• 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.

18yo CPL carry INTRODUCED!

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
imported post

twoclones wrote:
HankT wrote: Because we send our daughters off to college before they're 21.
That is one issue I have already been confronting (I still have 5 years until the oldest goes to college), is how to deal with my daughters being away to college, and how they are going to defend themselves.

It is a fight to teach daughters to think more tactically, and cultivate the ability to use violence to defend yourself, while society is still pressuring females to not empower themselves in self-defense. I teach my daughters, and even tell most women when I talk to them is that when a man attacks you, the last thing you want to do is turn around and run away. Turning your back to your attacker is the first most dangerous thing you can do. But, in the same light, I tell women that you don't want to get into a boxing match with a man, because, well, most of us women would lose if it was a brute force fight.

I tell my daughters that if ever they are attacked by a male, that they should go towards them with a few key areas in mind to target...the throat, and the eyes, if he cant breath or see, he is going to be worrying about things other than continuing to attack you. The man targets the woman because he views her as weak, and unable to defend herself. But when a woman has an immidiate forceful response, it throws the man off. It is equal to a wolf attacking a sheep, and the sheep responds like a wolf.

Personally, if I have to engage a man on a brute force, physical level, I will target those two area with everything I have...I will likely be the last person he ever sees with his eyes, or the last person he sees before he loses consciousness from lack of oxygen.

***Disclaimer*** I am not in any way saying that men only target women, womenDO target men...just using an example.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
Once Palmer and/or Sykes makes it to SCOTUS and we win, follow up litigation cases can be filed to get other provisions against carry struck down, such as the ridiculously high 21 age limits. We also cannot challenge anything with the Age 21 FFL handgun provisions because of the nearly impossible Navegar standard that's applicable to the US Court of Appeals to the District of Columbia Circuit.


Ridiculously high?

Ahhh, I dunno. How about this kid (in OH)? Is he ready for a CPL? Is he ready to OC?

Whaddya think, GP? What doothers think?





AaronG wrote:
Im getting an AR15 soon and was wondering about rifles also? i have not found a single topic on carrying a rifle here in ohio but i know that carrying a pistol (openly) is ok.
AaronG wrote:
well if its legal to do then im gonna do it. i dont care if people like it or not. if its legal to do then i will use my rights as much as i can.
AaronG wrote:
yes aparently i have been reading that in ohio having a 40 rd mag is legal but loading it with 40rds and loading it into a weapon is illegal. i will pull some links soon so dont think im just going off without proof

Basicly any thing over 30 rounds is illegal in ohio. basicly 30+1 in the chamber is legal. but any more than that and its illegal
AaronG wrote:
Wait? its legal to carry a weapon while loaded in ohio? i sure didnt know this
AaronG wrote:
Just exactly where dose it say i want to carry a loaded ar in public? Point it out. give me the exact words i said that points to me wanting to carry loaded ar in public.

Also the statement with the dangerous ordnance license was because it is indeed illegal to use a magazine over 30 rounds. to get a dangerous ordnance license you must go to you local sheriffs office or local PD and fill out some papers and pay some money.
AaronG wrote:
I don't half to tell the police anything. name where i live. if im not breaking the law i don't even half to let them search me although i would let them check my weapon so they know its not loaded. even though i can apparently carry it while loaded i wont because it would be an extreme hazard. i don't want to take the chance of it somehow getting loaded then going off. that would be bad for me.
AaronG wrote:
HankT wrote:

Have you carried a gun (any gun)before?

