Where should you be able to carry concealed?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Poll question: Where should you be able to carry concealed?

I believe that integral to the right to life, is the option for individuals to take action in their own defense or the defense of other innocents being assaulted.

Should government restrict your option to carry a concealed firearm, which you otherwise lawfully own, in public places such as stores, malls, theaters, stadiums, alcohol free restaurants and churches? (I am leaving the following out of this particular question: schools, bars, courtrooms, prisons...)

Share your thoughts. :)

[cleanhippie]

1. Everywhere, unless you have lost your right to do so through due process.

It IS a right to keep and bear arms, you know,

[provis99]

12. rights, by definition, cannot be lost.

so what are you talking about?

[cleanhippie]

19. In the sense that convicted felons lost the right to keep and bear arms.

That is what Im talking about.

[provis99]

22. felons should be allowed to exercise their right to bear arms.

You don't get your vocal cords cut out when you verbally threaten someone, because free speech cannot be taken away. Apparently, we are confused when it comes to other rights, like the right to bear arms.

[cleanhippie]

26. Well, without agreeing or disagreeing with the policy, it IS due process.

There are certain situations where we, as a society, have stated that one CAN lose a right if one breaks the law. Losing the right to own firearms is one example, and before that right can be taken away, due process must be followed.

Thats the only point I am trying to make.

[SteveM]

54. I disagree with you on this...

People who are convicted of felons can and should have some of their rights curtailed -- being in jail hampers the right to assembly automatically. And speech should be curtailed as well, though not due process and screened communication. Once a sentence is completed, individuals can appeal for (or even have automatic restoration) of the RKBA.

[TheWraith]

63. Yes and no.

There should be a process to restore someone's ability to own a firearm after a felony conviction; or, better yet, make it automatic after, say, 5 years of clean living. But denial of firearms is part of the post incarceration process, as surely as probation is, and for the same reason: a person has proven themselves untrustworthy, meaning certain rights of privacy and arms are curtailed until they are considered trustworthy once more.

[gravity556]

40. Felons forfeit the right to keep and bear arms, as well as the right to vote.

They committed a voluntary action wherein the penalties are the forfeiture of freedom (incarceration) as well as forfeiture of the right to keep and bear arms, the right to participate in elections, and should they be on parole/probation, they have also forfeited the right to be secure in their persons against warrantless searches. They violated the social contract of their own free will, and in so doing, lost full standing as a citizen of the nation-you know, the other 300+ million of us who abide by that social contract. Now if they are good for 10 or 15 years and have no further contact with law enforcement due to criminal activities in breach of that social contract, they should be able to petition to have those rights restored. Except for violent criminals-they should never again be trusted to act within the law.

[YllwFvr]

20. i agree mostly

but I believe property rights should trump second amendment rights. I carry everywhere, and OC a good bit of the time, but Im more than willing to leave if someone asks me to. Public property should be fair game, but a bar, or victorias secret, wherever should be allowed to say no.

Yes, Ive carried into victorias secret. Yes, it was loaded lol

[PETRUS]

2. Would anyone give a different answer

for open carry (rather than concealed)? I might, but I haven't thought it through.

[gejohnston]

6. for open carry I follow the hick rule

as in what we hicks in places like Wyoming and Vermont (where open carry is legal and probably not controversial) that grew up with them. Out in the sticks hunting, hiking, stuff like that no problem. In town, not so much for the most part. In a big assed city, no fucking way. The yuppie suburbanites in Starbucks reminds me of people who drive Jeeps but never leave the pavement and would never be caught dead in a tent.

Conceal carry in town.

[ileus]

15. Hey a rule name for when I OC....

My jeep doesn't see pavement...except to the trail head.

And if at all possible I don't want to be caught dead in a tent. Last time I camped out in a tent was at the Dixie run in 2001.

[MADem]

3. I need new glasses--I read Where should you be able to carry concealed? (Pool)

Don't wear a Speedo, I guess....!

[Mnemosyne]

17. My first thought was bra... n/t

[krispos42]

28. "Hey, stud, is that a revolver in your speedo or are you just happy to see me?"

"It's a revolver!" <grins goofily at the interested woman>

"Oh. Too bad." <woman walks away>


;-)

[ZombieHorde]

4. I voted, "No, but the venue operator has the option to bar CC."

The First Amendment protects my right to free speech, but a restaurant owner can still kick me out if I am yelling political slogans in his or her restaurant.

