Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Question about what it was like before constitutional carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Question about what it was like before constitutional carry

    I am being told that if a state were to pass constitutional carry (cc) then that state will see a boat load of pistol free zones (pfz) added to the listed of places where people can't carry. So I figured I'd go right to the sources. Is this true for your state? And not only the PFZ but did you see stricter carry laws come along with the adoption of cc?
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,615
    I am NOT from Wyoming, but can Tell You, that..., NO it did NOT happen!

    No other Major Legislative Bill concerning such Subject Matter was taken up by The Wyoming Legislature over This Matter.

    Casper, Wyoming, on The Other Hand, is another Story, but They MUST Follow Wyoming Law 6-8-401(c).

    aadvark

  3. #3
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    760
    Nothing changed except that those Wyoming residents who wish to carry concealed no longer are required to have a "permit." The CC rules, including prohibitions against CC in certain places, remains the same. Anyone can obtain a CC "permit" if they wish under the same rules as before. Open carry was not affected in any way.
    But, in the end, I live and therefore I am. I donít need any other personís permission to live or defend myself. I donít need anyoneís vetting of my intentions or sanity, nor approval for the self defense tool I choose or how I carry it.

    I donít NEED to explain myself. I donít NEED any reasons at all.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    401
    Other than some people not understanding what the bill does; thanks in great part to the media. I have noticed no change.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64
    Why was unlicensed cc limited to only those who are state residents?

  6. #6
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by northstar65 View Post
    Why was unlicensed cc limited to only those who are state residents?
    Because someone "compromised". Myself and others that I know fought against this bill, as we wanted total true constitutional carry.
    Last edited by MatieA; 03-08-2012 at 10:43 PM.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  7. #7
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,472
    Quote Originally Posted by northstar65 View Post
    Why was unlicensed cc limited to only those who are state residents?
    Because you must meet all the qualifications to get a cc permit to be able to carry concealed without one. One of the requirements is to be a resident in the state for at least 6 months.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  8. #8
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Sad!

    Quote Originally Posted by MatieA View Post
    Because someone "compromised". Myself and others that I know fought against this bill, as we wanted total true constitutional carry.
    @MatieA- WOW! There must be some bad stuff in the water where you live...

    Others like "xmanhockey7" (from Michigan) get it -- it had to do with the "section" of law we were changing and "removing only the permit requirement".

    No compromise from the group (WyGO) that was pushing, just pure shove-back at the establishment. In the future you should get the facts straight.


    Regards,


    Anthony Bouchard
    Executive Director
    Wyoming Gun Owners

  9. #9
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by AB View Post
    @MatieA- WOW! There must be some bad stuff in the water where you live...

    Others like "xmanhockey7" (from Michigan) get it -- it had to do with the "section" of law we were changing and "removing only the permit requirement".

    No compromise from the group (WyGO) that was pushing, just pure shove-back at the establishment. In the future you should get the facts straight.


    Regards,


    Anthony Bouchard
    Executive Director
    Wyoming Gun Owners
    We saw pushing all right, but instead of getting constitutional carry passed like WYGO was promising; all that got passed was a "no permit required for RESIDENTS". And then along with a bunch of misinformation passed along by law-enforcement, gun-right groups, and the media, not too many people actually knew what was passed. I do have the facts; I enjoy not needing a permit to carry; BUT it should have been for everyone, not just residents who can already get a permit. You claim that the need for a permit changed; True, but the requirements to carry concealed without one stayed the same; all you are saving is some time and the $83 permit fee. So many people could get in trouble because of this bill, just because there may be something in their background that would stop them from getting a permit that they don't know about, meaning that they cannot carry concealed even with the new bill. This law is junk, pure and simple. WYGO is so interested in fighting the establishment, they missed the point.
    By the way, I love seeing my quotes up on WYGO's page; a constant reminder that people itching for a fight are not the ones you want to take to a fight.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  10. #10
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by MatieA View Post
    We saw pushing all right, but instead of getting constitutional carry passed like WYGO was promising; all that got passed was a "no permit required for RESIDENTS". And then along with a bunch of misinformation passed along by law-enforcement, gun-right groups, and the media, not too many people actually knew what was passed. I do have the facts; I enjoy not needing a permit to carry; BUT it should have been for everyone, not just residents who can already get a permit. You claim that the need for a permit changed; True, but the requirements to carry concealed without one stayed the same; all you are saving is some time and the $83 permit fee. So many people could get in trouble because of this bill, just because there may be something in their background that would stop them from getting a permit that they don't know about, meaning that they cannot carry concealed even with the new bill. This law is junk, pure and simple. WYGO is so interested in fighting the establishment, they missed the point.
    By the way, I love seeing my quotes up on WYGO's page; a constant reminder that people itching for a fight are not the ones you want to take to a fight.
    More foolish comments...