How old are you?
i am old enough to cary a weapon in ohio considering the cary age is 18. no i have never carried a weapon before but have been gathering much info so i know the laws and what to do if i get stopped. from what i gather if a cop stops me without a damn good reason they are breaking the law.
AaronG wrote:
but for real i had no idea you could carry a weapon loaded in ohio. at least at first i wont carry it loaded till i get comfortable doing it and get the police around here to know me. then once that's done say half a year after i start carrying i will start carrying loaded
AaronG wrote:
HankT wrote:
...
Do you have a concealed carry permit/license?
no. and i never will get one. i do know that your weapon can not be loaded while in a vehicle so when i get in and out i will need to load and unload it
AaronG wrote:
i am not going to be carrying around 40 rd mags with me at any time except when i go to a range. plus i dont even know if i will get anything over 30 rounds because when you think about it you really dont need that much ammo with you. no i will not be taking any firearm classes simply because i dont want to spend the money on them. i will learn as i go.
AaronG wrote:
xD.45Service wrote:
Dont want to take classes becuase you dont want to spend money?

Heck, look in the paper there is almost always some sort of free gun safety course.

If you haven't had proper instruction- not saying you're a moron- a safety course is by all means in your best interest.
its not hard to learn how to use a weapon.
AaronG wrote:
1245A Defender wrote:
...

how old are you?? about 16?? youve got your rights! right? even got a gun?

if you want to get the hastle of a MWAG call save your money and just get an AK 47... make sure it isnt loaded so it doesnt just go off...
im old enough and thats all you need to know. a dangerous ordinance license will be gotten later in life when i start shooting more and have the need for more ammo. plus its not hard to get at all. in fact its probbly easer to get then an CCW. are you people trying to intimidate me? because its not working. also you can learn a great deal from reading and talking to other people.
AaronG wrote:
HankT wrote:
Learning how to use a gun, in our society of laws,at a level of approapriate level of responsibility and maturity,is very difficult.

You are not showing any indication that you are up to the task, fella.
I have had training in AR (M16 Style) Rifles. how hard would it be to apply what i have learned there to a pistol? i guessing not very.....





Ok so we can open carry Pistols but what about rifles?


http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum43/36997-1.html
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Poo,,, don't encourage him, he is just trying to inflame this thread for his entertainment.

How was the capitol Poo? Did you make some good contacts?
 

OrangeIsTrouble

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
1,398
Location
Tukwila, WA, ,
imported post

Eh, mostly talked to good looking female assistants. ;)

A few of the assistants (male/female) asked why exactly do I need to carry?
And I pretty much shut them up with rants about my daily adventures.

Rep Matt Shea, was pretty cool, talked to him a bit.

After a bit of walking around and not getting much good news, made copies of my flier, and we went back around giving each rep a copy.

No time to schedule a hearing, so must wait til the next session. :(

But hey, the bill has been introduced, now we just need the support! (And a lot of printer ink)
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

No matter where the age line is drawn, there are going to be folks on the wrong side of the line that are being denied a right by the government. That seems kind of arbitrary to me. In my opinion, it would make more sense to deal with the issue when a person of any age acts in a negligent manner that puts the public at risk. In other words, regulate bad conduct and leave the rest of the citizens alone.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

erps wrote:
In my opinion, it would make more sense to deal with the issue when a person of any age acts in a negligent manner that puts the public at risk. In other words, regulate bad conduct and leave the rest of the citizens alone.

So, what's your position on drunken driving? Say, a guy is gassed. Say, a BAC of .28.

Driving home. Sloppily.

Gets pulled over.

Should he get "regulated?" Even though he hasn't crashed into anything or hurt anybody?

What's your view, erps?
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

Good point HankT. A DUI arrest typically occurs after a motorist has been observed driving in a manner that draws attention to himself. Driving while impaired puts the public at risk. I have no problems with DUI laws and I personally do not have a problem with regulating carrying in public while intoxicated either. What I don't understand is the reasoning behind the trust we have in our young soldiers with weapons that the average citizen does not have access to, and then prohibiting that same person to possess a less lethal weapon when he/she walks off the base.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

erps wrote:
No matter where the age line is drawn, there are going to be folks on the wrong side of the line that are being denied a right by the government. That seems kind of arbitrary to me. In my opinion, it would make more sense to deal with the issue when a person of any age acts in a negligent manner that puts the public at risk. In other words, regulate bad conduct and leave the rest of the citizens alone.
+1

erps Hank is trying to inflame.