[TheWraith]

5. +1. nt

[Kennah]

9. What about the business that posts the sign "No blacks, no Jews, no guns"

[PavePusher]

18. Depending on location...

I predict they go out of business very quickly.

Possibly hastened by a tragic fire. Traffic was bad that night too... by the time the fire department got there, all they could do was save the cellar....

[ZombieHorde]

30. Then I would be really surprised to see those three together.

How many people hate all three of those things?

[SteveM]

55. A place of public accomodation cannot bar on race or religion...

but in Texas they can bar guns by following state statute 30.06 (yeah, that really is the number) and posting said.

[Arctic Dave]

7. D. Nudist Colony

Where you hide it is totally up to you.

[Kennah]

8. Excuse me while I whip this out

[RC]

10. Both B and C

I am 67 and have never been in a situation where I felt I needed a firearm. Not even pulling Shore Patrol in Japan or the Philippines.
And some people feel they need one going to Target or a crowded restaurant??? They need help.

[gejohnston]

11. shore patrol in Japan?

From what I saw in the 80s, shore patrol stood around in the NCO club waiting for a fight to start. Okinawa Perfectual Police did the hard work. I watched a lone beat cop beat the shit out of three seabees while waiting for back up.
In the Philippines, I doubt a drunk sailor or Australian decadent (many around Clark) would pull a pistol. Now if you were a PC (Philippine Constabulary) walking a beat unarmed in some of the areas in Angeles or Manila I have been (unarmed) then I would be impressed.
As for the "some people", I always thought tele-diagnosis was kind of right wing. Some cases it is a prudent thing to do. Off duty cops and the lady that has the abusive former SO stalking her are the easiest ones that comes to mind. My personal situation? Not so much, but I don't judge those who decide otherwise.

[Euromutt]

23. I believe the term is "anecdotal evidence"

You're one out of 300 million Americans, and almost 7 billion humans. The fact that you "have never been in a situation where <you> felt <you> needed a firearm" doesn't mean nobody else of the millions of Americans and billions of other humans hasn't. And frankly, it's breathtakingly self-centered to think it is.

[RC]

33. You are looking at it from the wrong end.

The more guns, the more gun violence. The more 'good guys' that carry, the more sources the bad guys have for acquiring them. It has to stop somewhere. Stop buying in the NRA bull shit.
BTY, it is hand guns that are the major problem, not so much long guns in this country.

"...breathtakingly self-centered..." Go look in a working mirror before you say that about someone else.
What an arrogant post.

[hack89]

37. Except the facts say exactly the opposite

violent crime is at historic lows and still declining. You have never been safer despite gun ownership being at record levels.

[SteveM]

56. Unsubstantiated statement...

"The more guns, the more gun violence."

Given the data on the increase of firearms, and the decline of violent crime over the last 15-20 years, your statement cannot be born out.

Do you have data as to where "bad guys" are getting their guns?

"hand guns" are not the problem. The thugs/crims which use them are the problem.

[Euromutt]

62. Codswallop from start to finish

The more 'good guys' that carry, the more sources the bad guys have for acquiring them.

That claim is mere truthiness; while your assertion may be appealing on an intuitive level, it is not supported by empirical evidence. According to the ATF's 2000 report Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers, the foremost source of guns "diverted" into the criminal circuit, in terms of number of firearms diverted, is trafficking by federally licensed dealers, which accounts for ~48% of diverted firearms. The second biggest source is straw purchasing, which accounts for another ~30%. Theft only accounts for ~13.5% of diverted guns, and that includes theft from FFLs (7%) and common carriers like FedEx and UPS (2.5%), leaving only 4% of diverted firearms being stolen directly from private citizens.

The very notion that criminal use of firearms is driven by supply, rather than demand, is a flawed premise. Daniel Polsby said it better than I can:

With respect to the firearms side of this problem, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that one is dealing with a demand-led rather than a supply-led phenomenon--young men demanding guns as a means of self defense and self-realization. These young men are not merely using guns because large numbers of them are floating around, as mayors and police chiefs insinuate when they tell reporters that "there are too many guns out there." Recognizing this problem as a demand-side situation predicts the limited usefulness (if not futility) of public policies that seek to "dry up" the supply of guns. The most ludicrous policies of this type are "turn-in-your-gun days" or rules that prohibit police departments from selling surplus weapons. But many kinds of regulatory interventions that place burdens on legal markets embrace the same faulty premise.

