are you??

Why is it so many people miss the point and jump right to "right to carry" or some other "God given right" and even more... "it's in the constitution"....? Is it because they have not other valid comment they can possibly make?

This is a discussion forum... Not much discussion can really happen if you keep falling back on the constitution.

So stop using it as your crutch and "DISCUSS"! :banghead:
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
This is a discussion forum... Not much discussion can really happen if you keep falling back on the constitution.

Sorry to disappoint by referring to that silly old document, but the right to bear arms is what it is, and you're on a forum created to support it.

There is no law against concealing without a permit in Vermont or Alaska, why should there be one anywhere else? How much non-crime does there need to be in those states before the rest of us follow their example? Are Vermonters magical beings who live more peacefully than humans or something?
 

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
imported post

Think of it this way - there has to be some regulation of the right to speak freely, if you doubt that, I'd like to invite you to sit next to my "so called"administrative assistant. I'm here to tell you that the use of the word 'assistant' in her job title is play fast and loose with the King's English. This woman is the poster childfor regulatingthe spoken, written and uttered word.

No right is without limit, it'snot possible in a free society because if you were to accept that everyone's rights were without limit then murderers would be within their rightsto kill us...
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
This is a discussion forum... Not much discussion can really happen if you keep falling back on the constitution.

Sorry to disappoint by referring to that silly old document, but the right to bear arms is what it is, and you're on a forum created to support it.

There is no law against concealing without a permit in Vermont or Alaska, why should there be one anywhere else? How much non-crime does there need to be in those states before the rest of us follow their example? Are Vermonters magical beings who live more peacefully than humans or something?


I am saying that you cannot discuss any ideas if all you can do is fall back on it over and over again. Nobody is talking about discarding it either.

We all know it exists... we know about the "right to keep and bear arms".... I am pointing out that so many people here have no valid arguments so they simply fall back on it time and time again.


BTW: The 2nd amendment does not say anything about concealed carry. Just the rightto keep and bear them.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about the year 1330.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

IMO..... There is no explicit right to carry concealed and this can be controlled by the state.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
This is a discussion forum... Not much discussion can really happen if you keep falling back on the constitution.

Sorry to disappoint by referring to that silly old document, but the right to bear arms is what it is, and you're on a forum created to support it.

There is no law against concealing without a permit in Vermont or Alaska, why should there be one anywhere else? How much non-crime does there need to be in those states before the rest of us follow their example? Are Vermonters magical beings who live more peacefully than humans or something?
I am saying that you cannot discuss any ideas if all you can do is fall back on it over and over again. Nobody is talking about discarding it either.

We all know it exists... we know about the "right to keep and bear arms".... I am pointing out that so many people here have no valid arguments so they simply fall back on it time and time again.
So answer my question: Are Vermonters magical beings who live more peacefully than the rest of us, or can we do away with permits?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
So answer my question: Are Vermonters magical beings who live more peacefully than the rest of us, or can we do away with permits?
Different states have different problems. I have no actual data to know if what your telling me is even fact.

I can say with certainty that taking guns away absolutely leads to chaos and the criminals having the upper hand.

But my point was.... why should people be allowed to carry concealed.

Keeping in mind that I am not against it. Just raising a question.

So... What is the need for any citizen to CC???

The Constitution says you cankeep and bear them... nothing about concealing them.

IMO ... The constitution looks more like it is so that the people can form as one to fight an enemy and protect the state. Each person owning and packing a guntodayis only doing it to protect themselves fromcriminals who are notenemies of the state.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Mr. Y wrote:
I do the same thing TO LEOs. For example, moto officers absolutelyHATE folks on sport bikes. For a long time, I thought it was a black thing, since I ride a black bike :Dbut I came to find out that it was the type of bike. They also tend to hate cruiser riders, but hate them less. It's more a "level of disdain" than outright hatred. Because of this, and my parental input, I make it my mission to drive those guys nuts with kindness and courtesy. They get all red faced with veins popping, but I take that as an indication that it's working.

Ya know what else they don't like,

"Hey, can you ride awheelie on a bike that heavy?"
"Can it break the speed limit...In first gear?"
"You'll have to speak up, I can't hear you over the no baffle mufflers you have"

Seriously though, LEO229 is right on about picking up on potential problems.

Your right..... about everything... Furthermore.. They hate other non motor cops. No joke! They have no sense of humor either!

Motormen think they are Gods.... and that their poopdoesn't stink.
 

TEX1N

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Northern VA, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
This is a discussion forum... Not much discussion can really happen if you keep falling back on the constitution.

Well...then, maybe no discussion is needed! ;)


Also, this is a discussion forum for open carry...not the right to carry in general. I would imagine that "Because the 2nd Amendment says so," is a good enough reason for most people concerning general "right to bear questions." I know it is for me.

