Have no right to carry gun (OT)

I am here, spend the past weekend with Werner

If you do not like the rules then move to a different county or a different state.

“Based on today's decision, the procedure of obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon within the County of San Diego will continue as it has since the 1980s,” the statement read. “As always, anyone who believes that they may have circumstances which place them in harm's way, and necessitate the ability to carry a concealed firearm, can apply for a license with the Sheriff's Licensing Division. Good cause is evaluated on an individual basis.”

In San Diego County, applicants must identify a specific reason they want to carry a concealed weapon, such as needing protection from a stalker or having a job that requires handling large amounts of cash. They must also pass a background test, have good moral character and complete firearms training.

Jun 10, 2016 - 06:20am PT
Lorenzo, do you mean to tell me that you if allowed you would carry a gun into a court room and kill people? Or on a plane?

You would do that?

 He had respect for firearms in ways I do not see or hear about these days and that is what scares me about open carry.

What if the government required every book to have a serial number? What if it were a felony for any person to sell a book at a profit without a federal license? What if anyone (except government agents) who bought a book from a federally-licensed book dealer had to fill out a federal form listing his name, address, and the book's serial number, then wait five days before taking possession? What if anyone (except government agents) who wanted a book under a certain size had to pay a $200 federal tax, get fingerprinted and photographed, and wait months for government approval, and the penalty for non-compliance was 10 years and $10,000? What if it were a felony for anyone (except government agents) to buy or sell books whose pages were made out of anything other than a specific type of paper? What if some states made it a felony (except for government agents) to buy more than one book a month, and banned outright (except to government agents) books with more than a certain number of pages? What if it was a common occurrence for government agents to destroy someone's house, seize all his property, and imprison him for suspected violations of these book laws? What if government agents planted banned books in people's homes and shot the citizens or burned them alive? You may think this comparison is crazy, and that is your privilege. Like it or not, however, millions of intelligent, rational people think guns are exactly the same as books.

Jun 10, 2016 - 07:30pm PT
What if the government required every book to have a serial number?

What if it were a felony for any person to sell a book at a profit without a federal license?

What if it was a common occurrence for government agents to destroy someone's house, seize all his property, and imprison him for suspected violations of these book laws?

What if government agents planted banned books in people's homes and shot the citizens or burned them alive?

You may think this comparison is crazy, and that is your privilege. Like it or not, however, millions of intelligent, rational people think guns are exactly the same as books.

lemonade stands

I'll be right with you if as many people a year are killed by people carrying concealed books.

Way more people have been killed by people carrying the Bible and Quran than By Handguns.

( does Skousen's Constitution count?)

you won't even be allowed to collect rain water

It was not legal to do so in Colorado until recently.

Whether carrying my radio or my firearm, some here may call that 'paranoia'. I just call it, being prepared to make a difference.

I stay very tuned in to those around me....something called 'situational awareness'. I like what Shakespeare said...."Love all...trust a few...do harm to none." But I'd have to add...."...but go home at the end of the day."

Nothing macho about it, or any of that crap. Just me, living the way I choose to live.

federal appeals court in San Francisco

I stopped reading at this point...

"Fox and Friends and Limbaugh and Palin (and Bluering) are against it so I gotta be for it."

Here is an ironic yet profound statement for the day.

If you want to be safe in a public setting, avoid "gun free zones". Those who will not follow the law and intent to kill large groups our people without resistance will target gun free zones as it ensures the maximum amount of kills before their rampage us ended.
Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous. Guns in the right hands save lives. It is not about the guns - it is about good verses evil. Why do some believe disarming the good will protect the good from the evil?

^ did you defend those shootings as you do these ?

Dept. of Agriculture?

Did you condemn them? Did you condemn the cracker-boy down in Chareleston killing the people at the church?

thanks for showing your selective outrage

They typically don't condemn the act, and simply choose to attack anyone wiling to view the event through the lens of reality

How terribly sad that just hours ago, and unspeakable atrocity was meted out on our fellow citizens, and all so many of you can do here is argue over policies and call each other names.

May God bless the families that have suffered such a great loss, and may those injured recover quickly and fully.

And God bless our law enforcement personnel and first responders. We need to remember that these types of incidents take a serious toll and them as well

How terribly sad that just hours ago, and unspeakable atrocity was meted out on our fellow citizens...

QuoteMay God bless the families that have suffered such a great loss, and may those injured recover quickly and fully.

And God bless our law enforcement personnel and first responders. We need to remember that these types of incidents take a serious toll and them as well. Here

What's the matter, does that surprise you? That an agent from the Dept of Agriculture would have a concealed carry permit?

Concealed carry gets a lot of people fearful for no reason. CCW (conceal/carry weapons) permit holders are not people to be feared. These are people you'd beg to have around in certain scenarios.

along with a significant no-questions-asked buyback program until we have them under control.

They have those here in L.A. county from time to time. They're a PR stunt at best.