"...breathtakingly self-centered..." Go look in a working mirror before you say that about someone else.
What an arrogant post.

Tu quoque fallacy (http://fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html); the alleged arrogance of my post has no bearing on the veracity (or lack thereof) of my statement that it is self-centered to assert a universally applicable rule based exclusively on one's own experience. If you want to convince me I'm wrong, feel free to explain how it is anything other than self-centered to claim that, because a particular experience doesn't apply to oneself, it therefore doesn't apply to every single other person on the planet.

And while you're at it, you can try to explain to me why it's arrogant to point that out. Otherwise, you can take your self-righteous indignation and shove it.

[gejohnston]

13. depends on

The level of government that owns the public building, that level should decide.
Business owners should decide on their businesses.
Pastor, Imam, Rabbi (or their hierarchy) should decide on their institutions. Government making rule here goes from 2A issue to church/state separation issue.

[SheilaT]

14. Where's the choice

for Nowhere. Guns don't belong in public places.

I, for one, do not feel safer knowing others around me are armed.

[rrneck]

16. The bad guys are already armed. nt

[mvccd1000]

21. Agreed.

I also don't feel safer knowing others are armed.

I feel safer knowing I am armed.

[hack89]

39. Everyday you are surrounded by armed criminals

that no law will never disarm.

[SteveM]

57. Crims and thugs are already armed and around you...

How do you manage to "feel safe" knowing this?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

74. How you feel...

...has no bearing on my rights.

That you feel unsafe knowing others are armed is really your problem. There is no basis in fact for that fear.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. What about un duty LEOs, off duty LEOs, and retired LEOs?

In SoCal due to the capricious way California does concealed carry, most people carrying are some kind of LEO.

[Logical]

25. I think you should be allowed to carry anywhere people are not scanned or guns!

[Callisto32]

27. I'm glad to see the "reasonable" bar is so long on this one.

[Hoyt]

29. I get concerned when gun toters plan on acting in "defense of other innocents being assaulted."

No matter how much you wannabe a policeman or judge, jury, executioner -- you are not.

Yes, law should severely restrict those who think it is OK to strap on a gun or two and walk around in public ready to jump to the rescue.

[Simo 1939_1940]

32. I guess as long as there is no shortage in the supply of straw

we'll have to endure your strawmen. But as many as you build, I'm amazed that you even have time to accomplish anything else.

Very few who "tote" view themselves as cops, much less judges/juries/executioners. You've made an ugly assertion, whether you have the self-awareness to recognize it or not.

[Hoyt]

34. The poster I responded to did -- and I think many more gunners are looking to be hero. That attitude

will get some innocent folks shot.

So, if there is anything "ugly," it's some half-trained gunner posting about saving other people who are assaulted. You folks need to grow up.

[Katya Mullethov]

36. We are not all " Half -Trained"

You do not seem to realize that you are conversing with some of the upper orbits of performance .

[Hoyt]

49. Yea, here's one of those well trained guys who is going to save us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRt_xBl7dLU&feature=related

[Katya Mullethov]

61. You keep postin that guy

Is this what you see ?

[Hoyt]

65. Only in sense both have issues that should preclude them from owning guns.

[Katya Mullethov]

68. Try this inkblot

What do you see ?

[gravity556]

42. You do realize that the cops have a worse accuracy rate in defensive gun uses than CCW holders,

Right? Cops generally aren't gun people. They shoot once a year to qualify and then it goes back in the holster until next year. And even then, a range session might be a couple of hundred rounds, where as a serious shooter, particularly one who shoots competitively, probably shoots several hundred rounds every week, and at some levels of competition, they shoot several hundred rounds PER DAY.

Keep floating that "barely trained" bullshit around. I'm sure some gullible fool somewhere will believe it.

[Katya Mullethov]

47. Meanwhile .....

Police struggle with the crippling effects of the feed bucket ban , and plead for more tools .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jry92dhOtaw

[Hoyt]

48. Doesn't matter, you ain't well trained. I know you think you are and all that, but you ain't.

So just leave em at home and spare society.