I spent four years "Supporting and defending the Constitution." I have studied and understand the price that was paid for the for the aforementioned piece of legislation to become law. I know people who have had their lives changed forever because of the cost that comes with protecting and preserving the freedoms recognized within the Constitution. And I understand the high regard the Courts have for the rights protected within the Constitution.

Therefore, "Because the Constitution says so," is good enough for me!
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

TEX1N wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
This is a discussion forum... Not much discussion can really happen if you keep falling back on the constitution.

Well...then, maybe no discussion is needed! ;)


Also, this is a discussion forum for open carry...not the right to carry in general. I would imagine that "Because the 2nd Amendment says so," is a good enough reason for most people concerning general "right to bear questions." I know it is for me.

I spent four years "Supporting and defending the Constitution." I have studied and understand the price that was paid for the for the aforementioned piece of legislation to become law. I know people who have had their lives changed forever because of the cost that comes with protecting and preserving the freedoms recognized within the Constitution. And I understand the high regard the Courts have for the rights protected within the Constitution.

Therefore, "Because the Constitution says so," is good enough for me!
When you openly carry.... are you protecting the state? And who is the enemy? :p
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

We are a nation of laws. Criminals are an affront to those laws, and undermine our way of life. They ARE enemies of the state. In fact in a lot of cases the state is the named victim in a court of law.

Regards
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
So answer my question: Are Vermonters magical beings who live more peacefully than the rest of us, or can we do away with permits?
Different states have different problems. I have no actual data to know if what your telling me is even fact.

I can say with certainty that taking guns away absolutely leads to chaos and the criminals having the upper hand.

But my point was.... why should people be allowed to carry concealed.

Keeping in mind that I am not against it. Just raising a question.

So... What is the need for any citizen to CC???

The Constitution says you cankeep and bear them... nothing about concealing them.

IMO ... The constitution looks more like it is so that the people can form as one to fight an enemy and protect the state. Each person owning and packing a guntodayis only doing it to protect themselves fromcriminals who are notenemies of the state.

So you can't or won't give me a straight answer. That's okay. I'm gettin' used to that.

Now for your question: "What is the need for any citizen to CC?"

My answer is: In a nation founded on liberty and presumption of innocence, it is for the state to explain to the people why CC should be restricted or prohibited.

The people do not have to come up with reasons why we need anything. We had the freedom to CC before the government existed, so the government must explain why it needs to suppress that freedom.

There. I answered your question without mentioning the constitution.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
So you can't or won't give me a straight answer. That's okay. I'm gettin' used to that.

Now for your question: "What is the need for any citizen to CC?"

My answer is: In a nation founded on liberty and presumption of innocence, it is for the state to explain to the people why CC should be restricted or prohibited.

The people do not have to come up with reasons why we need anything. We had the freedom to CC before the government existed, so the government must explain why it needs to suppress that freedom.

There. I answered your question without mentioning the constitution.
I have logically explained to you that you have presented something that is not beenproved as fact. How am I expected to explain what may very well be your opinion. Furthermore... I do not live in Vermont and have no knowledge of the state. This is like asking me to explain the cosmos to you.

Concealed carry is a "want" and not a "need." The people do not NEED to carry a weapon hidden from view.Your now passing along the question to be answered by the state. You have no way to explain why and have deflected the question. Yourplaying dodge ball. :p

This is similar to a parent telling their kid "Because I said so!" Sure... The power of the parent (or state) may come into play at times but the question is WHY?!

The state has given you the ability to OC. They reserve CC for those the state knows they can trust. This trust is done with background checks. So you can actually CC if you can be trusted.

Just like many other laws on the books... they were created because of some jackass did not go along with the program. I can only imagine the CC law is because criminals were going out armed and committing their crimes. The state did what they could to curb this type of activity.

Example...Stop signs. Most people come to a stop. There are a few that will roll past thus breaking the law. No law will gain 100% compliance. Same goes for CC.

Once again... I want to point out I like CC for the people... those who can be trusted. So don't get me wrong. This is just a discussion. :)
 

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
imported post

The bill of rights was not penned out of the citizens individual needs, it was penned as a restriction upon the federal gov't as the supreme law of the land. I need to breath in order to survive, but have no specifically enumerated right to do so is the USC. You would do well to note the various wordings of the state constitutions concerning the RKBA. Many contain additional qualifiers, such as "for defense of self and state" or 'subject to the police power' etc. These are inclusions that amount to a statutory restriction upon the right. When the right is penned as silent to the qualifiers, it is to be interpreted broadly. Thus, the previous poster who indicated that the 'regulation of the manner of exercise' *IS* an infringement is correct. IMO, once the courts started down the path of an "acceptable interpretation to reach the desired outcome" it was the start of the slippery slope toward the monolithic .gov we are saddled with today.

stop signs are a want, not a need. We could do just as well with roundabouts.

You ask if in the act of open carrying I am defending the state. As a matter of fact I am and I accept your thanks for doing my part to keep the streets safe.
 
Top