Now, can I count on your help in preserving the ability for me to make MY choice as well rather than someone else making it for me?

I've lived half my life and never came close to needing a gun.

"Changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate" (Ludwig, 2002)

Well since it seems some want to misconstrue statements here and not think critically, I'll join in too.

Dude, that's all Escopeta can do. Evade, change the subject, ad hominen argument. That's his whole spiel. Little to be gained from arguing with the guy, unless you actually like reading bullsh#t

Mateen passed a background check.

"Suspected" is not enough evidence...

The reality is that criminals don't follow rules and they don't bother with background checks.

I think I'm reading that right which would bring ksolem's astute observations to the forefront.

Which is: Does Switzerland have an urban blight/gang problem similar to the US? Because I would be willing to bet a LOT of money that if one were to exclude JUST the black on black inner city firearms deaths that the numbers would be virtually identical on the murder dept.

How the hell would a gun store employee be able to tell if someone is "Gay" or not???...

As Switzerland shows, as well as a very large portion of the US, having guns in households without shooting people is not only possible, its the norm in the overwhelming percentage of cases

Berner, let's get On Topic, since this is a climbing site. What is the chance that your
weather will improve by the time I get there in August (to show Uehlie how it should be done)?
It sure SUCKS now! ;--)

eah, and supporting them is politically correct, unlike you hicks up in the boonies :-)

But you will be fine in August, for sure.

Do you work for Swiss Tourism Office? :-)
Our itinerary: Bettmeralp, Zermatt, Murren, Chamonix, Bern, Alsace (chez femme).

$10 million to research gun violence.

How much do the gun-runners make from tooling the gullible into needing to purchase more and more guns?

Lol, is that before or after they talked them into an adjustable rate mortgage?

Senate Bill 1389 will allow law-abiding Idahoans who are 21 years or older to carry a concealed firearm statewide without a permit. (effective 7/1/16)

I have some good friends that are US Border Patrol Agents, and in civilian clothes dressed as they normally do off duty, like regular civilians, you'd never know they are carrying a weapon. They wear them very well and very concealed.

Seriously, guys, it's not difficult.

Leave it holstered, and do not use the grip of your weapon to manipulate your pants. Back up to the toilet. Unbuckle your belt. Using your weak hand, pull the loose ends of your belt away from your body and hold snug. Using your strong hand, undo your drawers and drop them to just above your knees. Sit down. Buckle your belt at the first notch. Spread your legs a little to keep it snug while your take care of business. Problem solved.

New Jersey’s 1686 law imposed concealed carry restrictions by saying that “no person or persons … shall presume privately to wear any pocket pistol … or other unusual or unlawful weapons within this Province” because the practice induced “great Fear and Quarrels.” An 1821 Tennessee law sought to punish anyone “so degrading himself” by carrying prohibited weapons including pistols. Georgia’s 1837 law began: “An Act to guard and protect the citizens of this State, against the unwarrantable and too prevalent use of deadly weapons.” Alabama’s 1839 anti-concealed carry law was titled “An Act to Suppress the Evil Practice of Carrying Weapons Secretly.” Delaware’s 1852 law targeted “all who go armed offensively to the terror of the people.” The point was unmistakable: Anyone who carried a concealed gun was probably up to no good.

These laws persisted. As late as 1981, getting a permit for concealed gun carry was, for civilians, difficult to impossible: 19 states plus the District of Columbia barred concealed carry entirely; 29 states had “may issue” laws like the just-upheld California statute, meaning the government retained discretion as to under what circumstances it would grant permits; only two states had “shall issue” laws, where the state had to issue the applicant a permit unless the individual was barred by a criminal record or similar limitation; one state (Vermont) had no system of permitting.

The smoke has cleared, and we peer down at the victim: another gun control bill, shot full ‘o holes. Just like in the old horse operas: a hero again shoots to protect a precious freedom, America’s right to bear arms. For many who keep a romantic image of America’s past, gun control is like that, a battle steeped in American tradition. It calls us back to those legendary days of the Old West, when cowboys defended their honor and their horses by way of their Colts
.
In fact, most historians see the cowboys of the Old West as THE defining heroes of 20th-century America. He’s used to sell everything from soap to hats. He’s apparently also an ideal American for anti-gun control groups: gun shows and gun advertising promote from a distinctive Old West flavor.

Today’s anti gun control forces count their strongest support among society’s leaders from the states that once formed part of the Old West.
The actual Old West pioneers of historical fact viewed matters differently, however. They would certainly hail the campaign to protect an American right to bear arms, but the record puts them behind "moderate, common-sense measures" for gun control—the very kind that President Clinton has proposed.