Drunk driving=age to possess a weapon? There isn't much correlation.
 

Chris.R.Anderson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
71
Location
Walla Walla, Washington, USA
imported post

erps wrote:
Good point HankT. A DUI arrest typically occurs after a motorist has been observed driving in a manner that draws attention to himself. Driving while impaired puts the public at risk. I have no problems with DUI laws and I personally do not have a problem with regulating carrying in public while intoxicated either. What I don't understand is the reasoning behind the trust we have in our young soldiers with weapons that the average citizen does not have access to, and then prohibiting that same person to possess a less lethal weapon when he/she walks off the base.

Actually erps, in military training they don't trust you a bit with a loaded weapon. They make very sure that you never have access to live ammo at any time except when stepping up to the line to take your rifle qualifications, and then you have guys behind you ready to shoot you at a moments notice if you twitch wrong.Lol, they won't even let you keep a bayonet or any knife,even though it is part of your standard equipment. In fact they are ready at a moments notice to take your shoe laces and belt away if you act in a way they think is "off". So trust I would say is a rare commodity, even in those who volunteer to serve in our armed forces.

CRA
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

I hear what you're saying Chris, that the troops are closely supervised during training. At some point in time through, our politicians send them over seas to do a mission and we give them the tools to accomplish their missions, to protect themselves and their comrades. I would just prefer that dangerous actions be regulated instead of conduct once or twice removed.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

erps wrote:
Good point HankT. A DUI arrest typically occurs after a motorist has been observed driving in a manner that draws attention to himself. Driving while impaired puts the public at risk. I have no problems with DUI laws and I personally do not have a problem with regulating carrying in public while intoxicated either.
Yes. It's about risk to the public. And that has to get estimated. In order to base reasonable regulation BEFORE bad behavior actually occurs (e.g., some drunken dolt crashes into a car with a husband, wife, and 3 kids and kills them all).

I have no trouble with carrying while drunk (CUI) laws either. At the present time, there are really not too many of those across the land. But that will change. The next era of gun regulation will be focused more on regulation of behavior of gun owners/carriers rather than trying to ban the guns, which the last era of regulation focused on.

The history of DUI regulation over the last 40 yearsprovides solid insights as to how the next era of gun regulation will roll out. Let's face, it makes no sense to allow a citizen to carry a gun in public with, say a BAC of .18. But it is perfectly legal in many places right now (see other OCDO posts on this subject). What's weird is that many (most?) gun owners and 2A advocates would actually OPPOSE new CUI laws. It's astounding to me that we could be so short-sided. But, then, a lot of bar owners andothers in the alcooholic beverage industries weren't too keen on the ever expanding regulation ofimpaired driving laws that began35-40 years ago...




erps wrote:
What I don't understand is the reasoning behind the trust we have in our young soldiers with weapons that the average citizen does not have access to, and then prohibiting that same person to possess a less lethal weapon when he/she walks off the base.
The 18, 19 and 20 year old active duty soldier population is teeny-tiny. Both in absolute numbers and in comparison to the 18-20 year old general population.

When (not if) the new laws regulating gun carry by 18-20 year olds come into being, I would give those active duty teens an exemption. For two reasons--first, they deserve a break for their service, and, second, because there will always be so few of them.
 

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
imported post

troll_detected.png


OT: HankT = slightly toned down version of BooBoo :lol:


If you can smoke cigarettes, decide to put your life on the line for this country, drive a car and legally buy porn, then you ought to be able to carry. End of story.
 

kschmadeka

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
174
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Man, I really have to get this notification problem fixed so I know when the conversation has picked up again...

We had this discussion many times in the Capitol, and this is what typically ended it. An 18 year old man or woman lives in the adult world, assumes all the responsibilities of adulthood, is responsible for their own safety, and faces the same (or greater) danger of criminal attackas us older folks. EVERYONE is entitled to protection, and Mom and Pop aren't responsible for looking out for them anymore.