Shooting a bunch of silhouette targets and posing in front of mirrors doesn't cut it.

"Gun people". Is that what makes you special and society's guardian angel?

[oneshooter]

58. Please describe to us what "well trained" would consist of.

[jeepnstein]

76. He can't do that.

If he knows what qualifies a police officer to carry a weapon in public there's no way he'll be willing to apply that standard to the concealed carry crowd. Hint, that standard is exceedingly low. It's not like he sees on TV.

[oneshooter]

77. I just believe that he is basicly a coward. He opens his big mouth

and when pressed just runs and hides.

[gravity556]

59. Have you considered applying for the Randi Foundation's prize?

Since you seem certain that you are psychic and just know that shooting static targets and posing in front of mirrors is all the training I've had. You really are funny, Hoyt. Sadly, I know it's not intentional, but man oh man, you say some of the funniest things in a kind of idiot savant fashion.

Most cops aren't gun people. That's a simple truth. That said, there are cops who ARE gun people, though they tend toward things like SWAT. And while it may not be formal training, I do have quite a bit of experience having gotten to use simunitions for force on force training, as well as having picked up a good deal of firearms retention techniques, close quarters shooting, shooting on the move, low light shooting and have even gotten to play in a shoot house. Had I had to pay for that kind of experience, it would have been thousands of dollars of training. But gun people enjoy teaching other gun people new things.

And I've said it before-if you don't think your own ass is protecting of your own volition, why would I hold it in higher value than you do? Unless for some unholy reason you and I end up in the same place and under lethal threat. Then, if it looks like I or my wife are next in line to be shot/injured/maimed, I may use the time they're distracted with you to bring my own weapon into play. Not to save you, mind, but because if they're distracted with you, I have a better chance of stopping the threat before it gets to me.

Cheers! And keep telling yourself that you can read minds. bwa hahahahahahaha! (not laughing with you-I am laughing AT you. :))

[Hoyt]

64. That's just it. Being "gun people" does not give you the authority or accountibility.

Being of "gun people"? Jeeeez.

[Simo 1939_1940]

72. "Is that what makes you special and society's guardian

angel?"

Time for you to provide evidence that a large number of CCW permit holders are out to protect anyone but themselves.

Or time for you to cease and desist with this nonsense.

One or the other.

[Simo 1939_1940]

71. "......and *I think* many more gunners are looking to

be a hero."

We are all too familiar with how you "think", Hoyt. You rely heavily on presumption, and care not a whit about real evidence.

[PavePusher]

38. As you well know, defensive actions are not at all the same as being...

"policeman or judge, jury, executioner".

Your continual attempts to conflate these actions has long ago passed beyond the bounds of disingenuousness and deep into intentional dishonesty.

[gravity556]

41. Hoyt, you'd call a gun owner a coward if he refrained from getting himself shot to hell

trying to protect strangers-like the IHOP shooting. The anti-rights people were crowing that CCWers were cowards because a man didn't see a reason to add his body to the body count by trying to engage a rifle with a pistol from 80 yards away, and you'd proclaim him bloodthirsty and savage if he had been in the IHOP and had shot and killed the crazed gunman. Make up our minds for us, already.

Besides that, if YOU don't value your life enough to avail yourself of the means to protect it, why should I or any other gun owner hold your life in high enough esteem to risk not only death, but also the legal ramifications that come with a defensive shooting. I would bet that if some CCW holder saved your carcass, it wouldn't be 12 hours before you were online, calling him a paranoid toter and demanding further restrictions on concealed carry.

My gun is there as a last ditch tool to save MY life and my wife's life. As the anti-rights folks are so keen to point out, I am not a cop. I have no duty to protect anyone but myself. If you think your own life is worth defending, I would suggest that you figure out an effective means of protecting it, keeping in mind that no matter how much you stamp your little feet and threaten to hold your breath, concealed carry is becoming more and more accepted and more and more practiced.

Again, if you don't feel your life is worth protecting with lethal force, then there's no fucking reason for a CCWer (whom you have nothing but contempt for) to risk his own skin to save yours. That's why I think it should be mandatory for those who don't carry to wear a pin or a t-shirt proclaiming them to be an anti-rights, pro-criminal safety advocate. Then maybe the robber won't shoot you when he realizes you support his cause-a disarmed victim pool. ;)

[Hoyt]

50. Please, don't risk "your skin to save mine". I don't think you have a grasp on reality.

[ManiacJoe]

73. That should have had a drink warning on it.

:spray:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. Hmmm.... How do I respond to this???