Pioneer publications show Old West leaders repeatedly arguing in favor of gun control. City leaders in the old cattle towns knew from experience what some Americans today don't want to believe: a town which allows easy access to guns invites trouble.
What these cow town leaders saw intimately in their day-to-day association with guns is that more guns in more places caused not greater safety, but greater death in an already dangerous wilderness. By the 1880s many in the west were fed up with gun violence. Gun control, they contended, was absolutely essential, and the remedy advocated usually was usually no less than a total ban on pistol-packing.
The editor of the Black Hills Daily Times of Dakota Territory in 1884, called the idea of carrying firearms into the city a “dangerous practice,” not only to others, but to the packer himself. He emphasized his point with the headline, "Perforated by His Own Pistol."
The editor of the Montana’s Yellowstone Journal acknowledged four years earlier that Americans have "the right to bear arms," but he contended that guns have to be regulated. As for cowboys carrying pistols, a dispatch from Laramie’s Northwest Stock Journal in 1884, reported, "We see many cowboys fitting up for the spring and summer work. They all seem to think it absolutely necessary to have a revolver. Of all foolish notions this is the most absurd."

Cowboy president Theodore Roosevelt recalled with approval that as a Dakota Territory ranch owner, his town, at the least, allowed "no shooting in the streets." The editor of that town's newspaper, The Bad Lands Cow Boy of Medora, demanded that gun control be even tighter than that, however. Like leaders in Miles City and many other cow towns, he wanted to see guns banned entirely within the city limits. A.T. Packard in August 1885 called "packing a gun" a "senseless custom," and noted about a month later that "As a protection, it is terribly useless.”

Old West cattlemen themselves also saw the need for gun control. By 1882, a Texas cattle raising association had banned six-shooters from the cowboy's belt. "In almost every section of the West murders are on the increase, and cowmen are too often the principals in the encounters," concurred a dispatch from the Texas Live Stock Journal dated June 5, 1884. "The six-shooter loaded with deadly cartridges is a dangerous companion for any man, especially if he should unfortunately be primed with whiskey. Cattlemen should unite in aiding the enforcement of the law against carrying of deadly weapons."

This echoes President Clinton’s reaction following the failure in Congress of the most recent gun control proposals: “The American people will not stand for this.” So far they have, however, as recalled by the record of defeated attempts to legislate control. As U.S. Rep. Martin Sabo (D.-Minn.) noted, “there’s broad public support for it, but he opponents are much more intense about it.”

The Old West’s leaders who argued for gun control knew that a long time ago. Their arguments sound as contemporary at the end of this century as they were earnest at the end of the last. But despite them, few packers have been persuaded to put away their pistols, then or now.

In his book, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler reveals that gun control in the Old West was actually quite strict. In Dodge City, you were required to turn in your guns when you got to town. The gunfight at the OK Corral was ignited when Wyatt and Virgil Earp tried to enforce a similar ordinance in Tombstone, Ariz. So the idea that everyone in the Old West was packing is a relic of TV and movie westerns, but it is not history.

A.T. Packard in August 1885 called "packing a gun" a "senseless custom," and noted about a month later that "As a protection, it is terribly useless.”

Yeah it's too hot out to walk the dog, let alone do anything athletic

You pussies. Went up Bailey Cyn to Jones Pk and up the ridge from there yesterday.

The number of individuals in the USA who use firearms in the commission of a crime vs. the number of individuals who own firearms and do not commit firearm crimes, is extremely small.

Please DO support a ban on weapons purchases to those on a terrorist watch list and/or no-fly list. Seriously? This is a no-brainer. While we're at it, please ensure that people who get on these lists have some recourse to be thoroughly vetted in case of errors. It happens.

This whole watch list and especially the no fly list (which the ACLU is against) is thin ice. Surely we want to keep guns from being sold to terrorists and other dangerous crazy people. But, allowing the government to take away a right from a citizen without due process, in most cases without the citizen even being aware, and then forcing the citizen to fight to regain that right is blatantly unconstitutional. What if such a process were applied to unreasonable search and seizure, for example? (Actually it's already happening ohp-uses-new-device-to-seize-money.)

Where are your first amendment rights going if you are put on a watch list or no-fly list because of things you say? You could lose your first and second amendment rights at the same time.

So how do we decide someone poses a credible threat? We need to decide on a process which does not take away American citizens' civil and constitutional rights.

Yes, and you should try yelling "allah is great" in Arabic at a monster truck rally. Freedom of speech and all that.

Everyone knows that yelling fire in a theater is not an example of freedom of speech. 

there are acceptable restrictions on our rights,

I compromise my rights in order to fly. It is my right against unnecessary search, which i willingly forfeited to travel abroad recently

Like speed limits and 10 round magazine restrictions? I don't like either of those but I can live with them.

Kind of like, yes. Whats reasonable though? Was New York reasonable to limit mag capacity to 7? Is CA reasonable in banning the 50cal? Would we, as a nation, be reasonable in banning all assault style rifles? Or how about JUST semi-auto pistols?

its that if firearm owners dont start to consider some alternatives to the "ban em all" attitude of the anti-crowd, they're going to decide it unilaterally, and you can guess how that'l go.