Poosharker recently turned 18 and now faces a three year window of opportunity in which anyone who wishes him harm and holds a real weapon can carry it out with little to fear. His martial arts training, his ASP, the fire in his heart, are all well and good until someone actually drops the hammeron him, at which point it all means nothing. He has a right to protection, and whether anyone is "comfortable" with that is frankly of no relevance. As it stands now, it's literally open season, and there is no justifying that.
 

kschmadeka

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
174
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Poosharker wrote:
Eh, mostly talked to good looking female assistants. ;)

I told you, don't discount the significance of what we did! Jamie Pedersen, as we were repeatedly told, is not talking to ANYONE about gun bills. EXCEPT US. That's what you call "results". Given the circumstances we got about all we could possibly ask for.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

kschmadeka wrote:
Man, I really have to get this notification problem fixed so I know when the conversation has picked up again...

We had this discussion many times in the Capitol, and this is what typically ended it. An 18 year old man or woman lives in the adult world, assumes all the responsibilities of adulthood, is responsible for their own safety, and faces the same (or greater) danger of criminal attackas us older folks. EVERYONE is entitled to protection, and Mom and Pop aren't responsible for looking out for them anymore.

Poosharker recently turned 18 and now faces a three year window of opportunity in which anyone who wishes him harm and holds a real weapon can carry it out with little to fear. His martial arts training, his ASP, the fire in his heart, are all well and good until someone actually drops the hammeron him, at which point it all means nothing. He has a right to protection, and whether anyone is "comfortable" with that is frankly of no relevance. As it stands now, it's literally open season, and there is no justifying that.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Unfortunately this bill is going nowhere because all bills have been scheduled in House Judiciary.

The other unfortunate thing is that without a scrutiny level to apply for carry for self defense outside of the home (There are two cases to do this, Palmer and Sykes, any potential state or federal lawsuit to require the state of Washington to issue to 18 year olds would likely be dismissed as a matter of law.

Post McDonald is a different situation, especially if they enunciate a scrutiny level. It's not the same as a complete denial to everyone (similar to what Colorado does to out of state CHL holders and non-resident applicants), and the county attorney or state AG will vigorously defend the statute, pulling out every trick in the book to throw out there that 18-21 year olds are especially dangerous. This is why a strict scrutiny level is very important, as it puts the entire

I also do not recommend just getting any lawyer out the phone book and just filing suit sheriff for refusing to issue a license and suing the state too to strike down RCW 9.41.240 entirely. It's a good case, just currently premature at this moment, and needs a good lawyer so it doesn't @#$% it up for all carry in the state.
 

kschmadeka

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
174
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
The other unfortunate thing is that without a scrutiny level to apply for carry for self defense outside of the home (There are two cases to do this, Palmer and Sykes, any potential state or federal lawsuit to require the state of Washington to issue to 18 year olds would likely be dismissed as a matter of law.
The legislative route is the only one we have to pursue anyhow, the FRP is not what you'd call a "funded" organization. If there's going to be a lawsuit it'll be someone else's department.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

kschmadeka wrote:
Gray Peterson wrote:
The other unfortunate thing is that without a scrutiny level to apply for carry for self defense outside of the home (There are two cases to do this, Palmer and Sykes, any potential state or federal lawsuit to require the state of Washington to issue to 18 year olds would likely be dismissed as a matter of law.
The legislative route is the only one we have to pursue anyhow, the FRP is not what you'd call a "funded" organization. If there's going to be a lawsuit it'll be someone else's department.
If you hear of anyone who wants to do it, I can refer them to the appropriate legal counsel....Speaking of which, anyone up for a trip to the State Legislative Archives? I need to do a little research on the upping of the age from 21 to 18 and back up again. Sort of similar to my work on proving open carry wasn't in fact illegal. Perhaps will find some nuggets in the committees or wherever which this 18 age limit passed.
 
Top