BULLSHIT!

I am not a hero or a wannabe nor is anyone I know.
You've been watching too much TV.

[Hoyt]

51. The don't post how you will protect others from assault. You don't have training or authority.

Just another gun carrier walking around on "ready."

Leave em at home. And you are the one watching too much TV and shooting too many silhouette targets.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. I know of no one...

...who "plans" to a hero. I never met anyone like this.


And another thing... Do you not like Boy Scouts? They are "always prepared". Since when is being ready some kind of evil sin?

[Katya Mullethov]

66. Do these "Boy Scouts" like hangin' at Chuck E Cheese ?

It would be a predetermining factor in this case . The importance of which I have considered at length , but cannot comment due to the current COC .

[We_Have_A_Problem]

75. The interesting thing is....

...i do not rely upon any authority to be armed. It is my RIGHT to do so. Government requires my authority to be armed, and I grant them that ability. In doing so, my right is not reduced in any way.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. In another thread you criticized gun carriers who said they would not intervene.

Make up your mind. Do you want us to intervene or not?

[gravity556]

31. I'm all for business owners deciding what legal activity they will allow in their establishment.

And that includeds a bar owner allowing his patrons to smoke. If the free market demanded smoke free bars, there wouldn't have been a push by the ban-nanny fools to "level the playing field" when one city banned smoking indoors while a town right next door did not. Guess where the tax dollars and smokers went? That's right, to where they were welcome. Now they push statewide bans so that it's "fair", but it's simply telling a business owner that the government, not he, is in control of that business.

I remember when they first pushed the no-smoking anywhere indoors law in Mesa AZ about 15 years ago. It got passed, but Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, Phoenix and Scottsdale did not pass it. Took about 4 months before businesses started going under in Mesa because smokers were taking our business elsewhere. So then they passed it in Tempe and more bars and restraunts folded-including a favorite brew pub of mine.

Then, citing such "massive success" (a double plus good mouthfull of orwellian doublespeak bullshit if I've ever seen one) and support, but ignoring the dozens of businesses that were closing and firing their employees (hooray increased unemployment), and downplaying what little info the second-hand smoke brigade allowed out. Here's a hint-if you pass a law stating that you're passing it because non-smokers don't want to deal with smoke at a fucking BAR, and your main selling point is that it'll draw in all the business from folks around the area that want to go somewhere smoke free, but then those same businesses go out of business because smokers were 80% of their revenue stream, you have failed in your goal. Unless your goal is simple social engineering.

So yeah, I don't have a problem if a business doesn't want my money and demonstrates it by putting a no guns sign on the door. I will simply take my cash elsewhere and suggest to my social circle (and ask them to suggest to their social circle, etcetera, ad infinitum) that they do the same.

Of course, the same group of useless idiots who pushed the no-smoking field leveling will want to make it mandatory so that businesses who have chosen to disdain the patronage of citizens who lawfully carry won't fail.

Next up on the agenda for the fun-police, insuring that pretty girls are not allowed to be waitresses, since their physical attributes might get them a higher percentage of tips than their less attractive coworkers.

Fucking morons.

[Katya Mullethov]

67. We have signs

Prominently posted



Cant tell if they do any good .

[hack89]

35. On private property at owners discretion

on government property government can ban if they have dedicated security and metal detectors.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. Just out of curiosity...

...what's your thought's on carry in national parks?

[hack89]

44. No problem with it.

lawful carriers are no problem. Criminals will carry regardless of the law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. Agreed. n/t

[SteveM]

53. Guns may be barred from courtrooms because the state...

operates its courts to determine criminal/civil outcomes (highly-charged affairs) in very formalized ways with armed protection.

In grade schools I favor an armed presence by qualified adults. This may deter blowholes intent on schoolyard spectaculars. In other government buildings there is no need to bar qualified citizens from bearing arms (and thugs and idiots WILL NOT follow any signs barring such). In private buildings, the owner/operators may bar guns in accordance with state law.

[Kennah]

69. In a holster or waistpouch, but not in a waistband.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. The anti-Plaxico post....

...for the day. ;)