  11. #11
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by AB View Post
    More foolish comments...
    Well, so what part was untrue. What changed? Can anyone other than a Wyoming resident who can already get a permit carry concealed without said permit? All that was removed from the law/ordinance was a requirement for Wyoming residents who qualify for a permit to carry concealed without the permit.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  12. #12
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by MatieA View Post
    Well, so what part was untrue. What changed? Can anyone other than a Wyoming resident who can already get a permit carry concealed without said permit? All that was removed from the law/ordinance was a requirement for Wyoming residents who qualify for a permit to carry concealed without the permit.
    I have already explained about the residency section...The rest of your BS shows your ignorance. Alaska, Arizona and Vermont ALL have Title 18 922(g) restrictions -- if you cannot legally posses, then you cannot conceal carry in those states either.

    Looks more like you have an axe to grind than an interest in telling the truth...

    AB

    P.S. - Alaska and Arizona have this in their "law". 4th and 5th amendments gone - http://youtu.be/swV_eOrAp9Y
    Last edited by AB; 03-26-2012 at 12:35 PM. Reason: Title 18 922(g) changed the 8 to s 9

  13. #13
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by AB View Post
    I have already explained about the residency section...The rest of your BS shows your ignorance. Alaska, Arizona and Vermont ALL have Title 18 822(g) restrictions -- if you cannot legally posses, then you cannot conceal carry in those states either.

    Looks more like you have an axe to grind than an interest in telling the truth...

    AB

    P.S. - Alaska and Arizona have this in their "law". 4th and 5th amendments gone - http://youtu.be/swV_eOrAp9Y
    Umm, I don't believe I said anything about any residency requirement. What I want to know is why a "no compromise" Gun rights group went for a bill that grants permit-less carry while still requiring a person to meet the same requirements as a permit. And as for your last statement - Duh!! If you can't legally posses than you can't carry, open or concealed.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/im...cons/icon6.png
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by MatieA View Post
    Umm, I don't believe I said anything about any residency requirement. What I want to know is why a "no compromise" Gun rights group went for a bill that grants permit-less carry while still requiring a person to meet the same requirements as a permit. And as for your last statement - Duh!! If you can't legally posses than you can't carry, open or concealed.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/im...cons/icon6.png
    So I visit the Wyoming forums again and see Matie up to his old tricks - complaining about WyGO! While I, as a non-resident, would have preferred that Wyoming have "true" constitutional carry (which exists nowhere btw) for all, I trust that WyGO got all it could.

    Just what did you get in Pine Bluffs from your lying police chief/politicians before WyGO showed up? It seems that ever since then, you simply attack the organization (or is it the person?) every chance you get.

    I don't know what other state or national organization you're a part of, but from a distance, and as a semi-regular traveller to your beautiful state, WyGO seems to be at the forefront of every recent gun-rights matter I've seen.

    When I've contacted AB he has always been responsive and interested.

    IMHO you just need to get the chip off your shoulder and either help WyGO out, help some organization you think has done better for you guys, or put a sock in it.
    Last edited by BB62; 03-24-2012 at 11:32 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    So I visit the Wyoming forums again and see Matie up to his old tricks - complaining about WyGO! While I, as a non-resident, would have preferred that Wyoming have "true" constitutional carry (which exists nowhere btw) for all, I trust that WyGO got all it could.

    Just what did you get in Pine Bluffs from your lying police chief/politicians before WyGO showed up? It seems that ever since then, you simply attack the organization (or is it the person?) every chance you get.

    I don't know what other state or national organization you're a part of, but from a distance, and as a semi-regular traveller to your beautiful state, WyGO seems to be at the forefront of every recent gun-rights matter I've seen.

    When I've contacted AB he has always been responsive and interested.

    IMHO you just need to get the chip off your shoulder and either help WyGO out, help some organization you think has done better for you guys, or put a sock in it.
    You said it yourself; WYGO got all it could. So instead of claiming to never compromise why can't WYGO admit that sometimes compromise is necessary. As far as you bringing up what happened in Pine Bluffs, (where I used to live), your correct about me being sore about that. I believe that WYGO has some great ideas, and really good intentions; I just do not always agree with the tactics used. IN your face is not always the way to get things done, and when I asked him to back off in Pine Bluffs, he refused. So while in your face and "no compromise" is how he handled Pine, he compromises when it comes to the State Legislature. Pine Bluffs could have been a huge victory for WYGO as I had already told him that I didn't care who took credit for getting things done; but it turned out a stalemate.

    As for AB, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, because at this juncture I see no other option.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by MatieA View Post
    You said it yourself; WYGO got all it could. So instead of claiming to never compromise why can't WYGO admit that sometimes compromise is necessary...
    I understand where you're coming from, but things are not always as they appear. See my PM for more information.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •